I don't remember Glen Beck ever exposing a media lie.

And by "exposing" I mean providing evidence that something was a lie, not just providing an alternative opinion.

 

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.




You can call it an opinion, if you like. But the article LGF linked to nevertheless explained why Palin's statement was a lie.




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).




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?)





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.




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.




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.




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.

That's your opinion.  You may not like the imagery, but it is an opinion.

I'm not surprised that liberals laugh at those who disagree with them.  It's what they do.

IN their opinion.  It was all circular logic, trying to pin something on her that was stated as an opinion, and was accurate within the context of paraphrasing.  I read them all.  Just because I did not fall for the big lie, does not mean I did not read it, only that I do not agree with it,  As I state, the wording in the bills was more eloquent than "Death Panels", but the end result was the same.

Again, not by name, but by intent, yes there is.  And again, I have nothing against LGF.  But this is a case where it is opinion, not fact.  In his opinion, he does not like the term.  In mine, I do.  It is all about opinions, because the facts are as I stated.  If you want to call them committees or panels, and the qualifiers are irrelevant except for incinderary purposes.

Here is where I get embarrased by your bias.  Just above this link, you linked to factcheck,org.  Then you post a clearly partisan cheap shot instead of the truth which is on the same site (factcheck!). http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

There is nothing wrong with debating both, but that apparently is "ramming it down" to the ones that WANT to believe it.  I am sure you are shocked to know that Bush believed the same thing,

Oh, and I would suggest you re-read the LA Crimes link.  Clearly while she is a politician (I never claimed otherwise), she made sure her answers were ambigous enough to allow for them to be the same position.  And my whole going on about AGW was to show that skeptics are not the cro-magnons they are made out to be, and do leave open the possibility that AGW is real - but not with the voodoo that is being foisted upon us.  That is clearly why she was equivocating to what apparently was an attempt to pin her down.

They laugh on the outside and cringe on the inside.  You just have to ask yourself why they would spend so much time trying to destroy her (with some success as you demonstrate with your own bias), if she was not a threat.  Do you see them doing that to David Duke?  He is laughable, yet they pretty much ignore him (the only time he is mentioned is to link someone to him).

Why defeat an enemy that is no threat?  You best of all know that is a losing strategy.  So she is a threat, or they would not be trying to defeat her.

 

Leauki, just so you know, here is the death panel.  NOw of course it is not being called that, but the intent is there.  IN HER OPINION, that is a death panel.  Having lived in this country for over 50 years and seen how "advisory" has become mandatory in many areas, I agree with her opinion.  YOu do not have to,  but clearly then it is a matter of opinion and not fact.

I don't know anything about Van Jones, but the Acorn story turned out to be simply wrong.

 

There is no such intent.

And claiming that there is such an intent, even if the claim is opinion, requires proof.

Palin's proof is, apparently, her opinion. But for some reason proving her accusation wrong requires more than the opinions of experts on both sides of the political spectrum. Don't you think that's weird?

 

To me it reads as if she flip-flopped on the issue.

When she was governor of Alaska she saw the danger and named it.

But when she had abandoned her position and is now more or less running for whatever it is she thinks she can gain she suddenly forgot all about her previous concerns.

 

Who is trying to destroy her?

I remember a smear campaign against her by the left when she was tame and at McCain's side. But ever since Obama won, I haven't seen any attacks against her, except coming from people like myself and Charles of LGF and other Bush and McCain supporters.

I just typed into Google "daily kos sarah palin" and all I found was 2008 material, including references to Daily Kos articles about Palin in 2008.

Then I typed "lgf sarah palin" and found recent material, including an article about how Sarah joined the nirthers (birth certificate people).

I found more with "democratic underground sarah palin": two articles about recent events related to Palin (book signing and custody battle) and a call by a DU member for supporting Palin to punish Obama for not doing what the loonies wanted him to do.

I cannot see this "wanting to destroy her" that you apparently see. It seems to me like the left is pretty much ignoring Sarah Palin. OTOH many of the former right, including LGF, fight it out over her and the only people afraid of her are those who don't want to Democrats to win.

 

"daily kos david duke" brings me to the yearly David Duke Bigot of the Year Award (which they apparently want to award to a group of "radical Jewish extremists").

Ironically it also brings up O'Reilly comparing Daily Kos to David Duke (presumably because of incidents like the openly displayed anti-Semitism in the article I found above).

Anyway, I think we must not forget that David Duke, for all his popularity among white supremacists, is very much on the same page as left-wingers when it comes to foreign policy and Israel (he also believes in evil racist Jews selling "Palestinian" body parts). So why would they scream about him? They like him more than the Bushs and McCains (and certainly the Palins) of the right.

 

And they aren't.

Just check out what is posted on JU about her. Maybe I have overlooked our local liberals battle against Sarah Palin. But all I see are right-wingers fighting against the ghost of an imagined left-wing front against Sarah Palin and my occasional reply in opposition. I don't see the vast army of left-wingers trying to fend off the Sarah Palin threat. I don't see that outside JU either. All the Sarah discussions appear to be between two camps of former conservatives, there is no liberal front against her that I can see.

The last posting about Palin by a left-winger on JU that I found was from 2008 (Larry Kuperman) when the left were indeed scared by Palin. But that was the same time when I thought she was OK and could help McCain win.

 

I quoted it, so you can play the innocent card.

If you want to buy that bilge, there is no hope for you.  But the La Crimes is notorious for its liberal bent (it was the one taht coined the phrase "Nagic Negro"  Again, your opinion is yours to have as you will, whether supported by facts or not, as in this case where it is not, but then dont insinuate it is.

YOu have not been reading or listening to the american media lately (that is to your credit).

That I would not know since I took a year hiatus from JU.  But I did not take a year hiatus from reality or the american MSM, and the daily diatribe on Palin (check out the talking heads - you will love them) is incessant.  They even have to trash her for not doing her book tour starting in NY!  OMG!  What a crime.

Again, your opinion is yours to have, but it seems more contrived than intelligently derived.  But then opinions can be anything you want them to be,  They do not need facts.

I just had come to expect more from you.  Nothing personal, just professionalism.

I am not here to change your mind.  No amount of truth is going to do that.  Many do not like Palin based on real issues and real agendas, not manufactured ones by those who are afraid of her.

She has a long way to go because she has to overcome that bigotry in the US.  She can (after all Obama was elected).  But one thing you have shown me is that no conservative will ever be favored abroad.  The foreign opinion is based on the liberal media agenda, and is a direct reflection of it.  Ignorant and a lie, but then foreigners have no incentive (and indeed no reason) to learn the real truth about Americans.

It does help though in at least informing the americans that are not brain dead of why foreigners are the way they are.  No mystery, just bigotry.

Here is what Gov. Palin said if that means anything to anyone.

"The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally," said Palin. The phrase is "a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire.' He got his point across. He got people thinking and researching what he was talking about. It was quite effective. Same thing with the ‘death panels.' I would characterize them like that again, in a heartbeat."

In my opinion no American is liked or welcomed anywhere I have lived except, the Philippines. Yet whenever a nation is in trouble the first nation called is America.

I dont agree with that anecdotally.  As a person, I have not really seen any animosity one on one (except france).  But when you get a group of non-americans to start talking about a group of americans, of course stereotypes come into play and that is where you get the cliches, and ignorance (it is a natural human thing).

When they look at Joe American, for the most part they see a decent (most of the time) guy.  WHen they are asked to think about what the US is like, they become parrots to the MSM which is liberal and definitely anti-american, and so they see it the same way.

That they at least try to read about the US does speak well of them for the most part.  And so I do not really fault them too much for not doing some research to find out the truth.  After all, most Americans probably could not even find their country on a map.

But what does irk me is for the liberals here to pretend that the biased view of foreigners is an affirmation of their opinions, when in actual fact itis just a reflection of their opinions.  And of course it irks me when foreigners who have not done more than cursory research into the US try to tell americans, with some sort of self important authority, what is wrong with their country.

I got that alot in Syria, and Jordan.