Palin Found Guilty In Abuse Of Power

Tools    





Long Live The New Flesh
Oh, that's rich... Bandwagon, indeed. I would say at least 70% of the member base on this site is hard core left, with a small platoon or centrists/libertarians/whatever (like me) kicking around, and then a small base of right-wingers. One need only pop into the Election '08 thread to see the slew of people battling with Yoda to see this is true.
Bandwagon? Most of the people in the debates over this election are Obama supporters. The only other regular participant in these arguments has been 7thson, and I don't believe he was involved in our first argument at all. This explanation doesn't wash.
That may well be true, but you wouldn't know it from my experience. Anyone can go to those threads and see for themselves it was gangbang time.

Sorry if my explanation doesn't "wash" with you, but I'm pretty sure most people can relate If they recently joined a new forum, jumped into a political debate, then came to find the owner fo the site was openly on the opposite side of your political affiliation, and then found themselves outnumbered 3 and 4 to 1 in each of the threads they debated politcs on, they wouldn't quite see that as a "fair and balanced" healthy political debate atmosphere as you seem to be mischaracterizing it.

Perhaps if these magical mystery liberals came out of the woodwork to voice their opinions, I might have viewed it as you seem to be.

The above claim supposes two things:

1 - You are correct in all your views, and therefore defending you is the only right thing to do.

2 - Any disagreement with you is brown nosing, which is silly.
Never claimed that I'm either correct in all my views, or that I should be guaranteed defense of them, only that I saw no evidence of this 70% liberal slant in the political debate threads I was in, but rather as a new member, I saw that the owner was openly conservative and that I was finding myself debating 3 and 4 people at a time at his new forum. Call that whatever you like, but if to call that a "healthy", "inviting", or even "neutral" debate atmosphere, is a woeful misrepresentation of the facts.

Click on the link I gave above. Look at the quotes of yours in those boxes. Then remember that you gave all my posts negative rep -- even the ones that weren't addressed to you. Then come back here and accuse me of being "snide" and "dissuasive" with a straight face. Or perhaps you could address that accusation to the nearest mirror.
I only did that in response to those you did to mine, one of which I clearly recall was not addressed to you, which you later "retracted". The snide and dissuasive I spoke of were the unwarranted and combative pm's I received after several of my posts, a somewhat uncivil exchange which I declined to participate in.

That said, I can't support bloated policy.
Fair enough. Just know that I can't and won't support an administration that would accept the perpetuation of this nations cycles of poverty, keeping the poor poor, while ensuring the fat get fatter.

The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" notion is devoid any practical, working realistic insight into the socioeonomic "culture" of poverty. there is no pulling yourself up by a bootstrap, when there are no bootstraps to pull. I always laugh at that uninformed lack of relation for being so grossly out of touch. If the people saying that were born and raised into a culture where it was "cool" to refuse education, and see themseves as "different" than responsible and emotionally balanced members of society, they almost certainly wouldn't be where they are now talking about "bootstraps".

It's because of heartless, vainglorious, culturally detached misconeptions like that, the statistical failure of "trickle down economics", and alarmist/ isolationist war-mongering, that I choose to vote blue.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
I think Obama could have completely dominated if he, just once, stood up and said "Sir, would you care to discuss some issues?"

Alas, he didn't, and just got right down to mudslinging. Disappointing from a usually great orator.

I still the guy is a shoe-in, though. McCain is just not strong enough to battle Obama and the past eight years of strife as it resides in people's minds.

That said, I can't support bloated policy.
WHAT??? Did you say that??? What debate were you watching???

I mean, seriously, I cannot believe I just read this.

*sigh*

On another note, Videodrome, I'm sure you know that I pretty much agreed with you and it is clear that there are many supporters here of Obama, but I will agree with you that this is seriously the most conservative movie forum I have ever been on. I've been on a few. And I do think a particular member here has reacted to me negatively because I have disagreed with Yoda who runs this site. That bothers me.

That said, the discussions here are respectful and Yoda has even "raised my game" a bit as I've done more research that normal when I post. I happen to disagree pretty strongly with many of the posts here, but nevertheless, it's been a good discussion.

As to Palin, I'm sad that this thread is nothing but an argument with Videodrome when in fact, Palin has been proven to be a liar and delusional when she goes on the air and says she wasn't found to have done anything "unethical" when, in fact, she was. I don't care about Troopergate -- I care that this woman has the audacity to tell the American people a flat out lie. She is deplorable. I cannot believe that anyone could actually think about voting for such a person, but, hey....

