Obama Transparency???

148 posts / 0 new
Last post
sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture

I dont know what is more disturbing....  Secret rendevous with lobbyists (to keep them out of white house register) or the fact that Jim Messina was able "to role Pelosi for $4B".   God bless Obama and "The Chicago Way".   

 

 

 

 

BY:
August 2, 2012 9:22 am

 

White House officials prefer to rendezvous with lobbyists and big business insiders off campus in order to avoid disclosure, according to e-mails made public by House Republicans.

 

In several cases, the officials’ messages were sent from non-governmental, personal e-mail accounts, which Republicans allege was intended to keep the correspondence from the public record.

“Jim — coffee at Caribou Coffee — across the corner from the WH — would work at 11:30 a.m. on Friday … plus getting you through the new WH security rules these days almost takes an act of Congress almost (and you know how well that’s going these days),” wrote one official in the White House Office of Science and Technology policy to an executive in the GPS industry. “[P]lus you’d appear on an official WH Visitor List which is maybe not want [sic] you want at this stage …”

Other emails show then White House chief of staff Jim Messina using a non-governmental account to discuss language for the health care reform bill with a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist …

“I will roll Pelosi to get the 4 billion,” Messina told Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America lobbyist Jeffrey Forbes. “As you may have heard I am literally rolling over the house. But there just isn’t 8-10 billion.”

 

Republicans have launched an investigation into whether Messina, who now serves as Obama’s campaign manager, violated federal law by trying to keep his talks with lobbyists off-the-record.

Comments

anonymous green
WOLF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! O

WOLF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OBAMA WOLF PELOSI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
So you have no problem with

So you have no problem with your liberal former Speaker of the House selling you out for $4B at Caribou Coffee through an Obama proxy?

That is just good democratic government in your books?

anonymous green
Monkey see, Monkey type,

Monkey see, Monkey type, Monkey text, Monkeys typing will never write any Shakespeare, except his new play, King Edward Lear.

You're absolutely right, Linda.

-Montag

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheep4thom wrote: So you have

sheep4thom wrote:

So you have no problem with your liberal former Speaker of the House selling you out for $4B at Caribou Coffee through an Obama proxy?

We find it really, really funny that the Republicans are going to do the investigation. I mean, I actually laughed out loud!

But sure, you want me to condemn any illegal act of a politician meeting with a lobbyist in a coffeeshop? Sure. Right after you tell me why Cheney met with the oil companies in a private meeting to undoubtedly divide up the Iraq oil fields.

The difference is this: Republicans pimp for oil companies that destroy the planet and end with wars and torturing and kidnapping children in Iraq.

Obama is trying to make deals with the pharmaceutical whores so they don't attack him like they did Clinton and prevent 30 million people getting health insurance.

Do you see the difference, my little corporate pimp friend?

And this is all assuming that what you and the Republicans said were true - which we really know is impossible.

Now, why don't you cut and paste this post and misleadingly quote from it to further advance your propagandist purposes.

 

 

Question-hoar
Question-hoar's picture
I'm more cool with government

I'm more cool with government functions outside of the White House than I am with male prostitution inside the White House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

"Democratic Representatives John Conyers of Michigan and Louise Slaughter of New York had submitted similar requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), on February 15, 2005. The Department of Homeland Security answered Slaughter's request with Secret Service records of Gannon's check in and out times at the White House.[29] The Secret Service Records appear to show that he checked in, but never checked out on many occasions, and visited the White House on several days during which no press conference or other press events were held."

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
You find it funny that the

You find it funny that the House run by Republicans is investigating the White House????   You need to read http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/legislative-branch

Established by Article I of the Constitution, the Legislative Branch consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which together form the United States Congress. The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to enact legislation and declare war, the right to confirm or reject many Presidential appointments, and substantial investigative powers.

Who do you think should investigate potential illegal activities?

I guess your big fan of the DOJ investigating the DOJ?    Why would the democrats not allow for independant investigator to look into Eric Holder?   

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheepAthon wrote: ... You

sheepAthon wrote:
... You find it funny that the House run by Republicans is investigating the White House???? 

Wow! I have never been more misunderstood here. Perhaps English is your second language, or you have a learning or writing disability? I mean this seriously - I know many people who have these and so it is often a challenge in communicating by email and text.

I was not laughing at the role Congress has in carrying out investigations. I think all adults are aware that congress is tasked with this function.

I was laughing at the fact that the Republicans would carry out this investigation -since they are all a bunch of corporate whores. I gave the example of Cheney having a secret meeting to divide the Iraqi oil fields. I then added the Bush act of torturing and kidnapping of children in Iraq as another example of what motivates these people as they corporate whores.

There are better examples - the Bush administration loosing a million email messages and so on.

The idea that the Republicans would be upset at a few Democrats using private telephones and meeting lobbyists at Starbucks seems just ridiculous to me.

And this is especially true when you compare the situation. Obama is trying to make deals with the pharmaceutical whores so they don't attack him like they did Clinton and prevent 30 million people getting health insurance.

 Do you now see the difference? What will it take to make you read these sentences and respond to them, I wonder. Can I repeat them in italics? Make them Bold?

And this is all assuming that what you and the Republicans said were true - which we really know is impossible.

Now, why don't you cut and paste this post and misleadingly quote from it to further advance your propagandist purposes, like you did before, and I can quote all this stuff over again from my previous post. Perhaps eventually you will admit that I am correct, and you are incorrect.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheepAthon wrote:   Why would

sheepAthon wrote:
   Why would the democrats not allow for independant investigator to look into Eric Holder?  

Why should they do that?

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
To investigate a potential

To investigate a potential crime and take it out of the hand of politicians.

DynoDon
Say all you want about

Say all you want about Obama-make the case why Romney would be better.

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
So you are supporting a lack

So you are supporting a lack of transparancy by the current administration to cover up a potential crime to avoid having Romney in office?   You support perjury to keep Obama?

The same goes for Romney.  If you have proof of criminal activity provide it or shut up.   If there is enough evidence of tax fraud turn it over to IRS (who already has his returns).

If he did something else criminal press charges through your local AG!

I dont carry water for Romney and if he is criminal send him to jail.   I expect MORE from a sitting President.   I expect honesty and the transparency Obama promised.

DynoDon
Not making much of a case for

Not making much of a case for Romney? You are showing your youth-you expect honesty from a politician. Remember the old saying-"politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose."

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
The title of the thread is

The title of the thread is Obama transparency and you want to flip it into Romney discussion?

Ok, I think he would be NO worse than the current president.   I think he would be willing to make tough decisions that I am sure you would NOT like to reign in the budget deficit and national debt.   I think business community respects him and the cash they are sitting on now would begin to flow in a Romney presidency.   I think he would have a stronger policy against Iran (not looking to debate Iran) we have been too weak too long.

Beyond that if Obama is resisting independant investigators on perjury of Eric Holder (for lying about fast & furious) why would you give him a pass?

Having off the book meetings to buy out Congress and drug lobby to get votes for ACA, you seem to be OK with that.   You care so much about "Your Guy" that you are willing to overlook potential criminal activity.   If there was no crime, appoint investigator and nothing to hide.

If you have evidence of Romney crimes turn it over to you AG.  I dont want a criminal in office regradless of democrat or republican.  Your comments make it sound like its OK to be criminal if your Obama, but some how Romney is hiding a criminal empire that disqualifies him?

DynoDon
Oh lord-you sound so young.

Oh lord-you sound so young. I'll assume you are not ignorant. Does he belong to the same repub party that pushed for the sequestration if the deficit isn't addressed and is now protesting against it. Most politicians want to kick that can down road because their constituents don't want their faves cut. Business respect Romney-you bet-kind of like Mussolini respecting Hitler.  Obama is not 'my guy' but I suffered thru 8 years of Bush criminality without investigations. Deal with it!

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
All known inappropriate

All known inappropriate doings in government should be investigated.  Just make sure that it's done without predjudice.  That's the problem.  There were so many things that should have been investigated and then dealt with within the Bush administration but whenever it's brought up we are told to quit living in the past and worry about the Obama administration.  Keep the Obama administration under a microscope and do what is right.  Go back to the Bush administration as well and do what is right.  It's a pretty simple concept but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
So one crime in the past,

So one crime in the past, gives all future presidents a pass to conduct whatever illegal activity they want.   I think they have medicine and treatment for you Bush Derangement Syndrome.   Get over it, the guy is gone.   So by your logic, Obama can break any laws he wants because Bush never got investigated?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
sheep4thom wrote: So one

sheep4thom wrote:

So one crime in the past, gives all future presidents a pass to conduct whatever illegal activity they want.   I think they have medicine and treatment for you Bush Derangement Syndrome.   Get over it, the guy is gone.   So by your logic, Obama can break any laws he wants because Bush never got investigated?

If you are talking to me then you have no reading comprehension skills what so ever.  I'm saying investigate them all, past present and future.  NOBODY, including the guy you want us to get over it with gets a pass.

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
Than I will give you another

Than I will give you another reason to vote for Romney.   For change.   If we are not going to hold the current president accountable until all prior wrongs conducted by all the presidents are adjucated, then we might as well have a new guy.   If the current president is just status quo and gets a pass because you think Bush got away with something then we might as well change.   This way Romney can blame all his questional activity on the fact that Obama (at least to date) has not been prosecuted.   Right?

BTW, what do you want all the prior presidents investigated for?   What evidence do you have?   In my life only one president got impeached and that was Slick Willy J. Clinton.   Not for the BJ in the oval, but for the same perjury that got Holder has been found in contempt of the House.   Not for selling guns, or for the dead agent, but for the lies that he didnt know and covered it up.   Its the same thing Scooter Libby was guilty of, not the crime of outing the agent but the obstruction & lies after the investigation started.

polycarp2
Well, probably replacing one

Well, probably replacing one wolf with another isn't going to save granny from being eaten alive by either of them.

They are both neo-liberal twits. Both serve the Corporate/Financial State as best they can.

One offers a wee bit of sugar to make the bitter medicine go down.... the other suggests you buy your own.

Dish up something I don't already  know.

Retired Monk - 'ideology is a disease"

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
sheep4thom wrote: Than I will

sheep4thom wrote:

Than I will give you another reason to vote for Romney.   For change.

Yah, that's that's the ticket ..... clean slate Romney.  Sounds etch-a-sketchy.  How about he starts with laying his cards on the table about how he's made his money and where all his money is.  Transparency, my ass!!!

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
Why should he?   Since the

Why should he?   Since the logic here is that because Bush was not prosecuted, Obama can commit fraud and hide the corruption and that is OK with the liberals.   Its their just reward to somehow make amends for the prior guys corruption. 

So you would hold the candidate to a higher standard than the actual sitting president?

I will make you a deal....

Romney can release his 5 years of tax returns when...

Obama appoints independent council to investigate Holder

Obama appoints independent council to investigate Messina

Obama releases (not the transcripts I could care less) I want to see his admission papers.   What did he put on his college application

Obama releases some of the papers from when we was at Harvard

I agree with you 100000%   lets have transparency on both of them.  I just find it funny how you all either justify shaddy Obama things by either pointing at Bush or Romney.   Lets take a good hard look at all of them!

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
Romney for change!  What

Romney for change!  What exactly are those changes we can expect from Mr. Private Equity?  I suppose you would claim that those changes will be beneficial to the average American, right?

 

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
Laborisgood, do you have

Laborisgood, do you have evidence of some criminal activity conducted by Mitt, or are you just another blow hard, loudmouth lefty with talking points.   There are several ongoing investigation of Obama and his staff.  Tim Geitner admited to tax evasion.   Holder, probably lied under oath and there needs to be an investigation.   Pelosi & Messina sold us out to drug/pharma and did it in violation of White House rules.  That needs to be investigated.

If you have specific example where Romney broke the law type it here or shut up with the lame leftists talking points to provide shelter to what appears to be actual criminal activity

Brookesmith
I agree with polycarp2. Both

I agree with polycarp2. Both are owned by the corporate/financil state.  Neither of them deserve the office. I nominate polycarp2 for the Presidency. At least he doesn't have anything to hide (I don't think,LOL) and would be beholden only to us.

Obama has not kept his promise of a transparent Presidency and neither will Romney.

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
sheep4thom

sheep4thom wrote:

Laborisgood, do you have evidence of some criminal activity conducted by Mitt, or are you just another blow hard, loudmouth lefty with talking points.   There are several ongoing investigation of Obama and his staff.  Tim Geitner admited to tax evasion.   Holder, probably lied under oath and there needs to be an investigation.   Pelosi & Messina sold us out to drug/pharma and did it in violation of White House rules.  That needs to be investigated.

If you have specific example where Romney broke the law type it here or shut up with the lame leftists talking points to provide shelter to what appears to be actual criminal activity

It's got nothing to do with criminal activity.  In fact I'd say he probably made all of his money legally.  The way he has made his money should not be legal or at least tempered to the point of not harming so many of the average Americans who lay in the wake of the likes of Romney and his pursuit of more money.  Not illegal, just immoral.  Big difference.

Brookesmith
But both sides do it,

But both sides do it, Laborisgood. That is why it is not illegal. Since when has morality had anything to do with how the rich and political conduct their affairs. Why don't we work to put those in office that would make those practices illegal. Because it is apparent that those we have their now aren't going to change anything. We have a class of arrogant, self-serving, corporate owned, career politicians that think they are entitled to govern the rest of us, including the current community organizer in charge.

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
Saying you dont share Mitt

Saying you dont share Mitt Romneys morals is fine.   Saying he earned his money legally is probably true until I see evidence to the contrary.   I think we are still innocent until proven guilty in America?   Unless Harry Reid takes over then he can just attack whoever he wishes from the floor of the Senate with no base of facts or evidence.

If you dont like Mitt's morals dont vote for him, but then I would also encourage to let your liberal talking heads to stick to the facts.   Either present evidence or stop with the political intrigue!   If you dont like him dont vote for him.   But that doesnt give anyone the rite to just spew baseless attacks.  Right?

 

Brookesmith
sheep4thom-Just saying that

sheep4thom-Just saying that if we do not like the system as it is, we need to work to change it. Obama is not the answer , nor is Romney. Any politician should have morals and character, and those traits have been and are not present in most politicians, especially "powerful" ones. 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Brookesmith

Brookesmith wrote:

sheep4thom-Just saying that if we do not like the system as it is, we need to work to change it. Obama is not the answer , nor is Romney. Any politician should have morals and character, and those traits have been and are not present in most politicians, especially "powerful" ones. 

This is exactly right.  The problem is that in order to be in a position to be elected president you must go through the gauntlet of tests that prove that you will pay back , cowher, and bow to those who you MUST represent.  If you are an honest and caring human being you can't make it through the gauntlet. 

anonymous green
Obama is still the

Obama is still the answer.

Don't let nihilism steal your very soul.

A vote for Obama is the only alternative.

Jumping ship with the rats is a bad idea, and though the story of the Lemming Messiah is a myth, following rodents overboard sometimes sounds like a good idea, to a virtual, psychic mob.

 

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
Sounds like anonymous green

Sounds like anonymous green supports a crook only when there is a D after their name.   Pathetic, Hypocrit, and I feel more sorry for you now.   So you vote for status quo just because the lying crook is on your team?

BTW, Annoying Green might be a better name than anonymous.   Think about it.

anonymous green
I had a company named aNOnym

I had a company named aNOnym reCOrds, once, before Homerland was established on the bones and ashes of Liberty.

At a NAMM conference, the badge I was issued was misprinted as Anoym Records.

You're a bit late with the pun.

_______

Tit for tit

Tat for tat

This for this

That for that

One pundit

One pun dat

The Question Whores!

Tick by tick

Tock by tock

Street by street

Block by block

Race by race

Walk by walk

The Question Whores!

The Question Whores are asking you to answer them.

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
Stick you day job because

Stick you day job because your witty commentary is quite boring.   You like to throw darts & poke people but I dont know why you concern yourself with questions, you never answer them.

You are kind of like the Thom Hartmann jester or the court fool that thinks they are far more entertaining then the comedy they deliver.   Keep up the good work clown.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheep4thom wrote: To

sheep4thom wrote:

To investigate a potential crime and take it out of the hand of politicians.

So you think politicians picking an independent investigator would take it out of the hand of politicians?

The only reason the Republicans want to 'investigate' this is because they want political dirt. They didn't say anything when the program was run by the Bush administration.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheep4thom wrote: Why should

sheep4thom wrote:

Why should he?   Since the logic here is that because Bush was not prosecuted, Obama can commit fraud and hide the corruption and that is OK with the liberals.   Its their just reward to somehow make amends for the prior guys corruption.

What does Holder have to do with Obama?

What did Holder even do?

Why does anyone care?

You just want a witch hunt like the Republicans did with Clinton.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheep4thom wrote: So one

sheep4thom wrote:

So one crime in the past, gives all future presidents a pass to conduct whatever illegal activity they want.   I think they have medicine and treatment for you Bush Derangement Syndrome.   Get over it, the guy is gone.   So by your logic, Obama can break any laws he wants because Bush never got investigated?

What laws did Obama break?

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheep4thom wrote: Than I will

sheep4thom wrote:

Than I will give you another reason to vote for Romney.   For change. 

You mean we should raise taxes? Increase government consumption? Keep the government growing faster than population and GDP?

Our current political environment was a compromise between the Republicans and Democrats. Having a Republican in the presidency will advance the existing Republican compromises and increase them. We already know what that means - raise taxes and cut bennefits on the poor,  cut taxes and raise bennefits to the wealthy. The only change I see is more murder in the Middle East - and I guess you want that.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheep4thom wrote: Why should

sheep4thom wrote:

Why should he?   Since the logic here is that because Bush was not prosecuted, Obama can commit fraud and hide the corruption and that is OK with the liberals.

You are misunderstanding what we are saying.

You are accusing people of behvavior that is not been shown to be significant.  All administrations break the laws, because the laws are complex and are inconsistent with the incentives in political life.  If you want to investigate, you have to show us that whatever is done is not just a technicality, but that it rises to a level of signifcance. When we quote the Bush administration doing far worse, we are imjplying that these things are not significant.

If you just throw in jail Democratic j-walkers, then all you have left is Republicans. So you can't do that, even though that is probably what you want to do.

anonymous green
sheep4thom wrote: ...witty

sheep4thom wrote:

...witty commentary...  ... I...  ...never answer...

...Keep up the good work...

I ran your response through my Haegelin Cryptograph machine, the last one in private hands.

With 6 minutes left of National Kiss My Ass Day, let's end end the raging debate on whatever the point was to this mock thread, and "Kiss My only Ass"!!!

 

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
"The only reason the

"The only reason the Republicans want to investigate this is because they want political dirt"

Kind of the same reason you want Romney's tax returns?

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
No, I want to put in jail or

No, I want to put in jail or at least out of office anyone that breaks the law.   How about this, we will BAN George Bush from EVER holding office.   If you have evidence press charges but he is not in power, and I cant change the past.   We are living in 2012, and Obama is the president that made bold promises of transparency and that he would set the standard for ethics.   He and more the point his administration doesnt get a free pass.  

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
What laws did Obama

What laws did Obama Administration Break?   There needs to be an investigation of the following:

Eric Holder perjury to Congress.   The Fast & Furious investigation is not about the gun selling, its about the lies regarding when and who knew?   Who approved, and the cover up that ensued after Feb.

The security leaks coming from the white house that put US and foreing intelligence agents at risk.   Sources quote "Senior White House Officials" and had to come from someone in Obama's situation room.

Jim Messina having private off site meetings in violation of the White House rules to keep pharma lobbyists off the White House log so they he could buy off the democrats for ACA.

I would still like to see an investigation of Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko (the slum lord) who is in jail for public corruption.   Obama happened to get a sweet deal on his propoerty (compliments of Rezko).   Rezko & Levine got caught trying to extort millions from Teachers System Board and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board from 2002 to 2004.  Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?

Violations of the 4th Amendement and 100's of state and federal statutes regarding privacy and warrentless wiretaps.

Murder of american citizens without a trial.   First president in 50 years to have a "kill list"

 

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
I thought the Fast and

I thought the Fast and Furious investigation just wrapped up?

