Obama quote

I already question the two guys assigned to be head of whatever, that didn't file taxes, "but that's ok," where all is well.

To me, that tarnishes Obama's rules of the "road".

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

It's progress,not perfection.

Is that the talking point the kos krowd is using now? Can't wait to see what they (and you) are going to come up with to rationalize the Daschle fiasco.

Personally, I think that Daschle is toast. At this point, it would be best if he stepped aside.

You are right Scorpion, he is toast. Breaking news just reports he will step aside. Good decision.

I'm glad he did the honorable thing and stepped aside.

Yeah, so honorable. He should have done the right thing from the beginning and paid his taxes like the rest of the little folk have to...

Too bad McCain didn't do the same. His involvement in the Keating 5 was far more serious than Tom Daschle's tax issue.

Yeah gee too bad.

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

How many lobbyists overall does Obama employ? It's progress,not perfection.

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

HEY ARTIE-

Still waiting on you to answer the above... afraid to look like a hypocrite?

Ohhmama wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

How many lobbyists overall does Obama employ? It's progress,not perfection.

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

HEY ARTIE-

Still waiting on you to answer the above... afraid to look like a hypocrite?

I think Artie is terrified of your superior intellect and debate skills! LOL!!

Ohhmama wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

How many lobbyists overall does Obama employ? It's progress,not perfection.

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

HEY ARTIE-

Still waiting on you to answer the above... afraid to look like a hypocrite?

If McCain had been elected there would be dozenS of lobbyists all through his administration. Obama has made a significant effort to stop that. McCain never would have.

sparks wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

How many lobbyists overall does Obama employ? It's progress,not perfection.

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

HEY ARTIE-

Still waiting on you to answer the above... afraid to look like a hypocrite?

I think Artie is terrified of your superior intellect and debate skills! LOL!!

Showing off more of your respect skills huh Special Ed?

Well, that might be true, Artie, but look on the other side, what is so really different in other aspects. Three officials with back taxes, and bad excuses. Dashle did the honorable thing too late. But I am still bothered so much about this stimulous package that won't stimulate anyone but those in Washington, especially if their wives have "a headache".

Artie60438 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

How many lobbyists overall does Obama employ? It's progress,not perfection.

So you admit that it's okay for Obama but would not have been for McCain?

HEY ARTIE-

Still waiting on you to answer the above... afraid to look like a hypocrite?

If McCain had been elected there would be dozenS of lobbyists all through his administration. Obama has made a significant effort to stop that. McCain never would have.

I'm actually looking for you to say one way or the other- it's very simple...

DO YOU ADMIT THAT IT'S OKAY FOR OBAMA BUT NOT FOR MCCAIN? YES OR NO

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

If McCain had been elected there would be dozenS of lobbyists all through his administration. Obama has made a significant effort to stop that. McCain never would have.

I'm actually looking for you to say one way or the other- it's very simple...

DO YOU ADMIT THAT IT'S OKAY FOR OBAMA BUT NOT FOR MCCAIN? YES OR NO

Artie:
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but crystal balls do not work in the case of persuasive argument. Saying, "If McCain did such and such...", or "McCain would have if..." does not alter the fact that the Messiah lied.

Flat
out
lied.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php

One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House.

Q.E.D.

Now stop with this obstinacy - you are making yourself look rather foolish.

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

If McCain had been elected there would be dozenS of lobbyists all through his administration. Obama has made a significant effort to stop that. McCain never would have.

I'm actually looking for you to say one way or the other- it's very simple...

DO YOU ADMIT THAT IT'S OKAY FOR OBAMA BUT NOT FOR MCCAIN? YES OR NO

Yes,and I'll tell you why. Obama has made a concerted and honest effort to make changes in the ways of how lobbyists conduct business in Washington. He may have overreached when he made the pledge not to hire any of them. Not every lobbyist is bad. Would you be against him hiring a lobbyist who fought for clean air?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

He may have overreached when he made the pledge not to hire any of them.

No, he didn't overreach.
He lied.

Most people couldn't care less about it and see it as I do. It's only an issue with the far right.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

He may have overreached when he made the pledge not to hire any of them.

No, he didn't overreach.
He lied.

Most people couldn't care less about it and see it as I do. It's only an issue with the far right.

That's about what I expected out of you - you spend two full forum pages debating the topic, you resoundingly lose the argument, and you then claim that it was a non-issue to begin with.
Priceless.
You get more amusing by the day, Artie.

I see you've declared yourself the winner despite the fact that Obama has made a concerted and honest effort to make changes in the ways of how lobbyists conduct business in Washington. That's change!

Sorry,but I've got better things to do than continue an endless argument.

Artie60438 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

If McCain had been elected there would be dozenS of lobbyists all through his administration. Obama has made a significant effort to stop that. McCain never would have.

I'm actually looking for you to say one way or the other- it's very simple...

DO YOU ADMIT THAT IT'S OKAY FOR OBAMA BUT NOT FOR MCCAIN? YES OR NO

Yes,and I'll tell you why. Obama has made a concerted and honest effort to make changes in the ways of how lobbyists conduct business in Washington. He may have overreached when he made the pledge not to hire any of them. Not every lobbyist is bad. Would you be against him hiring a lobbyist who fought for clean air?

Only if he claimed he wouldn't hire any lobbyists and then turned around and it anyway. To me it speaks to someone's character if they can't keep to their promise.

I don't really know how Obama made "a concerted and honest effort to make changes in the ways of how lobbyists conduct business in Washington". He's been prez for all of what two weeks or so- and in that time couldn't keep to what he's promised, so how could he have changed it so much in such a short amount of time?

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Yes,and I'll tell you why. Obama has made a concerted and honest effort to make changes in the ways of how lobbyists conduct business in Washington. He may have overreached when he made the pledge not to hire any of them. Not every lobbyist is bad. Would you be against him hiring a lobbyist who fought for clean air?

Only if he claimed he wouldn't hire any lobbyists and then turned around and it anyway. To me it speaks to someone's character if they can't keep to their promise.

I don't really know how Obama made "a concerted and honest effort to make changes in the ways of how lobbyists conduct business in Washington". He's been prez for all of what two weeks or so- and in that time couldn't keep to what he's promised, so how could he have changed it so much in such a short amount of time?

Because there are new rules in place and a lot less lobbyists than previous administrations.

New rules? What- the one he broke??

I get that you are a fan of his, even admire him, but it amazes me that you cannot or will not fault him or anyone in the D party when they go against something they promised.