Trinity Must Be In 7th Heaven

[klaybourn]

Since Hillary was a healthcare pioneer, maybe there finally will be some change. This is definitely a positive step for change, since healthcare is one of the most pressing issues in the US right now.

Now that America is at the cusp of dramatic change, I am excited about what the next four years will bring.

can anyone spare some change

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

If I want CHANGE. If I want PROGRESSIVE CHANGE. If I want to CHANGE the direction this nation is going from one straight to hell in a hand basket to a nation changing by starting a different course WHO am I going to appoint to carry out this CHANGE?
I'm sure as hell not going to pick people who know absolutely nothing about running a federal government!

I am going to select proven effective leaders who share the same vision that have for the nation.

This is exactly what Obama has done. So far, Obama's picks for government leaders have shared the same political philosophy as Obama.

The Republicans greatest fear is that Obama will become one of the most effective presidents in the history of the American Republic.

I voted for Obama. He has surpased what I thought he would do so far. Not that I didn't think he could do well. Obama has just done better than I thought he would do.

I cannot for the life of me understand this logic?!?

Everyone makes it sound like we have to pick people who have already been-there-done-that. We have to pick people who know how to run a federal government and the only people out there that know how to do this are people who have been around sitting in various political spotlights previously?

I don't believe it.

This is the same crazy logic that employers do when they say they are hiring for an entry-level position but they want 5 years of experience.

Let me paint a picture for all you here...

Obama says this:
"She [Clinton] said awhile back that she didn’t think that lobbyists aren’t a problem–she said you know they represent real people. Well, they don’t represent you. When she takes more money from lobbyists and special interests than any candidate including John McCain that shows that she doesn’t have a sense that we have got to change how business is done in Washington."

How the hell do you say, "Well, shes the one for the job to change Washington"????????

 

[1BiGG1]

Indeed. The guy hasn't even been in office for one day yet, and folks have already determined that he's broken his promises.

That’s because he has already broken his promise in this video/article where there is clear proof >>>

Commentary: Obama already struggling with lobbyist promises - CNN.com

.....I don't expect "radical" change from Obama -- that's not what he promised (and if Democrats wanted that, we'd have nominated Kucinich). But I do expect some change, and I'm encouraged that he's nominating people who can implement policy without an extended training period and orientation.

You mean giving political favors to those who are obviously grossly incompetent, gave him big money and/or are lobbyists he promised would not exist including >>>

Henry Rivera, a former Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communication Commission is listed on the team handling science, technology, space and the arts. (With Mr. Rivera is Jim Kohlenberger, executive director of an advocacy group for Internet companies.)

Among the group handling the Justice Department and civil rights areas of the transition is Theodore Shaw, a litigator for an arm of the N.A.A.C.P.

David J. Hayes, part of the 12-member group overseeing the transition and co-head of the team handling the areas of energy and natural resources, is the chairman of the environmental practice at the law and lobbying firm Latham & Watkins. He was personally registered as a lobbyist as recently as 2006, for clients including San Diego Gas and Electric.

Sally Katzen, another member of the supervisory group who is also on teams for the office of the president and government operations, was registered last year to lobby for the pharmaceutical company Amgen on Medicare reimbursements.

Louisa Terrell, another member of the top working group, is on leave from the public policy office of the Internet company Yahoo!

Tom Wheeler, another of the 12, is on leave from a firm that invests in technology companies and before 2004 lobbied for the cable television and wireless industries.

John L. White, a former Clinton official charged with overseeing the new Defense Department, is a partner in a firm that invests in defense contractors.

Michael Warren, charged with overseeing Treasury, is chief operating officer of a firm that lobbies for clients including the U.S.-India Business Council.

Several of the officials have ties to Fannie Mae (who gave huge money to Obama and other Democrats), the government-backed mortgage firm whose implosion this fall contributed to the financial meltdown. Thomas Donilon, overseeing the State Department, is a partner in the law and lobbying firm O’Melveny and Myers who until three years ago lobbied for Fannie Mae. Wendy R. Sherman, the other official charged with reviewing the State Department worked for Fannie Mae.

Mr. Lu, the transition’s executive director charged with policing potential conflicts of interests, may have his own appearance problems. His wife, Kathryn Thomson, is a lawyer who represents corporate clients dealing with federal environmental regulations, while his older brother, Curtis Lu, is a top lawyer for Fannie Mae.

Mr. Lu has his work cut out for him in deciding which apparent conflicts may be of real concern, said Robert Walker, a Washington lawyer and former staff director of the Senate Ethics Committee.

Sandy Berger, the Clinton national security adviser, founded Stonebridge International, a consulting and lobbying firm focused on helping clients resolve government issues here and overseas.

Mr. Berger took with him Mr. Warren, the former executive director of the president’s economic council who became chief operating officer of Stonebridge and has now become a major contributor to the transition in the pivotal areas of the Treasury Department and economic policy. Although not a registered lobbyist, Mr. Warren helped manage Stonebridge while it lobbied the government for clients including the U.S.-India Business Council within the last year as well as Dynergy International, Airbus and Conoco in earlier years. (More of Stonebridge’s business involves using government expertise and connections to help corporate clients abroad.)
Some transition officials now work at firms that do business with the agencies they are examining. John O. Brennan, a former Central Intelligence Agency official working on its transition, is president and chief executive of the Analysis Corporation, an intelligence contractor.

On the NASA review board, Lori Garver is now president of a strategic consulting company, Capital Space LLC, and previously worked for the aerospace company DFI International.

Among the transition officials charged with reviewing the Securities and Exchange Commission — likely to come under significant scrutiny amid the financial meltdown — is Mozelle Thompson, who runs a legal and policy consulting business for companies including Facebook.com.

One name on the transition list comes unencumbered by potential conflicts but instead by bad luck. Jami Miscik, leading a review of American intelligence agencies, was the head of intelligence analysis at the Central Intelligence Agency during its biggest embarrassment: the botched assessments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Then she moved on to become a senior official managing risks in emerging markets for the investment bank Lehman Brothers, until its collapse this fall.

Tom Daschle works as a policy adviser for the law firm Alston & Bird on health care, climate change and other issues, according to a statement released by Obama's transition team. The firm's health care clients have included CVS Caremark, Bayer and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, federal records show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15transition.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/politics/20daschle.html

 

[SpeedoMike]

Now that America is at the cusp of dramatic change, I am excited about what the next four years will bring.

I'm assuming you mean bankruptcy???

 

[1BiGG1]

.....

The Republicans greatest fear is that Obama will become one of the most effective presidents in the history of the American Republic.

.....

I’m a Republican and can assure you that’s not a concern of mine. I’m concerned with his gross lack of experience and already being proven a liar before he even gets in office, not to mention his little birth certificate thingy where he refuses to show a signed copy even though there are 17 lawsuits clogging up the federal courts right now that could be using the time for other things.

If he was a respectable person he would show the proof without a court order and it sure looks like another lie since he will not.

 

[1BiGG1]

Correction, Obama presented a middle ground approach to his politics. It was the foul ups, bleeps and blunders of Bush Co. and the disgusting, hateful, right wing fanatics mindseye described above ^^ that propelled him to victory. His supporters are not disappointed as they got the regime change they wanted.

Alleged middle ground approach? No, he presented a very leftwing approach and the only reason he got elected is America loves revisionist history (or is just basically clueless and easily sold on cheap sound-bites) like pretending the Democrats are not dirty in the cause of the financial meltdown.

More examples of revisionist history? How about the one pretending the Democrats don’t have their share of disgusting, hateful, leftwing fanatics like those who claim John McCain is “anti-black” for starters and the list doesn’t end there by any means.

 

[transformer_99]

Obama's "Change and Hope" is just rebadged Clinton stuff. We're pretty much screwed. Ever notice when Bush got in, everyone he appointed/hired was his father's cronies. Same goes with Obama, he's appointing pretty much the same people that are already in Washington DC and now the Clintons are back too. There's "change" for you. The "hope" is the same bs the Clintons peddled for the better part of the 90's. The cycle is complete and no different from the Bush to Clinton transition. It reverted for 8 years from Clinton to Bush and now we see Bush to Obama transition and it smells like 1992/1993 all over again.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Sometimes I wonder if the age requirement for being an adult should be pushed up to 25. At least this way it'll give an excuse for all of the so-called grown ups on this thread for whining like a baby. The fact that anyone got their hopes up so high about the word "change" is embarrassing. We're all supposed to be rational thinking adults, right?

At least let the man get INTO the White House and do something before you all start bitching.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Sometimes I wonder if the age requirement for being an adult should be pushed up to 25. At least this way it'll give an excuse for all of the so-called grown ups on this thread for whining like a baby. The fact that anyone got their hopes up so high about the word "change" is embarrassing. We're all supposed to be rational thinking adults, right?

At least let the man get INTO the White House and do something before you all start bitching.

Wow VinylBoy. I sure as hell hope you are not talking about me here.

I asked a very valid point a few posts ago. I quoted Obama directly and his quote is a direct slam against Clinton for being an insider and a caterer of lobbyist. I can't help but notice that nobody has addressed my quotation of Mr. Elect.

I also find it so ironic that you badger the word "change" too. That is what Obama ran on - change! Change won him over Clinton. Change won him over McCain... yet we are supposed to just, well, expect little to no change now that he is elect? Bologna. Disgusting green bologna at that...

Maybe this is exactly why I never could vote for Obama. Maybe this is why people felt that he was nothing more than a flashy speaker. The people who felt like this said it because they want real change. They are tired of politics as usual. They want their government back. They want their government to be accountable. But in the last few decades our government hasn't been any of that. And to surround yourself with people who have been in that "unrepresentative government," well, that doesn't sit well with those like myself. I truly see it as a "good-ole-boy's club." But hey, I'm just one of those crazy ass mother-fcks who is done with these bullshit political games.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't like Obama, but I truly expected him to be a radical out-of-the-box President. I expected him to break out of this insider crap and show us that he can be an outside thinker. I truly expected him to go, who the hell is a goddamn genius that can do job X that isn't bought out by half the damn lobbyist out there? But damn, that is just wishful thinking I guess.

I'll leave with this quote that sums my thoughts up...
"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

Quit recycling the same bullshit politicians.... they are not the only ones out there that can do the job.

 

[1BiGG1]

You are always a breath of fresh air here Peaceful-Kancer. Logical, lucid arguments presented with great candor.

I agree with what you are asking here. The Obamabots where so caught up in a misguided euphoric frenzy during the campaigns they couldn’t see the forest for the trees, and now that clear evidence exists showing their alleged messiah is really no messiah at all, they can’t even acknowledge it, let alone discuss it.

His flip-flops on things like troops in Iraq showed his cluelessness, his vague answers (read unrealistic sound-bites that sell well to the clueless), his blatant lies before he even gets into office are indicators the bots got sold a line of shit but either they simply don’t know it still, or will not admit it = ouch for them. Now, we are supposed too “give him a change” before further commenting on, or criticizing what already exists = ouch for them again.

This reminds one of the previous Kool Aid crew thinking at the Jim Jones Compound.

 

[HyperHulk]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't like Obama, but I truly expected him to be a radical out-of-the-box President. I expected him to break out of this insider crap and show us that he can be an outside thinker. I truly expected him to go, who the hell is a goddamn genius that can do job X that isn't bought out by half the damn lobbyist out there? But damn, that is just wishful thinking I guess.

