September 09, 2008
CNN and Palin Smears

About a half hour ago I went to this story on CNN, via a link from the CNN.com home page, which reads that Palin was being criticized for "cutting programs for people with disabilities -- a group she's vowed to defend."

I go to the story itself, and this claim is repeated in the bullet points at the top of the story, but there's no detail: just one line in the penultimate paragraph saying she was criticized for it. I figured a claim like this, that CNN deems important enough to highlight on their home page, would be backed up by some sort of detail. There was none.

As of a few minutes ago, the claim is still on the CNN.com home page, but is gone from the article itself.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at September 09, 2008 11:57 AM | Email This
Comments
1. 404, brother

Posted by: Andrew Brown on September 9, 2008 12:01 PM
2. Fixed link, thanks.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 12:08 PM
3. Whenever someone catches the media posting a distorted or untrue article, distorted headline, or internal errors or omissions, you've got to do a save as and save the webpage locally to preserve it after the source has rewritten it. In this Internet age, media regularly posts items like this, and they regularly clean up their house by revising the most egregious when enough people complain. Papers like the Seattle Times, for example, will do wholesale replacements of one article with another, but use the same link so the old one is lost unless someone has saved it.

As for headlines and other sub-headlines in articles; the reporters themselves are very rarely responsible. That explains the disconnect with news items and headlines. And with liberal partisans at the editors desks with the edit pen and the ability to craft the headlines and sub-headlines they want the reader to absorb, even a fair and balanced article can be twisted so the reader, who might not even read some or all the article, will walk away with the message the editor wanted conveyed with the headlines.

In my experience I've seen headlines that convey the opposite of what was reported in the article, but that is just one more way the media can distort the truth.

Posted by: Reality on September 9, 2008 12:22 PM
4. I'm amazed at the lies they've concocted. Apparently she actually INCREASED said funds.

Posted by: Michele on September 9, 2008 12:35 PM
5. Oh just keep talking, we can take it!

Desperate Media is Bringing Down Obama

***

Obama Pays Price for Bungled Attacks on Palin

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 12:42 PM
6. Yeah, the reality?

The budget set to Palin requested a quadrupling of the budget, Palin decided to only triple it.

Only in Liberal Land can tripling the amount spent on something be called a "spending cut".

Posted by: Cicero on September 9, 2008 12:50 PM
7. The Dems jackboots are here...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122098190668515511.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary

Posted by: waflyguy on September 9, 2008 12:58 PM
8. Yep, Cicero, and a lot of us are so through with the deception these people try to put over on americans, by calling an increase a cut. These dems really don't respect americans, do they? (duh!--even democrats know that, if you read the PUMA blog as I sometimes do, to see what they're saying)

Posted by: Michele on September 9, 2008 12:59 PM
9. Amazon sales tell a tale:

#10 Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down
#30 The Case Against Barack Obama
#36 Fleeced
#42 The Audacity of Hope
#93 Dreams from My Father

as does the NYT Bestseller List:

#2 THE OBAMA NATION
#5 THE CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA
#7 FLEECED

And the Audacity of Deceit is ON SALE TODAY

It seems that current polls prove the axiom that knowledge is power.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 01:10 PM
10. Ahh the hypocrisy of the right. Bitch and moan about this but yet it is somehow newsworthy for foxnews.com to report that Jeremiah Wright had an affair.

Posted by: Hmmmmmm . . . on September 9, 2008 01:16 PM
11. I can't really imagine that the party that has spent the better part of 40 years extolling the virtues of feminism, of "having it all" really want to go down the hypocrisy road.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 01:27 PM
12. The needs spending reports on Palin are a pretty big misrepresentation of the facts, intentional or unintentional, by folks who (probably? hopefully?) just plain don't understand education spending. These reporters and bloggers probably believe that cutting overall education spending must then obviously in turn hurt special needs funding.

While it is TRUE that Palin cut the budget for the Alaska's Special Education Service Agency by 62 percent, they don't bother to look into the fact that Palin also signed into law a pretty huge reform of the state's education financing system -- one that equalized aid to rural and urban districts, but also significantly increased funding for special needs students to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008. This is according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.

So in actuality, rather than a 62 percent cut, she actually increasing special needs funding by 175 percent.

-- School Marm

Citations:

Alaska Governor's website: http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-64201.html

Alaska Dept of Education and Early Development website:
http://www.eed.state.ak.us/news/funding_program_overview.pdf

Anchorage Daily News article: http://www.adn.com/education/story/262469.html

Education Week article: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/04/30/35recaps.h27.html


Posted by: School Marm on September 9, 2008 01:35 PM
13. Ahhh Rangnar, still plagiarizing without giving actual critical thought...typical mindless sheep defense I expect from you.

Why does the GOP hate Jews so much? Plain get's chummy with the Jews for Jesus folks who think that terrorism is God's attack on the Jews for not believing in Jesus, meanwhile McCain actively seeks out endorsements of anti-Semite's like Buchanan and Hagee? Why didn't McCain pick his buddy Lieberman for VP? McCain scared of strong Jewish figures...or maybe he thinks Lieberman is going to hell and can't share the ticket with a non-believer.

It seems that current polls prove the axiom that knowledge is power.

That or Republicans are mindless sheep who buy whatever Rush tells them to, and then keep the books on the shelf without ever cracking the spine. I have no doubt you can find a lot of the smear books sitting unopened on shelves Goodwill and Used Bookstores across the country.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 01:36 PM
14. "Hmmmmmm . . .":

Nothing you said made any sense. I don't read/watch Fox News, I don't care about Jeremiah Wright, and I never heard about the story you're talking about. If it IS true, then it is not similar to the Palin story I am referring to, which had no basis in fact. If it is NOT true, then Fox and the NY Post deserve to be criticized for it.

Pathetic attempt there.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 01:36 PM
15. #10: Wright's supposed affair has nothing to do with Obama. But his preaching and extreme marxist theological teachings have everything to do with him. So does his close friend Ayers, campaign member Pfleger, etc.

Posted by: Michele on September 9, 2008 01:41 PM
16. Cato: you're sick.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 01:42 PM
17. Pudge, I see nothing wrong with CNN taking a critical look at Palin's qualifications based on her past experience. After all no one hear had a problem digging into Obama's past to dig up dirt of his experience.

As for the "cutting programs for people with disabilities" seems that the author got duped by the mass email going around that was recently called BS by Factcheck.org.

Of course Factcheck.org also says all the McCain commercials are BS too but no one here wants to talk about that. Hmmm, wonder why.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 01:44 PM
18. bHo isn't having a good day... er, week... er, month!

$5 Million In 5 Hours: McCain In Obama's Chicago

**

GALLUP: McCain opens 15-point lead among independents

**

Gallup Daily: McCain Maintains 5-Point Lead

**

McCain Leaps to 20-Point Lead in North Carolina

MORE telling are the favorable ratings:

McCain: Favorable/Unfavorable
RCP Average 08/08-09/07 -- 56.7 36.3 Fav/Unfav +20.4
ABC News/Wash Post 09/05-09/07 961 RV 59 36 Fav/Unfav +23
CBS News 09/05-09/07 655 RV 46 37 Fav/Unfav +9
USA Today/Gallup 09/05-09/07 1022 A 63 33 Fav/Unfav +30
CNN 09/05-09/07 942 RV 60 33 Fav/Unfav +27
Rasmussen 3-Day Tracking 3000 LV 58 41 Fav/Unfav +17
Hotline/FD 3-Day Tracking 924 RV 54 38 Fav/Unfav +16


Obama: Favorable/Unfavorable
RCP Average 08/04-09/07 -- 55.7 37.2 Fav/Unfav +18.5
ABC News/Wash Post 09/05-09/07 961 RV 58 36 Fav/Unfav +22
CBS News 09/05-09/07 655 RV 44 37 Fav/Unfav +7
USA Today/Gallup 09/05-09/07 1022 A 62 35 Fav/Unfav +27
CNN 09/05-09/07 942 RV 60 34 Fav/Unfav +26
Rasmussen 3-Day Tracking 3000 LV 56 43 Fav/Unfav +13
Hotline/FD 3-Day Tracking 924 RV 54 38 Fav/Unfav +16

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 01:46 PM
19. Didn't Newsweek cover the story of fabricated slams on Gov. Palin just today, giving the truth behind the distortions? I think the mainstream is beginning to call BS on the fringe.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

Posted by: DS on September 9, 2008 01:48 PM
20. obfusCATOr, FACTS stand on their own; they don't need nuance. Someone might want to mention that to "um, er, you know", bHo.

Keep trying.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 01:52 PM
21. Cato:

Pudge, I see nothing wrong with CNN taking a critical look at Palin's qualifications based on her past experience.

No one sees anything wrong with that.


Of course Factcheck.org also says all the McCain commercials are BS too but no one here wants to talk about that. Hmmm, wonder why.

They also said Obama commercials were B.S., and I never mentioned that, either. Your insinuations are, in fact, B.S.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 01:54 PM
22. Why am I sick, just replacing the GOP argument for Hillary with Lieberman. I don't see Obama or Biden actively soliciting endorsements from known anti-Semites.

Obama may have gone to a racist church, but Palin seems to go to an anti-Semetic one. Not to mention a church filled with people who seem to believe Homosexuality can be cured through prayer. Amazing.

Pudge, do you still believe the Evangelical wing are not the core base of the Republican Party and just a sub-group who will never be in charge? I think Palin's popularity clearly points to who holds the power within the party.

Oh yeah, when is Bristol Palin's boyfriend going to be charged with statutory rape of a minor? Alaskan laws are quite strict in this regard but he seems to have emerged as a celebrated figure rather than a rapist as defined by Alaskan law.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 01:59 PM
23. James Bennett has an interesting article in the UK Telegraph.

Far from being a reprise of Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Palin was a clear-eyed politician who, from the day she took office, knew exactly what she had to do and whose toes she would step on to do it.

The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska's energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes - the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having "no international experience" particularly absurd.


Now, of course, the loonies would very much like to decry an author from the UK having an opinion... but that might not work out too well for them:

British PM backs Obama

**

BBC: WORLD WANTS OBAMA

and of course, we just can't forget that illustrious MTV host, Russel Brand (who???) exhorting folks to vote for bHo

***

I've been thinking that far from being internet trolls, our SP loonies are much more like interGNATS.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 02:06 PM
24. obfusCATOr, FACTS stand on their own

What facts? Your comparing two books that came out over a year ago against books which have arrived on shelves in the last two months. I bet if a new Harry Potter book magically arrived it would shove all those books down to the lower rungs while prior HP books occupied all the top slots.

Once again you plagiarize others rather than engaging in critical thought. Typical of a mindless tool like yourself.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 02:07 PM
25. The FACTS, obfusCATOr is that the numbers are AS OF today.

How the hell do YOU deteremine that is plagiarizing? I sincerely doubt you even understand the definition.

Actually, I KNOW you don't understand teh definition.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 02:13 PM
26. we just can't forget that illustrious MTV host, Russel Brand (who???) exhorting folks to vote for bHo

Wow, a comedian makes fun of Republicans...imagine that. Meanwhile you're complaining about a channel that no one watches anymore and proudly puts on a reality TV show where the main premise is a bi-sexual woman choosing her mate from a group of willing males and females. Not exactly Christian fare here. Did you even watch the awards or are you just jumping on the faux GOP outrage campaign? I'm guessing the later. =P

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 02:15 PM
27. Hilarious. The Leftstream Media thinks that with a little uncaught smear headline here or there, that they are really growing Obama voters. All Americans but the True Lefty Believers are going to do a little homework before they believe crappy rumors on CNN.

This just helps McCain/Palin. I hope they keep it up.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 9, 2008 02:16 PM
28. Cato @22.

Looks like it's Cato smacking time. I read the whole thing and talk about paper thin with so little facts. Opinion is one thing, proof is another.

Nice try cato, but it your going to stand on that one. Well be my guess.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 9, 2008 02:21 PM
29. Cato. The reason Rev. Wright was and is a major issue is because of his political beliefs and statements, the G.D. America, aids created to kill blacks, etc. No one is looking into or questioning his religious beliefs or those of his church. If you want to go there with Palin, then its fair game to see what Trinity Church's religious beliefs and teachings are. You may well find that some of them seem ridiculous as well but I bet that wouldn't make a bit of difference in your support for The One.

Posted by: RJK on September 9, 2008 02:26 PM
30. The FACTS, obfusCATOr is that the numbers are AS OF today.

The facts are your comparing apples and oranges. If Obama released a book today I'm sure it would be number one.

Dreams of my Father - Released in 1995
The Audacity of Hope - Released in 2006

Sarah - Released in Sep 2008
The Case Against Barack Obama - Released in Aug. 2008
Fleeced - Released in June 2008

I'm impressed that a book released over 10 years ago in still on Amazon's top 100. Wonder where McCain's books stand....not even on the top 100.

Top two books on Amazon seem to be Liberal in nature:
Why We Need a Green Revolution
A Secret White House History 2006-2008

Funny how you conveniently left that fact out.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 02:30 PM
31. Cato:

I don't see Obama or Biden actively soliciting endorsements from known anti-Semites.

Neither the Republicans.

Palin seems to go to an anti-Semetic one

Absolutely false.


Not to mention a church filled with people who seem to believe Homosexuality can be cured through prayer

Which part of that do you have a problem with? That the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin, or that God can answer prayer, including the removal of sin?

This is a perfectly mainstream view, and indeed, is a MAJORITARIAN view in this country (and any country where orthodox Christianity is the majority). But hey, if you want to smear the majority of Americans, go right ahead. That will play well in the election!


Pudge, do you still believe the Evangelical wing are not the core base of the Republican Party and just a sub-group who will never be in charge?

Of course. There's no evidence to the contrary.


Oh yeah, when is Bristol Palin's boyfriend going to be charged with statutory rape of a minor?

When are you going to stop beating your mother?

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 02:30 PM
32. That the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin, or that God can answer prayer, including the removal of sin?

Actually it's not really clear...it says men shall not lie with other men. I don't see the word sin in that particular passage. I'm sure God can remove sin in the minds of his followers but apparently God can't make it rain during Obama's speech.

This is a perfectly mainstream view, and indeed, is a MAJORITARIAN view in this country

No, it's held by people who believe that Homosexuality is something that can be cured rather than a fact of life they should grow up and deal with. Maybe the MAJORITY should pray for McCain's melanoma to be cured or his war wounds to be healed so he can raise his arms...one is genetic, the other is man made...yet I somehow doubt either will be cured by prayer.

Of course. There's no evidence to the contrary.

Maybe you should look closer at the campaign trail.

When are you going to stop beating your mother?

Why can't you answer the question? He's clearly committed statutory rape according to Alaskan law, no one is disputing the evidence. I guess there are a lot of perks for being the BF of the Gov's daughter.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 02:51 PM
33. Cato,

You do not do your credibility any favors when you don't do your homework.


Oh yeah, when is Bristol Palin's boyfriend going to be charged with statutory rape of a minor?

I suppose when someone retroactively alters the Alaska state law on age of consent.

You see, age of consent in Alaska happens to be 16. Plus, you have to sure that Levi Johnston was 18 when he got her pregnant, because if he was not, then it also fails the statutory rape requirements.

So I guess no happy dance for you!

Better luck next time. Now here's Jay to tell you about your parting gifts.

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

Posted by: Eyago on September 9, 2008 02:58 PM
34. "He's clearly committed statutory rape according to Alaskan law, no one is disputing the evidence."

BS. I am disputing it. Link me to the exact place in the Alaskan Code that proves your point. I am not convinced by your hand waiving.

Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 02:58 PM
35. Neither the Republicans.

So you are now denying that McCain actively sought out the Rev. Hagee's endorsement? The same Rev. Hafee who claims in his books that Hitler was the best thing that ever happened to the Jews.

Absolutely false.

Uh huh...did you read the linked article? Maybe you should read the pastors sermon. Or check out why the pastor is a target of the anti-defamation league.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 03:03 PM
36. Nice QUICK subject change obfusCATOr!

The church also said that as a parishioner Mrs Palin and her family would have ha NO ADVANCE notice of what the VISITING preacher might/would say.

Gosh, now I wonder how we can reconcile that with 20 YEARS of racist America hating? Let me think.

NEXT subject?


Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 03:10 PM
37. Cato:

Actually it's not really clear...

Yes, it is. Paul clearly calls homosexuality a "degredation," "indecent," an "error" deserving of "penalty," etc. in Romans 1. Most obviously, the whole passage is explicitly talking about a rejection of God, and that is what sin is.

Your argument that because it doesn't say sin it isn't clear is misunderstanding that the biblical definition of sin is to reject God.

There is no question that the mainstream, orthodox, Christian view is that homosexuality is sinful. And there is no question that the mainstream, orthodox, Christian view of prayer is that God answers prayers.

So to say there's something exceptionally odd about praying for God to "cure" homosexuals is nonsense.


Maybe the MAJORITY should pray for McCain's melanoma to be cured or his war wounds to be healed so he can raise his arms...one is genetic, the other is man made...yet I somehow doubt either will be cured by prayer.

Many DO pray for McCain's health. And Obama's too. Your doubts are irrelevant.

Maybe you should look closer at the campaign trail.

Back at you. There is NO EVIDENCE that evangelicals control the GOP. They are very influential, of course. But if they controlled the GOP, McCain never would have been the nominee, dummy.

He's clearly committed statutory rape according to Alaskan law

False. You are spreading lies. Shame on you.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 03:12 PM
38. Here ya go PBJ...

§ 11. 41. 436
Second-degree sexual abuse of a minor for someone age 16 or older to engage in sexual penetration with someone who is age 13, 14, or 15 ...

Let's see....he's 17 at the time having sex with a then 15 year old. Looks like rape to me.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 03:13 PM
39. Cato, here's the laws:

http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section434.htm

http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section436.htm

http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section438.htm

http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section440.htm

Try to identify which of those would apply to Bristol Palin (you can't). Show us the specific law that you are following, and show us the approximate ages and dates of the individuals involved.

I have no idea where you got "15" and "17." Maybe he was 17 when Bristol got pregnant, but she was no less than 16, since she is 17 now, last I saw. But let's assume 15 and 17: the law YOU quote, Cato, actually proves you're WRONG. Your ellipsis omits the key phrase, "and at least three years younger than the offender," which your claim admits isn't a satisfied condition, since there's no way they were three years apart.

You owe an apology, Cato.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 03:27 PM
40. So to say there's something exceptionally odd about praying for God to "cure" homosexuals is nonsense.

Believing that Homosexuality is something to be "cured" of or that it can be "cured" through prayer clearly nonsense.

Looks like Jews for Jesus folks believe that Judaism can be cured through Christian prayer, and Gov. Palin doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

There is NO EVIDENCE that evangelicals control the GOP.

The proof is in the campaign...McCain pre-Palin and McCain post-Palin. Look who's bringing out the crowds...(here's a clue, it's not McCain). Eight years ago Ol' Sen. Flip Flop trashes the Evangelical Wing and loose the primary...in 2008 ol' Sen. Flip Flop decides to embrace the Evangical wing and wins the primary. Polls show he's sagging against Obama...so he picks an Evangelical VP and all of a sudden his campaign is up in the polls and flush with cash.

But if they controlled the GOP, McCain never would have been the nominee, dummy.

Huckabee won Iowa and several other southern states where evangelicals are quite prominent. If they GOP had Dem. primary rules he might have taken the nomination.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 03:29 PM
41. So you are now denying that McCain actively sought out the Rev. Hagee's endorsement?

No, I am denying Hagee is anti-Semitic.

The same Rev. Hafee who claims in his books that Hitler was the best thing that ever happened to the Jews.

No, he did not. What he said was that Hitler was fulfilling God's will to push the Jews toward reestablishment of Israel. While it is a controversial position, it is not an anti-Semitic one. Hagee is actually a big supporter of the Jews and Israel.


Uh huh...did you read the linked article?

I heard what he said, and it is not anti-Semitic.


Cato: through obvious misrepresentation of fact you have slandered Hagee and Levi Johnston. Would you like to go for a third by telling us just what was said by Palin's pastor that is anti-semitic?

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 03:32 PM
42. Cato:

Believing that Homosexuality is something to be "cured" of or that it can be "cured" through prayer clearly nonsense.

Only if you believe the Bible itself is clearly nonsense. I've shown clearly, and you've offered no rebuttal, that the Bible shows that homosexuality is sin, and it's a given that the Bible says that sin can be removed by God through prayer.

So is that what you are saying, that the Bible is nonsense? If so, please continue saying that, as widely as possible: that people should vote for Obama because the Bible is nonsense. Say it loud, say it proud.


Looks like Jews for Jesus folks believe that Judaism can be cured through Christian prayer, and Gov. Palin doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

Yes, EVERY mainstream, orthodox Christian believes that non-Christians can be saved through prayer. Again: this is not exceptional.

The proof is in the campaign...McCain pre-Palin and McCain post-Palin

No, because 40+ percent of Americans supported McCain before Palin joined the ticket.

Huckabee won Iowa and several other southern states where evangelicals are quite prominent.

Exactly, and he lost. BIG.


If they GOP had Dem. primary rules he might have taken the nomination.

Nope. He could not have even come close. You are just making that up, just like you made up the lies about Johnston and Hagee.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 03:42 PM
43. You owe an apology, Cato.

I'll admit I left out the last part, nice of you to look it up though. =P

Why should I apologize? He's still considered a rapist in John McCain's home state.

Arizona - § 13-1405
Sexual conduct with a minor to engage in sexual intercourse with someone under age 18.

(4) if the minor is at least age 15, it is punishable by one year in prison

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 03:42 PM
44. Pudge, thank you for doing the homework on Alaska's laws. I knew Cato was blowing smoke, so it is nice to see you catch him in a lie. Yes cato, when you omit key phrases to twist the meaning of the law, that is a lie.

Posted by: Moondoggie on September 9, 2008 03:43 PM
45. Cato: Why should I apologize?

Because if you don't apologize for your slanders and lies, I'll be forced to ignore you.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 03:45 PM
46. Cato, I pump my own gas when I'm in Washington State. Does that make me a criminal because that is not legal in Oregon?

Posted by: Moondoggie on September 9, 2008 03:57 PM
47. Only if you believe the Bible itself is clearly nonsense.

It is when cherry pick certain parts in order to support misguided beliefs.

So is that what you are saying, that the Bible is nonsense?

I said no such thing...freedom of Religion guarantees you and I can believe anything you want. I can choose to believe that the idea of prayer curing homosexuality is utter nonsense and you can believe otherwise.

No, because 40+ percent of Americans supported McCain before Palin joined the ticket.

Yes, he was fading in the polls/fund raising...now he's up with the selection of an Evangelical VP candidate. Again, follow the $$. I doubt he'd get the same attention/funding had he picked say Sen. Lieberman.

Exactly, and he lost. BIG.

Not necessarily, he could have been the Comeback Kid II had the rules been distributional and not winner take all.

You are just making that up, just like you made up the lies about Johnston and Hagee.

Those are not lies, those Pudge are certifiable facts. Read the PDF transcript, check the Anti-=Defamation league website (all linked above), while your at it read Hagee's book "Jerusalem Countdown".

Here's a great one:
"Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans" - Rev. Hagee

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 04:01 PM
48. Cato, I pump my own gas when I'm in Washington State. Does that make me a criminal because that is not legal in Oregon?

So you think pumping gas is the moral equivalent to statutory rape? Wow, even I'm shocked.

Because if you don't apologize for your slanders and lies, I'll be forced to ignore you.

I'll apologize for omitting certain words form Alaskan law.

I guess I should apologize for calling the kid a rapist when he's technically not in his home state since that's likely slander (though technically he's a rapist in Az).

I seem no reason to apologize for Hagee and Johnston since those are actual facts and not slander.

Posted by: Cato on September 9, 2008 04:10 PM
49. Cato:


It is when cherry pick certain parts in order to support misguided beliefs.

If you believe that, the argue it. I assert that you cannot back up that claim, and -- just like you made things up about Johnston and Hagee and many others -- you are completely making this up, too.


I said no such thing

Yes, you did. You said what the Bible says is nonsense. If you disagree, fine, back up your claim that the Bible doesn't say what I said it does.


Yes, he was fading in the polls/fund raising

False. He was INCREASING in the polls and fundraising BEFORE Palin was selected. More lies from Cato.


Not necessarily

Yes. Huckabee never had a chance, and he was never close, and never could have been close, in large part BECAUSE the evangelicals do not control the party. I'd love to see you show me math that could possibly have put him in a position to win. It doesn't exist.


Those are not lies, those Pudge are certifiable facts

Now you are back to asserting the lie that Johnston committed rape? What the hell is wrong with you?

As to Hagee, no, it is certifiable fact that nothing he said was anti-Semitic. I know the facts. I am not going to bother reading URLs. I presented my evidence already; if you have a counterclaim, provide it. Provide some evidence that Hagee said something anti-Semitic. Linking to a URL is not sufficient: make the claim yourself, then back it up.

It is just like you: assert some B.S. and provide no actual evidence of it.

Not that it matters, since McCain dropped Hagee as soon as he heard what Hagee said about Hitler doing God's will (which, again, was clearly not anti-Semitic, but certainly was controversial and offensive to many).


"Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans" - Rev. Hagee

That's anti-Semitic?! Again: what the hell is wrong with you?

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 04:12 PM
50. Cato, I am being polite here- you are one truly sick dude. Again, you are a disgrace to your namesake.

Grow up!!

Posted by: swatter on September 9, 2008 04:14 PM
51. Cato @ 38,

YOU ARE A LIAR! A SCUM EATING SLIMY LIAR!

Sec. 11.41.434. SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree if

(1) being 16 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is under 13 years of age or aids, induces, causes, or encourages a person who is under 13 years of age to engage in sexual penetration with another person;
(2) being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is under 18 years of age, and the offender is the victim's natural parent, stepparent, adopted parent, or legal guardian; or
(3) being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is under 16 years of age, and

(A) the victim at the time of the offense is residing in the same household as the offender and the offender has authority over the victim; or
(B) the offender occupies a position of authority in relation to the victim.

(b) Sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree is an unclassified felony and is punishable as provided in AS 12. 55.

Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 04:24 PM
52. Why did Obama's father rape his white wife? In Mississippi in 1940 he'd be convicted of rape!

Cato, why are you defending a rapist?

Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 04:26 PM
53. Cato:

So you think pumping gas is the moral equivalent to statutory rape? Wow, even I'm shocked.

You're full of crap. Everyone knows here this isn't about morals, because we all have different views about the morality of young people having sex. This is about the law, and you gave (false) legal arguments, and then compared it to the law in Arizona. This was never about morality, it was about law.


I guess I should apologize for calling the kid a rapist when he's technically not in his home state since that's likely slander (though technically he's a rapist in Az).

You're still lying. He is not, in any sense, a rapist anywhere. YOU ARE LYING.


I seem no reason to apologize for Hagee and Johnston since those are actual facts and not slander.

Um. So right after apologizing for calling Johnston a rapist -- and then dishonestly calling him "technically" a rapist, again -- you then say you see no need to apologize for calling Johnston a rapist?!

And you provided not a single fact backing up your slander of Hagee.

Cato, you're pathetic.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 04:27 PM
54. Cato,

Your father raping your mother is illegal in Swaziland.

Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 04:28 PM
55. Cato,

Your premarital sex with your wife makes you a criminal in North Carolina. WHy are you a CRIMINAL?

Posted by: PBJ on September 9, 2008 04:35 PM
56. Okay, here is both feet jumping in on the Cato versus Pudge sludge match.

Re: Alaska State Law/Statutory Rape.
Winner = Pudge
Cato, this one is easy to call due to the three year difference part. I know because I have made the same mistake when quoting the WA State law. You need to eat humble pie on this one, buddy.

