Sarah never said Fire Wooten...and other true things

[PubliusInfinitum]

Palin was warned by a judge 3 years ago to stop disparaging Wooten. Now a bipartisan committee made up mostly of Republicans has said that she broke the law by trying to get fired. She used the power of her office for a personal vendetta.

Again, Chris comes to inform us that Governor Palin should knowingly allow an individual (Trooper Wooten )to operate at the highest levels of Alaska Law enforcement despite her direct and personal knowledge that this individual is a dishonorable PUBLIC MENACE. Chris also EMPHATICALLY TOUTS a report from a highly politicized 'report' wherein long standing members of Alaska's old guard political machine; a machine which Gov' Palin has exposed for it's own corruption... Chris touts the conclusions of the 'Report' heralding it's 'findings' which subjectively conclude that Gov' Palin abused the power of her office AND that she did NOT violate the law... Now I'm simply stating that Chris and comrades have been repeatedly challenged to post SPECIFIC EVIDENCE wherein it can be shown that Governor Palin abused the power of her office and to this point NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING... and what's MORE the VERY "Report" that Chris touts, is now being (and I believe intentionally so...) wholly misrepresented, to include findings that Gov. Palin violated the law; when in fact, the emphatically sourced report says precisely the opposite.

Now again... is it reasonable to lend credence to individual's (Chris and Comrades) who can't provide a scintilla of specific evidence that an abuse of power occurred, BEYOND the conclusions of a committee which is HIGHLY POLITICALLY charged by those who represent interests against which Gov' Palin has taken very effective and very public stances against? To this point Chris is merely providing us with the findings of this committee; with her assurances that this committee is an unblemished Oracle of Public Trust and Infinite Honor... A committee whose conclusions stand in defense of an Alaskan STATE TROOPER, THAT TASERED AN INNOCENT 10 YEAR OLD BOY OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTY AND WELL BEYOND THE THRESHOLD OF SOUND JUDGMENT; and an individual with NUMEROUS official complaints that he overtly abused his own authority through threats and intimidation of private citizens, many of which are his own family.

 

[N4mddissent]

It's an established fact... The reprobate, which the ideological left is presently, and is most desperate to protect here, TASERED A 10 YEAR OLD BOY

Yes, it is a fact. The Trooper was an instructor on the use of a Taser gun. The boy, his nephew, wanted to know what it felt like and asked his uncle to taser him. His uncle set the taser to its lowest setting and tasered the boy. I say this not in defense, it just provides the entire context. Now why would you only provide one bit of the information and leave out the rest? Do you only pay attention to information that already supports your predetermined opinion? If so, that is ideological behavior.

Do I think this was poor judgement? Yes. Was it enough that he should be fired? Perhaps. Does my opinion matter whether he should be fired? No. And neither does yours or Palin's. As I have tried to explain, if something is inappropriate there is a process established to file complaints and investigate the activity. This was done and reprimands issued. They did not see fit to terminate his employment. This was prior to Monegan being hired as Comissioner. Monegan could not legally hold Wooten accountable for charges which were already investigated and settled prior to Monegan's hiring. The principle is the same as double jeopardy.

When there is a trial in which we disagree with the outcome, we are not allowed to act on the result we think it should have had, but rather the result that was given. The same is true in the Wooten case.

Now add to that the other irrational acts that Gov. Palin knows this idiot committed, but which are contested and wherein the available evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, to those who are NOT within the immediate sphere of influence of this moron; meaning that Governor Palin's family KNOWS this scumbag PERSONALLY... SHE IS THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE, OF WHICH THIS DOUSCH REPRESENTS...

And once again you are saying that her personal opinion is more important than the outcome of established fact-finding investigative process. This is what authoritarian principles are based upon. The leader's will, by virtue of their given authority, supersedes all other laws and establishments. You are advocating authoritarianism. You continue to remark about the character of the trooper, and other than the taser incident, your assumptions are based on a cult-like acceptance of everything your leader says.

Once again, your entire argument rests upon proving that Trooper Wooten is as you have characterized him. You have mentioned one incident of dubious judgment and the rest of your characterization is based on an uncritical acceptance of Sarah Palin's description of the situation. Yet, you have not even attempted to deny where I have clearly pointed out Sarah Palin is willing to make false claims regarding this situation. Bertrand Russell once said, "Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position." You are passively accepting what Palin tells you, are you not?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What is great is that Mr. Bailey, Palin's staff member who was hear on the tape admitted himself that it sounded like he was trying to influence public safety.

SO Chris concludes that 'IT WAS', because that is what IT SOUNDED LIKE... ?

Again Chris wants to project a conclusion that does not follow the founding evidence on which her premise rests... She needs to project this non sequitur as truth simply because she doesn't know any better. She's parroting the anti-American Socialist talking points...

The truth of the situation was investigated by a bipartisan committee and they released a report that said Palin broke the law by using her power for a personal vendetta. I am sorry that you can't deal with it.

Interesting how Chris wants us to believe that 'bi-partisanship' is the foundation on which truh must rest. In fact, Governor Palin has busted up corruption in Alaska's Political Guard and her influence has caused much angst and discontent on BOTH SIDES of the Political Aisle... Meaning that while Governor Palin enjoys the enviable position of being the most popular Governor in the United States... that popularity does not extend to those who were wielding State power prior to her arrival at the Governor's Mansion... In fact, with regard to the Alaskan Political Machine, the effort to take the most popular Governor in the United States is a Bi-Partisan effort... Thus any projection that a "Bi-Partisan" committee stands as some indication of objectivity, is typically foolish... such is never MORE FOOLISH than doing so in the case of Gov. Palin and the Bi-Partisan desire to see her politically injured and removed from power in Alaska; what's more... A Gov. Palin that goes on to become the VP of the US, possibly the President of the US; a Gov. Palin that has taken very public stands against THOSE Bi-Partisans... is a very real, clear and present danger TO THOSE BI-PARTISANS~

 

[Missourian]

Palin was warned by a judge 3 years ago to stop disparaging Wooten. Now a bipartisan committee made up mostly of Republicans has said that she broke the law by trying to get Trooper Wooten fired. She used the power of her office for a personal vendetta.

Then why do I keep reading the she broke no laws?

Report: Palin abused power, broke no laws in trooper case - CNN.com

 

[N4mddissent]

i don't recall arguing with you, but please carry on.

I didn't say you argued with me. I was speaking generally.

for the record, there's no anger in my not giving fuck about what you think; that's kind of part and parcel in the whole concept.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted your attitude. I may have been mistaken. I do understand the concept, but I am sure you are familiar with people who have made such statements but other indicators suggest that they really are angry, which implies they do care. However, would you mind explaining the apparent paradox of not caring about what I think, but apparently still finding it necessary to tell me that you do not care? I would think you would just ignore my thoughts and spend your time productively on other things you do care about.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You're parsing this one more than Clinton and "is".

The investigator wrote in the report that, ``I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating'' a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, which bars any official action to benefit a personal interest.

Violation of the ethics act could result in sanctions, including up to $5,000 in civil fines by a state ethics board, according to the law.

McCain's campaign has criticized the probe as partisan because the lawmaker directing it, Hollis French, is a Democrat. The state Legislative Council, which ordered the investigation, is dominated by Republicans.

Sarah is not quite the maverick she says she is. She used her power of office for personal reasons.

Do I expect anyone on these boards on the right to agree. Shit no.

This isn't about dialogue anymore, it's about attacking the othe person or party and fuck the issues.

 

[Missourian]

Yes, it is a fact. The Trooper was an instructor on the use of a Taser gun. The boy, his nephew, wanted to know what it felt like and asked his uncle to taser him. His uncle set the taser to its lowest setting and tasered the boy. I say this not in defense, it just provides the entire context. Now why would you only provide one bit of the information and leave out the rest? Do you only pay attention to information that already supports your predetermined opinion? If so, that is ideological behavior.

Do I think this was poor judgement? Yes. Was it enough that he should be fired? Perhaps. Does my opinion matter whether he should be fired? No. And neither does yours or Palin's. As I have tried to explain, if something is inappropriate there is a process established to file complaints and investigate the activity.

From this article: Is Wooten a good trooper?

Anchorage Daily News


"Wooten recently gave his union permission to release the entire investigative file, all 482 pages and hours of recorded interviews.

"The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession," Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, letter suspending Wooten for 10 days. After the union protested it, the suspension was reduced to five days.

She warned that if he messed up again, he'd be fired.


"This discipline is meant to be a last chance to take corrective action," Grimes wrote. "You are hereby given notice that any further occurrences of these types of behaviors or incidents will not be tolerated and will result in your termination."


It's nearly impossible to know whether other complaints have come in about Wooten in the last two years. His personnel file is confidential. But the fact he remains on the force is an indication that he hasn't had the sort of trouble that Grimes warned against.


Grimes declined to comment, as did various troopers involved in the investigation.

'... NOT WITHOUT A BLEMISH'

As the investigation got under way in 2005, Wooten was in the midst of a bitter divorce from Palin's sister, Molly McCann. The couple was fighting over custody of their two young children. Accusations flew from both sides.

Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:

• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.

• He illegally shot a moose.

• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

• He told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.


Beyond the investigation sparked by the family, trooper commanders saw cause to discipline or give written instructions to correct Wooten seven times since he joined the force, according to Grimes' letter to Wooten.

Those incidents included: a reprimand in January 2004 for negligent damage to a state vehicle; a January 2005 instruction after being accused of speeding, unsafe lane changes, following too closely and not using turn signals in his state vehicle; a June 2005 instruction regarding personal cell phone calls; an October 2005 suspension from work after getting a speeding ticket; and a November 2005 memo "to clarify duty hours, tardiness and personal business during duty time."



And these were just the instances where he was caught red handed.

Aren't the police to maintain a higher standard?

The irony is the Dem's are calling for Gov. Palin to be impeached when she didn't break the law while defending Trooper Wooten who DID.

.​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's an established fact... The reprobate, which the ideological left is presently, and is most desperate to protect here, TASERED A 10 YEAR OLD BOY

Yes, it is a fact. The Trooper was an instructor on the use of a Taser gun. The boy, his nephew, wanted to know what it felt like and asked his uncle to taser him. His uncle set the taser to its lowest setting and tasered the boy. I say this not in defense, it just provides the entire context. Now why would you only provide one bit of the information and leave out the rest? Do you only pay attention to information that already supports your predetermined opinion? If so, that is ideological behavior.

Well sure... so he tasered a ten year old boy, outside the scope of his duties... because the boy wanted him to. I wonder... as a matter of judgment, is it a good idea to listen to the pleas of a little boy and violate the scope of one's duties? The Alaska Governor does not authorize State Troopers to Taze 10 year old boys, on low power, where the little boy states he wants to see what it feels like. This of course assumes that we believe this rationalization... which FTR, it should be noted that the story and the source is dubious, at BEST.

The fact remains, that without regard to the basis in reasoning, the Trooper USED BAD JUDGMENT... Tasers are not toys issued for the entertainment of the children in one’s family... they are WEAPONS, issued for the protection of the Officer and the general public; tasers induce an electrical charge to the nervous system of the human body, which happens to operate on electrical charges; the full scope of which is presently not fully understood and as such, there are AT BEST serious liabilities surrounding the use of Tasers to the government of Alaska and without regard to the potential of him having injured his own NEPHEW... his act seriously violated the trust inherent in his position, exposed his employer to severe potential liability and otherwise violated the scope of his authority.

Do I think this was poor judgement? Yes. Was it enough that he should be fired? Perhaps. Does my opinion matter whether he should be fired? No.

All uniquely excellent points... and spot on I might add. Now with that said, your position begs the question: Whose OPINION DOES MATTER with regard to whether or not an employee of the State Executive Branch used sufficiently bad judgment that one might consider removing him from his position of public trust?

I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that there are probably several people whose position within the Executive Branch requires that 'their opinion matters'. Now with THAT said... I believe that it follows that not the least of THOSE PEOPLE would be the HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH; OKA: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE... AKA: THE GOVERNOR... the Governor in this instance being GOVERNOR PALIN.

Thus it is incontestably reasonable to conclude that AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT... The Trooper used BAD Judgment AND it is reasonable that those directly responsible for his employment as an officer of the Judiciary and the a member of the Alaska Executive Branch would be those whose OPINION MATTERS!~ And it follows that the HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WOULD NOT BE THE LEAST OF THOSE; thus the scope and scale of her opinion, reason dictates, would follow her ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY.

Now, let me ask you this: Of the members of Alaska's government, whose opinion matters... which one bears the greatest responsibility for the Executive Branch; thus which person's opinion would necessarily MATTER MOST? Now given that it is irrefutable that the person given the most responsibility; given that the Chief Executive is that person and given that the Chief Executive is the individual who is solely responsible for the operations of the Executive Branch… can you explain how it could be that it could even potentially be an abuse of the power of that Chief Executive, when it is established that the subject is one where that Chief Executive has good reason to doubt their fitness for their position and who has stated their judgment is that the subject, IN HER OPINION WHICH WE’VE ESTABLISHED: MATTERS, THAT THE SUBJECT IS NOT FIT FOR THE RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THEIR POSITION AND AS A RESULT OF THAT MOST MATTERING OPINION>>> THE SUBJECT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THAT POSITION?

 

[Chris]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her power as Alaska's governor and violated state ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report concluded Friday.

"Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," the report states.

Panel: Palin abused power in trooper case - CNN.com

 

[greenpartyaz]

Well yes that is a conclusion... but it's a conclusion that lacks a valid basis.

What you're saying in effect is that the Cheif Executive Officer of an organization should not have the authority to determine the standards of that office and what IS and is NOT representative behavior which reflects the measure of that standard...

Which is illustrative of the dimwitted feelings of an imbecile.

Governor Palin did not abuse her power... She failed to adequately exercise her power. She shoudl have demanded that a sub-par employee be fired... than when he was NOT FIRED... brought the replacement for the person that failed to fire the sub-par employee into the office when she fired him... and pick up the phone and called THE NEXT REPLACEMENT an told them to stay by the phone, that she would be hearing from HER or THE NEW GUY as soon as he finishes some work she needs taken care of right away...

The Trooper in question is a reprobate... and has no business being anywhere NEAR a position of authority and public trust.

If Sarah Palin is gulty of anything, she is guilty of soft peddling a problem that needed to be hard pressed, because she was afraid of 'how it might look'...

Sarah Palin is not a CEO! She is accountable to the people she serves. What part of accountability don't you understand?

 

[Missourian]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her power as Alaska's governor and violated state ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report concluded Friday.

"Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," the report states.

Panel: Palin abused power in trooper case - CNN.com

From the same article:

"Put bluntly, Branchflower completely misapplied the Ethics Act and has instead sought to create a headline to smear the Governor," the lawyers wrote

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You're parsing this one more than Clinton and "is".

The investigator wrote in the report that, ``I find ....

Sarah is not quite the maverick she says she is. She used her power of office for personal reasons.

Do I expect anyone on these boards on the right to agree. Shit no.

This isn't about dialogue anymore, it's about attacking the othe person or party and fuck the issues.

So we're left to conclude that where a Person who is elected by the People and where that elected official is in possession of personal experience which establishes that an employee for which THEY are responsible, is AT BEST: UNFIT for their positon of Public trust; a position which puts this individual into DIRECT CONTACT with the Public; A position which rest SOLEY UPON THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW; A POSITON WHICH REQUIRES THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE STANDARDS... that this individual concludes that the Governor is operating outside of the scope of her official duties and beyond the reasonable parameters of the power of her office to terminate such an unfit employee, BECAUSE OF HER DIRECT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE?

Now friends... THIS Species of Reasoning is typical of the Advocates OF CHANGE! Such reasoning lacks any discernable sign validity and is the intellectual opposite of that represented by the concept: 'Sound'

Can there be ANY DOUBT how the United States has decayed SO rapidly since these lunatics began to assert their addle-minded influence on US Government policy?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her power as Alaska's governor and violated state ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report concluded Friday.

"Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," the report states.

Panel: Palin abused power in trooper case - CNN.com

Again... all this member can bring is more opinion from those aligned with her position. It is absolutely BEYOND THE INTELLECTUAL MEANS OF THeSE PEOPLE TO SITE AN ACTUAL, VALID EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE CONCLUSION OF ABUSE OF POWER REST. And what's more, she knowlingly only brings FROM the article she sources, that which would dishonestly promote the opinions she is parroting. But that's evil for ya.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sarah Palin is not a CEO! She is accountable to the people she serves. What part of accountability don't you understand?

ROFLMNAO...

Now Friends... THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY THESE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN 100MILES OF A VOTING BOOTH.

Would anyone else like to belittle this fool for this asinine conclusion, before I tee-off?

Anyone at all? Just go ahead and I'll tend to what's left when I return.

 

[Yurt]

.

Conclusion- Sarah Palin is a poor leader.

absolute bullshit...she used NO SPECIAL privilege to try and get wooten fired, NO OFFICIAL action...are you saying as the governor and the governor's husband that you must not be allowed to try and get a scumbag trooper fired, that they lose their first amendment rights to free speech? even obama's boy brainfart concluded she used NO SPECIAL privilege of office:

and brainfart even admits and understands their repeated inquiries were the result of REAL frustration and brainfart recommends that the laws be changed so other people are not similarily frustrated....this part of the report also aboslutely absolves palin of any guilt....i suggest you read you it:

Discussion
In this case, there has been much said about the level of frustration that existed on the part of Sarah Palin's father Chuck Heath who filed the original complaint against Trooper Michael Wooten, and on the part of Sarah and Todd Palin, who attempted to learn the status of the investigation only to be told by Colonel Grimes that the matter was confidential by reason of AS 39.25.080. I believe their frustration was real as was their skepticism about whether their complaints were being zealously investigated. The irony
is that the complaints were taken very seriously, and a thorough investigation was underway. However, the law prevented the Troopers from giving them any feedback whatsoever.

When a citizen files a complaint against a peace officer, there should be a
balance in our law that on the one hand seeks to protect the confidentiality of the investigative process, but on the other recognizes that someone may have been aggrieved. At the very least, the law should provide for the release of some information to the complainant regarding the status of the case. When citizens are told no information can be released, it has the potential of engendering skepticism about whether the complaint
80 Branchflower Report to the Legislative Council

Page 81 of 263

October 10,2008
Vol. One - Public Report
was taken seriously. There is likewise a great potential that the confidence we need to
have in our law enforcement agencies will be undermined, and respect for those
institutions will be eroded. This is especially so because in most instances, as was the
case here, the officer is an employee of the very same agency that was conducts the
investigation.
In sum, AS 39.25.080 should be studied to determine whether some relaxation of
the law is possible to allow some feedback to a person who files a complaint against a
law enforcement officer.
81

 

[greenpartyaz]

ROFLMNAO...

Now Friends... THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY THESE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN 100MILES OF A VOTING BOOTH.

Would anyone else like to belittle this fool for this asinine conclusion, before I tee-off?

Anyone at all? Just go ahead and I'll tend to what's left when I return.

What are you a Sociopath? Why do you call us "my friends?" McCain has the same traits. He addresses everyone as "my friends?" Did you forget to take your medication today? You write and speak in the same style as Rush Limbaugh! "Believe it friends!" Oh by the way, push that jarhead shit somewhere else, you don't gain any sympathy in my eyes!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sarah Palin is not a CEO! She is accountable to the people she serves. What part of accountability don't you understand?

ROFLMNAO...

Now Friends... THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY THESE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN 100MILES OF A VOTING BOOTH.

Would anyone else like to belittle this fool for this asinine conclusion, before I tee-off?

Anyone at all? Just go ahead and I'll tend to what's left when I return.

ROFLMNAO... Well this member has advanced a flaccid would-be neg-rep wherein the depth of her conclusion is that I represent a concept which rhymes with BASSHOLE...

In fact Sarah Palin IS a CEO... As the Governor of Alaska, she represents the Chief Executive Officer... AKA: The CEO of Alaska. As CEO Governor Palin, like every other CEO, EXECUTES THE LAWS of the organization which has appointed her and as the CHIEF Executive, it is SHE that has the final responsibility in EXECUTING THOSE LAWS...

This despite the ignorant assertion by this Advocate of Social Science to the contrary.

Secondly, and with regard to accountability, my position regarding charges that Alaska CEO Palin abused her authority rests on my numerousl stated position that IT IS GOVERNOR PALIN'S DUTY TO SEE THAT THOSE WHO SIT WITHIN HER BRANCH THAT ARE TASKED WITH EXECUTING THE LAWS OF ALASKA ARE HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD AND WHERE SHE KNOWS THAT ONE OF THEM IS UNFIT FOR SERVICE, IT IS HER DUTY TO REMOVE THEM, BECAUSE IT IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC ON WHICH HER DUTY SOLELY RESTS....

Now, Miss Green... I appreciate your time and consideration, but you're clearly blissfully ignorant of most of the facts; which is typical of those who profess their allegiance to the dirt... so, please, when you advance a position in my presence, please take a moment to run it by a grown up FIRST. Perhaps that would avoid all this public humiliation you're presently experiencing.

 

[del]

Sarah Palin is not a CEO! She is accountable to the people she serves. What part of accountability don't you understand?

uh, she's the chief executive officer of the state of alaska. what part of that don't you understand?

 

[greenpartyaz]

ROFLMNAO... Well this member has advanced a flaccid would-be neg-rep wherein the depth of her conclusion is that I represent a concept which rhymes with BASSHOLE...

In fact Sarah Palin IS a CEO... As the Governor of Alaska, she represents the Chief Executive Officer... AKA: The CEO of Alaska. As CEO Governor Palin, like every other CEO, EXECUTES THE LAWS of the organization which has appointed her and as the CHIEF Executive, it is SHE that has the final responsibility in EXECUTING THOSE LAWS...

This despite the ignorant assertion by this Advocate of Social Science to the contrary.

Secondly, and with regard to accountability, my position regarding charges that Alaska CEO Palin abused her authority rests on my numerousl stated position that IT IS GOVERNOR PALIN'S DUTY TO SEE THAT THOSE WHO SIT WITHIN HER BRANCH THAT ARE TASKED WITH EXECUTING THE LAWS OF ALASKA ARE HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD AND WHERE SHE KNOWS THAT ONE OF THEM IS UNFIT FOR SERVICE, IT IS BECAUSE SHE IS SOLELY ACCOUNTABLE THAT THIS DUTY RESTS....

Now, Miss Green... I appreciate your time and consideration, but you're clearly blissfully ignorant of most of the facts; which is typical of those who profess their allegiance to the dirt... so, please, when you advance a position in my presence, please take a moment to run it by a grown up FIRST. Perhaps that would avoid all this public humiliation you're presently experiencing.

Right!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What are you a Sociopath? Why do you call us "my friends?" McCain has the same traits. He addresses everyone as "my friends?" Did you forget to take your medication today? You write and speak in the same style as Rush Limbaugh! "Believe it friends!" Oh by the way, push that jarhead shit somewhere else, you don't gain any sympathy in my eyes!

Again simpleton, you're assuming that where I am speaking to 'friends' that this somehow includes the idiots... Rest assured it does not. And FTR: McCain is one of you... he is just of a lessor offensive value than most of you, thus preferrable to the more offensive variety.

The choice between McCain and Hussein is analogous to the choice between a bowl of SHlT and a SHlT sandwich... both are repulsive but due to a lack of options, sooner or later you're going to have to take a bite.