John Boehner adds lobbyist to staff

[Samson]

She made it clear that her critcism was of Obama promising no lobbyists yet he has over 40...Boehner never promised no lobbyists.

Frankly, if someone shits in my boot, its irrelevant to me whether or not they promised that they wouldn't.

Yes...I agree...

However......

If you left your boot on the side of the street and someone shit in it, you may be upset, but you had only yourself to blame.

Yet...

If a friend said to you "leave your boot with me and I proimise you I will ensure no one shits in it"...and he shits in it......you have a good reason to blame him.

What if I elected shit to represent me, then found it in my boot?

 

[Modbert]

Yes...I agree...

However......

If you left your boot on the side of the street and someone shit in it, you may be upset, but you had only yourself to blame.

Yet...

If a friend said to you "leave your boot with me and I proimise you I will ensure no one shits in it"...and he shits in it......you have a good reason to blame him.

Actually, that's a false analogy.

A better analogy would be the following:

A husband promises to not cheat on his wife, he cheats anyway. A husband doesn't promise to not cheat on his wife, but does so anyway.

Either way, the wife is getting screwed (figuratively, not literally of course). In his analogy, the wife would be the American people.

 

[Jarhead]

Where is there any lack of transparency? It isn't like Boehner promised to do something and has welched, unlike the current incompetent joke int he White House.

So you're okay with Boehner having lobbyists but mad with Obama because he promised to not have lobbyists but has them?

Mad at Obama?

I am not mad at him. I knew he was full of it when he proimised no more lobbyists. I expected himn to go back oin the promise.

Cali Gal brought his "promise" up to show how you and the rest of the left are hypocrites.

You seemed to have given Obama a pass even though he proimised otherwise, but ready to crucify Boehner for doing the same thing...even though he DID NOT promise otherwise.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I criticize people when criticism is warranted. Did he promise not to employ lobbyists or not? If not, then there is no valid reason to criticize. Obama, on the other hand, clearly and emphatically promised not to allow lobbyists in his administration.

You don't think Boehner deserves criticism for promising more transparency and having lobbyists in his employment? So you're okay with Boehner having lobbyists? Simple yes or no will suffice.

Where is there any lack of transparency? It isn't like Boehner promised to do something and has welched, unlike the current incompetent joke int he White House.

He said he heard us; he said he got it. And he proves this by turning around and doing the exact opposite of what the message was? Of getting down to business as usual? Nope, that just doesn't work for me.

 

[Samson]

You don't think Boehner deserves criticism for promising more transparency and having lobbyists in his employment? So you're okay with Boehner having lobbyists? Simple yes or no will suffice.

Where is there any lack of transparency? It isn't like Boehner promised to do something and has welched, unlike the current incompetent joke int he White House.

He said he heard us; he said he got it. And he proves this by turning around and doing the exact opposite of what the message was? Of getting down to business as usual? Nope, that just doesn't work for me.

Boehner = RINO

 

[Modbert]

Cali Gal brought his "promise" up to show how you and the rest of the left are hypocrites.

You seemed to have given Obama a pass even though he proimised otherwise, but ready to crucify Boehner for doing the same thing...even though he DID NOT promise otherwise.

How am I a hypocrite? How am I giving Obama a pass? I even said in this thread that Obama was wrong just as much Boehner is for having lobbyists. The problem in this thread isn't me. It's people like you and California Girl who are thinking about this in partisan ideology terms.

This isn't a matter of Liberal vs. Conservative, it's the American People vs the Corporate Machine that doesn't yours or mine best interest in mind. Nor should it obviously, corporations first interest is to increase profits for the shareholders. The problem however is when the lobbyists are the ones pulling the strings behind our lawmakers, and the American people no longer have a choice in the matter but rather the illusion of choice.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Where is there any lack of transparency? It isn't like Boehner promised to do something and has welched, unlike the current incompetent joke int he White House.

He said he heard us; he said he got it. And he proves this by turning around and doing the exact opposite of what the message was? Of getting down to business as usual? Nope, that just doesn't work for me.

