This article fact checks some of the negative accusations that have been circulating against Governor Palin: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html [rquoter] SUMMARY We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading. * Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years. * She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term. * She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982. * Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state. * Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis. Correction: In our original story, we incorrectly said that a few of the claims we examine here were included in the e-mail by Kilkenny. Only one of the claims – about the librarian's firing – was similar to an item in that e-mail. We regret the error. ANALYSIS ... [/rquoter]
Selective fact checking. Where are the facts checks on: 1. Bridge to nowhere 2. Earmarks 3. Firing of the chef 4. Selling the plane on Ebay All of which have been proven to be lies, or gross misrepresentations. I guess all of this comes about when you toss an unknown into the mix 60 days before the election. Gonna be interesting. DD
Awesome. I don't think I ever made any statements about any of the above claims. Most of my opinions on Palin are predicated on the continued lie that she is a reformer, a fiscal conservative, and that somehow she is experienced enough for the position. I also am opposed to her stance on abortion. I am intensely disgusted at the right for their hypocrisy regarding her family life, but that is not Palin's fault.
We already exposed you on this lie about Palin...Just stop. Please respond to the facts in this thread...This is not the fudge thread.
wait a sec. ...Why am I saying to stop the fudging against Palin?...It's this very transparent backlash which has galvanized the independents, as the polls have indicated... Never mind...Keep up the fudge...It's working!
The amazing thing is that the fact checks don't really help Palin. Just look at the fact check on creationism. It claims that she wants students to debate both sides. That isn't science and it is idiotic and counterproductive to have that debate in a science class. One side is backed by evidence. Creationism isn't backed by any scientific evidence and has no business in a science class even as part of a debate. And while she wasn't a member of the Alaskan Independence party she did make video welcoming them and telling them to "keep up the good work"
I agree with you that creationism isn't science in the strict sense of the word. But don't you think a discussion on what separates true science from creationism could be valuable in a science class? I think it would give students a clearer idea of what science is about.
Rox. How is it in any way inspiring to declare "fear palin" in your signature? That's sounds really juvenile.. Shouldn't you be more about supporting McCain, and your cause, instead of cheering for a political Godzilla to rise from the ocean and use its radioactive fire-breath to burn liberal San Fransisco to the ground?
Oh yes, how awful to allow debate. Evil debate! Obviously this is not the place for a debate on darwinism, but she is just as entitled to her opinion about the relative validity of different possible explanations for Humanity's origins as you are. And neither you nor she has any place dictating the content of science class. While she has her opinion, she never even hinted at trying to make it a reality in science classrooms. Are we now in the time of the Thought Police then? Not only can a politician not do something you disagree with, but now they must be forbidden to even THINK something with which you disagree?
As far as helping Palin, I think her position on creationism is probably the wisest politically. She doesn't alienate religious people by saying creationism has no place in a science class, and she placates those who fear she might want to force creationism in. It is a small minority of the population that will be upset at the suggestion that the merit of creationism should be discussed but not taught. In a different vein, I think the reputation of the term "factcheck" is going to take a fall soon. There seems to me more and more organizations adopting this identity and using it to publish material that appears to have bias. The non-partisan claim of factcheck.org is in trouble.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=153772 Same article with much more detail. As I stated in the original thread, the way you interpret the terms in the Alaskan budget is important in deciding whether she cut funding for special needs.
Correct. Incorrect. Pretend she espoused flat earth theory instead. Would you still think it meritous to debate in a science classroom? Incorrect. Debating it in a science classroom encourages the false idea that creationism has an equal starting position (in terms of scientific theory) as evolution. You cannot dissociate the two; this is especially the case with young children. All that being said - I really don't think palin's stance on creationism is worthy of conversation or a suitable metric for voting. See my previous post for more on that.
I wasn't talking about the original (if they have a bias, I don't know what it is), but all the copycats who have recognized the allure of the factcheck brand and will use a similar identity to manipulate voters. Not to mention the ease with which people can selectively read factcheck.org to debunk things they don't like and ignore the things that don't reinforce their political views. This wasn't a dig at your thread at all, just a prediction that factcheck's success will be in danger.
Those are merely your opinions, and I recall plenty of scientists have come out in favor of Intelligent Design. As for your question about flat-earthers.. Why exactly do you think we can safely say that the world is round today? Is it because we mandated that no debate should be allowed? Or is in fact because of the opposite, because that debate occurred? Who are you to decide what should and should not be debated?
