digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Palin Investigation Stalled By McCain Campaign, State Legisl

huffingtonpost.com — Already reeling from his hasty choice of Palin as VP pick, McCain and his campaign is trying to apply the breaks to any investigation into her Troopergate problems. The final report of the investigation was due right before the November election but panicked Republicans are throwing roadblocks in the way hoping to forestall the report post Nov

show profanity settings
expand all
  • cubedw00t, on 09/02/2008, -11/+101Oh no you don't.
  • Hillsfar, on 09/02/2008, -13/+185I like this comment one of the people on that page made:
    "So an abuse of power accusation against the Governor should be handled by three people appointed by the Governor. And now she is just SO busy there just isn't any time anywhere for her to meet with the investigator. I stand corrected, she is SO ready to follow in Bush's footsteps."
    • xister, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4 Can't you see she's going through a tough time right now!?!? Her baby just had a baby and her baby isn't even married yet! You all just want to sell magazines and newspapers and get good ratings!

      JUST LEAVE SARAH ALOOOONNNEEEEE!!!!!!



      /parody
      • 2groovy, on 09/09/2008, -0/+0Of course many people are making this argument, but if she was in a position to be left alone, she shouldn't have accepted the Vice Presidential nomination. People need to know about the person they are voting for in order to know if they would be able to trust them.
        A note to the Republican pundits... If you bash parents who's daughters are getting pregnant before marriage, it just makes you a hypocrite to defend your candidate over the same issue, unless you admit you were wrong previously.
  • bluevillage, on 09/02/2008, -11/+105This just gets better by the day. A potential vice president investigated for abuse of power -- sound familiar? And a blatant attempt to stave off the verdict prior to the election. Who will fall for that?
    • piper999, on 09/02/2008, -1/+17Hopefully she'll be dropped by the end of the week and sanity can be allowed to re-enter this election campaign.
      • Lythium, on 09/02/2008, -0/+25No way. McCain would lose *so* much face if he did that. Picking her was bad enough; if he drops her now, he might as well quit campaigning altogether. America as a whole has already proven that it doesn't take kindly to wishy-washiness.
    • kratsnitram, on 09/02/2008, -2/+26Who will fall for that? hmm, how about 50% of 300,000,000 people, so let's say 150,000,000 idiots?
    • AndrewMoyer, on 09/02/2008, -4/+11Republicans, that's who!

      People that don't follow politics but still vote, that's who!

      The ignorant, selfish cowards that make up a large percentage of Americans, that's who!

      (Sorry for being redundant!)
    • RTFMA, on 09/02/2008, -14/+4It sure does sound familiar. It sounds like more of the left's attempts to discredit a Republican candidate with smears based on rumor rather than established fact. What else can we expect from the Huffington Post. The site is the liberal equivalent to rushlimbaugh.com, which is another site I desperately hope people don't mistake for news.

      If you want to discredit a candidate, come up with some proof. These rumors and innuendos without any confirmation behind them are getting old. If you can discredit a candidate based on their policy or on established fact, then I will listen.
      • jaxcs, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7this is not dem smear campaign. this was in place before her nomination.
      • Hillsfar, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6The Republican-dominated Alaska State Legislature made the inquiry and set aside money for the investigation.
      • RTFMA, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, there is an existing inquiry. There has not been any substantial evidence or finding of wrongdoing. This is every bit as substantiated as Mrs. Obama's supposed racist remarks. That is why I have a problem with it.
  • cybergal619, on 09/02/2008, -16/+96This gets better by the minute! Can't wait to read what's next from the Maverick and the MILF.
    • sircomix, on 09/02/2008, -6/+28Maverick and the MILF. Nice one. It has a certain ring to it... Smokey and The Bandit, Starsky and Hutch, Maverick and the MILF. Hopefully they will be cancelled before next season.

      God, she seems sleazy. Crazy hockey mom, drunk with power, in a tiny town in the wilds of Alaska, pulling all kinds of crazy BS that wouldn't fly anywhere else.
      • Lythium, on 09/02/2008, -2/+15If she knew what was best for her family and her country, she would have declined the nomination. She is grossly unqualified for this position, and is either too stupid to realize it or too narcissistic to care.
      • EatSleepJeep, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5Or both.
    • tava0002, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3Simon and Simon, Hardcastle and McCormick, BJ and the Bear etc....
      • AmazingSteve, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2BJ and The Bear?! What the hell does Clinton and Lewinski have to do with anything?
      • housewarmer, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Sick burn man!
    • ChayD, on 09/02/2008, -0/+10"Maverick and the MILF"! - Dugg
    • dood, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4I don't know about MILF.

      If that one gets pregnant, it stays pregnant.
    • jacobgduncan, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4No one else watches Bill Maher?
    • EarlOfLade, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4I bet that was how McCain picked his VP among the candidates... Looked at a picture of each of them and picked the one who gave him a boner...
      Romney? Umm a little...
      Huckelberry Finn: Ohhh no!
      Rudy911: Oh motherofgod...noo
      SarahP: Oh yeah oh yeah Thank you Viagra
    • thanatosys, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7EDIT: GILF... there we go.
  • IdigObama, on 09/02/2008, -14/+52Panicked Rethugs need to back off and lets have some justice and not a cover up for a potential Palin crime!

    Enough of the GOP injustice!
  • jennebarbour, on 09/02/2008, -13/+92We absolutely, positively, cannot allow this to happen - if she's innocent, this should be an easy matter to resolve. She should be jumping out in front and saying, "please, let's get this out there and resolved right now." But she's hiding. And they're hiding her.

    If you're not furious, you're just not paying attention [to paraphrase the ol' favorite].
    • CryRightardCry, on 09/02/2008, -2/+18You hit the nail on the head.
      IF SHE WAS INNOCENT, she'd go out of her way to clear her name.
    • roho76, on 09/02/2008, -5/+3I can't even "pay my bills", let alone "pay attention".
  • logicaldog, on 09/02/2008, -38/+31I AM Furious! and I think the most infuriating (not to mention graft, coverup, corruption, slime, money laundering and really really really bad parenting) is the idea that it is OK to have a kid when you are 17-NO its not just a little slip it is a big life ruiner and babies should be planned (or in my opinion aborted) I say this as a family therapist and mother of three, and I have seen too many screwed up families lead by young single parents. This will lead to the end of civilization. Alaska must be full of white trash.
    • akchrs, on 09/02/2008, -3/+17Actually Alaska is full of indigenous, proud, native people.
      • CryRightardCry, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3Just wait until the BIA gets their mitts on them.
        Then it's reservations for everyone!
      • ZenMojo, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4Yeah...all 5% of them.
    • fromaworld, on 09/02/2008, -9/+10Babies are not a life "ruiner". Maybe to some jerk father, but not for someone that actually cares about life and takes responsibility for their actions. Yes. It can make life more difficult, but the idea that a baby ruins someone's life is one of the most selfish, despicable things I've ever heard.
      • Taiyoryu, on 09/02/2008, -2/+8I agree, unplanned pregnancies are not life ruiners. However, they are in fact life changers, and not always for the better. Having a child does not automatically equal happiness. Children are great, but they are not the panacea some people make them out to be and therefore don't deserve to sit on the pedestal people put them on (or at least not on as high a pedestal).
      • calipan, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5some jerk of a father you say? http://www.politicalbase.com/forums/topic/bristols ...
    • DangerCollie, on 09/02/2008, -1/+24Yeah, let's ask the Palins how that abstinence only education thing is working for them.
      • BobMysterioso, on 09/02/2008, -3/+5It depends on what your desired outcome is. From one angle its working pretty well.
      • Brownds, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3Sex education is in the parents hands IMO not the schools. As a parent myself, I teach my girls abstinence and the practice of safe sex too. To teach abstinence or safe sex by themselves is irresponsible.
    • elTito, on 09/02/2008, -15/+2God I know, it's SO horrible that she has to be "burdened with a child."

      Just ask the Messiah, he'll tell you.
    • Krisgi, on 09/02/2008, -1/+12Thank you thank you thank you. The GOP want to make this look OK.

      I can see it now: legions of young, unwed mothers in a society that condones this. I can just hear it now... "But Bristol got to keep her baby..."

      Unwanted pregnancies are a huge possibility among our teens, and abstinence only is obviously not going to cut it. Any parent who advocates abstinence only and then gets the grandkid means: you didn´t do your best to protect them. To talk to them. To take them to family planning. To buy them condoms yourself.

      Sarah Palin is a total failure and unacceptable to hold office, and not just because of her daughter, but because of what she wants for ALL of our kids.
    • Brownds, on 09/02/2008, -5/+3@logicaldog
      Do you realize how ***** ignorant your post is?
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 09/02/2008, -5/+2Well its different when the baby out of wedlock to a teen mother is born to a good white family. The upbringing is totally different than when it comes to an affirmative action group, a set of minorities. There are different parenting skills. Ask Joe Biden. He said the same thing....there is a tape of this being said by Biden if you check. It is on YouTube
    • GoteamVenture, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3I completely agree. I believe everyone should either be actively trying to get pregnant (when starting a family) or actively not trying to get pregnant (teens, unwed mothers). Pregnancies should be planned. We have too many excellent forms of birth control in this country to avoid a 17 yo getting pregnant. While I don't agree that abortion is the answer (I am pro-choice BTW), I feel that birth control is the answer. These right-wing fundamentalist Christians that are pro-life and anti-birth control are ignorant and irresponsible.
  • acroyear2, on 09/02/2008, -18/+32What you libs fail to recognize is that Repugs love scandal, deceit, and stalled investigations. Why else would they support McCain? Palin is preaching the choir with her heavenly trail of mishaps, Abramoffs, and "yup yup"s.
  • akchrs, on 09/02/2008, -27/+20I hope the boy that was tazered by the trooper is OK.
    • akchrs, on 09/02/2008, -17/+11lol, I'm being dugg down for caring about the well being of an 11 year old. liberal/progressive democrats kill me.
      • DukeMojo, on 09/02/2008, -4/+24No, you're being dugg down because you knowingly brought up an issue sensitive to the story only to hide your agenda, and people are smart enough to see through it. The issue is not the trooper, the issue is the complete firing of a Public Safety Commissioner because he did not follow the orders of the governor.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/02/2008, -3/+7The kid is fine. He asked to be tazered, and immediately afterwords asked the trooper to do it again. We can agree that Wooten is an imbecile.

        Now that your concern for the boy is allayed, may I ask what relevance it has to the issue at hand? Palin denies she exerted any influence to get Wooten fired, and she denies her firing of Monegan had anything to do with the issue.

        At best the issue you raise is irrelevant. If it is relevant then Palin is lying and/or covering something up.
    • freedomjoe, on 09/02/2008, -4/+15That was wrong info. If you look at the actual reports, you see that Palikn repeated these things which she actually never knew to be true. They were heresay -- things she heard from her sister-in-law, and things which were not later proven. People who know the family said the son asked to feel the taser and the dad agreed-- foolish, but not criminal. This was not, however, ever prosecuted -- so we are taking the word of palin, who has lied on record many times so far that we know of. Best not to assassinate this man's character, when the reports came out later to say that palin and her husband made a lot of these accusations up. It's ugly, no doubt, but even if he had done all of those things (which he didn't), the LAW would have handled it. They were all on Palin's side, so they would have handled it. In fact, on the tape you hear her minions calling the officers and trying to get them to arrest the guy, and everyone's like where is the evidence? there wasn't any. That's not cool.
      • Barackalypse, on 09/02/2008, -5/+4Burying you for not citing sources and being wrong:
        "An internal trooper investigation had found Mr Wooten guilty of several infractions - using a Taser stun gun on his stepson, drinking on duty, threatening his then father-in-law and shooting a moose without a permit, the Anchorage Daily News reported yesterday."
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselect ...

      • ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -3/+7well, Barackalypse (gee, no bias with THAT name):

        You can go with the telegraph, OR the actual court documents and findings:

        "On March 1, 2006, Wooten was notified of the results of an Alaska State Trooper internal investigation. The probe found that Wooten violated internal policy, but not the law, in making the death threat against Heath (the father of Sarah Palin and Molly McCann). Wooten denied having made the threat, but the investigation decided that he had in fact done so. The trooper investigation concluded that the death threat was not a crime because Wooten did not threaten the father directly; therefore, the investigator deemed the threat to be a violation of trooper policy rather than a violation of criminal law.

        The Alaska State Trooper internal investigation also found that Wooten had violated both Alaska law and Alaska State Trooper policy in shooting a moose: he had been out hunting with McCann and had shot the animal himself even though their permit was in McCann's name only. According to subsequent news reports, McCann had obtained the permit but balked at killing the moose herself, so she handed the gun to her then-husband, who shot the animal.

        Wooten was also found to have violated department policy in using a Taser on his then 10-year old stepson; he told investigators that he did so "in a training capacity" after the child had asked to be tased in order to show his cousin, Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol, that he "wasn't a mama's boy".The investigation initially cleared Wooten on all of the drunk-driving charges, but Grimes subsequently overturned that result and found that Wooten had driven while drunk on one occasion, violating both the law and internal policy. Wooten was also cleared of numerous other allegations made by McCann and her family, including that he had taken illegal steroid and testosterone supplements, that he had physically assaulted McCann, and that he had illegally shot a wolf."
        ____________________________________________________________

        Isn't it funny how different the story is? "Shot a moose" vs. out hunting with his wife, with a tag in her name, and she chickens out and give the gun to him.

        The TASR stuff was just plain stupid, but don't we keep hearing how this in Alaska, where people live by a different credo? That is why it is just fine for a 16 year old to be drinking in numerous pictures, and pregnant at 17, right?

        This whole thing is a big load of crap. Paint the picture, BOTH SIDES, however you want. It is a ***** soap opera...
      • flashback99, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3Darn, those facts, at it again...!
      • ssn697, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Oh surprise, surprise! barackalypse didn't return to say "I stand corrected". I guess that whole "post facts" things was just a subterfuge?
    • FlaG8r, on 09/02/2008, -3/+10If the boy was tasered by the trooper, why didn't the family file a report about it at the time?
      • Barackalypse, on 09/02/2008, -4/+5Fear of retaliation perhaps?
      • voyetra8, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3It was his own son. His kid was allegedely fascinated by the tazer, and wanted to know what it "felt like." His dad (Wooten) taped the leads to the kid, and shocked him. Allegedly, the kid wanted to do it again, but Wooten said no.

        Asinine? You bet.



    • CryRightardCry, on 09/02/2008, -7/+9I hope someday you find some integrity or honor.
      • DreadPirate, on 09/02/2008, -4/+7What would you know about integrity or honor, CRC? You haven't had the balls to correct your mistakes or actually discuss an issue during your entire time on Digg. All you have the "integrity" and "honor" to do leave comments filled with invective, bile, and insults and then run away, never to return to a thread again.
      • nomelitas, on 09/02/2008, -7/+4All DP knows is a closed community that tried and failed to impose upon the openness of Digg. Integrity and honor aren't a part of it.
      • DreadPirate, on 09/02/2008, -1/+6Nomelitas - do you work at being this obtuse, or does it come naturally? I am trying to get CRC to actually stick around and discuss an issue - something exactly opposite the charges you lay on me. I've been a participating member of digg for over two years longer than you, and my posting history will show that when presented with a reasoned response, I will actually discuss an issue. The best you can offer is just more strawman arguments and insults.
      • ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -3/+5Oh *****. Did CRC actually call someone else out over integrity and honor?!?!?!

        Did a new black hole just open up, where all logic goes to die?
      • voyetra8, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1You can read about it in books.

        -McCain
      • DreadPirate, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Oh look - a day later and it seems that nomelitas is the one from the closed community - he can't even handle one direct response to his comment. How unsurprising.
  • rbk303, on 09/02/2008, -11/+26Yeah. Truth is not an American concern.
  • DasTroll, on 09/02/2008, -10/+48DAAAAAMAGE CONTROL!

    "Democrats will be shaking in their boots," Yeah, shaking with laughter.
  • rjn17960, on 09/02/2008, -11/+49"If witnesses don't become available, French says, he'll ask for subpoenas."

    Like Repubs care about subpoenas, or the law for that matter. Caribou Barbie will be conveniently out of the state until after the election.
    • MacEnvy, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4Dugg for "Caribou Barbie". I'm so stealing that.
  • MCMookie, on 09/02/2008, -12/+6"apply the breaks" LOL GRAMMAR FAILURE
    • Rippleeffect, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7I so dislike grammar Nazis that use "LOL".
      • greatbigbrain, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Technically a spelling Nazi, but yes I see your point.
  • bcarl314, on 09/02/2008, -22/+12Interesting, yet another huffingtonpost post. Can we get these things from other news sources too? It's really looking like Faux news on digg now

    On a more "liberal" note, is it technically legal to impeach a vice president before she takes office? Since the election is in Nov and she (assuming she won) would take office in Jan. If she is implicated, indicted, etc, can she be removed in say, Dec of this year? I don't think so.

    Interesting.

    Wait, maybe that's the plan! Pick a loser for VP, then get in office, have her impeached, then pick someone qualified? Or another term for the big DICK?
    • IphtashuFitz, on 09/02/2008, -0/+15To be totally accurate, the huffpost article is just a followup to the ABC News article posted at http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5702697&pag ...
    • ErrorLoading, on 09/02/2008, -0/+11Fox doesn't have a community of people who decide what makes the front page. If Digg is endowed with negative news stories about mccain then that's because that's what the people want.

      Now much room to argue with there.
    • mieprowan, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2This thread dugg partly because of people pointing out that people should link to source articles instead of overusing the Huffington Post, without making juvenile snarky remarks and name-calling the latter. Thank you for your good manners.
  • gtluke, on 09/02/2008, -39/+27huffpo spam, burried as such
    i think thats 5 today
    why don't you diggers just all go there instead of here.
    • OYAHHH, on 09/02/2008, -14/+12HuffingtonPost, I buried it as inaccurate. Pretty much par for the course for me now-a-days.
  • KenSPT, on 09/02/2008, -33/+24So, out of curiosity, at what point is Digg going to become the "Official Content Sharing Site of Barack Obama"?

    I swear to God every day there are atleast 50 negative McCain/Palin posts that make the front page; it's getting ridiculous, or it's already gotten there, not sure yet ...
    • Zedian, on 09/02/2008, -15/+5What Fox News is to Conservative/Republicans that is what Digg is to Liberal/Democrats whose first name is Barack and last name is Obama.
      • ender7074, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5Funny how when I go to Fox News I see very little about McCain and next to nothing about Obama yet the other media outlets have article after article about Obama, mostly positive, and little to nothing about McCain and, what is there, is mainly negative. Jesus get some ***** objectivity.
    • egoherodotus, on 09/02/2008, -7/+25That isn't the fault of the posters here. They can't make up news for something that isn't there. Take your fairness doctrine someplace else. You are welcome to post anything you can find on Obama. It isn't our fault that the GOP has selected a dirty candidate where there will be a lot written about her/him. This isn't a partisan issue.
      • KenSPT, on 09/02/2008, -10/+7It absolutely is the fault of the posters, because when negative news stories are posted about Obama, they're buried by the Obama-maniacs.

        The Digg posters would bury a negative story about Barack faster than they'd Digg a positive one. That's why you never see any of the negative Obama stories, because they're not allowed to exist.
      • egoherodotus, on 09/02/2008, -5/+3Less than brilliant conjecture. Show me an example.
      • KenSPT, on 09/02/2008, -5/+3Yes, let me ignore all the other real life issues that I have going on right now so that I can wade through the Digg archive to find a negative Barack Obama story with 12 Diggs.

        Yesterday afternoon 8 of the Top 10 Digg stories on the front page were negative McCain, Palin, or Republicans in general. If that doesn't scream bias, I don't know what does.
      • autechre78, on 09/02/2008, -3/+8"Yesterday afternoon 8 of the Top 10 Digg stories on the front page were negative McCain, Palin, or Republicans in general."

        That was also on CNN, Larry King Live, MSNBC etc etc etc

        Stop crying.
      • KenSPT, on 09/02/2008, -6/+3Keep drinking the Kool-Aid ...
      • EtherGnat, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5"The Digg posters would bury a negative story about Barack faster than they'd Digg a positive one. That's why you never see any of the negative Obama stories, because they're not allowed to exist."

        People digg what they like and bury what they don't. That's the concept of the site. What's the problem?
      • PolishLogic, on 09/02/2008, -4/+2"They can't make up news for something that isn't there."

        You mean like the "Trigg is Palin's grandson" stories, right?
      • postermmxvicom, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2Hahaha! you kid! Get real, everybody is human. There is dirt on us all. If you think there isn't dirt on Barack, then you are lost.
    • kratsnitram, on 09/02/2008, -6/+18come up with some valid, negative reports on Obama/Biden and your problem is solved. The reason there are so many negative ones for McCain/Palin is obvious. He's a doddering old fool and she's a fraud.
      • KenSPT, on 09/02/2008, -9/+6As I posted in response to egoherodotus, even if I did post a story, it would immediately be buried by the Digg community ...
      • WasabiBomb, on 09/02/2008, -2/+9Then perhaps, KenSPT, maybe you'd be happier on some other, more right-leaning, website.

        Digg's stories are voted up or down by the readers. If the majority of the readers don't want certain types of stories, they get voted down. Whining about it won't change that fact.
      • KenSPT, on 09/02/2008, -7/+2Something tells me, if the roles were reversed, Left-leaning Diggers would feel the same way I do. I also feel their "whining" would be much more pronounced than my own ...
      • WasabiBomb, on 09/02/2008, -2/+8And something tells me, Ken, that I doubt anyone could whine more than you. Seriously, if you don't like it, leave... or do something about it. Whining about it in threads like these just adds to the noise level and makes you look like you've got sour grapes.
      • KenSPT, on 09/02/2008, -8/+3... and you look like a typical, hypocritical, Barack Obama supporter.

        The Democrat's mindset : Here are the rules we want you to play by, but please don't criticize us when we break those same rules for our own gain ...
      • WasabiBomb, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Allow me to repeat myself, Ken. FEEL FREE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Post your own stories. If you have trouble getting people to Digg them, go somewhere else.

        We're not telling you that we don't want you to criticize our "rules". They aren't OUR rules in the first place. Digg is socially integrated- people submit stories, people vote for stories they like, people vote against stories they don't like. Articles that get votes appear on the front page, articles that don't get votes disappear. And, unfortunately for you, Digg is primarily voting for Obama. That's how we get people like you, who complain when things don't go your way.

        Deal with it. We're NOT going to make rules just for you so that you'll feel "represented". If you feel underrepresented, it's your own damn fault. It's not hypocritical- EVERYONE gets to play by the same rules. I'm sorry if you don't think that's fair.

        Your mindset appears to be, "Wahhh, I'm not getting what I want!" Well, tough noogies, kid.
    • roho76, on 09/02/2008, -9/+2They should have some way of filtering stories that you don't want to read on Digg. This website sucks. Until they get that feature I'm gonna keep on bitching about it in every other unrelated story on Digg.

      And once they fix that problem then I'll move on to bitching about something else. Like these kids now days, wearing their pants down low and exposing little bits of their underwear. How dare them.
      • ChristPissed, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3There is a very simple filtering mechanism. Combine your discernment with your mouse and scroll past stories that upset you or you can click the Bury link and the story disappears from your Popular or Upcoming listing. The fact that you clicked this story indicates that you just want to vent.
      • robopuppy, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2Well if you don't like it then you can just GET OUT!
      • roho76, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I understand that. Boooooo.......
        /sarcasm
  • Lythium, on 09/02/2008, -37/+47Ok Digg submitters, listen up:

    There is already one site called Huffington Post. It's not a particularly good site as such things go - it's not even particularly good for a blog. But, if you really, really like it so much, kindly take yourself there; there is absolutely NO reason for the entire content of the aforementioned blog to be moved, wholesale, onto Digg.

    I respect your wish to share the content with a larger base: I'm gloating at McCain's missteps just as much as you are, because the man scares me ***** and is (imo, of course) unfit even to lead a conga line, let alone one of the most powerful nations in the world. At the same time, you would increase your credibility exponentially if you would simply link to the original content, bypassing the biased and frequently unreliable middleman.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 09/02/2008, -8/+16agreed, many of the stories in the past few days that people are posting from Huff, are being reported by AP, CNN, ABC, even Fox News!

      post the links to these stories from some more credible sources and people will take the arguments for what they are.

      legitimate character issues that the public deserves to know about.
      • rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -3/+14Dugg for mentioning Fox News and credible source in the same posting. I love a good joke.
    • mogebier, on 09/02/2008, -14/+8Don't try to reason with Diggers. They are all angry kids who have gotten everything they ever wanted handed to them on a plate, and still live in their parents basement when they are not away at college.
      • hillkiwi, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5While the percentage of those you describe has definitely increased over the last year, I still like to think digg isn't ruined completely. I have to wonder if digg is being 'gamed' some how to get these stories to the front page.

        The users are a problem though - I've seen a lot comments on reddit from former diggers who were sick of "youR gAY" getting 50 diggs.

        If reddit ever gets a real comment system I think we might see a mass migration.
      • brianjlowry, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5ENOUGH! I'm tired of your lies! I live in my parents attic.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/02/2008, -2/+2"Don't try to reason with Diggers. They are all angry kids who have gotten everything they ever wanted handed to them on a plate"

        mogebier is a Digger
        Diggers are all angry kids who have gotten everything they ever wanted handed to them on a plante
        mogebier is an angry kid who has gotten everything he ever wanted handed to him on a plate.
      • flashback99, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3What a ***** cry baby. Say something useful or gtfo.
    • JDoorjam, on 09/02/2008, -8/+15HuffPo has been breaking stories, tying facts together, and boldly stating what AP and other news outlets have only had the stomach to hint at or make passing reference to.

      They're getting dug because so far they've managed to stay out in front of the news cycle, which is what it takes to hit the front page.

      We'll reward others for boldness as well, provided they're willing to be bold.
      • ender7074, on 09/02/2008, -10/+4Riiiiiiiight. Show me the article about the links between William Ayres and Obama making the front page. How about Tony Rezko. No? What about Obama sitting for 20 years listening to racist, anti-American rhetoric yet claiming he never heard it? Wont happen here.
      • JDoorjam, on 09/02/2008, -2/+7I didn't say they were neutral, I said they were bold. I also didn't say Digg was neutral. The original complaint is about not having a variety of sources for Palin stories. Try to keep up.
      • jack104, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1Make sure tin hat doesn't fall down and cover your eyes with that flurry of typing.
      • PolishLogic, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5If breaking stories means commenting on clips from stories already running via major news organizations, then you're correct.
    • CryRightardCry, on 09/02/2008, -10/+18I'm going to just call you a dumbass and get it over with.
      I couldn't care less if you think digg should be something different.
      If you want to submit from other sources, get off your ass and do so.

      But quit whining.
      If people don't like the submissions, they don't get dugg.
      If you want to submit from LGF, go ahead.
      If you want to submit from CNN, go ahead.
      Someone else wants to submit from huffpo, so they go ahead.

      ALL the content on digg is available elsewhere. That's how it works.
      You seem smarter than someone who'd whine about people submitting the stuff they want to see.

      You KNOW it's the rightards diggin up your comment because they hate huffpo, right?
    • FreddieD, on 09/02/2008, -3/+9While I completely agree with you, I also understand the people who digg all of these stories up. We had four years of Bush in office and sent us into a war that at least half of the population thought was iffy by 2004, then we feel the frustration of losing the 2nd election by sending vanilla plain John Kerry at him while the most energetic candidate (Howard Dean) loses his chance at the nomination because he yells "HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYEEEEAAAAHHH" in one of his rallies.

      Seeing Digg as a glorified mirror of Huffington Post is something that is less than awesome, but many many people are so tired of the current ruling regime that they will do whatever is necessary to make sure that doesn't happen again, even if it means hitting below the belt on a few issues.

      Jon Stewart put it best on the Daily Show that aired the night of Obama's acceptance speech (was taped about 4 hours before the speech) when he pleaded with the campaign to start fighting back harder.
    • ZenMojo, on 09/02/2008, -5/+6The HuffPo article links to two separate sources which combined provide a clearer picture. Ergo, posting two separate incomplete articles is an inefficient distribution of information.

      If you don't like it, stop clicking. I grant you permission to complain about HuffPo articles, but only when those articles do not provide anything more efficiently or effectively than something else.
  • DukeMojo, on 09/02/2008, -6/+21I don't see why she doesn't just come out and say she did it. That way they can spin it to where she was just trying to oust an abusive trooper.
    • FlaG8r, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6Because they can't back that claim up. If they had evidence to charge him with something, getting him fired wouldn't be an issue.
    • DukeMojo, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
    • ZenMojo, on 09/02/2008, -0/+12It's not that simple either. She fired someone who wouldn't fire someone because it was against the rules. Then they didn't even just fire the trooper, they paid him severance but the guy who wouldn't break the rules got screwed. Then she hired some dude who went to school with her who turned out to already have a sexual harrassment case against him.
  • Spektr4, on 09/02/2008, -5/+34Slow-motion train wreck. You know what? As fascinating as all this buffoonery is, at the end of the day I'd rather see McCain beat on the issues, not on scandals.
    • Valujet, on 09/02/2008, -2/+17The issue is his ability to make decisions. He has done a spectacular job of making himself appear unfit for leadership. The Palin decision is a preview of the type of leader he will be. Catering to religious fundamentalists, making big decisions without getting the necessary information, and most importantly allowing other people to make his decisions for him. Who will really be president if McCain is in office, John or the right wing political hacks like Rove?

      These are important issues because it goes to character and ability to lead.
    • Lythium, on 09/02/2008, -1/+10As would I, but honestly I'll settle for just seeing him beat. After the last eight years, my standards regarding American politics have really gone into the gutter.
      • FlaG8r, on 09/02/2008, -1/+6Hell yeah, I don't care if he's beaten by random dice roll as long as the Republican Crime Syndicate doesn't get 4 more years in the White House.
    • ZenMojo, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5I just wish people would start voting on the issues once in a while.
    • duckley, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1Hear, hear!

      I used to like McCain (not enough to vote for him), but he's really sold out now.

      I'd MUCH rather that Obama and Biden beat him on Issues and Values.

      (And, I'll bet, so would Obama! )
  • jedicurt, on 09/02/2008, -5/+14"Van Flein said the investigation should be handled by the state Personnel Board, not the Legislature, because it's "statutorily mandated" to handle ethics cases. The three-member Personnel Board is appointed by the governor."

    how dare they try and follow Alaskan Law... this is of course only an attempt to stall. I mean come on... what are you hiding... why not allow the legislature to violate law (so ethically sound) to check a situation on whether you ethically did someone while in office

    • hierophantus, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2That is the procedure once a formal complaint is filed, yes. Has there been a formal complaint filed?

      The Alaska Statute in question: AS 39.52.310(c), under the heading "Complaints:"

      "(c) If a complaint alleges a violation of AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190 [the ALASKA EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS ACT] by the governor, lieutenant governor, or the attorney general, the matter shall be referred to the personnel board. The personnel board shall return a complaint concerning the conduct of the governor or lieutenant governor who is a candidate for election to state office as provided in (j) of this section if the complaint is initiated during a campaign period. The personnel board shall retain independent counsel who shall act in the place of the attorney general under (d) - (i) of this section, AS 39.52.320 - 39.52.350, and 39.52.360(c) and (d). Notwithstanding AS 36.30.015 (d), the personnel board may contract for or hire independent counsel under this subsection without notifying or securing the approval of the Department of Law."

      If you want to read the whole Act, then start reading at Section 39.52.010 of the Alaska Statutes. Here's a free online source for the statutes: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/ ...

  • Phocion55, on 09/02/2008, -31/+6An anti-Palin bashfest frontpage article in OVER 30 minutes from the previous one.

    I'm disappointed....you liberals are starting to slack off.
    • joeanon, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1You mean your scared and want to try to seem confident in a pathetically arrogant and obvious way.

  • chrisgnv, on 09/02/2008, -24/+10Monegan wouldn't fire Wooten who tased a 10-year old boy, shot a moose without a permit, drove his patrol car drunk, and made death threats against her family, so he get's fired. And Digg is appalled? I'm glad he got fired. Even if she abused her power, she did it for good reasons. What could the groupthink defense be on this, that there's not enough evidence against both of them for the firings? But whenever there's a story about a tasering anywhere else unrelated to politics, people are so quick to condemn that cop and their whole department without worrying about the whole "evidence" ordeal. Anything that's convenient, huh....
    • FlaG8r, on 09/02/2008, -2/+10Back up any one of those claims. If Wooten did those things, he could be charged with a crime and wouldn't need to be fired.
      • Barackalypse, on 09/02/2008, -5/+4Backed up, you're wrong, thanks for playing:
        "An internal trooper investigation had found Mr Wooten guilty of several infractions - using a Taser stun gun on his stepson, drinking on duty, threatening his then father-in-law and shooting a moose without a permit, the Anchorage Daily News reported yesterday."
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselect ...
      • FairDinkumMate, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Barackalypse - you really are CRAP!

        You just posted the same thing above, had it refuted by THE ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTS & rather than admit you're wrong, go further down & post the same PROVEN inaccurate information!

        And you & all of your friends have spent the whole time commenting here about not getting a fair go - right-wing stupidity like what you just exhibited is why!
    • JDoorjam, on 09/02/2008, -3/+11"Even if she abused her power, she did it for good reasons."

      We've had enough of that line of reasoning for the past eight years, thanks.
    • EtherGnat, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1@chrisgnv

      Are you suggesting Palin legally used her influence to fire Monegan and ultimately get Wooten fired? If that is the case why is Palin lying about it?

      If, as Palin maintains, the incident had nothing to do with either firing how is your rant relevant?
    • IpecacNeat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2"Even if she abused her power, she did it for good reasons."

      -There are never good reasons to abuse power. You are correct though, group think is wrong, right Chris?
    • dexter411, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1You obviously forgot that people on Digg only decry the inappropriate actions of police officers when it doesn't help them back up their political opinions.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Actually, anyone who is smart enough to use Wikipedia can find proof of Wooten's misdeeds using the footnotes.

      http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/07/25/20/Memo_of_ ...

      The death threats were sustained, illegally shooting a moose was sustained. Tazering a ten year old was sustained.

      Despite several people witnessing Wooten drinking beer and driving his cruiser on several occasions, the board managed to keep from charging him.

      One couple even testified that he drank a beer at their place, and took one with him for the road.
  • clarkd, on 09/02/2008, -2/+29hey all, here is the original story in case you want to give credit where it is due.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5702697&pag ...
    • FlaG8r, on 09/02/2008, -1/+4Honestly it would save a lot of "Hufpo buried" posts if they were submitted from the original source.
  • TheMayor, on 09/02/2008, -22/+10Man, are there any lefties still alive that don't suffer from neurosis?

    Enough with the hate, enough with the huff and kos propaganda, it's a sad reflection on your party and yourselves.
    • Phocion55, on 09/02/2008, -4/+41. Flood Digg with tabloid-like gossip
      2. ?????
      3. Win the election!!
      • chrisgnv, on 09/02/2008, -3/+8Oh yeah because the McCain campaign and supporters NEVER have spread tabloid-like gossip about Obama. Get a clue, both sides are full of *****.
      • Phocion55, on 09/02/2008, -1/+4@chrisgnv - Then you guys are doing an excellent job burying it to hell on Digg.
      • chrisgnv, on 09/02/2008, -2/+3It's not spread on digg. Digg's a liberal-friendly platform and you know it. Think of all the anti-Obama rumors of the past, his pastor, Ayers, him being a Muslim, etc.. those were spread, but not on Digg. Spread none the less. And don't group me with anyone. I supported Palin in this thread if you didn't see.
    • rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1I would venture to say that Huffington and KOS don't speak for me. I would also venture to say that neither the Democratic Party nor any other party speaks for me. While I do think this is a valid issue, as it puts her ethics into question, it's not really much of an interesting one. She acted like a douche-bag by firing a douche-bag for not firing another douche-bag. I thought/think the whole baby-momma story was sick, and so obviously BS, that it pissed me off as much as I'm sure it pissed you off. This is a different issue. If she violated the law she is not fit to hold office of any kind, regardless of what Huff,KOS, or Fox say.
    • JDoorjam, on 09/02/2008, -2/+2It's not "neurosis" or "hate." We simply want answers, and are tired both of cover-ups and abuses of power, and the individuals who are willing to engage in them.

      The vast majority of the criticism leveled at Sarah Palin in the past 100 hours has been legitimate questions about established and disturbing facts that really need to be explained.
      • PolishLogic, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3"The vast majority of the criticism leveled at Sarah Palin in the past 100 hours has been legitimate questions about established and disturbing facts that really need to be explained."

        Yes, like whether or not her daughter was pregnant when she conceived her current child, and what her daughter's boyfriend is 'really' like. Or whether or not she was registered with a political party that records show she was never registered with.

        Compelling.....ugh.
      • IpecacNeat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Polish, it is a shame. This baby story is gaining momentum. I hear people talking about it all over the place. People aren't happy with this. I hear people saying "If Paulin can't even take care of her kids, how is she going to take care of a country?" I also hear criticisms of her beliefs over this. "Obviously abstinence doesn't work, and now she is going to make her daughter marry this guy?" This might be all wrong but it has people talking. People like to gossip. I wish elections were based on politics, but at the same time, McCain should have done research and known this would have been an issue. Right or wrong.
  • rjyanj, on 09/02/2008, -4/+25if this is the most qualified candidate that the republicans could offer .. then our country is in some SERIOUS trouble. wow.
    • rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5The sad thing is she isn't. If McCain wanted a female, why not Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, both from Maine? They are very intelligent and popular and have been in the senate for years. Maybe they were too threatening for McCain. There was also Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas, also popular. Plus there was Joe Leiberman; I hear she's already his BFF. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
    • joeanon, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1well.. cmon now...

      they are Republicans and it's not like tons of qualified people are joining their ranks after Bush.

      I mean...this is the party of Nixon and the great Actor President.. qualification is a far cry from imagine and sellability in the GOP mind. Of course, that's why they win more elections also.

  • 1jaxstate1, on 09/02/2008, -7/+27I'm just waiting for that one porn movie she was in when she was "at a crazy time" in her life to pop up.
    • rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -2/+3http://www.usmagazine.com/news/sarah-palin-was-run ...

      Isn't it enough for you that she had to be the second-prettiest girl in Alaska. Now you want to ruin any future chance the winner could be stripped of her crown and granted to Gov Palin by finding some porn video. You sir, are just rude.

      Plus, it's way too cold in Alaska to not be having sex all the time, except that you have to do it in full snow suits, thereby making any porn completely unwatchable.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1Dude, I would totally watch snow suit porn. Brazilian fart fetish porn just isn't doing it for me anymore.
  • elTito, on 09/02/2008, -14/+9So it is an 'abuse of power' to fire a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the executive?

    Hmm.
    • JDoorjam, on 09/02/2008, -1/+11Whether the act was legal is a different question than whether the act was ethical. I want answers to both.
      • ender7074, on 09/02/2008, -8/+4Hmmmm legal and ethical? Was it legal and ethical for Obama to get his house at 300k under market value because of the influence of a corrupt developer? Hmmmm. Was it ethical for Obama to funnel 14 million dollars to said criminal to provide public housing which has been deemed uninhabitable? Hmmmm ethics and legality? Better check your own candidate first.
      • JDoorjam, on 09/02/2008, -2/+7Ender7074, you must have wandered into the wrong thread. We're discussing Sarah Palin here. But if you have some worthwhile thoughts on the ethics and legality of Troopergate, please do share them with us.
      • postermmxvicom, on 09/02/2008, -2/+1JDoorjam, I hope that was sarcasm....as there are no threads on digg to discuss anything negative about Barack (or good about McCain/Palin).

        But, if you're serious, thanks for having an open mind and all :)
    • ZenMojo, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5She doesn't have the power to fire the guy. She fired the guy with the power to fire the guy. THAT's the scandal.
      • elTito, on 09/02/2008, -3/+3No, it's not a scandal. It was a position that the Governor could fire or not fire for whatever reason she saw fit. For NO reason if she so desired. For his shoes being a color she didn't like or his ears being too big. He was not an employee, he was an appointee.
    • joeanon, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, it's an abuse of power to fire someone for pleasure.

      You have to have a reason, just like any corporation or boss. You cannot fire someone just because you don't like them.

      Your complaint must be work related. They must have failed somehow in their job performance.

      You can't just come in and fire all the fat people in the office and say.. oh well I don't like the smell of fat people.

      Just like you can't fire all the blacks and say it's just a more civil work environment without them.

      You can't fire people for personal, racial or other non work related experience.

      Are you really such a brainwashed Fascist that you don't know these are the basic requirements of freedom.

      If employers only had to hire people they liked for personal reasons, how could this be the land of opportunity ?

      You can't ask a person political or religious questions as part of a job application nor can you fire them for such reasons. It does happen all the time, and usually the employee has more important things to do than to sue the boss, such as finding a job because like most people they live pay check to pay check.

      But this isn't Walmart we are talking about. This is a public servant and a governor at that.

      So... perhaps you need to go to college or re-take your civics test. Employers of all types are required to meet equal opportunity laws and fire only on work related issues. In some cases personal events do affect a persons work and are reasons for dismissal, but most of the time what a person does and believes on their own time can never be a reason to fire them.

      Wow... I'm astonished people would believe we live in some Fascist society where your boss can fire you without cause simply because they are in control and you're a peon in their hierarchy.

      I mean cmon.. she is a governor for 20 months.. not the Queen of Alaska. Though, based on her desire to succeed perhaps that was one of her dreams.

      Same goes with the attorney's fired by the Bush administration. I guess you don't read the news.. but NO you can't fire people for political reasons .. it's illegal to do so just as it's illegal to fire them for any non work related reasons.

      Imagine the pressure you'd live under if your boss could fire you at any time for any reason. Like... I had a bad day.... I'll just fire someone for fun.

      OK but they might sue you for illegally dismissing them or prejudice. I really think we need to the world prejudism to be official.

      It's used enough and prejudice just doesn't sound very good it sounds like one occasional of 'prejudism' .

      That one time in band camp I expressed my prejudice.

      Or I was stricken with prejudice.

      It would just sound much better to say.. I was stricken with prejudism.

      Yet the idiots who think language is moderated and regulated by Webster will attack people for creatively using new words.

      Just to think, the people who made the written language popular had no conformity of spelling and grammar .. yet all human language is built from those roots.

      Now days.. you're an idiot if you use a less than common word... Unless the word is normalcy in which case you're Presidential material.

      What sounds better.

      Prejudice is sweeping the nation. or

      Prejudism is sweeping the nation.

      I vote for Prejudism !!

      It definitely sounds better and more official in that context of a mass event. The overwhelming prejudism of the times

      the overwhelming prejudice of the times.

      Yup still sounds better as prejudism. Prejudice sounds more like a verb like people acting in 'perjudistical' ways, but it should sound like a noun, like a condition.

      The ISM makes it sound like a condition like Fascism or communism.

      See the facts are in..ISM is a more fitting ending for 'prejudice', which is really some bastard child of a word like cacti or mice.

      The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement, institution, class or group

      Does that ^^ not perfectly define why it should be Prejudism and not prejudice.

      Would you want to say you have a cult that follows a doctrine of prejudice... or

      A cult that follows a doctrine of prejudism.

      Yet the word police of the internet are foaming at the mouth to hear such non webster approved language.





  • cadmiumpaint, on 09/02/2008, -3/+27The McCain campaign is wasting money and resources spinning his VP pick. All the attention is on her, instead of him and the issues. This cannot help his campaign in any way.
    • glucoseboy, on 09/02/2008, -2/+12"... All the attention is on her, instead of him and the issues. This cannot help his campaign in any way..."

      LOL: of course it helps his campaign, for precisely those reasons!
  • Intercon, on 09/02/2008, -5/+29Obstruction of Justice is a real crime. I would urge the McCain campaign to be extremely careful with this type of political maneuver. The lawyer in this case is arguing that the Governor should be investigated by a team appointed by herself. A normal person would call that idea preposterous at best; corrupt might be a better word. As for the idea that she's too busy to answer questions in an interview with the investigation committee: she's going to look very stupid when she's served a subpoena on national televsion.

    This is a disaster of growing proportions. I question the intelligence and foresight of McCain's political team.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 09/02/2008, -1/+6the GOP calls obstruction of justice "business as usual"
      • postermmxvicom, on 09/02/2008, -5/+1HAHAHA yeah...WOW...How about Bill Clinton's obstruction of justice! This is all you got? You lose. HAHAHAHA. Better luck next election.
      • cadmiumpaint, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5actually ***** that isn't all that i've got. if you want to talk obstruction of justice we could go through the whole GW Bush tenure, Karl Rove, Dick Chenney and the like. It might takes us a few years if you want to go line by line.

        You seem like the kind of idiot who'd waste your time defending Bush, so go in a corner and argue with yourself.

        and btw, the best you've got is a decade old issue. you're the one who fails miserabaly.
    • postermmxvicom, on 09/02/2008, -6/+1Perhaps they should learn from Bill Clinton and the Dem's on how to deal with obstruction of justice.
  • web2pointYo, on 09/02/2008, -3/+21Babby Daddy!, TrooperGate!, FakeBabby Maybe! Fringe Secede Party!
    My head gonna' esplode!
    • PolishLogic, on 09/02/2008, -5/+2It's amazing the type of ***** that hatred makes one dream up, isn't it?
    • turkoftheplains, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1There's a tiny, evil part of me that wants to vote Republican to keep the goose that lays the golden eggs.
  • freedomjoe, on 09/02/2008, -4/+29When they're done with Troopergate, Email-gate, and Library bookban-gate, they need to check this out:

    “Governor Sarah Palin is sending 500 million tax dollars to foreign-owned TransCanada, the same company that spent the past year siccing lawyers on South Dakota landowners to seize their land through eminent domain.”
    The same blog quotes Palin:
    “After dreaming of a natural gas pipeline for more than 30 years, Alaskans have now created the framework for the project to advance,” Governor Palin said. “This legislation brings us closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.”

    This is yet another Palin lie, since, according to Reuters, the natural gas on the North Slope is actively being drilled by several companies who have already started work on their own natural gas pipeline, meaning that Palin paid TransCanada half a billion dollars of Alaska state money for what---?
    I am guessing she paid them to advance her career. She looked at Hillary Clinton and decided she wanted to be like her---only she did not want to do the work necessary to get there, when she could just buy her way to the top with someone else's money.

    NOW it all makes sense, no? Now you can see the theoretically hand-cuffed Karl Rove behind this most dangerous pick.
    • 471776, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4Sources?
      • VCubed, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1http://madvilletimes.blogspot.com/2008/08/palin-in ...
        http://madvilletimes.blogspot.com/2008/05/judge-ok ...
        Excerpt from the latter:
        We see here a continuation of the dangerous precedent set in Kelo v. New London (2005) , in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that local governments can use eminent domain for economic development purposes. Judge Von Wald's decision appears to uphold the idea that if someone can make money off your land, you're S.O.L. if you want to keep your land to yourself. Your property rights end where Big Oil's -- Big Foreign Oil's -- desire for profit begins.

        Trials to determine the value of the easements begin June 9. My condolences to Marshall County and other landowners along the coming petrochemical superhighway through our farms and wetlands.
    • ender7074, on 09/02/2008, -12/+2Yet its ok when Obama "sics" his personal lawyer on a citizen that dares to ask questions that he has yet to answer? Once again, its ok when Obama does it.
  • lndmn01, on 09/02/2008, -18/+7Stop with he lies from the Huffington Post. The private attorney was hired a week before McCain selected Palin for the vice presidency. This was not done in order to delay the case. Isn't there enough to talk about here without the blatantly false stories?
    While we're on the subject...
    Palin was not a member of the separatist party.
    Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time."

    AND

    Palin was vetted

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/02/Rove_Palin_ ...

    • IpecacNeat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Hey, I'm assuming you are a McCain supporter, if you are not, I apologize.

      Anyways, now you know how it feels. You now know how it feels to have a bunch of lies surrounding your candidate, while having evidence to refute it. You are probably right with your talk, but I'm going to send an e-mail to everyone in my address book with all her "scandals" anyways. I'm also going to try and paint her as un-American.
  • Br3ach, on 09/02/2008, -19/+4Buried for clogging up Digg with a bunch of single source garbage. Believe it or not there are other news sources out there besides Huffpo
    • dbs1221, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1You complain about huffpo pieces yet have only submitted 2 articles, if you want to see more variety do your part and submit articles otherwise stfu and stop complaining
  • cottonslurpy, on 09/02/2008, -4/+12Why wouldn't you clear your name to reinforce the support you are trying to get, instead of trying to take office under a cloud of controversy and scandal, to which later you could ultimately be found guilty and piss off everyone who thought they were supporting the right person.

    Another attempt at trying to win an election, rather than thinking about what's good for the people.
  • FLUX, on 09/02/2008, -20/+5Your lib full court press only shows just how scared you are of her as the choice for VP, If she was such a bad choice there would not be a peep out of you because you would know she has just ruined the chance of winning, but your lib leftwingers screaming and lying and propagandizing speaks volumes that McCain has made a brilliant choice and is just one more death nail in your left wing socialist radical pick for president.

    Oh and didnt this ignorant propaganda site get the news Obama said stop but then huff is a total ignorant liberal elitist
    • lonesomewolf, on 09/02/2008, -2/+3Naaa. It's just the smell of a lot Republican blood in water. Gets everyone going and energized.
    • dbs1221, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3There were alot of pieces on Rudy Giulliani and how corrupt and full of ***** he is/was a year ago, does that mean he was also a really good candidate, last I checked he didn't contend in a single primary or caucus.

      Assume bashing candidate =candidate is a good choice who is going to win or seriously contend
      Rudy G. was bashed
      Rudy G. didn't come close to winning a single race
      Bashing candidate /= candidate is a good choice
      Q.E.D
      • FLUX, on 09/02/2008, -3/+2Rudy did not have 11 articles on the front page at one time on the Sunday after he announced. This was a concerted effort by the DNC to try to black ball her because your all scared to death what she means to the independent middle Americans that cling to their religion and guns and know that obama if a socialist left wing radical
    • hierophantus, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Hmm. By your logic, your screaming about how this means "libs" are scared means that you're scared that they're not scared.

      Yeah, it sounds just as stupid coming from you.
      • FLUX, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1you make no sense at all
        circular lib logic never makes to any but them selves
  • Zedian, on 09/02/2008, -11/+4Your missing the point here, this isn't about who has more residue to wipe from their proverbial credibility windshield as much as this is Digg users (Majority I am speaking here) automatically burying users who say the least bit of something positive about McCain.

    I mean these McCain is an "old, senile fool with a inexperienced MILF VP" is about as old as Obama = Peace, Google and iphone stories.
  • freedomjoe, on 09/02/2008, -8/+16When they're done with Troopergate, Email-gate, and Library bookban-gate, they need to check this out:

    “Governor Sarah Palin is sending 500 million tax dollars to foreign-owned TransCanada, the same company that spent the past year siccing lawyers on South Dakota landowners to seize their land through eminent domain.”
    The same blog quotes Palin:
    “After dreaming of a natural gas pipeline for more than 30 years, Alaskans have now created the framework for the project to advance,” Governor Palin said. “This legislation brings us closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.”

    This is yet another Palin lie, since, according to Reuters, the natural gas on the North Slope is actively being drilled by several companies who have already started work on their own natural gas pipeline, meaning that Palin paid TransCanada half a billion dollars of Alaska state money for what---?
    I am guessing she paid them to advance her career. She looked at Hillary Clinton and decided she wanted to be like her---only she did not want to do the work necessary to get there, when she could just buy her way to the top with someone else's money.

    NOW it all makes sense, no? Now you can see the theoretically hand-cuffed Karl Rove behind this most dangerous pick.
    • jack104, on 09/02/2008, -1/+0Way to scratch the surface of the ice, chief.
    • PolishLogic, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3"according to Reuters, the natural gas on the North Slope is actively being drilled by several companies who have already started work on their own natural gas pipeline, meaning that Palin paid TransCanada half a billion dollars of Alaska state money for what---?"

      How can they be building another pipeline if the TransCanada deal "would ensure that the state would not negotiate with any other developer", and the Denali pipeline is still seeking approval to go forward?

      Well, according to Reuters, anyhow: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssOilGasRefiningM ...

  • cwright213, on 09/02/2008, -5/+16Isn't this abuse of power?The exact same thing Palin is in trouble for? Isn't interfering with an investigation a crime?
  • Ricemanstm, on 09/02/2008, -18/+5Uh huh, more crap from the Huffington-compost. Ooo...ooo...scandal scandal scandal!!!!
    "It's likely to be damaging to the Governor," said Senator Hollis French, a Democrat.

    Oh yeah, no motive there. What "stall" tactics exactly are being used by the McCain campaign? Hmmmm...heavy on accusations but light on the details. Typical compost scribbling. Pithy...very pithy.
  • freedomjoe, on 09/02/2008, -19/+10all you huff-po liberal attacking whiners need to get a grip. Sorry, but Huff-po is nothing like Faux News. Faux news had been proven to have the LEAST informed viewers of ALL TV shows, less informed than views of Colbert, for gods' sake. What you people who call anyone "liberal" who seeks the truth don't understand is It is American to act on the constitution. A free press is an ESSENTIAL part of any healthy democracy. For years, the press has been silenced and they admit it. They've been dishing out WH talking points and lobbying the Republicans to add another station to their conglom. The media has been selling us propaganda for years. If it weren't for places like Huffpo, certain REAL news items would never come to the light. You liberal bashers need to stop whining just because you don't like it when the light shines on your corrupt candidates. BTW, Jesus was a liberal. Smile on and spread the love. Jesus also didn't LIE. Something to think about.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 09/02/2008, -17/+7If this is true then bring out the dogs.

    That said this apoplectic response to McCain's pick is showing the cracks in the Democratic Party's facade all over again.

    Obama just came out and tired to compare running his CAMPAIGN with Paling's running of the state of Alaska.

    Just let that sink in a bit.

    Obama has no accomplishments other then acquiring positions (never authored a bill as a Senator, never wrote an article as a Law Review Editor, has never "reached across the aisle to get a bill passed successfully) and he is now in the position of trying to attack Palin for....wait for it....LACK OF EXPERIENCE!

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
  • enotswhat, on 09/02/2008, -12/+4there needs to be a palin and huffo post drinking game
  • cwright213, on 09/02/2008, -1/+14THE OCTOBER SURPRISE COULD BE THE IMPEACHMENT OF SARA PALIN!
    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5702697&pag ...
  • diggdatt, on 09/02/2008, -2/+14Impeach Bush/Palin in 2009!
  • Barackalypse, on 09/02/2008, -15/+5"An internal trooper investigation had found Mr Wooten guilty of several infractions - using a Taser stun gun on his stepson, drinking on duty, threatening his then father-in-law and shooting a moose without a permit, the Anchorage Daily News reported yesterday."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselect ...

    We're mad she allegedly intervened to get this man fired? Drinking on duty isn't cool for law enforcement, nor is threatening people.
    • IpecacNeat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1You keep posting this, but someone has refuted that article with the ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTS above you.
  • mdman, on 09/02/2008, -16/+4Burried, more crapington post spam
  • AlaskaLoneWolf, on 09/02/2008, -19/+4Actually, she's been cleaning house with the all of these "good 'ol boys" in the Department of Public Safety who weren't doing their job. When called to the carpet, of course they're gonna' counter-attack. But, it's as meaningless as it is futile. She's Alaska tough. By definition, a hometown All-American girl. A lot of you probably have NO idea what that means. Palin has went up against the oil companies and forced them to play fair... Palin doesn't make promises she can't deliver. For a rookie politician, she's pissed off a lot of powerful people because she doesn't stand for their crap. In our history, there has been a lot of people who "abuse" their power to GET IT DONE:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

    And another thing... What would you have had President Bush do, jus' sit back like Clinton did for two terms in office until we get attacked, again? I'm not saying the way he carried out the 'plan' was a masterful piece of diplomacy, or Sun Tzu 'Art of War', but then again, he didn't hide under the bed, (or in the case of Bill Clinton, under someone else's bed) until he wasn't President anymore...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky
    • hierophantus, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2What's this? Monica Lewinksy, you say? I simply must read up on this in order to understand your reference to "someone else's bed." Thank heavens you included a link to wikipedia! You sure saved me some time, friend!
    • IpecacNeat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2No Clinton was busy reducing the deficit and unemployment. Also, 9/11 happened under George Bush remember?

      It is also never ok to abuse your power.
    • MadKennyP, on 09/03/2008, -0/+19/11 happened while your hero, George W. Bush, was reading a children's book.
  • centryfox, on 09/02/2008, -15/+2huffingtonpost.com


    I swear huffingtonpost.com has got to be the punchline to a great joke. "A mexican, a duck and a rabi walk into a bar... " fill in some rhetoric -- then say "... and then the rabi says, 'The huffingtonpost!!'"


    burried for being total crap.
  • gweller, on 09/02/2008, -18/+2It's hilarious seeing how much time the libtards with no jobs spend digging stories about Palin.
  • krait, on 09/02/2008, -4/+2Hmm, should we screw ourselves now and tell the truth or should we say nothing, let everyone think what they want, and watch the polls drop?
    • AmazingSteve, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1You forgot, "'cuz either way we are *****..."
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.