Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Bhairitu]

lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
 Lurk:
 Tell me.  How does this plays out in your daily life, 

 Bhairitu:
   
 I vote and financially support political candidates whose agenda is 
 liberal for one.  And in my area they win.  And that is how we 
 accomplish those goals you mention above.  I like to contribute 
 
 whatever I can whether it be money or if I can't afford that at least 
 join in the dialog and help pull on that rope in the great tug-a-war 
 going on.   And  words on the right forum can help sway opinions or 
 form them.
   
 Fair enough. The sphere of influence of any one person is pretty 
 limited.  Seems that one cannot really do much more than you 
 describe.  Other than try to pass on something of what you believe in 
 daily interactions.  Hopefully in a positive way.
Unless the person is *extremely* wealthy in which case they have 
disproportionate influence.  I don't believe we should allow such absurd 
and dangerous accumulations of wealth.  Unfortunately they tend to 
protect themselves by influencing gullible people into believing that 
someday they too might be as right as them and support their extremist 
ideas.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Richard J. Williams]

raunchydog wrote:
 While on hiatus I started this post as an 
 email to Rick in response to photos of the 
 Palin family he mistakenly emailed, and for 
 which he apologized. The photos portrayed 
 her family as red necks partying with 
 liquor and toting guns.  

Rick, the forum moderator, has been sending
you photos of the Palin family by email? WTF?
You mean the moderator is biased against Sarah
Palin's family? Why would Rick want to smear
the Palin family, including a Dowms baby? It
just doesn't make any sense.

So, Barak Obama is a celebrity politician, a 
lawyer, and was once a star, an 'American Idol', 
but now his star is fading. 

So Obama lashed out at Sarah Palin. His pal, 
Joe Biden said Sarah Palin was 'good-looking.' 
Then they said she was 'doing what she was told 
to do'. Then they called Sarah Palin a liar and 
said she was not the mother of her Down's baby. 
Then Obana called Sarah Palin a 'pig' and a 
'stinky fish'. One the rascals even cracked a
joke about a 'ball-gag', whatever that is.

Then the FFL political pundits said Sarah Palin 
had a nice ass, and they posted photoshopped 
images of Sara in a bikini. And now some FFL
informants are sending photos of Palin's family,
depicting them as 'rednecks', to the FFL 
respondents. What is a 'redneck' anyway?

Can you believe this? And then the FFL pundits 
tried to run off all the women on the forum and 
tried to ban a you for taking up for Sarah 
Palin! 

This is just outrageous! Yahoo! FFL sucks.

Apparently they will do anything to smear Sarah 
Palin. They are mad as hell and really, really
scared and afraid. 

And now Governor Sarah Palin proves them wrong, 
every day.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Richard J. Williams]

Peter wrote:
 This interview with Gibson completely exposes 
 her as a political ra-ra. 
 
Did we watch the same interview? You didn't mention 
a single specific instance to indicate that Sarah 
Palin was exposed. Did you even watch the interview?
I did and Sarah Palin made Charlie look like a fool.

This guy Gibson didn't even know what the 'Bush
Doctrine' was! Can you beleive that? Not to mention
that Charlie lied about Palin's prayer statement.

She said - quite correctly - that, if Georgia and 
Ukraine are admitted to NATO, the United States may 
be obliged to defend them. This has been morphed 
into an assertion that we might invade Russia. And 
ABC News bears much of the blame: It actually sent 
out a pre-broadcast alert to that effect.

So now we can play this stupid game, pretending she 
wants to invade Russia instead of debating real 
issues.

Read more:

'ABC'S Bungles'
By Kirsten Powers
New York Post, September 12, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/43qq8u

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[raunchydog]

 Rick, the forum moderator, has been sending
 you photos of the Palin family by email? WTF?
Rick, sorry for outing you. That was not my intention. In context, my
post was about my brother and how this election has given me a better
understanding of him. Rick helped bring his story into focus for me
and that is the only reason I mentioned it. About my brother:

...Hillary's populous campaign made me aware, having lived in
Fairfield's bubble for almost 30-years, of how out of touch I had
become with my own working class roots. My brother isn't very
educated, he is a Union man, bowls in tournaments, shoots pool,
smokes, drinks beer, gets drunk, tells off color jokes, and takes care
of a disabled wife. He is a devoted Democrat and proudly served in
Vietnam. He loves our country. He is your typical red neck. We don't
talk much but the love is there.

I get emails from him complaining about illegal aliens taking jobs,
about 2nd amendment rights, about desecration of the flag, about
soldiers serving in Iraq, and about school prayer. He is not a swing
voter, but the Republicans are more than happy to address his concerns.

Before Hillary's campaign I thought, I'm an educated post graduate
person, I have meditated for almost 40 years and know a lot about
life. I now ask how can I judge myself to be more knowledgeable about
life or to know better who deserves my vote than my red neck brother
who never finished high school but whose life experiences I will never
feel as he has.

Although I agree with WillyTex for different reasons about the smears
on Palin, I think he may have missed the substance of my post. But I
do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in such a short
span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records. Keep it up guys
and sink your candidate.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[curtisdeltablues]

But I do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in such a
short span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records.

Actually that record still stands.  It was the more than twenty
million emails I received and continue to receive from my republican
relatives concerning Obama being a secret Muslim who will hand our
country over to the terrorists as soon as he is elected.

Saying that Palin is not ready for this job is not a smear.  Were you
satisfied with her answers in her first interview with Gibson?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Rick, the forum moderator, has been sending
  you photos of the Palin family by email? WTF?
 Rick, sorry for outing you. That was not my intention. In context, my
 post was about my brother and how this election has given me a better
 understanding of him. Rick helped bring his story into focus for me
 and that is the only reason I mentioned it. About my brother:
 
 ...Hillary's populous campaign made me aware, having lived in
 Fairfield's bubble for almost 30-years, of how out of touch I had
 become with my own working class roots. My brother isn't very
 educated, he is a Union man, bowls in tournaments, shoots pool,
 smokes, drinks beer, gets drunk, tells off color jokes, and takes care
 of a disabled wife. He is a devoted Democrat and proudly served in
 Vietnam. He loves our country. He is your typical red neck. We don't
 talk much but the love is there.
 
 I get emails from him complaining about illegal aliens taking jobs,
 about 2nd amendment rights, about desecration of the flag, about
 soldiers serving in Iraq, and about school prayer. He is not a swing
 voter, but the Republicans are more than happy to address his concerns.
 
 Before Hillary's campaign I thought, I'm an educated post graduate
 person, I have meditated for almost 40 years and know a lot about
 life. I now ask how can I judge myself to be more knowledgeable about
 life or to know better who deserves my vote than my red neck brother
 who never finished high school but whose life experiences I will never
 feel as he has.
 
 Although I agree with WillyTex for different reasons about the smears
 on Palin, I think he may have missed the substance of my post. But I
 do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in such a short
 span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records. Keep it up guys
 and sink your candidate.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 But I do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in such a
 short span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records.
 
snip
 Saying that Palin is not ready for this job is not a smear.

Did raunchydog say that was a smear? I don't believe so.

I'd guess she's talking about smears like the list of
books that Palin allegedly banned when she was mayor
of Wasilla. Actually it's a list of all the books that
have been banned in the U.S. at one time or another, a
number of them published well after Palin was mayor.

I received that one from my best friend, who got it
from a minister of her acquaintance, who got it from
someone at UCLA, all of whom accepted it without
question as accurate.

(Palin didn't ban any books; she merely asked the
librarian how she would react if she were asked
to remove books. Nor did Palin threaten to fire
the librarian for not being willing to do so.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  But I do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in such a
  short span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records.
  
 snip
  Saying that Palin is not ready for this job is not a smear.
 
 Did raunchydog say that was a smear? I don't believe so.
 
 I'd guess she's talking about smears like the list of
 books that Palin allegedly banned when she was mayor
 of Wasilla. Actually it's a list of all the books that
 have been banned in the U.S. at one time or another, a
 number of them published well after Palin was mayor.
 
 I received that one from my best friend, who got it
 from a minister of her acquaintance, who got it from
 someone at UCLA, all of whom accepted it without
 question as accurate.
 
 (Palin didn't ban any books; she merely asked the
 librarian how she would react if she were asked
 to remove books. Nor did Palin threaten to fire
 the librarian for not being willing to do so.)


Then why DID Palin fire the librarian [who was later re-instated after
public outrage]?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  But I do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in such a
  short span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records.
  
 snip
  Saying that Palin is not ready for this job is not a smear.
 
 Did raunchydog say that was a smear? I don't believe so.

No she didn't.  I was making the point that the most important
information going out about her has nothing to do with smears.

I think the clarification about the library books question is
important.  I work with schools and PTA members and have heard stories
about how most are approached to ban certain books by super religious
people.  I heard that she just asked the librarian what the procedure
was and didn't pursue it.  I don't think that would fly too well in
independent Alaska.  But it is not a bad line to keep an eye on for
anyone in a position of power.

I understand that people, myself included have to be careful about
jumping to conclusions about her.  But I have some experience with
people who are as outspokenly religious as Palin and so her positions
are not completely unexpected.  She doesn't believe in abortion in the
case of incest or rape.  This is an extreme position even for a
pro-lifer.  I saw her answer this question so I am sure this is not a
smear.  I checked out her new church's beliefs from the Website you
included, thanks for that.  Given their stated relationship to
scripture I have a few areas of culture (gay rights for one) that I
will be watching her words very carefully on.  

 
 I'd guess she's talking about smears like the list of
 books that Palin allegedly banned when she was mayor
 of Wasilla. Actually it's a list of all the books that
 have been banned in the U.S. at one time or another, a
 number of them published well after Palin was mayor.
 
 I received that one from my best friend, who got it
 from a minister of her acquaintance, who got it from
 someone at UCLA, all of whom accepted it without
 question as accurate.
 
 (Palin didn't ban any books; she merely asked the
 librarian how she would react if she were asked
 to remove books. Nor did Palin threaten to fire
 the librarian for not being willing to do so.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
  (Palin didn't ban any books; she merely asked the
  librarian how she would react if she were asked
  to remove books. Nor did Palin threaten to fire
  the librarian for not being willing to do so.)
 
 Then why DID Palin fire the librarian [who was later
 re-instated after public outrage]?

She was reinstated the next day, actually.

From FactCheck.org:

Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation, along with those of 
Wasilla's other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described 
the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, 
whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But 
in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. 
According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a 
reason for Emmons' firing, but said she didn't feel she had Emmons' 
support. The decision caused 'a stir' in the small town, according to 
a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-
mail from Kilkenny, 'city residents rallied to the defense of the 
City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, 
so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.'

As we've noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We 
don't know if Emmons' resistance to Palin's questions about possible 
censorship had anything to do with Emmons' firing. And we have no 
idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply 
isn't any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire 
Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the 
librarian's backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until 
August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

The librarian now refuses to talk about the incident,
other than to say she doesn't recall Palin citing the
titles of any books to be considered for removal. And
the librarian never claimed that Palin threatened to
fire her over her refusal to consider removing books.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 snip
   (Palin didn't ban any books; she merely asked the
   librarian how she would react if she were asked
   to remove books. Nor did Palin threaten to fire
   the librarian for not being willing to do so.)
  
  Then why DID Palin fire the librarian [who was later
  re-instated after public outrage]?
 
 She was reinstated the next day, actually.
 
 From FactCheck.org:
 
 Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation, along with those of 
 Wasilla's other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described 
 the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, 
 whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But 
 in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. 
 According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a 
 reason for Emmons' firing, but said she didn't feel she had Emmons' 
 support. The decision caused 'a stir' in the small town, according to 
 a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-
 mail from Kilkenny, 'city residents rallied to the defense of the 
 City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, 
 so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.'
 
 As we've noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We 
 don't know if Emmons' resistance to Palin's questions about possible 
 censorship had anything to do with Emmons' firing. And we have no 
 idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply 
 isn't any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire 
 Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the 
 librarian's backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until 
 August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.
 
 http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
 
 The librarian now refuses to talk about the incident,
 other than to say she doesn't recall Palin citing the
 titles of any books to be considered for removal. And
 the librarian never claimed that Palin threatened to
 fire her over her refusal to consider removing books.


Thanks, Judy. 

I personally find it very arrogant, authoritarian, demeaning and
creepy that Palin implemented 'loyalty tests' with the librarian and
the other dept heads - as if Wasilla was *her* little club.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   But I do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in 
such a
   short span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records.
   
  snip
   Saying that Palin is not ready for this job is not a smear.
  
  Did raunchydog say that was a smear? I don't believe so.
 
 No she didn't.  I was making the point that the most important
 information going out about her has nothing to do with smears.
 
 I think the clarification about the library books question is
 important.  I work with schools and PTA members and have heard 
stories
 about how most are approached to ban certain books by super 
religious
 people.  I heard that she just asked the librarian what the 
procedure
 was and didn't pursue it.  I don't think that would fly too well in
 independent Alaska.  But it is not a bad line to keep an eye on for
 anyone in a position of power.
 
 I understand that people, myself included have to be careful
 about jumping to conclusions about her.  But I have some
 experience with people who are as outspokenly religious as
 Palin and so her positions are not completely unexpected.  She
 doesn't believe in abortion in the case of incest or rape.
 This is an extreme position even for a pro-lifer.

Actually, it's the only *consistent* position for
a pro-lifer. It suggests that she really is concerned
with the sanctity of life rather than with curtailing
women's sexual freedom.

(And as I noted elsewhere, it's not *necessarily* a
purely religious position. You don't have to be
religious to be against abortion.)

  I saw her answer this question so I am sure this is not a
 smear.

No, this isn't a smear. (That she curtailed funding for
a home for pregnant teens is a smear.)

As far as I'm aware, abortion is the *only* issue on
which she has indicated any desire to impose her
personal view on others; she's for the repeal of Roe
vs. Wade, as I recall. But as I noted earlier, if you
genuinely believe abortion is murder, *of course*
you're going to be in favor of legislation or court
decisions to prevent it.

  I checked out her new church's beliefs from the Website you
 included, thanks for that.  Given their stated relationship to
 scripture I have a few areas of culture (gay rights for one)
 that I will be watching her words very carefully on.

Might want to have a look at the transcript of an
interview Fox's Greta Van Susteren had with the
pastor of Palin's current church. It appears to me
that he doesn't take the fundamentalist position that
being gay is a choice, FWIW, nor does it look as
though he believes prayer can change one's sexual
orientation:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420093,00.html

I'm reading somewhat between the lines here, but I
get the distinct impression that although this pastor
is a traditional fundamentalist Christian, he's more
compassionate and thoughtful than most. I suspect he's
struggling with the way the Bible passages dealing
with homosexuality present it as a choice, because his
experience with counseling gays seems to contradict
this.

Here's video of the interview:

http://tinyurl.com/5wlzky

(There are a lot of [unintelligibles] in the
transcript, but the video is clearer, and you get
to see what the guy is like personally.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[curtisdeltablues]

 I'm reading somewhat between the lines here, but I
 get the distinct impression that although this pastor
 is a traditional fundamentalist Christian, he's more
 compassionate and thoughtful than most. I suspect he's
 struggling with the way the Bible passages dealing
 with homosexuality present it as a choice, because his
 experience with counseling gays seems to contradict
 this.

Palin answered this question from Gibson by saying she doesn't judge
if gay people are that way by choice.  I'm hoping she has a more
pragmatic approach to gay rights, but I still think she will oppose
gay marriage which causes a lot of real problems for gay couples. 

I don't think we will realistically find out from any candidate how
far they would push their personal agendas when in office.  Bush came
off as less interested in pushing a faith based agenda in his
campaign.   But once he got the power his anti science bias has caused
a lot of trouble.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
But I do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in 
 such a
short span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records.

   snip
Saying that Palin is not ready for this job is not a smear.
   
   Did raunchydog say that was a smear? I don't believe so.
  
  No she didn't.  I was making the point that the most important
  information going out about her has nothing to do with smears.
  
  I think the clarification about the library books question is
  important.  I work with schools and PTA members and have heard 
 stories
  about how most are approached to ban certain books by super 
 religious
  people.  I heard that she just asked the librarian what the 
 procedure
  was and didn't pursue it.  I don't think that would fly too well in
  independent Alaska.  But it is not a bad line to keep an eye on for
  anyone in a position of power.
  
  I understand that people, myself included have to be careful
  about jumping to conclusions about her.  But I have some
  experience with people who are as outspokenly religious as
  Palin and so her positions are not completely unexpected.  She
  doesn't believe in abortion in the case of incest or rape.
  This is an extreme position even for a pro-lifer.
 
 Actually, it's the only *consistent* position for
 a pro-lifer. It suggests that she really is concerned
 with the sanctity of life rather than with curtailing
 women's sexual freedom.
 
 (And as I noted elsewhere, it's not *necessarily* a
 purely religious position. You don't have to be
 religious to be against abortion.)
 
   I saw her answer this question so I am sure this is not a
  smear.
 
 No, this isn't a smear. (That she curtailed funding for
 a home for pregnant teens is a smear.)
 
 As far as I'm aware, abortion is the *only* issue on
 which she has indicated any desire to impose her
 personal view on others; she's for the repeal of Roe
 vs. Wade, as I recall. But as I noted earlier, if you
 genuinely believe abortion is murder, *of course*
 you're going to be in favor of legislation or court
 decisions to prevent it.
 
   I checked out her new church's beliefs from the Website you
  included, thanks for that.  Given their stated relationship to
  scripture I have a few areas of culture (gay rights for one)
  that I will be watching her words very carefully on.
 
 Might want to have a look at the transcript of an
 interview Fox's Greta Van Susteren had with the
 pastor of Palin's current church. It appears to me
 that he doesn't take the fundamentalist position that
 being gay is a choice, FWIW, nor does it look as
 though he believes prayer can change one's sexual
 orientation:
 
 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420093,00.html
 
 I'm reading somewhat between the lines here, but I
 get the distinct impression that although this pastor
 is a traditional fundamentalist Christian, he's more
 compassionate and thoughtful than most. I suspect he's
 struggling with the way the Bible passages dealing
 with homosexuality present it as a choice, because his
 experience with counseling gays seems to contradict
 this.
 
 Here's video of the interview:
 
 http://tinyurl.com/5wlzky
 
 (There are a lot of [unintelligibles] in the
 transcript, but the video is clearer, and you get
 to see what the guy is like personally.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 snip
   (Palin didn't ban any books; she merely asked the
   librarian how she would react if she were asked
   to remove books. Nor did Palin threaten to fire
   the librarian for not being willing to do so.)
  
  Then why DID Palin fire the librarian [who was later
  re-instated after public outrage]?
 
 She was reinstated the next day, actually.
 
 From FactCheck.org:
 
 Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation, along with those of 
 Wasilla's other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described 
 the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, 
 whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But 
 in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. 
 According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a 
 reason for Emmons' firing, but said she didn't feel she had Emmons' 
 support. The decision caused 'a stir' in the small town, according to 
 a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-
 mail from Kilkenny, 'city residents rallied to the defense of the 
 City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, 
 so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.'
 
 As we've noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We 
 don't know if Emmons' resistance to Palin's questions about possible 
 censorship had anything to do with Emmons' firing. And we have no 
 idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply 
 isn't any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire 
 Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the 
 librarian's backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until 
 August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.
 
 http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
 
 The librarian now refuses to talk about the incident,
 other than to say she doesn't recall Palin citing the
 titles of any books to be considered for removal. And
 the librarian never claimed that Palin threatened to
 fire her over her refusal to consider removing books.


But did say she found it hard to work with Palin.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
  The librarian now refuses to talk about the incident,
  other than to say she doesn't recall Palin citing the
  titles of any books to be considered for removal. And
  the librarian never claimed that Palin threatened to
  fire her over her refusal to consider removing books.
 
 Thanks, Judy. 
 
 I personally find it very arrogant, authoritarian, demeaning
 and creepy that Palin implemented 'loyalty tests' with the 
 librarian and the other dept heads - as if Wasilla was *her*
 little club.

I can't document this, but my sister, who's been
following all this very closely, tells me she read
somewhere that the previous mayor, her opponent in
the mayoral race, had demanded before the election
that the department heads sign a loyalty oath to
*him*. If that's the case, it's not really
surprising that she'd ask for the same thing once
she'd won the election.

I share your dislike of loyalty tests. As I've tried
to make clear over and over, I don't like or support
Palin. I'm just appalled at the smears of her being
circulated by Democrats.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
But I do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in 
 such a
short span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records.

   snip
Saying that Palin is not ready for this job is not a smear.
   
   Did raunchydog say that was a smear? I don't believe so.

  I understand that people, myself included have to be careful
  about jumping to conclusions about her. 
 
Category 5 hurricane Obamaton, assaults our intrepid heroine of the
working class, moose hunter, sharp shooter, Sarah Palin, and the
flotsam and jetsam of her life crashes forcefully ashore. As her surge
battered life lay bare; the Obamatons frantically pick through the
rubble hoping to find a legitimate reason to discredit her. In their
haste to program everyone to hate her as they instinctively do, they
remain unapologetic for the wreckage they caused. While stepping over
the bodies of the friends and family they helped lay waste, their
brown shirted thuggery is on full display. Keep it up guys and sink
your candidate.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Bhairitu]

curtisdeltablues wrote:
 But I do agree the volume of viral email smears on Palin in such a
 short span of time is one for the Guinness Book of Records.

 Actually that record still stands.  It was the more than twenty
 million emails I received and continue to receive from my republican
 relatives concerning Obama being a secret Muslim who will hand our
 country over to the terrorists as soon as he is elected.
   
The other day I was sitting at the local Starbucks downtown and 
listening to a discussion at the next table.  Seems I had some folks 
whose business is freight transport discussing the state of the economy 
and the effect on their business.  I took it that they were truckers.  
They were kinda pissed at what the Bush administration with their silly 
DHS rules has done to their business and how apparently the cost of gas 
is raising their prices to where shipping by rail is starting to make 
more sense (and hey that would get those be f'in behemoths off our 
highways too).   Any the woman said she it was not a left or right 
argument and one guy spoke up and said he was rather an old fashioned 
conservative but hates Bush and can't stand McCain.  They think Palin is 
a joke.  He said he doesn't know who to vote for *because* he thinks 
Obama will open the door to Muslims to enter the country.  And we wonder 
about the intelligence of people?

As I see it people vote Republican because they are selfish.  It is the 
me crowd.  They are concerned about what's in it for them. Liberals, 
the more evolved of the human species, are the we crowd.  Why?  
Because we're smart enough to see if you include everyone then our own 
boat will of course get raised too.  So both concerns get addressed.

Perhaps rather than saying that Americans are dumb we should say they 
are belligerent because that is how they are behaving and it carries a 
completely different connotation than stupid or dumb.  Belligerence 
is not considered a good trait so they will want to shed that mantle 
whereas they'll use stupid as an excuse.
 Saying that Palin is not ready for this job is not a smear.  Were you
 satisfied with her answers in her first interview with Gibson?

   

The local ABC affiliate (actually an ABC OO) in their 6 PM news last 
night said they were going to show clips from the Gibson-Palin interview 
ABC won't show you (very interesting since they are an ABC or Disney 
owned station).  They have clips on their website but I haven't located 
the clip that ABC wouldn't show you yet. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Peter]

--- On Sat, 9/13/08, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 
 'Bush Doctrine'
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 2:14 PM
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

 But I do agree the volume of viral
 email smears on Palin in 
  such a
 short span of time is one for the
 Guinness Book of Records.
 
snip
 Saying that Palin is not ready for this
 job is not a smear.

Did raunchydog say that was a smear? I
 don't believe so.
 
   I understand that people, myself included have to
 be careful
   about jumping to conclusions about her. 
  
 Category 5 hurricane Obamaton, assaults our intrepid
 heroine of the
 working class, moose hunter, sharp shooter, Sarah Palin,
 and the
 flotsam and jetsam of her life crashes forcefully ashore.
 As her surge
 battered life lay bare; the Obamatons frantically pick
 through the
 rubble hoping to find a legitimate reason to discredit her.
 In their
 haste to program everyone to hate her as they instinctively
 do, they
 remain unapologetic for the wreckage they caused. While
 stepping over
 the bodies of the friends and family they helped lay waste,
 their
 brown shirted thuggery is on full display. Keep it up guys
 and sink
 your candidate.

Yeah, leave Sarah alone. She is so obviously such a great VP candidate. She 
spews forth the talking points so eloquently. 







 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I see it people vote Republican because they are selfish.  It is 
the me crowd.  They are concerned about what's in it for them. 
Liberals, the more evolved of the human species, are the we crowd.  
Why? Because we're smart enough to see if you include everyone then 
our own boat will of course get raised too.  So both concerns get 
addressed.

Bhairitu, would it be unreasonable for me to assume that you donate 
any part of your income that exceeds the mean income of the rest of 
the world.  Should I assume that your caloric intake would be the same 
mean.  Are you aware that the $3.00-$4.00 you spent might be the 
weekly income of a family of bricklayers in India.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[lurkernomore20002000]

er, make that brickmakers

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
 As I see it people vote Republican because they are selfish.  It 
is 
 the me crowd.  They are concerned about what's in it for them. 
 Liberals, the more evolved of the human species, are the we 
crowd.  
 Why? Because we're smart enough to see if you include everyone 
then 
 our own boat will of course get raised too.  So both concerns get 
 addressed.
 
 Bhairitu, would it be unreasonable for me to assume that you 
donate 
 any part of your income that exceeds the mean income of the rest 
of 
 the world.  Should I assume that your caloric intake would be the 
same 
 mean.  Are you aware that the $3.00-$4.00 you spent might be the 
 weekly income of a family of bricklayers in India.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Bhairitu]

lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 As I see it people vote Republican because they are selfish.  It is 
 the me crowd.  They are concerned about what's in it for them. 
 Liberals, the more evolved of the human species, are the we crowd.  
 Why? Because we're smart enough to see if you include everyone then 
 our own boat will of course get raised too.  So both concerns get 
 addressed.
 

 Bhairitu, would it be unreasonable for me to assume that you donate 
 any part of your income that exceeds the mean income of the rest of 
 the world.  Should I assume that your caloric intake would be the same 
 mean.  Are you aware that the $3.00-$4.00 you spent might be the 
 weekly income of a family of bricklayers in India.
Your response, to use someone else's favorite word, seems 
non-sequitur.   I can't see how it relates at all with what I said or do 
I have to explain again what that paragraph of mine means to you?  You 
seem to be unclear of the concept or you a superb example of the me 
crowd.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I see it people vote Republican because they are selfish. It is
  the me crowd. They are concerned about what's in it for them.
  Liberals, the more evolved of the human species, are the we
crowd.
  Why? Because we're smart enough to see if you include everyone then
  our own boat will of course get raised too. So both concerns get
  addressed.


Tell me.  How does this plays out in your daily life,  besides lofty
words?  What do you do that directly helps your fellow man?  Perhaps you
are referring to how we distribute the common wealth we have as a 
country,  as in more for education, infrasturcture  and less on
military.  Yes, I can go along with that.




 
  Bhairitu, would it be unreasonable for me to assume that you donate
  any part of your income that exceeds the mean income of the rest of
  the world. Should I assume that your caloric intake would be the
same
  mean. Are you aware that the $3.00-$4.00 you spent might be the
  weekly income of a family of bricklayers in India.
 Your response, to use someone else's favorite word, seems
 non-sequitur. I can't see how it relates at all with what I said or do
 I have to explain again what that paragraph of mine means to you? You
 seem to be unclear of the concept or you a superb example of the me
 crowd.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Bhairitu]

lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 As I see it people vote Republican because they are selfish. It is
   
 the me crowd. They are concerned about what's in it for them.
 Liberals, the more evolved of the human species, are the we
 
 crowd.
   
 Why? Because we're smart enough to see if you include everyone then
 our own boat will of course get raised too. So both concerns get
 addressed.
 


 Tell me.  How does this plays out in your daily life,  besides lofty
 words?  What do you do that directly helps your fellow man?  Perhaps you
 are referring to how we distribute the common wealth we have as a 
 country,  as in more for education, infrasturcture  and less on
 military.  Yes, I can go along with that.
I vote and financially support political candidates whose agenda is 
liberal for one.  And in my area they win.  And that is how we 
accomplish those goals you mention above.  I like to contribute whatever 
I can whether it be money or if I can't afford that at least join in the 
dialog and help pull on that rope in the great tug-a-war going on.   And 
words on the right forum can help sway opinions or form them.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[lurkernomore20002000]

Lurk:
Tell me.  How does this plays out in your daily life, 

Bhairitu:
 I vote and financially support political candidates whose agenda is 
 liberal for one.  And in my area they win.  And that is how we 
 accomplish those goals you mention above.  I like to contribute 
whatever I can whether it be money or if I can't afford that at least 
join in the dialog and help pull on that rope in the great tug-a-war 
going on.   And  words on the right forum can help sway opinions or 
form them.

Fair enough. The sphere of influence of any one person is pretty 
limited.  Seems that one cannot really do much more than you 
describe.  Other than try to pass on something of what you believe in 
daily interactions.  Hopefully in a positive way.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[feste37]

from the New York Times today, on the interview with Palin: 

At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for her son
Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from Fort
Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be fighting the
enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of
thousands of Americans.

This is a stupid, ignorant, dangerous woman. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 That interview was jaw-dropping. She thinks conviction and
enthusiasm will make-up for total lack of knowledge. No wonder the
McCain camp is keeping her on a tight leash. I don't care if you're
Republican or Democrat, she is far, far removed from presidential
material. 
 
 --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 From: Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Painful to watch - Gibson interview:
Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:17 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On Sep 11, 2008, at 7:45 PM, do.rflex wrote:
 Good Lord! This is like watching a rank amateur on the Gong Show. US
foreign policy is NOT cheerleader tryouts.  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU  
 
 The Repugs sure know how to pick em.   Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[lurkernomore20002000]

Look, I agree, she did not look too good in the interview.  Not that 
Gibson wasn't pretty demeaning in his attitude towars her.  But 
isn't the definiton of Al Quida pretty much what is described 
below?  If that is not the definiton of Al Quida, please advise what 
is. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 from the New York Times today, on the interview with Palin: 
 
 At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for her son
 Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from Fort
 Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be fighting the
 enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of
 thousands of Americans.
 
