PDA

View Full Version : Defend this . . .


Preacher
11-04-2008, 01:20 AM
So no one thinks that the Palin ethics investigation was driven by politics?

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - A report has cleared Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin of ethics violations (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=ethics%20violations&sid=breitbart.com) in the firing of her public safety commissioner. Released Monday, the report says there is no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with the firing. The report was prepared by Timothy Petumenos, an independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board.
A separate legislative investigation recently concluded that Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, abused her office by allowing her husband and staffers to pressure the public safety commissioner to fire a state trooper (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=state%20trooper&sid=breitbart.com) who went through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister.
Palin says the firing had nothing to do with the trooper.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP)—A report detailing whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power by firing her public safety commissioner will be released on the eve of the election.
Timothy Petumenos, an independent investigator hired by the Alaska Personnel Board, says he will release the report during a news conference 7:30 p.m. EST Monday.
A separate legislative panel earlier found that Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, abused her office by allowing her husband and other staffers to pressure the public safety commissioner to fire a state trooper who went through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister. She fired the commissioner, but denies it had anything to do with the trooper.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D947PVBG0&show_article=1


the INDEPENDENT investigation found nothing, a MONTH after the DEMOCRAT LED investigation said she abused her position... but not really, since she won't be charged with anything.

Thank God this political season is just about over.

KeiselPower99
11-04-2008, 06:56 AM
Only goes to show dems will do anything to make them selves look better

Godfather
11-04-2008, 07:19 AM
Minor point of information: The first investigation was started by Murkowski's cronies as retaliation. The Democrats picked it up and ran with it when she was added to the ticket.

revefsreleets
11-04-2008, 07:40 AM
We have a similiar scandal brewing in Ohio...the Governor is taking a lot of heat for very publicly investigating Joe the Plumber the day after he became news..."investigating" meaning publicly airing his private affairs.

SCSTILLER
11-04-2008, 08:23 AM
We have a similiar scandal brewing in Ohio...the Governor is taking a lot of heat for very publicly investigating Joe the Plumber the day after he became news..."investigating" meaning publicly airing his private affairs.


I think it is pretty sad that a normal person cannot ask an elected official (by that I mean somebody that works for the American People) a question without being raked over the coals. Granted, this guy owed back taxes, and probably didn't have the money to buy the business, but still! As citizens of this great and blessed (not damned) country, we have a right to ask our officials questions with reprisal!

revefsreleets
11-04-2008, 08:38 AM
Not to hijack, but it is related...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/33810109.html

Erosion of credibility
Now the Department of Job and Family Services has two stories about why Joe the Plumber became the subject of a records search

Published on Tuesday, Nov 04, 2008


Helen Kelly-Jones, the director of the state Department of Job and Family Services, argued last week that the department did nothing unusual examining its records for traces of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, or Joe the Plumber. She explained in a letter to Bill Harris, the Senate president, that such steps are taken ''when a news story brings to our attention a person who has recently realized a financial windfall or which otherwise suggests that the person may have more financial resources available to them than might have been expected.''

Wurzelbacher, of the Toledo area, suggested, in a brief encounter with Barack Obama on the campaign trail, that he wished to purchase a plumbing business. Put aside the suspicious timing of the department checking into Wurzelbacher — the day after John McCain turned Joe into a national figure as part of the Republican presidential candidate jabbing his Democratic opponent. Over the weekend, the Columbus Dispatch talked to the woman at the department who ran the check. She explained to the newspaper that her supervisor said Wurzelbacher had contacted the agency about his child-support case.

So which version is true? Wurzelbacher initiated the contact? Or the department routinely checks on those thrust into the public spotlight?

On Monday, the Dispatch added this wrinkle: Loretta Adams, the executive director of the Ohio Job and Family Services Directors' Association, held that she had never heard of such a practice regarding the suddenly famous. ''That would not be a legitimate use of government access,'' she told the newspaper. More, Wurzelbacher says he isn't involved in a child-support case, and no link has been found.

All of this is part of the investigation launched by Thomas Charles, the state inspector general. Hard to miss the erosion of Jones-Kelly's credibility, the department without an official policy concerning those in the public eye. Or the deepening suspicion that Democrats wanted to dig up dirt on Wurzelbacher, moving quickly to put Joe in his political place.

The question, cliched as it may sound, must be asked: What did the governor's office know, and when did it know it?

Kelly-Jones highlighted in her letter to Sen. Harris the many media requests that arrived once McCain put Wurzelbacher front and center. Newspapers and others in the media surely appreciate her spirit of openness. What adds to outrage about the incident is the appearance of using media attention as cover for prying into the private records of Wurzelbacher.

Ted Strickland initially signaled his feeling that partisanship was not at work in the records search. Now the governor is waiting for the investigation to conclude. Imagine how loudly Democrats would have yelped if such events had occurred on Bob Taft's watch. They would have been right to holler.

A certain level of trust must exist between Ohioans and their government. Joe the Plumber or anyone else shouldn't be vulnerable to partisan abuse.

xfl2001fan
11-04-2008, 08:43 AM
The story was posted twice Rev (in this article).

Hines0wnz
11-04-2008, 12:41 PM
As Obama supporters would say......"its a non-issue." :sofunny:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-04-2008, 12:48 PM
Only goes to show dems will do anything to make them selves look better


and the republicans??

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-04-2008, 12:49 PM
Actually she was found to have abused her powers,,,,,,,,but did not break any laws....
I guess abusing her powers in this case (since she is a republican and against abortion - for the radical religious right group) it is okay???

xfl2001fan
11-04-2008, 01:57 PM
Either she's guilty of a crime or she isn't. But I guess only in democratic politics is it guilty until proven innocent.

Preacher
11-04-2008, 02:13 PM
Actually she was found to have abused her powers,,,,,,,,but did not break any laws....
I guess abusing her powers in this case (since she is a republican and against abortion - for the radical religious right group) it is okay???

No she wasn't, the INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS DID NOT find anything. Makes you wonder what the real agenda of the democrats in California were.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-04-2008, 02:19 PM
No it doesnt.......Just makes me wonder why McCain picked her as VP.... Didnt like the pick from day 1

xfl2001fan
11-04-2008, 02:21 PM
No it doesnt.......Just makes me wonder why McCain picked her as VP.... Didnt like the pick from day 1

You were a n0bama supporter from day 1. You wouldn't have liked anyone he picked. She was guilty of nothing except for being a conservative...which is all the liberal politicians need to call into question character and attempt defamation.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-04-2008, 02:30 PM
You were a n0bama supporter from day 1. You wouldn't have liked anyone he picked. She was guilty of nothing except for being a conservative...which is all the liberal politicians need to call into question character and attempt defamation.

I liked Obama from day one...Yes.... I also would have considered McCain had he picked Tom Ridge as his vice...

Vis
11-04-2008, 02:36 PM
You were a n0bama supporter from day 1. You wouldn't have liked anyone he picked. She was guilty of nothing except for being a conservative...which is all the liberal politicians need to call into question character and attempt defamation.

You have to admit that all the characteristics that McCain has (or had in 2000) to which independents and Dems were drawn, Palin is lacking.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-04-2008, 02:42 PM
You have to admit that all the characteristics that McCain has (or had in 2000) to which independents and Dems were drawn, Palin is lacking.

OH..... by the way... I voted for McCain in 2000

tony hipchest
11-04-2008, 02:46 PM
You were a n0bama supporter from day 1. You wouldn't have liked anyone he picked. She was guilty of nothing except for being a conservative...which is all the liberal politicians need to call into question character and attempt defamation.what about what the right did to mccain in '00?

Either she's guilty of a crime or she isn't. But I guess only in democratic politics is it guilty until proven innocent.like with clintons impeachment correct. didntr he and his wife also kill some people?

please.... do you believe nixon was set up and framed by the evil democrats or something? :rolleyes:

xfl2001fan
11-04-2008, 02:47 PM
While McCain is a more centrist Republican...the democratic party (as a whole) has leaned further left than at nearly any other time in our history...helped along by the media (particularly goofs like Keith Olbermann).

xfl2001fan
11-04-2008, 02:55 PM
what about what the right did to mccain in '00?

like with clintons impeachment correct. didntr he and his wife also kill some people?

please.... do you believe nixon was set up and framed by the evil democrats or something? :rolleyes:

I'll be more than happy to admit that I have no clue about 2000. I was deployed during that election year and had more important issues to concentrate on than politics.

As for Nixon...I don't know who "framed him" as I wasn't born then. I was born just before Reagan came into office. I have vague memories of writing letters to Soldier's overseas in the 5th grade for the Gulf War. (I work with many Gulf Veterans and love to remind them just how much older they are than I!!!!)

I never believed Clinton killed anyone.

As for his impeachment, I was extremely...disappointed...with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing but didn't think impeachment was right. I called out those who felt it was a justifiable reason for getting rid of the guy. I wanted rid of him too...but wanted/needed more concrete evidence than what I was given.

Of course, since I haven't been a part of this forum that long...it's impossible to prove. Though I openly admit to being a conservative...I' openly oppose extremism when confronted with it.

xfl2001fan
11-04-2008, 02:55 PM
OH..... by the way... I voted for McCain in 2000

Then let's just hope your history of voting for the losing end continues it's practice. :wink02:

Preacher
11-04-2008, 03:29 PM
what about what the right did to mccain in '00?

like with clintons impeachment correct. didntr he and his wife also kill some people?

please.... do you believe nixon was set up and framed by the evil democrats or something? :rolleyes:

You mean where he used his position as governor to gain sexual advantage over some females in his employ?

In any other place, he would have been fired and sued for sexual harassment. It wasn't about oral sex in the white house, it was about that fact that he again, when he became president used a position of power to derive sexual favor from someone that he had power over in one way or another.

Sorry, the "right wing conspiracy" theory just doesn't fly.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-04-2008, 04:32 PM
Then let's just hope your history of voting for the losing end continues it's practice. :wink02:

well..........i never voted for bush........so Im 0 - 2 but hopefully the third times a charm right?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-04-2008, 04:34 PM
You mean where he used his position as governor to gain sexual advantage over some females in his employ?

In any other place, he would have been fired and sued for sexual harassment. It wasn't about oral sex in the white house, it was about that fact that he again, when he became president used a position of power to derive sexual favor from someone that he had power over in one way or another.

Sorry, the "right wing conspiracy" theory just doesn't fly.

I don't think the issue was every about him taking advantage of female employees. I really find it hard to believe that he made her do anything....
If you want to talk about sexual advances and using derived powers to take advantage of individuals..........maybe we should open up a catholic priest/religious forum

xfl2001fan
11-04-2008, 04:34 PM
well..........i never voted for bush........so Im 0 - 2 but hopefully the third times a charm right?

Nope, I'm content with your record continuing on!