Palin Guilty of Abusing Her Power

Submitted by: davymid 9 years ago in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7662820.stm

Goddamn, even lowly I-A-B Mods know you don"t just ban someone for disagreeing with your view...
There are 175 comments:
Male 5,620
idiot.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
thats not me, jack arse.. and no I don`t "blindy" follow anyone.. I make my own choices.
0
Reply
Male 77
i want palin for president!!!
0
Reply
Male 151
elkingo...can you honestly say u don`t blindly defend the republican party??? don`t lie...
0
Reply
Male 151
a wild elkingo appeared!!!

Nelson uses common sense!

It`s super effective!!!

0
Reply
Female 687
Lol, I was really hoping this was posted by a person who wasn`t a mod to see if they became banned. But it was davy.

Awwwww D:

0
Reply
Male 5,620
orionsbelt, your an idiot.

I never claimed that you have to blindly follow anyone. I was the one who said no matter what you are registered as you can vote ever how you want. I guess you didn`t read that huh?

0
Reply
Male 9,305
Sometimes I wish things could be solved with (I want to say binary, 1 or 0) a simple yes / no.
0
Reply
Male 151
people aren`t democrats or republicans...they are just people

it`s that kind of talk that causes people to blindly defend or attack a politician...because they think they are part of the same team, but we have no reason to blindly stick to either of these candidates

i`m sure we all know elkingo is a blind republican...who will defend any position taken up by the republican party...

but don`t believe his crap about you being a republican or democrat because your just a person and these labels mean nothing in the end...vote for who you want to...not who someone else says is on your side

0
Reply
Male 3,255
Haha! We are gonna have a president who actually gives a poo about the religious freedom of the American people and their isn`t poo you tards can do about it!

Yall are just pissed because Jesus can`t write any new laws for at least the next four years. Unless, of course, he assassinates Obama. Which I sure as hell wouldn`t put it past a conservative to do.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Yes it has! Great debating with you!
0
Reply
Male 151
Sarah Palin is under attack for being corrupt!!!

Conservacrab!!! I choose you!!!!

OBAMA = OSAMA

BIAS BIAS BIAS

MAVERICK MAVERICK MAVERICK

HOCKEY MOM, AVERAGE JOE, I CAN SEE RUSSIA

but it misses...

0
Reply
Male 4,290
sorry elkingo, I`m gonna have to call this to a halt, going out to the pub soon. It`s been fun though :)
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Her grounds was to pause the investigation until she had time to show up for court and to defend herself. She still maintains innocence. But, for some unknown reason this investigation had to be released early!
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I realize you didn`t choose the term abuse, but to say that different ethics are weak ethics is incorrect. Say she follows the Judeao-Christian Model.. as opposed to Rule-Utilitarianism.. both are strong ethical arguments.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Oh, to illustrate the voting thing:

Democrats are still democrats even if they deeply oppose Obama`s Socialistic Health Care.. so they vote independent or republican.. they are still democrats, just disagree with Socialism.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
Surely she would have argued that right from the start then? Only one thing changed that made her start complaining - she became McCain`s running partner.


What are her grounds for complaint? That the overseer was a democrat? That`s pretty weak.

And yes, unethical doesn`t mean abuse, but strong ethics are usually important in powerful politicians. You don`t want someone with weak ethics wielding vast power.

And the report itself said "abuse of power", I didn`t choose the word abuse.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Some points of interest:

-saying something is un-ethical doesn`t make it abuse.

-If you don`t show up for court, you are automatically guilty.

-Americans have the right to
a. fair trial
b. appeals
(Palin is arguing that it wasn`t a fair trial)

0
Reply
Male 4,290
Even if it isn`t a crime, it`s not an encouraging characteristic in a vice-president. She would have a whole load of power to abuse.

I don`t think that the probe would be democrat influenced any more than republican influenced. The main guy was a democrat, but the majority on the panel were republican. If all those republicans disagreed with the final report, why haven`t they all said so? They must agree, which tells me that, whatever your political affiliation, the evidence clearly shows she is guilty.

And I think that an early release would be less damaging than suddenly, on the day before the election, all the headlines screaming "PALIN ABUSES POWER", the night before the election. It`s hard to see how an early release could be worse for the republicans than that.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
But you`re a republican."
"Yeah."

Completely correct.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
ah yes, but some things that are detrimental are left out.

Possibilities:
1 The investigation probe was democrat influenced.
2. It wasn`t.
3. It was supposed to be released Nov. 3rd
3.a It is more detrimental to release it now

Say 1 is true. Then the investigation is polluted with a bias view, and needs to be thrown out.

Say 2 is true. It still has to go to legislation.

3 Tricky, because it is now held up until it gets to legislation, which is important because democrats can now say, "your guilty of power abuse" whether it is made a crime or not, and they have also eliminated the possibility of a new investigation.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
OK yes, but if I said:

"I`m a republican."
"So you voted for McCain?"
"No, Obama."
"But he`s a democrat."
"Yeah."
"But you`re a republican?"
"Yeah."
"Wouldn`t you agree that, for the purposes of this election, you`re a democrat?"
"No."
"But you voted democrat."
"Yeah."
"So you wanted a democrat to be president, not a republican?"
"Yeah."
"But you`re a republican."
"Yeah."

0
Reply
Male 4,290
OK back to Palin. There are two outcomes:
1) She is innocent of abusing her power.
2) She is guilty of abusing her power.


Let`s assume she is actually innocent.
By the time the panel reaches this conclusion, it`s become apparent that Palin will be McCain`s running partner, something they didn`t know initially.
The panel is majority republican, and they can all see that showing she is innocent will help the republicans win the election. And yet they all agree to report that she is guilty, even though it would be too late to use it as an get rid of her as McCain`s running partner.

Situation 2 - she is guilty.
The panel did their job, and honestly reported that she was guilty, even though the republicans knew they were damaging the chances of a republican victory.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
No.. in America a registered Democrat can vote Independent, or Republican. Just as a republican can vote independent or democrat. Independents can vote democrat or republican also.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
"1. You assume that Palin is their candidate first.
2. The "Some republicans" in point 5, is the important ones supporting McCain and Palin for the presidency/vp"

Surely all republicans are supporting McCain/Palin? Who else is running?

If they`re not going to vote for McCain, they must be voting for Obama, making them democrats. Or independent I suppose, but never mind them.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
well lets leave the criminal debate, and lean toward the Palin one. I think to summarize what we disagree on, is the out come of the investigation. I am taking the side that it would have been different under different circumstances.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
"ob, I do want to pause and say that it is great to argue with someone who has some intelligence. No hard feelings either way, just trying to make a point, as I am sure thats what you are trying to do."

Was just about to say the same thing :)


Now where were we...

0
Reply
Male 5,620
bob, I do want to pause and say that it is great to argue with someone who has some intelligence. No hard feelings either way, just trying to make a point, as I am sure thats what you are trying to do.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
what if that statue is The Statue of Liberty? What if those windows are the ones in the White House?

juvenile attacks = spontaneous
adult attacks = planned

Also, all criminals progress with their crimes.
Forensic Psych 101

0
Reply
Male 5,620
I agree with all of your points, except for 2, and I think there is more to it than that.

What I disagree with is your conclusion: "Do you think all those republicans on the panel were up for some `mud-slinging` at their own candidate?"

1. You assume that Palin is their candidate first.
2. The "Some republicans" in point 5, is the important ones supporting McCain and Palin for the presidency/vp


0
Reply
Male 4,290
Again, it was an example.

And why equate the percentages of reoffence when you won`t equate the outcomes? Perhaps he is just planning over all these years to blow up another statue and destroy some windows? I can live with a 1% chance of that happening.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
OK let`s review.

1) An investigation into Palin`s abuse of power began in July, long before anyone knew she would become McCain`s running partner.
2) She initially agreed to be helpful, but then withdrew that help and attempted to stop the investigation from taking place.
3) The investigating panel was made up of both democrats and republicans. It was overseen by a democrat, and contained a majority of republicans.
4) The panel found that Palin had indeed abused her powers.


If you disagree with any of those, please say so.

And of course,

5) Some republicans refuse to believe the outcome of the report (even though there were more of them than democrats involved) just because the overseer was a democrat.

Do you think all those republicans on the panel were up for some `mud-slinging` at their own candidate?

0
Reply
Male 5,620
bob, say the % chance that he will plan and orchestrate an attack is 1%... With what is at risk, I don`t want to chance it. With the risk involved with DUI at 1% I can chance it. Now the same would apply at 100% chance of risk, the only change would be to never let the DUI person drive again.

We have to assume there is a % chance of risk in both cases. That is the max, and min, although I left out the mean, because it isn`t important in these risk factors.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Oh yeah, and to illustrate my point a little better in this down time:

The attack on Sept. 11 was a planned attack that took years. The people who orchestrated the attack had to sneak into the country 1 by 1, get flight training, over the course of years, plan the attack, then execute it. Took Years.. see my point?

0
Reply
Male 4,290
You`re focusing on the terrorism vs DUI analogy too much. It was an example.


There is no evidence, other than in your head, that Ayers is planning any terrorist activity. If you do have some, please do call the police. No-one wants terrorism to take place.

I was using the example of DUI to point out the flaws in your "What if" proposal, and to show that former criminals can indeed shake loose the shackles of their crimes and move on.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
"I doubt the outcome would have changed."

But those are your doubts.. and is that persuaded because it is on your side? Regardless of that answer that is what all republicans are thinking.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"why not allow a republican investigation"

This was not a democrat investigation. There were both democrats AND republicans on the committee.

If you swapped the overseeing democrat for an overseeing republican, I doubt the outcome would have changed.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Yes, because he seems to be the type who would work at a government office for 30+- years to blow up a bus.

Other non-nuke attacks

Oklahoma City
Sept. 11

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"Terrorism, kills contents of a city on successful attack, plus cripples economy of area, and/or nationwide."

Not every terrorist attack is a nuke, although watching 24 would suggest otherwise.

DUI hits bus, kills 30.
Suicide bomber explodes bus, kills 30.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
"If they all did their job properly and with integrity" Do you know nothing of mud slinging?
Also, if thats the case that they would find the same verdict, why not allow a republican investigation?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
"Your saying the outcome would have been the same in republican controlled court, with a republican overseer, and administrator?"

If they all did their job properly and with integrity, yes, just as this committee did. Otherwise what`s the point? Any outcome of any decision can be blindly attributed to someone`s personal beliefs, as opposed to them actually doing their job.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
ok one more attempt at my position bob.

DUI, kills 30 if he hits a bus.

Terrorism, kills contents of a city on successful attack, plus cripples economy of area, and/or nationwide.

Which is greater?

0
Reply
Male 5,620
starrstreet is angry because I won`t move from my stance, yet she won`t either. Hypocrite.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
"So your saying we now false accuse someone, and then convict them on circumstantial evidence, but later clear their name? "

No, I`m pointing out the ridiculousness of your "What if?" policy, and the hypocrisy that you don`t apply it to your own politicians.

Your argument:
WHAT IF Ayers plans another terrorist attack, even though he did his time and has since shown no intention to reoffend?
Better safe than sorry, he should never hold a position of power.

My argument:
WHAT IF George W Bush drink-drives again and this time kills someone, even though he did his time and has since shown no intention to reoffend?
Better safe than sorry, he should never hold a position of power.

I don`t agree with this argument, I`m just using an example to try to make you see how ludicrous it is.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Your saying the outcome would have been the same in republican controlled court, with a republican overseer, and administrator?
0
Reply
Female 400
Lol almightlybob, lets just leave it. We`re never going to get through to people this thick skulled no matter the argument we bring up.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"just did whatever the overseeing democrat told them, you`re insulting their integrity."

I didn`t suggest that, but persuasion from a leader is magnified. Its human nature.

0
Reply
Female 400
If you think the republicans (who had the majority on the committee, not that it matters) just did whatever the overseeing democrat told them, you`re insulting their integrity.

That was a good way to put it, I just couldn`t figure how to do so that it would get across to elkingo.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
I quoted these 4:
Pedophilia
Rape
Murder
Terrorism

bob brought up alcholism, which isn`t a crime, but DUI is, to which I said take his driving rights.

Try to keep up.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"No, but your saying that democrats didn`t influence it."

Of course democrats influenced it. They were on the committee, that was their job. Republicans influenced it too, because all the republicans on the committee were doing their job as well.

If you think the republicans (who had the majority on the committee, not that it matters) just did whatever the overseeing democrat told them, you`re insulting their integrity.

0
Reply
Female 400
Geez elkingo, why send him to AA when you`re saying once a drunk always a drunk? Why even try to rehabilitate someone, huh? Doesn`t work does it, I mean WHAT IF he got behind the car again and killed someone, he should probably stay in jail forever.

I mean despite all his efforts in AA and his life that has turned around we should always label him a drunk driver and a danger to society. No one should associate with him or the are condoning his drunk driving!

0
Reply
Male 5,620
starrstreet, its irrational and ignorant to ignore arguments. Like you have demonstrated.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
So your saying we now false accuse someone, and then convict them on circumstantial evidence, but later clear their name?
0
Reply
Female 400
elkingo, you lose, give it up, nothing you are saying is logical or rational.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
No, but your saying that democrats didn`t influence it.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
"You can`t convict someone of a crime they aren`t guilty of."

Um, yes you can.

"Ok, take his right to drive a car.. send him to AA."

But he won`t rehabilitate, he`ll get drunk again. And since he clearly has no regard for the law (he already committed DUI), what`s to stop him getting behind the wheel even if he`s banned?

0
Reply
Female 400
I acknowledge all that you said, but the people who made the decisions were a bipartisan committee (controlled by democrats) who voted unanimously.

So you`re saying that the republicans on the committee will do whatever the democratic court wants them to do? HA. Good try?

0
Reply
Male 5,620
One other thing you guys have missed out on.. it still has to go to a republican controlled legislation, although the timing of this is so great on the democrats part, because it won`t reach that legislation before the election.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Why should the investigation have been stopped? Did the Republicans know she was guilty and want to prevent it ever coming to light?

No, they wanted a more fair investigation, which the Palins launched a republican investigation, not saying thats any more fair.

0
Reply
Female 400
Yeah absolutely almightybob1, but he will just follow whatever his party wants him to think. My god, such scrutiny over Obama and democrats all the time but when something is staring him RIGHT IN THE FACE but its his own party he will do ANYTHING to defend it, even when it is not working.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I acknowledge all that you said, but the people who made the decisions were a bipartisan committee (controlled by democrats) who voted unanimously.

Once again you leave parts out.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
Why should the investigation have been stopped? Did the Republicans know she was guilty and want to prevent it ever coming to light?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
DUI is still < Murder

You can`t convict someone of a crime they aren`t guilty of.

Ok, take his right to drive a car.. send him to AA.

0
Reply
Female 400
Holy poo dude, stop. I was asking who are the ones who made the decisions. I acknowledge all that you said, but the people who made the decisions were a bipartisan committee who voted unanimously.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
...Just, move on with your life.

You still won`t admit the parts about Democrats heading it huh?
I see that it was in a bipartisan committee, why cant you see that that committee was ran by dems, in a dem court?

