libertyworld on Sep 8 2008, 01:09 PM, said:
"Last month, the state Legislature appointed an independent investigator to review whether the governor or her aides abused their power by pressuring Monegan to fire the trooper, a probe that the Democratic chairman of the state Senate Judiciary Committee said could lead to Palinís impeachment. The outside investigator, a retired assistant district attorney in Anchorage, was directed to file his report by Oct. 31, four days before the presidential election.
Palin strongly denied the accusations and ordered her own investigation by the state Law Department.
Ah, so she started up her own investigation in order to pre-empt the legislature. That doesn't change the fact that it was the legislature that originally brought it up.
Palin promised her full cooperation, saying she would answer any questions from lawmakers, media and the public."
Which is why she's given it - oh wait, she hasn't. She's got some of McCain's lawyers up there, trying to stonewall and slow it down like crazy so that the investigation results don't come out until after the election, as opposed to the original date - October 31st.
A few tens of millions paid attention to her speech. More than whats his name's, actually?
The media is not just reporting on the convention attendees opinion of the speech.
That is nonsense.
Did all of these people think it was a good speech? In any case, I was expressing an opinion, both of the speech and of the media.
She killed the bridge. Said they'de build it with their own money if Alaskans wanted it.
She said she put the plane on ebay and she did. Just wasn't how it was eventually sold.
She is a corruption fighting maverick, even / especially within her own party and has the most popular approval ratings in the country in part because of it.
She supported it in 2006 when asked about it on a questionaire, then kept the funds allocated for it after it died in 2007. In other words, she supported the bridge, which is the key point; she said she opposed it in her speech, which is highly deceptive at least. As for the plane, it's still a lie; she said she sold it on Ebay for a profit, not that she "put it up on ebay for a while, then sold it to a political friend."
"Some of us actually live in the reality-based community."
I'de say reality is not exactly your strong suit.
That's amusing, coming from you. Especially when you consider your history of posts from various idiotic sites like Townhall.com and the Ayn Rand Institute.
"So says the political party who's main stance on human sexuality and civil rights is denial."
Again, you saying it does not make it so.
The facts of history do not support your opinion.
Are you actually disputing the point? The Republican stance on abortion has generally been, no abortion. Do they support contraception? Not really, and many of them oppose it. In other words, they're basically failing to address the issue, other than to say "teens shouldn't have sex", which is a statement not born out in reality or in effectiveness (witness unwanted pregnancies in the Middle East, where it can get you killed if you are a girl).
Same goes for civil rights. They made noises about how people needed to work for integration after Reagan, but they never supported the means to get there.
"Of course, seeing as how we Leftists actually try to create an environment friendly to families..."
Now you've lost it completely.
I mean that's just nuts.
You go right on believing it though.
Considering that most divorces occur because of economic and/or financial reasons, I'd say we support families. Considering that we try to help parents who have to both work full-time so that they can find a way for their kids to have something to do and to be safe, I say we are the pro-family party. Considering that we don't want to limit marriage for no particular reason other than religious bigotry, I say we are the pro-family party. Do you dispute this, or are you going to do the usual stunts you pull - posting some crazy-*** article from somewhere else, getting called on your horse****, then running away (again) for a while?