The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Global Warming Paper - Didn't follow Rules

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    N.E.corner of WA state
    Posts
    1,467

    Default Global Warming Paper - Didn't follow Rules

    The Obama administration does it again

    Click Here ----> http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...-follow-rules/



    .

  2. #2
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc E View Post
    The Obama administration does it again

    Click Here ----> http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...-follow-rules/



    .
    Hey Doc,

    We are the Federalis.......

    We don't need no stinking rules!!


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  3. #3
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    It seems Justice Thomas does not follow the rules all to well either.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...-on-health-law

    The point is is that it doesn't even matter. People do not want to hold politicians (or Chief Justices) responsible for ethical or even criminal violations. When viewed through the lense of partisan politics any number of totally off the wall justifications are used to absolve them of any wrong doing and the behavior continues because there is no penalty to pay.
    Getting the money out of politics would be a start and holding politicians accountable would prevent this nonsense in the future.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    It seems Justice Thomas does not follow the rules all to well either.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...-on-health-law

    The point is is that it doesn't even matter. People do not want to hold politicians (or Chief Justices) responsible for ethical or even criminal violations. When viewed through the lense of partisan politics any number of totally off the wall justifications are used to absolve them of any wrong doing and the behavior continues because there is no penalty to pay.
    Getting the money out of politics would be a start and holding politicians accountable would prevent this nonsense in the future.
    First, I have not met anybody that doesn't have strong opinions concerning the healthcare law. That includes unions, gov. workers, corporations, Foundations, nonprofit organizations, PAC's, employees and lawyers be they in private practice or judges. Maybe everybody should be disqualified, you think????

  5. #5
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    It seems Justice Thomas does not follow the rules all to well either.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...-on-health-law

    The point is is that it doesn't even matter. People do not want to hold politicians (or Chief Justices) responsible for ethical or even criminal violations. When viewed through the lense of partisan politics any number of totally off the wall justifications are used to absolve them of any wrong doing and the behavior continues because there is no penalty to pay.
    Getting the money out of politics would be a start and holding politicians accountable would prevent this nonsense in the future.
    That is page 4 of the playbook, right Cotts?
    The "he started it" card?

    I guess that makes it all OK then, huh!!??!!??

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    Hilarious, you guys need a new to play!!


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  6. #6
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    First, I have not met anybody that doesn't have strong opinions concerning the healthcare law. That includes unions, gov. workers, corporations, Foundations, nonprofit organizations, PAC's, employees and lawyers be they in private practice or judges. Maybe everybody should be disqualified, you think????
    Second, you didn't read the article did you? If you did, that is a funny way to answer.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    Second, you didn't read the article did you? If you did, that is a funny way to answer.
    I read the article. It cited Thomas and Dagen as possible justices that would be asked to recuse themselves.

    As for Thomas' wife's income from heritage foundation, I'm not sure that there is anything in the Constitution where Chief Justices have to disclose even their outside income, much less their wife's. I am no Constitutional scholsr but I do believe that Congress cannot pass laws governing the Supreme Court. If you want to affect the Supreme court then you would have to change the Constitution. I could be wrong but suspect I am not. Furthermore, I noticed that you did not mention the problem with Kagen ruling on the issue.

    After having READ the article, I also stated you could fine a possible conflict of interest with almost anybody concerning the healthcare issue.

    fMy comments were concerning ALL the article, not just concerning Justice Thomas.

  8. #8
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    That is page 4 of the playbook, right Cotts?
    The "he started it" card?

    I guess that makes it all OK then, huh!!??!!??

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    Hilarious, you guys need a new to play!!




    RK

    What are you talking about???????? I don't care who starts it and I never even mentioned anything of the sort. Don't you see that both sides do the same things to varying degrees and depending on who side your on you excuse the behavior with lame justifications
    Saying that I have some kind of playbook is exactly the type of irrational and weak excuses I was talking about.

  9. #9
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    What are you talking about???????? I don't care who starts it and I never even mentioned anything of the sort. Don't you see that both sides do the same things to varying degrees and depending on who side your on you excuse the behavior with lame justifications
    Saying that I have some kind of playbook is exactly the type of irrational and weak excuses I was talking about.

    When straying off topic to point out someone else did it is out of the progressive play book.

    The "he started it" play.
    As that somehow excuses the circumventing of the rules in the thread title and the OP's story.

    Had you addressed the topic at hand instead of wandering to Thomas I would not have brought it up.
    Instead of buying that it is merely a coincedence that it happens every time a progressive gets caught, I call it like it is.
    Page 4 I believe.

    Nice effort though.......


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  10. #10
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    I read the article. It cited Thomas and Dagen as possible justices that would be asked to recuse themselves.

    As for Thomas' wife's income from heritage foundation, I'm not sure that there is anything in the Constitution where Chief Justices have to disclose even their outside income, much less their wife's. I am no Constitutional scholsr but I do believe that Congress cannot pass laws governing the Supreme Court. If you want to affect the Supreme court then you would have to change the Constitution. I could be wrong but suspect I am not. Furthermore, I noticed that you did not mention the problem with Kagen ruling on the issue.

    After having READ the article, I also stated you could fine a possible conflict of interest with almost anybody concerning the healthcare issue.

    fMy comments were concerning ALL the article, not just concerning Justice Thomas.
    This is a financial disclosure issue not something from the Constitution. Just as member of Congress are required by law to file financial disclosure statements the same holds true for Supreme Court justices. Do you not think that is true?
    If there is a conflict with Kagen then she has to go to. Same standard for everyone.

Posting Permissions

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