Snerd said: A bipartisan committee of (R)z and (D)z found her to have acted ‘unethically’ … So (R)z were trying to get her elected and trying to undermine her getting elected, at the same time!?

I haven’t done a final follow up to the Trooper’gate series… which details the differences between the Congressional witchhunt and the Ethics Act investigation, per Alaskan law, SG. But I’ve read both opinions in full. You evidently choose to ignore specifics and parrot headlines alone.

Congressional investigation found Palin guilty of only one count of “abusing” her office. Not because of her, but her husband’s behavior. This per their not-so-unbiased, and not thorough investigator who is an out of state attorney with a courtesy “bar association” status in Alaska. He chose to give his own interpretation of an Alaskan Ethics Act law, with absolutely no precedents to back up his conclusion. But since it was a Congressional investigation with no legal ramifications… meaning only politically motivated ramifications… it was not necessary to produce legal precedents to support his final opinion.

However the committees investigation per Alaskan law had to be more thorough – and delve into precedents to determine whether any of Palin’s actions were in violation of the Executive Branch Ethics Act. Their opinion brief dissents with Branchflower’s single conclusion of her “guilt by association”. She was cleared of all charges by the only legal investigation in the state equipped to hand ethics violations. And that includes the one which would hlave been the most troublesome if found guilty … Wooten’s medical records.

Normally you’re the type here I choose to ignore. I can get your opinions by scanning media headlines and HuffPo. So I can tell by your cryptic, cute little posting style that actually reading and forming an opinion outside of your preconceived political bias is probably out of the question.

But frankly – and the subject of this thread – when I think of lazy types who refuse to delve into issues beyond that the latest headlines – like you – filling out a ballot, my blood runs cold.

In this new video:
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3205836&referralPlaylistId=undefined

Ziegler explains to Fox News why if he would have done the same video with McCain’s voters, it would have been a complete different picture. Take a look at it. Maybe Mike could embed it.

[Ed: Yes, Mike can!]

“the Flopping Aces pundit who predicted McCain would win an election which “won’t even be close.”

Care to give a link to where you got that quote Larry?

It may very well be correct, but I am sure if I insinuated you had said something like that you would insist on a link..

So link Larry. Link.

So what? That doesn’t make them smart. I know many post-graduate degrees people who are clearly dumb and have no judgment. Maybe because their judgment was corrupted and alienated by leftist teachers. We have some right here on this site. And I know many people who don’t have a high degree of schooling and have a much better judgment.
Obama ’s voter have evidently no judgment despite their college degrees.

1. Liberals are Elitist
“… Liberals are the ones who think they are superior to others.”

2. I, (R)and Hight am superior to Snerd
“… snerd, I’d say you’re maybe 15 from the way you type. Go away and let the grownups talk.”

Snerd

SG: A bipartisan committee of (R)z and (D)z found her to have acted ‘unethically’ … So (R)z were trying to get her elected and trying to undermine her getting elected, at the same time!?

Snerd

The “ethical scandals” are bogus accusations by dems and corrupt Alaskan Reps trying to undermine her.

This phenomenon proves that God has answered our Secular prayerz …!

Now we are prayin’ Palin gets through her various ethical scandals, and survives the assault from the moderate arm of the (R) party.

Snerd

Mike already gave you the definition of elitism. You were proven wrong. Stop lying now.

The funny thing is by your definition Kerry, Gore, Edwads, Obama, and most dems in Congress are elitests! Yet you support them.

Lastly, you assume I listen to Rush or Hannity because you listen to Olberman, Maher, Matthews, etc. Just because you can’t think for yourself and need others to tell you what to think doesn’t mean I do.

But not if you simply insist on repeating the same lies over and over and over as if you didn’t know any better.

You’re the perfect definition of a dumb Obamaton.