Comments for Pinocchio in Drag: Sarah Palin's Latest Lies »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 6 months, 4 weeks ago in Political NewsIt's getting harder and harder to keep up with the inimitable Governor of Alaska these days, as she's Twittering and issuing statements on her official State of Alaska web site, (paid for at taxpayers' expense, of course, including a series of posts about hockey games!). She's also blogging (yes, she's a blogger now, too) on both her Facebook page and her SarahPAC web site, the latter of which is being funded by contributors across the country as Ms. Palin continues to maneuver herself, haphazardly as it may be, into a run for the presidency in 2012.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 91
-
86%
Radiofreeeuropa6 months, 4 weeks ago
-
44%
b-happy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amazing to me that you Liberals can sit here and smirk at Palin while Obama completely lies to your face and you do nothing. Was it Obama or Palin who said that they would not let Lobbyists into their administration? Obama! What did he do? He goes out and hires not one, but seventeen former Lobbyists to work with him. Obama said he didn't want earmarks but then 9,000 are put into a bill that he was all for.
Reply
Obama said he wanted to cut our national debt, only to take it from 1 trillion to 3 trillion. But you know Palin is blogging and we can't have that in this world. I mean Obama just wasted 50 billion dollars of our tax payer money trying to bailout a company that 80% of AMericans new was a stupid idea. But hey, Palin bought some clothes so she is a rich elitist.
How can you Liberals look yourselves in the mirror when you are so blatantly hypocritical and naive to the facts of reality? Palin isn't president and who cares what she says unless you live in Alaska. I guess when you have such a bias as Liberals have then King Obama will always be clean as a whistle while Palin is painted Pinnochio. Even that doesn't hold.
REad the Article. The stupid idiot who wrote this thing says that Palin blamed the GM crash on Obama. But even in the quotes this idiot uses, there is nothing that Palin says that even comes close to saying that. What she says is he wasted our taxpayer money on a stupid bailout the no one wanted.-
64%
dunkirk6 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
44%
dunkirk6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO you're kidding right?
Reply
"Let's just talk about Palin though because we wouldn't want to focus on the liar Pelosi. "
Maybe you missed it but the article is about Palin and the ;ies she continues to create to fiurther her own political career. PC25 has posted a lot about Pelosi and it seems as information continues to leak out about her that she wasn't lieing about not being told about torture, Damn all those facts just keep getting in the way of your spin.-
50%
tanglang6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "article" is nothing but some bloggers attempt to distract the American public from the blatant lies and corruption of this administration.
Reply
"and it seems as information continues to leak out about her that she wasn't lieing about not being told about torture"
What in Gods name are you smoking???-
57%
dunkirk6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, well Tangy why not put your rock solid proof about the corruption up online so everyone can have a good laugh oh wait I mean review your findings. Seems that blogger referenced legit sources for his conclusions which seems to be more then you are doing right now. SO id say Tangy its gotta suck to be a Republican now, marginalized from having views way out of line with reality, having economic policies that almost completely destroyed the economy, against a stimulus plan that is working. Yeah how are those tea parties going?
Reply-
0%
b-happy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See what your doing now. Just to protect Obama and you Liberal friends you start lying to yourself. Duh, Pelosi didn't know about torture? Are you Fing kidding me? She was briefed and she lied about that. Then it turns out she was told to her face and she lied about that. She is on tape doing this. We didn't make it up. Read facts and stop lying to YOURSELF.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
wtagg6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It wasn't Obama who gave the funds (that have been committed) to GM. It was the president that you fully supported.
Reply
Just wanted to get you back on the path of the truth. When Obama actually signs legislation that gives more money to GM, then you can truthfully rant about that all you want and deservedly so. Let's just give credit to who it is due.
-
-
-
78%
Dave596 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually the one quote From Palin in the article said Obama closed a car dealership. These decisions are not being made by the White House. The decisions on closures are being made By the management at GM and Chrysler as well. While maybe not an out right lie on the Governor's part it is a misstatement of facts.
Reply
The thing not stated in this article that is also relevant to the discussion about the car makers is that Dick Cheney said the Bush administration was aware of the GM crisis and did nothing, apparently deciding to take a pass and let the new President deal with it.
As for the lobbyist claim you make have you by chance read the restrictions placed upon them by the administration? It makes a difference, a big difference.
As for the claim about national debt here is a quote from CBS news on 29 Sept, 2008 "On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch." Somehow I think you meant deficit which is different. Never the less if you are going to deal in numbers you should look a little deeper into your facts before making a blanket statement.-
50%
tanglang6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In 96 months the deficit increased by nearly 5 trillion under Bush. In 5 months under Obama it has increased by 1 trillion. At that pace if Obama is POTUS for 8 years the deficit will increase by 19 trillion under Obama. But thats all good right?
Reply-
88%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry to correct Tang.
Reply
first I assume you mean the "dept" and not the deficit.
Second the fiscal year began on Oct 1 2008, we are 8 months into this fiscal year.
I could run the numbers again....Crap I will!
I think it is important, to get this figured out.
It is totally cool to not like Obama, (in my book) but a lot of the numbers being thrown around are incorrect, and I feel compelled to "buzz" about it.-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I figured that was what you meant.
Reply
I know I am talking to a smart dude when I am talking to you.
My brother is a surveyor as well and he says it drives him crazy when his collector numbers do not close.
I get a little nutty about numbers as well being a woodworker.
The Jan,. 20 number is worth considering because Obama's Fiscal year began Oct. 1, there are 107 extra days tagged onto the beginning of that year that is screwing with the data.
The Bail out bill was signed Oct. 3.
It could come back to bite folks, when the next year rolls around and revenue hopefully will be a bit higher.
But If I pretend that the revenue won't change, we keep having to spend the same amount of money each year bailing out folks, and we keep adding more Stimulus bills, and keep spending at the same rate....The dept would end at $16 Trillion not $18. that is a lot of IF'S, and it would not double the dept.
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?applicat...
Reply
Here are national dept numbers from a good source.
I did not get as lucky this time, usually when I check the numbers: Bush's a good bit higher,it seems we sold $78.5 billion worth of bonds on monday.
From Oct. 1 to Jan. 19 Bush increased the dept by $607 billion.
From Jan. 20 to June 3 Obama increased the dept by $747 billion.
Bush 107 days @ $5.64 billion per day.
Obama 134 days @ $5.57 billion per day.
Bush was raising the dept by $70 million more each day.
This is the closest I have ever seen it, and I check frequantly.
The link is a good one and easy to paste the data into a spread sheet.
Intragovernmental Holdings: Bush increased the dept here by $104.3 billion, Obama has reduced it by $44.5 billion. (jan. 20= $4.319 Trillion...June 3= $4.275 trillion).
Last fiscal year the dept increased by $1.323 trillion.
If I multiply by the daily average I hit $2.040 Trillion for this year, of which bush contributed $607 billion in the first 107 days of the fiscal year.
Please take the time to copy the data in a spreadsheet and look at it for yourself.
If you wish to make a tricky partisan argumanet there is th "Dept held by the public" angle.
The Heritage Foundation used these word tricks when it wrote the Repulican budget proposal.
It is true that Obama has increased Public dept at a faster rate, but not the overall dept; he has been replenishing the Intragovernmental Holdings trust funds.-
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/MTS.xls
Reply
This is a link to an excel file from the Treasury department.
(in Millions)
....Period...Receipts. Outlays..Deficit/Surplus (-)
....Oct-08...164,848..402,024..237,177
....Nov-08...144,782..309,179..164,397
....Dec-08...237,811..321,435..83,624
....Jan-09...226,109..309,924..83,815
....Feb-09....87,328..280,111..192,783
....Mar-09...128,957..321,230..192,273
....Apr-09...266,232..287,139..20,907
Bush avarage.193,388..335,641..142,253
Obama Average.196,192.314,670..118,478
This is whar last April looked like:
....Period...Receipts.Outlays..Deficit/Surplus (-)
....Apr-08...403,751..244,469..-159,282
In fairness if you backspace the link adress and look at the monthly treasury report..you will get differant numbers, and they would not support the Bush spent more argument but they would also show a smaller deficit. I do not like it but I guess The Obama administraion is starting to hide stuff too.
Sorry to all you folks that have seen this before, I can't help myself.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My understanding is that even though monthly deficits since Obama became president are comparable or less to those at the end of Bush's term, one of Obama's first acts was to change the way government accounting was recorded so that many expenditures that were previously left off the books (Social Security and the war in Iraq, for instance) were placed back on, in order to create more transparency and honesty in government figures.
Reply
I'm sure it would be illuminating to know how much apparent additional debt that simple rule change created, but haven't found anything stating those figures.
I know you're good at finding the real figures...have you run across anything like that?
-
-
-
-
75%
quackpot6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you tend to forget that Bush's deficits were run up during a time of prosperity - a time that the deficit should have been going DOWN, not up.
Reply
Your extrapolation of deficit increases during a time of economic calamity to an entire 8-year term (yes, I see you recognize that it WILL be an eight year term) is silly. -
83%
Dave596 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually part of the deficit you are talking about is that amount put into the Budget under Obama that was not in the budget under Bush. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The other parts are of course the spending on the bail out or TARP funds. The stimulus package is another part.
Reply
While I don't agree with all of the things proposed in the stimulus or some of the uses the TARP funds have been put to they were and still are needed. The fact is that if our economy completely collapses it will drag other nations along for the ride. Whether we like it or not we deal in global economics today. No it's not all good but it is what we are dealing with. To use that little word you like so much, if , ours and other nations economies should improve due to the expenditure of this money then our tax base will broaden and allow us to pay back the deficits we have incurred.
Over simplification of issues just like this are part of the problem. The media propagates that with small bits of sound and commentators who know almost nothing about the subject that they are talking about.
What I'm trying to say to people is try taking a look beyond your own backyard and actually think about these issues rather than being spoon fed mush by the various media outlets. I too wish that the world had more simple solutions to the problems we face but that just isn't the case. So tanglang it isn't all good and it may be worse than you think but not for the reasons you assume to be true.
-
-
-
Neutral
sinophil496 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
b-happy - "Today, we learned that Obama's decisions continue to impact Alaskans; while we as taxpayers now own General Motors, Obama closes another dealership ."
Reply
The statement that we, the taxpayers, own GM due to Obama's decisions clearly links the failure of the auto industry to Obama rather than to Bush, under whom the economic collapse commenced. THAT is an irrefutable fact of history.
Let me present an analogy.
Let's say a construction firm is contracted to build a dam. They build a defective dam that develops dangerous cracks. This contractor is fired and a new contractor is hired to build a new dam.
While the new contractor prepares to build a new dam, the original dam completely collapses and the flood destroys all the towns downriver.
Should we blame the second contractor for not building the new dam in time to avoid the flood? Or should we blame the original contractor for building a faulty dam in the first place?
Should we blame Obama for not moving fast enough or not pushing an even higher stimulus package to save the auto industry while he is trying to revitalize the entire economy? Or should we blame Bush for not heeding the signs of impending collapse of the mortgage, credit, banking, housing, retail, and now auto industries in late 2007??
-
-
40%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"America's gravest problem is that stupidity has been elevated to a virtue."
Reply
I could not agree with you more, RFE... I find stupidity to be particularly pernicious when it has a "well-educated" patina covering it.
It's not Miller time. It's Mirror time!
Be careful that your musings may boomerang and hit you in the nose!-
-
67%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The far right who reject science, as well as most of the left are of a piece as far as I am concerned.
Reply
The far right fails when they a priori reject the application of the scientific process and scientific knowledge particularly where discovery might "threaten" their "foundations" of religious belief.
The left fails because of their quasi-religious belief that everything encompassing the economic, social and political nature of human individuals and societies is sufficiently known that they can achieve a greater good for all by "scientifically" exercising greater control of the economic, social and political activities of individuals and societies.-
75%
wtagg6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As long as you advocate the government not making choices for the citizenry in all things, you are fine. When you start selecting government intrusion in to the lives of the citizenry, then you are in trouble.
Reply
Usually for most of the crew you hang with, this is a significant problem.-
67%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When you start selecting government intrusion in to the lives of the citizenry, then you are in trouble."
Reply
Agreed. As was understood by the founding fathers... who saw goverment to be necessary... however, the less of it there is, the better.
I find the rejection of science by the fundamentalist right to be of far lesser concern for the long-term health and well-being of the body politic than the quasi-religious belief of the left that more government is the answer to every human and social ill. The right is nowhere near succeeding in killing off science. However, the left is succeeding in massively growing the government's intrusion into our lives.-
75%
wtagg6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"However, the left is succeeding in massively growing the government's intrusion into our lives."
Reply
The right promotes its fair share also. The trouble is that each want the government *their* way. They would do well to think about what less government means, because neither understand that. -
-
50%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Personally, I am very much conflicted about protection of the unborn. I am certainly glad that protections were in place when it was my turn. Of course, if I hadn't seen the light of day, I wouldn't have known the difference, right? But, just think about what you all would have missed.
Reply
I think that, upon close inspection, you will find exceedingly few on the right who care about at all about what you or anyone else does in their bedroom.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
wrfhsgovComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
64%
dunkirk6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"In other words, Palin's contention is a lie. And it's a lie not based on the best interests of Alaskans, but on her own political future."
Reply
Leave it to the Republicans the stimulus is working so we have to sabotoge it any way possible.-
-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
67%
wtagg6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are many instances of where it isn't the actuality of the mechanism working, but the perception that it is working. This is the essence of propaganda. One perfect example:
Reply
Homeland Security
Is the actual mechanism of Homeland Security making us feel more secure or the perception? -
-
50%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which 45 "leading economists" all disagreed with me, Quack? I find it hard to believe that even left-driven economists don't know the difference between monetary and fiscal stimulus.
Reply
Your claim sounds so much like the old commercials where "80% of doctors choose Camel Filters over Lucky Strike."
-
-
Neutral
bigG6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Budgetary stimulus has barely begun to be deployed, so it certainly cannot be working."
Reply
Somewhat true, but partially because the additional money people have been getting in their paychecks have, by many accounts, been saved rather than spent (savings rate going up), or by paying bills off, rather than purchasing new goods(also technically saving).
Seems I remember when Bush gave the first "stimulus" in his first term, the Adminstration almost immediately claimed it was working ( totally discounting the deficit spending and funding of two wars in 2003).
A lot on this site also have short memories.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view=1821
This tax cut was a core focus of my campaign, it was a core component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and it is the most progressive tax cut in American history. And starting April 1st,
Americans saw this tax cut in the extra money that they took home with each paycheck."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/15/oba...
-
-
67%
vor6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I never cut and paste but this is for you b-happy (what a f-d moniker that is for such a thinker):
Reply
"I see a red door and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
I have to turn my head until my darkness goes
I see a line of cars and theyre all painted black
With flowers and my love both never to come back
I see people turn their heads and quickly look away
Like a new born baby it just happens evry day
I look inside myself and see my heart is black
I see my red door and it has been painted black
Maybe then Ill fade away and not have to face the facts
Its not easy facin up when your whole world is black"
That says it better than anything I could possibly write. It isn't a reply do your foolish question (far, far, too early to judge the stimulus) but to your general nauseating and pessimistic bent.
And are you really foolish enough to think that any logical voter believes everything that a politician says? Let me repeat that ,A POLITICIAN? Did GW Bush not disappoint you by being everything but "the one conservative in this race" as he declared himself in '00? How'd that work out? And I sat through a Sarah Palin rally last fall! The disappointments from Obama have been IMO completely overshadowed by the positives. And it appears that both sides have pretty much defined themselves to Americans and it ain't the Republicans that benefit from that equation.
As for your worry about the debt, a reminder that an estimated 13 Trillion in American debt was lost in only a few months at the end of '08. With the government the lender of last resort (by necessity) the debt doesn't shock me in the least. I may even agree with Krugman that the stimuli are not big enough. We shall see. The private sector failed, you do realize that? The free market, capitalism, our economic system failed. No minor glitch.
-
-
-
60%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The left certainly is fixated on Sarah Palin. It must be a visceral fear that drives the steady flow of hit pieces.
Reply
Here's an old article from the left that has quite a different view:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/pal...
It should generate a withering dithering buzz from the "prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment"... a description appropos of the left, in general.-
78%
bluetexasvalley6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The left is fixated on Sarah Palin.
Reply
The left is fixated on Rush Limbaugh.
The left is fixated on George Bush.
The left is fixated on Dick Cheney.
The left is fixated on Sean Hannity.
The left is fixated on Bill O'Reilly.
ad infinitum
What did you say "fixated" means?-
57%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't have anything to say about what "fixated" means, BTV. It had come to have a commonly understood definition long before I arrived on the scene.
Reply
I'll simply refer you to www.dictionary.com.
But, to help you out, here's what I found to be applicable.
fix-ate
To command the attention of exclusively or repeatedly; preoccupy obsessively
Psychology
To attach (oneself) to a person or thing in an immature or neurotic fashion.
To become attached to a person or thing in an immature or pathological way; form a fixation.
To be arrested at an early stage of psychosexual development.
If the foo $hits, my friend....
:-)-
-
-
50%
lovemylibs6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fixated = Geoffrey Dunn on Palin.
Reply
Look at the posts he has made for TheHuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn
The man must have an attraction to her and just can't help himself. Why else would an uber liberal blogger from California devote so much time to Alaska's governor?
Most of his stories cite the random quote from a politician as proof of his Palin theories which is not nearly as good as using facts. -
0%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Comprende, BTV. Shall we call it a thing upon which you are fixated, which would and could be inclusive of your list of favored whipping persons and still meet the definition?
Reply
Glad to see that you at least acknowledge that you are on the left. So many of your persuasion on this site like to think of themselves as "centrists".
-
-
-
-
-
75%
bluetexasvalley6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you, quackie. And my grandmother, if she were still alive, would thank you for referring to me as a "lady", a lofty goal she set for me, but which I never quite achieved in her eyes.
Reply
I think I'm finally catching on to the snark I love on Wonkette. :-)
-
-
58%
Charlson6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From the article: Then there's the matter of Palin calling upon Obama "to take a firm stand against North Korea and defend the states and territories of the United States of America and American allies on the Korean peninsula. "
Reply
Uh, what states and territories are we defending? I agree with allies but states and territories? Maybe you can see them from Alaska? -
60%
beavith16 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yes. as a matter f fact, short of the marianas and Hawaii, Alaska is within sights of NK missile technology.
Reply
now that kim has a functioning bomb, and on Obama's watch, Palin has the duty to defend her state.
jimdoze is correct. what do you lefties fear about Palin? its turning into a fixation. LOL! its almost as if the democratic left are a bunch of stalkers... -
64%
Will13136 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jimdoze is correct. what do you lefties fear about Palin
Reply
---------
everyone should fear that Palin be placed in any national position.. the fear is that people like you actually believe she's qualified to be POTUS.. I have bartenders smarter and more educated than her..-
-
50%
beavith16 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
does she hold national office? is she likely to hold national office?
Reply
i'd say your and your's knee jerk reaction to all things Palin just serves to keep her front and center.
keep it up. you're doing it to yourself.
i accused the left of a fixation. maybe it isn't. it sure is some kind of perverse fascination.-
75%
Will13136 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'd like to spend a couple of hours in a hot tub.. little wine.. little cheese..a joint or two. (I don't do that anymore, but in this case it would be appropriate).. .. talk politics. . but put her in charge of foreign policy.. or running the country. . never..
Reply
she is my type.. cause "I like my women .. just a little on the trashy side"..
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
fempatriot6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sarah Palin has always wanted to be rich and famous. Now she is, but she doesn't want to pay the price. Tough toenails, Sarah. Take your lumps with the rest of the celebrities, and don't be parading your unmarried, pregnant teen aged daughter on stage if you don't want people making jokes about her. I'm not a Letterman fan, and I think sometimes these men forget that they're not in front of a Las Vegas audience, but they have the right to ridicule anyone they want to. Especially celebrities. Palin needs to learn that "no comment" sounds a lot brainer than rambling on and on about something people usually forget by breakfast the next day. She's keeping the feud alive--for what? More publicity?
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.