• 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

Maybe. Maybe not.

But I think some should focus on the more important issues, not petty crap like this.

The problem is that OBAMA was the one that said that Lobbyists in government were an important issue when he made it a campaign issue AGAINST McCain.
 
"Petty crap"... like outright lies?

Name me a President that kept all of his campaign promises, and I'll sell you a bridge. :doh

Like Missypea wrote, we must look at the gray. These hires could turn out to be solid. So what is the big deal?

Now if Obama decided to poo-poo the more major promises from his campaign, then yeah, there better be some 'splaining. Till then, give him his 100 days.

You know, didn't Dubya promise in 2000 that he'd not start a war without exhausting diplomacy? LOL I'll have to find that video.

Oopsie!
 
I like Obama so far. But it's been only 10 freaking days! :doh
This is petty, and I'm not going to get riled up by it.

If I were you, I'd focus on results. Let's see how he does. But give him at least 100 days, m'kay?





So first it was we couldn't critisize his decisions until jan 20th, now its "100 days", after "100 days" what will the next step in the left wing gag order on citisizing the Obama.
 
The problem is that OBAMA was the one that said that Lobbyists in government were an important issue when he made it a campaign issue AGAINST McCain.

I highly doubt it was an important issue amongst the voters. I think people were most concerned about the economy, taxes and change, I would think.
 
So first it was we couldn't critisize his decisions until jan 20th, now its "100 days", after "100 days" what will the next step in the left wing gag order on citisizing the Obama.

You can go nuts on him all you want. But don't expect most to think your're being reasonable by bitching about each and every little thing.
 
Name me a President that kept all of his campaign promises, and I'll sell you a bridge. :doh

Like Missypea wrote, we must look at the gray. These hires could turn out to be solid. So what is the big deal?

Now if Obama decided to poo-poo the more major promises from his campaign, then yeah, there better be some 'splaining. Till then, give him his 100 days.

You know, didn't Dubya promise in 2000 that he'd not start a war without exhausting diplomacy? LOL I'll have to find that video.

Oopsie!

You know, didn't Democrats complain that Dubya didn't keep his 2000 promise not to nation build?

Wasn't it democrats on this forum that started up posts with the sole puprose to insult, degrade, and question the integrity of McCain based on NOTHING ELSE but him hiring Lobbyists onto his campaign team?

So if its McCain's campaign having lobbyists, then they're absolutely bad and that absolutely mean McCain's bad...but if its Obama with lobbyists "lets wait and see, they could be good! Don't make judgement! Its a none issue even though OBAMA HIMSELF made lobbyists an issue"
 
You can go nuts on him all you want. But don't expect most to think your're being reasonable by bitching about each and every little thing.

Now I'm hardly one that's been going "nuts" on him on every single little thing he does. There's been a number of things already I've said are rather none issues, but there are some I think are legitimate.

That said...

Doesn't it suck for the shoe to be on the other foot? Cause this **** was going on for 8 years now from the other side.

Funny, I don't remember you making urges to your fellow democrats to stop.
 
You can go nuts on him all you want. But don't expect most to think your're being reasonable by bitching about each and every little thing.




This is "debatepolitics", I am discussing the POTUS. I am sorry you want to do the liberal "Lets attack the Good Reverend" for daring to discuss dear leader.


Quite frankly the lefts tween swooning over Obama is sickening. This no critisizm stance is scary. Sort of like the same "cult of personality" that gave us a huge issue in the 1930-1940s....


He is a person. He is not a god. Get over it and discuss him, And stop like the rest of you discussing me.


I know I am great and all, but please, show some self control and stick to the subject, not the Good Reverend. :2wave:
 
Honesty is not an important issue among voters? :confused:

It's really early.

My initial assessment thinks he's being mostly honest, and trying hard to fulfill his promises.

1) He's reaching across the aisle and asking all sides for input. Wow, isn't that a huge change!
2) He's just not handing over the bailout money. It's coming with clauses. Amazing that he cared enough to actually call out the money grabbing banking pigs by shaming them on national TV. Go Barack!
3) It's seems he's hiring quality people for the right positions. As far as I know, none are buddy appointments. Cool.

There is more, but it's not necessary. So far, so good, IMO.
 
Now I'm hardly one that's been going "nuts" on him on every single little thing he does. There's been a number of things already I've said are rather none issues, but there are some I think are legitimate.

That said...

Doesn't it suck for the shoe to be on the other foot? Cause this **** was going on for 8 years now from the other side.

Funny, I don't remember you making urges to your fellow democrats to stop.




And it is not the same. I have yet to call him the Socialist chimp, or other derogatory names. I am simply bringing up issues of his going back on his campaign promises, his picks, and his early policies.


And unlike left wingers over the last 8 years, when he does something right, like the recent EEO EO, and his slamming wall street bonuses, I applaud him....
 
You know, didn't Democrats complain that Dubya didn't keep his 2000 promise not to nation build?

Wasn't it democrats on this forum that started up posts with the sole puprose to insult, degrade, and question the integrity of McCain based on NOTHING ELSE but him hiring Lobbyists onto his campaign team?

So if its McCain's campaign having lobbyists, then they're absolutely bad and that absolutely mean McCain's bad...but if its Obama with lobbyists "lets wait and see, they could be good! Don't make judgement! Its a none issue even though OBAMA HIMSELF made lobbyists an issue"

Honestly, I don't know much about that. That issue did not take weight to me, but I don't doubt what you're saying here.
 
It's really early.

My initial assessment thinks he's being mostly honest, and trying hard to fulfill his promises.

Please be specific.

1) He's reaching across the aisle and asking all sides for input. Wow, isn't that a huge change!

yes he is to an extent. It is his dems in the house and congress who are not. but he does not have the balls to get them to play ball.

2) He's just not handing over the bailout money. It's coming with clauses. Amazing that he cared enough to actually call out the money grabbing banking pigs by shaming them on national TV. Go Barack!


Uhm actually he is, then afterwords he is calling the banks out.... should have done it the other way around.


3) It's seems he's hiring quality people for the right positions. As far as I know, none are buddy appointments. Cool.


:lol: then you have not been paying attention....


Turbo tax gheitner anyone?



There is more, but it's not necessary. So far, so good, IMO.


not really, but hey true believing is bliss.
 
And it is not the same. I have yet to call him the Socialist chimp, or other derogatory names. I am simply bringing up issues of his going back on his campaign promises, his picks, and his early policies.


And unlike left wingers over the last 8 years, when he does something right, like the recent EEO EO, and his slamming wall street bonuses, I applaud him....
Chimp would immediately be considered racist by the left. You'll have to use the term, surrender-monkey. No that won't do either. It'll have to be socialist primate.
 
Now I'm hardly one that's been going "nuts" on him on every single little thing he does. There's been a number of things already I've said are rather none issues, but there are some I think are legitimate.

That said...

Doesn't it suck for the shoe to be on the other foot? Cause this **** was going on for 8 years now from the other side.

Funny, I don't remember you making urges to your fellow democrats to stop.

Take a look at all the petty thread started by democrats, and I doubt you'll find my participation.

Having said that, you bet there were a lot of good and legitimate issues to bitch about when it came to the Bush Administration. No one should be faulted for that.
 
Name me a President that kept all of his campaign promises, and I'll sell you a bridge. :doh
You're trying to misdirect the conversation.

"Everyone does it" isnt a defense.

Like Missypea wrote, we must look at the gray. These hires could turn out to be solid. So what is the big deal?
The big deal is that Obama lied.

Now if Obama decided to poo-poo the more major promises...
Oh, I see. Its OK that your guy lied, because the lie was 'small'.
:roll:

You know, didn't Dubya promise in 2000 that he'd not start a war without exhausting diplomacy?
More misdirection (never mind that W did exactly that).
 
I highly doubt it was an important issue amongst the voters. I think people were most concerned about the economy, taxes and change, I would think.
Change?
Where's that?
 
You can go nuts on him all you want. But don't expect most to think your're being reasonable by bitching about each and every little thing.
And you've made the exact same statement to all the W haters that did the exact same thing -- right?
 
This is "debatepolitics", I am discussing the POTUS. I am sorry you want to do the liberal "Lets attack the Good Reverend" for daring to discuss dear leader.

Yes, this is debate politics. And if she feels that a point you're making is frivilous and not worthy of discussion her pointing it out is not "attacking" you. Just because YOU or even I feel that a matter is legitimate doesn't mean others have to. Stating that you believe something is frivilous and thus you don't care about it IS a legitimate feeling and thought...NOT an attack on you.

And it is not the same. I have yet to call him the Socialist chimp, or other derogatory names. I am simply bringing up issues of his going back on his campaign promises, his picks, and his early policies.

And unlike left wingers over the last 8 years, when he does something right, like the recent EEO EO, and his slamming wall street bonuses, I applaud him....


Yes...yes...relating him to Kim Jong-Il repeatedly with your childish "Dear Leader" crap is certainly not a derogatory name, and I'm sure "The Messiah" is meant completely with endearment. Additionally, my post wasn't wasn't talking about you specifically, but the left in generald and the right on general. And those on the right HAVE been calling him a socialist, or calling him an "Obamanation", how about "Nerobama" I'm sure that term is meant to be endearing.

Guess what Reverend, you're not the entire Right. I'm not the entire Right. Yes, there are people on the right that ARE going after him for pointless, idiotic things, just like the left did. From sentiments like "OMG he had drinks and STEAK during a recession!?" to "I can't believe he had the nerve to use Kennedy books behind him in a speech!", there are pointless things being brought up by our side that are hardly even minor issues in my mind.

But everyone has a different view of what is an issue. The steaks weren't an issue to me, they were to you. Things that the left have brought up over the past 8 years may've included things that you thought wasn't an issue, I thought was a minor issue, and they thought was major. There's no universal rule on what is frivilous and what isn't, there's just opinion.

But it is an absolutely uniformed, blind position to say that those on the Right aren't going to complain about issue that people consider minor, and its the same uniformed, blind position to say those on the right haven't been saying derogatory attacking things about him on par with Facist Chimp.
 
And you've made the exact same statement to all the W haters that did the exact same thing -- right?

No, but I'm pretty sure you've made similar type notions in the past.

Yet I've not seen you speak up in any thread about some frivilant things with Obama. Happily to be corrected though.
 
Chimp would immediately be considered racist by the left.
A black person referring to GWB as a "chimp" isn't racist.
A white person referring to a black person as a "monkey" IS racist.

It must be nice to be the one that writes and re-wrotes these rules..
 
Back
Top Bottom