New York Times details Palin's troubling history as mayor and governor

[XZeroII]

Yea, when your username is Barack Obama I don't really take anything you say very seriously. So no offense but I don't plan on reading anything that you post.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Yea, when your username is Barack Obama I don't really take anything you say very seriously. So no offense but I don't plan on reading anything that you post.

So one can assume from your username you have Zero to add in dispelling the OP?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Hello? Specop? Other Obama-bashers? Can any of you tools whining about the liberal media picking on poor little Sarah tell us what in this article is inaccurate, or do you need to wait until they roll out new talking points in the morning?

* crickets *

 

[Dari]

Sarah Palin's executive experience.

 

[Dari]

The more Palin speaks, the more I feel she'll be eaten alive by Biden. I guess when your whole campaign is based on a lie (Bridge to Nowhere), there really isn't much to say except blow hot air. Compared to Hillary Clinton, what little policies she has are a complete joke.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Topic summary wins irony award of the month.

I was thinking that as well after I wrote it :laugh:

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Yea, when your username is Barack Obama I don't really take anything you say very seriously. So no offense but I don't plan on reading anything that you post.

The right wing partisan hacks on this forum are becoming so overridden about faults on their candidates that they are deciding to simply ignore people and attack based upon username.

The neocons are getting caught up in their own bullshit thanks to the latest technological innovations that allow people to record what they say and replay it against them, and are beginning to lose credibility. Their attacks are on made up issues like a flag pin (notice how everybody is quiet when they went to visit the world trade center site, and Obama has his pin on but McSame doesn't). Their same candidate then does the exact same thing that the democrat did, and all of a sudden it's a non-issue, but the democrat doing the same thing is a huge issue and must be addressed.

The republicans were originally a good party and had a lot of good ideas, as an independent I have no problem saying that. The problem with the current GOP is that they've been hijacked by the neocons and their agenda, who will stop at nothing to spread their ideas and trample on the lower class while making their friends even richer. The funniest part about it all is that the lower class eats it up simply because the neocons hijacked the religious right and made it seem like their party truly reflects the values of Christians when it doesn't.

It makes me sick to my stomach that they have fooled the general populace enough so that people that are middle class in the mid west feel they somehow will get their taxes raised by the "tax and spend libarull" when based upon their income bracket these same people would actually be paying less taxes under Obama than they would under McCain! :Q

Of course having your own media outlet to spread lies and falsehoods helps; FOX news needs to be abolished, and the fact that people turn to it and listen to the daily bullshit they spew is disheartening to say the least. Then to top it off, if a TV station starts broadcasting that is liberally biased, their staff gets fired, yet FOX news gets to remain on the air and continue to spew vile bullshit to the masses.

Politics in this country lately have me feeling angry as hell. :| The neocons need to be expunged from the republican party so that it can feel good to be a republican again, similar to when a cancer is removed from a patient. If you leave that cancer in too long it begins to spread to the other cells of the organism, and a similar cancer has spread from the neocon hijackers to others in the republican party and the little people that actually get punished are the same ones propping up the party because "them damn liberulls be ruinin' da cuntry lettin' gay people get married!"

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There are so many things in there that sound exactly like some of the most troubling and outrageous practices of the Bush administration:

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.
[ ... ]
As she assembled her cabinet and made other state appointments, those with insider credentials were now on the outs. But a new pattern became clear. She surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.
[ ... ]
Palin chose Talis Colberg, a borough assemblyman from the Matanuska valley, as her attorney general, provoking a bewildered question from the legal community: "Who?" Colberg, who did not return calls, moved from a one-room building in the valley to one of the most powerful offices in the state, supervising some 500 people.

"I called him and asked, 'Do you know how to supervise people?' " said a family friend, Kathy Wells. "He said, 'No, but I think I'll get some help.' "

Rampant cronyism? Check. "You're doin' a heckuva job, Franci."

(I thought Palin said she was fighting the good ole boys network. I guess she meant their good ole boys network, not hers.

Interviews show that Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy.

George? Is that you?

The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

The same Bush-like open contempt for the American public they were elected to represent and for their responsibilities as public servants.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the U.S. government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages -- through a U.S. records request -- he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

Matched only by their contempt for honesty ... and science. Damn liberal facts.

In 1997, Palin fired the longtime city attorney, Richard Deuser, after he issued the stop-work order on a home being built by Don Showers, another of her campaign supporters.

Sacrificing public interests for the business interests of patrons? Check.

Many lawmakers contend that Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated.

"Dick tells me everything I need to know."

Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor's mansion in Juneau, records show.

During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing "Where's Sarah?" pins.

I imagine she was busy clearing brush.


We already know McCain is in sync with Bush on most policy issues. The more we learn about Palin, the more apparent it becomes that she share's Bush's contempt for the public and his lack of integrity. Four more years of the last eight years. No thanks.

Nice post, I agree we're clearly going to see the same regime in power with McSame/Palin.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Seems the liberal media is just flat out running scared. At this point it looks like nothing is beyond them to print. I'm curious of course when we will see equal scrutiny of Obamessiah.... Oh thats right, hes the liberal leader so of course the liberal media will give him a pass on anything and everything!

Link]

NYT Publishes 3,000-word Palin Hit Piece On Sunday's Front Page

You want to know how scared the liberal media are of John McCain's explosion in the polls since naming Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate?

On Sunday, the New York Times will publish a 3100-word, front page hit piece about the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Entitled "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes," the article, now available at the paper's website, attacked Palin early and often (emphasis added, h/t Jennifer Rubin):

[more at link]

NY Times article

'Smears' are when the info is false - like McCain's lie about Obama saying 'lipstick on a pig' was about Palin - not when they tell true damaging info.

You miss the point.
It has NOTHING to do with if its true or not and EVERYTHING to do with the lierbal media will ONLY print negative about conservatives and ONLY print positive about liberals.

But you already know this. You just wont admit it because who wants to see negative articles about their own pets? Find me one critical artcile about Obama...... Now find me one about Palin......

Right. The media makes it sound like Obamessiah can walk on water, and makes it sound like Palin is a country bumpkin trying to steal money.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
You miss the point.
It has NOTHING to do with if its true or not and EVERYTHING to do with the lierbal media will ONLY print negative about conservatives and ONLY print positive about liberals. ...

ROFLMAO! What a total crock. Get an FM radio before your brain rots out entirely.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Seems the liberal media is just flat out running scared. At this point it looks like nothing is beyond them to print. I'm curious of course when we will see equal scrutiny of Obamessiah.... Oh thats right, hes the liberal leader so of course the liberal media will give him a pass on anything and everything!

Link]

NYT Publishes 3,000-word Palin Hit Piece On Sunday's Front Page

You want to know how scared the liberal media are of John McCain's explosion in the polls since naming Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate?

On Sunday, the New York Times will publish a 3100-word, front page hit piece about the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Entitled "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes," the article, now available at the paper's website, attacked Palin early and often (emphasis added, h/t Jennifer Rubin):

[more at link]

NY Times article

'Smears' are when the info is false - like McCain's lie about Obama saying 'lipstick on a pig' was about Palin - not when they tell true damaging info.

You miss the point.
It has NOTHING to do with if its true or not and EVERYTHING to do with the lierbal media will ONLY print negative about conservatives and ONLY print positive about liberals.

But you already know this. You just wont admit it because who wants to see negative articles about their own pets? Find me one critical artcile about Obama...... Now find me one about Palin......

Right. The media makes it sound like Obamessiah can walk on water, and makes it sound like Palin is a country bumpkin trying to steal money.

But but but....Obama can walk on water!

/rimshot

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Seems the liberal media is just flat out running scared. At this point it looks like nothing is beyond them to print. I'm curious of course when we will see equal scrutiny of Obamessiah.... Oh thats right, hes the liberal leader so of course the liberal media will give him a pass on anything and everything!

