Palin is a Liar
This woman really is not honest.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LojJ9b43ZGg[/youtube]
We already know that the Bridge to Nowhere story is just not true. She was for it whle campaigning for Governor before she was against it — after the world ridiculed it (including McCain, BTW), the earmark was stripped and it was no longer politically useful to her to be for it. She (and the state of Alaska) kept the money, though and spent it on other road projects, so you’d think that if they wanted that Bridge, they would have built it with the money Congress let the state keep in its Transportation Fund. If you are refusing an earmark, you should be refusing the money, too, right?
Obama has not asked for any earmarks this year, while Palin’s government has asked for $197 million for 31 projects. That is down from previous years — last year she asked for $254 million (and this does not count any of the earmarks asked for directly by Alaska communities or organizations, which she has no veto power over), a 22% reduction. But this still leaves Alaska at the top of the earmark heap, per person (approaching $300/person) vs. Illinois (who got $25 in earmarks per person).
Reformer? Please. How are you an earmark reformer when you continue to ask for them?
McCain had been ridiculing some of the science-oriented earmarks, like:
“We’re not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana,” McCain has said during this year’s campaign, referring to a study he’s mocked for years of whether grizzlies need to keep their status as an endangered species.
But Palin:
has requested $3.2 million to be spent in part researching the “genetics of harbor seals,” in one of the state’s many requests for federal funding of research into Alaska’s fauna.
(Can somebody explain to me why a creationist cares about DNA?)
(Bonus — here is Palin’s Special Council reassuring Alaskans that their gravy train is still intact.)
BushCo tried to make the case in 2000 that Al Gore had trouble with the truth and here we have the folks with the dishonesty issues repeating the same shit over and over in an effort to just make it into some kind of reality.
Haven’t done this before, my friends?
Tags: Liar
“Can somebody explain to me why a creationist cares about DNA?”
For the same reason Creationist study Mathematics, Engineering, Chemistry, and Physics.
Question. Is Obama honest?
Ok, I shouldn’t do it, but I’ll bite.
Your per person amount is dishonest since there are far fewer people in Alaska than in Illinois. Secondly, Barack Obama is an earmark king, asking for far, far more for his constituents than Sarah Palin wanted as governor. In fact, Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.
If Palin wasn’t telling the truth about her part in the BtN affair, why did the Alaska Democratic Party give her credit for it before she became the Republican V.P. nominee? And why did the Anchorage paper say it was a bold move for her to turn it down?
Governors typically take the money Congressmen send to their state. She had no power to vote for or against the earmark. That’s the stuff Obama and Biden–who voted FOR it–and John McCain–who voted AGAINST it–do.
The dishonesty isn’t on Sarah Palin’s part.
Since DNA studies are part of the narrative of evolution studies (unlike math,or physics or engineering) you still haven’t answered the question, Paul. But still, we have Palin requesting earmarks for the kind of study her running mate pretty routinely ridicules.
McCain didn’t vote at all.
“In fact, Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.”
Yeah, but the folks here won’t mention that because it’d greatly diminish their argument to mention that their guys were for it as well.
So let me get this straight – Governor Palin spent earmarked transportation fund money on transportation projects? That’s so screwy! I guess I figured they’d spend it on bike paths, or the Wilmington Music School…
I believe the point of the whole bridge thang is lying about wanting it, then not wanting it after the writing’s on the wall.
CM,
Perhaps you can explain to me how you can have DNA studies without significant amounts of Math, Physics and Engineering?
And Sharon — you still aren’t in the game. The per capita measurement of earmarks is a is a largely traditional way to measure the effectiveness of your Congressional delegation.
Governors typically ASK for earmarks (you read none of those links, I gather) and spend what they get. Obama asked for about 750M over 2007 and 2006, but he actually GOT about 30% of those dollars appropriated. These earmarks don’t just fall out of the sky.
And no, you shouldn’t have done it if you weren’t even prepared to argue the data.
Paul, now you are being dense. Why would you care about the evolutionary data of DNA when you think that everything just appeared here? If you think that it all just appeared, why get taxpayers to pay to look for genetic differences or markers? If you are a creationist, you are looking for data that fundamentally doesn’t exist for you anyway.
Teaching the lie that is Creationism would be tantamount to the Joint Chiefs consulting a Dungeons & Dragons manual in a time of war.
No, Cassandra, I’m rejecting your argument as dishonest to say that because there are fewer people in Alaska that it is more wasteful to get less money than Illinois does.
Obama voted for the bridge. You guys need to get over it.
Geesh…90% of the senate voted for it!
Your ala carte values are laughable!
There you go again. The fact that she killed the bridge to nowhere is a fact that is undisputable.
Is it murder if you shoot a corpse in the head?
I love the ‘fact that is undisputable’ in #15. David uses ‘undisputable’ as a synonym for ‘spoon-fed rhetoric issued by Republican talking heads.’
Factcheck notes “Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.” at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
Well, Sharon, you are free to reject what you want. It is noted that you are rejecting clearly documented facts.
She did NOT kill the Bridge — Congress took back the earmark (and Palin did not return the money). The question still is, if she had the money, why not build the Bridge anyway? She did campaign on her support of the thing. Certainly she does say she killed it and I understand, David, that you do believe everything that someone with an R behind his or her name says as gospel. But Palin is a liar on this thing.
And today, McCain is on the View saying Palin never took any earmarks.. Even the AP notes that is clearly false.
Who cares if Obama voted for it? Palin supported it too — Obama isn’t falsely campaigning as an earmark reformer.
“Geesh…90% of the senate voted for it! ”
But not McCain…
Point – McCain….on the issue of Earmarks.
Next…
Can’t get a point if you don’t play…he didn’t vote – prolly at one of his ‘homes’ getting his prostate massaged.
“Who cares if Obama voted for it? Palin supported it too — Obama isn’t falsely campaigning as an earmark reformer.”
Nope, he’s campaigning on “change” when he in fact wants to re-try a lot of the same old crap we’ve tried before.
Oh, and if he is so set on “changing how Washington does things” why did he vote FOR wasteful spending on a “bridge to nowhere? That doesn’t seem like “change” to me.
Isn’t ‘change’ Palin’s theme?
Please share with me the identification of the bill that Obama voted for which funded the bridge to nowhere and included nothing else. Get real. The bill was written by our past Republican Congress, and included a zillion things, some wonderful and some awful.
Don’t pretend to be so naive as to suggest that here was a bill which only funded this bridge, and that Obama voted in favor of it. This site’s readers are not that stupid.
You are all being too nice to Sarah. Talking intellectually and reasonably, pointing out her factual errors does not work. It did not work in 2000 with Al Gore and it did not work in 2004 with John Kerry. The Far Right has intellectualized the unintellectual. As Click and Clack would say: Sarah speaks “without bothering with the thought process” and the Republicans love it. ( I may not have the quote exactly right). We need to tear this little twit apart. She is a joke and an insult. She is George Bush with lipstick. Her ideas are a pig with lipstick. She is Miss Piggy. Show some outrage. Dig up some dirt.
Jo Ann, you may be full of crap, but I appreciate the Car Talk reference!
Cass_M,
“I understand, David, that you do believe everything that someone with an R behind his or her name says as gospel.”
While I am considering your question about DNA, evolution and the Creator. Do you think you could use some word other than ‘gospel’? I can not tell if you are a believer or not.
Same goes for those who use ‘shoot’ when they are against the use of guns.
gospel – something regarded as true and implicitly believed; a doctrine regarded as of prime importance
Its not always about Jesus.Wow.
“Teaching the lie that is Creationism would be tantamount to the Joint Chiefs consulting a Dungeons & Dragons manual in a time of war.”
In their earlier years, they did play war games as Lieutenants and Captains. D&D, Stratego, Chess, Checkers, Poker and RISK.
What is missing for those who deny Creationism is the beauty of this planet, and relying on science to say it is all random.
Paul – RE: creationism – People are free to believe what they want, but something that is without a scientific basis should not be taught in science class.
“Do you think you could use some word other than ‘gospel’?”
How about “consensus” then? It means the same to Al Gore anyway.
We now know that DNA are building blocks.
Creationists can look at them to determine the differences between all living creatures.
DNA is not limited to evolutionary studies.
Even so, Anyone and everyone involved in science would want to look for differences in DNA that does span history, including Creationist.
Creationism is not science. End of discussion.
Lots of Questions.
#1 Can Creationism be taught in classes other than science. What would happen when a student enrolled in both, raises the question in science class. Would that mean that Creationism should NOT be taught at all? So the student does not disrupt science class?
#2 Would that mean that in teaching History that all the ‘wars’ and differences between countries, and their past reference to kings and religions should be dismissed as “wrong headed people”?
#3 Should we change the calendar year, because of BC and AD? In reference to #2, our calendar needs to reflect the date that ‘religion and superstition died’. Are we there yet?
#4 Has science stated that He does not exist? Or do we still say that there is no evidence that He does exist? And until there is evidence, those who believe, are wrong headed. Or dense.
#5. Mike W, we should not believe in anything. It is either scientific and provable, or it does not exist and is ‘UN-Believable’.
If it is forbidden in science, it should be forbidden everywhere. I would not want to open up possibilities for conflict.
The probability of ( God ) = Zero.
The probability of ( The Supernatural ) = Zero.
If we allowed otherwise, like in Drama courses, that would definitely cause confusion.
#1 Can Creationism be taught in classes other than science.
Sure. There is no reason Creationism cannot be taught in a survey class that includes other belief systems like alchemy, astrology, mythology, etc. Of course the district will have to decide if they want to spend their money on that. Students that disrupt science class should be challenged to do some scientific research; if that doesn’t work they should be disciplined.
#2 Would that mean that in teaching History that all the ‘wars’ and differences between countries, and their past reference to kings and religions should be dismissed as “wrong headed people”?
Sure, I learned that in eleventh grade, there is a school of thought that holds WWI was caused because of the coincidental confluence of especially stupid and incompetent leaders in Europe… I no longer remember the details.
Should we change the calendar year, because of BC and AD?
No need for that, it’s a socio-cultural custom that is just fine. God can stay on the currency, too. We’re rationalists, not militant atheists.
Has science stated that He does not exist? Or do we still say that there is no evidence that He does exist?
Well, there is certainly no scientific evidence, but I wouldn’t expect there to be any.
I believe the current calendar designation is BCE and CE. Before current era and current era. No need to change the calendar Christians. Continue.
Meatball, why not change it to BPCE and PCE? And that would be Before Politically Correct Era…
I can’t believe what I’m reading. You all are philosophizing about creationism while John McCain and Sarah Palin-Bush are stealing the presidency. I’m beginning to understand why some people say that liberals are stupid.
Jo Ann – Stealing the Presidency?
I hope you’re joking…….. or are you one of those crazy folks who’s still bitter about 2000?