Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: obama clear and transparent huh?  (Read 6757 times)

Online kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 16134
  • Gender: Female
Re: obama clear and transparent huh?
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2010, 11:00:31 AM »
it was 3.  two in 2001 and one in 2009.  the last is still pending near as i can tell.  yes, in the eyes of the law he is innocent until proven guilty.  i think it is not out of line to wonder how someone can accidentally land in the lap of the law over the same kind of thing, three time in three different ways.  if he were to move in next door to you and your 14 year old daughter, you probably would assume he was guilty of something, and keep and close eye on him?
One could not learn history from architecture any more than one could learn it from books. Statues, inscriptions, memorial stones, the names of streets ? anything that might throw light upon the past had been systematically altered. (1.8.85)

George Orwell  "1984"


  • Guest
Re: obama clear and transparent huh?
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2010, 02:27:20 PM »
innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

this is why the law is supposed to be enforced and adjudicated by non partisan persons.

the enforcement and judicial system should have no business with party affiliations or obvious biases.

This is because the public is not trained and educated to be objective and fact based s the people in the enforcement and judicial system are supposed to be.

What we find though are too many instances of enforcement officers tampering with evidence, not collecting evidence correctly, lawyers and judges with plain political affiliations and financial relationships.

There is a reason recusement is an option for the objective and so called "ethical" judge and jurist.

if the guy was found guilty in a court of law and that court was not tainted, then the guy is a slug.  Which is what the most reporting shows.

If folks want to defend a slug in order to defend their political and idealistic leanings, it just goes to show what is more important, the truth or the appearance of being right.

Offline b reeves

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Gender: Male
Re: obama clear and transparent huh?
« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2010, 10:02:15 AM »

since the oil companies in the gulf made up their own rules (under the Bush administration) and then decided not to follow these, how could any reasonable person suggest that the operation of the deep drilling rigs (which I think is all the ban limited) should not be reviewed?  how anyone could review the history of the oil industry (which basically conforms to the history of all extraction type businesses) and trust that crowd is just beyond my understanding. 

You are incorrect, the fact is this well was started and failed soley under the Obama admin. They were in full control from application to explosion

Offline tecumseh

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 391
  • Gender: Male
Re: obama clear and transparent huh?
« Reply #43 on: November 22, 2010, 09:05:25 AM »
b reeves...
perhaps hone you reading skills just a bit sir.  I  was  referencing when the rules in the gulf were established and not when the well was started or burned.

although without a doubt there is a large amount of blame to toss about it is difficult for me to understand how folks can float the 'regulation' created the problem rhetoric.
I am 'the panther that passes in the night'... tecumseh.