Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Alaska funded Palin kids' travel...lot of travel.

Posted By: Palin falsified expense reports. sm on 2008-10-22
In Reply to:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/palin_family_travel


Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.

The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.


The 21-grand figure does not include the hotel expense, either.  Poor, beleaguered can't cath-a-break Sarah may owe back taxes on her per diem expenses, Troopergate, wardrobe malfunctions and now this.  Is is just me, or is there a pattern of widening gaps between the hockey mom and the privileged, dare I say elite, power-abusing, fibbing governor persona?


 




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

We care because it's Alaska taxpayer money for her kids to travel, even though uninvited nm
what a joke palin is... she's had it now

It wasn't campaign donations that paid for thousands of dollars in kids' travel
nm
time travel
Kaydie, when you say, ''So how can you go back and create something that never was,'' I begin to despair, because if my ALL-CAPS typing and references to time travel (which is, you see, at this point not possible) didn't indicate irony, I'm not sure how else to do it.

As for Annenberg, you're absolutely right. I should never believe anything funded from a foundation RUN BY A BILLIONAIRE MCCAIN SUPPORTER (Leonore Annenberg). Oh, wait did I get that right? Let me try again: I should never believe anything funded from a foundation FOUNDED BY NIXON'S AMBASSADOR TO THE UK AND RUN BY REAGAN'S CHIEF OF PROTOCOL. Wait...how could that be? If Factcheck.org is just another Obama propaganda site....

OH MY GOD. HIS DISCIPLES FLEW BACK IN TIME AND SECRETLY REPLACED THE ANNENBERGS WITH PRO-OBAMA DRONES, SO THAT THEY COULD USE THEIR REPUBLICAN CONNECTIONS TO PUSH OBAMA INTO POWER!

IS ANY BILLIONAIRE SAFE??!?!

Executive travel

Executives who travel for business on private jets may actually be doing something line buy or sell a product, bring in revenue, broker a deal that will create jobs. 


Politicians traveling that way are mostly being seen.  Example:  Was it truly necessary for O to fly to the Southwest just to sign a bill and stand in front of some solar panels?  He doesn't have pens in the oval office?  Does Pelosi really rate a government plane to get her back and forth to California?  Not sure if she actually got the privilege, but know she requested it because she is sooooo important to the nation, being assistant president and all, that she has to travel efficiently.


Before you jump all over me with 'Bush did....' yes, I know, they ALL get face time this way.  That was then, this is now.  If we're supposed to be going 'green' how about cutting out politicians' needless self-promoting travel on our dime? 


Post was about travel expenses not clothes
nm
Meixco has released a travel alert.
College campuses here are posting warnings on their websites, warning students that the violence has gotten very bad and they may be targeted or even killed.  From a friend who works down there regularly, it is that bad and he says it is only a matter of time before something extremely violent happens to tourists.  He hears it in the streets and he watches his back constantly.  Mexican drug lords are gearing up to use these tourists for ransom...... 
And exactly what credentials did the Thomason's have to run the travel office under Clinton?
Besides cronyism that is?
pays her own kids way? I think that Alaska pays her kids way! nm
x
Did you see the big rally against Palin in Alaska? sm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNlcYaEOLRM


There was a big protest in Alaska against Palin. I can get the link.
nm
Of course there are people in Alaska that do not support Palin
just as there are people in Illinois that do not support Obama--come on. A rally does not mean that all of Alaska hates Palin--as a matter of fact, have you seen her approval rating?
How do you think Palin travels back and forth from Alaska...by bus also??? Not this time...nm
1
Country first/Palin support of Alaska succession=topic.
nm
I have a very intelligent friend from Alaska who thinks Palin will do a great job. nm
x
federally funded
federally funded aid for foreign abortions.  his preacher was correct - God very well may da** America
PBS is taxpayer funded

so it must pay back to taxpayers. But .... did you see if the PBS interviewed, asked opinions of the Real People, who created and defended this nation: Machinists, Mechanics, Builders, Truck Drivers, Soldiers and etc? NO! The PBS is a stage for big media sharks as Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, NY Times and etc
It is an obligation of the PBS to pay back to society: broadcast Forums, Debates of Candidates for US Congress (Senate and House), but intentionally, with conspiracy of big media does not do, that pushed Candidates to accept money, to political prostitution.


If it isn't taxpayer funded
then why would Bush cut back funding and why would it hurt PBS so much if they weren't taxpayer funded.  Watch who you call ignorant or at least look in the mirror first.
Yep!..and people currently on Govt-funded
nm
I have no problem with a non-profit, non-federally funded...sm
establishment having a code of ethics including religion that is exclusive of other religions.

But I think it is hypocritical to take federal funds and then be exclusive to only your group. It's like taking money out of my pocket and then telling me that I can't participate.
One that is not funded by Obama, Anneberg Foundation
or anyone supporting the republican side. You know an independent party. Sheesh - that's like saying it's authentic because Michelle Obama says it is.
Too bad the cap only applies to TARP funded CEOs.
ANY CEO should be making more salary than the POTUS and that any compensation beyond that amount should be directly related to the success of the company, i.e. commissions, profit percentage, stock dividends, etc. I also believe stockholders should have more control of their salaries, benefits, bonuses and any other perks.
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination


Immediate Release


The Interfaith Alliance


September 22, 2005


Contact: Jon Niven or Don Parker 202.639.6370


House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination


Washington, September 22 Today, The U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment and a bill to allow government-funded religious discrimination


The School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123), a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Head Start program, was passed 48-0 in committee. However, during floor debate Thursday, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) added an amendment allowing Head Start providers to exercise religious discrimination in choosing teachers and volunteers. As a result, the final vote on the bill (231-184) was stripped of the unanimous, bipartisan support displayed in committee.


The Interfaith Alliance is very disappointed in the members of Congress who insist on reacting to one crisis by beginning another one, said the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance. The Boustany amendment is a prime example of political opportunists taking advantage of a national tragedy to institute policies that are unconstitutional and have been previously rejected by the Congress.


The Interfaith Alliance was joined by more than 50 organizations in opposition to the bill's passage if it contained the Boustany amendment. The National Head Start Association, which represents more than 2.5 million children and families, program staff and volunteers that comprise the Head Start and Early Head Start community, came out against the entire bill if the Boustany Amendment was attached saying:


In spite of its positive provisions, if HR 2123 contains a religious discrimination amendment, we must reluctantly oppose the bill.


This amendment will subsidize religious discrimination with tax dollars, turning back civil rights protections that currently apply to nearly 200,000 Head Start teachers and over 1.4 million parent volunteers.


In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the levees protecting religious liberty are being breached, and the wall between church and state is cracking, Gaddy said. If those in Congress who seek to repeal religious liberty safeguards are successful, thousands of children, teachers and parent volunteers who have dedicated themselves to this program could find themselves no longer welcome at religiously-affiliated Head Start programs because they are of a different faith than the sponsoring organization.


The Senate passed a similar bill, but without the Boustany amendment, so the House version will now go to a House-Senate conference committee. Members of The Interfaith Alliance will urge Senators to strip the bill of the Boustany amendment in conference.


Initiated in 1965 in the wake of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Head Start has been widely recognized as one of the most successful government programs ever created. It has provided early childhood education and development programs that have helped millions of low-income families overcome inequities for more than forty years.


80% x 683,478(Alaska) = 546,782 / 300,000,000(US) =
Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, maybe there are a lot of Americans who do agree.
Alaska..

Incumbent republican Senator Stevens.  Convicted of 7 counts.  He hasn't won yet, but the last I heard had about a 2-3 point lead.  Below is a link for the whole story.  Pretty much all news stations are saying the same thing.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06alaska.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


The really bad thing about this is that they are waiting for counts from early voting and absentee votes, both of which may have been cast before his conviction.  We may yet see another first in history.


