HuskyCaucasian Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 More as it breaks. Here is the PDF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 Here are the findings: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 2 words... Game Over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokona Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Goodnight sour princess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Oh, darn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 For the record, before anyone can try and crap all over this... this was a BI-PARTISAN committee comprised of mostly REPUBLICANS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Well, I have to admit, I'm surprised she was found in violation. I was thinking the report would end up being nothing substantial, especially with the committee who reviewed it being in her party's favor, and with the state's reputation somewhat exposed with Palin's nomination. This COULD be a game ender for McCain/Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 05:44 PM) 2 words... Game Over Seriously, that's what you got from reading that key statement? Unless there's something else buried in the report, you found that to be game over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 CNN article It could be a pretty big thing. Maybe. Could ice the election, because at this point, a few more points would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I was kinda wondering why the Palin reps were so vehemently criticizing the investigation today. Now I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 08:05 PM) CNN article It could be a pretty big thing. Maybe. Could ice the election, because at this point, a few more points would do it. The two republicans on CNN say it's a nonissue because people are more worried about the economy and she broke no laws, therefore it's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 This will just add to the fire. People already have a negative view of her and it's growing weekly. She is used to fire up the base and thats about it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 05:07 PM) The two republicans on CNN say it's a nonissue because people are more worried about the economy and she broke no laws, therefore it's ok. Which is, exactly what I was saying. It won't be treated as a big deal, it's old news already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Friday afternoon news cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 The people who are against her, already think that she's incompetent. How will this change their view? The people who are for her, will side with her "soccer mom" family bias in this matter. How will this change their view? The borderline people will look at this and see her as a politician who did a political thing that a lot of politicians do. Is there a politician out there who hasn't used their office for some personal gain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 This is just sad. Im 42 pages in and basically for 2 years Todd Palin followed some Wooten guy around tattling on him every time he did anything wrong in an attempt to get him fired. When the police department responded that some of the crimes were ridiculous (hunting moose with improper license) or things like driving a snow machine with an injured back (turned out he had drs permission) werent offenses a police officer could be terminated for they just basically fired the people they could fire until they got the result they wanted. As for it not being against the law, I guess its against the "statute" but then laws are technically "statutes". I doubt I read more though its kind of getting repetitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 07:42 PM) As for it not being against the law, I guess its against the "statute" but then laws are technically "statutes". I dont knwo how this all ties into ethic laws, but the way I see it is while it is within her power to fire this man for no reason, she fired him partially because of personal issues and that is the "abuse of power". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 05:45 PM) I dont knwo how this all ties into ethic laws, but the way I see it is while it is within her power to fire this man for no reason, she fired him partially because of personal issues and that is the "abuse of power". All I ask is...how is this any different or worse than anything we've heard about the Bush Administration, none of which was judged to be firing offenses for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 07:49 PM) All I ask is...how is this any different or worse than anything we've heard about the Bush Administration, none of which was judged to be firing offenses for anyone. THe problem is that in the Bush example, those that were in charge of determining firing offenses were placed there by... the Bush administration. The justice department is nothing but Bush cronies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 06:51 PM) THe problem is that in the Bush example, those that were in charge of determining firing offenses were placed there by... the Bush administration. The justice department is nothing but Bush cronies. Exactly my point. And the people we're now wondering if they'll have any problem with this...are the McCain/Bush 40% base. They may not be happy with the way the country's going, but if they're voting for McCain after this campaign, then finding additional corruption on the ticket isn't going to change a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 07:54 PM) Exactly my point. And the people we're now wondering if they'll have any problem with this...are the McCain/Bush 40% base. They may not be happy with the way the country's going, but if they're voting for McCain after this campaign, then finding additional corruption on the ticket isn't going to change a thing. ahh ok. I see where you were going with that now. Good point. SOrry, little slow here. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 07:03 PM) Seriously, that's what you got from reading that key statement? Unless there's something else buried in the report, you found that to be game over? It completely negates her as being some kind of new type of politician to fix Washington. She's just another dirty pol that was caught not telling the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 06:59 PM) It completely negates her as being some kind of new type of politician to fix Washington. She's just another dirty pol that was caught not telling the truth. Did anyone seriously believe that about her? Well, maybe they believed that in that they believed she was a truly religious conservative of the sort that actually makes up the religious right and in that sense they thought she was a new kind of politician, but beyond that, who actually still believed that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 10, 2008 -> 09:02 PM) Did anyone seriously believe that about her? Well, maybe they believed that in that they believed she was a truly religious conservative of the sort that actually makes up the religious right and in that sense they thought she was a new kind of politician, but beyond that, who actually still believed that? I assumed someone must have since they are still getting around 41-43% nationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 And it makes it much more difficult to continue her "who is Barack Obama?" stump speeches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts