Palin on the Offense
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Anchorage Daily News reports the Palin’s personal attorney has issued a statement “denouncing rumors that Palin resigned because she is under criminal investigation and threatening legal action for publishing ‘defamatory’ material about the governor.”
The statement addresses and denies claims that Palin “steered contracts for the 2003 construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex before leaving office as Wasilla mayor.” In addition, Politico has published what purports to be a copy of the statement, and it includes this final paragraph directed at liberal bloggers and media [emphasis supplied]:
“To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.”
As they say on South Park, it’s on.
UPDATE: Conservatives4Palin and GatewayPundit discuss this story, too.
— DRJ
I was just reading the LAT and they too confirm she is not under investigation, nor is there any impending indictment. I can’t remember which commenter yesterday was rather emphatically telling us that he would be laughing (maniacally, no doubt) at us when the inevitable indictment came down. Disappointment is always, well, disappointing….
Despite rumors of a looming controversy after the Republican governor’s surprise announcement Friday that she would leave office this month, some of them published in the blogosphere, the FBI’s Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.
“There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we’re investigating her or getting ready to indict her,” Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. “It’s just not true.” He added that there was “no wiggle room” in his comments for any kind of inquiry.
Dana (8d88ef) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:11 pm“We are going to sue their asses off.”
Official Internet Data Office (e29b0f) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:14 pm–Roy Cohn, Esq., 1927-1986
She raised a legal defense fund so hopefully there’s enough money in their to fry up some progressive asses.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:18 pmTurnabout is fair play.
Let’s see how Palin’s enemies like being on the receiving end!
Evil Pundit (42e904) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:18 pmIt will be interesting to see in Shannyn Moore doubles down with more unnamed sources or folds.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:20 pmI seem to remember many, many of our colleagues among the progressive Left insisting that Karl Rove would be “frogmarched” off to jail.
Um. Not so much.
I think it is time to contribute to Sarah Palin’s legal fund, regardless of how I feel about any of her political positions. Nothing would please me more than to see the press responsible for printing knowing falsehood.
And yes, my attorney friends will tell me it is impossible to prove. But I can hope, can’t I?
Even if every lawsuit the Palins file fail, I would like to see them file and file and file. Make the press squirm for a change. Why, they might even think being able to prove what they print, as a result.
To coin a Palinism: File, baby, file!
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:21 pmJay Rosen is a journalist prof at NYU who is smart but very enamored of the dirty socialism and he’s twittered this and this without a lot of explanation. But Spies makes the point that the LAT article itself might be a sign that the move is an effective one … and also he passes along some fun speculation that Journolist might could get roped into discovery.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:23 pmFour SCOTUS justices failed to recognize blatant racist discrimination in Ricci/i>. In what universe does Palin, or anyone else, see her meeting the standard of “reckless or willful disregard of the truth?”
Not saying it’s right. Yet it is what it is.
Ed from SFV (dde255) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:26 pmoh. here is Jay Rosen’s second twittering I accidentally linked the first one twice
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:46 pmWell now, the Palins have accrued $500,000 in attorney fees. Let’s see how blogger Moore deals with it.
Turn about–fair play! I think the Palins will have much more freedom outside the limitations of her political office. She will truly be a force to be reckoned with, with hundreds of thousands of supporters.
En garde!
ManlyDad (060305) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:49 pmSince the truth is the only valid defense against a charge of defemation, and since saying “Well, I heard about the indictments, but never confirmed them” doesn’t quite pass the bar of “due diligence”, I suspect she might actually win a couple of them.
My current favorite canard, however, is the one being parroted by some about how she stepped down because of some affair – you know, the one involved in those sealed divorce papers filed by a former business partner of her husband’s?
The records that were sealed on his request simply because he didn’t want his name out there to get hounded on (boy, didn’t that work like a charm)? Yeah, that guy.
Apparently, a lot of people on the left think those records should be fair game.
Though amazingly, they don’t think stuff Michelle O did during college should ever see the light of day. Funny, that.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:54 pmAnd Scott? Isn’t it true that they have Roland Burris, on tape, offering Blago’s brother money in exchange for the Obama’s Senate seat?
And people are looking into Palin’s supposed improprieties?
Why is Burris still seated? Dumb question, actually.
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/4/2009 @ 11:56 pmPalin is a public figure so the standard is set forth in New York Times vs Sullivan. Palin will have the burden to prove any defamatory statements were made with “actual malice:”
It’s a very tough burden to meet, and I think that’s why the attorney’s statement claims there are “falsehoods” that are “reckless” and “done without any regard for the truth.” He’s giving notice there could be a Sullivan claim.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:02 amIn order:
Yes?
Yes.
Yes.
God Bless Chicago…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:06 amFor the freedom to counter-attack my tormentors, I too would have resigned had I been in Palin’s situation. This is the best thing I’ve heard since the resignation announcement.
Give ’em hell, Sarah!
Brad (d49774) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:06 amConsidering that just a few calls/e-mails would prove them false or not, I think that would classify as “reckless disregard”, especially considering the statement from Special Agent Gonzalez.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:08 amI’ve added links to other blogs that are also discussing this story.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:15 amIf Palin were to win a case, who would report it you think?
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:30 amThis is just tough talk.
It’s almost impossible to win a defamation suit if you are the governor.
If, on the other hand, you are the Governor’s 14-year-old daughter, and you bring an invasion of privacy/false light suit for calling you a whore who would get “knocked up” by A-Rod, you’ve got an actual chance of winning.
And you could wipe that smirk off of David Letterman’s ugly face.
Daryl Herbert (a32d30) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:52 amComment by happyfeet — 7/5/2009 @ 12:30 am
If Palin were to win a case, who would report it you think?
“There is no honor among thieves.”
With Gov Palin’s fame, the MSM will rip each other apart for the ratings.
–
Interesting though, did she just quit governorship to defend her children?
If so, it is one of the most honorable and courageous acts I have seen from a politician in a long time.
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:07 am#5 — Comment by daleyrocks — 7/4/2009 @ 11:20 pm
It will be interesting to see in Shannyn Moore doubles down with more unnamed sources or folds.
Bully, she folds; zealot, she doubles down — should prove interesting insight into Moore’s mentality.
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:11 amI still can’t see Katie Couric covering the story. Or maybe I can, but it’s sort of an evil picture.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:12 amPalin is swinging after the bell. She quit. And that’s all Americans will really remember.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:59 amYou wish, Demented C_____ S______ Crawlling Assworm.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 2:11 amNote how amused by catnip and Mackenna and their ilks are silent on this topic.
JD (92fffb) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:44 amDRJ
The actual malice has been modified to show that harm intended is a by product of intentional malice
One easy way to win malice is showing that there was no fact checking by the news media as compared to other stories covered.
If the back room has no confirmation notes – no phone calls etc then thats the presumption of malice
So its a less insurmountable defense than it used to be
EricPWJohnson (a7d970) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:49 amThere is such a thing as re-entering private life. The Sullivan case would not necessarily apply. Then, there’s the slander and defamation regarding the children. When each turns 18 they could sue in their own right and they are not public figures to the best of my knowledge. I.E., just because I write about Obama’s kids doesn’t make them “public” under the Sullivan test. If Letterman is still alive in four years and if I were Willow I’d sue him. If Letterman is deceased, I’d sue his sorry estate.
cedarhill (e38177) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:28 amComment by EricPWJohnson — 7/5/2009 @ 4:49 am
Aw shucks. Does this mean I cannot call Ariana Huffington a rabid hyena whose husband turned gay after glimpsing her diseased nether regions?
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:39 amDRJ has it. It’s a very high bar.
But that’s all a side issue as teh S.S. Palin and crew continue to claim that the iceberg they’ve struck is a newly discovered continent.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:40 amThose that sow the wind…………..
Techie (482700) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:20 amI hope she does sue these people. Of course it would never go anywhere but it’d be fun to see what came out in discovery. Palin’s dumb and self-absorbed enough that she just might go through with it.
It’s also a great ploy to keep the love of the base burning bright, since the wingtard masses care much more about going after liberals and the media than trivialities like governing and policy.
Brolic Johnson (280b11) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:23 amNK truth is still a defence.
papertiger (171310) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:24 amThe huffhole is a dank forbidding cave indeed.
Discovery on that case would be smirkworthy.
It’s also a great ploy to keep the love of the base burning bright
Thanks for the opening, Obamaf__kboy. Among so many reasons the left hates Sarah Palin, 1) Obama next to Todd looks like a f____t. 2) Obama next to Sarah looks like a f____t. 3) Michelle next to Sarah looks like a shaved Sasquatch. 4) Michelle next to Todd looks like a shaved Sasquatch.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:32 amBizarro wingnut threatens lawsuit -> Bizarro wingnut legal theories pop up on the blogs.
imdw (e66d8d) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:33 amBrolic – That is why you and you disgusting ilk want to talk about Palin, Rush, bunnies, and unicorns instead of the horrific actions taken by Teh One, huh? Got projection?
Imdw remains its normal dishonest self. It is inherent for this one, in an alphie kind of way.
JD (c86804) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:44 amIs her lawyer incompetent?
If the goal is to marginalize spurious allegations of X and keep them out of the papers and national discourse as much as possible, you ignore them or at most issue a contemptuous dismissal and move on. Eventually they will die down and just turn into crazy fringe rantings when nothing ever materializes.
But if your lawyer issues a statement that “we will fight defamatory allegations of X”, then you turn it into a legitimate news story (i.e., what the lawyer said, not the allegations themselves) so that even those sources who wouldn’t print the rumors before are justified to cover and discuss it. You also motivate the press to dig deeper to discover any facts they could use in their defense, if necessary.
Aplomb (5a3869) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:44 amThose shitheels will talk about it anyway, Aplomb. Let’s let them do it on the stand, with their money at stake.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:47 amAnd, yeah, “Back to Indiana, Dave”.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:48 amBeach day #3 😉 Supposed to be in the low 90’s, with a nice breeze off the Gulf. I have a new John Sanford book to dive into, while watching my girls play on these beautiful white sand beaches. The water is a strange green emerald color here, which makes a beautiful view from our balcony. Golfing with my 7 year old this afternoon. If any of you are this way, come look us up, except for you trolls.
JD (c86804) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:50 amLook how angry and sputteringly incoherent JD and nk (faggot? sasquatch? seriously? is nk a teenager?) get when someone criticizes a politician they’ve never met. It’s like she’s their mom or something. So strange.
I guess the whole “actual responsibilities” thing got to be a bit too much for poor dear Sarah.
Brolic Johnson (280b11) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:53 amSomeone named “Walt Starr” posting at Daily POS (not a typo; think about it) responded to the Palin’s lawyers’ statement by writing the following:
One commenter at Conservatives4Palin suggests allowing that post to stay at Daily POS may open them Moulitsas & Co. up to a charge of “civil conspiracy to defame.”
I ain’t a lawyuh. What say those of you who are?
L.N. Smithee (6936a3) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:56 amI’m sure that’s a heartfelt concern.
Techie (482700) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:57 amAs usual,you miss the point, it was this accumulation of of lies, omissions, half truths that were not challenged; that created a portrait of her that she wouldn’t herself recognize that undermined her sky high approval ratings. The flurry of baseless ethics complaints were also in that vein, to suggest that someone who has always fought public corruption, was themselves corrupt.
narciso (996c34) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:59 amI believe they are going for Alinsky Rule#4, make the subject live impossibly to their own rules, so she has to give up her state providedSuburban, despite she was in an auto accidentlast year. It’s
also Rule 12, “pick your target, isolate,separate from all bases of support” they were less
successful on that score.
I have the body of a teenager. 6′”3, 165 pounds. Does that count?
I live in Illinois and I have never met the Obamas but I have friends who have. They’re wonderful parents (the Obamas) but that’s about their only good trait.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:00 am“One commenter at Conservatives4Palin suggests allowing that post to stay at Daily POS may open them Moulitsas & Co. up to a charge of “civil conspiracy to defame.””
Dude needs to learn about the Communications Decency Act.
imdw (7c2cd0) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:04 amOne commenter at Conservatives4Palin suggests allowing that post to stay at Daily POS may open them Moulitsas & Co. up to a charge of “civil conspiracy to defame.”
No. There’s a federal law that insulates the hosting site from what guests post. So you can say that nk is the reincarnation of [the worst person you can think of] and I could sue you but not Patterico.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:05 amPuhleeze. She’s still doing better at her job than Mr. I’m-Qualified-To-Transform-The-Greatest-Nation-On-Earth-Because-I-Was-a-Community-Organizer” is doing at his.
If Obama had been subjected to such scrutiny in just six short months for his administration’s legitimate charges of incompetence, corruption and cronyism (ACORN, Chrysler bondholders, Walpin, Black Panthers, tax cheats, etc) the way his henchpeople have kicked up a brown blizzard because Palin wore a jacket with a logo on it, he would have quit by now himself.
L.N. Smithee (6936a3) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:06 amDoesn’t that law only cover comments and not actual posts authored by contributors?
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:09 amYup. The author is always responsible.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:15 amI am neither angry or sputtering, Dicklick. I pity you. I weap for the education system, or in your case the lack thereof, that created you.
LN – Good to see you ’round here again.
Stash – You unrepentant racist xenophobic jingoistic homophobic imperialist. How the hell are you, friend?
JD (ecdc90) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:18 am” Doesn’t that law only cover comments and not actual posts authored by contributors?”
It insulates third parties. If you’re talking about ‘conspiracy’ then you’re involving other parties.
imdw (de7003) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:18 amOr, nope, if you wrote it, your ass is grass.
Dammit, Stash, I’m working with a hangover on a Sunday, here. Keep it uncomplicated. 😉
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:18 amThen the diaries at DKos would be subject to the higher standards, right? I think that’s what the question was about. If Markos allows a post to remain from a contributor (not a mere commenter), the site has a greater liability than there would be from some random comment.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:21 am“If Markos allows a post to remain from a contributor (not a mere commenter), the site has a greater liability than there would be from some random comment.”
No. There is no duty to edit the content provided by another.
imdw (36460a) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:24 amI don’t think so. The host is insulated no matter what, under the Act. This is a statute that relates to speech and press and for the last ninety years or so such statutes have always been interpreted so as to be most protective of speech or press.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:25 amDo I know you? 😉
I’m doing pretty good bud. Glad to hear you’re having such a great holiday weekend. I’ve been doing a bit of troll-bashing (not talking about happyfeet, I know you like him and that he’s not a troll… the piling-on at SarahSnipe2009 just got under my skin), which tires me out a bit. Great sport. Should be considered an Olympic event.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:27 amThat’s why I can tell Polish jokes here, and Patterico lets me. 😉
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:28 amOn her Facebook page, Palin says she answered “a higher calling.”
A primary challenge to Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), certainly would qualify. The now-senior senator was noticeably less than gracious:
Palin’s team was telling Alaskans she was planning to campaign for Murkowski next year and to host state fundraisers. That was 11 weeks ago. They said it was a priority.
I suspect those plans are now inoperative.
steve (f2c1a2) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:29 amInteresting. So if I wanted to defame someone, all I need to do is let others do it at my site?
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:30 amBut you’re doing that as a commenter, not an admin/editor. What if DRJ (for example) told the Polish jokes? Or put up a post with a bunch of malicious lies about a public figure?
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:32 am” Interesting. So if I wanted to defame someone, all I need to do is let others do it at my site?”
You’re responsible for what you write. Others are responsible for what they write. See the Roommates.com case for the limits of this.
imdw (803b85) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:32 amInteresting. So if I wanted to defame someone, all I need to do is let others do it at my site?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 7/5/2009 @ 7:30 am
Yes. (With no disclaimers like “I’m a lawyer but not your lawyer”.)
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:34 amAs I’m a layman in regards to law, do you have a link to a reputable source for information?
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:36 amWhat if DRJ (for example) told the Polish jokes?
I imagine she would need to find a way to tell them slowly enough for her Polish readers. (Ducks)
She is responsible. Only. Patterico and his web-service are not.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:38 amI’m sure discovery would be very interesting then. I doubt Markos wants to be involved, even peripherally.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:39 amStash – If imdw told me the sky was blue, I would require independent verification from at least 2 unbiased sources.
JD (5dc282) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:40 amSeriously, Stash, speech is still super-protected, and everybody accused of defamation gets the best possible interpretation of the law.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:40 amShe is responsible. Only. Patterico and his web-service are not.
Posting pseudonymously provides protection?
steve (f2c1a2) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:42 am*rimshot*
Polish jokes don’t bother most of us Polacks. You’ve got to understand the joke before you can get offended. 😉
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:43 am” As I’m a layman in regards to law, do you have a link to a reputable source for information?”
Read about CDA section 230. The citizen media law center at the harvard berkman center has a lot of information on it.
imdw (41a6d1) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:44 amIf I’m understanding correctly, she could post under her real name and Patterico, the site, and the hosting company would still be protected. Is that right, nk?
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:45 amThen again, I also told you to see the roommates.com case.
imdw (41a6d1) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:46 amTime to see if the video store has “Absence of Malice”.
The audiences cheered at the end and Uncle Walter Cronkite was very disturbed by the phenomenon.
Speculation:
Richard Aubrey (f782e1) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:48 amThe Sullivan doctrine makes it impossible for Palin to win. After all, you don’t need a conspiracy if everybody thinks the same in the first place and without evidence of a conspiracy “Let’s you and us get this guy,” malice is more difficult to prove.
However, during the trial, all kinds of discovery is demanded.
Would that be worth the money it costs to file?
So, no link. Thanks anyway, I guess I can wander around the innertubes a bit to find out more.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:48 amPosting pseudonymously provides protection?
There is no Identity Act, yet. You can call yourself whatever you want.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:50 amYes, you did. I then asked if you had a link because I’m not familiar with reputable sources of law information. You don’t. No problem. Even Polacks can read (slowly), so I understood you the first time. My fault for assuming you have access to information backing up what you say.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:54 amMy “Mark Sanford” love at fifteen was a Polish girl, with hair like the sun, skin like milk, and eyes that cobalt blue the sky can never achieve.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:02 amOkay, I’ll admit I did have to read that more than once before realizing… well, nevermind. 😉
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:06 amThe dim bulbs who are part of Sarah’s sycophantic army don’t realize they are going to be played for hundreds of dollars. Sarah will send them form letters saying “Oh please won’t you help support my legal costs in fighting the evil media and help me promote Freedom?” And the dims will write the checks; nothing much will change; and Sarah laughs her way to the bank. She realizes there is a huge reservoir of suckers waiting to be plucked, so why not start now.
