Posted on 06/26/2010 9:37:58 AM PDT by Bob J
“I guess “eviscerated” isn’t too strong a word to use when it comes to the debunking of this hit piece by Bob J.”
Not one single thing I psoted has been debunked.
Oh I forgot. To zombies making personal attacks and calling for a Zot is “debunking”.
These vanity threads will be used by the left to attempt to further discredit Palin by showing that even people on Free Republic think she's a liar or a kook or whatever the left's Palin accusation of the day happens to be. Bob J has been very useful in giving the left additional ammunition to attack the right in general.
Yes Bob J, you are a useful idiot. The left loves you (right now). But when they are done destroying Palin (with your help), they will be coming after you.
If the attack was coming from a base of fact and logic, I could understand it.
Since this is yet another red herring, I would suggest that may indicate a certain lack of comfort with the originator’s masculinity and/or lack of intellectual honesty.
Typical of a McCainiac, a Paulista or a RAT. I apologize for the redundency in this last sentence. I do realize that all three are interchangable.
“I’ve been perusing the thread, and I would suggest people have been reading this Independent Report, but are dismissing the contents as not being accurate or reputable.”
Funny, they didn’t say that when this SAME Independent Counsel found Palin innocent of charges in the Troopergate scandal.
Which is funny because I thought she was much more guilty in that. The only reason she got out of that is because he decided the State Dept head she fired for nor firing her ex-brother-in-law was an at will employee and could be let go for any reason.
Go figure.
Yes you did and your post proves it. You made various assumptions, plugged in some numbers and voila. I'm surprised you don't understand the definition of “making it up”.
Are you really a attorney?
That Palinistas don't know the most basic facts of their messiahs history surprises does not surprise me.
Again, all most of the responses on this thread prove is that most Palin supporters here don’t do the must simple and cursory research or examination of the candidate they all want us to vote for President.
I doubt more than 2 even bothered to read the report from the Independent Counsel yet they are all experts when commenting.
“These vanity threads will be used by the left to attempt to further discredit Palin by showing that even people on Free Republic think she’s a liar or a kook or whatever the left’s Palin accusation of the day happens to be. Bob J has been very useful in giving the left additional ammunition to attack the right in general.”
Ha! Believe me, anything I post here has been known to the dems and MSM for some time and they will use it when the time is ripe. That’s one reason why I believe Palin may be unelectable.
That you think they use FR for opposition research is, well, grasping at straws.
BobJ knows all about that!
You can’t provide a source for your “information.” That’s what I expected.
I’ve done my due diligence and research, why not you?
Which describes down to the molecular level what you have been doing with regards to Palin.
“You can’t provide a source for your “information.” That’s what I expected.”
What’s the point when dealing with people who make it up as they go along?
If you think my information is false, then do your own research and prove me wrong.
No mystery at all -- you and your leftist masters are afraid of a genuinely populist conservative; so you need to manufacture scandal, even when in backfires on you.
Better tell Axelrod and Sunstein that they're not getting their money's worth out of you.
“Which describes down to the molecular level what you have been doing with regards to Palin.”
Lord, not only did you not read the Inedpendent Counsel’s Report you didn’t even read this thread.
My "assumptions" are based on decades of experience in the practice of law. The legislature may have set up a fund for Palin to use $100,000, but my understanding is that the fund would have been subject to legal challenge anyway and if the democrats who agreed to the fund later challenged it and got it declared illegal, and Palin had used the money, then this would have added one more bogus ethics charge against her and she would have been legally obligated to pay the money back personally anyway.
When I take on a case I am (as an attorney) required to produce a "legal budget" for my client giving my best estimate of the number of hours and the costs that will be incurred in defending a claim. Hence my "estimate" that this would take 1000 hours of attorney time is based on experience in the field.
Are you really a attorney?
Are you really a conservative?
Source The name of the source (example: The Washington Times)
Source URL A web link to the original article
That, and misspelling the supposed name of the source, is prima facie evidence of bad faith on your part: particularly given your signup date, which precludes such an omission on your part as resulting from "n00bie ignorance."
Your posts suck as much as your pizza.
So you are admitting that you are working hand in glove with the MSM and Democrats? Why else would you be so obsessed with attacking Sarah Palin? Don't you think the MSM and the democrats are doing a good enough job?
That’s one reason why I believe Palin may be unelectable.
They said the same thing about Ronald Reagan. She may not be electable, but right now, she represents the front lines in the battle to rid us of Obama. I guess you'd rather have 4 more years of Obama than an effective Sarah Palin?
Keep trashing her. The more you and your buddies in the MSM and the democrat party pile on her, the more I support her.
Troll!
Me too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.