Law School Discussion

Why Obama will lose in the fall

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #600 on: September 10, 2008, 10:21:49 AM »
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #601 on: September 10, 2008, 10:55:24 AM »
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?

the rape kit line is falacious and false...check your facts.




Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #602 on: September 10, 2008, 10:57:51 AM »
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?





...where did I say anything about potential pregnancies, except in reference to your inability to actually read posts?

at least you're consistent.

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #603 on: September 10, 2008, 10:58:32 AM »
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?



You don't even know what a rape kit is, do you?

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #604 on: September 10, 2008, 11:00:45 AM »
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?



You don't even know what a rape kit is, do you?

palin did not make victims pay for rape kits...you are reaching...and that is a false statement..

by all means...keep digging...

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #605 on: September 10, 2008, 11:05:49 AM »
you are reaching...you are stretching...you are digging...keep it up, though...you are running out of time.... it is like saying obama is a muslim...;)





Sarah Palin did not kick the corrupt GOP out of Alaska - she replaced Murkowski, who took a bullet for putting his daughter in his Senate seat, as he didn't trust any of the top Abramoff-corrupted pols - the same pols who endorsed and campaigned for Sarah Palin - to take his seat.  Palin was picked as the choice for governor by default - both Don Young and Ted Stevens were heavily implicated by the Abramoff emails (the same emails Senator McCain refused to release and sent to the LoC with a "do not open until 2066" stamp.)  Palin herself has Abramoff connections - the lobbyist she hired to get all those billions in earmarks for Alaska was hired by Greenberg Traurig at the very same time - to help lobby for those same issues and earmarks.  BP and Todd Palin's "union" financed the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), the green-scam group Abramoff used to launder much of his cash, in their attacks on John Kerry, and, well, well, well, John McCain.  Palin isn't on the ticket because she's McCain's pick - she's the choice of Rove.  McCain may have been able to extort the nomination through control of the Abramoff emails, but Rove and Norquist weren't going to let him control the whole show, especially when he started to get all "mavericky", throwing out Lieberman's name as a possible VP choice.  Lieberman might be hated by the Democratic grassroots, but he's still a bit of a ethical goodie-two-shoes, and not Cheneyesque material.  So they forced Palin, who appears all untainted, but is so far from it, it's nauseating. 

The reason Sarah Palin gives feminists a bad name is that she all hat and no cattle - she talks a good talk, but doesn't follow through.  When elected mayor of a town of 6000, she hired an "administrator" to do all the hard work.  And she still left the town in tremendously bad financial shape, to the tune of $20 million.  Few people talk about her failed run for Lt. Governor in 2002, after which she went to work for Ted Steven's corrupt 527, setting up her network of money and influence.  She won the governor's office in a three way race - hardly a rousing mandate.  Her kids have been raised with the help of her parents, all the while she cut funding for TANF child care subsidies.  And that purported "ethics reform"?  She never even put through a complete bill.  All hat, no cattle.  She supports abstinence only, cut funds for unwed mother housing and training, hunts out of season ("What?  Me follow the law?"), uses her position of authority to interfere with personnel practices, possibly illegally.  She paid off a sexual harasser, after deeming his actions, which were found by his office to be actionable, merely a "smear", and lied about the case when questioned by the media.  She's corrupt, incompetent, vindictive and dishonest - which, yes, harms all women who seek to be in similar positions of authority, whether in the public or private sectors.

She's also an anti-intellectual: The daughter of a science teacher, she believes the world is approximately 6000 years old, and Noah forgot to put the dinosaurs on the ark.  She tried to force the banning of public library books.  She went to six colleges in five years, finally graduated (barely) from a journalism program which is not accredited by the largest Journalism professional society, and was a sportscaster before going into politics.  While that may be a perfectly fine academic and work history for an average American, but we're talking about the #2 position, behind a 72 year old three time cancer survivor (who also graduated from the bottom of his class.)  People make a big deal about Obama only getting a 165 on his LSAT, when neither of these two could probably get into Cooley, let alone Harvard.  And if that makes me an intellectual snob, so be it - is it so much to want the people with the immediate access to thermonuclear weapons to have more than a mediocre education and non-curious intellect?




rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?



