Who put the bomp in the bomp buh bomp buh bomp
who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong.

Psst... leave her alone for a couple years and let the Republicans hang themselves. Again.

Think Dick Cheney will take her hunting?

Wow...she is so awesome.

And yet the Republitards still adore her. I can't figure out why. You'd think they would rally behind someone who is honest, experienced, and demonstrates the values the Republican party believe in.

But the party is in such bad shape after G W Bush that they have to grasp at whatever straws they can get (e.g. Sean Hannity's claim that President Obama is elitist because he asked for spicy mustard on a burger).

Palin was popular for a moment, but that eventually dropped like a rock. They're pinning their hopes on getting her back up to that rock star level she was on so briefly. Good luck on that.

Epsilon: Palin was popular for a moment, but that eventually dropped like a rock. They're pinning their hopes on getting her back up to that rock star level she was on so briefly. Good luck on that.

They looked at her, then they listened to her and were horrified.

I will be expecting her to create another socialist legal defense fund to have other, hardworking people pay her shiftless way through life.

Short article. If I read it correctly, she used political money (donated) to pay for a paid political gig(private money) out of state. But I could be wrong, it's not very clear.

Isn't this the very same Alaska Personnel Board who "cleared" Gov. Palin in the Troopergate scandal even though the "Branchflower Report" found that she had acted improperly?

Yes, I know that Gov. Palin didn't appoint the three members of the Alaska Personnel Board and that the previous governor of Alaska did. I also know that Gov. Palin did reappoint one member and that she has he power to do the same with the other two.

So, how much credibility can we give this report if Gov. Palin has the power to influence their decisions? How can we even feel that this finding is in any way just if on the previous occasions their judgment has been questionable?

Random Reality Check: So, how much credibility can we give this report if Gov. Palin has the power to influence their decisions? How can we even feel that this finding is in any way just if on the previous occasions their judgment has been questionable?

Why do we care?

Random Reality Check: So, how much credibility can we give this report if Gov. Palin has the power to influence their decisions? How can we even feel that this finding is in any way just if on the previous occasions their judgment has been questionable?

One could only wish that all politicians in Washington were place under the same media & political scrutiny that Palin is.

soy_bomb: Random Reality Check: So, how much credibility can we give this report if Gov. Palin has the power to influence their decisions? How can we even feel that this finding is in any way just if on the previous occasions their judgment has been questionable?

One could only wish that all politicians in Washington were place under the same media & political scrutiny that Palin is.

Palin's scrutiny is well deserved, considering she can't seem to keep her whore mouth shut. Which wouldn't be a horrible thing, if she ever knew what she was talking about or had anything of substance to say.

soy_bomb: Random Reality Check: So, how much credibility can we give this report if Gov. Palin has the power to influence their decisions? How can we even feel that this finding is in any way just if on the previous occasions their judgment has been questionable?

One could only wish that all politicians in Washington were place under the same media & political scrutiny that Palin is.

I know! Otherwise how could we tell if Governor Palin uses spicy mustard on her hamburgers?

Reading the headline I almost was expecting that somebody was accusing her of having ethics.

I guess that was not so much the case.

Karma Chameleon: Palin's scrutiny is well deserved, considering she can't seem to keep her whore mouth shut. Which wouldn't be a horrible thing, if she ever knew what she was talking about or had anything of substance to say.

She can't keep her whore mouth shut? I hope you paid your N.O.W. dues this year, otherwise that would be offensive. All politicians deserve scrutiny. If they all received the same as Palin, Washington would be a better place.

I agree all politicians deserve scrutiny. But a person who wants us to listen to them on foreign affairs while never having traveled outside the country or met with any foreign leaders deserves more. The person who wants funding for abstinence only education for the entire country but can't even teach it in her own house deserves more. The person who has apparently never read a newspaper or paid attention to Supreme Court decisions deserves more.

Karma Chameleon: I agree all politicians deserve scrutiny. But a person who wants us to listen to them on foreign affairs while never having traveled outside the country . . . .

Never? That's a word that could use some scrutiny.

This is what happens when the head cheerleader gets elected class president.

Apparently the majority of the ethics charges are being raised by one woman. It's not clear why, either she has a personal grudge, or it's another Cindy Sheehan type of campaign being funded by someone else.

Hat Madder: Apparently the majority of the ethics charges are being raised by one woman. It's not clear why, either she has a personal grudge, or it's another Cindy Sheehan type of campaign being funded by someone else.

