Oh, SNAP - FoxNews: Sarah Palin "abused her power" as governor in the disciplinary case against a state trooper - her brother in law !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pops Mear
Panel: Palin Abused Her Power in Firing of Commissioner
The findings were released after lawmakers spent more than six hours
discussing a politically charged ethics report into the firing by
Palin
FOXNews.com
Friday, October 10, 2008
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Sarah Palin "abused her power" as governor in the
disciplinary case against a state trooper, according to a legislative
panel's report released Friday, though it also found that her firing
of a state commissioner was "proper and lawful."
The ethics inquiry, which Palin's supporters have called politically
motivated, found that a family grudge was a factor in Palin's
dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan -- but not the
sole factor. The report says Palin failed to keep her husband from
meddling in the discipline of the state trooper, her brother-in-law,
following a contentious divorce.
The panel of state lawmakers released its report Friday after spending
more than six hours in a closed-door session reviewing the findings.
At the heart of the investigation was the question of whether Palin,
the Republican vice presidential nominee, had pressured Monegan to
fire Trooper Mike Wooten.
Palin has said Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget
dispute.
Investigator Stephen Branchflower, who drafted the bipartisan panel's
report, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits
public officials from using their office for personal gain.
"Today's report showed that the governor acted within her proper and
lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan," Meg Stapleton,
a spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign, said in a written
statement.
Stapleton added that the panel's report shows that the inquiry was
partisan and that Palin and her husband, Todd Palin, were "completely
justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten, given his violent
and rogue behavior."
Monegan, meanwhile, said he felt "vindicated."
"It sounds like they've validated my belief and opinions," he said.
"And that tells me I'm not totally out in left field."
The nearly 300-page report does not recommend sanctions or a criminal
investigation.
The investigation revealed that Todd Palin has extraordinary access to
the governor's office and her closest advisers. He used that access to
try to get trooper Wooten fired, the report found.
Branchflower said Sarah Palin violated a statute of the Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act.
Palin and John McCain's supporters had hoped the inquiry's finding
would be delayed until after the presidential election, in which they
face an uphill battle against Barack Obama and Joe Biden. But the
panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without
dissension.
"I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican
state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage
people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/panel-palin-abused-power-firing-commissioner/
Reality_CheckŠ
Sarah Quayle McPalin
>> Bipartisan panel of Democrats and Republicans agree on something...
>>
>> Panel: Palin Abused Her Power in Firing of Commissioner
>>
This is the best *suspect* the McClam Neocoms handlers
could dig up ? Her loser of a husband is also named a
co-conspirator.
These hillbillys should stay in a Alaska and host
the shotgun wedding for their pregnant 17 yo kid and leave us alone.
The Fat Lady is puking in the hallway ... The endgame is near.
slydrule
And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and within her rights
a governor.
The entire investigations is a witch hunt. Why are Obama supporters
defending a cop who drinks in his patrol car, hunts illegally, tasered his
step-son and threatened the life of the governor's father? Do you think
this guys should be carrying a gun to protect and serve the people? Because
by claiming Palin abused her power for trying to get him fired, you ar in
fact saying he should still have his job.
I am wondering why the investigation wasn't into why this cop was allowed to
keep his job and why Palin and everyone else in government didn't do more to
get this cop fired. I can only imagine what the story would be if Mayor
Giuliani didn;t fire a cop for tasering a 10 year old black child.
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
news:6latd5F...@mid.individual.net...
Ron
<vP...@fuckme.com> wrote:
>Reality_CheckŠ wrote:
>
>>> Bipartisan panel of Democrats and Republicans agree on something...
>>>
>>> Panel: Palin Abused Her Power in Firing of Commissioner
>>>
> This is the best *suspect* the McClam Neocoms handlers
> could dig up ? Her loser of a husband is also named a
> co-conspirator.
>
> These hillbillys should stay in a Alaska and host
> the shotgun wedding for their pregnant 17 yo kid and leave us alone.
>
I haven't read that they set a date.
Ron
>Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama supporter.
Most all Democrats are. But the committee was fully bipartison.
>
>And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and within her rights
>a governor.
Legal, but unethical and a violation of her Public Trust, and an abuse
of power for all of them to attempt to get her ex-brother-in-law
fired. Don't take one sentence out of context please.
This will all be quickly forgotten. Obama now has a double digit lead
in the polls, and has about 80 more Electoral votes likely than he
needs.
Gumby
> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/panel-palin-abused-power-firi...
So, then, are you saying Fox News is now a reputable source of
information?
Gumby
> Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama supporter.
What difference does it make if the facts are true?
bushlyed
> Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama supporter.
>
> And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and within her rights
> a governor.
>
It was lawful but unethical. The report stated that.
And there were more Republicans on the panel than Democrats.
> The entire investigations is a witch hunt. Why are Obama supporters
> defending a cop who drinks in his patrol car, hunts illegally, tasered his
> step-son and threatened the life of the governor's father?
We are defending no such person. Show me where Obama suporters are
defending this person. Show me, show me, show me.
The governor acted unethically, period.
>
> I am wondering why the investigation wasn't into why this cop was allowed to
> keep his job and why Palin and everyone else in government didn't do more to
> get this cop fired. I can only imagine what the story would be if Mayor
> Giuliani didn;t fire a cop for tasering a 10 year old black child.
>
10 year old black child. You can't discuss anything without injecting
racism into this.
OK, the cop was a slimeball. Always was a slimeball.
But interestingly, so long as he was married to Sarah's sister, Palin
couldn't care less about his transgressions. It was only after the
divorce.
Talk about hypocrisy.
The issue is not about the cop period. It is about ethics and how the
governor of a state uses and abuses power.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Oct 11, 9:57 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>> Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama supporter.
>>
>> And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and within her
>> rights a governor.
>>
>
>
> It was lawful but unethical. The report stated that.
The oid Edwin Meese standard of conduct.
> And there were more Republicans on the panel than Democrats.
They must have been "liberal" Repugnikkkans ...
>
>> The entire investigations is a witch hunt. Why are Obama supporters
>> defending a cop who drinks in his patrol car, hunts illegally,
>> tasered his step-son and threatened the life of the governor's
>> father?
>
> We are defending no such person. Show me where Obama suporters are
> defending this person. Show me, show me, show me.
>
> The governor acted unethically, period.
And abused her executive power.
Sound familiar?
>
>>
>> I am wondering why the investigation wasn't into why this cop was
>> allowed to keep his job and why Palin and everyone else in
>> government didn't do more to get this cop fired. I can only imagine
>> what the story would be if Mayor Giuliani didn;t fire a cop for
>> tasering a 10 year old black child.
>>
>
> 10 year old black child. You can't discuss anything without injecting
> racism into this.
The white-trash racist scumbags are terrified of having a Black president.
>
> OK, the cop was a slimeball. Always was a slimeball.
>
> But interestingly, so long as he was married to Sarah's sister, Palin
> couldn't care less about his transgressions. It was only after the
> divorce.
>
> Talk about hypocrisy.
>
> The issue is not about the cop period. It is about ethics and how the
> governor of a state uses and abuses power.
And she was GUILTY.
z
news:fNSdnf5ORurpLG3V...@earthlink.com:
> Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama supporter.
The report was agreed upon by 8 repubs and 2 democrats
>
> And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and within her
> rights a governor.
>
> The entire investigations is a witch hunt. Why are Obama supporters
> defending a cop who drinks in his patrol car, hunts illegally, tasered
> his step-son and threatened the life of the governor's father? Do you
> think this guys should be carrying a gun to protect and serve the
> people?
So why did she lie about it? Why didn't she just say 'this guy was a
dirtbag and I had him fired' ??
But no she lied. So why should we expect any different if she becomes VP
and President when McCain kicks the bucket?
slydrule
"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a1d35560-cb44-4f2f...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 9:57 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama supporter.
>
> And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and within her
> rights
> a governor.
>
>It was lawful but unethical. The report stated that.
Well, they said she violated Alaska's ethics laws but also said it was
lawful. Odd conclusion to draw.
> The entire investigations is a witch hunt. Why are Obama supporters
> defending a cop who drinks in his patrol car, hunts illegally, tasered his
> step-son and threatened the life of the governor's father?
>We are defending no such person. Show me where Obama suporters are
>defending this person. Show me, show me, show me.
But you are. Answer the question, should this cop have been fired for
threatening the governor's father with violence? Tasering a child?
drinking in his patrol car? Should this guy be a cop? Answer the question.
>The governor acted unethically, period.
You are defending the cop. If you believe the cops should be fired then how
can Palin have done anything "unethical" ? How can it be "unethical" to
demand a cop be fired, if in fact you agree the cops should have been fired?
The cop deserved to be fired and even prosecuted for his behavior which was
not only outrageous but certainly illegal. If there is a fault here its
that Alaska's leaders, including Palin, did not do more to have him fired.
Here we have one of the over-zealous cops who libs love to make the
posterboy for all cops, particularly white city cops and small town patrol
officers, and you are more concerned that a Governor may have tried to get
him fired than the fact that he still has a job!
You are so blinded by your hatred of Palin that you don't even see you are
defending a bad cop.
>
> I am wondering why the investigation wasn't into why this cop was allowed
> to
> keep his job and why Palin and everyone else in government didn't do more
> to
> get this cop fired. I can only imagine what the story would be if Mayor
> Giuliani didn;t fire a cop for tasering a 10 year old black child.
>
>10 year old black child. You can't discuss anything without injecting
>racism into this.
There's that race card again. And you played it. Living in the NY area I
have witnessed first hand how the left works when it comes to cops. The
left in NY has jailed NYC cops for acts of violence against citizens. But
the left wants to hang Palin for trying to get a bad cop thrown off the
force.
>OK, the cop was a slimeball. Always was a slimeball.
>But interestingly, so long as he was married to Sarah's sister, Palin
>couldn't care less about his transgressions. It was only after the
>divorce.
Yes, it was after the divorce when he threatened Palin's father. If I was
governor and I heard a cop who works for me threaten someone with violence
(knowing he carries a gun and has a hostory of violent behavior) I would
want him fired too. And frankly, I would expect my governor to weed out any
bad cops.
The fact is, the guy is a bad cop and should be fired. So you have to draw
a conclusion that Palin wanted him fired because of the divorce rather than
because he's a bad cop who threatend her father. There is no evidence
anywhere to support that. She was well within her rights and well within
any code of ethics to want this guy fired for his behavior.
But the real issues here is whether or not she fired the guy she fired
because he wouldn't fire the cop. Even he said no one ever told him to fire
the cop, including Palin. They asked him why the guy still had a job.
Again, I am asking the same question. Why does this bad apple who is
allowed to carry a gun allowed to represent the state of Alaska or any
state? If asking that question is unethical, then we have our values
backwards.
>Talk about hypocrisy.
>The issue is not about the cop period. It is about ethics and how the
>governor of a state uses and abuses power.
So she lawfully fired the guy as it was her right to do, but that's an abuse
of power? So she is empowered to fire the guy but by doing so she abused
her power? You don't see the contradiction there?
The governor has the power to fire her subordinates, but doing so is a
breach of ethics!
And the issue is about the cop. If you had a police commissioner who was
protecting bad cops would you want him fired?
But again, that's not even why the guy was fired. He was fired because he
was trying to hijack the budget responsibility from the governor. There are
emails to back that up. The guy was fired because he did not follow the
governors direction that is exactly why a governor should have fired him.
The cop thing was a trumped up charge and I am only using it in my argument
becuase even as its charged, the charge is ridiculous. You would think the
state of Alaska would spend its tax dollars fixing hte real problem, the one
that allows bad cops to stay on the payroll.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a1d35560-cb44-4f2f...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 9:57 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>> Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama supporter.
>>
>> And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and within her
>> rights
>> a governor.
>>
>
>
>> It was lawful but unethical. The report stated that.
>
> Well, they said she violated Alaska's ethics laws but also said it was
> lawful. Odd conclusion to draw.
What's "odd" about it?
Do you think that every unethical act is prohibited by a specific law?
Do you think that existing laws cover every unethical act?
>> The entire investigations is a witch hunt. Why are Obama supporters
>> defending a cop who drinks in his patrol car, hunts illegally,
>> tasered his step-son and threatened the life of the governor's
>> father?
>
>> We are defending no such person. Show me where Obama suporters are
>> defending this person. Show me, show me, show me.
>
> But you are. Answer the question, should this cop have been fired for
> threatening the governor's father with violence?
The State of Alaska has said no.
> Tasering a child?
The child asked for it. It wasn't a "Taser".
And the State of Alaska has said no.
> drinking in his patrol car?
What says the State of Alaska?
> Should this guy be a cop? Answer the
> question.
His opinion, as with yours, is utterly irrelevant.
The State of Alaska has made a determination as
to the unethical conduct of Sarah Palin.
If you don't like their conclusion, move to Alaska,
run for office, and change the law.
bushlyed
> "bushlyed" <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> But you are. Answer the question, should this cop have been fired for
> threatening the governor's father with violence?
Absolutely. I would have fired him in a minute. But again the issue
is not the cop.
> Tasering a child?
Yes, but interestingly, this incident happened while he was still
married to Palin's sister and she did not make an issue of it, did not
try to get him fired for it.
> drinking in his patrol car? Should this guy be a cop? Answer the question.
>
No, of course not. But look at Palin's actions. This cop was a
continuing time bomb (kind of like Pacman) but she tolerated his
behavior and did nothing UNTIL her sister and this cop got divorced.
Which brings up a separate issue of judgement. Did she try to get her
to leave this guy? Did she report the tasering to the authorities
(she was not governor then)?
> >The governor acted unethically, period.
>
> You are defending the cop. If you believe the cops should be fired then how
> can Palin have done anything "unethical" ? How can it be "unethical" to
> demand a cop be fired, if in fact you agree the cops should have been fired?
>
I don't know why this cop wasn't fired. Was not in the room when that
decision was made. That authority was within the person who was later
fired by Palin. Yes, he should have fired the guy, I would have.
But certainly Palin had some other ethical means by which to
effectuate the firing of the cop and not the person who should have
fired him. Take the issue to the legislature or to court.
> The cop deserved to be fired and even prosecuted for his behavior which was
> not only outrageous but certainly illegal.
No disagreement there.
> If there is a fault here its
> that Alaska's leaders, including Palin, did not do more to have him fired.
> Here we have one of the over-zealous cops who libs love to make the
> posterboy for all cops, particularly white city cops and small town patrol
> officers, and you are more concerned that a Governor may have tried to get
> him fired than the fact that he still has a job!
>
Again, he is no poster boy for us "libs", keep that out of this. He
should have been fired when he tasered that kid but where was Sarah
Palin then. Nowhere. He was still married to her sister and she did
nothing to prevent this abuse.
But this is not an issue for me in the Presidential campaign.
Deadrat
news:fNSdnf5ORurpLG3V...@earthlink.com:
> Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama supporter.
The Alaska Legislative Council, which set up the investigation, hired
Steven Branchflower to do the work. He was an Anchorage ADA, now
retired. What evidence do you have that he is an Obama supporter? The
Council member overseeing Branchflower is a Democrat, but the Council has
8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. The Council accepted the report
unanimously.
Try again, rightard.
> And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and within her
> rights a governor.
The report says that the Alaska governor has almost complete authority to
fire executive branch department heads, so her firing of the Public
Safety Director is lawful. What was unethical and unlawful was her use
of her office to try to get her ex-brother-in-law fired.
> The entire investigations is a witch hunt. Why are Obama supporters
> defending a cop who drinks in his patrol car, hunts illegally, tasered
> his step-son and threatened the life of the governor's father? Do you
> think this guys should be carrying a gun to protect and serve the
> people? Because by claiming Palin abused her power for trying to get
> him fired, you ar in fact saying he should still have his job.
The troopers investigated the allegations, and disciplined the trooper
for those charges they found to be substantiated. Which wasn't all of
them. Maybe he should have been fired; maybe he should have kept his
job. Doesn't matter. The Governor isn't supposed to use the power of
her office to pursue a personal vendetta, no matter how deserving the
target.
Does the rule of law mean anything to you?
Try again, rightard.
> I am wondering why the investigation wasn't into why this cop was
> allowed to keep his job and why Palin and everyone else in government
> didn't do more to get this cop fired. I can only imagine what the
> story would be if Mayor Giuliani didn;t fire a cop for tasering a 10
> year old black child.
There was an investigation. If it was improperly conducted, then an
investigation into the investigators would have been proper. Not the
governor unilaterally trying to get someone fired.
Try again, rightard.
<snip/>
Boston Brown Pails
Well the wingnuts are falling all over themselves looking for dots to connect:
http://tinyurl.com/GOPeeingInPants
--
http://tinyurl.com/FeastInHell
http://tinyurl.com/cantsayitenough
http://tinyurl.com/TAL0001
http://tinyurl.com/palin00000110
Bugman
"Gumby" <abbyno...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3baa35e5-02b2-42b4...@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/panel-palin-abused-power-firi...
Are you saying it isn't?
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
> In article <t7d1f41c50qae53dp...@4ax.com>
> Horatio Fudruckerton <H...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:49:21 -0500, Pops Mear <Pops...@here.usa>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bipartisan panel of Democrats and Republicans agree on something...
>>
>>
>> No bipartisan panel; just hate filled liberals.
>
> But...but...that includes almost EVERYONE in the USA!
>
> Barak Obama is the most liberal Senator in the US government.
Says who?
>
> And thanks to George 'WMD' Bush, Barak Obama is going to be the next President
> of the USA.
>
> AND he's going to get a cloture-proof Senate to work with.
>
> McCain never had a chance, anyway; his association with the Keating Five
> guaranteed that.
>
> But his choice of Sarah Palin ought to be good for another Democratic Senate
> seat or two.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Boston Brown Pails
hardly anyone says it is.
flybd5
> "Gumby" <abbynorma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Is that a stupid question?
Gumby
> "Gumby" <abbynorma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm saying most left-wingers, like the OP, think it isn't.
slydrule
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:6lc7ohF...@mid.individual.net...
> slydrule wrote:
>> "bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:a1d35560-cb44-4f2f...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 11, 9:57 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>>> Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama supporter.
>>>
>>> And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and within her
>>> rights
>>> a governor.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> It was lawful but unethical. The report stated that.
>>
>> Well, they said she violated Alaska's ethics laws but also said it was
>> lawful. Odd conclusion to draw.
>
> What's "odd" about it?
>
"violated ethics laws"
"lawful"
> Do you think that every unethical act is prohibited by a specific law?
>
> Do you think that existing laws cover every unethical act?
>
>
>>> The entire investigations is a witch hunt. Why are Obama supporters
>>> defending a cop who drinks in his patrol car, hunts illegally,
>>> tasered his step-son and threatened the life of the governor's
>>> father?
>>
>>> We are defending no such person. Show me where Obama suporters are
>>> defending this person. Show me, show me, show me.
>>
>> But you are. Answer the question, should this cop have been fired for
>> threatening the governor's father with violence?
>
> The State of Alaska has said no.
>
>> Tasering a child?
>
> The child asked for it. It wasn't a "Taser".
>
If my child asked me to harm him, as an adult I would say no. This guy is a
police officer and carries a gun. I think we should expect better judgment
from someone in his position.
> And the State of Alaska has said no.
>
>> drinking in his patrol car?
>
> What says the State of Alaska?
>
Obviously, Alaska kept him on the payroll or we wouldn't be having this
discussion, would we? Had they fired him as they should have, then Palin
would not have had to ask why is he still on the payroll. Do I really need
to explain that to you?
>> Should this guy be a cop? Answer the
>> question.
>
> His opinion, as with yours, is utterly irrelevant.
>
Is it? Then who started this post and why if not to give an opinion, change
someone else's or hear someone elses? Isn't that what NGs are full of?
> The State of Alaska has made a determination as
> to the unethical conduct of Sarah Palin.
>
> If you don't like their conclusion, move to Alaska,
> run for office, and change the law.
Hahaha. Did you take you own advice when Congress impeached Bill Clinton?
Reality_CheckŠ
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in message
> news:6lc7ohF...@mid.individual.net...
>> slydrule wrote:
>>> "bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a1d35560-cb44-4f2f...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Oct 11, 9:57 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>>>> Bi-partisan, my eye! The author of the report is an Obama
>>>> supporter. And by the way, the report says the firing was lawful and
>>>> within
>>>> her rights
>>>> a governor.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It was lawful but unethical. The report stated that.
>>>
>>> Well, they said she violated Alaska's ethics laws but also said it
>>> was lawful. Odd conclusion to draw.
>>
>> What's "odd" about it?
>>
>
> "violated ethics laws"
Civil and/or professional codes (laws) of conduct.
> "lawful"
Not criminal.
HTH.
>
>
>> Do you think that every unethical act is prohibited by a specific
>> law? Do you think that existing laws cover every unethical act?
>>
>>
>>>> The entire investigations is a witch hunt. Why are Obama supporters
>>>> defending a cop who drinks in his patrol car, hunts illegally,
>>>> tasered his step-son and threatened the life of the governor's
>>>> father?
>>>
>>>> We are defending no such person. Show me where Obama suporters are
>>>> defending this person. Show me, show me, show me.
>>>
>>> But you are. Answer the question, should this cop have been fired
>>> for threatening the governor's father with violence?
>>
>> The State of Alaska has said no.
>>
>
>>> Tasering a child?
>>
>> The child asked for it. It wasn't a "Taser".
>>
>
> If my child asked me to harm him, as an adult I would say no.
The "child" in question was 17 years old, IIRC
> This guy is a police officer and carries a gun. I think we should expect
> better judgment from someone in his position.
And the "Taser" is a less than lethal device, like the publicly
available "stun guns" that millions of civilians carry and use.
Many people have "zapped" themselves to experience the
effects. In fact, getting zapped by a "Taser" is a required
part of Taser training for law enforcement officers.
The 17-yr-old in question asked to experience what it
feels like, and the cop who was expertly trained in the
use of the device applied it in the same test mode that
they use on themselves in training.
>
>> And the State of Alaska has said no.
>>
>>> drinking in his patrol car?
>>
>> What says the State of Alaska?
>>
>
> Obviously, Alaska kept him on the payroll or we wouldn't be having
> this discussion, would we?
So obviously it was OK by Alaska standards.
> Had they fired him as they should have,
Good thing then that you don't get to decide what Alaska should
or shouldn't do, eh?
> then Palin would not have had to ask why is he still on the payroll. Do I
> really need to explain that to you?
Your ignorance seems fairly clear at this point, no further explanation is
required.
>
>>> Should this guy be a cop? Answer the
>>> question.
>>
>> His opinion, as with yours, is utterly irrelevant.
>>
>
> Is it?
Yes.
> Then who started this post and why if not to give an opinion,
> change someone else's or hear someone elses? Isn't that what NGs are
> full of?
It's irrelevant as to what Alaska decides is proper or improper
conduct in their state.
They've decided that Sarah Palin's conduct was improper, unethical
and an abuse of executive powers.
What part don't you comprehend?
>
>> The State of Alaska has made a determination as
>> to the unethical conduct of Sarah Palin.
>>
>> If you don't like their conclusion, move to Alaska,
>> run for office, and change the law.
>
> Hahaha. Did you take you own advice when Congress impeached Bill
> Clinton?
I was for the Clinton impeachment.
Boston Brown Pails
slydrule
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>>>
>>> The child asked for it. It wasn't a "Taser".
>>>
>>
>> If my child asked me to harm him, as an adult I would say no.
>
> The "child" in question was 17 years old, IIRC
>
He was about 11. This is from the offical investigation of the incident.
Wooten himself is only 35. There were witnesses to the incident including
Bristol Palin and Wooten's ex-wife.
Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it to prove to
his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully hypocritical for the left
to try to excuse this cops behavior consideringhow many times the left has
cried about excessive force when it comes to the police when judgment is not
quite so clear.
>> This guy is a police officer and carries a gun. I think we should expect
>> better judgment from someone in his position.
>
> And the "Taser" is a less than lethal device, like the publicly
> available "stun guns" that millions of civilians carry and use.
>
Oh, ok. That makes it better. Let's give every parent a taser to
discipline our kids. After all, it won't kill them. A lit cigarette isn't
lethal either, but I doubt anyone would approve of a parent pressing one
against their kids skin.
> Many people have "zapped" themselves to experience the
> effects. In fact, getting zapped by a "Taser" is a required
> part of Taser training for law enforcement officers.
>
This is about a police officer, someone who is supposed to exercise good
judgment, taering an ELEVEN YEAR OLD.
> The 17-yr-old in question asked to experience what it
> feels like, and the cop who was expertly trained in the
> use of the device applied it in the same test mode that
> they use on themselves in training.
>
Again, your facts are wrong. Check the report again. The boy was ELEVEN.
Not that it matters that much. He was still a minor and a parent should
know better. It shows poor judgmenton the part of a person who is authrized
to carry a gun.
>>
>>> And the State of Alaska has said no.
>>>
>>>> drinking in his patrol car?
>>>
>>> What says the State of Alaska?
>>>
>>
>> Obviously, Alaska kept him on the payroll or we wouldn't be having
>> this discussion, would we?
>
> So obviously it was OK by Alaska standards.
>
>> Had they fired him as they should have,
>
> Good thing then that you don't get to decide what Alaska should
> or shouldn't do, eh?
>
Good thing for who? The bad cop? Not a good thing for Alaska.
>> then Palin would not have had to ask why is he still on the payroll. Do I
>> really need to explain that to you?
>
> Your ignorance seems fairly clear at this point, no further explanation is
> required.
>
Hahaha. Considering you have almost every fact about the case wrong, this
is funny.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> news:6ldk8rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> The child asked for it. It wasn't a "Taser".
>>>>
>>>
>>> If my child asked me to harm him, as an adult I would say no.
>>
>> The "child" in question was 17 years old, IIRC
>>
>
> He was about 11. This is from the offical investigation of the
> incident. Wooten himself is only 35. There were witnesses to the
> incident including Bristol Palin and Wooten's ex-wife.
>
> Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it to
> prove to his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully
> hypocritical for the left to try to excuse this cops behavior
> consideringhow many times the left has cried about excessive force
> when it comes to the police when judgment is not quite so clear.
And how is it "excessive force" to demonstrate a taser in test mode
upon someone who asks to experience it?
>>> This guy is a police officer and carries a gun. I think we should
>>> expect better judgment from someone in his position.
>>
>> And the "Taser" is a less than lethal device, like the publicly
>> available "stun guns" that millions of civilians carry and use.
>>
>
> Oh, ok. That makes it better. Let's give every parent a taser to
> discipline our kids.
Too bad for your hysterical digression that the cop wasn't disciplining
anyone, eh?
<snip further nonsense>
>> Many people have "zapped" themselves to experience the
>> effects. In fact, getting zapped by a "Taser" is a required
>> part of Taser training for law enforcement officers.
>>
>
> This is about a police officer, someone who is supposed to exercise
> good judgment, taering an ELEVEN YEAR OLD.
And the Alaska Police investigated the incident, and issued
their findings, and disiplined the cop accordingly.
>> The 17-yr-old in question asked to experience what it
>> feels like, and the cop who was expertly trained in the
>> use of the device applied it in the same test mode that
>> they use on themselves in training.
>>
>
> Again, your facts are wrong. Check the report again. The boy was
> ELEVEN.
OK, he was 11.
> Not that it matters that much.
If it doesn't matter, then why make an issue of it?
> He was still a minor and a parent should know better.
Know better than what? To demonstrate upon request,
the taser in test mode?
> It shows poor judgmenton the part of a
> person who is authrized to carry a gun.
What does his gun have to do with it?
You're so foaming at the mouth hysterical
you can't seem to stay focused.
11 yr old asked to experience the non-lethal shock of a Taser
Trained Taser Operator demonstrated it in Test mode.
Incident was investigated by the Alaska authorities,
who then issued their findings and reprimand upon
the cop.
>>>
>>>> And the State of Alaska has said no.
>>>>
>>>>> drinking in his patrol car?
>>>>
>>>> What says the State of Alaska?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, Alaska kept him on the payroll or we wouldn't be having
>>> this discussion, would we?
>>
>> So obviously it was OK by Alaska standards.
>>
>>> Had they fired him as they should have,
>>
>> Good thing then that you don't get to decide what Alaska should
>> or shouldn't do, eh?
>>
>
> Good thing for who? The bad cop? Not a good thing for Alaska.
Sez you. LOL!
>
>>> then Palin would not have had to ask why is he still on the
>>> payroll. Do I really need to explain that to you?
>>
>> Your ignorance seems fairly clear at this point, no further
>> explanation is required.
>>
>
> Hahaha. Considering you have almost every fact about the case wrong,
> this is funny.
Other than the age, which you yourself declare is irrelevant?
slydrule
>> Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it to
>> prove to his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully
>> hypocritical for the left to try to excuse this cops behavior
>> consideringhow many times the left has cried about excessive force
>> when it comes to the police when judgment is not quite so clear.
>
> And how is it "excessive force" to demonstrate a taser in test mode
> upon someone who asks to experience it?
>
I guess we have to agree that we fundamentally disagree. I believe using a
taser on an 11 year old boy, even one who asks for it is wrong. Even in a
demonstration, its wrong. According to witnesses, the boy was knocked
backwards and wound up with a huge welt where he was tased. In our society
we expect adults to make better judgments than our children, especially
adults who are in positions of authority. In my opinion, a person with poor
judgment should not be allowed to carry a gun for a living.
You, on the other hand, believe that a child of 11 should be tased if he
requests it.
We just disagree. However, something tells me if it was Todd Palin or Sarah
Palin who tased their child because he asked for it, you would probably find
it a little less ok.
Bugman
"slydrule" <stopspam> wrote in message
news:QZGdnd-RvKeGM2_V...@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it to
>>> prove to his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully
>>> hypocritical for the left to try to excuse this cops behavior
>>> consideringhow many times the left has cried about excessive force
>>> when it comes to the police when judgment is not quite so clear.
>>
>> And how is it "excessive force" to demonstrate a taser in test mode
>> upon someone who asks to experience it?
>>
>
> I guess we have to agree that we fundamentally disagree. I believe using
> a taser on an 11 year old boy, even one who asks for it is wrong. Even in
> a demonstration, its wrong. According to witnesses, the boy was knocked
> backwards and wound up with a huge welt where he was tased.
Where did you read that description? It wasn't in any of the reports I've
read.
_ Prof. Jonez _
>>> Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it to
>>> prove to his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully
>>> hypocritical for the left to try to excuse this cops behavior
>>> consideringhow many times the left has cried about excessive force
>>> when it comes to the police when judgment is not quite so clear.
>>
>> And how is it "excessive force" to demonstrate a taser in test mode
>> upon someone who asks to experience it?
>>
>
> I guess we have to agree that we fundamentally disagree. I believe
> using a taser on an 11 year old boy, even one who asks for it is
> wrong. Even in a demonstration, its wrong.
Why?
Does the instruction manual for the Taser indicated that it
shouldn't be used in test mode on certain *age* groups?
> According to witnesses, the boy was knocked backwards and wound up with a huge
> welt where he was tased.
How far backwards?
How "huge" was this welt ?
> In our society we expect adults to make better judgments
> than our children, especially adults who are in positions of
> authority. In my opinion, a person with poor judgment should not be
> allowed to carry a gun for a living.
Well, your opinion obviously ain't worth a pile of moose poop
up in Alaska, as the authorities in Alaska who investigated the incident
determined that a 5 day suspension was sufficient punishment for
this cop.
>
> You, on the other hand, believe that a child of 11 should be tased if
> he requests it.
You still haven't posted any tangible reason why it shouldn't be done.
>
> We just disagree. However, something tells me if it was Todd Palin
> or Sarah Palin who tased their child because he asked for it, you
> would probably find it a little less ok.
Maybe if they had tazered their slutty fornicating unwed teenage daughter
a few times, she wouldn't now be pregnant with a bastard child, eh?
You betcha !!
Mike Smith
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>slydrule wrote:
>>>> Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it to
>>>> prove to his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully
>>>> hypocritical for the left to try to excuse this cops behavior
>>>> consideringhow many times the left has cried about excessive force
>>>> when it comes to the police when judgment is not quite so clear.
>>>
>>> And how is it "excessive force" to demonstrate a taser in test mode
>>> upon someone who asks to experience it?
>>>
>>
>> I guess we have to agree that we fundamentally disagree. I believe
>> using a taser on an 11 year old boy, even one who asks for it is
>> wrong. Even in a demonstration, its wrong.
>
>Why?
>
>Does the instruction manual for the Taser indicated that it
>shouldn't be used in test mode on certain *age* groups?
>
>
This is a great example of the moronic "thought" process of a liberal
buffoon.
It's OK to taze an 11 year old if he asks for it, according to common
liberal-think.
Yea,. they ARE this stupid.
Mike Smith.
bushlyed
I am a liberal and I do not think it is OK to taser an 11 year old so
please don't paint everyone with the same brush
You have no idea what "liberal-think" is and you thought yourself so
clever coming up with that term
Regarding troopergate, I think it has been demonstrated that this cop
was a bad guy; no one, certainly not this liberal, is denying that at
all
But just because this guy is evil doesn't make Sarah Palin a saint or
doesn't obviate the fact that she violated ethical standards
It is a false choice between a sleezebag cop and a sleezbag governor
Reality_CheckŠ
You still haven't posted shit to the contrary, other than your worthless
opinion.
Reality_CheckŠ
Why not?
Any facts ... or just unsupported opinion ?
Why, exactly, can't a Taser be demonstrated in Test Mode upon a willing
11-yr-old ?
Mike Smith
Fuck off, moron.
>
>You have no idea what "liberal-think" is and you thought yourself so
>clever coming up with that term
No you imbecile. It is from 1984, a book about the liberals and
socialists infesting our Nation.
>
>Regarding troopergate, I think it has been demonstrated that this cop
>was a bad guy; no one, certainly not this liberal, is denying that at
>all
>
>But just because this guy is evil doesn't make Sarah Palin a saint or
>doesn't obviate the fact that she violated ethical standards
Bullshit. What ethical standards? Yours? No one cares about your
"ethical standards".
>
>It is a false choice between a sleezebag cop and a sleezbag governor
The latest sleezebag governor I can remember is clinton. Palin doesn't
even come close to that description, based on the people of Alaska.
You know... the people that elected her Governor of their State.
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
Fuck off, moron.
Mike Smith
slydrule
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
This is funny. One liberal denies its liberal think and then another one
comes in to contradict him.
Test mode? hahahaha. The kid was knocked backward from the shock that
raised a large welt on his skin. But I am sure that was painless.
slydrule
On Oct 13, 3:27 am, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:27:12 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>I am a liberal and I do not think it is OK to taser an 11 year old so
>please don't paint everyone with the same brush
>You have no idea what "liberal-think" is and you thought yourself so
>clever coming up with that term
I do. Liberal think is, anything a liberal does not matter how sick or
immoral is ok. Anything a conservative, particularly a religious
conservative, does is unethical not matter how righteous.
This is why Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd have been re-elected a
million times.
>Regarding troopergate, I think it has been demonstrated that this cop
>was a bad guy; no one, certainly not this liberal, is denying that at
>all
>But just because this guy is evil doesn't make Sarah Palin a saint or
>doesn't obviate the fact that she violated ethical standards
>It is a false choice between a sleezebag cop and a sleezbag governor
Ah yes, the second rule of liberal think - moral equivalency. If a bad
cops tases an 11 year old the governor that wants him fired is as bad as he
is.
Boston Brown Pals
> This is funny. One liberal denies its liberal think and then another one
> comes in to contradict him.
Gosh, you'd almost believe that the term "liberal" is a gross
generalization that can't really be usefully applied, wouldn't 'cha?
Boston Brown Pails
{
do
{put "Fuck off, moron."}
while (clueless)
Boston Brown Pails
Gumby
Have you read the book? It never identifies a specific party - it's
about how ALL political parties are corrupted by power. The term
"liberal-speak" does not appear. "Newspeak" is what you're referring
to.
Please don't trivialize this masterpiece of literature by implying it
has a political bias.
It's very telling than conservatives think 1984 is about liberals and
liberals think it's about conservatives. I'd say Orwell got his point
across.
scummba...@yahoo.com
Liberals and socialists. The old liberals and socialists. Wow. Hey,
bush has been in charge for eight years and look what has happened to
the economy.
Fool.
>
>
> >Regarding troopergate, I think it has been demonstrated that this cop
> >was a bad guy; no one, certainly not this liberal, is denying that at
> >all
>
> >But just because this guy is evil doesn't make Sarah Palin a saint or
> >doesn't obviate the fact that she violated ethical standards
>
> Bullshit. What ethical standards? Yours? No one cares about your
> "ethical standards".
>
Wow, an insult.
>
>
> >It is a false choice between a sleezebag cop and a sleezbag governor
>
> The latest sleezebag governor I can remember is clinton. Palin doesn't
> even come close to that description, based on the people of Alaska.
> You know... the people that elected her Governor of their State.
>
Clinton brought peace and prosperity to this country, a balanced
budget, a surplus. He left office with a five trillion dollar deficit
(mostly from reagan). Eight years later it was double. Blame that on
liberals and socialists with proof.
scummba...@yahoo.com
>>
> I do. Liberal think is, anything a liberal does not matter how sick or
> immoral is ok. Anything a conservative, particularly a religious
> conservative, does is unethical not matter how righteous.
>
Please show me the righteousness of anything Sarah Palin has done as
governor
> This is why Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd have been re-elected a
> million times.
>
A million times? Boy are you fucking stupid. Barney Frank, Ted
Kennedy and Robert Byrd are effective and have done good work.
> >Regarding troopergate, I think it has been demonstrated that this cop
> >was a bad guy; no one, certainly not this liberal, is denying that at
> >all
> >But just because this guy is evil doesn't make Sarah Palin a saint or
> >doesn't obviate the fact that she violated ethical standards
> >It is a false choice between a sleezebag cop and a sleezbag governor
>
> Ah yes, the second rule of liberal think - moral equivalency. If a bad
> cops tases an 11 year old the governor that wants him fired is as bad as he
> is.
Moral equivalency. You just pull stuff out of your ass don't you.
scummba...@yahoo.com
What do you expect from these idiots? The truth? Reasoned discourse?
They call any progressive idea socialists or Marxists without one ever
understanding what that might mean.
John Black
@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, bush...@yahoo.com says...
This thing is highly absurd. She hired the guy. She fired him for many
good reasons. If she knew of a cop that was threatening people's lives,
drunk on the job, abusing a child, as CEO of the state she has the
responsibility to request he be fired. But regardless, she had many reasons
to fire the cabinet member she fired. The actual abuse of power would be
some committe telling a governor that she cannot fire her own cabinet
member.
John Black
John Black
George Kerby
On 10/12/08 9:27 PM, in article 6lfq12F...@mid.individual.net, "_ Prof.
Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> slydrule wrote:
>>>> Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it to
>>>> prove to his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully
>>>> hypocritical for the left to try to excuse this cops behavior
>>>> consideringhow many times the left has cried about excessive force
>>>> when it comes to the police when judgment is not quite so clear.
>>>
>>> And how is it "excessive force" to demonstrate a taser in test mode
>>> upon someone who asks to experience it?
>>>
>>
>> I guess we have to agree that we fundamentally disagree. I believe
>> using a taser on an 11 year old boy, even one who asks for it is
>> wrong. Even in a demonstration, its wrong.
>
> Why?
>
> Does the instruction manual for the Taser indicated that it
> shouldn't be used in test mode on certain *age* groups?
>
While, with your logic, it would be OK to use it on a fetus, right,
professor?
George Kerby
On 10/13/08 2:47 AM, in article 6lgcojF...@mid.individual.net,
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
Yeah! And give him the Jack Daniels he demands. Along with as many condoms
that he can stuff in his little pockets. Along with a couple crack rocks!
Register him to vote 6 or 7 times while you're at it...
Ain't Liberalism grand, people?!?
slydrule
<scummba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2baa393-7eb3-40bf...@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> No you imbecile. It is from 1984, a book about the liberals and
> socialists infesting our Nation.
>
>Liberals and socialists. The old liberals and socialists. Wow. Hey,
>bush has been in charge for eight years and look what has happened to
>the economy.
>Fool.
I am glad you at least signed your thought appropriately.
Tell me. What has happened to the "economy". Do you know?
>
> >It is a false choice between a sleezebag cop and a sleezbag governor
>
> The latest sleezebag governor I can remember is clinton. Palin doesn't
> even come close to that description, based on the people of Alaska.
> You know... the people that elected her Governor of their State.
>
>Clinton brought peace and prosperity to this country, a balanced
>budget, a surplus. He left office with a five trillion dollar deficit
>(mostly from reagan). Eight years later it was double. Blame that on
>liberals and socialists with proof.
Revisionist history. First and foremost, read article I of the
constitution. Not the consitution that Joe Bidden has, the one the founding
fathers left us.
Clinon had a Republican congress that gave us the Contract with America.
There were a number of provisions in that congress that helped Clinont
enormously, like welfare reform. But it also included spending curbs that
unfortunately, this Republican congress has ignored.
But the reality is, Clinton left office and a recession for George Bush.
Did you know that? We had 2 quarters of negative growth as Clinton ended
his second term in office. I am not surprised people are not aware of that
because the media never mentions it. Shortly after we emerged from teh mild
recession Clinton left us, we had 9/11. That created turmoil in the global
markets for a while but Bush and his tax cust helped us out of that without
a further economic decline.
The budget surplus Clinont supposedly left Bush was deteriorating before
Bush ever passed a budget.
scummba...@yahoo.com
>
> Clinon had a Republican congress
So did Bush so your argument there is out the window
>
> But the reality is, Clinton left office and a recession for George Bush.
Ask any leading economist and they will tell you you are full of crap
stfranc...@yahoo.com
<nol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2008, "slydrule" <stopspam> posted somenews:zNadnYx1Ef_94G7V...@earthlink.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ><scummbagmcc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:d2baa393-7eb3-40bf...@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.
> impact was immediate, and negative for the American econmony.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bush sr helped to write nafta his son loser bush made it worse, we are
losing jobs more than ever before. jesus fucker
slydrule
<scummba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4496b782-0b4a-40fe...@v56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 13, 9:09 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>>
> I do. Liberal think is, anything a liberal does not matter how sick or
> immoral is ok. Anything a conservative, particularly a religious
> conservative, does is unethical not matter how righteous.
>
>Please show me the righteousness of anything Sarah Palin has done as
>governor
She took on her own party to get rid of the corrupt old boys club up there.
> This is why Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd have been re-elected
> a
> million times.
>
>A million times? Boy are you fucking stupid. Barney Frank, Ted
>Kennedy and Robert Byrd are effective and have done good work.
So Democrats who commit egregious errors in judgment can still do "good
work" but when it comes to Republicans even a minor infraction is
disqualifying?
I think the one who is stepping ever deeper into the pool of stupidity is
you.
Mike Smith
wrote:
Yes, you are.
What happened in 2006? { hint: Congress}
And when did our economy go south? {hint: shortly after 2006}
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
I've read the book, and your opinion about it is crap. It is full of
political bias. Hell, that's what makes the book what it is.
Liberal-think is a direct take-off from 1984's doublethink, just like
newspeak is liberal-speak.
Mike Smith
scummba...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:03:50 -0400, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> >> Why, exactly, can't a Taser be demonstrated in Test Mode upon a willing
> >> 11-yr-old ?
>
> >This is funny. One liberal denies its liberal think and then another one
> >comes in to contradict him.
>
> >Test mode? hahahaha. The kid was knocked backward from the shock that
> >raised a large welt on his skin. But I am sure that was painless.
>
> old can't sign a consent form: only his parents or legal guardian
> can. The "Dad and his kid were just fooling around with a taser!"
> isn't really much of a defense.
>
> Now compound that with death threats against Sarah Palin and her
> family if he was reported and you have one sick bastard who shouldn't
> be holding a badge and a gun. Is this the kind of state trooper you'd
> want pulling you over for a night-time traffic stop? It's amusing
> listening to liberals who normally would chant, "OFF THE PIG!" defend
> one.
> --
> "CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign
> that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their
> contributions under fake names that look like they were
> written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu
> Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV
> and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida listed
> their employer as DASADA/SAFASF."
>
> This isn't an exception: The FEC is finding thousands of
> questionable online contributions to Obama like this.
Thousands of questionable online contributions
Show us a link to an article for this
scummba...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:03:50 -0400, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> >> 11-yr-old ?
>
> >This is funny. One liberal denies its liberal think and then another one
> >comes in to contradict him.
>
Liberal think? Bastardize George Orwell.
>It's amusing
> listening to liberals who normally would chant, "OFF THE PIG!" defend
> one.
It is even more amusing that you assume that liberals are defending
this particular police officer.
I believe he is as big a sleezebag as Palin and McCain.
Just because he is wrong doesn't make Palin right but you can't
understand that.
Who's Boston Blackie's Pal?
"CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign
that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their
contributions under fake names that look like they were
written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu
Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV
and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida listed
their employer as DASADA/SAFASF."
This isn't an exception: The FEC is finding thousands of
questionable online contributions to Obama like this.
That's all we need, boys, Lynch 'em!
Oh, wait, you made up that last paragraph, didn't you?
Want some lotion for your neck?
--
http://tinyurl.com/palin00010010
James Of Tucson
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Barak Obama is the most liberal Senator in the US government.
>
> Says who?
They redefine the word "liberal" to mean whatever they want it to
mean, from one moment to the next.
James Of Tucson
>
> I am a liberal and I do not think it is OK to taser an 11 year old so
> please don't paint everyone with the same brush
>
I'm a liberal and if you did that to my kid, I'd use deadly force to
stop you. .357 to the head.
He was torturing my kid with a taser. Guaranteed No-bill.
Bugman
"James Of Tucson" <james0...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a87a17e-49e7-4252...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:44:56 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:27:12 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> slydrule wrote:
>>>>>>> Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it
>>>>>>> to prove to his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully
>>>>>>> hypocritical for the left to try to excuse this cops behavior
>>>>>>> consideringhow many times the left has cried about excessive
>>>>>>> force when it comes to the police when judgment is not quite so
>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how is it "excessive force" to demonstrate a taser in test
>>>>>> mode upon someone who asks to experience it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess we have to agree that we fundamentally disagree. I
>>>>> believe using a taser on an 11 year old boy, even one who asks
>>>>> for it is wrong. Even in a demonstration, its wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Does the instruction manual for the Taser indicated that it
>>>> shouldn't be used in test mode on certain *age* groups?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is a great example of the moronic "thought" process of a
>>> liberal buffoon.
>>>
>>> It's OK to taze an 11 year old if he asks for it, according to
>>> common liberal-think.
>>
>> worthless opinion.
>>
>
> Fuck off, moron.
You still haven't posted shit to the contrary, other than your
worthless opinion.
Reality_CheckŠ
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> news:6lgcojF...@mid.individual.net...
>> bushlyed wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 3:27 am, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:27:12 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>>>> slydrule wrote:
>>>>>>>> Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it
>>>>>>>> to prove to his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully
>>>>>>>> hypocritical for the left to try to excuse this cops behavior
>>>>>>>> consideringhow many times the left has cried about excessive
>>>>>>>> force when it comes to the police when judgment is not quite so
>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And how is it "excessive force" to demonstrate a taser in test
>>>>>>> mode upon someone who asks to experience it?
>>>>
>>>>>> I guess we have to agree that we fundamentally disagree. I
>>>>>> believe using a taser on an 11 year old boy, even one who asks
>>>>>> for it is wrong. Even in a demonstration, its wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>>> Does the instruction manual for the Taser indicated that it
>>>>> shouldn't be used in test mode on certain *age* groups?
>>>>
>>>> This is a great example of the moronic "thought" process of a
>>>> liberal buffoon.
>>>>
>>>> It's OK to taze an 11 year old if he asks for it, according to
>>>> common liberal-think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Smith
>>>
>>
>>
>> Any facts ... or just unsupported opinion ?
>>
>> willing 11-yr-old ?
>>
>
> This is funny. One liberal denies its liberal think and then another
> one comes in to contradict him.
>
That's what tasers do, numbnuts.
And getting tackled playing football "knocks kid backwards" too.
What's your point, other than vacuous hysteria?
> that raised a large welt on his skin.
How "large", eh liar?
> But I am sure that was painless.
Who claimed it was painless, eh jackass?
Reality_CheckŠ
>>> willing 11-yr-old ?
>>>
>>
>> This is funny. One liberal denies its liberal think and then
>> another one comes in to contradict him.
>>
>> Test mode? hahahaha. The kid was knocked backward from the shock
>> painless.
>
> Legally there is no such thing as a "willing 11-yr-old".
Bullshit.
> An 11-year old can't sign a consent form:
They don't have to "sign a consent form", moron.
> only his parents or legal guardian can.
And guess who demonstrated the Taser, eh clown?
> The "Dad and his kid were just fooling around with a taser!"
> isn't really much of a defense.
Actually, it is.
>
> Now compound that with death threats against Sarah Palin and her
> family ...
Prove it, liar.
Reality_CheckŠ
As long as she follows due process, doesn't abuse her executive
powers, and does do ethically ... Lipstick Sarah failed 2 out of
those 3 ...
Reality_CheckŠ
If it was time to abort that unwanted Repugnikkkan fetus ... you betcha !
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:27:12 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
>> slydrule wrote:
>>>>> Its true the 11 year old asked to be tasered. He says he did it to
>>>>> prove to his cousin he wasn't a wussy. Again, its awfully
>>>>> hypocritical for the left to try to excuse this cops behavior
>>>>> consideringhow many times the left has cried about excessive force
>>>>> when it comes to the police when judgment is not quite so clear.
>>>>
>>>> And how is it "excessive force" to demonstrate a taser in test mode
>>>> upon someone who asks to experience it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess we have to agree that we fundamentally disagree. I believe
>>> using a taser on an 11 year old boy, even one who asks for it is
>>> wrong. Even in a demonstration, its wrong.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Does the instruction manual for the Taser indicated that it
>> shouldn't be used in test mode on certain *age* groups?
>>
>>
>
> buffoon.
>
> It's OK to taze an 11 year old if he asks for it, according to common
> liberal-think.
>
You still haven't posted shit to the contrary, other than your
worthless opinion.
Mike Smith
She failed in your warped, retarded world view, only.
She performed her Constitutionally ordained duties in Alaska. Too bad
you cannot possibly comprehend that basic fact.
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
You got the response your post deserves. You are simply too stupid to
understand any other response.
Mike Smith
Who's Boston Blackie's Pal?
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:34:27 -0500, Who's Boston Blackie's Pal? (who
> almost would freeze and sell being ignored by KD the Merciless!)
> <ddla...@dmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-10-13 17:22:39 -0500, ori...@earthlink.net said:
>>
>> "CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign
>> that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their
>> contributions under fake names that look like they were
>> written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu
>> Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV
>> and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida listed
>> their employer as DASADA/SAFASF."
>>
>> This isn't an exception: The FEC is finding thousands of
>> questionable online contributions to Obama like this.
>>
>>
>> That's all we need, boys, Lynch 'em!
>>
>> Oh, wait, you made up that last paragraph, didn't you?
>
> The fact that the first paragraph was in quotes and the 2nd wasn't
> should have been a clue, yes. It's called C-O-M-M-E-N-T-A-R-Y.
>
>> Want some lotion for your neck?
>
> You're making even less sense than usual. Do you believe vote fraud
> should be OK?
Do you have evidence that voter fraud has occurred yet? Be careful
about your answer, be sure you know what you're talking about.
Who's Boston Blackie's Pal?
A_gent Smif <m...@wt.net> said:
{
do
{put "You are simply too stupid to understand any other response."}
while (clueless)
Mike Smith
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/news/politics/bogus_voter_booted_amid_probe_of_acorn_133540.htm
Investigators probing ACORN have learned that an Ohio man registered
to vote several times and cast a bogus ballot with a fake address,
officials said yesterday, as they revealed that nearly 4,000
registration applications supplied by the left-leaning activist group
were suspect. The vote of Darnell Nash, one of four people subpoenaed
in a Cuyahoga County probe of ACORN's voter-registration activities,
was canceled and his case was turned over to local prosecutors
Yes, liberal fools ARE this stupid. The Boston Blackie Buffoon
couldn't add 2+2 and get 4 if his dumbassed life depended on it.
Mike Smith
Bugman
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:6249f41lkvmmd3h9r...@4ax.com...
One of four people subpoenaed? Don't get so excited
George Kerby
On 10/14/08 12:04 AM, in article 6lini4F...@mid.individual.net,
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
Feel the liberal love and understanding!
They are *SO* open-minded are they not?
George Kerby
On 10/14/08 5:51 AM, in article 2008101405514011272-ddlackie@dmailcom,
Even Commie News Network has proof, ShitBean:
Who's Boston Blackie's Pal?
Good work, A_gent Smif, instead of just squealing obscenities you found
the evidence you needed from a Murdoch paper.
However, the points are these: So far you've unearthed a grand total
of one (count 'em "one") count of vote fraud (which happens when a vote
is cast, not when a voter is registered). You also overlooked ACORN's
policy that requires them to forward all voter registration
applications (can't screen out the Republicans, you know), all of them
even when they suspect that they contain erroneous information. You
neglected to mention that ACORN identifies those applications as
suspect when they're submitted to the registrar in the state where they
work.
Keep trying, A_gent Smif, we'll train you to be a boy detective yet!
http://tinyurl.com/4tzf2h
--
http://tinyurl.com/3ho9gx
http://tinyurl.com/3g4sa8
http://tinyurl.com/48o6l6
Who's Boston Blackie's Pal?
do you kiss your mother with that mouth, Kirby?
Who's Boston Blackie's Pal?
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:51:40 -0500, Who's Boston Blackie's Pal? (who
> almost would freeze and sell being ignored by KD the Merciless!)
> <ddla...@dmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You're making even less sense than usual. Do you believe vote fraud
>>> should be OK?
>>
>> Do you have evidence that voter fraud has occurred yet? Be careful
>> about your answer, be sure you know what you're talking about.
>
> Don't answer a question with a question. Again, are you in favor of
> fraudulent registrations and vote fraud?
Nope, no right thinking person is in favor of those things.
Who's Boston Blackie's Pal?
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:09:27 -0500, Who's Boston Blackie's Pal? (who
> almost would freeze and sell being ignored by KD the Merciless!)
> <ddla...@dmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-10-14 11:19:53 -0500, ori...@earthlink.net said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:51:40 -0500, Who's Boston Blackie's Pal? (who
>>> almost would freeze and sell being ignored by KD the Merciless!)
>>> <ddla...@dmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're making even less sense than usual. Do you believe vote fraud
>>>>> should be OK?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have evidence that voter fraud has occurred yet? Be careful
>>>> about your answer, be sure you know what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> Don't answer a question with a question. Again, are you in favor of
>>> fraudulent registrations and vote fraud?
>>
>> Nope, no right thinking person is in favor of those things.
>
> Now, as far as your question, we have evidence from early voting in
> Ohio of ACORN voter fraud, referenced in that CBS News report among
> other places. It's not just an isolated instance: In seemingly EVERY
> STATE that ACORN operates they're finding fraudulent registrations by
> this organization. Fraudulent registrations mean fraudelent votes on
> Election day. And - SURPRISE! SURPRISE! - Obama is wedded at the hip
> to ACORN. He's worked for them, he's praised them, he's now thrown
> them under the bus along with all his other far-left supporters. That
> doesn't mean he rejects them: He just wants to pretend he doesn't
> know them - at least through Election Day.
>
> Now go dream up more smears against Sarah Palin. You're boring.
Now, you do understand that ACORN is required, by law, to accept every
registration APPLICATION, right? And you do understand that ACORN does
not enter the registrants into the voter rolls, right? And you do
understand that ACORN marks those registration APPLICATIONS that it
judges to be problematic when they're forwarded to the proper
authorities, right? And you do understand that fraudulent APPLICATIONS
do not yield fraudulent votes, right? And you do understand that ACORN
does not approve the forms, that's done at the county or state level,
right? And you do understand that the number of fraudulent votes in
recent elections has been miniscule and you are ready to prove that not
only did they change the outcome of the election but that the
registrations came through ACORN, right?
Don't give up your day job, you're not very good at this.
Mike Smith
wrote:
English confuse you?
The moron stated "Do you have evidence that voter fraud has occurred
yet? " and I posted some evidence.
Mike Smith
Bugman
Take that up with him. I'm stating you sorry bastards are getting so worked
up over nothing
Pallin' 'round with BB
> while (clueless)
> }
Reality_CheckŠ
Poor Repug, your ship has SUNK ...
Reality_CheckŠ
worthless opinion. Typical Repug.
Mike Smith
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Mike Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:54:57 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:44:56 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
I did. You did not understand it.
But that's expected. You're stupid.
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
wrote:
Of course you would think that. In your world, voting 2, 3, or 25
times is OK because... well, you are you.
ACORN are scum of the earth and need to be severely beaten down. No
moral code, no sense of country, no purpose that would benefit the
USA; why are our tax dollars funding the pieces of shit?
Mike Smith
Pallin' 'round with BB
A_gent Smif, don't get wrapped around the axle so easily. Apparently
ACORN receives no government funding and is not even tax exempt. Your
research skills, dude!
"In 1994, the group improperly used a $1.1 million grant from
AmeriCorps for political purposes and the grant was terminated. Acorn
says it does not now accept direct government funding and is not tax
exempt."
Source: http://tinyurl.com/54o77a
Don't bother looking at ACORN's website for a while, it looks as if it
was attacked by the braindead.
Pallin' 'round with BB
George Kerby
On 10/14/08 10:18 AM, in article 2008101410183643658-ddlackie@dmailcom,
Nice straw, bean-turd. Did you watch the nice movie? Was it too difficult to
understand? That's OK. We know that you have 'special' needs.
George Kerby
On 10/14/08 12:09 PM, in article 2008101412092775249-ddlackie@dmailcom,
"Who's Boston Blackie's Pal? (who almost would freeze and sell being
ignored by KD the Merciless!)" <ddla...@dmail.com> wrote:
> On 2008-10-14 11:19:53 -0500, ori...@earthlink.net said:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:51:40 -0500, Who's Boston Blackie's Pal? (who
>> almost would freeze and sell being ignored by KD the Merciless!)
>> <ddla...@dmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> You're making even less sense than usual. Do you believe vote fraud
>>>> should be OK?
>>>
>>> Do you have evidence that voter fraud has occurred yet? Be careful
>>> about your answer, be sure you know what you're talking about.
>>
>> Don't answer a question with a question. Again, are you in favor of
>> fraudulent registrations and vote fraud?
>
> Nope, no right thinking person is in favor of those things.
Even Mickey Mouse? The Dallas Cowboys?
Pallin' 'round with BB
No, I generally eschew ewwwwTube unless I don't suspect the source.
You'd be a suspect source, Kirby.