Palin attended two AIP conventions, in 1994 and 2006. She also addressed them by video in 2008. Her husband was a member for most of the past decade. The AIP is a fringe seccessionist group, and she has definite ties to them, even if she never registered as a member.

That’s not bullshit, that’s just what’s proven to date. If Obama had addressed three conventions of the Nation of Islam — you fuckers would go apeshit, and rightly so. But since it’s a white secessionist movement, no biggie. . .

Palin hasn’t pushed creationism

She specifically said she favored teaching creationism in schools. Stick your head in the sand.

the rest of your reply is nothing more than a screed in reaction to being caught up in this garbage.

No, it’s a reply to your insipid whining about the EM ESS EM.

Let me know if you plan on peddling Paul Kane’s horseshit “slashing funding” story that has already been fully debunked.

I’ve already told you I don’t reward people who argue via logical fallacy, such as changing the subject.

Let me know if you plan on peddling Paul Kane’s horseshit “slashing funding” story that has already been fully debunked.

You’re confusing a source backing off part of a story with a man who made a half-baked decision with a half-assed background check. Palin still this year addressed a group of secessionist loonies her husband used to belong to and she used to hang with, still attended conventions in 1994 and 2006, still is a book-banning extremist who wants creationism taught in schools.

And the Times reporters actually talked to some people in the Alaska who were familiar with Republican politics and the Alaskan business community, unlike McCain who, after his handlers shot down Ridge and Joe, sort of snapped off a VP selection like he was taking a quick crap.

You can tell yourself McCain knew what he was getting into, but no one but the most avid Kool-Aid sippers of the Right believe that crap.

They were forced into these stories.

LOL. Who “forced” them into these stories? PLEEZE don’t tell me the dim bulbs of Right Blogostan!

Pastorgate: they buried it as soon as they could.

They “buried” it — after weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks. Google only shows about 6,800,000 hits for Obama + Wright. If that wasn’t a joke, you’re a nutter.

The MSM still doesn’t cover Ayers, or enough of his relationship with Rezko, [a bunch of other wingnut memes]

All your whining about the EmEssEm amounts to your belief that the press should frame everything according to the paradigms of Wingnut assholes like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, and essentially function like Fox News as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

They were forced into these stories. Pastorgate: they buried it as soon as they could. His half-brother: I didn’t follow that bit. Dissing the troops: Obama has been doing that since he became a candidate, and now the MSM picked up on it? Michelle Obama: like Wright, the MSM was forced into this finally acknowledging the story, and buried it just as quickly. The MSM still doesn’t cover Ayers, or enough of his relationship with Rezko, or the fact that hasn’t reformed a thing since he got into office (Obama’s claim to fame), least of all corrupt Illinois politics (mostly Democrats, but also a lot of Republicans). The media covered up Obama’s lie about his abortion (infanticide) record and how he has voted on these things. If I know these things, and the media has yet to report on them, then I don’t think I’m the one who has been in a coma.

“I know you are but what am I” is no substitute for intelligent discourse.

That pretty much confirms what I had said, the sources from the AIP were confused.

Except that you said they were “bullshit” and claim that the whole thing was made up. At worst, they were unclear about whether Palin attended a nutball secessionist political gathering as a participant or as her husband’s guest. You can’t even track your own meandering, unfocused bullshit.

No, I claimed the NYT and the LAT made things up.

And we’ve now established that they didn’t make things up; you just stated the sources were confused.

So, I’ve proven that I’ve read this for content

If you call that “reading for content,” no wonder you don’t make any sense.

And neither the NYT or the LAT have looked at the actual record of Barack Obama in the 18 or so months he’s been a candidate

Are you out of your fucking mind, or did you miss Pastorgate? Or what about Obama’s half-brother a couple weeks ago? The whole idiotic flap about the putative dissing of the troops? Michelle Obama’s supposed ‘Merica hating?

Have you been in a coma, or are you just impervious to facts which won’t fit into your silly little narrative?

I see you can’t answer the question either.

It’s not that I can’t answer the question, it’s just that I don’t reward people like you who cannot argue without employing logical fallacy.

You’re absolutely right, it isn’t. Then why are they doing it for Obama?

That isn’t what they said. You need to learn to read for content.

Hmmm. Let’s see if that’s true. You said, “The sources are several officials of the AIP who have gone on record saying Palin was a member. Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, for one.” Mother Jones says:

Palin never registered as an AIP member.

What explains the contradiction between Clark’s claim and the records? Dexter Clark, husband of Lynette and a vice chairman of the Alaska Independence Party, said that when his wife told reporters that Palin had been an AIP member she was “acting on information from Mark Chryson,” the party’s regional chair for Wasilla, Palin’s hometown.

So, the husband of the source, Lynette Clark, claims her source was someone named Mark Chryson. To continue:

Asked how Palin could have been a member, when state records did not indicate Palin ever registered as an AIP member, Chyrson, in an interview with Mother Jones, backed off his account. “What could have been the confusion—her husband was a member of the party. He was at the convention. She could have been considered—it might have been thought she was a member then.”

That pretty much confirms what I had said, the sources from the AIP were confused.

Just a half an hour ago you didn’t acknowledge they existed, and claimed that Kos made them up.

No, I claimed the NYT and the LAT made things up. I said that Kos lied. And if Kos didn’t lie, then the AIP lied, and Kos actively spread the lie without doing their own vetting. Or, what is more likely, the AIP is made up of some not so very smart people, and Kos is made up of morons.

So, I’ve proven that I’ve read this for content, showed that the NYT and LAT are shilling for Obama using Kos as a source for bullshit stories, and that the members of AIP can’t even keep their story straight with Mother Jones. And neither the NYT or the LAT have looked at the actual record of Barack Obama in the 18 or so months he’s been a candidate, yet know more, and created more bullshit, about Sarah Palin in their smears of her these last four days.

“By the way, can you tell me one thing Barack Obama has ever done politically, or run? yadda yadda”

You are now employing a logical fallacy known as “changing the subject.”

I see you can’t answer the question either.

You’re making progress. Just a half an hour ago you didn’t acknowledge they existed, and claimed that Kos made them up.

Who says? The leftist Mother Jones, that’s who.

That isn’t what they said. You need to learn to read for content.

When the messengers (the NYT and LAT in this case) act like Obama PR firms masquerading as news organizations

What pathetic mewling. Whine about the messenger and try to obfuscate the facts.

not as a free press.

Weird as it might sound, the job of a free press is not to fluff McCain or overlook his fucked up decision making. Sorry.

Remember that slander is not protected speech under the 1st Amendment

I suspect what you know about slander and the 1st Amendment would barely fill a sheet of paper, judging by that tautology.

By the way, can you tell me one thing Barack Obama has ever done politically, or run? yadda yadda

You are now employing a logical fallacy known as “changing the subject.”