Sarah never said Fire Wooten...and other true things

[Dr Grump]

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!

ROFLMNAO... I so love sweet Irony... even when it's so thoroughly predictable.

So now a governor has to know everything about every state employee and their status within the working mechanisms of their public service?

Who here is defending Wooten? I am not.

You on the hand, think it is OK with a public servant to interfere in the internal disciplinary decisions of the state when said public servant has a vested interest in the outcome. Now that truly is disgusting...

 

[Larkinn]

ROFL... I love these... little semantic games which cannot possibly bring comfort to a failing argument. In this case the empty projection that the opposition is erroneously utilizing a critical phrase; a utilization so flawed, that HAD they used the phrase correctly, they could have never advanced their stated and conclusion. Funny, albeit pathetic, stuff..

So let's get to work... "Vested Interests" two words combined to impart a single concept...

Let's begin with "vested" Now the context which fits best here is:"to grant or endow with a particular authority, right..."

Yeah that seems to fit an elected High Official...

"interest: the right, title, or legal share in something" So vested-interest it seems, would mean: "to grant or endow with a particular authority, the right, title, or legal share in something" So the question quickly becomes "Is a duly elected Chief Executive granted or endowed with a particular authority, the right, title, or legal share in something?"

Actually vested interest is its own phrase, separate from just the combination of "vested" and "interest". Hence its own entry in the dictionary.

As I said, you have no idea what the definition is. Thanks for proving that oh so clearly.

And its not "semantics". Its using the word correctly so people can attempt to comprehend your nonsensical bullshit.

ROFLMNAO... NOOooooooooo ‘No one is defending this guy... we're just saying that just because he has a long history of abuse of power, misconduct, bad decisions, dangerous, unprofessional behavior and charges that he has threatened to murder a family member with whom he was at odds... that doesn't give the Governor of that State to publically discuss his long history of abuse of power, misconduct, bad decisions, dangerous, unprofessional behavior and charges that he has threatened to murder a family member with whom he was at odds... towards the end of having this reprobate removed from his job!’

I mean how could ANYONE infer any form of defense in that? LOL.. how you ppl manage to get to work without driving your car off the first turn you come across is anyone's guess...

Too bad that isn't the argument. She can do those things if she does them in the proper channels. She didn't.

Now these babies are PRECIOUS! Here is a person who has YET to advance a logically valid point, speaking to the technical logical constructs... It should be noted that despite the reference to an error 'logic' the member was unable to cite a specific logical error and instead opted to advance in the place where one would expect a direct reference citing the specific logical failure...

No, actually I did reference a specific logical flaw. Confusing those two things and treating them as the same is a logical flaw. Do you have any response to that argument other than whining like a little bitch?

her own straw man; projecting that her oppositions argument failed to address both the Troopers behavior and the Governor's justified attempts to have him removed from his job... In essence the member wasn't able to build a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound argument, so she just modified the argument to which she was responding to better suit her limited intellectual means...

ROFL... It's CLASSIC~

AT BEST...

Wow, you have the nerve to say that I made a strawman argument after this nonsensical crap that has nothing to do with what I said?

Well nothing closes the idiotic ranting of an ignorant fool like a juicy non sequitur. Any further comment here would just be piling on... Suffice it to say that this member is claiming that it was irresponsible for the sitting governor of a state to seek the removal of a STATE (not some local city cop... BUT A STATE TROOPER...) Law enforcement officer of which she has firsthand knowledge that he is unfit for service and that his presence on the force is a hazard to the public at large.

So the left here is complaining that an elected official who went out of their way to remove a CROOKED COP... stepped out of the PC Legalese Union Protected Channels to PROTECT THE PUBLIC... Which is what they will tell you that Hussein Obama is all about... DIRECT ACTION! WORKING FOR THE LITTLE GUY! PROTECTING THE FOLKS AT HOME FROM BIG BAD GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION!

Hi, its called following the law. Some of us try and do that. That you would justify breaking the law to punish someone for breaking the law is beyond retarded.

 

[Larkinn]

so sad that all you have are insults.

can i talk to Apu now, please?

thx

As opposed to you who has contributed to this thread greatly, eh?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So now a governor has to know everything about every state employee and their status within the working mechanisms of their public service?

Who told you that? I certainly never said anything that could have lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion. I said that Governor Palin was in possession of first hand information that lead HER to conclude that this trooper was unfit for service and that because of this, it was her duty to see that individual was removed from service.

Who here is defending Wooten? I am not.

Fascinating... then I wonder what it would look like if you were defending the scumbag?

You on the hand, think it is OK with a public servant to interfere in the internal disciplinary decisions of the state when said public servant has a vested interest in the outcome. Now that truly is disgusting...

Well I'd like you to explain in DETAIL, just precisely what is disgusting about a public servants vested interests in the outcome wherein her duty to protect and serve the interests of the public by dismissing an employee whose job places them in a position of public trust; a position which the history of the indivudal, directly and personally known by that public servant, incontestably proves the individual is not suitable for such trust.

When ever you're ready Scooter.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFL... I love these... little semantic games which cannot possibly bring comfort to a failing argument. In this case the empty projection that the opposition is erroneously utilizing a critical phrase; a utilization so flawed, that HAD they used the phrase correctly, they could have never advanced their stated and conclusion. Funny, albeit pathetic, stuff..

So let's get to work... "Vested Interests" two words combined to impart a single concept...

Let's begin with "vested" Now the context which fits best here is:"to grant or endow with a particular authority, right..."

Yeah that seems to fit an elected High Official...

"interest: the right, title, or legal share in something" So vested-interest it seems, would mean: "to grant or endow with a particular authority, the right, title, or legal share in something" So the question quickly becomes "Is a duly elected Chief Executive granted or endowed with a particular authority, the right, title, or legal share in something?"

Actually vested interest is its own phrase, separate from just the combination of "vested" and "interest". Hence its own entry in the dictionary.

ROFLMNAO... Well there ya go kids... the phrase vested interests, has no bearing on, connection with or relevance in the words 'vested' or 'interest'... or at least that is the illusion this creature needs to cast.

Now this is all anyone of reason needs to dismiss this tool as a fool... an intellect so severely limited that the simple concept of context is beyond their means to comprehend. But, with that said, I did want to note the next would-be point advanced from this buffoon... essentially out of SPITE!

And its not "semantics". Its using the word ...

ROFLMNAO... BEAUTIFUL!

 

[Yurt]

Palin was warned by a judge 3 years ago not to disparage Trooper Wooten.

She was investigated by a 28 year veteran prosecutor and he made a fair judgement. Crying about it won't change anything.

that is all you have for proof? a warning.....thats it....good lord dude, you suck

pathetic....and you call me a liar

 

[Larkinn]

ROFLMNAO... Well there ya go kids... the phrase vested interests, has no bearing on, connection with or relevance in the words 'vested' or 'interest'... or at least that is the illusion this creature needs to cast.

I'm sorry, did I say it has no bearing on, connection with, or relevance? It is not the same thing as combining the separate definitions of vested, and interest, but even an idiot like you knows that by now.

Now this is all anyone of reason needs to dismiss this tool as a fool... an intellect so severely limited that the simple concept of context is beyond their means to comprehend. But, with that said, I did want to note the next would-be point advanced from this buffoon... essentially out of SPITE!

tsk tsk. So you have no points and must revert to insults, eh? No surprise considering the utter stupidity of your arguments.

 

[Chris]

that is all you have for proof? a warning.....thats it....good lord dude, you suck

pathetic....and you call me a liar

I have posted the proof numerous times.

The prosecutor had audio tapes, emails, and multiple witnesses. It's called evidence.

His conclusions were fair.

 

[Missourian]

N4 & PI,

You both argue well and I commend the fact the two of you can debate points without allowing it to get personal.

I am not a great debater, with all the nuance and 50 cent words (tangentially?) you two throw around, but plain old common sense places me firmly in the Palin camp.

To my understanding, the issued report stated that Gov.Palin did not use her office to specifically get Trooper Wooten fired.

Mr Palin is a private citizen. He was the one applying pressure to get Wooton fired. It was proven that Wooten, an Alaska State Trooper had threaten a private citizens life !

If a cop threaten my fathers life I would have a reasonable expectation that he would be terminated for cause.

If the officer had a history of illegal and improper behavior like Wooten did, his termination should have been a forgone conclusion.

The report also stated that the outcome of the inquiry into the allegations against Trooper Wooten was witheld from the Palin family for reasons of confidentiality, so for all they knew, the inquest they had initiated was being 'swept under the rug' and Wooten was being protected by his brothers (and sisters) in blue.

I think it is safe to say that nobody (with the possible exception of Trooper Wooten) thinks this guy belongs in uniform with a badge and a gun. But it would seem that he was, even after (while unknown to the Palin's) he had been found in violation of policy and/or the law on four occasions and was not terminated.

Had I been Governor Palin, I would have had absolutely zero confidence in the leadership of the Alaska Department of Public Safety. I would have wondered how many other Wootens were out there toting badges and guns.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this influnced her decision to terminate the Head of th ADPS and replace him with someone who's judgement she trusted. Someone who was willing to send the Wooten's packing.

In her place I, and hopefully any reasonable person would have done the same.

There's my opinion, for what it's worth. That and a buck twenty'll getcha a cup o' joe.

 

[del]

As opposed to you who has contributed to this thread greatly, eh?

i'm here for amusement purposes only.
or isn't that logical enough for you, Dr DeVry?

carry on.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who told you that? I certainly never said anything that could have lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion. I said that Governor Palin was in possession of first hand information that lead HER to conclude that this trooper was unfit for service and that because of this, it was her duty to see that individual was removed from service.

Fascinating... then I wonder what it would look like if you were defending the scumbag?

Well I'd like you to explain in DETAIL, just precisely what is disgusting about a public servants vested interests in the outcome wherein her duty to protect and serve the interests of the public by dismissing an employee whose job places them in a position of public trust; a position which the history of the indivudal, directly and personally known by that public servant, incontestably proves the individual is not suitable for such trust.

When ever you're ready Scooter.

Are you really this fucking stupid? Seriously?? This has nothing to do with Palin "protecting the vetsed interests of the public". If that is the case, and it is a fait acompli, then she would gladly step aside - let it be known that she has a vested interest in the outcome - and let natural justice take its course.

Did you see the thread I started where Mongahan (sp?) stated that the First Dude took meeting WITHOUT his wife present in the capacity of acting within the jurisdiction of the governor? are you so partisan that you see nothing wrong with this?

Wooten may be a paedophile kleptomaniac who likes raping dogs for all I care, but the minute he comes under investigation and the governor has an absolute vested interest in the outcome SHE STEPS ASIDE! PERIOD! She allows those who are MORE competent than her to decide upon the outcome.

Anything else is corruption, pure and simple. And if you want to defend that, then have at it, but at least be honest about it.

 

[Shogun]

This thread has been a good read just to watch PubliusInfinitu get PWNED time and again.


Take your training bra out of the freezer, barrel duty...

 

[Larkinn]

i'm here for amusement purposes only.
or isn't that logical enough for you, Dr DeVry?

carry on.

Except that you aren't funny...

And if you are here for amusement purposes only, do try to avoid criticizing other people for avoiding substantive issues...since you always do that.

 

[Diuretic]

N4 & PI,

You both argue well and I commend the fact the two of you can debate points without allowing it to get personal.

I am not a great debater, with all the nuance and 50 cent words (tangentially?) you two throw around, but plain old common sense places me firmly in the Palin camp.

To my understanding, the issued report stated that Gov.Palin did not use her office to specifically get Trooper Wooten fired.

Mr Palin is a private citizen. He was the one applying pressure to get Wooton fired. It was proven that Wooten, an Alaska State Trooper had threaten a private citizens life !

If a cop threaten my fathers life I would have a reasonable expectation that he would be terminated for cause.

If the officer had a history of illegal and improper behavior like Wooten did, his termination should have been a forgone conclusion.

The report also stated that the outcome of the inquiry into the allegations against Trooper Wooten was witheld from the Palin family for reasons of confidentiality, so for all they knew, the inquest they had initiated was being 'swept under the rug' and Wooten was being protected by his brothers (and sisters) in blue.

I think it is safe to say that nobody (with the possible exception of Trooper Wooten) thinks this guy belongs in uniform with a badge and a gun. But it would seem that he was, even after (while unknown to the Palin's) he had been found in violation of policy and/or the law on four occasions and was not terminated.

Had I been Governor Palin, I would have had absolutely zero confidence in the leadership of the Alaska Department of Public Safety. I would have wondered how many other Wootens were out there toting badges and guns.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this influnced her decision to terminate the Head of th ADPS and replace him with someone who's judgement she trusted. Someone who was willing to send the Wooten's packing.

In her place I, and hopefully any reasonable person would have done the same.

There's my opinion, for what it's worth. That and a buck twenty'll getcha a cup o' joe.

I just wonder why the bloke is still serving.

And Sarah was found to have broken the ethics statute because she permitted Todd to use her office to perpetrate his campaign against Wooten. As much as Wooten is a dirtbag and should not be in the job there are right ways and wrong ways of achieving a desirable objective. Todd chose the wrong way and Sarah didn't stop him hence Finding One.

 

[del]

Except that you aren't funny...

And if you are here for amusement purposes only, do try to avoid criticizing other people for avoiding substantive issues...since you always do that.

retaining water again, Dr DeVry?
i'm trying to think of a nice way to say go fuck yourself, but it's not worth the effort.
go fuck yourself.

 

[AllieBaba]

She got off. "Finding One" is just the lefties who went after her attempting to save face. And the only way they can do it is to insult her for not "controlling" her husband.

What a joke.

 

[Diuretic]

retaining water again, Dr DeVry?

Did someone call me?

 

[Larkinn]

She got off. "Finding One" is just the lefties who went after her attempting to save face. And the only way they can do it is to insult her for not "controlling" her husband.

What a joke.

Yeah, controlling her husband so that hes not using her name to pressure state officials.

Gee, I wonder why it might be a good idea to have the Governor run a state, and not her unelected family members.

 

[AllieBaba]

retaining water again, Dr DeVry?

Larkinn's a small-minded nincompoop. He wouldn't know humor if it smacked him between the eyes.

 

[del]

Did someone call me?

yes,Doctor, we need to set up for a rectal craniotomy

STAT! lives are at stake here.