All of you OM should enjoy this one...

Sara - posted on 07/22/2009 ( 15 moms have responded )

9,313

50

584

From the local conservative paper...



Palin implicated in ethics probe



Updated: July 21, 2009 04:33 PM EDT



Anchorage, Alaska - An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by accepting private donations to pay her legal debts.



The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.



An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund.



The fund aims to help Palin pay off debts stemming from multiple ethics complaints against her, most of which have been dismissed. Palin says she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees.



A call seeking comment from her lawyer was not immediately returned.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

15 Comments

View replies by

Jenny - posted on 08/11/2009

4,426

16

126

That's what I'm talking about, Direct Democracy. It is already in place in many areas of the world and is carried out with technology. Why can't a vote be tied to a SIN card and registered online or by telephone? Or register through taxes with an assigned ID (birth certificate Id, citizenship ID etc.) and password of your choosing?



First point of Direct Democracy, human rights are not up for debate. That's all I have to say about that lol. What I do with/to/near my body is not up for a vote. So long as noone else is harmed it's all good.



Everything else it works for. Where do we put the bridge? How much taxes should be paid at what income level? Should we adopt another national language? Should we go to Mars? Etc. The major point of direct democracy though is the people are the ones who ask the questions. The people make the issues, discuss the issues, the top 5, 10, 15 or whatever are listed and voted on. The "politicians" are there to carry out the will of the people and nothing more. No editorial revisions. They dot the I's, cross the T's, file the law and call it a day as it should be. Politicians should not be marketing policy and law to the masses. The masses tell the representatives what needs to be done! We live in an era that has moved beyond political parties and into an age of technology and information. This system would a create a population that wasn't so apethetic. People would feel the direct results of their votes and be more likely to do the research to become informed on the issues. Time to put it the citizens to work for some real progress!

JL - posted on 08/11/2009

3,635

48

105

Yes if every vote counted in a national election the majority would win because then we would be basing the count on the popular vote but at the same time if you erased the regional and state divisions during the presidential election process you would allow for more party candidates to take part in a viable way. Now I am talking about in national elections when it comes to voting for the president because that is position that represents America not states or districts or regions. When it comes to other political positions and laws then the voting process has to remain as it is because now we are voting on things that deal with certain areas. I like the idea of voting on laws too but I think the ballots should be separate therefore making them less confusing for some people. I think national elections for president, Congress and Senate could stay on the same ballot but voting on local representatives, state representatives, county representatives, and state and local laws should be on separate ballots. And when it comes to laws voted on by the majority that override the rights of the minority that is why we have a third branch..the supreme court to step in and provide opinions that protect the rights of the minority which then guide the congress and senate to propose and pass laws that uphold rights not prevent rights. We have a unique system but the electoral college IMO is outdated and needs to be taken out. This would fix the voting problems we have been seeing during the last few national elections because the reality is that the electoral college process is not mandated to deal with the upswing in voter turnout thas has been increasing. Plus all that happens is that we have politicians running for president spending all their time in particular swing states and regions talking in terms of regional expectations when we should be spoken to as a nation since the person in the exectutive office will need to represent the nation. Now when it comes to congressional representatives then things are different because these people are voted on to represent the interests of certain areas. Every vote counts does not neccessarily mean the majority wins in every aspect...yes the majority wins in voting for reps but it does not mean the majority wins in dictating civil rights laws.

Jeannette - posted on 08/10/2009

911

3

78

Jennifer....the idea of voting for every law to be passed is a genuinely good one to me. I am certain there are obsolete, repetitive, and flat out absurd laws on our books now. We have so many damn laws they are beyond difficult to enforce. I would love to see the process slow down in that respect. What you were referencing regarding California was civil rights, and that is different. I loved it when congress shut down...I wish they would have stayed that way a bit longer. *sigh*

Joy, if every vote is counted, majority wins.

You made an excellent statement, and it has been my point in many of my discussions..."so what I have seen is too many people become complacent and wonder what is the point." If Americans would rather be entertained than educated, talked at rather than represented, then who can blame the politicians? It is our own fault our country is where it stands, yet we are looking for the very people we've mostly ignored to bail us out with any and every govt. program that can be had. When does personal responsibility ever come into play? When do adults hold themselves accountable for their lack of interest, because 'politics are so boring' and 'my vote doesnt matter anyway'? Like a little cheese with that whine America?

JL - posted on 08/10/2009

3,635

48

105

I know in the South some minorities also feel like they are not being heard because statisticallly the majority vote Democrat but in national elections Republicans also win so they feel like what is the point which is why the election of Obama was so inspiring for many minorities when he started winning moderate states they really thought that this was an election where they could really have a vote that counted. The minority turnout where I lived was tremendous. People were actually more politically active and took the time to read about the local and state bills that were on the ballots because of their excitment of having a vote that could possibly turn the state blue. I usually canvas during every election for the Democratic party and this time around I had far more first time voters that covered every age range that wanted to hear about all the represetatives and bills on the ballot not just about who was running for president.

Jennifer - posted on 08/10/2009

145

11

15

For much of my life, I lived in a very red state (TX), and I always felt like my vote was just a protest vote, no matter what election it was. National representative cadidates - that's an interesting idea. I wonder how it would play out. I know that some rural areas already feel like they are not getting heard because their votes are outweighed by urban areas. I wonder if there would be away to balance those sentiments with getting more people involved in the democractic process.

JL - posted on 08/10/2009

3,635

48

105

I am in no way in favor of a pure Democracy..we do not live in a pure democracy we live in a Republic where the majority is prevented from usurping the rights of the minority...though this is not always true such in the case of gay marriage, but I do favor a full participatory democracy meaning I would like things such as the electoral college dropped because every vote should be counted not weighed accordingly by a voted electoral representative and I think we should not be voting based on regions and states but based as a nation when it comes to national elections. We are a far more mobile society so voting in a national election based on region is absurd to me. I am a former military brat now military wife and I have lived in some places like Oklahoma, Alabama, and Georgia where I have felt like I was voting on national representatives to just go through the motions and exercise the right but I felt like it did not mean much because these states are predominately and historically conservative and go red....so what I have seen is too many people become complacent and wonder what is the point.

Jennifer - posted on 08/09/2009

145

11

15

This is totally off topic now, but... here are my 2 cents.

I'm not sure that a pure democracy would be a good idea. Yes, our representatives have lots of motivation to pander to us. But, just imagine what it would be like if every law that we wanted to pass had to wait for a general election! It would be more like California with all their propositions. Recently, they had a general election on Proposition 8, which banned marriage between gays and lesbians. We might say, "ok, the majority spoke, and now it's banned." However, the propaganda put out by the pro-ban side was incredibly confusing and misleading. They were spinning things so hard; it was crazy. They were basically lying, like vote yes for freedom of religion, vote yes for freedom of speech. I spoke to more than 1 person who told me they thought a yes vote for anti-ban, and a no vote was pro-banning. (exact opposite was true) That was just the 1 proposition that got the most attention and press time. That doesn't even address the ~10 other propositions on the ballots. With our busy lives, how is anyone in an election booth going to make an informed decision about everything put in front of them?

Jeannette - posted on 08/09/2009

911

3

78

hmmmm....I read and replied to another post of yours Joy, in another topic, before getting to read this one.

This one is like a day at the spa compared to the other one! : )

I am glad you haven't been completely bought and sold by either of our two parties!

I would just like to say...Obama is president Palin is past tense. Is this agrumentative? I hope not! : )

I LOVE your proposal of being a true democracy! That is the most noble way to be!

JL - posted on 08/09/2009

3,635

48

105

Honestly I may be a registered Democrat but I would rather do away with political parties and actually have a full participatory democracy. Both sides are corrupt and I am in no way glimmered by Obama..he is just a man and he is a politican. I am not delusional I have a degree in political science and have worked for polticians I know politicians promise many things when they run for office that I know they cannot get done and that once if office they may change their mind once they realize the details of what is going on. It is easy to stand on the outside and say I will do this and that but it is different once you are there..plus we have to remember there is another branch called Congress which weilds most of the power and it is made up of many people with their own ideas that differ from the presidents even if they belong to the same political party. The difference between Obama and Palin is that one has an intellectual understanding of politics and history at the federal and international level and the other likes to give speeches that make no sense and use inciteful rhetoric that divides us based on ideology.

Jeannette - posted on 08/09/2009

911

3

78

Since Obama is president and Palin isn't...he said during his campaign that he would like to get Americans working again by cutting off the benefits corporations are receiving by manufacturing their products overseas and shipping them over here with low/no import taxes. He wanted to repeal NAFTA and GATT (both put in place during Clinton's presidency) so those corporations would not have the benefit of low import taxes, but higher import taxes. He wanted to encourage American companies to employ Americans. (Clinton did a very Republican thing, which is why it got passed with is Republican house and senate---bad boy! bad house! bad senate!) The day after the election, the morning after actually, Mr. Obama said to reporters - maybe I was being too hasty in my desire to repeal NAFTA and GATT...he was on his way out of the hotel he spent the night in when he said it. Pay attention people....they say what you want to hear, what appeals to the masses; to get the power they crave. Bush tried to sell his Patriot Act as necessary to protect us from our enemy he got that infringement of our right to privacy and free speech passed with his Democratic house and Democratic senate. Pay attention! Both parties are capable of harm...which is why we need more than just two parties to choose from! We need one that holds itself to a standard higher than the other two, and is unwilling to compromise its integrity in the hopes of grandiose applause at their speeches.

Jeannette - posted on 08/09/2009

911

3

78

Oh, I am soooo glad someone brought up ethics! Are we keeping ALL of our politcos in check, or just the ones the media are alerting us about? Obama campaigned on hope and change, it became his mantra...and he changed the game. He raised more money than any other politician in history...and no one knows where all of his contributions came from and whether or not they are legal because you donated through a website that didn't bother to check who the donations were coming from. I am not saying one politico is better/more honest than the other. I am saying that ALL politicans will say or do anything to get your vote. Please don't let yourselves be duped by ANY of them. Check their records...Palin lied about all the she accomplished in Alaska (as if the people of AL were going to keep quiet about it) Obama lied about cosponsoring bills he never even had a part in (during the debates). They all lie people...one is no more holier than the other.

Kerrie - posted on 08/09/2009

34

14

4

All I can say is, thank God she isn't our VP and I PRAY people will realize what a complete catastrophe it would be to see her in the White House in 2012!

JL - posted on 07/22/2009

3,635

48

105

I love that she has continuely ranted about how all these ethic complaints have been found to be false..umm didn't she have to pay the state back around $9000 due to one of the ethics complaints that cited her abusing governments expenses by flying her children around to events they did need to be at or should not have been at.

ME - posted on 07/22/2009

2,978

18

190

As I said to the PDM's...anything that (is true and) keeps her out of the 2012 election is just fine by me. I am not surprised...she obviously believes she is entitled to hold whatever office she chooses, qualified or not! Why should we be surprised if she thinks she's entitled to have her legal bills paid by illegal means? She would be a total joke if she weren't such a threat to rational thought, science, the informed citizenry, women's rights, education...need I go on!?!?!?!

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms