Stand Your Ground

Article here (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/california.palin.flap/?hpt=T2).  Now I'm starting to see what the presidency represents to this woman:  a feather in her cap, justifying an endless array of luxuries to which she will be entitled.  Oh, and freedom and justice?  Whatever...  "Jeeves!  Get me my Perrier!"

Trashed document outlines alleged perks for Palin
April 15, 2010
CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/california.palin.flap/?hpt=T2 (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/california.palin.flap/?hpt=T2)



(CNN) -- First-class commercial air travel for two or a private jet -- "must be a Lear 60 or larger" -- from Alaska to California and back. A deluxe hotel suite "registered under an alias." And two unopened bottles of still water with "bendable straws."

That's what former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin wanted from a California state college foundation as part of her speaking agreement, according to a draft of a confidential contract allegedly lifted from a Dumpster by two students.

That a publicly funded college would consider spending money in this fashion sparked controversy. But that the speaker was none other than Palin has taken the flap to a whole new level.

Attorney General Jerry Brown (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/jerry_brown) opened an investigation Tuesday into the finances of the California State University Stanislaus Foundation, which raises money for the university and booked Palin (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/sarah_palin) to headline its June event.

"We are taking this action to make sure that the money raised goes toward the intended educational purposes and not a dollar is wasted or misspent," said Brown, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate.

State Sen. Leland Yee, also a Democrat, has demanded to see the speaking contract, citing the public records Act. At a Tuesday news conference, Yee said any destruction of requested documents violated the law.

CSU President Hamid Shirvani said the foundation's offices are on university grounds, but it is a charity -- not a public institution -- and as such, is not covered by the Public Records Act.

"We welcome the investigation and expect it will clarify how a foundation document could have ended up in a state senator's hands," said Shirvani, also a member of the foundation's board.

He said he believes the document was stolen from a recycling bin in the office of the foundation's executive director.

But students Alicia Lewis and Ashli Briggs, who presented the pages at a news conference, disputed that Wednesday.

"We just took the documents, as they were stacked, out of the Dumpster," Lewis said. "Inside of it was just pages four through nine of the Sarah Palin contract."

The document did not state Palin's fee for the upcoming speaking engagement. In the past, she has reportedly been paid as much as $100,000.

Aides to the former Alaska governor referred inquiries to Palin's speaking agency, which did not return calls Wednesday.

Shirvani said the contract forbids her sum from being disclosed, but the issue of her fee is irrelevant because the cost will be paid for entirely by the foundation, not with taxpayers' money.

Shirvani said the foundation was simply interested in raising money for the university and that's how it billed the June 25 Palin event. It sold out quickly, he said, and will net an unprecedented $200,000 or more for the university.

"We're not taking your money, state money, to give it to Sarah Palin," he said.

One Washington publicist said such specific requests from a speaking agency are not out of the ordinary.

"I didn't really think it looked unusual," said Linda Roth, who handles events and fundraisers for charities and celebrities, including the Cardiac Foundation of CNN's Larry King.

Asked whether the university intends to discipline the students, Shirvani said that was "not on the radar." But he said that Brown and Yee were using questions about a speaking fee as a pawn for "political theater."

"If I had invited -- I assure you -- [populist filmmaker] Michael Moore (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/michael_moore), or Vice President [Al] Gore, or anybody of that stature, there would be no questions and no eyebrows raised," he said.

The two students denied that their Dumpster-diving was politically motivated. They said they do not belong to any political groups like the College Democrats and insisted they were only seeking transparency on the part of university spending.

In a statement on the university's Web site, foundation board President Matt Swanson said the controversy was unfortunate given declining state support for higher education and the dependence on private fundraisers.

"It's a dark day," he said, "when an entity that's sole purpose is to raise money for student services and university programs is falsely accused of wrongdoing."

CNN's Dugald McConnell, Brian Todd, Dan Simon and Augie Martin contributed to this report.

I'm a political conservative and I gotta say -- I just don't see what anyone sees in this woman.  That, plus the fact that she's directly involved in two cases of parental alienation really says a lot.

And two unopened bottles of still water with "bendable straws."

On my last job, I often attended management meetings with other managers.  One day we all entered the conference room and begin to sit at the big conference table.  

As part of my job, I had to carry a walkie talkie.  I took the walki talkie off, turned it off, sat it on the table in front of me and began to sit down.  

As I was sitting down, I somehow jammed the antennae of the walkie talkie up one of my nostrils.  Ouch, that hurt.   :laughing6:  Sure go ahead and laugh.  It didn't happen to you.  I was embarrassed as heck and quickly pulled the thing out of my nose and pretended it didn't happen.  I looked around and no one had seen.  Great, I didn't want to carry that dufus image on back in addition to all the difficult work that went with my job.  

I've never told a soul until just now.   It has to have been almost 20 years ago, when that happened.  

Who knows what deep, dark secrets Sarah Palin carries around, that made her request a "bendable straw?"  :dontknow:  Think about it.   How Presidential would it look if some photographer snapped a picture of Palin with a straw up her nose?  :occasion18:

Beware, all you moose-lipped MRA's!!!!



At what point does becoming a characture of yourself become an issue?

http://www.funnypicturevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/caribou-barbie-sarah-palin.jpg (http://www.funnypicturevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/caribou-barbie-sarah-palin.jpg)

http://polisat.com/Images/SaveTheCaribou--ForDinner-456x342.jpg (http://polisat.com/Images/SaveTheCaribou--ForDinner-456x342.jpg)

I still think Joe Biden is an even bigger joke.

First class air fare and a "delux" hotel room doesn't seem that extravagant to me and neither does bottled water.

The only thing a little odd is the bendable straw.

Give the woman a break.

Yes, I basically like her. You want to know why?  I have heard her repeatedly say nice things about her husband.

Not too many high profile women do that.

Good for her. She is hardly a genius or perfect but she is better than everybody else in presidential politics except Ron Paul.

I would love to see Ron Paul elected.  He is the only one who would  really start positive change.

I would say she knows how to work. She negotiated for this stuff and got it. That being the case for a man we would applaude him and say hey if they are stupid enough to agree with it so be it.

Jeez MRA, I really didn't need to see that.

I'm with Brian on this one.  If she has the draw to ask for a jet in order to speak then that is what the market will bear.  Don't like it?  Don't hire her.  Seems like they are still making money even with the 100k fee.  What's the problem?  Is she being singled out due to her being a woman?  Being a conservative?  Probably both.  What would the liberals say if the same deal was requested by Robert Redford or Bill Clinton?  (bull clinton?) They likely wouldn't blink.  I'm sure that Bill has asked for more exotic sorts of things then bendable straws for crying out loud.

Her rider is no different than any other politcian or celeb... Seriously.. This is typical lame stream media's attempt ad slandering her... yet again...

Take a look at the riders of some of the other celebs... Shit, NO blue M&Ms in the candy dish?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/index.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/index.html)

As for any first class accommodations, can we look at Al Gore's flight arrangements or Bill Clinton's? I guarantee they demand private jets and all sorts of amenities. Bottled water is nothing. Wanting passage big enough for her family and security isn't unreasonable.

I'm with Brian on this one.  If she has the draw to ask for a jet in order to speak then that is what the market will bear.  Don't like it?  Don't hire her.  Seems like they are still making money even with the 100k fee.  What's the problem?  Is she being singled out due to her being a woman?  Being a conservative?  Probably both.  What would the liberals say if the same deal was requested by Robert Redford or Bill Clinton?  (bull clinton?) They likely wouldn't blink.  I'm sure that Bill has asked for more exotic sorts of things then bendable straws for crying out loud.

So where are NOW and all the left wing women's rights supporters coming to her defense?  I agree with the free speech and free market concepts and am taking this a step further.  She's a woman in the spotlight - empowered and on the stage.  Isn't that something the left wants.  Oh no, only if it's their toady.  I think the left has some hypocrisy at work here.  Same with their handling of Biden, who's one of the biggest dummies to fill the VP slot ever, IMO.  He should be a joke in the media on a daily basis.  Heh, Joke-a-day-Biden, I like the sound of that.

So she's just like Bill Clinton and Al Gore.  Stellar defense, guys.

Quote

I'm with Brian on this one.  If she has the draw to ask for a jet in order to speak then that is what the market will bear.  Don't like it?  Don't hire her.  Seems like they are still making money even with the 100k fee.  What's the problem?  Is she being singled out due to her being a woman?  Being a conservative?  Probably both.  What would the liberals say if the same deal was requested by Robert Redford or Bill Clinton?  (bull clinton?) They likely wouldn't blink.  I'm sure that Bill has asked for more exotic sorts of things then bendable straws for crying out loud.

So where are NOW and all the left wing women's rights supporters coming to her defense?  I agree with the free speech and free market concepts and am taking this a step further.  She's a woman in the spotlight - empowered and on the stage.  Isn't that something the left wants.  Oh no, only if it's their toady.  I think the left has some hypocrisy at work here.  Same with their handling of Biden, who's one of the biggest dummies to fill the VP slot ever, IMO.  He should be a joke in the media on a daily basis.  Heh, Joke-a-day-Biden, I like the sound of that.

Or the fact a double standard is applied to a woman vs a man. Or the implied portrayal that a woman is a spoiled princess for asking for bottled water and a jet big enough to fly in  (not some piper cub out of goober ville).

What's more disturbing is why is the left so involved in character assassination yet make no attempts at actually discussing issues.

She is considered a break from the mold, a down-to-earth hockey mom who isn't afraid to get her hands dirty and engage in non-patrician activities, such as moose hunting.

But apparently the high status and luxury of her high profile have transcended her down-to-earth reputation.  Luxury and status tend to do that.  How can she be any different from any other politician?  The point being, how can she empathize?

We spend a lot of time talking about how powerful people in the legislature vote for and pass laws for the symbolism that this provides them as seeming protectors and crusaders.  But who gets run over in the process is considered a trifling concern.  So if you're wondering whether such a high-status political figure, suffused in luxury, will really care if a man is blocked by court order from entering his own home, or seeing his kids, or incarcerated without due process -- if you're wondering if Sarah Palin is of a different mold -- wonder no more.

She's no different from any of the rest.

How is asking for bottled water and a jet big enough to not be cramped asking for a lot. Except for maybe the bendy straw thing which I can't imagine was a deal breaker.

Hey I think she's opportunistic but the sad situation here is one ruler is used to measure her vs others. So Al Gore gets a pass cause he's flat out flies in private jets (won't even fly commercial) and he's the one screaming about people killing the planet? Where's the integrity there?

How is asking for bottled water and a jet big enough to not be cramped asking for a lot.

Because the average schlep doesn't get luxuries like these.  Come on, a private Lear jet?  If that's not asking for a lot, then what is?

As far as the bottled water, opened and containing bendable straws, that indicates her state of mind.  There's a certain spirit and mentality behind it.  It says, "I am a princess, and I shall be catered to."  It indicates that she is removed from common people, the kind of people who pay the taxes that afford her with these luxuries and are subject to the laws that she would sign if she were again in an executive political role.

Sarah Palin's appeal is the illusion that she is not like an entitled little princess, but rather some sort of rugged bootstrapper who doesn't need fawning adoration and luxurious perks.  She's presented as an authentic true believer who won't abandon her principles.  But apparently that's a lie, and what's worse, it indicates that she cannot empathize.

So she's just like Bill Clinton and Al Gore.  Stellar defense, guys.

I am missing something here, what has she done that needs defending? Other than negotiating a favorable contract for speaking I don't know what Palin has supposed to have done.

It's a nontroversy.  A private citizen can make whatever demands the market will bear.  She sold the lear jet when she was governor, but she got harassed out of that office.  She ever goes back into politics and has the same demands - on the public, not private, dime- and it will be a different case.

Apples.  Oranges.

If I was her I'd be demanding a lot more, especially from these places that can afford it, and wanted to capitalize on my name/presence.  Hell, I made demands when I used to go in and help set up seminars that included motel rooms with a jacuzzi and beer on ice.

Good for her.

Quote from: John Dias on Apr 15, 2010, 11:02 AM

So she's just like Bill Clinton and Al Gore.  Stellar defense, guys.

I am missing something here, what has she done that needs defending? Other than negotiating a favorable contract for speaking I don't know what Palin has supposed to have done.

I agree. She didn't ask for a leer jet. She asked for first class on anything larger than the plane mentioned. Seems reasonable if you have a group with you. And asking for bottled water? Plastic bottles of water is a luxury?

