• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP NewsBreak: Palin implicated in ethics probe

BoyKagome said:
The left fear Sarah, they call her a idiot and say shes damaging to the party... yet they can't seem to leave her alone. They wanted her out of the governors seat, they got what they wanted and they are still scared of a normal American Citizen now. The left is a sad excuse for a party at the moment, I would of voted for JFK over McCain any day of the week. That's back when the left's representatives weren't so blatantly anti-American.
Click to expand...

Sarah Palin is...well, what she does is bad enough for her party. While I agree that anyon in this country would vote for JFK over McCain...or Obama really, that doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats are in a bad position. The GOP is currently wavering, headless, as the few men (and woman) who could have led them somewhere publically left. Sanford, Jindal, Ensign and Palin all messed up. Since this is about Palin, she messed up by getting into the biggest political circuit earlier then she should have. At least Obama was a Senator from Illinois. Here are his credentials:

Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004. His victory, from a crowded field, in the March 2004 Democratic primary raised his visibility. His prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 by the largest margin in Illinois history.
Click to expand...
And I know what you're going to say, but I got that from Wikipedia.

Here are Palin's [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_political_career_of_Sarah_Palin"]credentials[/ame]

I would have quoted, but they are more detailed then what I got about Obama.

Now, as for the arguement that the Democrats are UnAmerican, I'm sorry, but that's about as founded as calling John McCain unpatriotic, and not a war hero.
 
apdst said:
It'll continue. There's no doubt about that.
Click to expand...

Only time will tell. If it does, you're right. If it doesn't you're wrong. 50-50 chance really...and you wouldn't be per se wrong, but what you said by chance didn't happen.
 
apdst said:
I'm predicting, that at this pace, the smear campaign will start to have the opposite effect desired by the Liberals.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Palin has been made to look like a fool and the damage is done.
 
EgoffTib said:
I disagree. Palin has been made to look like a fool and the damage is done.
Click to expand...

If the Democrats continue, then they will start to look like the fools. They most likely understand that, and will stop until she re-enters the political realm.
 
EgoffTib said:
I disagree. Palin has been made to look like a fool and the damage is done.
Click to expand...

Why keep on with the smear campaign, then? It might turn into overkill. If that happens, the effect of the smear campaign will turn against the Leftists.
 
repeter said:
If the Democrats continue, then they will start to look like the fools. They most likely understand that, and will stop until she re-enters the political realm.
Click to expand...

Even if she does re-enter the political realm, they'll look like fools, since she's already been beat down--according to the Libs.
 
apdst said:
Why keep on with the smear campaign, then? It might turn into overkill. If that happens, the effect of the smear campaign will turn against the Leftists.
Click to expand...
I don't think that they should continue and they probably will not. Mark my words, though: Stick a fork in Palin. She is done.
 
EgoffTib said:
I don't think that they should continue and they probably will not. Mark my words, though: Stick a fork in Palin. She is done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those were actually Dana's words from the OP. :2razz:

And that has been said about many politicians who came back to do great things.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry....but its not sexual harassment if its consensual
Click to expand...

It is when you bother to read the ****ing law.

disneydude said:
and I'm sorry....yes, Clinton was no saint, but that said, it still was all about a private sexual act between two consenting adults,
Click to expand...

No.

It was about the sexual assault on Paula Jones, in which Lily Waver and Rapist Clinton had her hauled up to his hotel room and asked her to "kiss it".

THAT was the deposition in which LWRC committed perjury.

That was a matter of serious national interest.
 
apdst said:
I'm predicting, that at this pace, the smear campaign will start to have the opposite effect desired by the Liberals.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

It worked on Quayle.

The anti-smear campaign has been successful for Al Gore. Only the people with their eyes open see that he's an idiot and a liar.
 
repeter said:
Sarah Palin is...well, what she does is bad enough for her party.
Click to expand...

The media pressed McCain's position....until he got the nomination, because he was a sure loser.

The media would leave Palin alone if they thought she wasn't going to have enough influence to derail their efforts at kingmaking.
 
For any interested in more than mouth-foaming rants, here is Sarah Palin's response to the report:

I find the notion that I have taken any action pertaining to the legal defense trust fund misguided and factually in error. I am informed that this fund was created by experienced attorneys in DC and was modeled after other similar funds established for senators and others. The fund itself was not created by me nor is it controlled by me. Neither I nor my lawyer has received a penny from this fund, and I am informed the Trustee was withholding any action or payment pending final resolution with the Personnel Board. This is the hallmark of legal compliance and prudent conduct.

In short, I have not 'acted' relative to the defense fund and it is misleading to say I have. I have no doubt that the Trust will welcome guidance by the Board, as do we all, but it is my understanding that this matter was not resolved and the complainant's violation of law has served to mislead the public and prejudice a fair review of this matter.

Sarah Palin
Click to expand...

Seems to me that this just going to be yet another false ethics charge that the media will run with up until the point it is proven false. Then they'll just drop the story short of reporting that the complaint was without merit. Like all the other meritless complaints.
 
it appears to have been a very even investigation
it was properly determined that the governor improperly used her public office to solicit funds for personal benefit. she should not do that
but neither should she need to in order to defend actions she has taken as a public office holder:
The investigator, Thomas Daniel, sided with Palin in her frustration with having to defend herself against a barrage of ethics complaints. He suggested that Alaska lawmakers may need to create a law that reimburses public officials for legal expenses to defend complaints that end up being unfounded.
Click to expand...
what has been found is a void in alaskan government. palin, nor any other state official should have to spend personal money for legal defense of the actions taken in their public capacity
alaska should cure that void and then palin would no longer have a need to access the improperly solicited legal defense funds
 
god I couldnt even get throught the 5th page of this PDS bull**** thread.

Inferno we really need a rational reasonable principaled person to show some how to behave

so pathetic
 
DeeJayH said:
god I couldnt even get throught the 5th page of this PDS bull**** thread.

Inferno we really need a rational reasonable principaled person to show some how to behave

so pathetic
Click to expand...

PDS? Could you elaborate?
 
repeter said:
PDS? Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Palin Derangement Syndrome. Characterized by spontaneous unsubstantiated rants and hurling of vile insults whenever the name Sarah Palin comes up. Also known to cause spontaneous regression of vocabulary, crippling the subject with the inability to do anything more than throw childish monikers about. Is often coupled with a strong case of fact avoidance and physical symptons like a thick foam flowing from the mouth.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Palin Derangement Syndrome. Characterized by spontaneous unsubstantiated rants and hurling of vile insults whenever the name Sarah Palin comes up. Also known to cause spontaneous regression of vocabulary, crippling the subject with the inability to do anything more than throw childish monikers about. Is often coupled with a strong case of fact avoidance and physical symptons like a thick foam flowing from the mouth.
Click to expand...

Hehe, you guys have a term for it? :)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Search poster: Goldendog and terms "Palin" :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

....ok I'm sorry for being so naive and uninformed, but aren't libertarians conservatives? And shouldn't they, on most topics, be on the same side as Palin, and the GOP? Again, correct me if I'm wrong....which I'm pretty sure I am.
 
repeter said:
....ok I'm sorry for being so naive and uninformed, but aren't libertarians conservatives? And shouldn't they, on most topics, be on the same side as Palin, and the GOP? Again, correct me if I'm wrong....which I'm pretty sure I am.
Click to expand...

You are assuming, of course, that the Republican party is a conservative party, which it's not.
 
'Palin implicated in another ethics probe' ... so what else is new? The neo-theocratic Republicans are always the most hypocritical, - most likely to espouse something they rarely practice. It's why the Republican party is breaking up, - the intellectual conservatives can't stand associating with numbskulls like that any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom