More of Palin's abuse of power?

[HAL 9000 96]

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

Perhaps that's why GWB has had so much trouble in keeping a strong profile on his Attorney Generals. Besides getting away with pretty interesting bending of actual law AND ethics.

{I've been enjoying the back and forth too. Sadly, I must return to my duties at work.}

[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)*

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...

this termination of ... one person ... wasn't small scale?

it was a legal termination ... case closed.

[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...

this termination of ... one person ... wasn't small scale?

it was a legal termination ... case closed.

And now she is up for a much larger position.

Case open.

[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.

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.

Actually, her firing of the DPS Commissioner is still under investigation. So until the investigation is over, it's not "a dead topic."

I'm just trying to hold her accountable, as she asked us to do when she won office.

[natty bumppo 297]

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...

this termination of ... one person ... wasn't small scale?

it was a legal termination ... case closed.

And now she is up for a much larger position.

Case open.

Alex ... Mavi wants "double jeopardy" for $1000 ...

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Actually, her firing of the DPS Commissioner is still under investigation. So until the investigation is over, it's not "a dead topic."

I'm just trying to hold her accountable, as she asked us to do when she won office.

that's all well and good, but that's not the topic, is it?

Edited September 3, 2008 by charles!

[Teacher Mark 53]

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

Beautiful. Whatever is on the Republican agenda is God's will. Manifest Destiny, alive and well in 2008.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

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

Beautiful. Whatever is on the Republican agenda is God's will. Manifest Destiny, alive and well in 2008.

it's god's will that you made that post ^^^^^^

[Teacher Mark 53]

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

Beautiful. Whatever is on the Republican agenda is God's will. Manifest Destiny, alive and well in 2008.

it's god's will that you made that post ^^^^^^

Zing!

[Eric_and_Corinna 0]

Actually, her firing of the DPS Commissioner is still under investigation. So until the investigation is over, it's not "a dead topic."

I'm just trying to hold her accountable, as she asked us to do when she won office.

that's all well and good, but that's not the topic, is it?

So it's well and good that she's under investigation?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Actually, her firing of the DPS Commissioner is still under investigation. So until the investigation is over, it's not "a dead topic."

I'm just trying to hold her accountable, as she asked us to do when she won office.

that's all well and good, but that's not the topic, is it?

So it's well and good that she's under investigation?

keep fishing.

[rebeccajo 14]

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

That's really mean. So much for 'friendship' I guess.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

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

That's really mean. So much for 'friendship' I guess.

you can spank me later

[Eric_and_Corinna 0]

Actually, her firing of the DPS Commissioner is still under investigation. So until the investigation is over, it's not "a dead topic."

I'm just trying to hold her accountable, as she asked us to do when she won office.

that's all well and good, but that's not the topic, is it?

So it's well and good that she's under investigation?

keep fishing.

Fishing? Maybe I'm just yankin yer chain...

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Actually, her firing of the DPS Commissioner is still under investigation. So until the investigation is over, it's not "a dead topic."

I'm just trying to hold her accountable, as she asked us to do when she won office.

that's all well and good, but that's not the topic, is it?

So it's well and good that she's under investigation?

keep fishing.

Fishing? Maybe I'm just yankin yer chain...

you'll have to wait, i'm busy. queen becca is putting on her dominatrix outfit