You Heard It Here First! Palin in hot water

[RicoVacilon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_ethics_complaint;_ylt=AggQdITGZ0Hi6wJ1lnz FbSCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNiMnRic3FmBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDk wNzIxL3VzX3BhbGluX2V0aGljc19jb21wbGFpbnQEY3BvcwMxB HBvcwMyBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9 yeQRzbGsDaW52ZXN0aWdhdG9y

I didn't even read it guys, just know it'll cause a hub bub. :D


An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.

The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

[theanalogkid]

Palin should go back to the obscurity in which she came from.

[Gtrght77]

Palin should go back to the obscurity in which she came from.

She should but those loonies like Supdog will get her a chance to run for president in 2012.

[SUPDOG]

She should but those loonies like Supdog will get her a chance to run for president in 2012.

Guess I strike a nerve each time I call out your leechdom!

Good. Do somethin' about it leech.


:p

[dsteve]

congrats, you pulled up an old article about a bull**** ethics complaint, which was part of the reason she stepped down.

for all you idiots that call pailin stupid, have you ever heard joe biden talk?

[theanalogkid]

She should but those loonies like Supdog will get her a chance to run for president in 2012.

Well fundamentalists will come out in droves for her, because she represents the "small town values", and will "defend" against the alleged "attacks" made by those who aren't like them using her political clout. The more choices people have to not be like Palin or anyone else in that group, the more they feel threatened and that they are under siege because their lifestyle may not be the only correct one to live. She is scared that other people that are like her, may chose to become not like her by the choices that are given to them. Of course none of them can ever point to anything concrete that is being used to attack them. Like other fundamentalist groups, she is also for the subjugation of women (no abortions obviously, but she doesn't want the government help out these people either, moral ethics is expensive though).

It's the same way with Osama Bin Laden, he is scared that his own people may chose to become more western when given the opportunity.

[Wild Bunch]

Well fundamentalists will come out in droves for her, because she represents the "small town values", and will "defend" against the alleged "attacks" made by those who aren't like them using her political clout. The more choices people have to not be like Palin or anyone else in that group, the more they feel threatened and that they are under siege because their lifestyle may not be the only correct one to live. She is scared that other people that are like her, may chose to become not like her by the choices that are given to them. Of course none of them can ever point to anything concrete that is being used to attack them. Like other fundamentalist groups, she is also for the subjugation of women (no abortions obviously, but she doesn't want the government help out these people either, moral ethics is expensive though).

It's the same way with Osama Bin Laden, he is scared that his own people may chose to become more western when given the opportunity.

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_120108WAB_atheist_holiday_display_KC.201f8962.h tml

You can believe in freedom of speech and whether this is right or wrong is up for people to decide on their own, but this is a definite attack on religion. The name of the organization that set up the placard is the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The reason they exist is to disestablish religion.

[theanalogkid]

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_120108WAB_atheist_holiday_display_KC.201f8962.h tml

You can believe in freedom of speech and whether this is right or wrong is up for people to decide on their own, but this is a definite attack on religion. The name of the organization that set up the placard is the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The reason they exist is to disestablish religion.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to promote their own views? Why should only the religious groups have that privilege. Is it because Freedom From Religion presents an alternative that doesn't involve religion? Seems like the attack here is a matter of perspective. The Christian group is being "attacked' by both the Jewish group by presenting a different religion. As the article says the menorah prompted the Christian person to put up a nativity scene, which then prompted the atheists to put up a non-relgious sign. Fundamentalism isn't exclusive to religion either, it's just where most of it happens. I still find nothing real concrete here to claim there's some war going on religion.

[resnor]

She should but those loonies like Supdog will get her a chance to run for president in 2012.

LMAO

I don't think that Palin would be any worse than Obama, as far as making decisions. Obama has been horrible, to put it nicely.

[Wild Bunch]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to promote their own views? Why should only the religious groups have that privilege. Is it because Freedom From Religion presents an alternative that doesn't involve religion? Seems like the attack here is a matter of perspective. The Christian group is being "attacked' by both the Jewish group by presenting a different religion. As the article says the menorah prompted the Christian person to put up a nativity scene, which then prompted the atheists to put up a non-relgious sign. Fundamentalism isn't exclusive to religion either, it's just where most of it happens. I still find nothing real concrete here to claim there's some war going on religion.

It's not that they are promoting their own views. They are saying "religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Claiming that they don't believe in heaven and hell isn't a problem, but that statement is clearly attacking religion by saying it "hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

[Gtrght77]

LMAO

I don't think that Palin would be any worse than Obama, as far as making decisions. Obama has been horrible, to put it nicely.

so far he has done nothing different then what Mcain would of done.

[theanalogkid]

It's not that they are promoting their own views. They are saying "religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Claiming that they don't believe in heaven and hell isn't a problem, but that statement is clearly attacking religion by saying it "hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

That IS part of their views though. It's no different than a religious group saying homosexuality is a sin, or abortion is a sin. An attack? Hardly. The real attacks occur when you have fundamentalists trying to use government to try and proselytize the ones that aren't like them. Fighting to keep government religion neutral isn't what I'd consider an attack.

[resnor]

so far he has done nothing different then what Mcain would of done.

How does that relate to what I said in the least? I said that Palin wouldn't have been any worse than Obama. And who said that McCain would have made good decisions?

[Wild Bunch]

That IS part of their views though. It's no different than a religious group saying homosexuality is a sin, or abortion is a sin. An attack? Hardly. The real attacks occur when you have fundamentalists trying to use government to try and proselytize the ones that aren't like them. Fighting to keep government religion neutral isn't what I'd consider an attack.

Right. Religion attacks other things and it also comes under attack itself.

[Gtrght77]

How does that relate to what I said in the least? I said that Palin wouldn't have been any worse than Obama. And who said that McCain would have made good decisions?


What has Obama done so far? So how exactly has he done anything bad yet? The bailouts were not a decision they were mandatory. The banks own the US so it would not matter who was pres it still would of been done. Other then that he has talked about healthcare but the Dems in congress cant seem to get it together while the GOP take credit for that even though they are nothing but a sideshow.


I will say one thing he did that Palin would not of done was restore faith in the US.

[theanalogkid]

How does that relate to what I said in the least? I said that Palin wouldn't have been any worse than Obama. And who said that McCain would have made good decisions?

But you voted for McCain, no? So then you would be endorsing these bad decisions and since McCain and Obama really didn't campaign for different solutions, you shouldn't be complaining about Obama. I, on the other hand, voted for neither, so I can sleep easy at night knowing, I contributed to none of Obama's disasters.

[resnor]

But you voted for McCain, no? So then you would be endorsing these bad decisions and since McCain and Obama really didn't campaign for different solutions, you shouldn't be complaining about Obama. I, on the other hand, voted for neither, so I can sleep easy at night knowing, I contributed to none of Obama's disasters.

Because I voted for McCain, that would mean that I endorsed his bad decisions? Frankly, saying that McCain would have made the same decisions as Obama is really neither here nor there, as no one knows. Would McCain have taken over the car companies? Would McCain have been setting CEO's salaries? Would McCain be trying to shove through a craptastic health care bill? I don't think he would have been.

I can, and will, and should blame Obama for the terrible decisions that he's making/made. I sleep easy at night knowing that I did not vote for Obama the socialist/marxist/communist/left wing nutjob.

[RicoVacilon]

I dislike anyone who tries to get people to agree with them by saying agreeing in something else is stupid, immature, irrational, or the like.

Atheists fail to realize that their whole platform is based on there being no scientific proof that God exists. Yet they don't realize there is also no scientific proof that God DOESN'T exist.

Live and let live.

[Wild Bunch]

I dislike anyone who tries to get people to agree with them by saying agreeing in something else is stupid, immature, irrational, or the like.

Atheists fail to realize that their whole platform is based on there being no scientific proof that God exists. Yet they don't realize there is also no scientific proof that God DOESN'T exist.

Live and let live.

Yep.

"Let me be a free man - free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade, where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself - and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty."

[theanalogkid]

Because I voted for McCain, that would mean that I endorsed his bad decisions? Frankly, saying that McCain would have made the same decisions as Obama is really neither here nor there, as no one knows. Would McCain have taken over the car companies? Would McCain have been setting CEO's salaries? Would McCain be trying to shove through a craptastic health care bill? I don't think he would have been.

I can, and will, and should blame Obama for the terrible decisions that he's making/made. I sleep easy at night knowing that I did not vote for Obama the socialist/marxist/communist/left wing nutjob.

If you voted for him knowing that he would be a terrible candidate, then yes, I'd say you do endorse what he would have done in office.

McCain would have inherited the car companies from the Bush Administration which was bailing them out in December.

Since McCain is against excessive CEO compensation, he might have limited the pay of CEOs who companies accepted TARP funds. (Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/22/mccain-slams-excessive-executive-pay/)

He campaigned for his own crap health care reform measures during his campaign, so yes he would have.



Atheists fail to realize that their whole platform is based on there being no scientific proof that God exists. Yet they don't realize there is also no scientific proof that God DOESN'T exist.

This is nothing but an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). People used that a lot during the invasion of Iraq, "Well just because we haven't found any WMDs, doesn't mean that they don't exist!"

[Wild Bunch]

If you voted for him knowing that he would be a terrible candidate, then yes, I'd say you do endorse what he would have done in office.

McCain would have inherited the car companies from the Bush Administration which was bailing them out in December.

Since McCain is against excessive CEO compensation, he might have limited the pay of CEOs who companies accepted TARP funds. (Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/22/mccain-slams-excessive-executive-pay/)

He campaigned for his own crap health care reform measures during his campaign, so yes he would have.




This is nothing but an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). People used that a lot during the invasion of Iraq, "Well just because we haven't found any WMDs, doesn't mean that they don't exist!"

Right. You can't prove a negative. However you can't disprove it either.

And that was Rico's point.

[JoeJGibbs]

Right. You can't prove a negative. However you can't disprove it either.

And that was Rico's point.

No that's not what appeal to ignorance is.

Appeal to ignorance basically means just because you can't disprove something, doesn't make it true.

Example: There are pink invisible fuzzy unicorns in my house that only I can see.

Now of course I cannot prove that these creatures don't exist but that doesn't mean they do.

[RicoVacilon]

This is nothing but an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). People used that a lot during the invasion of Iraq, "Well just because we haven't found any WMDs, doesn't mean that they don't exist!"

That would be true. . . if I were trying to prove that God existed by making you prove he didn't.

If an atheist says "God doesn't exist" then they would have to be able to prove that scientifically.

So if an atheist, so in love with rationality, makes the statement that God doesn't exist, I don't think I'm out of line for asking them to prove it.

If I say "I believe in God" I don't need to prove **** to you. It's what I believe. You can take it or leave it. Same with an atheist that says "I don't believe in God."

[Wild Bunch]

No that's not what appeal to ignorance is.

Appeal to ignorance basically means just because you can't disprove something, doesn't make it true.

Example: There are pink invisible fuzzy unicorns in my house that only I can see.

Now of course I cannot prove that these creatures don't exist but that doesn't mean they do.

I'm aware. I think that's why Rico put in "live and let live."

Just because Athiests can't prove God doesn't exist doesn't make it true. But he was saying it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It can't be confirmed either way.

[theanalogkid]

That would be true. . . if I were trying to prove that God existed by making you prove he didn't.

If an atheist says "God doesn't exist" then they would have to be able to prove that scientifically.

So if an atheist, so in love with rationality, makes the statement that God doesn't exist, I don't think I'm out of line for asking them to prove it.

If I say "I believe in God" I don't need to prove **** to you. It's what I believe. You can take it or leave it. Same with an atheist that says "I don't believe in God."

Based on that logic if I say "There is an invisible dinosaur running around the streets of New York City, that cannot be detected by any instruments" there would be no way for you to disprove my claim. Even then I don't think because you can't disprove it, that it should make it true. Otherwise there would be an entire fantasy land filled with people from all works of fiction that you can't disprove because you can't see it.

[resnor]

If you voted for him knowing that he would be a terrible candidate, then yes, I'd say you do endorse what he would have done in office.

McCain would have inherited the car companies from the Bush Administration which was bailing them out in December.

Since McCain is against excessive CEO compensation, he might have limited the pay of CEOs who companies accepted TARP funds. (Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/22/mccain-slams-excessive-executive-pay/)

He campaigned for his own crap health care reform measures during his campaign, so yes he would have.




This is nothing but an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). People used that a lot during the invasion of Iraq, "Well just because we haven't found any WMDs, doesn't mean that they don't exist!"

Wrong. I voted my conscience in the primary. I voted for who I thought was the best candidate. That was not McCain. When it came down to the general election, though, I voted for McCain, because it was either McCain or Obama. Ron Paul, or whoever else, didn't matter, cause they didn't stand a chance. Terrible candidate was Obama. He's a socialist/communist/Marxist. McCain is not those things. Was he a great candidate? No, but he was not as bad as Obama.

You don't know what McCain would have done with CEO's salaries. McCain's health care plan was not what the health care plan is right now.

[theanalogkid]

Wrong. I voted my conscience in the primary. I voted for who I thought was the best candidate. That was not McCain. When it came down to the general election, though, I voted for McCain, because it was either McCain or Obama. Ron Paul, or whoever else, didn't matter, cause they didn't stand a chance. Terrible candidate was Obama. He's a socialist/communist/Marxist. McCain is not those things. Was he a great candidate? No, but he was not as bad as Obama.

You don't know what McCain would have done with CEO's salaries. McCain's health care plan was not what the health care plan is right now.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still indeed evil. As for Obama, he can't be socialist and communist at the same time. Besides that you insult real socialists by claiming Obama is one.

[Wild Bunch]

Based on that logic if I say "There is an invisible dinosaur running around the streets of New York City, that cannot be detected by any instruments" there would be no way for you to disprove my claim. Even then I don't think because you can't disprove it, that it should make it true. Otherwise there would be an entire fantasy land filled with people from all works of fiction that you can't disprove because you can't see it.

I think he was distinguishing between belief and a proven fact. Neither side can prove/disprove the existence of god, so claiming "I believe..." can go without question. But if he states it as a fact then you would expect them to prove it. Am I right Rico?

[theanalogkid]

I think he was distinguishing between belief and a proven fact. Neither side can prove/disprove the existence of god, so claiming "I believe..." can go without question. But if he states it as a fact then you would expect them to prove it. Am I right Rico?

Well like I said, just because there is a lack of empirical evidence that holds that God doesn't exist, doesn't mean that God does exist either. Since the Bible was written in such a way that God never ever has to show him or herself or itself to anyone, I doubt we'll ever get that empirical evidence.

[RicoVacilon]

Based on that logic if I say "There is an invisible dinosaur running around the streets of New York City, that cannot be detected by any instruments" there would be no way for you to disprove my claim. Even then I don't think because you can't disprove it, that it should make it true. Otherwise there would be an entire fantasy land filled with people from all works of fiction that you can't disprove because you can't see it.

Read what I wrote again, ok?

[RicoVacilon]

I think he was distinguishing between belief and a proven fact. Neither side can prove/disprove the existence of god, so claiming "I believe..." can go without question. But if he states it as a fact then you would expect them to prove it. Am I right Rico?

Yup. :D . . . . . . . .

[RicoVacilon]

Well like I said, just because there is a lack of empirical evidence that holds that God doesn't exist, doesn't mean that God does exist either. Since the Bible was written in such a way that God never ever has to show him or herself or itself to anyone, I doubt we'll ever get that empirical evidence.

Wow, dude. . . you're slow. Belief doesn't need empirical evidemce. Why are you still talking about it?

[theanalogkid]

Wow, dude. . . you're slow. Belief doesn't need empirical evidemce. Why are you still talking about it?

I wasn't talking about belief, I was talking about "God doesn't exist". I guess the the foot's on the other hand now, isn't it.

[Wild Bunch]

Well like I said, just because there is a lack of empirical evidence that holds that God doesn't exist, doesn't mean that God does exist either. Since the Bible was written in such a way that God never ever has to show him or herself or itself to anyone, I doubt we'll ever get that empirical evidence.

And no one was ever making that argument. He was saying that it becomes a matter of belief because neither side can prove it or disprove it.

[resnor]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still indeed evil. As for Obama, he can't be socialist and communist at the same time. Besides that you insult real socialists by claiming Obama is one.

I disagree. A vote for Ron Paul or other third party, was in essence a vote for Obama, as none of the third party candidates stood a chance. So, I voted for McCain, as he would have been slightly better than Obama, IMO.

I wasn't saying that Obama is a socialist and a communist. It was more a pick your favorite.

[RicoVacilon]

I wasn't talking about belief, I was talking about "God doesn't exist". I guess the the foot's on the other hand now, isn't it.

Not at all, because I was pretty specific about what I was talking about. Read what I actually wrote before trying to argue against me.