http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZII0GjcJMus

I like the defense — she didn’t actually ban books, just inquired about it, then fired the person who stood in opposition to it, but there was no actual banning, so what’s the problem?

let’s roll!

fuck denmark!

Or one at a time? Who goes first? I’d assume the Skibsexster….

she’s a gem.

Having a plane in Alaska for the govenor makes sense. Juneau is inaccessible by car. So, in turn, she is a shitty governor that isn’t responsive to the people of Alaska by staying away from Juneau for a majority of the electoral season.

But all of that doesn’t matter because, as with everything, it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup. She already had to completely change a statement she originally made once emails and phone messages came out in the course of the investigation (i.e, she lied yet again). Now after promising to cooperate, she’s refused to give a deposition, as have 7 others close to her. To borrow a line from the Repub play book — if she’s innocent, what is she hiding?

So, you have a defense to her constant lying about the bridge to nowhere (and saying that Obama/Biden didn’t vote to stop the bridge is not a defense of her lying).

When have I or anyone here said that?

lied about the plane
you mean she did sell it on eBay then? wait, I’m “confused.”

to echo mindtron (since, apparently, I love them’s echo-chambers), what of the earmarks? what of the $$ from the bridge?

What say you to these two subjects which I specifically asked you about. Again, to echo myself (this echoing is fun!):

The point is not the selling price but the fact that she so easily and eagerly distorts the truth. If you want to defend her, explain the earmarks bullshit; explain the $$ from the bridge to nowhere.

And on this:

Librarians have too often said that I don’t have that right, and as a taxpayer, I’ve got the right to suggest that the 1st Amendment doesn’t require me to pay for Pee Wee’s entertainment, nor does it require me to pay the salary of those who disagree.

1) Show me where librarians have said this? I’ve never heard of this.

2) ugh, last I checked you don’t actually get to dictate where your specific tax dollars go. don’t know if they covered that in that infamous econ 101 class you took… you want to not pay for “smut” as you call it, then don’t buy it. Simple answer. As for taxes – I don’t want my taxes to pay for war, or the collossal defense budget or corporate bailouts, or for earmarks to Alaska, for that matter. But such is the way of the world. This is not to say there aren’t ways of changing how our collective pot is spent, but using that as justification for other things… “eesh don’t sink so.”

Btw, I’m still not clear on exactly what the material was that Palin was trying to ban. Bubba makes it sound as though the library was going to catalog straight up porn. To be clear, by porn I mean that which we normal folk call porn and not something about child-birth or a medical video with live models or pictures of herpes so you know what to go to the doctor about when it itches.

Sarah Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

also you seem to focus a very narrow range of items she is accused of. how about the earmarks issue? it seems rather well documented and seems to make her a hypocrite.