FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

@parados,

I forgot the most important part

Quote:

The Council then met in a closed-door executive session for more than six hours as it reviewed the report. Friday afternoon the council voted unanimously to release the report to the public.

That would be the same council that has 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

Seems like this can't be a Democratic smear attempt based on the numbers on the commission.

2 Replies

@parados,

Didn't know the numbers of republicans and democrats, but that's just another case of the right jumping off the cliff with their stupid, unfounded, comments.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The other thing that mainstream media won't tell you is that the two guys who were pushing this whole Palin scandal are staunch Obama supporters who at one time were named on his website. (No, I don't have a link because I got that off of TV and radio but I'm looking for one.)

Palin was caught on a technicality. She allowed her husband more access to deal with a rogue cop who tazes kids, abuses women, and makes violent threats than was deemed appropriate within stated ethics. That's it. That was the abuse of power. There was nothing else. She had every right to fire anybody she chose, and her poltiical opponents on the commission and otherwise can state that they questioned her motives but she did not act outside of her authority.

Foxfyre:

Obama did not institigate this investigation. This investigation into Palin's unethical conduct was commenced BEFORE Palin was selected by McCain to be his running mate. Your desire to accuse Obama and his supporters for impugning Palin's reputation is misplaced. Sarah Palin has no one to blame except herself for her own unethical conduct. Palin cannot claim to be an ethics reformer when she has no qualms in using the power of her high office as a means to settle personal vendettas.

The state agency that employed Wooten ALREADY dealt with Wooten by and through established disciplinary procedures. Wooten was disciplined for misconduct that took place LONG before Wooten and Palin's sister commenced a nasty divorce proceeding--more than two years BEFORE Palin became governor. FYI: Palin does NOT have the right to fire "anyone" she chose. She did not have the power to fire Wooten, a state employee. Thus, she pressured her subordinates to find a way to get him fired. It was that unethical and unlawful PRESSURE that she placed on subordinates that is the basis for the violation of the state code of ethics.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I forgot the most important part

Quote:
The Council then met in a closed-door executive session for more than six hours as it reviewed the report. Friday afternoon the council voted unanimously to release the report to the public.

That would be the same council that has 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

Seems like this can't be a Democratic smear attempt based on the numbers on the commission.

I also read somewhere that yesterday's session was protested by a group of fifty Palin supporters. FIFTY? Is that all they could manage?

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Well Debra- she made a brave speech about protecting unborn babies today and beside that your troopers are irrelevant. At least she acted in hot blood whatever she did. The abortionist is clinically cool.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, Do you understand that this thread is about the USA election, and not about "unborn babies, troopers, and abortionists." It's about the economy, stupid!

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra writes:

Quote:

Obama did not institigate this investigation.

Thank you very much for your astute observation, but I didn't say that he did.

I did say that those pushing it are staunch Obama supporters who were named, for awhile, on his website.

Yes, the investigation was underway before Palin was named McCain's Veep pick. But do you really want me to believe that you believe this would have come to a head and the report released three weeks before the election otherwise?

Does October surprise come to mind? Anybody?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Yup, all 10 republicans were Obama supporters. LOL

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Maybe it is but a candidate for Veep spoke clearly about unborn babies today in what I assume is an election speech so maybe you should be managing her campaign.

How would you set about defending an accusation that the very same attitudes which have led to abortion being casually accepted have not also caused this financial turmoil.

I would sleep better having gone short on General Motors than my having helped facilitate an abortion.

You can suit yourself.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Debra writes:

Quote:
Obama did not institigate this investigation.

Thank you very much for your astute observation, but I didn't say that he did.

I did say that those pushing it are staunch Obama supporters who were named, for awhile, on his website.

Yes, the investigation was underway before Palin was named McCain's Veep pick. But do you really want me to believe that you believe this would have come to a head and the report released three weeks before the election otherwise?

Does October surprise come to mind? Anybody?

fox.. maybe you missed it..

The Legislative committee was comprised of the following -

Republicans - 10
Democrats - 4

The vote was UNANIMOUS as in 14-0

The Alaskan Supreme Court also said they could go forward with the investigation. This was not just a couple of Obama supporters. By repeating that claim you only look out of touch with reality.

October 31 was selected as the date to release the investigation before Palin was selected as McCain's VP. There was NO surprise about the date. It was voted on 14-0 in July to release it in October when the investigation was completed. When Palin was selected they moved it up 3 weeks so it wouldn't happen a week before the election. Not releasing it would have made them look like they were hiding it.

You are looking silly Fox. Not that it's anything new for you to look silly but please, you are not helping yourself by arguing about something that you are so obviously wrong about.

1 Reply

There you go Foxy-- you're associating the Republican ticket with looking silly.

It doesn't matter a damn who she fired or got fired. She thinks it is an abuse of power to officially sanction millions of abortions each one of which is a defenceless mite. The trooper can take care of himself judging by the pictures we were shown of him. And so can Mrs Palin.

0 Replies

@parados,

And maybe you missed the point that the committee would never have worried about fast tracking this if it was not for the efforts of the two aforementioned Democrats who demanded that it be fast tracked.

1 Reply

This may not be available after today so I wanted to get it posted. John McCain's signature is shown on the first page:

http://humanevents.com/images/letter_050506c.gif

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox, What are you trying to say? Bush brought up this issue in 2003 when congress was republican. What's your point?

Quote:

Bush Proposed Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Supervision In 2003
Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:21 pm Posted by Steven in Economy

A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

0 Replies

Yup. And because no Democrat would deal with it, and because of our resident RINOs in Congress, they couldn't get legislation even to the floor for debate, much less a vote in time to head off the worst of the financial collapse.

But it should be pretty obvious who signed the letter. And that no Democrat would agree to be a signatory. After the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007, no Republican had any chance to get a bill out of committee and no Democrat even tried.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Yup, that letter three years after Bush brought it to their attention absolves them of not taking action when they had the president's support and the majority in congress.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

They still had the president's support and the majority in Congress in May 2006, CI. But with the RINOs voting with the Democrats--not ONE Democrat would vote for it--there were not enough votes to get it through. If even 10 Democrats had been willing to do something, a bill would have been debated and almost certainly would have passed both in 2003 and 2006. Since January 2007, when the Democrats took over, not a single Democrat has even tried to introduce legislation to deal with the problem and no Republican bill can make it out of committee without Democrat consent.

So there you are.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

By 2007, it was too late; most of the damage was already done.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

A lot of it had yes.....but the crash would have been far less severe and done a whole lot less damage, and would not have needed a $700 billion bailout if Congress had taken remedial steps then. But Barney Frank, Chuck Shumer, Chris Dodd and a few other key players would not permit it and the Democrat leadership does not buck those folks. They all went public declaring that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fundamentally sound and the Republicans were just doing scare tactics and it was irresonsible.

And so like I said, there you are.

Listen in on these excerpts of a 2004 hearing:

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You're missing the conservative dogma of less regulations. You're barking up the wrong tree. Like I said, the majority was republican. You guys love to blame the democrats today, because they've been the majority since 2006 without any regards to how congress works under filibuster. Grow up!

108th 2003-2005 48 51 1 204 229 1

1 Reply

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know