Yes Reverend, I obvious see it now. People on the Right, or you, aren't
really using negative terms for Obama because you use them when you're provoked it doesnt' really count. People on the Right, or you, aren't
really using negative terms for Obama because you rationalize that its just an insult to his supporters, not him. Great ot know, I'll roll that up with the wonderful logic that Obama isn't "100%" breaking a promise on this.
:roll:
Also, little advise reverend. If you don't want me at least in some way referring specifically to you then don't respond to a post I make that is a generalized about some people on the right and then
start talking about yourself. If you reference it towards you personally, the only way I can respond is to speak about your reference to you personally.
However, you show your true desire and mindset here and how honest you were giving a damn about the theory of "debating politics" when you talk about me just "bashing righty" after I've spent this entire thread going after Obama and the illogical hypocracy of many on the left.
Sorry reverend, not playing this pathetic little game. You apparently don't feel like even going within the same neighborhood of that horrible word called "objectivity". So keep on yapping if you wish, I'm sure someone else will respond to you.
middleground said:
It seems he hired lobbyists for positions.
a) They could be the best people for the job
b) They don't appear to be crony pals
c) It's too early to decipher whether they're doing a lousy enough job to complain.
d) They're not former horse show judges.
Of course kidding about the last one, but sorry, I just don't see the big whoop about this.
Perhaps you're missing some peoples point here Middle.
Most here aren't arguing necessarily that "Lobbyists = bad". Actually, if you go back and look at posts by me and Right, we both actually say that lobbyists being in positions aren't necessarily bad.
The issue is the fact that
OBAMA and many of his supporters are the ones that said lobbyists in government are bad. Obama is the one that promised his supporters that he wouldn't have lobbyists in his white house while at the same time making it a campaign issue...to the point that one of Obama's approved commercials was specifically attacking McCain for having lobbyists on his staff....a semi important, if not "major" campaign issue.
The issue that those on the Right are pointing out here is not that Obama is using Lobbyists. Its the fact that Obama promised to be a change from politics as usual, yet at best made poor judgement by making it a campaign point to be big and mean agaisnt Lobbyists and then had to bring them into his white house....or at worst flat out lied and made that a campaign issue becaue it'd work, but had no desire to keep it. Either way, both is extremely playing "Politics as Usual", latching onto something you can condemn your opponent for while you have no qualms doign it yourself.
You say its still inside the first 100 days. It is...and already we're seeing Obama breaking campaign promises, promises on issues that were big enough to cause him to have a TV ad dedicated to attacking his opponent over it. What are we going to see 50 days in, 100 days in, a year in? If he's already breaking promises, potentially lieing, and just playing politics as usual what are we to expect going further.
Its not about the lobbyists. Its about principle, honest, politics as usual, and hpyocracy of many on the right that complained about lobbyists for 8 years unconditionally with Bush and complained about lobbyists all through the campaigin unconditionally with McCain, but are now suddenly saying "lets wait, they may turn out good!"
My other issue is just with people on the right hypocritical complaining about the left being hypocritical.