Posted on 07/10/2011 10:31:40 AM PDT by kristinn
The big unknown is if and when Sarah gets into office, what will happen to the crony-ism that pervades Washington? She will not be able to root out the miscreants and malfeasors in office without lots and lots of help. It will not be like getting rid of the entrenched rusted leadership in Alaska. It will be far more difficult.
I want Sarah to run, but who will help her succeed? My bet is that she will have less than half of the republican caucus behind her, though they will talk a good game.
Do you think Mear-cow-ski is going to help her? Even McCain will stab her in the back, and other governors around the country will not support her either.
I fear that the status quo will continue until the system fails unless the public stops voting for the person who gives them the most goodies. The must start once again to recognize what true individual freedom is.
I wish there were new worlds to explore, for I would certainly board that leaking ship and set off to start over again.
He's a crafty sumbitch, that one. I mean, with us defending Sarah Palin against all of his mindless rants and all. Soros Inc. pays good money for folks to go on conservative boards and beat up on the Palin haters, ya know. Heh...
Crazy, ain't it?
I remember Rush talking with female callers about women,even conservative women,not wanting to vote for her because she was too attractive. A problem butt faces like H Clinton don’t have.
If this “catty catch” actually exists,Newsweek may have just reduced Sarah’s negatives with that picture.
The person who writes a thesis on PDS and explains it rationally will make Freud and Jung look like mere posers.
SickOfLibs is once again SOL - $h!t Outta Luck ;) BTW, George sent me a new Ferrari this week. Did you get one too?
Good point. Typical of the Gang that can’t shoot straight to nail their foot yet again ;)
I can't stand it! The sheer brilliance of this logic is so mind-shatteringly air-tight, that I am in utter awe.
Let's not even mention the masterful wordsmithing. I'm afraid we're nothing more than mere mono-syllabic hackers, in comparison.
We need to get Barry in here to give Sicko'lib a bow for us.
This is a sheer monument to the depths of stupidity a PDSer can go. Jim ought to enshrine this thread so that future generations of Freepers in a post-Obama world can see the level of stupidity we had to endure.
I don't know where you're getting all this from, but it's a well-known (and observable) fact that Sarah Palin has a broader, and deeper level of grass roots support across this country than any other candidate (or potential candidate).
Sitting here on Free Republic and continuing to post that, "she just can't win", isn't going to change that. Such statements simply fly in the face of reality, my friend. No other political figure outside the White House commands such attention, as does Sarah Palin.
There is a very good reason for that. It's that she, above all others in the field, has what it takes to not only win the nomination, but to go on to beat Obama, and THEN, to begin dismantling the Socialist beast that's killing us, in earnest.
The media and the talking heads aren't pounding out millions of words about this woman every week because "she's not going to run", and "she can't win." They're scared out of their minds that she will.
Put your trusted polls down for a minute, and actually observe what's really going on here. It's really quite hard to miss, unless you're intentionally shielding your eyes.
Is that a mushroom cloud just above her left shoulder (the right one as we look at it)?
I note the shoreline is darker under her arm, then on the left side, as though her armpit is casting a giant shadow on the shoreline...or is it to evoke the idea of unshaven underarms?
This photo is definitely doctored, but I could have said that and been right as soon as I saw the word “Newsweek.”
No, there isn't, which is all day, every day, it seems. The PDS posse isn't really all that hard to deal with. More irritating than anything else.
It's those with misinformation, who have real intellect and good debating skills that are the tough customers. At least their brains are engaged (even if they are operating on false data).
Naw, just a Lamborghini this week. Do you think he was trying to send me a subliminal message with that? I'd probably better step up my PDSer beat-downs some more.
“I believe that not only will she stomp Obama in to the ground it will be the biggest defeat we have seen in modern history.”
President Palin will be elected with a 538-0 win over Obama. That’s right, she’ll take ALL the states.
Jim ought to enshrine this thread so that future generations of Freepers in a post-Obama world can see the level of stupidity we had to endure.
Now, that actually made me laugh out loud. I can actually picture him doing that as a sort of send off to our not-so-favorite clowns.
And to think that picture of Hillary is taken after the application of Spackle, paint, sanding and powder. We have gravel roads near us with smoother surfaces after a 6 inch rain.
The photo is beautiful. And there is no one but Sarah. Get some glasses......
Gondring, you are not stating the problem correctly. No, I am not asserting violations vanish on exit from office. I have no idea why you would say that. I am saying that a violation not discovered during the term of office falls outside the rule of applicability, and unless it is chargeable under an explicit exception to the applicability rule, or is chargeable under some external law, such as federal criminal law, then the opportunity to complain about that violation is lost. Just like you can only be caught speeding while driving. You can be ticketed later, but you can’t be “caught” later. You know this is true.
As for your question about AS 39.52.240, I think you misread the relationship it has with AS 39.52.250. Section 240 is, to use a software analogy, reusable code. Section 910 establishes the default behavior that the code will apply only to current officers, and excludes former officers, unless an explicit exception is made. Section 240 is how advisory opinion logic would work for current officers, and sits properly under the rule of 910. Whereas 250 is the carve-out for former officers that must be stated per 910, but if you look close it points back to 240 as the guide to how advisory opinions should work for former officers. The “programmer” is just reusing the code. There is no “parallelism,” as you put it.
Therefore, the carve-out in 250 still stands as the explicit exception that proves explicit exceptions are required to be stated. The complementary principle then must be true, that all provisions of the Ethics Act not so modified by exception must refer only to current public officers, including the discovery provision in the statute of limitations.
No, he just alternates Luxury brands between us and the other....oops, almost let the cat out of the bag as to how many of us paid “Soros for Palin” super doublesecretsleeperpsychicattackdogs there are here on FR...
Boy SOL woulda had us then!
Poor wtc, always missing the forest for the trees. I am sorry you cannot see that under the right conditions even “negative proof” is pretty good, if not from the standpoint of pure logic, at least from the standpoint of probabilistic analysis. This is especially true in the law, where if you really want to do something, you had dang well better find someone else somewhere who did it before you if you want the judge to buy it. It’s called “stare decisis.” Google it. Not making it up, Friend.
By contrast, you predict the spontaneous emergence of a new doctrine, for which there are no examples, in any jurisdiction: Infinite, life-long liability to a public officer, even if they only held office for a day. Your rule, put short, is “once an officer, always liable.” If you’re right, then Solomon was wrong. There is something new under the sun.
My rule is much less glamorous, a dusty old notion that the system will keep producing what it has always produced, liability limited to bad acts discovered during the term, with a little time after the term to actually file the complaint.
However, if I cannot convince you by reason and the law that your novel doctrine of infinite liability is bogus, so be it. To you it is “just words.” Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Alas, you can lead a horse to water, splash the water in his face, try to insert an IV, but if he really, really doesn’t want that water, not much left to do. (sigh).
Though I do want you stop misrepresenting my position. It’s just the classy thing to do, “sweetie.” Of course the AG will enforce the law. I never said otherwise and you know it. Your pal the AG just won’t enforce your bizarre misinterpretation of the law. He will look at applicability as it relates to discovery, even if you won’t. If you don’t believe me, talk to the AK AG yourself. Get you an advisory opinion, my brother FReeper. And don’t complain to me you don’t qualify for such an opinion. You don’t believe in the applicability rules. You are above them. For you 39.52.910 just doesn’t exist. So just barge on in there and ask. If you need the phone number, I can help.
I honestly don’t think that’s far from what will happen. Epic landslide for sure.
LOL
Had a blast tonight. I wonder if SOL had fun too? (hee hee)
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.