Alaska Inquiry Concludes Palin Abused Powers

[Slappo]

Humm....

She never asked the librarian she fired to ban books, she made an inquiry a couple of times as to whether books had been banned that had been asked by other citizens to be banned... There were never grounds given as to why the librarian was fired and Palin never expressed a personal desire for the books to be banned.

For all we know Palin fired her for some sort of embarassing-if-publicized reason and didn't give a grounds for the firing to save face for the librarian, and continues not to defend herself so as to not publicly disgrace the librarian. Not that I'm asserting that this is indeed the reason, but I'm trying to prove the point that it COULD have been because of some injustice like the banned book issue OR it could have been some huge act of charity on Palin's part. Since we don't know however... it isn't really an issue that can be held against her

[lilCook009]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1674995' date='Oct 11 2008, 09:54 AM']Yeah, this abuse of power definitely ranks right up there with the abuse of power Obama has promised to use when he appeals the Hyde Amendment, which cuts off public funding of abortions, creates a national healthcare system which would mandate abortion on demand, signs the Freedom of Choice Act and repeals the ban on partial birth abortion.

The two are so morally equal I don't see how anyone can think one is worse than the other. Vote for an Obama Nation!!![/quote]

Okay , I know that people are going to hate me for saying this, but the election is not just about abortion. I understand it is a big issue, but if you just focus on that you might end up voting for the worng person. Incase you are wondering I am not an Obama supporter, I am still undecided, but I agree with diary. I don't think chosing Sarah Palin was that great of a chose for a V.P. but that is who got chosen. I hope that the McCain ticket can pul closer to Obama so it wil be a more interesting race, but at the moment he doesn't know enough about the economy to make me feel safe in the idea of him as president. Although I will say once I am still not one hundred percent decided

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1675030' date='Oct 11 2008, 11:50 AM']Oh this is great. Now we can watch the left paint Palin as both evil and dumb. I am sure that the left would be happy to have Palin stick around for a while.

After all, what will they do without President Bush to blame for absolutely everything? That's the man they portray as being at once a shrewd and wily evil villain, and also a dummy. He's like Cobra Commander to them.[/quote]


Actually we don't all think the same thing about George Bush. I think he is an inteligent man with no real life experience and unable to take responsibility for his actions, an odd lack of curiosity, and an unearned self confidence that allows his to wear very opaque ideological blinders.

I also think he and others of his administration belong in proison. I would like to see him tried in the world court, but a domestic court would be alright.

Palin isin't evil, not very bright, I could not care less about trooper gate. I do care about her irresponsible campaigning, her dishonesty, and he ability to be stunningly dense.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1675155' date='Oct 11 2008, 06:36 PM']Actually we don't all think the same thing about George Bush. I think he is an inteligent man with no real life experience and unable to take responsibility for his actions, an odd lack of curiosity, and an unearned self confidence that allows his to wear very opaque ideological blinders.

I also think he and others of his administration belong in proison. I would like to see him tried in the world court, but a domestic court would be alright.

Palin isin't evil, not very bright, I could not care less about trooper gate. I do care about her irresponsible campaigning, her dishonesty, and he ability to be stunningly dense.[/quote]

i liked the description of bush. that's how i think about him. i think it's how most people think about him. here it was expressed very keenly, very well.

i tend to agree with the palin comment too.

(probaby think the bush comment is going to far.... ie, if you mean there should be a trial, i agree. but only to the extent that there's reason to believe he's done somehting wrong, and should be tried. not in the sense that he hsould be necessarily found guilty of anything, espeically half the stuff most people talk about. not to split hairs. just sayin)

Edited October 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Hassan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1675166' date='Oct 11 2008, 06:58 PM']i liked the description of bush. that's how i think about him. i think it's how most people think about him. here it was expressed very keenly, very well.

i tend to agree with the palin comment too.

(probaby think the bush comment is going to far.... ie, if you mean there should be a trial, i agree. but only to the extent that there's reason to believe he's done somehting wrong, and should be tried. not in the sense that he hsould be necessarily found guilty of anything, espeically half the stuff most people talk about. not to split hairs. just sayin)[/quote]

Yes, I mean a trial. I think that sometimes the left does hate Bush so much they blame him for things that really are not his fault, or are no worse than any other President. However I think that President Bush and his Administration have broken some serious laws with reguards to Iraq, Gitmo, and extraordionary rendition.

I absolutly beleive with you that it should be a fair trial andhis guilt should NOT be a foregone conclusion.

[Norseman82]

So let me get this straight.....she is being given grief because she took steps to fire a bad cop? If only Chicago could be so lucky!

I'm just waiting for "Drinking with Bob" to comment on this!

Edited October 12, 2008 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1674969' date='Oct 11 2008, 11:20 AM']You were the one who decdied to call Palin juvenile, and you're trying to talk to me about casting stones? Oh brother. Look, Palin rose from an average middle class family to Governor of Alaska and turned the entire state's political system around. When you accomplish something more than that, then maybe you can call her juvenile. Right now, you're still working on third grade English. You have a long way to go.[/quote]

This has got to be the funniest thing I've read so far today!