Boehner = RINO

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI[/ame]

 

[Common Sense]

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

here you can judge for yourself what Obama has kept in the way of promises, broken, had to compromise and hasnt been able to fulfil yet.

 

[Jarhead]

Yes...I agree...

However......

If you left your boot on the side of the street and someone shit in it, you may be upset, but you had only yourself to blame.

Yet...

If a friend said to you "leave your boot with me and I proimise you I will ensure no one shits in it"...and he shits in it......you have a good reason to blame him.

Actually, that's a false analogy.

A better analogy would be the following:

A husband promises to not cheat on his wife, he cheats anyway. A husband doesn't promise to not cheat on his wife, but does so anyway.

Either way, the wife is getting screwed (figuratively, not literally of course). In his analogy, the wife would be the American people.

Well...sort of...but the best analogy...

A woman agrees to marry a man BASED ON HIS PROMISE TO NOT CHEAT.
Woamn= American voters
Proimise not to cheat= promise not to hire lobbyists
Man= Obama as a candidate

Another woman marries a man knowing he has cheated in the past and did not promise not to cheat nor did he say he will cheat
Woman - American people
No promise one way or the other=what Bohener did not address
Cheating Man=Boehner who is part of the old boys club that have always hired lobbyists

Now...looking at it that way......there IS a difference in who is more in the wrong. The first woman was duped....the second woman knew what she was getting

 

[The Rabbi]

Where is there any lack of transparency? It isn't like Boehner promised to do something and has welched, unlike the current incompetent joke int he White House.

So you're okay with Boehner having lobbyists but mad with Obama because he promised to not have lobbyists but has them?

For starters, unlike you I am a mature person. I do not get mad at politicians. I oppose their policies and might think they are boobs but that's different.

I don't care if someone worked as a lobbyist and then got on with the gov't. Nothing wrong with it, imo.
The issue with Obama is that he promised a whole new post-partisan program. He has yet to deliver on any of it. He has welched on virtually every promise he ever made. That includes quitting smoking, something he can actually control. The hiring lobbyists is just one more example of his hypocrisy.

 

[California Girl]

I criticize people when criticism is warranted. Did he promise not to employ lobbyists or not? If not, then there is no valid reason to criticize. Obama, on the other hand, clearly and emphatically promised not to allow lobbyists in his administration.

You don't think Boehner deserves criticism for promising more transparency and having lobbyists in his employment? So you're okay with Boehner having lobbyists? Simple yes or no will suffice.

I would have an issue if he had lied about it. But I don't see anywhere in that article that says he did. He announced the hiring of a lobbyist. Is that not transparent?

Obama lied. Boehner didn't. Please explain what I'm supposed to be having a hissy fit about?

 

[Modbert]

Well...sort of...but the best analogy...

A woman agrees to marry a man BASED ON HIS PROMISE TO NOT CHEAT.
Woamn= American voters
Proimise not to cheat= promise not to hire lobbyists
Man= Obama as a candidate

Another woman marries a man knowing he has cheated in the past and did not promise not to cheat nor did he say he will cheat
Woman - American people
No promise one way or the other=what Bohener did not address
Cheating Man=Boehner who is part of the old boys club that have always hired lobbyists

Now...looking at it that way......there IS a difference in who is more in the wrong. The first woman was duped....the second woman knew what she was getting

If a woman is agreeing to marry someone on the basis that they promise to not cheat, then that woman shouldn't be marrying that person in the first place. Not cheating in a relationship is something that at this point is implied. I think most people would assume that going into a relationship that their girlfriend isn't the town bicycle or that their boyfriend is the town horndog.

The problem with your assumption is that people voted for Obama on the basis that he said no lobbyists. With the way the economy was, pretty sure that was the least of people's worries.

As for your second analogy, the woman agreeing to marry someone who cheated in the past is someone who isn't clearly thinking. Sounds like the type of woman who gets abused either physically or emotionally and feels like they can "change him" when in reality it isn't going to happen. For the most part, once a cheater, always a cheater.

Also, for the second analogy, the promise is implied to not cheat again.

Your analogies don't work here because they're not based on reality, or at the very least in intelligent thinking.

