WWTBAM Bored

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will reimburse the state nearly $7,000 for costs associated with nine trips taken by her children, her attorney said Tuesday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29374305/

she also must repay 18k she charged the state for living in her own home instead of the governors mansion.

i admire her creativity

Did she have to pay for the turkeys? Or at least pay survivors' benefits to their spouses and kids?

How can kids take 9 trips for only $7,000?

I don't get it.

peacock2121 wrote:How can kids take 9 trips for only $7,000?

I don't get it.

Maybe if you figure her portion was legitimate, then it would only be flights, meals and incidentals for the kids. Big stuff like hotel rooms or ground transportation would be covered, with the assumption that even if she were by herself she would need those things.

I don't know, I'm just guessing?

sunflower wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:How can kids take 9 trips for only $7,000?

I don't get it.

Maybe if you figure her portion was legitimate, then it would only be flights, meals and incidentals for the kids. Big stuff like hotel rooms or ground transportation would be covered, with the assumption that even if she were by herself she would need those things.

I don't know, I'm just guessing?

I don't get it - to go from $21,000 for flights for the three daughters to $7,000 for all expenses, doesn't add up some how.

peacock2121 wrote:

sunflower wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:How can kids take 9 trips for only $7,000?

I don't get it.

Maybe if you figure her portion was legitimate, then it would only be flights, meals and incidentals for the kids. Big stuff like hotel rooms or ground transportation would be covered, with the assumption that even if she were by herself she would need those things.

I don't know, I'm just guessing?

I don't get it - to go from $21,000 for flights for the three daughters to $7,000 for all expenses, doesn't add up some how.

I suspect the higher figures were greatly inflated by her enemies. Accuracy no longer matters, though, as those who wish to hate her will continue to do so.

silvercamaro wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:

sunflower wrote: Maybe if you figure her portion was legitimate, then it would only be flights, meals and incidentals for the kids. Big stuff like hotel rooms or ground transportation would be covered, with the assumption that even if she were by herself she would need those things.

I don't know, I'm just guessing?

I don't get it - to go from $21,000 for flights for the three daughters to $7,000 for all expenses, doesn't add up some how.

I suspect the higher figures were greatly inflated by her enemies. Accuracy no longer matters, though, as those who wish to hate her will continue to do so.

Are you saying you think the AP is her enemy?

peacock2121 wrote:
Are you saying you think the AP is her enemy?

The linked story has no byline, nor does it reference any details about how the alleged "$21,000" original total was reached. I find it possible to believe that someone, somewhere along the line, provided selective information for political purposes. I do not presume to know who.

silvercamaro wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:
Are you saying you think the AP is her enemy?

The linked story has no byline, nor does it reference any details about how the alleged "$21,000" original total was reached. I find it possible to believe that someone, somewhere along the line, provided selective information for political purposes. I do not presume to know who.

I get it now. Thanks.

Is it any wonder that we have the atrocious representation in Congress that we have (or anywhere else for that matter) on both sides of the aisle?

Anyone who runs for office (except Obama) has to be put through the ringer and exposed to any kind of outrageous accusation that can be dreamed up. Whether it's true or not, it all goes out there. And it's all piped out to the masses in venues like this.

Do you think anyone with any morality or ethics would really want to get involved in politics today?

Sarah Palin is but one example.

I am sick of it, but it is what is, and I don't think it's gonna change any time soon.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Is it any wonder that we have the atrocious representation in Congress that we have (or anywhere else for that matter) on both sides of the aisle?

Anyone who runs for office (except Obama) has to be put through the ringer and exposed to any kind of outrageous accusation that can be dreamed up. Whether it's true or not, it all goes out there. And it's all piped out to the masses in venues like this.

Do you think anyone with any morality or ethics would really want to get involved in politics today?

Sarah Palin is but one example.

I am sick of it, but it is what is, and I don't think it's gonna change any time soon.

The amount of "being put through the ringer" a candidate goes through is directly proportional to how conservative said candidate is. Premier Obama is about as far from conservative as a candidate gets, so he gets a free pass on everything. Isn't the mainstream media great?

Governor Blagojevich was a conservative?

Why didn't you tell me?

MarleysGh0st wrote:Governor Blagojevich was a conservative?

Why didn't you tell me?

Yes, liberals pretty much have to commit a felony before they are put through any kind of ringer. I wonder what would have happened if Bush had tried to appoint some tax cheats to his cabinet...

danielh41 wrote:
The amount of "being put through the ringer" a candidate goes through is directly proportional to how conservative said candidate is. Premier Obama is about as far from conservative as a candidate gets, so he gets a free pass on everything. Isn't the mainstream media great?

daniel41, I would agree that the current President got a free pass by the media - I expect that to change in the next 12 months or so, as the curtain is lifted, but candidate Bill Clinton, and later, Hillary Clinton, certainly were put under the same microscope as Palin. (As an aside, the Palin children were not afforded the same courtesy as the Clinton's, but it's just getting nastier on both sides.

We do not serve ourselves well by rewarding the media that provides such cr@p, left and right.

Thus, we get what we deserve by those who do run.

danielh41 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:Governor Blagojevich was a conservative?

Why didn't you tell me?

Yes, liberals pretty much have to commit a felony before they are put through any kind of ringer. I wonder what would have happened if Bush had tried to appoint some tax cheats to his cabinet...

Yes, it is a good thing that that socialist, terroist fist-bumping muslim who was born in Kenya learned to hate America by being brain-washed in a madresa so he can be a modern 'Manchurian Candidate'and who had everything handed to him (did I forget elitist) was never falsely accussed of anything.

frogman042 wrote:

danielh41 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:Governor Blagojevich was a conservative?

Why didn't you tell me?