Drilling in Alaska?
Whats up with liberals making a huge deal about Bush going to Iraq for oil and then they complain about Bush wanting to drill in Alaska.

Doesn't that controdict itself??!!

drilling in Alaska
They just want to argue with everything.  Doesn't matter if nothing gets done, in fact, that is probably what they are trying to do, so they can say the Bush Whitehouse didn't do a thing.  They (liberals) block everything, or try to, just because.
Truth about oil in Alaska

The facts below have been corroborated in many studies:


1. Will drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge do anything to solve our current gasoline and heating oil supply problems and reduce prices?


No. Most experts predict that oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could not begin for 7 - 12 years and the Congressional Research Service estimates it would take at least 15 years. A new study by the US Energy Information Agency (March 2004) entitled Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shows that even if oil were being pumped today, it would only reduce our oil imports from about 70% to about 66%, having no real effect on overall prices or supply.


2. Are estimated oil supplies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge expected to significantly change our long term energy prospects?


No. It is estimated that the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains no more than a six month supply of oil at our current consumption rates.


3. Given the current war against terrorism, shouldn’t we do absolutely everything we can to maximize our oil supply to be self sufficient?


No, it's not possible to be self sufficient given the amount of oil we consume as a nation. We use more oil than we could ever find domestically, even if we were to drill on all public lands, in all of our national parks and monuments, national forests, etc. The United States uses 25% to 30% of all of the oil produced in the world, yet we only have less than 3% of known oil reserves. These numbers are well known. The amount we could recover from the Arctic Refuge is literally a drop in the bucket by comparison. Also, any oil that is produced, regardless of its source, is bought and sold on the world market. That's how major commodities like this work. Even now, oil from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, often is exported to Asia. The only way to really enhance national security is to develop alternatives that reduce oil consuption. Our current usage as well as archaic public policy that encourages more oil development and consumption is actually what puts our nation at risk. And why destroy a unique treasure for something that will make no difference in our reliance on foreign oil?


is cindy from alaska?
x
Residents of Alaska

last night on CNN said she was absolutely vicious to those who opposed her or believed differently and was very vindicative.  Come on Joe, bring this personality trait to light in the debates.


 


80% x 683,424 (Alaska) = 54,7892 / 300,000,000 (US) =
nm
I have family in Alaska and they
think very highly of S. Palin. FYI, people don't like her JUST because she is likeable. She's smart, courageous, well-grounded with good morals for starters. She doesn't flip-flop to appease the public (like Obama/now for drilling), and she is NOT self-serving (gave up her plane, personal chef, etc etc that came with the job). She is and has been SERVING THE PEOPLE, not playing politics; McCain has the same history, and together they ARE the party of change. p.s. when was the last time Obama had any part in giving money BACK TO THE PEOPLE like Palin did in Alaska? Look at the facts. You have 2 track records of standing up for the people on the McCain/Palin ticket and pretty talk along with old party politics on the Obama/Biden side. It really scares me to think of Obama winning, with his demonstrated lack of judgment and lack of record, poor associations, etc. p.s., if there is a revolution/take-over of the USA it could only be under Obama. notice too, that now his future position in the white house is challenged, he keeps changing his tune to sound more middle-ground. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing; beware.
Blacks in Alaska.......
Well, I have several long-time very close friends who have lived in Alaska for 28+ years. My best friend married a native Alaskan. That conversation did come up one time and you know what her husband told me (this is a man who worked on the north slope for dozens of years). He said the blacks in Alaska are some of the most hard working people he has ever met. Blacks and whites work alongside one another on the slope and other hard jobs. He said many blacks came to Alaska to get higher paying jobs. The comments he would hear would be how they detested their black relatives/friends who sat on their butts and took government (taxpayer)handouts and used their color as an excuse not to better themselves. Their children all went to school together, played together, and helped one another. He also told us that a close friend of his who was from black/Alaskan heritage had told him he couldn't understand with all the advantages his generation and those still to come have, why they don't take advantage of them and why they continue to kill one another in gangs and spend so much time hating one another and "whites", blaming whites for all their problems. Now, this comes from a black man in Alaska. He said many of his friends came up after he suggested they could find higher paying jobs. They were hard working people who just wanted a better life and they refused to raise their children thinking they had to have handouts and they didn't want them "around" other blacks who were drug pushing and calling each other the "n" word in their schools. It wasn't the Republican whites they were trying to get away from. By the way, he thought social programs were a joke!! He felt social programs were one of the biggest problems in black society and that they encouraged handouts and free rides without offering a solution.

I have several black neighbors and we are in the south, that will not hesitate to tell you they "hate" social programs, they are sick and tired of paying for them, and suggest those that like them so much be the only ones who pay for them. They are hard working people like us who want to actually keep their money. One couple put two of their daughters through medical school without a single social program in their lives. They detest being taxed to pay for all these social programs when we can see in our own communities they are just unjustified, just throwing more money into a big pit.

Now, I'm not sure where you get your info from, but all republicans are not white...matter of fact the above mentioned blacks vote republican and think the democrats are the problem for the plight of the black man. Keep giving them handouts and making them believe they "need" help, can't do without the government, can't make their own decisions, and you will have nothing but a welfare state before long.

Rich republicans don't pay taxes? Who in the h*ll do you think pay for all those social programs now.....you? The 1% of rich republicans as you put it are the ones in the highest tax brackets, pay the most taxes, and fund the greatest majority of your social programs. Taxation is relevant to your income, not your political party. You make more, you pay more in taxes. How do you think they made more money....it fell from the skies? Yes, there are those who inherit a lot of money and have done nothing to deserve it (even though those they inherited it from worked their butts off for it), but in a free country, they are free to inherit it if it is given to them. I don't feel negative towards them for that. And there are those who have made fortunes from hard work, not coming home at 5, and have pretty much given up any life of their own to succeed to the level they feel they want to be. You say rich like it's a bad word. Should we fault people for being hard working and succeeding financially in life and making more than us? I know people who have lots of money and they have sacrificed a LOT to get there.

I feel pretty certain if you had lots of money you would certainly lavish it on your children. That would be your right. And you probably wouldn't want it taken from you to give to everyone else when you can make the decision to donate/give as you see fit.

Our government, however, feels they have the right to have death taxes, which by the way, Whoopie Goldberg, detests and thinks that is wrong (she's black and rich)and why does she think that's wrong? Because she wants to give her wealth to her family when she dies and that's how it should be, without government interference. They have no right to take it....they didn't make it. I don't hear her jumping on the bandwagon saying TAKE MY MONEY, PLEASE, and give it to anyone you want and pay for hundreds of social programs with it. After all, she made it and should give to those as she sees fit, not as our government sees fit. Matter of fact, I don't hear any rich blacks screaming take my money. I hear some of them backing Obama and say they believe in what he wants for this country, but they just don't want to pay for what he wants. Make up your mind...can't have it both ways!
You sure are an expert on Alaska!
()
Please see the post below from the Alaska...
Fish and Game site. No one is shooting wolves for the fun of it, and I have seen nothing to indicate that she personally participates on a regular basis. As to giving a hoot for the peoples' well being, 85% of Alaskans disagree with you, as do I.
If Alaska ceceded from the US, and
I know what Sarah would say: 'I saw the Russian tanks approaching from my house!'

hahahahahahahahahahaha
Then why is she hated in Alaska?
.
Sarah Palin fans are as whack as Palin.
Even John McCain's top adviser referred to Sarah Palin as a whack job.
She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska...
to me that indicates that the voters who put her there are very happy they put her there. THat includes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

The man was corrupt. She got rid of corruption. Most Presidents when they go into the job, as well as most governors, "clean house" when they go into office, whether they are corrupt or not. You act like that is something that is "not done." Good grief.

My bias is showing? Now THAT is rich. LOL.

Okay...first, what an elitist comment. A tiny Alaska community? Those people don't count? Well you certainly relegated them to the back back back burner didn't you? Tell me again how important the "little" people are! She has 12 months of actual executive experience. Obama has none. She is going to be second chair, not first. She has an 80% approval rating...Obama never HAS had that, except from NARAL, who gave him 100%. I would say that her constituents are happier with her than Obama's were with him.

I think she is ready for the "big boys." Let's see how she does in the debates with Biden.

Why is it that Democrats laud democratic whistleblowers and diss Republican ones??

Unless McCain dies or incapacitated, she won't be getting that 3:00 call. But since you brought it up...this little person has a question about that 3:00 call. Is Obama going to call Joe Biden on the other line???
She is governor of Alaska. Oil and Gas is a big part of...
that state's economy. She said the science presented that the polar bears were in danger was faulty. I cannot say, because I have not seen the study. The only things about this I have seen is on environmental sites. I would like to see something less slanted. She is also for alternative forms of energy, but she is a realist. It is going to take a long time for that to be a viable option. Yes, we should work on it. But in the mean time, we need to drill here and drill now. That is the road to getting off foreign oil. I think anyone's energy plan has to include that.

Yes, she is pro life. And she believes that abortion in any case is wrong. I believe that also. We are entitled to that opinion. Yes, the morning after pill is issued to all women who report a rape. Women who do not report a rape can obtain it a health departments, hospitals, and from a physician. As far as incest...I still believe abortion is wrong; however, an abortion law with those exclusions, and add the exclusion to save the life of the mother, would save many thousands of babies every year. This country aborts in excess of 1.2 million babies every year. We could save over 80% of those babies if we had a law like that, instead of an abortion on demand oops law. Just because she is pro life in all cases does not mean she would not be a good VP...and the law will never be changed unless the supreme court overturns its decision on Roe v. Wade. As VP she would have no input into that...even McCain as pres has no input other than appointing judges, and those judges have to get past the Congress.

Just my opinion...so you know where conservative persons stand on it.
Alaska may be the largest state -
Unless they're counting the caribou. Oh wait... maybe she shot 'em all.


You post something like that and call Alaska
skanky? Hmmm.
She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska...
so obviously "most" of the people in Alaska do not agree.
lol....you act like Alaska is at the ends of the earth....
and they are "poor Alaskans." I think they have all incomes levels. Hey...a few thousand dollars is a lot of money to ME. lol.

Anyway...the amount of land drilled on in Alaska is extremely small in contrast to the size of the state. Proposed drilling in ANWR encompasses about 2000 acres at the most far north part of Alaska. ANWR in total is 19 MILLION acres.
Hoping she gets to go back to Alaska
Nov. 4 so that she can keep getting her tans....or therapy for depression, whichever.
Women of Alaska - another view.

http://bigshow.bigfolio.com/?s=000011662&t=0e6a8ae03101be65098418ccb735e4a1


 


Definitely worth the watch


Well, there are liberal women in Alaska....
no kiddin! Geez. They borrowed the signs from the lower 48; heck, they may BE from the lower 48. Did anybody really think there were not liberal Democratic women in Alaska? This is news?
PS; The Alaska State Legislature is
x
I too have close friends in Alaska and they
@@
Regarding Alaska...I would suggest you read up on....sm
The Alaska Permanent Fund




http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/permFund/aboutPermFund.cfm







Are you taking about Stevens in Alaska?

Their thought is if he's voted in and goes to prison, they'll be able to hold a special election and put someone else in or something like that.


I thought it was ridiculous.


So, the 2 million dollars went back to Alaska.
nm