19
   

Sarah Palin lies

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  6  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 04:29 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

We should all be proud that Palin worked to turn down federal funding for the bridge.

Sarah is a real workhorse!


But, she didn't work to turn that money down. She worked to get that money. Once it became clear that the bridge was going to be unpopular nationally, she turned against the project - but kept the money and spent it on other things! She didn't 'work to turn down' anything.

Cycloptichorn
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 04:30 pm
@Woiyo9,
Actually a RESOUNDNIG YES.

Old airplanes ALWAYS increase in value thanks to lawyers. The new planes have more insurance in them than parts. Because you can sue when a 50 year old bolt on your biplane causes you to crash.

Every plane my father ever owned we sold for more than we paid for it. The only way you are going to lose money is if you really work the machine, and I bet the Palins did.

What a ridiculous low life cheap **** shot by the retarded left wing that has taken over the Dems. Funk off you losers.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 04:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

We should all be proud that Palin worked to turn down federal funding for the bridge.

Sarah is a real workhorse!


She worked to get that money.


That's what Governors do, it's their job.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 04:41 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

You agree she never said she sold it on E-Bay. So the idiot who wrote the article purposely mislead YOU.

OK, you've convinced me. It wasnt Palin who did the outright lying; it was John McCain. After all, he did explicitly assert that Palin "took the luxury jet that was purchased by her predecessor and sold it on eBay " and made a profit."

So this item should instead be on the "McCain Lies" thread. Would that satisfy you?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 04:46 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

We should all be proud that Palin worked to turn down federal funding for the bridge.

Sarah is a real workhorse!


She worked to get that money.


That's what Governors do, it's their job.


But you said she worked to turn the money down. Which one is it? Did she work to get the money, or work not to get it?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 04:48 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

We should all be proud that Palin worked to turn down federal funding for the bridge.

Sarah is a real workhorse!


She worked to get that money.


That's what Governors do, it's their job.

Sturgis, is that you?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 04:49 pm
@H2O MAN,
So your point is that we should be proud of Palin because of how she:

a) worked like a good Governor to get the federal funding for the Bridge to Nowhere
AND
b) worked like a real workhorse to turn down the federal funding for the Bridge to Nowhere

Um - those two things can not both be true - you realise that, dont you?
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 04:53 pm
@nimh,

doublethink - the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 05:30 pm
@old europe,
Palin as a reformer? Laughable.



I think that this lie will come back to haunt them. Nothing like several videos of a candidate praising the opposite position as the one they now hold to give the lie to their claims of being a 'reformer.'

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 05:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You have to just love Sarah Palin.

What a breath of fresh air!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 05:43 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

when a group of people instantly accuses anyone they disagree with of being a liar, it's simply childish. Get it now?

Right. Now what does that have to do with this thread? This thread isnt about "instantly accusing anyone one disagrees with of being a liar", it's about pointing out specific, concrete examples of where Sarah Palin lied, and laying out how exactly, with the quotes and references.

If there are specific examples in this thread you dont agree with, by all means tackle those. Just dont pretend it's all just some blanket, undocumented knee-jerk reaction to anything we disagree with.

If I looked at your thread in a vacuum, yes, but taken as a group, the A2K liberals do immediately accuse almost every significant conservative of being a liar. No, I won't prove it. No, I'm not a liar. This is my impression, because I remember seeing lots and lots of posts about how most of the people I agree with are liars. In general, I find these allegations to be unsubstantiated in any meaningful way, and, in general, when I choose a specific allegation and ask that it be demonstrated, it isn't. Yes, taken in a vacuum, this is a specific accusation against one person, but the idea that almost every significant conservative is a liar is ludicrous.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 06:08 pm
@nimh,
I don't really know what the truth of this matter is, but I find the news items below on the Web.


From 3/31/2007:

Quote:
...Former Gov. Frank Murkowski in his recommended budget to Gov. Sarah Palin included $195 million for Ketchikan’s bridges. That proposed funding is not in Palin’s recommended budget.

The project has been criticized nationally as a “road to nowhere.”

In 2005, Congress stripped off earmarks of federal funds for the Gravina bridge but sent the $223 million to the state. Much of that money was diverted to other state projects. Only $91 million of federal receipts was left for the Gravina Island bridge in the state’s FY07 enacted capital budget.

Charles Fedullo, Palin’s deputy press secretary, said there is not money in Palin’s capital budget for the project at this time.

“The governor introduced the base capital budget with projects only that would leverage additional federal dollars,” Fedullo said....


http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/story.asp?story=8393&headline=Alaska%20Increases%20Project%20Costs%20for%20Ketchikan%20Bridge

and from 12/16/2007:

Quote:
...She also took some bold steps, such as canceling the Gravina bridge project, derided nationally as a "Bridge to Nowhere," a move that alienated some in Ketchikan, one of Southeast Alaska's most Republican communities...


http://alaskalegislature.com/stories/121607/leg_20071216020.shtml

If she did support it very early on (I don't know whether or not she did) then who cares, if she eventually decided that it was a waste and cancelled it? Given the above, her comment about this doesn't seem like a lie.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 07:11 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

If I looked at your thread in a vacuum, yes, but taken as a group, the A2K liberals do immediately accuse almost every significant conservative of being a liar. No, I won't prove it. .. This is my impression

OK - I cant argue with impressions. If that is your impression, it's your impression, and you're entitled to it. But I'd appreciate it if we could move beyond the general critique and just focus the posts in this thread on the assertions in this thread. As you did just now in your second post, thank you!

Brandon9000 wrote:

the idea that almost every significant conservative is a liar is ludicrous.

I agree with that, but then I havent seen anyone say that "almost every significant conservative is a liar". I might have missed it though, I have a bunch of people on ignore. ;-)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 07:14 pm
Here's an interesting take on Palin from a reporter in Alaska:

Quote:
Gregg Erickson: I think she did a great job in taking on the oil industry, that has had a lock on Alaska politics since 1981 She is also stood up against the corruption in Alaska politics long before it was fashionable to do so. . I think those things resonate with many Alaskans beside myself.

Her approval ratings are high--65 percent, or so--but down from 80 percent earlier in her term. Most Alaskan's haven't watched her as closely as most reporters or legislators. If you took a poll of reporters and legislators I expect her approval rating would be down in the teens or twenties.


Isn't that much lower than Bush or congress? LOL
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 07:32 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
If she did support it very early on (I don't know whether or not she did) then who cares

And if she supported it all along the process right up to the time it was the center of a national discussion on pork-barrel politics? Would you care then?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 07:52 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad, It doesn't matter, because Brandon doesn't understand what constitutes a lie.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 08:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That, actually, is a lie, since I suspect you know it isn't true.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 08:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Certainly he and I disagree on what constitutes a lie. At least when it comes to Republican politicians.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 08:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What's that got to do with this thread? Let's keep this thread focused purely on (alleged) lies. There are already at least two ongoing threads to discuss the pros and cons of Palin in general.

Also, c.i., can you tone it down on the personal insults? Every other time I look at one of your posts lately it seems to have some kind of ad hominem or other. All that does is make you look bad. (And no, I dont care about whether the others do it too, he said looking sternly over his glasses.)
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 08:51 pm
Quote:

How Did the RNC Insult Troops and Veterans? Let Me Count the Ways...

Jon Soltz

Last week's Republican convention sure made every superficial effort to come off as pro-Troop and pro-Veteran. And, of course, the media ate it up, not challenging a single thing. But to those of us who did serve, it was offense after offense after offense. Let's count the ways:

McCain Didn't Mention Veterans' Care: Maybe because it's because he has a terrible record, but not once in John McCain's speech did he talk about taking care of those who served their nation in the military. With exploding rates of PTSD, suicide, homelessness among veterans. With ridiculous wait times for veterans seeking care, and a VA that every major vets group says is woefully underfunded. With administrators dumping vets out of the veterans care system by diagnosing them with a lesser mental injury than they have. Not. A. Single. Word. And, with the shame of...

Walter Reed: What a slap in the face. The first photo that John McCain stood in front of was Walter Reed. Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. Chalk it up to someone in the campaign not knowing the difference between the two, but what I find even more offensive is this: At some point John McCain asked his campaign what was going to be on the screen behind him. And someone told him the first picture would be Walter Reed Army Medical Center. John McCain didn't object - even though he voted against closing tax loopholes to help fund military hospitals like Walter Reed. But that wasn't the only bit of fake imagery....

"Phony Soldiers": For the amount that Rush Limbaugh likes to rant on "phony soldiers," there was a big silence and others from the mainstream media on the fact that the McCain campaign used stock footage of actors pretending to be soldiers in a video, intended to show how pro-military McCain is. It's actually kind of fitting - phony soldiers to promote a phony record on military and veterans' issues.

Speaking of phony: Remember that faux-outrage from the McCain campaign when General Wesley Clark dared to point out that being a POW isn't a qualification for being Commander in Chief? Boy, the McCain campaign wouldn't let up on that. Where were they when Fred Thompson said the same exact thing?

Real outrage: But, there were some things to be angry about. First, Sarah Palin repeatedly saying that her son was deploying for Iraq on September 11. First, not only is this not exactly true, but if she sincerely believed it to be true, she would be knowingly violating Operational Security (OPSEC), which says you should never tell the enemy when people and units are going to be landing in Iraq. Thankfully, Palin was fudging the truth, and not endangering the troops. So, she either knew she wasn't telling the truth, or she thought she was and thought violating OPSEC was worth the political points. That, however, hasn't kept the media from finding someone willing to leak all the movements of Track and his unit, and publishing them, violating OPSEC. Second, there's the fact that right after the Republican convention, the party produced a bunch of flags that they stole from the Democratic convention in Denver, in an attempt to "prove" the Democrats were throwing out the flag. In fact, workers in Denver were collecting all the flags left at Invesco Field, to send to community events around the country, where other patriotic Americans might want to wave the flag. So, to promote a complete fabrication, Republicans stole flags that some five-year old kid might have wanted to wave on Main Street. Stay classy...

It's things like this that caused those troops deployed to donate to Obama by a 6-1 ratio.

Though many in the media may lap up the lies, the distortions, and fake representations, troops certainly don't. We know the difference between fantasy and reality.

And that brings me to the last point. Speaker after speaker told the convention that the "surge worked" and we were on our way to "victory."

Except not so much. Bob Woodward, in his new book, explains what those of us in the military always knew - commanders on the ground were against the surge, and knew it would not work strategically. And, in fact, it hasn't worked in stabilizing Iraq's internal political problems, hasn't aided our global strategy, or helped strengthen our military.

But, as the President explained to General Abizaid, and others, success wasn't the point of the surge - the APPEARANCE of success was the purpose. Quoting Woodward's finding, "A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said [to Abizaid]."

In short, Bush knew that since less than one-percent of America had served in the wars, and most commentators were ignorant about what constitutes true military and strategic success, a reduction of violence could be sold as "success," even if it was not.

And that, perhaps, was the biggest insult to those of us in the military, out of many, coming from the Republican National Convention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/how-did-the-rnc-insult-tr_b_124785.html


 

Related Topics

Lipstick vs. Uppity - Discussion by A Lone Voice
Where is the outrage? - Discussion by Gelisgesti
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Sarah Palin, too weird. - Discussion by dyslexia
Troopergate report: Palin abused power - Discussion by blueflame1
"I fear for my country" - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sarah Palin lies
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 05:11:25