It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Is this really any different than Hillary and what she did? I think so... Hillary was more vicious. She had Vince Foster killed and some on the left would have loved her to be President. Do we remember Travel Gate? How about the countless bodies that piled up on the road to the White House? How about her husband raping a black teenage girl and she doesn't do anything about it?

How about burning the Branch Dividians out and killing scroes of children? Abortion after the fact I guess? How about Ruby Ridge? Kill a mother holding her child.

Palin looks like a saint compared to the evil doers on the left.


Originally posted by SectionEight
The NYTimes is an Obama slanted paper that pretends to be journalism. How is this allowed under the new rules as a source?

Would I be allowed to post the most recent Rasmussen Report that puts McCain ahead and the accompanying editorials that attempt to interpret the polls on why McCain/Palin are the next best thing since sliced bread?


Well said... Not sure what the new rules mean. Seems to be they are nothing but a bunch of left leaning MODS that came together for Obama. At least that's what the threads are starting to look like.


Edit to add:
I doubt Palins list is even this close!


[edit on 14-9-2008 by northof8]




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The choice of a relative unknown in the last 8 weeks before the election leaves very little time to have the country get to know who this new candidate is. It's their right to fully scour any past political actions that Palin has taken as it give us an idea of how she would act in the office of Vice-President and quite likely the office of President.

This public inquiry and revelation is NOT "sexist" or "unfair". That charge is just distraction.


Well, I completely disagree. In fact, in terms of fairness, I think this puts logic on its head.

The NY Times piece reads like a hit piece with little evidence showing how they arrived at their conclusions or even what relevance some of their "facts" have.

It's because we have such a short period of time, we should not fall victim to hysteria generated by inaccurate reporting.

You act as if she's never been vetted to begin with. I'd like to point out the obvious: She was elected Mayor twice. She was elected Governor and enjoys considerable Alaskan approval ratings.

Are you suggesting Alaskans failed to discover her five heads? What special expertise do you suppose the national media has to discover Palin's infirmities beyond those already considered by the Alaskans who happen to know her best?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I am glad we're discovering more of who she is.


If that's what you think articles like this one do...

:shk:


[edit on 14-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


It`s like I said earlier, if both camps are not looking for dirt, the media goes out on their own and does it for them. It`s like their isn`t enough hate and garbage littering the headlines, is there? No, the media feels they can`t make money if they can`t keep things turned upside down. It`s no wonder more people are turning to the internet sources for news.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


I'll grant you the emails, but the rest is largely he-said, she-said. There's absolutely no attempt by the Times to discover whether or not some of these people have an axe to grind.

A great example of the Times' lack of research is John Bitney. The story is probably accurate, but she had authority to fire him for any reason. His response?


"I understand why I had to go," Mr. Bitney said. "I accept that. I was in the governor's office and a trusted adviser. I betrayed that trust by not being forthcoming about what was going on in my personal life."


Link

Why does the Times go to someone else? Why not ask John Bitney what he thinks? Why could the Wall Street Journal do this, but not the NY Times?

My point? I can find rebuttals for a lot of this stuff in 15 minutes with Google. The Times has not done its homework. It is attempting to present Sarah Palin in the worst possible light by finding anything negative about her without presenting the opposing set of facts.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by vor78]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


Let me ask you this, what would you say if I told you a certain political figure used their sphere of influence to negotiate a $195,052 raise for their spouse, and in turn secured an earmark for her employer in the amount of One Million dollars to cover the raise?

Well, the title of your thread is how it works in DC. It has been that way for a long time and the Republicans are not the only party guilty of it.

And who's that "certain political figure" you ask? None other than the messiah... read on:

"In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office." Looks like that raise was worth it.

Source: www.riehlworldview.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Not sure where I read it, may have been in another thread here on ATS. But their is rumor out their that Palin is a decoy. And would be politically assassinated by the media and forced to step down allowing the original VP choice to step up.




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Oh, say it aint so... Not another questionable "favor" by a politician!

Barack Obama has been friends with Antoin ("Tony") Rezko since at least 1990. Barack interviewed with Rezko for a job in the early 1990s (offered, but declined), and has raised at least $150,000 for Obama's campaigns. Prosecutors charge that at least $10,000 of the money Rezko gave Obama was extorted in return for political favors by a different politician. In return, Barack arranged an internship in 2005 for John Aramanda, the son of a Rezko business associate (Joseph Aramanda, who himself gave Barack $11,500.)

Here's the real problem: among other problems, Rezko is on trial in a federal government corruption case for demanding kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with Illinois Governor Blagojevich, another politician that Rezko has befriended and donated to. (Rezko is also under indictment for shaking down a Hollywood producer for $1.5 million in campaign contributions for Blagojevich. The guy takes care of his political friends.) In fact, Joseph Aramanda is an unindicted co-conspirator in one of the kickback cases.

You mean Sarah Palin is not the only one doing favors for their friends?

Hey OP, news flash! This is just the surface of the top of the Dem ticket. Obama was sworn in as a US senator on January 4, 2005. He just mentioned in a recent debate that he has been running his campaign for the last 2 years. Something tells me he'd have a few more skeletons in there if not for this fact. And as far as his running mate, if I had more time I could produce a mountain of stuff on a guy with 36 years in the senate.

So, instead of wasting your time weeding through teddy bears in Sarah Palins closet, why don't you get a life!


[edit on 9/14/2008 by TheRooster]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
You know what is so pathetic about all the Palin bashing is that its so triviel compared to Obama and his assosiations for the last 20+ years.If the GOP were to send 30+ lawyers and investigators into Chicago and VETT Obama like they are doing Palin there would be accusations of raceism flying everywhere.Don't any of you remember when this whole thing started,if you said anything about Obama,you were a Racest.Now its vetting,just change the rules to meet your purpose I guess.
The bottom line is all this Palin(Ya I have said this before)bashing is just going to backfire in Obamas face.So keep up the unproven slander and watch your canidate hit the skids even worse.I'm sure the GOP will sit back and get a big kick out of what this is doing to Obama.
Oh! and the few sourses you have come up with,Is that IT??
Your beating a dead horse and people just keep on loving Palin.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 


It's not enough to oppose someone simply based upon a difference in political view.

No.

Today, EVERYONE'S integrity has to be trashed on the flimsiest of evidence.

That seems to be required in our political process now.





[edit on 14-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Everyone seems ready to blast Palin for every decision she had made while in office. And by everyone, I mean MSM.
What kind of foreign policy experience does she have? What kind did Clinton, Reagan, and Carter have? Did they deal with foriegn leaders while they were governors of their respective states?
According to the times article, she hired friends and cronies when she was elected mayor and govenor. I seem to remember that Bill brought about half the population of Arkansas to Washington with him. (And they were the ones we were glad to be rid of.)
The point needs to be made that everyone does things in their own way. They depend on friend and aquaintences, especially in new situations. So folks, let's lighten up a little, shall we?

One more thing. Where does Charlie get off asking Palin if she is ready to assume the office of CNC? Would he ask that of Biden? Obama? McCain? Somehow, I think not.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Battleline
 


The Dems know they have to politically destroy Sarah Palin. That's why we're seeing such an effort by the left to pick her apart in every way possible. If she and McCain win and if she's subsequently viewed as a successful VP, she could seriously damage the Dems' stranglehold on the female electorate for the forseeable future.

That's something that is untenable for the Democratic party and could do serious, permanent damage to their viability as a national party. Anything that threatens their largest core constituency is a serious threat to the party itself. That's why they're trying to destroy her politically and as quickly as possible. The future of their party may be at stake here, and they know it, and its why we're seeing this effort to sling every ounce of mud humanly possible at Palin.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


This will match very well the issue of Palin abusing her office powers for personal vendetta.

Let me bring back he subject for those that still think this is all about bashing Palin as a public figure.

Alaska police union files complaint against Palin

deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com...


When I first looked upon her credentials for as the Governor of Alaska it seemed to be honest and clear.