Link]

NYT Publishes 3,000-word Palin Hit Piece On Sunday's Front Page

You want to know how scared the liberal media are of John McCain's explosion in the polls since naming Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate?

On Sunday, the New York Times will publish a 3100-word, front page hit piece about the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Entitled "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes," the article, now available at the paper's website, attacked Palin early and often (emphasis added, h/t Jennifer Rubin):

[more at link]

NY Times article

'Smears' are when the info is false - like McCain's lie about Obama saying 'lipstick on a pig' was about Palin - not when they tell true damaging info.

You miss the point.
It has NOTHING to do with if its true or not and EVERYTHING to do with the lierbal media will ONLY print negative about conservatives and ONLY print positive about liberals.

But you already know this. You just wont admit it because who wants to see negative articles about their own pets? Find me one critical artcile about Obama...... Now find me one about Palin......

Right. The media makes it sound like Obamessiah can walk on water, and makes it sound like Palin is a country bumpkin trying to steal money.

Stopped at "liberal media". As soon as you used that term it discredited your own arguments and made you look like a fool. Even stating that the media is leaning to the left is a flat out lie.

FOX News is the #1 cable outlet by a far margin. Not only that but AM, FM, and satellite talk radio is dominated by Conservative talk show hosts bashing Obama 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Rupert Murdock owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. The notion of Liberal Media bias is a ploy used for political gain only for the stupid. It has no validity with thinking people. I concede that thinking people are in the minority in this country.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make over $500 million combined. That is much more than any broadcast news anchor. The #1 cable show, Bill O'Reilly is a conservative.

That argument may have been true when Ronald Reagan was President but not any longer. Only an idiot would agree with that statement.

 

[senseamp]

Lipstick is wearing off, slowly, but surely.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Specop 007

You miss the point.
It has NOTHING to do with if its true or not and EVERYTHING to do with the lierbal media will ONLY print negative about conservatives and ONLY print positive about liberals.

But you already know this. You just wont admit it because who wants to see negative articles about their own pets? Find me one critical artcile about Obama...... Now find me one about Palin......

Right. The media makes it sound like Obamessiah can walk on water, and makes it sound like Palin is a country bumpkin trying to steal money.

Stopped at "liberal media". As soon as you used that term it discredited your own arguments and made you look like a fool. Even stating that the media is leaning to the left is a flat out lie.

FOX News is the #1 cable outlet by a far margin. Not only that but AM, FM, and satellite talk radio is dominated by Conservative talk show hosts bashing Obama 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Rupert Murdock owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. The notion of Liberal Media bias is a ploy used for political gain only for the stupid. It has no validity with thinking people. I concede that thinking people are in the minority in this country.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make over $500 million combined. That is much more than any broadcast news anchor. The #1 cable show, Bill O'Reilly is a conservative.

That argument may have been true when Ronald Reagan was President but not any longer. Only an idiot would agree with that statement.

This moron has been whining about the 'librul media' for a long time now. Every time he's asked for any real evidence to prove it's liberal, he responds with "I JUST KNOW IT IS". He can't bring anything else to the table, he's not smart enough to do it himself and too lazy to search for someone else to do it for him.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The McCain bounce is already fading.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Specop 007

You miss the point.
It has NOTHING to do with if its true or not and EVERYTHING to do with the lierbal media will ONLY print negative about conservatives and ONLY print positive about liberals.

But you already know this. You just wont admit it because who wants to see negative articles about their own pets? Find me one critical artcile about Obama...... Now find me one about Palin......

Right. The media makes it sound like Obamessiah can walk on water, and makes it sound like Palin is a country bumpkin trying to steal money.

Stopped at "liberal media". As soon as you used that term it discredited your own arguments and made you look like a fool. Even stating that the media is leaning to the left is a flat out lie.

