A Felon in the White House?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'm not sure what Chicago style politics mean, but IF a crime was committed ---and I've heard Rep. Darrell (R) Issa throw this same violation around-- I would have to think that at least a specific offer for a paid position had to be offered.

At issue, is whether the White House broke federal law that prohibits exerting the promise of influence for obtaining a federal job, interfering in elections of promising employment for political activity. (I pulled this from a source)

Sestak was offered a non-compensated position, not a federal paying job. He had a thirty second conversation with Bill Clinton about a position on a "presidential board". Nothing specific was offered or declined, per Sestak. This is a bunch of political hay that's going nowhere except for the Sunday talk shows.

I guess you could also call it arm-twisting politics...

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I guess you could also call it arm-twisting politics...

My new boss the other day enticed me to stay on with my company by offering me a promotion. I asked him if it come with a pay raise and he replied "Probably. I'll have to check and see if your current pay overlaps the new pay-grade." Is what he is doing a form of arm twisting? Unethical?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by saden1

My new boss the other day enticed me to stay on with my company by offering me a promotion. I asked him if it come with a pay raise and he replied "Probably. I'll have to check and see if your current pay overlaps the new pay-grade." Is what he is doing a form of arm twisting? Unethical?

I see you still have not made it to post #2.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

My new boss the other day enticed me to stay on with my company by offering me a promotion. I asked him if it come with a pay raise and he replied "Probably. I'll have to check and see if your current pay overlaps the new pay-grade." Is what he is doing a form of arm twisting? Unethical?

Come on Saden thats not even a very good example.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Come on Saden thats not even a very good example.

Why?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why?

Because we know your boss would not offer you a raise. LOL

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why?

Because your boss isn't trying to thwart/circumvent a country's election process of public officials.

To me the whole meat of the matter is the fact the WH must have thought that Sestak had a good shot at winning the majority of the people's vote. They wanted their guy (Specter) to be the voice of the people instead. So, they tell Sestak not to run because we think you may win which means the majority of voters in your district wanted you to win, not the other guy. Does this happen all of the time? Without a doubt. Is it wrong? Without a doubt.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Because your boss isn't trying to thwart/circumvent a country's election process of public officials.

To me the whole meat of the matter is the fact the WH must have thought that Sestak had a good shot at winning the majority of the people's vote. They wanted their guy (Specter) to be the voice of the people instead. So, they tell Sestak not to run because we think you may win which means the majority of voters in your district wanted you to win, not the other guy. Does this happen all of the time? Without a doubt. Is it wrong? Without a doubt.

If this happens all the time without a doubt how is Lord Obama thwarting/circumventing the country's political process of public officials?

All of this is he said she said at best.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Because your boss isn't trying to thwart/circumvent a country's election process of public officials.

To me the whole meat of the matter is the fact the WH must have thought that Sestak had a good shot at winning the majority of the people's vote. They wanted their guy (Specter) to be the voice of the people instead. So, they tell Sestak not to run because we think you may win which means the majority of voters in your district wanted you to win, not the other guy. Does this happen all of the time? Without a doubt. Is it wrong? Without a doubt.

Also, where in the Constitution are private businesses' hiring rules spelled out? For public officials...they are. For you...not.

Have some more Starbucks, Sadden, you're slipping.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Buster

Also, where in the Constitution are private businesses' hiring rules spelled out? For public officials...they are. For you...not.

Have some more Starbucks, Sadden, you're slipping.

You're right Buster, it isn't spelled out in the Constitution. It however grant congress the power to create laws and so they did. The chamber tasked by the Constitution to create laws spelled out through various Employment/Labor Acts what the hiring rules are for private businesses.


I'm not slipping, I'm sipping. Check this out, I stopped going to Starbucks and instead purchased a Bosch Tassimo. I can brew Starbucks right at home for a $1.30 a cup. That shit is awesome yo...tell your friends about it.

p.s. Keep sniffing around, you'll discover my piss under a tree somewhere sooner or later.