View Full Version : I can only imagine...
MJZiggy
10-10-2008, 09:25 PM
The excuses this will bring on...How many posts before we get to Republican revenge...?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/palin.html
LEWCWA
10-10-2008, 09:28 PM
yours is better I'm not smart enough to add links!!! :idea:
HowardRoark
10-10-2008, 09:33 PM
State Troopers, abuse of power, violent and rogue behavior, cover-ups........hell, she was just building her resume.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/161180~Bill-Clinton-Posters.jpg
MJZiggy
10-10-2008, 09:38 PM
I didn't know that Arkansas found him guilty of that...his big downfall was that he liked his women, but then there are a few of you out there that spend your lives being led around by your private parts...
HowardRoark
10-10-2008, 09:51 PM
I didn't know that Arkansas found him guilty of that...his big downfall was that he liked his women, but then there are a few of you out there that spend your lives being led around by your private parts...
I guess Sarah's big downfall is she likes her sister.
As far as Clinton, of his many distinguishing characteristics, he certainly was bent on being led around by his private part.
Partial
10-11-2008, 12:05 AM
What politician doesn't abuse their power?
mraynrand
10-11-2008, 12:23 AM
This is the weakest of hatchet jobs, by an Obama supporter and political foe of Palin.
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
The report isn't even internally consistent. There is a bit of a problem in that Palin didn't prevent her husband from using her office to put some pressure on to fire the trooper, but the report essentially is one of a single guy balancing competing and contradictory hearsay. It's pretty low level. BTW, did you hear that John McCain was part of the Keating 5?
This is the weakest of hatchet jobs, by an Obama supporter and political foe of Palin.
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
The report isn't even internally consistent. There is a bit of a problem in that Palin didn't prevent her husband from using her office to put some pressure on to fire the trooper, but the report essentially is one of a single guy balancing competing and contradictory hearsay. It's pretty low level. BTW, did you hear that John McCain was part of the Keating 5?
It was legal but it was abusive? Makes sense to me. Plus weren't there a majority of Republicans on the panel?
texaspackerbacker
10-11-2008, 07:04 AM
This is the weakest of hatchet jobs, by an Obama supporter and political foe of Palin.
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Finding Number Two
"
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
The report isn't even internally consistent. There is a bit of a problem in that Palin didn't prevent her husband from using her office to put some pressure on to fire the trooper, but the report essentially is one of a single guy balancing competing and contradictory hearsay. It's pretty low level. BTW, did you hear that John McCain was part of the Keating 5?
It was legal but it was abusive? Makes sense to me. Plus weren't there a majority of Republicans on the panel?
"Abusive" was when the creep of an ex-brother-in-law used a stun gun on his pre-teen step-son.
As for the "majority of Republicans", could they possibly be from the corrupt bunch that Palin took on and tried to clean out of the state government when she became governor? There was a time when a majority of Republicans would have hung John McCain out to dry too. I would probably have been among them.
As I said in the other thread, this is a shining example of the liberal principal of Moral Equivalency--Palin standing up to her sister's spouse abusing/child abusing ex-husband, compared to Obama's literal political birth at the home of a murdering domestic terrorist and unabashed hater of America.
SkinBasket
10-11-2008, 07:25 AM
The excuses this will bring on...How many posts before we get to Republican revenge...?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/palin.html
Looking at the report, it's the report that needs the excuses, not Palin. Of course the media will carry the headline about evil abuses of power without referencing the substance of the report, which basically says, yeah, okay, she didn't do anything wrong, but we still don't like it! Weep. Sob.
The excuses this will bring on...How many posts before we get to Republican revenge...?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/palin.html
Looking at the report, it's the report that needs the excuses, not Palin. Of course the media will carry the headline about evil abuses of power without referencing the substance of the report, which basically says, yeah, okay, she didn't do anything wrong, but we still don't like it! Weep. Sob.
Actually, it says that she didn't do anything illegal, but it was unethical.
Gray areas at work.
MJZiggy
10-11-2008, 07:32 AM
Excuses, excuses. Poor Sarah abused by all those nasty Republicans...
Of course it's their fault and the fault of the report. Sarah couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it. Just because the finding was unanimous an bipartisan, she couldn't possibly have done anything wrong.
SkinBasket
10-11-2008, 07:35 AM
The excuses this will bring on...How many posts before we get to Republican revenge...?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/palin.html
Looking at the report, it's the report that needs the excuses, not Palin. Of course the media will carry the headline about evil abuses of power without referencing the substance of the report, which basically says, yeah, okay, she didn't do anything wrong, but we still don't like it! Weep. Sob.
Actually, it says that she didn't do anything illegal, but it was unethical.
Gray areas at work.
If by gray areas you mean using politics to make personal attacks against Palin, then yes, I suppose you're right. There's nothing to substantiate the "unethical" part outside of opinion.
texaspackerbacker
10-11-2008, 07:37 AM
Excuses, excuses. Poor Sarah abused by all those nasty Republicans...
Of course it's their fault and the fault of the report. Sarah couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it. Just because the finding was unanimous an bipartisan, she couldn't possibly have done anything wrong.
Had "anything to do" with WHAT? What exactly do you see that she did wrong?
SkinBasket
10-11-2008, 07:40 AM
Excuses, excuses. Poor Sarah abused by all those nasty Republicans...
Of course it's their fault and the fault of the report. Sarah couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it. Just because the finding was unanimous an bipartisan, she couldn't possibly have done anything wrong.
There's nothing to excuse, Ziggy. I would think an open minded independent would be able to see that. Her political opponents labeling a proper and legal action as abusive for the media to spill out for a few days hardly seems like the kind of ploy a centrist would fall for.
MJZiggy
10-11-2008, 07:41 AM
Hmmm...so far it's been one Obama supporter seemingly who apparently wrote the finding himself with no influence of anyone on the commission, an attack on the report and I'm seeing either 6 or 8 posts before the "political foe out to get her" excuse depending on how you look at it...
SkinBasket
10-11-2008, 07:44 AM
Uhhh... Wut?
MJZiggy
10-11-2008, 07:46 AM
Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.
texaspackerbacker
10-11-2008, 07:48 AM
I ask again, Ziggy, WHAT exactly do you see that Palin did that was wrong?
SkinBasket
10-11-2008, 07:53 AM
Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.
Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.
MJZiggy
10-11-2008, 08:06 AM
Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.
Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.
If there's nothing to excuse, then why was the decision unanimous that there IS something to excuse on Palin's side? You just simply won't allow it to be stated that maybe your poor innocent abused Sarah may have done something even inappropriate. Come on, say it. She fucked up.
Tex, she fucked up when she tried to get a trooper fired for personal reasons after the commission decided that he'd done nothing to get fired for, and then she threatened to fire the guy that led the investigation.
His actual firing is what triggered the inquiry, but wasn't the actual abuse. It was using the public trust for personal gain.
mraynrand
10-11-2008, 08:11 AM
Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.
Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.
What she tried to do was what libs constantly do: set the parameters of the debate so as to only favor their point of view. Zig initially asks 'what excuses' she will see in response to her baiting thread, as though what happened was certainly, unquestionably wrong and can only be excused - Zig didn't start with a proposition such as "Are these findings valid?" or "What is the impact of these findings?" Zig, the way you phrased you query can only lead to a defensive posture by anyone who doesn't agree with the findings. Did you go to law school?
texaspackerbacker
10-11-2008, 08:20 AM
Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.
Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.
If there's nothing to excuse, then why was the decision unanimous that there IS something to excuse on Palin's side? You just simply won't allow it to be stated that maybe your poor innocent abused Sarah may have done something even inappropriate. Come on, say it. She fucked up.
Tex, she fucked up when she tried to get a trooper fired for personal reasons after the commission decided that he'd done nothing to get fired for, and then she threatened to fire the guy that led the investigation.
His actual firing is what triggered the inquiry, but wasn't the actual abuse. It was using the public trust for personal gain.
Did she say to the state commissioner "you will be fired if you don't fire him"? She isn't even accused of that. Short of that, WHAT DID SHE DO WRONG? Suggesting the should be fired/inquiring whether he had been fired or why not? Where do you see a crime (as you stated it was) or even an ethics violation or even a moral wrong?
And as for doing "nothing to be fired", the guy used a stun gun--presumably a service weapon--on a child. You don't see that as worthy of being fired?
You KNOW if Palin was a Dem/lib, you'd be defending her all the way. How HYPOCRITICAL!
mraynrand
10-11-2008, 08:23 AM
Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
MJZiggy
10-11-2008, 08:23 AM
No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood, whom I admittedly REALLY don't like. I knew that the first thing you'd do was try to take a UNANIMOUS and BIPARTISAN finding and invalidate it to suggest that she did nothing wrong. What real reason is there to question the finding? It's a republican lynch mob out to get her? The dems voted right with the republican. They wanted to ruin her chances at getting elected VP? Isn't Alaska a red state? Also, don't you think they'd take it as a point of pride that an Alaskan was working in the Executive Offices? I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.
mraynrand
10-11-2008, 08:24 AM
MORE EXCUSES: Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
mraynrand
10-11-2008, 08:25 AM
No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.
Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
MJZiggy
10-11-2008, 08:26 AM
No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.
Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
That is not the basis of the determination of abuse of power. Her trying to force the firing of her ex brother-in-law for personal reasons is.
texaspackerbacker
10-11-2008, 08:33 AM
No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.
Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
That is not the basis of the determination of abuse of power. Her trying to force the firing of her ex brother-in-law for personal reasons is.
She did NOT force or try to the firing of the guy. She merely suggested/inquired. Did your article or the commission even accuse her of any more than that? I say AGAIN, she had the moral high ground--could you possibly say otherwise?--and she did nothing more than proper and appropriate communication with the supervisor who should have fired the guy. Could you possibly claim otherwise?
MJZiggy
10-11-2008, 08:46 AM
No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.
Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
That is not the basis of the determination of abuse of power. Her trying to force the firing of her ex brother-in-law for personal reasons is.
She did NOT force or try to the firing of the guy. She merely suggested/inquired. Did your article or the commission even accuse her of any more than that? I say AGAIN, she had the moral high ground--could you possibly say otherwise?--and she did nothing more than proper and appropriate communication with the supervisor who should have fired the guy. Could you possibly claim otherwise?
She told the safety commissioner that if he didn't fire her ex b-i-l, she was going to fire him. It's not about the moral high ground, it's about the public trust. If he was a horrible guy, too bad. If he did horrid things, he should have been arrested, not fired. There are plenty of law enforcement officials out there who do their job fine but have screwed up personal lives. They should not be fired for that, but when they do things that break the law, they need to be arrested, not fired. If their arrest leads to their firing sobeit, but you can't skip the arrest part. If he did something to be arrested for, fine. Do it. If he didn't, you don't use the governors office to make him go away. This is government, not the mafia.
mraynrand
10-11-2008, 08:53 AM
No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.
Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
That is not the basis of the determination of abuse of power. Her trying to force the firing of her ex brother-in-law for personal reasons is.
She did NOT force or try to the firing of the guy. She merely suggested/inquired. Did your article or the commission even accuse her of any more than that? I say AGAIN, she had the moral high ground--could you possibly say otherwise?--and she did nothing more than proper and appropriate communication with the supervisor who should have fired the guy. Could you possibly claim otherwise?
She told the safety commissioner that if he didn't fire her ex b-i-l, she was going to fire him. It's not about the moral high ground, it's about the public trust. If he was a horrible guy, too bad. If he did horrid things, he should have been arrested, not fired. There are plenty of law enforcement officials out there who do their job fine but have screwed up personal lives. They should not be fired for that, but when they do things that break the law, they need to be arrested, not fired. If their arrest leads to their firing sobeit, but you can't skip the arrest part. If he did something to be arrested for, fine. Do it. If he didn't, you don't use the governors office to make him go away. This is government, not the mafia.
I thought it was: Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
That is not the basis of the determination of abuse of power. Her trying to force the firing of her ex brother-in-law for personal reasons is.
cpk1994
10-11-2008, 08:56 AM
This is the weakest of hatchet jobs, by an Obama supporter and political foe of Palin.
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
The report isn't even internally consistent. There is a bit of a problem in that Palin didn't prevent her husband from using her office to put some pressure on to fire the trooper, but the report essentially is one of a single guy balancing competing and contradictory hearsay. It's pretty low level. BTW, did you hear that John McCain was part of the Keating 5?
It was legal but it was abusive? Makes sense to me. Plus weren't there a majority of Republicans on the panel?Ideology on the panel didn't really matter as both sides have vendetta with her up there.
MJZiggy
10-11-2008, 08:58 AM
Why do both sides have a vendetta so strong that they would prevent one of their own from reaching the Executive Office?
The excuses this will bring on...How many posts before we get to Republican revenge...?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/palin.html
Looking at the report, it's the report that needs the excuses, not Palin. Of course the media will carry the headline about evil abuses of power without referencing the substance of the report, which basically says, yeah, okay, she didn't do anything wrong, but we still don't like it! Weep. Sob.
Actually, it says that she didn't do anything illegal, but it was unethical.
Gray areas at work.
If by gray areas you mean using politics to make personal attacks against Palin, then yes, I suppose you're right. There's nothing to substantiate the "unethical" part outside of opinion.
Yeah, that's what it boils down to. Opinions of the panel. Opinions of her own Republicans.
Take it however you wish. It may sway a mind or two.
Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.
Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.
If there's nothing to excuse, then why was the decision unanimous that there IS something to excuse on Palin's side? You just simply won't allow it to be stated that maybe your poor innocent abused Sarah may have done something even inappropriate. Come on, say it. She fucked up.
Tex, she fucked up when she tried to get a trooper fired for personal reasons after the commission decided that he'd done nothing to get fired for, and then she threatened to fire the guy that led the investigation.
His actual firing is what triggered the inquiry, but wasn't the actual abuse. It was using the public trust for personal gain.
Did she say to the state commissioner "you will be fired if you don't fire him"? She isn't even accused of that. Short of that, WHAT DID SHE DO WRONG? Suggesting the should be fired/inquiring whether he had been fired or why not? Where do you see a crime (as you stated it was) or even an ethics violation or even a moral wrong?
And as for doing "nothing to be fired", the guy used a stun gun--presumably a service weapon--on a child. You don't see that as worthy of being fired?
You KNOW if Palin was a Dem/lib, you'd be defending her all the way. How HYPOCRITICAL!
And you know if Palin was a Dem/lib, you'd be all over her. Don't play this game.
mraynrand
10-11-2008, 09:06 AM
Why do both sides have a vendetta so strong that they would prevent one of their own from reaching the Executive Office?
You don't seem to understand people all that well, councilor.
mraynrand
10-11-2008, 09:08 AM
Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.
Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.
If there's nothing to excuse, then why was the decision unanimous that there IS something to excuse on Palin's side? You just simply won't allow it to be stated that maybe your poor innocent abused Sarah may have done something even inappropriate. Come on, say it. She fucked up.
Tex, she fucked up when she tried to get a trooper fired for personal reasons after the commission decided that he'd done nothing to get fired for, and then she threatened to fire the guy that led the investigation.
His actual firing is what triggered the inquiry, but wasn't the actual abuse. It was using the public trust for personal gain.
Did she say to the state commissioner "you will be fired if you don't fire him"? She isn't even accused of that. Short of that, WHAT DID SHE DO WRONG? Suggesting the should be fired/inquiring whether he had been fired or why not? Where do you see a crime (as you stated it was) or even an ethics violation or even a moral wrong?
And as for doing "nothing to be fired", the guy used a stun gun--presumably a service weapon--on a child. You don't see that as worthy of being fired?
You KNOW if Palin was a Dem/lib, you'd be defending her all the way. How HYPOCRITICAL!
And you know if Palin was a Dem/lib, you'd be all over her. Don't play this game.
I doubt that this would have even made the national media.
MJZiggy
10-11-2008, 09:08 AM
I understand that homerism outdoes personal hatred.
People hate TT like an antichrist, but still root for him to do well because it means their hometown team wins. (except for a few idiots.)
This is the weakest of hatchet jobs, by an Obama supporter and political foe of Palin.
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
The report isn't even internally consistent. There is a bit of a problem in that Palin didn't prevent her husband from using her office to put some pressure on to fire the trooper, but the report essentially is one of a single guy balancing competing and contradictory hearsay. It's pretty low level. BTW, did you hear that John McCain was part of the Keating 5?
It was legal but it was abusive? Makes sense to me. Plus weren't there a majority of Republicans on the panel?Ideology on the panel didn't really matter as both sides have vendetta with her up there.
To the point that they'd derail the chances at a Republican presidency? That would be a classic cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face move. I don't buy it.
Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.
Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.
If there's nothing to excuse, then why was the decision unanimous that there IS something to excuse on Palin's side? You just simply won't allow it to be stated that maybe your poor innocent abused Sarah may have done something even inappropriate. Come on, say it. She fucked up.
Tex, she fucked up when she tried to get a trooper fired for personal reasons after the commission decided that he'd done nothing to get fired for, and then she threatened to fire the guy that led the investigation.
His actual firing is what triggered the inquiry, but wasn't the actual abuse. It was using the public trust for personal gain.
Did she say to the state commissioner "you will be fired if you don't fire him"? She isn't even accused of that. Short of that, WHAT DID SHE DO WRONG? Suggesting the should be fired/inquiring whether he had been fired or why not? Where do you see a crime (as you stated it was) or even an ethics violation or even a moral wrong?
And as for doing "nothing to be fired", the guy used a stun gun--presumably a service weapon--on a child. You don't see that as worthy of being fired?
You KNOW if Palin was a Dem/lib, you'd be defending her all the way. How HYPOCRITICAL!
And you know if Palin was a Dem/lib, you'd be all over her. Don't play this game.
I doubt that this would have even made the national media.
But then Kiwon or Sheepshead would've found it, and there, Tex would be all over her.
mraynrand
10-11-2008, 09:19 AM
I understand that homerism outdoes personal hatred.
People hate TT like an antichrist, but still root for him to do well because it means their hometown team wins. (except for a few idiots.)
May I introduce you to Kathleen Parker and George Will?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.