If you think these folks are biased, you'd have to at least consider that those filing the opposing report as equally biased. It doesn't seem to me that there are any "friends of Palin" among that group. As I originally stated, there are always at least two sides to every story and this (not to wax too "Paul Harveyesque") is the rest of the story.

Originally Posted by DTop

If you think these folks are biased, you'd have to at least consider that those filing the opposing report as equally biased. It doesn't seem to me that there are any "friends of Palin" among that group. As I originally stated, there are always at least two sides to every story and this (not to wax too "Paul Harveyesque") is the rest of the story.

I am not sure in this case that applies (as it normally would), you have two reports:

1) Report A: That took 2-3 months to produce, was written by a panel made up of her peers and was accepted by the state legislature made up primarily of her own party members.

2) Report B: That was written by campaign employees who are employed to make her look good.

So while in most cases the two sides to every story rule applies in this case the "other side of the story" is written by people with a vested interest in making sure their candidate looks good.

Come on guy, you're splitting hairs. Regardless of the motivation, regardless of whether the report comes from her campaigners or from those who have a history of bickering with her politically, they are two sides, two viewpoints, two different takes on the same story. Believe whichever you want but don't even try to deny that they are not two sides of the same story.

Originally Posted by DTop

Come on guy, you're splitting hairs. Regardless of the motivation, regardless of whether the report comes from her campaigners or from those who have a history of bickering with her politically, they are two sides, two viewpoints, two different takes on the same story. Believe whichever you want but don't even try to deny that they are not two sides of the same story.

Well I guess in terms of semantics you are correct, in terms of the validity of the data both are imparting though I would strongly suspect one is a lot accurate than the other.

After all Herman Goerings take on his actions during WW2 were vastly different to that of the Nuremberg investigators and it didn't do him a lot of good.

As I said, believe whatever report you like, I'm just putting the other side of the story out here. I'm sure the dust will settle eventually.

The Republican party has been long since preparing for this claiming a biased investigation against her. Perhaps this prooves irrespective of how corruptly one abuses power it is always possible to massage it away.

It's a good thing for the Republican party that the economic crisis has deflected issues away from this as it could have finished them

DTOP

I have to agree with the guys on this one. Yes there are two sides to every story. But writing your own conclusions which completely exonerates yourself from any wrongdoing is not very believable.

You you imagine if this was done in Criminal Cases? It might go like this:

"Yes Ted Bundy is about to be convicted on 42 cases of capital Murder by a jury, but Mr Bundy own personal investigation concludes that he is totally innocent".

With unbelievable crap like this going on, man's credulity never ceases to amaze me.

Alleged criminals able to conduct or at least control their own outcomes, Bank officials who send the world into a near depression yet they are paid millions of dollars of tax payers money in separation packages.

Yet some people can't or don't want to, see what is going on. Just what exactly do they need for a wakeup call.

Originally Posted by DTop

As I said, believe whatever report you like, I'm just putting the other side of the story out here. I'm sure the dust will settle eventually.

Not sure why you bothered D-Top?

Not sure why you bothered D-Top?

Some folks prefer to consider all sides before reaching, rather than jumping to a conclusion. Chew on all the facts before digesting the whole story.

You you imagine if this was done in Criminal Cases?

It is. Everyone is allowed to defend themselves against all charges even in a court of law (in this country anyway).