Is Palin "fact-challenged" ? You betcha !!

Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...act-Check.html

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Nov 14, 9:50*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...AP-US-Palin-Bo...

--
Ken Fortenberry

This is just the beginning. Now she has hooked up with Dr Dobson's
"Focus on the Family" crowd. Specifically that means she has a special
dispensation from the "family" (that is whackjob religion's code for
their cult) . . . to lie in the service of the "lord" who is in point
of fact for these Constitution haters, Dr. Dobson himself. Dobson's
substantial resources are working for her, funneling money to her, in
return for her abject subservience to Dobson's "dominion." Palin is
playing with fire.

Sound crazy? It is. And Dobson is a real threat to our democratic form
of government. These folks are seriously working hard to install a
theocratic government, and they have no interest in tolerating other
churches, non-subservient women, homosexuals, atheists, moderate
Republicans, libertarians, non-subservient minorities, or non born
again conservatives, race mixers, catholics and non-converted Jews
when they get power. Libs and Democrats? Some of their internal talk
is about the circumstances under which "dominion" may include
execution. All the murders at women's health clinics thus far have
connections to this movement and its front groups. They are serious.

Dave

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:50:37 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...act-Check.html

Yes. It means almost nothing. It's a book by a pol. If those are the only
"misstatements" it contains, I'd say the Obama administration needs to have her
number on speeddial...and an open line for Biden...

I did notice that many of the "facts" alleged as "corrections" of her claims are
not, in fact, _facts_, but rather, opinions as to the situation, or, unrelated
comments about other events. For example:

"PALIN: "Was it ambition? I didn't think so. Ambition drives; purpose beckons."
Throughout the book, Palin cites altruistic reasons for running for office and
for leaving early as Alaska governor.

THE FACTS: Few politicians own up to wanting high office for the power and
prestige of it, and in this respect, Palin fits the conventional mold. But
"Going Rogue" has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto, the
requisite autobiography of the future candidate. "

Um, OK - where are the _facts_ in the "FACTS" that contradict "PALIN?"

and

"PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly
from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her
campaign perceived a conflict of interest.

THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general
election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political
action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her
campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was
$1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.

Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.

She accepted $1,000 each from a state senator and his wife and $30 from a state
representative in the weeks after the two Republican lawmakers' offices were
raided by the FBI as part of an investigation into a powerful Alaska oilfield
services company. After AP reported those donations during the presidential
campaign, she gave a comparative sum to charity."

Again, where are the _facts_ that dispute her? Moreover, where is what she
actually "boasted," versus a paraphrasing of what she supposedly was "boasting?"

Even the ones that have specific numbers are not only not contradictions, they
are as silly as the "Obama doesn't know that there are 50, not 57, states..."
bit:

"PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as
Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going
for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.

THE FACTS: Although travel records indicate she usually opted for less-pricey
hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four
nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers
come standard) overlooking New York City's Central Park for a five-hour women's
leadership conference in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was
well over $3,000. Event organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her
daughter. The governor billed her state more than $20,000 for her children's
travel, including to events where they had not been invited, and in some cases
later amended expense reports to specify that they had been on official
business."

She spent "over $3000.00," including airfare, on a 5-day/4-night trip to
Manhattan 1 time, and that contradicts her position that she didn't "often" stay
at "high-end" hotels? Do any of the NYT editors actually live - hell, have they
ever even been to Manhattan? And she spent $20,000.00 on "children's travel"
during her 3 years or so in office? She has 5 kids, one born while Guv, and all
of whom were under 18 when elected, including 2 that where, what about 5 and 7,
when she was elected? Are they kidding? A wag might enquire as to how much an
Obama date-night in Manhattan runs the US taxpayer...even when the POTUS uses
his points for dinner and theater tickets...or some of the, ahem, $1.4 mil or so
his campaign hauled out of Citibank and Goldman Sachs in contributions....


HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...act-Check.html

Yes. It means almost nothing.

LOL ! But of course not. snicker

It's a book by a pol. ...

It's her mandatory pre-presidential campaign autobiography and
it's chock full of outright lies and falsehoods.

And that's of no consequence ? Riiiiight. Yeah, you betcha. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Nov 15, 10:04*am, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:50:37 -0600, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...AP-US-Palin-Bo...

Yes. *It means almost nothing. *It's a book by a pol. *If those are the only
"misstatements" it contains, I'd say the Obama administration needs to have her
number on speeddial...and an open line for Biden...

I did notice that many of the "facts" alleged as "corrections" of her claims are
not, in fact, _facts_, but rather, opinions as to the situation, or, unrelated
comments about other events. *For example:

"PALIN: "Was it ambition? I didn't think so. Ambition drives; purpose beckons."
Throughout the book, Palin cites altruistic reasons for running for office and
for leaving early as Alaska governor.

THE FACTS: Few politicians own up to wanting high office for the power and
prestige of it, and in this respect, Palin fits the conventional mold. But
"Going Rogue" has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto, the
requisite autobiography of the future candidate. "

Um, OK - where are the _facts_ in the "FACTS" that contradict "PALIN?"

and

"PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly
from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her
campaign perceived a conflict of interest.

THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general
election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political
action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her
campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was
$1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.

Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.

She accepted $1,000 each from a state senator and his wife and $30 from a state
representative in the weeks after the two Republican lawmakers' offices were
raided by the FBI as part of an investigation into a powerful Alaska oilfield
services company. After AP reported those donations during the presidential
campaign, she gave a comparative sum to charity."

Again, where are the _facts_ that dispute her? *Moreover, where is what she
actually "boasted," versus a paraphrasing of what she supposedly was "boasting?"

Even the ones that have specific numbers are not only not contradictions, they
are as silly as the "Obama doesn't know that there are 50, not 57, states...."
bit:

"PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as
Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going
for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.

THE FACTS: Although travel records indicate she usually opted for less-pricey
hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four
nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers
come standard) overlooking New York City's Central Park for a five-hour women's
leadership conference in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was
well over $3,000. Event organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her
daughter. The governor billed her state more than $20,000 for her children's
travel, including to events where they had not been invited, and in some cases
later amended expense reports to specify that they had been on official
business."

She spent "over $3000.00," including airfare, on a 5-day/4-night trip to
Manhattan 1 time, and that contradicts her position that she didn't "often" stay
at "high-end" hotels? *Do any of the NYT editors actually live - hell, have they
ever even been to Manhattan? *And she spent $20,000.00 on "children's travel"
during her 3 years or so in office? *She has 5 kids, one born while Guv, and all
of whom were under 18 when elected, including 2 that where, what about 5 and 7,
when she was elected? *Are they kidding? *A wag might enquire as to how much an
Obama date-night in Manhattan runs the US taxpayer...even when the POTUS uses
his points for dinner and theater tickets...or some of the, ahem, $1.4 mil or so
his campaign hauled out of Citibank and Goldman Sachs in contributions.....

HTH,
R

No, a wag would say something clever.

Moron.

g.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:18:55 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...act-Check.html

Yes. It means almost nothing.

LOL ! But of course not. snicker

It's a book by a pol. ...

It's her mandatory pre-presidential campaign autobiography and
it's chock full of outright lies and falsehoods.

And that's of no consequence ? Riiiiight. Yeah, you betcha. ;-)

Follow the money - you ought to find out _EVERYTHING_ you can about that $30.00
"contribution" from that state senator. I mean, if it were $12.00 or something,
well, maybe it was just an over-zealous supporter going nuts with their life
savings or something, but a whole $30.00? Come on, there has got to be more to
it than a mere "campaign contribution." And she claims her "contributions" were
"small!" Besides, what kind of massively wealthy spendthrift looking to buy
politicians would it take to even have such enormous sums readily available?

Sheesh,
R
....and when you consider it would take 100 state senator's "contributions" to
pay for that 5 days in Manhattan (where she spent a mind-boggling $3000.00),
well, it's just corruption, graft, and greed run rampant...

On Nov 15, 9:10*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:18:55 -0600, Ken Fortenberry





wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...AP-US-Palin-Bo....

Yes. *It means almost nothing. *

LOL ! But of course not. snicker

It's a book by a pol. ...

It's her mandatory pre-presidential campaign autobiography and
it's chock full of outright lies and falsehoods.

And that's of no consequence ? Riiiiight. Yeah, you betcha. ;-)

Follow the money - you ought to find out _EVERYTHING_ you can about that $30.00
"contribution" from that state senator. *I mean, if it were $12.00 or something,
well, maybe it was just an over-zealous supporter going nuts with their life
savings or something, but a whole $30.00? *Come on, there has got to be more to
it than a mere "campaign contribution." *And she claims her "contributions" were
"small!" *Besides, what kind of massively wealthy spendthrift looking to buy
politicians would it take to even have such enormous sums readily available?

Sheesh,
R
...and when you consider it would take 100 state senator's "contributions" to
pay for that 5 days in Manhattan (where she spent a mind-boggling $3000.00),
well, it's just corruption, graft, and greed run rampant...-

Imbecile.

g.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...act-Check.html
Yes. It means almost nothing.
LOL ! But of course not. snicker

It's a book by a pol. ...
It's her mandatory pre-presidential campaign autobiography and
it's chock full of outright lies and falsehoods.

And that's of no consequence ? Riiiiight. Yeah, you betcha. ;-)

Follow the money - you ought to find out _EVERYTHING_ you can about that $30.00
"contribution" from that state senator. ...

Yeah, whatever. How about commenting on the article to which
I posted a link instead of cracking wise about minutiae.

You did read the article, right ? I mean, it's impossible to
tell reading your silly non sequiturs.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:29:22 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...act-Check.html
Yes. It means almost nothing.
LOL ! But of course not. snicker

It's a book by a pol. ...
It's her mandatory pre-presidential campaign autobiography and
it's chock full of outright lies and falsehoods.

And that's of no consequence ? Riiiiight. Yeah, you betcha. ;-)

Follow the money - you ought to find out _EVERYTHING_ you can about that $30.00
"contribution" from that state senator. ...

Yeah, whatever. How about commenting on the article to which
I posted a link instead of cracking wise about minutiae.

You did read the article, right ? I mean, it's impossible to
tell reading your silly non sequiturs.

The few _facts_ (assuming them to be facts) in the article are pretty much
themselves either minutiae or non sequiturs, including the $30 contribution and
the "over $3000.00" spent, including airfair, on one 5 day NYC trip, while
making a left-handed admission that her claims to moderate-cost travel were
generally accurate. The rest of the article consists of paraphrasing what the
book allegedly claims via a subjective determination of what she meant, and
offering (often subjective themselves) "facts" to dispute the aforementioned
paraphrasing. It would require reading the book to offer an opinion as to what
one believed the accuracy of the "facts" alleged are, which is something I have
no plans to do. My educated guess is that if they had any real "GOTCHA!"
factual disputes that they could quote (for example, if she had said on page X
that "the sun rises in the west and sets in the east" or on page Y that "I
never once spoke to whomever about whatever" and they could show that on
such-and-such dates she did speak to that person about that matter), they would
have used them, but ???

The bottom line is that the article is about as useful and informative as I
imagine the book itself to be, or really, any such book ever is. These things
are rarely, IMO, little more than bloated collateral pieces. I don't begrudge
her writing it - she had the same lawyer-agent as Clinton, Obama and Bush, among
others, and was paid at least 1.25 mil (IIRC, the figure in some required
disclosure paid as an advance, plus some percentage related to sales/profits),
and some reports go as high as 7 or even 11 mil, to write it. And if he can get
me a similar deal to read it, I'll do it. Otherrwise, my current plans are to
pass it up.

HTH,
R

On 2009-11-14 12:50:37 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
said:

Hey Rick, do you have an opinion as to what this means ?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...act-Check.html

No.

But she is dumb. Dumb to the tune of $7 - 8 milllion paid by the
publishers of a book that hasn't even come out yet. Hell, she's even
dumber that I am.

Louie, aka Davey, Imbecile, Moron, Dumbass, et al
and reeeeaaaaaaally dumb, but not quite as dumb as Sarah.

d;o)