Jack (900fbe) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:08 amThere is no Identity Act, yet. You can call yourself whatever you want.
As B. Franklin did in the 19th Century. And the 1st Amendment considered avocation and vocation as equally protected free speech gateways.
Should we assume ABC News and the Boston Globe are not liable under federal law for the content of blogs they host?
steve (f2c1a2) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:13 amAnd Obammy got his billion dollars how? Oh, I know, I know! By giving blowjobs to Mayor Daley, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, George Soros, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez ….
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:14 amShould we assume ABC News and the Boston Globe are not liable under federal law for the content of blogs they host?
Comment by steve — 7/5/2009 @ 8:13 am
I think they are protected by federal law, actually.
But … can Bristol sue David Letterman personally and CBS under respondeat superior? You betcha!
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:18 amYou can’t sue over an obvious joke, even if it’s obviously in bad taste and directed toward an innocent child.
You can complain about it, try to rally a boycott or pull sponsers, or even complain to the FCC if you want (although that’s not going to get you anywhere either), but there’s simply no lawsuit against Letterman.
Aplomb (5a3869) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:34 amYou are probably right, Aplomb. But how many frivolous lawsuits did the Palins face?
Maybe Letterman should face a flurry of lawsuits, too. He wouldn’t be able to keep himself from making his case worse, either.
File, baby, file!
Eric Blair (45c904) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:50 am#82
Can you explain to me how raping a teenager in a baseball stadium is a joke? Sounds like Letterman might be a target of a lawsuit. I hope she sues all these Obamanazis.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:56 amThis really would be the only way to prevent these types of attacks from continuing forever.
The plan, all along, was to make Palin’s family miserable, perhaps screw up the kid’s social lives completely, and maybe stress the husband into a divorce or something. At some point, they’d have enough and give up on their politics. Then, the democrats would look at the mess they made and scream ‘oooo she’s a quitter! that’s all that matters’. No, what matters is that the democrats didn’t make their argument to the voters, they simply made it impossible for the Palin family to have a decent life.
So, when Palin starts ramping this up, the voters probably will forget, to some extent, that Palin resigned her office. They will see that Palin, just like them, was not part of the aristocracy (right or left), and such people get their lives destroyed if they dare to speak the truth and govern for the people.
Quit? Sounds like the opposite to me.
Juan (337c64) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:29 amyou turn it into a legitimate news story
She has nothing to lose and discovery might be very frightening to the “news organizations” that distributed the lies. I think there is a fair chance to prove malice given what I have seen since last September.
There was lots of discussion on the Sunday shows and most of it was pure speculation. One thing Bill Crystal said that may contain a grain of wisdom is that her expertise is energy policy. I think Obama and Pelosi and Markey and Waxman (assuming he survives his acute nose attack this weekend) have provided the issue. If that bill passes, and they seem determined to pass it, she will have a target as big as all outdoors. The best issue Republicans will have in 2010 is the insane energy policy of the Democrats. The health care bill will not pass.
The cost of energy from wind is many times the cost from coal and the same is true of solar.
The capital costs of solar range from around $6 – $10 per watt with a 15% – 20% capacity factor (the percentage of an 8760 hour year that a system operates at full output)
Capital costs are around 2.45 cents per kilowatt hour. We are building wind turbines at around $1500 per kilowatt in areas that produce capacity factors around 25% to 35%. Location is critical here because the power from the wind is directly proportional to the cube of its velocity for the production of electricity.
The capital cost of producing electricity from coal is fairly minor, around 0.72 cents per kilowatt hour or around $1200.00 per kilowatt of capacity with a 95% capacity factor.
Let’s do a little math. How does 72 cents/ Kw Hr compare to 6 to 10 dollars per Kw Hr and how does 95% availability compare to 15% to 20% availability ? Wind is only three times as expensive but the availability factor is worse because wind is very dependent on geography. Maybe Mary Bono voted for the Markey-Waxman monstrosity because she has wind farms in her district. If true, that is very short sighted of her as California is on the verge of collapse of its energy situation.
What if Sarah Palin becomes the face of the GOP on energy the next two years while the Obama/Markey/Waxman policy quadruples energy prices or worse ? Gasoline prices will probably go to 6 dollars a gallon as soon as there is any sign of recovery of the economy. It is back at 4 dollars with the economy in collapse.
I’m not saying that is her plan but it is a very viable plan given the Obama and Democrats plans for energy. Obama got elected president because, in spite of no record in the Senate, he made an anti-war speech the Democrats liked. Sarah may have decided that, in this era of frivolous politics, she can become the energy expert in time for the collapse of the Obama energy policy.
Obama got elected even though he was wrong on the war.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:36 amBizarro wingnut threatens lawsuit -> Bizarro wingnut legal theories pop up on the blogs
Asshat Trollbot 1000 beclowns itself repeatedly, then traffics in additional unsubtantiated claims, oblivious to it’s ongoing defenestration.
My fault for assuming you have access to information backing up what you say
Oh, no question it definitely has the sources to back up it’s many claims – just look up Soros, George – Lefty Media Conspiracy Nutbags for some claims, then you could look up the homeless commenter known as Organic Gardener Who Eats His Own Cow Manure Fertilizer for Lunch blog. I tell you, it’s a veritable cornucopia of intelligent and thoughtful reporting on the events of the day.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:50 amWTF is wrong with you two. Do either make pretenses of discussions anymore or are you just so full of frothing hate all you can do is incoherently post profanity?
Meanwhile, nk, since you’re so sweet and all, the FEC has a website which lists things like donors and amounts (donations are public records), so, if you want to know how Obama raised more money than McCain, you could look it up (and entertainly curse the whole time).
As for Sarah’s lawyer’s claims, they are laughable. Ironic to see cons decide frivolous lawsuits should be used as a political weapon, despite the fact these would reach summary judgment long before Sarah the Great vanquished those evil libruls. Given that they are frivolous, one imagines the Court would grant costs to the defendants. Nonetheless, discovery goes both ways and I imagine Mrs. “I have a separate email account so the state can’t see my correspondence” Palin would enjoy discovery as little as the evil libruls.
PS nk, I expect your response to contain a disgusting comments two. For entertainment purposes, maybe you could string them together. After all, coherence and syntax aren’t your calling card right now, so I say mix and match.
Or, you could take the pills your doctor suggested and calm down and have a discussion. After all, you need to pace yourself, there’s at least three more years (probably more) to endure before you get to cast your ’16 vote for Petraeus/Palin. At this rate you’ll have an aneurysm long before the Second Coming of Reagan
timb (8f04c0) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:52 amOn the flip side of Sullivan and MoDo’s schadenfreud, Ace laments the backlash on conservatives who think Palin made a bad move:
And I do think I am taking off the week. You guys only seem to want to talk about sarah palin and furthermore you only want to hear the same thing — she’s running, this is a great move, she’s now perfectly poised for the race, etc.
It’s nonsense. And I hardly need to blog about it, because you all seem to know the words to the song. So you don’t need me as part of the chorus. You can sing the same words well enough without me.
I am really tired of this relentless nonsense and occasional nastiness whenever someone is believed to have departed from the conservativey correct line.
Joe (17aeff) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:01 amSo, timb, you have never used crude language here nor frothed a bit? I’m just sayin’.
Eric Blair (6d5733) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:14 amtimmah – Your creepy self will not distract from the fact that the troll stated that I was full of anger and sputtering. I simply corrected it. You, on the other hand, are demonstrably full of anger and hatred, as well as a good portion of bile.
Frivolous lawsuits are alright when advanced by the plaintiff bar and Dems. They are the scourge of the legal system when it is even suggested by a conservative. Funny how you claim it is frivolous when no action has been filed in any specific case. Funny how none of the claims presented against her to date have had any success.
The creepy one never goes away …
JD (aa5843) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:15 amEric – That one sweats hate, yet sees it in everyone except itself.
JD (e169b6) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:16 amMeanwhile, nk, since you’re so sweet and all, the FEC has a website which lists things like donors and amounts (donations are public records), so, if you want to know how Obama raised more money than McCain, you could look it up
Actually, no you cannot. For two reasons. Obamau disabled internet credit/debit card verification so xyxsd a few thousand times over donated anonymously and angeographically. And because Barry Soetoro opted out of public financing, the FEC has to take his word about where he got his money and cannot audit him. And we will never know where his big bundlers got their money from. Maybe it was one thousand $250 dollar plastic chickens or maybe it was $250,000.00 from [choose any of the names mentioned above]. Ok, three reasons.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:25 amPS nk, I expect your response to contain a disgusting comments two.
I would hate myself if I disappointed you, timb, so …. Go take a running jump at a rolling picture of your Obamessiah’s “donut”.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:28 amTimmah!
Little hint, here. Your mere assertion that a defamation suit is frivolous does not make it so. That’s not surprising, as your understanding of facts and logic has always been of the stopped clock variety.
Phil Smith (4e586c) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:29 amJD has been right all along. The nasty little bitch with permanent PMS (aka timb) will always be a nasty little bitch with permanent PMS.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:34 amTim is an expert lawyer and 40 years old so we should give his opinion all the respect it deserves.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:35 amWhy does timmah always run away from threads when he starts getting pantsed?
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:39 amThat’s no mystery, daleyrocks. The mystery is why timmah starts stuff in the first place, with the knowledge that he’s making up stuff and going to get schooled.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:40 amimdw – What does the constitution of Honduras or its laws say about defamation?
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:47 am“So, no link”
http://www.google.com/search?q=roommates.com+case
http://www.google.com/search?q=CDA+230+citizen+media+law+center+at+the+harvard+berkman+center
imdw (de7003) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:54 am“Should we assume ABC News and the Boston Globe are not liable under federal law for the content of blogs they host?”
That depends on what their relationship is to the authors.
imdw (490521) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:55 amGoogle search… why didn’t I think of that? Wait, I did. That’s why I said I wasn’t a lawyer and asked for a reputable source because there’s (believe it or not) incorrect information on the web and google doesn’t tell you if something is true or not, just that it’s there. You made the reference, surely you have a reputable source to back it up? You wouldn’t just google something and take it for granted because it fit your worldview, would you?
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 10:59 am“That’s why I said I wasn’t a lawyer and asked for a reputable source because there’s (believe it or not) incorrect information on the web and google doesn’t tell you if something is true or not, just that it’s there.”
How more reputable could it be than you actually reading the case? You can’t find the Berkman center on your own? Why are you being an idiot about this?
imdw (360311) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:02 amthinks it’s weird that Sarah Palin wants to sue me….since there is a porno out about her.about 9 hours ago from TweetDeck
shannynmoore
Shannyn Moore
Just printed from Shannyn’s tweet. NICE!
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:03 amAll I did was ask for a link to something you referenced. Then you brought up the Berkman center, but no link. You made the reference, not I. Apparently, linking a source to your own reference is too difficult for you. You expect others to research your statements (or hope they won’t bother). Don’t trouble yourself, I’ve no interest in your opinion anymore.
It’s not unreasonable to request a source for a statement. If I assert Senator Kennedy had an affair with Herbert Hoover, then tell you to google search “Senator+Kennedy+Herbert+Hoover+affair” after you ask me for a reputable source, what would you say? Who’s the idiot?
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:14 am“Apparently, linking a source to your own reference is too difficult for you.”
This is so bizarre. I gave you a case and a place to seek more info. You know the internet. You can find them on your own. Me? I go and run an errand and come back and have to run google searches for you? Don’t be an idiot. Go read the case and the berkman center.
imdw (e8663e) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:19 amWho is this Shannyn Moore lady, and how much does she charge for a three-way all-nighter?
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:21 amRight after… never. What part of “no interest” escaped your comprehension? You brought it up, didn’t have a source, I said fine, you did a google-search on your own (which I didn’t ask for and didn’t need), then got insulting. Smart money says to just ignore your opinions, so that’s what I’ll do.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:26 amHubris, meet Nemisis.
Larry Reilly (45e7a4) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:40 amThat was Sarah Palin’s introduction to the Big Time last summer.
Poor, poor wittle victim Sarah.
From the get-go she was lashing out at the media, the left and anything else she thought would get grins from the wingnut base. That’s her schtick.
Attack. Attack. And play the victim.
She complains that the media plays too rough with her and won’t stop prying. She could just as well go strollin’ through certain areas of Compton yelling the “N” word and then, should she live to tell about it, complain that she was misunderstood and mistreated.
“You brought it up, didn’t have a source”
What do you mean, “didn’t have a source”? When you asked for a source you quoted a comment where I told you to look at the roommates.com case!
imdw (e6c812) — 7/5/2009 @ 11:53 amAre you being intentionally obtuse? There are hundreds of thousands of hits for that as a search. Which one was your reputable source? Yet, you call me an idiot for not knowing. Then, you repeated it. I was trying to engage you respectfully, something you apparently don’t appreciate. No problem. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:08 pm“Which one was your reputable source?”
The case itself! Those links are talking about the roommates.com CDA case. One of them will get you to the case itself. Jeez. You can figure this out.
imdw (f1fe42) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:16 pmStash – I hate to say “I told you so”, but …
JD (b02c04) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:18 pmNo you don’t, you love saying that. 😉
Seriously, is he just missing the point or being willfully ignorant? If he asserts something and I ask (nicely) for where he got it, being told that I’m an idiot for not researching his assertion seems odd. Of course I can do it, that’s not the point. I asked for a link, he didn’t provide one and essentially said to look it up myself. I said fine, no link, not worth checking out (it obviously wasn’t an important enough point to make if he won’t back it up when asked politely.) Yet he keeps coming back to it without acknowledging that he still hasn’t given a source.
I don’t care if he does or not, that’s why I said fine. Saying he did give a source when he really hasn’t is pretty annoying though. Even if he eventually comes up with one, it won’t make a difference now. I hope he doesn’t bother because I won’t bother to click it. I don’t have any interest in whatever his point was anymore.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:30 pm“Yet he keeps coming back to it without acknowledging that he still hasn’t given a source. ”
Dude, do you realize that there is a legal case involving roommates.com? That’s what those links are talking about? That you can read that case, and that is what I advised you to look at? That when you follow one of those links in the search, you’ll get to a link to the case? You don’t realize these things? You still think this is ‘unsourced’ because I didn’t do all that for you? I gave you the source: the roommates.com case. Then I gave you another: The harvard berkman center citizen media law center.
imdw (126aa9) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:38 pmAplomb #35:
The article states that some of the media sources mentioned in the attorney’s statement were included because they currently have reporters in Alaska asking questions about the Wasilla corruption claims. So I don’t consider this foolish or incompetent. It’s no different than addressing something preemptively at trial that you know your opponent is going to bring up, but doing it in a way where you can control how it’s presented.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:41 pmIs Larry Reilly realy Purdum?
Poor little Reilly.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:44 pmI gave you the source: the roommates.com case. Then I gave you another: The harvard berkman center citizen media law center.
Comment by imdw — 7/5/2009 @ 12:38 pm
If you would give me $300.00, I will do the research for you imdw.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:44 pmimdw,
See if you can follow this: A search term is not a source. You gave me search terms, which are fine, but not what I politely asked for. I said that was fine, but not being a lawyer, I asked if you had a reputable source so I didn’t take some random internet nonsense as authoritative. You didn’t want to provide a link, no problem. But you still haven’t provided a source (not that I want one anymore), just search terms. I’ve already shown I can do that. If you think search terms are equivalent to sources, you’re wrong. Like the hypothetical Kennedy/Hoover affair above, you might find hits… that doesn’t make them reputable. I was assuming you used a reputable source that you could point me to. I gave you too much credit. My bad. Again, enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 12:49 pmJeebus, but the thing known as imadwi is obtuse to the point of incoherency. First it gives links to about 100 sources, then claims that others should look at all of that crap and then get back to it. When challenged further on it’s inanities, it doubles down by telling us to “look at…read the…look up…google this…review these…”
Logic’s not it’s strong suit, but we already have established that precedent.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:06 pmWhenever someone cannot point to one single and clearly identified source to back up it’s claims, it’s just another asspull.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:07 pmOne problem with Google is that it is manipulated by leftist sources to increase hits and raise the rank of lefty sites. For political subjects I usually use other search engines, like dogpile.
Having said that, standard sources are OK but different search terms may get radically different results from the same source. You can try it with Pub_Med, for example.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:18 pm“See if you can follow this: A search term is not a source. ”
I gave you a case to look up! A specific one! And then a place to look at. You can find the case and the place. Then I went off to run an errand and you acted like there was some problem because i didn’t go and find the link ? The internet may have a lot of disreputable information on it, but you can find a specific case and a harvard website. using just those search terms.
imdw (e6c812) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:33 pmimdw, the point remains that you can’t point to a specific piece.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:35 pmThe point remains that imdw is full of [sugar].
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:38 pmEven if it did, SPQR, it would not matter. It is fundamentally dishonest. It has proven that over and over. Plus, it apologizes for socialist wannabe dictators.
JD (5730e4) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:40 pmimdw,
Here are your links:
See how easy that was? Next time you do it.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:42 pmNow lets see if stashiu can find the harvard berkman center on his own.
imdw (66185e) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:45 pmI specifically said “No problem“. You made the assertion and refused to provide a link, just seach terms which I could do myself. Again, no problem. But search terms are not the same as sources. Is that really so hard to understand? You don’t want to source your statements, I know exactly how much weight to give them now. It was clearly an asspull… it might be a correct one, but I really don’t care anymore. I do care that you keep claiming to have provided a source when you haven’t. If it’s so easy, why didn’t you just do it to back up your claim? If it’s too much trouble for you, why should anyone else take the time? It was your assertion, the onus was on you. I asked politely and you got insulting. That’s when I lost interest in whatever your point was.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:50 pm“You don’t want to source your statements”
Yes i do! That’s why I gave you case and a harvard website. DRJ found one for you. Lets see if you can find the harvard berkman center on your own.
imdw (66185e) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:52 pmI told you so 🙂
JD (aa5843) — 7/5/2009 @ 1:57 pmYou did. And enjoyed reminding me. Consider yourself condemned. 😉
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 2:00 pm“You don’t want to source your statements”
I do! That’s why I gave you the case and the harvard website. DRJ found one for you. Lets see if you can find the harvard berkman center on your own.
imdw (6c0465) — 7/5/2009 @ 2:00 pmPalin: “All these frivolous lawsuits drag me down. They’re petty, they waste my time and energy, they waste my staff’s time and energy, so I’m not going play ‘politics as usual,’ I’m going to build things up . . . by serving the Internet with frivolous lawsuits, being petty, wasting my time and energy, wasting my staff’s time and energy, and playing ‘politics as usual’ by tearing down those who came at me, all while disrespecting the troops.”
