• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Palin Proposed Book Banning As Mayor

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Was the librarian fired? She didn't want to comment? That almost suggests that she received a payment--a settlement with a "don't ever talk about this" provision--that the city and its taxpayers had to pay for all because of Palin's religious insanity and desire to overturn the First Amendment.

If you'd read the article, you'd find that the librarian wasn't fired. You'd also read that even her own mayoral opponent's campaign manager doesn't recall anything about Palin wanting to ban certain books.

But if instead, you'd like to ignore the facts you didn't read and instead make something entirely up (like the librarian was paid off), I guess that's your call. Adding the "fact" that the city and taxpayers had to pay for "Palin's religious insanity" is a creative fictional masterpiece! Maybe you can find someone in Wassilla and tell them this wonderful story, so we can all read about it tomorrow on the front page of the New York Times? The headline: "PALIN UNDER PRESSURE AFTER PAYOFF TO HIDE RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM REVEALED"
 
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I love it when people make accusations and then try to shift the burden of proof onto other people to prove them wrong.

You claimed the New York Times isn't partisan. I have claimed it is. I have provided supporting evidence (in the form of a recent front page article critical of a Republican VP candidate that was based on factually incorrect information) for my cause. You have countered by saying it was a simple mistake, or oversight. If your theory is correct, than surely there is another article in the storied NY Times history that demonstrates the same factual mistakes in the course of criticising a Democrat. If you cannot provide one, then your argument is mere supposition.

I'd like to be as genererous to the NY Times as you apparently are. You know, "never attribute to malice that which can equally be attributed to incompetence". I'd just like for you to give me one reason to...

Um, no. You did not.

Providing supporting evidence for your claim that the NYT is partisan would entail showing both an anti-Republican bias and a pro-Democrat bias. How in the world do you figure you only have to provide one half and your opponent should have to provide the other when it's your claim?

If I'm consistently critical of the Republican Party, does that standalone fact mean that I am pro-Democrat? Of course not - I could be an independent, or a proud Republican displeased (and possibly legitimately) with recent actions by the party. No, to actually prove the claim, it would have to be displayed that I simultaneously gave non-Republican politicians a pass on comparable actions.

Arguing 101: Learn it, love it, don't bother other people until you get it.
 
Originally posted by: QED

You claimed the New York Times isn't partisan. I have claimed it is. I have provided supporting evidence (in the form of a recent front page article critical of a Republican VP candidate that was based on factually incorrect information) for my cause. You have countered by saying it was a simple mistake, or oversight. If your theory is correct, than surely there is another article in the storied NY Times history that demonstrates the same factual mistakes in the course of criticising a Democrat. If you cannot provide one, then your argument is mere supposition.

I'd like to be as genererous to the NY Times as you apparently are. You know, "never attribute to malice that which can equally be attributed to incompetence". I'd just like for you to give me one reason to...

Are you fucking kidding me? We are not in a discussion where the position is neutral. You are attempting to say that the most respected newspaper in North America is a partisan political operative based upon a single story in which it made an error. Sadly enough for you, pointing at yesterdays newspaper in which there was an error (later corrected) does not require me to go through years of archives in order to dig up evidence to rebut it. I'm calling bullshit on you because the evidence you have provided is nowhere close to sufficient in order to prove your claims.

What's funny is that you are ignoring the advice of your own quote in attempting to explain this story.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TechAZ

Actually we just realize that they are biased and recklessly so at that for being such a well respected newspaper and journalistic source.

Ooh, another person from the venerable "I don't have any proof I just know" school of debate.

Ok, eskimospy: here's your mission, should you choose to accept it.

Can you please find just one example where the New York Times published a front-page article critical of a Democrat, that has one person for a source, was not fact-checked, and was later found to be not true, and the correction was not published on the front page? If you could, it would go a long way to dispel the notion that the Times has a bias, and instead, is sometimes lacksadaisical in its reporting standards.

Sweet deal, eskimospy. All you have to do to disprove someone else's point is search through thousands of articles on a site that requires payment to access.

I love it when people make accusations and then try to shift the burden of proof onto other people to prove them wrong.

You claimed the New York Times isn't partisan. I have claimed it is. I have provided supporting evidence (in the form of a recent front page article critical of a Republican VP candidate that was based on factually incorrect information) for my cause. You have countered by saying it was a simple mistake, or oversight. If your theory is correct, than surely there is another article in the storied NY Times history that demonstrates the same factual mistakes in the course of criticising a Democrat. If you cannot provide one, then your argument is mere supposition.

I'd like to be as genererous to the NY Times as you apparently are. You know, "never attribute to malice that which can equally be attributed to incompetence". I'd just like for you to give me one reason to...

Um, no. You did not.

Providing supporting evidence for your claim that the NYT is partisan would entail showing both a pro-Democrat bias and an anti-Republican one. How in the world do you figure you only have to provide one half and your opponent should have to provide the other when it's your claim?

If I'm consistently critical of the Republican Party, does that standalone fact mean that I am pro-Democrat? Of course not - I could be an independent, or a proud Republican displeased with recent actions by the party. No, to actually prove the claim, it would have to be displayed that I simultaneously gave the Democrats a pass on similar actions.

Arguing 101: Learn it, love it, don't bother other people until you get it.

So is your argument then, yes-- the New York Times is exclusively unfairly critical of Republican candidates to the point of not properly vetting negative stories-- but that doesn't make them partisan?

If that's what you wan to argue, then I guess I'll totally agree with you and won't quibble over the definition of "partisan".
 
Originally posted by: QED
If you'd read the article, you'd find that the librarian wasn't fired. You'd also read that even her own mayoral opponent's campaign manager doesn't recall anything about Palin wanting to ban certain books.

But if instead, you'd like to ignore the facts you didn't read and instead make something entirely up (like the librarian was paid off), I guess that's your call. Adding the "fact" that the city and taxpayers had to pay for "Palin's religious insanity" is a creative fictional masterpiece! Maybe you can find someone in Wassilla and tell them this wonderful story, so we can all read about it tomorrow on the front page of the New York Times? The headline: "PALIN UNDER PRESSURE AFTER PAYOFF TO HIDE RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM REVEALED"

Bzzt. Re-read whatever you think you read. The librarian and the sherriff were both fired. The termination papers were signed and put on their desks informing them they were fired. After a huge outcry (well, how huge could it be, the town only had 6000 people), Palin subsequently withdrew the termination papers, essentially rehiring the librarian.

http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2...rl-stambaugh-walt.html
Irl Stambaugh and Mary Ellen Emmons said letters signed by Palin were dropped on their desks Thursday afternoon telling them their jobs were over as of Feb. 13 and that they no longer needed to report to work.

sounds like fired to me
 
Originally posted by: QED
So is your argument then, yes-- the New York Times is exclusively unfairly critical of Republican candidates to the point of not properly vetting negative stories-- but that doesn't make them partisan?

If that's what you wan to argue, then I guess I'll totally agree with you and won't quibble over the definition of "partisan".

Yes, if the New York Times is exclusively unfairly critical of Republican candidates to the point of not properly vetting negative stories, that would make them partisan.

You, QED, having made that claim, now need to prove that behaviour in exclusive form. That means doing your own research, not pointing to a single anti-Republican article and telling others to find the pro-anyone-else one. And this all overlooks that a single article does not a bias make.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QED

You claimed the New York Times isn't partisan. I have claimed it is. I have provided supporting evidence (in the form of a recent front page article critical of a Republican VP candidate that was based on factually incorrect information) for my cause. You have countered by saying it was a simple mistake, or oversight. If your theory is correct, than surely there is another article in the storied NY Times history that demonstrates the same factual mistakes in the course of criticising a Democrat. If you cannot provide one, then your argument is mere supposition.

