I provided
a link to the fact that the article is inaccurate, as well as text from the link. Spare refuted others. I can see you didn't bother to pay attention.
Let me help you again:
1)
sloppy, haphazard vetting process - The article is dated September 1, and the information is outdated.
2)
going "into seclusion" - link does not substantiate this claim, and in fact, repudiates the claim. Taking the case directly to voters does not equal seclusion.
3)
some of the highest per capita earmarks funding - Clearly biased source that does not examine the commensurate Democratic positions.
4)
predisposition to cancer - Some 90% of people in the U.S. aged 70+ will experience a melanoma. This does not equate to having a predisposition to cancer.
5) empty acceptance speech that nonetheless
had the media swooning - Source does not say what is implied in this sentence.
6) She's a
hard-bitten creationist - Source does not substantiate the claim.
7) an
abortioNazi - Again, the source does not back up this claim. In fact, it primarily discusses the gas pipeline. It does rehash the now-tired rape in the case of your daughter discussion. Choosing life, in the scenario of YOUR DAUGHTER is different than being an abortinazi who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. We've discussed this. Personal ethics versus seeking legal changes are two separate issues. If Palin is an abortinazi for saying she would PERSONALLY choose life for her and her family, then SO ARE YOU.
Iraq Oil invasion was "God's will." - Her actual quote:
That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's will."
This does not imply certainty. It implies hope that there IS a plan. What exactly do you hope for when you pray for peace?
I'm going to stop there out of boredom, but I can do more, if you'd like.
The article was NOT well-researched. It makes spurious claims that are unsupported by the links.
At least, I take time to read and carefully consider links. That makes
one of us.