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1675024' date='Oct 11 2008, 12:28 PM']It's a great day for hockey. [/quote]
I would love to hear Palin say the words "watch this drive, suckers!" For some reason that would strike me as funny.

[Hassan]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjZW4z9zqqY&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjZW4z9zqqY...feature=related[/url]

says so much:o

[Justin86]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1674997' date='Oct 12 2008, 12:55 AM']it was obvious when i said the stone in your eye comment that i was referring to the fact that i can concede i have juvenile tendencies. i was not saying it's wrong to poit out the flaws in others. you apprently can't comprehend the difference.

your point about "juvenile" is nonsensical. you say, "you shouldn't call others juvenile (you asked what right i had etc) if you're juvenile.". you then say "i called you juvenile but whether i'm juvenile doesn't matter, even though i just said you can't call others juvenile when you your self are juvenile".
-i'm just saying that you're just as juvenile, and by saying that i'm doing the exact same thing you did. (you've made a lot of juvenile comments in this thread, so at least that point has been shown, regardless of anything else)
-and any thing else i'm guilty of, you're doing the exact same thing. at least you're not competently showing me otherwise.
you don't seem able to comprehend any of this though.

while i may treat these discussions quickly, in a third grade manner in style, you're treating them in a third grade manner in substance. i can fix style if i want. a lack of substance is harder to fix. ie, in style, i'm often in third grade. intellectually, you're often in third grade.
who has a longer way to go? my problem is that my writing is shaky (in something a fleeting as an internet forum....). your problem is that your thinking is shaky. which is worse?[/quote]
You just don't get it, do you?

According to you internet forums are fleeting. Guess what, practically all writing is. Even the vast majority of books fade away over time. You think we're still in possession of most of the writings from people who existed even 100 years ago? Most people don't decide to write something down for fame, or because it will necessarily win them notoriety throughout the ages. They choose to write because they take what they have to say seriously, and the people they are writing to seriously as well. They have something they need to say and they want people to listen.

By refusing to use proper grammar (forget proper grammar with you, even half way decent grammar would be nice) you're basically saying you neither take yourself, what you have to say, or any of us seriously. What it amounts to is disrespect and last time I checked that was among the most juvenile things imaginable.

Oh, and calling someone else "juvenile" isn't itself juvenile when its' accurate. And I disagree that my "thinking" is juvenile. It's different from yours, but then again you're the one that thinks when someone marries another with a different philosophy then yours it amounts to juvenility. That says alot about you.

[quote]now if you don't respond, it'll be clearly cause i owned you.[/quote]
Just because people choose not to play with you anymore doesn't mean you "owned" them at all. You keep repeating the same lies about Palin over and over despite frequent attempts by others here to correct you. It gets awfully boring after awhile.

As for the lie that Alaska is debt, of course they aren't with all the spending Palin cut. As a matter of fact, the state is fighting amongst themselves what to do with a massive $5 billion surplus. Here's a link.

[url="http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/325207.html"]http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/325207.html[/url]

[quote]Rift over [b]budget surplus[/b] widens

$5 BILLION: Legislators object to Palin's plan for long-term education funds.

By ANNE SUTTON
The Associated Press

Published: February 25th, 2008 02:09 AM
Last Modified: February 25th, 2008 09:03 AM

JUNEAU -- With the 90-day legislative session fast approaching the halfway mark, lawmakers have yet to lay out their plans for [b]the state's massive budget surplus[/b], which could reach $5 billion or more over the next two years from continuing high oil prices and a recent boost in oil production taxes.[/quote]

Edited October 12, 2008 by Justin86

[dairygirl4u2c]

no you just don't get it. and it's obvious to everyone with an IQ above a third grader that that's the case.

the books analogy is pointless. ie, an internet forum is fleeting, and just because i'd write well in a book that has a certain permanence doesn't mean i should also treat forums in the same or super close manner. as an analogy it does make your point though. and i see your point.

on that point, i balance respecting people's time, and coherency, and efficiency. i'm not always perfect in editing my writing etc, but i see your point i can take more time. it's a good point thta i should be respectful of ppl's time, but if it's unclear, all anyone has to do ultimately is ask me to clarify.

and that i'd do that doesn't justify you disrespecting me. i have a lot of good arguments, so when you say that stuff, it just goes to show me that you're ad hominem, ie, attacks without reasoning.
(esp when your point is don't cast stones when you have a glass house, and you have that glass house. what's the point of saying it then? it's just a disrespect, there's no reason for it. )

yes. sometimes people don't respond cause the argument is just bickering or going no hwere. here though, that's not hte case for why you're not responding, or not responding to the points.
ask anyone you get into tiffs with (or just look back at this thread where you started attacking me, and being disrespectful) and you'll see that you can be juvenile.
-that you wouldn't admit your juvenillity (esp when you're doing it in this thread....) is itself juvenile. so your point is nonsensical to say "you're juvenie", and then say "you're shoud't call others juvenile when you are juvenille even tho i just called you that and am generally acting right now in a juvenile way"
-and the stone in the eye thing, you were wrong (or even if you knew there was a difference in what i said about the stone and what you said about casting stones... why is it wrong to point out the flaws in others? (or at leat the perceived flaws if you insist palin is so great) esp when you're doing the exact same thing. it's not wrong. it was non-sensical for you to do it-- or if you insist she's clean enough as govenor that i can't attack, then you yourself are in the coup cause you did exactly what i did, yet you won't admit it)
you're not evading the points and not responding cause you simply don't want to debate, but cause you're wrong.


"This has got to be the funniest thing I've read so far today!"

only funny cause he resorted to appeal to authority... ie, a common fallacy. ie, i'm not going to argue the merit of what's being discussed, but rather i'm going to say that she must be okay and non-juvenille cause she's the govenor of alaska.
-there's no logical reason why i can't criticize her just cause i'm not a govenor.true, she's not truly totally juvenille (i'm using figures of speech saying "she's juvenille" instead of "she has a lot of tendencies towards being juvenille") but we all know that's not what i was saying. your point is nonsensical.

Edited October 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, she was in debt.
and all you've shown by disproving me (if the then v. now distinction matter), ultimatley, is avoid the other arguments that matter. ie, the juvenille stuff, and the stone in the eye stuff, and how i can't call her juvenille just cause i may or may not be.

notice. you don't rebut my arguments about her firing the librarian or the ag directors. you just assume they're false. (her couric spiffs also we know are something a juvenille would do,,, and how she's perceived as a fighter rather than intelltectually blessed) these arguments show juvenillity, they show a tendency towards what the alaska council found to be true, that she fired wrongly.
(do you even know that he threatened her life, or are you just assuming it cause someone said it? and even if it was true, my only point to begin with, was that even if true, she'd still do it cause she's juvenille)
if your argumetn is that she's not juvenille, then you're not making that argument. you're just asserting it. and it misses the point, that it's not whether she's juvnille that's being debated here really, but whether i have a right to call her juvenille (even if she wasn't but in my opinion was. note: this is probably how we're talking past each other-- cause you think i should'nt criticize if she's not and you insist she's not, but to me it doenst matter whether she is or isn't), or whether you have a right to call me that when you're exactly the same position i was in when i called her juvenile.

your whole point from the beginning was "don't call others juvenille when you are". now, if you try to shift the argument to "don't call others juvenlle when they're not", it's clear you're just trying to evade the point, cause you're wrong.

the only way you might be able to eek out being right in any of this, is by insisting that you're less juvenille than me such that you have a right to crictize yet somehow those who are less juvenille don't.
your whole premise is flawed to begin with anyway-- you really think those who are juvenille can't criticize. how uncommon sensical is that?
i'm not so woefully less juvenille than you that you can criticize yet i can't anyway-- how uncommon sensical would it be to think different?

Edited October 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"and that i'd do that doesn't justify you disrespecting me"

when i say that, i mean it's okay for your to disrespect, point out flaws, do what you did.
just so don't say i can't, while you be hypocritical about it.

(also why dooesn't she just argue he threatened to kill her family, so that she can justify using her position of governor to get him gone? she doesn't. if all he did was yell at them, then she abused her authority. i have no reason to believe that he did threaten to kill them. not that any of this threatening stuff matters to the debate at hand, just incidental.)

Edited October 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[HisChildForever]

[quote]By refusing to use proper grammar (forget proper grammar with you, even half way decent grammar would be nice)[/quote]

I must disagree slightly, Justin.

It's not just improper grammar, but rather...five sentences torn up and mashed together to construct one incoherent line that claims to be a sentence, when in reality...

I can hardly decipher it and have since stopped trying.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what often happens is i have advanced thoughts, and any difficult grammar is instantly dubbed "what a third grader" and then dismissed (along with the idea that they don't want to critically analyze their beliefs, or change their position when wrong). really what's transpiring is people don't want to think. my grammar isn't that bad. writing by definition can't be easily taken if it's an advanced idea, you have to think.
the lazy reader is just as guilty as the lazy writer, in the situations we're talking about with me. true, better grammar in those situations is even more needed, but like i said, it's not incomprehensible. not even close.

plus i think there's a lot to be said about people talking past each other. most arguments are just the one side not seeing the philosohpical underpinnings that's going on from the other side. otherwise people would agree to disagree more, it'd all be more explicit what's transpiring, instead of people always leaving debates with no conclusions.

also, if he htinks this debate is hashed, and so doesn't want to debate it. i'm willing to accept that he thinks that. but, if he's willing, i'm willing ot continue, to show there's no way he could argue that he's not wrong. any way he tries to frame the argument, he's done somehting illogical or hypocritical etc.

Edited October 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c