You’re completely off base here.

Thanks for your contribution, lowly. (Apparently that’s tactic #2 here: make those sorts of accusations, loudly and repeatedly, in hopes they’ll drown out the evidence to the contrary.)

(Unfounded? In PM’s case, hardly, as I explained. Check the archives.)

He/she has shown some measure of reasoned comment of late, but when pushed hard on stuff he/she doesn’t want to alter, this is what results. It doesn’t help that some folks who engage Dhoti also engage in similar tactics.

From mayoclinic.com:
“Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.”

I think that last sentence is the proverbial hammer hitting a nail. Or finger on a nose? Or finger up a nose?

I’ve been drunk too, and still able to marshall a logical argument, so I don’t se the relevance.

Perhaps, if you hadn’t used your inebriation as an excuse for some of your past bits of “civil discourse”, my mind wouldn’t immediately jump there. Just saying. (At least when you lie, you seem to do it with a straight face. I respect that, to a point; honor among cowards and all that.)

You can probably relax on the whole “drunk” thing, btw. You’ll find as you grow up that most adults enjoy a drink now and then, and some of them enjoy posting on the internet after they do.

Besides, if you need to attempt to ruin my credibility by questioning my sobriety, it really doesn’t say much about the strength of your argument.

The facts as I see them is she couldn’t lead a one car parade. I would gladly take four more years of Bush/Cheney over five minutes of Palin in the white house. All I can figure is that McCain really didn’t want to win, or someone had it in for him, for her to make it onto the ticket.

But I do love that you’re either too self-absorbed, or too inebriated, to see how that line of reasoning could possibly apply to you.

And that quote proves what? A letter stating she will be fired is not a letter saying you are fired. Nor does the letter, according to the article itself state that iw as for censorship issues. Ms. Emmons was the girlfriend at the time of the Police Chief, who was fired for lying to the council. Both of them opposed Palin as mayor. Guilt by association and actions, however unfounded is often used as a basis for judgement (look at Obama and how half the far right think he is a terrorist sympathizer). Doesn’t make it right, but it certainly isn’t illegal or even immoral.

Twisting words and situations to strengthen a point without regards to hard factual evidence isn’t either…

Let me just ask you one question: have you ever submitted an expense report to a large organization, public or private?

I’m sorry, but even if there is no legal fraud committed, there is still a distinct moral dubiety there.

In these sorts of circumstances I would ask for the ruling first, and submit the claim second, rather than the other way about. So would most people who aren’t career politicians.

I am saying Hillary Clinton has a better chance at being elected than Palin, and they have similar, though complementary, polarizing effects.

Make of that what you will.

Your scenario is a perfect example of what’s right being at odds with the absolute letter of the law. (i.e. your boss got screwed)

Absent the vendetta, do you think your legal department would have pursued this?

As I’ve read the Palin story, the state found no wrongdoing, and finding 10 of 72 trips to be in a gray area, did not require that Palin reimburse the cost of those trips. BUT, Palin did agree to reimburse for those trips, presumably to defuse their value for future complaints.

{http://crooksandliars.com/node/29458} for the full list.

“To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder. And it also strengthens my faith, because I’m going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God’s hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I’m not discouraged at all.” (Asked if she was discouraged by polls showing the McCain-Palin ticket trailing, October 22, 2008.)

“They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.” (Asked by ABC’s Charles Gibson “what insight into Russian actions” the proximity of Alaska provides her, September 11, 2008.)

“Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of… We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.” (Asked by CBS’ Katie Couric to explain her foreign policy credentials, especially regarding Russia, September 25, 2008.)

“John McCain and I, we love you and thank you for spending a few minutes to talk to me.” (Talking with Canadian radio prankster posing as French Presideny Nicolas Sarkozy, November 1, 2008.)

“Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it…When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don’t think it’s, it bodes well for her — a statement like that…It bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.” (On Hillary Clinton’s complaints about her treatment by the media, March 2008.)

“There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there.” (Asked by NBC’s Brian Williams, “Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist?” October 23, 2008.)

( BTW, what does that think tank pay you per post? What you do seems a lot easier than working for a living!)

Given that the article lead off with the October 10 ethics violation finding, but then buried the November 3 reversal of that finding inside another item, there’s more than a whiff of slanted journalism involved. It wouldn’t be too much of a leap to think that an otherwise inconsequential fact was thrown in to suggest the inference you’re making.

See post above for more detail.

“The ***personnel board found no wrongdoing,*** but in a Feb. 23 settlement ***Palin agreed to reimburse the state*** about $10,000 for costs associated with 10 trips ***found to be of questionable state interest*** among 72 travel authorizations studied.”

“Found no wrongdoing” is about as clear of a determination as anybody can make.

“Found to be of questionable state interest” doesn’t imply that the trip costs weren’t in the state’s interest any more than it would imply that they were in the state’s interest. To the contrary, it makes the determination that the trip costs were officially in a gray area.

Once the determination of no wrongdoing was made, Palin appears to have gone the extra mile and agreed to reimburse the state for any of the trip costs that weren’t explicitly in the state’s interest.

One can argue the politics all you want, but one can only stretch the words so far.

Note: Nesting limit was reached, so this is a general reply to the sub-thread, not a reply specific to Dhoti.