Palin resigns

I love a good flame war/wank as much as anybody else, but dude, it's Sarah Palin. She's not worth it.

I think this thread stopped being about Palin two or three pages ago.

About who?

grmblfjx wrote:

Freezer wrote:

No, they can't. He forgot "FREE MARKET WILL SOLVE ALL!"

What bothers me about that is that free markets will adjust, and will regulate themselves in all but the most extreme cases, but people on both sides of this argument seem to think that that means it will happen without any pain to be felt by anyone.
And that's bullshit.

This financial crisis that's happening all around us, that is the market reacting to the bubble beforehand. That is what the free market balancing itself feels like.

This is why I'm a socialist. 'Cause that's a lot of pain for people who didn't cause the problem.

Sara Palin on what would happen if she were in the White House, but the ethic violations started to pile on:

Quote :

As to whether another pursuit for national office, as when she joined
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House less than a
year ago, would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said
there was a difference between the White House and what she had
experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the
"department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical
allegations.

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in
the White House would look at some of the things that we've been
charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

Link!

Mocks itself, doesn't it?

gaijinguy wrote:

You let yourself get boxed in, and now you're trying for a save with SRS BIZNIZ after you rolled a critical failure on snark (I know, I know, nerd reference. I keep forgetting that you're one of the cool kids that hangs out on fanfiction boards.)

Uhhh . . . okay? :eyebrow:

I think I need a translator for this conversation, 'cause I don't know what that means, or why you think it's a masterstroke comeback. Seriously, am I missing something here, and could you please explain it to me if I am?

karmyn31 wrote:

This is why America can't have nice things. Bunch of idiots fighting about politics. It's not worth it and it's not making things any better.

Don't look at me. I don't even know what he's talking about, here. I don't think it's politics.

Ceres wrote:

Sara Palin on what would happen if she were in the White House, but the ethic violations started to pile on:

Quote :

As to whether another pursuit for national office, as when she joined
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House less than a
year ago, would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said
there was a difference between the White House and what she had
experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the
"department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical
allegations.

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in
the White House would look at some of the things that we've been
charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

Link!

Mocks itself, doesn't it?

Jesus, between this and her having no idea what the Vice President's duties were, America really dodged a bullet!!

I'm beginning to think the last decent Vice President we had was Johnson. He's one of the few that knew how to step up to the plate when needed.
I'm also beginning to think one of the reasons nobody tried to kill Bush was that nobody wanted to inflict Cheney as President on the world.

How considerate of them thar assassins!


No, I mean it.

karmyn31 wrote:

I'm beginning to think the last decent Vice President we had was Johnson. He's one of the few that knew how to step up to the plate when needed.

Goddamn, I thought you mean Andrew Johnson and I was confused as hell.

It looks like I'm gonna lose money. Fox has turned against her in a big way.

That's just bizarre. On Saturday they were still trying to say that her speech was "true" and "from the heart". And now they're all "well she's bringing it on herself"!

I get the feeling they're getting a bit bitter because of the GOP's sorry state.

Wow, she must have sold her soul to some other demon instead of Ann Coulter.

grmblfjx wrote:

Freezer wrote:

No, they can't. He forgot "FREE MARKET WILL SOLVE ALL!"

What bothers me about that is that free markets will adjust, and will regulate themselves in all but the most extreme cases, but people on both sides of this argument seem to think that that means it will happen without any pain to be felt by anyone.
And that's bullshit.

This financial crisis that's happening all around us, that is the market reacting to the bubble beforehand. That is what the free market balancing itself feels like.

I've had this comment I made back on HoBFF in my signature ever since, but it seems more timely than ever. And just in case I change it:

Quote :

Sarah Palin's whining reminds me of a butthurt fanbrat who's fan fic has been flamed. "Waah...they're saying meen things about my wonderful story where the Super Speshul Sparkly Maverick From Alaska saves America from communists and terrorists and Muslins and witches!!!"

And of course the next thing a fanbrat does is throw a snitfit and delete all their stuff from their FFN account. Which means that she's following the pattern to the letter, isn't she?

Spotts1701 wrote:

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

And her reasons should pass the "smell test" - she's moving out of office because she feels more attention is being given to her than to her State, and because it's leading to state money - and her own money - being drained. I read her speech, and listened to it, and that was what she said - she is stepping away because it's a waste to the Alaskan people for her to continue being in office when more and more frivolous lawsuits are being tossed her way. She knows that people are going to keep suing her, and I think it's a good think that she recognises it and is willing to step down to preserve the coffers of her State.

You must have been listening to a different speech than me. I listened to it three times, and it's all doubletalk and spin to me.

She doesn't want to be a "lame duck" governor, so it's better that she quit. She doesn't want to waste taxpayer money, except that just because she's not in office doesn't automatically stop the investigations or the state's need to defend against them (and if she really wanted to do that, why is her resignation not effective for three more weeks?). She thinks it's bad to weather a political storm because it looks like you're indecisive or a loser.

I mean...it just flat doesn't make sense - not politically, not rationally, not a damn bit of it makes sense.

The ethics violations accusations were taking up time AND money - money that she frankly doesn't have, and neither does the state - and it was keeping them from being able to actually accomplish anything. Not to mention most of them were absolute bullshit. Giving three weeks leeway is no different than giving two weeks notice at a job - it gives time to get the paperwork in order, and catch your last paycheck.

I completely disagree with your assessment, and this is after having read her speech three times total, and her interviews on the subject. It may be a case of agreeing to disagree, but I still think she made a reasonable decision. I don't think it's because she's "thin-skinned", either, I think it's because she's tired of the bullshit and knows it is only negatively effecting her state.

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

I completely disagree with your assessment, and this is after having read her speech three times total, and her interviews on the subject. It may be a case of agreeing to disagree, but I still think she made a reasonable decision. I don't think it's because she's "thin-skinned", either, I think it's because she's tired of the bullshit and knows it is only negatively effecting her state.

And I think she completely killed her political career. The ads write themselves "Sarah Palin can't be counted on to finish what she starts", "If Sarah Palin can't handle the media, how will she stand up to our enemies?"...etc. And I know that there is going to be an attempt to get her to run for President in 2012 (mainly because of a lack of any other options that don't also repel a substantial amount of the Republican base).

Yeah, agree to disagree is probably the best tack to take.

Spotts1701 wrote:

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

I completely disagree with your assessment, and this is after having read her speech three times total, and her interviews on the subject. It may be a case of agreeing to disagree, but I still think she made a reasonable decision. I don't think it's because she's "thin-skinned", either, I think it's because she's tired of the bullshit and knows it is only negatively effecting her state.

"If Sarah Palin can't handle the media, how will she stand up to our enemies?"

The same way she stands up to mooses and wolfs, of course--with a shotgun and prayer, gosh golly gee you betcha!

Spotts1701 wrote:

The ads write themselves [...]"If Sarah Palin can't handle the media, how will she stand up to our enemies?"

See also: John Kerry v. Swift Boat Veterans For Bush Truth.

Freezer wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

The ads write themselves [...]"If Sarah Palin can't handle the media, how will she stand up to our enemies?"

See also: John Kerry v. Swift Boat Veterans For Bush Truth.

The same people saying "Palin brought up her family during the campaign so they're fair game" are the same people who got their knickers in a twist when the same thing happened to John Kerry.

Not necessarily you, but I've heard people do just that. It's one thing to attack a person's family or dubious war record, but being a hypocritical chump about it is just weak.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

The same people saying "Palin brought up her family during the campaign so they're fair game" are the same people who got their knickers in a twist when the same thing happened to John Kerry.

And the same people who have their knickers in a twist about Palin made fun of Chelsea Clinton. There's also all the annoying presidental relatives we've had thrust upon us over the years, like Billy Carter.

Hell, it's not even new. In 1828, JQ Adams charged that Andrew Jackson was a murdering whoreson who had married his wife before her divorce was final, therefore making her an adulteress and an enemy of God destined to burn in Hell . . . . which, considering that she was fatally ill at the time, might strike the modern observer as a bit crass.

We like to pretend family is off limits, but for all practical purposes, that is a lie.

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

She said why she was resigning. The constant ethics complaints (repeatedly dismissed in court) were costing her family and the state millions of dollars, and she felt it was unreasonable.

Which as it turns out was a complete lie.

Quote :

“In the past two years, the state of Alaska has spent millions of dollars processing ethics complaints, public records requests, and related lawsuits.”

That was the claim coming from the office of Governor Sarah Palin, who likes to use the phrase “frivolous ethics complaints.” That was nine days ago.

Today, we learn that “millions of dollars” is in fact, actually $296,000, as far as ethics complaints go. Numbers shmumbers.

The complete breakdown is not yet available, but we do know this about the three spendiest ones:

$187,797 stemmed from the Troopergate investigation, a good chunk of which Palin initiated herself. We’ll get back to that.

$43,028 stemmed from a complaint by Andree McLeod which resulted in a recommendation that a state employee undergo ethics training for a series of “troubling emails.”

$29,962 most likely came from the “travel gate” investigation in which Palin reimbursed almost $10,000 for expenses billed to the state for her children’s travel expenses.

That’s the top three, none of which sound particularly “frivolous.” So once we crunch the numbers, it’s highly likely that the most expensive investigation brought about by an individual, is Palin’s investigation of herself. And let’s just review that one more time.

The Legislature found enough evidence to approve $100,000 to investigate Palin’s firing of the Commissioner of Public Safety, in light of accusations that he was dismissed for not firing her ex-brother-in-law with whom there was bad blood. They spent $75,000 of the money allocated, and the bipartisan Legislative Council (composed of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats) voted unanimously to go forward. An independent investigation by someone that they all agreed to found that Palin violated the Executive Branch Ethics Act. They unanimously voted to release that decision to the public.

As a counter-measure, and a panicked move to look good during the campaign, Palin (with the advice from the McCain cadre of lawyers headed up by Ed O’Callaghan who had no license to practice law in the State of Alaska) initiated her own ethics complaint against herself, knowing that the outcome would be decided by a friendly panel of governor-appointed people who report to her. Guess what? They found her innocent, and refused to even investigate the matter of testimony from Palin that went completely against testimony from the former commissioner. Frivolous ethics complaint? No….a calculated one that the state paid for.

What did the legislature do about their own $75,000 investigation that found the governor in violation of the Ethics Act? Nothing. So, why did we, as a state, pay that $75,000? What did we get for that money? Maybe that’s the question we should be asking.

Not only did Palin lie about the amount of money being spent, she is the one who spent most of it, and a large chunk of the rest went into an investigation on rather or not she was spending state funds inappropriately. Oh, and her personal debt could be wiped out in a single Republican fundraiser, speaking tour, or even a Paypal link on her website.

Yeah, she's totally the model of fiscal restraint, design a libertarian medal with a dollar sign on it and pin it on her.

BLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

We should really post a warning sign that says that all conservatives, religious people, sensitive feminists, and overly moral prudes will get their assholes torn.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] will be campaign for Texas govenor Rick Perry. I will welcome our new govenor Kay Bailey Hutchison next year. Like I needed another reason to hate on Perry.