A Palin thread from an Alaskan

[SnarkRap]

You said you have lived in Alaska for the last 25 years. Why does your profile say Kansas City, Missouri, then?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Vic

Are you saying 2 wrongs make a right then? Or just that 1 wrong is better than a similar wrong? It's not "almost" like a distribution of wealth, it IS a distribution of wealth.

What I did right here was point out that this positive you brought up about Palin is something that she could not do on the federal level, due to the different economics involved. As in, the state of Alaska is a welfare queen bleeding off the US. You reply here was nothing but a duh-version to that.

And what I support is what your candidate will not do, which is end the immensely hypocritical welfare and redistribution of wealth that blue states and urban areas pay to red states and rural areas. I don't support Obama so I much as I am opposed to your crooks who have already run and raped this country for far too long, all the while pretending to be opposed to exactly what they're doing. I'm supposed to worry about social programs in light of this fraud? Get a clue.

Remember that Alaska is the welfare queen that produces 25% of domestic oil.

Yes, you are welcome.

Are you implying that the rest of America doesn't pay out the nose for this oil?

Are you somehow implying that in your analogy, the blue states don't force the red state to not use their natural wealth and resources?

It's like preventing an athlete from playing professional sports and forcing him to work in a mcdonalds.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: PoPPaChuBBy
You said you have lived in Alaska for the last 25 years. Why does your profile say Kansas City, Missouri, then?

Over 25 years 🙂

I was on a conference for a few weeks when I registered in Kansas City, since that was where the ISP was. (It was the Cerner conference. Anyone? Anyone?) I used to be a member on another forum and if you didn't register from where your ISP was you couldn't get in. I think it was to block spam accounts. Any how.

Then I got back and rarely log in to comment and never changed it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
No one can truly be this daft.

If it were not for Alaska, then our domestic oil production would decline by 25% and we would be that much more dependent on foreign oil.

So, you may say Alaska is the welfare queen. Big deal. We contribute in many, many ways other than just giving federal taxes.

If it weren't for the US, Alaska would still be part of Russia.

We pay for that oil at the global market rate, so I don't see how Alaska is giving anything. In the meantime, Alaska doesn't actually pay federal taxes, strictly speaking, because it gets 3 times as much back. Or did you miss that part along with everything else I posted?

 

[Druidx]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I wonder if the OP, being from Alaska, could explain the concept of "small town values" to us city-folk. Palin refers to it in every stump speech, but never explains what it actually is.

I'm guessing it the same thing that makes them cling to their guns an religion.
You do bring up a good point though, every stump speech Obama talks about "Hope and Change" maybe it's time he explains what he means.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Druidx

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I wonder if the OP, being from Alaska, could explain the concept of "small town values" to us city-folk. Palin refers to it in every stump speech, but never explains what it actually is.

I'm guessing it the same thing that makes them cling to their guns an religion.
You do bring up a good point though, every stump speech Obama talks about "Hope and Change" maybe it's time he explains what he means.

Easy. That means kicking the corrupt Republicans out of the White House. What's confusing about that, particularly now that even McCain has piggybacked on that slogan?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

There are a lot of people from outside who only hear the mudslinging and rumors about Sarah Palin. Let's set a couple of things straight.]1) Troopergate. Yes, the trooper involved was her brother-in-law. However, he tased his ten year old step-son. Yes, it was in a controlled environment. However, people do die from tasers and this was terrible judgement from a trooper.

The guy was also a drunk and a terrible officer. Most of us believe Sarah was right in pressuring to have him reprimanded more than he was. When they say the problem was taken care of, they are referring to slapping his hand. That is not enough for us. He needed to lose his job. We aren't talking about a Wal-Mart employee; this is a man that carries a loaded weapon for his job and was seen drinking beer in his patrol car.

The question isn't whether Michael Wooten (the trooper) was "a drunk and a terrible officer" or even whether he tased his stepson. The question is whether Palin exceeded or abused HER position and authority in her actions regarding him.

Beyond your disparaging remarks about Wooten, you've posted nothing but Palin's version of events. It appears there's more to the story:

'TROOPERGATE'
Warned by the Court

A judge repeatedly told Palin and family not to badmouth her sister's ex

By Mark Hosenball | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Sep 9, 2008 | Updated: 7:36 p.m. ET Sep 9, 2008

An Anchorage judge three years ago warned Sarah Palin and members of her family to stop "disparaging" the reputation of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten, who at the time was undergoing a bitter separation and divorce from Palin's sister Molly.

Allegations that Palin, her husband Todd, and at least one top gubernatorial aide continued to vilify Wooten?after Palin became Alaska's governor and pressured state police officials to take action against him?are at the center of "Troopergate," a political and ethical controversy which has embroiled Palin's administration and is currently the subject of an official inquiry by a special investigator hired by the state legislature.

Court records obtained by NEWSWEEK show that during the course of divorce hearings three years ago, Judge John Suddock heard testimony from an official of the Alaska State Troopers' union about how Sarah Palin?then a private citizen?and members of her family, including her father and daughter, lodged up to a dozen complaints against Wooten with the state police. The union official told the judge that he had never before been asked to appear as a divorce-case witness, that the union believed family complaints against Wooten were "not job-related," and that Wooten was being "harassed" by Palin and other family members.

Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated?it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."
.
.
(continues)

I don't know where this goes from here, but all you have to do is turn on the TV or radio or check a newspaper or the web to know the Republican spin machine is working overtime to keep Palin's limited version of events at the top of the spin cycle.

2) Bridge to nowhere. This whole thing is silly. It started off as a legitmate need to connect a mainland town (albeit small) to the island where their airport is. Sarah initially accepted the money, but then the price of the bridge doubled, and it became ridiculous. Sarah then told congress that if Alaskan's wanted a bridge, they would build it themselves. Did she keep the money? Yes, but it went into other programs. It isn't as if she stole it. We would have been pissed if she just gave it back and didn't pour it into our state.

No. It's as if, after Congress killed the original earmark for the bridge, she kept $22 million and squandered it on a "Road to Nowhere" that ran to where the already dead Bridge to Nowhere wasn't. 😕

Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense. In this interview on NPR, which aired yesterday, he says he is the one who named it "The Bridge To Nowhere," and he offers some real insight about the Palin's actual role in first approving of it and her specious claim that she said, "Thanks, but no thanks," which has been refuted by almost every print, broadcast and online news source.

7) She got rid of the family chef. She, or her husband, cook themselves, saving us money.

NOPE! The Anchorage Daily News reports:

Stefani Marnon was first reassigned as a ?constituent relations assistant? in the governor's office and later to the state museum.

Earwigs report she's finally landed where they really appreciate a good chef: the Legislative Lounge.

Lawmakers were smacking their lips in anticipation, according to Sen. Kim Elton's newsletter."

9) She billed per diem when she was at home. This is a little iffy. She followed the law though. Her "home" is technically the governer's mansion in Juneau. She chooses to live in Wasilla instead of uprooting her family. Instead of having everything provided in Juneau, she lives at her home at gets reimbursed.

"A little iffy" ???

ANCHORAGE, Sept. 8 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

Does your employer reimburse you for your living expenses at home? Which of her own living expenses is she expected to pay with the salary the state pays her? :roll:

10) She is Christian, as is 80% of the US. She goes to church, but never once have I heard her reference god or religion in any decisions she has made for the state.

She's entitled to her own beliefs, but she is NOT entitled to use an elected office to promote her religious agenda on others. We have other threads noting that she advocates including discussing creationism in the science cirriculum in public schools. And THAT is the problem. I wouldn't mind teaching religious fictions like creationism or "creation science" in a course on mythology or fanatsy, but they have no place in a science class. There are lots of thread on the subject. Use the forum search engine (if it happens to be working), or search for it on Google. I'm not going to side track the thread with a zillion links or reposts of quotes from previous threads.

The fact that she considers her Traitor In Chief's war of LIES in Iraq a "mission from God" marks her as a dangerous dingbat. That's exactly what radical Islamic extermists tell their sheep, and it's just as dangerous coming from a Christian in a position of leadership. That's was the justifcation for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the KKK. It's also part of what Adolph Hitler used to rationalize his holocaust.

If we mean it when we say, "Never again!" it starts by turning away wannabe leaders who claim an unjustified, illegal war is the will of some ooga booga deity.

12) She wants to drill ANWR while looking for alternative energy. Look, almost all Alaskans want to drill ANWR, including many native villages. Why?

Good question, especially since the environmental stakes are so high and any possible return would too extremely low and a very long time coming, making it yet another waste of resources that should be better spent elsewhere. :roll:

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
No one can truly be this daft.

If it were not for Alaska, then our domestic oil production would decline by 25% and we would be that much more dependent on foreign oil.

So, you may say Alaska is the welfare queen. Big deal. We contribute in many, many ways other than just giving federal taxes.

If it weren't for the US, Alaska would still be part of Russia.

We pay for that oil at the global market rate, so I don't see how Alaska is giving anything. In the meantime, Alaska doesn't actually pay federal taxes, strictly speaking, because it gets 3 times as much back. Or did you miss that part along with everything else I posted?

Can't that be said about every piece of property on earth? If it weren't for the "blank" then you would still belong to "blank." You have no real substance. I wasn't attacking the US, either. I'm thankful that Alaska belongs to the US. And of course, if it didn't, then I would have been born in a different state. Why are we focusing on a transaction of land? Is it because you don't have an actual point?

I read what you posted. You just don't really have a point or an argument. You choose not to validate that Alaska provides 25% of the oil to the country. You don't look at natural resources. You don't look at the fact that Alaska is a very young state.

I don't care what you pay for oil. The bottom line is that we control it. It is America's oil. And isn't weening ourselves off of foreign oil dependence the point?

The fact that you dismiss the fact that Alaska provides 25% of domestic oil shows that you lack understanding.

This is a ridiculous conversation and we are completely off topic.

 

[jpeyton]

Apple Of Sodom, how do you feel about Palin's decision as mayor of Wasilla to bill rape victims for their rape tests?

Does that demonstrate good judgment, in your opinion?

Do you think that could have prevented some victims from coming forward about their rape, because they couldn't bear the burden of paying up to $1,300 for a rape test that is almost universally paid for by other municipalities across the United States and world?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
No one can truly be this daft.

If it were not for Alaska, then our domestic oil production would decline by 25% and we would be that much more dependent on foreign oil.

So, you may say Alaska is the welfare queen. Big deal. We contribute in many, many ways other than just giving federal taxes.

If it weren't for the US, Alaska would still be part of Russia.

We pay for that oil at the global market rate, so I don't see how Alaska is giving anything. In the meantime, Alaska doesn't actually pay federal taxes, strictly speaking, because it gets 3 times as much back. Or did you miss that part along with everything else I posted?

Can't that be said about every piece of property on earth? If it weren't for the "blank" then you would still belong to "blank." You have no real substance. I wasn't attacking the US, either. I'm thankful that Alaska belongs to the US. And of course, if it didn't, then I would have been born in a different state. Why are we focusing on a transaction of land? Is it because you don't have an actual point?

I read what you posted. You just don't really have a point or an argument. You choose not to validate that Alaska provides 25% of the oil to the country. You don't look at natural resources. You don't look at the fact that Alaska is a very young state.

I don't care what you pay for oil. The bottom line is that we control it. It is America's oil. And isn't weening ourselves off of foreign oil dependence the point?

The fact that you dismiss the fact that Alaska provides 25% of domestic oil shows that you lack understanding.

This is a ridiculous conversation and we are completely off topic.

The fact that you immediately and off-handedly dismissed that Palin was able to suspend the state's oil tax due to Alaska's highly-favorable federal spending/tax balance only goes to show that you lack understanding.

:roll:

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Thanks for your insight. I am extremely leery however to take your post seriously because of a lesson I learned a long time ago that has been proven right over and over again...

Never trust someone that is unable to see the negatives.

You dismissed everything that she has done and supported her on every single issue. That to me screams and opinion that is blindly loyal and untrustworthy.

I am forced to agree with this.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: lupi
If there was any moderation on this forum, you'd be banned for yet another repost of that sorry ass letter and the oh so subtle attemtped threadjack.

For what? Showing an opposing Alaskan view on Palin in "A Palin thread from an Alaskan"?

Seems on topic to me.

You posted a chain e-mail...:roll:

On numerous occasions; something generally refereed to as spam.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Good question, especially since the environmental stakes are so high and any possible return would too extremely low and a very long time coming, making it yet another waste of resources that should be better spent elsewhere. :roll:

Glad to see some actual thought come out in this stuff. I don't have answers for some of it, and have addressed other things. Again, I'm not an expert and concede she has done some questionable or bonehead things. To me it is about her taking responsibility, and the fact that they are just bonehead mistakes.

The thing that does bother me though is the ANWR issue. Have you been to ANWR? Have you seen it? I don't think people understand how vast it is.

ANWR has been a long time coming. They say ten years for oil. We wanted to drill ten years ago. That means we would have had oil today. But we keep saying no, it will take too long. I'm sorry, but that is not a valid excuse. Everything takes time. Drill today, so in ten years when we need it people aren't complaining saying "If we drill, it will take ten years!"

What environmental stakes? Please cite a source. Again, I live here. I've seen this stuff. I know what type of environment it is. I need to know what people are worried about destroying. Hint: animals flourish around it. Also, if we drill on land, and oil spill is not a disaster like if we drill on the ocean.

Why do you say it is a waste of resources? There is a lot of oil down there. Estimates put it at enough oil to supply the entire country for 50 years. That is just an estimate. However, these companies wouldn't want to drill it if there was nothing. We done numerous studies and we will never know how much oil until we drill it, just like we did on Prudoe Bay, before super computers and advanced modeling.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
No one can truly be this daft.

If it were not for Alaska, then our domestic oil production would decline by 25% and we would be that much more dependent on foreign oil.

So, you may say Alaska is the welfare queen. Big deal. We contribute in many, many ways other than just giving federal taxes.

If it weren't for the US, Alaska would still be part of Russia.

We pay for that oil at the global market rate, so I don't see how Alaska is giving anything. In the meantime, Alaska doesn't actually pay federal taxes, strictly speaking, because it gets 3 times as much back. Or did you miss that part along with everything else I posted?

Can't that be said about every piece of property on earth? If it weren't for the "blank" then you would still belong to "blank." You have no real substance. I wasn't attacking the US, either. I'm thankful that Alaska belongs to the US. And of course, if it didn't, then I would have been born in a different state. Why are we focusing on a transaction of land? Is it because you don't have an actual point?

I read what you posted. You just don't really have a point or an argument. You choose not to validate that Alaska provides 25% of the oil to the country. You don't look at natural resources. You don't look at the fact that Alaska is a very young state.

I don't care what you pay for oil. The bottom line is that we control it. It is America's oil. And isn't weening ourselves off of foreign oil dependence the point?

The fact that you dismiss the fact that Alaska provides 25% of domestic oil shows that you lack understanding.

This is a ridiculous conversation and we are completely off topic.

Uh .... oil is a global commodity. Just because it comes out of the ground here, doesn't mean it gets used here. A more correct statement would be "Alaska is responsible for 25% of the oil produced in the US". This is why the notion of drilling for more oil here to save ourselves is bunk. We'd just provide Exxon with more to use wherever they see fit.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Apple Of Sodom, how do you feel about Palin's decision as mayor of Wasilla to bill rape victims for their rape tests?

Does that demonstrate good judgment, in your opinion?

Do you think that could have prevented some victims from coming forward about their rape, because they couldn't bear the burden of paying up to $1,300 for a rape test that is almost universally paid for by other municipalities across the United States and world?

Please cite a source. I'm unaware of this one, and haven't even read about it in the news at all. That would be poor judgement, but I need to know if it is true, or if it was part of a bigger initiative (such as requiring EVERYONE to pay for all services.)

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: AeroEngy

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: AeroEngy
I am just trying to point out that being a governor is sufficient qualification.

That's great. And I think that my original point was that being governor does not make someone automatically competent at governing.

snip

And I agreed with that point 😉

Originally posted by: AeroEngy
Agreed it doesn't automatically qualify you ...

I was not necessarily aiming that at you but I have heard others immediately discount her because she is only a governor.

I also agree that I would like more information and confirmation about what she did while she was a governor to see if her time qualifies as good valid experience. I am not however immediately discounting all of it because of a latent distrust of the current administration in Washington.

Thanks. And yes I will OWN that "latent distrust" and I will own up to the fact that I have projected this distrust onto the current GOP ticket. I guess I see waay too many similarities between the new ticket and the old ticket. Especially given how McCain is a shell of his former self and the positions he used to hold.

This thread is a break neck pace. You guys need to go walk around a bit 😛

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Uh .... oil is a global commodity. Just because it comes out of the ground here, doesn't mean it gets used here. A more correct statement would be "Alaska is responsible for 25% of the oil produced in the US". This is why the notion of drilling for more oil here to save ourselves is bunk. We'd just provide Exxon with more to use wherever they see fit.

Yes, it is a global commodity and is sold to other countries. You still cannot discount the fact that Alaska is repsonsible for 25% of domestic oil production.

You are correct though; we produce 25% of it, but we do sell some of it and it isn't all consumed in the US. But it could be if global powers shut down their supply to the US,


Sorry for that.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Please cite a source. I'm unaware of this one, and haven't even read about it in the news at all. That would be poor judgement, but I need to know if it is true, or if it was part of a bigger initiative (such as requiring EVERYONE to pay for all services.)

Text

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

My original point:

I'm not very political. I'm not into the game. I don't campaign or have bumper stickers.

I thought this forum might benefit from the opinions of an Alaska who didn't care about Palin a few years ago, but has seen the good she has done for Wasilla and then for the State. Also, I thought explaining some of the idiotic points against her (such as the university stuff) might help clarify for some. I certainly did not expect to convert anyone, by any means.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Please cite a source. I'm unaware of this one, and haven't even read about it in the news at all. That would be poor judgement, but I need to know if it is true, or if it was part of a bigger initiative (such as requiring EVERYONE to pay for all services.)

Text

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said.

Source blocked for me. Was it instituted under Palin? Why? Was it a separate bill she approved or was it something bundled?

Playing devil's advocate...why should any health service be free of charge? Why should the hospital have to pay for such a kit?

Also, only a 45 minute drive away, is a big city with multiple hospitals that could apparently do this free of charge.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Please cite a source. I'm unaware of this one, and haven't even read about it in the news at all. That would be poor judgement, but I need to know if it is true, or if it was part of a bigger initiative (such as requiring EVERYONE to pay for all services.)

Text

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said.

Source blocked for me. Was it instituted under Palin? Why? Was it a separate bill she approved or was it something bundled?

Playing devil's advocate...why should any health service be free of charge? Why should the hospital have to pay for such a kit?

Also, only a 45 minute drive away, is a big city with multiple hospitals that could apparently do this free of charge.

