DrewDad
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 08:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Loyalty is more important than legality. You just don't "get it."
Berger
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 09:06 am
@DrewDad,
I do not agree that loyalty is more important than legality. My question remains unanswered...what law did Palin violate in firing an insubordinate employee who served at her pleasure?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 09:14 am
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

I do not agree that loyalty is more important than legality. My question remains unanswered...what law did Palin violate in firing an insubordinate employee who served at her pleasure?


There are ETHICS REGULATIONS which prohibit those who hold power from abusing that power in personal vendettas, or to punish people who refuse to break the law on one's behalf.

Cycloptichorn
Berger
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 09:26 am
@Cycloptichorn,
In the Palin case, one could argue that firing an insubordinate employee is a violation of government ethics. I do not agree. Shall we just leave it there?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 09:33 am
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

In the Palin case, one could argue that firing an insubordinate employee is a violation of government ethics. I do not agree. Shall we just leave it there?


One could argue that, if one didn't know the facts of this particular case. But you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that there is a whole other dimension to this problem, do you?

Cycloptichorn
Debra Law
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 09:36 am
@Berger,
Berger wrote:
What law did Palin ask anyone to violate?


Palin was pressuring the public safety commissioner to violate the SUPREME law of the land. In particular, Amdt. 14, U.S. Constitution.
Berger
 
  3  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:19 am
@Debra Law,
Interesting comment. In what specific way was her action a violation of the 14th amendment?
Berger
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:20 am
@Cycloptichorn,
She either fired the guy for personal reasons or insubordination, either within her right. Is there another diminsion?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:23 am
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

She either fired the guy for personal reasons or insubordination, either within her right. Is there another diminsion?


Yes - your 'personal reason' can't be the guy's refusal to break the law. You can't order your subordinates to break the law, and then fire them when they refuse. It's an ethics violation to do so.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:24 am
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

Interesting comment. In what specific way was her action a violation of the 14th amendment?


I think Deb is probably referring to this part:

Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Cycloptichorn
Berger
 
  1  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:33 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Does that mean the practice of appointing officials who serve at the pleasure of the appointing official is unconstitutional?
0 Replies
 
Berger
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:35 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I have asked this question before, and it remains unanswered.

When did the fired guy refuse to break a law Palin ordered him to?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:37 am
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

I have asked this question before, and it remains unanswered.

When did the fired guy refuse to break a law Palin ordered him to?


He refused to fire Wooten, when Palin and her husband Todd were heavily pressuring him to do so. The agreement the state of AK has with the Policeman's union does not allow employees to be singled out for personal retribution in this fashion; when Monegan refused to break the law and fire him, he himself got fired.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:38 am
@Cycloptichorn,
In other news, at a rally today, Palin referred to the future as the:

'Palin-McCain administration.'


Freudian slip?



Cycloptichorn
Berger
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:41 am
@Cycloptichorn,
That is the answer. He acted properly in that case but wrongly in the matter of his insubordination.
Berger
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:43 am
@Cycloptichorn,
'Palin-McCain administration.'
Freudian slip?

Betty and Joe Smith...Joe and Betty Smith, same same.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:46 am
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

That is the answer. He acted properly in that case but wrongly in the matter of his insubordination.


But, insubordination was not the original excuse given for firing him. It's the one they have ginned up now that they are in trouble. It's not credible, Sandy.

Is it okay if I call you by your first name? Wink

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:53 am
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

'Palin-McCain administration.'
Freudian slip?

Betty and Joe Smith...Joe and Betty Smith, same same.


Right, right. If Biden refered to a 'Biden-Obama' ticket, my guess is that the other side would ignore it. Yup.

Palin didn't do herself any favors by messing up the name of the town, either -

Quote:

Palin stumbled out of the gate on arriving in Cedar Rapids. The Alaska governor told the audience that she was thrilled to be in “Grand Rapids,” the Michigan city where the campaign had just overnighted.


Whoops

Cycloptichorn

Berger
 
  1  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Berger wrote:

'Palin-McCain administration.'
Palin stumbled out of the gate on arriving in Cedar Rapids. The Alaska governor told the audience that she was thrilled to be in “Grand Rapids,” the Michigan city where the campaign had just overnighted.


Whoops

You guys are going to need better material than that to beat the Palin ticket.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:32 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Berger wrote:
I have asked this question before, and it remains unanswered.

When did the fired guy refuse to break a law Palin ordered him to?



He refused to fire Wooten, when Palin and her husband Todd were heavily pressuring him to do so. The agreement the state of AK has with the Policeman's union does not allow employees to be singled out for personal retribution in this fashion; when Monegan refused to break the law and fire him, he himself got fired.


Question originally asked: Thu 18 Sep, 2008 08:52 am
Question answered: Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:37 am

Why the unreasonable delay?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain's VP:
  3. » Page 66
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/01/2025 at 04:01:50