Front Office Football Central
Page 106 of 222 « First < 65696979899100101102103104105 106 107108109110111112113114115116156206 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65622)

Arles 09-23-2008 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1840957)
Everything Arles says needs to be archived for reference if Obama is President.
From a political standpoint, this troopergate thing is still holding on and doing some damage. I just don't see the validity of the case against Palin when all the data is put on the table. I think the democrats are smart to focus on how much she is helping (or not helping) the process instead of the actual case (which is really a joke at this point).

In the end, though, this is still Obama's race to win. Troopergate could get settled tomorrow or hang on for another month, but what people feel about Obama as president is what is going to determine this election. McCain is like dusty old cleats that have been OK for years and Obama is the new UnderArmor model. If people can get past their fear of the blisters and have confidence in the new design, he wins. If they just want some stability and the old standby, McCain may win.

cartman 09-23-2008 02:46 PM
Yeah, I'd have to agree with MBBF than it is not a fair comparison. At least Thigpen would make himself available to the press after the game to answer questions.

:D

Fighter of Foo 09-23-2008 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1840942)
I've seen a few interviews of Lyda Green on TV. Anyone who doesn't think she has a chip on her shoulder from past political run-ins with Palin is fooling themselves. This woman is hell-bent on revenge, despite the fact that the Palin's have done plenty to prove that this investigation doesn't have any legs.

OK...Here's Sullivan on Palin

- She has lied about the Bridge To Nowhere. She ran for office favoring it, wore a sweatshirt defending it, and only gave it up when the federal congress, Senator McCain in particular, went ballistic. She kept the money anyway and favors funding Don Young's Way, at twice the cost of the original bridge.
- She has lied about her firing of the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska.
- She has lied about pressure on Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law.
- She has lied about her previous statements on climate change.
- She has lied about Alaska's contribution to America's oil and gas production.
- She has lied about when she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president.
- She has lied about the actual progress in constructing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska.
- She has lied about Obama's position on habeas corpus.
- She has lied about her alleged tolerance of homosexuality.
- She has lied about the use or non-use of a TelePrompter at the St Paul convention.
- She has lied about her alleged pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla.
- She has lied about what Alaska's state scientists concluded about the health of the polar bear population in Alaska.




No wonder they won't let her do a press conference. ;)

DaddyTorgo 09-23-2008 02:57 PM
I <3 polar bears. fuck her!

GrantDawg 09-23-2008 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1840613)
It's important, but sometimes they just kept screwing up. Reagan may have had an idea that O'Connor would be pro-choice, but he certainly didn't expect Kennedy to join her. He only went 1 for 3 in appointing anti-Roe justices. Bush Sr. similarly screwed up by trying a stealth candidate that only proved to be stealth for the other side. He did get his other pick right. Still, it's pretty funny that the 3 justices who wrote the opinion upholding Roe were Reagan-Bush appointees.

Clinton and Dubya were much better at the justice game, getting exactly what they wanted and expected with their picks. For all Dubya's gaffes, he was able to get the most openly anti-Roe justice confirmed, with a majority of the public supporting the pick.


It is very important for the Republicans to seem to be doing something to over-turn Roe. It would be political suicide for them to actually do it. Then that huge, gullible voting block might just evaporate.

GrantDawg 09-23-2008 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1840709)
Arguing that Roe should be overturned is great for conservative politicians. Actually overturning Roe would be a disaster.


Yeah, what he said. :)

timmynausea 09-23-2008 03:10 PM
I thought Obama would fade in some of these places like Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada and maybe New Mexico as the election progressed. I guess I thought it'd go the way he has in Texas & Georgia, where he will likely run better than a Dem has in a while, but not have any real chance of winning.

It looks like he has a real chance to flip a couple of these, though. Here are the RCP averages:

New Mexico - Obama +6.0
Colorado (Republican since 1992) - Obama +4.0
Virginia (Republican since 1964) - McCain +1.3
Nevada - McCain +1.7
Indiana (Republican since 1964) - McCain +2.3

Arles 09-23-2008 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo (Post 1841020)
OK...Here's Sullivan on Palin
- She has lied about when she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president.
Just as an aside, I think this pretty much illustrates how insane this blog world is getting. When "a big lie" is whether you tell your kids a day before or two days before you learn about the nomination, it's getting to the point of being insufferable. Now, this isn't just a left thing, but this Palin "gotcha" game is becoming a little ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous is someone actually posting the above point to help support a broader argument. The blogs have basically become 4-5 people doing work to actually gain compelling information. Then, about 5000 people filter this and make completely laughable conclusions, claims and assertions. All with "fully documented proof" like Palin's daughter is a little fat so she "MUST" have given birth to her down's syndrome brother (even though the chances were better that the leader of the Daily Kos would be elected president than 16-year old give birth to a down's baby).

And, of course, Palin is a terrible liar because she said she told her daughters two days before the announcement when her other statements show it could have been no more than one day.

HA-HA - got YOU Palin. Take THAT! :jester:

Fighter of Foo 09-23-2008 03:20 PM
I'm SURE you read all 12 of those in detail...

The point is one or two instances is one thing, a fully documented pattern of compulsive lying is quite another.

Of course when your counter argument can be summarised as LOUD NOISES!!!! it doesn't much matter.

DaddyTorgo 09-23-2008 03:22 PM
she lied about the polar bears though Arles. that's not okay! polar bears are cute...and vicious. you can't dislike them.

Toddzilla 09-23-2008 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1841035)
Just as an aside, I think this pretty much illustrates how insane this blog world is getting. When "a big lie" is whether you tell your kids a day before or two days before you learn about the nomination, it's getting to the point of being insufferable. Now, this isn't just a left thing, but this Palin "gotcha" game is becoming a little ridiculous.
It is a "big lie" because she very clearly described the process as happening one way (we took a vote of the girls) and the very next day very clearly described the process a completely different way (they kept it a secret from the kids). Why she felt the need to blatantly lie about an issue as completely insignificant as when she told her daughters about being chosen as veep is "big", because - taken in context with the dozens of other documented cases where she's lied - it displays a pattern of behavior whereby Sarah Palin has no problem lying about whatever and whenever she wants and expecting to get away with it.

It is a "big lie" because it demonstrates - as clearly as other traits some may bring up - that Sarah Palin is unfit for public service.

Flasch186 09-23-2008 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1840902)
When they "stopped cooperating", here's what Palin and company had presented on Monegan:


So, we have 5 specific and documented instances of Monegan acting directly against the governors wishes independent of the trooper issue. Once again, Monegan's sole role is to serve at the pleasure of the governor. Here's his direct quotes after he was removed from his post and refused to accept a different job (as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board):


He didn't seem to feel any "pressure" before the removal. In fact, he had no idea why he was removed. Again, that would be odd if he had been pressured to do something against his will and then got fired.

So, to summarize, Palin presented a case that had 5 instances of insubordination from a cabinet post (one is enough cause for removal). There was no outcry from Monegan when he was initially removed and everything seemed to be fairly clear with the investigation until she was named VP. Then, suddenly French makes a huge issue out of the "lack of information" he has, starts sending off trumped up subpoenas and says this:



I don't know how anyone with common sense can think this isn't a complete political witch hunt. There was no crime, no official criminal charges, just some ethical complaints. And those ethical complaints were easily dealt with when the 5 instances of insubordination were proven and documented. There is not evidence of the governor or her staff specifically threatening Monegan to remove Wooten or be fired. And, without that, there is no case given the information presented. All French is trying to do right now is fish around for a comment from her husband or the staff he can use to keep this investigation alive. At this point, there's really nothing to it and that's why Palin stopped participating. She's proven she had cause to remove him and they have no evidence she (or her staff) threatened Monegan. So, unless they can dig up something new, the case is dead.

Anyone who looks at the actual reason for the investigation (ethical claims involving Monegan's removal), the evidence Palin has presented (5 cases of insubordination) and the evidence given against her (one staffer asking why Wooten was still employed given his documented reprimands and a conversation between Monegan and her husband where Todd Palin DID NOT threaten Monegan or even asked for Wooten to be fired) can see this is paper thin. In fact, there has been very little discussion of that here. It's been more on talking points from the left or soundbites where the main outcry is that Palin is "preventing" them from making a case against her (just the claim itself sounds ridiculous).

It's their job to prove she threatened or had her staff threaten Monegan. They haven't done that to this point, French is panicking and now trying whatever he can do to keep the case alive. Palin has more than done enough to prove her innocence and had she not been named VP, it would already been done and put to bed for the Oct report.

So she should have no problem providing all the evidence, and all the witness depositions that are requested, since she did not wrong and said, "Hold me accountable." there is NO OUT HERE and the person being investigated doesnt get to decide when the investigator has enough info to render a report or when the issue is dead. Youre spun and have admitted so, so it should come as no surprise that youre right in line with them, and seem to have changed your tune right when they did too. Shocker.

Flasch186 09-23-2008 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1840942)
I've seen a few interviews of Lyda Green on TV. Anyone who doesn't think she has a chip on her shoulder from past political run-ins with Palin is fooling themselves. This woman is hell-bent on revenge, despite the fact that the Palin's have done plenty to prove that this investigation doesn't have any legs.

Right, those seeking the truth are on a withchunt and those being investigated are now victims, gotcha. Seems to be right in line along political lines which means it should ABSOLUTELY be followed through until the truth is resolved.

Arles 09-23-2008 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1841066)
So she should have no problem providing all the evidence, and all the witness depositions that are requested, since she did not wrong and said, "Hold me accountable."
She gave more than enough documentation and records to show she had cause to fire Monegan for insubordination. But the proof is not on her end to show why she doesn't need to talk to French, the proof is on French's end to show why he needs to ask more questions to Palin and the staffers. What "cause" does he have to show they need to subpoenaed. According the AG, it wasn't enough for the subpoenas to stand up.

You can't just require people to talk to you in an ethics investigation for no reason. While he is at it, why not subpoena John and Cindy McCain? Maybe they had a conversation with Palin that may have involved this subject?

French has nothing to base this on and is reaching/fishing for something to keep it going. The AG has said the subpoenas are not valid, so why should Palin honor them when it's obvious he has a political axe to grind? Again, it's not her job to make sure he is able to fully investigate the case to his liking. He needs to provide reasons and new, compelling information on why these people need to testify. Until he does that, Palin would be stupid to allow people close to her to enter this fishing expedition.

Arles 09-23-2008 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toddzilla (Post 1841055)
It is a "big lie" because she very clearly described the process as happening one way (we took a vote of the girls) and the very next day very clearly described the process a completely different way (they kept it a secret from the kids). Why she felt the need to blatantly lie about an issue as completely insignificant as when she told her daughters about being chosen as veep is "big", because - taken in context with the dozens of other documented cases where she's lied - it displays a pattern of behavior whereby Sarah Palin has no problem lying about whatever and whenever she wants and expecting to get away with it.

It is a "big lie" because it demonstrates - as clearly as other traits some may bring up - that Sarah Palin is unfit for public service.
This is a perfect post to back the comments I made above. Thank you for providing it.

ISiddiqui 09-23-2008 05:03 PM
Let's see, the State Senate President who has basically been at loggerheads with Palin because she started to go after corruption among Republicans is suddenly just "seeking the truth". I have a feeling if this was a State Senate President in Illinois, who butted heads with Obama, pushing for a Rezko investigation, you'd sing a different tune.

Flasch186 09-23-2008 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1841089)
She gave more than enough documentation and records to show she had cause to fire Monegan for insubordination.

not for her to decide

Quote:
But the proof is not on her end to show why she doesn't need to talk to French, the proof is on French's end to show why he needs to ask more questions to Palin and the staffers.

When she said she'd cooperate and to hold her accountable she placed the onus on herself to do just that. conveniently she has flip flopped (as have you).

Quote:
What "cause" does he have to show they need to subpoenaed. According the AG, it wasn't enough for the subpoenas to stand up.

The people subpoenaed have a duty to cooperate and if that should lead to further subpoenas than they should Cooperate as well (this smacks of W's people who stand in contempt of their congressional subpoenas)

Quote:
You can't just require people to talk to you in an ethics investigation for no reason. While he is at it, why not subpoena John and Cindy McCain? Maybe they had a conversation with Palin that may have involved this subject?

Again, look at her own quotes. or for that matter your own quotes, spinster.

