I also asked you where you are getting your "facts" and what you are basing your opinion on that makes you attack her recollection.
I won't mince words with ya Dino. You're attacking a person who has a MEMORY of actually BEING THERE versus what you have come to BELIEVE to be accurate. However, you won't share how you came to believe what it is that you do.
Once again you're adding nothing to the conversation other than a superior (read: pompous) attitude.
Care to share?
No wait. Give me a second. I'll hold my breath.
You do realize that the Nazi's were Facist and Facism is a radical right wing ideology, right?
Maybe we should start there:
Politically, Nazism is a variety of fascism that incorporated elements from left-wing and right-wing ideologies, but, in practice, is a form of far right politics.
Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; Eatwell, Roger, Fascism, A History, Viking/Penguin, 1996, pp.xvii-xxiv, 21, 26–31, 114–140, 352. Griffin, Roger. 2000.
"Revolution from the Right: Fascism," chapter in David Parker (ed.) Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991, Routledge, London.
Ok back to what she posted and I already stated:
MOSCOW CONFERENCE, October, 1943,
DECLARATION ON AUSTRIA
The governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America are agreed that Austria, the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression, shall be liberated from German domination.
They regard the annexation imposed on Austria by Germany on March 15, 1938, as null and void. They consider themselves as in no way bound by any charges effected in Austria since that date. They declare that they wish to see re-established a free and independent Austria and thereby to open the way for the Austrian people themselves, as well as those neighboring States which will be face with similar problems, to find that political and economic security which is the only basis for lasting peace.
Austria is reminded, however that she has a responsibility, which she cannot evade, for participation in the war at the side of Hitlerite Germany, and that in the final settlement account will inevitably be taken of her own contribution to her liberation.
Now you imply that being there gives you credability. Well maybe but Palin was the Governer of Alaska and I think that qualifies as "being there", and she can't figure out how much Alaska contributes to the domestic suppy of energy:
Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.
Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.
Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.
FactCheck.org: Energetically Wrong
WAIT MAYBE SHE HAD AN AGENDA?
