U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:04 PM
 
21,812 posts, read 27,879,652 times
Reputation: 16562

Advertisements

Ray, how much BS are you going to continue to spit? I said she has the power to fire them. And she does. Looks this stuff up in the freakin' statutes for once before you spread further non-truths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
16,610 posts, read 28,803,431 times
Reputation: 12380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
Ray, how much BS are you going to continue to spit? I said she has the power to fire them. And she does. Looks this stuff up in the freakin' statutes for once before you spread further non-truths.
Calm down a little. No need to get a heart attack over this.

Of the Alaska Personnel Board, maybe three members have been appointed by Palin. However, the Personnel board is comprised not of only three members, but several. Also, these members are appointed to serve quite a long time, not just four years. It means that once appointed, they may serve under different governors. And you are wrong about the governor, whoever he or she may be, about firing member of the personnel board. He or she would then have to prove good cause for firing the member, and do so as the case goes through another personnel board. In the case of Monagan, it's true that she can do that at will (without a cause), but the Personnel Board members don't work directly for her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Beautiful East TN!!
7,281 posts, read 19,068,134 times
Reputation: 2753
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse View Post
ACORN, Ayers and Obama have nothing to do with this, which you brought up. I never insulted you. I insulted your method of arguing this topic.

You can believe all you want that she's been cleared. She appointed those people to the panel. If you don't believe that there's a conflict of interest there, then you aren't being intellectually honest.
Alrighty then, please find a valid way of arguing my method of arguing this then:

From the article: "The report was prepared by Timothy Petumenos, an independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board. "

Here is the list of Alaska's Personnel Board members:
PERSONNEL BOARD (077)

hmm...do not see the name Timothy Petumenos on there.


But I did find out about him here: BHBC - Timothy J. Petumenos (http://www.birchhorton.com/attorney_petumenos.html - broken link)

"Mr. Petumenos solidified his reputation as one of state's toughest trial lawyers during his tenure with the Alaska Office of Special Prosecutions in the early 1980's. There, he tried high-profile corruption cases and secured a bribery conviction against a powerful state senator. After joining BHBC, he was called back to public service to prosecute the infamous MacKay murder trials. "


I'd not only say that is pretty darn "Independent" but looks like the guy has no problem at all with convicting corrupt state senators.

My point was: If something comes up where McCain or Pailn are cleared of any suspicion of any issue, the source, the source of the source and the Mother and Father of the source must be proved 5 different ways.
However if Obama is cleared of any suspicion by some bloger on another site, it must be true, and don't darn anyone ask for a different source.
The woman was cleared of any unethical wrong doing in this case, face it. What is the big dang deal? Is it really that hard to admit that she was wrongly accused in this case?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 13,114,284 times
Reputation: 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoboi View Post
The problem is this will do nothing to help McCain tommorrow. But it is interesting that Palin appointed the members on this board who found she didnt violate ethics laws. I dont trust the conclusions from this board.
Exactly.
If your job depends on a certain conclusion, you'll try your best to try to make sure that conclusion comes out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:19 PM
 
21,812 posts, read 27,879,652 times
Reputation: 16562
Once again, Ray, the board is comprised of three members.

AS 39.25.060. Personnel Board.

(a) The personnel board is composed of three members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature meeting in joint session. The term of office of a member is six years. A vacancy in an unexpired term shall be filled by appointment by the governor for the remainder of the term. The appointment is subject to confirmation in the same manner as a full-term appointment.



She can also fire them for "cause" but the statute is unclear of what might constitute such cause. Given Palin's political history, "cause" for firing people seems to be just about anything she might feel threatened by.

You're as wrong on this one as you were when you were saying that the governor will appoint a new Senator as anything but an interim in the (increasingly unlikely) event that Stevens gets re-elected and is subsequently booted out of the Senate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Orlando
8,233 posts, read 11,281,995 times
Reputation: 4064
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELOrocks17 View Post
Well I guess all you tollerant liberals Owe Gov Palin an apology....

Because there wasn't enough to charge her with doesn't mean she is innocent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC
7,730 posts, read 12,719,323 times
Reputation: 1505
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbmouse View Post
Alrighty then, please find a valid way of arguing my method of arguing this then:

From the article: "The report was prepared by Timothy Petumenos, an independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board. "

Here is the list of Alaska's Personnel Board members:
PERSONNEL BOARD (077)

hmm...do not see the name Timothy Petumenos on there.


But I did find out about him here: BHBC - Timothy J. Petumenos (http://www.birchhorton.com/attorney_petumenos.html - broken link)

"Mr. Petumenos solidified his reputation as one of state's toughest trial lawyers during his tenure with the Alaska Office of Special Prosecutions in the early 1980's. There, he tried high-profile corruption cases and secured a bribery conviction against a powerful state senator. After joining BHBC, he was called back to public service to prosecute the infamous MacKay murder trials. "


I'd not only say that is pretty darn "Independent" but looks like the guy has no problem at all with convicting corrupt state senators.

My point was: If something comes up where McCain or Pailn are cleared of any suspicion of any issue, the source, the source of the source and the Mother and Father of the source must be proved 5 different ways.
However if Obama is cleared of any suspicion by some bloger on another site, it must be true, and don't darn anyone ask for a different source.
The woman was cleared of any unethical wrong doing in this case, face it. What is the big dang deal? Is it really that hard to admit that she was wrongly accused in this case?
Much better. So we have two reports that came to different conclusions. You believe one, I believe the other. And that's where this ends for me. Because of other evidence like email accounts in which she seems to be doing state business outside of the view of the Alaska records law, I tend to believe she is guilty of violating ethics laws.

Again, Obama has nothing to do with this. Nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Beautiful East TN!!
7,281 posts, read 19,068,134 times
Reputation: 2753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
Once again, Ray, the board is comprised of three members.

AS 39.25.060. Personnel Board.

(a) The personnel board is composed of three members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature meeting in joint session. The term of office of a member is six years. A vacancy in an unexpired term shall be filled by appointment by the governor for the remainder of the term. The appointment is subject to confirmation in the same manner as a full-term appointment.



She can also fire them for "cause" but the statute is unclear of what might constitute such cause.

I understand this as does everyone (ok, most...or some) here but the fact is that the Investigator was not a member of the personnel board.
They brought in an independent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:27 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,436,699 times
Reputation: 2608
Well, considering the evidence provided in the first report was pure speculation on the ethics charge, I am not surprised. /shrug

It won't matter though. Those who believe she is guilty didn't come to their conclusion on the facts, so no amount of facts will change their opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Beautiful East TN!!
7,281 posts, read 19,068,134 times
Reputation: 2753
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse View Post
Much better. So we have two reports that came to different conclusions. You believe one, I believe the other. And that's where this ends for me. Because of other evidence like email accounts in which she seems to be doing state business outside of the view of the Alaska records law, I tend to believe she is guilty of violating ethics laws.

Again, Obama has nothing to do with this. Nothing.
And your statement just proved my point, thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top