http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html
Obama's holding most of his lobbyist meetings off the books.
liar in chief
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: liar in chief
When you tout releasing White House visitor logs as this great measure of transparency, yet, shuffle your meetings with lobbyists to a place where they will remain off the logs, what exactly are you saying about transparency?
Further proof that the Obama administration is far more interested in paying lip service to principles, rather than actually having any.
Further proof that the Obama administration is far more interested in paying lip service to principles, rather than actually having any.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: liar in chief
Its an opinion piece, and not really a lie, but close enough.
PRIVATE companies have an OBLIGATION to HIRE people even if they would LOSE MONEY on hiring them...
It sounds stupid until you consider that Democrats believe the corporation exist to employ people, then it makes perfect sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/ ... ally-make/
A couple of weeks ago, Obama told leaders of private companies at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that they had an obligation to hire more workers regardless of whether it meant they would lose money on hiring them.
PRIVATE companies have an OBLIGATION to HIRE people even if they would LOSE MONEY on hiring them...
It sounds stupid until you consider that Democrats believe the corporation exist to employ people, then it makes perfect sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/ ... ally-make/
A couple of weeks ago, Obama told leaders of private companies at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that they had an obligation to hire more workers regardless of whether it meant they would lose money on hiring them.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: liar in chief
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13121274
"President Barack Obama once promised that negotiations over his health care overhaul would be carried out openly, in front of TV cameras and microphones. Tell that to the White House now."
Another nail in the coffin of the transparency lie. Also: the vote in the House to repeal Obamacare was more bipartisan than the vote that passed it.
"President Barack Obama once promised that negotiations over his health care overhaul would be carried out openly, in front of TV cameras and microphones. Tell that to the White House now."
Another nail in the coffin of the transparency lie. Also: the vote in the House to repeal Obamacare was more bipartisan than the vote that passed it.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: liar in chief
This one is a bit of a stretch as a "lie", but Rove makes an interesting point here.
Obama voted "present" (meaning he didn't take a position) on a very very large # of issues. Especially politically dangerous issues. The issue never gained traction in the campaign.
Rove is basically making the argument that Obama is voting "present" on Libya and the budget. He does not take politically dangerous positions... and its a great strategy unless you get called out on it. This is a huge contrast to the typical notion of a leader, Bush's sole decider quote comes to mind... Obama is the academic in chief, good talk lots of theory, no actual substance or decisions...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/ ... ges-obama/
When Mr. Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, he had the annoying habit of voting “present” on controversial issues he felt might damage his future political ambitions. -- But at least Mr. Obama showed up then. The president’s refusal now to provide leadership on Libya or the budget and his readiness to score cheap political points with straw man attacks makes his days in the State Senate look like an era of true statesmanship.
Obama voted "present" (meaning he didn't take a position) on a very very large # of issues. Especially politically dangerous issues. The issue never gained traction in the campaign.
Rove is basically making the argument that Obama is voting "present" on Libya and the budget. He does not take politically dangerous positions... and its a great strategy unless you get called out on it. This is a huge contrast to the typical notion of a leader, Bush's sole decider quote comes to mind... Obama is the academic in chief, good talk lots of theory, no actual substance or decisions...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/ ... ges-obama/
When Mr. Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, he had the annoying habit of voting “present” on controversial issues he felt might damage his future political ambitions. -- But at least Mr. Obama showed up then. The president’s refusal now to provide leadership on Libya or the budget and his readiness to score cheap political points with straw man attacks makes his days in the State Senate look like an era of true statesmanship.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: liar in chief
here's another good one.
Article about the firing of Crowley because he said some shit about the wikileaker.
Greenwald pointed out in an update to his blog yesterday that during the Bush administration, Democrats pilloried the president for punishing a whole host of administration officials for making public statements that suggested internal dissent. Obama, during his campaign, insisted he'd be different: "I want people who are continually pushing me out of my comfort zone," he said.
Or not.
It's time for the Obama administration to come clean on what's going on with Bradley Manning: why he's being treated in this bizarre and seemingly punitive manner, and why U.S. officials won't tolerate even the most obvious and logical questioning of that treatment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-ev ... 35510.html
Article about the firing of Crowley because he said some shit about the wikileaker.
Greenwald pointed out in an update to his blog yesterday that during the Bush administration, Democrats pilloried the president for punishing a whole host of administration officials for making public statements that suggested internal dissent. Obama, during his campaign, insisted he'd be different: "I want people who are continually pushing me out of my comfort zone," he said.
Or not.
It's time for the Obama administration to come clean on what's going on with Bradley Manning: why he's being treated in this bizarre and seemingly punitive manner, and why U.S. officials won't tolerate even the most obvious and logical questioning of that treatment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-ev ... 35510.html
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: liar in chief
nice. obama's energy policy is scary.
The section about the oil rigs going from 55 before the fire to 46 after the moratorium to 25 today... is really significant considering the claim that the rigs are moved and now committed in multi year deals. which btw, was discussed at length before/during the debate on the gulf drilling moratorium. The damage done to our oil production by the moratorium is incredible.
The section about the oil rigs going from 55 before the fire to 46 after the moratorium to 25 today... is really significant considering the claim that the rigs are moved and now committed in multi year deals. which btw, was discussed at length before/during the debate on the gulf drilling moratorium. The damage done to our oil production by the moratorium is incredible.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: liar in chief
Hmm... someone in the Ivory tower has been fibbing fibbing fibbing! Chicago thug politics at its best.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bro ... 7978&tsp=1
Update: In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.
Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:
Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.
The Chronicle's report is accurate.
If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.
I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward's statement.
What's worse: more than a few journalists familiar with this story are aware of some implied threats from the White House of additional and wider punishment if Carla's spanking became public. Really? That's a heavy hand usually reserved for places other than the land of the free.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bro ... 7978&tsp=1
Update: In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.
Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:
Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.
The Chronicle's report is accurate.
If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.
I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward's statement.
What's worse: more than a few journalists familiar with this story are aware of some implied threats from the White House of additional and wider punishment if Carla's spanking became public. Really? That's a heavy hand usually reserved for places other than the land of the free.
Re: liar in chief
kiryan wrote:Its an opinion piece, and not really a lie, but close enough.
So I guess the title of your thread is more a lie than anything Obama did. So, Republican politics as usual.
Thread over.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: liar in chief
Ragorn wrote:kiryan wrote:Its an opinion piece, and not really a lie, but close enough.
So I guess the title of your thread is more a lie than anything Obama did. So, Republican politics as usual.
Thread over.
That quote had nothing to do with the thread but one post on it. Thanks for the results of your reading and comprehension test...
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Return to “Current Events & Politics”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests