Man bites dog story

you're the one who brought up the actions of liberals on this blog, in comparison to what i stated about the inciting of physical violence by your republican candidates. i never said that a conservative on this blog threatened the live of a democrat. but okay though, i'll play along. find me a quote, or video feed of a democrat that threatened the life of a conservative outside of the dnc. and when you do, i'm more than happy to denounce them.

are you not appalled by your candidates for inciting this kind of lynch mob? no of course not because you believe there are republicans out there (you included) that think this is a legitimate issue and that obama really is a terrorist and a radical muslim.

for the rape kit issue, which part of what i said is a lie? come on now... all i put out there were known facts, already in the public domain. i can dig around for links and references to prove that it's not my "feelings" on the issue. i've said it before and i'll say it again: i cannot argue with your "feelings" for as much as i can disagree with them. i can't say your "feelings" are right or wrong but we can discuss our differences. if you "feel" that obama is a terrorist, all i can say is that the facts don't support that. i try to stick to the facts, as much as possible (i even prompted yelladawgNC to correct the comment on palin's book banning list, and offered commendation when it was corrected... but you whined even then).

there's no bait and switch here. let's go back and look.

you said, "I understand that you do not have any issue with stifling the free speech of Republicans."

that was pointed to me, so you made it about me. i replied that i do take issue with stifling the free speech of anyone.

you said, "I can share my feelings (which are just as valid as the lie you continue to spout about the rape kit myth)"

again, that was pointed to me, so i replied. i didn't make this about me. you engaged me in conversation. you accused me of lying about the wasilla policy on rape kits, but can't produce a lick of evidence to support your claim.

"he found no (ZERO) cases where a victim was billed for a rape kit. Insurance companies, yes. Victims, no."

that does not dispute that the township of wasilla, under the mayorship of palin, had such a policy. that's indisputable fact. that nobody can find an instance of a victim being billed is irrelevant. that is my point, so there is no need for you to try to connect any dots.

"If you cannot read the source material and discern what is correct..."

you're hardly qualified to patronize anyone on this blog, ellen. while you've proven yourself wily at avoiding the questions, i'm going to hold your feet to the fire:

you label ayers as a terrorist and i want to know why. how many innocent iraqis did bush kill? how many people did ayers kill? how many bombs did bush drop? and ayers? how many people did bush's war terrorize? and ayers?

you made an issue about connections. what do republicans think of palin's/mccain's connections to keating? and to antisemitic pastor hagee, kroon and brickner? and to singlaub and the right-wing radical group, council for world freedom that operated outside of u.s. law with it's iran-contra dealings?

by the way, nothing obligates you to answer.

Here Note the date.

what? the article was printed september 11, 2001. what's your point? now you're trying to tie ayers to september 11? you do realize that for this to have hit the press on that day, the interview would have been potentially days earlier. again, what's your point, here? plus i've provided quotes by ayers saying that this exact article took his statements out of context.

"I should have said 'you all'...but ask...if Michelle stopped writing tomorrow, you would feel...what?"

then, "you all" would still be inaccurate, wouldn't it? because "you all" would include me as well as others who do not support the censorship that you're talking about. and if michele stopped writing tomorrow, i would feel... indifferent. what do you expect me to feel if she decides to stop writing?

"No, what is on record is that Wasilla billed the insurance companies. The law that was passed extended to prohibiting billing insurance companies."

no, at issue here is that you accused me of lying. what did i say about the wasilla rape kit policy that was a lie? you didn't answer me.

what's on record is the wasilla policy that sought reimbursement for rape kits from the victims' insurance companies or from the victims.

"There is ZERO evidence that Wasilla billed a victim directly."

"directly?" now we have to parse words? what if it was indirectly, does that make it any more proper?

again, that doesn't make the fact that the policy allowed for it magically disappear. do you fish? here's a fishing analogy: i have a fishing pole and take it fishing. the idea of taking a fishing pole fishing is to catch fish. on this particular day i caught ZERO fish. i still had the fishing pole and the role of the fishing pole never changed. i suppose if i took that fishing pole fishing often enough, i might someday catch a fish.

"I KNOW that McCain was investigated and found not guilty of wrong-doing."

and i KNOW that obama has never been found guilty of any wrong doing with respect to bill ayers or rev. wright or (who else were you trying to tar and feather obama with?).

"As for the rest, I'd like to look at source material."

then i'll wait for you to read up on those other palin/mccain connections before you comment on them. clearly because these sorts of associations are so unbelievably important to you, i know that you will go seek them out without my help.