Palin Proposed Book Banning As Mayor

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That was my sense as well. It sure seems authentic, and if it's accurate, it is extremely troublesome. That said, I agree that for now these "revelations" should be treated as rumors, albeit rumors with a consistent thread.

Does that mean that the "consistent thread" of anti-Americanism that surrounds Obama is now fair game as well?

Anti republicanism isn't anti-americanism, but we all know you can't tell the difference.

Also, banning books is pretty anti-american, cheating on your wife is as american as apple pie, so yes, trying to ban books is WORSE than cheating.

You get worse every day Prof.

 

[yllus]

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.

Gee, I wonder why.

Edwards' "dirt" was having a secret affair that all of maybe ten people knew about. Usually a pretty difficult thing to ferret out as a reporter.

Palin's "dirt" is what's actually referred to as the public record of her actions in government - other than the pregnancy of her daughter, which is/will shortly become rather obvious to anyone with eyeballs.

How strange that one story took longer to make the news than the other! Surely it must be the result of a conspiracy by the leftists.

 

[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?

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Oh Pro-Jo you are rich. You have to be the only poster on here who appears to be fully programmable.

Gee, I have no idea why someone's very public actions as mayor are easier to uncover than an illicit affair. IT MUST BE THE LIBRUL MEDIA AND BIG LIBRARY GETTING TOGETHER TO HATE ON THE POOR PERSECUTED REPUBLICANS.

Palin is being covered so much because she was a pick that came completely out of nowhere, happens to be a woman, and a hot one at that. It indulges all of the media's worst FOX-esque qualities. Then it turns out she happens to have been a terrible mayor with a lot of crazy right wing ideology... more the better for the feeding frenzy.

 

[jonks]

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?

Because Edwards isn't about to become VP for a president on death's door?

Originally posted by: ayabe
With regards to banning books, she made a statement about that saying she was being "rhetorical".

"Officer, what if this $200 fell out of my wallet and you picked it up and walked away?"
"Sir, are you trying to bribe me?"
"What? Bribe? What are you talking about? I'm merely engaging in a rhetorical exercise!"

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That was my sense as well. It sure seems authentic, and if it's accurate, it is extremely troublesome. That said, I agree that for now these "revelations" should be treated as rumors, albeit rumors with a consistent thread.

Does that mean that the "consistent thread" of anti-Americanism that surrounds Obama is now fair game as well?

Anti republicanism isn't anti-americanism, but we all know you can't tell the difference.

?The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.?

"God damn America ? for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans."

"Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.?

Explain how those quotes are "Anti republicanism" please.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: jonks

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?

Because Edwards isn't about to become VP for a president on death's door?

You are right, Edwards was running to be THE President.

 

[fskimospy]

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?

Ahh, I see you think that the NYT should re-print National Enquirer stories. Just because a newspaper prints some things that turn out to be unreliable does not mean that they should take all unreliable sources and print them.

This should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but I'm sure it's all just another librul conspiracy, Pro-Jo.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jonks

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?

Because Edwards isn't about to become VP for a president on death's door?

You are right, Edwards was running to be THE President.

Edwards was never even close to winning anything. Did he win one primary? No. We're now 2 months from the general election day. Media scrutiny is going to be higher than it was for a non-starter in the democratic primary.

Originally posted by: QED
However, the notion that Palin tried to ban books is simply uncorroraborated hearsay based on the word of a single political opponent.

The librarian was her political opponent? The Alaska paper that originally printed the story interviewed the librarian. Palin said that it was a "rhetorical exercise." They printed her response, so she doesn't deny the conversation took place. If you want to take her word that she, as mayor, merely wanted to bring up book banning as a conversation piece with the town librarian who she then fired but then re-hired in the face of public outcry, you're free to accept her word. And I have some bridges real cheap for you. They might even go somewhere.

 

[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.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Craig234
(I suspect John McCain): Quick! Who's a woman and far-right winger who will appease the radical right base and has the most government experience? Condi? No, don't want to open all her bad history up, and the black thing is too obvious and hey, we don't want to throw away the votes of the people who are not voting for a black person. The only other one is Palin? Get her.

What? Kathryn Harris was unavailable? :laugh:

 

[Moonbeam]

How did a nobody from nowhere become the sub in for the guy who will likely die if office if he wins? What an irresponsible bastard that McCain is. What phenomenally poor judgment.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jonks

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?

Because Edwards isn't about to become VP for a president on death's door?

You are right, Edwards was running to be THE President.

*rimshot*

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How did a nobody from nowhere become the sub in for the guy who will likely die if office if he wins? What an irresponsible bastard that McCain is. What phenomenally poor judgment.

Yeah Mccain's campaign is quickly turning into a facepalm of truly epic proportions. I'd feel bad for the guy if the stakes weren't so high.

That hypocritical, unethical book-burning christo-fascist VP choice of his can DIAF though. Whoops!, I meant to say, I feel that she would be a poor choice for federal leadership. 😱

 

[heyheybooboo]

Give up, Johnnie you are embarrassing yourself. The giant sucking sound you hear is your credibility (and that of the GOP) going down the toilet. You guys haven't learned a damn thing over the last eight years.

When you make an issue of 'executive experience' why in the world did your comrades think they could 'spin' a small-town mayor into a savoir one heartbeat from the presidency? Did you not think that the dang librul press would actually investigate what all that so-called experience is about?

Today's Broken Republican Party: There is no there, there.

Commander-in-Chief/Alaska National Guard? Spin.
TrooperGate? Spin.
LibraryGate? Spin
Bridge-to-Nowhere? Spin.
Earmarks? Spin

Next up: Oil-Gate (actually, it's Natural Gas-Gate)

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How did a nobody from nowhere become the sub in for the guy who will likely die if office if he wins? What an irresponsible bastard that McCain is. What phenomenally poor judgment.

... Come on, he knew exactly what he was doing when he chose her. You think he DOESN'T want a nut for his 2nd in command? He IS a nut.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jonks

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?

Because Edwards isn't about to become VP for a president on death's door?

You are right, Edwards was running to be THE President.

*rimshot*

Originally posted by: jonks
Edwards was never even close to winning anything. Did he win one primary? No. We're now 2 months from the general election day. Media scrutiny is going to be higher than it was for a non-starter in the democratic primary.

 

[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??

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The NYT, being the most highly respected paper in the US, needs to have higher standards than that.

Bwahahahaha. :laugh: Respected. Yeah, that's the word that comes to mind when I think of the NYT.

 

[manowar821]

What a piece of work.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The NYT, being the most highly respected paper in the US, needs to have higher standards than that.

Bwahahahaha. :laugh: Respected. Yeah, that's the word that comes to mind when I think of the NYT.

They have won more pulitzer prizes than any other newspaper in the country. They are considered the paper of record for the United States. So... pretty much, yeah.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

I like how you ask a question in your first sentence and then answer it in your second. How did you come about this deep knowledge of the inner workings of the New York Times?

I have no idea what went on in the NYT with regards to Edwards. What I do know is that your idea that because the National Enquirer ran a story the NYT should have too is absolutely insane.

 

[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?