I'm basing it on the fact that it has been claimed that an independent investigator has evidence that implicates her. So, logically, if there *is* evidence, then...xyz. I'm not saying she is automatically guilty, though if the evidence supposibly points to that case. Maybe she is, or maybe she is not. All one can do is infer based on what is known, and hopefully we'll know more later down the road as the investigation progresses.

Be well, ~Alderic

AJ, do I seriously need to break down your comment for you to see it? 

"I don't condone revenge, which could be the motive for some of the complaints, but it isn't like she can't afford it. btw, it looks like she's been implicated. I guess we'll see what is what soon."

Your initial statement is "I don't condone revenge" which I agree states that you disagree with revenge, your usage of but leaves the door open for the exception clause.  So you don't condone revenge (taken from the first part) yet you say it isn't like she can't afford it.  Basic logical progression results in, that as long as one can afford it, then you condone revenge. 

Make sense now?

I just wanted to make sure I was seeing things from your pov right; sometimes I get things turned around in my head where logic doesn't come out the other end right side up, you know? Not that I can't think rationally/logically, I just have...mental overheating, sometimes. =\ Anyways, that being said...All right, I see how it was misconstrued. My wording was off, because I didn't intend to imply that I agree with frivilous lawsuits and all. I just was saying that while i disagree with them, given that they're happening, im sure palin could handle it. She always seems to bounce back/she's capable.

My bad on my fault with this. ~Alderic

Ah, now I understand.

Do you agree with the notion that any plaintiff that brings a suit against someone (ethics or civil suit) and the plaintiff loses that the plantiff should pay (time or money) equally as much as they were suiing for?

I think it's pretty obvious what's happening here.  Palin is receiving all these trumped up ethics violations to disuade her from running.  Obviously she is a threat or they would leave her alone.  They continue to harass her in hopes of breaking her or ruining her financially, politically, emotionally or whatever.   Happens all the time, like AD mentioned about the Judge and the cleaners. 

I have a friend who happens to be a very conservative op/ed columnist.  Over the years he's come down hard on the homosexual agenda, way before we started describing it this way.  Anyway the homosexuals started to pool their resources and take him to court over stupid frivolous reasons.  I remember he told me one time it involved his dog walking on one of their lawns.  All of the lawsuits were thrown out.    My friend won them all.  But that wasn't the point.  The point was to break him financially so that he would stop writing against them in his weekly columns.  They had money and he had limited resources, and they knew it. 

That's exactly what's happening here with Palin.  Old trick, different set of characters. 

That's why I offer the solution I did.  Seems to me that would solve that issue.

Only if there is a legal precedent for it. I don't believe the financial compensation should happen just because they felt like it.I've always had an issue with the whole concept of financial reimbursement for pain and suffering because "pain and suffering"  is a subjective thing. that isn't to say that if there is undeniable proof that someone did cause you it, like say...they purposely caused you physical and mental and emotional harm/tress that ultimately pushed you into a situation that made you miss days of work. (Say, hypothetically, you're kidnapped beaten...which causes you mental problems that leads to you having to either quit your job or miss days of work.) In that case, I could see the legitimacy with it. Still, I would be skeptical.

Mmm, like I said, if it is legit it is legit. No one, not even the almighty folksy Palin herself should be given leniency on it.

But see AJ, that's what I'm talking about wanting to solve.  If I want to sue you for 'pain and suffering' and for whatever else I feel so inclined to sue you for.  Let's play with numbers (because I like numbers ) here and say I'm suing you for 250,000 in pain and suffering for whatever injustice I felt you caused me.  I being the plantiff would be responsible to pay YOU AJ, the defendent $250K if I (the plantiff) LOSE my law suit against you.  With the plantiff knowing that this could be reversed and that I might have to pay what I'm suing for, I see two things happening: 1) I'm going to make sure I have a case.  2) I'm probably not going to sue you for these crazy amounts that we hear about if I may have to court ordered to pay you back (even garnished wages).

Besides if I lost a couple times I'd be to broke to sue you again!

After few such complaints having turned out to have been bogus, I think it is safe to assume that they all are.

I don't know how almighty Palin really is.

But I also don't think she is a threat to Democratic rule. What the Republicans need is someone closer to the centre, not more extremist. Palin is certainly not an extremist and she is better than Bobby Jindal, but there are some things Republicans have to understand.

The reason Democrats and independents voted for Obama was because they perceived the Republican party to have worked on the wrong problems. The Democrats around Obama campaigned on the premise that everything George Bush did was wrong and evil and the Republican party sent a strong message that the only fault they could find with George Bush was that he wasn't right-wing enough. The criticism is true but unlikely to convince those on the left of Bush who have fewer problems with him than with those more on the right.

John McCain, I guess, was a respected candidate even among most of the left (I'll exclude the many loonies who even made fun of how he looked because he had been tortured for years). But many Republicans made it clear that they didn't consider him a true conservative. Well, maybe he was not, but the voters didn't want a "true conservative". If John McCain could have mananed to run with Joe Lieberman, I think many Democrats might have voted for the mixed ticket. After all, Obama also campaigned on the ticket of building bridges between the parties. With Obama it was an obvious lie, but a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have been a bridge.

And last but not least, liberals are very conservative. In America there is a tendency to use the words "liberal" and "conservative" in ways that are not always correct. For example, a "conservative" in the US is often someone who wants to change back rather than preserve. Liberals don't want a change back but they also don't want change forward. They want things to stay the same, notwithstanding calls for "change". That's why Obama isn't doing anything except spending. Conservatives are also more likely to accept and support a woman leader than liberals. In general conservatives are more likely to accept change and liberals are more likely to demand change. That's why, with the exception of Golda Meir, women leader in the western world have been conservatives. Women do not fare well among liberal voters. And many liberals vote rather for evil than for a woman, probably to keep the world alive in which they can demand change.

It's not (or shouldn't be) about 'who' wins, it should be about what policies and positions win.  Why vote for McCain if he's just a liberal in Republican dress (except as 'the lesser of evils')?  Our cult of personality, nurtured and matured by our sycophant media, will be our downfall.

Congratulations.

You ended up with the policies and positions of Obama.

Meh, to each their own. I don't plan on doing anything suit worthy any time soon.

Mmm, perhaps. Just because 99 out of 100 things turned out to be false means that that 1 is not. Let the evidence and courts decide it, not public bias.

Interesting you mention that. I was watching a movie last night, called Swing Vote. While I would give it a B- or C+ over all, there was a really good line in it that I think is apt for the issue of the media, elections and votes. The line went:

"All the world's great civilizations have followed the same path. From bondage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy back to bondage. If we are to be the exception to history, then we must break the cycle, for those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Did you even comprehend my point?

I did, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people will go with your idea. Humans are not the most logical beings.

leauki posts:

There is nothing "almighty" about her...she just has the markings and character of a solid, true conservative...and that's most attractive (and rather rare to find nowadays) to conservatives like me. 

You don't? Of course she is...that's why the Left hates her so and why the radical fems are so jealous of her. The media didn't go scour the state of Alaska digging for something they could try to bury her with for no reason! She's a threat to Liberalism.

Better how? Gindal is a solid, bright, well articulated, conservative whose doing a fabulous job as Governor in Louisana.

The Dems voted for Obama becasue he promised everything...pie in the sky everything...they didn't look past his stump speeches and listened to the fawning mainstream media sell him like he was going to solve their every problem. The whole thing was sickening, but then again Socialism is just that.

Politics isn't about building bridges...it's about following the US and State Constitutions. Period.