Palin Proposed Book Banning As Mayor

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the New York Times even look into the Edwards story???? That is the question.

They have no problem printing out right lies about Palin, but didn't even look at the Edwards story.

As you have said just a few posts up.....LINK!

What is this out right lie that the NYT has printed about Palin and who has debunked it as such or shown it to be a known falsehood that they went ahead and published anyway?

 

[lupi]

I hope several of yall are seeing the doctor soon. There should be some sore hamstrings with the amount of backpedaling going on to grasp at straws just to come up with a story after months of downplaying actual events as non-stories.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: lupi
I hope several of yall are seeing the doctor soon. There should be some sore hamstrings with the amount of backpedaling going on to grasp at straws just to come up with a story after months of downplaying actual events as non-stories.

What moronic crap are you spouting now? Please give examples of these events.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
yllus... Edwards affair was mentioned in the National Enquirer in October 2007.

Despite this the media sat on its hands for 9 months.

The New York Times has no problem printing false allegations against Palin, that she was as member of the Alaskan Independence Party, but did not say one thing about Edwards affair. Why the double standard?

The same edition of the Enquirer also had a story on dogs fucking the Pope. (No fault of mine!) It's one thing to publish rumours and hearsay - it's quite another to get a statement from one of the parties involved to confirm a story. That's the difference between a tabloid and a generally respected newspaper.

Proof ?? Or just made up BS to discredit the Enquirer??

If the Enquirer can find out that Edwards why couldn't the New York Times??

You aren't being serious are you? And are you really talking about "made up BS to discredit the Enquirer" as if it needs discrediting? Do you know how many times it has been sued for printing false stories? Maybe... just maybe... the way it collects information makes it so it will sometimes scoop other papers, but other times will print egregious falsehoods it gets sued for.

The NYT, being the most highly respected paper in the US, needs to have higher standards than that.

Kind of funny the NYT had no issue publishing an article saying McCain was having an affair with a lobist with no proof. I don't know why anyone would take the NYT seriously all they are is the attack arm of the Obama/Pelosi machine.

 

[Farang]

Didn't you hear? That McCain campaign wants you to shutup and take it.

The campaign also lashed out at the media and called for an end to questions about Palin's background and her family. Senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt decried what he called a "faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee" for vice president.

"This nonsense is over," Schmidt declared in a written statement.

"Give her a chance to make her first speech, give her a chance to do her first interview," said former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the convention's keynote speaker.

Maybe if they stopped hiding her and put her on television we would give her that chance.. she has had enough days to study the talking points.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...uMYQBtdjpHwkL_27Ks0NUE

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Kind of funny the NYT had no issue publishing an article saying McCain was having an affair with a lobist with no proof. I don't know why anyone would take the NYT seriously all they are is the attack arm of the Obama/Pelosi machine.

The fact that you use the phrase "Obama/Pelosi machine" means that you have serious objectivity problems. As for your evaluation of the newspaper industry, save it. My point was not that newspapers never print stories that they cannot 100% confirm, as that is a judgment call on their part. My point was that just because the National Enquirer publishes something does not mean that the most prestigious newspaper in North America should.

 

[pstylesss]

So now we can all believe this nonsense someone wrote and is now being forwarded around? I'm sure there is a grain of truth to this email somewhere... but I highly doubt it's all, or even half, true. It may have been written by someone from her town, but anyone that attends 99% of the city council meetings is usually a whack job. I see them all the time, there are two I know by name that the staff just cringes about.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I take emails with a grain of salt, however if she indeed attempt to remove books she found offensive and then used the power of her office to punish the librarian, it's a real problem. I hope to see others coming forward about this.

It's not just the claim of one e-mail from one private person, it is a matter of public record confirmed by many in the town in and out of office:

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books

And from the Time mag article linked to by Aegeon:

Stein [her mayoral opponent] says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Originally posted by: QED
I love how the NY Times will publish just about anything negative about Palin as long as they have a single source.
[...]
However, the notion that Palin tried to ban books is simply uncorroraborated [sic] hearsay based on the word of a single political opponent.

Your reading comprehension is poor. It is NOT a "single source." It is NOT uncorroborated hearsay. It is a highly corroborated matter of public record witnessed and reported by many!

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I take emails with a grain of salt, however if she indeed attempt to remove books she found offensive and then used the power of her office to punish the librarian, it's a real problem. I hope to see others coming forward about this.

It's not just the claim of one e-mail from one private person, it is a matter of public record confirmed by many in the town in and out of office:

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books

And from the Time mag article linked to by Aegeon:

Stein [her mayoral opponent] says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Originally posted by: QED
I love how the NY Times will publish just about anything negative about Palin as long as they have a single source.
[...]
However, the notion that Palin tried to ban books is simply uncorroraborated [sic] hearsay based on the word of a single political opponent.

Your reading comprehension is poor. It is NOT a "single source." It is NOT uncorroborated hearsay. It is a highly corroborated matter of public record witnessed and reported by many!

Where is the list of books she wanted to get banned. It is good to see some actually defend the first amendment. I want to see the same outrage when the fairness doctrine is brought back up for a vote by Obama/Pelosi.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The media double standard over Palin is amazing.

John Edwards was having an affair and the NY Times couldn't figure it out. But we know now that Palin once talked about banning books.

It took them a whole 5 days to dig up dirt on Palin.
It took them 9 MONTHS to get around to the Edwards story.

And we haven't even talked about the sexism involved in the Palin story. Biden is celebrated for having the courage to take his Senate seat after his wife died leaving him a single parent of 2 young children. Palin is vilified and her parenting skills are questioned because she wants to be VP.

Still ignoring the beam in your own eye, Poofjohn. To dig up this much dirt on Palin in five days may mean a hell of a pile of dirt to dig up.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

So now we can all believe this nonsense someone wrote and is now being forwarded around? I'm sure there is a grain of truth to this email somewhere... but I highly doubt it's all, or even half, true.

Most of those "grains of truth" are public record. If you want to challenge them, I suggest you find some link, somehow, somewhere that confirms your doubts.

It may have been written by someone from her town, but anyone that attends 99% of the city council meetings is usually a whack job. I see them all the time, there are two I know by name that the staff just cringes about.

Buahahahaha!!! If you see them "all the time," it strongly suggests (99% probablity) that you're among the 99%. :laugh:

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the New York Times even look into the Edwards story???? That is the question.

They have no problem printing out right lies about Palin, but didn't even look at the Edwards story.

what lies were printed in the NYT about Palin?

what lies were printed in the NYT about Palin?

I've been hearing all sorts of stuff on the right wing radio about this sexism against Palin, and the lies being said about Palin.

I honestly want to know what it is that has the right wing propaganda machine getting all frothy and rabid about? Hannity, Rush, Hewitt, McVed, they are all squealing like they have their junk in a vice but really they are not providing examples. I think they are full of sh!t and are milking the media extravaganza over Palin's selection.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
How do you "fire" somebody, but then "change course"? Was the librarian fired or not? Was the librarian rehired? Surely the NYT would make that distinction, or not? Something's fishy here - either the reporter is extrapolating his own "facts" to match the story, or the NYT's reporting standards have absolutely plummeted.

L2R:

While Sarah was mayor of Wasilla, she tried to fire our highly respected city librarian because the librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the city librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Edit - Let me put it in RNC parlance: Palin is a flip-flopper. She bowed to the winds of public opinion. She was for it before she was against it.

Clear now?

Oh, yeah - if she'd *not* changed her mind, she would have been an authoritative dictator.

Gotta love y'all's all-or-nothing attitude!

Needless to say, she *wasn't* fired, as the article states. L2R, yourself!

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
How do you "fire" somebody, but then "change course"? Was the librarian fired or not? Was the librarian rehired? Surely the NYT would make that distinction, or not? Something's fishy here - either the reporter is extrapolating his own "facts" to match the story, or the NYT's reporting standards have absolutely plummeted.

L2R:

While Sarah was mayor of Wasilla, she tried to fire our highly respected city librarian because the librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the city librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Edit - Let me put it in RNC parlance: Palin is a flip-flopper. She bowed to the winds of public opinion. She was for it before she was against it.

Clear now?

Oh, yeah - if she'd *not* changed her mind, she would have been an authoritative dictator.

Gotta love y'all's all-or-nothing attitude!

Needless to say, she *wasn't* fired, as the article states. L2R, yourself!

Wanting to ban books and fire the librarian, then not doing it because people are opposed to it, doesn't make you any less of an authoritarian. It only makes you an authoritarian without absolute power.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I take emails with a grain of salt, however if she indeed attempt to remove books she found offensive and then used the power of her office to punish the librarian, it's a real problem. I hope to see others coming forward about this.

It's not just the claim of one e-mail from one private person, it is a matter of public record confirmed by many in the town in and out of office:

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books

And from the Time mag article linked to by Aegeon:

Stein [her mayoral opponent] says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Originally posted by: QED
I love how the NY Times will publish just about anything negative about Palin as long as they have a single source.
[...]
However, the notion that Palin tried to ban books is simply uncorroraborated [sic] hearsay based on the word of a single political opponent.

Your reading comprehension is poor. It is NOT a "single source." It is NOT uncorroborated hearsay. It is a highly corroborated matter of public record witnessed and reported by many!

If these things were mentioned during the City Council meeting, they should be on the record of the meeting. Shouldn't take long for the NYT to dig that up, no? Of course, being the impeccable source of the news that they are, there's no need to look that sort of stuff up first.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the New York Times even look into the Edwards story???? That is the question.

They have no problem printing out right lies about Palin, but didn't even look at the Edwards story.

what lies were printed in the NYT about Palin?

For starters, the NYT Front Page article yesterday that declared Palin was a member of the Alaska Indepenedence Party.

Apparently, the Times spoke to the chairwoman of the party, who claimed that Palin was a member in 1992 and 1994-- but the paper apparently didn't bother to verify that claim-- either by asking Palin directly, or by checking voter registration records, or asking for any roll-call records from AIP itself-- before publishing it as fact.

You would think if you were going to go through the effort of publishing a front-page article in the nation's "Newspaper of record" detailing how allegedly John McCain didn't thoroughly vet his VP selection, that you yourself would vet the claims made in your article.

In fairness, the NY Times published a retraction today-- but I don't think it was on the front page where the original false claim was made:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...alin-was-not-a-member/

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720
Where is the list of books she wanted to get banned. It is good to see some actually defend the first amendment. I want to see the same outrage when the fairness doctrine is brought back up for a vote by Obama/Pelosi.

Looks like you'll be waiting a long time.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the New York Times even look into the Edwards story???? That is the question.

They have no problem printing out right lies about Palin, but didn't even look at the Edwards story.

what lies were printed in the NYT about Palin?

For starters, the NYT Front Page article yesterday that declared Palin was a member of the Alaska Indepenedence Party.

Apparently, the Times spoke to the chairwoman of the party, who claimed that Palin was a member in 1992 and 1994-- but the paper apparently didn't bother to verify that claim-- either by asking Palin directly, or by checking voter registration records, or asking for any roll-call records from AIP itself-- before publishing it as fact.

You would think if you were going to go through the effort of publishing a front-page article in the nation's "Newspaper of record" detailing how allegedly John McCain didn't thoroughly vet his VP selection, that you yourself would vet the claims made in your article.

In fairness, the NY Times published a retraction today-- but I don't think it was on the front page where the original false claim was made:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...alin-was-not-a-member/

QFT

 

[sportage]

I'm not irritated that Mccain picked Palin, what gets me is how she and the GOP tout this "better than you" attitude i.e. morals. Then in their personal like they act just like us devil worshiping liberal democrats ;D

And I bet in the end, this guy that fathered the baby will not marry Palin's daughter.

I wouldn?t want to see the baby aborted in any case, but I'd just once love to hear these folks in the GOP Pat Robertson party admit stuff happens. That no one , even THEM, has the magic key to morals or judgment on others.

Pat Robertson has said Gays caused 9/11. So then does he now say right wing fundie republicans caused the latest hurricane and deaths?
I know I shouldn?t get upset about Pat, Pat Robertson is totally full of BS anyway.
And thank God he's not part of the democratic party. That would NOT be good.

Republicans could help themselves so much by first believing in the term "separation of church and state".
And then in stopping these Pat Robertson fundies from taking over their party once and for all.
Just start acting like a political party and not a religious fundie organization!
Until the republicans face this, they will go through more and more damage and hypocrisy.

Cheney has a Gay daughter. She needs the right to legally marry.
Palin's kid is PG and unwed. No different from many other typical American families.
Condoms need to be dispensed in high school restrooms.
Sex education in school should be taught to kids 13 and older.
And like Obama says, its not a red America, or blue America, it?s the United States of America. (/rant mode off )

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the New York Times even look into the Edwards story???? That is the question.

They have no problem printing out right lies about Palin, but didn't even look at the Edwards story.

what lies were printed in the NYT about Palin?

For starters, the NYT Front Page article yesterday that declared Palin was a member of the Alaska Indepenedence Party.

Apparently, the Times spoke to the chairwoman of the party, who claimed that Palin was a member in 1992 and 1994-- but the paper apparently didn't bother to verify that claim-- either by asking Palin directly, or by checking voter registration records, or asking for any roll-call records from AIP itself-- before publishing it as fact.

You would think if you were going to go through the effort of publishing a front-page article in the nation's "Newspaper of record" detailing how allegedly John McCain didn't thoroughly vet his VP selection, that you yourself would vet the claims made in your article.

In fairness, the NY Times published a retraction today-- but I don't think it was on the front page where the original false claim was made:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...alin-was-not-a-member/

OH IM SO HAPPY I GET TO SAY THIS!!

After reading the article it looks like the NYT got some "Bad Intel" from the AIP.

So it wasn't the NYTs fault

:laugh:

edit: in all honesty though, the NYT fvcked up with that story. Thanks for the link

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sportage
And I bet in the end, this guy that fathered the baby will not marry Palin's daughter.

I bet he will, knowing full well that Mother Palin is one woman that Alaskans know better than to mess with(see her Ex BIL) and now that she has the whole Republican Party behind her

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sportage
/rant mode off

You just disabled your rant mode off switch.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the New York Times even look into the Edwards story???? That is the question.

They have no problem printing out right lies about Palin, but didn't even look at the Edwards story.

what lies were printed in the NYT about Palin?

For starters, the NYT Front Page article yesterday that declared Palin was a member of the Alaska Indepenedence Party.

Apparently, the Times spoke to the chairwoman of the party, who claimed that Palin was a member in 1992 and 1994-- but the paper apparently didn't bother to verify that claim-- either by asking Palin directly, or by checking voter registration records, or asking for any roll-call records from AIP itself-- before publishing it as fact.

You would think if you were going to go through the effort of publishing a front-page article in the nation's "Newspaper of record" detailing how allegedly John McCain didn't thoroughly vet his VP selection, that you yourself would vet the claims made in your article.

In fairness, the NY Times published a retraction today-- but I don't think it was on the front page where the original false claim was made:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...alin-was-not-a-member/

lol, NYT is a joke....not sure how anyone can take that piece of shit newspaper serious anymore. Frontpage hit piece on Palin, with 1 person as a source and it's wrong? Even the NYT is caught up in the desperation, they know this is no slam dunk for their messiah.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
If these things were mentioned during the City Council meeting, they should be on the record of the meeting. Shouldn't take long for the NYT to dig that up, no? Of course, being the impeccable source of the news that they are, there's no need to look that sort of stuff up first.

You're just being silly.

Even Palin has aknowledged that book bannning was discussed at the meeting in question. She simply is claiming is was a "rhetorical question" and apparently has claimed that had nothing to do with her actual reasons for announcing the firing of the librarian. (Sounds allot like her line regarding a more recent firing of the Chief of Public Safety Commissioner...)

Palin discussed this in a 1996 interview with a local paper entitled The Frontiersman.

See the initial New York Times article link in this thread for these details.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the New York Times even look into the Edwards story???? That is the question.

They have no problem printing out right lies about Palin, but didn't even look at the Edwards story.

what lies were printed in the NYT about Palin?

For starters, the NYT Front Page article yesterday that declared Palin was a member of the Alaska Indepenedence Party.

Apparently, the Times spoke to the chairwoman of the party, who claimed that Palin was a member in 1992 and 1994-- but the paper apparently didn't bother to verify that claim-- either by asking Palin directly, or by checking voter registration records, or asking for any roll-call records from AIP itself-- before publishing it as fact.

You would think if you were going to go through the effort of publishing a front-page article in the nation's "Newspaper of record" detailing how allegedly John McCain didn't thoroughly vet his VP selection, that you yourself would vet the claims made in your article.

In fairness, the NY Times published a retraction today-- but I don't think it was on the front page where the original false claim was made:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...alin-was-not-a-member/

lol, NYT is a joke....not sure how anyone can take that piece of shit newspaper serious anymore. Frontpage hit piece on Palin, with 1 person as a source and it's wrong? Even the NYT is caught up in the desperation, they know this is no slam dunk for their messiah.

Yes, the NY Times, Factcheck, etc, all in the tank for Obama. You've revealed the conspiracy. Well done.