 This is a stupid, ignorant, dangerous woman. 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ 
wrote:
 
  That interview was jaw-dropping. She thinks conviction and
 enthusiasm will make-up for total lack of knowledge. No wonder the
 McCain camp is keeping her on a tight leash. I don't care if you're
 Republican or Democrat, she is far, far removed from presidential
 material. 
  
  --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote:
  From: Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
  Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Painful to watch - Gibson interview:
 Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:17 PM
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  On Sep 11, 2008, at 7:45 PM, do.rflex wrote:
  Good Lord! This is like watching a rank amateur on the Gong 
Show. US
 foreign policy is NOT cheerleader tryouts.  
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU  
  
  The Repugs sure know how to pick em.   Sal
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[feste37]

She's linking 9/11 with Iraq, which is a Big Lie that even the Bush
administration has stopped repeating. Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the Al
Qaeda that, according to some people, attacked us on 9/11. Palin is an
ignoramus. However, she will probably be our next-but-one president
because she is ruthless, ambitious, vindictive, a bigot and a liar,
and full of the kind of unreflective self-confidence that only the
truly ignorant and stupid can possess. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Look, I agree, she did not look too good in the interview.  Not that 
 Gibson wasn't pretty demeaning in his attitude towars her.  But 
 isn't the definiton of Al Quida pretty much what is described 
 below?  If that is not the definiton of Al Quida, please advise what 
 is. 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  from the New York Times today, on the interview with Palin: 
  
  At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for her son
  Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from Fort
  Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be fighting the
  enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of
  thousands of Americans.
  
  This is a stupid, ignorant, dangerous woman. 
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ 
 wrote:
  
   That interview was jaw-dropping. She thinks conviction and
  enthusiasm will make-up for total lack of knowledge. No wonder the
  McCain camp is keeping her on a tight leash. I don't care if you're
  Republican or Democrat, she is far, far removed from presidential
  material. 
   
   --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote:
   From: Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
   Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Painful to watch - Gibson interview:
  Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'
   To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
   Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:17 PM
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   On Sep 11, 2008, at 7:45 PM, do.rflex wrote:
   Good Lord! This is like watching a rank amateur on the Gong 
 Show. US
  foreign policy is NOT cheerleader tryouts.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU  
   
   The Repugs sure know how to pick em.   Sal
  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Peter]

--- On Fri, 9/12/08, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



...unreflective self-confidence that
only the
truly ignorant and stupid can possess.


You said it right there, feste. 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 
 
 --- On Fri, 9/12/08, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
 ...unreflective self-confidence that
 only the
 truly ignorant and stupid can possess.
 
 
 You said it right there, feste.



Its bad enough to instigate and promote lies as does the current
administration. But its truly scary when a VP candidate -- or anyone
on national level -- actually believes the lies -- and cannot
distinguish the crap they  are fed from actual truth.

As Krugman said this morning: What it says, I'd argue, is that the
Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration
would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain
and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much,
much worse. 


=
September 12, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Blizzard of Lies
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in
kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms.
Palin told Congress, Thanks, but no thanks when it wanted to buy
Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they're all claims recently
made by the McCain campaign — and they're all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first
year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty
of the Bush campaign's claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can't think of any precedent, at least in America, for the
blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign's
lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to
realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain
campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet
connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions
over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms.
Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor,
Ms. Palin didn't say no thanks — she was all for the bridge, even
though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she
would not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other
into something that's so negative.

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn't
righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the
handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she
decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could
keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use
it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin's alleged heroic stand against
wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama's alleged advocacy of kindergarten
sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for age and
developmentally appropriate education; in the case of young children,
that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there's the claim that Mr. Obama's use of the ordinary
metaphor putting lipstick on a pig was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff?
Well, they're probably counting on the common practice in the news
media of being balanced at all costs. You know how it goes: If a
politician says that black is white, the news report doesn't say that
he's wrong, it reports that some Democrats say that he's wrong. Or a
grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from
the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They're probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race
reporting, so that instead of the story being McCain campaign lies,
it becomes Obama on defensive in face of attacks.

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign's lies? I
mean, politics ain't beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is
preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really
wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last
eight years.

But there's another answer, which may be even more important: how a
politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I'm not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of
horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a
winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The
contrast between the Bush political team's ruthless effectiveness and
the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing,
bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department
scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I'm talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of
a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the
deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an
all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 Look, I agree, she did not look too good in the interview.  Not that 
 Gibson wasn't pretty demeaning in his attitude towars her.  But 
 isn't the definiton of Al Quida pretty much what is described 
 below?  If that is not the definiton of Al Quida, please advise what 
 is. 
 


As Judy might say, non sequitur:

AL Qaeda wasn't present in Iraq before we got there, and while there is SOME
presence now, its not as big as it was becaus everyone in Iraq has wised up
to their craziness and wants them gone.

They are responsible for most of the suicide bombing attacks in IRaq but, 
fighting
them in Iraq is rather strange, because they are all foreigners anyway, 
according
to Whitehouse.gov.


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  from the New York Times today, on the interview with Palin: 
  
  At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for her son
  Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from Fort
  Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be fighting the
  enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of
  thousands of Americans.
  
  This is a stupid, ignorant, dangerous woman. 
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ 
 wrote:
  
   That interview was jaw-dropping. She thinks conviction and
  enthusiasm will make-up for total lack of knowledge. No wonder the
  McCain camp is keeping her on a tight leash. I don't care if you're
  Republican or Democrat, she is far, far removed from presidential
  material. 
   
   --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote:
   From: Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
   Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Painful to watch - Gibson interview:
  Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'
   To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
   Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:17 PM
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   On Sep 11, 2008, at 7:45 PM, do.rflex wrote:
   Good Lord! This is like watching a rank amateur on the Gong 
 Show. US
  foreign policy is NOT cheerleader tryouts.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU  
   
   The Repugs sure know how to pick em.   Sal
  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Bhairitu]

I bet Frances McDormand could do a good impression of her.  Palin still 
sounds like a sketch out of SNL.  Dream on Repugs.

feste37 wrote:
 Absolutely hopeless. She doesn't know a damn thing, and it clearly shows. 

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   

 Good Lord! This is like watching a rank amateur on the Gong Show. US
 foreign policy is NOT cheerleader tryouts. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU

 



   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Bhairitu]

Only if you buy the official version of 9-11.  I certainly don't buy 
that version nor do other thinking people.   Al-Qaeda was in fact a CIA 
organized group put together to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.  They 
are an artificial contracted organization designed to keep people in 
fear so those behind the government can profit from the oil in Iraq and 
what other profitable wars they can pursue.

Don't buy the MSM kool-aid.

lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
 Look, I agree, she did not look too good in the interview.  Not that 
 Gibson wasn't pretty demeaning in his attitude towars her.  But 
 isn't the definiton of Al Quida pretty much what is described 
 below?  If that is not the definiton of Al Quida, please advise what 
 is. 

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 from the New York Times today, on the interview with Palin: 

 At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for her son
 Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from Fort
 Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be fighting the
 enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of
 thousands of Americans.

 This is a stupid, ignorant, dangerous woman. 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Richard J. Williams]

 AL Qaeda wasn't present in Iraq before 
 we got there...

Yeah, right: al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, 
Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Lebanon, Saudi 
Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Morroco, 
Indonesia, China, Italy, Iran, Spain, Yemen,
Britain, France, Germany, the United States, 
Canada, Sweden, Russia, and Kurdistan, but 
there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq? That doesn't 
even make any sense, Lawson. There were 
probably thousands of AL Qaeda in Irag before 
the invasion. 

Al Qaeda is an ideology!

From what I've read, Osama bin Laden himself 
may have been in Iraq at one time.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to 
establish training camps, as well as assistance 
in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently 
never responded.  

Full story:

'Key findings on al-Qaeda'
BBC News, Wednesday, 16 June, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3813453.stm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Richard J. Williams]

John Manning wrote:
 This is like watching a rank amateur on the 
 Gong Show. US foreign policy is NOT 
 cheerleader tryouts. 

So, John, you're a 'Gong Show' watcher - I 
thought so.

Apparently, after reading all the messages on 
this thread, not a single respondent here seems 
able to enunciate what the 'Bush Doctrine' 
really is. In fact, there have been six Bush 
Doctrines. 

Some political pundits you guys turned out to 
be! 

Otherwise, I guess you informants would have 
posted what it is you think the Bush Doctrine 
is! Talk about the 'Gong Show'! 

Gong!!!

But as it happens, I'm not sure anyone is 
entirely clear on what the Bush Doctrine is at 
this particular moment.

Read more:

'What Is the Bush Doctrine, Anyway?'
By Dan Froomkin
Washington Post, Friday, September 12, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/3nd6d7

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Richard J. Williams]

feste37 wrote:
 She's linking 9/11 with Iraq, which is 
 a Big Lie that even the Bush
 administration has stopped repeating. 

You need to stop the gaffs, festus!

The notion that Geroge W. Bush 'once promoted' 
the assertion that Saddam helped plan the 
September 11 attacks is false. And Sarah
Palin didn't say that either. In fact, you
seem to be the only one who thinks that.

News flash to FFL political pundits:

The Alaska National Guard isn't going to Iraq 
to fight the Iraqi government under Saddam 
Hussein. 

Saddam is dead, and the government of Iraq 
is now our ally. The only organized opposition 
these troops will encounter in Iraq comes 
precisely, as Palin said, from 'the enemies 
who planned and carried out and rejoiced in 
the death of thousands of Americans,' al Qaeda.

Read more:

'Another Gaffe by the Washington Post'
Posted by John Hindraker
Powerline, September 12, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/42rmhp

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[Peter]

Gov Palin is grossly under-qualified to be in such a position. She's also just 
your typical political bullshit artist, but not very good at it because she's 
been in such a back-water location. I think she's going to blow-up soon because 
there's just too many inconsistencies of positions to reconcile into one 
coherent neo-con position. McCain made a very bad choice. I used to respect 
McCain, but he has really lost me now. This interview with Gibson completely 
exposes her as a political ra-ra. 


--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 
 'Bush Doctrine'
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 10:23 PM
 feste37 wrote:
  She's linking 9/11 with Iraq, which is 
  a Big Lie that even the Bush
  administration has stopped repeating. 
 
 You need to stop the gaffs, festus!
 
 The notion that Geroge W. Bush 'once promoted' 
 the assertion that Saddam helped plan the 
 September 11 attacks is false. And Sarah
 Palin didn't say that either. In fact, you
 seem to be the only one who thinks that.
 
 News flash to FFL political pundits:
 
 The Alaska National Guard isn't going to Iraq 
 to fight the Iraqi government under Saddam 
 Hussein. 
 
 Saddam is dead, and the government of Iraq 
 is now our ally. The only organized opposition 
 these troops will encounter in Iraq comes 
 precisely, as Palin said, from 'the enemies 
 who planned and carried out and rejoiced in 
 the death of thousands of Americans,' al Qaeda.
 
 Read more:
 
 'Another Gaffe by the Washington Post'
 Posted by John Hindraker
 Powerline, September 12, 2008
 http://tinyurl.com/42rmhp
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[lurkernomore20002000]

I'm coming in late on this, so maybe this has been hashed out.  Of 
course I know Al Qaeda in Iraq is not Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9-
11.  But that doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq meets 
the defintion she has given.  In fact, it is said that the reason 
things are better in Iraq is that the leaders of the clans have 
turned against Al Qaeda.  (as opposed to the surge)  And who 
wouldn't turn against them. They slaughter their own countrymen 
indiscriminately, not to mention the Americans.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 She's linking 9/11 with Iraq, which is a Big Lie that even the Bush
 administration has stopped repeating. Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the 
Al
 Qaeda that, according to some people, attacked us on 9/11. Palin 
is an
 ignoramus. However, she will probably be our next-but-one president
 because she is ruthless, ambitious, vindictive, a bigot and a liar,
 and full of the kind of unreflective self-confidence that only the
 truly ignorant and stupid can possess. 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000
 steve.sundur@ wrote:
 
  Look, I agree, she did not look too good in the interview.  Not 
that 
  Gibson wasn't pretty demeaning in his attitude towars her.  But 
  isn't the definiton of Al Quida pretty much what is described 
  below?  If that is not the definiton of Al Quida, please advise 
what 
  is. 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
  
   from the New York Times today, on the interview with Palin: 
   
   At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for her 
son
   Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from Fort
   Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be 
fighting the
   enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death 
of
   thousands of Americans.
   
   This is a stupid, ignorant, dangerous woman. 
   
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ 
  wrote:
   
That interview was jaw-dropping. She thinks conviction and
   enthusiasm will make-up for total lack of knowledge. No wonder 
the
   McCain camp is keeping her on a tight leash. I don't care if 
you're
   Republican or Democrat, she is far, far removed from 
presidential
   material. 

--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote:
From: Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Painful to watch - Gibson 
interview:
   Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:17 PM







On Sep 11, 2008, at 7:45 PM, do.rflex wrote:
Good Lord! This is like watching a rank amateur on the Gong 
  Show. US
   foreign policy is NOT cheerleader tryouts.  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU  

The Repugs sure know how to pick em.   Sal
   
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[raunchydog]

While on hiatus I started this post as an email to Rick in response to
photos of the Palin family he mistakenly emailed, and for which he
apologized. The photos portrayed her family as red necks partying
with liquor and toting guns.  I still haven't figured out how that
helps Obama. So far, every smear on Palin has successfully increased
McCain's poll numbers for women voters. Keep it up guys and sink your
candidate.

Anyway, who are we to judge the level of consciousness of Palin's
family? They looked happy in the photos and that counts for something.
 The sooner the elite left wing of the democratic party, the
intelligentsia, the creative class stops judging the honest working
class stiff as just a red-neck, the sooner Democrats will win more
elections. Republicans win because they know that elitism is a glaring
weakness of the Democratic Party and they play to it for all it's
worth. Hillary knew better than anyone that you can't diminish, women,
and hard working Americans and expect to win their vote. Obama thought
his 50 state strategy, could win without them. But that's another story.

Hillary's populous campaign made me aware, having lived in Fairfield's
bubble for almost 30-years, of how out of touch I had become with my
own working class roots. My brother isn't very educated, he is a Union
man, bowls in tournaments, shoots pool, smokes, drinks beer, gets
drunk, tells off color jokes, and takes care of a disabled wife.  He
is a devoted Democrat and proudly served in Vietnam. He loves our
country. He is your typical red neck. We don't talk much but the
love is there.

I get emails from him complaining about illegal aliens taking jobs,
about 2nd amendment rights, about desecration of the flag, about
soldiers serving in Iraq, and about school prayer. He is not a swing
voter, but the Republicans are more than happy to address his concerns.  

Before Hillary's campaign I thought, I'm an educated post graduate
person, I have meditated for almost 40 years and know a lot about
life. I now ask how can I judge myself to be more knowledgeable about
life or to know better who deserves my vote than my red neck brother
who never finished high school but whose life experiences I will never
feel as he has.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[lurkernomore20002000]

I reread her comments more closely.  Yes, you're right.  She does 
imply that Al Qaeda in Iraq was connected with 9-11.  Really dumb, 
and yes, scary.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm coming in late on this, so maybe this has been hashed out.  Of 
 course I know Al Qaeda in Iraq is not Al Qaeda that attacked us on 
9-
 11.  But that doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq meets 
 the defintion she has given.  In fact, it is said that the reason 
 things are better in Iraq is that the leaders of the clans have 
 turned against Al Qaeda.  (as opposed to the surge)  And who 
 wouldn't turn against them. They slaughter their own countrymen 
 indiscriminately, not to mention the Americans.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  She's linking 9/11 with Iraq, which is a Big Lie that even the 
Bush
  administration has stopped repeating. Al Qaeda in Iraq is not 
the 
 Al
  Qaeda that, according to some people, attacked us on 9/11. Palin 
 is an
  ignoramus. However, she will probably be our next-but-one 
president
  because she is ruthless, ambitious, vindictive, a bigot and a 
liar,
  and full of the kind of unreflective self-confidence that only 
the
  truly ignorant and stupid can possess. 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000
  steve.sundur@ wrote:
  
   Look, I agree, she did not look too good in the interview.  
Not 
 that 
   Gibson wasn't pretty demeaning in his attitude towars her.  
But 
   isn't the definiton of Al Quida pretty much what is described 
   below?  If that is not the definiton of Al Quida, please 
advise 
 what 
   is. 
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ 
wrote:
   
from the New York Times today, on the interview with Palin: 

At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for 
her 
 son
Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from 
Fort
Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be 
 fighting the
enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the 
death 
 of
thousands of Americans.

This is a stupid, ignorant, dangerous woman. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter 
drpetersutphen@ 
   wrote:

 That interview was jaw-dropping. She thinks conviction and
enthusiasm will make-up for total lack of knowledge. No 
wonder 
 the
McCain camp is keeping her on a tight leash. I don't care if 
 you're
Republican or Democrat, she is far, far removed from 
 presidential
material. 
 
 --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote:
 From: Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Painful to watch - Gibson 
 interview:
Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:17 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On Sep 11, 2008, at 7:45 PM, do.rflex wrote:
 Good Lord! This is like watching a rank amateur on the 
Gong 
   Show. US
foreign policy is NOT cheerleader tryouts.  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU  
 
 The Repugs sure know how to pick em.   Sal

   
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[new . morning]

  The Repugs sure know how to pick em.   Sal
 

   
  
 


Sparks an interesting panoramamic view: Cheney, Quayle, Bush Sr.,
Rockefeller, Ford, Agnew, Nixon, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Painful to watch - Gibson interview: Palin On 'Bush Doctrine'

[feste37]

Absolutely hopeless. She doesn't know a damn thing, and it clearly shows. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 
 Good Lord! This is like watching a rank amateur on the Gong Show. US
 foreign policy is NOT cheerleader tryouts. 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU