Source?
:lol: Did you forget what country you’re in? This is America, where you’re never fired for your own incompetence as long as you have a good lawyer. A lawyer can always find an angle to make you the victim. That’s why there is an investigation that more than likely would have resulting in nothing being found had she not been nominated the VP.
Come on you’re smart enough to make a better argument than “This is America you can get away with anything” rant.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26563811/
I would have put Fixednews up there but its just AP News article.
Good to see youtube isn’t just the home of liberal spin messages.
Pretty funny vid.
EDIT:
IB4 someone gets their panties in a bind over it.
Why would they get their panties in a bunch?
They probably love Castro.
:gotme:
:rolljerk:
Funny how CNN has completely ignored the release of the documents supporting Palin’s reason for firing Monegan. :roll2:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1119495&srvc=2008campaign&position=3
The papers filed Monday accuse Monegan, during his time as public safety commissioner, of “an escalating pattern of insubordination on budget and other key policy issues.”
In pursuing his own goals for the Department of Public Safety, Monegan “sought out the governor’s political opponents behind her back,” Van Flein wrote, and in December 2007 he “unilaterally orchestrated a press conference” on his budget with state Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat who is leading the Troopergate investigation.
On May 7 of this year, Randy Ruaro, the governor’s deputy chief of staff, complained in an e-mail to Rehfeld, the budget director, that Monegan’s department “is constantly going off the reservation.”
“The last straw” leading up to Monegan’s firing, Van Flein wrote, was Monegan’s planned trip to Washington, D.C., to seek funding for a new, multimillion-dollar sexual assault initiative the governor hadn’t yet approved.
Also, lets not forget that she didn’t simply fire him and send him to the unemployment line. She offered him him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down. If she was truely out to get him as Democrats want you to believe why would she offer him an executive position?
Source: http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/463204.html
Because she wanted him out of the position of power so she could get someone in there that would fire her brother in law?
She still should cooperate. If these emails clear her then the matter should be dropped.
I’m not a fan of any politician, dem or rep, thinking that they have the right to not cooperate in an investigation.
Yeah, but at some point you have to circle the wagons when an investigation turns into a witch hunt. The lead on the “investigation” is the same guy Monegan was going behind Palin’s back with. Tell me how that’s a fair investigation?
Wow horray McCain. Trying to block people in forclosure from voting which…oh yea… is mostly Democrat.
Also, a funny and impressive video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg
I don’t know much about the guy in charge but I do know that the call for the investigation from both Democrats and Republicans.
And why is it only now she wants to not cooperate, if this guy was in charge of the investigation she seemed to be ok with for a while until now, if that even is her argument against it.
I like how the McCain campaign’s line of the moment for every time they get caught blatantly lying, then repeating their lies after being told the media knows that they’re fabrications, is “We’re in this campaign to win.” Not even denying it any more.
Oh, and when fucking Rove tells you you’re running a shady campaign, it might as well be Charles Manson telling you you’re a little too violent.
Not that I dissagree but can you source this?
Well it seems the system somewhat works. The Dems didn’t want offshore drilling the reps did. The reps wanted a 3 mile limit the dems said no and compromised on a 50 mile limit.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1841769,00.html?cnn=yes
I love how the current crisis in gas has swayed public opinion even though drilling off shore won’t do a damn thing for a decade and by then I hope to drive an electric or hybred car.
The current crisis finally woke people up to the BS the democrats have been pitching. “It won’t help for 10 years” is what you’ve been saying for the last 20. By that logic we should give up on fuel cell research too, and cheap solar, and pretty much any other cutting edge technology.
the problem with oil drilling is that by the time it would impact gas prices we should ALREADY be moving towards different fuels.
Would it be a bad thing to have more resources available? Is it ever bad to have multiple options for energy generation, whether it be gasoline, coal, natural gas, nuclear…
Yes, I’ve heard this for 20+ years. Look around Joe, regardless of what we do oil is not going away for a very long time. It’s used in pretty much everything you touch (read, PLASTIC).
Drill for more oil, research non-oil alternatives, invest in more nuclear power… everything needs to be on the table or we’re never going to beat the energy crisis we’re facing.
My issue is that we need to get off of oil as a fuel source all together. Drilling for oil that will take 10 years to get and is a step in the wrong direction. We should be investing in wind, solar and Nuclear. And we should be pusing at a Federal level more hybred or electic cars.
I would like to see half of all cars manufactured to be hybred or electric in 10 years and don’t tell me that its impossible. Thats just quitter talk.
I’d like to run my generator with a perpetual motion machine.
The reality of the situation is that more domestic oil is a good thing because no matter how much we hope for change and spend on alternatives we’re going to need oil for a long time.