You don't even know what a rape kit is, do you?

palin did not make victims pay for rape kits...you are reaching...and that is a false statement..



mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #606 on: September 10, 2008, 11:12:33 AM »

Sarah Palin did not kick the corrupt GOP out of Alaska - she replaced Murkowski, who took a bullet for putting his daughter in his Senate seat, as he didn't trust any of the top Abramoff-corrupted pols - the same pols who endorsed and campaigned for Sarah Palin - to take his seat.  Palin was picked as the choice for governor by default - both Don Young and Ted Stevens were heavily implicated by the Abramoff emails (the same emails Senator McCain refused to release and sent to the LoC with a "do not open until 2066" stamp.)  Palin herself has Abramoff connections - the lobbyist she hired to get all those billions in earmarks for Alaska was hired by Greenberg Traurig at the very same time - to help lobby for those same issues and earmarks.  BP and Todd Palin's "union" financed the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), the green-scam group Abramoff used to launder much of his cash, in their attacks on John Kerry, and, well, well, well, John McCain.  Palin isn't on the ticket because she's McCain's pick - she's the choice of Rove.  McCain may have been able to extort the nomination through control of the Abramoff emails, but Rove and Norquist weren't going to let him control the whole show, especially when he started to get all "mavericky", throwing out Lieberman's name as a possible VP choice.  Lieberman might be hated by the Democratic grassroots, but he's still a bit of a ethical goodie-two-shoes, and not Cheneyesque material.  So they forced Palin, who appears all untainted, but is so far from it, it's nauseating. 

The reason Sarah Palin gives feminists a bad name is that she all hat and no cattle - she talks a good talk, but doesn't follow through.  When elected mayor of a town of 6000, she hired an "administrator" to do all the hard work.  And she still left the town in tremendously bad financial shape, to the tune of $20 million.  Few people talk about her failed run for Lt. Governor in 2002, after which she went to work for Ted Steven's corrupt 527, setting up her network of money and influence.  She won the governor's office in a three way race - hardly a rousing mandate.  Her kids have been raised with the help of her parents, all the while she cut funding for TANF child care subsidies.  And that purported "ethics reform"?  She never even put through a complete bill.  All hat, no cattle.  She supports abstinence only, cut funds for unwed mother housing and training, hunts out of season ("What?  Me follow the law?"), uses her position of authority to interfere with personnel practices, possibly illegally.  She paid off a sexual harasser, after deeming his actions, which were found by his office to be actionable, merely a "smear", and lied about the case when questioned by the media.  She's corrupt, incompetent, vindictive and dishonest - which, yes, harms all women who seek to be in similar positions of authority, whether in the public or private sectors.

She's also an anti-intellectual: The daughter of a science teacher, she believes the world is approximately 6000 years old, and Noah forgot to put the dinosaurs on the ark.  She tried to force the banning of public library books.  She went to six colleges in five years, finally graduated (barely) from a journalism program which is not accredited by the largest Journalism professional society, and was a sportscaster before going into politics.  While that may be a perfectly fine academic and work history for an average American, but we're talking about the #2 position, behind a 72 year old three time cancer survivor (who also graduated from the bottom of his class.)  People make a big deal about Obama only getting a 165 on his LSAT, when neither of these two could probably get into Cooley, let alone Harvard.  And if that makes me an intellectual snob, so be it - is it so much to want the people with the immediate access to thermonuclear weapons to have more than a mediocre education and non-curious intellect?

you are reaching...you are stretching...you are digging...keep it up, though...you are running out of time.... it is like saying obama is a muslim...;)

That's quite humorous.  Someone provides facts, and you claim they are reaching, without addressing a single one.  Yawn.  You're still boring.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #607 on: September 10, 2008, 11:13:40 AM »
too much of it is bull...aye don't even bother when someone is shoveling bullshite.

you're "investigative journalism" is exactly like the "investigative journalism" of those who claim barack is a muslim...aye don't bother with their crap either...



if you are really worried about lobbyists...obama didn't take public funding...like he promised...but who cares...will he show us proof of change? will mccain show us proof of reform???

if it smells like bullshite...it probably is bullshite.




Sarah Palin did not kick the corrupt GOP out of Alaska - she replaced Murkowski, who took a bullet for putting his daughter in his Senate seat, as he didn't trust any of the top Abramoff-corrupted pols - the same pols who endorsed and campaigned for Sarah Palin - to take his seat.  Palin was picked as the choice for governor by default - both Don Young and Ted Stevens were heavily implicated by the Abramoff emails (the same emails Senator McCain refused to release and sent to the LoC with a "do not open until 2066" stamp.)  Palin herself has Abramoff connections - the lobbyist she hired to get all those billions in earmarks for Alaska was hired by Greenberg Traurig at the very same time - to help lobby for those same issues and earmarks.  BP and Todd Palin's "union" financed the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), the green-scam group Abramoff used to launder much of his cash, in their attacks on John Kerry, and, well, well, well, John McCain.  Palin isn't on the ticket because she's McCain's pick - she's the choice of Rove.  McCain may have been able to extort the nomination through control of the Abramoff emails, but Rove and Norquist weren't going to let him control the whole show, especially when he started to get all "mavericky", throwing out Lieberman's name as a possible VP choice.  Lieberman might be hated by the Democratic grassroots, but he's still a bit of a ethical goodie-two-shoes, and not Cheneyesque material.  So they forced Palin, who appears all untainted, but is so far from it, it's nauseating. 

The reason Sarah Palin gives feminists a bad name is that she all hat and no cattle - she talks a good talk, but doesn't follow through.  When elected mayor of a town of 6000, she hired an "administrator" to do all the hard work.  And she still left the town in tremendously bad financial shape, to the tune of $20 million.  Few people talk about her failed run for Lt. Governor in 2002, after which she went to work for Ted Steven's corrupt 527, setting up her network of money and influence.  She won the governor's office in a three way race - hardly a rousing mandate.  Her kids have been raised with the help of her parents, all the while she cut funding for TANF child care subsidies.  And that purported "ethics reform"?  She never even put through a complete bill.  All hat, no cattle.  She supports abstinence only, cut funds for unwed mother housing and training, hunts out of season ("What?  Me follow the law?"), uses her position of authority to interfere with personnel practices, possibly illegally.  She paid off a sexual harasser, after deeming his actions, which were found by his office to be actionable, merely a "smear", and lied about the case when questioned by the media.  She's corrupt, incompetent, vindictive and dishonest - which, yes, harms all women who seek to be in similar positions of authority, whether in the public or private sectors.

She's also an anti-intellectual: The daughter of a science teacher, she believes the world is approximately 6000 years old, and Noah forgot to put the dinosaurs on the ark.  She tried to force the banning of public library books.  She went to six colleges in five years, finally graduated (barely) from a journalism program which is not accredited by the largest Journalism professional society, and was a sportscaster before going into politics.  While that may be a perfectly fine academic and work history for an average American, but we're talking about the #2 position, behind a 72 year old three time cancer survivor (who also graduated from the bottom of his class.)  People make a big deal about Obama only getting a 165 on his LSAT, when neither of these two could probably get into Cooley, let alone Harvard.  And if that makes me an intellectual snob, so be it - is it so much to want the people with the immediate access to thermonuclear weapons to have more than a mediocre education and non-curious intellect?

you are reaching...you are stretching...you are digging...keep it up, though...you are running out of time.... it is like saying obama is a muslim...;)

That's quite humorous.  Someone provides facts, and you claim they are reaching, without addressing a single one.  Yawn.  You're still boring.

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #608 on: September 10, 2008, 11:15:49 AM »
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?



You don't even know what a rape kit is, do you?

palin did not make victims pay for rape kits...you are reaching...and that is a false statement..


you are reaching...you are stretching...you are digging...keep it up, though...you are running out of time.... ;)

Oh?

In 2000, she was mayor. She had been for four years. The police chief was her appointee, and unless you can show me somewhere that she said "oh hey, that statement you made about how it's too expensive for tax payers to pay for the collection of forensic evidence in rape cases? Yeah, not cool, cut it out," I'm holding her responsible for, at the least, not giving a *&^%. There's no way she didn't know about it, and I'd say the chances that she didn't approve, given what we know of the way she operates, are pretty slim.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #609 on: September 10, 2008, 11:24:46 AM »
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?



You don't even know what a rape kit is, do you?

palin did not make victims pay for rape kits...you are reaching...and that is a false statement..


you are reaching...you are stretching...you are digging...keep it up, though...you are running out of time.... ;)

Oh?

In 2000, she was mayor. She had been for four years. The police chief was her appointee, and unless you can show me somewhere that she said "oh hey, that statement you made about how it's too expensive for tax payers to pay for the collection of forensic evidence in rape cases? Yeah, not cool, cut it out," I'm holding her responsible for, at the least, not giving a *&^%. There's no way she didn't know about it, and I'd say the chances that she didn't approve, given what we know of the way she operates, are pretty slim.

you're perception is that she doesn't give a shite.  aye think she would be very concerned about the many issues women of rape face...who cares how we link things...my perception is different than yours...aye don't blame her for the rain either...and you are r e a l l y .....s t r e t c h i n g... this.