Reasons Why Cuc is a Right-Wing Extremist and Clearly a Secret Muslim:
You either thought I wasn't going to click on that link, or didn't read it yourself. Being accused doesn't mean you did it. I was once accused of sexual harrasment because the woman I worked with didn't like me and tried to get me fired. I was exonerated. That doesn't make me a sexual offender.
Kopp isn't the focus of the Troopergate scandal. He hadn't been cleared then, and it's pretty clear that he resigned as a result of the ongoing investigation. Read harder.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5687512&page=1
Sweet! We can now accuse all four candidates of waffle action. All four are against then for something or vice versa. It's politics, this point proves what? That politicians put themseves before the people?
And because someone else did it, it's perfectly okay for others to keep doing it! Yeah! It's the Republican way! Hurrah!
A democrat blog is not a news source. Nor is a Republican one. Spin counterspin! What's not mentioned by the Obama hugger is that Palin cleared out a ton of troublemakers from that board that were mismanaging it to begin with.
A democrat blog might not be, but the links posted in the blog certainly are. I don't know if asking for critical thought and the pursuit of information through sources listed is considered counter-counter-spin, but uh...COUNTER-COUNTER-SPIN!!
Calling on him to answer federal prosecutors is not support. She ran his political action comitee BEFORE his corruption was exposed, and continued to do so AFTER he was. If you don't stick by your allies in their time of need, you're a scumbag. That doesn't mean she supports his corruption. Spin Counterspin!
If you stick by people you know are up to no good, you're a scumbag. I'm not going to stand by a friend just because he's a friend if he's ****ing everyone. I guess I'm just not that blindly loyal. Asking him to answer federal prosecutors is not the same as saying, "That's ****ed up. I don't think I want to be a part of this."
Blog = fail as news. You know that as a Mayor she has the right to fire anyone against her politically. That's not abuse of power, that's called getting the team to work with the head. My father worked for New York City his entire life, and he watched the guys who left civil service status to be heads of the NYCTA/MTA get fired left and right because their job becomes political instead of functional. Same with a Police Cheif. Explain why an incumbent mayor would need to support a political opponent?
Blotter/Investigative Team =/= Blog.
"Blotter can also refer to an official summary, usually covering a short duration, such as a police blotter, or the trade confirmation summary of a financial institution. The term is frequently used in financial institution software terms to represent a list of current trades in a spreadsheet-like interface whose status is updated in real-time. The trades are often highlighted in different colours depending on their status."
Reading comprehension is important when one is making the case that the information presented is fundamentally incorrect.
She's a Conservative Republican, this confuses you how? That's what right wing conservatives do. They slash spending, and reduce the involvement of government in welfare. If she did the opposite, she'd be in Obama's camp, called the Democratic party. Guess you vote liberal, but not a reason for a conservative to withhold their vote.
Ah yes, because spending a ridiculous amount of money on a hockey stadium (which locals call a money sinkhole) is incredibly conservative. So is leaving Wasilla with $20 million worth of debt. It's the Republican way, right? I mean, just look at our nation's debt as a result of good 'ol conservative steering by the amazing Bush administration and friends. It isn't over a trillion dollars worth of debt; it's a trillion dollars worth of conservatism! Hooray!
I agree with this stance, as I was taught by my parents early on. But, that's the problem with the liberal ticket. They want to take that away from me as a parent and teach it to my daughter when I'm not around. If my kid fails to learn about the birds and the bees, that's my fault, not Sarah Palin's. As a parent, I'm a little more involved in this than you are. When you have your own kid, tell me that you'd want someone else to explain it rather than you. Sarah Palin failed as a parent in that regard, but no one is perfect.
My parents never gave me the "birds and the bees" speech. I figured it out through a combination of encyclopedias, friends and eventually, actually having sex. Luckily, the gym office understood that teens were going to be teens and handed out condoms with no questions asked, and if you had questions, they weren't afraid to answer them as long as you weren't asking about technique.
No one is taking anything away from you. If you haven't had "the talk" by freshman year of high school, at the very latest since kids generally experiment in middle school, you're way behind the curve and, at that point, teachers should probably step in and, you know, teach.
Her husband was part of that party, not her. Again, you fall for the left wing blog. As for her involvement, why the hell would she want to become president of a country she's trying to leave? This make as much sense as saying that Barack Obama doesn't love America because Michelle isn't proud of it till he's a candidate for the presidency. And again, I'd rather have a seccesionist as a vp than a fundamentalist muslim hiding in a black power christain church as President any day. Spin counterspin!
Again, reading comprehension. The AIP, itself, said she was once a full-blown member. They're saying now that she isn't any longer, and yet this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI) exists of her addressing the AIP. And hell, there was a vid of Dexter Clark, VP of AIP, speaking about Palin and stating quite clearly that although she isn't a member anymore, she's still quite sympathetic to their cause. Of course, the vid was taken down by a "third party".
Why is it that counter-spin seems to simply be ignoring any evidence presented? Isn't that just willful ignorance? Oh, right, anti-intellectualism is a tenet of conservatism.
And you're going to call attention to this for VP when it's not a problem for President?
It was a problem, was it not? Isn't that what you and the other neo-cons talked about for weeks on end? So why shouldn't the same logic apply to the Republican side, which has far more extremist religious leaders? It was an issue with McCain and Hagee as well, was it not?
Sounds like another case of the "Lalalalalalala I can't hear you"s.
Sure, so lets say both are bad choices, amirite? I am rite . . . oh wait, I forgot that Palin is second banana, not top dog. Silly me. Silly you.
Both McCain and Palin are going to extremist churches and have extremist leaders whispering in their ears. How is that not a problem, exactly?
Alaksa faired better than Wasilla. Guess she learned something from being an executive!
Of course! Alaska first, Alaska always! And that's where we go back to bridges to nowhere, basically stealing money from the government and using it for a ****ing road that goes to nowhere instead of a bridge, destroying natural habitats for oil and, most importantly, Alaska seceding.
Why would someone who wants to secede from the motherland run for office? What better way is there short of being President to help Alaska than to be second in command?
I know we aren't accusing politicians of lying and saying that they shouldn't be voted for because of that. Because that would include every man or woman that has ever run for office.
EVER.
Again with the "B-b-b-s/he did it, too!" logic. I agree. None of them should be voted for. We should start anew.
She isn't the only one, quite a few people believe that the Polar Bear population needs to go down. They are out hunting their prey's repopulation rate. This will cause them to starve to death instead of being shot. Zeo for park ranger!
Explain to me how there being less than a certain number of Polar Bears doesn't constitute them being endangered? Yes, let's keep them off the list so we can kill them with guns, while global warming (I mean, the magic causing ice to melt) destroys their habitat. Yes, surely this will keep the environment balanced.
City kids . . . see above post. Wildlife conservation must include population control or they starve to death . . . or kill humans at the edge of their territory. Zeo for park ranger! Rats and roaches need no such control in NYC, so I don't blame you for being ill informed here.
Explain to me how "Don't kill them cruelly" is even remotely the same as "Don't kill them". Don't bother, because they aren't. I'm not arguing against killing wolves. I'm arguing against killing them in the worst way possible.
I grew up in NYC, and I currently live in a small town north of Port Jervis. It can hardly be considered the city. I know about keeping cougars and bears under control. We're not trying to keep them off the endangered species list to keep killing them, though. After a certain point, you're killing just to kill.
I don't think it's wrong to dig, again people are stuffing ideas in my head. Zeo, you must remove your intrusion into my mind immediately. I don't have problems with her being investigated, she needs to be. I stated a fact, she has endured more media attacks than any other candiate in memory in just five days. Obama, who in my opinion is still more questionable than her, received less abuse in his first six months.
Yes, because I totally said, "Cucumba thinks digging is wrong." Right? Right. She has endured more media attacks than any other candidate because she's:
1) a relative nobody
2) McCain's VP from completely out of left-field. People thought he was going for Romney. There wouldn't have been nearly as much scrutiny for him because we know who Romney is.
He didn't receive less abuse in 6 months. He received less abuse in 5 days, perhaps, but there's been plenty of time to go after him, and people have done just that. It's amazing how conservatives are so quick to portray themselves as victims. Amazing, and disgusting.
As for winning an occupation, you can't win one. But you can make it
a worthless action to have done so in the first place by pulling out irresponsibly. Dispose of a Hussein, and have muslim extremists take over!
Our goal was to stabilize Iraq and get rid a dictator (that was after our goal was to find those crazy wmd and nukes that don't exist). We've done that. Maliki and the people of Iraq are asking us to leave. We are going to do so. We did what we could, and now it's up to Iraq to take care of Iraq. It isn't our territory, it isn't our property. They don't owe us anything.
I'm all for not wasting the lives of those who have died by making sure the job is finished, color it however you like, they died, and what they died trying to do isn't done. That's called failure.
They didn't know what they were trying to do as they died. They went from mission to mission wondering what the purpose of it all was. They died in vain, and it could have been avoided by not attacking Iraq in the first place.
Also, none of the jokes in here should be considered anything but tounge in cheek. I was born in New York city, so I know there is a significant disconnect from the urban to rural, and you simply cannot know about animals and human interaction till you live in a rural area.
I live in a rural area not too far from the Delaware. Stop trying to pry into my mind, because all you're doing is making false assumptions based on information you don't have.