- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: To all of the "judge owned stock" crowd........
Posted on 6/25/10 at 10:22 pm to DeadbeatTaxWaster
Posted on 6/25/10 at 10:22 pm to DeadbeatTaxWaster
quote:
This judge would have lost thousands of dollars of his investments if he didn't rule against the moratorium on drilling and you think that didn't influence his ruling? If you believe that , I have some oil free oyster beds south of Empire to sell you. Face the truth, the drilling companies shopped around for a crooked judge to get a ruling in their favor!
A federal judge throwing a case for less than 15 grand, you probably also believe people that make 250k a year are wealthy, try joining the real world!
1
Posted on 6/25/10 at 10:26 pm to Stud
I know that. but the article starts talking about fifth circuit procedures.
Posted on 6/25/10 at 10:26 pm to DeadbeatTaxWaster
Rachel Maddow? There is a reason MSNBC is last in ratings of it's news shows.
Why don't you quote Katie Couric?
You've got to be kidding me, right? Don't you think the way she presented that story she was skewing the facts just a bit?
If you could do the math, the judge probably owned the equivilant of three shares of BP. Rachel Maddow makes it's sound like he sat on BP's board.
This is a hilarious twist of the facts!!
Sorry, not credible.
Why don't you quote Katie Couric?
You've got to be kidding me, right? Don't you think the way she presented that story she was skewing the facts just a bit?
If you could do the math, the judge probably owned the equivilant of three shares of BP. Rachel Maddow makes it's sound like he sat on BP's board.
This is a hilarious twist of the facts!!
Sorry, not credible.
This post was edited on 6/25/10 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 6/25/10 at 11:35 pm to DeadbeatTaxWaster
quote:
Actually the judge owned much more than 15k in Blackrock and much more in other companies related to the drilling and oil industry. ( See the previous post with the link)
Did you read your own link? The only stock he owned at the time of his ruling was EM and he didn't know it was affected apparently and quickly sold it the next day.
That article is such a hatchet job it keeps mentioning stocks he owned at some point over the last few years like it helps him financially after he sells the stock. What stupidity!
Posted on 6/26/10 at 12:16 am to C
quote:
Idiots need to quit getting their info from Fox Noise. It turns out Feldman is heavily invested in Blackrock Enhanced Dividend Achievers Trust which is the no. one holder of B P stock! Anyone who believes anything spouted out on the Fox Noise channel has manure between the ears
Idiots need to quit getting their info from MSNBC Noise. It turns out Feldman is NOT heavily invested in Blackrock Enhanced Dividend Achievers Trust which is the no. one holder of B P stock! Anyone who believes anything spouted out on the MSNBC Noise channel has manure between the ears
Posted on 6/26/10 at 10:28 am to tigeryat
quote:
The truth doesn't matter to these people.
This administration and their accomplices in this ruse will stop at NOTHING to advance their agenda.
Who cares if they spread a lie.
Something wrong is only a LIE when the person saying it knows it is false. Many things said are wrong without being lies. Do you have anything to substantiate that people in the administration were claiming stock ownership after additional facts were revealed to them or do you just prefer expressing indignation?
Posted on 6/26/10 at 10:38 am to JWS3
quote:
A federal judge throwing a case for less than 15 grand, you probably also believe people that make 250k a year are wealthy, try joining the real world!
Households making $250k or more represent the top 1.5% of U.S. families.
Recent data
The percentage of individuals - your claim - is even less. How can you claim that someone in the top 1.5% of earners is not 'wealthy'? What kind of whacked standards are you using?
Posted on 6/26/10 at 12:30 pm to LSU80 USF08
quote:
Something wrong is only a LIE when the person saying it knows it is false.
I can agree with that statement. But carefully wording a statement not to reveal relevant facts is an action on par with a lie. Call it what you want.
I think this method of communication became popular two presidents ago. "I did not have sex with that woman".
Saying the judge ruled against the moratorium because he held an insignificant interest in energy stocks is wrong, incorrect, misleading, and untrue. We each get to define what is insignificant, but I haven't seen any numbers that exceed $30,000, and yes that is insignificant.
He may have ruled against the injunction because he has family members and friends affected by it, along with 300,000 other people in S La. And he sees the injunction as a ruse by the Obama administration to promote cap and trade.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News