"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooter 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."
FACT, OFFICIAL RECORD, educate yourself with the official record, not the TV
The fact is, the guy was a piss-poor performer, and she was well withing her right to fire the guy. Wrong my patootee.
And again, the cop in question tazered her sisters SON.
You wanna protect kids or cops?
So, some perspective
You don't understand the difference between lawful and ethical? Go figure that out and come back.
You'll notice I said money that is RIGHTFULLY theirs. Money they earned illegally or unjustly is not rightfully theirs. That's for the courts to handle.
Yeah, I got that. You'll notice I said the money you're complaining about is not actually rightfully theirs. So if you're only talking about money that's rightfully theirs, I guess there's no problem then.
"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooter 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."
FACT, OFFICIAL RECORD, educate yourself with the official record, not the TV
The fact is, the guy was a piss-poor performer, and she was well withing her right to fire the guy. Wrong my patootee.
And again, the cop in question tazered her sisters SON.
You wanna protect kids or cops?
So, some perspective
From the report, verbatim...
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.
Finding Number Three
Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten’s workers’ compensation claim property and in the normal course of business like any other claim processed by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further, Trooper Wooten received all the workers’ compensation benefits to which he was entitled.
Finding Number Four
The Attorney General’s office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for information about the case in the form of emails.
It doesn't do your argument much good to cherry-pick the parts of the report that you want and then ignore the other three findings...for example in finding number one; "I find that Sarah Palin ABUSED HER POWER..." emphasis added. For someone who's telling us that us Obama zombies need to "look at the record", you didn't do a very good job at looking at the record yourself.
Old based upon what? If he lives to 100 years old and is able to maintain his full faculties until then...he has almost 30 years left. What about another person that ends up dying at 55...does this mean they were actually old at 25?
Subjective opinion based on certain criteria.
I stand corrected....I guess 72 is the new 52....:)
Ayers is a self-admitted domestic terrorist. Obama is downplaying his associattion with him. Because...
People I know throw parties for me, in my honor, in their own home, all the time.
So, Obama either knew and lied, or didn't and is incompetent. which one is it?
You can't dispute Ayers in an america hater but further,
His own paster Wright "god d*** America"
His own wife "for the first time, I'm proud of my country"
This is an overall pattern that speaks to an overall environemnt of "ugly amerca" sentiment.
He is at best surrounded by an environment that expresses shame in America, and at worst an active part of that environment. I have no time for either.
You certainly cannot say that about McCain.
the corporate money, the media domination...connect the dots.
Look at the facts.
Way to turn the facts. You should go work for Karl Rove.
FACT: Obama did not launch his campaign in Ayers livingroom as suggested by the McCain camp. This encounter took place in 1995 when Ayers hosted a gathering at home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago a neighborhood in which the Obamas also lived. The event was not for Obama it was a fundrasier for then-State Senator Alice J. Palmer who INVITED Barack Obama in order to introduce him as her choice for the 1996 Democratic primary. McCains claims are historically and factually wrong. If you know anything about the Hyde Park section of Chicago you'd realize that the neighborhood consists of many Chicago Politicians, Community advocates, and University Staff. Is Obama at fault because he lives in the same Neighborhood as Ayers? Because he worked under a State Senator who happend to be holding a fundraiser? NO!!
FACT: Obama was president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge which is a large education-related nonprofit organization that Ayers also belonged to. The boards platform was to disburse grants to schools and raise money for schools and provide private matching fund. Both men attended some board meetings as the education program started. I don't know if you belong to a School Board or have ever belonged to a Parent Teacher Association but sometimes you serve on the same comitees as people who may or may not have a criminal record. Does this associate you with them? does this make you a Terrorist? or a someone associated with crime or Terroism? NO.
FACT: Obama and Ayers were also members of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation the group was made up of 9 community members and and met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants to schools. Again. Does this make Obama a terrorist? Does it make him evil because he once again happend to be on the same board as someone who engaged in illegal activites 40 YEARS AGO!!! NO!!!!
You can go on and on and list every encounter Obama has had with Ayers but the fact remains simple. Ayers has nothing to do with the Obama campaign. Obama has never had anything to do with the Weather Underground nor has he ever promoted or engaged in terroist activities.
I mean how many times has John McCain been in the same room as unfavorable charactors with a shady past? I'm sure over the course of his 30 years in Politics McCain has had numerous associates, and encounters with people with shady pasts. Keating....for one...but I digress.
This is such a non issue and it's bordering on insanity. This is just a textbook Karl Rove tactic meant to smear Obama and push the actual issues of this election;which John McCain avoids like the plauge to the shadows.
McCain fell victim to these very same tactics in 2000 and now because he's on the other end...It's all of a sudden justified.
Let's face the facts. Race is also a "real" factor in this race. Obama's an African American.
And as has been mentioned on here quite a few times. There's a ton of ahole racist nuts in the world. One of these aholes could do something stupid to him and he also could die.
Trying to put the "he could die" crap out there is BS either way.
An Palin is much better looking than anyone on the Dem side.
you say it's BS...I disagree...
Palin is a scary nut...she can't answer a simple question...and I'm serious when I say this...if it came down to Palin or GWB as president....I'd support GWB...
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.
So here's the code:
Sec. 39.52.110. Scope of code; prohibition of unethical conduct.
(a) 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. In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an officer from following other independent pursuits. The legislature further recognizes that
(1) in a representative democracy, the representatives are drawn from society and, therefore, cannot and should not be without personal and financial interests in the decisions and policies of government;
(2) people who serve as public officers retain their rights to interests of a personal or financial nature; and
(3) standards of ethical conduct for members of the executive branch need to distinguish between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society, and those conflicts of interests that are substantial and material.
(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer's
(1) personal or financial interest in the matter is insignificant, or of a type that is possessed generally by the public or a large class of persons to which the public officer belongs; or
(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter.
(c) The attorney general, designated supervisors, hearing officers, and the personnel board must be guided by this section when issuing opinions and reaching decisions.
(d) Stock or other ownership interest in a business is presumed insignificant if the value of the stock or other ownership interest, including an option to purchase an ownership interest, is less than $5,000.
Basically, I could have bounced a check, or flicked a cigarette butt out my window, and be violating this exremenly broad and subjective legislation.
Paaaleeease. Get your nephew trazered by a cop and get back to me.
Apparently a lot of people (including my husband) saw it the same way you did...? I know I am biased towards Obama, but am I really so biased that I am the only one who saw McCain as whiney? (ie: Obama didn't agree to do 10 town hall meetings like McCain wanted, so that is why McCain started negative ads?) And I thought McCain, when he wasn't whining, was skirting the truths. (How can a new tax on healthcare not be an increase in taxes? How can veterans teach and improve our school system if they have no teacher training/certification?)
I am not very eloquent so I hope that made sense. And, I love Cincinnati! Wish I was there!
i believe that McCain does not have respect for Obama and i think the little respect he did have for him was lost when Obama didn't say yes to teh townhall meetings. Mccain saw what i believe alot of people see/saw in Obama and that was great speaker but maybe no details.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Paaaleeease. Get your nephew trazered by a cop and get back to me.
You can't change the argument you were having just because you were wrong. You took issue with someone stating that it was a fact that Palin acted unethically. You said, and I quote;
"oh yeah?
from the OFFICIAL finding, not some spin:
"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooter 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."
