quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And forces good people to spend hours trying to spin the "facts" wherein she doesn't seem so pathetic...sad really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
2. Dinosaurs walking the earth 6k years ago:

The only source for any of this is a claim by a political opponent, a self-style progressive, and a man who admits working for, and advising a convicted criminal involved in political chicanery in Alaska. (Gee, wasn't it Palin that stirred up a shit storm and got a lot of the crooks in hot water .... ?)

Do you have any evidence at all that for that bizarre claim? Instead, you tell some strange tell about two people who aren't even mentioned in the LA Times article.

Google is your friend.

I googled the name of the person making the claim (Munger) to find the blog mentioned in the LA Times article, and then followed his own links. I then googled the name of his boss (Weimer). It's all there, on the net. Just connect the dots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
3. AIP membership.

Panda has already admitted it not to be true.

Actually, he has done no such thing. He wrote "I've never seen anybody here state that she was a member". At best, Panda admitted that he didn't know.

Actually, he did.

Scroll back through to post 288. I quoted him in one of my responses to him (post 300, bottom of page 15).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

Still having that problem with reading comprehension eh?  Try looking up "claim", and then "scenario".  There are several online dictionaries available.  Let me know if you need links for any.  Or help distinguishing the difference between the two. 

Once you've cleared up your confusion, we can talk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Boy am I glad you asked....my last post was dashed off...and incomplete(multi-tasking here) This gives me a chance to complete it....
Lets look at another thread here...its the most recent example and easier to access...
"Not a complete list of what would remain, but essentially national defense, trade, and international relations, not to mention the federal justice system (though I'd cut on that some, too).  In essence, you'd end up with a governmental body that basically handles only those things where the States need to be represented as a whole.

Kinda like what the founding Fathers had in mind.  "

This was a post made by Treasure .....now it is a "fact" that the certain members of the Founding Fathers preferred,or if you like envisioned, a loose confederation of autonomous states....with the majority of power residing in the states......But it is also true that a like number of the "Fathers" saw the need for a strong central gov. and that the lack of such a central authority would soon see the newly minted Confederation spin off into completely seperate entities.
Now what Treasure did to "fit" her argument was present the Founding Fathers as one monolithic think tank all pulling in one direction.She stated an incomplete fact...and presented as truth
When in fact nothing could be further from the truth.....facts can help us arrive at truth.....or when used in this fashion "facts" can serve to hide and distort the "truth".
This is where your slant starts to come into play,where you and treasure start cherry picking only the facts that support your arguments while disregarding those that might tend to muddy your case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

In a way, i feel sorry for her. She didnt seem to realize what she was getting into, at least to me. A soccer mom, then city council member, then mayor, then governor, then VP hopeful. In many ways, i feel she was hung out to dry. They waited till the last minute to bring her in, barely vetted, and almost immediately she was thrust into a lime light i know i could not handle. Was that the GOP's intention to throw away the election? I dont know. Sure seems that way.

quote:

Imagine having every moment of your life suddenly thrust beneath a microscope, people you have never met making assumptions about you and yours. Im sure she did alot of backpeddaling, wishing she hadnt said this, wishing she had known more about that before speaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

Still having that problem with reading comprehension eh?  Try looking up "claim", and then "scenario".  There are several online dictionaries available.  Let me know if you need links for any.  Or help distinguishing the difference between the two. 

Once you've cleared up your confusion, we can talk.

Might I respectfully suggest you investigate the meaning of the word "innuendo", first?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

No, you came up with something about a Bill Monger. I don't know who that is, but the person quoted in the LA Times was Philip Munger. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the similar last name could have confused Google.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
3. AIP membership.

Panda has already admitted it not to be true.

Actually, he has done no such thing. He wrote "I've never seen anybody here state that she was a member". At best, Panda admitted that he didn't know.

Actually, he did.

Scroll back through to post 288. I quoted him in one of my responses to him (post 300, bottom of page 15).

And once again you quoted out of context: Panda actually said it in a context of "IF she is not a card-carrying member." And if you really want to engage in the type of literalism that you seem to favor so much: Panda also used the present tense. "Is it technically inaccurate to call her a member? Yes". Of course. Because she would have been a FORMER member.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Boy am I glad you asked....my last post was dashed off...and incomplete(multi-tasking here) This gives me a chance to complete it....
Lets look at another thread here...its the most recent example and easier to access...
"Not a complete list of what would remain, but essentially national defense, trade, and international relations, not to mention the federal justice system (though I'd cut on that some, too).  In essence, you'd end up with a governmental body that basically handles only those things where the States need to be represented as a whole.

Kinda like what the founding Fathers had in mind.  "

This was a post made by Treasure .....now it is a "fact" that the certain members of the Founding Fathers preferred,or if you like envisioned, a loose confederation of autonomous states....with the majority of power residing in the states......But it is also true that a like number of the "Fathers" saw the need for a strong central gov. and that the lack of such a central authority would soon see the newly minted Confederation spin off into completely seperate entities.
Now what Treasure did to "fit" her argument was present the Founding Fathers as one monolithic think tank all pulling in one direction.She stated an incomplete fact...and presented as truth
When in fact nothing could be further from the truth.....facts can help us arrive at truth.....or when used in this fashion "facts" can serve to hide and distort the "truth".
This is where your slant starts to come into play,where you and treasure start cherry picking only the facts that support your arguments while disregarding those that might tend to muddy your case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
It's pretty simple now, DK.

You claim that "individuals" were billed for rape kits while she was mayor.

I didn't even ask for you to give me two or more examples that your claim requires. I simply asked for you to provide proof for a single individual.

Can't do it, huh?

Changing the subject won't alleviate the fact that you can't prove your claim.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

She wants creationism taught in public schools. Who besides creationists wants that? You can keep on squirming but this is one of those easy ones. Only people with a specific religious agenda ever call for creationism to be taught in public schools. That she happens to have belonged to churches where creationism is a standard belief is not conclusive but when she speaks supportively on the subject it is conclusive.

Show me where she specifically said anything other than it ought to be allowed to be discussed.

Not taught as fact. Not taught as dogma. Discussed.

Not what others think she meant. Not what you divine from supposed "code words". Not what others thought she meant. What she actually said should be done.

Firm

And who would want a religious concept disguised as science even discussed in the public school classroom? You will continue to claim innocence but anyone willing to investigate will find quite easily that 'discuss' in this context is the fall back position of the creationists since Dover v Kitzmiller put an end to ID in public schools.

Simply creationism is a religious idea. Any discussion of it in the public schools, beyond absolute and total dismissal as psuedo science, without also introducing and discussing every other religious origin myth is a violation of the first ammendment's establishment clause. That is very well settled by multiple SCOTUS and appelate rulings.

Obfuscation. Your interpretation and mind reading. Attempting to change the issue.

Here is where we started:

quote:

My personal favorite:

6. She said that dinosaurs walked the earth 4k years ago.

Did she say this? Not sourced from any creditable report. In fact, snopes debunks this as well (I'll leave the interested the job of checking it out themselves).

I guess your attempt to change the discussion focus and your inability to give a clear answer is all the answer I need.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

Still having that problem with reading comprehension eh?  Try looking up "claim", and then "scenario".  There are several online dictionaries available.  Let me know if you need links for any.  Or help distinguishing the difference between the two. 

Once you've cleared up your confusion, we can talk.

Might I respectfully suggest you investigate the meaning of the word "innuendo", first?

Firm

No you may not.  Once you're demonstrably clear on the difference between your misuse of "claim" and my use of "scenario", I'll be happy to continue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Once again moving the goal posts Firm,you expressly asked for just one instance where you or Treasure used facts to mislead and distort the truth.....I gave you that....this tap dance you have done here is pathetic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

First off I'm still trying to figure out which you are claiming.
1) No rape kit fees were charged to rape victims insurance despite you posting a link that claims that was the case
or
2) That when an insurance company is sent a bill for a medical procedure that debt isn't actually the covered persons, who will receive a bill she is responsible for if denied by the insurance company.

BTW I will prove either one was the policy of Wasila or SOP for medical insurance while she was mayor. I will not post names of rape victims and am more than a little disgusted that you expect me to do that even if it is a matter of public record.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

And here you are changing the subject. I said in my reply that was incorrect. I couldn't find any such claim eithe rhere or through google. If you say 6k years then there are anecdotes but nothing said in public in front of multiple witnesses but her publicly stated desire to trash the first amendment remains.

quote:

ORIGINAL: intenze

Sarah Palin graduated from the University of Idaho in communications-journalism.  She was a sports reporter. 

Sarah Palin is simply not that smart.

quote:

So, let's call a spade a spade. The Palin Administration in Wasilla definitely removed an item from the budget that the previous administration used to pay for forensic rape examinations, which are done at hospitals with medical personnel. Fallon defended Wasilla's policy. Period.

Does it mean that Palin hates rape victims, blames them for their assaults, etc.? No. Like many a Republican before her, she was shifting the cost of a government service off her books and onto others (in this case, she planned on health insurance providers and Medicaid picking up Wasilla's slack). That it was done with little reflection on the potential ramifications to health insurance companies or the hospitals, the possibility of having one's insurance revoked for utilizing it for an expensive emergency room visit or the 15% of Americans (including Alaskans) who lack health insurance, among other things, makes it bad policy — but it doesn't make her a bad person. An uninsightful one with an inability to consider the potential unintended consequences of her actions, perhaps, but not a rape-promoter

quote:

Jim Geraghty says: "The deputy commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Public Safety told the State Affairs Committee that he has never found a police agency that has billed a victim."
Um, well, it's because they wouldn't have billed victims anyway, they simply stopped paying the hospitals and the hospitals billed the victims. Oh, look! Fallon never hand-delivered a bill to a rape victim! He must be innocent! Bush has never tortured a Guantanamo detainee, either, but it doesn't mean that his actions as President haven't directly led to people being tortured. In fact, Geraghty even admits that the hospitals would've done the billing directly, but neglects to note that every person who has insurance coverage has a co-pay (which means that every person billed by the hospital for a forensic rape examination had an out-of-pocket expense) and 15% of the country doesn't have health insurance. It's ludicrous to suggest that somehow in a market economy no one paid for these exams — and, from Wasilla's own budgets, we sure as hell know Wasilla didn't pay for them.

quote:

Were any rape victims actually charged?

Rape statistics are vague for the city of Wasilla, lumped together under the heading of "Sexual Assaults (including all associated sex crimes)." Between 1997 and 1999, 38 "Sexual Assaults" are listed on the City of Wasilla's website.

Uniform Crime Reports of Wasilla lists one reported rape in 2000 (compared to 10 "Sexual Assaults" on the city's website), but prior to 2000 shows data only for one year in every five. In 1995, the year before Palin took office, there were no rapes reported.


Wasilla Mayor Dianne M. Keller, in an official letter available on the City of Wasilla's website, stated that "The Finance Department searched all financial records on our system for fiscal year 2000, 2001 and 2002. There are no records of billings to or collections from rape victims or their insurance companies in our system."

However, HB 270 was passed in 2000, so it would have been illegal if Wasilla had billed rape victims between 2000 and 2002.

Additionally, it is unlikely that the town of Wasilla would have records of billing victims in the first place. Rape exams are performed by hospitals and, typically, the hospital then bills the police or other local agency. In the case of Wasilla, the police did not start billing the victims, they stopped paying the hospital, forcing the hospital to seek compensation through the victim's insurance company. If the victim lacked insurance, the charges would then have been passed on to her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

Still having that problem with reading comprehension eh?  Try looking up "claim", and then "scenario".  There are several online dictionaries available.  Let me know if you need links for any.  Or help distinguishing the difference between the two. 

Once you've cleared up your confusion, we can talk.

Might I respectfully suggest you investigate the meaning of the word "innuendo", first?

Firm

No you may not.  Once you're demonstrably clear on the difference between your misuse of "claim" and my use of "scenario", I'll be happy to continue.

Then, my friend, I believe we are at an impasse.

Firm