Forums | MacLife

ScifiterX wrote:

Of course her attorney disagreed with the conclusions. It's his job to disagree with anything that may work against his client.

Multiply-pronged arguments don't make for good sound bites.

Gurlugon wrote:

Well, the guests on MSNBC seem to unanimously feel this doesn't mean smurf given everything else that's going on. I guess the economy is at least working one way in McCain's favor.

Heh, ya..one giant disadvantage distracting from another. It would be funny if it werent so sad.

McCain v.2000 makes McCain v.2008 look pretty pathetic.

resedit wrote:

It should also be noted that they found the firing to be legal.

The abuse of power was her not preventing her husband from doing what he did. Not the firing.

Should this distinction be comforting to anyone?

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

It should also be noted that they found the firing to be legal.

The abuse of power was her not preventing her husband from doing what he did. Not the firing.

Should this distinction be comforting to anyone?

Comforting?
No.

But it is dishonest and factually incorrect to say she abused her power in firing him, because the report said she did not.

And to think the right went screeching for years about Hillary Clinton and the White House travel office.

resedit wrote:

But it is dishonest and factually incorrect to say she abused her power in firing him, because the report said she did not.

Perhaps it would be "dishonest" to proclaim that this report came to that conclusion, but I don't think it's dishonest to have that opinion.

It really isn't terribly relevant whether or not the firing of Monegan was deemed to be proper or not.  Many felt that to be the logical conclusion of her behavior, but there was clearly abuse of power involved in the attempts to get the trooper fired.

it seems the arguments for having hubby-in-law fired is that there was fear of hubby-in-law.

let's see,.. causing a potentially unstable guy (seems to almost be a prerequisite for law enforcement) loose his job through family connections,.. seems to me this would push a potentially unstable guy off the edge, no?

was he somehow more docile when unemployed?

pulling punitive crap like this, in this most obvious link between the parties involved, is exactly why there are ethical guidelines drawn up.
if she did not cross that line, she at least appears to have totally and undeniably crossed that line.
pick one.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Comforting?
No.

But it is dishonest and factually incorrect to say she abused her power in firing him, because the report said she did not.

And to think the right went screeching for years about Hillary Clinton and the White House travel office.

What was my position on that?

Hell - I don't even remember it.

Get a job  hippy.

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

And to think the right went screeching for years about Hillary Clinton and the White House travel office.

What was my position on that?

Hell - I don't even remember it.

Get a job  hippy.

smurf off

drop it and back on topic

Finding #1 says that she abused her power to put pressure on the commissioner to fire the trooper.

Finding #2 says that she DID NOT abuse her power in firing the commissioner. It said she was well within her authority to fire him.

To make the statement that "Palin abused power in firing" is false.

pastor macman wrote:

Finding #1 says that she abused her power to put pressure on the commissioner to fire the trooper.

Finding #2 says that she DID NOT abuse her power in firing the commissioner. It said she was well within her authority to fire him.

To make the statement that "Palin abused power in firing" is false.

Wrong.

jerwin wrote:

I think Sarah Palin would abuse the powers of the Vice Presidency,and on the whole, she reminds of Dick Cheney in drag.

You've seen Dick Cheney in drag?

How did that miss the news!

Last edited by Macskeeball (2008-10-12 11:36 pm)