Yes, liberals pretty much have to commit a felony before they are put through any kind of ringer. I wonder what would have happened if Bush had tried to appoint some tax cheats to his cabinet...

Yes, it is a good thing that that socialist, terroist fist-bumping muslim who was born in Kenya learned to hate America by being brain-washed in a madresa so he can be a modern 'Manchurian Candidate'and who had everything handed to him (did I forget elitist) was never falsely accussed of anything.

This just made me laugh and laugh.

frogman042 wrote:

danielh41 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:Governor Blagojevich was a conservative?

Why didn't you tell me?

Yes, liberals pretty much have to commit a felony before they are put through any kind of ringer. I wonder what would have happened if Bush had tried to appoint some tax cheats to his cabinet...

Yes, it is a good thing that that socialist, terroist fist-bumping muslim who was born in Kenya learned to hate America by being brain-washed in a madresa so he can be a modern 'Manchurian Candidate'and who had everything handed to him (did I forget elitist) was never falsely accussed of anything.

I think that you missed danielh's point: he was not talking about false accusations and misrepresentations of bad stuff generally, he was talking about false accusations and misrepresentations that are found in the 'mainstream press,' such as the AP (specifically referenced above). All that ludicrous stuff you mention about Obama was indeed falsely alleged about him (and some of it even appeared on this Bored, alas), but none of it was ever in the 'mainstream' media, except when it was being refuted and/or ridiculed. The stuff about Palin, on the other hand, was everywhere. For example, the nonsense about how Palin was not in fact the mother of her youngest son had no basis in ANYthing, but it ran in, among other places, The Atlantic (which is generally considered to be a pretty reputable magazine), which ran a piece that specifically demanded that she produce her medical records to prove that she was, in fact, the mother of her youngest child. To the best of my knowledge, The Atlantic never demanded that Obama produce his birth certificate to prove his citizenship or anything. That is the kind of differential coverage that danielh is griping about.

wintergreen48 wrote:

frogman042 wrote:

danielh41 wrote: Yes, liberals pretty much have to commit a felony before they are put through any kind of ringer. I wonder what would have happened if Bush had tried to appoint some tax cheats to his cabinet...

Yes, it is a good thing that that socialist, terroist fist-bumping muslim who was born in Kenya learned to hate America by being brain-washed in a madresa so he can be a modern 'Manchurian Candidate'and who had everything handed to him (did I forget elitist) was never falsely accussed of anything.

I think that you missed danielh's point: he was not talking about false accusations and misrepresentations of bad stuff generally, he was talking about false accusations and misrepresentations that are found in the 'mainstream press,' such as the AP (specifically referenced above). All that ludicrous stuff you mention about Obama was indeed falsely alleged about him (and some of it even appeared on this Bored, alas), but none of it was ever in the 'mainstream' media, except when it was being refuted and/or ridiculed. The stuff about Palin, on the other hand, was everywhere. For example, the nonsense about how Palin was not in fact the mother of her youngest son had no basis in ANYthing, but it ran in, among other places, The Atlantic (which is generally considered to be a pretty reputable magazine), which ran a piece that specifically demanded that she produce her medical records to prove that she was, in fact, the mother of her youngest child. To the best of my knowledge, The Atlantic never demanded that Obama produce his birth certificate to prove his citizenship or anything. That is the kind of differential coverage that danielh is griping about.

Apparently, according to a recent interview that Palin did with Esquire magazine, mainstrream media still are questioning whether Trig is her child.

In mildly related news, my oldest two kids are quick to point out that they are not "the fruit of my seed".

Appa23 wrote: In mildly related news, my oldest two kids are quick to point out that they are not "the fruit of my seed".

You allow them to use such language?

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Appa23 wrote: In mildly related news, my oldest two kids are quick to point out that they are not "the fruit of my seed".

You allow them to use such language?

I read it before and it said "share my DNA".

it did.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Is it any wonder that we have the atrocious representation in Congress that we have (or anywhere else for that matter) on both sides of the aisle?

Anyone who runs for office (except Obama) has to be put through the ringer and exposed to any kind of outrageous accusation that can be dreamed up. Whether it's true or not, it all goes out there. And it's all piped out to the masses in venues like this.

Do you think anyone with any morality or ethics would really want to get involved in politics today?

Sarah Palin is but one example.

I am sick of it, but it is what is, and I don't think it's gonna change any time soon.

Thanks, Flock!

I have been saying this for years, about how many people who are totally qualified and would make fine legislators shy away because of a media spotlight determined to find anything scandal-worthy, no matter how small, and in the absence of anything real, will make something up! Obama is no exception -- The birth certificate stuff, the Ayers stuff from when Obama was eight years old . . . and on and on.

I've chided a number of people on this Bored from time to time about blanketing all politicians (since I am one) with monikers of excrement or prostitution, and I am delighted to have Flock join up.

SportsFan68 wrote:I've childed a number of people on this Bored from time to time about blanketing all politicians (since I am one) with monikers of excrement or prostitution, and I am delighted to have Flock join up.

i think we may have found Sprots' skeleton in the closet.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:I've childed a number of people on this Bored from time to time about blanketing all politicians (since I am one) with monikers of excrement or prostitution, and I am delighted to have Flock join up.

i think we may have found Sprots' skeleton in the closet.

You mean a child in her closet?

peacock2121 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:I've childed a number of people on this Bored from time to time about blanketing all politicians (since I am one) with monikers of excrement or prostitution, and I am delighted to have Flock join up.

i think we may have found Sprots' skeleton in the closet.

You mean a child in her closet?

No, her childing of a number of people on this Bored. For her to have childed so many, she has obviously been a slattern.



And in case, anyone isn't getting it, I'm joking.