More of Palin's abuse of power?

[HAL 9000 96]

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?

That this person in particular is slated to be in a position where Checks and Balances, as well as doing things ethically in accordance with the law, are part of the job description.

[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

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

then she also knows to terminate a person all that is required is .... your services are no longer required ....

*(a simple "finding" can always be made available should the terminated employee wish to contest)*

[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.

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.

it's amazing how you can find ethics in every topic now. is this your new mantra?

[MichelleN 0]

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?

My take on this is that the Republicans are well known for holding themselves up on a moral and ethical high horse, even for dealings that are in no way legal matters. For her to basically fire someone for apparently doing something as 'horrible' as trying to reduce drunk driving accidents among other things, kinda ruins the 'high horse' mentality.

[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.

then she also knows to terminate a person all that is required is .... your services are no longer required ....

*(a simple "finding" can always be made available should the terminated employee wish to contest)*

And when that finding yields results that diminish the business ethics of the firing party... it becomes an issue. Its potentially OK when the 'at will' activity happens in the small scale. When you potentially carry that behavior over to the big time, such as in Executive offices, then... hmmm...

[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.

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.

it's amazing how you can find ethics in every topic now. is this your new mantra?

the terms humanistic & humanity should be next in the batting order ....

[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?

That this person in particular is slated to be in a position where Checks and Balances, as well as doing things ethically in accordance with the law, are part of the job description.

part of the job description? got a link to that job description where it specifically cites that as a prerequisite? i'm so interested in reading it!

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?

My take on this is that the Republicans are well known for holding themselves up on a moral and ethical high horse, even for dealings that are in no way legal matters. For her to basically fire someone for apparently doing something as 'horrible' as trying to reduce drunk driving accidents among other things, kinda ruins the 'high horse' mentality.

i don't see her on a high horse, do you?

the terms humanistic & humanity should be next in the batting order ....

i'll start warming up for the barfing contest then.

[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.

it's amazing how you can find ethics in every topic now. is this your new mantra?

By definition there's right and wrong to just about every topic. While doing things right can sometimes be open to discussion and points of view, there usually are neutral values that should not be crosses. Such as in firing someone when they challenge your financial backing.

[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.

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?

*shrugs*

No ax to grind here. None at all.

You're missing my point anyway so there's nothing we can really discuss.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

By definition there's right and wrong to just about every topic. While doing things right can sometimes be open to discussion and points of view, there usually are neutral values that should not be crosses. Such as in firing someone when they challenge your financial backing.

so is it that black and white to you - she had to fire this guy for that specific reason? i was not aware you kept up on alaska small town politics so well!

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?

*shrugs*

No ax to grind here. None at all.

You're missing my point anyway so there's nothing we can really discuss.

you mean i can't continue to yank your chain?

[HAL 9000 96]

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?

That this person in particular is slated to be in a position where Checks and Balances, as well as doing things ethically in accordance with the law, are part of the job description.

part of the job description? got a link to that job description where it specifically cites that as a prerequisite? i'm so interested in reading it!

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?

My take on this is that the Republicans are well known for holding themselves up on a moral and ethical high horse, even for dealings that are in no way legal matters. For her to basically fire someone for apparently doing something as 'horrible' as trying to reduce drunk driving accidents among other things, kinda ruins the 'high horse' mentality.

i don't see her on a high horse, do you?

the terms humanistic & humanity should be next in the batting order ....

i'll start warming up for the barfing contest then.

Here's some Castor Oil.

That job description is more metaphorical. Try passing that off to the voters in November-

"I plan on doing whatever it is that I see fit to do, as long as I can define what is legal and what is not."

Sounds pretty much like the last two terms to me. If there are enough voters that think, like you, that this is OK within ethical lines, then we'll definitely deserve what we get. Ethically and legally.

[rebeccajo 14]

By definition there's right and wrong to just about every topic. While doing things right can sometimes be open to discussion and points of view, there usually are neutral values that should not be crosses. Such as in firing someone when they challenge your financial backing.

so is it that black and white to you - she had to fire this guy for that specific reason? i was not aware you kept up on alaska small town politics so well!

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?

*shrugs*

No ax to grind here. None at all.

You're missing my point anyway so there's nothing we can really discuss.

you mean i can't continue to yank your chain?

If that's all you're trying to do, then no you can't.

If you want to have a grown-up conversation, I'll be out there.

[HAL 9000 96]

By definition there's right and wrong to just about every topic. While doing things right can sometimes be open to discussion and points of view, there usually are neutral values that should not be crosses. Such as in firing someone when they challenge your financial backing.

so is it that black and white to you - she had to fire this guy for that specific reason? i was not aware you kept up on alaska small town politics so well!

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?

*shrugs*

No ax to grind here. None at all.

You're missing my point anyway so there's nothing we can really discuss.

you mean i can't continue to yank your chain?

No, I can simply tell right from wrong. Ethics are fairly neutral.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Here's some Castor Oil.

That job description is more metaphorical. Try passing that off to the voters in November-

"I plan on doing whatever it is that I see fit to do, as long as I can define what is legal and what is not."

Sounds pretty much like the last two terms to me. If there are enough voters that think, like you, that this is OK within ethical lines, then we'll definitely deserve what we get. Ethically and legally.

just one small error there - she didn't define it as legal, the judge did

having trouble separating the judicial from the executive again are we?

you mean i can't continue to yank your chain?

If that's all you're trying to do, then no you can't.

If you want to have a grown-up conversation, I'll be out there.

well hmppfff you're no fun then. i've been having a blast with you and mavi

[symbiosis 0]

and a global warming denialist:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1837868,00.html