A Lady by the name of...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The sum of it is she abused her power while doing nothing wrong.

The media reports the former and ignores the latter.

Of course, this arouses no one's curiosity.

---

Actually, I thought the opposite until a friend pointed out the former, over dinner.

When i saw the news, I saw that she basically was within her rights to fire Walt for any reason.

He, pointed out, that they found she abused her power.

It seems the media reported everything, and in what I saw, underreported the abuse of of power.

What I think it comes down to is that, yes she fired him for not firing the brother-in-law. I don't even know the reason she wanted the br-in-law fired.

My thought is if the br-in-law was some shit cop, maybe it was just but I don't know all the details.

Is Walt's dealings with subordinates supposed to be out of her purview?

Did she want the br-in-law fired for weird some personal shit?

If it was some personal shit then she's pretty fucked up and if the report basically says she fired people for whateverthefuck reason, I think one would be either a fool or hive-minded party follower to think it's okay cuz "well she didn't brake the law".

That's like the guy who commits pedophilia with all evidence pointing to him, but he gets off on a technicality so it's ok to let him watch your kids.

I will check on this further.

This is making the rounds-

AND THIS GUY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT!

Now isn't this something to think about?!


If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.


If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard! And yet he can be elected our President??? Amazing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

This is making the rounds-

AND THIS GUY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT!

Now isn't this something to think about?!


If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.


If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard! And yet he can be elected our President??? Amazing...

---

Wow, so even you buy into this association.

It's funny how this known terrorist is able to walk free and hold a job teaching others.

I'm sure this is making the rounds....in certain circles.

I wonder how true it is.

Explain what his association was.

edit: You guys are really reaching. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge? This Ayers would then knock out anyone associated with it and even some in the Annenburg Foundation. Howz about all staff and his students at the Univ. Of Chicago. I think not.

What desperation.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.

---

Oddly, Bill Ayers- your "known terrorist" was never convicted of anything.
He went on to become a professor at the U. of Chicago and has been "hiding" in plain site for what, almost 40 years.
Get off the "known terrorist" crap...these smears are just as flawed as associating McCain with the Keating scandal. If Obama is guilty by association, then so is McCain...which way do you want to have it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

This is making the rounds-

AND THIS GUY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT!

Now isn't this something to think about?!


If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.


If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard! And yet he can be elected our President??? Amazing...

---

Wow, so even you buy into this association.

It's funny how this known terrorist is able to walk free and hold a job teaching others.

I'm sure this is making the rounds....in certain circles.

I wonder how true it is.

Explain what his association was.

---

Oh, let's see...I think Barack's explanation goes something like, "He's just a guy from my neighborhood".

Good enough for you, eh?

Ayers appears to be one of Obama's greatest friends in Chi-town; helped him launch his political career, don't you know. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist.

---

Oddly, Bill Ayers- your "known terrorist" was never convicted of anything.
He went on to become a professor at the U. of Chicago and has been "hiding" in plain site for what, almost 40 years.
Get off the "known terrorist" crap...these smears are just as flawed as associating McCain with the Keating scandal. If Obama is guilty by association, then so is McCain...which way do you want to have it?

---

Did Ayers get off on a technicality?

From what I understand, wasn't Barack 8 years old when Ayers was invoived with the Weather Underground?

Oh since I have passed a background check, myself, I know you have to pass one to go into many areas of The Capitol, Pentagon, etc. with or without escort based on level.

Does Barack have to be escorted I wonder?

I noticed j2 doesn't mention The Keating 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Did Ayers get off on a technicality?

---

Yes, he did.
Just like McCain escaped the Keating scandal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Did Ayers get off on a technicality?

---

He is guilty, and by his own admission.

In light of the that fact, what do I care about how he got off?

I think he was quoted as saying something like, "Only in America: guilty as Hell, and free as a bird."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

From what I understand, wasn't Barack 8 years old when Ayers was invoived with the Weather Underground?

---

What does that matter?

Ayers was moved to applaud 9/11; I don't think Obama was a youngster in 2001.

Do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Oh since I have passed a background check, myself, I know you have to pass one to go into many areas of The Capitol, Pentagon, etc. with or without escort based on level.

---

Oh, is ACORN doing background checks, too?

They've obviously overlooked your "shopping" habits, and your stash of microwave ovens - I hope they don't find the keys to your mom's "shed".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I noticed j2 doesn't mention The Keating 5.

---

Okay, here you go:

Keating 5.

A DEMOCRAT committee found him blameless.

Talk about it all you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

[

Oh, let's see...I think Barack's explanation goes something like, "He's just a guy from my neighborhood".

Good enough for you, eh?

Ayers appears to be one of Obama's greatest friends in Chi-town; helped him launch his political career, don't you know. ;)

---

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ill_ayers.html

Quote:

---

McCain: Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. ... The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.

Obama never said Ayers was "just" a guy in the neighborhood. The quote is from a Democratic primary debate on April 16 in Philadelphia, and Obama actually was more forthcoming than McCain lets on. Obama specifically acknowledged working together with Ayers on a charitable board, and didn't deny getting some early political support from him. Here's the exchange:

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, April 16: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

Obama: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

Sen. Hillary Clinton then said, "I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation," and predicted that "this is an issue that certainly Republicans will be raising."

---

Quote:

---

Ayers was moved to applaud 9/11;

---

Not true

Quote:

---

Despite the fairly mainstream life he lives now, though, Bill Ayers' image took a hit with an article that appeared in the New York Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Ayers was quoted in the lead paragraph as saying, ''I don't regret setting bombs'' and "I feel we didn't do enough." The interview had been conducted earlier, in connection with the publication of Ayers' memoir of his years as a fugitive. But when the quotes appeared on the same day thousands died at the World Trade Center and elsewhere, they enraged his critics.

---

You are right Ayers did admit his actions.




@Busyman

Re the background check thing, [conspiracy theory] didn't you know Obama has had secret service men following him around since announcing his candidacy? Oh sure the official reason given is "protection" but we all know it's really to keep an eye on every move that Arab makes :shifty:[/conspiracy theory]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

He is guilty, and by his own admission.

In light of the that fact, what do I care about how he got off?

I think he was quoted as saying something like, "Only in America: guilty as Hell, and free as a bird."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

From what I understand, wasn't Barack 8 years old when Ayers was invoived with the Weather Underground?

---

What does that matter?

Ayers was moved to applaud 9/11; I don't think Obama was a youngster in 2001.

Do you?

You are making shit up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Oh since I have passed a background check, myself, I know you have to pass one to go into many areas of The Capitol, Pentagon, etc. with or without escort based on level.

---

Oh, is ACORN doing background checks, too?

They've obviously overlooked your "shopping" habits, and your stash of microwave ovens - I hope they don't find the keys to your mom's "shed".

So with all that bullshit you are talking, I see you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I noticed j2 doesn't mention The Keating 5.

---

Okay, here you go:

Keating 5.

A DEMOCRAT committee found him blameless.

Talk about it all you like.

---

Oh so what did anyone convict Obama of? What was Ayers convicted of?

Hell the Keating 5 was about McCain and his association and very good friend of known criminal. McCain was investigated for a crime.

What crime was Obama even investigated for? An association.

I put forth that McCain's association was much closer to Keating than Obama's was to Ayers....and again, this association prompted an investigation FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

Nice try though. Obama's association has prompted an investigation by witch hunters about...well....nothing.

Ironically, this is why I like McCain....

[youtube]Kf6YKOkfFsE[/youtube]

From the horse's mouth...he cuts some of the bullshit (that he helped start, however) and does it for all to see.

The crowd obviously didn't like him not going along with the mob mentality.

The last lady was a racist.

Rachel Maddow:Sarah Palin Lies to You- Enthusiastically and Repeatedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Rachel Maddow:Sarah Palin Lies to You- Enthusiastically and Repeatedly.

---

Reminds me of The Daily Show.

I wonder if you could find me an example of Foxnews employing the "harpy" technique to go after Obama, O'Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Emmanuel...anybody at all, on the Dem side.

To paraphrase you dems, "she hasn't been convicted of /indicted for anything at all".

Why, btw, would you deny Palin the "legal" deniablity you so willingly extend to the like of Bill Clinton, et al, and which you will soon (no doubt) grant to Florida democrat Tim Mahoney, who is embroiled in a sex scandal far worse than the one which took down his predecessor, Mark Foley?

I hear Nancy Pelosi herself has been counselling Mahoney about how to keep this from negatively affecting his re-election campaign, in which (this is really hilarious) he touts himself as a paragon of ethical behavior.

In the meantime, tattoo this on your brains:

Sarah Palin is INNOCENT. :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Guardian

The report clearly stated that she violated state ethics laws and that the firing of Monegan was influenced by the Wooten case. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act states, “[...] each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”

In fact, the investigation showed that Todd Palin contacted NINE separate people about Wooten, two of whom were contacted, as stated in the report, on “numerous occasions.” And Sarah made five phone calls herself about the trooper. Three to Monegan and two to somebody else. And then there’s her staff, four of whom contacted various concerns.

---

I'm not fond of tattoos, especially misleading ones.

BTW, Mahoney is an excellent diversionary tactic but I'm not biting...this thread is ostensibly about Palin.
Also, from now on, every time you drag Bill-fucking-Clinton into a conversation about today's election, I'm going to raise the ghost of Richard Nixon and throw him around.

Let's try 'er out then:

BILL CLINTON!!! :whistling

Actually, my point is as stated-

She's as innocent as any democrat who's slid under the wire, at a minimum.

Leave the names out of it if you prefer, but she's innocent; more innocent (for example) than Bill Clinton.

As a practical matter, it certainly won't cost McCain any conservative votes, and it won't cost him any liberal votes he might have gotten.

It is also doubtful he'd have gotten any ACORN votes.

Bottom line, it's a wash, and the libs can't hurt McCain with it.

No harm, no foul.

"No harm, no foul",eh?

Fine with me.
If you think a no-nothing, ethically compromised, delusional low brow is the best representative of your political values and aspirations, then have at her.

After her loss on Nov. 4th, Palin will snowmobile back up to Juneau, never to be heard from again.
The Republicans will grieve the fall of a rising star and the Dems will miss the comedy gold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

After her loss on Nov. 4th, Palin will snowmobile back up to Juneau, never to be heard from again.
The Republicans will grieve the fall of a rising star and the Dems will miss the comedy gold.

---

Should Obama be elected do you not think she has ambitions to run in 2012?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Should Obama be elected do you not think she has ambitions to run in 2012?

---

Her ambitions will be irrelevant.
The McCain/Palin campaign has become such a trainwreck that anyone associated with it will be anathema to the party's power elite, consigned to political oblivion.

Palin has neither the intellect nor the stamina to assemble and manage the infrastructure necessary to mount a campaign of her own in four years, much less the more likely eight years before the Repubs have a prayer of regaining power.

The entire Republican base since Regan has been the unlikely bedfellow coupling of evangelical Christians and far right conservatives- an amalgam that is coming apart at the seams this cycle and is unlikely to be rejoined.
Palin was/is an obvious sop to the evangelicals but they will be a mere splinter group in 2012 and even then would be far happier with a male candidate.

So no, I don't believe that Palin will be a factor in anyone's future (except her family's and the unfortunate citizens of Alaska) beyond Nov. 4.

The question was raised on your prediction about never being heard from again. Not on the likelihood of her actually being chosen as the candidate.

Oh.

I have no idea what Mrs. Palin will aspire to following her defeat.
I'm guessing that the experience will be bruising enough to give her pause and lack of support from the establishment (remember, she's a "maverick" and promising to piss on everybody's shoes) will make obscurity look welcoming.

Oh.

I have no idea what Mrs. Palin will aspire to following her defeat.
I'm guessing that the experience will be bruising enough to give her pause and lack of support from the establishment (remember, she's a "maverick" and promising to piss on everybody's shoes) will make obscurity look welcoming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

After her loss on Nov. 4th, Palin will snowmobile back up to Juneau, never to be heard from again.
The Republicans will grieve the fall of a rising star and the Dems will miss the comedy gold.

---

Should Obama be elected do you not think she has ambitions to run in 2012?

---

She couldn't run on her own. Palin would not have made it through the normal mill of primaries and such. She wouldn't sound as good as she does today ( :lol: )
without the extensive coaching that she's had and she knows shitall about national and international....stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

The Republicans will grieve the fall of a rising star and the Dems will miss the comedy gold.

---

I will miss the comedy-fo-sho.

While I think she may not win the nomination should she run in 2012 I don't agree that she would not be a viable candidate. She is popular with the social conservatives, enough so that she has that foothold. Perhaps 2012 might not be the target but I don't see her heading into where are they now land forever. A lot depends on the future makeup of the republican base and the financial state of the country. If the economy improves and times are good single issue social conservatives fare better.
I think this not because I find her talented, I don't. Given the right handlers she could do well.

If McCain loses I don't see it as a problem for Palin. McCain was floundering before she was introduced and it seems that few points in the polls McCain has are hers. McCain never excited the base, the base never really liked him that much. A loss will be attributed to him alone.

I will concede that for those that don't make up the republican base she would have to overcome the problem of having been put into prime time before she was ready and as the saying goes you only get one chance at a first impression. On the other hand we seem to be a nation with a short attention span and those following politics with any degree of depth are in a minority.

I'm not one to blame the last guy for the present problems, but another factor is that whoever wins this time really is going to have to be nothing short of a miracle worker. If Obama wins and doesn't pull a miracle off then I think he loses in 2012 even if Palin is the challenger. If McCain wins and doesn't pull a miracle off and Palin is the 2012 candidate (ex VP status) then she loses.

This is about the way America votes, not about competence of candidates.

I've been thinking about it and the best thing about Palin is that she really lowers peoples standards. Right now i'd be perfectly happy for mccain to win, he actually comes across as not being a retard and i think i speak for the world when i say that after the last 8 years we'll settle for that.

He just fucking well better not snuff it.