Posted on 07/10/2011 10:31:40 AM PDT by kristinn
I also am a a red blooded American boy, it`s hard not to miss. Oh but MSM says she only got theM recently LOL
“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”
Oooooooh YOU BETCHA
Nothing particularly new in it.
She looks slighly Pelosi-esque on that pic. On the other side, Newsweek surely loves Pelosi. Maybe they’re starting to like her ^_^
I personally find the notion of Gov Palin as anybody`s VP,offensive.
Palin needs to be on the top of any ticket.
Always pay attention, should a year be posted, is all I can say. LOL
She has been the only leader the right has had for over 2 years now. She thinks, says, does, acts...and here you are saying, oh my, look at her hairy hands, she really took a bad pic. What is she doing trusting Newsweek, ahh.
makes me ill that folks completely miss the point
I looked at the picture of her, and thought, that is a familiar face, not only does she look like Sarah, she looks like a lot of women I know who don't take crap from nobody.
She is what this country needs.
Hey wtc, talking about me behind my back again? And always in such complimentary terms. Does the phrase “Keep it Classy, Sweetie” have any meaning for you?
Anyway, after you unceremoniously stopped answering me, filbert asked a question, using the speeding laws as an example. He wanted to know whether I was basing my argument on the distinction between the official speed limit and the discretion used in enforcing that limit, which often results in tolerating a few miles over, a De Jure (”of the law”) limit versus a De Facto (”of the fact”) limit. Here is my response to him:
*****************************************
Well, I started out in that place, sort of, though it is a bit more complex than that. But I have finally found the applicability language in the statute, in section AS 39.52.910, which spells out that the Ethics Act only applies to a state officer, not a former state officer, unless under a specific exemption (carve-out), such as the one in AS 39.52.250.
So now that means that for your speeding analogy, we star[t]ed out not being sure where the code said it, but every legal professional operating in the jurisdiction understood you had to be caught speeding while actually in the car and driving, and not after the fact, that while you might get the actual ticket later, your exposure for being caught speeding only lasted as long as you were actually driving, and was not something where the police could revisit a particular driving episode to dredge up new infractions years or decades later. It just made sense as good policy, and matched up nicely with the case law, where the only kind of case you can find is people being caught speeding while driving and not afterward.
Then I actually found the part of the code [AS 39.52.910] that says, yep, this only applies if you’re actually driving. Which explains all the better why the case law doesn’t have any examples of being caught speeding while walking on the sidewalk, though a reasonable mind could deduce that without the language of the statute. Because that’s just not how it works. And now we know why, both in terms of the language, and in terms of common sense.
*****************************************
Now, wtc, I posted the whole applicability statute back out to you, and you ignored it entirely. Yet you want us to take you seriously when you cherry-pick one line from that same law and ignore all the qualifiers that can and do impact the interpretation of that law. Sorry. No. Cannot take that seriously.
Proving a negative? What you did was like this: You determined with your magic glasses that tomorrow morning the sun will come up in the west. I went back and could only find records of the sun coming up in the east. So I told you, and this was before I found the applicability section, I told you there ain’t no such thing gonna happen, and you call that demanding proof from a negative. Maybe to some purist logician. Maybe not. But from the point of view of how the law works, and being a person with a lot of experience with sunrises, I decided to stick with my story. Discovery of the applicability section was expected. It had to be there, and it was. Game. Set. Match. Deal with it.
Here, try this: Go to one of your lawyer buddies, if you have any, and ask them about this. Seriously. You should not be putting out that kind of poop on a site people come to for honest handling of the facts.
You were law enforcement? Scary.
Oh, and do keep it classy, won’t you? Thanks so much.
Peace,
SR
She’s a fast learner and you can bet your last dollar that she won’t be hiring some old nasty hack like Rollins, nor that B......itch Nicole Wallace!
Sarah will be on the top of the ticket or she won’t be on the ticket. She won’t play second fiddle to anyone’s campaign this time around.
But to a degree, she may very well be shielded because the AG determines if the complaint can go forward. Then again it MAY be investigated after discovery but since the e-mail dump blew up in their faces, are they going to try and sneak something by the transom? Possible, but very unlikely given the changes enacted in January 2010 to address compensation and also to make any public dissemination of a complain filed will be disallowed and ended. I beleive she is just hedging her bets while at at the same time tweeking the elites and media at teh same time by not playing their game.
(d) The attorney general shall review each complaint filed, to determine whether it is properly completed and contains allegations which, if true, would constitute conduct in violation of this chapter. The attorney general may require the complainant to provide additional information before accepting the complaint. If the attorney general determines that the allegations in the complaint do not warrant an investigation, the attorney general shall dismiss the complaint with notice to the complainant and the subject of the complaint.
Bogus. Please see post #268. Tnx.
Wasn’t it Newsweek (Maybe TIME) that did the unflattering shot of Ann Coulter?
No matter, you can’t photshop out the determination in this woman’s face.
Never mind. We’re essentially in agreement.
>> that’s an unflattering picture.
Not possible.
Don’t you think she got to review and accept or not the photograph? Eight pages and she has a healthy distrust of the media. I for one find her very attractive in that picture.
So declare already. I dealt with enough flakey girls before that I now make my own plans instead of waiting on them.
She can have volunteers on the ground in a heartbeat. The longer she waits the less chance the press has at her. I think she should wait as long as possible before declaring.
Same here. She looks perfect close-up in person.
i agree.
who head is not fitting right on her shoulders
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.