Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    You are more than welcome to try your best to explain how the Palin debacle and this one are equivalent (not how they have a few similarities).
    No excuses for Mahoney, who clearly broke ethics rules, but I think the Palin thing is equivalent or worse. Palin fired an innocent party. Hiring someone for favoritism is unethical but firing someone for failure to favor a powerful party in a dispute is arguably worse.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    No excuses for Mahoney, who clearly broke ethics rules, but I think the Palin thing is equivalent or worse. Palin fired an innocent party. Hiring someone for favoritism is unethical but firing someone for failure to favor a powerful party in a dispute is arguably worse.
    I think we're splitting hairs here. Both are ethically challenged and both abused their power. Period. Nobody is more right than the other IMO.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I look at it from the perspective that not having an affair is not a responsibility of a politician.

    That's not a part of the responsibilities of his office, though.
    I tend to agree, it is not part of the responsibilities of his office.
    But it is part of his responsibility as a husband.

    And if he promised strong familiy values to his voters also part of the responsibilities to his voters..

    But I'd prefere a good senator/president who sleeps around and sorts that out with his wife than one who is faithfull to his wife but a crap senator/president.
    Since his private affairs are just that.. private and should be between him, his wife and his misstress(es)
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I think we're splitting hairs here. Both are ethically challenged and both abused their power. Period. Nobody is more right than the other IMO.
    I actually agree with aero that using official power to achieve a personal end is qualitatively different than giving a job to a girl friend.

    Abuse of power by Governors or Presidents potentially warps the entire system of collective democracy -- giving your a mistress a job is not much more than theft -- if she can't type...

    (in this specific case he paid her 100+k after he fired her, because he fired her only because their relationship had soured, not because she was incompetent at her job)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    ...But I'd prefer a good senator/president who sleeps around and sorts that out with his wife than one who is faithfull to his wife but a crap senator/president.

    Since his private affairs are just that.. private and should be between him, his wife and his misstress(es)

    yup
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #26  
    I prefer an official who lives up to the goals he/she their sights on and lives up to them. They get in to office on those goals and anything less shows a person willing to lie to achieve their goals. Look at Barney Frank as a for instance.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    No excuses for Mahoney, who clearly broke ethics rules, but I think the Palin thing is equivalent or worse. Palin fired an innocent party. Hiring someone for favoritism is unethical but firing someone for failure to favor a powerful party in a dispute is arguably worse.
    Except for two things:

    1 - The firing of the Commissioner by Palin wasn't a breach of ethics--at best, you can say it was mean spirited. The governer of Alaska, whoever it is, is at full liberty to fire the commissioner for any reason they choose or for no reason.

    2 - Being that firing her employee was completely within the bounds (as lined out by Alaska's own ETHICS ACT, any associated cost was also legal. Mahoney on the other hand potentially hired someone which cost taxpayer money. If he indeed hired the woman as hush money, not only did he breach ethics, but he charged it to the taxpayers.


    Look we can dance around this forever, but the fact remains that Palin and Mahoney are simply not comparable.


    What is really sad are those who suggest that Mahoney didn't even abuse power (BARYE) and it amounts to little more than theft.

    Really? It's not an abuse of power to give someone a position to keep them quiet? It's not an abuse of power to use taxpayer money to cover-up a personal fling you have?

    I'm sorry, but of all reasons to pay taxes, the last thing I find justifiable as a use for tax money is to hide your own personal indiscretions.


    moderate, I didn't intend to sound as if I was pointing at one being more right than another as much as I was simply saying the two incidents simply are not equal. If forced to compare the two, I find one lesser than the other but in all reality they are completely seperate cases.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  8. #28  
    Palin did nothing wrong. Mahoney did something wrong and look who wants to dismiss it.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    ...What is really sad are those who suggest that Mahoney didn't even abuse power (BARYE) and it amounts to little more than theft.

    If forced to compare the two, I find one lesser than the other but in all reality they are completely seperate cases.
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Palin did nothing wrong. Mahoney did something wrong and look who wants to dismiss it.
    What I find genuinely alarming is that righties seem to suffer from moral vertigo on matters such as these.

    They get far more exorcised about Clinton having a sexual dalliance and lying about it -- than about Congressmen taking bribes to influence their support for legistlation, or a Governor using their official position to advance or punish someone because of their private agenda.

    One is a personal lapse (that might have legal consequences) -- and the other leads to the kind of sinister official abuse of power and corruption regularly seen in tin pot dictatorships.

    That you both are unable to discern the qualitative distinction between the two is truly scary to me.
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/21/2008 at 04:19 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    In general I too am uncomfortable when a politician takes advantage of their official position to reward or punish someone for whom they have personal interest.
    But then . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    One is a personal lapse (that might have legal consequences) -- and the other leads to the kind of sinister official abuse of power and corruption regularly seen in tin pot dictatorships.
    I'm sorry, your inconsistency is drowning out any point you might be trying to make. Please tell us, which do you believe? That these are both instances of abuse of power or that only one is and the other is a "personal lapse?"

    I only ask as that in your attempt play "gotcha" with me you have made contradictory statements.

    That you both are unable to discern the qualitative distinction between the two is truly scary to me.
    If only your emotions were grounded in facts . . .
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I'm sorry, your inconsistency is drowning out any point you might be trying to make. Please tell us, which do you believe? That these are both instances of abuse of power or that only one is and the other is a "personal lapse?"

    I only ask as that in your attempt play "gotcha" with me you have made contradictory statements.

    If only your emotions were grounded in facts . . .
    Well...I guess this thing won't die. OK.

    I understand what he is saying and so do you. You may disagree with his assumptions on a possible outcome in either case, but his statements seem perfectly consistent to me.

    FACT: Palin abused her authority and violated a state ethics statute. She was within her legal rights to terminate employment, but she did it in an unethical manner.

    CONCERN: That Palin's abuse of her position to carry out a vendetta against her ex-bother in-law was mean spirited and given the opportunity, granting her even more authority (VP) could result in greater abuses.


    FACT: Mahoney violated an ethical commitment to his family and his electorate by having an affair and then attempting to buy her silence. Whether he abused his authority or not is debatable because that has not yet been determined (as it was with Palin).

    CONCERN: That Mahoney's attempt to hide his indiscretions may have cost tax payers money. However, he is not a VP candidate nor did he have a vendetta to carry out - instead, he had a misguided sexual affair to hide.

    Both are wrong. But as you've said before, they are very different cases.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/21/2008 at 06:18 PM.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    But then . . .



    I'm sorry, your inconsistency is drowning out any point you might be trying to make. Please tell us, which do you believe? That these are both instances of abuse of power or that only one is and the other is a "personal lapse?"

    I only ask as that in your attempt play "gotcha" with me you have made contradictory statements.



    If only your emotions were grounded in facts . . .

    Ah DL -- you're not distinguishing between petty personal failings (that yes, may also have official legal consequences) -- and official misuse of power.

    Official use of power employed to advance -- or more importantly, punish -- those someone in power deems it in their personal interest to punish or advance.

    When officials use their personal power to help, harass, or punish -- they distort the system in a way that calls into question the entire legitamacy of the system itself.

    Its destructively toxic to the system at its root -- which is why the intervention of Palin is so very serious.

    People in power: Governors, judges, referees, moderators -- must be construed to be ABSOLUTELY neutral and uninvolved personally in the outcome of their decisions, or even in their motivation to intercede.

    Their intervention is always disruptive -- therefore they must remove themselves whenever there is even the potential for a perceived personal agenda to taint their judgement.

    Justice is impossible otherwise.

    (btw DL -- are you offended by my use of the term "righties" ??)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Ah DL -- you're not distinguishing between petty personal failings (that yes, may also have official legal consequences) -- and official misuse of power.
    Yes I am, which is why I refuse to acknowledge the two are related in any way. It is you who can't manage to distinguish the difference of the two--at least initially when you thought you had me.

    When officials use their personal power to help, harass, or punish -- they distort the system in a way that calls into question the entire legitamacy of the system itself.

    Its destructively toxic to the system at its root -- which is why the intervention of Palin is so very serious.
    If that be the case, she is at the bottom of the list and you know it with far more dangerous persons up for grabs. So please, don't patronize me with your nonsensical rhetoric when you know darn well you are being quite arbitrary about it.

    (btw DL -- are you offended by my use of the term "righties" ??)

    Nope, but if I ever "break" your mold, don't be surprised.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Yes I am, which is why I refuse to acknowledge the two are related in any way. It is you who can't manage to distinguish the difference of the two--at least initially when you thought you had me.

    If that be the case, she is at the bottom of the list and you know it with far more dangerous persons up for grabs. So please, don't patronize me with your nonsensical rhetoric when you know darn well you are being quite arbitrary about it.

    Nope, but if I ever "break" your mold, don't be surprised.
    I'll concede that the specific of what Palin has been found to have done: abused and manipulated the system toward the objective of punishing an official who would not comply with the pleas of her or her unelected 1st Dude -- is not as serious as most of what junior and his cronies do daily.

    But nevertheless -- as a principle what she did (whatever its technical legality) is very corrupting to a system that requires a shared sense of untainted fairness.

    Nope, but if I ever "break" your mold, don't be surprised.
    You do surprise me whenever you non-dogmatically concede things -- which you have done, and which I appreciate. (But which makes me frustrated debating this issue with you, since I think its so fundamental to democracy as I know it -- and yet you don't see it.)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions