1. #8441
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This right here is why I don't care much. Fuck up? Sure. But its not like someone got hurt. She said a single thing she wasn't supposed to. Hardly worth firing her over.
    So it is okay to go in afterwards and change everything about an appearance so that she doesn't break rules. Why even have the rules?

    So if you break rules, you are okay with it as long as you go back and change everything to make it seem not against the rules, but optional tax releases make you scream bloody murder....nice set of standards you have.

  2. #8442
    I don't think the 3rd party rabid attack ads they usually fund are very effective, or are at least close to as effective as actual campaign ads.
    And they spend billions on them why then?

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:41 AM ----------

    So it is okay to go in afterwards and change everything about an appearance so that she doesn't break rules. Why even have the rules?
    They didn't go back and try to change history. They designated the meeting political afterwards because it turned into a political meeting and reimbursed the government. They acknowledged that what she did was out of line and took measures to correct. Done and done.

    Her case is being brought before the correct authorities and if they see fit she'll probably receive a short term suspension as is standard for these sorts of things. Firing people, especially very important people, because of a minor campaign infraction is dumb.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:47 AM ----------

    Eric Shultz today: "This error was immediately acknowledged by the Secretary, promptly corrected and no taxpayer dollars were misused."

    Oh the horror.

    OSC spokeswoman Ann O'Hanlon said there is no formal rule for dealing with an appointed official in violation of the act. However, the agency investigates at least 100 cases such cases annually with "a great majority" of them being resolved internally and violators getting a suspension.
    Last edited by Wells; 2012-09-14 at 03:45 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  3. #8443
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    And they spend billions on them why then?

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:41 AM ----------


    They didn't go back and try to change history. They designated the meeting political afterwards because it turned into a political meeting and reimbursed the government. They acknowledged that what she did was out of line and took measures to correct. Done and done.

    Her case is being brought before the correct authorities and if they see fit she'll probably receive a short term suspension as is standard for these sorts of things. Firing people, especially very important people, because of a minor campaign infraction is dumb.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:47 AM ----------

    Eric Shultz today: "This error was immediately acknowledged by the Secretary, promptly corrected and no taxpayer dollars were misused."

    Oh the horror.
    So after learning they broke the rules, they went back and changed everything so that she did not break the rules....I ask again, why even have rules if you are just going to go back and change things to make her not guilty? And the President is the only one who could fire her, so no chance of that happening.

  4. #8444
    Who made it so she didn't break the rules? They changed the designation of the meeting because it no longer matches the given one. No one changed it so she wasn't guilty. They refunded the government and Sibelius met with the relevant officials regarding the incident. You're just trying to make political hay.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  5. #8445
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Who made it so she didn't break the rules? They changed the designation of the meeting because it no longer matches the given one. No one changed it so she wasn't guilty. They refunded the government and Sibelius met with the relevant officials regarding the incident. You're just trying to make political hay.
    So they changed the designation of the meeting and paid the government money so that she was not breaking the hatch act. So she publicly endorsed President Barack Obama’s re-election during a taxpayer-funded public event and afterwards we go back and change it so she did not violate the law and she paid back the government.

    So even though she broke the law and everyone at the event got to have a government official endorse obama at a government event -- and we can't change that fact, that the government official endorsed him, we'll just give her special treatment and change everything after the fact, because, heaven forbid, we should live by laws.

  6. #8446
    She still broke the act Bobdoletoo, I'm not sure where you're getting otherwise. The White House spokesman acknowledged as much quite clearly. They changed the designation so they would be responsible for the expenses.

    How is she getting special treatment?

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 04:03 AM ----------

    "As the Office of Special Counsel has noted, these were extemporaneous remarks, the Health and Human Services Department has since reclassified the event to meet the correct standard, the U.S. Treasury has been reimbursed and Secretary Sebelius has met with ethics experts to ensure this never happens again," Schultz said.
    Clearly the democrats are trying to act like she didn't violate the Hatch Act.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  7. #8447
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    She still broke the act Bobdoletoo, I'm not sure where you're getting otherwise. The White House spokesman acknowledged as much quite clearly. They changed the designation so they would be responsible for the expenses.

    How is she getting special treatment?

    The president has decided to overlook the improper political activities of his appointees when in their official capacities. He has effectively said it is OK to politicize the executive branch.

    When federal employees violate the Hatch Act, the standard punishment is termination. But since Sebelius is a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee, she isn’t entitled to a review from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) — one that that could reduce her penalty. In Sebelius’ case, she isn’t allowed to have that MSPB board intervene, her future is in Obama’s hands. And, because Obama hasn’t fired her yet, he’s affording Sebelius special treatment that an ordinary government employee who violated the Hatch Act wouldn’t get.

  8. #8448
    The president has decided to overlook the improper political activities of his appointees when in their official capacities
    How has he overlooked it. According to the people responsible for dealing with this what has happened is pretty much in line for the other 100 times a year it happens.
    When federal employees violate the Hatch Act, the standard punishment is termination.
    You're flat wrong
    OSC spokeswoman Ann O'Hanlon said there is no formal rule for dealing with an appointed official in violation of the act. However, the agency investigates at least 100 cases such cases annually with "a great majority" of them being resolved internally and violators getting a suspension.
    There has been no special exception made. They did exactly what they were supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  9. #8449
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    How has he overlooked it. According to the people responsible for dealing with this what has happened is pretty much in line for the other 100 times a year it happens.

    You're flat wrong


    There has been no special exception made. They did exactly what they were supposed to do.
    So now the defender of democrats says it is okay to break laws if you go back and change it after you do it. You do not deny that she broke the law, nor deny that they changed the facts afterwards to make it where she did not break the law.

    The standard punishment is termination. The MSPB overturns several and turns them into suspensions based on the severity of the violation. She is not eligible under the MSPB so it is up to obama.

  10. #8450
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    However, if the board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of no fewer than 30 days’ suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the board.
    From: http://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/

    The transgression doesn't seem that severe, so a suspension sounds like a reasonable punishment.

  11. #8451
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    From: http://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/

    The transgression doesn't seem that severe, so a suspension sounds like a reasonable punishment.
    Wonder how the argument would have been going if it was a Bush cabinet member?

    It's ok, we all know how it would be going.

    She broke the law, and if it's good for your "cause" it's fine by you.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  12. #8452
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    Wonder how the argument would have been going if it was a Bush cabinet member?

    It's ok, we all know how it would be going.

    She broke the law, and if it's good for your "cause" it's fine by you.
    I understand that the theme of obama's campaign is forward, yet democrats have an irresistible need to bring up George Bush all the time. I personally have no problem firing a Bush cabinet member who broke the law. Unlike the democrats on this board, I can separate a law breaker from the party.

  13. #8453
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    Wonder how the argument would have been going if it was a Bush cabinet member?

    It's ok, we all know how it would be going.

    She broke the law, and if it's good for your "cause" it's fine by you.
    It's fascinating that you assume this of me. My "cause" is the progression of the American people and of our nation. My "cause" is the ensuring of fairness within our government, regardless of party. My "cause", as you like to put it, is to ensure that we as citizens of the United States of America have a government that looks out for us. I am not beholden to any party, Oblivion, and you should know that. My goal is to look at issues and find the truth, and if it hurts somebody, it hurts them. I have no compunction with calling out Obama on his dismal transparency record. I take no issue with pointing out the flaws in Mitt Romney's ideology. I do take issue with you, and others like you, who try and push this partisan agenda on others.

    If you would like me to address you as an intellectual equal who cares about this nation, let me know. Until then, your biases prevent me from doing so.

  14. #8454
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    From: http://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/

    The transgression doesn't seem that severe, so a suspension sounds like a reasonable punishment.
    If you have to go back and change things to make it so you don't break the law, in my opinion, it is severe enough.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-13 at 10:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    It's fascinating that you assume this of me. My "cause" is the progression of the American people and of our nation. My "cause" is the ensuring of fairness within our government, regardless of party. My "cause", as you like to put it, is to ensure that we as citizens of the United States of America have a government that looks out for us. I am not beholden to any party, Oblivion, and you should know that. My goal is to look at issues and find the truth, and if it hurts somebody, it hurts them. I have no compunction with calling out Obama on his dismal transparency record. I take no issue with pointing out the flaws in Mitt Romney's ideology. I do take issue with you, and others like you, who try and push this partisan agenda on others.

    If you would like me to address you as an intellectual equal who cares about this nation, let me know. Until then, your biases prevent me from doing so.
    Pretty sure that was aimed at me.

  15. #8455
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobdoletoo View Post
    If you have to go back and change things to make it so you don't break the law, in my opinion, it is severe enough.
    I apologize, I am rather unfamiliar with the issue and am only speaking on the little I've seen of your discussion with Wells. The most I've heard was that no real damage was done. What exactly did she do, and why is she being protected?

  16. #8456
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    If you would like me to address you as an intellectual equal who cares about this nation, let me know. Until then, your biases prevent me from doing so.

    Yah I know that I replied to you, but I wasn't necessarily addressing just you.

    It's more a rhetorical question I was asking.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  17. #8457
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    I apologize, I am rather unfamiliar with the issue and am only speaking on the little I've seen of your discussion with Wells. The most I've heard was that no real damage was done. What exactly did she do, and why is she being protected?
    She went to a tax payer funded event and addressed them as the secretary of Health and Human Services. At this event she endorsed obama , which violates the hatch act -- which prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election. The OSC said Wednesday that she violated the Hatch act.

    Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner wrote to Obama that "Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services reimbursed the U.S. government for all costs and expenses associated with her travel to the February 25, 2012, event.”

    Lerner also wrote: “HHS subsequently reclassified the trip from official to political and issued a statement to that effect. OSC found no evidence that Secretary Sebelius made any other political statements in her official capacity.”

    So after she broke the law, they reclassified the trip to make it not offical government , and repaid the government to make sure it was no longer considered a tax payer funded trip.

  18. #8458
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobdoletoo View Post
    She went to a tax payer funded event and addressed them as the secretary of Health and Human Services. At this event she endorsed obama , which violates the hatch act -- which prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election. The OSC said Wednesday that she violated the Hatch act.

    Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner wrote to Obama that "Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services reimbursed the U.S. government for all costs and expenses associated with her travel to the February 25, 2012, event.”

    Lerner also wrote: “HHS subsequently reclassified the trip from official to political and issued a statement to that effect. OSC found no evidence that Secretary Sebelius made any other political statements in her official capacity.”

    So after she broke the law, they reclassified the trip to make it not offical government , and repaid the government to make sure it was no longer considered a tax payer funded trip.
    Correct, but disciplinary action is still being considered, and they are also handling it just like every other case where this happens.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  19. #8459
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobdoletoo View Post
    So now the defender of democrats says it is okay to break laws if you go back and change it after you do it
    This isn't complicated. After she made the remarks they changed the designation to political so that they would reimburse the government and it would be on record as what it was.

    The standard punishment is termination.
    I just linked you the spokesman of the agency handling her case directly contradicting you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  20. #8460
    The Lightbringer Naxere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    45.0061° N, 93.1567° W
    Posts
    3,179
    So what's the take on Obama saying Egypt wasn't an ally, then having everyone dogpile on him to correct it? Even Jimmy Carter got in on it.


    [edit] Also, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/soci...-month-left-fy


    By the end of August, according to data released Thursday by the U.S. Treasury, the federal government had already paid out record annual amounts in both Social Security and disability benefits during fiscal 2012—even though there was still a month left in the year.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •