More fun with Sarah
HK
Palin Hit With Another Ethics Complaint
In the wake of Governor Palin stepping down from her job, new
allegations have surfaced today in Alaska charging Palin with additional
violations of the Alaska Executive Ethics Act.
Zane Henning -- a conservative government watchdog from the governor's
hometown of Wasilla and an oilfield worker on Alaska's North Slope --
asserts in a letter to Alaska Attorney General Daniel S. Sullivan that
Palin has "been charging and pocketing per diem to live in her home and
has used the process for a personal gain since being elected."
In a detailed press release accompanying the charges, Henning declared that:
Palin's use of the per diem is in direct conflict with Section
39.52.120. (a) of the Alaska Executive Ethics Act....More than a
thousand state employees commute from the Mat-Su Valley daily and none
of them get to pocket free money.
Henning noted that "the State of Alaska provides housing in Juneau for
the Governor."
If she chooses not to live there, Alaskans should not have to pay
for it. I am requesting that you and the Personnel Board direct Governor
Sarah Palin to reimburse the State of Alaska all per diem funds, plus
interest, and a fine that are related to charges while staying in her
Wasilla residence.
Henning further argued that Alaska Statute 39.20.010 sets an "annual
salary for the governor of $125,000."
Sarah Palin has collected more than the amount established by law
by cashing in her per diem checks. Alaska Statute 39.20.050 (Exclusive
Compensation) states that the compensation fixed by law for the governor
and lieutenant governor is in full for all services rendered by each of
them in any official capacity or employment whatsoever during their
respective terms of office. Per diem is therefore any added expenses
incurred while in travel status, not when living in your own home.
According to Henning:
State travel regulations say that per diem can't be claimed when
travel is less than 50 miles from a state employee's workplace. The IRS
and state finance officer have already determined that the per diem is
considered income. The governor's workplace in Anchorage is only a
45-mile commute from her Wasilla home.
In February, Palin was required to pay back income taxes on thousands of
dollars in expense money she received while living at her home
overlooking Lake Lucille in Wasilla. Little more than two weeks ago she
was forced to pay back the State of Alaska more than $8,100.00 for nine
trips taken by her children that she had improperly charged as being
part of official state business.
Henning contends the per diem is another way for the Alaska governor to
line her pockets at the state's expense:
As a Wasilla resident I know that thousands of valley residents
commute into Anchorage for work every day. They don't receive checks
from their employers for sleeping at home. Governor Palin does. And it's
wrong, not to mention unethical, for her to even submit these per diem
claims. To me, this is a roundabout way for Palin to give herself a raise.
"The Governor is quitting her job," said Henning, "and now more than
ever the State of Alaska, along with its residents, need to be
reimbursed for the per diem charges, including interest and a
fine...[I]t is up to private citizens, like myself, to hold our Governor
accountable."
Huff Post
Eisboch
"HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:uJKdnfxCzo7GNs_X...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
> Palin Hit With Another Ethics Complaint
>
Yawn.
When will they stop? Batting average isn't very good.
Even the FBI acknowledged that one of the allegations
that may have violated a Federal statute was meaningless
and without merit.
And people wonder why she quit. She should have stood at the
microphone, looked straight at the camera and given the media a one finger
salute.
Eisboch
jps
wrote:
"The Media." Right. As if she didn't bring any of this on herself.
So much for "personal responsibility."
Eisboch
"jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
news:v6c555hn81jo17iel...@4ax.com...
Given some of your posts of late, I don't consider you to be much of an
expert on "personal responsibility". Screaming at a TV set in a fit of
rage , using acute profanity in front of your kids and then bragging about
here it isn't my kind of adult personal responsibilty.
A thought while you are furiously typing your response .....
tough shit.
Eisboch
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>
>Given some of your posts of late, I don't consider you to be much of an
>expert on "personal responsibility". Screaming at a TV set in a fit of
>rage , using acute profanity in front of your kids and then bragging about
>here it isn't my kind of adult personal responsibilty.
>
Yeah, but it can be fun.
Don't ask how I know.
Now I always have to chastise one of my kids for using the F word too
much. Payback is a bitch.
--Vic
HK
Thhat's right...people wonder why she quit.
Yogi of Woodstock
wrote:
>tough shit.
>
>Eisboch
That will be enough out of you young man.
Go wash your mouth out with soap. :>)
jps
wrote:
>
I suppose you never swore in front of your children. Nor did you ever
yell at the television.
You're just the picture of personal responsiblity, Dick.
jps
wrote:
>
Her talk was an exercise in illogical excuse making and you're willing
to give her a pass because it was the media's fault she quit.
That's your idea of personal responsibility?
Blame it on the media? Weak.
JustWait
But he was talking to the girly men of the Pink Army!
Eisboch
Of course I have done both. But never with the type of vulgar profanity
you boast about.
I have a degree of personal responsibility, you see. I am not a prude by
any means, but I have more respect for people in general, my family and for
myself to publically utter the type of vulgarity you seem to have no problem
with.
You must be a real trip in the conference room.
Eisboch
Eisboch
Not just the liberal media. They are simply the messengers.
Think about it. An obscure governor from Alaska who many had never heard of
suddenly makes a dramatic arrival on the national scene. Qualified or not,
she put a brief breath of life into McCain's dying campaign and captured the
interest of many with a homespun style of politics. They lost of course,
but the liberal left and their support media just can't get over it. It's
been almost 7 months since the election and she's still in the news every
day. Olbermann can't get enough of her. Harry can't get enough. You
can't get enough. She suddenly is the subject of 15 or 16 ethics
investigations, all but one of which have been dismissed and the remaining
one will likely die as well. She's found herself with half a million
dollars of personal debt for attorney fees defending baseless claims. She
and her family have been the subject to a degree of personal attacks that go
way beyond traditional political criticism. Harry is infactuated with the
quality of her skin.
What are you liberals so worried about?
Eisboch
HK
Speaking of girly "men," how's that little ponytail of yours, shorty?
Actual proof that shit floats:
HK
>>snerk<<
Sarah Palin is the perfect "poster person" for the Republican brand.
It's fun reminding people of what a piece of crap she is, an
incompetent, hypocritical, lying, quitter who tries to blame everyone
else for her defects and shortcomings.
The woman is a cipher. But, hey, SW Tom liked her...a lot.
Eisboch
> Eisboch wrote:
>>
>> Not just the liberal media. They are simply the messengers.
>> Think about it. An obscure governor from Alaska who many had never heard
>> of suddenly makes a dramatic arrival on the national scene. Qualified or
>> not, she put a brief breath of life into McCain's dying campaign and
>> captured the interest of many with a homespun style of politics. They
>> lost of course, but the liberal left and their support media just can't
>> get over it. It's been almost 7 months since the election and she's
>> still in the news every day. Olbermann can't get enough of her. Harry
>> can't get enough. You can't get enough. She suddenly is the subject of
>> 15 or 16 ethics investigations, all but one of which have been dismissed
>> and the remaining one will likely die as well. She's found herself
>> with half a million dollars of personal debt for attorney fees defending
>> baseless claims. She and her family have been the subject to a degree of
>> personal attacks that go way beyond traditional political criticism.
>> Harry is infactuated with the quality of her skin.
>>
>> What are you liberals so worried about?
>>
>> Eisboch
>
> >>snerk<<
>
> Sarah Palin is the perfect "poster person" for the Republican brand. It's
> fun reminding people of what a piece of crap she is, an incompetent,
> hypocritical, lying, quitter who tries to blame everyone else for her
> defects and shortcomings.
>
> The woman is a cipher. But, hey, SW Tom liked her...a lot.
I thought Rush was your poster boy. Make up your mind. You are entitled to
one only.
Eisboch
HK
Rush is the "Dear Leader." Sarah is the "Moral Compass."
Gene Robinson, the Pulitzer-winning editor at the Post, pretty much
nailed it:
A Starter, Not a Finisher
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
What can you say about a public official who ridicules those who would
take the "quitter's way out" -- as she faces reporters to announce that
she's quitting? A governor who claims that "the worthless, easy path"
would be to serve out the remaining 18 months of her term? An ambitious
politician who says that "life is too short" to worry about, you know,
boring things such as responsibility or duty?
You can say that all of us who ever took Sarah Palin seriously -- or
pretended to take her seriously -- should be deeply ashamed. And you can
say that John McCain should publicly apologize for putting the nation he
loves at risk by choosing Palin as his running mate. Imagining Palin
within a heartbeat of the presidency should be enough to make even
die-hard Republicans shudder.
The reasons she gave for stepping down are not just contrived or
implausible but literally nonsensical. She can most effectively serve
the people of Alaska by ceasing to exercise the powers of chief
executive? She worries that as a lame duck she would somehow be
compelled to waste taxpayer money on useless junkets? In her "Don't Cry
For Me, Alaska" news conference announcing her departure, the folksy non
sequiturs -- "Only dead fish go with the flow" -- were like nuggets of
Cartesian logic amid a tub of mush.
But I'm stating the obvious. The thing is, Palin's unsuitability for
high public office has been obvious all along. Tina Fey got it right;
the rest of us were far too reluctant to state plainly that the emperor,
or empress, has no clothes.
There are basically two reasons the political class and the commentariat
continue to speak and write about Palin as if she were a substantial
figure whose presence on the national stage is anything but a cruel,
unfunny joke. The first is fear -- not of Palin and her know-nothing
legions, but of being painted as elitist and sexist.
From the beginning, Palin has been a master at maneuvering her critics
into this trap. Like most Americans, she didn't go to an Ivy League
school; like most women, she deals every day with the challenges of
juggling work and family. She highlighted these aspects of her
biography, then used them to portray herself as a victim whenever anyone
had the temerity to criticize anything she said or did. The most recent
illustration is what she posted on her Facebook page last weekend on the
reaction to her announced resignation:
"How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it's about
country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their
positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course
we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the
decisions I make."
What is she talking about? Who are these "countless others" who
supposedly have made the same decision to abandon governorships for no
credible reason? The names don't come rushing to mind. Why is any
criticism of Poor Little Sarah the result of the "different standard"
that mean old "Washington and the media" always apply? Because blaming
her favorite alleged persecutors allows her to ignore the bewildered
reaction from her constituents in Alaska who are stunned and mystified
at her decision to skip out.
The other reason Palin is taken more seriously than she deserves is that
she has a constituency. Heaven help us.
Palin has far-right conservative views, and while I disagree with her on
almost everything, there's certainly nothing inappropriate or
illegitimate about her philosophy. But I feel sorry for conservatives
who look to her as a champion because she's going to let them down.
Articulating a political vision and inspiring people to believe in it
are true accomplishments, and no one can take that away from her. But
realizing that vision through legislation or executive action requires
discipline, persistence and rigor. To return to stating the obvious,
these are attributes that Palin lacks.
Anyone tempted to see her resignation gambit as a masterstroke,
positioning her for a presidential run in 2012, is riding for a fall.
She will flake out.
Sarah Palin is by nature more of a firebrand opinion-maker than anything
else. I know one when I see one. She can deny it all she wants, but
really she's -- gulp -- one of us.
- - -
Poor, poor, pitiful Sarah.
Eisboch
>
> Gene Robinson, the Pulitzer-winning editor at the Post, pretty much nailed
> it:
>
> A Starter, Not a Finisher
>
> By Eugene Robinson
> Tuesday, July 7, 2009
>
I liked Eugene Robinson a lot until he became a regular contributor on
Olbermann's show.
He talks one way on Morning Joe and other media outlets and an entirely
different way when he's with Olbermann. He's losing credibility, Pulitzer
prize or not.
Eisboch
Captain Marvel of Woodstock
wrote:
>What are you liberals so worried about?
She's everything they claim they like in women - strong personality,
effective leadership, mother, interesting life story, good looking and
smart, but...
She's also a hunter, fisherman, Pro-Lifer, gun advocate which is
everything they hate - in particular the Pro-Life thing.
And she had the audacity to actually give birth to what they consider
a defective human being.
Guys like Jon and Harry are Nazi's when it comes to challenged or
physically handicapped children - eugenisists actually. Just as bad as
Goering or Hitler or Spangler. They don't see value in "defective"
children - they consider them "mistakes" and some how not worthy of
life.
Both of them are very sad bitter men.
Unfortunate.
thunder
> What are you liberals so worried about?
Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I
would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something as
unusual as resigning in mid-term. As for those 16 ethics complaints, one
of which she filed against herself, they haven't all been without
foundation. She did have to repay moneys for her children's travel. A
minor offense I'll grant you, but most of the complaints are the result
of political infighting in one of our more dysfunctional and corrupt
states. Still, none of this would be news worthy on a national level, if
she wasn't a potential Presidential candidate.
HK
Wow...you really swallowed the 8' asparagus, eh?
Using your terms, I would charactize her as having an extremely flawed
personality, ineffective leadership abilities, being a bad mother, and
being no better than average looking. I've not seen any indicator she is
smart. She's better than ok, though, delivering a teleprompted speech,
but she sure as hell is lost in space without a script.
I don't hate people who hunt, fish, or like guns, though I have no
respect for those who hunt with guns and call it "sport." I also have no
respect for moms who do not teach their daughters (and sons) about
effective ways to prevent venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
Palin is a hypocrite. She knew she was carrying a fetus that would turn
out to be a seriously challenged child if born, and also knew that if
she aborted it, she'd lose "cred" with the right-wing simpies.
For you to claim I see no value in challenged kids says a lot more about
you than it does about me. For starters, it shows you to be completely
clueless.
But, then, you're the rec.boats wookie, as in, "Let the wookie win..."
Eisboch
"thunder" <thunder...@gti.net> wrote in message
news:DpCdncS3L5pBrs7X...@posted.gtinet...
Objectively speaking, I don't personally believe she is qualified to be
POTUS.
But sometimes it takes an earthquake or something to slow the swing of the
pendulum from it's current direction. The faddish momentum currently
enjoyed by some of the extreme left persuasion needs to be slowed a bit and
then brought back to a more moderate position, IMO. She might be the
annoying and frustrating earthquake to accomplish just that.
Meanwhile, it will be fun to watch some people continue their hissy fits as
she makes news everyday.
Eisboch
thunder
> Palin is a hypocrite. She knew she was carrying a fetus that would turn
> out to be a seriously challenged child if born, and also knew that if
> she aborted it, she'd lose "cred" with the right-wing simpies.
I don't know Harry, I don't think there are any women who would make that
decision, that lightly.
TopBassDog
> > wrote:
>
> >> What are you liberals so worried about?
>
> > She's everything they claim they like in women - strong personality,
> > effective leadership, mother, interesting life story, good looking and
> > smart, but...
>
> > She's also a hunter, fisherman, Pro-Lifer, gun advocate which is
> > everything they hate - in particular the Pro-Life thing.
>
> > And she had the audacity to actually give birth to what they consider
> > a defective human being.
>
> > Guys like Jon and Harry are Nazi's when it comes to challenged or
> > physically handicapped children - eugenisists actually. Just as bad as
> > Goering or Hitler or Spangler. They don't see value in "defective"
> > children - they consider them "mistakes" and some how not worthy of
> > life.
>
> > Both of them are very sad bitter men.
>
> > Unfortunate.
>
> Wow...you really swallowed the 8' asparagus, eh?
>
Herr Krause. 8" nor asparagus isn't close to what you have swallowed.
HK
Some of us are really enjoying her almost daily explosions and
implosions, because they hurt the "Republican brand." Some of us got the
same kick out of Governor Sanford's trials and tribulations for the same
reasons. I don't give a crap about the governor of South Carolina or his
problems, beyond what harm they can cause the GOP.
I guess that's hard for you and others here to understand.
Oh...speaking of Sarah, I suppose she and her lawyer have never heard of
New York Times v. Sullivan. Elected public officials, basically, cannot
use the courts effectively to attempt to chill criticism or reportage
about how they handle their jobs.
Eisboch
> Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch" <not...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What are you liberals so worried about?
>>
>> She's everything they claim they like in women - strong personality,
>> effective leadership, mother, interesting life story, good looking and
>> smart, but...
>>
>> She's also a hunter, fisherman, Pro-Lifer, gun advocate which is
>> everything they hate - in particular the Pro-Life thing.
>>
>> And she had the audacity to actually give birth to what they consider
>> a defective human being.
>>
>> Guys like Jon and Harry are Nazi's when it comes to challenged or
>> physically handicapped children - eugenisists actually. Just as bad as
>> Goering or Hitler or Spangler. They don't see value in "defective"
>> children - they consider them "mistakes" and some how not worthy of
>> life.
>>
>> Both of them are very sad bitter men.
>>
>> Unfortunate.
>
>
> Wow...you really swallowed the 8' asparagus, eh?
>
> Using your terms, I would charactize her as having an extremely flawed
> personality, ineffective leadership abilities, being a bad mother, and
> being no better than average looking. I've not seen any indicator she is
> smart. She's better than ok, though, delivering a teleprompted speech, but
> she sure as hell is lost in space without a script.
Yet, you remain infatuated by her, cutting and pasting media articles on
almost a daily basis.
>
> I don't hate people who hunt, fish, or like guns, though I have no respect
> for those who hunt with guns and call it "sport."
You live in Maryland. She lives in Alaska. Different culture.
>I also have no respect for moms who do not teach their daughters (and sons)
>about effective ways to prevent venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
How do you know she didn't "teach"? I taught my kids a lot of things.
Some of it they listened to. Some, they didn't. They make mistakes.
So do I.
>
> Palin is a hypocrite. She knew she was carrying a fetus that would turn
> out to be a seriously challenged child if born, and also knew that if she
> aborted it, she'd lose "cred" with the right-wing simpies.
Another biased Harry assumption. You have no idea what she thought
but proclaim your conclusion, as expected, as being "fact".
> For you to claim I see no value in challenged kids says a lot more about
> you than it does about me. For starters, it shows you to be completely
> clueless.
All of us are clueless about some things. Tom's just trying to help you
out.
Eisboch
HK
Once again, my interest in Palin is in seeing she remains an anchor
dragging down the GOP ship of state, as it were.
>
>
>> I don't hate people who hunt, fish, or like guns, though I have no respect
>> for those who hunt with guns and call it "sport."
>
>
> You live in Maryland. She lives in Alaska. Different culture.
We have plenty of "hunters" in Maryland. I don't consider hunting with
guns a sport.
>
>
>
>> I also have no respect for moms who do not teach their daughters (and sons)
>> about effective ways to prevent venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
>
> How do you know she didn't "teach"?
>>snerk<<
>
>
>
>> Palin is a hypocrite. She knew she was carrying a fetus that would turn
>> out to be a seriously challenged child if born, and also knew that if she
>> aborted it, she'd lose "cred" with the right-wing simpies.
>
> Another biased Harry assumption. You have no idea what she thought
> but proclaim your conclusion, as expected, as being "fact".
>
>
>
>> For you to claim I see no value in challenged kids says a lot more about
>> you than it does about me. For starters, it shows you to be completely
>> clueless.
>
> All of us are clueless about some things. Tom's just trying to help you
> out.
>
> Eisboch
>
>
Tom should help himself out, and see a counselor about his bipolar
symptoms.
HK
I didn't mean to imply she made the decision lightly. It was very
deliberate.
Eisboch
>
> I guess that's hard for you and others here to understand.
>
> Oh...speaking of Sarah, I suppose she and her lawyer have never heard of
> New York Times v. Sullivan. Elected public officials, basically, cannot
> use the courts effectively to attempt to chill criticism or reportage
> about how they handle their jobs.
You really need a new angle. There's a difference between legality and
common decency.
Those of the extreme left persuasion are walking away from the difference.
Eisboch
HK
Uh...the point here is that Sarah and her legal beagle last saturday
threatened a reporter specifically with a lawsuit and other news
organizations generally with lawsuits if they reported there were
"rumors" floating around about her and potential legal problems.
That's the "legality" here.
Palin doesn't even have a stump to stand on in attempting to chill such
reportage. Perhaps if she calmed down some, and stopped playing "poor,
poor pitiful me" and the perpetual victim, she wouldn't be so obviously
earning the reputation as a nutcase she now has.
You know, if the internet had been around in the days of Joe McCarthy,
he would have lasted about a week. It's important to stomp political
demogogues into the ground, over and over and over and over, until they
show no possibilities of being revived for future political games. Palin
is a demogogue.
Eisboch
Yada, yada, yada.
You have fun. I have to go put the charger on the VW bus, then go sell some
guitars.
Eisboch
Loogypicker
> "HK" <payer33...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>
> news:_OydncnNQ5KQ287X...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Eisboch wrote:
> >> "HK" <payer33...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll bet the bus looks cool as hell in front of your vintage guitar
shop!
TopBassDog
> Eisboch wrote:
> > "HK" <payer33...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> >news:Eeedne-x6LOHqs7X...@earthlink.com...
>
> >> Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:
>
Herr Krause. You're interest in Governor Palin is that she gives you
nocturnal emissions. That's why you are infatuated with her.
If she isn't in the news, you have no more wet dreams.
JustWait
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, Eisboch wrote:
>
>
>> What are you liberals so worried about?
>
> Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I
> would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something as
> unusual as resigning in mid-term.
Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for
President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement,
doesn't mean he kept the job..
JustWait
island with the big guns...
HK
Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a
U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate.
BTW, is Palin running for higher office? I must have missed that
announcement.
jps
wrote:
Vulgarity is in the eyes of the beholder.
In my eyes vulgarity is sending kids to die in a war of choice. Dick
Cheney is a vulgar person who rightly deserves my hatred. I hate him.
He's an evil bastard who cares nothing for the people he's fucked,
apart from Scooter Libby.
That's vulgarity, Dick.
You were among the rah rah chorus of vulgarity that happened on our
watch.
You're among the selfish, vulgar citizenry who'd deny another medical
care for 2% of your wages. You've said as much in your critiques of
Obama's "out of control spending."
That's vulgarity, Dick.
My vulgarity is reserved for those who think others are less deserving
than themselves, since they're successful and others had the same
opportunities and choices. Unfortunately the world doesn't work in
such a binary fashion and some people get screwed no matter their
desire, fortitude, earnestness, willingness, indiustry, etc.
To deny them health care is vulgar.
That's vulgarity, Dick.
jps
<pi...@mynose.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch" <not...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>What are you liberals so worried about?
>
>She's everything they claim they like in women - strong personality,
>effective leadership, mother, interesting life story, good looking and
>smart, but...
"Friends with a domestic terrorist"
Said how many times? 20 - 30 - 40?
Whips people into a frenzy and then says nothing when the audience
suggests killing Obama?
Extorts money from the state to pay for things that clearly aren't
kosher expenses by any measure.
That's not a woman I admire. She makes me sick.
jps
wrote:
And so you dismiss the message he writes in Palin being a quitter?
Easy way out. Just like her.
jps
<pi...@mynose.com> wrote:
YMML. A crock of shit, stewed in your demented cranium.
WTF are you talking about with handicapped children? You're insane.
HK
Right on...the real vulgarity is sending soldiers off to die in a war of
convenience, or denying poor people health care, food, shelter, or a
decent education for their kids. THAT is vulgarity.
HK
Since Palin is quitting her political office, I wouldn't mind seeing the
media step back from reportage of her a bit, except, of course, when she
makes a political appearance or speech. *Then* it is perfectly
acceptable to slam her to the mat.
jps
wrote:
You've never encountered the "extreme left." What you imagine is
extreme is within a very narrow band, that exists in your head.
No matter, I don't expect it'll expand before you expire.
Eisboch
Are you having fun slinging your BS?
I really don't care what you think. You have little or no credibility in my
eyes.
Eisboch
jps
wrote:
Richard driving a VW bus is false advertising.
jps
wrote:
Another selfish "conservative" who doesn't want to face the truth.
Can't field an argument so you spew some nasty personal insults and
run away.
You have no credibility in my eyes either, Dick. No wonder you could
side with a quitter like Palin.
thunder
>> Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I
>> would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something
>> as unusual as resigning in mid-term.
>
> Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for
> President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement,
> doesn't mean he kept the job..
Hey, I don't have a problem with Palin stepping down, but then, I'm not
an Alaskan, nor did I vote for her. We did have a Governor step down
recently, McGreevey, and while the circumstances were different, I
wouldn't expect him to be able to win a race for local dogcatcher. There
is an issue of public trust. McGreevey broke it, and Palin? It's for
the public to decide, but I would say she did.
jps
wrote:
She's not running for another office, she's running away from a
contract she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was
finished.
She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus.
thunder
> She's not running for another office, she's running away from a contract
> she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was finished.
>
> She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus.
She's also become quite adept at playing the "victim". The world's
picking on me. The world's picking on my family. Whether true or not,
it's not a quality wanted in a POTUS, IMO.
jps
>I imagine she was simply driven from office by frivolous law suits and
>unfounded charges. I hear she is a half million in debt from the legal
>bills.
Maybe she shouldn't have put herself in that position. Taking per
diems for living at home? Putting your kid's travel expenses on the
state? Pressuring the head of the state police to fire a relative
who'd already answered to charges and been disciplined?
She brought these things on herself.
jps
wrote:
She eagerly embraced the kitchen long before she recognized the open
flame.
Poor Sarah. Lacking any personal gravitas or dignity, her problems
are necessarily accounted to external forces. Charles Gibson,
evildoer working for "the media."
I wonder if she knows what the Bush doctrine is yet.
thunder
> I imagine she was simply driven from office by frivolous law suits and
> unfounded charges. I hear she is a half million in debt from the legal
> bills.
I don't know, but does that pass the smell test? If they were all
frivolous, why was she spending big bucks on legal fees? On top of that,
most states have legal departments that are there to protect the state.
Why was she going to outside representation? There were no charges, just
ethics complaints.
JustWait
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:56:54 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:23:31 -0500, thunder <thunder...@gti.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:42:33 -0400, JustWait wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I
>>>>> would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something
>>>>> as unusual as resigning in mid-term.
>>>> Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for
>>>> President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement,
>>>> doesn't mean he kept the job..
So, he didn't have a problem when Obama quit on his constituients? Years
before the Presidential election? Hypocrites..
>>> Hey, I don't have a problem with Palin stepping down, but then, I'm not
>>> an Alaskan, nor did I vote for her. We did have a Governor step down
>>> recently, McGreevey, and while the circumstances were different, I
>>> wouldn't expect him to be able to win a race for local dogcatcher. There
>>> is an issue of public trust. McGreevey broke it, and Palin? It's for
>>> the public to decide, but I would say she did.
>> She's not running for another office, she's running away from a
>> contract she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was
>> finished.
>>
>> She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus.
>
JustWait
Half million in bogus legal charges... If that happened to you would you
feel like you were a victim of a scam?
HK
I enjoyed reading how she billed the state for expenses...that was
classy, eh?
jps
>On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:25:01 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>>>>She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus.
>>>
>>>I imagine she was simply driven from office by frivolous law suits and
>>>unfounded charges. I hear she is a half million in debt from the legal
>>>bills.
>>
>>Maybe she shouldn't have put herself in that position. Taking per
>>diems for living at home? Putting your kid's travel expenses on the
>>state? Pressuring the head of the state police to fire a relative
>>who'd already answered to charges and been disciplined?
>>
>>She brought these things on herself.
>
>When you compare those things to what most politicians are doing, it
>is really chump change.
Oh, she's a paragon of virtuosity. Do you expect it's okay for these
guy and gals to play dirty? I don't. They make good salaries for
what they do and if they don't think they're compensated enough, they
should bring it up with the governing body or not accept the position.
>She ended up spending a whole lot less than
>virtually any other governor in the country for her living expenses.
How in the world have you come to that conclusion? Is the Rand
Corporation now tracking living expenses/governor?
>Most governors don't charge per diems and mileage because they have 2
>or 3 state troopers chauffeuring them around in state limos and they
>live in the mansion eating government food. When they travel they stay
>in a suite in a 4 star hotel on the government dime.
Are they following the rules? If so, bully. She didn't follow the
rules. Are we a nation of laws only for the common pleeb?
>My thought was that if this is all the "corruption" they can come up
>with given all the effort they spent digging, she was really pretty
>honest.
Apart from trying to get her former brother in law fired for what had
already been addressed and closed.
>Competent and smart may be an issue we could talk about. I did not
>vote for McCain/Palin, but I couldn't vote for Obama either. Flip
>Flopping on the war and the other things that he started out opposing
>killed him for me.
She's undereducated for her chosen profession. Apart from being
telegenic, she's neither bright nor studied and she wears thin in a NY
minute.
It was a stupid gamble on the part of the Republicans and she'd helped
to set them on a faster downward spiral than they were on pre-Palin.
Good, like a junkie, the R's aparently need to hit bottom before they
pick themselves up and decide to be productive members of society.
jps
>On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:30:04 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>>I wonder if she knows what the Bush doctrine is yet.
>
>I am not sure I know what the Bush Doctrine is.
Pre-emptive strikes against a country that has taken no action is
among the main tenets of the Bush doctrine.
Seems like an important policy to know for one who aspires to join the
most elite political executive team on the planet.
The lowest member of the state department would be expected to
understand the Bush doctrine.
HK
One of the reasons Palin was picked was the hope McCain and his advisors
had that her selection would attract some of the women who were
disappointed that Hillary Clinton was not on the Democratic ticket.
That reason alone demonstrates how little understanding the Republicans
have of educated, smart women.
TopBassDog
> JustWait wrote:
> > thunder wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, Eisboch wrote:
>
> >>> What are you liberals so worried about?
>
> >> would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something
> >> as unusual as resigning in mid-term.
>
> > Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for
> > President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement,
> > doesn't mean he kept the job..
>
> >> of which she filed against herself, they haven't all been without
> >> foundation. She did have to repay moneys for her children's travel.
> >> A minor offense I'll grant you, but most of the complaints are the
> >> result of political infighting in one of our more dysfunctional and
> >> corrupt states. Still, none of this would be news worthy on a
> >> national level, if she wasn't a potential Presidential candidate.
>
> Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a
> U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate.
>
Very true, Herr Krause. Now, can you name one of his many
accomplishments in the four years of his office?
Eisboch
On Jul 7, 9:09 am, HK <payer33...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a
> U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate.
>
Actually, Obama resigned early .... November 17th, I think. The last
senator to do so was JFK.
Obama didn't want to remain in his Senate seat during his lame duck period.
Eisboch
jps
>On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:59:34 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>>>>I wonder if she knows what the Bush doctrine is yet.
>>>
>>>I am not sure I know what the Bush Doctrine is.
>>
>>Pre-emptive strikes against a country that has taken no action is
>>among the main tenets of the Bush doctrine.
>
>That sounds more like an Olbermann rant than an official policy.
>
>What does Bush say the Bush doctrine is?
You'll have to consult the neocons for the correct answer.
People for a New American Century is the group.
jps
>It certainly appears to me "the Bush Doctrine" is a term made up by
>the democrats and is anything they don't like about him. I have never
>actually heard a concise definition.
>
>It is also interesting that the best known "doctrine" the Monroe
>Doctrine was actually named many years after he left office.
>(according to the Presidents series on the History Channel)
This seems pretty concise.
D K
I still contend that if a politician has enough confidence in their
ability to be elected for a higher office, they should immediately
resign so they can focus their efforts and not abandon their constituents.
D K
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:27:47 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
> <topba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a
>>> U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate.
>>>
>> Very true, Herr Krause. Now, can you name one of his many
>> accomplishments in the four years of his office?
>
> because they ARE ignoring their senate duties. They don't really get a
> chance to read most of the legislation they vote for as it is and
> being on the campaign trail means they are not reading any of it.
>
You beat me to it. It also shouldn't be limited to presidential candidates.
jps
>On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:48:17 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>>>It certainly appears to me "the Bush Doctrine" is a term made up by
>>>the democrats and is anything they don't like about him. I have never
>>>actually heard a concise definition.
>>>
>>>It is also interesting that the best known "doctrine" the Monroe
>>>Doctrine was actually named many years after he left office.
>>>(according to the Presidents series on the History Channel)
>>
>>This seems pretty concise.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
>
>Concise would be a paragraph, not a rambling 30 page Wiki with 86
>footnotes.
>If the point was that Bush had a fractured foreign policy with unclear
>objectives and disastrous outcomes, no argument.
>Let's see how Obama does and if he will ever settle down on a policy.
>So far he is just extending what Bush was doing, right down to the
>date of this "camp outside the city" initiative.
That was negotiated between two "sovereign" nations before Obama took
office. The Iraqis can't wait to get rid of us.
jps
>I bet they do. (wait)
>We won't leave until they are no longer a threat to Israel.
>We certainly were nit out on Jan 20 as Obama started promising and he
>has been stepping back from that ever since.
Sheesh. He said that during the campaign and almost immediately
backed away by saying that he wouldn't do anything that would
destabilize our responsible withdrawal.
He took one large step backwards and when he became president he
reassessed the situation and made what was a good call.
Again, the terms of our withdrawal were negotiated with Iraq when Bush
was in office. It was, in fact, on a schedule very similar to what
Obama was promoting during the latter days of the election cycle.
jps
>If he is just doing what Bush was going to do, where is the "change"?
>I was excited about a candidate who was going to end this stupid 18
>year war, not keep it going another 18 years.
>
>Afghanistan is even worse. Now Obama is saying we will have the
>Russians "help" us in Afghanistan.
>How do you think the Afghan citizens will feel about that?
>We are certainly creating terrorists far faster than we can kill them.
1. Obama is keeping his word to get us out of Iraq. Bush took a 3 day
raid and turned it into six years. Surely you understand that
withdrawing is a sensitive endeavor for many reasons.
2. Afghanistan is complicated. I didn't want to go in originally and
still would prefer we weren't there but the situation is among the
scariests on the planet. Not in Afghanistan of course, but Pakistan.
If al Qaeda and those Afghani fundamentalists team to take Pakistan,
we've got a serious problem on our hands. That's not very far afield
at this point. Our presence there is probably the best investment we
could make to ensure nuclear war doesn't break out.
HK
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:36:29 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>>> If he is just doing what Bush was going to do, where is the "change"?
>>> I was excited about a candidate who was going to end this stupid 18
>>> year war, not keep it going another 18 years.
>>>
>>> Afghanistan is even worse. Now Obama is saying we will have the
>>> Russians "help" us in Afghanistan.
>>> How do you think the Afghan citizens will feel about that?
>>> We are certainly creating terrorists far faster than we can kill them.
>> 1. Obama is keeping his word to get us out of Iraq. Bush took a 3 day
>> raid and turned it into six years. Surely you understand that
>> withdrawing is a sensitive endeavor for many reasons.
>
> years. Do you want to bet whether we will still be there in 2012? How
> about 2016?
>> 2. Afghanistan is complicated. I didn't want to go in originally and
>> still would prefer we weren't there but the situation is among the
>> scariests on the planet. Not in Afghanistan of course, but Pakistan.
>> If al Qaeda and those Afghani fundamentalists team to take Pakistan,
>> we've got a serious problem on our hands. That's not very far afield
>> at this point. Our presence there is probably the best investment we
>> could make to ensure nuclear war doesn't break out.
>
> place or why we are still there.
> All of the excuses really sound like "Ho Chi Minh trail" stories to me
> and we know how that worked out.
I don't think we as a society have internalized the concept that our
military might basically is useless in fighting dedicated insurgencies
or religiously backed organizations in underdeveloped countries.
Obviously, we have the wherewithal to take on a uniformed military force
like Iraq's, one that is organized along traditional military lines and
orders of battle. That's why we were able to impose a peace in Bosnia.
But we're really not facing that sort of adversary these days. We didn't
learn from our loss in Vietnam, and we didn't learn from the loss the
Soviets suffered in Afghanistan.
The reality is this: Iraq will collapse when we leave, no matter when we
leave, and Afghanistan will never settle down with us around. Pakistan
is likely to go down the tubes, too. Our best bet there is to help our
Indian friends keep crazed Pakistanis from destroying their country, too.
Vic Smith
>
>Nobody has really explained why we went to Afghanistan in the first
>place or why we are still there.
I'll explain it, as I remember it.
We went in to get Osama Bin Laden. Remember 9/11/2001?
Then he fled to Pakistan when we left it to ragheads to do our job in
Tora Bora.
Then we failed again, by not pursuing him into Pakistan.
Killing him was the mission.
Tommy Franks was a fuck up. Glad he's gone. Best thing that ever
happened to the U.S. Army.
Of course Bush, Rumsfeld, and that whole crew were fuck ups.
We needed a Patton on the battlefield, and had Tommy Franks running
things from an air-conditioned room in Tampa, Florida.
Seems Franks always refers to Osama as "Mr. bin Laden."
Wonder if Patton ever said "Mr. Hitler," or "Mr. Goering."
Osama Bin Laden is still alive.
Shame, shame.
Why are we still there? Can't leave until Bin Laden dies.
It would be an admission of our abject failure.
He'll probably die of natural causes.
Shame, shame.
No vengeance for our victims and our country.
All this talk of the Bush crowd being hard asses.
Biggest bunch of pussies this country ever had.
Talk, talk, talk.
Osama Bin Laden is still alive.
Businessmen running the country. A country isn't a business.
That was Franks' college degree. Bachelor of Business Administration.
--Vic
jps
It's morphed into something larger than bin Laden or al Qaeda. It's
now threatening the further destabilization of Pakistan and access to
nuclear weapons.
We didn't take care of business the first time with the Taliban, now
we've got the same problem the USSR had before Afghanistan helped
cause their bankruptcy.
Brilliant.
Vic Smith
>
>It's morphed into something larger than bin Laden or al Qaeda. It's
>now threatening the further destabilization of Pakistan and access to
>nuclear weapons.
>
That's all overblown, IMO.
The Pakis can take care of the Taliban, which come in different
colors. And the Northern Alliance - former Taliban - may have been
on the verge of defeating them when 9/11 interceded.
9/11 was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, and Al Qeada.
Taliban is a side show of the ever-changing tribal muslim savages
holding sway in Afghanistan.
Besides that, the Taliban are mortal enemies of Shia Iran.
We can leave at any time - except bin Laden is alive.
Once he's dead, and if we left - doubtful now because we would be
abandoning "women's rights" - if Iran got nukes they'd probably nuke
Afghanistan instead of Israel. Taliban can't strike back.
They have no friends. Not even the Pakis, who are only about 15%
Pashtun, mostly on the north border areas.
>We didn't take care of business the first time with the Taliban, now
>we've got the same problem the USSR had before Afghanistan helped
>cause their bankruptcy.
>
>Brilliant.
Nation building.
The only business we had there was to kill Al Qeada and bin Laden.
And we didn't get the job done.
Now we're stuck there to prevent women from being kept in burkhas and
thrashed.
BTW, the Soviets were fighting the Pakis, the U.S. and some others
when they were there. U.S. and NATO strength is already more than
half of the max strength the Soviets had there.
Soviet total KIA was about 14,000 over about 8 years.
Hard to compare then and now. Taliban have no allies.
The big problem is telling people how to live.
Social engineering.
--Vic
thunder
>>Nobody has really explained why we went to Afghanistan in the first
>>place or why we are still there.
>
> I'll explain it, as I remember it.
> We went in to get Osama Bin Laden.
Lest we all forget, the Taliban offered up Bin Laden on several
occasions. Not that I blame Bush for rejecting the offer. After 9/11,
we all wanted blood, myself included, but then, who would have thought
that 8 years later, bin Laden would still be breathing free air.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11
HK
If there was one thing the Bush misadministration mishandled perfectly,
it was dealing with other nations, governments, and organizations.
Besides, it *wanted* a war of convenience.
Convenient, wasn't it? :>)
jps
If you wants a war, you gots to have an enemy. It would have been
very inconvenient to have captured Osama.