October 22, 200817 yr That's funny because the only thing you know about the topic of this thread is from the one article that was posted but that didn't stop you from passing judgement on Palin. What evidence do you have that these articles are wrong about Palin?
October 22, 200817 yr I honestly do not know very much about the Acorn case. Not enough to discuss the topic very deeply. I would like to know whether or not Obama "gave" them the money while knowing they were committing voter fraud or if he didn't know. That's hilarious considering just a few posts ago you declared so knowingly that Palin had misused funds. May you just don't WANT to know.
October 22, 200817 yr What evidence do you have that these articles are wrong about Palin? I don't have any and I didn't say they were wrong. However you did dodge the point of my post. You say you can't comment on Obama/Acorn because you don't know enough about it. There have been a number of posts on in this forum about it. There is even a thread dedicated to it. Why don't you know anything about it? It took you all of 6 hours to educate yourself on this issue, by reading the one article linked, and passing judgment. The Acorn thread has been up since 10/15.
October 22, 200817 yr Author I thought that this thread was about Governor Palin. It took 6 posts (and quite frankly, I'm shocked that it took that long) for it to devolve into a "your candidate does the same thing, only worse" thread. Such is life in BGP's Politics and Religion forum.
October 22, 200817 yr I don't have any and I didn't say they were wrong. However you did dodge the point of my post. You say you can't comment on Obama/Acorn because you don't know enough about it. There have been a number of posts on in this forum about it. There is even a thread dedicated to it. Why don't you know anything about it? It took you all of 6 hours to educate yourself on this issue, by reading the one article linked, and passing judgment. The Acorn thread has been up since 10/15. This issue isn't that deep. :lol: About Obama, I got tired of reading the Obama threads long ago. There's a new one each day it seems, so I quit reading them. Is that okay with you? I've posted on the Rezko threads, and the Ayers threads if I'm not mistaken. I didn't feel like reading anything else about Obama. Plus...this topic didn't take long to read. The first post was one paragraph. :lol:
October 22, 200817 yr That's hilarious considering just a few posts ago you declared so knowingly that Palin had misused funds. May you just don't WANT to know. Maybe I haven't read anything about Obama/Acorn because I got tired of reading about Obama a long time ago. So maybe you are wrong.
October 22, 200817 yr If this AP-Obama story is so troubling to you, why did you not express outrage when you learned that the Obama campaign filed false reports with the FEC to describe expenditures to ACORN before the Ohio primary, only to file amended reports containing the real purpose of the expenditures months later? The article states that that the reimbursements that Palin received were not illegal. Palin also did not claim per diem expenses for each of her children, which would also have been legally reimbursable expenses. Had Palin not sold the gubernatorial Gulfstream jet, the children would have traveled with her at a much greater expense than they did by flying commercial. Liberals amaze me. They defend Barack Obama for requesting a $1 million earmark for Michelle Obama's employer, Michelle's salary more than doubles, yet they see no tit-for-tat. Yet, when Obama sends an army of lawyers to Alaska to dig for dirt on Sarah Palin, apparently all they could find was some questionable expense reports and the fact that Palin spent her own money to put a second hand tanning bed in the governor's mansion - and this is supposed to be a devastating revelation. Why is that? Is it because even Democrats expect Republicans to operate at a much higher level ethically than their own politicians? Who said that it was troubling to me? I asked a question. One, I might add, that you didn't answer, and certainly wouldn't without invoking Obama's name all over the place.
October 22, 200817 yr This issue isn't that deep. :lol: About Obama, I got tired of reading the Obama threads long ago. There's a new one each day it seems, so I quit reading them. Is that okay with you? I've posted on the Rezko threads, and the Ayers threads if I'm not mistaken. I didn't feel like reading anything else about Obama. Plus...this topic didn't take long to read. The first post was one paragraph. :lol: Acorn isn't that deep. It takes the same time. Open thread, read link, done.
October 22, 200817 yr Acorn isn't that deep. It takes the same time. Open thread, read link, done. I'd rather not. Sorry to disappoint you.
October 22, 200817 yr Those who are attacking Palin for this....do you really believe that the Clintons reimbursed the government for all the times that Cheslea went with them somewhere?
October 22, 200817 yr Those who are attacking Palin for this....do you really believe that the Clintons reimbursed the government for all the times that Cheslea went with them somewhere? Do you have any evidence that they used our tax money wrongfully in that regard?
October 23, 200817 yr Just admit it, she's not as "pure" as you want her to be. What's so difficult admitting that she used taxpayers money wrongfully? Don't turn this into an Obama thread, keep the focus on Palin.
October 23, 200817 yr Sounds about right. Not sure what you are insinuating, but I think we should stick to the topic. If you would like to talk about the Acorn/Obama situation, there is a thread just for that. Why can't we keep that talk there, and the Palin talk here?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.