 

[The Rabbi]

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

here you can judge for yourself what Obama has kept in the way of promises, broken, had to compromise and hasnt been able to fulfil yet.

Read the website.

 

[Modbert]

I would have an issue if he had lied about it. But I don't see anywhere in that article that says he did. He announced the hiring of a lobbyist. Is that not transparent?

Obama lied. Boehner didn't. Please explain what I'm supposed to be having a hissy fit about?

I guess I have to repeat myself.

So you're okay with Boehner having lobbyists? Simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[California Girl]

Cali Gal brought his "promise" up to show how you and the rest of the left are hypocrites.

You seemed to have given Obama a pass even though he proimised otherwise, but ready to crucify Boehner for doing the same thing...even though he DID NOT promise otherwise.

How am I a hypocrite? How am I giving Obama a pass? I even said in this thread that Obama was wrong just as much Boehner is for having lobbyists. The problem in this thread isn't me. It's people like you and California Girl who are thinking about this in partisan ideology terms.

This isn't a matter of Liberal vs. Conservative, it's the American People vs the Corporate Machine that doesn't yours or mine best interest in mind. Nor should it obviously, corporations first interest is to increase profits for the shareholders. The problem however is when the lobbyists are the ones pulling the strings behind our lawmakers, and the American people no longer have a choice in the matter but rather the illusion of choice.

I don't even like Boenher. I think he's a moron... but I'm waiting for someone to explain why I should be pissed at him.

So far, you've said "he's employing lobbyists"... so I asked for the promise from him stating that he would not employ lobbyists. Because if he has not said he won't, he is perfectly entitled to employ them.

You then said it's about 'transparency'.... well, he announced the hiring so he's being open and transparent about it.

So.... what the fuck am I supposed to be pissed about now?

 

[Modbert]

For starters, unlike you I am a mature person. I do not get mad at politicians. I oppose their policies and might think they are boobs but that's different.

I don't care if someone worked as a lobbyist and then got on with the gov't. Nothing wrong with it, imo.
The issue with Obama is that he promised a whole new post-partisan program. He has yet to deliver on any of it. He has welched on virtually every promise he ever made. That includes quitting smoking, something he can actually control. The hiring lobbyists is just one more example of his hypocrisy.

Well that's a lie.

But going back to the point, you don't mind when Boehner has lobbyists and promises change in Washington but get mad at Obama when he says the exact same thing. Got it.

 

[Common Sense]

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

here you can judge for yourself what Obama has kept in the way of promises, broken, had to compromise and hasnt been able to fulfil yet.

Read the website.

grow a brain jack ass

 

[California Girl]

I would have an issue if he had lied about it. But I don't see anywhere in that article that says he did. He announced the hiring of a lobbyist. Is that not transparent?

Obama lied. Boehner didn't. Please explain what I'm supposed to be having a hissy fit about?

I guess I have to repeat myself.

So you're okay with Boehner having lobbyists? Simple yes or no will suffice.

And I clearly have to repeat myself. Did he - or did he not - promise not to employ lobbyists? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[The Rabbi]

I would have an issue if he had lied about it. But I don't see anywhere in that article that says he did. He announced the hiring of a lobbyist. Is that not transparent?

Obama lied. Boehner didn't. Please explain what I'm supposed to be having a hissy fit about?

I guess I have to repeat myself.

So you're okay with Boehner having lobbyists? Simple yes or no will suffice.

Clearly the answer is Yes. Now please explain why anyone should have an issue with it.

 

[Modbert]

I don't even like Boenher. I think he's a moron... but I'm waiting for someone to explain why I should be pissed at him.

So far, you've said "he's employing lobbyists"... so I asked for the promise from him stating that he would not employ lobbyists. Because if he has not said he won't, he is perfectly entitled to employ them.

You then said it's about 'transparency'.... well, he announced the hiring so he's being open and transparent about it.

So.... what the fuck am I supposed to be pissed about now?

So if your spouse decided to tell you right to your face that they're going to cheat on you, you'd be alright with that? You still haven't answered me whether you're okay with Boehner having lobbyists.