Predicto Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 If Palin received a sweetheart deal on a million dollar home from a convicted felon or was friends with a terrorist it would be front page news until the election. The media has given up even the slightest bit of objectivity. The Chicago Sun-Times has been digging and digging on this stuff with every ounce of their effort for over a year. They just can't seem to get the dirt on Obama. Maybe, just maybe, it isn't front page news because there isn't enough there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 The son of a ***** should do time for felony child abuse; being fired should only be the very tip of the iceberg. That said, let the investigation play out. From all I've heard, his firing will end up MORE than justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 true, but somehow I dont think this is coming from a conservative standpoint. You dont usually call out your own problems... Somehow, you'd be wrong. I posted this because it is news. An official investigation of a vp candidate is news. Even if the republicans don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 If Palin received a sweetheart deal on a million dollar home from a convicted felon How about "If Palin bought a house on the open market, at market value, from a person who became a convicted felon years later"? Would that make a difference to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Des, you continue to apply one set of rules for your side and another for those with whom you disagree. Not at all. What I'm saying is if you get caught on camera beating a guy with a wrench you should be subjected to a more substantial investigation than another guy who is simply rumored to maybe have done something wrong. Evidence -> investigation -> more evidence Find something concrete on Obama that justifies a closer look and you have an argument. Being that it was already "skimmed over" and they found no cause to move forward I see no seperate sets of rules here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Somehow, you'd be wrong.I posted this because it is news. An official investigation of a vp candidate is news. Even if the republicans don't like it. I didnt mean it in a personal way. I meant in general. I dont think you are doing the investigation or writing the article. And I also agree that this IS news and worth posting. Its not an attack on you whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 How about "If Palin bought a house on the open market, at market value, from a person who became a convicted felon years later"? Would that make a difference to you? Well is Palin a democrat in that scenerio? That could make all the difference in the world Larry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I think the land deal alone makes it worth looking deeper into it legitimate. I actually think this is on the plate for October. The Palin thing will end up getting her sympathy in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Perhaps some things that might tone things down, some. 1) AFAIK, this investigation began long before she was nominated. It may be politically motivated (just about anything involving the Legislature and a Governor has got to have at least some politics in it.) But there's nothing that implies in any way that it's related to her VP selection. 2) Funny, I thought Husbands were exempt from testifying against their wives. 3) Frankly, I haven't heard anything that says she did anything improper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 But I don't think you would lie about it Katie. (Assuming Palin did anything wrong) Haha, you're right, I'd come right out and say exactly what I did to get the ****** fired. And I'd be proud of it. Then I would probably get fired. <OLS> That being said, I'm inclined to think Palin didn't lie on this and was within legal boundaries. I could be wrong, and I certainly admit to being biased toward Palin because I like her...but I think this is a totally blown out of proportion, politically-motived investigation. EDIT: And nothing I've seen so far shows that she was outside legal boundaries. So if that's true, how is "abuse of power" discerned? Is this something that's now at the discretion of whatever prosecuter is in place at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 I didnt mean it in a personal way. I meant in general. I dont think you are doing the investigation or writing the article. And I also agree that this IS news and worth posting. Its not an attack on you whatsoever. Sorry, I misunderstood your meaning. Your quoting of GoSkins implied intent led me to think you were joining in with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Sorry, I misunderstood your meaning. Your quoting of GoSkins implied intent led me to think you were joining in with him. nah, i tend to not be THAT crazy. (joke goskins) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 You don't trust them for some reason? Well, why doesn't she trust the state assembly? It is afterall, filled with both Democrats and Republicans. I'm not saying Palin is guilty of anything. But I think she should stop claiming Executive Priviledge and turn over the emails. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Haha, you're right, I'd come right out and say exactly what I did to get the ****** fired. And I'd be proud of it. Then I would probably get fired. <OLS>That being said, I'm inclined to think Palin didn't lie on this and was within legal boundaries. I could be wrong, and I certainly admit to being biased toward Palin because I like her...but I think this is a totally blown out of proportion, politically-motived investigation. would you kiss her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 2) Funny, I thought Husbands were exempt from testifying against their wives. . Not exempt. You can claim a privilege not to testify against your spouse in some circumstances, but you have to show up and claim that privilege and show how it applies to the specific question being asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 would you kiss her? Now that depends on my blood alcohol level, lol. KIDDING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Now that depends on my blood alcohol level, lol. KIDDING! you were a 9.5 on coolness with me but now you are a 12 and shots are on me IF you ever come back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 This has turned from a boring thread about politics to a hawt discussion of girl on VP action! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 So, what do we want to smear with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 and again, what's your problem with her firing a guy who used a police issued taser on his ten year old and got a DWI while in uniform? Actually, that's not what this is about. She fired the guy who was the direct superior to that guy and didn't want to fire him because he thought the claims were a family squabble. So, here's what we got here: ex-husband is a douchebag; governor wants him fired; person in charge of ex-husband who hasn't done anything wrong gets fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Remembering a co-worker was once telling me about a terriffic job he once had. I asked him why he wasn't there any more. "I had a disagreement with my boss. I thought he was an a-hole, and he didn't." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.