Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:15PM, Ironhold wrote:

...Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has already pounced on the video, proclaiming it to be "proof" that the EPA is a group of bullies rather than a government oversight organization.

Well... DUH! What would you expect a Regressive to say? They believe that not being able to poison our planet is an undue burden on business.

Anyone else wondering how many more skeletons are going to emerge from different federal closets in the lead-up to Election Day?

As many as the Regressives can make up.

As for Inhofe; the guy is a nutcase... or getting rich from the companies that reward him handsomely for lying about climate change. No one takes the guy seriously.

The problem was not in the point Mr. Armendariz was making; it was in the language he used to make the point.  These guys should know better, or be forced to take a course in sensitivity in public relations.

Inhofe picks and chooses the "evidence" according to a rather select criteria, such as ignoring scientific evidence while claiming he believes only in "sound science".  IOW, non-partisan he is not.

Let me also mention that the previous administration had more people involved in established illegal activities than any other over the last 100 years.  And does anyone here actually believe that Scooter Libby acted on his own without Cheney's knowledge dealing with the Valerie Plame incident?  And Cheney refused to testify to a grand jury dealing with that as well, plus he also refused to disclose what he told the oil companies in a private meeting sometime prior to the BP spill.

OTOH, I certainly am not saying we should ignore alleged scandals.

May 1, 2012 -- 12:53PM, Ironhold wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 9:10AM, TemplarS wrote:

The problem was not in the point Mr. Armendariz was making; it was in the language he used to make the point.  These guys should know better, or be forced to take a course in sensitivity in public relations.

That would be to admit that Big Business has the right idea, though.

I doubt too many government types would appreciate that particular implication.

?????

What right idea?   Sensitivity training?  Political correctness?  I've seen more than one CEO make an ass of himself in public before.  Do you mean that companies that break the law should be prosecuted more gently than the average street thug?  Why?  They often hurt many more than any kid with a saturday night special looking for money for drugs.

May 1, 2012 -- 12:53PM, Ironhold wrote:

That would be to admit that Big Business has the right idea, though.

The ONLY idea that Big Business has is to make more profits. They don't care if they ruin the economy to do so.

I doubt too many government types would appreciate that particular implication.

They've been bought off by Big Business.