Alaska panel finds Palin abused power

[Inyri]

When it is a liberal news group or several liberal news groups especially given recent history, I'm inclined not to believe them at all. Considering the National Enquirer has been proven to have a higher standard when it comes to sources, and the fact of they are so in the tank on Obama they need air tanks cause they are too deep for the air hoses to reach.

That continues to be a convenient response for you when confronted with facts that suggest your radical way of thinking might not be entirely accurate.

 

Might you provided something other than "they're liberal, so it's a lie because I said so"?

[GarfieldJL]

That continues to be a convenient response for you when confronted with facts that suggest your radical way of thinking might not be entirely accurate.

 

Might you provided something other than "they're liberal, so it's a lie because I said so"?

 

No, I'm going to say they shouldn't be trusted do to their recent track record.

 

 

See Bernie Goldberg's books Bias and Arrogance.

[Achilles]

See Bernie Goldberg's books Bias and Arrogance.

And then read Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? which shows precisely why no one should waste their money on Bernie Goldberg books.

[jrrtoken]

And then read Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? which shows precisely why no one should waste their money on Bernie Goldberg books.

Al Franken also said the same thing with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, of course, his book had jokes in it, so it's infinitely better.

 

But yeah, the whole point is that the mainstream media's "liberal bias" is a myth, concocted by conservative pundits and politicians.

[Achilles]

Al Franken also said the same thing with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, of course, his book had jokes in it, so it's infinitely better.

Yup, I own that one too. Neither one holds a candle to this book though.

 

But yeah, the whole point is that the mainstream media's "liberal bias" is a myth, concocted by conservative pundits and politicians.

Precisely. The "corporate media" bias is the one we should be talking about.

[KinchyB]

No, I'm going to say they shouldn't be trusted do to their recent track record.

 

Ahh, so articles that don't agree with what you think should be disregarded. That explains the cherry picking.

[Astor]

Probably because Fox News hasn't reported on it yet, right?

 

I'd like to say that I was curious to see how Fox was spinning the whole thing during the weekend - and strangely the page wouldn't load - after six goes.

 

Coincidence?

 

Also, Garfield, you haven't adressed my point about the head of the investigation being the best person for the job due to their removal of oil kickbacks.

 

Do you, or do you not agree that someone with a history of fighting corruption is a good choice to head up an ethics panel, apparent 'bias' or not?

[GarfieldJL]

Al Franken also said the same thing with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, of course, his book had jokes in it, so it's infinitely better.

 

But yeah, the whole point is that the mainstream media's "liberal bias" is a myth, concocted by conservative pundits and politicians.

 

Media Research Center disagrees with you:

http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/RevWright/RevWrightExecSum.asp

 

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080911.asp#1

 

 

liberal bias myth my foot.

 

 

One could right a book just on MSNBC concerning the level of it's pro-Democrat/left wing bias on their 2008 election coverage alone. Fact is you'd need a book for each of the media outlets. This idea that all the media outlets except Fox News report the news accurately quite frankly ignores the facts.

 

Also, Garfield, you haven't adressed my point about the head of the investigation being the best person for the job due to their removal of oil kickbacks.

 

Uh the one that did the removal of oil kickbacks was Governor Palin whom is a Republican, the head of the investigation (whom works for the Obama Campaign I might add) to my knowledge didn't have a thing to do with it.

 

Do you, or do you not agree that someone with a history of fighting corruption is a good choice to head up an ethics panel, apparent 'bias' or not?

 

What history of fighting corruption? Anyways, the man works for the Obama Campaign, you can't tell me he would be remotely impartial when it comes to someone he's campaigning against. If this situation was reversed and it was an investigation concerning Joe Biden and the investigator worked on the McCain campaign you'd be blowing a gasket as would the mainstream media.

[Astor]

Then I may have been mistaken due to a lack of clarity on the part of several people (myself included).

 

And actually, I wouldn't be blowing a gasket - i'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican.

[GarfieldJL]

And then read Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? which shows precisely why no one should waste their money on Bernie Goldberg books.

 

I'll believe a liberal criticizing the liberal bias of the media over a liberal denying there is any left-wing bias in the media.

 

 

And actually, I wouldn't be blowing a gasket - i'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican.

 

If you're trying to provoke me it's not going to work.

 

Anyways, you're telling me if Joe Biden were under investigation and the lead investigator among others were active members of the McCain campaign, you wouldn't have a problem with this? Am I correct in that is what you're saying for the record?

[Astor]

If you're trying to provoke me it's not going to work.[/Quote]

 

I can honestly say I have no idea what you mean. I see no provocation in my post, and none was intended. The reason i'm neither is because i'm not American - you may think liberal and democrat are the same, but i'm not a Democrat.

