# Flip Flop flip flop Palin now changes stance on TrooperGate



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

> (CBS/AP) Just when it seemed the Alaska investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of a state official might have been scuttled by the pressures of presidential politics, another turn of events has kept it going.
> 
> Palin's firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan last July, allegedly after pressure by her, her husband and staff members on Monegan to fire her ex-brother-in-law was ignored, is at the center of the investigation (known as Troopergate) into whether Palin abused her power.
> 
> ...


Now we have even more evidence that she indeed did this out of spite. Further she and her husband are scheduled to testify, and they are ignoring lawful orders of a subpoena.

Unblievable that she blatantly disobeys the law, yet considers herself worthy of a VP seat.

:eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

:eyeroll: Yes, and on a comedy show they suggested that her husband is boinking the daughters because it's Alaska right? Assumptive guilt is like all assumptions= Assume make an *** out of you and me = ***-u-me

I'll wait and see how this all goes. I seen where all the rest of the accusations went. We all should have learned from that.

Could be right, could be wrong, but I'm not jumping on that bandwagon and loosing my credability.


----------



## stash (Jan 20, 2007)

> Unblievable that she blatantly disobeys the law, yet considers herself worthy of a VP seat.
> 
> It's just as bad on the other side


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Here's some more "evidence" for you Plainsman. This isn't some trumped up conspiracy, no matter how much you try and downplay the significance of this... check out all the highlighted green links for independent articles written by a host of different entities that are all saying the same things.

I got to reading this over the weekend, and the more I read the more infuriated I became... :******:

If this was a Dem, you all would be flying thru the roof on this behaviour.

Un. be. lievable.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html


*The Bush/McCain/Palin contempt for subpoenas and the rule of law*

*Bill O'Reilly, Wednesday night, *calling for the arrest of Gawker's owners and managers:



> The website knows the law, and says "you know -- I'm going to do it anyway. I dare you to come get me."


*Associated Press today, on Todd Palin's refusal* to comply with the Alaska State Senate's subpoena:



> Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband has refused to testify in the investigation of his wife's alleged abuse of power, and key lawmakers said Thursday that uncooperative witnesses are *effectively sidetracking the probe until after Election Day.*
> 
> Todd Palin, who participates in state business in person or by e-mail, was among 13 people subpoenaed by the Alaska Legislature. Palin's lawyer sent a letter to the lead investigator saying Palin _"objected to the probe"_ and would not appear to testify on Friday. . . .
> 
> *Ignoring a legislative subpoena is punishable by a fine up to $500 and up to six months in jail under Alaska law. *But courts are reluctant to intervene in legislative matters and the full Legislature must be in session to bring contempt charges, Wielechowski said. *The Legislature is not scheduled to convene until January.*


It is illegal in the State of Alaska to fail to comply with legislative subpoenas. But Todd Palin has announced he will do exactly that which the law prohibits for one simple reason -- because nothing can be done about it until after the election, and even then, it's unlikely much will be done to punish him for breaking the law._ Sarah Palin has similarly ordered all of her aides to refuse to comply with these subpoenas even though doing so is illegal, because she, too, doubts there will be consequences for this illegal behavior._ Or, as Bill O'Reilly put it in his righteous Rule of Law tirade: "I'm going to do it anyway. I dare you to come get me."

There is no doubt that the Legislature has the right to investigate and that these Subpoenaas are lawfully issued. *Before Palin was selected as McCain's running mate*, virtually everyone in Alaska -- *including her *-- agreed that the Legislature _could and should _investigate these allegations. *From The Anchorage Daily News, July 29, 2008:*



> "The governor has said all along that she will fully cooperate with an investigation and her staff will cooperate as well," [Palin spokeswoman Sharon] Leighow said. . . .
> 
> *Supporters as well as detractors of the Republican governor generally agreed the legislative investigation is needed *into the circumstances leading up to Monegan's dismissal. . . .
> 
> Sen. Gene Therriault of North Pole, leader of the small Republican Senate minority that generally has backed Palin's policies, said *he expects the governor will cooperate*, and if she's cleared, the investigation could strengthen her. . . . Senate President Lyda Green,* a Wasilla Republican and member of the Legislative Council, said the investigation is "absolutely" needed.*


In August, Palin *even praised herself for only suspending, *rather than firing, one of her top aides who demanded -- in a recorded telephone call -- that the Police Commissioner fire her ex-brother-in-law by making this argument: "'While he is a state employee the governor can direct him to cooperate with [the Legislature's investigator], fulfilling her pledge that the administration will cooperate fully with the investigation,' [Palin spokesman] McAllister said."

But now, with the heavy involvement of the McCain campaign, Gov. Palin has embraced core GOP "principles" -- political officials can unilaterally exempt themselves from the rule of law and the people, through their elected representatives in the legislature, are powerless to learn what their political leaders have done. That, of course, has been the guiding principle of the Bush administration -- as one Bush official after the next has simply refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas as part of investigations into serious allegations of lawbreaking and other wrongdoing -- and the McCain campaign and the Palins are leaving no doubt that they are full-fledged believers in these corrupt and lawless prerogatives.

This sort of lawless arrogance doesn't merely insulate political officials from any accountability, though it does do that. It also destroys the crux of representative democracy. The ability of a legislature to investigate what the Executive Branch is doing isn't some ancillary Congressional function, but is as important -- arguably more so -- than the legislative power to enact laws. It's how the people ensure that Executive Branch officials are accountable and are required to adhere to the law. In his chapter he entitled *On the Proper Function of Representative Bodies,* John Stuart Mill explained why:



> _Instead of the function of governing, for which it is radically unfit,* the proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government: to throw the light of publicity on its acts: to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable; to censure them if found condemnable, and, if the men who compose the government abuse their trust, or fulfill it in a manner which conflicts with the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office*, and either expressly or virtually appoint their successors_.


And in his *widely-cited 1885 essay on the proper role of Congress,* Woodrow Wilson made clear:



> *It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees.* It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. . . .
> 
> Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. *The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function*.


_*That compliance*_ by political officials with legislative subpoenas is a linchpin of how our government was designed to function was explained quite clearly long ago by the Supreme Court *in its 1927 decision in McGrain v. Daugherty:*



> We are of opinion that the power of inquiry -- *with process to enforce it* -- is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. It was so regarded and employed in American Legislatures before the Constitution was framed and ratified. . . . . *Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted.* In that period the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate-indeed, was treated as inhering in it.


These are the vital safeguards, the core democratic functions, which the Bush administration and now the McCain/Palin campaign are flagrantly subverting.

Anyone with doubts about the seriousness of this abuse of power investigation *should just listen to the audio recording of Gov. Palin's top aide,* *Frank Bailey, calling the Police Commissioner's office and badgering them about firing Palin's ex-brother-in-law, repeatedly suggesting he was doing so on behalf of Palin. *

The sleaze and impropriety oozes off the audio. That was but one of dozens of similar communications made by close Palin associates, including her husband, prior to the time Palin fired the Police Commissioner. Palin quite implausibly denies that they did so at her behest, and has offered an endless series of shifting explanations for the firing. That's what the Legislature is trying to investigate by questioning her husband and top aides -- and that is what the Palins are now overtly impeding by breaking the law: i.e., refusing to comply with legislative subpoenas. 

:******: :******: :******: 
* * * * *

*All of this unmistakably signals that a McCain/Palin administration would mean a continuation of the worst abuses of the Bush/Cheney administration. Worse, it signals their commitment to the ongoing disappearance of Congress from how our country is governed, in lieu of all-powerful and unchecked Executive leaders* (that is to say nothing about what an Obama/Biden administration would mean for any of that).

Much of that trend is due to the willingness of Congress to make itself powerless and worthless. Much of it is due to an increasingly authoritarian elite class that is eager to be ruled by unchecked executive Daddy-figures -- benevolent monarchs -- who rule without limits but for our own Good (see, as but one illustrative example, *this celebration from George Mason University Law Professor* over the fact that the people (i.e., Congress) are playing no role in the ongoing, extraordinary, and almost entirely secret nationalization of the financial services and insurance industries and the forced assumption by citizens of their debt):



> The other day, I offered my view that Congress today is fundamentally a silly place stocked with silly people. This latest situation illustrates the principle. I don't know whether Paulson and Bernanke are doing the right thing (I tend to think not).* But I know for certain that I'd rather that they be making these decisions than Congress. . . . *
> 
> As Congress has become more dysfunctional and unable to address matters of public importance, the Executive Branch has stepped in to fill the gap. In turn, this allows Congress to behave in an even less-serious manner, which_ in turn necessitates further action by the Executive Branch_. If the Executive waited for Congress to do anything, nothing would get done. So Congress essentially spends its time bloviating and posturing, while the unelected beavers in the bowels of the bureaucracy crank out federal regulations. . . .
> 
> _Put more generally, Congress's ridiculousness has increasingly caused it *to forfeit its status a co-equal branch of government*. . . .In the abstract, I am no fan of the administrative state and see the theoretical value of political accountability. But if I have to choose who I'd trust to deal with the big decisions, it is hard to make the case that Congress as it actually exists is who we want in charge_.


And it's that precise anti-democratic mentality -- "the people don't need any say in what our Government does; it's best if the President rules without any political accountability" -- that has enabled Bush officials and now their would-be GOP successors simply to decide that they're above the law and that they can exempt themselves from investigation and accountability.

It ought to be striking to read an article that reports this: 

*(a)* X is illegal under the law, punishable with fines and prison;

*(b)* Political official P just announced that s/he will do X;

*(c)* The reason is that P knows there will be no consequences for X.

That's the elimination of the rule of law and core democratic processes expressed in elementary logical terms, and that's what the AP just reported yesterday about the Palins' refusal to comply with subpoenas, and *what media outlets have been reporting for years about what Bush officials have done. *But it's not striking. It's now the standard way our lawless government functions.

If you all have wondered what it is that angers me so much about Bush, and why I hate the idea of Palin so bad, you only need read this article.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

Fini.

Ryan


----------



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

ryan
everything you have posted about palin has been proven to be false
better luck next time


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

crna said:


> ryan
> everything you have posted about palin has been proven to be false
> better luck next time


don't believe me, go look at my sources. Sorry CRNA that is a load of crap.

Please do tell looking at the sources above, what is "false" about this post? Seems to me alot of folks who are in a position to truly "know" what is going on, and who have much more extensive experience than you or I are seeing a HUGE issue here. This is no smoke and mirrors.

It's time for Palin to undergo a reckoning with what she has done.


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

R y a n said:


> It's time for Palin to undergo a reckoning with what she has done.


If she actually did it, I completely agree.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

funny how no one in Alaska or anywhere else had any interest in this issue, until she became the VP select.......just amazing how much **** 
the NO-bama thugs could dig up in a few weeks, they have been working over time and of course EVERYTHING they have uncovered is absolutely true!  :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> funny how no one in Alaska or anywhere else had any interest in this issue, until she became the VP select.......just amazing how much &$#*
> the NO-bama thugs could dig up in a few weeks, they have been working over time and of course EVERYTHING they have uncovered is absolutely true!  :lol:


You're on drugs H94

Go look again at my articles. They even show from their OWN STATE NEWSPAPER that EVERYONE in the state, INCLUDING the GOV PALIN had an interest.



R y a n said:


> There is no doubt that the Legislature has the right to investigate and that these Subpoenaas are lawfully issued. *Before Palin was selected as McCain's running mate*, virtually everyone in Alaska -- *including her *-- agreed that the Legislature _could and should _investigate these allegations. *From The Anchorage Daily News, July 29, 2008:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There was a BI-partisan effort to have a hearing on the issue. Everyone had requested an interest in getting to the bottom of the issue.

Can't you read?

edit: HERE read above AGAIN. I clipped it out for you.

You really need to read before you type and reply.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> don't believe me, go look at my sources.


Thats the problem R Y A N, we are, a left wing blog out of San Francisco is not to good. Find something reliable once please R Y A N


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

g/o said:


> > don't believe me, go look at my sources.
> 
> 
> Thats the problem R Y A N, we are, a left wing blog out of San Francisco is not to good. Find something reliable once please R Y A N


Sorry G/O that tired reply won't fly this time either.

Let's see...

The author is Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional law and civil rights litigator _from New York_. He's the author of two New York Times Bestselling books: "How Would a Patriot Act?" (May, 2006), a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, and "A Tragic Legacy" (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy.

The article references are The Anchorage Daily News, an AP article sourced from the Columbus Ohio Dispatch, the Wilson Center on Politics, The US Supreme Court Website, the State of Alaska Website, the Washington Post, CBS News, ad nauseum.... get the point?

Is the whole world a conspiracy theory wearing your sunglasses? It doesn't get much more varied than that!

Hell that is 10 times the amount of references many pundits here ever try putting into their articles. All they have is a bunch of one liners and internet forwards.

Right. Keep trying folks. This is a nasty issue that will hound Palin for years if she doesn't clear it up now.

Seriously think about it! What does she have to hide? Why the delay? Why not get it out of the way now? Why the sudden change of heart? Hmm? What an opportunity to come out smelling like roses to the American people that you are a person of character who is willing to stand up honorably for your actions if done by proper procedure and with proper oversight.

Why the worry if this could benefit the McCain campaign?

Hmm????


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> The author is Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional law and civil rights litigator from New York. He's the author of two New York Times Bestselling books: "How Would a Patriot Act?" (May, 2006), a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, and "A Tragic Legacy" (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy.


Again need anymore be said? Greenwald is a left wing hack, no biggie the right wing has them also.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

g/o said:


> > The author is Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional law and civil rights litigator from New York. He's the author of two New York Times Bestselling books: "How Would a Patriot Act?" (May, 2006), a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, and "A Tragic Legacy" (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy.
> 
> 
> Again need anymore be said? Greenwald is a left wing hack, no biggie the right wing has them also.


fair enough...

Now instead of attacking the messenger, go look at the facts presented in my original 2 posts. Go tell me that anything that he or I have said is wrong.

Hack or not, he presents a compelling diatribe on Palin and her husband's behaviour, and makes an accurate connection on this type of behaviour being something she takes with her to the White House.

Let's hear everyone's thoughts on the message presented.

*gets popcorn and beverage*

You really can't do it, so you revert back to needing to sidetrack this post with other irrelevent things.

Ryan


----------



## striped1 (Aug 17, 2005)

ponderous, frickin ponderous


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

R y a n said:


> Now instead of attacking the messenger
> Ryan


Rule 1 always attack the messenger :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Here's some more "evidence" for you Plainsman. This isn't some trumped up conspiracy, no matter how much you try and downplay the significance of this


Like I said I will wait and see. You have had a lot undebatable facts before that turned out bs. Remember the down syndrome child that was really her daughters? No thanks, I'm not thirsty for cool-aid. I'm not saying it's false, I'm not saying it's true. There is just to much bs out there, and to much that has proven false. You want to jump on that bandwagon be my guest. Me I don't like egg on my face, and your never wrong when you admit you don't know.

I agree with hunter94 because most of the things you have brought up here have been proven false. There is an army of liberals in Alaska right now trying to find any dirt they can. It don't have to be real as long as no one proves it false until after the election. I think that is the call for investigation into the troopergate. They would not want to find any answer until the day after the election. Woooops we were wrong, soooooorry.

If this charge is right or wrong remains to be seen. Meanwhile they will throw as much crap as they can in hopes some will stick. Ryan if you run across a claim that she is an illegal alien from Venus don't believe it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > Here's some more "evidence" for you Plainsman. This isn't some trumped up conspiracy, no matter how much you try and downplay the significance of this
> 
> 
> Like I said I will wait and see. You have had a lot undebatable facts before that turned out bs. Remember the down syndrome child that was really her daughters? No thanks, I'm not thirsty for cool-aid. I'm not saying it's false, I'm not saying it's true. There is just to much bs out there, and to much that has proven false. You want to jump on that bandwagon be my guest. Me I don't like egg on my face, and your never wrong when you admit you don't know.


Fair enough. I can respect the fact you'd like to wait. So would all of the Republican Party who is extremely nervous over having this come to light right before the election. Once again the paltry little vetting that took place over that "Maverick" McCain did by pulling her name out of a hat is coming back to bite him in the azz hard.

I'm sure the Republican handlers are very fearful of this story gaining steam.

So instead we just hear a response that says I'm not saying it is true or false. I'm not saying anything.

The problem is this isn't some type of conspiracy theory like the Palin Pregnancy story. This story is entirely different. We know that it happened... we know it exists.. we know the facts that existed on this story from newspaper articles written BEFORE she was even a hint of a candidate, and no political SPIN was done by either side.

There are things we DO know once you start looking at stuff that existed before the "media circus" and "Democratic fact finders" converged on Alaska.



Plainsman said:


> I agree with hunter94 because most of the things you have brought up here have been proven false. There is an army of liberals in Alaska right now trying to find any dirt they can. It don't have to be real as long as no one proves it false until after the election. I think that is the call for investigation into the troopergate. They would not want to find any answer until the day after the election. Woooops we were wrong, soooooorry.


I'm sorry. "Most?" of the things I've brought up have been proven false? Really now? Like what? The ONLY thing that has proven false is the Palin Pregnancy rumor being her child's. That has been proven erroneous.

Nothing else has.

That "Army of Liberals" that is in Alaska doesn't have to "dig up" dirt. The dirt is everywhere they look. Heck she is a walking hypocrite on many Republican core values. Teen pregnancy, Sex out of wedlock, Abstinence Only education, Dirty politics, banning books she doesn't like, Using Private email addresses to conduct government business illegally, the list goes on and on.



Plainsman said:


> If this charge is right or wrong remains to be seen. Meanwhile they will throw as much crap as they can in hopes some will stick.


The fact of the matter remains. She is now publically flaunting Contempt of Court charges, as is her husband. That is a fact.

At first she was all for digging in to that investigation. Now she all of a sudden changed her theme... why?

There is no "issue" here. These are facts. This is exactly what is happening. You all can twist and distort certain things.

But not on this...

This is cut and dry. Noone on the Republican Party is disputing anything I am saying on this. They are flat out acting above the law on this.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

:eyeroll: uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> There is no "issue" here. These are facts. This is exactly what is happening. You all can twist and distort certain things.


But we heard that before, even about the down syndrome child. You present everything as undeniable fact and everyone else is full of bs. Then it turns out the opposite. You better go check out factcheck.org and you will find about five or six of those things you posted were wrong. As a matter of fact I posted them on this form.

As far as her canning a trooper that was driving drunk I say good for her. I don't care if it was because she was vindictive or what the reason was. If we have a drunk trooper here I hope our governor cans him and anyone that sticks up for him. Good for her if it is true, shame on the media if it isn't.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=57745

Another example was the book ban, the teach creationism, etc. You have to start looking at some sites with credability Ryan.

A good piece in factcheck about sliming Palen. Talk about irresponsible garbage. Check into it further Ryan. About 80% of those straws you grasped at were false, simply made up garbage.

Don't get me wrong Ryan I like you, but I am going to hold your feet to the fire on all the crap you dig up at these wacked out blogs.



> Sliming Palin
> September 8, 2008
> Updated: September 9, 2008
> False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
> ...


Some of these accusations are 180 degrees from the truth. For a full explanation go to:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... palin.html

google "false rumors about Palin" once and see what you come up with. The credability of many far left blogs has been lost and I would doubt anything they have to say until it is proven. Isn't that the way our legal system works anyway. Anything else is simply an attempt at damage at any cost.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Who frickin cares she fired an appointed person whom serves at her leisure that was not following the direction dictated by superiors. Sounds like a clear cut case of insubordination to me.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

r y a n,

what can we expect? i have seen so many deals cut at a local level 
( population under 5,000 ) that nothing surprises me. if we can't have trust and honesty at a local level we won't have it at higher levels. politics is the worst thing ever. look at the people you work and live with. they would screw you to get ahead in a heartbeat. it is everyone for themselves and i want it now. the hell with who gets hurt along the way.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

6162rk, I agree. You know why you see corruption in local politics so often? Because like small cars, the smaller the politician the cheaper it is to own one.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

southdakbearfan said:


> Who frickin cares she fired an appointed person whom serves at her leisure that was not following the direction dictated by superiors. Sounds like a clear cut case of insubordination to me.


 :beer:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

southdakbearfan said:


> Who frickin cares she fired an appointed person whom serves at her leisure that was not following the direction dictated by superiors. Sounds like a clear cut case of insubordination to me.


It's a little more complex than that simplistic analysis

He didn't "serve at her leisure"

:roll:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Ryan wrote:


> You're on drugs H94


Can the rest of us expect this kind of latitude in the future?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Csquared said:


> Ryan wrote:
> 
> 
> > You're on drugs H94
> ...


I'd expect that you'd be able to see that I was using an informal phrase c2... read my post.. it was meant to be a saying... nothing attacking, but rather a play on words..

In the past month I've been called every name in the book, with some hinting at my credibility, my intelligence, my sanity, my panic level, my jealousy level, on and on and on and on

I don't see you protecting me from those comments when they are launched my way? :huh:

nice try though.. 

(nice hijack of my post to stray from the topic too... you know.. if you can't attack the message... attack the...)


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Ryan wrote:


> with some hinting at my credibility, my intelligence, my sanity, my panic level, my jealousy level, on and on and on and on


Did you say "hinting" ???? 

I guess all those doing the hinting must be the insane ones then :wink:

But trust me when I say we are no longer expecting any credibility. :roll:

But it's all in good fun, and all I really wanted was a clarification of the rules, because I'm sure I'll get no argument when I say that anyone who suggests we pick a president based on how many cars he owns is certainly spending too much time on the wrong end of some kind of pipe !!!!! :lol:

:beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ryan, I'll just say you are amplifying the petty, and disregarding the important. I just can't figure out why.

Did anyone notice how inappropriate the Hollywood crowd was at the Emmy awards? I know it's petty, but I like to point out the petty. I like people to see it because it means there is nothing important to complain about. Make sense?

The confusing thing is the Hollywood crowd is the super rich and they like Obama. How does that work. Isn't McCain supposed to be the one that is out of touch with the middle class. If that was true wouldn't the super rich Hollywood crowd like him? hmmmmmm


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Csquared said:


> Ryan wrote:
> 
> 
> > with some hinting at my credibility, my intelligence, my sanity, my panic level, my jealousy level, on and on and on and on
> ...


ok ok I shoulda known I was setting myself up for that one.

Yep no argument here.... that is why I was saying from the get go that I wasn't making a judgement... rather just an observation that goes towards which candidate can relate to the folks voting for him more...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Ryan, I'll just say you are amplifying the petty, and disregarding the important. I just can't figure out why.





Plainsman said:


> Did anyone notice how inappropriate the Hollywood crowd was at the Emmy awards? I know it's petty, but I like to point out the petty. I like people to see it because it means there is nothing important to complain about. Make sense?


Umm... you made my point above.

If you are implying the Palin TrooperGate is petty, I'm afraid you aren't in touch with the rest of the country on this. I've already shown you the CNN poll earlier this evening that showed Yes indeed folks want it addressed.



Plainsman said:


> The confusing thing is the Hollywood crowd is the super rich and they like Obama. How does that work. Isn't McCain supposed to be the one that is out of touch with the middle class. If that was true wouldn't the super rich Hollywood crowd like him? hmmmmmm


I'm not going to get into why their politics is liberal. It is likely more to do with the Bush policy in Iraq. I'll leave it at that for now.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

Edit-no personal attack stick to topics and issues.....how many more of these are there?

Bobm


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If you are implying the Palin TrooperGate is petty


Nope, I got the subject confused with how many cars, how many houses, and all the other small meaningless things. On this subject I am still with the wait and see. Jumping the gun often puts egg on your face and I would rather have egg just sliding past the lips.

I am very strong on wait and see because so many things about Palin have proven false. You should know that since many of your posts were proven wrong. I repeated the references for that twice now. Wouldn't you want to wait this time before jumping on another bandwagon?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Csquared said:


> Ryan wrote:
> 
> 
> > You're on drugs H94
> ...


It sure would make my and Plainsmans job a lot easier if all of you would turn it down a notch on this type of stuff


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Lets take a different tact on this and then drop it. Here is the question in my mind: Is this true, or is it simply another unfounded media attack. I think it could be true on one hand, but on the other hand why was nothing said or done until she was named VP with McCain. There is a possibility, but something stinks too.

I would guess that everyone thinks this way if they can put aside their partisanship for a moment. Give me your opinions then on that aspect as I am still trying to decide myself. I just want to take a long hard look before I leap.

On the other hand if the guy was DUI when driving a state vehicle do I really care why he was fired? Do you care?


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

R y a n said:


> southdakbearfan said:
> 
> 
> > Who frickin cares she fired an appointed person whom serves at her leisure that was not following the direction dictated by superiors. Sounds like a clear cut case of insubordination to me.
> ...


Actually, every "appointed" official serves at the leisure of their particular chief. In state government, that is the governor. Just like secretaries of state and attorney generals serve the president until they fire them, PERIOD.

Just like in South Dakota, every state employee that is exempt, which is quite a lot more than anyone knows, can be replaced with a phone call, and no reason, because they are not considered to be of protected status.


----------