The question isn't who is bringing these charges, it's whether the charges are warranted. As best I can tell from a quick Googling, Sondra Tompkins has only brought charges in this one particular instance.

It's the media that people need to worry about honestly, not the republicans. Everyone keeps saying they are self-destructing and will soon be marginalized as a regional party - this will never happen really. They might get voted out of power in every conceivable fashion, one can only hope really given their current MO, however they are instilled in America as one of the Core Groups and the media will never let it go.

Many outlets will parrot the same misinformation spread by the Hannities and Limbaughs and Becks without bringing up any of the parts where things that are said are blatant lies or shameless attempts to incite a (mostly retarded at this point) core support. They will sell these news articles about Palin and everyone else because right now they want readers, and getting readers in this current environment means show drama, act like the end is near, which means as long as the republicans keep flailing like the end is near, they will keep the front page. This is why Palin will never, ever go away, why Limbaugh has so much power. It's not charisma or anything of the sort, it's just ratings and profit. It sells because it's sensational. We're stuck with it util we reject it by not paying any more attention.

Buuuut that's never going to happen because it's pushed at us 24/7. So.

I...I honestly don't know where I was going with this and I think I kind of threadjacked. There was probably a better place to post this too I guess but in the long-ass threads from TF it's all over by the time I get there or at post 400 and I can't afford my subscription any longer. Is there anything else I can whine about? Man I hate McDonald's commercials, we get it, you're all about equality and you sell coffee, whoop-de-doo. Now sell me a FARKING CHEESEBURGER and go easy on the healthy parts.

Yeah I'm done now.

The complaint also alleged Palin participated in partisan activities when she spoke at an anti-abortion dinner in Indiana.

How would that be an ethics violation? It isn't, apparently, but why would it be suspected of being an ethics violation?

Random Reality Check
Hat Madder: Apparently the majority of the ethics charges are being raised by one woman. It's not clear why, either she has a personal grudge, or it's another Cindy Sheehan type of campaign being funded by someone else.

The question isn't who is bringing these charges, it's whether the charges are warranted. As best I can tell from a quick Googling, Sondra Tompkins has only brought charges in this one particular instance.

Wrong moonbat. Andree McLeod is the one with the vendetta.

Hat Madder: Wrong moonbat. Andree McLeod is the one with the vendetta.

Ah, I see.

That would be the Republican moonbat.
I didn't know you guys had the variety.

I stand by my earlier comment. It is not who brings the charges, it is whether the charges have any merit.

As you are probably aware, charges cannot be filed frivolously, not without opening up the person who files them to actionable consequences. If Governor Palin feels that these charges are being filed without merit, why isn't she taking legal action to defend herself and get what should be considered just compensation?

Godscrack: Who put the bomp in the bomp buh bomp buh bomp
who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong.

The architect who built my hot rod.

Given the baseline that Democrats who are in power across the country right now consider conservative governance to be a violation of ethics......

You should not be surprised by the number of complaints and the moon-battiness of them.

Random Reality Check: Isn't this the very same Alaska Personnel Board who "cleared" Gov. Palin in the Troopergate scandal even though the "Branchflower Report" found that she had acted improperly?

Yes, I know that Gov. Palin didn't appoint the three members of the Alaska Personnel Board and that the previous governor of Alaska did. I also know that Gov. Palin did reappoint one member and that she has he power to do the same with the other two.

So, how much credibility can we give this report if Gov. Palin has the power to influence their decisions? How can we even feel that this finding is in any way just if on the previous occasions their judgment has been questionable?

These complaints are pure partisan personal destruction tactics. There is a promotion in the democratic party for the person who tarnishes her the most because the democrats are afraid of her.

You dont have to look any farther than the continued snarkiness on fark to know that liberals are terrified that the first female VP or POTUS could be a republican.

When someone is harmless and non threatening in politics you tend to ignore them. In Palins case she is still being attacked despite the fact that she has not been prominent in maneuvering for the next election.

Thats pure hair tearing moonbat fear. The kind you experience when your Messiah takes all the money from your retirement and spends it on hookers and blow.

archichris:

You dont have to look any farther than the continued snarkiness on fark to know that liberals are terrified that the first female VP or POTUS could be a republican.

I would wager most liberals love her and would very much enjoy for her to keep talking and being in the news.

archichris:
Thats pure hair tearing moonbat fear. The kind you experience when your Messiah takes all the money from your retirement and spends it on hookers and blow.

Umm, it's the Alaska Republican Party that wants her crucified in this case. All those people she farked over to get the job, and the people she's being investigated for farking over are all Republicans.

How are Democrats being partisan in this? By paying 5 seconds of attention to her once every 3 months? I don't get it.

It's interesting that when Sarah Palin is cleared of wrongdoing the left won't let it die, but then they cry when the right mentions Bill Ayers they are the first to point out OMGS HE CAN'T BE CHARGED@2

archichris: Given the baseline that Democrats who are in power across the country right now consider conservative governance to be a violation of ethics......

You should not be surprised by the number of complaints and the moon-battiness of them.

Random Reality Check: Isn't this the very same Alaska Personnel Board who "cleared" Gov. Palin in the Troopergate scandal even though the "Branchflower Report" found that she had acted improperly?

Yes, I know that Gov. Palin didn't appoint the three members of the Alaska Personnel Board and that the previous governor of Alaska did. I also know that Gov. Palin did reappoint one member and that she has he power to do the same with the other two.

So, how much credibility can we give this report if Gov. Palin has the power to influence their decisions? How can we even feel that this finding is in any way just if on the previous occasions their judgment has been questionable?

These complaints are pure partisan personal destruction tactics. There is a promotion in the democratic party for the person who tarnishes her the most because the democrats are afraid of her.

You dont have to look any farther than the continued snarkiness on fark to know that liberals are terrified that the first female VP or POTUS could be a republican.

When someone is harmless and non threatening in politics you tend to ignore them. In Palins case she is still being attacked despite the fact that she has not been prominent in maneuvering for the next election.

Thats pure hair tearing moonbat fear. The kind you experience when your Messiah takes all the money from your retirement and spends it on hookers and blow.


Wow, Republican politicians count as "moonbats" too, now? I didn't know that. Thanks, archichris!

archichris: These complaints are pure partisan personal destruction tactics. There is a promotion in the democratic party for the person who tarnishes her the most because the democrats are afraid of her.

Really?

Then how come the person, Andree McLeod, who has filed the most charges against Governor Palin is a Republican?

archichris: You dont have to look any farther than the continued snarkiness on fark to know that liberals are terrified that the first female VP or POTUS could be a republican.

Terrified? I'll give you that. If Sarah Palin were to be elected President of the United States, every thinking human being should become terrified on that day.

However, I can assure you that all of the snarkiness here is because the woman is incapable of running a small Alaskan city (like Wasilla) where she was elected to a city that had good fiscal management and drove the city into $20 million of debt - with nothing really to show for it.

archichris: When someone is harmless and non threatening in politics you tend to ignore them. In Palins case she is still being attacked despite the fact that she has not been prominent in maneuvering for the next election.

She has not been prominent in maneuvering for the next election? Then what is SarahPAC all about? Why is she traveling all over the country speaking? Why did she commission a poll to see if losing the Alaska Governor election would hurt her chances at a national run?

Are you the only person who doesn't know she is running?

archichris: Thats pure hair tearing moonbat fear. The kind you experience when your Messiah takes all the money from your retirement and spends it on hookers and blow.

Or maybe, you're just plain wrong.
It wouldn't be out of character for you.

kleppe: It's interesting that when Sarah Palin is cleared of wrongdoing the left won't let it die, but then they cry when the right mentions Bill Ayers they are the first to point out OMGS HE CAN'T BE CHARGED@2

Hmm, could it be in this case that she was cleared of wrongdoing by a committee that is appointed by the governor?

How did you miss that fact?

Fox/Hen house/you know the drill.

"Charges" = "unproven allegations that cost nothing to bring". Call me when you get to "indictments" and "convictions". Just as Barney Frank advocates for groups like ACORN.

jjorsett: "Charges" = "unproven allegations that cost nothing to bring". Call me when you get to "indictments" and "convictions".

If someone brings frivolous charges against another person, they can certainly be sued.

jjorsett: Just as Barney Frank advocates for groups like ACORN.

Are you just making up shiat?
Now try to get charges filed?
Lets' see where that takes you...

Just do the Playboy spread fer chrissakes.

Random Reality Check: If someone brings frivolous charges against another person, they can certainly be sued.

Depends on the state and the nature of the charges, but generally the accused can not sue. If I use VOIP to forge a 911 call from you and the police shoot you or rough you up trying to make the arrest, you can't sue me. (It happened in California. The police went after the guy who made the call and made him pay back police response costs. The victim family was out of luck.)

There's an exception for seriously frivolous charges not involving accusation of a crime. (Read about "anti-SLAPP" laws for some background; not all states have them.)

ZAZ: Random Reality Check: If someone brings frivolous charges against another person, they can certainly be sued.

Depends on the state and the nature of the charges, but generally the accused can not sue. If I use VOIP to forge a 911 call from you and the police shoot you or rough you up trying to make the arrest, you can't sue me. (It happened in California. The police went after the guy who made the call and made him pay back police response costs. The victim family was out of luck.)

There's an exception for seriously frivolous charges not involving accusation of a crime. (Read about "anti-SLAPP" laws for some background; not all states have them.)

Are you telling me that a person cannot sue for damage to their reputation of someone knowingly press false charges against them? IANAL but I find that hard to believe.

Random Reality Check
Hat Madder: Wrong moonbat. Andree McLeod is the one with the vendetta.

Ah, I see.
...
As you are probably aware, charges cannot be filed frivolously, not without opening up the person who files them to actionable consequences. If Governor Palin feels that these charges are being filed without merit, why isn't she taking legal action to defend herself and get what should be considered just compensation?

It's all about publicity. No reason to give them even more with lawsuits.

Random Reality Check: ZAZ: Random Reality Check: If someone brings frivolous charges against another person, they can certainly be sued.

Depends on the state and the nature of the charges, but generally the accused can not sue. If I use VOIP to forge a 911 call from you and the police shoot you or rough you up trying to make the arrest, you can't sue me. (It happened in California. The police went after the guy who made the call and made him pay back police response costs. The victim family was out of luck.)

There's an exception for seriously frivolous charges not involving accusation of a crime. (Read about "anti-SLAPP" laws for some background; not all states have them.)

Are you telling me that a person cannot sue for damage to their reputation of someone knowingly press false charges against them? IANAL but I find that hard to believe.

Yep. Defamation per se. Statements so maligning that the 'victim' doesn't have to demonstrate damages. Knowingly false allegations of serious violations of the law are a common sufficient element.

Random Reality Check

Phrases to search on:

"absolute privilege" "judicial proceedings"

The extent to which a 911 call is privileged varies a bit from state to state. In some it is always protected from defamation suits, no matter what the motive. In others there needs to be some arguable basis in fact. The core of the privilege is for testimony in court.

The reasoning is, if we let people sue each other over calling police or testifying in court, there would be too much intimidation and the courts would spend too much time on fallout from other cases. In theory the system will prosecute abuses. Sometimes it does. Traffic court and divorce court are exceptions.

Knowingly false allegations of serious violations of the law are a common sufficient element.

If statements are made to the media, the usual rules apply. If made to an official government body charged with enforcing a law, the false statements may be exempt from defamation.

ZAZ: Random Reality Check

Phrases to search on:

"absolute privilege" "judicial proceedings"

The extent to which a 911 call is privileged varies a bit from state to state. In some it is always protected from defamation suits, no matter what the motive. In others there needs to be some arguable basis in fact. The core of the privilege is for testimony in court.

The reasoning is, if we let people sue each other over calling police or testifying in court, there would be too much intimidation and the courts would spend too much time on fallout from other cases. In theory the system will prosecute abuses. Sometimes it does. Traffic court and divorce court are exceptions.

I see.

Why wouldn't an "Alaskan watchdog" (as Andree McLeod refers to herself) be considered a private citizen and should there be any indication that these charges are solely without merit that a suit would be justified?

I do understand that public figures lose a lot of the protections that private individuals can expect but where is the limit?

ZAZ: Knowingly false allegations of serious violations of the law are a common sufficient element.

If statements are made to the media, the usual rules apply. If made to an official government body charged with enforcing a law, the false statements may be exempt from defamation.

Hmmm. I wasn't familiar with such an exemption, but I guess it makes sense. The offending party is probably on the hook for fraudulent reporting (although punishment for that does nothing to "make the victim whole").

There isn't any requirement that communication be made to the "media", however. Could just be telling your mother-in-law.

Godscrack: Who put the bomp in the bomp buh bomp buh bomp
who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong.

An Intelligent Design supporter explaining the creation off the universe?

(blue moon..??)

Any Dan Quayle updates?

I guess the consider her a threat.