FOX News is the #1 cable outlet by a far margin. Not only that but AM, FM, and satellite talk radio is dominated by Conservative talk show hosts bashing Obama 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Rupert Murdock owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. The notion of Liberal Media bias is a ploy used for political gain only for the stupid. It has no validity with thinking people. I concede that thinking people are in the minority in this country.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make over $500 million combined. That is much more than any broadcast news anchor. The #1 cable show, Bill O'Reilly is a conservative.

That argument may have been true when Ronald Reagan was President but not any longer. Only an idiot would agree with that statement.

This moron has been whining about the 'librul media' for a long time now. Every time he's asked for any real evidence to prove it's liberal, he responds with "I JUST KNOW IT IS". He can't bring anything else to the table, he's not smart enough to do it himself and too lazy to search for someone else to do it for him.

I thought when olberman was giving talking points to bho on air or when he get canned from the main seat for election coverage was a fairly decent coverage of the general slant in views. And to place the cherry on top, he brings on dailykos "reporters" to provide news coverage and commentary.

 

[JS80]

Good thing no one reads the NYT and will have no affect in the polls.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This moron has been whining about the 'librul media' for a long time now. Every time he's asked for any real evidence to prove it's liberal, he responds with "I JUST KNOW IT IS". He can't bring anything else to the table, he's not smart enough to do it himself and too lazy to search for someone else to do it for him.

I thought when olberman was giving talking points to bho on air or when he get canned from the main seat for election coverage was a fairly decent coverage of the general slant in views. And to place the cherry on top, he brings on dailykos "reporters" to provide news coverage and commentary.

Wait, so your evidence for liberal bias in the media is action taken by a liberal commentator? More importantly your evidence revolves around his removal? Should I point to Sean Hannity saying something stupid and scream conservative bias?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JS80
Good thing I don't read the NYT since I never want to see facts and ideas that challenge my sheep-like partisanship.

Fixed. You're welcome.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Seems the liberal media is just flat out running scared. At this point it looks like nothing is beyond them to print. I'm curious of course when we will see equal scrutiny of Obamessiah.... Oh thats right, hes the liberal leader so of course the liberal media will give him a pass on anything and everything!

Link]

NYT Publishes 3,000-word Palin Hit Piece On Sunday's Front Page

You want to know how scared the liberal media are of John McCain's explosion in the polls since naming Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate?

On Sunday, the New York Times will publish a 3100-word, front page hit piece about the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Entitled "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes," the article, now available at the paper's website, attacked Palin early and often (emphasis added, h/t Jennifer Rubin):

[more at link]

NY Times article

'Smears' are when the info is false - like McCain's lie about Obama saying 'lipstick on a pig' was about Palin - not when they tell true damaging info.

You miss the point.
It has NOTHING to do with if its true or not and EVERYTHING to do with the lierbal media will ONLY print negative about conservatives and ONLY print positive about liberals.

But you already know this. You just wont admit it because who wants to see negative articles about their own pets? Find me one critical artcile about Obama...... Now find me one about Palin......

Right. The media makes it sound like Obamessiah can walk on water, and makes it sound like Palin is a country bumpkin trying to steal money.

Stopped at "liberal media". As soon as you used that term it discredited your own arguments and made you look like a fool. Even stating that the media is leaning to the left is a flat out lie.

FOX News is the #1 cable outlet by a far margin. Not only that but AM, FM, and satellite talk radio is dominated by Conservative talk show hosts bashing Obama 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Rupert Murdock owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. The notion of Liberal Media bias is a ploy used for political gain only for the stupid. It has no validity with thinking people. I concede that thinking people are in the minority in this country.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make over $500 million combined. That is much more than any broadcast news anchor. The #1 cable show, Bill O'Reilly is a conservative.

That argument may have been true when Ronald Reagan was President but not any longer. Only an idiot would agree with that statement.

HAHAHA

Copy paste copy paste copy paste. I've seen that EXACT post elsewhere. But you didnt answe rmy questions, because you know what I say is true. You, like Craig, will stuff your fingers in your ears and BLAH BLAH BLAH more bullshit. But you'll never ever answer my questions because you cant.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Specop 007

You miss the point.
It has NOTHING to do with if its true or not and EVERYTHING to do with the lierbal media will ONLY print negative about conservatives and ONLY print positive about liberals.

But you already know this. You just wont admit it because who wants to see negative articles about their own pets? Find me one critical artcile about Obama...... Now find me one about Palin......

Right. The media makes it sound like Obamessiah can walk on water, and makes it sound like Palin is a country bumpkin trying to steal money.

Stopped at "liberal media". As soon as you used that term it discredited your own arguments and made you look like a fool. Even stating that the media is leaning to the left is a flat out lie.

FOX News is the #1 cable outlet by a far margin. Not only that but AM, FM, and satellite talk radio is dominated by Conservative talk show hosts bashing Obama 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Rupert Murdock owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. The notion of Liberal Media bias is a ploy used for political gain only for the stupid. It has no validity with thinking people. I concede that thinking people are in the minority in this country.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make over $500 million combined. That is much more than any broadcast news anchor. The #1 cable show, Bill O'Reilly is a conservative.

That argument may have been true when Ronald Reagan was President but not any longer. Only an idiot would agree with that statement.

This moron has been whining about the 'librul media' for a long time now. Every time he's asked for any real evidence to prove it's liberal, he responds with "I JUST KNOW IT IS". He can't bring anything else to the table, he's not smart enough to do it himself and too lazy to search for someone else to do it for him.

Actually last score I looked at was
Me: 2
ATDU: 0

I've posted 2 articles showing media bias, I have yet to see one going the other way. I guess you guys are so busy wiping the froth from your mouth and banging on your keyboard you cant actualyl link up some proof?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

HAHAHA

Copy paste copy paste copy paste. I've seen that EXACT post elsewhere. But you didnt answe rmy questions, because you know what I say is true. You, like Craig, will stuff your fingers in your ears and BLAH BLAH BLAH more bullshit. But you'll never ever answer my questions because you cant.

What I love is that you admitted yourself that you didn't care if the story was true or not, you were just mad at the 'librul media' for letting people know about it.

The media's not liberal. If you think that it is, you are either ignorant or paranoid.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80
Good thing no one reads the NYT and will have no affect in the polls.

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Link]

Didn't it strike you as odd that your link only complained about the existence of this 'hit piece' yet didn't even try to address any of the content?

:crickets;

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Actually last score I looked at was
Me: 2
ATDU: 0

I've posted 2 articles showing media bias, I have yet to see one going the other way. I guess you guys are so busy wiping the froth from your mouth and banging on your keyboard you cant actualyl link up some proof?

Hey genius, articles critical of McCain or Palin or whoever are in no way proof of media bias. They are anecdotal evidence. If you use the search function on here you will see several times in the past where I have linked peer reviewed academic studies on the subject, all of which concluded there is no meaningful media bias. You know, studies that researched thousands of articles over the span of years.

This is the problem, you don't know how to argue and you don't understand what constitutes good evidence. (as is so clearly shown when you try and wave a single newspaper article as support for the bias of American media)

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

HAHAHA

Copy paste copy paste copy paste. I've seen that EXACT post elsewhere. But you didnt answe rmy questions, because you know what I say is true. You, like Craig, will stuff your fingers in your ears and BLAH BLAH BLAH more bullshit. But you'll never ever answer my questions because you cant.

What I love is that you admitted yourself that you didn't care if the story was true or not, you were just mad at the 'librul media' for letting people know about it.

The media's not liberal. If you think that it is, you are either ignorant or paranoid.

He can't admit that.

Because McCain is running against the media, at least he has been running against the media ever since Palin joined the ticket.

Straighttalk Express!!

nah, this election isn't about issues, its about personalities. Just ask McCain!