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
Holder was found in

Holder was found in contempt

Obama & DOJ refused independant investigation

Republicans are now filing suit in civil case to have judge review wether Obama has right to executive privledge.   It is far from over and Nixon did the same thing.   So now you have Nixon & Obama pulling the same stunt.  

"We're seeking a remedy and the remedy is an order to compel," Issa said. "Nixon didn't respond to Congress, he responded to federal judges, ultimately the Supreme Court, ordering that he had no such privilege to cover up the tapes. And these are no different than the Nixon tapes, we're asking for documents related to a cover up of lying to Congress."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/03/13105010-gop-prepares-to-f...


anonymous green
sheep4thom wrote: Holder was

sheep4thom wrote:

Holder was found in contempt

I agree, Linda, it was contemptuous the way Holder was found to be at blame for Bush's poison pill.

Everybody! Linda's absolutely right.

-Montag

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
Bush again???   Give me a

Bush again???   Give me a break, regardless of who started the program really doesnt matter.   If Holder didnt lie to protect Obama there would probably be NO crime.   They are not investigating him for who sold the guns or let them walk.   He is being investigated for PERJURY.   He lied to Congress under oath.   What does Bush have to do with Holder lies and Obama's executive priveledge?

Nothing, its just chaff you pop to divert from the fact that the current DOJ lied.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
  sheep4thom wrote: "The only

 

sheep4thom wrote:
"The only reason the Republicans want to investigate this is because they want political dirt". Kind of the same reason you want Romney's tax returns?

You ignored the main point that picking a bunch of politicians picking an 'independent' investigator is impossible - look at Clinton, and the conservatives will respond 'Iran Contra'. Thus your main point is obviously and blatantly so false you could not even respond to it.

As to this other point - that I maintain that the Republicans want to get political dirt on someone  - I can't see how you can object to that - in fact you don't. You simply responded that I want to see political dirt on Romney.  That is such a stupid response I can't believe it. It agrees with my premise!  How inane!

Secondly, it is completely unprovable - you don't know even know who I am, what my true beliefs are, or how I behave - nor could you ever.  Why in the world would someone make a claim that is not even provable? And suppose it is true, so what? We are trying to argue the merits of the case here, not our personal motivations.

And, of course, it is false, and the two situations are not comparable. I don't want Romney investigated.

I want to see his tax returns just like every candidate's tax returns, including - famously - his father's.

I want to see how much he was paid when he claimed to not have been significantly working for Bain.

I want him to explain how his money is in a blind trust - thus no 'work' is required of him -  but he pays a lower tax rate than regular income.

I want him to explain why a person like himself should pay so little taxes.

 

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheep4thom wrote: No, I want

sheep4thom wrote:

No, I want to put in jail or at least out of office anyone that breaks the law.   How about this, we will BAN George Bush from EVER holding office.   If you have evidence press charges but he is not in power, and I cant change the past.   We are living in 2012, and Obama is the president that made bold promises of transparency and that he would set the standard for ethics.   He and more the point his administration doesnt get a free pass.  

You are misunderstanding what we are saying.

You are accusing people of behvavior that is not been shown to be significant.  All administrations break the laws, because the laws are complex and are inconsistent with the incentives in political life.  If you want to investigate, you have to show us that whatever is done is not just a technicality, but that it rises to a level of signifcance. When we quote the Bush administration doing far worse, we are imjplying that these things are not significant.

You are misunderstanding what we are saying. We are using Bush for an example because some of the same Republicans who thought it was great under Bush want to investigate Obama.

But in any case, you can pick other administrations as well. We are using Bush for an example.

 

sheep4thom
sheep4thom's picture
Would you support the same

Would you support the same transparency from Obama?   School records, Papers from school, Realestate deals from Rezko, Tax Records, Passport Records?

 

anonymous green
sheep4thom wrote: Bush

sheep4thom wrote:

Bush again???  

Again, Linda is absolutely right.

Any rational argument as to how and why America became Homerland has to come back to Bush's cartoon 'Pearl Harbor type event', and the rise and fall of the Fourth Reich.