«   |   »

Palin’s Book Full Of Lies: “What Did You Expect? She’s A Conservative!”

by Ben Hoffman

WASHINGTON – Sarah Palin’s new book reprises familiar claims from the 2008 presidential campaign that haven’t become any truer over time.

Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer’s dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.

Palin goes adrift, at times, on more contemporary issues, too. She criticizes President Barack Obama for pushing through a bailout package that actually was achieved by his Republican predecessor George W. Bush — a package she seemed to support at the time.

Source

To quote myself after hearing that Palin’s book should be in the fiction section: “What Did You Expect? She’s A Conservative!”

Posted on November 15, 2009 at 11:38 AM in Education, Politics   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

76 Comments to “Palin’s Book Full Of Lies: “What Did You Expect? She’s A Conservative!””

    
  2. Alan Scott
    November 15, 2009 at 6:33 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    Why the liberal fascination with Sarah Palin? She lost the election, but you guys are still terrified of her. I cannot recall another politician so persecuted after an election.

    You guys had a bunch of low life lawyers sent to Alaska to file endless nuisance lawsuits against her. It’s kinda funny how that’s ok, yet a judge recently fined someone for pursuing legal action regarding Obama’s birth certificate.

    Ahhh, the double standard.

    Reply
  3. Ben
    November 15, 2009 at 8:13 PM

    So there we have it; the left cannot seem to satisfy their DNC Recommended Daily Allowance of Palin Bashing. Meanwhile, the inept management of our country by their Walk-On-Water Glorified Community Organizer/Social Worker is emptying the Treasury, bringing the country to the precipice of bankruptcy and pursuing programs that any sane person would know we can’t afford. Somehow and for some reason which no one seems to understand, the left gives this enemy of the state a free pass.

    The leftist don’t seem to have a firm grasp on what’s important to focus on.

    OK, bash away at Palin. It’s rather amusing to see how frothed in the mouth they get at the mere mention of her name; eyes glaze over with that 1000 mile stare right before the launch into an emotionally-driven tyrade like some 5-year old in isle 5 at the grocery store brought on by mom saying “No” after reaching for a box of cookies.

    So get your panties in a wad Dems, and leave the rest of us to determine what’s important for this country.

    It certainly isn’t Palin, but I’ll leave that up to you to figure out on your own. Maybe one day it will sink in, but I somehow doubt it.

    Meanwhile, we’ll be working diligently to get that SOB BOH out of office.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 15, 2009 at 9:59 PM

      [It’s rather amusing to see how frothed in the mouth they get at the mere mention of her name; eyes glaze over with that 1000 mile stare right before the launch into an emotionally-driven tyrade like some 5-year old in isle 5 at the grocery store brought on by mom saying “No” after reaching for a box of cookies.]

      That’s exactly what your post sounds like. I just said her book is full of lies. 😉

      Reply
  4. anamericanidiot
    November 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM

    I haven’t read her book and I suspect neither has Mr. Hoffman. Thus I won’t comment on the substance of the book. I also won’t defend Palin’s IQ since I’ve not had enough exposure to her that wasn’t part of a smear campaign from the left. The interviews she flubbed were designed from the start to smear her, an inexperienced candidate from a small isolated state. On that basis she wasn’t qualified last year. Interestingly, the same reason Obama wasn’t qualified and evidenced by his blunderings in office. (I know, you are completely ignorant of any missteps on the part of Obama and will now proceed with a personal attack. I love predictability.)

    Rather than debate a book neither of us has read I’d like to jump in on the discussion of your fear of Palin. If indeed she is an idiot why fear her winning the WH? I mean after all, you’re not running a compulsive liar against her like you did W. Or are you? Perhaps the fear stems from the fact that lies are hard to support over the long-term when the facts and evidence of policy effects will be overwhelmingly evident in 2012 and certainly by 2016. By then Palin will have exposed herself to more political hard-knocks, she’ll be better prepared for the sneering pompous assholes in the press who pull their granny glasses halfway down their incredibly long noses as they exaggerate their disdain. Perhaps, she will have even met a few foreign leaders and expanded her international and cultural education.

    That is what you fear. Because a more educated likable Sarah Palin might actually be a threat to a two faced Obama who may well be at the helm of an America seriously staring down the barrel of a financial suicide firearm. Yeah, tell lies now, accuse her of anything and everything now so latter it sounds more believable. How many liberals actually believe Palin said she could see Russia from her house? I guess all of them. Her actual quote was factual if not relevant. But facts are only important when they are on your side.

    Rather than attack future political opponents with lies and smears, try supporting policies that will actually create jobs, strengthen the nation, and reduce threats to our freedom. Instead you stand here shaking in fear of a woman you don’t know, haven’t listened to yourself, and certainly do not understand.

    When I can’t stand someone on the left I usually try to read their books and understand them. It gives you a better perspective on what you should really disagree with.

    Reply
  5. steve
    November 16, 2009 at 1:08 PM

    Just look at the “source” Ben uses as his “Fact Check”. I laughed as I read the leberal Associated Press’ clearly left leaning ‘facts’ of which there wasn’t one link, or source…using the terms ‘she seemed to’ and then falsly decerning Obama’s policies…along with the continued blame Bush saga; then at the end acknowledged the contributing writers. What a joke! Ben, I know this is difficult…but why don’t you do your own research…find real facts…and provide links to those facts, instead of taking a clip from the Associated Press, which clearly hates Ms. Palin and use that to smear her.
    You are right about one thing…the liberal wackos are scared to death of Ms. Palin.

    Reply
  6. Ben
    November 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM

    Hoffman,

    Let’s go over the fine points about Palin’s “transgressions”

    You point to a source which questions Palin’s frugality when traveling, running her campaign for governor on small donations, her railing against taxpayer-financed bailouts, says Ronald Reagan faced an even worse recession than the one that appears to be ending now, says her team overseeing the development of a natural gas pipeline set up an open, competitive bidding process,etc., etc.

    Honestly, Mr. Hoffman, the charges against Palin about certain facts in her book are in many cases, a “he said/she said” affair while other disputes seem to be over trivial and inconsequential issues.

    For example:
    PALIN: Describing her resistance to federal stimulus money, Palin describes Alaska as a practical, libertarian haven of independent Americans who don’t want “help” from government busybodies.

    THE FACTS: Alaska is also one of the states most dependent on federal subsidies, receiving much more assistance from Washington than it pays in federal taxes. A study for the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that in 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington.

    Now really. Who the fuck cares? The retort is simply whining. While Palin attempts to describes “Alaska as a practical, libertarian haven of independent Americans who don’t want “help” from government busybodies.” which is to describe the attitudes of Alaskans in no way makes her out to be a liar.

    It’s tantamount to me not wishing for government to plan for my retirement, but because I contribute to Social Security, I’m somehow made out to be a liar or a hypocrite.

    This in minutia.

    Here. Let me give you something more real and more weighty to be concerned over.

    If you have a brain in your head, you’ll start using it to think. Then you’ll realize you’re doing just what the Democrats want you to do; not question them but question (of all people, geeze) Palin. When you can do that, you’ll turn your gaze away from Palin, and get serious about questioning Obama.

    You should be concerned about preserving your country and the future of your kids. There is nothing good to come from this man and you know it but because you’re so emotionally attached to the DNC and Obama you can’t/won’t see it.

    Look, I’ve even railed against Bush. He lost me a few weeks after his second election. He spent money like a Democrat, wouldn’t do anything about the leaking sieve called our borders, seemed content with hading over port security to a Saudi Arabian firm, didn’t get tough about Fannie/Freddie with bills in the works to regulate and perhaps even stave off a meltdown. In some cases I called him an fucking idiot. How could I do that? It’s simple: I haven’t handed my emotions and allegiance over to Bush and the GOP. I was able to keep my head and still able to recognize “When you’re wrong, your wrong.” Bush was wrong on many issues and I was very often not happy with him.

    The truth will set you free.

    Reply
    • steve
      November 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM

      Very well put Ben. Liberals think that conservatives just loved G.W. Bush when was a freaking weasel in more ways than most know. But this “blame Bush” crap and whining about stuff that doesn’t mean a thing is the basis of the left’s argument; when in the mean time they won’t see that Obama and company are $12 TRILLION overdrawn and are still spending like it’s going out of style…wanting to get he debt limit raised another trillion, so they can spend it too.

      Reply
  7. Ben Hoffman
    November 16, 2009 at 3:01 PM

    Ha! You neocons are sure having a hissy-fit over this! 🙂

    Reply
    • Ben
      November 16, 2009 at 3:16 PM

      And you’ve managed to get your panties in a wad over Palin.

      Do yourself a favor and pick an issue which is relevant and do the research to back it up.

      Right now, your posting on this is looking rather anemic, a lot like Obama’s $787 billion TARP bill he signed into law.

      Reply
    • anamericanidiot.net
      November 16, 2009 at 8:13 PM

      Sleepygirl,

      W. wasn’t very much of a fiscal conservative and TARP was one of his biggest blunders. Remember Bush lost much of his conservative base. You don’t get those kinds of negatives without doing so.

      Reply
      • Ben Hoffman
        November 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM

        [Remember Bush lost much of his conservative base.]

        No, he never lost the conservative base. He lost the independents. Tell me you didn’t defend him up until he left office.

      • anamericanidiot.net
        November 17, 2009 at 5:16 PM

        Well, he certainly lost me. I was embarrassed every time he spoke without a prepared speech/ I am on record with those who know me well of being critical of the Iraq invasion even before it was started. On the grounds mentioned here as well as my objection to Bush’s insistence that Saddam prove a negative. In my logic class I recall that being impossible. I stopped defending Bush but never joined the whiney Bush haters.

        I was just so glad his time was up but crest-fallen that the nation elected a starry-eyed wet-behind-the-ears socialist to replace him. There has not been a candidate from either party I have been satisfied with since Bob Dole.

  8. Vern R. Kaine
    November 17, 2009 at 1:37 AM

    What is with the “can do no wrong” attitude that both Democrat and Republican party faithfuls seem so chock full of these days? Has either side become so politically brainwashed that they no longer can tell where their own nose ends and their party’s a$$ begins and form an original opinion in support of the other side?

    I pray for an end to the dogmatism of either the Wingnuts OR the Obamanauts that seems to plague both.

    Reply
    • anamericanidiot.net
      November 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM

      Agreed. We keep sending up nominees who either look good or make us feel good. It’s high school politics at a national level only much more dangerous. It has become a rare thing for someone of true substance to make it through the gauntlet and get elected. Because anyone who is a true “maverick” is filtered out by their own party leaders. That’s how we end up with empty suits, puppets, and ego maniacs. Sometimes all in one package – like now.

      Party loyalty has been fairly consistent for decades now. About a third of voters never cross their chosen party lines. The candidates campaign for the votes of the 40% who can be swayed by rhetoric, character, looks, or sometimes actual policy positions. But can we believe what candidates are saying? In the last campaign I heard an Obama who many times espoused moderate ideas he had previously opposed. When he got elected he reverted back to his radical positions.

      Reply
  9. Ben
    November 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM

    Facts will always trump opinion.

    Reply
  10. Ben
    November 17, 2009 at 11:47 AM

    Case in point;

    The Obama Administration like to cite the number of jobs saved. (It’s ludicrous to believe that number can actually be calculated.)

    The web site set up by the Obama Administration used to track the TARP stimulus money says in Arizona’s 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending.

    There’s one problem: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8942985

    Reply
  11. Alan Scott
    November 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    “We’re terrified that you nut-jobs might get her elected president some day.”

    Nut-jobs. Tisk, tisk, tisk. Why can’t we have a civil discussion on the issues? This is what is wrong with America. I visit your little website to politely exchange views about a bright independent woman, and I get called a “nut-job”. I think I’ll talk to Ben, since he knows how to be civil.

    Ben,

    To change the subject a little. You said,

    “It’s tantamount to me not wishing for government to plan for my retirement, but because I contribute to Social Security, I’m somehow made out to be a liar or a hypocrite.”

    This reminds me of something Chris Mathews tried to pull on MSNBC. He wanted to ask someone on the right if they would take a pledge not to collect SS, since it was a so called socialist scheme. To this trap question I thought up my own answer.

    Sure I will take that deal you socialist bastard. Only with the following condition. I want all of my and my employers contributions refunded to me tax free with 7% compounded interest.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM

      Sure, Alan. You nut-jobs go ahead and talk amongst yourselves. 🙂

      Reply
    • Ben
      November 17, 2009 at 6:57 PM

      Well I don’t know about civil … I did manage to call Hoffman (as I call him to keep things clear for the other readers) a couple of names. You gotta know that I usually refrain from name-calling as it is kind of immature but I allowed myself to get down to Hoffman’s level and I actually suggested he was “either crazy, stoo-pid, or just taunting like a 4 year old”.

      I had to retract “stoo-pid” on account of a mistaken identity regarding a TARP bill but let the other 2 accusations stand as they “have yet to be disproven”. I thought it was kind of funny, acctually.

      You can read it here. (still think it’s funny)
      http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/the-selective-and-self-serving-memories-of-the-left/#comments

      Back to your observation; yea I think it’s a trap question too. For one thing, I have no choice. Like it or not, I have to contribute. I’d be crazy to not take the SS money I paid for. I ran into a blogger who accused the GOP of being hypocrites on that basis alone. Just another blanket statement with no basis on fact.

      Sort of like what Hoffman does. He’s kind of like a drive-by shooter in that way. He’ll pop his head up and lob out some kind of inflammatory rhetoric and then run off to see what happens.

      If I get down to his level again, you can expect me to say something like “not so!” to one of his allegations to which he will feel compelled to retort with “is too!” and then it gets out of control from there.

      Reply
      • Ben Hoffman
        November 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM

        You right-wingers are angels and pure as the driven snow. I thank god every day that you provide your insightful comments on my humble blog. Thank you. Thank god. And god bless America.

  12. Ben
    November 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM

    How long have you been a bitter old man Hoffman or were you abused as a child?

    Reply
  13. Alan Scott
    November 18, 2009 at 4:53 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    “You right-wingers are angels and pure as the driven snow. I thank god every day that you provide your insightful comments on my humble blog. Thank you. Thank god. And god bless America.”

    Now see that didn’t hurt a bit, did it? I always say that if you only converse with people who agree with you, you will not learn anything new.

    Even if we cannot convince one another of anything, when you have to defend your statements, it clarifies your thoughts. It makes it harder to slip something cheap through. Besides even if I cannot change your or Ms. Holland’s mind, I may peel off a liberal or two tuning in.

    Ben,

    In defense of Mr. Hoffman, he does allow us to disagree with him. We know exactly what we are getting by posting on his board.

    Back to Sarah Palin, and I do apologize for going off topic, I do not think I’d do well having to come up with split second answers to loaded questions. I prefer having the time to research what I say. Remember the loaded question that Charlie Gibson tripped up Gov. Palin with. ” You don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is.”

    According to Karl Rove, there either is no Bush Doctrine or there are three. There really was no answer to the question and low life Gibson knew it. Of course there was some cosmic justice because Charlie boy got to look stupid when he had no idea about the ACORN scandal a week or two after it was the biggest thing on cable news.

    Reply
    • anamericanidiot.net
      November 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM

      Gibson looked like an idiot to me when he pulled his glasses halfway down his nose to overstate his disdain for Palin even before asking any questions.

      Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM

      [In defense of Mr. Hoffman, he does allow us to disagree with him.]

      Yes, disagreements are more than welcome, name calling is not because that stops the debate in its tracks.

      [Remember the loaded question that Charlie Gibson tripped up Gov. Palin with. ” You don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is.”]

      No, I think he asked her how she felt about the Bush doctrine and she tried to bluff her way through it. That’s where she screwed up.

      [Of course there was some cosmic justice because Charlie boy got to look stupid when he had no idea about the ACORN scandal a week or two after it was the biggest thing on cable news.]

      It might have been the biggest story on Fox “news” since they blow that kind of thing all out of proportion, but it was a minor story everywhere else.

      Reply
  14. Alan Scott
    November 18, 2009 at 8:10 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    “It might have been the biggest story on Fox “news” since they blow that kind of thing all out of proportion, but it was a minor story everywhere else.”

    You are right about it being a minor story on the lapdog media, but I do not see where it is possible to exaggerate a story about a corrupt group sucking up millions of my hard earned tax dollars.

    “No, I think he asked her how she felt about the Bush doctrine and she tried to bluff her way through it. That’s where she screwed up.”

    You see things with your eyes and I see them with mine. Governor Palin asked Charlie boy to clarify his question and all he would do is say, you mean you don’t know what the Bush doctrine is? The man is a jack ass. YOU would not have known what the Bush doctrine was, but now you can sit back and say with Charlie that she was stupid. As I said Mr. Rove explained that there was no Bush doctrine or there were 3, depending on which media idiot you spoke to.

    anamericanidiot.net,

    I believe that Governor Palin was naive. Coming from Alaska she did not know the national media and expected fair treatment. Me thinks that now she has been blooded by Charley and the rest of the impartial media, she is wiser.

    It is clear that while Palin was totally crapped on by the media, they totally protect Obama and his idiot side kick. I wonder what they would have said if Palin had asked a wheel chair bound man to stand and take a bow like crazy joe did?

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM

      What about when Katie Couric asked her what newspapers and magazines she read and she couldn’t name one. Do you think that was a “gotcha” question?

      Just curious.

      Reply
    • anamericanidiot.net
      November 19, 2009 at 8:50 AM

      As I wrote on my blog and have mentioned to countless friends, the more they attack her the wiser and more hardened she will become. The wise strategy would have been to treat her as Republicans treated Ferrero in 1985. Ignore her. She faded away with a minor role in the Clinton Administration.

      Now they are calling her out onto the national stage. Like taunting a boxer for a rematch. Only in this case they are playing the role of her trainer and sparring partner at the same time. IDIOTS!

      I wasn’t impressed with Palin the first time but we’ll see how she enters the national stage in 2012. Something tells me she’ll know more answers and have more of an edge on her. I blame McCain for much of her problems last time. She was a hail-mary pass regardless of the objections, and she wasn’t ready for the national stage. She probably never would have been. But she will now.

      Reply
  15. Ben
    November 19, 2009 at 10:07 AM

    Sarah Palin is indeed a lightning rod for reasons I have yet see.

    Beck on the other hand is being labeled as a nut-job simply on the basis of citing facts. Go figure. No? Then cite an example from Beck not based upon fact. I’m willing to listen.

    While these two remain the focus for those with nothing serious to think about, I cite Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, John Murtha, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Ward Churchill, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, as quintessential moonbats who together, represent the views and speak for all Democrats.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM

      [Sarah Palin is indeed a lightning rod for reasons I have yet see. ]

      It’s because you nut-jobs have propelled her into national prominence and she has done nothing of merit to warrant all the attention.

      [Beck on the other hand is being labeled as a nut-job simply on the basis of citing facts.]

      It’s simply because he’s a wacko. A fear mongering, hate mongering, conspiracy mongering wacko.

      Reply
      • anamericanidiot.net
        November 19, 2009 at 10:43 AM

        Hoffman,

        You are not using any facts or reasons. You are simply name-calling. Such a second-grade response and clear evidence you don’t have a leg to stand on.

        Ben named off the true nut-jobs and we can supply the evidence to back it up.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 19, 2009 at 10:48 AM

        So you want to have a debate on who’s a nut-job and who’s not? Talk about an intellectual discussion! 🙂

      • Ben
        November 19, 2009 at 11:10 AM

        RE:It’s because you nut-jobs have propelled her into national prominence and she has done nothing of merit

        What a well thought-out response.

        Reconcile that statement against the empty-suit sitting in the White House now and put there by so many clueless and uneducated voters.

        Tell me what, if anything, Obama accomplished prior to being propelled into national prominence. Why nothing, of course. In fact, you and I both know it was the media, documented as being staffed with like-minded moonbats, funded by George Soros, and “in the tank” for Obama as being one of the largest reasons Obama is in the office today, not because of any deep experience which qualifies him to be there.

        Jimmy Carter had more experience, as shallow as it was, than this wet-behind-the-ears excuse for a “leader”.

        If you are going to use experience as a guidepost by which to determine who is qualified and who is not, then you are certainly capable of identifying your precious Barack Obama as being less deserving than anyone, especially Palin who has many more years of actually governing than Obama will ever hope to obtain. So far, he’s still running a popularity contest.

        I know of no better way to render the Nobel Peace Prize down to a level of irrelevance than to present it to a glorified community organizer who has yet to do anything to deserve it.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 19, 2009 at 11:44 AM

        [Reconcile that statement against the empty-suit sitting in the White House now and put there by so many clueless and uneducated voters.]

        What’s your educational level, Ben?

      • Ben
        November 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM

        RE:uneducated voters
        Uneducated about the issues and uneducated about our government.

    • Ben
      November 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM

      This guy’s take on the election mirrors mine to a large extent.

      Reply
    • Ben
      November 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM

      You once said,

      “half the people here have an I.Q. of less than 100 and generally vote Republican. That’s why our country is in the mess it’s in.”

      which is an unfounded and general insult about intellect. It is quite a bit different than being uneducated on political issues.

      A recent Pew political IQ poll indicates Republicans to be consistently more knowledgeable about our government than Democrats.
      http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/pew_political_iq_poll_republic.asp

      Then there’s always this to drive that point home:

      Reply
  16. Ben
    November 19, 2009 at 11:17 AM

    RE:So you want to have a debate on who’s a nut-job and who’s not? Talk about an intellectual discussion!

    When you claim a person is a “nut-job” and asked to quantify “why” with fact, it is far removed from being a debate over who is and who isn’t.

    I would have expected that you would be able to make that distinction.

    When you continue to go down that path of “drive by” accusations without backing them up, it does nothing to advance dialog, create common ground or advance your position or create credibility. In fact, it only serves to render your comments as irrelevant to the discussion.

    Reply
  17. Alan Scott
    November 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    “What about when Katie Couric asked her what newspapers and magazines she read and she couldn’t name one. Do you think that was a “gotcha” question?

    Just curious.”

    I think that considering the lack of quality in today’s newspapers and magazines, the fact that she does not read them is a real plus.

    I think Ben made a good point. You label Beck as a nut job, yet you cannot give direct evidence of it. I got in to it with one of your liberal co conspirators Democratic Diva. She claimed that Beck repeatedly lied. I asked her to give me examples of where Glen Beck lied. When I checked out her stuff, I could not verify that Beck actually said what she claimed.

    She never answered my challenge to give me absolute proof. Now I on the other hand could bury you in facts about real nut jobs like Olbermann who are on your side.

    americanidiot.net

    “I wasn’t impressed with Palin the first time but we’ll see how she enters the national stage in 2012.”

    Have you ever seen Governor Palin in person? I have. She has at least as much pure rock star power as Barak Hussein Obama. Unlike him she has executive experience and real accomplishments. When she came on stage with Senator McCain, there was no question who the crowd was there to see.

    Obama never worried about being upstaged by Senator Biden.

    Reply
  18. Alan Scott
    November 20, 2009 at 7:11 PM

    Mr. Hoffman,

    I briefly scanned what you posted. I wish I could check out them all, but the second one is definitely a matter of opinion. As much as I like Mitt Romney, because he is a Republican and he is not Obama, Mr. Beck definitely has an argument about what Government Health care is doing to the finances of Massachusetts.

    Granted the economy sucks, but in a lot of places it really, really sucks.

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/24855.html

    7/13/09

    Excerpt:

    “Massachusetts has enacted the largest percentage increase of any state, moving from 5% to 6.25%, a 25% increase. Massachusetts is estimating its budget shortfall at $5 billion and this drastic increase is meant to fill that gap. The decision to raise the rate rather than broaden the base is not a sound policy judgment, and it will hurt Massachusetts in interstate comparisons,”

    Reply
  19. Notalib
    November 21, 2009 at 7:56 AM

    What is most amazing about Sarah Palin is she holds no office, she has no influence on any kind of policy, all she did was write a book and the left are the ones who really keep her in the news. What about a mom from Alaska scares them so much? It is amazing and laughable at the same time.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM

      [she has no influence on any kind of policy]

      That’s not true. She was able to influence the N.Y. district race a few weeks ago.

      [all she did was write a book]

      Actually, she had a ghost-writer write it.

      [the left are the ones who really keep her in the news]

      It’s like watching a train wreck, over and over and over… 🙂

      Reply
      • sleepygirl
        November 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM

        That’s what’s so fun about watching Sarah Palin in the news. I love watching her trip over herself time and time again! Sarah Palin is not scary. She’s offensive to me as a woman, but she’s definitely not scary. She’s nothing more than entertainment.

        And I must say again…it takes absolutely nothing to piss of these neocons! They come to a liberal blog, expecting to see liberal viewpoints, and yet they still get so angry! I’ve never seen so much venom before. It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

      • anamericanidiot.net
        November 21, 2009 at 7:46 PM

        So what if Palin used a ghostwriter. Wouldn’t be the first politician to do it. Rumor is Bill Ayers may have ghostwritten an Obama book. The claim is on the same shakey ground.

        The train wreck won the election. The train wreck is the economy and it ain’t getting better. The train wreck is what lefties expect from the government. Hell, why don’t we all quit work and let those rich people pay for everything?

        The federal deficit and the national debt are growing exponentially and unsustainably. If these fiscal policies are sustained, it may lead to our government defaulting on the debt as Latin American nations have done, hyperinflation and massive unemployment would reduce the world’s wealthiest nation to just another third world hell-hole. But I suppose to BH and Sleepygirl it’s worth the risk to get “free health care.”

        Today you’ll laugh at us for “over-reacting”, heads firmly planted in the ground. Pointing at Reagan and Bush’s deficits is like Ted Bundy (no he wasn’t a character in Married with Children) pointing at OJ and saying he did it too. Oh you don’t get it because OJ brutally killed two people, Bundy just prior to his execution claimed to have killed between 35 & 130 people – brutally. Bush’s total 8 yr accumulated deficit = $2.7519 trillion. Obama 1 yr deficit = $3.617 trillion

        Sleepygirl commented, “I’ve never seen so much venom before.” Dear you’ve never read a left-wing blog? I recall when Reagan died and when Falwell died reading the most vile shit I’ve ever read. More hatred than can be stomached. But if you are a hater you can easily overlook the vile vomit that flows out of the mouths of like-minded haters.

        BTW, You don’t have me angry just shocked in disbelief that anyone can continue buying the lies of the left. While the Dems wreak havoc on the economy you guys waste time calling Palin a liar without reading her book. You just refer to some hack with an agenda. Oh well, I’ll leave you with some off-the-wall musical lyrics. After all it’s all hope and lollipops isn’t it.

        Streetlights, people
        Livin’ just to find emotion
        Hidin’, somewhere in the night

        Don’t stop believin’
        Hold on to the feelin’

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 21, 2009 at 10:49 PM

        [Bush’s total 8 yr accumulated deficit = $2.7519 trillion. Obama 1 yr deficit = $3.617 trillion]

        Ha! If you’re going to lie, why not just really go for it. Claim Bush had a surplus!

        The fact is, Bush increased the federal debt by over 5 trillion dollars, which doubled the U.S. debt. The interest on the debt built up by Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. is now almost 500 billion dollars a year.

        Face it. You’re just a little sheep who will lie to defend your party. That’s pretty pathetic.

      • anamericanidiot.net
        November 24, 2009 at 12:56 PM

        BH, your accusation was disingenuous. I found these numbers at heritage.org. I know you’ll impeach the source as that is the lib way. However, here is a non partisan source (if anything run by a paper can be truly non-partisan) that spells it out better: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/22/freedom-project/freedom-project-claims-deficit-biggest-history-and/

        To blame TARP on the Republicans is spurious. Republicans voted against it. Obama and his colleagues on the left passed it with Bush. So technically your attack on Ben was offbase. Bush was acting like a Democrat his entire last year in office with exception to the war on terror.

        Finally I found your answer to my last point hilarious. Even accepting the $5 trillion number over 8 years, Obama will surpass that in his first term. The CBO estimates the deficit through 2019 at $9 trillion and we all know they underestimate everything. After health care & additional job losses, I expect that number to be much higher. Why should we expect fiscal restraint to start now? At the rate they are going – maybe double.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 24, 2009 at 2:17 PM

        From your own link:

        [According to the CBO, spending increased by 24 percent from fiscal year 2008 to 2009 — the largest increase since 1952.

        Much of that increase is the result of big-ticket items enacted in 2008, including $133 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $291 billion for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Obama administration tacked on an additional $115 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Other big spending items include a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On top of that, tax revenue is down about $400 billion, because individual income and corporate profits have dropped due to the economic downturn.

        • The TARP. President Bush asked for the TARP funding, and in both chambers, Republicans voted for the measure (91 House Republicans and 34 Senate Republicans, to be exact).]

        [Finally I found your answer to my last point hilarious.]

        You right-wingers have a weird sense of humor.

      • anamericanidiot.net
        November 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM

        Hilarious because you keep pointing at deficits that are proportionately dwarfed by the current administration’s spending spree. You hold the record for the greatest single year deficit and by the end of next year will hold the record for any president’s entire tenure. Yet you’ll keep pointing at Bush. Like a kid who just burned down the house pointing at the neighbor kid and saying, “but Johnny plays with matches too!” It is also worth noting (again) that the Democrats held the purse strings for the worst 2 years on record before Obama took office and that Obama voted for most of that rampant spending. Mind you I’m not letting Bush off the hook for being a willing accomplice.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 24, 2009 at 3:43 PM

        [Like a kid who just burned down the house pointing at the neighbor kid and saying, “but Johnny plays with matches too!”]

        That’s a ridiculous analogy. It’s more like the house was on fire, the fire trucks were on fire, the fire station was on fire, and then we elected a new fire chief and you’re trying to blame him for the fires when he’s trying to put the fires out.

      • anamericanidiot.net
        November 24, 2009 at 4:20 PM

        Only if the new fireman were attempting to put out the fire with gasoline.

        The Democrats are trying to balance the budget by spending exponentially more money. Or when liberals spend money you can’t see how big the numbers are. I know 3 trillion is inconceivable to the human mind.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 24, 2009 at 4:48 PM

        [The Democrats are trying to balance the budget by spending exponentially more money.]

        No, they’re trying to stimulate the economy.

        The main fire right now is the economy. While the debt is a major fire, also, it has been out of control since the 80s, with the exception of a few years during the late 90s when we had budget surpluses.

        Funny how right-wingers are now so concerned about the deficits and the debt.

  20. Alan Scott
    November 22, 2009 at 11:02 AM

    sleepygirl,

    “She’s offensive to me as a woman,”

    So what type of woman is offended by a Sarah Palin? The concept is alien to me. Please explain.

    Reply
    • sleepygirl
      November 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM

      Oh please. Do you even care?

      Reply
      • The Arbourist
        November 22, 2009 at 1:47 PM

        Hmmm…issues that might be offensive to women and others from Ms. Palin.

        From On the issues.org

        I picked some of the more egregious positions she supports/has supported in the past.

        #Constitution does offer an inherent right to privacy. (Oct 2008)
        #While mayor, Wasilla charged rape victims for rape kits. (Sep 2008)
        # Opposes embryonic stem cell research. (Aug 2008)
        # Every baby is created with a future and potential. (Aug 2008)
        #Choose life, even if her own daughter were raped. (Nov 2006)
        #Only exception for abortion is if mother’s life would end. (Jul 2006)

        #Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
        # Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
        # No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
        # Top priorities include preserving definition of “marriage”. (Jul 2006)

        # Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
        # Supports teaching intelligent design in public
        schools. (Aug 2008)

        # Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. (Aug 2008)
        # Sue US government to stop listing polar bear as endangered. (Aug 2008)

        #Health care must be market-and business-driven. (Jan 2008)

        #Agrees with Bush Doctrine, if enough legitimate intel. (Sep 2008)
        #Proclaim “Loyalty Day” to reaffirm loyalty to America. (Apr 2007)

        # Religion: non-denominational Bible-believing Christian. (Aug 2008)
        # Declare a National Day of Prayer in Alaska. (Apr 2008)
        # The Bible has profoundly influenced America. (Oct 2007)
        # Recognize America’s historic and founding Christian heritage. (Sep 2007)

      • anamericanidiot.net
        November 24, 2009 at 4:00 PM

        Arbourist,

        Her religion is offensive? Listed as one of “the more egregious positions she supports.” [bleep] To adapt your terminology. Let me think about what you are saying in this list. But I’ll just list the outrageous ones.

        # Every baby is created with a future and potential.
        You are suggesting that not all children are entitled to a future or too seek their potential. The Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created equal” must offend you. I know most elites and intellectual snobs would not say so publically.

        # Top priorities include preserving definition of “marriage”.
        Not sure why preserving the historic definition of marriage would be offensive to women in general. There is a long historic and religious tradition that define and make marriage what it is.

        # Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools.
        I understand not wanting to teach children other points of view or opening them up to possibilities other than those sanctioned by the state. I thought schools were a place of intellectual exploration but failure to recognize that evolution is the creation myth of atheism precludes any opposition. I recall the Catholic church doing this in the middle ages. You’re on solid ground with this idea of religious purity.

        # Sue US government to stop listing polar bear as endangered.
        Not sure I agree with palin on this one but Polar Bears are increasing in numbers. However, what I didn’t get was why this is “egregious” especially to women.

        #Health care must be market-and business-driven.
        Again why would this offend women in particular? I guess because judging from your earlier points you believe women hold abortion as a most sacred right and as such you are sure any national health care plan run by the government and created by the left, will pay for and promote abortion. Yea! Let’s kill all the poor babies!

        # Religion: non-denominational Bible-believing Christian.
        Again why is this “egregious”? Can no one believe different than you? You are a dangerous person if you continue in this sort of reasoning. I bet the majority of women would not be offended by her exercise of her freedom OF religion even if they disagreed. I’m not Buddist but I wouldn’t be offended if she were.

        # The Bible has profoundly influenced America.
        # Recognize America’s historic and founding Christian heritage.
        THESE ARE FACTS – not “egregious positions.” [bleep]

  21. anamericanidiot.net
    November 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM

    BH,

    Thanks for engaging in an interesting conversation. I know we got off-topic a bit.

    Obviously we’ll never agree but even if you don’t I’ll support your right to hold any opinion you wish to have. I think as Americans we need to guard against suppressing opposing points of view. When I listen to the left I hear an increasingly intolerant and closed minded bunch. I think it is dangerous. Just watch that Murtha video. That was outrageous.

    We stand at the crossroads. We can return to the American ideals of tolerance and freedom or we can squelch opposing ideas, refuse compromise, and become like China.

    I’m going on vacation and ending my contributions to this thread. I’d wish you folks a happy thanksgiving only I’m not sure those on the left have anyone to thank or appreciate what you have. After all it seems you’re willingly surrendering all our freedoms and our American prosperity.

    Reply
  22. The Arbourist
    November 24, 2009 at 5:09 PM

    anamericanidiot said:

    # Every baby is created with a future and potential.
    You are suggesting that not all children are entitled to a future or too seek their potential. The Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created equal” must offend you. I know most elites and intellectual snobs would not say so publically.

    Well, if you go by your foreign policy decisions over the years, clearly the children of Iraq during the sanctions and the subsequent wars do not fit this description. Nor the children of Afghanistan.

    ‘Wrong skin colour I suppose.’ <— You see here, this statement is not a direct attack, but it merely implies you hold questionable opinions on race. Please see the last line of your opening statement as far as making inferences to my intellectual acumen. I suggest you keep to the topic as ad hominem attacks do not advance your arguments.

    # Top priorities include preserving definition of “marriage”.
    Not sure why preserving the historic definition of marriage would be offensive to women in general. There is a long historic and religious tradition that define and make marriage what it is.

    Marriage is one of many patriarchal structures that are not necessarily in the best interests of women. Slavery has (continues to) had a long history and the extra bonus of being supported by religion. So having a long traditional religious history is not all that it is cracked up to be.

    # Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools.
    I understand not wanting to teach children other points of view or opening them up to possibilities other than those sanctioned by the state. I thought schools were a place of intellectual exploration but failure to recognize that evolution is the creation myth of atheism precludes any opposition. I recall the Catholic church doing this in the middle ages. You’re on solid ground with this idea of religious purity.

    Well you see if intelligent design was more than just creationist non sense dressed up with some intellectual sounding hand waving I would be all for it. However, unlike evolution which is fact, ID is not and therefore should not be taught in schools other than perhaps as an example how not to do science.

    #Health care must be market-and business-driven.
    Again why would this offend women in particular? I guess because judging from your earlier points you believe women hold abortion as a most sacred right and as such you are sure any national health care plan run by the government and created by the left, will pay for and promote abortion. Yea! Let’s kill all the poor babies!

    A woman’s body is her own. The choices she makes about her body, including reproductive health, should be covered by the state. To end with a similar paraphrase: Let’s keep all those bitches barefoot, pregnant and denuded of rights so us dudes can (continue) to rule the roost.

    Reproductive autonomy and the rights of women are intrinsically interrelated and a reduction in one area effects the other significantly.

    # Religion: non-denominational Bible-believing Christian.
    Again why is this “egregious”? Can no one believe different than you? You are a dangerous person if you continue in this sort of reasoning. I bet the majority of women would not be offended by her exercise of her freedom OF religion even if they disagreed. I’m not Buddist but I wouldn’t be offended if she were.

    The package of ‘morals’ Palin brings to the table is addled with the teachings of from the delusionally, misogynistically magical book of christianity. That alone should at least bring serious questions about what a person represents to the mind of rational people.

    # The Bible has profoundly influenced America.
    # Recognize America’s historic and founding Christian heritage.
    THESE ARE FACTS – not “egregious positions.” [bleep]

    Perhaps fact in the ‘christian worldview’ of the history of your nation. Back in secular reality, the facts of the matter are that the founding fathers were not particularly religious and made sure to separate church and state in their founding documents.

    Reply
  23. Alan Scott
    November 24, 2009 at 5:50 PM

    The Abourist,

    “Well, if you go by your foreign policy decisions over the years, clearly the children of Iraq during the sanctions and the subsequent wars do not fit this description. Nor the children of Afghanistan.”

    That’s a hell of a stretch. Comparing abortion to the Iraq sanctions and Iraq war. I suppose the Iraq sanctions and wars caused Global Freaking Warming, Malaria, Aids, and diaper rash?

    It’s clear you blame America because terrorists get children killed by using them as human shields.

    By the way I thought Obama would have gotten us out of Iraq by now. I suppose that 4 years from now Obama’s mistakes will still be Bush’s fault.

    Reply
    • The Arbourist
      November 24, 2009 at 9:02 PM

      This requires that the context be established.

      AAI wrote in response to my things women may not like about Palin’s policies:
      # Every baby is created with a future and potential.
      You are suggesting that not all children are entitled to a future or too seek their potential. The Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created equal” must offend you. I know most elites and intellectual snobs would not say so publically.

      Then I(The Arbourist) responded: ‘Well, if you go by your foreign policy decisions over the years, clearly the children of Iraq during the sanctions and the subsequent wars do not fit this description. Nor the children of Afghanistan.’

      Then Alan Scott chimed in with this: That’s a hell of a stretch. Comparing abortion to the Iraq sanctions and Iraq war. I suppose the Iraq sanctions and wars caused Global Freaking Warming, Malaria, Aids, and diaper rash?

      Actually, I was referring to AAI’s assumption that I was asserting that not all children deserve a potential future. This is a common anti-choice sentiment that somehow a blastocyst/fetus/etc has preeminence over a what a woman chooses to have go on her body. Patently false of course, but I attempted to state that if indeed innocent children were important to AAI then perhaps the aggressive imperialistic foreign policy that the US has embraced, almost from its inception, might not be the best way to accomplish the goal of preserving innocent lives of innocent children.

      Therefore I used the most recent examples of the wanton destruction of innocents to illustrate my point. I can go further back if you’d like, the list is very long.

      It’s clear you blame America because terrorists get children killed by using them as human shields.

      Should I blame the dead Iraqi children for having the impertinence for being born and raised over the oil fields the US has imperial claims to instead?

      Reply
  24. Ben
    November 24, 2009 at 9:31 PM

    Allan Scott:
    In defense of Mr. Hoffman, he does allow us to disagree with him. We know exactly what we are getting by posting on his board.

    Ben Hoffman:
    Yes, disagreements are more than welcome, name calling is not because that stops the debate in its tracks.

    Ben Hoffman:
    * We’re terrified that you nut-jobs might get her elected president some day.
    * Having her as president would be like another term of George W. Bush only nuttier and dumber.
    * I like pissing off you neocons.
    * You nut-jobs go ahead and talk amongst yourselves.
    * Yes, there’s talk of a Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck ticket. The queen and king of the nut-jobs!
    * It’s because you nut-jobs have propelled her into national prominence and she has done nothing of merit to warrant all the attention.
    * It’s simply because he’s a wacko. A fear mongering, hate mongering, conspiracy mongering wacko.
    * So you want to have a debate on who’s a nut-job and who’s not? Talk about an intellectual discussion!
    * …half the people here have an I.Q. of less than 100..

    Reply
    

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: