George Orr wrote:

One of the first things President Obama did after he took office was sign an executive order setting rules on lobbying and serving in his administration. It included a general ban on appointments for people who had lobbied on related issues during the prior two years....But there was also a waiver clause, and when it became apparent that the administration would use waivers to employ former lobbyists in positions where they would have broad authority, we moved the meter to Compromise.
...Some appointments appear to follow his promise.This includes former lobbyists who haven't actively lobbied in two years, such as Attorney General Eric Holder. It includes people who lobbied on issues different from what they now do, such as Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who lobbied for the National Education Association.

I know you'll never read PolitiFact.  It would shatter too many of your dearly-held worthless opinions.  But some of the other folks here might be interested.

Oh, I was quite aware of that.

He's issued 2 waivers, so far.

Basically, that paper is worth, umm, nothing when he can basically ignore it at his own discretion, at any time.

I do appreciate that you carefully say, "some appear to follow his promise". By the wording, one could conclude, "some follow his promise, but not all" which is another way of saying "some of his nominations show him for being a flat-out liar".

Either there are lobbyists working in his cabinet or not. I agree that, based on his after-the-fact "2 year rule", "some" of the folks on my list fill this "post-lie promise" made by the President.

Again, the waiver makes the whole order a joke, to begin with.... Via the waiver, he could hire someone who was a lobbyist yesterday, if he wanted to.

I do want to thank you for posting the link, in support of my position that the promise made has already been firmly broken.

Last edited by ptah13 (2009-02-08 01:01:13)

Dirckman wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175697/posts  Yea, it's Freep article, but nothing in it can't be backed up by other sources...  I always bitch about paying taxes, but I always pay them....  Seems like Obama's crew likes telling other people that they need to pay more taxes, but they won't pay them themselves....

Yeah.

If anyone else (like Willie Nelson, for example) does this, BRING ON THE ASS RAPING!! When politicians do it, it's an "accounting error" and no charges are filed.

tojo2000 wrote:

Okay, who fed the troll?  Was it me?  Looks like he needs another trim.

Yeah that "truth" stuff really sucks ass, eh Tojo?

Sorry your guy is fucking up left and right....  don't blame me for it, though...

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Okay, who fed the troll?  Was it me?  Looks like he needs another trim.

Yeah that "truth" stuff really sucks ass, eh Tojo?

Sorry your guy is fucking up left and right....  don't blame me for it, though...

No, I'm sorry you are fucking up high-street and trying to turn this into Drudge Retort. 

When one of Obama's people ass rapes a little boy you'll have something worth posting.

You just don't fucking get it.

You've got to be fucking kidding me?

You guys shit all over Bush, daily, for the better part of 8 years (here and Cruel) but, Obama forbid we do the same to The Chosen One!!!!

So now you're trying to claim that you folks only ranted and raved about Bush and Cheney when it involved sex?

Riiiiggghhhtttt...

What a nice way to rewrite history, HKG. At least you are consistent with the folks you support.


Edit: I'm sure you read the title to the thread. You CHOSE to read the thread. Don't blame me if you have no self-control. I posted that title specifically so that, if you didn't want to read political bullshit you knew NOT to read here.

Well, you're obviously not able to control yourself, then you bitch at me about it.

Another trait most liberals I know share....

Last edited by ptah13 (2009-02-08 10:32:51)

jesusluvspegging wrote:

http://imageserver.adultrated.com/image … s_3__3.jpg

That's freaking awesome.... hahaha

TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL

You post lame topics and then try to make out that the people who call you on your lameness are biased. 

You conveniently ignore the fact that there are other conservative thinkers here who are taken seriously (they offer serious arguments).  You wouldn't get slammed if you weren't such a fucking bobblehead.

You igna'ant motherfucker.

George Orr wrote:

You post lame topics and then try to make out that the people who call you on your lameness are biased. 

You conveniently ignore the fact that there are other conservative thinkers here who are taken seriously (they offer serious arguments).  You wouldn't get slammed if you weren't such a fucking bobblehead.

You igna'ant motherfucker.

I don't see how pointing out that Obama was TOTALLY full of shit when he promised to have a Lobbyist-free white house is "biased" or lame. Obama made a huge deal of this in his campaign, and then fills his cabinet with former lobbyists.

You, not thinking that is "serious" is a reflection on your values, not mine. He's turning DC into the new Chicago machine and folks like you turn a blind eye to it and slam anyone who questions the situation.

We'll see how that works out for us, as a country. As it is, if it wasn't for the Right, We'd have a trillion-dollar pork fiesta shoved down our throat right now. Well, I guess a 800 billion dollar pork farm isn't much better.

Can you tell me how 45 million for ATV trails or the removal of fish passage barriers helps the economy, oh wise and all-knowing one? The right wanted to cut capital gains tax, which I can't see how that wouldn't cause the dow to shoot up. No way that's gonna happen. The right wanted to cut the tax of the first 16,000 everyone makes each year. That would put more money in peoples pockets the first paycheck they recieve after it passed, but, again, no way that's happening. The right wanted to eliminate tax on unemployment, but, of course, that's never gonna happen because, once Obama has us all out of work, how are they gonna make money?

Don't try and tell me I can't make a valid argument, tool.

ptah13 wrote:

I don't see how pointing out that Obama was TOTALLY full of shit when he promised to have a Lobbyist-free white house is "biased" or lame. Obama made a huge deal of this in his campaign, and then fills his cabinet with former lobbyists.

SO FUCKING WHAT?  Have they done anything dishonest ?  Are they currently lobbyisyts?  Are they taking kickbacks?  What's your fucking point?

ptah13 wrote:

You, not thinking that is "serious" is a reflection on your values, not mine. He's turning DC into the new Chicago machine and folks like you turn a blind eye to it and slam anyone who questions the situation.

Yeah, DC was corruption-free before Obama rode into town.  I stand corrected.

ptah13 wrote:

We'll see how that works out for us, as a country. As it is, if it wasn't for the Right, We'd have a trillion-dollar pork fiesta shoved down our throat right now. Well, I guess a 800 billion dollar pork farm isn't much better.

Can you tell me how 45 million for ATV trails or the removal of fish passage barriers helps the economy, oh wise and all-knowing one? The right wanted to cut capital gains tax, which I can't see how that wouldn't cause the dow to shoot up. No way that's gonna happen. The right wanted to cut the tax of the first 16,000 everyone makes each year. That would put more money in peoples pockets the first paycheck they recieve after it passed, but, again, no way that's happening. The right wanted to eliminate tax on unemployment, but, of course, that's never gonna happen because, once Obama has us all out of work, how are they gonna make money?

Again, this is a DRUDGE RETORT topic.  If I wanted to debate this shit I'd be over there.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

ptah13 wrote:

Don't try and tell me I can't make a valid argument, tool.

No comment.

headkicker_girl wrote:

a bunch of bullshit

Ok, so every thread on here about Bush involved pole smokers and pedophiles?!?! Your whole claim is so entirely full of shit, it is not even worthy of a reply.

You're the biggest hypocrite on here.

Congrats!

It's my new policy: political trolling threads get pissporn.

Taint wrote:

Obviously I'm missing out on an important cultural development here, but what the hell is the deal with all the photos of women pissing?

Oh, and to continue the Right-wing theme, they're worried about censorship.

I seriously doubt the Fairness Doctrine would apply to religious broadcasts.  What are they going to do, invite devil worshipers to come on the show to counter all the blather about Jeebus?

However, I have a real problem with Democrats trying to shut down talk radio simply because they haven't found an audience in that medium.  To do so would be a serious infringment on freedom of speech.  And it could come back to bite.  Remember when the Republicans were considering what was called the nuclear option?  They were extremely frustrated with trying to get Bush's appointments through the Senate because it effectively takes a 60% vote to overcome a filibuster.  They could have voted to change Senate rules on filibuster so it would only take a 51% vote to pass a bill.  Well, they didn't do it because they knew the shoe would be on the other foot one day, and what do you know, that day is here.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

It's my new policy: political trolling threads get pissporn.

Your left wing friends could learn a lot from you, my good man.

Take note: this is the way you protest a thread you don't like.

ptah13 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Ok, so every thread on here about Bush involved pole smokers and pedophiles?!?! Your whole claim is so entirely full of shit, it is not even worthy of a reply.

You're the biggest hypocrite on here.

Congrats!

It certainly involved shit more serious than tax mistakes and former lobbyists who haven't fucked up yet.

George Bush probably scratched his ass today.  Maybe I should start a thread.

What, like when this place ranted and raved about how Bush should be jailed for "outing" Valerie Plame? Oh, wait, it turned out they didn't do it afterall.... SO yeah, at least I'm stating facts (like a slew of campaign lies).

At least it took Bush a few months to start fucking up. Sorry that your boy is so far over his head that he doesn't know he's being played by his handlers. Bush had the excuse of being stupid, your guy is just ignorant.

Tax mistakes?

Ok, when politicians do it, it's "tax mistakes". When you our I do it, it's evasion.

What amazes me most is your inability to control yourself. I went out of my way to title this thread to make it more than obvious what it was about. If you don't want to read a rant about your guy, then don't read it.

Nobody is "making" you click on the little buttons that bring you to my thread. You knew I was the author, you saw the title and STILL you couldn't help yourself. You STILL continue to read and respond to me and then somehow want to blame me for  your lack of self control. I've already pointed this out once, and I'll do it again, lacking self-control and then blaming others is a trait your people (and by "your people" I mean Democrats, don't get me wrong, I love the color of your skin, you're hot as all get out) are famous for.

Seriously, just don't read my threads... how hard can that be? Again, I went out of my way to make it obvious what I was posting about JUST so as to not piss certain people off.

Truth be told, nothing would make me happier than if Obama governs from the middle, is "fair and balanced", and becomes the greatest president ever. I'm thrilled to DEATH that we are the first major democracy to elect a black president. I LOVED it when that HBO left-wing dude said, "we've got a kickass ninja president and the rest of the world can go back to kissing our ass". I hated that Bush was such a fuck-up, as it painted those with similar economic views as mine as being of the same cloth.

What got me started being pissed at Obama in the first place was reading about this 800 billion fucking pork-fest Democrat wish-list wet-dream of a (cough*cough) stimulus package (riiighttt).

I really didn't care that Obama's nominees were tax evaders. I even tipped my hat that he was man enough to come out and say, "hey, I screwed up". I love that about the guy. But taken for a whole, I can't help but think that one of two things are happening here. Either: 1- he's way over his head, having little to no executive experience he doesn't know how to tell his party "umm, no, that's not how I'm doing it" or 2. he's been scamming us all along and is cut from the same cloth as that witch Pelosi.

Personally, I'm worrying it's a little from column A and a little from B.

Again, nothing would make me happier than for him to prove me wrong but it's a little early for him to be dropping so many balls.

When it turns out that he becomes the greatest president of all time, I invite you and your lib friends here to verbally sling as much poo on me as you'd like, and I'll be here and take it like a man.

Until then, might I suggest you not read any thread I start that mentions politics or political affiliations.... Of course, you are free to do so, but don't get all upset about it at me. I don't control your actions,  you do.

Have a nice day....

Your post didn't hold my interest long enough to read it all the way through.  That, my friend, is your problem.  No one is upset with you.  We are just BORED!

Repost on Drudge Retort and you might get the kind of response that you are looking for.  I really can't be bothered to debate you on a non-issue.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Your post didn't hold my interest long enough to read it all the way through.  That, my friend, is your problem.  No one is upset with you.  We are just BORED!

Repost on Drudge Retort and you might get the kind of response that you are looking for.  I really can't be bothered to debate you on a non-issue.

Riigghttt...


First you're going over my every word with a fine-toothed comb. Then when I point out (twice, I might add) how you have no self-control and to quit reading my posts, this is your reply?

I actually find myself feeling sorry for you. It's like the old "I know you are, but what am I" defense.

"hey, I read all your posts and now I'm complaining how constantly boring you are"

hahahaha

Maybe a better tract for you is to not even read my posts... just sayin'!

ptah13 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Your post didn't hold my interest long enough to read it all the way through.  That, my friend, is your problem.  No one is upset with you.  We are just BORED!

Repost on Drudge Retort and you might get the kind of response that you are looking for.  I really can't be bothered to debate you on a non-issue.

Riigghttt...


First you're going over my every word with a fine-toothed comb. Then when I point out (twice, I might add) how you have no self-control and to quit reading my posts, this is your reply?

I actually find myself feeling sorry for you. It's like the old "I know you are, but what am I" defense.

"hey, I read all your posts and now I'm complaining how constantly boring you are"

hahahaha

Maybe a better tract for you is to not even read my posts... just sayin'!

See that one was only 6 lines...still boring and lacking in substance, but manageable.

RT -- he's hopeless.  Had you taken leave of your senses?  That really has to be the only rational explanation.

WARNING

Last edited by orangeplus (2009-02-09 17:17:13)