Quote:
French has nothing to base this on and is reaching/fishing for something to keep it going. The AG has said the subpoenas are not valid, so why should Palin honor them when it's obvious he has a political axe to grind? Again, it's not her job to make sure he is able to fully investigate the case to his liking. He needs to provide reasons and new, compelling information on why these people need to testify. Until he does that, Palin would be stupid to allow people close to her to enter this fishing expedition.

If you keep telling the same garbage hopefully you'll get others to believe it too.

Flasch186 09-23-2008 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1841091)
Let's see, the State Senate President who has basically been at loggerheads with Palin because she started to go after corruption among Republicans is suddenly just "seeking the truth". I have a feeling if this was a State Senate President in Illinois, who butted heads with Obama, pushing for a Rezko investigation, you'd sing a different tune.

no i wouldnt and if this is how you feel than no one ever will be investigated for anything, although that has been par for the course in politics for a long long time.

ISiddiqui 09-23-2008 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1841098)
no i wouldnt and if this is how you feel than no one ever will be investigated for anything, although that has been par for the course in politics for a long long time.

Yeah, see, I don't believe that.

If someone actually thinks that Green is more interested in the truth than trying to smack down Palin hasn't followed things. I mean she was the one who was yelling at Palin being unprepared as soon as she was tabbed for VP... what Party member does that, unless you are Zell Miller or Joe Libermann and then you are villified by the party you originally came from.

Though in the Palin case, while I think there should be an investigation, it's a bit tainted by the "October Surprise" comments and appearances of a fishing expedition.

ace1914 09-23-2008 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1841091)
Let's see, the State Senate President who has basically been at loggerheads with Palin because she started to go after corruption among Republicans is suddenly just "seeking the truth". I have a feeling if this was a State Senate President in Illinois, who butted heads with Obama, pushing for a Rezko investigation, you'd sing a different tune.

Investigation? Hasn't the man been convicted and sentenced already? If there was any dirt to be found between Obama and Rezko, don't you think REPUBLICANS would have been found already? Oh wait, it was there with the housing thing and Obama suffered quite a bit during the primaries for it.

Quit crying a fuckin river for this woman. She's in the big leagues now and she's gotta play be the same rules as everyone else.

ISiddiqui 09-23-2008 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ace1914 (Post 1841103)
Investigation? Hasn't the man been convicted and sentenced already? If there was any dirt to be found between Obama and Rezko, don't you think REPUBLICANS would have been found already? Oh wait, it was there with the housing thing and Obama suffered quite a bit during the primaries for it.

Thank you for making my point.

Flasch186 09-23-2008 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1841101)
Yeah, see, I don't believe that.

Welp, there you go.

JPhillips 09-23-2008 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1841089)
She gave more than enough documentation and records to show she had cause to fire Monegan for insubordination. But the proof is not on her end to show why she doesn't need to talk to French, the proof is on French's end to show why he needs to ask more questions to Palin and the staffers. What "cause" does he have to show they need to subpoenaed. According the AG, it wasn't enough for the subpoenas to stand up.

You can't just require people to talk to you in an ethics investigation for no reason. While he is at it, why not subpoena John and Cindy McCain? Maybe they had a conversation with Palin that may have involved this subject?

French has nothing to base this on and is reaching/fishing for something to keep it going. The AG has said the subpoenas are not valid, so why should Palin honor them when it's obvious he has a political axe to grind? Again, it's not her job to make sure he is able to fully investigate the case to his liking. He needs to provide reasons and new, compelling information on why these people need to testify. Until he does that, Palin would be stupid to allow people close to her to enter this fishing expedition.

French didn't just show up one day out of the blue. He was appointed by a Republican legislature and the subpoenas were approved by the committee. Whether or not you think she's guilty of any crime is immaterial. Elected officials shouldn't be able to ignore subpoenas.

larrymcg421 09-23-2008 05:35 PM
I love how people are attacking the motives of Green and French, but we're just supposed to believe the word of the completely unbiased Attorney General.

Hmmm, something doesn't sound right. What could it be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Talis James Colberg was appointed by newly-elected governor Sarah Palin as the seventeenth attorney general of Alaska on December 13, 2006

Heh.

ace1914 09-23-2008 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1841105)
Thank you for making my point.

No problem. Anytime. :lol:

BTW, its been how long since the (R) convention and this woman has taken three interviews. Three. aOnly one of substance. She's blocking a review of her "leadership" credentials, after she agreed to it. Now she meets with foreign leaders to take pictures, and you guys want her as your VP? Good lord, what a crazy world.

ISiddiqui 09-23-2008 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1841109)
I love how people are attacking the motives of Green and French, but we're just supposed to believe the word of the completely unbiased Attorney General.

I don't believe any of them, nor think we should trust any of them. They all have their own political motives in this.

cartman 09-23-2008 05:57 PM
Gotta love this plank of the Republican platform, which was only passed last month:

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm

Quote:
We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all.

larrymcg421 09-23-2008 06:54 PM
Here's a look at how the Senate races are playing out right now...

Both sides have had lofty goals, with the Democrats talking about a filibuster proof majority, and the Republicans saying that a Palin boost could be strong enough to hold at 49 seats. Neither of these is very likely.

The Republicans are in bad shape from the start because they are defending 23 seats, almost twice as many as the Dems. Of these 23, they are pretty much locks to hold in WY, WY, MS, AL, NE, TN, KS, SC, ID, and OK. They also hold good leads in ME, GA, and TX. There was a SurveyUSA poll that showed McConnell in danger in KY, but I still think he's gonna win until we see something to verify that poll.

That leaves 9 seats to defend (MS, NC, OR, MN, VA, NM, NH, CO, AK). I think they will likely win MS and likely lose VA, NM, NH, CO, and AK.

The remaining states are NC, OR, MN, all of which show very close polling. They are at 41 before these three and don't really havce a shot at picking off any incumbent Dems, so I think the best case scenario for the GOP is 44 seats.

For the GOP dream of 49 seats, they'd have to win all three of those close races, keep their seats in AK, CO, and NH, and pick off two Dem incumbents (best bets are Lautenberg and Landrieu and they're not very good bets). For the Dem dream of 60 seats, they'd have to win all three of those close races, and pick off McConnell in KY or Wicker in MS.

Arles 09-23-2008 08:23 PM
For those who think Palin, her husband and her staff should enter French and Green's fishing expedition on their own accord, what possible "successful" scenario could come from such a move on Palin's part?

She's already provided more than enough information show cause for Monegan's removal, so it's doubtful the case will be dropped. It's doubtful she will get any credit for speaking with them as she got no credit when she released all the documents both in early August and even some internal memos in September. To me, I see no positive result from Palin speaking to these people.

With that in mind, why would Palin willingly put herself in a situation (in the middle of a very angry campaign against her) that has no positive result? It would be sheer stupidity to do so.

Flasch186 09-23-2008 08:52 PM
because she said it herself, to hold her accountable and investigate. Again, She doesnt get to decide what is enough proof or evidence or information. If you want to argue that Fench needs to be removed, thats a whole 'nother ballgame, but arguing that the investigation shouldnt continue to its fruition smacks of spin, ignorance, deceit, and scumbaggery. (BTW, love the additional person added to the list of those who are biased in their investigation - it's not just French now....I assume the list will grow to encompass anyone who wants the investigation to follow the path to its honest conclusion)

Flasch186 09-23-2008 08:58 PM
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York - Yahoo! News

Quote:
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York

By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Sarah Palin met her first world leaders Tuesday. It was a tightly controlled crash course on foreign policy for the Republican vice presidential candidate, the mayor-turned-governor who has been outside North America just once.


Palin sat down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The conversations were private, the pictures public, meant to build her resume for voters concerned about her lack of experience in world affairs.

"I found her quite a capable woman," Karzai said later. "She asked the right questions on Afghanistan."

The self-described "hockey mom" also asked former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for insights on Georgia, Russia, China and Iran, and she'll see more leaders Wednesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings.

It was shuttle diplomacy, New York-style. At several points, Palin's motorcade got stuck in traffic and New Yorkers, unimpressed with the flashing lights, sirens and police officers in her group, simply walked between the vehicles to get across the street. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, three hours behind Palin in seeing Karzai, found herself overshadowed for a day as she made her own rounds.

John McCain's presidential campaign has shielded the first-term Alaska governor for weeks from spontaneous questions from voters and reporters, and went to striking lengths Tuesday to maintain that distance as Palin made her diplomatic debut.

