Lots to admire in them reformin' mavericks.....

JR wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
JR wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27105917/

- JR

MSNBC!!??!!??!

ROTFLMAO. ZERO credibility.


OK. How 'bout:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us...rooper.html?hp

Oh, no. Of course not. NYT, only the U.S.'s newspaper of record,
recognized globally as such, and therefore, of course, for the
red-blooded Murcan illiterate, of ZERO credibity,

so.....

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-commissioner/


Fox News. You brown-shirts like that 'un, no?

Spin THAT, Sparky.

- JR



If the report is true, she should pay the price as anyone else would.
The same as Obama should.

Who made up the commission looking into the abuse of power? Was it a
majority of Democrats that would prefer to disgrace a Republican VP
candidate during a critical pre-election period or was it an objective
independent group?

On Oct 11, 10:02*am, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

Republicans control the State Legislature in Alaska and its
Republicans with whom Sarah has earned her nickname of "Barracuda"
because she is famous for the art of the double-cross, not as the
naive evangelicals or the right wingers looking for a saviour have
attributed to her basketball and broadcasting mini career.

The Alaska Republicans have gone after her because she has welshed on
a number of handshake deals and kept the patronage plumbs for her
suburban circle while freezing out the older, traditional Republican
Statehouse patronage flies.

As I have said in other posts, Alaska politics are far more
complicated than can be understood from the deck of a cruise ship. I
find it hilarious that the Rebubs and the National media have made so
little progress in penetrating the Alaskan fog.

Dave

DaveS wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:02 am, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

Republicans control the State Legislature in Alaska and its
Republicans with whom Sarah has earned her nickname of "Barracuda"
because she is famous for the art of the double-cross, not as the
naive evangelicals or the right wingers looking for a saviour have
attributed to her basketball and broadcasting mini career.

The Alaska Republicans have gone after her because she has welshed on
a number of handshake deals and kept the patronage plumbs for her
suburban circle while freezing out the older, traditional Republican
Statehouse patronage flies.

As I have said in other posts, Alaska politics are far more
complicated than can be understood from the deck of a cruise ship. I
find it hilarious that the Rebubs and the National media have made so
little progress in penetrating the Alaskan fog.

Dave

Yes, I agree you are truly in the fog.

On Oct 11, 1:02*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
If the report is true, she should pay the price as anyone else would.
The same as Obama should.

Who made up the commission looking into the abuse of power? *Was it a
majority of Democrats that would prefer to disgrace a Republican VP
candidate during a critical pre-election period or was it an objective
independent group?

It was a majority of Republicans, 8 of them to 4 Democrats, actually,
and they voted unanimously. And they were given the charge to do this
by the Alaskan legislature, composed of 36 Republicans and 24
Democrats with (naturally) a Republican Senate President, in a state
with a Republican governor, a Republican Lieutenant Governor and a
100% Republican Congressional delegation. So, using your criteria, it
most definitely was *not* an "objective independent group" but one
tilted very heavily in Palin's favor.

wrote:
On Oct 11, 1:02 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
If the report is true, she should pay the price as anyone else would.
The same as Obama should.

Who made up the commission looking into the abuse of power? Was it a
majority of Democrats that would prefer to disgrace a Republican VP
candidate during a critical pre-election period or was it an objective
independent group?

It was a majority of Republicans, 8 of them to 4 Democrats, actually,
and they voted unanimously. And they were given the charge to do this
by the Alaskan legislature, composed of 36 Republicans and 24
Democrats with (naturally) a Republican Senate President, in a state
with a Republican governor, a Republican Lieutenant Governor and a
100% Republican Congressional delegation. So, using your criteria, it
most definitely was *not* an "objective independent group" but one
tilted very heavily in Palin's favor.

So when is the trial date? Or didn't they find that there were any laws
broken?

And IF they do go to trial, when do we hold most of congress to the same
standards?

"Peaceful Bill" wrote in message
...
If the report is true, she should pay the price as anyone else would. The
same as Obama should.

for what?? I haven't seen any public reports about abuse of power or
violation of laws against Obama. Have you?
Who made up the commission looking into the abuse of power? Was it a
majority of Democrats that would prefer to disgrace a Republican VP
candidate during a critical pre-election period or was it an objective
independent group?


good question. The commission was set up by the legislature(Republican
controlled), but supposed to act independantly of controls by that body. The
membership is bipartisan, with majority Republicans. The investigator is
thought to be rather conservative, but is tight-lipped over the matter of
partisan politics.

hth,
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Peaceful Bill" wrote in message
...
If the report is true, she should pay the price as anyone else would. The
same as Obama should.

for what?? I haven't seen any public reports about abuse of power or
violation of laws against Obama. Have you?
Who made up the commission looking into the abuse of power? Was it a
majority of Democrats that would prefer to disgrace a Republican VP
candidate during a critical pre-election period or was it an objective
independent group?


good question. The commission was set up by the legislature(Republican
controlled), but supposed to act independantly of controls by that body. The
membership is bipartisan, with majority Republicans. The investigator is
thought to be rather conservative, but is tight-lipped over the matter of
partisan politics.

hth,
Tom



It does. Thanks.

Earlier reports seem to indicate that it was heavily weighted against her.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:20:21 -0400, JR wrote:

Peaceful Bill wrote:
JR wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27105917/

- JR

MSNBC!!??!!??!

ROTFLMAO. ZERO credibility.


OK. How 'bout:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us...rooper.html?hp

Oh, no. Of course not. NYT, only the U.S.'s newspaper of record,
recognized globally as such, and therefore, of course, for the
red-blooded Murcan illiterate, of ZERO credibity,

so.....

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-commissioner/

Fox News. You brown-shirts like that 'un, no?

Spin THAT, Sparky.

What's to spin? She did it. She "abused her power." Every executive,
political or private business, has done it. In fact, every person with
power has likely "abused" it at some point. And so what? She got her
sister's husband, who admits he was a drunk who smacked around his wife
and kids AND acknowledges he deserved being fired, fired "outside of
channels." Was it "abuse?" Absolutely. Was it "wrong?" I'd offer
that if she weren't McCain's running mate, 90-something percent of US
adults would say no. If it had been a "non-personal" thing where she
had "abused her power" to rid the force of some unrelated wife-beating,
kid-Tasering drunk, not only would most folks not care, most would
support the "abuse of power."

HTH,
R

- JR

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:26:29 -0500, rdean3REMOVE wrote:


What's to spin? She did it. She "abused her power." Every executive,
political or private business, has done it. In fact, every person with
power has likely "abused" it at some point. And so what? She got her
sister's husband, who admits he was a drunk who smacked around his wife
and kids AND acknowledges he deserved being fired, fired "outside of
channels." Was it "abuse?" Absolutely. Was it "wrong?" I'd offer
that if she weren't McCain's running mate, 90-something percent of US
adults would say no. If it had been a "non-personal" thing where she
had "abused her power" to rid the force of some unrelated wife-beating,
kid-Tasering drunk, not only would most folks not care, most would
support the "abuse of power."

HTH,
R

A little confused by facts, aren't you? Starting with, the sister's
husband wasn't the one fired.

wrote in message
t...
Starting with, the sister's
husband wasn't the one fired.


I don't know who you are, but quit putting those disturbing facts into a
completely illogical debate!g
Tom