- Number of books banned by the Wasilla, Alaska, public library: zero. Despite what the MSM says.
- Palin supported sex ed discussion about contraception, so long as it was not explicit. Despite what the WaPo said.
- She did not propose teaching creationism:
I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.
Indeed, "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them." Despite what Time Magazine said. - Yes, Palin supported the "Bridge to Nowhere" at first. But then she killed it--my source was the New York Times on September 22, 2007:
Gov. Sarah Palin ordered state transportation officials to abandon the "bridge to nowhere" project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending. The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island. "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport," Ms. Palin, a Republican, said in a news release, "but the $398 million bridge is not the answer." She directed the State Transportation Department to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport.
By contrast, as Deroy Murdock's Powerpoint shows, Senators Obama and Biden voted for the bridge, even when given the opportunity to shift some funding to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
MORE:
CNN finally reports on Obama and Biden funding the Bridge.
Note: series continues here
(via The Corner, Allahpundit, Instapundit)
7 comments:
Carl,
We all get it that Palin's being slandered.
When are you going to rail against the Paulson Bailout of Swindlers?
You can't claim to be a conservative and not oppose this abomination IMO.
bobn:
I'm not smart enough to critique the bailout. Yes, as a free-market fan, I abhor moral hazard. Yes, I've always hated the implicit government backing of Freddie and Fannie (and am glad we'll never reconstitute those institutions again). But I don't know what would have happened had we let counterparties collapse. Further, I think your narrative blaming it all on Gramm-Leach-Bliley is far too simplified . And I've already lost too much money to be complacent about the risk of further contagion. All this convinces me that I'll never understand finance.
When they wanna rip you off, they call it "creative financing."
So who is gonna profit and who is gonna pay and HOW MUCH?
Palin probably never read the books she wanted banned anyway. What books has Palin read, if any?
Carl,
I'm not talking about the past bailouts, I'm talking about the abomination that Paulson proposed over the weekend and is still pushing - no review, no compensation to the governement, no oversight - just give Paulson 700,000,000,000 and it'll be OK - even though Paulson is the stupidest and/or the most dishonest guy in the room.
Also, it's not just GLB - it also took incredible negligence on the part of all those responsible for regulating the scumbags. Hence McCain's call for the head of Cox - the SEC could have stopped this by simply getting accurate ratings on this sludge.
And when your first link on GLB is to the geniuses at ibdeditorial.com - who also buy into the "it's all because of the CRA" idiocy - you're not doing yourself any favors.
Maybe it is time for another change in the Constitution to allow Bill Clinton to have a third term to bail us out of this mess. Obviously, McCain and Obama do not understand what is going on or how to fix it. Both Bill Clinton and probably Hillary Clinton do. We still have some weeks left before the November election. If we can blow trillions of dollars on idiots and scoundrels, perhaps we can make some smart changes as well.
We had better act quickly.
BILL CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Or perhaps:
BILL AND HILLARY FOR CO-PRESIDENTS 2008!
None of the alternatives look better.
> All this convinces me that I'll never understand finance.
One simple rule: Don't get greedy.
If you're getting more than 10%, then make sure it's money you can deal with losing.
Oh, and, don't feed the trolls. Especially ones without names.
....."creative finance"
It's a way to cheat people in complicated ways so they will not realize at the time they are being cheated that they are being cheated.
Why is legalese used instead of ordinary, clear, understandable English in legal documents?
Perhaps the purpose is to cheat and confuse to maximize legal fees and otherwise cheat the innocent.
Post a Comment