Reply With Quote
Leaked confidential report.
Can anyone say AGENDA?
Not really, but the headline makes it appear as such:
Investigator rules against Palin in ethics probe
Now if you read the story, you find there was an ethical issue. However, it's with the management of her defense fund. Not her.
Leaked confidential report.
Can anyone say AGENDA?
wow.
No . In reading the material, it's a loophole, if they will get her on anything. I believe this is the same Alaska State Law she put in practice too! It boils down to this. The claim is that the defense fund, paying off her legal expenses, is a personal gain. I don't see it as that. She won't be gaining from this, it will just keep her from losing her own money. Money that she wouldn't lose if she didn't have people out to destroy her.
I was always a proponent of all laws having clearly defined purposes and scopes. That way, loopholes are reduced. Here's a good example.
Were the same report released about Ted Kennedy, there'd be no doubt about there having been a gain and a nuanced view of this (such as, by saying it's about management of a defense fund) would undoubtedly be met by a stern suggestion that the buck stops with the candidate/governor/senator.
that's right. you're the one with the whole "nuanced" and "black and white" nonsense.
Look, I'd agree that the willingness to see shades of stories is not a one-sided coin and my suggestion to the contrary has been proven to be short-sighted, i'll readily admit.
Nevertheless, can you seriously believe that Wild Cobra would read this material the same way if the subject of the report was someone like Senator Kennedy or President Clinton?
he does what he does, but to align a whole party to that way of thinking is a bit much.
FWD said nothing about political parties. He was talking about WC. You're the one guilty of universalizing his point, VLE.
There was no affront to party offered, so you manufactured one.
Or, in your mind, WC stands for the GOP all by himself.
In his own mind, he does not.
Why do you seem to think he does, VLE?
Sure, political outrage is selective, generally based on partisan affiliation. Is this new to some?
Seems like it's mostly Alaskans going after pitbull . They know her best.
FWD stated what i was talking about in a different thread all together. i don't think per thread. take your blinders off. there's a search function. use it and get over yourself, congressmanThere was no affront to party offered, so you manufactured one.
Or, in your mind, WC stands for the GOP all by himself.
In his own mind, he does not.
Why do you seem to think he does, VLE?
why do you guys keep creating palin threads?
Show me an example please. Please take off those colored glasses. I admit to not liking certain people but have acknowledged unfairness at times aimed against them. I would see this as an invalid attack against either of those you mentioned.
And I mooted what you were talking about by explaining that my earlier point was correctly shown to have been overly broad and incorrect. And I directed my criticisms of this discussion directly at Wild Cobra. I guess there are no retractions or changed minds at SpursTalk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
