NO Leauki, you provided a link to a statement (not backed up with any documentation) on LGF that agreed with CNN that Palin's statement was the biggest lie.
You obviously didn't follow the links LGF listed.
One linked to an article explaining what Palin said and explaining why it was wrong.
CNN had nothing to do with it.
Again, you can link to opinions all day, but that does not make your opinion more valid
You can call it an opinion, if you like. But the article LGF linked to nevertheless explained why Palin's statement was a lie.
No you do not have to justify your opinion. But I guess I expect to see some rationale from you (not from most) when you state a strong opinion. I just assumed you had some justification for it beyond the biased rhetoric (mostly misleading and false) found in the press (both domestic and abroad). You do not have to justify anything. But I had come to expect a reasoned analysis from you when you did come to a strong opinion.
In that case I have to disappoint you, going back to since we first met here.
I always based my opinions on information I got and very often that information came from LGF, just as it did this time.
X says something, LGF claims it is wrong, LGS links to a source that proves that X was wrong. That's how it always worked.
Only suddenly, now that X is Sarah Palin, LGF isn't good enough any more.
When LGF uncovered lies about George Bush, Charles was a hero.
But suddenly, when he uncovers (or rather in this case links to people who uncover) lies of Sarah Palin his word (and his sources) become mere "opinion" and LGF is suddenly known for never providing any facts (as some implied here).
Ok, the death panels are a short hand way of describing "Committee to Decide End of Life Care Eligibility", but if you want to believe she said that the term "death Panels" was literally in the legislation, then no amount of arguing will sway you since you will never find the source for that belief.
Non sequitur. I didn't say this was about the word "death panel" being in the law.
The point is (and was) that there is nothing in the bill that corresponds to any image of a "death panel", regardless of what it is called.
This was explained in the report (sorry: "opinion") LGF linked to and is also explained here:
http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
(Why is anything LGF links to an "opinion" while Sarah's opinions are apparently facts that must be disproven rather than backed up by anything?)
On Global warming, her stand has not changed. She is a skeptic. Always has been. As am I. I guess to some that makes us evil and reprehensible, but I am more a scientist than apparently most of the faithful are on that subject.
Her stance has changed:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-on.html
I also remember (but cannot find now) what she (or somebody working for her) wrote about global warming in the past when she was still a decent governor of Alaska.
She was worried about global warming and understood the dangers. But now she joined ranks with those whose votes she needs soon.
But a skeptic is not some ignoramus. We see an hypothesis that could have merit, but needs testing. We also see a lot of attempts to silence any doubters and (as has been demonstarted in East Anglia) attempts to "cook the books" to prove a point instead of doing real science and studying what is happening.
I didn't say anything about either position being right or wrong. I just said that she changed her stance. And I am not the only saying that as the LA Times piece above indicates.
And creationism? It is part of her faith, but not her mandate. Yes, I am aware you have read where she was pushing it to be taught, but the sad fact is she never did. A little research would show you that. I do not believe you agree with her on any of these issues (and I dont agree with her belief of creationism), but those are not her politics or policies.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html
And in October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."I don't want children in secular schools being taught the "debate" between science and (one) religion. I certainly wouldn't want my children to be taught specific Christian anything in state schools.
A little research goes a long way. And she did say she wants it taught, in 2006.
Now, I like and respect her stance on abortion. And I admire any Christian who actually goes to church. But I don't want their religion to be taught as it it were fact. And I don't want any religion to be taught as an equivalent to scientific theory.
And this is what I was asking (apparently in several different ways) of why you are so fearful of her.
I already told you why I am fearful of her. I fear her because she destroys the Republican's chances to win the presidency. She doesn't convince anyone on the left to vote for her and many Republican voters turn away from the party because of her.
Liberals are not afraid of her, but not at all. They laugh at her. I know. I work with liberals. The idea that liberals are afraid of Sarah Palin is a legend that keeps Sarah's myth alive. In reality the left could wish for nothing better than for Palin to become the top conservative in the business.
