- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That trip he is repaying as pointed out in the link is the trip he took a year ago, while on official business with the U.S. Commerce Department. I think its very noble of him to offer to repay the Argentinian leg of the trip myself.
Right, this is also the trip where he asked for Argentina to be added to the itinerary from what I saw on TV.
Well when you get a good solid link for that one let me know.
Im not trying to be snobbish about this, but with a 2 year old in the house my TV stays on Noggin.
Where is your evidence that it was the state's money?
Well when you get a good solid link for that one let me know.
Im not trying to be snobbish about this, but with a 2 year old in the house my TV stays on Noggin.
Earlier Thursday, a spokeswoman for the South Carolina Department of Commerce confirmed that Mr. Sanford instructed state officials to extend a taxpayer-funded mission to Brazil a year ago to include a trip to Buenos Aires at the time his relationship with a woman who lived there was becoming romantic. The department estimated Mr. Sanford's share of the Argentina leg cost $11,000. There is no indication that state funds were spent on Mr. Sanford's most recent trip to Argentina, during which his staff said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.
It's in all of the recent articles about it. How can you not know of his misuse of state money if you have read any of the stories about it?
Wrong trip. That was a previous trip in which he was actually there on business.
This trip was not business, that quote is not a recent one.
Doesn't make a difference, in fact it makes it a more egregiously ironic statement since he also snuck away to see the same mistress during that prior trip. Why else do you think he went there to begin with? Do you really believe he had anything but a concocted state purpose to be in Argentina even the first time?
I take it conservatives are just skimming this news with the least possible reading comprehension, maybe even closing their eyes while pretending to have read it, for the usual partisan reasons.
Again, that was the previous trip in which they were on business.
I am talking specifically about THIS trip he just took.
The fact of the matter is you have no evidence to support the assertion that the state funds were used SPECIFICALLY to meet her, since it was an official trip with an official purpose and there were multiple places that were visited, not just Argentina.
No, Im reading the article with perfect reading comprehension.
Im not reading into and making my own partisan assumptions as it appears that you have done.
It may be the case that you are correct, however, Im not going to jump up and down stating it to be so until there is a little more substance than an "educated guess".
"Sanford also issued a statement promising to reimburse the state for an economic-development trip he took to Argentina last year that included time he spent with his mistress. State Commerce Department records indicate more than $8,000 was spent on airfare, lodging and meals, though Sanford did not say how much he will pay back."
Well because you have so much trouble finding the passage, here:
You can also google the original quote and find it referenced to one of those two trips to see his mistress.
If you are talking about this trip, you are correct. We do not yet have enough information to judge.
I disagree. Circumstantial evidence weaker than this sort of association is used to convict people on a variety of crimes. Just because he multi-tasked the purpose of his trip doesn't make it legitimate. He is clearly trying to nip any further investigation into the purpose of the trip by offering to pay up front, since if it is found he fabricated reasons for such a trip, he may be guilty of a prosecutable crime, regardless of whether he reimburses the cost.
I am not a judge or jury. Based on my standards, I don't see enough evidence where I am comfortable making that accusation.
That was facetiously inflammatory, not to mention pointless speculation; the fact is he did no such thing. You are trolling conservatives and Christians with that paragraph, and nothing more.
thank you, I am sure I would enjoy that, some people may find it strange why an atheist,socialist like myself would enjoy your company, the world is full of partisan idiots.:lol: i bet we could drink us some pints brother! :thumbs:
If you view this story honestly you will notice that the balance of sexual and other types of miscreants are pretty evenly distributed bewteen boh political parties.
The argument against gay marriage is that it will weaken heterosexual marriages and that it doesn't respect the sanctity of marriage.
But only one of those political parties claims to be the "Law & Order" & "Family Values" party with better morals & more patriotic than the other.
It's the hypocrisy of the Republican Party which angers me & is the cause of their current disfavor, imo.
And has nothing to do with the current topic.
But only one of those political parties claims to be the "Law & Order" & "Family Values" party with better morals & more patriotic than the other.
It's the hypocrisy of the Republican Party which angers me & is the cause of their current disfavor, imo.
I'm waiting anxiously for the pro-"traditional" marriage people to pass a law banning Republicans from marrying.
As soon as the democrats ban "Stupid"...... :2razz:
As soon as the democrats ban "Stupid"...... :2razz:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?