FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

sink

brianthebard wrote: »

Well on that note; Does anyone feel its beyond justification that she made rape victims pay $1200 for their own rape kits while she was mayor?

I find that hard to believe, source?

Overheal

whats in a rape kit? Rope Duct Tape and Condoms?

sink

Overheal wrote: »

whats in a rape kit? Rope Duct Tape and Condoms?

lol

bobbyjoe

Its a kit used to take samples from rape victims to get evidence. Palin allegedly makes the victim pay for this.

Vid about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nmk6BSUwEA

Overheal

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Its a kit used to take samples from rape victims to get evidence. Palin allegedly makes the victim pay for this.

Vid about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nmk6BSUwEA

"Under what reasoning"

Tests are expensive and false accusations are rampant.

Its still bull****. I dont know how you could charge a victim like that.

brianthebard

sink wrote: »

I find that hard to believe, source?

Ask and you shall receive (sources);

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-81914

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palins-wasilla-to-rape-vi_b_125047.html

http://www.wbaltv.com/print/17456860/detail.html#

From the last link.

Then-Gov. Tony Knowles said Thursday that Wasilla was unique in the state in charging rape victims for the cost of doing the law enforcement necessary for solving the crime.

When Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

Palin had been in office for four years when the practice of charging rape victims got the attention of state lawmakers in 2000, who passed a bill to stop the practice.

Also I heard something about Biden sponsoring a bill to prevent this sort of thing altogether, and McCain voted against it. However I haven't done the research on that one yet, so will post later if its corroborated.


Edit: another link
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

bobbyjoe

Overheal wrote: »

"Under what reasoning"

Tests are expensive and false accusations are rampant.

Its still bull****. I dont know how you could charge a victim like that.

Someone should ask her. Or would that be sexist?
Seems McCain was for victims paying as well. Plus if someone got pregnant from rape Palin would want to force them to have the baby.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

For some views on the Community Reinvestment Act and its part in the Subprime crisis:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

and:http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0

Basically these argue there was too much Govt. interference and regulation.

http://www.newamerica.net/blog/asset-building/2008/no-larry-cra-didn-t-cause-sub-prime-mess-3210

and: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis

However these suggest it wasn't the CRA loans, it was the larger unregulated Subprime sector.

Nothing new there really, one side blames too much regulation, the other too little!

brianthebard

The article

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/mccain-voted-against-biden-law.html

The senate votes, as the article outlines;

1994 vote

2007 vote

final passage I guess he really didn't want rape victims getting free kits.

Another article on Palin and the rape kits.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014669.php

Just to review; the Alaskan gov had to pass a law to stop this just for Wasilla, where Palin had been mayor for four years and done nothing to stop this practice. More than that, she hired the police chief who was in favour of sparing the taxpayers any extra costs like rape kits. Oh and McCain didn't/doesn't believe that rape victims should get free kits. This bill was originally floated in 1994, a period when even those who dislike McCain generally believe that he was more principled and a nicer republican than most, before he ran for president and lost his conscious. Well it appears it was never there in the first place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

I think it was cause you called me a troll, rather than any political motivation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

You won't be commenting here anymore because you believe that you shouldn't have to obey the rules, and as such - for persistent rule-breaking - I've removed your access.

Black Swan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What has Sarah Palin offered in terms of economic policy intended to mitigate the impacts of the burst housing bubble in the US? Anything specific? Links? Or is she out to lunch too?

Since this is a thread about Sarah Palin and not Bush or Clinton or others, can anyone answer the above question?

Lirange

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Or is she out to lunch too?

There it is. Mooseburgers natch.

jarom676

Im a latter-day Saint (Mormon) and im Irish. im proud of being both. i think the whole American election is a left vs right battle. In my opinion Mitt Romney would have made the best President out of the lot of them, its a pity that anti-Mormon bias won out in the republican camp and that dim wit McCain got the nod. Having said that if i was in America i would still vote for him over Obama any day. The once great Democratic party has been taken over the the left and is full of loonies who would destroy America. McCain is far more experienced than Obama and i hope he wins but i think maybe the republicans shot themselvs in the foot by not choosing Romney, he would be invaluable as president in these difficult times.

lostexpectation

the american left is rightwing

Black Swan

jarom676 wrote: »

The once great Democratic party has been taken over the the left and is full of loonies who would destroy America.

A sweeping generalisation? There are quite a bit more US citizens registered as Democratic party voters than registered Republicans.

"In 2004, it was the largest political party, with 72 million voters (42.6% of 169 million registered) claiming affiliation. An August 2008 estimate is that 51% of registered voters, including independents, lean toward the Democratic Party and 38% lean toward the Republican Party."

Given this, if they have been "taken over" by the left, then why don't the Democrats sweep all the US elections, including this presidential by simply voting Democratic? Could it be that the Democratic party has not been "taken over" by any particular interest group, and that in fact they historically evidence a great deal of diversity of interests, from liberal to conservative, sometimes fighting among themselves, or crossing over and voting Republican or third party, or staying at home and not voting, so much that they lose many state and national elections?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

FatherTed

jarom676 wrote: »

Im a latter-day Saint (Mormon) and im Irish. im proud of being both. i think the whole American election is a left vs right battle. In my opinion Mitt Romney would have made the best President out of the lot of them, its a pity that anti-Mormon bias won out in the republican camp and that dim wit McCain got the nod. Having said that if i was in America i would still vote for him over Obama any day. The once great Democratic party has been taken over the the left and is full of loonies who would destroy America. McCain is far more experienced than Obama and i hope he wins but i think maybe the republicans shot themselvs in the foot by not choosing Romney, he would be invaluable as president in these difficult times.

Not only that but according to the McCain campaign, Obama is a racist terrorist. Or a terrorist racist. I don't know which. Maybe a reporter that is not named Hanitty could ask Sarah Palin that question. Oh but then again as she'll have to get back to us on that one. In any case, I'm guessing the Washington Eliltest Media(despite Katie Couric being based in NYC) are now banned for asking "gotcha" questions such as "What newspapers do you read?".

jmayo

FatherTed wrote: »

Not only that but according to the McCain campaign, Obama is a racist terrorist. Or a terrorist racist. I don't know which. Maybe a reporter that is not named Hanitty could ask Sarah Palin that question. Oh but then again as she'll have to get back to us on that one. In any case, I'm guessing the Washington Eliltest Media(despite Katie Couric being based in NYC) are now banned for asking "gotcha" questions such as "What newspapers do you read?".

The more pertinent question would be
"Have you actually read anything apart from the bible ?"

Think about it is a good label to hang on Obama, then certain people can pretend they hate him becuase he hangs out with terrorists.

Does anybody remember how Rumsfled used to actaully hang out with Saddam and the Bushes hung out with the Bin Laddins ?