 

Anyways, you're telling me if Joe Biden were under investigation and the lead investigator among others were active members of the McCain campaign, you wouldn't have a problem with this? Am I correct in that is what you're saying for the record?

 

That's correct - I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[Achilles]

I'll believe a liberal criticizing the liberal bias of the media over a liberal denying there is any left-wing bias in the media.

That's fine. I do think some of us are wondering at what point facts and logic become important to you though.

[GarfieldJL]

That's fine. I do think some of us are wondering at what point facts and logic become important to you though.

 

Facts and logic are always important to me, just I'm not going to take sources at face value, especially when sources have a consistant track record of lower standards than the National Enquirer when it comes to negative stories about Republicans, the New York Times being a perfect example. I'm not going to believe them when it comes to a scandal concerning a Republican and would question the authenticity of anything they provided, because of their poor track record.

 

Most Media Outlets lost my trust in the 2004 election, I used to watch MSNBC, I used to pay attention to CNN, heck I didn't even watch Fox News at first. (Started watching Fox News in 2001)

 

The other News outlets in recent years have made a series of gaffs when it comes to reporting, and over time as I started watching Fox News and the level of criticism it got from the other outlets, I was actually impressed with the depth of research Fox News did, the way they split up programs so that the objectively reporting the news was kept seperate from giving their opinions (a stark difference from reporting opinions as objective journalism).

 

2004 - CBS lost all credibility with memogate which should more suitably be called Rathergate.

 

Using a forged document with a font that wasn't even in existance at the timeperiod in question, with the font being variably spaced (and it was supposed to be from a typewriter which can only do fixed space), and then continuely claiming it was legit caused them to lose all credibility in my eyes.

 

After 04, continued to watch Hardball with Chris Matthews but gradually started to switch over more to Bill O'Reilly, because I liked his no nonsense style a lot more, I was also noticing a change in how Chris Matthews was doing his commentaries, becoming more and more left-wing as time went on.

 

The last straw me occurred in 2006, the Israeli/Lebanon conflict to be precise. The pictures the other media outlets touted as proof the Israelis were deliberately trying to kill civilians were so obviously doctored, that I could easily tell they were doctored.

 

Fox News was the only news organization that refused to air the photos as legit, and was the first news organization to really go after reuters concerning them.

 

And there have been more recent incidents that have reinforced my opinion that the left wing mainstream media has less credibility than the National Enquirer when it comes to reporting negatives on Republicans.

 

So that is why I believe that your sources aren't telling the full truth, like the fact this trooper she wanted fired and supposedly fired a guy for not firing him, had such a track record that most people would be wondering why the heck wasn't the lunatic fired sooner.

1. Tasering 10 year old step son. -- said the boy wanted to be tasered
   
2. Driving a police squad car (on duty) while intoxicated and with an open container. -- convicted
   
3. Killing a moose out of season. -- guy said he didn't know (this is a state trooper whom should know)
   
4. Death threats towards Governor Palin's dad, and members of the family
   
5. Abused Governor Palin's sister.
   

 

Excuse me, but why wasn't this nut even under investigation, because we all know that this guy was reported to this safety guy. This guy Palin supposedly fired over not firing her ex-brother-in-law wasn't even bothering to investigate the situation.

 

Now it would be different if the safety guy, said he'd look into it and while investigating it he ended up finding that stuff was false and decided not to fire him. But he didn't even do any investigation, so if he was fired over this quite frankly he wasn't doing his job in the first place and should have been fired for being an incompetitent idiot.

[Achilles]

I'm not going to take sources at face value

Thanks. I needed some levity today.

[KinchyB]

So that is why I believe that your sources aren't telling the full truth, like the fact this trooper she wanted fired and supposedly fired a guy for not firing him, had such a track record that most people would be wondering why the heck wasn't the lunatic fired sooner.

 

Again the issue is not the people being fired (which is stated in the report) it's the unethical actions that were taken before they were fired. Perhaps you should look at the facts regarding the investigation again (maybe read the report...?) and then address this topic.

[GarfieldJL]

Again the issue is not the people being fired (which is stated in the report) it's the unethical actions that were taken before they were fired. Perhaps you should look at the facts regarding the investigation again (maybe read the report...?) and then address this topic.

 

Answer me this, was this public safety guy investigating (or had investigated) the state trooper in question based on the allegations when he was fired?

 

That's the key part to this if she fired this guy over the trooper.

[KinchyB]

That's the key part to this if she fired this guy over the trooper.

 

First, his past actions are completely irrellevant as we are looking at the actions of Palin, which violated the ethics act of Alaska.

 

You can focus as much as you want on who the guy is, however, the fact that you will not address Palin's violation of the ethic act proves you believe this to be fact. If this is not fact, you should really find another argument other than "The guy deserved it" as that is not sufficient in proving Palin did not violate the ethics act.

 

Hopefully that's somewhat clear as you seem to be confused as to what the report is about. If you are curious I would recommend going through the thread and finding a link directly to the report to familiarize yourself with it's findings.

[EnderWiggin]

which should more suitably be called Rathergate.

 

Nothing is more suitably named if it has a -gate suffix.

 

Nothing; never ever again should I have to hear *stupidword*gate.

 

So yeah.

 

Oh, and I agree with KinchyB's assertion that you're unfamiliar with what the report actually says.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Nothing; never ever again should I have to hear *stupidword*gate.

Can I getta "amen"!?

 

It was called "Watergate" because the name of the hotel was "Watergate". This adding "gate" on to the end of stuff to denote controversy makes me want to hide from all the Europeans that I just know are laughing at us.

 

And it's "troop" not "troops"! [/unrelated rant]

So it's "group" not "groups"? ~tk

 

I'll get back to you if/when we start referring to individual members of a group as "groups". -Achilles

[GarfieldJL]

First, his past actions are completely irrellevant as we are looking at the actions of Palin, which violated the ethics act of Alaska.

 

Actually in this case it is, because if he wasn't investigating the situation and basically refusing to investigate then she didn't abuse her power.

 

In an event like that she would be justified to fire him, the only reason people are in an uproar is because it happened to involve a member of the family.

 

 

If he wasn't doing his job, then in your argument this guy would be immune to being fired for not doing his job the only way he could have been fired was for her to resign from office, because only the Governor could fire him.

[KinchyB]

Actually in this case it is, because if he wasn't investigating the situation and basically refusing to investigate then she didn't abuse her power.

 

Again...firing him is not the issue. If this is the only thing you are coming up with as an argument I would recommend reading the report again.

 

In an event like that she would be justified to fire him, the only reason people are in an uproar is because it happened to involve a member of the family.

 

Actually, the fact that he is an (ex)member of the family is irrellevant. Palin could have done the same thing to any other person she had a personal beef with and been in hot water.

 

If he wasn't doing his job, then in your argument this guy would be immune to being fired for not doing his job the only way he could have been fired was for her to resign from office, because only the Governor could fire him.

 

Well, there is the option of firing him before her sister and him were going through a bad divorce... But since that didn't happen you have to accept the fact that again Palin misused her power in keeping her brother-in-law employed when it was blatant she should have fired him to begin with since there is so much evidence.

 

Also, there are several things Palin could have done to protect herself in this situation, but she didn't. That is almost proof within itself that she wasn't using sound judgment in this situation. Combine that with the interference the McCain campaign gave it's pretty obvious she realized she messed up but it was too late to correct it.

[Achilles]

Combine that with the interference the McCain campaign gave it's pretty obvious she realized she messed up but it was too late to correct it.

In her defense, she probably didn't realize that she was going to be the Vice Presidential nominee, complete with vetting, etc when this happened. In other words, it probably never occurred to her that she would need to cover it up, but she never anticipated the attention. The argument that she probably wishes that she'd done a better job of hiding it falls flat if she never intended to hide it.

[KinchyB]

In her defense, she probably didn't realize that she was going to be the Vice Presidential nominee, complete without vetting, etc when this happened. In other words, it probably never occurred to her that she would need to cover it up, but she never anticipated the attention. The argument that she probably wishes that she'd done a better job of hiding it falls flat if she never intended to hide it.

 

Fixed

 

and...

 

touche

[Darth333]

Excuse me, but why wasn't this nut even under investigation, because we all know that this guy was reported to this safety guy. This guy Palin supposedly fired over not firing her ex-brother-in-law wasn't even bothering to investigate the situation.

 

Now it would be different if the safety guy, said he'd look into it and while investigating it he ended up finding that stuff was false and decided not to fire him. But he didn't even do any investigation, so if he was fired over this quite frankly he wasn't doing his job in the first place and should have been fired for being an incompetitent idiot.

err...did you read my post on page two? The report says:

"In this case, Governor Palin has declined to provide an interview. An interview would have assisted everyone to better understand her motives and perhaps help explain why she was so apparently intent upon getting Trooper Wooten fired in spit of the fact she knew he had been disciplined following the Administrative Investigation. She also knew that he had been permitted to keep his job, and that the disciplinary investigation was closed and could not be reopened. Yet she allowed the pressure from her husband, to try to get Trooper Wooten fired, to continue unabated over a several month-period of time."

[GarfieldJL]

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/09/truth-about-palins-troopergate.html

 

Looks like the charges and stuff go back a while and even a Judge was involved in recommending this guy be fired. (the trooper)