Steve Featherkile said:
Mike,I prefer to believe her side of the story that he was “transferred” for insubordination. Of course, your milage may vary.
Yes Stevie, there is a Santa Claus! :lol: :lol:
Yes Stevie, there is a Santa Claus! :lol: :lol:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Yes Stevie, there is a Santa Claus! :lol: :lol:
And if you believe the media, the hollywood left, and his own press releases his “real” name is Barack Obama…
(http://www.largescalecentral.com/chat/images/3dSmileys/5_2_108.gif)
You could just read the report, which contains the sworn testimony of a number of witnesses.
mike omalley said:Mike,
You could just read the report, which contains the sworn testimony of a number of witnesses.
What kind of silliness is that? That would take effort, probably time to look up a term or two. Can’t have that, man!
She was nt lying around in a pond, distributing swords at random, was she ?
The long-awaited report into a scandal that’s become known as “Troopergate” found that Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, fired the state’s public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, partly because he refused to fire Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooten, who was locked in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.
But the report — commissioned by the Legislature and carried out by an independent investigator — also found that Palin was within her “constitutional and statutory authority” to dismiss Monegan.
Meg Stapleton, a spokeswoman for John McCain’s presidential campaign, asserted that the report showed Palin “acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan” and that “the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior.”
But Stapleton also blasted the report as “a partisan led inquiry” run by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama that didn’t prove Palin fired Monegan for refusing to dismiss Wooten, and instead made “a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact.”
the state trooper (her sister’s ex-husband) she was worried about did: tase her 10 year old nephew; drive his state patrol car while drinking or drunk; did threaten to “bring her down”; and did threaten to murder her father and sister if they dared to get an attorney to help with the divorce.
Ken, It’s an election year… Or “just” politics… FACTS themselves, especially inconvenient ones, are worth FAR less than how they can be SPUN.
Some of the stuff i posted on another thread that apply all too well here are –
“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.” ~H.L. Mencken
“Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country - and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians.” ~Charles Krauthammer
"Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. " ~Richard Armour
and, as ALWAYS… “Truth is not determined by majority vote.” ~Doug Gwyn
The thing that bothers ME is that in this report while it says Palin’s husband went too far, for (possibly) personal reasons, with or without his wife’s (Gov Palin’s) direct knowledge. But seem to confirm that Trooper Wooten DID what they said he did (regardess of Todd Palin’s motives for pressing the issue) So WHY isn’t anybody THE LEAST concerned that this sack of shit Wooten WAS being protected by the “good ole Boy network”? Last I checked, assault, DUI, game violations, extortion and terroristic threats WERE criminal acts – even in Alaska. Yet NO charges were filed, it was all handled “internally”-- and his “discipline” for those “alleged” offenses WAS a joke. (I’d be mad as hell and push HARD for answers too.) So, if a political hatchet job WASN’T the real motive for the ENTIRE investigation, then when is the grand jury convening to look into Trooper Wooten’s actions AND the all safety people involved in this mess?.. I ain holdin my breath on that one.
By all means, Gov Palin SHOULD be held accountable for anything she actually DID that was wrong… but so should everyone else involved in the whole mess
Have a great day, in SPITE of politics
mike omalley said:Uh Huh. Right. I believe that.
You could just read the report, which contains the sworn testimony of a number of witnesses.
Trooper Wooten WAS being held accountable, by his employer, the Alaska State police. He was investigated and suspended from his job for a time. That was not enough for the Palins. They felt that his acts were more serious and they wanted more done–that’s the whole crux of the matter. Monegan kept saying “you can’t intervene in a state police matter, it violates the state’s ethics law.” The investigation agreed–Palkin DID violate the state’s ethics law. She had the right to fire Monegan, but she violated the ethics law in pursuing Wooten.
There are, of course, two sides to the story–the Palins’, and Wooten’s. Wooten claims that he did use the taser on the stepson, but that he had it set on its very lowest setting and the kid asked him to do it and then boasted about it to his friends. He was laughing about it, Wooten claims. Is he telling the truth? I don’t know, that’s why there was an investigation. The bi-partisan investigation concludes that Palin abused her authority, and that Wooten had been properly disciplined by his employer, the State Police.
Mike, Can I ask you some things? First, do you believe it is possible that during a sworn deposition, a person can BEND the truth into something else without ever lying? Second, can not the person being deposed do this by the act of simple omission, or by claiming ‘faulty memory’? Likewise, can not the person asking the question “guide” the tone and content of the deposition by which questions are asked, or not asked, HOW they are asked, and whether they follow up (or not) upon the answers given?
There used to be a computer acronym “GIGO”… do you recall what it stood for?
Interesting how some of the deposed could recall almost word for word what was said, and what was said in return, and were pretty good on guessing the dates, but were sometimes a bit…foggy on who it was said TO… The safety director’s constant referral to the Alaska statutes could mean he was a stickler for the letter of the law -or- that justice and the “best interest” of the people came secondary to covering his OWN ass…The report also made MOST of the case against the governor herself based upon assumptions from people and inferences, rather than verifiable facts.
COULD gov Palin been using her husband to maintain “plausible deniability”? Sure… Could Todd Palin have been using the governor’s office WITHOUT telling his wife EXACTLY what he was doing and saying and to whom? Quite possible as well… do YOU tell your wife everything you do…especially if she might be hurt by it or disapprove?.
To ME it’s STILL a fart in a windstorm compared to denying that innocent children are human.
Look of course testimony is bent and questions guide answers–of course. On all sides. People who are loyal to Palin will try to bend their answers so they do as little damage as possible. Her enemies will try to do the opposite. That’s why we have a process that’s as transparent as possible and findings that are subject to public review in the clear light of day.
People who support Palin are simply not going to accept this–that’s clear. But there are fewer and fewer of them. She’s not a popular figure in national politics. She’s a serial liar, in my opinion (bridge to nowhere?), and she’s grossly, scarily uninformed about the issues. But I suspect for some voters her charisma and a single issue, abortion, matter above all.
You and I are bound to disagree about abortion. I don’t accept that an embryo is a child. I’ve spent a long long time wrestling with the ethics of abortion and I remain pro-choice. It’s not the only issue that matters to me though
mike omalley said:
l.You and I are bound to disagree about abortion. I don’t accept that an embryo is a child. I’ve spent a long long time wrestling with the ethics of abortion and I remain pro-choice. It’s not the only issue that matters to me though
Mike, read what was SAID, not what you think was said…My beef with Obama is NOT about abortion in general, per se. BUT the assertion, HIS assertion, that a child who survives a BOTCHED one and is BORN ALIVE is STILL somehow NOT human, and can just be stuck in a closet and left to die. THAT is what I find barbaric and evil.
Meanwhile, back on topic, I REALLY gotta ask… The Alaskan legislature spent $100,000.00 and counting of TAXPAYER money “investigating” something that carries a $5,000.00 fine…WHY?
mike omalley said:Again is this FACT, or MORE media (and your own) spin? This much has become blindingly obvious, to all but the politically blinded, Sarah Palin has a LOT of guts and determination. Not only has she SURVIVED the constant onslaught of yellow journalism from the mainstream press, slander, libel, and just plain mean spirited character assassinations from just about everyone on the left, she has done so while maintaining amazing humor, grace and poise. That might not sound like much to you on the face, but that ability will serve a chief executive of ANYWHERE, private or public, in good stead.
She's not a popular figure in national politics. She's a serial liar, in my opinion (bridge to nowhere?), and she's grossly, scarily uninformed about the issues.
If you want to argue ETHICS my friend, how many long time bosom buddies had Sen Obama suddenly and very publicly turned his back on (or prevaricated and dissembled about the nature of their relationship) during the last year because they had become a political liability? ------- If he didn’t NOTICE these people were overt bigots, anti-American, and/or crooked as 5 miles of bad road until recently, then what does that SAY about his powers of observation, and his own standards?
Funny, but the more guys like you spew bile at Palin, the more I’ve grown to like her.
She was nt lying around in a pond, distributing swords at random, was she ?, I for got to mention that was a Palin Sketch (Micheal tho)
I’m not “spewing bile” at Palin. When I said she was a serial liar, I was referring to her clam that she opposed the “bridge to nowhere.” It is a fact, an indisputable fact, that she did not–that’s the liar part–and she said she did at least 8 times after it was clear that it was a lie. That’s the serial part. That equals serial liar and it’s statement of fact, I think. What would you call it?
The part about being uninformed comes from watching the very few interviews she has done, where she shows very little knowledge of the political issues at hand, and the debate, where she simply refused to answer questions and went to her prepared speech. I don’t think that’s “spewing bile,” I think it’s a reasonable conclusion, but one with which you’ll disagree. I would not call it “spewing bile.” If Palin wanted to prove people like me wrong, she’d be giving press conferences where she could answer actual questions.
I would call your claim that Obama wants to leave healthy babies in the closet to die spewing bile. Brian linked to the real story on that, in the other thread. There’s no evidence at all that Obama is some kind of crazed baby-hater.
As I’ve said many times, I think Obama is just a politician, I don’t think he’s perfect or great or just like me or a regular guy anything like that. He’s politician with more ego and ambition than ordinary people. I think he has a better grasp of the economic and foreign policy issues than McCain.
Mik said:Sure Mik.............I know, all these things you have stated could have very well occurred. Maybe things were really worse and all these things occurred to her benefit. Ralph
Mike, Can I ask you some things? First, do you believe it is possible that during a sworn deposition, a person can BEND the truth into something else without ever lying? Second, can not the person being deposed do this by the act of simple omission, or by claiming 'faulty memory'? Likewise, can not the person asking the question "guide" the tone and content of the deposition by which questions are asked, or not asked, HOW they are asked, and whether they follow up (or not) upon the answers given?
Mike, if you want to hear a “serial liar” talk, just listen to Joe Biden. He can give lessons on serial lying.
Ken Brunt said:What has Biden said that can be construed as a lie ? Specifics would be helpful. Ralph
Mike, if you want to hear a "serial liar" talk, just listen to Joe Biden. He can give lessons on serial lying.
And what does Bden lying have to do with trooper gate? Nothing. It’s just misdirection
Biden plagiarized some speeches of Neil Kinnock, an English politician, early in his career, I know that
Perhaps that meas Palin didn’t abuse her power as governor
Just listen to him…
Biden said about Hezbollah: “When we kicked – along with France – we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.” Hezbollah was never kicked out of Lebanon.
He continued: “I said and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.’” Lebanon is not a NATO country, nor had any NATO country been attacked by Lebanon.
Biden also stoutly denied that Obama ever said he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Biden is apparently unaware of the Internet, because there are clips all over the Internet of Obama saying exactly that during the CNN/YouTube debate last year.
Biden might have remembered that debate since: (1) He was there, and (2) he later attacked Obama’s answer, telling the National Press Club in August 2007: “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely, positively, no.” Obama’s own Web site says: “Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”
Biden also gave a long speech at the debate on vice president Dick Cheney’s “dangerous” belief that “he’s part of the legislative branch.” The great constitutional scholar Biden cited Article I of the Constitution as proof that Cheney “works in the executive branch” and has “no authority relative to the Congress.” Biden huffily added: “He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.” Article II, not I, describes the executive branch.
The Constitution makes him president of the senate every day of the week. Article I says the vice president is president of one of the two houses of Congress – the one Biden is in, for crying out loud – which is what you might call “authority relative to Congress.”
Biden went on to claim that “John McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every Republican has supported.”
The last nuclear test ban treaty the Senate voted on was the one Clinton signed in the '90s. As The New York Times editorialized on the Senate vote a few years later: “Last week, Senate Republicans thundered ‘no’ to the nuclear test ban treaty, handing the White House its biggest defeat since health care in 1994.” Forty-nine Republicans voted against the treaty; only four liberal Republicans voted for it. That’s the treaty Biden says “every Republican has supported.”
Biden said, “Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years.”
It turns out that Katie’s restaurant, where Biden gets his feel for the average American, closed 20 years ago.
Need more…?? And this was only in a one hour debate…
OOps, wait a minute. here’s one more…
Sept. 21, while addressing an audience filled with coal miners in Virginia, he fibbed: “I am a hard coal miner – anthracite coal, Scranton, Pa. That’s where I was born and raised.” He was never a coal miner, and most of his early life was spent in Delaware. His father was a sales rep for an oil company when he lived in Scranton.
And I guess you’ve forgotten all about his 1988 run for the presidency when he had to drop out when it came to light that he plagerized a speech he gave.