But then upon more research is obviously some problems that she created due to her personal handling of family matters.

A person that can not control her temper or demeanor in a public office where he or she is in charge due to personal vendettas can not possible be able to handle the power that a higher office like the VP or president can Bring.





What does ousting incumbent officials and cleaning house have to do with a "temper"? If anything it proves that she is willing to butt heads with those whom she feels are doing wrong, even if they are well entrenched in the political scene. I wish we had someone like that in my community.

As for the State Trooper, how did she abuse her duties? Have you forgotten that the State Governor is in charge of the State Police? She stated that she witnessed this Trooper go crazy in a rage, and he used a tazer on her nephew. Then this past week HE even came out and admitted to that! So it seems that not only proves her witness account, and her reasoning behind wanting him ousted, but it also goes to show her accountability as far as speaking the truth is concerned. This same State Trooper was also cited for Drinking Beer while on duty in his Patrol Car, and Illegally Shooting a Moose (which is Poaching). I do not know about you, but I would call that unfit for duty, and she was completely correct in attempting to have him fired.

BTW, have you seen a picture of this same State Trooper in question? The guy is juicing up, you can easily tell that he is on steroids. Have you ever heard of "'Roid Rage"?

In regards to the State Public Safety Commissioner (Chief of State Police), he failed to carry out his duties as assigned to him by his boss, the State Governor. That is insubordination, and a break in the Chain of Command, over a lawful order (look at the admission of guilt by the State Trooper) cannot be tolerated under ANY circumstances. She did what was correct, and reigned in control under her Executive Authority.

As for the Police Union, you should never put any faith in them. They file complaints no matter the circumstances of a case. I have seen the Police Unions even go as far as defending Officers who were caught on video shooting suspects to death, in unjustified accounts. They defend the most corrupt of Officers, and I have even seen them go against a Local Police Chief who flushed out Officers unfit for duty, which he was completely justified in doing, and yet they still attacked him. If the Police Unions used more discretion in their backing of Officers, they might have some credibility, but they simply do not.



[edit on 9-14-2008 by TheAgentNineteen]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Well, I completely disagree. In fact, in terms of fairness, I think this puts logic on its head.


You don't think it's fair or logical to want to know the political decisions made in the past by the person who may just become our president? Is that what you're saying?



The NY Times piece reads like a hit piece with little evidence showing how they arrived at their conclusions or even what relevance some of their "facts" have.


It's not up to them to state the relevance of their facts. There is plenty of information out there, much from the Anchorage Daily News that substantiates the fact that Palin was DEEP into cronyism and has other ethics issues. She's under investigation at this time for abuse of office.



It's because we have such a short period of time, we should not fall victim to hysteria generated by inaccurate reporting.


I don't see anyone being hysterical except the people who are anxiously coming to her defense and calling any questioning of her and her ethics pathetic, sexist and unfair.



You act as if she's never been vetted to begin with.


I "act as if" no such thing. I said she will be vetted by the public. They are not going to take the word of Alaskans nor are they going to trust John McCain. And they have a right to know who she is and how she's behaved POLITICALLY.


She was elected Governor and enjoys considerable Alaskan approval ratings.


1500 people showed up in Anchorage yesterday to protest her becoming vice-president. Many of them wore masks for fear of repercussion. Source



Are you suggesting Alaskans failed to discover her five heads?


I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying we have a right to know how this person has behaved if we're to elect her to political office.



What special expertise do you suppose the national media has to discover Palin's infirmities beyond those already considered by the Alaskans who happen to know her best?


I'm not saying they have a special expertise. They have a different perspective. The national media isn't in a trance brought on by dreams of pipelines and rebate checks. I'm saying they have the guts to ask the questions, whereas her "80% approval rating" doesn't tell me a thing. If I disagree with those 80% of people, politically, then that approval rating doesn't do me much good, does it?



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by loam
Well, I completely disagree. In fact, in terms of fairness, I think this puts logic on its head.


You don't think it's fair or logical to want to know the political decisions made in the past by the person who may just become our president? Is that what you're saying?


Yeah, BH. That's what I'm saying.


Let's cover the real points you believe the article shows. Maybe that would be more productive.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

You act as if she's never been vetted to begin with. I'd like to point out the obvious: She was elected Mayor twice. She was elected Governor and enjoys considerable Alaskan approval ratings.


Dude, so does George Bush before it turns south.

Apparently, americans need a lot lo improvement in their vetting process.

So... I don't see anything wrong (at least not too much) with this thread.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Could it possibly be all planned out, this whole charade , as a problem -reaction-solution game being played on us sheeple, and Palin has been one of their chess pieces to help the oil companies through some obstacles(such as endangered polar bears, and environmentally protected land) Is she a puppet of the secret agenda? They are using another reason (America's failing economy) to reap their profits at the expense of something we Americans should value. The colors of our flag are fading each time we allow these things and let these evil sheisters to con us into letting America be raped repeatedly on all fronts.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


This proves what, exactly?

It proves she's a politician.

Holy crap!


From everything I've read, she's less corrupt than many, more corrupt than some. What can we do?



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Yeah, BH. That's what I'm saying.


I'd like to know what you are saying, because I apparently am not getting your point, but that's ok. We disagree and I'm fine with that.




Let's cover the real points you believe the article shows. Maybe that would be more productive.


I don't think covering the article's points will produce anything but more disagreement.
I have read 50 articles on Ms. Palin and I don't like the way she governs. That's not going to change by covering the points in this one article.


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
From everything I've read, she's less corrupt than many, more corrupt than some. What can we do?


I agree about her corruption. What can we do? The only thing I know to do is reveal the corruption. Then people decide what to do based on what is revealed.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

What are you talking about? Obama has NEVER been vetted by the media. EVER. They have asked Palin 10 times more questions in the past 2 weeks than Obama has been asked in the past 19 months, the vast majority of them being irrelevant, disrespectful and blatant accusations without any evidence at all.

This is why Obama is absolutely tanking in the polls. The media tried as long as they could to cover up the true Barack Hussein Obama by not vetting him, but unfortunately for them, the true Barack Hussein Obama is leaking through. If they would have actually vetted him, this vacuous human wasteland of a candidate never would have made it past the primaries. Hell, the DNC are surely kicking themselves right now that they nominated a guy that never would have passed a screening to become an FBI agent with all his terrorist/extremist ties as their candidate for president of the United States of America. It's absolutely pathetic. I don't know what is more insulting, the fact that they expect the American people to vote for this idiot or the fact that there are actually people that support this extremist, Marxist nutcase.

Now, to be on topic, it's blatantly obvious what Palin did when she was in office. What she did was throw out all the lazy, do-nothing thieves that sat on their butts every day for their entire lives leeching off the taxpayer. Since when did it become offensive to the American people to throw out the career politician types? These are the people that steal trillions from the government every year - you know, the money that magically disappears from the books every year. Just vanishes. Suddenly, we hate this woman for trying to stop this?

Ohhh...it's one of those vacuums! We're not 100% sure that this is what's going on. We're 99% sure that's what her aim was by her policies, but as long as there's that 1% of doubt, we can spin it to fit our agendas. Gotcha!


This is why this woman has a, what, 84% approval rating in the state of Alaska? Because she cleans up the trash, she doesn't appoint them or let these diseases continue to fester in public offices. However, let's not stop bashing her in order to fulfill our personal agendas of getting the Marxist unrepentant-terrorist-befriender elected.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by ChocoTaco369]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
Obama has NEVER been vetted by the media.


I didn't say anyone should be vetted by the media! I said the PUBLIC. We have vetted Obama for 19 months now. We can look at his voting record for 12 years! We have seen him in interviews, debates, read numerous articles on him, I have read his books, watched TV specials on him, and watched as the media went through his life 500 times. They have scoured his personal records.

What are YOU talking about?



They have asked Palin 10 times more questions in the past 2 weeks than Obama has been asked in the past 19 months,


That is NOT TRUE! Palin has had ONE interview. ONE.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join