Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Satty

Panel: Palin abused power in trooper case

20 posts in this topic

This is obviously a ploy by the Democrats. They knew that McCain was going to pick Palin, so they arranged for Alaska's legislature to hire a special prosecutor to investigate almost two months before McCain made the announcement of Palin as his VP.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"...it states that her efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action."<<

What about pursuing public interests ?? How does leaving a murder-threatening, drunk-driving, child-tasering, no-permit hunting, 4-time divorcee thug on the street with a badge/gun serve the public? F*ck. If a superior (who was a police union co-member) fails to perform his duty as a public safety commissioner by firing this ass, then

>>"Palin had the authority as governor to fire him"<< and so she justly did. 'Abuse of power' totally ignores the Wooten situation of the story.

>>""I believe that these findings may help people come to a conclusion on how they should vote" in the presidential election, Elton said."<<

Aaaaaaaaaand there we have it : unbiased, non-partisan, non-agenda motivated "investigation". Thanks for leaving it right out on the table. :rolleyes:

Edited by balthazar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is obviously a ploy by the Democrats. They knew that McCain was going to pick Palin, so they arranged for Alaska's legislature to hire a special prosecutor to investigate almost two months before McCain made the announcement of Palin as his VP.

This is obviously the Democrat version of the Swift Boat Veterans! Those cheeky bastards. Palin should defend herself by going in front of the panel and answer every question by posing her own and then answering it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaaaaaaaaand there we have it : unbiased, non-partisan, non-agenda motivated "investigation". Thanks for leaving it right out on the table. :rolleyes:

Oh, you mean the Republican-majority panel? This investigation would never have happened without Republican votes of authorization.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, you mean the Republican-majority panel? This investigation would never have happened without Republican votes of authorization.

a few things.

1) i don't believe she made many friends with her run for governorship.

2) Given the wording of how to vote, this is obviously politically charged.

3) Given that they recommended no action against her it is obvious that it is not substantial.

4) She was well within her rights for firing him, the only mistake she made was letting her sister date him in the first place, which then made ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER against him "unethical." if he went around beating up old guys, and she fired him for it, she would still be in violation of this ethics law because of her sisters relationship with the man.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She was well within her rights for firing him, the only mistake she made was letting her sister date him in the first place,

Before defending this ass, learn the whole story - She did not fire the jackass ex-brother-in-law, she fired the guy that she was pressuring to fire the ex-brother in law - an obvious abuse of power. That is substantial.

McCain - Palin 08 - Ignorance is Bliss

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before defending this ass, learn the whole story - She did not fire the jackass ex-brother-in-law, she fired the guy that she was pressuring to fire the ex-brother in law - an obvious abuse of power. That is substantial.

McCain - Palin 08 - Ignorance is Bliss

Yeah i know i realized that after i posted the remark.

However, it's somewhat of a stretch, but if she fired this man and her sister was NOT dating the trooper, would anyone be complaining?

And Ignorance is rampant among Obama supporters too. Besides, if you have read the vast majority of my arguments they are usually decently well based and educated.

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain - Palin 08 - Ignorance is Bliss

QFT

if you have read the vast majority of my arguments they are usually decently well based and educated.

Talk about patting yourself on the back. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a few things.

1) i don't believe she made many friends with her run for governorship.

What the f@#k? How does not ingratiating herself with people (pretty much the cornerstone of successful politics, btw) make this suddenly a partisan attack? The investigation was begun by a bipartisan vote, and after the McCain campaign tried to derail it, a Republican-majority bipartisan group voted to continue pursuing it.

Frankly, her inability to work well with members of her own party raises yet another concern of why she is on this ticket.

2) Given the wording of how to vote, this is obviously politically charged.
We are talking about politics, and particularly those pertaining to a potential vice president. How could it NOT be politically-charged?

3) Given that they recommended no action against her it is obvious that it is not substantial.
How do you come up with this from the following quote:

Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Lawmakers don't have the authority to sanction her for such a violation, and they gave no indication they would take any action against her.

Under Alaska law, it is up to the state's Personnel Board — which is conducting its own investigation into the matter — to decide whether Palin violated state law and, if so, must refer it to the Senate president for disciplinary action. Violations also carry a possible fine of up to $5,000.

I fail to see any recommendation to "do nothing." What I do see is an explanation of how this situation could possibly play out due to the statutes in Alaska, if those responsible for doing so choose to pursue it.

4) She was well within her rights for firing him, the only mistake she made was letting her sister date him in the first place, which then made ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER against him "unethical." if he went around beating up old guys, and she fired him for it, she would still be in violation of this ethics law because of her sisters relationship with the man.

But since Alaska has an ethics statute, she was NOT within her rights to do as she did, and this report found her guilty of violating the statute.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Ignorance is rampant among Obama supporters too.
Would you like to elaborate on that? Or are you just making the point that there are ignorant people in the general sense on both sides of the line, owing primarily to the sheer number of people in this country and all of them essentially being a binary?

Besides, if you have read the vast majority of my arguments they are usually decently well based and educated.

Sorry, but you've posted too many unsubstantiated (and easily-debunked) political email hoaxes for me to agree with that. I'm not trying to make a personal attack here at all. I just think you'd be more persuasive and come off better if your arguing style were less "Oh yea? Well Obama does THIS!" and more "Here are the X issues I care about most, these are my X positions, my X reasons for supporting these positions, and here's how John McCain furthers my X personal interests."

It's like if you've ever seen Bitsy on The View...Joy, Whoopie, and Barbara often make very logical points supporting their positions, while Bitsy gets flustered and resorts to shrill unrelated accusations against THEIR political candidate, instead of discussing their argument itself, or defending her own point of view.

It's like asking somebody why they like carrots, and them responding with "Because the Dutch say you shouldn't microwave spinach, onions make your eyes water, and if my cat accidentally eats garlic it could die!"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is obviously the Democrat version of the Swift Boat Veterans! Those cheeky bastards. Palin should defend herself by going in front of the panel and answer every question by posing her own and then answering it.

Teehee

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides, if you have read the vast majority of my arguments they are usually decently well based and educated.

If by "usually" you mean "hardly ever".... then yes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell is it politically charged? It began in a Republican controlled legislature well before anyone outside of Alaska knew who Palin was. The retired prosecutor who issued the report has a reputation for integrity and a bi-partisan panel reviewed the report and voted unanimously to release it. There is not way the Republican controlled legislature was going to impeach her or penalize her in any way, so again, other than the truth, what did any other Alaskan politician get out of this?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"How the hell is it politically charged?"<<

As an investigative inquiry, their official business is only to determine the facts in the matter at hand. Coming out with a 'now you know who NOT to vote for' line is ridiculously biased; the presidential campaign has ZERO to do with Palin as governor firing a cabinet member.

>>"She did not fire the jackass ex-brother-in-law, she fired the guy that she was pressuring to fire the ex-brother in law - an obvious abuse of power. "<<

She fired the guy responsible for firing the a-hole trooper, because he refused to do so because 'he didn't see anything'. This is like a cop refusing to arrest a criminal because he didn't see him actually commit the crime. He failed to do his job.

>>"...if she fired this man and her sister was NOT dating the trooper, would anyone be complaining?"<<

Exactly right. No one could legitimately.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, her inability to work well with members of her own party raises yet another concern of why she is on this ticket.

Cause they are Mavericks, just like the Ford Maverick, and you know what happened to it. Giddy yap little Doggie! :smilewide:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0