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

On Nov 16, 5:29*pm, wrote:
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...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. *...

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,

No ****?

which is something I have no plans to do.

No ****.

My educated guess

using the term very loosely.....

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,

No ****?

but ???

yeah.

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.

thus explaining an intereset deep enough to go into yet another
yawning exposition of something or other.

These things
are rarely, IMO, little more than bloated collateral pieces.

Uh huh.

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.

well.....gosh.....how's THAT for homework?!!!!

And if he can get
me a similar deal to read it, I'll do it.

O.k.......how long can you hold your breah?

Otherrwise, my current plans are to pass it up.

Yes, we see that.

HTH,
R

Moron.