Sarah Palin for President?

[shesulsa]

So ... let's see ...

It's all right for a government official - on any level - to use private email accounts to conduct official business and ... no one should see anything fishy in it all ... unless the official is a Democrat or have been smacked with the "L" word.

It's all right to ask people to vote in a building which will be paid for in a sales tax hike while lowering property taxes ... even if the building isn't owned by the people who built upon it.

It's acceptable to refuse to cooperate with the law when it comes to questioning the appropriateness of actions for a candidate ... so long as s/he is Republican and conservative.

Wow - and I said that without a personal attack or insult. Go me.

 

[crushing]

Statement 1:
"She uses a non-government non-secure email system for official business to avoid accountability for her actions."

Without statement 1 being supported, statements 2 and 3 don't mean anything. So the big question is; when will they release emails that actually support the first statement?

Asking someone how his campaign for congress is going or receiving an email that tells her not to let the press get her down hardly seems to be official government business.

 

[Twin Fist]

Let me rephrase, since you seem to be McCaining my comments here.

She is just as qualified for the job as the current sitting president, and I can expect her to do just as great a job as he has, with a similar style and similar results, should she find herself in that position.

Of course you avoided my answering my questions.
How McBama like.

Bob,
i just re-read your last few posts int his thread, and while I see a LOT of statements, I dont see any questions.

 

[Twin Fist]

yeah, yay you


except that you are three for three with taking what was actually said, and claiming something totally different was said. it is that exact sort of word twisting that I rail about. Critique away, but do so honestly.

1. No where did i say it was ok to use private email. I just said that there is no evidence she did so with the intent to avoid accountability

2. I think a city building anything on land they dont own or have imminent domain on is strange, but, the PEOPLE voted on it and approved it. They voted to approve the tax hike to get the sports complex. Laying it all at the fee tof the mayor is dishonest.

3. No one said it was ok not to co-operate with the law, conservative or liberal. You asked WHY, i gave you a possible why. No where did i say that was acceptable.

You could be a professional reporter. And no, thats not really a good thing.

So ... let's see ...

It's all right for a government official - on any level - to use private email accounts to conduct official business and ... no one should see anything fishy in it all ... unless the official is a Democrat or have been smacked with the "L" word.

It's all right to ask people to vote in a building which will be paid for in a sales tax hike while lowering property taxes ... even if the building isn't owned by the people who built upon it.

It's acceptable to refuse to cooperate with the law when it comes to questioning the appropriateness of actions for a candidate ... so long as s/he is Republican and conservative.

Wow - and I said that without a personal attack or insult. Go me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Without statement 1 being supported, statements 2 and 3 don't mean anything. So the big question is; when will they release emails that actually support the first statement?

Asking someone how his campaign for congress is going or receiving an email that tells her not to let the press get her down hardly seems to be official government business.

Wikileaks Talk Page Excerpts.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:VP_contender_Sarah_Palin_hacked

- Sarah Palin used the e-mail address [email protected] for public communication. Several media outlets have confirmed this fact prior to this "incident".

SOURCE: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/palin-email-privilege/
SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/15-7

- The e-mail address that the poster hacked was [email protected]. This second e-mail address, previously unknown publicly, was used for private communications.

- Yahoo e-mail addresses, unlike .gov e-mail addresses, are not subject to archiving and oversight. This fact has led to controversy from several sources, including fellow Republicans, asking her to release e-mails from her Yahoo account.

- Sarah Palin was likely notified of the breach by morning, as she had then deleted both the [email protected] address (the one subject to the disclosure controversy in the media) as well as the [email protected] address (the one that was hacked).

- The outright deletion of the accounts can be verified by attempting to pull up the public profile on both addresses, which both existed during the incident.

SOURCE: http://profiles.yahoo.com/gov.palin
SOURCE: http://profiles.yahoo.com/gov.sarah

- Both accounts were deleted simultaneously, thus linking the publicly-known e-mail address "gov.sarah" and the private e-mail address "gov.palin".

- This outright deletion may have the potential to be viewed as destruction of evidence, considering that the e-mails in the now-deleted accounts are the subject of several legal controversies.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303210_pf.html

- Several ZIP, RAR, and 7Z compilations of the downloaded screenshots, contacts, and photos were made available by anonymous individuals.



So, her accounts were hacked, contents posted online, and she or one of her handlers deletes them. Unlike the official gov. email systems, Yahoo doesn't keep redundant backups and archives, so the contents of those accounts are most likely lost. Given the amount of secrecy, and unaccountability of action in the current administration, I dislike the idea of putting someone else in the office who would be cut from the same cloth.

 

[shesulsa]

yeah, yay you

except that you are three for three with taking what was actually said, and claiming something totally different was said. it is that exact sort of word twisting that I rail about. Critique away, but do so honestly.

Where did I quote you as saying anything other than what you did? My points in my immediately prior post was to point out to you the gist of what can be gleaned from your statements - that you are unwilling to question why emails were found in a private email account that seem to relate to business and that it doesn't seem to raise serious concerns in your mind is disturbing and really - I think - speaks to the viability of your arguments and opinions regarding Palin. Your focus seems to be more on attempting to discredit and trying to insult anyone who raises the questions as to her viability as a candidate and examines her record to a certain extent rather than engaging in some critical thinking of your own when it comes to WHY a person would do such things.

1. No where did i say it was ok to use private email. I just said that there is no evidence she did so with the intent to avoid accountability

Emails have not been released and if they contain sensitive material, they won't be - just an investigator's summation that they either were or were not containing material involving the office of governor or mayor which, I'm sure, will be slammed because it will be released by the MSM who is liberal and evil as all hell in the eyes of some and won't count unless we get to see the actual content, which we never will if it's sensitive so some people will feel their point is made.

2. I think a city building anything on land they dont own or have imminent domain on is strange, but, the PEOPLE voted on it and approved it. They voted to approve the tax hike to get the sports complex. Laying it all at the fee tof the mayor is dishonest.

Strange? You think it's strange. Okay. Well, I think if my neighborhood association were to decide to build and pay for a building on my property and build it without my permission, I'd be pissed as hell and I'd be taking them to court. Oh ... wait ... that's what DID happen ... but that's just ... strange. :idunno:

3. No one said it was ok not to co-operate with the law, conservative or liberal. You asked WHY, i gave you a possible why. No where did i say that was acceptable.

But you appear to be fine with the situation, enough to argue in favor of Palin - or ... is it just against people with whom you generally disagree because of what you think is a party affiliation? I mean, even if all the other stuff is completely unfounded, this alone would seal it in my head that a servant of the people and a servant of the law of the land should COMPLY with it. That would be one of MY black-or-whites.

You could be a professional reporter. And no, thats not really a good thing.

Are you capable of posting here without sniping and attempting to insult people who disagree with you?

THAT'S A QUESTION. ^^^^^ That right there. ^^^^^ It's a question.

Will you answer it?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob,
i just re-read your last few posts int his thread, and while I see a LOT of statements, I dont see any questions.

You sure do get emotional over this stuff TF.
I've got a few questions.
- Why was the 10 year old zapped? What were the circumstances in play at the time?
- Shooting a moose without a permit....in Alaska. Again, under what circumstances did he shoot the moose?
- Driving a patrol car while drinking. Ok that's bad. Sucks he got off scott free on that one huh?

"it was PROVEN the guy tazered a TEN YEAR OLD, and she wanted him fired. How many goveners wouldnt want a state trooper fired who did that?"
I dunno. One who has all of the facts and made an unbiased decision, not one of "How dare someone zap my nephew!".

Other things imply she wasn't in full possession of facts, acted on emotion, etc.

I posted links that clearly define "Bush Doctrine" and the VP's duties, on a site that is at least as accurate as EB.

If you want to vote for an ignorant person, go right ahead. I prefer the candidates who actually have a clue on things and who aren't even worse than the current monkey. eek eek.

I've bolded the questions that your careful review overlooked.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I have an answer, in part.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/palin.trooper/
In 2006, state investigators found Wooten guilty of "a significant pattern of judgment failures," including using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson and drinking beer while operating a state trooper vehicle. Wooten was suspended for 10 days as "a last chance to take corrective action."

Speaking Thursday to CNN's Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston, Wooten gave his account of the Taser incident but denied ever drinking while driving.

He said that he was a new Taser instructor, and his stepson was asking him about the equipment. "I didn't shoot him with live, you know, actual live cartridge," Wooten said.

Instead, he said, he hooked his stepson up to a training aid "with little clips. And, you know, the Taser was activated for less than a second, which would be less than what you would get if you touched an electric fence. ... It was as safe as I could possibly make it."

He said his stepson was on the living room floor surrounded by pillows, that he "was bragging about it," and that the family laughed about it.

Asked whether it was a dumb decision, Wooten told CNN, "absolutely."

The 2006 report called the incident an example of "extremely poor judgment," and noted that he has been trained in "the risks associated with use of the weapon on a child."

Looks like the part of the media who will grasp at straws to defend their beauty queen.
I'd like to know what the 2006 report and investigation into this said. That would clear up a number of questions on what actually happened.

 

[Twin Fist]

Where did I quote you as saying anything other than what you did? My points in my immediately prior post was to point out to you the gist of what can be gleaned from your statements

no no, not so fast. Thats what you inferred, and by your own admission and evidenced by your posts, you are comming from a certain bias. And you hit on the problem, you DIDNT quote, you re-wrote.

Thats the problem.

If the press would quote, in toto, there would be nothgn to rail about. but reporting half the story, or re-writing history serves to conceal. Wether intentional or not.

- that you are unwilling to question why emails were found in a private email account that seem to relate to business and that it doesn't seem to raise serious concerns in your mind is disturbing and really - I think - speaks to the viability of your arguments and opinions regarding Palin. Your focus seems to be more on attempting to discredit and trying to insult anyone who raises the questions as to her viability as a candidate and examines her record to a certain extent rather than engaging in some critical thinking of your own when it comes to WHY a person would do such things.

absence of evidence is not evidnce of absense. I do wonder about it, but I am not gonna make the wild unfounded leap to CONSPIRACY with nothing to back it up. For example, I dont claim that all these Palin smear jobs are comming from the Obama campaign, since I have no evidence of such..

Cuz I am un-biased. And my focus is accurate reporting and truthfull critique. When critique is not based on truth, it isnt fair. And I proved that most, if not all, of the critique posted was false.

Strange? You think it's strange. Okay. Well, I think if my neighborhood association were to decide to build and pay for a building on my property and build it without my permission, I'd be pissed as hell and I'd be taking them to court. Oh ... wait ... that's what DID happen ... but that's just ... strange. :idunno:

yes strange, we dont KNOW that it was illegal. Clearly it wasnt. Clearly it was what the people wanted since the voted on it and approved it.

But you appear to be fine with the situation, enough to argue in favor of Palin

truth be told, and for the 15th time, my only problem is with dis-honest reporting and false claims. Want to spout legit critique? go for it

not enough experience? shout it out, thats legit
disagree with her pro-life stance? shout it out, thats legit

claim she tried to ban books? I will call people on that because it has been proven false

Are you capable of posting here without sniping and attempting to insult people who disagree with you?

THAT'S A QUESTION. ^^^^^ That right there. ^^^^^ It's a question.

Will you answer it?

*sigh*
as my record of rep dings and infraction will show, I have no problem ACTUALLY insulting people when set my mind to it, I dont have to try. And if the shoe fits..............

And BTW- I got over 1100 posts on this forum, over 300 thanks, and over 200 rep, in just a few months, so clearly, I am not insulting people everytime I post. That should answer your question for you.

 

[Twin Fist]

Bob,
Thanks for highlighting these:

- Why was the 10 year old zapped? What were the circumstances in play at the time?
- Shooting a moose without a permit....in Alaska. Again, under what circumstances did he shoot the moose?
- Driving a patrol car while drinking. Ok that's bad. Sucks he got off scott free on that one huh?

Ok, from the top

1- I dont care, there is no reason for a police officer to EVER use his tazer on a 10 year old child. And your later post doesnt exactly exonerate the guy.

2- Shooting a moose? we can assume that it wasnt in the line of duty, and thats poaching. Thats a crime. Cops cant comitt crimes

3-driving a car while ON DUTY and drinking. It was proven. Thats grounds for termination on every police force I know of.

In fact, looking back, i did address one of them earlier, here:

"Now, to your questions:

WHO CARES why the 10 year old was tazered? there are no conditions where a CHILD should be hit with a tazer. This wasnt some 15 yr old gangbanger. It was a 10 year old CHILD"

Only one out of 3, but I did address them.

 

[crushing]

Thanks Bob! Copying Todd Palin on emails from her official government address about official government business is probably a bad thing. Despite all the links, sources, screenshots, and the claims of many political bloggers, I still haven't seen any examples of government business being done from the Yahoo account(s).

The media is all over her about this, but are emails asking someone how his campaign for congress is going or receiving an email that tells her not to let the press get her down hardly really considered official government business communications?

 

[celtic_crippler]

I'm sure that she is not the only government official using a yahoo, hotmail, gmail, or other e-mail account to converse electronically with cohorts. She just happened to be the one that got hacked.

Regardless of what they found in her "inbox" the young hacker should go to jail IMHO. It's an invasion of privacy, and if he'd rifled through her physical mail in the same manner would be facing at least 5-20 in the federal pen.

I think it's important to not get sidetracked with who's e-mail got hacked, but to be reminded that the law has not caught up to the 21st century. The same privacy laws that apply to your physical mail should be applied to your electronic mail.

The right to privacy applies to everyone, even politicians we may not like. Just because the Feds have forgotten that doesn't mean I have.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

there are no conditions where a CHILD should be hit with a tazer.

So it would be ok to let a child who was a threat to themselves or others continue to do so rather than use a taser to subdue them? Would a baton be more acceptable? How about a joint lock? Given your extensive knowledge of LEO proceedures, policies and rules, what options are there for a LEO in dealing with those under 13?

This of course tangents into the well discussed and debated taser argument.

1- It doesn't exonerate the guy. What it does is put much needed perspective into the argument that your ignorant of the facts statement avoided.

2- "we can assume that it wasnt in the line of duty, and thats poaching." So you are assuming, and don't know the actual circummstances of the case. Why is it ok for you to assume why the moose was shot, but not ok for someone else to assume why Gov. Palin was using a non-gov. email system to conduct official business? Dual standard here from you it seems.

3- How many police forces do you know? Again, what were the circumstances involved? Was it 1 drink, or many? Was it going on duty, during his shift, or end of shift? Etc.

A brief look at the arguement from an uneducated and uninformed position would easily agree with you.
Zapping a kid? Bad
Shooting a moose? Bad
Drinking and Driving? Bad.

A deeper analysis however may change things. You can look for the truth as you say, a search that requires you to view the entire picture, or you can start with a narrow view and limited perspective.

 

[Twin Fist]

your ignorant of the facts statement avoided.

uneducated and uninformed position would easily agree with you

now who is being insulting?

Bob, come on.

Perspective? yeah here is the perspective, he wasnt being mean, he was just fooling around. With a potentially life threatening piece of state issued police gear.

grounds for termination if your record has other problems. In some departments, even if your record is spotless this would get an officer fired.

The difference in assuming shooting a moose without a permit is poaching and assuming palin was trying to avoid oversight is simple.

if the shooting was in the line of duty, that would be in his record. All on duty shootings are detailed and reported in an officers record. There are several current and former cops on these boards, ask them.

I know this because i was military police for part of my time in the navy. We didnt have many shootings in those 18 months, like 2 I think, (military types tend to be law abiding citizens) but every one was documented in detail.

There is no evidence that her emails were work product, and that means using the yahoo account is just fine. From a legal standpoint anyway.

see the difference?

 

[Archangel M]

From what Ive heard of these stories:

1-He claims he zapped the kid as part of "training" the kid in its use (lie to cover something else I dont know). That should have gotten him a suspension at the least.

2-Dont know anything about the moose. If it was done on-duty as a euthanization this would have been open and closed. It sounds like he poached it and its being used to get him canned.

3-I heard he was disciplined for drinking in uniform in a squad car.


Im willing to wager this dude has some other "issues" in his professional past as well. Any one of them alone could be professionally survivable but with some expensive punishment. But when piled together (if true/proven) equal termination IMO.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Was I insulting? Must not have been, those rep points and smilies and all that stuff.


Military pollice are not the same as Civilian police. Different rules, etc. I've got 2 MP's and 4 CP in my family.

So, let me see if I have this picture right.

The ST is an evil bastard, who recklessly and thoughtlessly endangered the life of a child, who is a drunk, and a criminal.

The VP is simply guilty of accidentally using the wrong email system and accidentally hit the CC to Hubby button when emailing various gov. agencies. A minor oppsie, happens all the time when in a hurry. I sure hope Cheney realizes my last email to him was an accident too. Damn auto-fill feature.

Here's my take.
The ST has a history of poor judgement based on listed information. He has been investigated, found guilty of violations and been punished for them. We can hope he learned from that. Personally, I do agree with you to a point. Using a deadly weapon as a toy isn't the brightest thing to do.

The VP has a history of ignorance, ultra-conservativism, and at best a careless disregard for the rules applicable to her position. Current actions indicate a view that she is above the law, and ill prepared for the actual historical obligations of the office to which she aspires.

Its simple.
Your "Truth" is that the same rules that apply to us do not apply to your chosen candidate.
My Truth is that those rules should apply to all, equally. I don't have a problem with her because she isn't my choosen savior.

My original view on her was quite different, until I began to see all the problems around her. As such, I have revised my position to where it currently stands, and your assumptions and excuses and overlooking doesn't do much to change that view.

I am sure that a good number of things painted on her are false, mistaken, and possibly libelous. I'm also sure a number of them are true. Her complience with the courts, presentation of fact, and an examination of all of those emails might go far to clear her. But having deleted the accounts and by effect the emails, her defiance of investigators, and an absence of fact, doesn't paint her well. Her own actions and words show someone ill equiped to be the VP and the CiC. In short, she is not the best person for that position.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

From what Ive heard of these stories:

1-He claims he zapped the kid as part of "training" the kid in its use (lie to cover something else I dont know). That should have gotten him a suspension at the least.

2-Dont know anything about the moose. If it was done on-duty as a euthanization this would have been open and closed. It sounds like he poached it and its being used to get him canned.

3-I heard he was disciplined for drinking in uniform in a squad car.


Im willing to wager this dude has some other "issues" in his professional past as well. Any one of them alone could be professionally survivable but with some expensive punishment. But when piled together (if true/proven) equal termination IMO.

Exactly.

 

[Twin Fist]

Was I insulting? Must not have been, those rep points and smilies and all that stuff.

See Bob, thats why I love ya. Just like me you can go from mean to laughing in a heartbeat.

AGAIN

as has been repeatedly stated, no evidence of offical government business conducted on personal email.

And I dont know that the trooper is evil, i do know he has been proven to have done several career ending screw ups. So his getting fired isnt some "Palin abusing her office" scandel.

"and at best a careless disregard for the rules applicable to her position."

no actual violations have been proven, now have they?

"Her own actions and words show someone ill equiped to be the VP and the CiC. In short, she is not the best person for that position."

this is fine, and fair IF it is based on proven facts. The smear piece you posted was in almost all aspects, refuted, hands down.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

See Bob, thats why I love ya. Just like me you can go from mean to laughing in a heartbeat.

If I took much of this stuff to heart, I'd see my cardiologist alot more often...I don't like him that much. LOL!

AGAIN

as has been repeatedly stated, no evidence of offical government business conducted on personal email.

The stuff at Wikileaks seems to disagree, but with the actual accounts and emails deleted I doubt we'll know.

And I dont know that the trooper is evil, i do know he has been proven to have done several career ending screw ups. So his getting fired isnt some "Palin abusing her office" scandel.

I don't know. Would it have been that big a deal for her if it wasn't her nephew on the end of the zapper?

"and at best a careless disregard for the rules applicable to her position."

no actual violations have been proven, now have they?

Hard to prove something when the evidence has been destroyed. Can we get Gil Grissom on the case?

"Her own actions and words show someone ill equiped to be the VP and the CiC. In short, she is not the best person for that position."

this is fine, and fair IF it is based on proven facts. The smear piece you posted was in almost all aspects, refuted, hands down.

It's also backed by as many sources as you cite disputing it. So, honestly, where is "Truth" here? I cited her own words in video interviews, and cross referenced to accepted sources.

 

[theletch1]

Just a general reminder to all users:

[playnice]Jeff Letchford[/playnice]