Obama '08?

@okie,

okie wrote:

So, I take it then that you agree that Obama was and is lying about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

He wasn't and isn't. Do you not understand what the word Fungible means? How money even works?

Cycloptichorn

@Cycloptichorn,

Did you read the Mother Jones article, which pointed out that Democratic organizations do the same kinds of accounting methods? They talked about the "fungible' argument and basically dispelled it and pointed out the Democrats hypocrisy in regard to this issue.

And you continue to ignore the fact that Obama himself had foreign contributions, not from some foreign corporation that did business here in the U.S. wherein the money was not even spent by the U.S. Chamber in their ads, but Obama did use the money for his campaign. It was a crime, and no surprise, nothing has been done about it.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Did you read the Mother Jone article, which pointed out that Democratic organizations do the same kinds of accounting methods? They talked about the "fungible' argument and basically dispelled it and pointed out the Democrats hypocrisy in regard to this issue.

They didn't dispel it - they called out the Democrats for lying in the same fashion as the Chamber of Commerce currently is. You got the wrong conclusion from the article. And you are right: those Dems who made that argument during the HCR debate were indeed being hypocrites.

But that doesn't make the argument false, or the fact that money IS fungible false. It most certainly is, and putting money in one pot - so you can spend more money out of another pot - is the same thing as putting money in the illegal pot, Okie. A child understands this, yet you are dancing around the law with a smile on your face.

And it's easy to understand why: for all your posturing and bitching about Obama taking foreign funding during the election, the truth is you don't give a **** about foreign money influencing elections at all. You couldn't care less. All you care about is Republicans winning - and if the Chamber gets foreign funds to do it, mores's the better. Right?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think you are more than hypocritical about this. I for one would be thrilled if we would investigate and prosecute everyone that takes foreign contributions. If so, Clinton and Obama both probably would have been convicted long ago. By the way, those crimes were not hidden or solved with accounting methods, they were simply ignored.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think you are more than hypocritical about this. I for one would be thrilled if we would investigate and prosecute everyone that takes foreign contributions. If so, Clinton and Obama both probably would have been convicted long ago. By the way, those crimes were not hidden or solved with accounting methods, they were simply ignored.

Just as you would have this one ignored?

We do have a group who looks into these things, yaknow - the FEC. They probably aren't too motivated to check it out, tho, because you don't want them to ever get raises and think that they are 'useless and wasteful' because they aren't part of the military.

Besides - how am I hypocritical about this? I'm the one who says that things should be looked into!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Besides - how am I hypocritical about this? I'm the one who says that things should be looked into!
Cycloptichorn

Because I don't think you have called for a full investigation into Obama's foreign contributions, nor did you when Clinton was receiving them. I am all for checking out the U.S.C.C., but I want everyone checked out equally. I also want all the liberal groups checked and audited. Remember when Clinton was having the IRS audit all of his political enemies? Such was repugnant, and the accusations by Obama smack of the same type of mentality, to target ones political enemies. I think it is in fact an abuse of power, cyclops. I think if you are not hypocritical, you would agree, that we need equal enforcement across the board. Obama could begin an honest game by condemning himself and his own campaign contributions from foreign sources, and he could call for a full investigation of himself.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Besides - how am I hypocritical about this? I'm the one who says that things should be looked into!
Cycloptichorn

Because I don't think you have called for a full investigation into Obama's foreign contributions, nor did you when Clinton was receiving them. I am all for checking out the U.S.C.C., but I want everyone checked out equally. I also want all the liberal groups checked and audited. Remember when Clinton was having the IRS audit all of his political enemies? Such was repugnant, and the accusations by Obama smack of the same type of mentality, to target ones political enemies. I think it is in fact an abuse of power, cyclops. I think if you are not hypocritical, you would agree, that we need equal enforcement across the board. Obama could begin an honest game by condemning himself and his own campaign contributions from foreign sources, and he could call for a full investigation of himself.

So says the guy who blithely looked the other way when Republicans targeted ACORN as a matter of course...

