Well, it's more like 'good cop, bad cop'... Palin and redneck right-wingers get to play up the really negative and seedy side of the arguement, and here comes St. John to make sure people are being nice and respectful.
I don't buy it.
The Debate Spin
- Thread starter TWD
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Well, it's more like 'good cop, bad cop'... Palin and redneck right-wingers get to play up the really negative and seedy side of the arguement, and here comes St. John to make sure people are being nice and respectful.
I don't buy it.
These McCain/Palin rallys seem a lot like a lynch mob lately. I mean, what does it say about the kind of crowd the Republican party akins itself too when it calls Obama a 'traitor', and says 'off with his head'????
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/mccain-booed-calling-obama-decent-person/
Haha I think they're really talking about McCain.
When you know about the stories that are prompting accusations like this it makes a lot more sense. For instance it was reported that Obama tried to convince the Iraqi government that they shouldn't set a timetable with Bush until it was approved by congress. In my opinion if this is really what happened, I would consider it treason. However, the facts I have show that this isn't really how it went down.
I think that Obama contributes greatly to the problem. He will address the smears, but he always tries to sidestep as he does so. The Ayers question is the perfect example. First he says he was just a guy in the neighborhood. Now he's saying "well I thought he was reformed". Neither of these answers really answer the Republicans questions, and just make them more suspicious.
Obama's relation with Odinga is another great example. I think it's been fairly well proven that Obama went to Kenya when he shouldn't have. Yet, it's not a smoking gun. So instead of someone doing an investigation to show there's nothing to it, they allow guys like Corsi to do all the work. You end up with this guy digging up evidence that is completely bogus, and the cycle continues.
I think that Obama contributes greatly to the problem. He will address the smears, but he always tries to sidestep as he does so. The Ayers question is the perfect example. First he says he was just a guy in the neighborhood. Now he's saying "well I thought he was reformed". Neither of these answers really answer the Republicans questions, and just make them more suspicious.
Obama's relation with Odinga is another great example. I think it's been fairly well proven that Obama went to Kenya when he shouldn't have. Yet, it's not a smoking gun. So instead of someone doing an investigation to show there's nothing to it, they allow guys like Corsi to do all the work. You end up with this guy digging up evidence that is completely bogus, and the cycle continues.
Yeah, you mindless extreme conservatives will do that to a person. Typical comeback with the playground jokes since you have nothing legitimate to say about the issues. One thing is clear, the conservative fear tactics sure do work on some people.
Confirmation bias
...says the guy who never has anything worthwhile to add. Man, look at us. This political season needs to end so we can go back to just busting each others chops without it getting personal.
This sh*t brings out the worst in me (and you). But I can't stand the drivel. I'm not even trying to sway anyones vote but I feel like some of the right-wingers are dangerously narrow-minded. You Unbecomings and you Snow Whites are hopelessly lost in the fear tactics.
Last edited:
Abuse of power, misconduct and violation of an ethics reform act sounds like doing something wrong to me.
Here is how I understand it. Her husband wanted this trooper fired that just so happened to be her former brother in law for tasering a ten year old and taping the taser leads to him so he could taser him longer. So she went to the commissioner that was a cabinet member to fire this trooper. The commissioner refused to fire him and as such he got fired for not following orders. This is what we call insubordination and that will usually get you fired.
Last edited:
I see something wrong on both ends.
What business is it of Todd Palin that this guy get fired? How is it in his place or within his jurisdiction to push the matter? Because he's related to the guy? That shouldn't matter in this case.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/...html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
If all that is true then yes, he should be fired. The problem is the means through which he was fired.
They have systems of investigation for police crimes do they not? Circumventing those systems just because of any personal issues is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.
Lastly, how did Palin ask the guy to be fired? Did she tell the commissioner to look into the crime and do an investigation? Or did she demand he be fired?
It sounds like she said fire him. That is abuse of power because it circumvents the system of rules and laws in place to handle these things and it sets a very bad precedent. That article said they already did an investigation and the guy was allowed to continue working. Why? It doesn't matter in this case why he was allowed. What matters is that Palin wouldn't leave it alone when it was finished.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/...html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
That sounds like a bit of a personal grudge fueling this to me.
So the commissioner didn't fire the guy. Why? Maybe because he wanted to do an investigation? Actually confirm the charges first? Or because he saw the reasoning behind it, her personal feelings, to be the wrong motivation?
Being a commissioner, it is well within her right to fire him. Thats not the problem. The problem is everything else.
I may support the McCain camp in a lot of areas but I'm still not blind to something thats wrong. This whole situation, unless I'm missing something, is wrong.
What business is it of Todd Palin that this guy get fired? How is it in his place or within his jurisdiction to push the matter? Because he's related to the guy? That shouldn't matter in this case.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/...html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
If all that is true then yes, he should be fired. The problem is the means through which he was fired.
They have systems of investigation for police crimes do they not? Circumventing those systems just because of any personal issues is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.
Lastly, how did Palin ask the guy to be fired? Did she tell the commissioner to look into the crime and do an investigation? Or did she demand he be fired?
It sounds like she said fire him. That is abuse of power because it circumvents the system of rules and laws in place to handle these things and it sets a very bad precedent. That article said they already did an investigation and the guy was allowed to continue working. Why? It doesn't matter in this case why he was allowed. What matters is that Palin wouldn't leave it alone when it was finished.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/...html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
That sounds like a bit of a personal grudge fueling this to me.
So the commissioner didn't fire the guy. Why? Maybe because he wanted to do an investigation? Actually confirm the charges first? Or because he saw the reasoning behind it, her personal feelings, to be the wrong motivation?
Being a commissioner, it is well within her right to fire him. Thats not the problem. The problem is everything else.
I may support the McCain camp in a lot of areas but I'm still not blind to something thats wrong. This whole situation, unless I'm missing something, is wrong.
Last edited:
There was an investigation and he was found guilty of the act. This is when she asked the commissioner to fire him and this is when he refused.
That article said that there was an investigation and he was allowed to stay with the police. At that point whose say is it that he should be fired when the investigation didn't convince anyone to that end?
If the guy did those things then yeah, he should be fired. My question is who is the one with the power to do that? The governor runs the state but do they have supreme power over all agencies? Should it not be left to the different department heads to decide such matters?
Lastly, how far should the matter be taken? According to that article, after the decision was made to allow him to stay, if that is indeed true, then it makes it seem that Palin and her husband kept pushing the matter way beyond the boundary to the degree that it made it seem to be personally motivated.
Now if course I am completely aware of how the media likes to spin things and since Palin is part of the McCain ticket and a majority of the media is for Obama it could easily be that this is blown out of proportion. So I'm not buying that article as 100% fact. I'm just questioning what it says to figure things out.
If its true then its true, if not, I'd like to know what is wrong with it.
In the mean time I don't care if you support McCain/Palin or not some of these are funny.
Attachments
Last edited:
"Republicans don't have balls" is the only one that is funny. The "Then who was phone?" makes no sense at all. The rest are old cliches and the Batman/Joker one was downright stupid.