RE: Bible and Homosexuality
Winner = Draw
Cato, the Bible clearly calls out homosexual behavior, along with pride, envy, and many other behaviors as sin. Read Romans 1:18 (I believe, I don't have a Bible right next to me, but I know its in the second half of Romans 1).
Pudge, while the Bible calls out the behavior, it calls out the behavior and not the individual. The issue with the Bible Church's and conservative wing of evangelicals is they do equate behavior to individual. It would be like equating Bristol Palin's behavior with who she is as an individual. It is a double standard. Most, more mainstream, Christian denominations take the philosophy of love the sinner, but hate the sin, for we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (another key Romans verse). On the homosexuality issue, I do believe in God's redemption of anyone, including the homosexual, just as including the sexual predator, which many here cast off as unforgivable and unable of repentance. I also believe the current theory tying male homosexuality to hormonal changes in the mother (e.g., older brothers theory). If hormonal in nature, then one factor that should be addressed with the Psychiatric community is can medicine help those who do not want to live this lifestyle. It has been shown with other psychiatric conditions, such as ADHD and Bipolar, where a portion of the brain doesn't process information in normal patterns, to be controlled (changed) with medicine. It is the same with chronic depression. Those who try to "change" homosexuals through brute willpower method alone (current approach in the ultra-conservative churches), are not necessarily doing them a favor. They are no long term reliable medical information as to other issues that may arise (as far as I know). My feeling is that if heterosexuals can voluntarily live a life of celibacy, so can the homosexual. Even the fact that men and women live in monogamous relationships for 50 plus years, when the normal, primal drive of men is not monogamous, is a testament that people can live lives contrary to their inborn nature. The Bible teaches that we are all sinners. Our natural state is sin, whether it be greed, pride, gluttony, lust, or any of the other deadly sins.

So, the way I count it. Pudge wins this ongoing argument 1-draw.

Posted by: tc on September 9, 2008 04:54 PM
57. Cato says "Let's see....he's 17 at the time having sex with a then 15 year old. Looks like rape to me."

Let's see, she is 17 now and is 5 months pregnant. She could not POSSIBLY have been 15 when she got pregnant--she had to be AT LEAST 16 and possibly 17 when she got pregnant, depending on when her birthday is.

Cato says (in #43): "Why should I apologize? He's still considered a rapist in John McCain's home state."

But you said in #22 "Oh yeah, when is Bristol Palin's boyfriend going to be charged with statutory rape of a minor? Alaskan laws are quite strict in this regard but he seems to have emerged as a celebrated figure rather than a rapist as defined by Alaskan law."

So, you are wrong on both Alaska law as well as Arizona law, but even if you were right about Arizona, are Alaskan officials supposed to enforce Alaska law or Arizona law?

So yes, you should apologize for being wrong and for being misleading in selectively quoting from the law. If you don't, you prove yourself to be a partisan hack who refuses to admit he is wrong when it is irrefutably shown that he is.

Posted by: Bill H on September 9, 2008 05:08 PM
58. tc:

I am breaking my boycott of you to point out that you misrepresented what I, and Focus on the Family (which runs the program in question at the church), say. We do not attack the individual. The FotF stuff about praying for homosexuals IS against the sin, NOT the sinner.

Granted, SOME conservative evangelicals do hate gays. Yes. Absolutely. And I speak out AGAINST such people, AS a conservative evangelical myself. Read this letter to the editor I wrote a year ago about homosexuality and I think you'll find little to complain about. You are misrepresenting "the conservative wing of the evangelicals," of which I am a member.

As to the biology/genetics of homosexuality, even if it is genetic or biological doesn't mean God can't overcome it.

You are not disagreeing with anything I, or Focus on the Family, said or meant, that I can tell.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 05:11 PM
59. Ignore the s(Cato)philiac. He's mental smegma, and beneath all of you. Keep on the attack against the sociopathic Marxist Magic Negro; he's starting to fall. The yellow stream media's defamatory attempts to deny Sarah her civil rights of running for office are clear for all to see. The left is starting to cook the books on polling results to avoid total disaster, but it's too late. Very soon it will be impossible for the Democrats to put the pieces together again, and Humpty-Dumpty Obama will go the way of George McGovern. Let's do our own investigations of Obama: Talk to his classmates, co-workers, former government staffers, neighbors; the skiptracing software is out there. Let's roll!

Posted by: The Pirate on September 9, 2008 05:30 PM
60. Pudge,
I wasn't stating that you believed such. It is only if you equate that you are part of the Bible Church and conservative evangelical minority. In looking at that statement, I may have been unclear who I meant by that. Who I meant by that is the OK preacher that picket's gay's funerals. Who I meant by that is Palin's former Assembly of God church, who even by Assembly of God traditions, appears to be almost off the deep end. There are plenty of excellent A of G churches, like Life Christian in Tacoma. Palin's ex-Church is not the norm on the whole, but Palin has not distanced herself from the pastor, so it is hard to tell where she stands.

As far as Dobson, you may have the official position correct for the organization, and Dobson's background being psychology, it is a fine position. On the other hand, he has also had on his Focus on the Family show, those who claim they can transform homosexuals to fully heterosexual, married individuals through willpower alone. I don't doubt the individuals, but I remain skeptical as to whether it can be a general treatment. There are, for example, bipolar individuals that can control their condition and live normal lives without medication, but it is no where near the norm. What is unfortunate is the Psychology profession in general, totally punting now on the issue and taking the position that people can't change, and helping people who may want to change.

I am sorry if you took my statement as meaning normal evangelical churches. Maybe I should have added "ultra-conservative, fundamentalist" or some other adjectives to make it clearer.

Posted by: tc on September 9, 2008 05:35 PM
61. TC posted:

The issue with the Bible Church's and conservative wing of evangelicals is they do equate behavior to individual.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to call BS on this one. I'm a member - and active in the leadership - of the Free Methodist Church, one of the most conservative denominations you can find.

You're welcome to go to ANY of these hard-core conservative, Biblically-based, evangelical churches and ask around. Listen to some sermons. Pick up the book of discipline. Talk to the pastor.

You'll find there is a VERY clear line between the sinner and the sin, and that it is by grace and grace alone that we are separated from our sin.

Only in the minds of liberal non-evangelicals does this stereotype exist.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 9, 2008 05:46 PM
62. tc:

Who I meant by that is the OK preacher that picket's gay's funerals.

Yes, those terrible EXTREMISTS who are rejected by every significant conservative denomination.


Palin has not distanced herself from the pastor, so it is hard to tell where she stands.

As she is not a member, and hasn't been for some time, it is a non-issue.


As far as Dobson, you may have the official position correct for the organization, and Dobson's background being psychology, it is a fine position. On the other hand, he has also had on his Focus on the Family show, those who claim they can transform homosexuals to fully heterosexual, married individuals through willpower alone.

If so, then those people DO NOT represent FotF or Dobson. Their position ABSOLUTELY is not that willpower can do it, but that God is required. Period.

None of what you're attacking applies to Dobson (full disclosure: I am friends with Dobson's son, Ryan), me, Palin, or her current church, from anything I've ever seen, and your comments are thus off-topic and inflammatory.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 06:31 PM
63. Shanghai Dan @61
First off, note my response to Pudge. When I wrote what I wrote, I probably didn't put strong enough adjectives. In my mind, I had Jim Phelps, and I had the pastor of Sarah Palin's former church, which is also on the extreme end of the spectrum. So, I apoligize I didn't use the correct terminology to describe what I thought I was stating.

Second, I did go to your denomination's website. I did find in your Book of Discipline, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3410, that you denomination states its stand on homosexuality. While, pretty much in line with others, it does go a bit farther, specifically, it uses the term "fallen into the practice," which can be interpreted as free choice that one decides to act upon. I am not sure if you believe this or not. I will admit, growing up in rural midwest, I did have this conception. I also didn't know anyone directly who was gay. I didn't buy the DNA bit. I also know, now, however, coming in coming contact with and working with a gay coworker, that I myself stereotyped the person, which is also why I lean now more to the hormonal theory. I don't for a minute think for those who have all their lives behaved differently that it may be an easy task. If it is indeed hormonal, then sheer willpower isn't the answer for everyone. You see, having Bipolar run in extended family, and having traits like Diabetes run in extended family, I can tell you as much as one can "wish" away what your body's tendency is, sometimes willpower alone cannot do it. As brain image maps demonstrate in the cases of ADD and Bipolar individuals, the brain functioning sometimes gets in the way of even good intentions. To state it simply as a "choice," that one can turn on or turn off does miss the overall picture.

One additional point, I would agree that Free Methodist are on the very conservative end of the Christian spectrum, but they aren't the Phelps version of Christianity either. My interaction with Free Methodist in the past was in college. I don't know if the church there was typical, but the Free Methodist college students were not allowed to fellowship with other Christian groups on campus (like Inter-Varsity, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Campus Crusade -- I went to IV and FCA). The church also had strict rules against dancing and other morals rules. Is this norm, or was it particular to this church?

Posted by: tc on September 9, 2008 06:44 PM
64. TC,

So because of a few (2, in this case) way misguided pastors you tar all evangelicals... I see...

As far as the FM church, there's never been a rule or recommendation against fellowship with other Christians or against dancing - that had to be a local college rule.

The doctrine on homosexuality is quite Biblically based, and as you read it you must have seen the strong Biblical references for the position taken. And how it is the grace of God that is sufficient for the homosexual.

Now, if you're not a Christian, I can see you have some confusion. However, I don't see how having Christians promise to pray for you would be insulting. My po zhong gou (Chinese grandmother) - the grandmother of my company's general manager - says prayers to Buddha every day for me. I smile, and tell her that I will pray to God for her. I take it as a compliment that she cares enough for me and her granddaughter and our company that she will do what her religious background says to do for family.

If having someone else pray for you so upsets you, then I submit that the recipient of the prayer is way to insecure in their own spirituality - regardless of what creed.

If you don't believe homosexuality can be overcome with prayer, fine. Others do, and many homosexuals will testify that they have been redeemed by the church and prayer. It is not just willpower here - it is from God.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 9, 2008 07:04 PM
65. Pacto, did you get raped when you were in jail? Is that the reason for your fixation, and all the lying garbage you spewed in this thread, garbage that you SHOULD have checked BEFORE you posted it?

You are such a worthless piece of slime, Pacto. And that you come on here a spread your garbage is yet another symptom of a fringe-left nutter campaign that6's gone completely down the shitter.

Now, if only it would take you with it.

Posted by: hinton on September 9, 2008 07:36 PM
66. "I probably didn't put strong enough adjectives. In my mind, I had Jim Phelps, and I had the pastor of Sarah Palin's former church, which is also on the extreme end of the spectrum. So, I apoligize I didn't use the correct terminology to describe what I thought I was stating."

total ccrackpot, who the heck is Jim Phelps?

Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 07:59 PM
67. I fins it so amusing that the same loonies who worship at the altar of Planned Parenthood, the same loonies that defend PP's kid sex advocation, are whining and moaning about KIDS HAVING SEX!

These loonies and gnats are so confused!

Dude, you are NOT working from the right talking points!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 08:39 PM
68. I support McCain/Palin, but have an issue about then Gov. Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere.

Apparently Alaska was awarded the $223 million (the bridge would cost about $400 million). She decided against building the bridge, but did not offer to give back the $223 million of taxpayer money. Why did she not give back this money ? I know that she supported the bridge previously but changed her position and she had stated this previously.

With that said, many other rumors about her such as her banning books from the library, her church affiliation. They have cherry picked and not told the whole story and been intellectually dishonest and people are starting to see through this yellow journalism.

Posted by: KS on September 9, 2008 09:23 PM
69. Wow. I thought I'd see a couple of good shots against CNN in this thread.

Instead I was pleasantly treated to a "Whack-a-Mole" version using Cato.

Cato, I have long disagreed with you and have taken you to task on many topics. I have over time been seeing improvement on your ability to use real facts and structure sound arguments. I am coming to the opinion though that you have recently quit taking your meds.

I have come to the recent conclusion that many on your side have come off your meds because it is the only rational explaination for your irrational behavior as we get closer to the election. Pathetic.

I will, however, ask that you do not resume taking your medication, as it really does brighten my day when you are forced to admit wrongdoing, as when you used only the part of the AK law that suited your point instead of the whole law.

See, I gain a deep sense of joy when liberals are thrashed and exposed as the hypocrites they are.

And you Cato, in all your blathering, are no better or different. In case you were harboring any misconceptions.

Posted by: Chris on September 9, 2008 10:15 PM
70. KS:

Apparently Alaska was awarded the $223 million (the bridge would cost about $400 million). She decided against building the bridge, but did not offer to give back the $223 million of taxpayer money. Why did she not give back this money ?

This isn't quite accurate.

First, the money was given to Alaska as a block grant. A certain amount of the money was earmarked for the Bridge to Nowhere, but it was all part of a block of money for the state to do what it willed. Congress did not change the amount of money going to Alaska, but still gave that money to Alaska minus the earmark, so Alaska used it for other roads projects.

Further, the money was received by Murkowski's regime, not Palin's, anyway, so the decision to "keep" the money was made before she was even in office.

Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 10:37 PM
71. Pudge - Thanks for clearing that up. I had heard Judge Napolitano talk about this, but knew there was more behind the story that he did not talk about. I feel better now - and am sure that Charles Gibson will ask her about this.

Posted by: KS on September 9, 2008 10:44 PM
72. Hey Cato, about this line...That or Republicans are mindless sheep who buy whatever Rush tells them to,

And I'll be Oprah's reading list is what fills your bookshelf.

Posted by: PC on September 9, 2008 11:06 PM
73. Pudge @70
I know you aren't responding to me, but I do have a question based on what you wrote. If your timeline is correct (e.g., previous Governor accepted grant, not Palin), then this doesn't give with Palin's statement. Palin's statement, that she often repeats, is that she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks, on the Bridge to Nowhere." Do I have her quote wrong?

You state that the previous governor took the grant money, and applied it to other projects, indicating that the project had been killed at that point. Therefore, there was nothing for Palin to say "no thanks to" if the project had already been killed.

Some clarification would be appreciated. Plus, if this is the case, then why doesn't the McCain campaign just come out and say it, instead of letting the Alaska Daily News story stand? It is my impression that the ADN story forms the basis for the rest of the follow-on stories, although I may be mistaken on this aspect.

Posted by: tc on September 10, 2008 07:40 AM
74. TC,

The Gravina Island Bridge was to connect the airport for Ketchikan, AK to the city, rather than the ferry that runs now.

Murkowski and Stevens sought the earmark in 2005; however when the funds actually went to AK in early 2006 the earmark was stripped (funds were delivered uncommitted).

Palin has been in support of a bridge connecting the airport to the city, and has said she'd finance it with State money, but there are other projects with higher priority.

SO, bottom line: the money was earmarked and allocated before she was Governor. The money was delivered to AK before she was Governor. And she didn't spend it on the bridge since there was no earmark attached when the money was actually delivered.

It's a total non-issue.

However, it is true that Obama and Biden both voted - twice - to fund and keep the earmark.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 10, 2008 09:26 AM
75. tc/Dan--there is a piece in today's Wall Street Journal by Jim DeMint (Senator from SC) that discusses this issue and earmarks in general. I don't think you need a subscription to read this, but try the link below and see.

Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2008 11:20 AM
76. Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge

She stopped it once it became clear it was extremely controversial. She still took all the money designated for it.

Palin's Bridge to Nowhere flip-flop will end up being the equiv of Hillary's Bosnian sniper fire moment.

Sarah Palin...Earmarked money for DNA kits for harbor seals while eliminating funding for DNA tests for rape victims.

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2008 05:52 PM
77. Cato, more falsehoods:

She still took all the money designated for it.

No. The money, when given to Alaska WAS NOT designated for the Bridge. It was not designated for the Bridge. Was not.

The earmark was killed before she became governor, and the U.S. Congress chose to not reduce the block grant to Alaska, just to remove the earmark. There was no money given by Congress to Alaska for the Bridge to Nowhere, so there was nothing to give back.


I don't know about your other claims, but since almost every other claim you've made this week is false, I'll just ignore the other ones.

Posted by: pudge on September 10, 2008 06:39 PM
78. Cato's lies:

Claimed Levi Johnston was a rapist by Alaskan Law. When confronted to prove it, he selectivey

quoted a sentence of rape law when in fact when the entire text reveals the intercourse was

perfectly legal in Alaska.

Claimed Seattle Times endorsed Bush in 2004.

Makes stuff up out of thin air, no facts, no proof.

Posted by: pbj on September 10, 2008 11:44 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?