I like your suggestion for Obama to 'condemn himself.' For what, exactly? Surely you don't suggest that unsolicited donations from foreigners, which are then given back when the source of funding is revealed, is the equivalent of SPECIFICALLY soliciting donations from foreign businesses and governments and then using those funds to run attack ads?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, do you not understand what the word fungible means? Do you understand how money even works?

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged
Main Entry: 2fungible Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: "
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin fungibilis, from Latin fungi to perform + -ibilis -ible -- more at FUNCTION
1 : of such a kind or nature that one specimen or part may be used in place of another specimen or equal part in the satisfaction of an obligation -- used of things that can be counted, weighed, or measured and are consumed or alienated by use (as food, coal, oil, lumber) <fungible goods enjoyed under the usufruct of property>
2 : capable of mutual substitution : INTERCHANGEABLE

0 Replies

@okie,

Why would anybody call for a "full investigation" on any president? That's what the congress is for.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It would be nice if they would do their job, ci, but sadly we now have a Democratic Congress that will circle the wagons and protect their own. This is their standard practice. We see it with Fannie and Freddie, Obama, the list is long. The one lesson I learned during the Clinton years was that the Democratic party was more important than principles. Republicans seem a bit different, if any of them are caught with something serious, they will throw their own out. In fact, we saw that with Nixon, it was Republicans that went into his office and essentially told him "pal, its time to go." Oh for the good old days when principles meant something to everyone, not just one party.

1 Reply

@okie,

What are you talking about? The congress is being stymied by the GOP in congress; they have become known as the No Party. Where have you been these past two years?

The GOP even defeated legislation that would have helped small businesses.

Don't you ever read the news?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

No matter what the GOP does, no matter what legislative tricks and obstructions they throw up, they do not have the votes to block anything.

If the dems want something passed, all they have to do is use their majority and bring it to a vote. Of course, they would then all have to vote together to get their way.

So to say the GOP is blocking everything is not totally honest, and you know it.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Parados, you deserve credit, you did find quotes of mine, wherein I used the term destroy for Obama's actions in those posts. My apologies to you. I probably was particularly irritated on those days I placed those posts.

I don't see an apology for calling me a liar okie. I only see you admitting that you were wrong. and apologizing that I had to find your quotes before you would admit they were true. That isn't an apology for calling me a liar okie. Hell, it isn't even an admission that I was correct in my statements. You excuse it as if you didn't really mean the statements. But didn't you say you only posted what is true? Huh.. It appears you are nothing but a lying sack if **** okie. Either you thought the statements were true or you lied about only saying what is true.

'You deserve credit" has nothing to do with admitting you called me a liar. It is only an attempt to excuse your lies.

Quote:

I think you have known that some of the things you have accused me of are simply not true. For example, so far we have uncovered at least one example, that of you accusing me of saying that Obama hates America. You have yet to find any quote to that effect, but have merely translated other statements that I have made in reference to Obama

So.. your personal standard that you apply to yourself okie is that unless you can provide an exact quote, you won't interpret meanings of what other said? I hardly think that is your standard okie. Again, you are more then willing to prove how little personal decency you have. Either hold yourself to the same standards or stop claiming you are somehow decent and honest because you clearly aren't.

Quote:

Surely, parados, you hopefully have enough common sense and decency to understand the points here without continually attempting to demonize my opinions and accusing us conservatives of stuff that is not accurate. I w

You are too funny okie. Do you have the common sense and decency to stop attempting to demonize the opinions of others? Will you apologize to all those you have demonized? Will you stop accusing liberals of stuff that isn't accurate? Will you have the decency to apologize to them? Your actions speak louder than anything okie. You write about how you are free to express your opinions but then when others express theirs they aren't decent human beings. You are so full of **** okie.

Quote:

As I have already said, I think you are being intellectually dishonest in your debate methods, that is what I believe, and I believe you have not disproven or discredited that with any proofs, parados.

Which only goes to show that you didn't really apologize. Yeah.. you are a piece of work okie. You don't know the what it means to apologize yet you demand that others apologize to you.

Quote:

And from now on, you will need to provide proofs of all of your points about what I have said

Hold yourself to that standard okie or admit you are dishonest and not decent.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

No matter what the GOP does, no matter what legislative tricks and obstructions they throw up, they do not have the votes to block anything.

If the dems want something passed, all they have to do is use their majority and bring it to a vote. Of course, they would then all have to vote together to get their way.

So to say the GOP is blocking everything is not totally honest, and you know it.

It is honest, because the standard for passing bills in the Senate is 50 vote, not 60. The GOP is using a procedural trick time and time again to force that number to rise to 60. The Dems have allowed them to do it, in order to preserver their ability to use the trick in the future (which I think is a dumb call personally). The Dems only have 58 people in their Caucus and it's extremely difficult to get them all to vote together, even on legislation which is only partially controversial, because the Dem party is not a lockstep one like the Republican party.

When you have 57 or 58 Dems voting in favor of something, and 40 Republicans voting against, and the vote fails due to procedural tricks that the minority uses, it's accurate to say that the minority has used a trick to block a valid vote from passing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

It is honest, because the standard for passing bills in the Senate is 50 vote, not 60. The GOP is using a procedural trick time and time again to force that number to rise to 60. The Dems have allowed them to do it, in order to preserver their ability to use the trick in the future (which I think is a dumb call personally).

And if I remember correctly, this is the same tactic that the dems used when the repubs controlled congress under Bush.

Quote:

When you have 57 or 58 Dems voting in favor of something, and 40 Republicans voting against

OK, that still leaves 2 or 3 people. There are 100 people in the Senate.

Quote:

The Dems only have 58 people in their Caucus and it's extremely difficult to get them all to vote together

This sounds more like a problem with the dems then with the repubs.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Bullshit. You are refusing to admit the fact that the Republicans are abusing the rules in order to keep the Dems from passing bills which they have enough people to pass.

Quote:

And if I remember correctly, this is the same tactic that the dems used when the repubs controlled congress under Bush.

They used it a few times, yes. The Republicans use it on EVERY single vote that comes up. Every time. That's why it's an abuse - they have used a technicality to block legislation that they didn't have the numbers to block, over and over again. It certainly isn't the Democrats who are blocking their own legislation.

You are trying to use a cute construction to avoid admitting that the Republicans have in fact done everything they could to block anything at all from passing. There really is no comparison between the actions of the Dems in previous congresses and the Republicans in this one (in both houses, actually), who have taken obstructionism to new heights.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If it is legal Cyclo what's the problem? Them not doing it would be the surprising thing surely? They are not there to seek your approval.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not refusing to admit anything.

But I find it interesting that you say the repubs are abusing the rules.
They are doing nothing illegal or unethical.
And while I may agree with you that what they are doing might be wrong, as long as they are following the rules there is no problem.
If a bill is that important, then the dems should be able to get a successful cloture vote.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I'm not refusing to admit anything.

But I find it interesting that you say the repubs are abusing the rules.

They are abusing the rules. This isn't an opinion, or something I just decided was true yesterday. It's a fact. I suggest you research this issue in depth.

Quote:

They are doing nothing illegal or unethical.
And while I may agree with you that what they are doing might be wrong, as long as they are following the rules there is no problem.

Well, it isn't illegal, but I don't know if I'd say it wasn't unethical. It certainly is wrong.

Quote:

If a bill is that important, then the dems should be able to get a successful cloture vote.

But, this isn't the way the Senate is designed to work. Just one example, it's seriously screwing the country up at the moment; there are a gigantic number of unfilled positions in cabinets and in the Judiciary b.c the Republicans won't let ANYONE go forward, even if they are non-controversial.

The founders never intended the Senate to work this way; the Filibuster didn't even exist back then. What is going on right now is not productive for our country and doesn't help anyone. In the past we haven't had a problem with this, because both sides reserved their use of the Filibuster for situations which were truly important; now the Republicans use it on every single thing, everything.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

The founders never intended the Senate to work this way;

They never intended on a two party system either, cyclo.

Quote:

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion." - George Washington

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know