More of Palin's abuse of power?

[HAL 9000 96]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

so legality does not matter with this topic. duly noted.

Yeah... and ALL laws are permissive of ethics, right?

Note that.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

so legality does not matter with this topic. duly noted.

Yeah... and ALL laws are permissive of ethics, right?

Note that.

ethics and legality are often separate. get used to it.

[HAL 9000 96]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

oh ... you must be located in a workers paradise state ...

in some states an employee can be terminated for any reason ... these are called "right to work states"

That's right. For bringing up ethics. Interesting. Anyone notice the loophole being used as an excuse here? I know LS and Charles are capable of noticing it but I think they'd rather ignore it due to loyalty. That shows a lot about character doesn't it?

BTW... any reason has to be backed up by HR's final determination that the reason is not just legal, but within customary norms that do not violate business ethics. Such is the way of "right to work" states that in actuality apply to private entities, otherwise known as 'at will employers.'

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

so legality does not matter with this topic. duly noted.

Yeah... and ALL laws are permissive of ethics, right?

Note that.

ethics and legality are often separate. get used to it.

Yes we do know that. Just don't confuse the two when it suits you.

[symbiosis 0]

Another religious zealot (Assembly of God -- these are aisle running, speaking in tongues folk). God's hand in Iraq. sheesh!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/p...h_n_123205.html

[natty bumppo 297]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

oh ... you must be located in a workers paradise state ...

in some states an employee can be terminated for any reason ... these are called "right to work states"

That's right. For bringing up ethics. Interesting. Anyone notice the loophole being used as an excuse here? I know LS and Charles are capable of noticing it but I think they'd rather ignore it due to loyalty. That shows a lot about character doesn't it?

BTW... any reason has to be backed up by HR's final determination that the reason is not just legal, but within customary norms that do not violate business ethics. Such is the way of "right to work" states that in actuality apply to private entities, otherwise known as 'at will employers.'

ethics vs legal .... the termination should not violate the law

[pedroh 21]

oh wow she's like Dubya, god tells her stuff!! like attack another country!!

I wish God would tell me handy info like that, like the next lotto numbers or something like that

Edited September 3, 2008 by pedroh

[HAL 9000 96]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

oh ... you must be located in a workers paradise state ...

in some states an employee can be terminated for any reason ... these are called "right to work states"

That's right. For bringing up ethics. Interesting. Anyone notice the loophole being used as an excuse here? I know LS and Charles are capable of noticing it but I think they'd rather ignore it due to loyalty. That shows a lot about character doesn't it?

BTW... any reason has to be backed up by HR's final determination that the reason is not just legal, but within customary norms that do not violate business ethics. Such is the way of "right to work" states that in actuality apply to private entities, otherwise known as 'at will employers.'

ethics vs legal .... the termination should not violate the law

Wifey is in HR. I know what I am talking about.

[rebeccajo 14]

ethics and legality are often separate. get used to it.

I'm surprised by this comment, Charles. Really.

Because when we use similar arguments regarding immigration issues, you usually state that what's legal is legal and there's no in between.

Why are you defending Palin so? You gotta realize that she has chinks in her armour just like any other politician.

And while I'm not particularly 'after' her and definately wouldn't ever say I 'hate' her, her bent seems very, very far to the right. Alarmingly so.

[Eric_and_Corinna 0]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

so legality does not matter with this topic. duly noted.

Charles, you're missing the point. She's someone who is constantly chanting "open and transparent government." As the Governor and formerly the Mayor, she technically has the right to fire at will (non represented) employees whenever she wants, without giving reasons. But Alaskans expect her to be held accountable to higher standards; in fact, she even said during her inaugural speech to do exactly that. That is the biggest source of heartburn for me over the firing of her Public Safety Commissioner. She gave no reason for firing him, other then that she wanted DPS to go in a "new direction." Then a week later rolls out a plan that was quite literally ripped right out of the playbook the ex-commissioner had introduced 5 months previous. When she was called on it, then she backpedaled and said that the guy was weak on alcohol and rural issues. Of course, this is the Cliff's notes version and if you want the entire story, it's easy to find on www.adn.com. It's been the source of almost 2 months of stories.

She would have been better off firing the guy and not saying anything about it, but by making a reason up, she opened herself up to warranted criticism.

[HAL 9000 96]

This time around it suits his POV. Hence, to him, its perfectly acceptable to dissect the two.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

so legality does not matter with this topic. duly noted.

Yeah... and ALL laws are permissive of ethics, right?

Note that.

ethics and legality are often separate. get used to it.

Yes we do know that. Just don't confuse the two when it suits you.

we're not bringing up ethics in this matter, you are. you might want to take an extra helping of that advice.

[HAL 9000 96]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

so legality does not matter with this topic. duly noted.

Charles, you're missing the point. She's someone who is constantly chanting "open and transparent government." As the Governor and formerly the Mayor, she technically has the right to fire at will (non represented) employees whenever she wants, without giving reasons. But Alaskans expect her to be held accountable to higher standards; in fact, she even said during her inaugural speech to do exactly that. That is the biggest source of heartburn for me over the firing of her Public Safety Commissioner. She gave no reason for firing him, other then that she wanted DPS to go in a "new direction." Then a week later rolls out a plan that was quite literally ripped right out of the playbook the ex-commissioner had introduced 5 months previous. When she was called on it, then she backpedaled and said that the guy was weak on alcohol and rural issues. Of course, this is the Cliff's notes version and if you want the entire story, it's easy to find on www.adn.com. It's been the source of almost 2 months of stories.

She would have been better off firing the guy and not saying anything about it, but by making a reason up, she opened herself up to warranted criticism.

And there are issues of electability and governance. Who wants a President/VP team that do what they want, and bend the law to their own definition of what is ethical?? Oh wait... we already know where that's going.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

ethics and legality are often separate. get used to it.

I'm surprised by this comment, Charles. Really.

Because when we use similar arguments regarding immigration issues, you usually state that what's legal is legal and there's no in between.

Why are you defending Palin so? You gotta realize that she has chinks in her armour just like any other politician.

And while I'm not particularly 'after' her and definately wouldn't ever say I 'hate' her, her bent seems very, very far to the right. Alarmingly so.

this is a mountain made from a molehill. said firing was investigated and deemed legal.

now what's the problem again other than some have an ax to grind?

[HAL 9000 96]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

so legality does not matter with this topic. duly noted.

Yeah... and ALL laws are permissive of ethics, right?

Note that.

ethics and legality are often separate. get used to it.

Yes we do know that. Just don't confuse the two when it suits you.

we're not bringing up ethics in this matter, you are. you might want to take an extra helping of that advice.

Public official = position of trust. Higher standards. You might want to read up on that advice if you value democracy as well as ethics. When we fight for freedom, we don't do so for despots.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

... but it gets even better. She fired the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the bars owners (Palin's contributors) to close earlier:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...3866&page=1

and from the link:

A federal judge later ruled the mayor, under city law, had the right to fire the police chief for any reason she wanted.

so much for that story..........

Yeah... on a whim. So much for doing things ethically.

so legality does not matter with this topic. duly noted.

Charles, you're missing the point. She's someone who is constantly chanting "open and transparent government." As the Governor and formerly the Mayor, she technically has the right to fire at will (non represented) employees whenever she wants, without giving reasons. But Alaskans expect her to be held accountable to higher standards; in fact, she even said during her inaugural speech to do exactly that. That is the biggest source of heartburn for me over the firing of her Public Safety Commissioner. She gave no reason for firing him, other then that she wanted DPS to go in a "new direction." Then a week later rolls out a plan that was quite literally ripped right out of the playbook the ex-commissioner had introduced 5 months previous. When she was called on it, then she backpedaled and said that the guy was weak on alcohol and rural issues. Of course, this is the Cliff's notes version and if you want the entire story, it's easy to find on www.adn.com. It's been the source of almost 2 months of stories.

She would have been better off firing the guy and not saying anything about it, but by making a reason up, she opened herself up to warranted criticism.

missing the point? there is no point to this, it's a dead topic. yet some insist on making it larger than life. oh well, i guess it's time for some to shift gears from bushbashing to palinbashing.