More about Palin's speech... So, there's this and the fact that she didn't write much if any of her speech and that the lipstick line probably has its derivation in a John Hagee book. I think she's at her high-water mark.
Rox... I have no idea where you're at in this thread. The article you posted mentions the WSJ at the beginning. I'm confused.
FWIW the original hockeymom/ pitbull punchline is that only 50% of pitbulls are b!tches. (and...yeah...it's sexist...but John M would find it funny too).
Exactly, but I know some don't read well...DA *cough* ..But the point is this article is an opinion and is in the WSJ and there should be confirmation or pictures of the uber-immortals, but I wonder if this guy has a history of making stuff up...Where is the history? I love this country too much...Enough is enough...If anything, and I demonstrated this well... this articles serves to reflect the ridiculousness of putting weight on un-substantiated allegations of the trooper-gate from biased sources... How is this any different? and welcome to the REAL point of this thread topic!...
Hey fair enough, let's talk about the National Enquirer piece about Palin cheating with her husband's business partner then. Same type of thing. DD
A new kind of politics...huh... Send in 30 minions to dig up dirt to smear your opponent...sounds like politics as usual.
I am rephrasing ...How is this allegation ANY different from the allegations of "troopergate"? ...1. You have a report of such activity. 2. Those who have provided such information have ZERO evidence of such. 3. Those who have stated such activity are biased... The similarities of "troopergate" versus Obama's 30 uber-immortals If it's good for the goose it's good for the pig...
that's not the pathetic part - the pathetic part is that even though this isn't true, he and other blind-allegiance republicans have already convinced themselves that obama is evil (for no real reason other than the (D) beside his name) and that palin is their savior (even though 90% of them barely knew she existed 3 weeks ago). it's as if these people need to constantly justify to themselves that they've hitched on to the right wagon, and there is no amount of factual or fictitious information that will change their mind. hell, outside of the taxes argument (which is constantly misstated), i've barely seen the conservatives throw out a legitimate compliant against obama. everything is conjecture and heresy (ayers, "Community organizer," experience, muslim, etc.) people like ROXRAN stopped thinking for themselves a long time ago.
lost indeed. As just about every post in this thread has mentioned, the allegation is an unsubstantiated statement from an opinion column.
I just stated the real point of the thread...I have foreseen the response and it has played my way... #1. I realized the article was unsubstantiated a ..long..time..ago. #2 I demonstarted how the article is in similar fashion to the silly attack with credibility issues against Sarah Palin ...#3...I predicted quite effectively those like you who can't grasp comprehension...awesome!
Just like the allegations supporting "troopergate"... What "troopergate" and the article in the WSJ have in common:... 1. You have a report of such activity. ..check! 2. Those who have provided such information have ZERO evidence of such...check! 3. Those who have stated such activity are biased...check! ...I rest my case...Please hold future and further attack standards to the importance of such substantiated facts as well... AND that was the point of this thread!...I love playing these games with the predictable...
You've seriously lost it dude. One is an opinion piece that was quickly refuted. The other is so meaningless that the Alaskan legistature hired a special investigator to look into the issue.
1. ongoing investigation 2. opinion piece from the WSJ what am i missing here? regardless of how the whole "troopergate" situation plays out, it is a FACT that PALIN is being investigated by the Alaskan Legislature. this is exactly what i alluded to in my earlier post... you are presented with factual and fictitious information and you pick and choose what you want to acknowledge to mold to your current beliefs.
One claim is far from serious enough to warrant investigation...While the other should be investigated ...EVEN THOUGH,....EVEN THOUGH...the source of the allegation is providing ZERO connective evidence and is biased... Yes I lost "it"....Maybe I will find "it" as soon as I get an unbiased verifiable source and there is something called "evidence"... Please keep me updated...
