Romney suggests Roberts’ health care ruling motivated by politics

You are referring to Soros's donation of $2 million, Gates's donation of $0, and Buffett's donation of squat?

 

I don't trust Romney, but I can't trust Obama either.

I see no indication that Obama is more transparent or more trustworthy than Romney.

==========================

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/31/opinion/la-ed-secrets-20111031

One of the most disappointing attributes of the Obama administration has been its proclivity for secrecy. The president who committed himself to "an unprecedented level of openness in government" has followed the example of his predecessor by invoking the "state secrets" privilege to derail litigation about government misdeeds in the war on terror. He has refused to release the administration's secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which two senators have described as alarming. He has blocked the dissemination of photographs documenting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. service members. And now his Justice Department has proposed to allow government agencies to lie about the existence of documents being sought under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.

At present, if the government doesn't want to admit the existence of a document it believes to be exempt from FOIA, it may advise the person making the request that it can neither confirm nor deny the document's existence. Under the proposed regulation, an agency that withholds a document "will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."

This policy is outrageous. It provides a license for the government to lie to its own people and makes a mockery of FOIA. It also would mislead citizens who might file an appeal if they knew there was a possibility that the document they sought was in the possession of a government agency. Such an appeal would allow a court to determine whether the requested document was covered by an exemption in FOIA.

------------------------------------------------

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...ative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html

Where did green-energy cash go? Straight to campaign donors.

"… In the government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party…. One might think that the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department’s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants.

...The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy... complaining that the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented."

 

Even his billionnaire butt-buddies have abandoned him... what a loser

 

And yet he'll still beat Romney.

 

The last Republican president gave over 100 billion to Halliburton and Romney is more indebted to big money then Bush or Obama

 

Good logic. The Bush administration was corrupt so it's okay for Obama to be corrupt, too.

=================================

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...ative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html

Where did green-energy cash go? Straight to campaign donors.

"… In the government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party…. One might think that the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department’s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants.

...The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy... complaining that the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented.”

----------------------------

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/31/opinion/la-ed-secrets-20111031

One of the most disappointing attributes of the Obama administration has been its proclivity for secrecy. The president who committed himself to "an unprecedented level of openness in government" has followed the example of his predecessor by invoking the "state secrets" privilege to derail litigation about government misdeeds in the war on terror. He has refused to release the administration's secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which two senators have described as alarming. He has blocked the dissemination of photographs documenting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. service members. And now his Justice Department has proposed to allow government agencies to lie about the existence of documents being sought under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.

At present, if the government doesn't want to admit the existence of a document it believes to be exempt from FOIA, it may advise the person making the request that it can neither confirm nor deny the document's existence. Under the proposed regulation, an agency that withholds a document "will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."

This policy is outrageous. It provides a license for the government to lie to its own people and makes a mockery of FOIA. It also would mislead citizens who might file an appeal if they knew there was a possibility that the document they sought was in the possession of a government agency. Such an appeal would allow a court to determine whether the requested document was covered by an exemption in FOIA.

 

My logic is the last republican was more corrupt and I expect Romney to be more corrupt then Bush or Obama considering how much big money is giving to his campaign

Rather then just saying Obama gave 16 billion to backers tell me why you expect Romney to do any different considering the last republican gave over 100 billion to one company alone that his VP was CEO of and all the big money that is being given to Romney

 

There are no degrees of corruption. Candidates are either corrupt or not corrupt. Bush and Obama have both proven themselves to be corrupt. The degree of their corruption is irrelevant.

Also, your statement assumes that I'm voting for Romney. When did I say that?

 

Fair enough but all politicians with the rare exception of a few like Ron Paul are corrupt imo

 

On that point we agree.