Indeed, it is wishful thinking and rather presumptuous to have such high expectations on someone that you couldn't even vote for.

I find the protestations against Obama's change mandate to be interesting. Quite frankly, for the people who don't like Obama, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Obama never ran as some radical out of the box President--radicals don't get elected as President. He ran as sensible thinker who work with people to change the current course of the country and that will happen. Obama isn't Bush and that is change in and of itself. How the country handles international conflicts, the war in Iraq, issue of torture and the mess of Guantanamo Bay, environmental and economic policies will all change under Obama and we've already seen those wheels being put in motion.

You want radical change? Remember when Clinton first got in and he wanted to let gays in the military and change the health system? That was radical and it was fought tooth and nail. Obama is learning from the mistakes of the past, but that's not say he won't make some mistakes of his own, name a President who hasn't made any?

As for bringing in the Clinton people, well from what I remember, times were pretty good when Clinton was President. He worked with a lot of smart, capable people that seemed to care about the country. These people know what they are doing and they know their way around D.C. Quite, frankly the various challenges that the country is facing are too great to not have experienced people working along side of some fresh faces and thinkers to try and move the country back and to a better place.

It is a bit ironic to me that the same people who were vilifying Obama from associating with "radicals" like Wright and Ayers are now claiming that Obama is too conventional and not radical enough.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

You are always a breath of fresh air here Peaceful-Kancer. Logical, lucid arguments presented with great candor.

I agree. I know that Peaceful-Kancer isn't a big fan of either party, and he has shown fairness and tact when debating the issues.

This reminds one of the previous Kool Aid crew thinking at the Jim Jones Compound.

Speaking of tact, what do you find so funny about tragic mass suicide? You've mentioned the Jonestown deaths more than once while referring to the "Obamabots." You're sick.

 

[1BiGG1]

.....


Speaking of tact, what do you find so funny about tragic mass suicide? You've mentioned the Jonestown deaths more than once while referring to the "Obamabots." You're sick.

I never said anything was allegedly “funny”, I said the thinking is the same = mindlessly following and/or apologizing for evident misgivings.

 

[mindseye]

This is the same crazy logic that employers do when they say they are hiring for an entry-level position but they want 5 years of experience.

A cabinet secretary is hardly an "entry-level position". Prior to the election, you mentioned experience as a qualification twice -- once to knock Barack Obama on his lack of experience, and once to praise Ron Paul for his years of experience. Now you're touting knowledge over experience?

Besides the experience factor (which I think is a wise consideration for Obama), there's also the fact that a well-known nominee will have a more rapid confirmation. By virtue of being familiar to the Senate, Clinton, Richardson, Emanuel, and Napolitano, are likely to have speedy confirmations. Given the magnitude and scope of the current national crises, there's an obvious advantage to choosing nominees that can start quickly without being mired down in a protracted confirmation hearing.

 

[tripod]

All new administrations bring in the people that were associated with the party's last rule. It isn't about being loyal or somehow showing favoritism, it is about an administration that can take off running at the gate. These former Clinton era officials are around because they are experienced and highly qualified civil servants.

Obama just doesn't wanna make any rookie mistakes and these people are around to help him succeed.

The Clinton thing is just fucking ridiculous... I think that someone like Guiliani or Bloomberg may be running for her Senate seat and she was scared to lose another election. The Obama people basically just gave her that as a freebie.

Clinton's appointment is horrible because she doesn't believe in negotiating without pre-conditions... what fucking kind of Secretary of State would she make? I thought we were gonna have Bill Richardson as Secretary of State?

Were they worried about replacing Condi with a man and went with Hillary?

All I can think of is that she is gonna lose her senate seat and was appointed out of generosity...

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

A cabinet secretary is hardly an "entry-level position". Prior to the election, you mentioned experience as a qualification twice -- once to knock Barack Obama on his lack of experience, and once to praise Ron Paul for his years of experience. Now you're touting knowledge over experience?

Besides the experience factor (which I think is a wise consideration for Obama), there's also the fact that a well-known nominee will have a more rapid confirmation. By virtue of being familiar to the Senate, Clinton, Richardson, Emanuel, and Napolitano, are likely to have speedy confirmations. Given the magnitude and scope of the current national crises, there's an obvious advantage to choosing nominees that can start quickly without being mired down in a protracted confirmation hearing.

LOL, grab your nuts and step back two steps mindseye. You are the master at putting words into my mouth and it is not appreciated. In fact, did you stalk me here just to do that today. Well, let's set the record straight, and hopefully you don't run off on me like you have in every other scrap that we've gotten into. Feel free to keep putting words in my mouth though, but I'll warn you, I will just ask you to quote me and, like last time, you won't be able to do it.

Onto the chase...

You are right, I did criticize Obama for lack of experience. I also praised Ron Paul for his wealth of experience. You are right there, but that is where your correctness ends.

First off, I didn't bash Obama for his lack of experience in an of itself. I put him down because he (or his Obamabots) claimed he had experience but could not produce any evidence (or very weak). I have no problems with people just thinking that he is the man for the job and could care less about what he has or has not done. But don't tell me that he has done so many good things that make him this superstar, but have very little to back that up with.

As for Ron Paul, look through my posts. I said that Ron Paul had experience in all the crucial areas - economy (he has written books and is endorsed by economic schools), health care (he is a practicing doctor and has been in the health care business for years), and military/war (he was a flight surgeon). To me, this is in contrast to Obama who has no direct schooling in economics. Obama has no books on the economy, Ron Paul does. On health care, Obama is a lawyer who can only observe the problem from the outside. Ron Paul is a doctor who runs his own place and does payments differently than most medical places. Again, Paul has experience and probably knows more about the health care problem than Obama. Then the military. Everyone always touts that Obama is anti-war. No, not compared to Paul. Paul voted against it (Obama says he would have voted against it). Paul didn't agree with the Iraq war, so he voted to not fund it. Obama didn't agree with it so he funded it. That makes no sense.

Do you want to argue with me over any of that. If so, I'll be back.

As for these cabinet positions... seriously, Ron Paul said that if he was asked to be VP that he would have turned it down. Why? Because McCain's views did not match his. Paul is a man who doesn't care about giving backrubs to people and I don't think he is out to make friends. He does what is right. I bet my paycheck that if Ron Paul was elected, we would all be scouring through the internet to see who the hell these people were that he was picking for his cabinet. He'd be picking people that are experienced in their fields that aren't tainted by Washington insider politics.

As for all the "known" people having speedy confirmations... quite frankly, I could give a flying shit on how long it takes them to confirm them. For that matter, I'd almost wish it would take them a long time to confirm them. Then we would know that whoever was picked had to go through the whole process and hasn't been shaking hands and sticking dollar bills up the security guards ass for their entire political career.

On a side note........ Dammit.... Still you, nobody, not VinylBoy, not rec3000 can tell me why the hell Obama said what he said about Clinton and then say, yeah, join my team and not be a fucking hypocrite? Not a damn one of you. This is exactly the bullshit that pisses me off. I present something very clear and not a damn person even tries to refute it. Why? I guess because you cannot.

Just face the facts. Obama considered and therefore called Clinton out as an insider. He said that she was too good with the lobbiest. Then, now, he has chosen her to be one of his closest advisors.

You can take two things out of that.
(A) Obama says whatever he needs to say to get what he wants. In this case, Clinton is not an insider and not in with the lobbiest. However, this makes Obama a blatant liar.
(B) Obama called her an insider because she is an insider and she is in with the lobbiest. In this case, Obama is willingly surrounding himself with people he knows are bought out by lobbiest. However, this makes him a hypocrite because he said that he wanted to clean up insider Washington politics.

So what is it? What did Obama mean by his comment that I posted? I want to freaking know. Spin it up. Spin it up! I just want to know ya'lls damn excuses so I can go ahead and purge my mind from this brain vomit.

:soapbox:

 

[mindseye]

You are right, I did criticize Obama for lack of experience. I also praised Ron Paul for his wealth of experience. You are right there, but that is where your correctness ends.

Then, exactly which words did I 'put in your mouth'? That's all that I claimed you said.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Wow VinylBoy. I sure as hell hope you are not talking about me here.

Nah. Just the completely irrational ones. I sense you have a brain on your shoulders, even if we do disagree sometimes. Unlike some other notable exceptions.

I also find it so ironic that you badger the word "change" too. That is what Obama ran on - change! Change won him over Clinton. Change won him over McCain... yet we are supposed to just, well, expect little to no change now that he is elect? Bologna. Disgusting green bologna at that...

Like I stated before, I originally wanted Clinton as the Democratic nominee. I didn't vote for Obama based on his "change" campaign. The only reason why he did get my vote in November is because his ideals on issues that matter to me are more in tune with my first choice than McCain's. From the beginning, I knew his campaign slogan was just that. But if we really need to be technical, what he's doing IS change. For starters, he's getting a cabinet together that is nothing like the current GOP. He's actually surrounding himself with a number of people that disagreed with him on certain issues in order to spark real discussion and possibly come up with real solutions. Unlike Bush who just hired a bunch of yes-men who would agree with him even if he said 1+1=0. Also, many people in America (including myself) wanted to see a Clinton/Obama (or vice versa) ticket. The fact that he's trying to get Clinton to work with him on some level pleases me.

Maybe this is exactly why I never could vote for Obama. Maybe this is why people felt that he was nothing more than a flashy speaker.

I tend to look at all politicians as used car salesmen who use smoke and mirrors. That's why I don't get too wrapped up in the political speeches or get too attached to any campaign promises. The way government is run these days, there's no way for any President to come through with every single campaign promise. Hell, my parents couldn't always come through with everything I wished for when growing up. But I didn't try to run to an orphanage each time they fell short.

The people who felt like this said it because they want real change. They are tired of politics as usual. They want their government back. They want their government to be accountable. But in the last few decades our government hasn't been any of that.

Everyone's concept of "real change" is different. I do see what Obama is doing as change, even if he's using some old names to do it. It's not as if his entire cabinet is going to be composed of a bunch of good ol' boys & girls. We can't discredit their knowledge on the subject matters he's appointing them to. At the same time, if he created a cabinet with virtual unknowns he'd be chastised for hiring people with no experience. The fact is, opponents of Obama will always find something to complain about. That's politics. As for people not being accountable for their actions in government? We know none have been more flagrant with this than our current GOP. It remains to be seen what the president elect will do, but I'm willing to wait till he gets in office and actually tries to do something before I pass judgement.

And to surround yourself with people who have been in that "unrepresentative government," well, that doesn't sit well with those like myself. I truly see it as a "good-ole-boy's club." But hey, I'm just one of those crazy ass mother-fcks who is done with these bullshit political games.

Political games never change, dude. All we can do is put our faith into the person that shares your ideals more than the other.

I'll leave with this quote that sums my thoughts up...
"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

Heh... :wink:

Quit recycling the same bullshit politicians.... they are not the only ones out there that can do the job.

Well, there's still plenty of time before Obama is in office with cabinet in place. Let's just sit back and watch this play out. One thing's for certain, it's going to be a wild 4 years!

 

[curious n str8]

LOL, grab your nuts and step back two steps mindseye. You are the master at putting words into my mouth and it is not appreciated. In fact, did you stalk me here just to do that today. Well, let's set the record straight, and hopefully you don't run off on me like you have in every other scrap that we've gotten into. Feel free to keep putting words in my mouth though, but I'll warn you, I will just ask you to quote me and, like last time, you won't be able to do it.

Onto the chase...

You are right, I did criticize Obama for lack of experience. I also praised Ron Paul for his wealth of experience. You are right there, but that is where your correctness ends.

First off, I didn't bash Obama for his lack of experience in an of itself. I put him down because he (or his Obamabots) claimed he had experience but could not produce any evidence (or very weak). I have no problems with people just thinking that he is the man for the job and could care less about what he has or has not done. But don't tell me that he has done so many good things that make him this superstar, but have very little to back that up with.

As for Ron Paul, look through my posts. I said that Ron Paul had experience in all the crucial areas - economy (he has written books and is endorsed by economic schools), health care (he is a practicing doctor and has been in the health care business for years), and military/war (he was a flight surgeon). To me, this is in contrast to Obama who has no direct schooling in economics. Obama has no books on the economy, Ron Paul does. On health care, Obama is a lawyer who can only observe the problem from the outside. Ron Paul is a doctor who runs his own place and does payments differently than most medical places. Again, Paul has experience and probably knows more about the health care problem than Obama. Then the military. Everyone always touts that Obama is anti-war. No, not compared to Paul. Paul voted against it (Obama says he would have voted against it). Paul didn't agree with the Iraq war, so he voted to not fund it. Obama didn't agree with it so he funded it. That makes no sense.

Do you want to argue with me over any of that. If so, I'll be back.

As for these cabinet positions... seriously, Ron Paul said that if he was asked to be VP that he would have turned it down. Why? Because McCain's views did not match his. Paul is a man who doesn't care about giving backrubs to people and I don't think he is out to make friends. He does what is right. I bet my paycheck that if Ron Paul was elected, we would all be scouring through the internet to see who the hell these people were that he was picking for his cabinet. He'd be picking people that are experienced in their fields that aren't tainted by Washington insider politics.

As for all the "known" people having speedy confirmations... quite frankly, I could give a flying shit on how long it takes them to confirm them. For that matter, I'd almost wish it would take them a long time to confirm them. Then we would know that whoever was picked had to go through the whole process and hasn't been shaking hands and sticking dollar bills up the security guards ass for their entire political career.

On a side note........ Dammit.... Still you, nobody, not VinylBoy, not rec3000 can tell me why the hell Obama said what he said about Clinton and then say, yeah, join my team and not be a fucking hypocrite? Not a damn one of you. This is exactly the bullshit that pisses me off. I present something very clear and not a damn person even tries to refute it. Why? I guess because you cannot.

Just face the facts. Obama considered and therefore called Clinton out as an insider. He said that she was too good with the lobbiest. Then, now, he has chosen her to be one of his closest advisors.

You can take two things out of that.
(A) Obama says whatever he needs to say to get what he wants. In this case, Clinton is not an insider and not in with the lobbiest. However, this makes Obama a blatant liar.
(B) Obama called her an insider because she is an insider and she is in with the lobbiest. In this case, Obama is willingly surrounding himself with people he knows are bought out by lobbiest. However, this makes him a hypocrite because he said that he wanted to clean up insider Washington politics.

So what is it? What did Obama mean by his comment that I posted? I want to freaking know. Spin it up. Spin it up! I just want to know ya'lls damn excuses so I can go ahead and purge my mind from this brain vomit.

:soapbox:

OOhh they'll find someway to spin it PK they always do. I love it when you speak you mind :clap: :151:

 

[B_starinvestor]

I tend to look at all politicians as used car salesmen who use smoke and mirrors. That's why I don't get too wrapped up in the political speeches or get too attached to any campaign promises. The way government is run these days, there's no way for any President to come through with every single campaign promise. Hell, my parents couldn't always come through with everything I wished for when growing up. But I didn't try to run to an orphanage each time they fell short.

Wow, when did you reach this epiphany...November 5th? You haven't been singing this tune for long. The irony and flipflopping have reached Dangerverload for you.