• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama finds room for lobbyists

Gibberish said:
Does all this mean Obama will now fail as President and fall into corruption and incompetence? I doubt it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, me too.



In a world without shades of gray, Obama lied regarding the lobbyists. :shock:




I don't live in that world though. My world isn't an "either/or" world. It isn't just white or black. Is anyone's world truly black and white?

I understand Obama's ideals. I want a president to strive for perfection for our government and our citizens. I want a president to be able to get new information and be willing to change his mind. I won't take him to task for changing his mind with the expectation of a better outcome for having done so.

Like Middleground said, if it turns out he placed incompetents in charge, like "good ol' Brownie" then I'll have something else to say.

:cool:
 
ludahai said:
Frankly, this wouldn't bother me at all except for all of the ALLEGATIONS for years about Bush "lying" and the ramifications of that. However, Obama is caught in a lie and that is ok. You don't see a problem with that?
Click to expand...

In this instance, no, not really. I have no opinion of these hires yet. Who knows, they all could be great calls. Or not. But we don't know that yet.

Now if Obama changed his mind regarding his plans for the environment and not investing in new green technologies, then yes, I'd be upset. That--to me--weights of much greater importance.
 
Gibberish said:
Are you seriously liking Bush's statments (Iraq, WMD, hunting Bin Laden, etc) to Obama saying "lobbyists will have no part in my White House"?
Click to expand...
Yes, I seriously am. Bush used more than just WMD to justify the Iraq war, the intelligence didn't pan out, but sources w/in our military have said there were trucks capable of moving the stuff out of the country crossing the borders during our buildup and a few of the former Iraqi generals confirmed the desire for WMD programs, so was Bush mistaken....maybe, did he lie, probably not, but he was accused mercilessly of such. Now on to Obama, he said no lobbyists in the administration, yet we have lobbyists in the administration, so the comparison is valid if you use the perspective of charges of lying by the other side and apologist attitudes from the base.

It is on those people to prove themselves worth of their positions and they hold a piece of Obama's credibility in their actions, or lack there-of.
Click to expand...
I agree, but when Obama said no lobbyists, the burden of proof that they are the right people on the job falls on Obama, since he made the promise.

Which promise are you talking about? The one where he said Lobbyists will not be in his White House or that Lobbyists won't dominate his administration?
Click to expand...
He said no lobbyists.

Obama has changed his opinion from "no lobbyists" to a "maybe some lobbyists but they won't dominate", several times through his campaign. Which one is the promise?
Click to expand...
Which one was the first one, since his campaign seemed to do a lot of changing, or at least one was repeated the most.



His ideals in this instance is that Lobbyists will not be controlling the White House anymore. We will not have no-bid partnerships with corporations (Haliburton, BlackWater) above what is best for the country and the people.
Click to expand...
I mean his ideals in big government.
Click to expand...
 
Middleground said:
I like Obama so far. But it's been only 10 freaking days! :doh
Click to expand...
Yea, 10 days and he's already breaking campaign promises. Prepare for disappointment. :doh

This is petty, and I'm not going to get riled up by it.
Click to expand...
You are at stage 1. Eventually your will acknowledge the truth at stage 5 ;):mrgreen:

1 * Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
2 * Anger (why is this happening to me?)
3 * Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
4 * Depression (I don't care anymore)
5 * Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)


If I were you, I'd focus on results. Let's see how he does. But give him at least 100 days, m'kay?
Click to expand...
I'll drink to that... while I clutch my guns and income taxes oh so closely!!:lol:
 
WillRockwell said:
I expect that if you are staffing a new government in Washington, it would be next to impossible to find people who have never been employed by lobbying firms. What's more, most of the time that connection is quite innocent.
Click to expand...

So which is it:

1) Before he was elected, Obama didn't know what you just said, in which case he's a moron, or
2) Obama knew what you just said and still promised not to hire lobbyists even though he knew he would break that promise were he elected, in which case he must think his supporters are morons

?

Hatuey said:
You're right. Dick Cheney is VICE PRESIDENT. This guy is....ummmm deputy of a position what is a mostly irrelevant position as far as final decision making goes? And when did I go after Dick Cheney? Dude...get a clue....I didn't even bring him up. Somebody else did. I commented that THEIR comparison was faulty. It's like comparing a chihuahua(the deputy) to a Pitbull and saying they have the same amount of bite in the end. Which they don't.
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
Unless that Vice President is of course the former CEO of Halliburton and then Halliburton makes retarded money from a war that Vice President heavily lobbied for. But if this is what you want to compare the guy who is......the assistant bitch of some position most of us find irrelevant. Then sure?
Click to expand...

Secretary of Defense is a "position most of us find irrelevant"? Wtf are you talking about? And what on earth makes you think that Deputy Secretary of Defense isn't an incredibly important position?

Quick quiz: Who is one of the main people that most liberals consider the architects of the Iraq War?

Think Progress THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

What's the first name on that list, and what position did he hold in the Bush administration?

Unless you're trying to argue that Paul Wolfowitz was an irrelevant little bitch chihuahua, I don't know where you're coming from.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Now on to Obama, he said no lobbyists in the administration, yet we have lobbyists in the administration, so the comparison is valid if you use the perspective of charges of lying by the other side and apologist attitudes from the base.

He said no lobbyists.

Which one was the first one, since his campaign seemed to do a lot of changing, or at least one was repeated the most.
Click to expand...

From what I have read he started with "no lobbyists in his White House", saying it a few times in 2007, and moved to the "lobbyists wont dominate the administration" in 2008.

Which one is this "promise"? Does saying something before the other make one a promise over the other?
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
From what I have read he started with "no lobbyists in his White House", saying it a few times in 2007, and moved to the "lobbyists wont dominate the administration" in 2008.

Which one is this "promise"? Does saying something before the other make one a promise over the other?
Click to expand...

Direct quote from Obama:

"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."

Lynn was a lobbyist for Raytheon, and is now serving as the Deputy Secretary of Defense, where he will clearly be involved in "regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to [his] prior employer."

And before you claim that this doesn't really fall within that definition, Obama has already explicitly acknowledged that Lynn does, as he has indicated that Lynn will be receiving a "waiver."

I didn't know you could create "waivers" for your promises.
 
Gibberish said:
From what I have read he started with "no lobbyists in his White House", saying it a few times in 2007, and moved to the "lobbyists wont dominate the administration" in 2008.

Which one is this "promise"? Does saying something before the other make one a promise over the other?
Click to expand...
here's the thing, it absolutely speaks to character here. If I make a promise, it's a promise, so I better have a very good reason for amending or otherwise not fulfilling it accompanied by an apology, I see neither with Obama.
 
LaMidRighter said:
here's the thing, it absolutely speaks to character here. If I make a promise, it's a promise, so I better have a very good reason for amending or otherwise not fulfilling it accompanied by an apology, I see neither with Obama.
Click to expand...

I'm new here, but you must have been one of George Bush's biggest critics. The promises he made and broke which actually affected the lives and well beings of real people, must have driven you crazy.
 
WillRockwell said:
I'm new here, but you must have been one of George Bush's biggest critics. The promises he made and broke which actually affected the lives and well beings of real people, must have driven you crazy.
Click to expand...
Bush made mistakes, I stated late last year though that the president's true mistakes were rarely disgussed while he got too much criticism for what amounted to a judgement call. Bush was economically liberal, and he and the Republican congress spent too much, Bush made great calls for the Supreme Court, but horrible choices in some of his cabinet picks. Iraq was going to be done eventually, the time is up for debate. I don't personally care about the Obama cabinet lobby thing as much as other issues to be honest, it's just fun to watch the worst of the partisans have to eat a little crow over the G.W.B. lie accusations.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Bush made mistakes, I stated late last year though that the president's true mistakes were rarely disgussed while he got too much criticism for what amounted to a judgement call. Bush was economically liberal, and he and the Republican congress spent too much, Bush made great calls for the Supreme Court, but horrible choices in some of his cabinet picks. Iraq was going to be done eventually, the time is up for debate. I don't personally care about the Obama cabinet lobby thing as much as other issues to be honest, it's just fun to watch the worst of the partisans have to eat a little crow over the G.W.B. lie accusations.
Click to expand...

I'm not speaking of Bush "judgement calls", but deliberate lies, uttered to take advantage of the public's trust of their president. Lies to generate approval to go to war, lies about the results of that war, lies about political dirty tricks to justify that war, lies about torture and incarceration of many innocent people. Americans trust their president....Bush used that trust to make fools out of the American people and their elected representatives. And I have little tolerance for those who rationalized and supported his lies while he was in office.
 
Great persuaders throughout world history have succeeded not only in getting instant concurrence but also long term denial of any wrong doing by the nations they lead. Once they are in office the masses don't have a choice. In the cases of democracies the voters are willing (especially here in this country) to lean back and accept initial mistakes. However, the truely great persuaders seize upon this weakness and before a nation can detect it they have a tyrant whose words cannot go unheralded and there can be no words to the contrary. The recent attack on conservative talk radio is an example of Obammy testing the waters. If the brainwashed (and there are millions upon millions)do as he predicts conservatism will be another word for dissent and the democrats will have achieved theoir goal.
 
WillRockwell said:
If they no longer work for lobbying firms, they are not lobbyists. And unlike Dick Cheney, who went directly from CEO of Halliburton to the guy who picked Halliburton to rebuild Iraq, former lobbyists no longer care about the concerns of their former employers.
Click to expand...

You just have really no desire to read peoples posts at all or debate a bit, but instead to just speaking your talking points over and over again as if they're true and ignore people that counter them.

Will, what do you say about this:

Zyphlin said:
I'm sure you're talking about that from a completely informed platform, right Will Rockwell? I'm sure you're not just regurgitating partisan talking points in hoping to avoid having to say something poor about Obama so you can focus an attack on Bush. Because you know...

It'd be sad if you ignored that a Congressional report sasid the contract was “properly” awarded. And I'm sure you didn't ignore that "only contractor that was determined to be in a position to provide the services within the required time frame."

That Crazy Pentagon! How DARE they award a contract that was needed to be awarded quickly to the only contractor that was in a position to handle it. They should've instead said "Screw the needs of this country, Liberals may be upset! We can't allow that" and had a bidding process, prolonging how quickly they could get the company going with the project, and in the end possibly having it awarded to a company that either was undersized for the job or awarding it to KBR anyways after wasting a ton of time.

On the issues Fact Check
Click to expand...

I posted this in response to your earlier statement about halliburton. So shall you be backing up your claim that Cheny, and not the Pentagon, picked the company (what company was it? While TIED to halliburton, it wasn't halliburton). Do you have any data saying that it wasn't done properly, or that there was another contracter that could've provided the services in the time needed? Or are you just spouting talking points, ignoring anyone that actually brings up facts to counter you, and just strive to switch topics when you're backed in a corner?
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
I expect that if you are staffing a new government in Washington, it would be next to impossible to find people who have never been employed by lobbying firms. What's more, most of the time that connection is quite innocent.
Click to expand...
Are you OK with the fact that Obama lied about having lobbyists in his administration?
 
Gibberish said:
Obama is a politician and as a politician he cannot be held to his literal word but should be held to the ideals of what he says. It's easy to say when you are not President, "I will do X" as an absolute, only to find out doing exactly that without any budging is not really feasible.
Click to expand...
Are you OK with the fact that Obama lied about having lobbyists in his administration?
 
Middleground said:
That's pretty much how I feel.

All politicians break promises, and I didn't expect Obama to keep all of his. It would be impossible. Now if these people turn out to be hacks, then yeah, he made piss-poor choices. Why cry now about it? Wait and see. They could turn out to be excellent choices.
Click to expand...
Are you OK with the fact that Obama lied about having lobbyists in his administration?
 
LaMidRighter said:
The left took shots a Bush for over 6 years over intelligence and called it a lie with no proof, we have Obama's own words and actions proving he lied and you don't think we on the right are going to fire back?
Click to expand...
Just another example of the partisan bigotry from the Dems.

Their guy lies, and he gets a pass.
 
Zyphlin said:
You just have really no desire to read peoples posts at all or debate a bit, but instead to just speaking your talking points over and over again as if they're true and ignore people that counter them.

Will, what do you say about this:



I posted this in response to your earlier statement about halliburton. So shall you be backing up your claim that Cheny, and not the Pentagon, picked the company (what company was it? While TIED to halliburton, it wasn't halliburton). Do you have any data saying that it wasn't done properly, or that there was another contracter that could've provided the services in the time needed? Or are you just spouting talking points, ignoring anyone that actually brings up facts to counter you, and just strive to switch topics when you're backed in a corner?
Click to expand...


I'd be happy to debate LogCap and the assignment of the Iraq contract to KBR in a different thread, assuming you can do so without resorting to personal insults.
 
scourge99 said:
Yea, 10 days and he's already breaking campaign promises. Prepare for disappointment. :doh
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not.

But I think some should focus on the more important issues, not petty crap like this.
 
WillRockwell said:
I'd be happy to debate LogCap and the assignment of the Iraq contract to KBR in a different thread, assuming you can do so without resorting to personal insults.
Click to expand...

Sure, start a thread on it and depending on what you're trying to debate I'd happily join in. But don't tell me to take something to another thread when YOU'RE the one bringing it up in THIS thread.

Who gave the contract to KBR is not something for a "debate". Its a provable fact. The Pentagon gave the contract. There's nothin to "debate" there. You can debate whether Cheney greatly influenced thier pick, but the FACT is that the Pentagon, not Cheney, gave them the contract.

You can debate that you BELIEVE that it was improperly done, but a congressional investigation already disagree's with you and as far as the law goes, at this moment, it was legal and proper. That is the fact.

The FACT is that the pentagon stated they believed KBR to be the only company at the time that could do the work they needed in the time they needed it. Now, you can debate if you'd like whether or not this was influenced by Cheney, but the fact is that that was the Pentagon's findings.

My issue is not that Cheney didn't have influence in Halliburtons subsidiary being picked...I do think he may've urged it to happen. My issue is with your out and out lies, such as

"And unlike Dick Cheney... the guy who picked Halliburton to rebuild Iraq"

which is patently false unless Dick Cheney was somehow also a member of the pentagon at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom