- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 1, 2008 at 7:54 pm #587934
c@lbobMemberTalk about charging the biggest cat, the Repugs confront a national scandal about packing the Justice Department with political hacks by picking a vice presidential candidate who ousted top cops because they weren’t loyal or “inflexible.”
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/090108.html
It’s just breathtaking how brazen they are.
September 1, 2008 at 8:22 pm #636894
DannoMemberCatlbob-
Maybe you should search out more independent news sources, Consortium news carries the water for the liberal extreme left.
September 1, 2008 at 11:25 pm #636895
mellaw6565MemberDanno – maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and pony up some other news sources for others to consider instead of bashing people. You were already told this on another thread and frankly your attacks are inappropriate – if you don’t have something to add for others to consider, then you should go somewhere else. You’re obviously looking for like-minded people to agree with you instead of participating in a further discussions.
September 1, 2008 at 11:36 pm #636896
CaitParticipantKudos, mellaw6565. I agree wholeheartedly. I like that this can be a very welcoming and open-minded blog (though maybe a little left-leaning at times, but it is after all West Seattle.) I really do enjoy these posts and enjoy those that can challenge my views. Doing so without support or respect, however, just annoys me.
September 2, 2008 at 4:02 pm #636897
CaduceusMemberI haven’t followed Danno’s posts…but did you read that article?
He’s entirely justified to say it’s biased, and he wasn’t attacking anyone. If anyone was making attacks against another person, moreover a group of people, read the OP in this thread.
September 2, 2008 at 4:15 pm #636898
CaitParticipantIf we want to get into biased news sources we could go on all day, really. However, just because this one is more biased that most doesn’t mean it’s not worth discussing at all. I think the general reaction was based on similar comments on other threads that perhaps weren’t as mild as this one. And yes, I did read the article. Biased – yes. Unworthy of discussion – no.
September 2, 2008 at 4:35 pm #636899
charlabobParticipantThe facts in the article, about the management of the Justice Department under Bush, are not disputed. This is a typical attempt to “kill the messenger”. Deal with the facts–the R’s, over the last year, have attempted and, in some cases, succeeded in overthrowing the U.S. Constitution. If you don’t care about the constitution, admit it. If you want to repeal it, start the legal process.
September 2, 2008 at 5:04 pm #636900
WSratsinacageMemberJust a general comment. I’ve noticed most people who have questions for Republicans address them (right from the start) as Repugs. It is not a great way to start a friendly discussion.
September 2, 2008 at 5:24 pm #636901
AnonymousInactiveWS – Thanks for noticing and considering the inappropriateness with consistency.
September 2, 2008 at 7:19 pm #636902
Tonya42MemberWSratsinacage “Just a general comment. I’ve noticed most people who have questions for Republicans address them (right from the start) as Repugs. It is not a great way to start a friendly discussion.”
Yes you would be correct in that sad testament WSratsincage however I have discovered that if you just chalk it up to their anger/ignorance and then address their question, that’s your best bet.
Caduceus “I haven’t followed Danno’s posts…but did you read that article?
He’s entirely justified to say it’s biased, and he wasn’t attacking anyone. If anyone was making attacks against another person, moreover a group of people, read the OP in this thread.”
Yes Caduceus but you are just making matters worse by trying to address the obvious elephant in the livingroom and that is that some people are so hardcore they are brainwashed and refuse to hear anything that is in the slightest bit out of sink with the rest of the hive.
Of course not everyone is like that here.
September 2, 2008 at 7:37 pm #636903
WesMemberBlah, this is why I have stopped posting here. Why do I come back to the forums?
Fire away!
September 2, 2008 at 7:49 pm #636904
JoBParticipantYou can challenge the bias of an article on the basis of their interpretation of the facts… but you can’t throw out unidputed facts because of one article’s interpretation.
either she fired the police chief of Wasila without cause and then fired .. in effect.. the police chief of the state without cause.. or she didn’t.
No-one disputes the facts in the case…
so i have to ask those of you who find the interpretation from catlbob’s link disturbing.. just what “spin” you think should be attached to her actions?
Or do you simply think it is ok to dismiss law enforcement officials.. attorney generals and police chiefs… when they don’t agree with your political agenda?
September 2, 2008 at 7:58 pm #636905
JoBParticipantwsRatsinacage…
name calling?
i am afraid you have a republican to blame for instigating political name calling on this blog…
however, if TheHouse’s early attempts at “labeling” are to be held as any kind of standard… repug is a term of endearment.. not name calling.
i won’t name those republican supporters who have continued to carry on his example… but they aren’t too difficult to spot.
as for the pot stirrers… apparently there are a lot of trolls living under west seattle bridges.
I agree that there is a somewhat left leaning group of individuals who regularly post here… and you are right to assume that you are outnumbered.
but for the most part… they are interested in discussion and will carry on discussing the issues long after those representing the other side have resorted to name calling and innuendos.
I am still eagerly awaiting the republican supporter who is willing to engage in intellectual discussion …
September 2, 2008 at 8:07 pm #636906
Tonya42MemberAll Sarah and Todd Palin, her husband, have done vis a vis a Tooper Wooten (who was married to Palin’s younger sister) and former Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan is bring Wooten to the attention of Monegan BECAUSE WOOTEN WAS A PERCIEVED THREAT TO THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF PALIN AND HER FAMILY after Wooten allegedly threatened to kill Palin’s dad and bring down the Palin family.
As Sarah Palin has reiterated, she does not get involved in personnel and disciplinary matters of the Dept. of Public Safety. The Palins’ were merely reporting concern surrounding their safety and security of their own family. What were Palins’ to do, say nothing, and then be deemed negligent or remiss in doing nothing.
And finally, Palin was careful not to recommend Wooten’s firing. Sarah acted carefully, appropriately and discreetly. Case closed. (Even Monegan was quoted at the police picnic essential saying much ado about nothing and case closed.)
Monegan on the other hand was a Palin appointee, and she had a right to fire him for any reason.
I find it terribly comical that of all the scandals and red flags that both Obama and Biden have that this is the best that can be come up with? Not that I don’t think it merits discussion but I think it’s important as JoB says to actually bring facts into the picture.
September 2, 2008 at 8:13 pm #636907
Tonya42MemberJoB -” am still eagerly awaiting the republican supporter who is willing to engage in intellectual discussion …”
No you’re not, you opt out, I’ve seen it several times. You usually leave right around the time you are confronted with facts that you cannot twist or ignore. I like you JoB, I like your writings, you have strong opinions about a lot of things and you’re very intelligent. But I do not believe you have an open mind, at least not as much as you claim. Your posts validate that.
September 2, 2008 at 8:29 pm #636908
JoBParticipantTonya42..
Yes, Monegan was a Palin appointee.. as was the police chief when she was mayor. she had the right to fire them.
And she fired them both for political reasons…
it’s either that or she fired Monegan because he wouldn’t fire the husband of her sister after he had been investigated and disciplined.
either way, the definition of a police state is one in which law enforcement exists to carry out the political wishes of those in government.
is that what you advocate?
I am puzzled.. as someone who is vehemently against that sort of regime… i thought not….
As for waiting for an intelligent conversation with a republican supporter.. i am obviously still waiting.
i don’t suffer fools easily.. and when the conversation gets foolish.. when i am offered the choice between name calling and innuendos or silence.. i opt for silence. or recipes…
personally, i like the recipes best.
BTW.. the personal comments you just made about me.. not about my written words.. violate the guidelines on this forum.
September 2, 2008 at 8:45 pm #636909
AnonymousInactive“As for waiting for an intelligent conversation with a republican supporter.. i am obviously still waiting.” – JoB
Wouldn’t this be considered “innuendo”?
And, if you really look at this quote, you could also make the argument that this is “name calling”. (As in, I’m still waiting for intelligent conversation because you are not smart enough to talk to me)
I’m just sayin’….. maybe you shouldn’t scold when you can be accused of the very same behavior.
September 2, 2008 at 8:51 pm #636910
Tonya42MemberBTW.. the personal comments you just made about me.. not about my written words.. violate the guidelines on this forum.
How did I violate the guidelines? I would love to know.
I don’t suffer fools easily.. and when the conversation gets foolish.. when i am offered the choice between name calling and innuendos or silence.. i opt for silence. or recipes…
(Translation: when things are brought to my attention for which I cannot rationalize and I disagree with, I then deem it to be foolish)
And just a moment ago you wrote ” wsRatsinacage…
name calling?
i am afraid you have a republican to blame for instigating political name calling on this blog…”
Here again, someone was clearly pointing out it isn’t the best way to start out a discussion by acting like an adolescent and stoop to name calling. JoB, you can bluster away all you want, it doesn’t change the facts.
JoB “And she fired them both for political reasons…”
It was for safety reasons, a legal and legitimite reason, one of which I am sure you would do the same if someone threatened your family.
September 2, 2008 at 9:04 pm #636911
beachdrivegirlParticipantTonya do you find it odd though that because she acted so fairly in the firing that she is being investigated.. and then b/c she did everything the right way wihtin the past week she has found a need to hire a lawyer. Most people i know that are innocent and acted in the right dont go out and hire there own personal lawyers.
September 2, 2008 at 9:11 pm #636912
AnonymousInactive“Tucker Eskew, a senior McCain adviser, said the state, not Palin herself, hired the attorney to represent her in her capacity as governor, and he has been working for several weeks.
“The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges,” Eskew said. “This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.”” – Quinn
Full article here:
September 2, 2008 at 9:25 pm #636913
JoBParticipantTonya42.. LOL
wsratsinacage is his sign in name…
i didn’t choose it, he did. I suspect he had his reasons.. it’s not for me to decide his sign in name is negative and not use it. it’s his choice. i honor it.
“I don’t suffer fools easily.. and when the conversation gets foolish.. when i am offered the choice between name calling and innuendos or silence.. i opt for silence. or recipes…”
is an explanation for why i choose not to respond to some posts… and i was very careful to define what i thought foolish conversation was..
i didn’t name fools.. if you think you are one of them, that is your judgment call… not mine.
“JoB “And she fired them both for political reasons…”
It was for safety reasons, a legal and legitimite reason, one of which I am sure you would do the same if someone threatened your family. “
so.. you think she put pressure on Monegan because he wouldn’t fire a trooper who was involved in a custody suit with her sister and she felt that the troopers alleged threats required more discipline than the inquiry and judgment made by the state police.
You know, that’s what i think too.
I think she wasn’t willing to let the legal process that exists within the state police department.. which had already ruled… make a decision that didn’t agree with hers.
That by definition.. is abuse of power…and a classic example of the way a police state functions.
See, I don’t have a problem defending my ideas…
but i do have a problem with continued comments by you that are directed at me personally and not at the ideas i express.
You know nothing about my character.. and even if you did, commenting about it on this forum is a violation of forum policies.
September 2, 2008 at 9:35 pm #636914
Tonya42MemberJoB – Tonya42.. LOL
wsratsinacage is his sign in name…
i didn’t choose it, he did. I suspect he had his reasons.. it’s not for me to decide his sign in name is negative and not use it. it’s his choice. i honor it.
Did I post something that confused you? I know that is his name, I know that you know that it is name, my comment was your knee jerk reaction to disregard his comment as credible and automatically accuse the republicans… hopefully that clears it up for you.
so.. you think she put pressure on Monegan because he wouldn’t fire a trooper who was involved in a custody suit with her sister and she felt that the troopers alleged threats required more discipline than the inquiry and judgment made by the state police.
I believe if you look at the time frame as to when the complaints were filed, you will see my point in defending her actions.
And lastly it is you who is playing the fool if you think that your words are not indicative of your belief system and your character. Unless you are full of malarky, which is it?
Say I have a nice mocha chip cookie recipe …
September 2, 2008 at 9:37 pm #636915
Tonya42MemberHello Beachdrivegirl – It’s called politics.
September 2, 2008 at 9:43 pm #636916
charlabobParticipantYes it is, Tonya. and I’m always amused at the whining that comes from the Repugnants’ corner when the left plays by the same rules.
The reason the right wing is defending Palin’s nomination (whatcha bet she doesn’t last that long?) is simple: “Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.” The person you chose to nominate chose her. Therefore you (meaning the Republican party, not anyone on this board) have to make up reasons that it’s OK. So, we have not only Cindy McCain, but the campaign spokesman claiming Alaska’s contiguity to Russia comprises foreign policy experience.
I do not believe you believe that.
September 2, 2008 at 9:57 pm #636917
Tonya42Membercharlabob “Yes it is, Tonya. and I’m always amused at the whining that comes from the Repugnants’ corner when the left plays by the same rules.”
You do realize that all that bitterness and hatred will give you an ulcer don’t you? Oh and wrinkles too! :)
Pot meet kettle ring a bell?
charlabob “The reason the right wing is defending Palin’s nomination (whatcha bet she doesn’t last that long?) is simple: “Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.”
I’ll take that bet my dear and I’d double it if I could but that would just be double of nothing :)
You said it, Democrats fall in love, they don’t think, they feel. That is no way to run a country and it’s the very reason your party will lose this election. You didn’t vet Obama, the man is a lost cause with more skeletons in his closet that Lilly and Herman Munster. Every day something comes out about him and there is nothing your party can do about it but lie and deny.
Republicans don’t fall in line, and Palin is living proof of that. She went up against her own party the Republicans and knocked them out of the ball park. She is not afraid to stand up for what she believes in and she does not hide who she is.
I can’t say either of those things about your candidate.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.