Lots to admire in them reformin' mavericks.....

On Oct 11, 11:01*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 11, 1:02 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
If the report is true, she should pay the price as anyone else would.
The same as Obama should.

Who made up the commission looking into the abuse of power? *Was it a
majority of Democrats that would prefer to disgrace a Republican VP
candidate during a critical pre-election period or was it an objective
independent group?

*It was a majority of Republicans, 8 of them to 4 Democrats, actually,
and they voted unanimously. *And they were given the charge to do this
by the Alaskan legislature, composed of 36 Republicans and 24
Democrats with (naturally) a Republican Senate President, in a state
with a Republican governor, a Republican Lieutenant Governor and a
100% Republican Congressional delegation. *So, using your criteria, it
most definitely was *not* an "objective independent group" but one
tilted very heavily in Palin's favor.

So when is the trial date? *Or didn't they find that there were any laws
broken?

And IF they do go to trial, when do we hold most of congress to the same
standards?

You ought to at least read the various press release if you want to
comment sensibly on such matters, No laws were broken, and no action
will be taken.

Indeed, at least one senator advised extreme caution in interpreting
the published findings.

On Oct 11, 5:01*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
So when is the trial date? *Or didn't they find that there were any laws
broken?

I don't know, I'm sure you could find that out as easily as anyone
else.

And IF they do go to trial, when do we hold most of congress to the same
standards?

Election day.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:20:21 -0400, JR wrote:

Peaceful Bill wrote:
JR wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27105917/

- JR

MSNBC!!??!!??!

ROTFLMAO. ZERO credibility.


OK. How 'bout:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us...rooper.html?hp

Oh, no. Of course not. NYT, only the U.S.'s newspaper of record,
recognized globally as such, and therefore, of course, for the
red-blooded Murcan illiterate, of ZERO credibity,

so.....

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-commissioner/

Fox News. You brown-shirts like that 'un, no?

Spin THAT, Sparky.

What's to spin? She did it. She "abused her power." Every executive,
political or private business, has done it. In fact, every person with
power has likely "abused" it at some point. And so what? She got her
sister's husband, who admits he was a drunk who smacked around his wife
and kids AND acknowledges he deserved being fired, fired "outside of
channels." Was it "abuse?" Absolutely. Was it "wrong?" I'd offer
that if she weren't McCain's running mate, 90-something percent of US
adults would say no. If it had been a "non-personal" thing where she
had "abused her power" to rid the force of some unrelated wife-beating,
kid-Tasering drunk, not only would most folks not care, most would
support the "abuse of power."

HTH,
R

- JR

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:26:29 -0500, rdean3REMOVE wrote:


What's to spin? She did it. She "abused her power." Every executive,
political or private business, has done it. In fact, every person with
power has likely "abused" it at some point. And so what? She got her
sister's husband, who admits he was a drunk who smacked around his wife
and kids AND acknowledges he deserved being fired, fired "outside of
channels." Was it "abuse?" Absolutely. Was it "wrong?" I'd offer
that if she weren't McCain's running mate, 90-something percent of US
adults would say no. If it had been a "non-personal" thing where she
had "abused her power" to rid the force of some unrelated wife-beating,
kid-Tasering drunk, not only would most folks not care, most would
support the "abuse of power."

HTH,
R

A little confused by facts, aren't you? Starting with, the sister's
husband wasn't the one fired.

wrote in message
t...
Starting with, the sister's
husband wasn't the one fired.


I don't know who you are, but quit putting those disturbing facts into a
completely illogical debate!g
Tom

wrote:
rdean3REMOVE wrote:
What's to spin? She did it. She "abused her power." ...

A little confused by facts, aren't you? Starting with, the sister's
husband wasn't the one fired.

Rick isn't confused about the facts, he was just quoting the
title of a comedy album.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:49:51 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:26:29 -0500, rdean3REMOVE wrote:


What's to spin? She did it. She "abused her power." Every executive,
political or private business, has done it. In fact, every person with
power has likely "abused" it at some point. And so what? She got her
sister's husband, who admits he was a drunk who smacked around his wife
and kids AND acknowledges he deserved being fired, fired "outside of
channels." Was it "abuse?" Absolutely. Was it "wrong?" I'd offer
that if she weren't McCain's running mate, 90-something percent of US
adults would say no. If it had been a "non-personal" thing where she
had "abused her power" to rid the force of some unrelated wife-beating,
kid-Tasering drunk, not only would most folks not care, most would
support the "abuse of power."

HTH,
R

A little confused by facts, aren't you? Starting with, the sister's
husband wasn't the one fired.

Yeah, that should been "She was attempting to get..." IAC, the rest
remains. She "abused her power." She didn't do it for financial gain
and the reason is one that few with quarrel with if she wasn't the GOP
veep candidate. As far as firing the PSC (or whatever Mondrigan's ???
title was), that was found to be "lawful" and while the BIL's situation
was part of that firing, it wasn't the sole reason, nor, apparently, the
substantive reason. IMO, the "abuse" was the attempt at getting the BIL
fired, not the firing of the PSC. Did the replacement PSC fire the BIL?

TC,
R

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
t...
Starting with, the sister's
husband wasn't the one fired.


I don't know who you are, but quit putting those disturbing facts into a
completely illogical debate!g
Tom

I find it simply disgusting that some know-it-all lurker comes in here and
hands R'ah Dean his ass in two sentences!

Priceless.

"Yeah, I kilt him. So what! He needed killin'. He was an abortion doctor.
People kill each other everyday, it's no big deal, right?"

Op --of course irrationalizing that political abuse of power is just an
everyday affair and nothing to worry about is what R'ah Dean does best.--


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:14:41 -0400, "Mr Opus McDopus"
wrote:


"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
t...
Starting with, the sister's
husband wasn't the one fired.


I don't know who you are, but quit putting those disturbing facts into a
completely illogical debate!g
Tom

I find it simply disgusting that some know-it-all lurker comes in here and
hands R'ah Dean his ass in two sentences!

Priceless.

"Yeah, I kilt him. So what! He needed killin'. He was an abortion doctor.
People kill each other everyday, it's no big deal, right?"

Hardly. And I'd offer that _every_ person on ROFF has "abused their
power" in form or another and rationalized it to themselves. Had this
been a Trooper with a good record who just happened to be divorcing her
sister, it would have been "wrong" of Palin to attempt to get him fired.

Should the people of Alaska be made aware of her "abuse?" Yes. Do I
think such "abuse" should influence, negatively or positively, them
(should she run for reelection) or national voters? No.

HTH,
R

Op --of course irrationalizing that political abuse of power is just an
everyday affair and nothing to worry about is what R'ah Dean does best.--


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Oct 12, 5:13*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:49:51 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:26:29 -0500, rdean3REMOVE wrote:

What's to spin? *She did it. *She "abused her power." *Every executive,
political or private business, has done it. *In fact, every person with
power has likely "abused" it at some point. *And so what? *She got her
sister's husband, who admits he was a drunk who smacked around his wife
and kids AND acknowledges he deserved being fired, fired "outside of
channels." *Was it "abuse?" *Absolutely. *Was it "wrong?" *I'd offer
that if she weren't McCain's running mate, 90-something percent of US
adults would say no. *If it had been a "non-personal" thing where she
had "abused her power" to rid the force of some unrelated wife-beating,
kid-Tasering drunk, not only would most folks not care, most would
support the "abuse of power."

HTH,
R

A little confused by facts, aren't you? *Starting with, the sister's
husband wasn't the one fired.

Yeah, that should been "She was attempting to get..." *IAC, the rest
remains. *She "abused her power." *She didn't do it for financial gain
and the reason is one that few with quarrel with if she wasn't the GOP
veep candidate. *As far as firing the PSC (or whatever Mondrigan's ???
title was), that was found to be "lawful" and while the BIL's situation
was part of that firing, it wasn't the sole reason, nor, apparently, the
substantive reason. *IMO, the "abuse" was the attempt at getting the BIL
fired, not the firing of the PSC. *Did the replacement PSC fire the BIL?

TC,
R

Do you think in abbreviations as well? Some of your rubbish might
make more sense, ( assuming it made any in the first place), if it was
even readable and understandable.

IAC? PSC? BIL?

Apart from which the gentleman found your weakness immediately, you
didn´t know the facts, and once again shot yourself in the foot.