|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 20, 2008 17:41:47 GMT -5
It's easy to dismiss something when you don't agree with the findings. For instance, you dismiss the findings of the Alaskan bi-partisan committee yet post the blog by some guy named Rob on Sayanythingblog.com Is that fair?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 20, 2008 18:00:10 GMT -5
I'm not dismissing anything. I am merely pointing out that your assertions of "guilt" are without foundation in fact. I have not asserted that Barack is "guilty" of anything. I have brought allegations to the table which need to be investigated. In Palin's case there has been an investigation with a recommendation of no further action.
Maybe where you come from that means something, but I can tell you with certainty what it means from the perspective of twenty years in law enforcement and a lifetime watching politics.
Again... I haven't dismissed anything, and I have put the lie to your continued assertions of a "bi-partisan investigation". The committee as a whole may be of a bi-partisan composition, however the guy who was tasked to run the investigation is a staqunch Democrat and a political opponent of Palin that has more than a sniff of partisanship to him given his needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to release the report in a timely manner and not sit on it for maximum political damage / effect.
If you can dispute the allegation of the blog post concerning Barack factually, please do so. Otherwise please do not continue to insult my intelligence with your propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 20, 2008 18:09:03 GMT -5
Look, the Republican-dominated council found that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda." Although the governor had the legal authority to dismiss her public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan, after he resisted her demands to fire the trooper, her use of her office to engage in a personal vendetta was an unethical abuse of power.
So she was found guilty by the council of unethically abusing her power. Unfortunately, the Republican-dominated council has chosen not to take further action.
Regarding the blog post accusation: If we posted every rumor that's floating around on the internet we could never hold a decent conversation on the real, serious issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 20, 2008 18:44:19 GMT -5
That is a factually inaccurate statement on your part, being presented as fact to try and advance your argument. The last time I checked that would be fallacious at best and an outright prevarication of the record at worst.
How are his publicly released tax records a "rumor"? Is it just because you don't agree with the opinion that the author presented?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 20, 2008 19:06:30 GMT -5
The report states: "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda."
That's pretty cut and dry.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 20, 2008 20:23:50 GMT -5
A pretty cut and dry statement of opinion on the part of the investigator writing the report. Until it's brought before a trier of fact and proven, it remains exactly that, an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 20, 2008 23:23:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 21, 2008 12:00:12 GMT -5
You're right in that there was no monetary gain for Palin, but there was certainly a monetary loss for the trooper who lost his job because of her (and her husband's) personal vendetta that made her cross the line. In my opinion, this is a much worse offense because she made it personal. Similar actions have been undertaken by the Bush Administration. The trooper did not lose his job, though he should have, along with some jail time for tasering his step-son. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 21, 2008 12:15:40 GMT -5
saunterelle, I had to smite you for your duplicity. You are giving Obama a pass for potential violations of a monetary nature, while pointing out an already settled issue with Palin.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 21, 2008 12:22:18 GMT -5
saunterelle, I had to smite you for your duplicity. You are giving Obama a pass for potential violations of a monetary nature, while pointing out an already settled issue with Palin. BigDog was accusing Obama of an ethics violation. I was simply pointing out that Palin has already been found to have acted unethically. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 21, 2008 12:32:41 GMT -5
I am demanding an investigation... which is exactly what you asked for and received concerning Palin.
Get yer facts straight.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 21, 2008 12:37:18 GMT -5
Your opening statement was accusatory:
|
|