FACT, OFFICIAL RECORD, educate yourself with the official record, not the TV"
You took the one part of the findings that made it look like Palin had done everything by the book and ignored the rest. I'm not talking about the kid, I'm not talking about the wide range of Alaskan law, and the quote above shows that you were not speaking about those things either. You said it was a FACT that Palin had acted ethically, and the actual report proves otherwise. And I think it's pretty rich that a poster who has been telling Obama supporters that they need to stop being zombies and "look at the record" either did not look at the record himself, or looked at the record and chose the part he wanted to try and prove an assertion that was clearly false. As I said, you can't change the argument mid-stream because you were wrong.
a couple other thoughts, the Joe the Plumber stuff was annoying....I'm sorry, but I don't feel bad about Mr. Plumber and his horrible plight...:rolleyes:
Almost makes you want Joe Six pack back. almost
So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
You can't change the argument you were having just because you were wrong. You took issue with someone stating that it was a fact that Palin acted unethically. You said, and I quote;
"oh yeah?
from the OFFICIAL finding, not some spin:
"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooter 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."
FACT, OFFICIAL RECORD, educate yourself with the official record, not the TV"
You took the one part of the findings that made it look like Palin had done everything by the book and ignored the rest. I'm not talking about the kid, I'm not talking about the statute. I'm talking about the results of the findings; you said it was a FACT that Palin had acted unethically, and the actual report proves otherwise. And I think it's pretty rich that a poster who has been telling Obama supporters that they need to stop being zombies and "look at the record" either did not look at the record himself, or looked at the record and chose the part he wanted to try and prove an assertion that was clearly false. As I said, you can't change the argument mid-stream because you were wrong.
The other stuff is scenery, window dressing. If you take out the "abuse of power" verbage, which is a scare phrase, and just say she violated the code.
then go read the code, you'll see it's so broad and weak, you just have to have perspective on this.
and again, the record on the individual question stipulates that there SHOULD have been pressure to fire the guy. Perspective.
The other stuff is scenery, window dressing. If you take out the "abuse of power" verbage, which is a scare phrase, and just say she violated the code.
then go read the code, you'll see it's so broad and weak, you just have to have perspective on this.
and again, the record on the individual question stipulates that there SHOULD have been pressure to fire the guy. Perspective.
independent voter, look at the record.
I can't tell if you actually believe what you're saying or are trying to dig yourself out of the hole you're in. The other stuff is scenery? You're talking about perspective, you're talking about the kid, you're talking about this and that, where your argument was that it was FACT (as you are keen to put that in capital letters) that she had done nothing wrong, and that the board's findings supported that assertion. That would be fine, except the problem was that the board did not support that assertion; it contradicted that assertion. And as I keep saying, it's hard for me to take your claims to "look at the record" seriously when you made a claim that the record disproves, and then try to get out of it by bringing perspective into account when it was not a part of your argument in the first place.
FACT is, the board found that Palin acted unethically, which was the exact opposite of your argument. You know how I know that? I "looked at the record." You said the board hadn't found that she violated the code. You were wrong; there's no perspective that can change that.
It is also being said among the left-elite talking heads, like the wonderful
Rachel Maddow, that she broke the law. exact words.
This is a lie. They are lying to people, robbing us of perspective.
Again, changing the argument. We weren't talking about Rachel Maddow; we were talking about the debate we were having in this thread. You talk about being an independent voter, but there's nothing independent about being unwilling to assess all the information and not just the parts that fit favorably with your opinion.
It is also being said among the left-elite talking heads, like the wonderful
Rachel Maddow, that she broke the law. exact words.
This is a lie. They are lying to people, robbing us of perspective.
You can't dig yourself out of the "FACT" hole that you put yourself in, so you are bringing up Maddow as a distraction? "Look over there, a partisan pundit lied"... Would it be ok to add some irrelevant Hannity lies to discussion?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
No matter what side you are on or what your beliefs are. McCain won this debate easily. Obama was struggling a lot of the time. Just an objective review.
Obama is a very good speaker and usually comes back to McCain's comments strong but I have to say, I'm tired of him always going back to the "last 8 years" or the "last 4 years". Is he running against Bush or McCain?
I have a feeling that McCain picked up a lot of undecided voters last night.
McCain probably won on points, but the points he made probably helped the base (until his judges fuck-up). I don't think he did anything last night to bring in the middle of the road voters.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
This debate had the worst moderator of all of them. He kept letting McCain get the last word on nearly every question. In spite of that I think Obama still did a better job there.
I think that Schieffer was the best of the three. He actually followed up questions by pressing for answers.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Dude, I don't know what to tell you, but once again your argument is faulty. Article four of the finding details how thus far Gov. Palin has not adequately cooperated with the investigation for whatever reason, and I quote from page 76...
"Although I do not assert any bad faith on the part of the Attorney General's office or AAG I have been working with, it does seem that there has been an unusual delay in material that was requested by me in writing two months ago."
If anything, that strengthens our argument, not yours. You should take your own advice and "look at the facts", because they clearly prove your argument is faulty. You're doing what a partisan does; you make an argument, and when that argument proves to be false, you either bring up another piece of evidence that does not fit what you are saying or you try to change what the argument was in the first place (you saying it's all about the kid, when that clearly was not what we were talking about). That's the sign of a Palin surrogate, not an independent mind.
Dude, I don't know what to tell you, but once again your argument is faulty. Article four of the finding details how thus far Gov. Palin has not adequately cooperated with the investigation for whatever reason, and I quote from page 76...
"Although I do not assert any bad faith on the part of the Attorney General's office or AAG I have been working with, it does seem that there has been an unusual delay in material that was requested by me in writing two months ago."
If anything, that strengthens our argument, not yours. You should take your own advice and "look at the facts", because they clearly prove your argument is faulty. You're doing what a partisan does; you make an argument, and when that argument proves to be false, you either bring up another piece of evidence that does not fit what you are saying or you try to change what the argument was in the first place (you saying it's all about the kid, when that clearly was not what we were talking about). That's the sign of a Palin surrogate, not an independent mind.
your quote is one of subejctivity,
taking an argument apart piece by piece is hardly cherry-picking
but if you think so.
read to actual story if you want to really get to the point
then read the code
then read the finding
Dude, I don't know what to tell you, but once again your argument is faulty. Article four of the finding details how thus far Gov. Palin has not adequately cooperated with the investigation for whatever reason, and I quote from page 76...
"Although I do not assert any bad faith on the part of the Attorney General's office or AAG I have been working with, it does seem that there has been an unusual delay in material that was requested by me in writing two months ago."
If anything, that strengthens our argument, not yours. You should take your own advice and "look at the facts", because they clearly prove your argument is faulty. You're doing what a partisan does; you make an argument, and when that argument proves to be false, you either bring up another piece of evidence that does not fit what you are saying or you try to change what the argument was in the first place (you saying it's all about the kid, when that clearly was not what we were talking about). That's the sign of a Palin surrogate, not an independent mind.
I wouldn't bother arguing with prytoj anymore. They are either a troll or somebody so off the deep end that using logic just wont compute.
Ayers is a self-admitted domestic terrorist. Obama is downplaying his associattion with him. Because...
People I know throw parties for me, in my honor, in their own home, all the time.
So, Obama either knew and lied, or didn't and is incompetent. which one is it?
You can't dispute Ayers in an america hater but further,
His own paster Wright "god d*** America"
His own wife "for the first time, I'm proud of my country"
This is an overall pattern that speaks to an overall environemnt of "ugly amerca" sentiment.
He is at best surrounded by an environment that expresses shame in America, and at worst an active part of that environment. I have no time for either.
You certainly cannot say that about McCain.
the corporate money, the media domination...connect the dots.
Look at the facts.
proof negative smear campaign tactics work ...
mccain is associated with the bush administration - probably the single most corrupt entity that exists today ...
your quote is one of subejctivity,
taking an argument apart piece by piece is hardly cherry-picking
but if you think so.
read to actual story if you want to really get to the point
then read the code
then read the finding
do not speak of what you do not know.
all the info is here.
evaluate for yourself...
OK, nice try. Speakers is quite right. When you're done being a partisan and become 'independent' then we could have a good debate, but it seems like you and not an Obama supporter like myself is the zombie. There's nothing subjective about the argument; you said it was a fact that the board had not found that Palin had acted unethically. That is not fact. So if you can't admit when the facts prove you wrong, there's nothing to talk about. Have a good day.
OK, nice try. Speakers is quite right. When you're done being a partisan and become 'independent' then we could have a good debate, but it seems like you and not an Obama supporter like myself is the zombie. There's nothing subjective about the argument; you said it was a fact that the board had not found that Palin had acted unethically. That is not fact. So if you can't admit when the facts prove you wrong, there's nothing to talk about. Have a good day.
seriously ... i've said it before ... but anyone who is voting for mccain is clearly partisan ... no true independent would reward the last 8 years with another 4 ...
OK, nice try. Speakers is quite right. When you're done being a partisan and become 'independent' then we could have a good debate, but it seems like you and not an Obama supporter like myself is the zombie. There's nothing subjective about the argument; you said it was a fact that the board had not found that Palin had acted unethically. That is not fact. So if you can't admit when the facts prove you wrong, there's nothing to talk about. Have a good day.
Palin's overall record of service is largely ignored.
The overwhelming obsessive pursuit of this sole issue is evidence of that.
And the conclusions that are being forced upon you by the media on this issue are way overcharacterized in my view. but the relevant information is now available, so all the people are free to decide.
We did that good work today for the few people here, and I thank you
Debate involves two points of view, you gotta deal with that.
seriously ... i've said it before ... but anyone who is voting for mccain is clearly partisan ... no true independent would reward the last 8 years with another 4 ...
I don't think that's entirely true... People vote for (or against) candidates for all sorts of reasons, and independents are people who are independent on every issue. Independents have different views on everything from foreign policy, healthcare, trade, abortion, etc.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Comments
You don't understand the difference between lawful and ethical?
Please tell me more...
Look at the facts, take each point of view into account. weigh each argument euqally. apply the same standard. Look at the whole picture.
Yeah, I got that. You'll notice I said the money you're complaining about is not actually rightfully theirs. So if you're only talking about money that's rightfully theirs, I guess there's no problem then.
From the report, verbatim...
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.
Finding Number Three
Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten’s workers’ compensation claim property and in the normal course of business like any other claim processed by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further, Trooper Wooten received all the workers’ compensation benefits to which he was entitled.
Finding Number Four
The Attorney General’s office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for information about the case in the form of emails.
It doesn't do your argument much good to cherry-pick the parts of the report that you want and then ignore the other three findings...for example in finding number one; "I find that Sarah Palin ABUSED HER POWER..." emphasis added. For someone who's telling us that us Obama zombies need to "look at the record", you didn't do a very good job at looking at the record yourself.
http://download2.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf
Go there to page 8 for the findings.
I stand corrected....I guess 72 is the new 52....:)
Way to turn the facts. You should go work for Karl Rove.
FACT: Obama did not launch his campaign in Ayers livingroom as suggested by the McCain camp. This encounter took place in 1995 when Ayers hosted a gathering at home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago a neighborhood in which the Obamas also lived. The event was not for Obama it was a fundrasier for then-State Senator Alice J. Palmer who INVITED Barack Obama in order to introduce him as her choice for the 1996 Democratic primary. McCains claims are historically and factually wrong. If you know anything about the Hyde Park section of Chicago you'd realize that the neighborhood consists of many Chicago Politicians, Community advocates, and University Staff. Is Obama at fault because he lives in the same Neighborhood as Ayers? Because he worked under a State Senator who happend to be holding a fundraiser? NO!!
FACT: Obama was president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge which is a large education-related nonprofit organization that Ayers also belonged to. The boards platform was to disburse grants to schools and raise money for schools and provide private matching fund. Both men attended some board meetings as the education program started. I don't know if you belong to a School Board or have ever belonged to a Parent Teacher Association but sometimes you serve on the same comitees as people who may or may not have a criminal record. Does this associate you with them? does this make you a Terrorist? or a someone associated with crime or Terroism? NO.
FACT: Obama and Ayers were also members of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation the group was made up of 9 community members and and met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants to schools. Again. Does this make Obama a terrorist? Does it make him evil because he once again happend to be on the same board as someone who engaged in illegal activites 40 YEARS AGO!!! NO!!!!
You can go on and on and list every encounter Obama has had with Ayers but the fact remains simple. Ayers has nothing to do with the Obama campaign. Obama has never had anything to do with the Weather Underground nor has he ever promoted or engaged in terroist activities.
I mean how many times has John McCain been in the same room as unfavorable charactors with a shady past? I'm sure over the course of his 30 years in Politics McCain has had numerous associates, and encounters with people with shady pasts. Keating....for one...but I digress.
This is such a non issue and it's bordering on insanity. This is just a textbook Karl Rove tactic meant to smear Obama and push the actual issues of this election;which John McCain avoids like the plauge to the shadows.
McCain fell victim to these very same tactics in 2000 and now because he's on the other end...It's all of a sudden justified.
What a bunch of bullshit.
you say it's BS...I disagree...
Palin is a scary nut...she can't answer a simple question...and I'm serious when I say this...if it came down to Palin or GWB as president....I'd support GWB...
I'm serious...
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.
So here's the code:
Sec. 39.52.110. Scope of code; prohibition of unethical conduct.
(a) 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. In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an officer from following other independent pursuits. The legislature further recognizes that
(1) in a representative democracy, the representatives are drawn from society and, therefore, cannot and should not be without personal and financial interests in the decisions and policies of government;
(2) people who serve as public officers retain their rights to interests of a personal or financial nature; and
(3) standards of ethical conduct for members of the executive branch need to distinguish between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society, and those conflicts of interests that are substantial and material.
(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer's
(1) personal or financial interest in the matter is insignificant, or of a type that is possessed generally by the public or a large class of persons to which the public officer belongs; or
(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter.
(c) The attorney general, designated supervisors, hearing officers, and the personnel board must be guided by this section when issuing opinions and reaching decisions.
(d) Stock or other ownership interest in a business is presumed insignificant if the value of the stock or other ownership interest, including an option to purchase an ownership interest, is less than $5,000.
Basically, I could have bounced a check, or flicked a cigarette butt out my window, and be violating this exremenly broad and subjective legislation.
Paaaleeease. Get your nephew trazered by a cop and get back to me.
i believe that McCain does not have respect for Obama and i think the little respect he did have for him was lost when Obama didn't say yes to teh townhall meetings. Mccain saw what i believe alot of people see/saw in Obama and that was great speaker but maybe no details.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
You can't change the argument you were having just because you were wrong. You took issue with someone stating that it was a fact that Palin acted unethically. You said, and I quote;
"oh yeah?
from the OFFICIAL finding, not some spin:
"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooter 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."
FACT, OFFICIAL RECORD, educate yourself with the official record, not the TV"
You took the one part of the findings that made it look like Palin had done everything by the book and ignored the rest. I'm not talking about the kid, I'm not talking about the wide range of Alaskan law, and the quote above shows that you were not speaking about those things either. You said it was a FACT that Palin had acted ethically, and the actual report proves otherwise. And I think it's pretty rich that a poster who has been telling Obama supporters that they need to stop being zombies and "look at the record" either did not look at the record himself, or looked at the record and chose the part he wanted to try and prove an assertion that was clearly false. As I said, you can't change the argument mid-stream because you were wrong.
Almost makes you want Joe Six pack back.
almost
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
The other stuff is scenery, window dressing. If you take out the "abuse of power" verbage, which is a scare phrase, and just say she violated the code.
then go read the code, you'll see it's so broad and weak, you just have to have perspective on this.
and again, the record on the individual question stipulates that there SHOULD have been pressure to fire the guy. Perspective.
independent voter, look at the record.
I can't tell if you actually believe what you're saying or are trying to dig yourself out of the hole you're in. The other stuff is scenery? You're talking about perspective, you're talking about the kid, you're talking about this and that, where your argument was that it was FACT (as you are keen to put that in capital letters) that she had done nothing wrong, and that the board's findings supported that assertion. That would be fine, except the problem was that the board did not support that assertion; it contradicted that assertion. And as I keep saying, it's hard for me to take your claims to "look at the record" seriously when you made a claim that the record disproves, and then try to get out of it by bringing perspective into account when it was not a part of your argument in the first place.
FACT is, the board found that Palin acted unethically, which was the exact opposite of your argument. You know how I know that? I "looked at the record." You said the board hadn't found that she violated the code. You were wrong; there's no perspective that can change that.
Rachel Maddow, that she broke the law. exact words.
This is a lie. They are lying to people, robbing us of perspective.
Again, changing the argument. We weren't talking about Rachel Maddow; we were talking about the debate we were having in this thread. You talk about being an independent voter, but there's nothing independent about being unwilling to assess all the information and not just the parts that fit favorably with your opinion.
You can't dig yourself out of the "FACT" hole that you put yourself in, so you are bringing up Maddow as a distraction? "Look over there, a partisan pundit lied"... Would it be ok to add some irrelevant Hannity lies to discussion?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
McCain probably won on points, but the points he made probably helped the base (until his judges fuck-up). I don't think he did anything last night to bring in the middle of the road voters.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I think that Schieffer was the best of the three. He actually followed up questions by pressing for answers.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
See for yourself, look at the facts. challenge each side equally. see the whole picture.
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
Dude, I don't know what to tell you, but once again your argument is faulty. Article four of the finding details how thus far Gov. Palin has not adequately cooperated with the investigation for whatever reason, and I quote from page 76...
"Although I do not assert any bad faith on the part of the Attorney General's office or AAG I have been working with, it does seem that there has been an unusual delay in material that was requested by me in writing two months ago."
If anything, that strengthens our argument, not yours. You should take your own advice and "look at the facts", because they clearly prove your argument is faulty. You're doing what a partisan does; you make an argument, and when that argument proves to be false, you either bring up another piece of evidence that does not fit what you are saying or you try to change what the argument was in the first place (you saying it's all about the kid, when that clearly was not what we were talking about). That's the sign of a Palin surrogate, not an independent mind.
your quote is one of subejctivity,
taking an argument apart piece by piece is hardly cherry-picking
but if you think so.
read to actual story if you want to really get to the point
then read the code
then read the finding
do not speak of what you do not know.
all the info is here.
evaluate for yourself...
I wouldn't bother arguing with prytoj anymore. They are either a troll or somebody so off the deep end that using logic just wont compute.
proof negative smear campaign tactics work ...
mccain is associated with the bush administration - probably the single most corrupt entity that exists today ...
seriously, arguing with prytoj about anything is like triyng to argue the sky is blue with a blind person ... FACT!
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
OK, nice try. Speakers is quite right. When you're done being a partisan and become 'independent' then we could have a good debate, but it seems like you and not an Obama supporter like myself is the zombie. There's nothing subjective about the argument; you said it was a fact that the board had not found that Palin had acted unethically. That is not fact. So if you can't admit when the facts prove you wrong, there's nothing to talk about. Have a good day.
seriously ... i've said it before ... but anyone who is voting for mccain is clearly partisan ... no true independent would reward the last 8 years with another 4 ...
Palin's overall record of service is largely ignored.
The overwhelming obsessive pursuit of this sole issue is evidence of that.
And the conclusions that are being forced upon you by the media on this issue are way overcharacterized in my view. but the relevant information is now available, so all the people are free to decide.
We did that good work today for the few people here, and I thank you
Debate involves two points of view, you gotta deal with that.
I don't think that's entirely true... People vote for (or against) candidates for all sorts of reasons, and independents are people who are independent on every issue. Independents have different views on everything from foreign policy, healthcare, trade, abortion, etc.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln