As evidenced by the mostly positive reaction from the stars gathered at the VMA’s last week, Barrack Obama has the Hollywood vote. But is this a good thing? On the one hand, it is quite obvious that celebrity endorsements hold a lot of sway with young voters, but on the other, Hollywood is known for cranking out troubled stars at an alarming rate. If a known alcoholic, anorexic, or druggie endorses a politician, should we feel confident in listening to them? After all stars are not famous for their intellect, but rather for their appearance.
On a secondary note, I was rather perplexed by Matt Damon’s attack on Sarah Palin. Not only did he show the Democratic elitism when he called it ridiculous that a simple hockey-mom (and GOVERNOR!!) could possibly have the chance to become President, but he also attacked her religious beliefs.
I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago.
That’s an important — I want to know that, I really do, because she’s going
have the nuclear codes. You know, I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs
here 4000 years ago… we can’t, we can’t have that.
This confused me greatly, because Obama claims to be Christian, and this is a common Christian belief. Yet I have not heard anyone mocking Obama, or Binden or McCain for that matter, for holding this belief. So why is Matt Damon blasting Palin for this?
My humble opinion is that liberals are so desperate to smear Palin that they are willing to go to any lengths to discredit her. They seem to latch on to, and spin, anything and everything they can.
In this thread, the most recent thing I have come across, is the terrifying assertion that Palin personally made rape victims pay for their own rape kits. This report alarmed me, but with a little research, it is clear that this is yet another attempt by the left to twist facts to their advantage. Upon completing my research on the matter, I had found that, yes the CITY of Wasilla, Alaska did not offer free rape kits. But Sarah Palin did not make a law regarding this, and there was no controversy over it at the time. Apparently it was a practice the city had taken part in for some time, citing a lack of funds necessary to provide this service free of charge.
The assertion that the victims had to pay is especially misleading. The Police Chief, who was directly in charge of this, said that the City charged the insurance companies of the victims, and that they usually tacked this expense onto the restitution phase of sentencing the offender. If the victim could not pay, the hospital wrote the cost off, like it does in soo many instances of other services given that cannot be paid for.
So to conclude, Palin did not charge for this, the Police billed insurance, no victim was required to pay out of pocket.