I'd like to be as genererous to the NY Times as you apparently are. You know, "never attribute to malice that which can equally be attributed to incompetence". I'd just like for you to give me one reason to...

Are you fucking kidding me? We are not in a discussion where the position is neutral. You are attempting to say that the most respected newspaper in North America is a partisan political operative based upon a single story in which it made an error. Sadly enough for you, pointing at yesterdays newspaper in which there was an error (later corrected) does not require me to go through years of archives in order to dig up evidence to rebut it. I'm calling bullshit on you because the evidence you have provided is nowhere close to sufficient in order to prove your claims.

What's funny is that you are ignoring the advice of your own quote in attempting to explain this story.

The New York Times publishes hundreds of articles each year about Democratic and Repubilcan candidates and issues alike. It should, therefore, be trivially easy to find a counterexample to my argument. Find one instance where the New York Times took the single word of some unknown person as a basis to smear a Democratic candidate with a front page article and I'll believe you. Or do New York Times reporters suddenly forget about fairness and accuracy only when dealing with potentially negative storeis involving Republicans (like how they implied earlier this year that John McCain was cheating on his wife with a corporate lobbyist)?

 
Originally posted by: jonks
Bzzt. Re-read whatever you think you read. The librarian and the sherriff were both fired. The termination papers were signed and put on their desks informing them they were fired. After a huge outcry (well, how huge could it be, the town only had 6000 people), Palin subsequently withdrew the termination papers, essentially rehiring the librarian.

sounds like fired to me

I'm sure it was just a rhetorical firing.
 
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: jonks
Bzzt. Re-read whatever you think you read. The librarian and the sherriff were both fired. The termination papers were signed and put on their desks informing them they were fired. After a huge outcry (well, how huge could it be, the town only had 6000 people), Palin subsequently withdrew the termination papers, essentially rehiring the librarian.

sounds like fired to me

I'm sure it was just a rhetorical firing.

:thumbsup:
 
More detailed information concerning the book banning situation from the Anchorage Daily News.

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn't fully support her and had to go.

Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job...

In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.

Emmons told the Frontiersman she flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship. Emmons, now Mary Ellen Baker, is on vacation from her current job in Fairbanks and did not return e-mail or telephone messages left for her Wednesday.

When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there.

Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name.

"Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said.

"I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'"
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html
 
Just as we are about the get rid of Dick Cheney, the last thing we need is another Dick Cheney type in Sarah Palin. They sound too much like turds of a feather right now.

And the other cute revelation is that Palin is asking the taxpayers of the State of Alaska to foot the $95,000 bill for her to hire a private attorney to defend her regarding trooper gate.
 
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.

John Edwards was no stranger to the public square. Palin was dropped on the press out of nowhere. Even republicans admit that in that case, a swift and harsh vetting-by-fire should be expected. Not to mention, Edwards was squeaky clean and frankly, boring as hell outside of his affair, whereas Palin appears to have a plethora of story-making stuff in her closet.
 
Incidentally the Anchorage Daily News article I posted also confirmed that the letter posted toward the start of this thread about Sarah Palin is authentic and was in fact actually written by a current Wasilla resident of that name.
 
Originally posted by: skyking
Originally posted by: jonks
I changed my mind

Wrong forum, the babe thread is in L&R.

Kinda gives a new perspective on the vice president working under the President 😛

I'm not so worried about book banning as I am about the potential continuation of 'politics' intervening over science and critical thought like our good buddies in the Bush Administration
 
Originally posted by: AnnonUSA
If McCain gets elected, maybe she will pray away the War in Iraq, Iran's Nukes, and all our Economic woes..... I just hope god is not too busy with that whole Pipeline thing, that will bring us Nancy Pelosi's Fossil Fuel alternative, "Natural Gas", to save America.

So my question becomes, who cares if these idiots reach across the aisle when there are complete idiots on both sides?

What scares me is that she won't merely try to pray away the First Amendment but that she'll actually try to have it stricken out of the Constitution, either de jure or de facto.
 
When I found this article, and if it is indeed true and written by a housewife in Wasilla it is going to prevent me from voting McCain this fall.

Here is the link/letter
http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341

Here is what I think. This type of action by Palin as mayor of Wasilla is totally parallel to people who bend/break rules when they don't get their way. I thought the GOP or the REAL conservative ideal was that ethics and fair play with hard work garnered success. It seems that when things get tough for Palin, she cheats/manipulates/abuses power. How is that going to change Washington for us? Its EXACTLY how 90% of the cronies in there operate today!

This looks to me like pandering to the out most degree. I think Palin is a popularity queen and nothing more. How can we have someone be a VP much less a POTUS who flip-flops on decisions based on how popular they make her? Does anyone find that completely wrong and disgusting? Am I the only one here?
 
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
When I found this article, and if it is indeed true and written by a housewife in Wasilla it is going to prevent me from voting McCain this fall.

Here is the link/letter
http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341

Here is what I think. This type of action by Palin as mayor of Wasilla is totally parallel to people who bend/break rules when they don't get their way. I thought the GOP or the REAL conservative ideal was that ethics and fair play with hard work garnered success. It seems that when things get tough for Palin, she cheats/manipulates/abuses power. How is that going to change Washington for us? Its EXACTLY how 90% of the cronies in there operate today!

This looks to me like pandering to the out most degree. I think Palin is a popularity queen and nothing more. How can we have someone be a VP much less a POTUS who flip-flops on decisions based on how popular they make her? Does anyone find that completely wrong and disgusting? Am I the only one here?

grain of salt =
A suburban Anchorage homemaker and activist ? who once did battle with the Alaska governor when Palin was mayor ? recounts what she knows of Palin's history.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
When I found this article, and if it is indeed true and written by a housewife in Wasilla it is going to prevent me from voting McCain this fall.

Here is the link/letter
http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341

Here is what I think. This type of action by Palin as mayor of Wasilla is totally parallel to people who bend/break rules when they don't get their way. I thought the GOP or the REAL conservative ideal was that ethics and fair play with hard work garnered success. It seems that when things get tough for Palin, she cheats/manipulates/abuses power. How is that going to change Washington for us? Its EXACTLY how 90% of the cronies in there operate today!

This looks to me like pandering to the out most degree. I think Palin is a popularity queen and nothing more. How can we have someone be a VP much less a POTUS who flip-flops on decisions based on how popular they make her? Does anyone find that completely wrong and disgusting? Am I the only one here?

grain of salt =
A suburban Anchorage homemaker and activist ? who once did battle with the Alaska governor when Palin was mayor ? recounts what she knows of Palin's history.

You think she made all this up? Seems like quite a list.
 
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
When I found this article, and if it is indeed true and written by a housewife in Wasilla it is going to prevent me from voting McCain this fall.

Here is the link/letter
http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341

Here is what I think. This type of action by Palin as mayor of Wasilla is totally parallel to people who bend/break rules when they don't get their way. I thought the GOP or the REAL conservative ideal was that ethics and fair play with hard work garnered success. It seems that when things get tough for Palin, she cheats/manipulates/abuses power. How is that going to change Washington for us? Its EXACTLY how 90% of the cronies in there operate today!

This looks to me like pandering to the out most degree. I think Palin is a popularity queen and nothing more. How can we have someone be a VP much less a POTUS who flip-flops on decisions based on how popular they make her? Does anyone find that completely wrong and disgusting? Am I the only one here?

grain of salt =
A suburban Anchorage homemaker and activist ? who once did battle with the Alaska governor when Palin was mayor ? recounts what she knows of Palin's history.

You think she made all this up? Seems like quite a list.

did I say she made it all up? The "list" is the same as the DNC/Obama talking points we've been discussing for days. Some of it is true and some of it is half the truth with a bit of spin(or not full story). So, again, take it with a grain of salt - especially since this lady still seems to have a bone to pick with Palin.
 
Back
Top