0
Reply
Male 4,290
Sure, this time he didn`t kill anyone, but by your logic:

"What if he isn`t rehabilitated? What if he is just waiting his time to try again? What if he plans another attack?"

It`s better to keep him off the streets, because if he keeps drink driving eventually he will kill someone.

0
Reply
Female 400
Who was making the ultimate decision? A bipartisan committee! They were the ones who made the verdict who were mostly republicans! You will use ANYTHING to discredit what was found, that Palin was guilty of abuse of power and unethical behavior. That is the bottom line. Who came to those conclusions? A committee of more Replublicans and Democrats and not the Democrat courts. Just, move on with your life.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
He worked with a man (who is a known Terrorist, but who was on the Chicago education board who was doing good things for the city). You can`t ignore all the good things that Ayers (even though he is a terrorist) was doing which he was doing while Obama knew him."

Just pointing out that once you are a terrorist, you are always labeled that, and it shouldn`t be ignored.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Saturday, October 11, 2008 7:35:08 AM
Drink driving is one of the most serious crimes there is. You can easily kill people if you get behind the wheel while drunk and/or high.

Surely you`re not saying that drink-driving is excusable? Or only when it`s a Republican President who did it?

So, who did he run into or over and kill, because it changes to murder when that happens.
I missed that point.
DUI < Murder

0
Reply
Male 4,290
Drink driving is one of the most serious crimes there is. You can easily kill people if you get behind the wheel while drunk and/or high.

Surely you`re not saying that drink-driving is excusable? Or only when it`s a Republican President who did it?

0
Reply
Female 400
Who is giving William Ayers a position of power!? Why are you confusing Obama and Ayers? Ayers is NOT running for the presidency, Obama is, and Obama was never a radical in the 60`s blowing sht up! He worked with a man who was on the Chicago education board who was doing good things for the city. You can`t ignore all the good things that Ayers was doing which he was doing while Obama knew him.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Who worked to stop the investigation and why!? Please answer that. Why was the investigation tried to be stopped when it was already taking place with a committee that actually had more republicans than democrats..." but, was ran by democrats in democrat courts.

Had to add the bit you left out. It makes more sense that way.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
No, just the serious crimes should hold a life sentence.. and should be on a crime register..

Pedophillia
Rape
Murder
Terrorism
ect.

as opposed to:
Running a red light
littering
loitering
ect


To think, you guys think I`m ignorant. You really can`t see a difference there?

0
Reply
Female 400
Who worked to stop the investigation and why!? Please answer that. Why was the investigation tried to be stopped when it was already taking place with a committee that actually had more republicans than democrats?

Oh no, because the truth hurts? =\

I really don`t expect you to understand what I am saying, but anyone else in here with a brain will understand the logic.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
If it`s better not to take any chances, shouldn`t we just lock the President up, since he`ll probably drink drive again?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
This isn`t a black or white situation like you are suggesting. There is a grey area where he isn`t in jail, and doesn`t hold an office of power. Why can`t you see that?

Doesn`t really matter, because about 90% of America already sees it.. thats wht ex-cons work at a McJob.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
lol, you are the ignorant one, wanting to grant ex-cons positions of power.. not just ex-cons but ex-TERRORISTS. lol I don`t see why you can`t get that.

Yeah, give him his freedom, but don`t allow him to have power.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"Rather than rely on "what if`s" we don`t take that chance at all?"

Then every crime, however small, would carry a life sentence.
No point releasing that pickpocket, he`ll just do it again.
Might as well take every dollar that guy has, he`ll just keep getting parking fines.

0
Reply
Female 400
elkingo, please stop posting, you sound like an idiot, I`m truly embarrassed for you. What is this a 3rd world country, locking up prisoners forever? What you just said is totally un-American.

Does anyone else see the ignorance in that last comment he made?

0
Reply
Male 5,620
""there were more Republicans on it than Democrats" Haha they have absolutely no argument.""

Friday, October 10, 2008 9:14:46 PM
Yes, but the investigation was lead by Branchflower, and over seen by Sen. Hollis French, both dems. And the courts that denied the suit to stop the investigation are democrat courts. So, thats why I conclude a refusal to work bipartisan.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
What if he isn`t rehabilitated? What if he is just waiting his time to try again? What if he plans another attack?


Rather than rely on "what if`s" we don`t take that chance at all?

0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Don`t even respond to this, fcking useless."

Because profanity emphasizes your points so well.

0
Reply
Female 400
I can`t argue anymore with stupid people on IAB. You all have some fcking stupid logic, "Um, yes? If he did it once, what makes you think he won`t do it again?" Then why do we let criminals out of prison?

Ayers now has devoted his career to improving the education system in Chicago and has done nothing but help that city which is more than most of you have done and will do in your lifetime. You are all very ignorant people and I feel sorry you.

Don`t even respond to this, fcking useless.

0
Reply
Male 151
hardcore republicans refuse to admit how much their candidates suck...McCain WAS good, then he sold his values to be president

every time something bad surfaces about either of them, conservatives dismiss it as "liberal" media bias, then listen to bill o`reilly lull them to sleep

i know obama isn`t perfect, and i won`t claim that he and biden have done things i don`t like...but it is clear that palin was a pure publicity move. he republicans thought their party and clinton supporters were so dumb that any woman would do

no they will pay for their stupidity with the election...now hopefully we can leave rednecks behind and america can move forward as a nation

0
Reply
Male 338
Apparently, I wasn`t done.
0
Reply
Male 338
I would understand if Ayers would just admit that his bombings were wrong, but he STILL DOESN`T. That shows that he still isn`t over his whiny rebellious hippy days.
0
Reply
Male 338
Ayers has said that he didn`t plan enough bombings of the pentagon and other governmental buildings, while also stating that if he had the chance to go back, he would do the same, but with more bombings. I`m so tired of Obama`s excuse that he was growing up when these bombings were done. Wait, so does that mean Obama thinks that anything before he was an adult doesn`t matter? He still was a terrorist, whether or not Obama was born.

Done.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Whats great is someone with virtually no political history, and communist beliefs has a shot at running our nation.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
OOh yay analogy time!

If someone was say a pedophile, would you let him on the school board after he served his time?

Well, a terrorist shouldn`t be allowed into our politics time servered or not.

0
Reply
Male 4,680
...And suddenly I`m finding myself rooting for Obama.
0
Reply
Male 151

0
Reply
Male 367
"So... you guys say that once a criminal has gone to jail, we should always see them as a criminal even when they have turned themselves around and devoted their life to helping improve education? "

Um, yes? If he did it once, what makes you think he won`t do it again?

0
Reply
Female 400
"there were more Republicans on it than Democrats" Haha they have absolutely no argument.
0
Reply
Male 213
It was a partisan committee! Too bad for Palin there were more Republicans on it than Democrats...
0
Reply
Female 400
"and what about Ayers, A TERRORIST who helped Obama launch his political career in his OWN LIVING ROOM!!!"

That is so fcking ignorant. Yeah, he was a 60`s radical and got reprimanded for what he did. He finished his sentence, did what he was supposed to do and then when he was out he went on an education board to help out Chicago! He isn`t a radical anymore and actually rehabilitated after jail.

So... you guys say that once a criminal has gone to jail, we should always see them as a criminal even when they have turned themselves around and devoted their life to helping improve education?

Okay so using your same reasoning with the Obama Ayres thing, try to defend Sarah Palin and her husband Todd who was in the Alaskan Independence Party. Lets see this...

Oh and btw I don`t give a poo about what he thought 7 years ago, he doesn`t think it now right? BUT lets use the same reasoning with Obama and Ayers.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"What a crock of sh*t. One of the leaders of the investigation, Sen. Hollis French, was quoted as saying it will be an "October surprise" for McCain. And it goes without saying that Ms. French is a Democrat and a supporter of Barack Obama. "


That same senator moved the release of the report forward to prevent it being released the day before the election, when it would undoubtedly have been even more damaging to the McCain/Palin campaign.

From elkingo`s article:
"state Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat, who managed the investigation, said its release was moved to Friday so it would not come on the eve of the Nov. 4 election. "


This is the problem with a two-party system. You can never trust the results of any political investigation, because narrow-minded people will clutch at straws and either:
1) dismiss the report if it isn`t overseen by their own party
2) swear blind that it`s 100% accurate if it is.

0
Reply
Female 79
**That should say "within the last week", not "last week"
0
Reply
Female 79
I read an article about this issue, although the wording was different, last week. So yeah, it is old. I knew it before coming here, and have been asleep for the last 8 hours.

Took me a minute, but the first mentions of this I can find are from Thursday. Seattle Times (it starts with an issue of `did she put a seat belt on her son, turns out the accuser is the guy who lost his job) the second is CBS news, stating the inqury into the `Troopergate` issue will go on.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
... and again:

-
- Branchflower also dismissed the Palins` assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins` real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"The trooper involved was her brother-in-law that was beating his wife (Sarah`s sister)."

If that did happen, why wasn`t the guy fired? If the sister had hard evidence, why didn`t she prosecute? Considering Palin`s position, she should not have gotten involved if the investigation was dropped.

I`ll quote again from elkingo`s article (cheers again mate):

- "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: To get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," said the report released by a bipartisan legislative committee.

- The report said Palin knew that "the disciplinary investigation was closed and could not be reopened. Yet she allowed the pressure from her husband, to try to get Trooper Wooten fired, to continue unabated over a several month-period of time."

0
Reply
Male 64
By the way, BBC is British, not Democrat or Republican, so yeah it`s not some Democrat scheme.

0
Reply
Male 64
I`m not gonna get to deep into this, but if you wanna talk corruption, Obama may be a little corrupted, but McCain is FAR worse. If you want my reasoning, look up the Keating Five.
0
Reply
Male 807
I thought that`s why people get into politics?.
0
Reply
Male 633
hmmmm i put seriously twice... guess i was pretty serious .
0
Reply
Male 633
"But no one gives 2 halves of a sh*t because he`s Obama and the media has already declared him President. The democratic machine in this country is so corrupt it makes me sick
This country is going to sh*t. "
this should seriously be put on a plaque...
im seriously dreading the next 4 years if obama gets elected.
0
Reply
Male 108
Pat, wake up. A bi-partisan committee with a republican majority voted unanimously to proceed with the investigation. What the hell do you want? But I`ll stop. If you`re a blind Palin supporter at this point in the campaign, you`ll find a way to excuse anything that she does or is.
0
Reply
Male 23
I think there is a problem if she is charged with an ethics violation, before she is in the White House. I mean at least wait a couple months or years for that. What happens inside peoples homes should not influence what happens in the workplace. As for those who try to discredit Bill Ayers listen to this. While he did plan terrorists attacks in the late 60s and early 70s (when Obama was just growing up), he has since become a distinguished professor, a member of the board on the Woods Foundation of Chicago, a anti-poverty philanthropic group. He met Obama while working with him on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that helped inner city schools get the money they needed. Walter Annenberg who gave much of the money for the Challenge and was a huge part of the Challenge, was a life long Republican who was very good friends with Ronald Reagan.
0
Reply
Male 756
And while we`re on the topic of ethics violations, what about all the corrupt Chicago cronies Obama`s connected with...and what about Ayers, A TERRORIST who helped Obama launch his political career in his OWN LIVING ROOM!!!

But no one gives 2 halves of a sh*t because he`s Obama and the media has already declared him President. The democratic machine in this country is so corrupt it makes me sick (just take a look at ACORN, registering thousands of fraudulent votes).

This country is going to sh*t.

0
Reply
Male 2,553
and nobody was surprised...
0
Reply
Male 756
What a crock of sh*t. One of the leaders of the investigation, Sen. Hollis French, was quoted as saying it will be an "October surprise" for McCain. And it goes without saying that Ms. French is a Democrat and a supporter of Barack Obama.

This whole investigation was tainted, and if anything I support her even more now.

McCain Palin 08!

0
Reply
Male 17,511
I`m like, So What ?, About this. The trooper involved was her brother-in-law that was beating his wife (Sarah`s sister).

Personally I believe any police officer or state trooper that`s caught abusing their spouse should be immediately put on leave and investigated, At the very least. If found guilty of the offense they should loose their job.

Monegan wasn`t doing his job, Period. It should`ve been a no brainer, Cop beats wife -> Investigate -> If guilty, Fire him.

Instead Monegan refuses to do his job and gets fired himself. So it was his own fault, No impropriety there at all.

0
Reply
Female 961
agreed w. elkingo. seriously. and when you read through the whhole thing EVERYTHING says theres inconclusive evidence that there was any type of fowl play except spending cuts that had been happening for MONTHS, until the decision, then all of a sudden out of a bunch of inconclusions, they have BAD.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Yes, but the investigation was lead by Branchflower, and over seen by Sen. Hollis French, both dems. And the courts that denied the suit to stop the investigation are democrat courts. So, thats why I conclude a refusal to work bipartisan.

The timing is also suspicious for this same reasoning.. why not slow down and work together? Perhaps so they could get it out before election day? Although, it was scheduled for one day before the election.. Its probably more detrimental now, because it wont have time to reach the state legistator.

0
Reply
Male 57
Stephen Colbert & Vladimir Pudin 08!
0
Reply
Male 3,301
I want to see Palin naked.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
That article is gold for Democrats really elkingo, you shouldn`t have posted it :D
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Starrstreet: No worries, easy mistake to make :)

elkingo: The article you found says
""Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: To get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," said the report released by a bipartisan legislative committee. "

So this report WAS released by a bipartisan committee, not a Democrat-only one. And it was Palin who refused to cooperate despite earlier promises, not any Democrats.

How could the timing be `suspicious`? No-one would have known at the time that Palin was going to be McCain`s running-mate, except possibly some Republicans high up in the party, if he had even chosen at that point.

And when the whole article is read, it seems clear that Palin is in the wrong, but that the Republicans are blindly insisting there was nothing wrong with her conduct.

You`re clutching at straws here mate.

0
Reply
Female 400
Yeah and I don`t like it cause both their avatars are white and it is confusing me lol.
0
Reply
Male 3,819
Holy crap. 85% of this page is posts from elkingo and almightybob1.
0
Reply
Female 400
almightybob1 I APOLOGIZE, read it wrong, but yeah you are right! lol I was like what the heck is he talkinnnnng about.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I feel if you read the entire article you get a better feel of what happened, which most people won`t, so I cherry picked the items I wanted to emphasize. I think it is rather important to show that the things you are hearing about are strictly from a Democrat side. (which is why I call it mud slinging.) It was timed out perfectly, and they refused to work bipartisan, which is suspicious. It moves up to a republican controlled court, which we will see what happens there. The people of the state call it a "circus". The republicans hold their ground as to why she fired him, and it was within her rights and power to fire him, all they proved was that it was unethical, mind you in a democrat court.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
"Why would I post things in contrast to what I am arguing?"

I suggest that next time you either:
1) Take quotes in context
2) don`t quote your sources if the entire rest of the article disagrees with you, so as to avoid supplying the opposition with armloads of ammunition just to secure your one bullet.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
"The legislative committee unanimously began the investigation in July. Palin had promised to cooperate, but after becoming McCain`s running mate, she changed course, saying the inquiry was politically tainted. She declined to answer Branchflower`s questions, and she started a parallel investigation before the state personnel board, which she appoints. Republican lawmakers sued to stop the investigation, but state courts rejected the request."

