Wrong TG...
Just putting what occurred in perspective.
Plus get who you're addressing correct.
First you wrote "you and Suzanne", then you wrote "you
and ztect". Should I surmise that from your
mistake that you can't even keep straight who
you're talking to and therefore are not
even capable of making another coherent or capable
argument?
No, don't think so.
Again my only point, was that in lieu of the consent
agreements, the journalistic accounts were sensationalized.
If the media didn't sensationalize, they wouldn't
have as large an audience. If the transgressions
were great, consent agreements wouldn't have been made
and penalties would have been imposed including
preventing continued operations.
Read through the dockets, and they all say that the
company may contiue business as long they disclose
the necessary info in all of the states where this
occured.
Plus again, at this moment in time, other factors
are more telling and more indicative of whether or not the
company will succeed. Moreover Bruss
and, from the looks of it Vogel, are young men
who hopefully have learned from there mistakes.
Heck, haven't we almost elected a man who
didn't get straight and somber until he was forty?
Or, do only Republicans get to atone for their
mistakes, and be given second, third, fourth and fifth
chances?
Anyway, you can use your "dirt" to impugn,
but at the same time, for me, it still doesn't
have much relevance no matter how many times
you argue that it does.
Some people will read what you've present and agree.
Some won't and will possibly agree with me instead.
So it goes.
z |
