Now for the response to the email.
I carefully read through the email, but I couldn't find the lie.
I suppose that the sender of the email is concerned that Sarah Palin didn't fully disclose every aspect of some issue. I seems like this is akin to being asked in a Temple Recommend interview
"Are you honest in all your dealings?"
"Yes." (but I won't tell the bishop about the time I brought home a No. 2 pencil from work.)
I suppose that would make you a liar.
You are asked by a potential employer: Have you ever committed a felony?
You answer "No." because you haven't, but maybe you should have disclosed the fact that you illegally have a No. 2 pencil in your possession.
What I am trying to say is that one should not be required to disclose every little detail of one's life to be considered a truth-teller. It's ok to debate whether something is a "little detail" or not, but until such a determination is made I think that one should not be considered to be a liar.
So please, will someone tell me what lie Sarah Palin told?
Also, please tell me why we shouldn't call Obama a liar since he has not fully disclosed all his dealings with Bill Ayers (the terrorist)?
5 comments:
Alan's point is well taken, when we make (or pass on) allegations, we must be careful to make as sure as possible that we can back up our accusations.
One can always pass them on and ask others on the blog what they know of it, if they have read similar lines elsewhere etc.
That said, I have not yet read the message forwarded by Fabienne, but it upset her enough to act. In today's Sunday morning talk shows, someone asked a Palin supporter on the show why, although Sarah Palin did not support the Bridge to Nowhere, she kept the money for her state anyway for other purposes. There may well be an explanation for this, but the Palin supporter avoided the question by reframing it and answering her own reframed question. Either she didn't know the answer (highly unlikely, it has been asked before) or she didn't have an answer that she was happy to give. Both sides do this constantly, I am so weary of it that I am becoming quite cynical.
I don't see a problem with Alaska keeping the money that was initially meant for the bridge to use on other projects. What's wrong with that? I would have kept it and put it to good use elsewhere to, unless I knew it was illegal, then I wouldn't keep it.
Also....most if not all politicians fancy their stories and successes up to make them look good. Don't we all do that? Most people do it big time on their resume! I'm guilty of that! I was elected PTA President in my child's elementary school. I was President for a month only when we learned that we would be moving from Dallas to Austin. I gave up my spot without having really done a darn thing.....but by golly, I put it on my resume that I was a PTA President. I didn't lie...I was a PTA president, but neither did I make an effort to explain that it was only for a month. (Now I know you are all deflated to hear that I am not as perfect as you thought I was....sorry!- I made up for that by being a long time Primary President at church...and not listing that on my resume) The point is....when we are trying to sell ourselves, we have to make ourselves look good. Twisted honesty is pretty common amoung human kind. I'll bet my cowboy boots that both Presidential and vice-presedential candidates have some of that in their history. I am sure Sarah Palin is not the sole owner of that tactic.
First point...Teresa...You have cowboy boots? Whodathunk.
Yes she admittedly kept the federal funds for Alaska, but as I understand it via the tv media, and I have no physical proof, that she kept the funds with the feds approval. And she did not spend it willy-nilly. She kept it for transportation improvements, i.e. highways, other bridge repairs, signs etc.
First point...Teresa...You have cowboy boots? Whodathunk.
Yes she admittedly kept the federal funds for Alaska, but as I understand it via the tv media, and I have no physical proof, that she kept the funds with the feds approval. And she did not spend it willy-nilly. She kept it for transportation improvements, i.e. highways, other bridge repairs, signs etc.
That last posting of mine reads weird. I meant to say that the federal government, as I understand it, was aware that she kept the money in her transportation budget and did not build the famous bridge. They did not ask her to return it to the federal government.
Post a Comment