<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Palin/McCain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/</link>
	<description>Buffalo and Western New York&#039;s online news resource</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:33:53 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Starbuck</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5158</link>
		<dc:creator>Starbuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 04:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5158</guid>
		<description>The alleged &quot;fact&quot; repeated here about a 62% cut in special education funds was totally refuted by the Annenberg Foundation&#039;s non-partisan factcheck.org, along with several other claims and rumors being spread to slime (their word) Gov. Palin.

Excerpt:
&lt;blockquote&gt;It&#039;s not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. ... &lt;b&gt;in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically&lt;/b&gt; that a representative of local school boards described the jump as &quot;historic.&quot;

According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what Alaska calls &quot;intensive needs&quot; students (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. &lt;b&gt;Palin&#039;s original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.

... Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there.&lt;/b&gt; They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn&#039;t the special needs budget. &quot;I don&#039;t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding,&quot; Jeans told FactCheck.org. &quot;The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects,&quot; such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.   ... &lt;/blockquote&gt;

In full -
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The alleged &#8220;fact&#8221; repeated here about a 62% cut in special education funds was totally refuted by the Annenberg Foundation&#8217;s non-partisan factcheck.org, along with several other claims and rumors being spread to slime (their word) Gov. Palin.</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<blockquote><p>It&#8217;s not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. &#8230; <b>in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically</b> that a representative of local school boards described the jump as &#8220;historic.&#8221;</p>
<p>According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what Alaska calls &#8220;intensive needs&#8221; students (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. <b>Palin&#8217;s original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.</p>
<p>&#8230; Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there.</b> They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn&#8217;t the special needs budget. &#8220;I don&#8217;t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding,&#8221; Jeans told FactCheck.org. &#8220;The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects,&#8221; such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.   &#8230; </p></blockquote>
<p>In full -<br />
<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hippiegrrl</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5161</link>
		<dc:creator>hippiegrrl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5161</guid>
		<description>by the way - i&#039;m not canadian (for now - we&#039;ll see what happens in november) - i just enjoy using the &quot;u&quot; in words whenever possible.  thanks for the compliment though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by the way &#8211; i&#8217;m not canadian (for now &#8211; we&#8217;ll see what happens in november) &#8211; i just enjoy using the &#8220;u&#8221; in words whenever possible.  thanks for the compliment though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KevinP</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5160</link>
		<dc:creator>KevinP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5160</guid>
		<description>Dear Brother X,

Perhaps it&#039;s time to get your own blog.

Best of luck!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Brother X,</p>
<p>Perhaps it&#8217;s time to get your own blog.</p>
<p>Best of luck!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5164</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:27:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5164</guid>
		<description>@Alan, there will always be a need for the legal system to protect disputes concerning property, contracts, etc.
&lt;blockquote&gt;In the Anglo-American legal system, law consists of a few basic principles: due process, the attorney-client privilege, equality before the law, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the prohibitions against crimes without intent, bills of attainder, self-incrimination, retroactive law, and attacks against a person through his property.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Unfortunately, the legal system has been twisted and more often furthers the interests of the government, rather than protecting the individual.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Alan, there will always be a need for the legal system to protect disputes concerning property, contracts, etc.</p>
<blockquote><p>In the Anglo-American legal system, law consists of a few basic principles: due process, the attorney-client privilege, equality before the law, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the prohibitions against crimes without intent, bills of attainder, self-incrimination, retroactive law, and attacks against a person through his property.</p></blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately, the legal system has been twisted and more often furthers the interests of the government, rather than protecting the individual.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5163</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:23:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5163</guid>
		<description>Very nice little speech Brother X.  Unfortunately your generalizations render your assault on Republicans null and void.  Also, judging past history through the lens of an evolved cultural framework does not yield an accurate view of history.   I will cite one example for you - the poll tax.  The tax applied equally on blacks and white.  When this country was founded, property rights were of paramount importance to the guarantee of freedom and liberty.  The view was that an equal tax was more likely to defend property rights from government assault.  History has shown that to be correct.  If we still had a poll tax, the government would not be confiscating such a large percentage of income from working individuals for nefarious purposes such as creating a permanent taxpayer supported poverty class in this country.  In effect, we have traded innovation and opportunity for a minimal existence for many people based on government subsistence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very nice little speech Brother X.  Unfortunately your generalizations render your assault on Republicans null and void.  Also, judging past history through the lens of an evolved cultural framework does not yield an accurate view of history.   I will cite one example for you &#8211; the poll tax.  The tax applied equally on blacks and white.  When this country was founded, property rights were of paramount importance to the guarantee of freedom and liberty.  The view was that an equal tax was more likely to defend property rights from government assault.  History has shown that to be correct.  If we still had a poll tax, the government would not be confiscating such a large percentage of income from working individuals for nefarious purposes such as creating a permanent taxpayer supported poverty class in this country.  In effect, we have traded innovation and opportunity for a minimal existence for many people based on government subsistence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: buffalopundit</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5162</link>
		<dc:creator>buffalopundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:53:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5162</guid>
		<description>@Rebmann, if the meaning of the Constitution was as set in stone as you say, we&#039;d hardly need an adversarial legal system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Rebmann, if the meaning of the Constitution was as set in stone as you say, we&#8217;d hardly need an adversarial legal system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brother X</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5145</link>
		<dc:creator>Brother X</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5145</guid>
		<description>An Open Letter to Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee:

September 2, 2008

Dear Senator McCain and Mike Duncan, Chairman, Republican National Committee:

&quot;Dear&quot; is all you will get from me. By now you all should be in Minneapolis for your shindig that you call a “convention.”

I am an African-American, and I cannot hold back my anger any longer. It is a documented fact that the Republican Party before and during the Civil War supported and benefited from slavery. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party was started for the express purpose of defending slavery and holding down black people.

It is also a matter of record that the Ku Klux Klan was started by Republicans after the Civil War to terrorize and murder black and white Democrats in the South. Republicans hated the fact that many ex-slaves were serving in state and federal government. They also hated the fact that everyone of the ex-slaves were all members of the Democratic Party. All the white Democrats, before and after the Civil War, were sympathetic to the cause of abolition of slavery and of civil rights for blacks, therefore racist Republicans had no use for them.

The Republicans historically have been bitter opponents of the following Democratic initiatives:

•         The 13th Amendment that abolished slavery in 1865
•         The 1866 Civil Rights Act
•         The First Reconstruction Act of 1867
•         The 14th Amendment in 1868 that made all persons born in the U.S., including former slaves, U.S. citizens.
•         The 15th Amendment in 1870 that give every citizen the right to vote
•         The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 which was to stop Republican Klansmen to terrorized white and black Democrats
•         The 1875 Civil Rights Act
•         The 1957 Civil Rights Act
•         The 1964 Civil Rights Act
•         The 1965 Voters Rights Act

In every case, the white Republicans in the Senate, especially Senator Everett Dirksen, and in the House of Representatives fought passage of these laws in every turn as well as being compelled to give up their slaves after the Civil War. The Democratic leadership, especially Senator Robert Byrd who has always despised the Ku Klux Klan and who discouraged white Americans from joining that gang, fought very hard to have those laws passed. Democratic Senator Al Gore Sr., not only voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but he, along side of Senator Byrd, fought a 74-day filibuster by Republicans to defeat the legislation. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Republicans (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Democrats (27 for, 6 against) the Civil Rights Act. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Republicans (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act and. 80% of Democrats, (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

The Republicans have also opposed every Democratic anti-lynching bill to their shame.  The Democrats have always been opposed to lynchings for decades.

For these reason, we black people deserve an apology from the Republican Party for the following:

•  support of slavery, on record in their platforms
•  support of the Dred Scott decision
•  support of segregation and Jim Crow prejudice
•  opposition to anti-lynching laws
•  attempts to destroy black schools and colleges, and the burning of black churches
•  efforts to defeat the Reparation Bill of 1866
•  efforts to defeat every piece of Civil Rights legislation from 1863 to 1964
•  efforts to have the 1875 Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional
•  support of the Ku Klux Klan, composed of entirely Republicans, and its vile and violent racist agenda:
•  Republican participation in the lynchings of thousands of blacks.

History will also show the following:
•         Eugene “Bull” Conner (the poster boy of American racism) was a Republican.
•         The poll tax was a Republican institution.
•         Black codes and Jim Crow laws were instituted by Republicans.

Africans Americans are even due reparations from the Republican Party since it supported and benefited from slavery as well as supporting KKK terror, racism, etc. The Civil Rights movement started because of the majority white racist Republican power structure in the South.

The Democratic Party, of course, has had its problems racially here and there, unfortunately, but it does not have the consistent racist legacy for decades and decades, stretching back to the early 1800’s as the Republican Party has had. The Democratic Party, in general, has always been supportive of and open and honest with African Americans throughout its history.

You Republicans have been very slick in ignoring and even hiding your racist past from black people. It is time for the Republican Party to come clean, tell the truth, and settle the debt.

Sincerely,

Brother X</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An Open Letter to Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee:</p>
<p>September 2, 2008</p>
<p>Dear Senator McCain and Mike Duncan, Chairman, Republican National Committee:</p>
<p>&#8220;Dear&#8221; is all you will get from me. By now you all should be in Minneapolis for your shindig that you call a “convention.”</p>
<p>I am an African-American, and I cannot hold back my anger any longer. It is a documented fact that the Republican Party before and during the Civil War supported and benefited from slavery. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party was started for the express purpose of defending slavery and holding down black people.</p>
<p>It is also a matter of record that the Ku Klux Klan was started by Republicans after the Civil War to terrorize and murder black and white Democrats in the South. Republicans hated the fact that many ex-slaves were serving in state and federal government. They also hated the fact that everyone of the ex-slaves were all members of the Democratic Party. All the white Democrats, before and after the Civil War, were sympathetic to the cause of abolition of slavery and of civil rights for blacks, therefore racist Republicans had no use for them.</p>
<p>The Republicans historically have been bitter opponents of the following Democratic initiatives:</p>
<p>•         The 13th Amendment that abolished slavery in 1865<br />
•         The 1866 Civil Rights Act<br />
•         The First Reconstruction Act of 1867<br />
•         The 14th Amendment in 1868 that made all persons born in the U.S., including former slaves, U.S. citizens.<br />
•         The 15th Amendment in 1870 that give every citizen the right to vote<br />
•         The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 which was to stop Republican Klansmen to terrorized white and black Democrats<br />
•         The 1875 Civil Rights Act<br />
•         The 1957 Civil Rights Act<br />
•         The 1964 Civil Rights Act<br />
•         The 1965 Voters Rights Act</p>
<p>In every case, the white Republicans in the Senate, especially Senator Everett Dirksen, and in the House of Representatives fought passage of these laws in every turn as well as being compelled to give up their slaves after the Civil War. The Democratic leadership, especially Senator Robert Byrd who has always despised the Ku Klux Klan and who discouraged white Americans from joining that gang, fought very hard to have those laws passed. Democratic Senator Al Gore Sr., not only voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but he, along side of Senator Byrd, fought a 74-day filibuster by Republicans to defeat the legislation. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Republicans (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Democrats (27 for, 6 against) the Civil Rights Act. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Republicans (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act and. 80% of Democrats, (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.</p>
<p>The Republicans have also opposed every Democratic anti-lynching bill to their shame.  The Democrats have always been opposed to lynchings for decades.</p>
<p>For these reason, we black people deserve an apology from the Republican Party for the following:</p>
<p>•  support of slavery, on record in their platforms<br />
•  support of the Dred Scott decision<br />
•  support of segregation and Jim Crow prejudice<br />
•  opposition to anti-lynching laws<br />
•  attempts to destroy black schools and colleges, and the burning of black churches<br />
•  efforts to defeat the Reparation Bill of 1866<br />
•  efforts to defeat every piece of Civil Rights legislation from 1863 to 1964<br />
•  efforts to have the 1875 Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional<br />
•  support of the Ku Klux Klan, composed of entirely Republicans, and its vile and violent racist agenda:<br />
•  Republican participation in the lynchings of thousands of blacks.</p>
<p>History will also show the following:<br />
•         Eugene “Bull” Conner (the poster boy of American racism) was a Republican.<br />
•         The poll tax was a Republican institution.<br />
•         Black codes and Jim Crow laws were instituted by Republicans.</p>
<p>Africans Americans are even due reparations from the Republican Party since it supported and benefited from slavery as well as supporting KKK terror, racism, etc. The Civil Rights movement started because of the majority white racist Republican power structure in the South.</p>
<p>The Democratic Party, of course, has had its problems racially here and there, unfortunately, but it does not have the consistent racist legacy for decades and decades, stretching back to the early 1800’s as the Republican Party has had. The Democratic Party, in general, has always been supportive of and open and honest with African Americans throughout its history.</p>
<p>You Republicans have been very slick in ignoring and even hiding your racist past from black people. It is time for the Republican Party to come clean, tell the truth, and settle the debt.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Brother X</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Rebmann</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5157</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Rebmann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:56:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5157</guid>
		<description>@alan, if you don&#039;t believe that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution defines American values, then you have no values and laws and policies are subject to the political whim of the day.  There are myriad examples of SCOTUS ruling inconsistently with the Constitution.  Roe v. Wade being the elephant in the room.

One of the few protections we have left from bad law is jury nullification, a concept that is downplayed and sometimes outright denied by the courts.

&lt;blockquote&gt;“no respect for the labor and property rights of individuals”. So loaded with double-meanings coming from you as to be, in the end, meaningless.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
There is no double meaning in that statement, it means exactly what it says.  The only justifiable taxes on one&#039;s earnings are for defense and services that benefit everyone equally while recognizing the ability of the private sector to more efficiently and economically deliver services.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@alan, if you don&#8217;t believe that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution defines American values, then you have no values and laws and policies are subject to the political whim of the day.  There are myriad examples of SCOTUS ruling inconsistently with the Constitution.  Roe v. Wade being the elephant in the room.</p>
<p>One of the few protections we have left from bad law is jury nullification, a concept that is downplayed and sometimes outright denied by the courts.</p>
<blockquote><p>“no respect for the labor and property rights of individuals”. So loaded with double-meanings coming from you as to be, in the end, meaningless.</p></blockquote>
<p>There is no double meaning in that statement, it means exactly what it says.  The only justifiable taxes on one&#8217;s earnings are for defense and services that benefit everyone equally while recognizing the ability of the private sector to more efficiently and economically deliver services.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buffalopundit</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5156</link>
		<dc:creator>Buffalopundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5156</guid>
		<description>Why are the little gravitar thingies covering up part of the commenter&#039;s name?  Weird.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why are the little gravitar thingies covering up part of the commenter&#8217;s name?  Weird.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buffalopundit</title>
		<link>http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/smith/2008/09/palinmccain/comment-page-1/#comment-5155</link>
		<dc:creator>Buffalopundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/?p=796#comment-5155</guid>
		<description>@Rebmann, your constitutional theory notwithstanding (why not try going to the SCOTUS with that argument?) to equate &quot;I disagree with this person&#039;s policies&quot; with &quot;this person is un-American&quot; is nonsense and really sort of gutter-diving.

@KevinP, I only assume that Rebmann is voting for Bob Barr, who is the libertarian candidate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Rebmann, your constitutional theory notwithstanding (why not try going to the SCOTUS with that argument?) to equate &#8220;I disagree with this person&#8217;s policies&#8221; with &#8220;this person is un-American&#8221; is nonsense and really sort of gutter-diving.</p>
<p>@KevinP, I only assume that Rebmann is voting for Bob Barr, who is the libertarian candidate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