That unwillingness to work bipartisan is what I was referring to.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
I did like the part where citizens and what not showed up to the hearing wearing clown noses in protest.

Why would I post things in contrast to what I am arguing?

Oh hey, it would be swell if you posted some republican things.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"It still political bull crap.. and you know it. Its just mud slinging."

Impressive, then, that the Democrats knew to prepare this mud-slinging in advance, before she ever became McCain`s running partner. That level of organisation would convince me to vote Democrat.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
LOL elkingo, that first quote is the ONLY quote in that entire article which in any way reflects well on Palin, and the part of it you omitted says she fired the guy partly because of his refusal to do what she wanted.

Your second quote is from the Republican`s own investigation, which unsurprisingly came back in favour of Palin.

And you neglected the quote from that article where Branchflower dismissed Wooten`s `threats`:

"Branchflower also dismissed the Palins` assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins` real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote. "

0
Reply
Male 5,620
"The report will go to the Republican-dominated state legislature for possible further action."

I guess we will wait and see what happens when it gets out of democrat courts eh?

0
Reply
Male 5,620
It still political bull crap.. and you know it. Its just mud slinging.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
"I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act," investigator Steve Branchflower concluded in the panel`s 263-page report.


- I find it hard to misinterpret the conclusion of the report (i.e. the overall verdict). She abused her power.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Male 5,620
Branchflower wrote. "In spite of that, Governor Palin`s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

"state Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat, who managed the investigation"

"The Republican report said the Palins had "good reason" to raise concerns about Wooten because he has a "long history of unstable and erratic behavior, including drinking beer in his squad car, killing moose illegally, using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson and threatening to kill a member of the Palin family," and that he "claims of being above the law due to his trooper status.""

0
Reply
Male 4,290
starstreet: I know, I`m agreeing with you. *is confused*

I quoted elkingo saying it was instigated by democrats, then quoted the BBC article disproving his claim. I think you might have got them mixed up maybe.

0
Reply
Male 151
elkingo...how is campaigning an excuse for not showing up for court...what the hell campaigning has she done???

all she does is give speeches in front of stupids who cheer every time she calls Obama a terrorist.

now if she would actually answer questions or do something constructive, then i would see her missing court...

and its funny how you know she is only guilty for not going to court...but the BBC somehow didn`t know this pertinent detail

0
Reply
Female 400
almightybob1, what? This investigation was going on before he picked her as his running mate, that is just straight up FACT. I don`t know what context that quote was in but I think the way you put it is probably misleading.
0
Reply
Female 850
i smell political bull SHT
0
Reply
Female 400
elkingo, it was unethical and an abuse of power, period, lol, I don`t know what you are arguing about. Is it illegal, no not YET, but I`m sure new legislation will come out of this.

Do I want someone who has abused her power as my potential president? Absolutely not. Bottom line. Try as hard as you want to defend this, it is just too far a stretch.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"it was instigated by democrats to slander her name"

From the article:
"The investigation into the affair began before Mr McCain selected Mrs Palin as his running mate in August."

0
Reply
Male 4,290
"Nah mate, unfortunately not. I was the last one in through the doors before Enterprise Oil got taken over by Shell Oil, didn`t get to know too many people, sadly."

Ah well, bit of a long shot really. He had moved into the HR side I think, whereas you seem to be at the business end. He`s with Petro-Canada now, running the European side of the business.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
"BBC should word things more good."

lol

More good indeed!

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Oh to clarify, it would have been illegal if Palin would have made a financial gain from firing him. They only found her guilty also, because she didn`t come to court for trial.. because she was campaigning.. it was instigated by democrats to slander her name.. to which I say bravo. How can you expect someone to come to court in a case where they don`t have to because of their office, and someone that has good political reason to not show up.. Its not that serious of a deal, she fired some guy.. was it ethical? Probably not. Would you want someone working for you who didn`t take orders though? I wouldn`t. I am probably ranting.. but I am just getting tired of propaganda.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Well, unlike other mud-slinging this is actually very important and relevant. If she had abused her power as governor of Alaska then the "power" of the VP position could go to her head even more. Dangerous."

Did they mention that Wooten had given her father a death threat? No. Did they mention its an ethical argument where Palin did not receive financial aide? No. Was it illegal? Not yet.

My conclusion.. mud slinging.

0
Reply
Male 1,882
"Palin abused power, probe finds"
*later on in the article*
"However, the report said that Mrs Palin had not exceeded her powers when she sacked Mr Monegan."

lol wut? BBC should word things more good.

I really don`t even care, I`m not voting for President this year. McCain is a terrible pick for the Republican party, I seriously facepalmed hard when he won the primary. As for Obama, I see 90% of the crap spewing out of his mouth never even happening, he`s just riding on disgruntled voters and telling them what they want to hear to win the election. This isn`t true just for Obama, it is true for most candidates in general, and no, Obama is not different.

*Obama did pick a better VP running mate.
*Obama will most likely win the election.
*Obama would have probably lost against Romney.

0
Reply
Female 400
"Well, it is new, but its still just mud-slinging."

Well, unlike other mud-slinging this is actually very important and relevant. If she had abused her power as governor of Alaska then the "power" of the VP position could go to her head even more. Dangerous.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Well, it is new, but its still just mud-slinging.
0
Reply
Male 338
Otra más batalla política.
0
Reply
Male 556
Anyone read the article on Palin in the latest Rolling Stone issue? What an amusing rant THAT was...
0
Reply
Male 338
"Hey, Llamaz, this isn`t 4chan"
Sorry, I forgot.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
vv "*finishes stalking davymid on his website* Did you ever know Pete Kallos?"

Nah mate, unfortunately not. I was the last one in through the doors before Enterprise Oil got taken over by Shell Oil, didn`t get to know too many people, sadly.

0
Reply
Male 338
Also, the person she sacked wouldn`t fire someone who tased a nine year old boy with his police taser while he was drunk. How was that not a perfectly fine reason to sack a person?
0
Reply
Female 400
Hey, Llamaz, this isn`t 4chan
0
Reply
Male 4,290
CNN article on the same story is here. It was only posted 6 minutes ago, almost 2 hours after the BBC report. Still think British broadcasting is too slow elkingo?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
If you can find a news service that reports on world affairs more consistently and accurately than the BBC, please direct me to it.
0
Reply
Male 338
Think about it. How much win do you gain for shooting things with a sniper rifle out of a helicopter? Over 9,000. Go Palin. Okay, maybe that isn`t the best reason...

"She voted AGAINST abortions for girls raped buy their dads"
Also, this is completely paraphrased. She is anti-abortion, period. That would be like saying "Obama wants people to not have a job and recieve healthcare for doing nothing but popping out spawn." But without the paraphrasing on the Obama comment.

0
Reply
Male 3,819
I hate to defend the guy but Bush is just a horrible speaker. Palin is actually ignorant.
0
Reply
Female 400
I got a CNN alert to my phone when this happened so its really recent.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
*finishes stalking davymid on his website*

Did you ever know Pete Kallos? He used to work for Enterprise. Old family friend.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
yeah because you know.. British Broadcasting is really up to date with US affairs.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
"Isn`t this old news that was already resolved?"

Considering the article was posted on the BBC website a few hours ago... no.

And considering she`s trying to become one of the most powerful politicians in the world, don`t you think her morals and ethics are quite important?

0
Reply
Male 493
"What about... you know.. our current president?"

Augh, come on. It`s no longer funny; it`s been SO OVERUSED. Sure, he wasn`t all that smart, but he isn`t the complete and utter waste of space that Palin is.

0
Reply
Male 342
Kinda cute, 5 weeks into her nomination and she already is embroiled in a scandal.

Who says she doesn`t have experience?

0
Reply
Male 1,049
Just wondered, davy, cos his account appears to have been closed.....hot on the heels of a major spit in another thread. (where I will admit, he was a bit out of order).
0
Reply
Female 400
HAHAH, what a suprise... Hopefully they`ll make new legislation to prevent something like this from happening again. We can call it the Sarah Palin Laws.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Isn`t this old news that was already resolved?
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"So wheres Lionhart2 these days? ;)"

*pulls out mod-gun

0
Reply
Male 12,138
vv "Goddamn, even lowly I-A-B Mods know you don`t just ban someone for disagreeing with your view..."

So wheres Lionhart2 these days? ;)

Butters, excuse me, but Lionhart is alive and well and voicing his opinions, unless I`m mistaken, despite individual piss-offs.

0
Reply
Male 3,819
Death blow.
0
Reply
Female 850
ok, she is a dumb-poo
She voted AGAINST abortions for girls raped buy their dads
Ya, she makes a great VP.

If she has the authority to fire somebody, imagine wat she`d do to the ever-falling economy, the jobs and our future?

0
Reply
Male 1,049
"Goddamn, even lowly I-A-B Mods know you don`t just ban someone for disagreeing with your view..."

So wheres Lionhart2 these days? ;)

0
Reply
Male 151
KeePay
"She`s one of the dumbest people I`ve ever seen in my life."

What about... you know.. our current president?

0
Reply
Male 7,933
"*Waits for PTK to excuse Palin*"

"even lowly I-A-B Mods know you don`t just ban someone for disagreeing with your view..."

How many Mods have there been in IAB history?
How many VP`s have there been?

Exactly.

0
Reply
Male 493
God f***ing dammit McCain, just throw her out.

Palin turned me from moderate Republican to an independent in only a month. She`s one of the dumbest people I`ve ever seen in my life.

0
Reply
Male 1,764
*Waits for PTK to excuse Palin*
0
Reply
Male 1,766

The worlds drated isnt it

0
Reply
Female 15,763
A picture of Palin should be in the dictionary next to the word, "facepalm".

Uuuuuggghhh...

HOW DO YOU THINK SHE CAN BE A GOOD VP!? HOW!? I ASK YOU!

0
Reply
Male 12,138
Link: Palin Guilty of Abusing Her Power [Rate Link] - Goddamn, even lowly I-A-B Mods know you don`t just ban someone for disagreeing with your view...
0
Reply