So, what do you think of that? I honestly find it hard to believe you never heard of it, and if you haven't, well ... maybe you need to pay more attention to exactly that kind of event. You know, just to keep your positions fresh and up to date.

-- Baldie McEagle

Come on, you know the answer to this: you have no proof that those people were not doing something wrong; had they been complying with the law, that would not have happened to them in the first place; you don't have proof (video or otherwise) of what they were doing prior to that incident; and whatever statements they made to the contrary are self-serving. (This is similar to what the St. Paul police chief assumed - that Amy and her producers committed a crime and that's why they, members of the press, were arrested. The arrest itself, thus, becomes proof of their crime. Shoot, we can do away with the whole criminal justice system.)

It's really easy to "consistently" maintain a position when you deny any facts which are contrary to that position.

Your conclusion was astonishlingly weak considering the disconnect between your premise and the evidence.

-- zwrite

You so missed the point.

The point is that there is so much to scrutinize about the unknown Sarah Palin that the scrutiny does not, as Halperin whines, mean that it's being done by a "liberal media" out to get her.

He took Halperin's point ("There are three bad reasons [for the "frenzy" against Palin]. One is the liberal press. I think the McCain campaign is right that people are going after her harder than they would go after a Democratic Vice Presidential nominee.") and explained why it was wrong. In order to explain, he had to demonstrate why scrutiny of Ms. Palin was necessary and important, including her actions in serving in an executive capacity.

Actually, most of the charges from that incident were dropped and the police acknowledged error. That's because lawyers and employees of law firms were swept up. Who knows what would have happened if reglar folks were there.

-- Baldie McEagle

My comments weren't really directed at you. I was merely anticipating the argument I thought you'd get, because certain posters don't accept facts when they are contrary to their oft-stated (some call them "consistent") positions. Rather, they make up new ones that they like better.

Besides, the book probably had it coming anyway. And even if it didn't, the law does what it wants and you can't argue with it. You may only justify and apologize for its actions.

-- Chris Sinnard

Yes, I've been hearing that a lot lately. This is what I hear: Basically, if you're a book, and you've been banned, then you must have done something wrong. The only evidence needed for this wrongdoing is that you were banned. Because the banners have only the purest of intentions. Right?

From the AP story fact-checking Palin's speech (which, by the way, was the top story on Yahoo!'s main page this morning):

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

(My emphasis.)

The Republicans have always banked on getting votes based on their promise to cut taxes. Sure, they'll get the vote of the wealthy based on McCain's plan, but the middle class should know that they will be better off, tax-wise, under Obama's plan. Obama should repeat this over and over. People vote with their pocketbooks. (And, how much do you want to bet gas prices will be miraculously low come November 5?)

Nice rundown.

I laughed particularly hard at the "nanny state" comment. If voters want small government, they certainly shouldn't be looking for it in the GOP. (Most GOP members don't seem to have really thought about what small government is. They think it's a goverment with huge military spending, subsidies for big business and interference with the public's privacy, but no welfare or education programs. They only want certain parts to be "small.")

That "nanny state" crap is a mere Rush Limbaugh creation at this point thrown out when nothing else seems available. The funniest expression of it I have heard lately came in an interesting place - the Yahoo! sports page. The story reported that the Seattle Mariners, a private corporation, decided to have two sections of seats at, I believe, two games where peanuts would be banned. This was to allow fans with serious peanut allergies to enjoy the game. So, a private entity engaged in a marketing ploy to sell tickets in response to a particular public demand. In other words, it was the conservatives' sacred free market at work. What did half the comments to the story say? "It's all those liberal, commie hippies up in Seattle forcing the nanny state down our throats" or some variation thereof. (I'm not going to even sure why people would be so pissed off about two sections of seats lacking peanut sales - any excuse to slam [perceived] liberals, I suppose.) So ironic, but that's what you get when you give those who lack any sort of intellectual curiosity their AT&T tote bag full of talking points (h/t Kitt).

Were she not a Republican, she'd be considered a strong feminist.

-- NotOrbitBoy

With her anti-choice, pro-abstinence education policies?

Hardly.