What’s that thing Twain (never actually) said about “removing all doubt”?
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 2:12 pmIMDW:
Don’t worry if you don’t have the facts, argue the law, if you don’t have the law behind you, just do what you do best and bs them.
The readers will know what you’re doing but it will keep you consistent and make you feel important.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/5/2009 @ 2:21 pmNo, you didn’t give a website. And DRJ found those for you, not me… read the comment as she wrote it. I am perfectly capable of finding the harvard berkman center on my own, the onus however was on you. I am not your servant and really not interested in your point anymore (as I’ve said multiple times). You can’t be this obtuse, it has to be willful. A search term or name is not the same as a source. Asking politely for a source is not unreasonable. Dismissing the point when the commenter refuses to provide a source is not unreasonable. You still refuse to provide a source, DRJ had to do it for you and chastised you for it. You are dismissed. Coming back with anything less than the admission that you didn’t provide a source when asked and got insulting when I didn’t choose to do your research for you will be ignored. Actually, ignoring you from now on will probably be the default position. The time and energy to engage you isn’t worth it unless you’re going to be honest.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 2:53 pmSEK @136 – She may have gotten the attribution wrong, but I completely disagree with your spin, but have fun poling on with your progressive colleagues. Disrespecting the troops is a smear on Palin I haven’t seen before. Congratulations!
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:11 pm“I am perfectly capable of finding the harvard berkman center on my own, the onus however was on you”
What onus man? You asked for a source and I said where you can find more info. You know, these aren’t controversial opinions. Just about anything you find about CDA 230 will confirm what I’ve said about it. Wikipedia even would be good.
imdw (33504e) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:14 pm“Just about anything you find about CDA 230 will confirm what I’ve said about it. Wikipedia even would be good.”
Now that she’s had time to check.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:28 pmimdw,
If it’s your point, it’s your job to provide supporting evidence and links. How would you like it if I wrote posts and told the readers to find the links that support my posts?
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:31 pmSEK,
You don’t how sorry I am that you proved my first instinct about you, that you are a piece of shit, was right. You do know that Sarah Palin’s son is in the Army, in Iraq, don’t you, you short, pudgy, little, desk-riding, academic drone?
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:39 pmYou don’t *know* how sorry I am
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:40 pmI need to trust my instincts more and trust Patterico less who befriended this pudgy prof.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:42 pmSEK may be a dirty socialist but if he saw your dog wandering loose in the neighborhood he would take it home and call you and say hey I found your dog it was just wandering around.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:45 pmWeird, I found it opensecrets.org and the FEC.
I guess, nk, you don’t like too look hard when there’s complaining to be done, eh?
But, what will Newsmax say about stuff like debit cards? Well, you’ll have to ask them.
Eric, if you can find a time I said someone licked a dick or gave blow jobs, I would be surprised. I try to keep my comments sort of on topic…
which takes me off-topic to note, only a cry-baby whiner, hater like JD takes time from a vacation to project. Nice work, dolt.
Lastly, for imdw, I admire your tenacity. If they can’t find a case, that isn’t your fault. Way to stick with them. Your can drag a jackass to water, but it can still complain you didn’t tell it which drop to drink, eh?
timb (8f04c0) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:45 pm“If it’s your point, it’s your job to provide supporting evidence and links.”
Indeed. Which is why i gave the dude a case and a place to go and read more. Now I’m saying just about anything on CDA 230 will work, even wikipedia.
imdw (1b1354) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:46 pmSEK may be a dirty socialist but if he saw your dog wandering loose in the neighborhood he would take it home and call you and say hey I found your dog it was just wandering around.
Comment by happyfeet — 7/5/2009 @ 3:45 pm
Maybe. I’d rather he just left my dog alone for someone else to find and not “find”.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:50 pmYou do know that Sarah Palin’s son is in the Army, in Iraq, don’t you, you short, pudgy, little, desk-riding, academic drone?
I do know that. I also know that she couldn’t even be bothered to source her patriotism-proving quotation, which is intellectually lazy in a manner that turns actual soldiers and and their actual sacrifices into political props. Put differently: you can have a son in Iraq and still say or do something that belittles the military. Or does that only count when a liberal like Sheehan does it?
Because seriously, that’s what you’re saying: anyone with a son or daughter in Iraq is incapable of disrespecting the troops, but I bet I can find proof that you’ve called Sheehan “nutty as a fruitcake,” despite her having lost a son in Iraq. Point being, say what you will about me, but I’m not the one with the double standards here.
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:52 pmAlso, Mr. SEK, he’s not pudgy I don’t think cause he had an old blog up at one point with wedding pictures and at least when they got married there wasn’t anybody what was pudgy but maybe he quit smoking. Quitting smoking can significantly encourage rapid weight gain is my understanding.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:53 pmimdw,
Do you not know how to find neutral/fair links or is it that you don’t know how to embed a link? Because your intransigence on this topic suggests it’s one or the other. Surely it’s not because you are lazy.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:54 pmWTF, disrespecting the troops? This is one very bright Obamaphile. His nasty lying cannot be attributed to stupidity, it can only be attributed to nastiness, the nasty little pudge-ball.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:54 pmI will be charitable with you, Larry, and presume you’re just ignorant and not stupid.
With your closing remark about “yelling the ‘N’ word,” you imply without a scintilla of evidence — as many others did during the ’08 campaign, and David Letterman did three weeks ago — that Palin is some sort of a racist. But that’s to be expected of someone who looks at headlines, swallows them whole without questioning, and walks away satisfied they know all there is to know.
Why shouldn’t she lash out at the media when she is being lied about? Especially when most of mainstream reporters stood up for Obama even when he WASN’T being lied about.
Don’t just take that from me, Larry, take it from Michael S. Malone, an fourth-generation old-school professional journalist who last year used his space in ABCNews.com’s Money section to say what more famous writers should have.
From “Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline,” posted October 24, 2008 (bold mine):
It’s a long piece. Read it all. I’m not confident it will change your mind immediately, but if you have an ounce of honesty within you, you’ll at least think twice before regurgitating nonsense like you just did.
Like I said, Larry, I’m assuming you’re not stupid.
L.N. Smithee (6936a3) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:55 pmHappyfeet and SEK can get a room and send us the video anytime.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:56 pmif he saw your dog wandering loose in the neighborhood he would take it home and call you and say hey I found your dog it was just wandering around.
…Yet he probably also would be the type to say that Palin should have looked more closely at the pluses — and not just the minuses — of getting an abortion for her recent pregnancy. And then thinking his gut biases (“My shedding tears for the underdog, literally, is a sign of my loving heart!”) made him somehow so humane and civilized.
Mark (411533) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:57 pm“Because your intransigence on this topic suggests it’s one or the other.”
Actually, the point is that i gave a source, but not a link. A source that can be found, so its bizarre to say that my claims are unsourced, because they aren’t. They just don’t have links. Now if you know how to search wikipedia for ‘cda 230,’ you’re in luck. That’s if you care about this. If you don’t, why would a link even matter?
imdw (84cb6a) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:57 pmthis pudgy prof
I guess what they say is true: the internet adds thirty pounds. (I mean, even with the camera’s extra ten, I’m still tall and skinny.)
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:58 pmSEK,
Am I getting your point? Do you really believe that if Palin incorrectly sources a specific quote by one military officer to another officer, that shows she has no respect for anyone in the military?
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 3:59 pmtimb,
Go back and read the thread. I politely asked for a link to a reputable source because I was interested in what imdw said. Not a search term or name, a link. He refused to provide one and got insulting when I said “no problem”. Everything goes from there. If he doesn’t support his point, I can dismiss it since it wasn’t important enough for him to do his own research.
You want to call me a jackass for that? Fine. I haven’t insulted either of you. I’ve also argued that you should be given a chance to be understood and not immediately attacked whenever you comment. My mistake about both of you I guess. I do eventually learn though.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:00 pmYet he probably also would be the type to say that Palin should have looked more closely at the pluses — and not just the minuses — of getting an abortion for her recent pregnancy.
I have an idea! Let’s all engage in baseless speculation! It’s not like I have a long, written record of my beliefs available, free of charge, through Google, so why not take the lazy way out?
Which, to return the topic of Palin, is what I accused her of doing before I accused her of being a hypocrite for complaining about other people’s frivolous lawsuits and then threatening to file a host of her own.
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:04 pmNo, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side
And I hate all those members of the MSM who claim, “no, we’re not biased, we’re not liberal. In fact, much of the media is owned by bigwig corporate types, who generally are registered Republican! So how can we be biased?!”
Damn, such a shame that the age of the Internet in tandem with the current recession is putting a crimp in America’s objective, non-left-leaning mainstream media, newspapers in particular.
Mark (411533) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:04 pmSatsh, I was more concerned about the “hundreds” (in quotes because it is an exaggeration) of commenters leaping to your aid, than your rather disingenuous attempts to claim “the roomates case” in the context of the CDA was an unsolvable riddle. Don’t mistake rhetorical flourishes for insults. It is, though, surprising to see take the mantle of aggrieved victim here. I generally find that trait more common of other commenters. I do apologize if I offended you. Twas not my intent.
On the other hand, I assume nk silence on the point means he journeyed over to open secrets and is compiling a list of folks to hate. Be careful, though, nk, the black helicopters will come for you if you ask too many questions!
timb (8f04c0) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:10 pmI keep seeing Palin’s prospective lawsuits being called “frivolous” by our intellectual betters on the left. I’d like something beyond their flat assertion that it’s frivolous. SEK, in particular, is a great deal more intelligent than that; he knows that argument by assertion is a fallacy; and yet, for some reason, he persists in it.
Phil Smith (4e586c) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:12 pmWhich, to return the topic of Palin, is what I accused her of doing before I accused her of being a hypocrite for complaining about other people’s frivolous lawsuits and then threatening to file a host of her own.
Comment by SEK — 7/5/2009 @ 4:04 pm
And if it wasn’t that, it would have been whatever else you could imagine. You pudgy, little ______.
Yeah, I saw your video. Bone and fat. No muscle. Don’t know how old the video is. Betcha the fat’s got bigger.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:13 pmDo you really believe that if Palin incorrectly sources a specific quote by one military officer to another officer, that shows she has no respect for anyone in the military?
I believe that wheeling out lazily-researched statements as political props does a disservice to the person who made that statement. So, for example, if I were arguing that I thought something would be changed and said, “As DRJ said, ‘I strongly predict a reversal,'” I’d be doing your original argument a disservice by appropriating your moral authority to my own ends; moreover, I’d be doing Patterico an even greater disservice, since he’s the one who actually said it.
Similarly, when Palin analogizes her plight with that of the military, misstates and misattributes the quotation, and does so because she wants to quote someone patriotic like General MacArthur because it’s politically expedient–yes, in that case, I say she’s disrespecting the troops because she’s trying appropriate their moral authority when she hasn’t bothered to learn one damn thing about where, when, why or how they earned it.
At a certain point, intellectual laziness crosses over into overt disrespect.
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:15 pmyes, in that case, I say she’s disrespecting the troops because she’s trying appropriate their moral authority when she hasn’t bothered to learn one damn thing about where, when, why or how they earned it.
Jesus ___ Christ. You are the total and absolute asshole doing that.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:19 pmHard to see “Jackass” as a rhetorical flourish and not an insult, but whatever. I’m not an “aggrieved victim”. He keeps making a dishonest statement that he provided a source when I asked for a link to a reputable source. It was really a compliment to him that I was trusting his judgment as to what constituted reputable. Read the first comment I made to him. Then, read this one. How are those unreasonable?
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:23 pmSay whaaat?
Having lost a son in Iraq doesn’t somehow absolve you from being nutty as a fruitcake. And for the record, nk referred to Sheehan that way in 2005 after she wrote at MichaelMoore.com that George W. Bush “needs to … pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self (sic) from power.”
“Occupied New Orleans”?
Yep, her point was that no military presence was needed to maintain order in submerged New Orleans because the majority of looters were only trying to survive, and that if she was a vendor, she would have “fl[u]ng my doors open and [told] everyone to take what they need: it is only stuff.” Never mind that under normal circumstances, New Orleans has long been one of the most lawless places in America.
Why do we need to check membership lists of Gold Star Mom organizations before saying anyone who would say such a thing is a nut?
L.N. Smithee (6936a3) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:25 pmI keep seeing Palin’s prospective lawsuits being called “frivolous” by our intellectual betters on the left.
I’m calling them frivolous in part because, as DRJ said above, the bar for winning the cases is high, and the point seems to be to threaten people with possibility of a full-blown suit so they’ll shut up. Using the legal system like that qualifies as “frivolous,” since you’re threatening to file suits that you know you can’t win.
Bone and fat. No muscle. Don’t know how old the video is. Betcha the fat’s got bigger.
Nice X-ray vision there. But instead of being preoccupied with my weight, maybe you could answer my question:
What doesn’t the logic that it is impossible for Palin to disrespect the troops because (and for no other reason except that) she is a mother of one not also hold for Sheehan?
Take your time. I can wait.
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:27 pmI think it would have been fair to just say um… no. Not even. No an academic blog is not an oxymoron. Who died and made you the oxymoron police anyway? Leave me alone.
That’s what I would have said I think.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:30 pmThank you, L.N.Smithee, but that’s what the picklebiters want to do here — waste your time and Patterico’s bandwidth over what you said before.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:31 pmTake your time. I can wait.
Comment by SEK — 7/5/2009 @ 4:27 pm
Keep on waiting. Check this site every half hour on the half hour.
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:38 pmYou are the total and absolute asshole doing that.
You’re in a mood today. Let’s look at it differently:
If I were to claim that Tony Gwynn’s .338 CA (career average) demonstrates that he is, by far, the best contact hitter in the history of baseball, you’d rightfully laugh at me for how I defined “history” to mean “the past thirty years.” You might even say that my presentist bias is offensive, because it diminishes the achievements of Ty Cobb (.366 CA), Babe Ruth (.342 CA), Ted “He-sacrificed-his-prime-years-to-fight-Nazis” Williams (.344 CA), and Lou “He’s-Lou-Gehrig!?!” Gehrig (.340 CA).
My ignorance–my unwillingness to learn about the subject I was speaking about–would be offensive.
Now, switch contexts, misattribute and mangle the quotation, and make it so that I’m analogizing my having to fight ethics complaints and other frivolous lawsuits with Marines having to fight their way out of the Chosin Reservoir. This is somehow not offensive.
If I were to say, for example, that commenting on conservative sites is like being in Auschwitz, isn’t the grossness of my analogy offensive? I certainly think it is.
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:41 pmDifficult to win is not the same as frivolous, and you know it. “Frivolous” lawsuits are punishable in many jurisdictions; I suspect you know that, and are trying to forward a (rather dishonest) meme.
And DRJ did not say that the suit was unwinnable, but rather that Palin’s attorney was laying the groundwork for an actual malice claim under Sullivan. You interjected the “unwinnable” portion as your own (unqualified) opinion. Now that the FBI has stated unequivocally that there is no investigation, any further accusations or speculations to that end are, under any reasonable definition of the word, absolutely malicious. Whether that definition holds in a court of law remains to be seen, but I’d be surprised for any judge to rule on the motions rather than allowing the case to actually proceed.
So, basically, what you’ve attempted to do here is to redefine “frivolous” in a completely Red Queen way, and then further take one of the terms of that definition and do the same. You fail on both counts, but what the hell.
Phil Smith (4e586c) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:41 pmSEK wrote:
So let me get this straight: The Palin family are supposed to forego threatening lawsuits against the slanderous, libelous people who are facilitating and/or causing their systematic bankrupting through endless, meritless lawsuits on principle.
That makes perfect nonsense.
L.N. Smithee (6936a3) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:45 pmHaving lost a son in Iraq doesn’t somehow absolve you from being nutty as a fruitcake.
I agree! Thanks for making my point for me. But for the record, nk disagrees:
You do know that Sarah Palin’s son is in the Army, in Iraq…
Because she has a son in Iraq, she’s incapable of disrespecting the troops.
It’s good to see that you recognize that it’s possible to have currently, or have lost in the past, a child in Iraq and still “nutty as a fruitcake” or “disrespectful of the troops.”
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:45 pm(Also, thanks happy, for all the nice comments in this thread. You’re good people.)
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:46 pmIt’s not like I have a long, written record of my beliefs available, free of charge
And the percentage of liberals who are anti-abortion instead of pro-choice is how much, how high? Probably similar to the percentage of gay conservatives, black Republicans, and Democrats with lots of common sense.
Using the legal system like that qualifies as “frivolous,” since you’re threatening to file suits that you know you can’t win.
Palin will be entering truly hypocritical territory if she, in fact, at the drop of a hat starts hiring attorneys to further clog up our court system with an actual, specific, nuisance-based lawsuit. Until then, I’d give her a pass since I don’t believe she’s ever said the mere bluster of a threat to sue was as irresponsible as what’s commonly done by one of the Democrat Party’s biggest bunch of fans — trial lawyers and all their pro-ambulance-chasing clients — and the resulting padding of everyone’s pockets.
Mark (411533) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:48 pmIs disrespecting the troops while having a son in Iraq an oxymoron and is a nutty fruitcake a tautology? I need to lie down.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:49 pm“Offensive”? It might be offensive if it made any maddog sense.
You’re nuttier than a fruitcake, SEK. 🙂
L.N. Smithee (6936a3) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:49 pmApparently, SEK, someone has posted online a birth certificate dated yesterday with my name on it. It’s a forgery. Find snother newborn to sell that schtuff to.
L.N. Smithee (6936a3) — 7/5/2009 @ 4:55 pmSEK,
So when Obama used Deval Patrick’s “Just Words” without attribution, I assume you agree he was disrespecting Martin Luther King, Jr., the Declaration of Independence, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:00 pmSEK #170:
It may be true in academia but, in law, difficult is not the same thing as impossible.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:04 pmAnd the percentage of liberals who are anti-abortion instead of pro-choice is how much, how high? Probably similar to the percentage of gay conservatives, black Republicans, and Democrats with lots of common sense.
Let me see, with that in mind, add in tax, divide by nine, carry the seven, and the price of tea in China is $2.34 lbs. Good to know.
Palin will be entering truly hypocritical territory if she, in fact, at the drop of a hat starts hiring attorneys to further clog up our court system with an actual, specific, nuisance-based lawsuit.
So it’s only hypocritical if you go through with it, but it doesn’t violate your principles to threaten to do it? I can buy that, actually. (I’m not Catholic, so no sinning in the heart.) What strikes me as odd is that on Friday she complains about being bled by a thousand tiny knives, then on Sunday she threatens to do the very same to other people.
Is disrespecting the troops while having a son in Iraq an oxymoron and is a nutty fruitcake a tautology?
I think, happy, in this case nk let his emotions get the best of him. His history doesn’t indicate he’d be the kind of person who’d make blanket statements like “No mother of the troops could ever disrespect them,” mostly because that makes no sense. The troops, after all, can disrespect the troops — as some here would say about John Kerry. We can all also imagine (or have been witness) to a conservation in an ideologically-divided household, in which one brother’s in the Army and the other’s a peace activist, and no one would say that because the peace activist has a brother in the Army, he can’t disrespect the troops — especially when he does so repeatedly to his brother’s face.
It might be offensive if it made any maddog sense.
Pretend, for a second, that I’m [insert name of most recently banned troll] and I claimed, with a straight face, that commenting here was like being on the wrong end of the Tet Offensive. You wouldn’t take issue with the fact that I’d interpellated into the body of a North Vietnamese soldier trying to kill Americans? The implications of my doing so wouldn’t bother you? I think they would, is all I’m saying.
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:14 pmIn the current academic world, the “impossible” is the ability to discerne the truth.
AD - RtR/OS! (982d48) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:16 pmWhat strikes me as odd is that on Friday she complains about being bled by a thousand tiny knives, then on Sunday she threatens to do the very same to other people.
Probably because she’s forced to live in the real world of litigiousness run amok, which festers to a greater degree when liberals/Democrats are in charge of a lot of things, the judiciary in particular. As such, and based on the saying of “when in Rome…,” she must know that her ambulance-chasing opponents — certainly in ultra-blue states like New York and California — naturally gravitate to lawsuits (the more amoral and absurd, the better), rarely support legislation that attempts to deter the frivolousness of such things, and only perk up their ears and respond seriously when an opponent yells “I’m gonna sue, sue, sue!”
Mark (411533) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:28 pmYes i do!
No, you did not.
That’s why I gave you case and a harvard website.
…but without actual links.
DRJ found one for you.
…because I’m a lazy fark who asspulls all the live long day.
Lets see if you can find the harvard berkman center on your own.
…because you’re my monkey, and I’m an ignorant git.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:35 pmSo when Obama used Deval Patrick’s “Just Words” without attribution, I assume you agree he was disrespecting Martin Luther King, Jr., the Declaration of Independence, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
How does that analogy work? Patrick and Obama both know the context of the statements they’re quoting. Not only do they understand their importance, they’re demonstrating that understanding by sarcastically undercutting them. Neither believes “I have a dream” are “just words,” and their common campaign manager, David Axelrod, seems to agree, which is why he had both use that same construction.
Palin, on the other hand, behaved like a freshmen and grabbed the first patriotic quotation Google gave her for the word “advance” and tacked it onto the end of her speech despite the fact that the person who she says said it didn’t; despite the fact that the person who actually said “it” said something different; despite the fact that the difference between a savvy General who carefully laid the groundwork for not merely surviving, but succeeding in the face of great adversity and a politician who hurriedly organized a press conference at the end of the news cycle on the day before the 4th of July weekend while her media advisor was in New York, then delivered a rambling, incoherent resignation speech — that is, despite the fact that the difference between what she and General Smith did couldn’t be more different.
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:35 pmSo now you object because you believe Palin was rambling and incoherent? Have you listened to Obama when he doesn’t have his teleprompter?
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:51 pmSEK redefined difficult to be unwinnable, and thus frivolous. It is dishonest, as he knew exactly what he was doing. Verbose, obviously. Stupid, nope.
JD (172021) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:54 pmSEK:
I think there is a difference between defamation actions that have not been filed, let alone had hearings, and multiple ethics complaints that have had hearings and been proven meritless.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/5/2009 @ 5:57 pmSEK – I suppose that you have evidence that Palin just found that by googling. I also suppose you have support that Teh One took great care when not giving credit to Duval, and did so out of respect for Dr. King? How do you come up with this stuff? The lengths you folks will go to in order to argue with people you don’t agree with are almost as impressive as the pretzel knots of illogic you will twist yourself into so you can defend Teh One.
JD (172021) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:02 pmand their common campaign manager, David Axelrod, seems to agree,
Woah – you mean the David Axelrod, who managed both campaigns, agrees? Huh, imagine that.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:06 pmSo now you object because you believe Palin was rambling and incoherent?
Actually, since the post in which I complained about her disrespectful use of the military as political prop was entitled “A rambling, incoherent Sarah Palin celebrates Independence Day by disrespecting the troops,” I don’t see where you get your “now” from. Part of the problem with it was always that it was rambling and incoherent. However, you’ll note that I’ve twice now defended Palin on the grounds that if I’m going to defend Sotomayor on an issue, I have to defend Palin too.
Have you listened to Obama when he doesn’t have his teleprompter?
Irrelevant — both generally, and because Palin was delivering a prepared speech, i.e. the sort of thing that ends up on a teleprompter. Moreover, it does your argument no good because you’re comparing Palin and Obama’s prepared speeches and you’ve already as much as admitted that his prepared speeches are cogent and coherent.
SEK redefined difficult to be unwinnable, and thus frivolous.
If someone threatens to sue the entire Internet on the basis of something that’s difficult to prove, either they 1) have unlimited coffers and an army of lawyers ready to handle each and every one of those difficult cases (which she’s already admitted she doesn’t), or 2) are hoping that threat will be enough to shut up the people they want shut up, i.e. threatening to do something they can’t do, or can only do poorly, so if they go through with it, &c.
The odd thing about all this is that I actually think Palin could be doing a damn smart thing here: she’s disassociating herself from petty state politics, then she’ll go on a lecture tour, spend the next campaign cycle bringing out the base for marginal candidates, thereby racking up favors and demonstrating her significance to the GOP brass, &c. This could be a very savvy political move if she doesn’t blow it. (Now, ask me if I think she’ll blow it? Better yet, ask me if I think her opening gambit is evidence that she likely will.)
I think there is a difference between defamation actions that have not been filed, let alone had hearings, and multiple ethics complaints that have had hearings and been proven meritless.
Granted, but that doesn’t change the fact that the only solid reason she gave for resigning was that her resources were tied up in petty legal wrangling, and now that’s done with that, &c.
I suppose that you have evidence that Palin just found that by googling.
Not that I’d bring before a court of law, but I’ve been dealing with the citation habits of bad students for the better part of a decade now, and that quotation set of all the same alarms and to the same result: Google the significant words in the quotation and see whether that quotation is the first result offered. Why would she do that? As I said elsewhere, for the same reason that a student writing an essay about a courageous deed or person would want to quote someone famous on the topic of courage: because they incorrectly assume that the quotation itself has a moral authority that is somehow, magically, transferred to their argument by dint of proximity. Palin wants to give the impression of being patriotic, so she grabs a quotation willy-nilly and slaps it on the end of her speech. Part of the reason I suspect her of doing this is that her being a terrible student is a matter of public record, and such acts of ostentatious quotation are something terrible students regularly do.
Now, I could be wrong. She might have some Bartlett’s knock-off on her desk and consulted it instead of Google, but even so, the point remains: she’s trying to appropriate gravitas she doesn’t have; she’s trying to fake an erudition she’s too lazy to acquire; she’s trying to convince us that there is something heroic, something martial about her hasty exit from the public stage and she thinks that quotation will do some of the work for her.
SEK (072055) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:25 pmSEK, maybe instead of a term which seems to have some precise meaning in law, like “frivolous,” you should just call the suits “ridiculous.”
imdw (e6469c) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:26 pmSEK taking a statement by Sarah Palin and attributing it to McArthur, $0.00;
nk (e98769) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:37 pmSEK converting the statement, he and not Palin attributed to McArthur, to disrespect for the military, $0.00;
Me realizing what a worthless waste of time SEK is, Priceless.
SEK is likely a partisan engaging in asspulls to try to score cheap and petty rhetorical points. Now, I cannot prove that in a Court of law, but my experience leads me to believe that, and it appears to be the only rational explanation.
Again, you fundamentally changed DRJ’s point that the suits in question are difficult to win, to being unwinnable, and then deemed them frivolous, I guess based on your experience grading essays.
JD (172021) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:46 pmSEK – Your example is hyperbolic as usual. The quote shows up first on the internet as a MacArthur quote on google, so there is that. Her requirement to research it further, only an OCD pedant such as yourself sees that as an issue.
Is there a rule book out there which says all politicians must fully research the conrext of any quote they use? I don’t think so. The meaning of the quote is clear to those not looking to smear Palin. Only those looking to smear her would take the steps which you did to create some kind of far fetched military slur out of her use of the quote. I’m not seeing it. Her extra steps to visit the military and show respect to the troops make it clear she has no lack of respect for them. Tour twisting of the quote into a slur fails on two counts: a0 search engines show it as a MacArthur quote, and b) the meaning is clear without the original context and there is no obligation on politicians as opposed to OCD pedantic academicians to pursue the origin of a that quote further. If there were such an obligation, presumably you would be spending all your tim dissecting the origin of quotes used by politicians of all stripes in their speeches. Or perhaps you would wonder why Obama took Andrew Sullivan’s word that Brittain did not torture in WWII rather than doing the reseach himslf, the lazy fuck.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:49 pm“Google the significant words in the quotation and see whether that quotation is the first result offered.”
SEK I just did. It came up famous McArthur quotes for the first three entries then went to Sarah’s speech.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 6:52 pm“Palin, on the other hand, behaved like a freshmen and grabbed the first patriotic quotation Google gave her for the word “advance” and tacked it onto the end of her speech despite the fact that the person who she says said it didn’t;”
SEK – Bullshit pure SWAG on your part. You’re too young and sheltered to actually appreciate how widely used that quote is. As usual, you’re polevaulting over mouse turds, but it’s what you do best.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:00 pmSEK – I also have another little rule of thumb that puts a nail in coffin of your troop disrespect theory. If people don’t recognize what see says as disrespect, it ain’t disrespect, ’cause she certainly didn’t intend it as disrespect. If it takes research and some Townhouse list on the part of a little known blogger to manufacture faux outrage on the left, because it is not coming from the right, I would say it is not disrespect.
It was a nice try.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:15 pmIs there a rule book out there which says all politicians must fully research the conrext of any quote they use?
Oh please, they don’t even read the bills they sign.
Dana (8d88ef) — 7/5/2009 @ 7:24 pmIt doesn’t make a difference whether what Palin says makes sense or not — her enemies in the media will say she is “rambling and incoherent” because they want her to be perceived that way, people will take their word for it, and they know it.
They will try to find ways to make the simple and understandable confusing, mysterious, and suspicious. A prime example of this is what super-Sarahphobic Washington Post reporter Anne Kornblut did, speciously suggesting in the first sentence of a front-page article
that Palin — making a speech to an Alaskan Army brigade (including her eldest son Track) departing for Iraq — linked Saddam Hussein’s regime to the 9/11 attacks seven years to that day.
From the September 12, 2008 Washed-up Post:
However, now even the Post admits Kornblut’s full of it. It has a half-hearted “clarification” atop the page containing the archived article:
Of course, Kornblut’s IMHO obvious purpose was fulfilled; she left millions of people who reflexively believe what they read in the Post (and other news agencies who take their lead from it) that Palin was so frightfully out of touch she didn’t know Saddam Hussein didn’t help Osama bin Laden take down the Twin Towers and nearly demolish the Pentagon. Kornblut went on to be the conduit through which other false charges about Palin were put into the news stream.
On the other hand, the Kornblut types will marvel at the way an Obama speech supposedly makes your heart soar and put a thrill up your leg — never mind that the content is feel-good bull spit, like his constant campaign promise he would never raise taxes on families making
$250K$200K$150K a year. If you were paying attention earlier this past week, you know it became official: That “pledge” sank down to families making at least $0.01 per year.But boy, didn’t it make you feel good to think that a President really meant that when he said it? Those moments are worth higher taxes, aren’t they?
L.N. Smithee (6936a3) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:01 pmNow, they vote on them without having even finished writing them!
L.N. Smithee (6936a3) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:07 pmI once suggested that the act of casting a vote would affirm under oath that the congresscritter had read the entire text of any legislation they are voting on. If there is not time, they are doing too much.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:14 pmJD,
How do you prove they didn’t read it? What if they read it and didn’t understand it? Or forgot some details if quizzed? I see a rule like that being enforced on a partisan basis, much like the ethics rules. The majority of Dems would get a pass, all Repubs get persecuted for every vote against a Dem proposition.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:25 pmDamn, racist. I never said it was a well thought out idea, just an idea. The fact that they do not even have the full text available to them prior to voting is incomprehensible. It was horrific when done on the “stimulus”, that was soooooooo urgent that it had to be passed prior to anyone knowing what is all in the 1200+ pages of political payback. Even worse were the 300+ pages of amendments inserted behind closed doors and under cover of darkness on the Cap & Tax fiasco, where they took steps to screw with homeowners, real estate markets, and Lord knows what else. I guess it is just silly to expect that congresscritters actually be given the opportunity to see what they are voting on before making their decisions. I am sure this has happened before, and it was wrong then too. But these 2 examples are worse, by miles, given the trillions of dollars involved. What comes after a trillion?
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:33 pm“How do you prove they didn’t read it?”
Stashiu3 – Forcing them to affirm they read it takes away excuses after the fact or forces the process to slow down to actually allow time to let people read the bills.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:34 pmStash – With the Cap & Tax bill, it would be easy to prove that they did not read it prior to voting on it. Many only learned of some of the Amendments when Boehner started reading them into the record.
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:35 pmComment by Stashiu3 — 7/5/2009 @ 8:25 pm
As I recall, plenty of those who voted for the recent bills, freely admitted they did not read what they signed. There is no consequence to such negligence and/or cavalier attitude toward a decision that should be anything but. It’s an accepted practice. And it’s just too easy.
Dana (8d88ef) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:39 pmDon’t get me wrong, it’s fine in concept. Their own honor and integrity (sorry, just threw up a bit at that thought) should make them meet that as a minimum standard, even without it being a rule. I’m just saying that enforcement would be selective, proof nearly impossible to come by in most cases, and any of them willing to break the rule are going to be willing to lie about it.
Cold Cash Jefferson for example.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 8:52 pmWho is going to bring the accusation that this rule was broken? How long before it’s routinely used for partisan purposes? What effective consequences might be appropriate? I would resign before voting on something I hadn’t read, but I’m not a politician. You could also expect, like with the Cap&Trade bill recently, that the minority party would not be given access in enough time to read and understand the legislation. Then, they get charged with not reading it if the measure is defeated. When the minority party objects, the majority party is going to claim either “exceptional circumstances” or “they had enough time to read it and chose not to”.
I don’t think it’s a workable rule, mostly because they’re all politicians and will find a way around it or use it inappropriately.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:00 pm#213
Why not limit any bill to no more than 3,000 words. Make it so precise and limited that anyone could read and understand it.
Also require any bill cite the Constitution for the government’s authority to pass the bill.
Buried in the cap and trade bill are two sections giving the bureaucrats the ability to set building codes. This is a vast over reach by the statists.
How long before they mandate the temperatures we have in our homes?
I’d also point out we need term limits. One term for senate and congressmen. Two years each. They would be barred from holding any other federal elective office for life except president or vp.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:29 pm“I see a rule like that being enforced on a partisan basis, much like the ethics rules.”
Or better yet: if you want to kill something, make the bill huge.
“Why not limit any bill to no more than 3,000 words. Make it so precise and limited that anyone could read and understand it.”
Precision makes the bills larger, not smaller. The sherman antitrust act is short. But not precise. It basically gives power to courts.
imdw (9811a2) — 7/5/2009 @ 9:38 pm@Eric Blair (comment 12), here’s a timeline of Roland’s activities since being appointed. Not very impressive. Roland Burris Timeline
Bob Armour (daa889) — 7/6/2009 @ 1:52 pmI agree with IMDW about precision adding length.
But really, a lot of these bills are just bloated with exceptions that are not designed for fairness. Lobbyists get this and that and the bill becomes unworkable.
Most of the legislation passed when I worked on the hill was stupid. We can write shorter bills that are precise if we want to. We really need to revist so many of our laws and make things easy to read.
It blows my mind that legal research is something that a citizen cannot do without expensive tools like Lexis. We need to make sure that all laws are simple to read, and also that all court cases are easy to ‘shepardize’ and understand as they apply to each individual. When a judge issues a ruling, part of his job should be to update the government’s free to access website to explain exactly what the law is, and what changes have been made. Even if to say ‘nothing was changed’. And the circuit courts should have as a responsibility to edit that to keep consistency.
Instead, we have a big mess.
Juan (189aa5) — 7/6/2009 @ 2:04 pm“…A rambling, incoherent Sarah Palin celebrates Independence Day by disrespecting the troops…”
We see pols use the military, police, and bureaurocrats as stage-props all of the time, when did SEK denounce any of them?
AD - RtR/OS! (820b2e) — 7/6/2009 @ 2:47 pmHow about when WJC used his own Cabinet Officers, various Senators, and Congressmen/women as a stage-prop for his finger-wagging lie: “I never had sex with that woman…”?
Did SEK denounce Bubba?
Instead, we have a big mess.
Comment by Juan — 7/6/2009 @ 2:04 pm
Well, you have to have a lawyer to understand the laws that are created by lawyers.
AD - RtR/OS! (820b2e) — 7/6/2009 @ 2:51 pmSort of a job-preservation tool.
“A Government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers,
shall not perish without an inordinate amount of litigation.”
AD – Remember when SEK used to be in that group of Leftists that discussed matters in good faith?
JD (4ff1b9) — 7/6/2009 @ 3:00 pmJuan:
You always seem to be dead on. Bravo.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/6/2009 @ 9:00 pmRegarding precise, I had to deliver written briefings in three sentences of major developments on a daily basis. That is precise.
It does not mean detailed. If a law cannot be written in 3,000 words then it was written for lawyers, by lawyers to provide for their future descedents.
The first income tax law was four pages.
Today it is the equivalent of 8 volumes of the King James Bible. One is precise the other detailed. One everyone understood, the other no one does.
When a law exceeds 1,000 pages written in legalese you can bet K street wrote it and no one understands it.
If I were King the first decree I would pass is to limit the number of lawyers permit to practise to one one hundredth of the number of engineers in the nation.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/7/2009 @ 12:42 am“If I were King the first decree I would pass is to limit the number of lawyers permit to practise to one one hundredth of the number of engineers in the nation.”
More money for them then.
imdw (4cde37) — 7/7/2009 @ 8:19 amMore money for all of us.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/7/2009 @ 9:18 pm