Alaska releases Palin emails

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

The press is digging through all of Sarah Palin's emails--yet we still haven't seen Obama's college transcripts? What a joke our national media is.

They'll probably release his transcripts when Palin can prove she has a HS diploma.
 
Those aren't transcripts, and ... Wayne Madsen? He's one of the few 'journalists' viewed as a kook by both the left and the right.

I'm guessing that was his point.
 
The press is digging through all of Sarah Palin's emails--yet we still haven't seen Obama's college transcripts? What a joke our national media is.

Don't you think Palin's record as governor is a little more relevant to the public interest than Obama's record as a college student?

Last I heard, college student is not an elective office.

barfo
 
Did you crazies already forget how this ended last time?

barack_obama_birth_certificate_killing_osama_bin_laden.jpg
 
Don't you think Palin's record as governor is a little more relevant to the public interest than Obama's record as a college student?
No. Palin's record as governor isn't relevant at all, since she hasn't even declared if she is running for president. Obama, on the other hand, is already in the oval office and yet we have never seen his college records. I'd say we have a much greater right to know everything about the guy running the country than we do about someone who has no political power at all.
 
I never saw George Washington's college records either. Maybe his presidency should be revoked retroactively.
 
I never saw George Washington's college records either. Maybe his presidency should be revoked retroactively.
Or maybe we should just ask our media to be as interested in the past of our president as they are in the past of a woman who doesn't even hold elective office.
 
Or maybe we should just ask our media to be as interested in the past of our president as they are in the past of a woman who doesn't even hold elective office.

I do not care for the past of the president, only for the future of the country. He is the president. He was elected. Get over it.
 
Or maybe we should just ask our media to be as interested in the past of our president as they are in the past of a woman who doesn't even hold elective office.

So no political figure should ever be investigated for malfeasance unless they are currently in office?
 
The whole thing is a bunch of crap.

EVERY, and I mean EVERY politician has hundreds and thousands of emails that can either be spun the wrong way or are stupid or sophomoric... So who gives a damn about her emails as gov of Alaska except for people whose sole intent in their lives is to act like assholes?
 
The whole thing is a bunch of crap.

Alaska law requires disclosure of these e-mails upon request. They were requested 3 years ago, probably around the time that Troopergate was going as her e-mails played a large part in that investigation. Also she was running for VP, so why not get that info.

EVERY, and I mean EVERY politician has hundreds and thousands of emails that can either be spun the wrong way or are stupid or sophomoric... So who gives a damn about her emails as gov of Alaska except for people whose sole intent in their lives is to act like assholes?

She was a public official and she knew(or should have known) the law. Some of the e-mails were redacted or held back for one reason or another. It's doubtful there will be anything amazing in the e-mails. It's new information & people will probably find it interesting, just like they find the Nixon tapes interesting. Some of the stuff she says in the e-mail could be interpreted in a positive light as well, so I am not sure why you're getting hyped up.

Also Clinton only sent... two e-mails as President & the Internet didn't really exist as we know it for probably half(or more) of the lives of most people in a public office.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe we should just ask our media to be as interested in the past of our president as they are in the past of a woman who doesn't even hold elective office.

I'm sure there are plenty of journalists who would love to write about Obama's college transcripts. But guess what? They can't just demand that the universities provide them the transcript.

And therein lies the difference. Palin was a public official when she was guv, so her emails are public record. Obama was a private citizen when he was a college student, so his transcripts are not public record.

barfo
 
The funny thing is that the entire stack of emails was released to the asking parties as a stack of papers - because the state of Alaska did not want to go to the technical difficulties of sending them in electronic form. This is just hilarious. Probably did not want people to use the easy search feature to look at them - but it is beyond idiotic that emails were distributed as paper...

... and they say emails do not kill trees...
 
I have no issue with the emails being released. Why not?
 
I have no issue with the emails being released. Why not?

On the one hand I agree.

On the other, it's smacks of a ploy to spin some of the more frank or mis-written ones against someone to try and politically damage her. That's uncalled for. I mean, we could do this to virtually any politician, government appointee or court nominee and just make their life miserable.

Lie I said- it's just a bunch of crap.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-Enemies-sent-a-series-of-death-threats.html

Sarah Palin emails: Enemies sent a series of death threats

The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin's emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race.

People who send anyone death threats (politician, famous person, stranger, or someone they know) should, imho, forgo their "living freely among us" card.
 
does anybody think she has a chance to actually win an election of any kind? i thought she was polling at like 60% negative
 
does anybody think she has a chance to actually win an election of any kind? i thought she was polling at like 60% negative

For her own purposes (making money), she'd be better off not running.

What exactly have some of the past losing candidates done for themselves?

Outside of Al Gore, most of them have gone onto be fairly unimportant.

Kerry, Dole, McCain just to name 3. If she runs, she'll get hammered in the press. If people think they're being unfair to her now, just wait until she's actually forced to answer questions and disclose stuff. She's pretty much skirting any responsibility of running. She doesn't have to disclose where she's going, or what her plans are. She can just talk, say code words and vague statements, and get away with it.

The more we learn about her, and know about her, the worse off her chances are. Same thing happens to both parties each year. Someone comes in, is the "odds on favorite" and then is exposed for being a goob.
 
does anybody think she has a chance to actually win an election of any kind? i thought she was polling at like 60% negative

For President? She has no chance what so ever.

For US Senator from Alaska, she has a pretty darn good shot.
 
For President? She has no chance what so ever.

For US Senator from Alaska, she has a pretty darn good shot.

She probably could do more of what she wants to do, as a senator. She'd get an unequal amount of clout as a senator and would probably get a lot more of the stuff she talks about, into the eyes of the people.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top