Ghostly Apparition on 13/9/2008 at 02:57
While its true there is a bogus list of books Palin tried to have banned floating around the internet, it appears there is some truth to the story. Although no books were banned she did inquire about it.
It appears it wasn't a turn over in administrations as you are trying to portray it, but that the Librarian was actually fired for a time. That from ABC news.
(
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014662.php)
Please try to get your facts straight and use a reliable source.
paloalto90 on 13/9/2008 at 03:04
My bad.The librarian was fired then reinstated and served out her term.
BEAR on 13/9/2008 at 03:51
The exact situation revolving around the firing isn't the issue - its what Palin's stance is on banning books. Based on her other comments, it doesn't seem that unlikely.
Starrfall on 13/9/2008 at 04:13
Quote Posted by paloalto90
My bad.The librarian was fired then reinstated and served out her term.
Incoherent blithering mess has a moment of clarity. You'll find I posted a link that explained everything perfectly just a short while ago!
jay pettitt on 13/9/2008 at 10:23
It's like watching The Apprentice.
heywood on 13/9/2008 at 12:57
Quote Posted by Starrfall
They shouldn't have been making the insurance companies pay either, but again it's more the effect that it will have on female voters. Which, despite current polls and references to "Jody" (I don't know what that's supposed to refer to? sorry I don't talk blogspeak or whatever it is) is probably going to happen. Unless McCain supporters think that Sarah Palin will magically avoid the effect we've seen in independent women voters who turn away from McCain in great numbers once they learn that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned, for example.
And if that is what McCain supporters are thinking, then I disagree!
I don't know what the McCain campaign was hoping to achieve, but yeah I agree that Palin isn't likely to attract pro-choice women. The more feminist type women among my friends and family support Hillary and were probably not going to vote in the general. Palin has them thinking about voting for Obama. And I'm sure there are some others like me who were on the fence about voting for McCain and now will not.
Palin's nomination rallied the religious right and destroyed the hope that Obama had of attracting evangelical voters. It also stole the media spotlight away from Obama for a while. And it has forced Obama's message to become more negative, which will probably hurt turnout among the younger and independent voters that were supporting him. The more negative the campaign becomes, the more it turns the election from a fight over the center to another base turnout affair. That's more than the Biden nomination accomplished.
BEAR on 13/9/2008 at 20:35
He may come off as being full of himself, but I can't help but like the guy.
(
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5998477.html)
Quote:
Biden made 10 years of documents public. His most recent filing listed his Senate income of $161,708, while Jill Biden earned $66,546 from her job teaching English at Delaware Technical and Community College.
(
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-assess24-2008aug24,0,4944908.story)
Quote:
Obama aides said they were attracted to the Delaware senator's humble beginnings -- and his relatively modest lifestyle. He has a net worth between $59,000 and $366,000, not much for the millionaire's club known as the Senate.
Also, thought this was interesting.
(
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD9361PJO0)
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain — at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending.....
Quote:
McCaskill said eliminating congressional earmark spending — estimated at $17 billion annually — cannot offset McCain's proposed tax cuts.
"That's a huge amount of money, but it's not even a drop in the bucket to pay for $3.5 trillion in tax cuts," she said. "So, every time he throws up earmarks and he's asked how he's going to pay for it, he knows he's being disingenuous, he knows he's not being forthcoming."
BEAR on 13/9/2008 at 22:29
But its the new york times, its known for being full of well researched lies.
That literally scares the shit out of me.
