#1
|
||||
|
||||
More "change" from Obama
__________________
Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule-skinner? You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really don't want me to go down there! |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
yeah, i added this to the 'obamas fault' thread....wonderful stuff.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Change = more of the same.
__________________
Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule-skinner? You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really don't want me to go down there! |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Any word on whether seats at last night's SOTU address were included as a perk, or were they just reserved for political grandstanding?
__________________
Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule-skinner? You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really don't want me to go down there! |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
So let me get this straight ...
You two are upset that people that support a candidate, and raise money for them, are subsequently invited to the White House for social events. And are sometimes given positions - on advisory panels and commissions - in the administration. I suppose, yes, all administration appointments should be limited to people from the opposition party, who do not share the candidates vision. And social events should never have supporters invited. And people like Kal Penn - oh, the influence peddling! I mean, for god's sake, Jack Kennedy appointed his brother Attorney General. How dare he!
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
•At least 30 of the 2012 bundlers have ties to companies that conduct business with federal agencies or hope to do so. I guess this eluded you... I mean the link was eight sentences long and you missed or ignored two of them |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Or just red meat to the hungry? Dang! If only that article had, you know ... any proof. Or facts. Or was an article revealing actual quid pro quo or payoffs. Rather than "hope" and implication. But I guess we can make a rule, that if you know anybody in government or support a candidate, you cannot have a contract with the government? It's funny you guys don't seem realize that the very rules that try to create transparency enabled your knowledge of this. I have no problem with the fact that Newt is a Washington lobbyist. That he lies about it and tries to cover it is what will sink him. And yes, I think lobbyist cash needs to be removed from Washington, needs to be transparent. Am I 'trying to say" or "do I believe" anything else having nothing to do with the above? I'll pre-empt the straw men with the obvious no.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts Last edited by Riot : 01-26-2012 at 02:39 PM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We all know that had the shoe been on the other foot YOU would be screaming about the evil GOP giving influence and govt contracts and positions in exchange for campaign funds. Has there ever been a topic that you didn't spin? It is evil for Gov Walker to solicit funds outside his state to help with his recall election but it is ok for Obama to take money from those seeking influence in his govt? Yeah ok. I realize that ALL politicians are doing this but that doesn't mean I think that is kosher. Yeah it doesn't "prove" anything, it is all just a huge coincidence... |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Ah, yes. I see you are indeed assuming that there is quid pro quo. Then making up a straw man. My god, your "debate" style is predictable. Carry on.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
There is no debate. The assumption that there is quid pro quo is a given. Are you making the case that it isn't? This is almost as bad as Cubans aren't Latinos...
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. That's kind of my point. Thanks
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|