So was she supposed to travel in a beat up dodge ram pickup drinking tap water from a plastic jug? Wouldn't that actually galvanize her image as a hick?

So was she supposed to travel in a beat up dodge ram pickup drinking tap water from a plastic jug? Wouldn't that actually galvanize her image as a hick?

Actually, I think the "Damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't" is kind of the point.  Make sure she is crucified, no matter what.

Quote from: Mr. X on Apr 15, 2010, 02:52 PM

So was she supposed to travel in a beat up dodge ram pickup drinking tap water from a plastic jug? Wouldn't that actually galvanize her image as a hick?

Actually, I think the "Damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't" is kind of the point.  Make sure she is crucified, no matter what.

Yeah I agree. The woman could just do nothing and she would be hounded endlessly.

What's more disturbing is why is the left so involved in character assassination yet make no attempts at actually discussing issues.

I'm sure you recall the old lawyers' adage: "if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts".

I'm a political conservative and I gotta say -- I just don't see what anyone sees in this woman. 

My big issue is illegal immigration and Alaska has a lot of them.  Palin HAS to know illegals are in her state.  And guess who picked her for his running mate?  Juan McAmnesty!

I don't think much of her.

I am not a fan of Palin myself but there are a few curious things about all of this.

Now think here for a second, if they were suddenly shredding all evidence and attempting to cover up what they were planning to give her, why would they "miss" the contract with these demands? Here you suddenly have an unshredded, complete document in the hands of activists who happen to be looking for something just like that.

In other words, something stinks to high heaven on the whole thing. Either it is false and slander so they should be hammered for it or they must have stolen private documents which is a crime. Want to bet there will be nothing done to them though?

As for the actual demands, as long as my taxes are not involved and it is all legal, I couldn't care less. If I was able to make that kind of money with those kinds of demands, many are the same kind I would make. Just change the water to no straw or Coke.

When I used to go out onsite and do software/platform training to office workers, I had a few demands I made - for a reason.

I would demand, depending on whether they had whiteboards or projectors, specific brands of pens, in black and four other colors.  What I got told me a few things - whether they bothered to read it, whether management actually gave a damn (or if the training was just a perfunctory hoop-jump), or whether they were cheap bastards who were fond of cutting corners.  ("Um, yeah, we know we haven't given you the right tools or time to do that ... but ... you need to make it work...." is a profound insight into how a company operates.)

This allowed me to adjust presentations accordingly.

This told me much on whether I wanted to pursue further involvement with this company.

And to be honest, it gave me leverage.  If I wanted an out, I could just say "You didn't live up to the contract - we're done."  or "Fuck your refund.  I told you what I'd need, you didn't deliver, and this section of the contract says I can keep the money.  Sue me, bitches."

I learned this very early in my life when I was called in to install a functional network by X date, and there was a penalty for every day it was delayed.  Trouble is, silly me, they were supposed to install the wiring, and nothing in the contract compelled them to have it ready by that date.  A very frustrating and expensive lesson, but one I learned well.  "That's not our problem" and "We're not contractually obligated to do that" is something often heard.

Even, like Palin, got my own hit job in a paper when a homeless shelter was trying to screw me out of money for services rendered, and dug up some woman who had also been sued by me for non-payment and printed a sob story.  What was omitted was the fact that I HAD to sue for recovery of accounts receivable, or I would lose the right to collect for failing to do so in a timely manner, or to even write it off for not exercising due diligence.

This is why  - especially in the case when you have a figure like Sarah Palin who is hated by the Lefturd media - I take it with a hundred pound grain of salt.

Bottled water and straws? Oh noes, how spoiled of her. It was mentioned on another blog I read that the straws were likely for her to avoid lipstick issues on glasses/bottles or perhaps as mentioned above, a sharp poke in the eye from a straw.

Bendable straws, thats what they're using for character assassination now...

Anyone who is as pro Second Amendment as Palin get my vote......all other rights are subordinate to the right to bear arms.

Anyone who is as pro Second Amendment as Palin get my vote......all other rights are subordinate to the right to bear arms.

Be careful because people change.  I wonder how much Second Amendment legislation Palin aggressively pushed when she was governor.  I don't see her tenaciously demanding more gun rights. 

Be careful because people change.

Well, there are people... and then there are politicians.

Quote from: Virtue on Apr 16, 2010, 09:12 AM

Anyone who is as pro Second Amendment as Palin get my vote......all other rights are subordinate to the right to bear arms.

Be careful because people change.  I wonder how much Second Amendment legislation Palin aggressively pushed when she was governor.  I don't see her tenaciously demanding more gun rights. 

Alaska is about as second amendment friendly as you can get, it's one of a few states that issue permits only for the sake of reciprocity.

And I'd say mocking Jugears about "We'll keep clinging to our guns" this very week demonstrates a measure of commitment to it.

This is definately character assasination, and one based on her gender. Al Gore was likely far worse, and with Bill, well lets just say we all know what he would have been doing with bendy straws.

If you don't like Palin, then debate her on the issues. This crap about her personal life is rediculous if it does not equate to morality. The PAS is something I feel should be on the table. Her personal speaking contracts are just not applicable to her ability to do a job.

palin is a distraction
nothing more nothing less

Bottled water and straws? Oh noes, how spoiled of her. It was mentioned on another blog I read that the straws were likely for her to avoid lipstick issues on glasses/bottles or perhaps as mentioned above, a sharp poke in the eye from a straw.

Anyone who wears bifocals knows how disconcerting it is to have things come into the range of view of both lens at the same time.  Can you imagine an attack of vertigo caused by this and Palin tumbling head over heels (wearing those stiletto heels) into the audience.  No, realistically I can't imagine it either, but no doubt Tina Fey will be doing this soon on SNL.

palin is a distraction
nothing more nothing less

You said it, man...

palin is a distraction
nothing more nothing less

She's a 12 million dollar distraction.  I heard that's what she's earned on her book tour and recent appearances.  For that kind of money, I'd love to be a distraction too.

How long before people get tired of hearing:  "Todd and I,"  "Wasilla," 'in Alaska," etc. will determine her ultimate wealth accumulation, but I don't foresee her needing to toss fish on the old family fishing boat next fishing season.

The more the left hates her, the more I like her. Paul and Palin:2012

For the 12 mil I admire her for that because she is self made. She never married into money nor came from money unlike Huffington and Theresa Heinz Kerry who both essentially lied about their politics to marry a rich old white conservative then switched the moment the guy died.

Also Bill clinton has made over $25 mil alone from speaking engagements. Nobody criticizes him. Al Gore charges $1500 a hand shake.

I respect her for what she did when she was in office both as mayor and as gov.  She slashed the budgets and cut spending.  That is precisely what this country needs instead of a maniac that writes checks for trillions of dollars of your money and my money and prefers poppies over papas. 

Alaska is about as second amendment friendly as you can get, it's one of a few states that issue permits only for the sake of reciprocity.

And I'd say mocking Jugears about "We'll keep clinging to our guns" this very week demonstrates a measure of commitment to it.

Sorry to have to disagree, but anybody can talk the talk.  John Kerry pretended to be an avid hunter while running for president, but what he would have done if elected was most likely a different story.  I don't know if Palin would be a gun grabber, but I don't think she has tenaciously pushed pro-gun legislation or talked with a lot of passion about the subject.  If I was governor, I would question why a permit to carry concealed is needed because that is an infringment of our Second Ammendment rights.  Are machine guns and silencers legal in Alaska?  During her book signing tours, has she ridiculed restrictive gun laws in left leaning states she went through?

Guys, I personally know the Alaska state trooper, Mike Wooten, who used to be Palin's brother-in-law.  She and Todd have a never-ending vendetta against him.  What kind of empathy could she then have for the falsely accused fathers that we advocate for?

Guys, I personally know the Alaska state trooper, Mike Wooten, who used to be Palin's brother-in-law.  She and Todd have a never-ending vendetta against him.  What kind of empathy could she then have for the falsely accused fathers that we advocate for?

John, I have the deepest respect for you. As an MRA, you're Top Ten.

I have no respect for state poopers whose job it is to arrest and incarcerate falsely accused fathers. Your friend has multiple chances monthly, if not weekly,  to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet bows to the powers-that-be in order to stay employed. Like the guys at Nuremburg, he's just doing his job.

I'm not saying that I would be different, just that he's no example to hold up as a defender of falsely accused fathers.

At this point, proof could be presented that she eats babies for breakfast, and I'd still vote for her...because the leftist swallowers hate her.

Quote from: The Gonzman on Apr 16, 2010, 07:21 PM

Alaska is about as second amendment friendly as you can get, it's one of a few states that issue permits only for the sake of reciprocity.

And I'd say mocking Jugears about "We'll keep clinging to our guns" this very week demonstrates a measure of commitment to it.

Sorry to have to disagree, but anybody can talk the talk.  John Kerry pretended to be an avid hunter while running for president, but what he would have done if elected was most likely a different story.  I don't know if Palin would be a gun grabber, but I don't think she has tenaciously pushed pro-gun legislation or talked with a lot of passion about the subject.  If I was governor, I would question why a permit to carry concealed is needed because that is an infringment of our Second Ammendment rights.  Are machine guns and silencers legal in Alaska?  During her book signing tours, has she ridiculed restrictive gun laws in left leaning states she went through?

Dude, in Alaska there is no home rule, and the only way to be more "pro-gun" than their current laws would be to issue guns.  What do you want, blood?

I have no respect for state poopers whose job it is to arrest and incarcerate falsely accused fathers. Your friend has multiple chances monthly, if not weekly,  to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet bows to the powers-that-be in order to stay employed. Like the guys at Nuremburg, he's just doing his job.

+10.  When you have the power to kill someone legally, you have the obligation to be perfect. Every time.  Without fail.  No exceptions.

Wooten failed.

And yes, this would give us less cops, and yes, I regard that as a good thing.  Police should be outnumbered and afraid of citizens in a free society.  Anything else is merely a police state.

I will agree that there should be far less police and they should be more accountable to the public. I won't go so far as to say they should fear the public though. As to the former Alaska State Trooper, the dumb son of a bitch was grabassing around and used a taser on his stepson. That is not the demeanor of anyone I want having a state issued weapon and powers of arrest. Further more an independant investigation cleared Palin of any wrong doing in his case or dismissal. You can tell that is the truth because the Liberals in the MSM gave up trying to use that against Palin about two minutes after it came up.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4154433/senseless-act-of-rage (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4154433/senseless-act-of-rage)

That is why I hate cops.

You guys don't know anything about the taser thing.  Wooten was at home and had his taser with him.  His son was asking him a lot of questions about it, curious to know how much of a shock it delivered.  Wooten had taken training classes in using taser weapons and knew that the absolute lowest setting posed no danger.  The son asked Wooten if he could feel the taser on him, and Wooten said OK as long as it was on the lowest setting.  So Wooten did it, as other family members looked on, including the son's grandfather.  Everyone thought that it was in good fun, including the son.  For weeks and weeks after that, there was no issue and nobody complained about it.  ONLY WHEN WOOTEN'S WIFE FILED FOR DIVORCE did it become some issue that she could use to substantiate her claims that he was some sort of a menace.

This is the pattern that we have seen in countless divorces and DV-related dramas.  Women use the pretext of their vulnerability to exact power and control over those who appear to be less vulnerable than they are.  That's exactly what happened.  And guess what?  After the investigation was completed and all the facts were made clear, Wooten not only kept his job but also got full custody of his older son,

So don't believe what you have watched on CNN, because they fabricate and exaggerate (as you well know).

The son asked Wooten if he could feel the taser on him, and Wooten said OK as long as it was on the lowest setting.

Still: it was incredible stupidity on Wooten's side and he should have lost his law enforcement job just for that. What, a firefighter should be winked at for borrowing a fire truck and rolling his kid in the field with a high-pressure water stream? even if the kid begs for it?

When you have the power to kill someone legally, you have the obligation to be perfect. Every time.  Without fail.  No exceptions.

They babble about "zero tolerance"; are they going to apply it to themselves? Because that is the meaning of the phrase "the rule of law"; namely that the law applies equally to all.

Equally. To All.

You guys don't know anything about the taser thing.  Wooten was at home and had his taser with him.  His son was asking him a lot of questions about it, curious to know how much of a shock it delivered.  Wooten had taken training classes in using taser weapons and knew that the absolute lowest setting posed no danger.  The son asked Wooten if he could feel the taser on him, and Wooten said OK as long as it was on the lowest setting.  So Wooten did it, as other family members looked on, including the son's grandfather.  Everyone thought that it was in good fun, including the son.  For weeks and weeks after that, there was no issue and nobody complained about it.  ONLY WHEN WOOTEN'S WIFE FILED FOR DIVORCE did it become some issue that she could use to substantiate her claims that he was some sort of a menace.