Videodrome, maybe if you had approached this discussion differently, this thread could actually have been about Palin, instead of a fight about this forum.

Just my two cents, fwiw...



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Palin/troopergate

Obama/acornayreswrightrezcojoetheplumbergateetcetcetcetcsideways8gate
Since people are getting rather testy in this thread, I'll get testy, too.

Care to explain, in detail, each of these? Joe the plumber? You're kidding, right?

7thson, why can't you see that much of this is just negative attacks that mean nothing? Support your guy, hey, no problem, but why engage in this? You asked about ACORN, it was explained to you but you reject the answer. Voter registration fraud is DIFFERENT THAN VOTER FRAUD. These bogus names will NOT VOTE!!!

Let's talk Voter Suppression! THAT is against democracy.

I can't even begin to understand the rest of your little joke here... except I saw Rev. Wright in there. I guess that's as bad as Palin lying through her teeth, eh?



Long Live The New Flesh
Videodrome, maybe if you had approached this discussion differently, this thread could actually have been about Palin, instead of a fight about this forum.
I'm not interested in kowtowing, mincing words, self-censoring or genuflecting to see that my political position is found more "agreeable" or disseminated more thoroughly. Tact and respect are where I stop, beyond that I have integrity enough to present my argument honestly.

With that said, my initial arguments were solely political, and never personal, but that didn't prevent the gangbanging.



That may well be true, but you wouldn't know it from my experience. Anyone can go to those threads and see for themselves it was gangbang time.

Sorry if my explanation doesn't "wash" with you, but I'm pretty sure most people can relate If they recently joined a new forum, jumped into a political debate, then came to find the owner fo the site was openly on the opposite side of your political affiliation, and then found themselves outnumbered 3 and 4 to 1 in each of the threads they debated politcs on, they wouldn't quite see that as a "fair and balanced" healthy political debate atmosphere as you seem to be mischaracterizing it.
I'll ask again: who are these people who were apparently ganging up on you? Can you answer this question, or not?

Perhaps if these magical mystery liberals came out of the woodwork to voice their opinions, I might have viewed it as you seem to be.
Wow. I've been asking you repeatedly to provide just the tiniest bit of evidence for the bizarre notion that you were "ganged up" on, and haven't received any sort of reply, and now you're talking about "mystery liberals." I think this is called projection.

I have argued about this election -- recently -- with tramp, bleacheddecay, John McClane, Holden Pike, adidasss, undercoverlover, and FILMFREAK087, just to name a few. Take a look at the 2008 Election Thread and you'll see just how silly the above statement is.

I only did that in response to those you did to mine, one of which I clearly recall was not addressed to you, which you later "retracted". The snide and dissuasive I spoke of were the unwarranted and combative pm's I received after several of my posts, a somewhat uncivil exchange which I declined to participate in.
Again, I suggest you read your own posts. Particularly your own description of conservatives. It was spiteful, simplistic, and angry. That you can now sit here and make haughty statements about things you deem to be "uncivil" is quite stunning.

The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" notion is devoid any practical, working realistic insight into the socioeonomic "culture" of poverty. there is no pulling yourself up by a bootstrap, when there are no bootstraps to pull.
Thank you for explaining why this saying about bootstraps is technically impossible. In other news, although I am very hungry, it is not accurate to suggest that I am capable of eating a horse.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
I'm not interested in kowtowing, mincing words, self-censoring or genuflecting to see that my political position is found more "agreeable" or disseminated more thoroughly. Tact and respect are where I stop, beyond that I have integrity enough to present my argument honestly.

With that said, my initial arguments were solely political, and never personal, but that didn't prevent the gangbanging.
I was referring to this post:

Originally Posted by Videodrome
I've since moved to higher ground, as I'm at another movie forum where the ownership is more.."agreeable" with my political point of view. Just thought I'd drop in to point this out.
I just think that put people on the defensive and so the thread has descended into an argument.

As to what else you said, I actually agree with you. I share your views and I get frustrated, too. I was reprimanded for being angry in the 2008 thread.

And come on, Yoda, the "bootstraps" argument is a conservative mantra. You've heard it, right? You know what he meant, didn't you?

And there is a lot of anger toward conservatives for what many of us believe has been years of irresponsible and destructive policies. I think Videodrome is just expressing it.



You asked about ACORN, it was explained to you but you reject the answer. Voter registration fraud is DIFFERENT THAN VOTER FRAUD. These bogus names will NOT VOTE!!!
Tell that to Darnell Nash.

And how, exactly, can you simply assert that these people will note vote? Mickey Mouse won't, obviously, but people registered more than once absolutely could. And even if they don't, gumming up the screening process with tens or even hundreds of thousands of fake registrations sure isn't going to make detecting fraud any easier.

It's clearly a problem. The extent of the problem can be debated, though if you'd like to debate it I'd like to move these posts off into a thread dedicated completely to the topic (which I've been meaning to start, anyway). Just let me know.

Let's talk Voter Suppression! THAT is against democracy.
It's all against Democracy. Counting a vote that should not be counted has the same effect as supressing a vote that should. I realize that every partisan is 110% convinced that the OTHER side is always FAR more guily of it than theirs, however, but that doesn't make it so.

Most of it, obviously, has to do with perspective. ANY attempt to make sure ineligible people don't vote can be looked at as "voter supression," just as any attempt to register people in droves and get them to the polls can be confused with voter fraud. Unless someone has some sort of hard evidence of guilt in a given instance, however, there's no basis from which to simply declare that the other guys are worse.



And come on, Yoda, the "bootstraps" argument is a conservative mantra. You've heard it, right? You know what he meant, didn't you?
Of course. My point was that talking about the phrasing is not a substitute for an actual argument about what it means.

If you read through many of his posts, you'll see a lot of this stuff; derision and assertions instead of reasoning. Needless to say, I don't care for it.



Long Live The New Flesh
I'll ask again: who are these people who were apparently ganging up on you? Can you answer this question, or not?
You're asking me to debase myself and specifically name the individuals involved in the threads in question, to further insitigate and draw ire in this forum? Wow, nothings beneath you apparently, Yoda.

Thanks, but no. As I pointed out, anyone can freely visit these threads (as many likely already have) to see for themselves what tramp and I have sufficiently explained.

Of course. My point was that talking about the phrasing is not a substitute for an actual argument about what it means.

If you read through many of his posts, you'll see a lot of this stuff; derision and assertions instead of reasoning. Needless to say, I don't care for it.
Unfortunately for you, I did make an argument for why it doesn't hold water. "Derision" is a relative term in this case, and what exactly is wrong with "asserting" again?



You're asking me to debase myself and specifically name the individuals involved in the threads in question, to further insitigate and draw ire in this forum? Wow, nothings beneath you apparently, Yoda.
So, making accusations is fine, but having to defend them is "debasing." Right.

Thanks, but no. As I pointed out, anyone can freely visit these threads (as many likely already have) to see for themselves what tramp and I have sufficiently explained.
Yeah, see, that's the problem: I've looked at that thread (again), and I don't see anyone ganging up on you. That's why I asked in the first place: because I don't think anyone did.


Unfortunately for you, I did make an argument for why it doesn't hold water. "Derision" is a relative term in this case, and what exactly is wrong with "asserting" again?
You made no such argument; you simply claimed it didn't work. Your "argument" was simply more statements that effect. As for derision; you may hide behind ambiguities if you ilke, but there aren't many definitions of the word that your description of conservatives would not fall under.

Making an assertion is, of course, fine...provided you can support it somehow. Unfortunately, you seem far more interested in the former than you do the latter.



And, thirdly, not only are the four things you listed for Obama (Ayers, Rezco, Wright and Acorn) completely unsubstantiated, they're also complete non-issues. Can you name another instance other than the four lame ones you listed?

Of course thank you for opening the door.

Here is one for starters...http://www.newsweek.com/id/157274

Obama and his great mayor.

As far as your term "non-issues", puhleze.

Rezco is the biggest on the list imo. You have nothing to say about the Rezco issue? It is no big deal right?
__________________
The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands. Sir Richard Burton



7thson, why can't you see that much of this is just negative attacks that mean nothing? Voter registration fraud is DIFFERENT THAN VOTER FRAUD. These bogus names will NOT VOTE!!!
?
You are saying 200,000 problem voter registration cards in the battleground state of Ohio is not a big deal. Tell that to the volunteers who have to wade through them. If only a very small percentage of these get through it could change the election. What is the purpose of these fraudulent registrations? To ignore that is crazy.

It is okay to go negative against McCain/Palin though right? But question Obama and its bad.



Originally Posted by tramp
And I do think a particular member here has reacted to me negatively because I have disagreed with Yoda who runs this site. That bothers me.
Name names. Especially if you mean me. Why dance around who you mean?

If it is me, you are wrong. Seeings how you agreed that that post was angry, and you apologized for it, this shouldn't even be an issue now.

If it isn't me, then again, you could say who you mean to begin with.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Tell that to Darnell Nash.

And how, exactly, can you simply assert that these people will note vote? Mickey Mouse won't, obviously, but people registered more than once absolutely could. And even if they don't, gumming up the screening process with tens or even hundreds of thousands of fake registrations sure isn't going to make detecting fraud any easier.

It's clearly a problem. The extent of the problem can be debated, though if you'd like to debate it I'd like to move these posts off into a thread dedicated completely to the topic (which I've been meaning to start, anyway). Just let me know.


It's all against Democracy. Counting a vote that should not be counted has the same effect as supressing a vote that should. I realize that every partisan is 110% convinced that the OTHER side is always FAR more guily of it than theirs, however, but that doesn't make it so.

Most of it, obviously, has to do with perspective. ANY attempt to make sure ineligible people don't vote can be looked at as "voter supression," just as any attempt to register people in droves and get them to the polls can be confused with voter fraud. Unless someone has some sort of hard evidence of guilt in a given instance, however, there's no basis from which to simply declare that the other guys are worse.
They are worse. They have been for quite a while. Check out all the caging that has been going on by Republicans for decades. Heck, under Bush, it's become state of the art:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list

You can discount the link if you like, but Republicans know that that many poorer people haven't voted and if they start to, that is more Democratic votes. These caging lists have that one purpose and one purpose only.

And all this ACORN stuff -- Republicans argue that somehow these bogus registration forms will somehow turn into enough votes to change an election! Wouldn't you need like a whole bunch of votes? (Of course, we can always not count votes and leave it up to the Supreme Court to decide who the next President will be.)

This is nothing but a setup so that if McCain loses, they will yell "FRAUD!" And then we can have weeks and weeks of FOX News telling the American people that Obama didn't really win after all.



Oh, and that Darnell Nash guy... I don't buy that story at all. Look where you linked it from -- a conservative circulation paper. And it's one guy???

And 7thson, why don't you stop worrying about all these smear tactics and actually think about the issues for a change? You question Obama all the time and it seems it always comes down to some kind of smear or something that makes him seem corrupt.

Let's look at Watergate, why don't we? That is a lesson in how supporters go too far. It's been happening since the dawn of time. I'm angry at those people for doing this because it gives people like you and conservative bloggers an excuse to somehow make Obama seem corrupt. The truth is, if these are bogus, and these people don't actually vote, then the poll numbers are off, and if McCain wins Ohio, how in the heck does that help Obama?

It's just ridiculous. It seems to me it's a bunch of overzealous people or people that want to be paid money that are generating this voter REGISTRATION fraud.

I'll believe Voter fraud when I see it. But I do know that Repbublicans have worked long and hard to SUPPRESS votes. Funny you don't mention that. Or this (from ACORN's response):

6. Similar attacks were launched against ACORN and other voter registration organizations in 2004 and 2006. The bogus charges were at the heart of the U.S. Attorney-gate scandal that led to the resignations of Karl Rove, Attorney General Ablerto Gonzales and other top Justice Department Officials. It turned out that it was the charges that were fraudulent, and that they were part of a systematic partisan agenda of voter suppression. Republican U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias (NM), Todd Graves (MO), and John McKay (WA) all were fired primarily because they refused to prosecute similar bogus charges of voter fraud. Another U.S. Attorney, Bradley Schlozman, who did politicize prosecutions against former ACORN canvassers, was forced to acknowledge under cross examination by the Senate Judiciary Committee that ACORN was the victim of fraud by its employees and ACORN had caught the employees and had identified them to law enforcement.



You're a Genius all the time
Of course thank you for opening the door.

Here is one for starters...http://www.newsweek.com/id/157274

Obama and his great mayor.
Yeah, this reflects badly on Obama's judgment, fine. But, unlike Sarah Palin, he didn't deliberately commit or support any wrongdoing. He's distanced himself from Fitzpatrick and decried any corruption the mayor may have been a part of. Obama admits he was wrong about the mayor. Everybody makes mistakes, but there's a difference between being corrupt/unethical and being wrong occasionally.

Originally Posted by 7thson
Rezco is the biggest on the list imo. You have nothing to say about the Rezco issue? It is no big deal right?
Obama never personally represented Rezco. He purchased a 10 foot strip of land from Rezco and promptly apologized for his poor judgment. Rezco initially supported Obama's presidential bid, but it's not like Obama asked him to. Do you wanna argue which side has the shadier supporters?

This is a thread concerning Sarah Palin's various instances of corruption, negligence, gross misconduct and unethical behavior. I couldn't help but notice you didn't reply to the laundry list of issues I brought up concerning her. You instead retreated to your safety net of flimsy non-issues such as trying to connect Obama with a 60's "terrorist". And yes, they are non-issues compared to what Sarah Palin has done. In fact, they're non-issues compared to anything.

There are things that you could fairly bash Obama on, but these allegations are unsubstantiated and, for the most part, untrue.



Long Live The New Flesh
So, making accusations is fine, but having to defend them is "debasing." Right.

Yeah, see, that's the problem: I've looked at that thread (again), and I don't see anyone ganging up on you. That's why I asked in the first place: because I don't think anyone did.
And not seeing it that way has nothing to do with you being on the opposite side of the argument or anything I'm sure.

Despite you "not seeing anyone gang up". One poster was quoted saying: "I have no idea why Videodrome has been so attacked here." I suppose that posters view was 'imaginary' because it didn't support your argument either.

On another note, Videodrome.. I will agree with you that this is seriously the most conservative movie forum I have ever been on. I've been on a few. And I do think a particular member here has reacted to me negatively because I have disagreed with Yoda who runs this site. That bothers me.
Understandably, and we feel that way from experience, but according to Yoda and Sedai we're supposed to ignore that feeling, and believe something else.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Name names. Especially if you mean me. Why dance around who you mean?

If it is me, you are wrong. Seeings how you agreed that that post was angry, and you apologized for it, this shouldn't even be an issue now.

If it isn't me, then again, you could say who you mean to begin with.
I don't feel comfortable naming names. But I'm referring to something that did not happen in that thread.

The bottom line is that I worry about arguing with Yoda because I feel that some people get mad at me and I think Yoda and I have a good relationship and we talk privately and I care very much about how he responds to our differences of opinion. I don't want to be branded in some negative way because we have strong differences of opinion here.

I've often thought about not posting at all about politics, but then I think and hope I can actually have someone understand my side and maybe even change their view....

*dreamer*



And not seeing it that way has nothing to do with you being on the opposite side of the argument or anything I'm sure.
The difference being that I'm not asking you to take my word for anything, whereas you are steadfastly maintaining that you somehow don't have to support the accusations you make.

Despite you "not seeing anyone gang up". One poster was quoted saying: "I have no idea why Videodrome has been so attacked here." I suppose that posters view was 'imaginary' because it didn't support your argument either.
That quote is from the "Palin's a Book Burner?" thread. In that thread, I and exactly one other person disagreed with you. That other person posted exactly once, isn't a conservative, isn't voting for McCain, and said he was "keeping an eye" on Palin. This is my band of rabid conservative brown-nosers? This is your idea of being ganged up on? Are you kidding me?



Well, I don't think that's a good idea. Some guy shows up to simply let us know that he found a better site, what he thinks of most of the people's attitudes around here, simply because they don't agree with him . . . The whole thing is rude, in my opinion.

You agree with him, and give a half-ass example of "a member" here, and how you think what they are doing is wrong. How it bothers you. Yet you won't name them, so that they can have a fair chance to defend.

I don't recall saying anything to you anywhere else, so I'll assume this isn't me. I may be wrong, but who's going to know, right?!?

Originally Posted by tramp
but I will agree with you that this is seriously the most conservative movie forum I have ever been on.
Obviously the Conservatives are just more outspoken.




Long Live The New Flesh
The difference being that I'm not asking you to take my word for anything, whereas you are steadfastly maintaining that you somehow don't have to support the accusations you make.
I don't feel I need to, or that you, as this supposed "objective" "moderating" figure, should ask someone to. To do so undermines any remaining shred of of neutrality you should probably try to uphold. I'm telling you that is how I feel. You are asking for evidence of this, I went as far as welcoming others to view the threads for themselves, to make their own decision based on what they read for themselves. If they agree, fine, if they disagree, great. I sill feel the same.

That quote is from the "Palin's a Book Burner?" thread. In that thread, I and exactly one other person disagreed with you. That other person posted exactly once, isn't a conservative, isn't voting for McCain, and said he was "keeping an eye" on Palin. This is my band of rabid conservatives brown-nosers? This is your idea of being ganged up on? Are you kidding me?
So by your own admission, it was a 2 on 1 double team on the new poster for expressing concern about a report that Palin was censoring books. Not exactly a warm welcome.

Couple that with the other thread where I felt it was 4 on 1 most of the time, and you can see where tramp has good justification for saying this:
Videodrome I will agree with you that this is seriously the most conservative movie forum I have ever been on. I've been on a few. And I do think a particular member here has reacted to me negatively because I have disagreed with Yoda who runs this site. That bothers me.
As I do for my sentiment in this thread.