Thanks, your answers tell me all I need to know about your lapdog defense of Palin.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Please cite a source. I'm unaware of this one, and haven't even read about it in the news at all. That would be poor judgement, but I need to know if it is true, or if it was part of a bigger initiative (such as requiring EVERYONE to pay for all services.)

Text

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said.

Also, hospitals, where the rape kits are generally done by a S.A.N.E. nurse, control what is paid for and what isn't. This has nothing to do with Palin, unless you can show otherwise. Palin cannot tell a hospital what it is charging for and what it isn't charging for.

 

[heyheybooboo]

We may disagree on a thing or two but I'd like to thank Apple Of Sodom for the reasonable tone of the discussion so far. Maybe there is hope for us after all.

Even with the usual hackery and debauchery (you know who you are) at times the discussions in this thread have almost seemed ....

reasonable

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Thanks, your answers tell me all I need to know about your lapdog defense of Palin.

Do you know anything about healthcare? Palin isn't responsible for what a hospital charges a patient.

 

[jpeyton]

Christ, read the article already:

George Bryson | Anchorage Daily News

last updated: September 11, 2008 07:41:22 AM

Two state leaders lashed out at the public record of Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday as witnesses in a new "Alaska Mythbusters" forum coordinated by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Speaking to a teleconference audience of reporters around the nation, former Gov. Tony Knowles and current Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein -- both Democrats -- accused Palin of misleading the public in her new role as the vice presidential running mate of Arizona Sen. John McCain.

While some of their complaints have already been aired, Knowles broke new ground while answering a reporter's question on whether Wasilla forced rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests when Palin was mayor.

True, Knowles said.

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said

A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla's newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

"(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported.

It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief. He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.

"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," Fannon told the newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."

An effort to reach Fannon by phone Wednesday was not successful.

Knowles and Weinstein also went after the Republican ticket on several statements now airing in campaign ads around the nation, including Palin's claim that she opposed federal money for the "bridge to nowhere."

The governor has refused to acknowledge her explicit support for the $230 million Gravina Island Access Project in her effort to sound more like an anti-earmark reformer to a national audience, Weinstein said.

And she still supports spending $400 million to $600 million on "the other Bridge to Nowhere," the Knik Arm Crossing, which would provide residents in Palin's hometown of Wasilla faster access to Anchorage, Knowles added.

"That project is moving right ahead," said Knowles, who served as governor of Alaska from 1994 to 2002. "The money for that project was not diverted anywhere else. ... So (for her) to say she said, 'Thanks, but no thanks....' I would say she said, 'Thanks!'"

A phone call to Meg Stapleton, a spokeswoman for the Alaska office of the McCain-Palin campaign, was not returned Wednesday.

However, the Republican side lost little time in organizing a national truth squad of its own to battle what it considers "smears" of Palin by Democrats. A list of the names of more than 50 members of a Palin truth team, posted Monday on the Atlantic Monthly magazine Web site, included three Alaskans: Stapleton (a former Palin aide); Kristan Cole, a longtime friend; and Republican Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

As a former governor, Knowles said, he's reluctant to criticize an active governor. But he decided to make an exception with Palin.

"In this situation it's not just a sitting governor," he said. "Our current governor is a candidate for the vice presidency and a heartbeat away from the presidency."

Do I need to remind some of you that your taxes pay for government provided services.

If your house is on fire, the fire department comes to put it out.

If a crime is being committed, the police department comes to stop it.

If you were raped, the police department comes to investigate it, and that investigation includes a rape kit. In 99.99999999% of the cities in our country, the rape kit is part of the forensic evidence paid for by the state.

In Wasilla under Palin and her newly appointed police chief, it was not.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Thanks, your answers tell me all I need to know about your lapdog defense of Palin.

Do you know anything about healthcare? Palin isn't responsible for what a hospital charges a patient.

It's not a health service, it's a forensic service for investigative purposes.