PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #41
Right!
Your concession is duly noted and despite it's certainty, it is summarily accepted.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Right!
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS NOT FIT FOR PUBLIC TRUST: IT IS HER SACRED DUTY TO SEE THAT SUCH OFFICER IS REMOVED FROM OFFICE!~
.
From the same article:
"Put bluntly, Branchflower completely misapplied the Ethics Act and has instead sought to create a headline to smear the Governor," the lawyers wrote
ROFLMNAO... Well this member has advanced a flaccid would-be neg-rep wherein the depth of her conclusion is that I represent a concept which rhymes with BASSHOLE...
In fact Sarah Palin IS a CEO... As the Governor of Alaska, she represents the Chief Executive Officer... AKA: The CEO of Alaska. As CEO Governor Palin, like every other CEO, EXECUTES THE LAWS of the organization which has appointed her and as the CHIEF Executive, it is SHE that has the final responsibility in EXECUTING THOSE LAWS...
This despite the ignorant assertion by this Advocate of Social Science to the contrary.
Secondly, and with regard to accountability, my position regarding charges that Alaska CEO Palin abused her authority rests on my numerousl stated position that IT IS GOVERNOR PALIN'S DUTY TO SEE THAT THOSE WHO SIT WITHIN HER BRANCH THAT ARE TASKED WITH EXECUTING THE LAWS OF ALASKA ARE HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD AND WHERE SHE KNOWS THAT ONE OF THEM IS UNFIT FOR SERVICE, IT IS HER DUTY TO REMOVE THEM, BECAUSE IT IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC ON WHICH HER DUTY SOLELY RESTS....
Now, Miss Green... I appreciate your time and consideration, but you're clearly blissfully ignorant of most of the facts; which is typical of those who profess their allegiance to the dirt... so, please, when you advance a position in my presence, please take a moment to run it by a grown up FIRST. Perhaps that would avoid all this public humiliation you're presently experiencing.
Not when she has a vested interest in the matter. It is called a Conflict of Interest. In such cases, she steps aside and lets somebody else take over until the matter is settled.
And it is also found that she broke ethics laws, so what type of punishment does she deserve in your eyes?
I understand that you may hold the opinion Publius Infinitu, that in her role as chief executive she should have the power to fire state troopers, and whether she should or not is a point that could be debated. But currently as the law stands, she could not.
Really? So which 'vested interests supersedes the other? Her vested interests AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE STATE that has first hand knowledge that one of her Law Enforcement officers is unfit for service or her vested interest as a citizen who knows first hand that a State Law enforcement officer is abusing his power to abuse and intimidate his family?
There's no conflict of interests here... and ANY attempt to defend this scumbag is a waste of air.
Fankly, this is unforgivable; as YOU PPL DEFENDING A CROOKED MALE COP ABUSING HIS POSITION TO INTIMIDATE HIS EX-WIFE AND HER PARENTS, is how the Lifetime channel got started... the channel I lovingly refer to as "The Man-Hater Channel.
This guy is the epitome of worthless, a punk using his badge, the PUBLIC SHIELD, to abuse those around him... and you ppl are defending his ass.
The Governor had first hand knowledge that this scumbag was crooked and it was her duty to see him removed from office and in that order stated her reasoning and rejected all demands by the judiciary to reinstate him.
What's fascinating to me is that the ADVOCATES OF CHANGE are in here DEMANDING THE SAME OLD SAME OLD!
Now you can rationalize that the Union contract, the State policy requiring this and that prevent her from executing effective control over the Executive branch... but you're wrong.
it is HER DUTY... and nothing LESS to see to it that the unfit officer is removed from service as a officer of the Executive and this is without regard for laws which are designed to protect malfeaseance... which is to say laws passed in the name of Social Science.
She doesn't have a vested interest as governor of Alaska. Look up with vested interest means. The problem is that she has a responsibility as governor of Alaska NOT to let her personal dealings effect her professional actions.
Nobody is defending his actions.
You are making an obvious logical flaw. Learn the difference between how someone acts (the trooper), and how other people react to said individual. Merely because someone objects to how a criminal is treated does not mean they agree with the crime.
AT BEST...Simple really.
No, we are demanding political leaders act responsibly, legally, and ethically. That is most definitely not the same old, same old, considering the Bush administration has worked outside all three of those boundaries.
So two-time Bush voters have gone, in the last 72 hours, from claiming....
- That Palin didn't try to get the trooper fired (false)....to
- At least Palin didn't break any laws (false)....to
- Palin was "afraid" of the trooper (false)...to
- Well, Palin had a right and duty to break the law to try to fire a low level state trooper.
Are you Cons going to stick to one talking point, or are you going to flip flop all over the map in a hilarious attempt to defend your corrupt heroes?
Palin on Trooper Wooten....
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...721/20080721_111415_PalinLetterofRecomend.pdf
But rules are rules and laws are laws, whether you like them or not. .
great, now you can tell me exactly what the finding means? is it a conviction of guilt or an opinion of guilt?
come on...you seem like a smart guy...let's see if you know the difference between a conviction of guilt and an opinion of guilt.
especially by a report that cleared her of any illegal activity and you know for a fact, his reading of the ethics law and how brainfart tried to interpret it to find palin, in his OPINION, guilty of violating such.....is mere political bullshit. it is like you telling us that since a grand jury found enough evidence to take a case to trial, that ALONE is proof of guilt...
this is a political witchhunt and a pathetic one at that, especially when one reads the troopers letter from his superiors from 2006 that finds the trooper GUILTY of basically everything the palins claimed...........aare you calling that trooper fit for duty?
yes or no
are you telling me that you would just shut your mouth because you got elected governor when you know there is that scum on the police force...so just because you are governor, you lose your right to free speech....
i have posted a link to the letter to trooper asswipe, the evidence is clear, that guy should not be on the force and brainfart ADMITS that the palins frustration is REAL...due the the current way such complaints are handled and he suggests the law should be changed....
a non story, but sadly, the dems will make anything up to win the office