The GOP campaign, applying more restrictive rules on access than even President Bush uses in the White House, banned reporters from the start of the meetings, so as not to risk a question being asked of Palin.

McCain aides relented after news organizations objected and CNN, which was supplying TV footage to a variety of networks, decided to pull its TV crew from Palin's meeting with Karzai.

Overheard: small talk.

Palin is studying foreign policy ahead of her one debate with Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, a senator with deep credentials on that front. More broadly, the Republican ticket is trying to counter questions exploited by Democrats about her qualifications to serve as vice president and step into the presidency at a moment's notice if necessary.

There was no chance of putting such questions to rest with photo opportunities Tuesday.

But Palin, who got a passport only last year, no longer has to own up to a blank slate when asked about heads of state she has met.

She also got her first intelligence briefing Tuesday, over two hours.

Karzai generated light laughter when he told an audience at the Asia Society that, in addition to Rice and Norway's prime minister, he had seen Palin on Tuesday. Thomas Freston, a member of the society's board, drew loud applause and laughter when he responded: "You're probably the only person in the room who's met Gov. Palin."

Randy Scheunemann, a longtime McCain aide on foreign policy, was close at hand during her meetings. Another adviser, Stephen Biegun, also accompanied her at each meeting and briefed reporters later.

Karzai and Palin discussed security problems in Afghanistan, including cross-border insurgencies. They also talked about the need for more U.S. troops there, which both McCain and Democrat Barack Obama say is necessary, Biegun said.

With both Karzai and Uribe, Palin discussed the importance of energy security. With Uribe, the conversation also touched on the proposed U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement that McCain and Palin support but Obama opposes.

Her meeting with Kissinger, which lasted more than an hour, covered a range of national security and foreign policy issues, specifically Russia, Iran and China, Biegun said.

"Rather than make specific policy prescriptions, she was largely listening, having an exchange of views and also very interested in forming a relationship with people she met with today," he said.

Before Palin's first meeting of the day, with Karzai, campaign aides had told reporters in the press pool that followed her they could not go into meetings where photographers and a video camera crew would be let in for pictures.

Bush and members of Congress routinely allow reporters to attend photo opportunities along with photographers, and the reporters sometimes are able to ask questions at the beginning of private meetings before they are ushered out.

At least two news organizations, including AP, objected to the exclusion of reporters and were told that the decision to have a "photo spray" only was not subject to discussion. After aides backed away from that, campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the reporter ban was a "miscommunication."

On Wednesday, McCain and Palin are expected to meet jointly with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko. Palin is then to meet separately with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Palin, 44, has been to neighboring Canada and to Mexico, and made a brief trip to Kuwait and Germany to see Alaska National Guard troops.

Arles 09-23-2008 09:53 PM
I think where we differ is I feel she has done more than enough to help the investigation - at a very minimum she's met her legal requirements. If they don't have enough for a conviction at this point, that's a French problem - not a Palin problem.

JPhillips 09-23-2008 10:01 PM
I'll try that line the next time I get subpoenaed.

btw- When was it that Republicans became such passive-aggressive pussies? This used to be a kick ass and take names party, but now all they can do is complain about being mistreated.

Arles 09-23-2008 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1841388)
I'll try that line the next time I get subpoenaed.
Palin never got subpoenaed and the AG determined the subpoenas French and company submitted to her husband and staffer was invalid.

So, if a judge stated that a subpoena sent to you or your family on a civil/criminal case against you was invalid, you would go and testify anyway? Even if no positive result could come from it?

Quote:
When was it that Republicans became such passive-aggressive pussies? This used to be a kick ass and take names party, but now all they can do is complain about being mistreated.
I don't think Palin is being mistreated on troopergate. She's taken some hits publicly for her choices and I think that's fair. I'm just amazed that people think she isn't making the right decision. I'm of the opinion that if you are charged with a crime and nothing good can come from you testifying - why do it and potentially help the prosecution? Especially when there is no legal reason for you to do so. And, when you look at the flimsy case they have, I don't see much to really knock Palin on.

Flasch186 09-23-2008 10:09 PM
hmmm, I wonder how people wouldve felt had Clinton refused to testify anyways, the 'pleading the 5th' case makes sense, if thats where youre going BUT I REALLY REALLY dont like that we have a Pol. pleading the 5th in something (right or wrong) before even being elected. That's a really really bad sign.

JPhillips 09-23-2008 10:09 PM
Judge > Appointed AG

Flasch186 09-23-2008 10:11 PM
good point

adubroff 09-23-2008 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1841395)
Palin never got subpoenaed and the AG determined the subpoenas French and company submitted to her husband and staffer was invalid.

So, if a judge stated that a subpoena sent to you or your family on a civil/criminal case against you was invalid, you would go and testify anyway? Even if no positive result could come from it?

When did the Attorney General become a judge? I know Alaska's small but I think they have actual judges. If an actual judge had said that, then they'd have every right to ignore the subpoenas. The Attorney General has as much standing to say this as I do.

NoMyths 09-23-2008 10:40 PM
The son of a colleague of mine was killed in Iraq this weekend. It can be easy to lose sight of the real world when arguing about politics, but I very much hope that the next administration will move us closer to ending the conflict in Iraq.

DaddyTorgo 09-23-2008 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1841398)
hmmm, I wonder how people wouldve felt had Clinton refused to testify anyways, the 'pleading the 5th' case makes sense, if thats where youre going BUT I REALLY REALLY dont like that we have a Pol. pleading the 5th in something (right or wrong) before even being elected. That's a really really bad sign.

+1

I'm of the opinion that politicians shouldn't have the option of pleading the 5th (i'm sure people could come up with some cases where i'd say it was okay, but by and large i don't think there are any).

Arles 09-23-2008 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adubroff (Post 1841402)
When did the Attorney General become a judge? I know Alaska's small but I think they have actual judges. If an actual judge had said that, then they'd have every right to ignore the subpoenas. The Attorney General has as much standing to say this as I do.
Then why have no charges been filed by the Alaska legislature or law enforcement for Todd Palin and her staffers ignoring the subpoenas? I mean, if you said Todd Palin didn't have to heed the subpoena, I'm thinking he would still have to honor it. Yet, neither him or the staffers are required to do so - meaning the subpoenas are not valid.

Arles 09-23-2008 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1841443)
+1

I'm of the opinion that politicians shouldn't have the option of pleading the 5th (i'm sure people could come up with some cases where i'd say it was okay, but by and large i don't think there are any).
Who pleaded the fifth in the Palin investigation? As far as I can tell, they haven't even requested additional testimony from Sarah Palin. Did I miss something?

DaddyTorgo 09-23-2008 11:08 PM
no you didn't miss something. i was responding to flasch's comment (although i guess i didn't quote it)

Vegas Vic 09-23-2008 11:16 PM
Palin's inexperience is starting to become more of an issue when compared with the seasoning and expertise of Joe Biden. Here is Biden's take on the need for action due to the recent financial crisis:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened'".

"October 29, 1929, a date which will live in infamy."

larrymcg421 09-23-2008 11:17 PM
I'm sorry, but using the AG's argument is pretty ridiculous. The AG is part of Palin's administration. Are we really expecting him to say anything different? How can you criticize Green and French because of their obvious biases, but then use the AG's position to make your point?

DanGarion 09-23-2008 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1841461)

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened'".

"October 29, 1929, a date which will live in infamy."

And Biden was there to see it live! :lol:

DaddyTorgo 09-23-2008 11:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanGarion (Post 1841471)
And Biden was there to see it live! :lol:

Nope. But McCain was pretty damn close to there. He was born while FDR was still in office.

DanGarion 09-23-2008 11:33 PM
By the way, what happened to the good ole days when someone went from Secretary of Commerce to President of the United States?

DaddyTorgo 09-23-2008 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1841463)
I'm sorry, but using the AG's argument is pretty ridiculous. The AG is part of Palin's administration. Are we really expecting him to say anything different? How can you criticize Green and French because of their obvious biases, but then use the AG's position to make your point?

shame on you! trying to apply LOGIC to the spin! what are you thinking?

Vegas Vic 09-23-2008 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanGarion (Post 1841471)
And Biden was there to see it live! :lol:

Yeah, and apparently he was the only one who had a TV in 1929, because the rest of the country had to wait another 10 years. :lol:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM.
Page 106 of 222 « First < 65696979899100101102103104105 106 107108109110111112113114115116156206 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.