Thread: The actual Charlie Gibson Palin interview can be viewed here!

Apparently there is more but they don't seem to be linked to the first four parts and I would have to upload those separately! As I am to tired you'll just have to find the rest on your own!

But she appeared ignorant of the Bush doctrine. It takes more than a pretty face to run a country. If McCain will be elected we should send mass prayers to heaven he does not kick the bucket within 4 years.

Only Bush hatters liberals know what the "Bush Doctrine" is.

The video clip was "conveniently" clipped to smear some of her answers, I wouldn't waste my time watching a dishonest interview by Gibson.

"The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

Originally Posted by Navaja

Only Bush hatters liberals know what the "Bush Doctrine" is.

The video clip was "conveniently" clipped to smear some of her answers, I wouldn't waste my time watching a dishonest interview by Gibson.

"The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

Yeah, why waste your time trying to figure it out for your self when you can rely on someone else to do the work for you. This is the whole problem IMHO. Folks buy what they sell from either side of the isle and then blame it on Bush/Obama "hatters" (sic) rather than working to find a better source for news (yes, they are out there!) My wife and I get the New York Times, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Economist. IMHO, the Economist and the Journal take the cake.

Originally Posted by sicboater

My wife and I get the New York Times, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Economist. IMHO, the Economist and the Journal take the cake.

Do you guys have time for anything else but reading papers?

Originally Posted by Navaja

Only Bush hatters liberals know what the "Bush Doctrine" is.

The video clip was "conveniently" clipped to smear some of her answers, I wouldn't waste my time watching a dishonest interview by Gibson.

"The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

Know your opponents and you will be successful in politics!

Originally Posted by Navaja

Only Bush hatters liberals know what the "Bush Doctrine" is.

The video clip was "conveniently" clipped to smear some of her answers, I wouldn't waste my time watching a dishonest interview by Gibson.

"The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

Sarah Palin has denied all sorts of things that have proven to be accurate in the first place.

1. She denied supporting the "Bridge to Nowhere," even though it has been proven categorically that she supported it. She has continued to tell this lie at every campaign stop.
2. She denied knowing that her little town actually charged rape victims for their rape tests, when it's been proven that she actually signed the order for it. As far as I know, she's still lying about this one, too.
3. She denied using her executive power to punish her ex-brother-in-law, even though a judge admonished her for her behavior, declaring it to be "abusive" to her sister's children.

And it goes on.

The point? That Sarah Palin claiming to be "misquoted" isn't necessarily newsworthy.

And at what point does the sleaze become too much even for "conservatives?"

j

I did not start this thread so that you guys could use it as a platform to get into a silly slapping contest, but more as an opportunity for all to see the interview and make intelligent comments!
Please keep this a thread where you will post honest and thoughtful comments and if you disagree with another poster, please do it agreeably!


Thanks,
The management!

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Sarah Palin has denied all sorts of things that have proven to be accurate in the first place.

1. She denied supporting the "Bridge to Nowhere," even though it has been proven categorically that she supported it. She has continued to tell this lie at every campaign stop.
2. She denied knowing that her little town actually charged rape victims for their rape tests, when it's been proven that she actually signed the order for it. As far as I know, she's still lying about this one, too.
3. She denied using her executive power to punish her ex-brother-in-law, even though a judge admonished her for her behavior, declaring it to be "abusive" to her sister's children.

And it goes on.

The point? That Sarah Palin claiming to be "misquoted" isn't necessarily newsworthy.

And at what point does the sleaze become too much even for "conservatives?"

j

I agree. Originally I was intrigued by her, but now I'm thinking that she's just another in a long line of unqualified people. Oh well.