This is the pattern that we have seen in countless divorces and DV-related dramas.  Women use the pretext of their vulnerability to exact power and control over those who appear to be less vulnerable than they are.  That's exactly what happened.  And guess what?  After the investigation was completed and all the facts were made clear, Wooten not only kept his job but also got full custody of his older son,

So don't believe what you have watched on CNN, because they fabricate and exaggerate (as you well know).

There's that plus the fact that they're raking Levi Johnston over the coals now for $1750 per month.  Other than a couple of paid appearances and a photo shoot, the kid's never made more than about $10,000 per year -- so he's basically f*cked.  Add to that the allegations of parental alienation against the Palin family and she seems to me to be no friend to father's rights.

Now I know Levi was a a jackass a lot of the time, but I know that my mother would never want to see the parent of one of her grandchildren wrecked like that. 

Believe what you want, but this woman is an enemy to father's rights.  Her track record is pretty clear on that.

You guys don't know anything ....

So don't believe what you have watched on CNN, because they fabricate and exaggerate (as you well know).

I know he's been divorced five times.  I know he's had state troopers drive him drunk home when if *I* had done it, i'd have done jail time.  I know a whole lot about him, because there is a report on him, issued by the Disciplinary board.  From it, I conclude that he's a pathetic excuse for a man and a pathetic excuse for an officer of the law.  Drinking, violence, abuse of power, cover ups, threats - I believe Palin because there is a whole host of complaints and reprimands outside of that incident that demonstrate that such bad behavior is consistent with his proven bad character.

The incident where he flashed his badge to a tavern owner to bully him into ejecting someone Wooten didn't like demonstrates sufficiently for me that he'd be at home in a Waffen SS uniform.

You don't hook a taser to a kid.  Period.  No excuses.  Just like you don't stick your dick in a 5 year old's mouth even if you have a dozen witnesses saying "She just wanted to see what dick tasted like."  It is just not done.

Believe what you want, but this woman is an enemy to father's rights.  Her track record is pretty clear on that.

Quote from: John Dias on Apr 17, 2010, 09:34 PM

So don't believe what you have watched on CNN, because they fabricate and exaggerate (as you well know).

Unless it Bashes Palin, because as we fnow, a demonstrably left-biased News Station with a track record of selective reporting, half truths, and spin to cast things in the worst possible light for Right-leaning people and issues is the soul of objectivity when it comes to a Political Figure they openly despise.

And Far-Left Palin Hater Kathy Griffin, Winner of the "Friend of Men" award for five consecutive years and Ricky Hollywood's MILF fuckbuddy assures us that Sarah Palin is a Big Meanie.  You can trust her.

Quote from: Gungerassa on Apr 17, 2010, 02:09 PM

Quote from: The Gonzman on Apr 16, 2010, 07:21 PM

Alaska is about as second amendment friendly as you can get, it's one of a few states that issue permits only for the sake of reciprocity.

And I'd say mocking Jugears about "We'll keep clinging to our guns" this very week demonstrates a measure of commitment to it.

Sorry to have to disagree, but anybody can talk the talk.  John Kerry pretended to be an avid hunter while running for president, but what he would have done if elected was most likely a different story.  I don't know if Palin would be a gun grabber, but I don't think she has tenaciously pushed pro-gun legislation or talked with a lot of passion about the subject.  If I was governor, I would question why a permit to carry concealed is needed because that is an infringment of our Second Ammendment rights.  Are machine guns and silencers legal in Alaska?  During her book signing tours, has she ridiculed restrictive gun laws in left leaning states she went through?

Dude, in Alaska there is no home rule, and the only way to be more "pro-gun" than their current laws would be to issue guns.  What do you want, blood?

I'll say this again:

If I was governor, I would question why a permit to carry concealed is needed because that is an infringment of our Second Ammendment rights.  Are machine guns and silencers legal in Alaska?  During her book signing tours, has she ridiculed restrictive gun laws in left leaning states she went through?

Let me add that while Palin was running for VP, I called her office three times and wrote several emails asking what Palin's stand is on illegal immigration.  I got NO replies!  None!  We have a serious drug problem directly related to open borders and the illegal aliens bring those nasty drugs into our country.  Thousands of people per year are murdered by illegal aliens, yet I have not heard her say Americans in all states need to have liberal access to fire arms to protect themselves.

John,

Are you kidding me? The kid asked so he did it? At some point your dad common sense should kick in and you say "NO SON IT WILL HURT YOU".  In the millitary I went to the NBC chamber numerous times for training in the use of my gas mask and chemical suit. If my 6 yearold asked me to set off a CS grenade in the garage just so he could know what it was like I would say no because of that same reason. This guy does not have the type of judgement I want a person with a state issued side arm and LEO powers to have.

If my 6 yearold asked me to set off a CS grenade in the garage just so he could know what it was like I would say no because of that same reason.

Many years ago, when I got a permit to carry CS tear gas in CA, the guy running the training gave us each a drop from a Q-tip on our face.  That was all that was needed to give us an idea of how nasty the stuff was.  I suspect if Officer Wooten had done that to his son, they'd be on his case too, but I can tell you from running around in a closed room full of tear gas with no gas mask on when I was in boot camp, that there's a world of difference between a drop and a room full - as there is between the lowest setting on a tazer and the higher settings.

John,

Are you kidding me? The kid asked so he did it? At some point your dad common sense should kick in and you say "NO SON IT WILL HURT YOU".

Define "hurt."  Does that mean pain, or does it mean injury?  Wooten had received expert certification in tasers and he was fully aware that the lowest setting would NOT cause injury and therefore represented no danger.  Contrast that with Gonzo's comparison in which he likens the non-injurious application of a taser to carnal knowledge by a child.  To that I say, "Are you kidding me?"

I'll say this again:

If I was governor, I would question why a permit to carry concealed is needed because that is an infringment of our Second Ammendment rights. 

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ak.htm (http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ak.htm)

Here are the Gun laws in Alaska:

Rifles and Shotguns

    * Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
    * Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
    * Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
    * Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No

Handguns

    * Permit to purchase handgun? No
    * Registration of handguns? No
    * Licensing of owners of handguns? No
    * Permit to carry handguns? No*

According to the National Rifle Assc., "A permit to carry a concealed handgun is not necessary in Alaska, but permits are available to those who want to carry in states that recognize Alaska permits."

Purchase
No state permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun or handgun.

    * It is unlawful to sell or transfer a firearm capable of being concealed on one's person to anyone who has been convicted of a felony or adjudicated a delinquent minor for conduct that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult. It is an affirmative defense that 10 years or more has elapsed since the unconditional discharge on the prior offense.

    * It is unlawful to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to a person whose physical or mental condition is substantially impaired as a result of an intoxicating liquor or drug, or to sell a firearm to a person less than 18.

More at the site.

So - like Vermont and Arizona, want a gun?  Buy one and carry it concealed.  No permit.

So how much more gun liberty would you have her have made for Alaska?  Exactly?

Are machine guns and silencers legal in Alaska? 

Alaska has no "Assault Weapons" law, and silencers are legal.  However, Federal Retrictions exist

During her book signing tours, has she ridiculed restrictive gun laws in left leaning states she went through?

During her time as Governor, she was instrumental in prohibiting municpalities from putting restrictions on firearms that contravened and Susperseded state law.

Let me add that while Palin was running for VP, I called her office three times and wrote several emails asking what Palin's stand is on illegal immigration.  I got NO replies!  None!  We have a serious drug problem directly related to open borders and the illegal aliens bring those nasty drugs into our country.  Thousands of people per year are murdered by illegal aliens, yet I have not heard her say Americans in all states need to have liberal access to fire arms to protect themselves.

That's right, even though she has mocked people about being a "bitter Clinger", been shown firing an assault rifle, enacted laws as governor to expand gun rights, enacted laws as governor to curb illegal immigration and access of same to state services  - She didn't respond personally to your letter out of millions, or say in so many words your script - which no other politician has, either - so she's a raving bitch.

Want to move the goalposts again?  Or do you just want to admit you don't WANT to like Sarah Palin?

Quote from: BRIAN on Apr 18, 2010, 04:26 PM

John,

Are you kidding me? The kid asked so he did it? At some point your dad common sense should kick in and you say "NO SON IT WILL HURT YOU".

Define "hurt."  Does that mean pain, or does it mean injury?  Wooten had received expert certification in tasers and he was fully aware that the lowest setting would NOT cause injury and therefore represented no danger.  Contrast that with Gonzo's comparison in which he likens the non-injurious application of a taser to carnal knowledge by a child.  To that I say, "Are you kidding me?"

That's bullshit, because when I was trained in tasers, I was informed that even though it was safer than a firearm for the target, and the risk was minimal, that there was a risk of death with each and every use of it, no matter what the setting; and also a risk that someone could shrug it off.  John Wooten needs to go back and beg his instructor to beat him for not paying attention to his lessons.

You're right, though, that was a poor analogy.  For all as sick as it is, a dick in a 5 year old's mouth probably won't kill them, or least has a much less risk that a tasering.

John Wooten is allegedly an adult.  As an adult his responsibility is absolute to tell a child "No, Hell No, and Hell Fucking No" to any request to be subjected to something potentially lethal, no matter how minimal the risk.  He failed.  Epic fail.  And he ought to be in jail for it.

If you love your kid, you don't knowingly expose your kid to something that could plausibly cause injury or death. I would never use a taser on my kid.  But I've let my son climb into tree houses, and go swimming.  His mother is now suggesting that he be allowed to ride his bike home from school, which makes me nervous.  But lots of kids his age are permitted by their parents to ride their bikes home from school, which carries its own risks.

The point is that if Wooten was trained to believe that there was no risk, then why do you liken him to a monster?

By the way, anyone who wants to get information about this case should read the Memorandum of Findings issued by Col. Julia Grimes, a Director of the Alaska State Troopers, here:

http://www.misandryreview.com/pdf/20080717_062016_641.pdf (http://www.misandryreview.com/pdf/20080717_062016_641.pdf)

Quote from: BRIAN on Apr 18, 2010, 04:26 PM

John,

Are you kidding me? The kid asked so he did it? At some point your dad common sense should kick in and you say "NO SON IT WILL HURT YOU".

Define "hurt."  Does that mean pain, or does it mean injury?  Wooten had received expert certification in tasers and he was fully aware that the lowest setting would NOT cause injury and therefore represented no danger.  Contrast that with Gonzo's comparison in which he likens the non-injurious application of a taser to carnal knowledge by a child.  To that I say, "Are you kidding me?"

I would say injury or pain is "Hurt". I am not going to do that to a child no sane person would.  John you know those settings are calibrated to a average adult man right? A low setting might stop a childs heart. This Wooten guy has not got the common sense God gave a goat.

The point is that if Wooten was trained to believe that there was no risk, then why do you liken him to a monster?

Because I do not believe he was trained that there is no risk by any credible program.  I use credible because I am familiar with the device.  If he is not lying, then his "certification" is, demonstrably, worthless; just like if a mechanic was "trained" that pixie farts run an internal combustion engine.

By the way, anyone who wants to get information about this case should read the Memorandum of Findings issued by Col. Julia Grimes, a Director of the Alaska State Troopers, here:

http://www.misandryreview.com/pdf/20080717_062016_641.pdf (http://www.misandryreview.com/pdf/20080717_062016_641.pdf)

Mmm.  Yet the finding by the independent and non-partisan review on Sarah Palin, which didn't have a litany of "sustained" in it, is somehow worthless.

What I Notice About Palin-Bashers (http://rightwingnews.com/2009/12/what-i-notice-about-palin-bashers/)

      Saturday, December 12th, 2009

Had these thoughts in my head for awhile, and as long as we're on the subject of Palin I thought I should jot 'em down.

These people are in a "most lunatic" photo-finish neck-and-neck with the hardcore Obama-zealots. I seriously think we've discovered a new mental sickness epidemic. Palin isn't it, but she's a useful black light for detecting it. For how many years, before the nation learned to pronounce her married name, has this been going on, churning away in our midst, unseen?

1. They've achieved a great deal less in life than she has, even though some are quite a bit older than she is.
2. They don't want to be called "haters," although their reaction to her is purely negative and purely emotional; I'm left groping for another word and "bashers," far from being a perfect fit, ends up being the least-unsuitable.
3. They persist in the mistaken belief that Charles Gibson tripped her up (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html).
4. Whatever they have to say about Palin's lack of competence or intellectual acumen, is felt, not thought. It invariably relies, not on observations, but on perceptions of what others are going to do. Nobody truly owns this.
5. A lot of them are ready to vouch for other women in power who are relatively homely and frumpy, like Hillary Clinton. This, also, fails the thought-over-feeling test; it isn't based on much of anything. It's just a reverberation of feelings felt by others, nothing more.
6. They breathe hard and their pulse quickens. I haven't run into too many people who are ready to calmly explain Sarah Palin's lack of qualifications.
7. Their laughter, in response to Palin jokes, is forced.
8. Their lofty opinions of the minimal requirements for the offices Palin has sought, or might seek, is selective. When the topic of conversation shifts to Joe Biden, suddenly it seems the Vice Presidency doesn't demand a whole lot out of anyone.
9. They don't seem to think it takes a whole lot to govern Alaska, or to even live there. They don't appear to think very highly of Alaskans. One wonders if they'd back a Constitutional amendment establishing a "geographical litmus test" for future candidates, and if so, how many other states would go in the "No Can Do" column.
10. A lot of people claim to like her personally, just don't "feel" (see Item #4 above) that she's "right"; when the topic of conversation shifts to Barack Obama, this principle turns out to be selective (see Item #8) and they have a whole new and different way of seeing people.
11. They seem to have an awful lot of ego invested in these discussions, like if they cannot convince ALL reading or listening that Palin is a dimbulb, right here & right now, that this failing will somehow diminish them as a person.
12. They aren't at all willing to say women should be staying home raising their kids; but they're perfectly willing to say Palin should be staying home raising her kids.
13. They are loud, eager to get their opinion on the record, to the point of being obnoxious. Nobody seems to be sitting in a corner anywhere quietly thinking to himself "Wow I wish Palin would go away she's so unqualified."
14. Some of them think it's way too early to talk about 2012. They seem to realize if the nomination process was conducted today, the results would be pretty clear. They seem to understand, but not to be willing to confess, that Palin is less likely to embarrass herself compared to her rivals, between now and 2012.
15. The standard they apply to Sarah Palin is not just higher than the standard they apply to others; it is surreal. Speculation on false pregnancies, burning books, forcing rape victims to pay for their own examinations, months and years after being thoroughly debunked, is somehow considered residually damning against her.
16. The people who get angriest about her, make me really happy she's around to make them so angry because these are people who've had it comin'. As OldT6Flyer said at Neptunus Lex's place (http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/12/09/speaking-her-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-466929) (hat tip to blogger friend Buck), "If she didn't exist somebody would need to invent her for the cause."
17. Other than the secular types supposedly living in fear of some tighty-righty coming along to transform American into a "theocracy," there doesn't seem to be a single soul among them willing to say what a President Palin would do that they wouldn't like. As a community, if you can call it that, they seem to be nearly brain-dead on matters of policy.
18. They're ready to say what they think about things, in general, a whole lot more quickly than they're ready to comment on their qualifications or lack thereof for thinking these things. This figures: They're dissing the intellect of someone they've never met and never will meet.
19. If they're Republicans, they long for a return to the halcyon days when the Republican party was known for its intellectual depth, and won elections that way. I, too, think that would be kinda cool. They aren't ready to clue me in on when in the last hundred years that ever happened, or how likely such a thing ever is to happen again. Haven't they noticed in columnist-world, the conservatives have a monopoly on intellectual wherewithal? Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell, George Will...their counterparts are Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington? And that there's a filtration process in place to keep that from ever translating into our elections, so that when it's time to vote suddenly it's the liberals who are the eggheads. What do they think is going to happen to upset that? What should be done to overturn that canoe? They aren't ready to discuss this, not in the slightest. One would reasonably expect they'd be chomping at the bit.
20. A lot of them fall into Item #22 on my list of Fifty Fucking Sick Things (http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/fifty-fcking-sick-things/). They want me to think something just because they think it -- they're so undeniably smart that if I don't agree straight-away, that's evidence of my own thick-headedness and cluelessness. But they can't tell "their" from "they're" or "your" apart from "you're." Innocent, excusable mistakes until you stop to realize: The whole point of their garbled writing is to raise doubts about someone else being qualified to graduate from high school!
21. They use "beauty queen" as an insult. One cannot help but wonder if they're prepared to explain why this is.
22. They're ready, willing and able to quickly concede that the attacks on Palin have been "unfair"; but their opinions about Palin appear to have been decided entirely by these unfair attacks. How's this work exactly?
23. If they're women -- and a lot of them are -- they all have that same look. Like they go to New Year's Eve parties looking exactly the same as when they're spending a day housecleaning. No one's ever gotten ticked for leaving late because they took too long in front of a mirror.
24. They show an astonishing, whiplash-inducing ability to go from one extreme -- "yes that's true, her family should be off-limits" -- to the other -- "that little skank Bristol didn't listen to abstinence education so why should anyone else."
25. They hiss at her for being a "quitter" but give you a blank look when you name some of the Obama nominees who had to withdraw because of tax "problems."

In person as well as on the innerwebs, I get the feeling I really shouldn't be arguing with these people. Not in a "ah shucks, you'll never see things my way and I'll never agree with you, so what's the point? Let's talk baseball!" But more of an I-gotta-get-outta-here kinda way. With that unsettling kind of feeling you'd get if you ever found yourself arguing with some homeless guy covered with pigeon droppings about whether he really is hearing voices in his head.

They aren't expressing hostility inspired by Palin; they've been carrying the hostility around, some of them perhaps for generations, and Palin has provided the outlet. In lots of ways (http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/why-they-hate-sarah-palin-so-much/).

23. If they're women -- and a lot of them are -- they all have that same look. Like they go to New Year's Eve parties looking exactly the same as when they're spending a day housecleaning. No one's ever gotten ticked for leaving late because they took too long in front of a mirror.

This one cracked me up. Umpa-lumpas and muffin tops dishing Palin for being a beauty queen. And yes they ALL look the same... oh maybe the tattoos and face staples are arranged differently. They all hate their mother.

I think Palin bashing can be classified a derangement syndrome. Its almost a mental illness. Palin-phobic?

How can you reconcile this...

I know he's been divorced five times.  I know he's had state troopers drive him drunk home when if *I* had done it, i'd have done jail time.  I know a whole lot about him, because there is a report on him, issued by the Disciplinary board.  From it, I conclude that he's a pathetic excuse for a man and a pathetic excuse for an officer of the law.  Drinking, violence, abuse of power, cover ups, threats - I believe Palin because there is a whole host of complaints and reprimands outside of that incident that demonstrate that such bad behavior is consistent with his proven bad character.

The incident where he flashed his badge to a tavern owner to bully him into ejecting someone Wooten didn't like demonstrates sufficiently for me that he'd be at home in a Waffen SS uniform.

...with this?

Quote from: John Dias on Apr 18, 2010, 08:12 PM

By the way, anyone who wants to get information about this case should read the Memorandum of Findings issued by Col. Julia Grimes, a Director of the Alaska State Troopers, here:

http://www.misandryreview.com/pdf/20080717_062016_641.pdf (http://www.misandryreview.com/pdf/20080717_062016_641.pdf)

Mmm.  Yet the finding by the independent and non-partisan review on Sarah Palin, which didn't have a litany of "sustained" in it, is somehow worthless.

Thank you for that giant concession, Gonz.  Since you place so much faith in the Memorandum of Findings, I assume that you now embrace the premise that on the various charges that were deemed unsubstantiated, they must therefore be considered meritless.  I myself place no such weight on that document, and I value it only as a source of context, because it seemed to attempt to convey the perspective of both sides (not just Molly's side).

Also, why is it that ideological loyalty to Your Girl trumps your respect for the concept of innocent until proven guilty?  Wooten was never criminally charged, and yet you're ready and willing to pronounce him guilty merely because he has been accused (or merely because a show of objective neutrality on Wooten's innocence reflects poorly on Sarah Palin's presidential prospects, since she supported some of the claims against him even though she wasn't a firsthand eyewitness).  In the memorandum, Wooten outright denied most of the charges against him; why then does that carry less weight with you than the accusations do?  Wasn't your life ruined at one point because of bogus allegations?

It seems to me that your political loyalty is driving your responses here.  What drives my responses is respect for the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty (i.e. by jury trial).  Also, on the idea that Wooten is guilty because he had previous marriages, how does this constitute proof of his guilt?

Hey I freely admit my sticking up for Palin is poltically motivated and not that I like conservatives. She has a lot of messed up ideas. But the fact is the left hates her and the left is where I see most of my troubles coming from right now. The left treats me as the evil white man who can be jerked off and screwed over cause the oppressed cannot oppress the oppressor. Its the left raising taxes, raking up debt (yes the right did this too and I don't give them a pass but they ain't in power right now).

But above all its the hypocrisy. How many of us were raised to not be misogynist? All those feminists crabbing about no women in politics, women mistreated, no respect for women YET the very same people standing on Mt. Olympus pointing their finger down at everyone else breaks the rules themselves in a big way.

Clinton and OJ are two other examples. I thought sexual harassment was bad. I thought domestic violence was bad. OJ was a huge example of DV, husband murdering his wife, and the left gives him a pass. Feminists got laryngitis. Same with Clinton. Sexual harassment was bad, or so we were all taught and women NEVER lie about sexual harassment, unless your Paula Jones or Waneta Broderick.

Now Palin is getting worse treatment from the group who claims to support and help women. What a crock of shit especially when the left has pretty much revealed it elects patriarchs to high office for the benefit of women in some sick game of damsel and protector.

One thing I love doing is whenever I hear some woman complain about no women in the white house or mistreatment of women I ask "so what do you think of Sarah Palin". Either they auto respond like a parrot and gut this woman on 100 different misogynist points or they are silent and you can see that vein in their scalp bulging with rage.

I will vote Palin cause I want to see the party that judges all the rest of us tear a woman to shreds.

...the fact is the left hates [Palin] and the left is where I see most of my troubles coming from right now.

That's funny, because I thought that most of my troubles were coming from the government.  If we just got Palin into office, do you think the government would suddenly transform itself into a paragon of peace, justice and freedom?

The left treats me as the evil white man who can be jerked off

whats wrong with getting jerked off?
dont tell me you never get tired of having to do it yourself :yikes:

Quote from: Mr. X on Apr 19, 2010, 11:25 AM

...the fact is the left hates [Palin] and the left is where I see most of my troubles coming from right now.

That's funny, because I thought that most of my troubles were coming from the government.  If we just got Palin into office, do you think the government would suddenly transform itself into a paragon of peace, justice and freedom?

Actually I think she would be more fiscally responsible. If anything the gov would be stagnated for 4 years and the more time the gov does nothing the better off we all are. Its when gov actually does things that we end up with a train wreck like Obama care.

Thank you for that giant concession, Gonz.  Since you place so much faith in the Memorandum of Findings, I assume that you now embrace the premise that on the various charges that were deemed unsubstantiated, they must therefore be considered meritless.  I myself place no such weight on that document, and I value it only as a source of context, because it seemed to attempt to convey the perspective of both sides (not just Molly's side).

So you're in the habit of quoting things you find irrelevant?

Also, why is it that ideological loyalty to Your Girl trumps your respect for the concept of innocent until proven guilty?  Wooten was never criminally charged, and yet you're ready and willing to pronounce him guilty merely because he has been accused (or merely because a show of objective neutrality on Wooten's innocence reflects poorly on Sarah Palin's presidential prospects, since she supported some of the claims against him even though she wasn't a firsthand eyewitness).  In the memorandum, Wooten outright denied most of the charges against him; why then does that carry less weight with you than the accusations do?  Wasn't your life ruined at one point because of bogus allegations?

Out of that document you presented, internally done, with corrupt cops - but I repeat myself - having a habit of  "Shot in the back 24 times?  Worst case of suicide I ever saw..." whitewashing, a hell of a lot of the charges were substantiated.

Conduct unbecoming ring a bell...?

It seems to me that your political loyalty is driving your responses here.  What drives my responses is respect for the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty (i.e. by jury trial).  Also, on the idea that Wooten is guilty because he had previous marriages, how does this constitute proof of his guilt?

I'm inclined to give a guy even a second chance.  Five time loser?

Now a great leap of intuitive thought to think ol' Johnny Wotten may be the one with the problem.

It indicates a pattern of questionable behavior.  5 marriages - not one, not two, but five - gone south.  Multiple black marks in his jacket.  Repeated substantiated charges in the document you presented for his defense.  etc.

He's just not credible as a victim.

First, it's not Johnny, it's Mike.

Second, multiple marriages can indicate various things, not necessarily a pattern of "questionable behavior" (I infer that you mean abusive behavior).  One constant is Mike himself -- that is true -- but the problem with those marriages going south may also have been in the type of women to whom he is attracted.  Unless you were there you don't know what kind of dynamic existed between them.  I'll say this, however.  For Mike Wooten's ex wife, Molly, to fuss in her petition to a family court about how Mike complained about a $5.00 fee says a lot more about her than it does about him.  And like I said earlier, in collusion with Molly, Sarah and Todd Palin have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Mike in an attempt to demonize and vilify him, supporting Molly's unproven charges reflexively.  "Always believe the victim," says the feminist mantra (and, apparently, also Sarah Palin).

Third, I find the memorandum relevant to establishing context, but only a guilty verdict by jury relevant to establishing criminal guilt.  You, however, have made up your mind about culpability, absent a jury verdict.  As far as the criteria by which political candidates are evaluated (and Sarah Palin almost certainly will be a presidential candidate; I'd bet money on it), I think that your tolerance for imperfection should plummet in comparison to that which you have shown to Wooten.

John,

Mr Wooten has been proven guilty. This is a case of administrative law. In any civil service sector job this is what they do when preparing a case for termination. The claims that were substantiated are the "charges" he was found guilty of if you will and the ones that were unsub were the ones he was found not guilty of. If Mr Wooten disputes this the ball is in his court and he will have to file an appeal and possibly a civil court suit to get this decision over turned.

I sense that a lot of this is some animosity you have with Mrs Palin simply because she is a woman.

John,

Mr Wooten has been proven guilty. This is a case of administrative law. In any civil service sector job this is what they do when preparing a case for termination.

I don't see it that way, not in terms of justice.  If the letter of the law somehow defined what was just, then slavery when it was legal was just.  Besides, Wooten is still on the job, and not only that, he hasn't been found guilty in a criminal court, which is as close to justice as you can get short of revealing actual events with 24-7 surveillance footage.

I sense that a lot of this is some animosity you have with Mrs Palin wimply because she is a woman.

Come now, my good man, that was unwarranted!

Sorry that was a typo.

I meant to put simply not wimply and I edited the post to refelect that.

First, it's not Johnny, it's Mike.

Second, multiple marriages can indicate various things, not necessarily a pattern of "questionable behavior" (I infer that you mean abusive behavior).  One constant is Mike himself -- that is true -- but the problem with those marriages going south may also have been in the type of women to whom he is attracted.

In which case his judgement is highly questionable.  At the very least.

Unless you were there you don't know what kind of dynamic existed between them.  

IF it were one - or even two - divorces, and nothing else, maybe.  What we have here is  pattern.

I'll say this, however.  For Mike Wooten's ex wife, Molly, to fuss in her petition to a family court about how Mike complained about a $5.00 fee says a lot more about her than it does about him.

What, as an example of his pettiness?

And like I said earlier, in collusion with Molly, Sarah and Todd Palin have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Mike in an attempt to demonize and vilify him, supporting Molly's unproven charges reflexively.  "Always believe the victim," says the feminist mantra (and, apparently, also Sarah Palin).

Blood is thicker than water says the HUMAN mantra, and I expect it.  I expect sisters to take sister's sides, brother's to take sister's sides, sisters to take brother's sides, brother's to take brother's sides, and family to side with family except where the behavior is so infamous and scandalous that decency forfends.  That isn't feminist or masculist or anything.  It's blood.

Where I go south is where, for example, mother's take the side of their son's ex-wives, or sisters the side of those ex-wives to protect their female privilege.

Third, I find the memorandum relevant to establishing context, but only a guilty verdict by jury relevant to establishing criminal guilt.  You, however, have made up your mind about culpability, absent a jury verdict.  As far as the criteria by which political candidates are evaluated (and Sarah Palin almost certainly will be a presidential candidate; I'd bet money on it), I think that your tolerance for imperfection should plummet in comparison to that which you have shown to Wooten.

I, in fact, don't want her as a candidate because she is damaged political goods thanks to the liberal witch hunt conducted on her,  Barack Hussein Soweto didn't have 31 journalists fly to Chicago to dig up dirt for a smear job vet him.  I like her right where she's at, making lefty heads explode every time she says "You Betcha."  She'll be old news like Klinton, or the Bushies is she becomes Ex-president Palin (Let alone ex-candidate).  Where she's at now, she's the gift that keeps on giving for the rest of my natural life.

Any woman who takes the opportunity to stand on the National Stage and praise and gush on her husband of 20 years and incite feminists to riot is Feminist Kryptonite.  ABortion and destruction of the nuclear family are two of their sacraments, and she turns them on their ear, proving that a woman can be high powered, family centered, love their men, hot, and pro-life, and be a success at it.  All without the benefit of gender feminist theology and bitchiness.

More, please.

Barack Hussein Soweto didn't have 31 journalists fly to Chicago to dig up dirt for a smear job vet him.

Or 11 AP reporters to vet her book while NONE vetted the two books WRITTEN BY THE PRESIDENT. If anybody should be vetted its THE PRESIDENT not some minor league player.

Blood is thicker than water says the HUMAN mantra, and I expect it.  I expect sisters to take sister's sides, brother's to take sister's sides, sisters to take brother's sides, brother's to take brother's sides, and family to side with family except where the behavior is so infamous and scandalous that decency forfends.  That isn't feminist or masculist or anything.  It's blood.

Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. Mark 13:12

Ideology can and does -- again and again -- transcend blood ties.

[...] NONE vetted the two books WRITTEN BY THE PRESIDENT. If anybody should be vetted its THE PRESIDENT not some minor league player.

Why it wasn't vetted, then? aren't there numerous think tanks like the Cato Institute which have the (well) funded brain power to do so?

Quote from: Mr. X on Apr 19, 2010, 07:28 PM

[...] NONE vetted the two books WRITTEN BY THE PRESIDENT. If anybody should be vetted its THE PRESIDENT not some minor league player.

Why it wasn't vetted, then? aren't there numerous think tanks like the Cato Institute which have the (well) funded brain power to do so?

Actually conservatives have read the book but aren't considered main stream media. AP is supposed to be an unbiased media outlet. Also the Cato institute won't vet such a book because they aren't a conservative outlet. Perhaps you refer to the Heritage Foundation.

Doesn't matter whether the Cato Institute a conservative outfit or not; they're certainly not a 'progressive' or left-leaning bunch. According to them, they are about "[p]romoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations."

I repeat my question: why it is that no one took on the vetting of the President's book? I'm positive that it isn't because the lack of money to pay the researchers; there are plenty of non-leftist think tanks and organizations which have the funds. Is it against the law to check on the factual accuracies of something written by the President? would the Secret Service harass the researchers?

Why is it that in "The Land Of The Free" no one does a serious, sober check on something written by the top executive branch official of the country?

Quote

During her book signing tours, has she ridiculed restrictive gun laws in left leaning states she went through?

During her time as Governor, she was instrumental in prohibiting municpalities from putting restrictions on firearms that contravened and Susperseded state law.

Quote

Let me add that while Palin was running for VP, I called her office three times and wrote several emails asking what Palin's stand is on illegal immigration.  I got NO replies!  None!  We have a serious drug problem directly related to open borders and the illegal aliens bring those nasty drugs into our country.  Thousands of people per year are murdered by illegal aliens, yet I have not heard her say Americans in all states need to have liberal access to fire arms to protect themselves.

That's right, even though she has mocked people about being a "bitter Clinger", been shown firing an assault rifle, enacted laws as governor to expand gun rights, enacted laws as governor to curb illegal immigration and access of same to state services  - She didn't respond personally to your letter out of millions, or say in so many words your script - which no other politician has, either - so she's a raving bitch.

Want to move the goalposts again?  Or do you just want to admit you don't WANT to like Sarah Palin?

    Thanks for the information about Alaska gun laws.  Does she take credit for those laws?  Other than "During her time as Governor, she was instrumental in prohibiting municpalities from putting restrictions on firearms that contravened and Susperseded state law" what ever that means....Got a link?

Palin's staff wouldn't even answer the phones and I do expect a relpy when I get an email address with something like, "If you have questions or concerns, please email us at____________________"

"Enacted laws to curb illegal immigration....."???  Did you know Anchorage and Fairbanks are sancuary cities and Alaska is one of the three sancuary states?  How can that be? 

SANCTUARY CITIES AND STATES INFORMATION RESOURCE
http://sanctuarycities.info/sanctuary_state_alaska.htm (http://sanctuarycities.info/sanctuary_state_alaska.htm)

'Sanctuary Cities' Embrace Illegal Immigrants
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20547 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20547)

McCain didn't get elected because voters knew he would be just as tenacious and aggressive as Bush about forcing millions upon millions of third world criminals down our throats.  Do you really think McCain would pick an anti-amnesty running mate?  I truly believe that just like Bush, Palin is hiding who she really is.  I truly believe she would do everything she could to force illegal immigration down our throats, just like Bush and McCain if elected. 

And you don't understand that "Governor" and "Dictator" aren't synonymous.  When the law was passed curbing the ability of municipalities to override state Gun ;aws, it was done because absent such specific laws to the contrary, Alaska is a "Home Rule" state.

Palin had an "R" after her name, but got elected despite being opposed by the Alaskan Go-Along-To-Get-Along.

A bill banning drivers' licenses for illegals passed the Alaska state senate in 2003 [before Palin was elected governor]: "JUNEAU (AP)--The state Senate approved a bill that tightens the standards for getting a driver's license by requiring applicants prove they are in the country legally and by placing time limits on licenses for legal aliens."

The measure did not pass into law. In any event, Palin's DMV subsequently tightened the administrative regulations on drivers' licenses, thereby giving rise to a lawsuit by some folks who found the new restrictions inconvenient.

The new restrictions were not, however, enough for at least some members of the legislature, who tried again recently to enact a ban into the statutory law: "Despite two unsuccessful pushes, [a new bill] addresses the rights of illegal immigrants in Alaska: to require applicants to show proof of residency before they can get a driver's license."

Source: As reported on lafrontera.mojo4m.com Sep 5, 2006

She's been on Laura Ingraham, Hannity, and other shows and has repeatedly made statements against Illegal Immigration and "Comprehensive" reform.

You need to know more about Realpolitik in Alaska. Here are a few things we do know. Alaska has a 1,500-mile border with Canada, but immigration is not a major issue. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that the state has one of the smallest number of illegal immigrants, with fewer than 10,000 as of a few years ago, and one of the slowest growth rates in the illegal population. The total immigrant population isn't much bigger -- the Center for Immigration Studies recently estimated that in 2007, there were only 39,000 foreign-born people in Alaska, legal and illegal combined, representing about 6 percent of the state population, less than half the immigrant share in the nation's population as a whole. Data from the 2000 Census showing that Filipinos are by far the single biggest immigrant group in Alaska. According to the Congressional Research Service, the legislature in 2003 ( BEFORE Sarah Palin became governor)   declared Alaska a sanctuary state, "prohibiting state agencies from using resources or institutions for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws." Alaska is also one of the few states that gives driver's licenses to illegal aliens, but in September of 2006 Sarah Palin instructed the BMV to crack down on verification of identity, which resulted in lawsuits, since she couldn't get such bills to be enacted by the legislature.

So, what o we have?  Alaska is probably the most gun friendly state, so much that Vermont actually copied them by beginning to issue licenses for reciprocity purposes; That Sarah Palin has on the speaking trail been openly contemptuous of Gun-Grabbing, and that while her positions on immigration as mayor and governor- since Alaska isn't a big destination for illegals - is small, she is on the record as opposing comprehensive reform, and in taking steps within her authority of opposing illegal immigration.

So - where do you want to move the goalposts to now?

So - where do you want to move the goalposts to now?

But but but she didn't cure cancer and she reused a postage stamp in 1975 and that purse does not go with that dress!!  :toothy9:

As for any first class accommodations, can we look at Al Gore's flight arrangements or Bill Clinton's? I guarantee they demand private jets and all sorts of amenities. Bottled water is nothing. Wanting passage big enough for her family and security isn't unreasonable.

Have you guys seen the bar tab from just one flight on the public tab for Nancy Pelosi and crew?  Check it out:  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=123472 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=123472)

She makes Palin seem like a piker.  At least Palin is earning her dough instead of bilking the taxpayer for it, yet we don't hear about Pelosi's excesses in the MSM - they're too busy skewering Palin. 

And you don't understand that "Governor" and "Dictator" aren't synonymous.  When the law was passed curbing the ability of municipalities to override state Gun ;aws, it was done because absent such specific laws to the contrary, Alaska is a "Home Rule" state.

Palin had an "R" after her name, but got elected despite being opposed by the Alaskan Go-Along-To-Get-Along.

A bill banning drivers' licenses for illegals passed the Alaska state senate in 2003 [before Palin was elected governor]: "JUNEAU (AP)--The state Senate approved a bill that tightens the standards for getting a driver's license by requiring applicants prove they are in the country legally and by placing time limits on licenses for legal aliens."

The measure did not pass into law. In any event, Palin's DMV subsequently tightened the administrative regulations on drivers' licenses, thereby giving rise to a lawsuit by some folks who found the new restrictions inconvenient.

The new restrictions were not, however, enough for at least some members of the legislature, who tried again recently to enact a ban into the statutory law: "Despite two unsuccessful pushes, [a new bill] addresses the rights of illegal immigrants in Alaska: to require applicants to show proof of residency before they can get a driver's license."

Source: As reported on lafrontera.mojo4m.com Sep 5, 2006

She's been on Laura Ingraham, Hannity, and other shows and has repeatedly made statements against Illegal Immigration and "Comprehensive" reform.

You need to know more about Realpolitik in Alaska. Here are a few things we do know. Alaska has a 1,500-mile border with Canada, but immigration is not a major issue. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that the state has one of the smallest number of illegal immigrants, with fewer than 10,000 as of a few years ago, and one of the slowest growth rates in the illegal population. The total immigrant population isn't much bigger -- the Center for Immigration Studies recently estimated that in 2007, there were only 39,000 foreign-born people in Alaska, legal and illegal combined, representing about 6 percent of the state population, less than half the immigrant share in the nation's population as a whole. Data from the 2000 Census showing that Filipinos are by far the single biggest immigrant group in Alaska. According to the Congressional Research Service, the legislature in 2003 ( BEFORE Sarah Palin became governor)   declared Alaska a sanctuary state, "prohibiting state agencies from using resources or institutions for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws." Alaska is also one of the few states that gives driver's licenses to illegal aliens, but in September of 2006 Sarah Palin instructed the BMV to crack down on verification of identity, which resulted in lawsuits, since she couldn't get such bills to be enacted by the legislature.

So, what o we have?  Alaska is probably the most gun friendly state, so much that Vermont actually copied them by beginning to issue licenses for reciprocity purposes; That Sarah Palin has on the speaking trail been openly contemptuous of Gun-Grabbing, and that while her positions on immigration as mayor and governor- since Alaska isn't a big destination for illegals - is small, she is on the record as opposing comprehensive reform, and in taking steps within her authority of opposing illegal immigration.

So - where do you want to move the goalposts to now?

A

s tenacious as McCain is about forcing millions of criminal aliens down our throats, do you really think he would pick a running mate who is not the same?  McCain doesn't give a damn about the fact that our country has 5% of the world population, yet consumes TWO-THIRDS of the illegal drugs in thw world.  I don't hear Palin making demands that the borders be shut to those drugs that are runing the lives of our people, including innocent children! 

We have serious drug wars going on at the border.  Those thugs are armed with machine guns, but I don't hear Palin demanding that our citizens near the border and everywhere else for that matter, can also have machine guns, armor pearching ammo and other weapons to protect themselves.  We know the Second Amendment includes, but goes far beyond hunting and self protection.  I'm not going to allow Palin to hang on to the coat tails of existing legislation in Alaska.  She had the opportunity to do far more that she did as governor  A lot of politicians do just enough to think they are appeasing their constitiuents and I believe she is one of them.

There are politicians who are making passionate demands that illeal aliens be deported and SERIOUS punishments for those who hire them but Palin isn't one of them.  And she needs to do more than make token statements.  If millions of criminal aliens have come accross our borders with countless tons of illegal drugs, don't you think terrorists carrying tons of weapons of mass destruction are also coming over?  Where is Palin on that issue?

I am just guessing here, but since over 70% of all agricultural workers are illegal immigrants, I don't think the majorty are here to bring drugs. I could be wrong.

I do not agree with supporting illegal aliens. However there is a huge need here in the US for their labor, and so it seems to me a lot of this could have been alieviated by making the process more speedy and accessable for them to be here legally.

Either that or our teenagers need to get off their asses and start milking cows and picking strawberries.

Either that or our teenagers need to get off their asses and start milking cows and picking strawberries.

Along with welfare people, inmates and people who need some extra money.  I do know that every time a packing plant is raided and illegal aliens are caught, MANY, MANY American citizens apply for those positions.  This is about corporations BRIBING our politicians to supply them with cheap labor.  Meanwhile, my health care premiums quadroupled over the past 15 years.  Rates went up that fast to pay for the health care of illegals.  Taxes have gone up too.  That ain't cheap labor.

I lived near the Mexican border for 30 years, so I can tell you that there is a serious drug problem there and everywhere.  A lot of illegal aliens use illegal drugs for money to get started here without regard for the lives they destroy.  Once those illegal aliens get into Hispanic neighborhoods, none of their fellow Hispanics will report them to the cops, so they are safe and the others are in effect aiding and abetting the dealers.

Palin demands Lear jet, deluxe hotel suite, bottled water with bendable straws

Aaaaaaand, what would happen if she didn't get em?
Where did the Freedom Of Information Act figure into the wastebasket?
Are these the same folks that seem to have no other reason to hang around Alaska "reporting" on the players in the illegal access to Ms. Palin's private correspondence-gate case?

Nancy Pelosi (amongst others)"demand" private, ELITE  class,  travel accommodations from the Armed Forces, on ALL taxpayers dime,  for her California "public" job.
What would happen if she was denied?

How does "...for the women and  children" fit into that?
How is Commerce Clause... appear on the invoice for THAT request?

Up here in NY it is difficult to find people willing to work 10-12 hours a day, 6-7 days a week (as it should be, no one should have to work that long). It is difficult to find people willing to get up at 3am to milk, and it is hard to find folks willing to stoop all day picking strawberries, or tie grapes. The immigrants are willing to do these jobs, legal or not, and they work very hard.

I am sure it is not the same situation closer to the border. Up here the drugs are not an immigrant problem, meth is the big one and it is locals cooking that stuff up.

I am just guessing here, but since over 70% of all agricultural workers are illegal immigrants, I don't think the majorty are here to bring drugs. I could be wrong.

I do not agree with supporting illegal aliens. However there is a huge need here in the US for their labor, and so it seems to me a lot of this could have been alieviated by making the process more speedy and accessable for them to be here legally.

Either that or our teenagers need to get off their asses and start milking cows and picking strawberries.

Actually Jen, as much as I dislike to disagree with you Jen, before illegals began DISPLACING agro workers it was mostly low income AMERICANS who did it.

And, since we got our produce cheaper most people did not mind.

But it was not "work that Americans can't do" - it's "work Americans won't do at that rate of pay".

I know some illegals who are working "low end" jobs and are great people.  Honest God fearing hard working contributors to society.  My problem is not with any of them - but the 15 MILLION of them.

Individually they must be judged on their own merit, just as I would want to be.  But, again, it's teh 15 MILLION of them that makes the problem.

And I love the hispanic crowds crowing about "racial profiling" crap - near the Mexico border .... ummm, who, praytell, do we supoose is coming across?  Nigerian Immigrants!?  (to be fair, in some cases yes) - but the majority of them are Hispanic.

----------------------

Oh, and very important - Mexico's immigration laws are INSANELY tough.  Here's an excerpt:

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
• in the country legally;
• have the means to sustain themselves economically;
• not destined to be burdens on society;
• of economic and social benefit to society;
• of good character and have no criminal records; and
• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The Mexican law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

------------------------------------------------------

Specifics of the law:
• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

• Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

• The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest."(Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

• A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

• A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

• Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the countrywithout authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico - such as working with out a permit - can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

• "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five
thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country
illegally." (Article 123)

• Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico
instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

• Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be
deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered
criminals under the law:

• A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the
foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

Also - and this will crack you up - Mexico asked us for money to beef up southern border security - THEIR southern border (too many illegals crossing into Mexico)

Link   (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/11/the-white-house-wants-a-14-billion-stimulusnational-security-packagefor-mexico/)

--------------------------------------------

I know this thread is not about immigration - and I do not intend to derail it.

My wife is an immigrant - we went about it LEGALLY.

That's me living my life the way I demand others do.

Steven

I know Mexico shoots people coming across their southern borders.

Nancy Pelosi (amongst others)"demand" private, ELITE  class,  travel accommodations from the Armed Forces, on ALL taxpayers dime,  for her California "public" job.
What would happen if she was denied?

True. We have to pay for Pelosis's plane through tax dollars. I believe she is the first secretary of state to get a gov plane. And its way larger than a lear.

Up here in NY it is difficult to find people willing to work 10-12 hours a day, 6-7 days a week (as it should be, no one should have to work that long). It is difficult to find people willing to get up at 3am to milk, and it is hard to find folks willing to stoop all day picking strawberries, or tie grapes. The immigrants are willing to do these jobs, legal or not, and they work very hard.

Legal or illegal, I don't think people should be treated like that and we do have labor laws, but they are not being enforced.  This whole thing is being done to get the cheapest labor by bribing our politicians.

I am sure it is not the same situation closer to the border. Up here the drugs are not an immigrant problem, meth is the big one and it is locals cooking that stuff up.

A local police officer was telling me that illegal aliens bring the ingredients here from Mexico to make meth...You see, we have a law here in Iowa that make people sign for cold medication, which is the key ingredient, so they circumvent the law by bringing in mass quantities from Mexico.  For your own piece of mind, I encourage you to consult your local police about it. 

We have to pay for Pelosis's plane through tax dollars. I believe she is the first secretary of state to get a gov plane. And its way larger than a lear.

I think you have Pelosi's title (Speaker of the House) mixed up with Hillary's (Sec. of State), but yes, I too think Pelosi's air travel on the taxpayer dime is extravagant.  Personally, I think a cattle car on a slow freight train is good enough for her.

Back to Hillary, you may well have raised her ire if she reads SYG.  Remember this special "Hillary moment"  :laughing8: from a while back?

Hillary Clinton: I'm secretary of state, not Bill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJEMX_iuCXE#lq-lq2-hq-vhq)

A

s tenacious as McCain is about forcing millions of criminal aliens down our throats, do you really think he would pick a running mate who is not the same?  McCain doesn't give a damn about the fact that our country has 5% of the world population, yet consumes TWO-THIRDS of the illegal drugs in thw world.  I don't hear Palin making demands that the borders be shut to those drugs that are runing the lives of our people, including innocent children! 

So it's not about anything SP has actually done or said, but some conjecture based on what John McCain did or said, and what anyone who has any connection to him "must be like" even though you have no knowledge of them.

So now we know where you are moving the goalposts to.  When your misinformed criticisms of Sp are corrected by facts, we move to the realm of conjecture and supposition.

We're done here.  It is patently obvious to me that there is no reasoning you out of a position which you never used reason to arrive at.

Seems to me the availability of drugs is not the problem, it is the demand for drugs. Even if we were to close the border the market still exists and these people will just find another outlet to get high. Up here in NY it is Meth, which can be made entirely without Mexico. We need to face the truth that we have 2 generations of kids/young adults who are driven to drugs through social problems such as poverty, fatherlessness, and constant bombardment of negative social media.

On the immigration thing:

I think we are falling into the trap laid by those who argue against how "illegal immigrants aren't so bad because ..." mentality.

I'm still waking up, so bear with me.

Some will assert, wrongly or rightly that "illegal immigrants cause x, y, & z crimes"  -  The counter is often "illegals have a lower crime rate per capita than legal U.S. citizens"

It's a back and forth and unwinnable.  Plus it ignores the real problem.  So, what is the real problem?

If, without any illegals we had 1000 instances of X crime.  And with illegals we have 1100 instances of X crime - that is MORE CRIME.  Regardless of if it's done TO another illegal, by an illegal, or because of an illegal - without their presence those extra instances of crime WOULD NOT BE HAPPENING.

Some crimes are, to some degree, "victimless" - but most are not, and have ripple in the pond repurcussions.

Were those folks not here illegally, those extra instances of the crime would not have happened.

Take my personal example - there is less crime in Iraq, on US military bases, where everyone is armed, in a WARZONE than there is per capita by US citizens.

Does that mean that everone should join the military and join me in the sandbox to lower crime rates? (or course that's a retarded idea)

Ok, sorry, not fully awake - my POINT is that a lower crime rate per capita is nice and all, but for each violent crime or facilitation of drug distribution there are 3, 5, 10 people affected outside of the first layer of separation.  There is more chaos, pain, and suffering.

And, plus, this all ignores the elephant in the room - the REAL reason liberals/progressives/democrats (whatever) want illegals is a VOTING BLOC.

------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and as the this thread:  Palin wants some creature comforts.  Wow, f*cking big deal.  Our (*snicker*) "servants" act like royal pratts.  No, this is just people LOOKING at Palin to find fault.

Steven

Seems to me the availability of drugs is not the problem, it is the demand for drugs. Even if we were to close the border the market still exists and these people will just find another outlet to get high. Up here in NY it is Meth, which can be made entirely without Mexico. We need to face the truth that we have 2 generations of kids/young adults who are driven to drugs through social problems such as poverty, fatherlessness, and constant bombardment of negative social media.

Ever hear the line "just a little taste for free"? There is some rationale to attacking the illegal drug problem in leasoning the demand for the drugs. But there is a lot of exploitation by the supply side of the young and easily addicteds by the dealers out there. Also I read some where that casual users buy most of the drugs not the hardcore addicts.


But none of that pertains to the thread topic so perhaps we should start another thread to continue discussing Illeagal imigration in respect to drug and crime problems.

Regarding illegal drugs:

Alcohol is one of the hardest drugs imaginable. The US of A banned it for what? five years or so in the first third of the 20th century; what did it accomplish? Prohibition made organized crime really well paying and powerful, that.

Legalize all drugs, including prescription ones; let everyone make a choice. That some will make "the wrong choice" is unavoidable; but you can't save people from themselves... Hollywood is a prime example of that.

I just received this via email from NormL News:

CBS Polls Finds Majority Of Western Voters, Californians, Back Legalization       

New York, NY: A majority of west coast voters, and Californians specifically, believe that the adult use of marijuana should be legal, according to the results of a pair of polls conducted for CBS News.

Fifty-six percent of Californians believe that "the state of California (should) legalize the use of marijuana," according to a SurveyUSA poll of 500 adults conducted for CBS. The survey results come less than a month after state election officials certified the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 for the 2010 November ballot. The measure would allow adults 21 years or older to possess, share or transport up to one ounce of cannabis for personal consumption, and/or cultivate the plant in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence.

Among respondents, support for the proposal was strongest among males (65 percent), liberals (77 percent), and those between the ages of 18 and 34 (74 percent).

In a separate national CBS News poll of 858 adults, 55 percent of respondents residing in the west coast said that they back legalization, and only 41 percent oppose the idea.

Nationwide, the poll reported that 44 percent of Americans favor legalizing the use of cannabis, and 51 percent oppose it.

In December, a national poll of 1,004 likely voters by Angus Reid reported for the first time that just over half of all Americans endorse marijuana legalization.

A separate poll published this week by the Associated Press and CNBC reported that 55 percent of Americans opposed the "complete legalization of the use of marijuana for any purpose." However, 56 percent of respondents also stated that they believed that "the regulations on marijuana (should) be the same ... or less strict ... (than) those for alcohol."

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500.

Sorry guys but I back open borders. But I also back removal of the nanny/entitlement state. I know of no case in history in which a wall at a border solved anything. We can't have one without the other.

But don't worry, the entitlement state cannot have an open border. They WILL close the border, they will just do it in a round about way and it will be worse and more dishonest than just flat out deporting illegals who commit crimes. Check Sweden, New Zealand, every democratic socialist country on earth has closed borders and tight immigration policies. Same will happen in the US. You can't have an entitlement system if anyone can come over the border and freeload.

Good point. If we cut the entitlements then the illegal immigration problem will shrink immensely with no other actions.

Hmmm...save money by cutting entitlements, AND solve a problem without additional money. And we aren't doing this because.....?

I have no problem with an open border, so long as the illegal aliens understand that they are ineligible for anything - jobs, housing, aid, education, and the right to file a criminal or civil complaint  - except for stabilizing medical treatment, a one way ticket home, and a lifetime ban on a legal visa if caught here without authorization.

Plus no parole if convicted and sentenced.

And I would also say that employing an illegal alien for a day is a felony, punishable by 6 months in jail and a ten thousand dollar fine.  Per offense.  Which must under statute be served consecutively.

We have estimated here 3% illegal population.  They easily commit half the crime, and not to mention, they routinely flee bills - including medical bills at our hospital - by going somewhere else and assuming a new name.  They flee bail.  Mexico refuses to extradite them.  I've a neighbor whose granddaughter was molested by one of these scum - guess what/  he was here under a false name.  so the only lead is a false name, and the wetbacks close ranks against the gringos.  What is their motto?  For the race everything, for outsiders, nothing?

Nope.  It's time to resurrect outlawry.  In the fullest sense of the word.

Two questions:

- Who was doing the alleged dumpster diving that found what might be a concocted and therefore bogus receipt?

- and -

- What part does the Mexican Mafia and other prison gangs play in this immigration scam? Let's lock 'em up! Yeah, so they can swell the ranks of the prison gangs (code speak for "troops")?

I have no problem with an open border, so long as the illegal aliens understand that they are ineligible for anything - jobs, housing, aid, education, and the right to file a criminal or civil complaint  - except for stabilizing medical treatment, a one way ticket home, and a lifetime ban on a legal visa if caught here without authorization.

Ironically this is the way most socialist European countries like Sweden treat illegals. You can't use the health care system but you can freely pay taxes and if you mess up once you are OUT. Heck even Canada won't let just anyone come over the board and get a lifetime dose of free health care. Anyone in Canada can confirm or deny this? They probably have an ER system like ours but beyond that you can't get the goodies unless you're a Canadian citizen. And I believe Sweden has a two tear citizenship so even IF you get citizenship you get less rights and goodies than a native born Swedes.

So I find the democantz to be a bit hypocritical. We all know full well they aren't going to allow tons of people to come over the board and consume their entitlements. They WILL CLOSE THE BORDER, they will just do it in an underhanded, dishonest and attrition manner.

We have estimated here 3% illegal population. They easily commit half the crime, and not to mention, they routinely flee bills - including medical bills at our hospital - by going somewhere else and assuming a new name.

You have any sources for that?

Quote

We have estimated here 3% illegal population. They easily commit half the crime, and not to mention, they routinely flee bills - including medical bills at our hospital - by going somewhere else and assuming a new name.

You have any sources for that?

Yeah, the police blotter in my local paper.  And given day in the tri county area we are chock full of Cortez, and Sanchez, and Martinez, and Maria, and etc. stealing cars, busted with meth, driving without ever getting licenses, and so forth.

And what do they do?  They get a new ID, go elsewhere, never show up to court, and the local wetback population says, "No comprende! No comprende!" when they get asked.  So far as I am concerned, you aid and abet criminals, you are criminals.  Accessories after the fact.

The legals want nothing to do with them, and for good reason, not the least of which is that the lagals played by the rules, and waited their turn, and they resent line-jumpers.

And in other news, I don't associate, do business with, hire, rent to, or give the time of day to wetbacks or muslims, and if anyone wants to give them sanctuary - take them.  down here we've a whole bunch of people who plan to and pledge to and have insured that when they wind up in court, those of us on the jury vote against them.

Because we can.

Go home.  We don't want your kind here.

I have no problem with an open border, so long as the illegal aliens understand that they are ineligible for anything - jobs, housing, aid, education, and the right to file a criminal or civil complaint  - except for stabilizing medical treatment, a one way ticket home, and a lifetime ban on a legal visa if caught here without authorization.

We already use that approach in NH.
We call it tourism.
Come on in, set a spell, spend your money, now go home, and carry your garbage out with you please. 

here is sarah palin's foriegn policy experience

...you're [sic] roundabout attempt to avoid Godwin's Law is noted.

You mean that I avoided the frequent tendency within online debates to invoke Nazism or Hitler?  Good for me.  Good for you too, I guess:

Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.

What is justified is him losing his job for drinking on the job, abuse of power, and child abuse.  What is justified is prosecution for those crimes.  And what is justified is any fallout arising from them.

Whatever you think is justified, we have a non-fascist thing in our system of jurisprudence called due process, which almost always includes a jury trial rather than a bench trial.  In order to force an accused person into this system of non-fascist justice, you need either a prosecutor to file charges or (if the prosecutor is too timid) a grand jury to file charges.  Neither a prosecutor nor a grand jury issued any criminal charges against Mike Wooten.  Yet he was served with a restraining order nevertheless.  Personally, I prefer jury trials to restraining orders.  Juries designate guilt far less capriciously than do judges (who hand out restraining orders like candy), and so I prefer jury trials as the most just solution in our current system.  But I'm a non-fascist that way.

You want to harp on "five failed marriages?"  Consider the rest  "Multiple black marks in his jacket.

Police have a higher divorce rate than civilians.  Also, just because a person gets divorced it doesn't mean that they are a wife beater or a child abuser.  Neither one divorce nor one hundred legitimize a restraining order in my book.

Repeated substantiated charges in the document you presented for his defense.

In your view, if he gets out of a ticket, he must be a wife beater!  If he tased his son on the lowest setting at his son's request (and this was never reported to any authorities by the grandfather witness who was present, nor the kid's mother -- that is, until she filed for divorce), then he must have rage issues!  And if his employer deemed those accusations against him to be substantiated for the purpose of justifying administrative discipline, then somehow, some way, they must all be magically just as merited as if Wooten had received due process and a jury trial.  But apparently in your view, these legal protections are all completely unnecessary.  Fry him!  No jury trial necessary, says Benito.

He's a fucking cop, though, so he gets away with it.

The bogus restraining order was eventually overturned by a sensible judge who saw through Molly's crap.  Justice prevailed (eventually), not Wooten's badge.

I'm willing to wager if any of us tasered a kid, we'd be in Jail.

A valid point.  I give credit where it is merited, no matter how rarely the merit surfaces.

Your obsession with Hating Sarah Palin is noted, it truly takes a special kind of OCD to resurrect a  months old thread to attempt to find fault.  Guilty of the possession of a vagina in the first degree.  Someone set the execution chamber up.

As is your feminist-like determination that any man must be defended for his maleness, regardless of how often his bad behavior is documented.  Excuse the bad behavior at all costs.

Fortunately, the internet keeps things around, and, truth can be found.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/the_washington_post_trumps_up.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/the_washington_post_trumps_up.asp)

You can pick the poster-boys you want; I, for one, prefer to avoid the Lepines and Wootens of the world.

Here's Barbara Boxer's foreign policy experience:

Senator Barbara Boxer: "Don't Call Me Ma'am" - General Michael Walsh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0CprVYsG0k#)

Palin seems to be one of the most divisive figures Ive seen.
people either hate her or love her.
so its very hard to get any objective view
I mean on one hand, she gets the madcow's and olbermaa'ams in such a tizzy, its like "she cant be all bad"
on the other hand, she seems to have made an ass out of herself as often as I've wasted my check at the honky tonk, and palin-bashing, particularly on the subject of her intellect and awareness of issues, is as ubiquitous as the police, so its kinda like "a billion chinamen cant all be wrong"; that every bit of the hate is entirely unjustified

PS
bristol palin vs miley cyrus nekkid oil wrasslin
who wins?

bristol palin vs miley cyrus nekkid oil wrasslin
who wins?

Everybody? :greener:

Palin seems to be one of the most divisive figures Ive seen.
people either hate her or love her.
so its very hard to get any objective view

It doesn't matter, the leftist smear machine has insured she's unelectable. 

It always fills me with despair to see otherwise intelligent people caught up in the lies, especially when the truth is documented in so many places.  Moreso in the MRM; a man reason I have thrown my hands up on a lot of it.

I keep forgetting my old adage that the extremists, whackos, and haters will eventually take over any movement because they have momentum and motivation.

For me, I do have a daughter, and when I hear people talking about "All Women" in that way, I remind myself they include her.  And my estimation, then, of them falls through the basement.

I mean on one hand, she gets the madcow's and olbermaa'ams in such a tizzy, its like "she cant be all bad"

She should set herself up as a lightning rod.  And a kingmaker.  It's where she'd do the most good.

on the other hand, she seems to have made an ass out of herself as often as I've wasted my check at the honky tonk, and palin-bashing, particularly on the subject of her intellect and awareness of issues, is as ubiquitous as the police, so its kinda like "a billion chinamen cant all be wrong"; that every bit of the hate is entirely unjustified

Well, most of that is cherry-picked to make her look as bad as possible; if someone puts any stock into the leftist media to begin with, their own lack of intellect is already confirmed.

PS
bristol palin vs miley cyrus nekkid oil wrasslin
who wins?

When Miley turns 18 ... that will be ALL of us, Cordell.

Quote from: Cordell Walker on Oct 12, 2010, 10:24 AM

Palin seems to be one of the most divisive figures Ive seen.
people either hate her or love her.
so its very hard to get any objective view

It doesn't matter, the leftist smear machine has insured she's unelectable. 

It always fills me with despair to see otherwise intelligent people caught up in the lies, especially when the truth is documented in so many places.  Moreso in the MRM; a man reason I have thrown my hands up on a lot of it.

I keep forgetting my old adage that the extremists, whackos, and haters will eventually take over any movement because they have momentum and motivation.

For me, I do have a daughter, and when I hear people talking about "All Women" in that way, I remind myself they include her.  And my estimation, then, of them falls through the basement.

Quote

I mean on one hand, she gets the madcow's and olbermaa'ams in such a tizzy, its like "she cant be all bad"

She should set herself up as a lightning rod.  And a kingmaker.  It's where she'd do the most good.

Quote

on the other hand, she seems to have made an ass out of herself as often as I've wasted my check at the honky tonk, and palin-bashing, particularly on the subject of her intellect and awareness of issues, is as ubiquitous as the police, so its kinda like "a billion chinamen cant all be wrong"; that every bit of the hate is entirely unjustified

Well, most of that is cherry-picked to make her look as bad as possible; if someone puts any stock into the leftist media to begin with, their own lack of intellect is already confirmed.

Quote

PS
bristol palin vs miley cyrus nekkid oil wrasslin
who wins?

When Miley turns 18 ... that will be ALL of us, Cordell.

LOL
17 is legal, at least here in texas.

and I agree with you that Palin's role in politics is better suited to talking head etc.......kinda like an ann coulter or a rush

Whatever you think is justified, we have a non-fascist thing in our system of jurisprudence called due process, which almost always includes a jury trial rather than a bench trial.  In order to force an accused person into this system of non-fascist justice, you need either a prosecutor to file charges or (if the prosecutor is too timid) a grand jury to file charges.  Neither a prosecutor nor a grand jury issued any criminal charges against Mike Wooten.  Yet he was served with a restraining order nevertheless.  Personally, I prefer jury trials to restraining orders.  Juries designate guilt far less capriciously than do judges (who hand out restraining orders like candy), and so I prefer jury trials as the most just solution in our current system.  But I'm a non-fascist that way.

Many, many men are tried and punished through family courts, which are void of due process, including the parents who lost their child and were active in Promise Keepers. What are your thoughts on that?

"Different" I quite imagine.

Many, many men are tried and punished through family courts, which are void of due process, including the parents who lost their child and were active in Promise Keepers. What are your thoughts on that?

Family courts do have "trials" in which evidence may be presented in order to determine parenting time, legal and/or physical custody, governing jurisdiction, move-away rights, and child support.  So there is a modicum of due process there.  However, the rules are set up to effectively discriminate against most fathers, because fathers tend to occupy the provider role more so than mothers.  Being the provider takes one away from the kids, and even after a family breakup the court wants that separation to continue supposedly to provide an uninterrupted stream of care from the same primary care provider that the child has known (namely, the mother).  And it is here where the authority of fathers is nullified, supplanted by the authority of the judge.  And so in the supposed "best interest of the child," the child is largely separated from his or her father on the pretext that this is what's best for the child.  So-called "trials" in the family courts do not ensure the rights of the parents, because the parents are not criminal defendants who are on trial.  You have more rights as a criminal defendant than you have as a parent in family court, for this very reason.  In family court "trials," the parents are not the ones on trial; the State's supremacy is on trial.  And the court's right to define what is best for the child is what gives it the justifying pretext for its power.

The family court, in assembly line fashion with its loaded dockets, is under no legally binding obligation to acknowledge the child's actual needs to retain substantial contact with the father.  Those needs for substantial father-child contact are not only emotional, but also security-based.  The more substantial the physical proximity between the father and his children, the less vulnerable the kids will be to physical threats.

To summarize:  With family courts the authority is based on law, whereas with patriarchy the authority is based on blood.  The State, legitimized by laws, possesses the ultimate authority over the child's wellbeing, rather than the parents.  But in patriarchy, the child's biological family has the ultimate authority over that child.  Also within patriarchy there is justice and order; you have parents subject to the authority of higher-ranking family clan (rather than our current system's authorities of legislatures and law enforcers).  All of the lawyers, legislators and judges in our law-based system don't have an emotional or biological connection to the children whose lives they are micromanaging, but that's not the case in a patriarchal system.  Blood is thicker than water or law, and that is why in a patriarchal system there is a much greater likelihood of an outcome that meets the child's needs because it preserves and reinforces the authority of the parents and the family, rather than reinforcing the authority of the State as in our current system.  The fact that such a patriarchal model seems so unconventional these days is, to my mind, proof positive that we absolutely and manifestly do NOT live in a patriarchy, no matter what feminist ideologues may claim.

Although our law-based system can and does arrive at just outcomes (sometimes), in my view it is inferior to a patriarchal system, especially in achieving just outcomes in matters that are related to family.  A patriarchal system vests authority in the one who is most responsible for the wellbeing of the family, namely the father.  But a law-based system retains the authority for the State, while continuing to impose obligations on the disempowered father.  Law-based systems (whether conservative, liberal, libertarian, or other) are therefore more likely perpetuate injustices, compared to a patriarchy-based system.

Palin seems to be one of the most divisive figures Ive seen.
people either hate her or love her.
so its very hard to get any objective view
I mean on one hand, she gets the madcow's and olbermaa'ams in such a tizzy, its like "she cant be all bad"
on the other hand, she seems to have made an ass out of herself as often as I've wasted my check at the honky tonk, and palin-bashing, particularly on the subject of her intellect and awareness of issues, is as ubiquitous as the police, so its kinda like "a billion chinamen cant all be wrong"; that every bit of the hate is entirely unjustified

PS
bristol palin vs miley cyrus nekkid oil wrasslin
who wins?

The thing that gets me about Palin is that no one is criticizing what she did while in office. Maybe the rape kit nonsense but that is far from a notable criticism.  If you really have a good look at her accomplishments in the offices she held it is hard to not admire her.  At least that is the way I see it.  All of the BS is about her kids or something other than her performance in office.  I remember reading two long articles about exactly what she accomplished in office and continue to admire what she did.   

The thing that gets me about Palin is that no one is criticizing what she did while in office. Maybe the rape kit nonsense but that is far from a notable criticism.  If you really have a good look at her accomplishments in the offices she held it is hard to not admire her.  At least that is the way I see it.  All of the BS is about her kids or something other than her performance in office.  I remember reading two long articles about exactly what she accomplished in office and continue to admire what she did. 

Most the BS I have seen, at least in this movement, can be boiled down to "Ewwwww... icky girl." I've seen no evidence presented to me that convinces me that if she was a man, she'd get the same criticism.

For a movement founded in opposition to a "Good Old Girls" type of mindset, and the product of such a poisonous, my gender first right or wrong, philosophy - it's pathetic.

Quote from: dr e on Oct 13, 2010, 06:32 AM

The thing that gets me about Palin is that no one is criticizing what she did while in office. Maybe the rape kit nonsense but that is far from a notable criticism.  If you really have a good look at her accomplishments in the offices she held it is hard to not admire her.  At least that is the way I see it.  All of the BS is about her kids or something other than her performance in office.  I remember reading two long articles about exactly what she accomplished in office and continue to admire what she did. 

Most the BS I have seen, at least in this movement, can be boiled down to "Ewwwww... icky girl." I've seen no evidence presented to me that convinces me that if she was a man, she'd get the same criticism.

For a movement founded in opposition to a "Good Old Girls" type of mindset, and the product of such a poisonous, my gender first right or wrong, philosophy - it's pathetic.

I agree with you on this point. Same goes for Bachman and that O'Donnel woman. Bill Clinton did a little pot in college and he's a hero. O'Donnell, like lots of teen girls, goofed around with witchcraft... which is supposed to be hip with liberals... and she's a wack job.

But I think Palin screwed herself when she quit the governorship. She should have stuck it out. Male candidates have also faced harrassing lawsuits and redundant ethics charges and didn't run away.

Quote from: The Gonzman on Oct 13, 2010, 08:18 AM

Quote from: dr e on Oct 13, 2010, 06:32 AM

The thing that gets me about Palin is that no one is criticizing what she did while in office. Maybe the rape kit nonsense but that is far from a notable criticism.  If you really have a good look at her accomplishments in the offices she held it is hard to not admire her.  At least that is the way I see it.  All of the BS is about her kids or something other than her performance in office.  I remember reading two long articles about exactly what she accomplished in office and continue to admire what she did. 

Most the BS I have seen, at least in this movement, can be boiled down to "Ewwwww... icky girl." I've seen no evidence presented to me that convinces me that if she was a man, she'd get the same criticism.

For a movement founded in opposition to a "Good Old Girls" type of mindset, and the product of such a poisonous, my gender first right or wrong, philosophy - it's pathetic.

I agree with you on this point. Same goes for Bachman and that O'Donnel woman. Bill Clinton did a little pot in college and he's a hero. O'Donnell, like lots of teen girls, goofed around with witchcraft... which is supposed to be hip with liberals... and she's a wack job.

But I think Palin screwed herself when she quit the governorship. She should have stuck it out. Male candidates have also faced harrassing lawsuits and redundant ethics charges and didn't run away.

Any asshat in Alaska can file ethics complaints against the governor which HAVE to be investigated, and answered, and none of the latter done on the public dime.

Those complaints came from a campaign designed to paralyze Palin's administration.  And which cost her a great deal of money, hence, her seeking money afterwards.

Another thing the Liberal Media and the He-Man Women Haters Club "forgot" to tell you.

Quote from: Mr. X on Oct 13, 2010, 05:47 PM

Quote from: The Gonzman on Oct 13, 2010, 08:18 AM

Quote from: dr e on Oct 13, 2010, 06:32 AM

The thing that gets me about Palin is that no one is criticizing what she did while in office. Maybe the rape kit nonsense but that is far from a notable criticism.  If you really have a good look at her accomplishments in the offices she held it is hard to not admire her.  At least that is the way I see it.  All of the BS is about her kids or something other than her performance in office.  I remember reading two long articles about exactly what she accomplished in office and continue to admire what she did. 

Most the BS I have seen, at least in this movement, can be boiled down to "Ewwwww... icky girl." I've seen no evidence presented to me that convinces me that if she was a man, she'd get the same criticism.

For a movement founded in opposition to a "Good Old Girls" type of mindset, and the product of such a poisonous, my gender first right or wrong, philosophy - it's pathetic.

I agree with you on this point. Same goes for Bachman and that O'Donnel woman. Bill Clinton did a little pot in college and he's a hero. O'Donnell, like lots of teen girls, goofed around with witchcraft... which is supposed to be hip with liberals... and she's a wack job.

But I think Palin screwed herself when she quit the governorship. She should have stuck it out. Male candidates have also faced harrassing lawsuits and redundant ethics charges and didn't run away.

Any asshat in Alaska can file ethics complaints against the governor which HAVE to be investigated, and answered, and none of the latter done on the public dime.

Those complaints came from a campaign designed to paralyze Palin's administration.  And which cost her a great deal of money, hence, her seeking money afterwards.

Another thing the Liberal Media and the He-Man Women Haters Club "forgot" to tell you.

Oh I knew about the method by which someone could file ethics charges. But the fact is that flaw exists for both men and women. Any male governor could also face the same issue. Yes its dirty pool. I'm also convinced this was done to Palin BECAUSE she was a woman and the left is pretty much a bunch of misogynist pigs.

But again politicians have faced such trials in the past and didn't quit half way through term. She was two years out. Some of these charges could have been pushed out till after her term ran out when they would mean nothing. Also this doesn't mean she could not have garnered support to help pay for these ethics trials.

Now why don't dems attack the current governor in the same way even though he's republican? I think that goes again to the misogynist angle. But quitting was not a good idea regardless of the reason. So what happens when Medeved or Putin or the used car salesman in Iran give her a hard time? She going to quit being president then?

When your administration is paralyzed because you are the target....