It takes a Thief....

[Devastatin Dave]

Anyone see that show "It takes a Thief"? Well I guess the Obama administration is using its own version, the Treasury Secretary, in an effort to go after internation tax cheats...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/04/content_10937937.htm
Maybe Attorney general Eric Holder could start by going after his old client Mark Rich....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22lardner.html

Yes, this Administration is really bringing Change to Washington. Of course all you Obama Jock Sniffers will do your best to defend your Messiah.

[Meneldil]

Why so much hate ? :no:

[Major Robert Dump]

I would actually love to see the whole choosing/vetting process from beginning to end, and Obamas reaction each time the crap hits the fan. Is he asking these guys up front if there's anything they need to be up front about, any skeletons, etc? Are they saying no, and then getting outed? Are they saying yes, and they try to work through it together? Does he know these people outside of the professional relationship or are his picks based on others recommendations?

I guess, what I really want to know, is Obama palming his forehead every time yet another nominee/pick turns out to be a douche and thinking "not again." Or does he not care?

While he admitted he screwed up with Daschle and others, he had the chance to castrate someone who brought shame to his party and the system, but instead played it as "unfortunate" and a "loss of talent." I'm sure in private he told them they were a no-go, but publicly why does he have to act all Jesus-like? It doesn't wash, they didn't make mistakes, they cheated and got caught.
Hang them out to dry.

I don't believe for even a second that Republican leaders don't engage in the same shenanigans, but so far I gotta say that Bush was a lot more careful and meticulous in his picks. I'm sure his families' political and intelligence community contacts helped vet the candidates (or cover their misdeeds), I just wish Obama would be a little more prudent in his picks.

This also makes me wonder how much of Obama's "I can't pick worth a crap" and noob status has to do with him leaving some of the higher ranking posts with Bush appointees. If he can't even pick a commerce guy without tax issues, imagine what sort of skeletons the background check into a potential Secretary of Defense would unearth.

[Devastatin Dave]

Why so much hate ? :no:

Since when did common sense become "hate"? I guess its easier to call it hate than actually discussing the issue. Just call me a Nazi and go have some drinks. :2thumbsup:

[Whacker]

All politicians are crooks, every last one. I fail to see what the problem is here.

[rory_20_uk]

I would actually love to see the whole choosing/vetting process from beginning to end, and Obamas reaction each time the crap hits the fan. Is he asking these guys up front if there's anything they need to be up front about, any skeletons, etc? Are they saying no, and then getting outed? Are they saying yes, and they try to work through it together? Does he know these people outside of the professional relationship or are his picks based on others recommendations?

I guess, what I really want to know, is Obama palming his forehead every time yet another nominee/pick turns out to be a douche and thinking "not again." Or does he not care?

While he admitted he screwed up with Daschle and others, he had the chance to castrate someone who brought shame to his party and the system, but instead played it as "unfortunate" and a "loss of talent." I'm sure in private he told them they were a no-go, but publicly why does he have to act all Jesus-like? It doesn't wash, they didn't make mistakes, they cheated and got caught.
Hang them out to dry.

I don't believe for even a second that Republican leaders don't engage in the same shenanigans, but so far I gotta say that Bush was a lot more careful and meticulous in his picks. I'm sure his families' political and intelligence community contacts helped vet the candidates (or cover their misdeeds), I just wish Obama would be a little more prudent in his picks.

This also makes me wonder how much of Obama's "I can't pick worth a crap" and noob status has to do with him leaving some of the higher ranking posts with Bush appointees. If he can't even pick a commerce guy without tax issues, imagine what sort of skeletons the background check into a potential Secretary of Defense would unearth.

I agree.

I imagine thta Obama is not tearing them in half in public lest any things turn up that he... might have cause, in retrospect, to regret. Hence why politicians pass draconian laws for us, yet seem to playfully slap each other on the wrist when caught perjuring / bribing / using drugs / whatever.

If I accept a gift worth more than £6 I can get into trouble. Odd that politicians don't seem to quite get around to the same controls on themselves...

~:smoking:

[Meneldil]

Since when did common sense become "hate"? I guess its easier to call it hate than actually discussing the issue. Just call me a Nazi and go have some drinks. :2thumbsup:

Can I call you a commie and still have some drinks ?

[KukriKhan]

Of course all you Obama Jock Sniffers will do your best to defend your Messiah.

Dude.

Ya need to get off yer high-horse of righteousness and cut the man a break; he's never even mentioned Messiah, much less jock-sniffin'.

Really.

I mean, c'mon: Just cuz his experience is as a Chi-town poli, where cash rules, laws droolz, and influence skoolz... and his e'nomics (ever-so-slightly) resemble Mafia protection schemes... and his foreign policy looks a lot like CPD's gang-negotiation tactics... and his domestic agenda consists of (mostly) "Scoreboard!" proclamations...

'at don' mean 'e don' mean well for us. Itz still early dayz, Dude. Yer jumpin' th' gun, man. Honeymoon. Everybody deserves one, after spending (how many?) millions of america's dollars to get the job, right?

After that experience of running a campaign, and spending money donated to you, why the hell would you not follow the same strategy in office that got you there in the first place?: make pretty speeches, yank more 'contributions', apply the first apparent band-aid.

In less than 2 years, ya gotta go back out there and do the campaign thingee again. Why start disadvantaged?

Yanno?

Chill-peace. :thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

Bush was regularly flogged here. People wished physical harm on him and got nary a slap on the wrists.

Now the only bias I see in the backroom is the one towards Ireland and I'll accept that, however I don't see why people are making fun of Dev Dave and calling him a conspiracy theorist.

Is he being over the top? Sure. But we all know that he is using hyperbole. This lol to be honest.

[KukriKhan]

Who's making fun?

[Strike For The South]

Who's making fun?

Not the correct term I guess. Political Gang bang ?

[KukriKhan]

Maybe it looks that way to you, my friend, but I guaran-dang-tee ya: Dave knows whatthehell I mean. And it's got nothing to do with any kinda gangbang, PC or otherwise.

All I've ever asked of anybody here is: respect for the other guy's viewpoint. And civility.

Otherwise: whatthehell are we doing here? We could shout at each other, to our hearts' content on any one of the gazillion www politics/culture/religion discussion forums.

But here, in this place, our voices get heard above the din, because respect is shown to all contributions. Even Daves'. Even your's. Even mine.

[Strike For The South]

I know Dave is being crass. I'm here to spread Texas, thats what they recruited me for.

Maybe Daves posts are off putting some people, I guess Im yelling fire when there aint none.

[Adrian II]

Yes, this Administration is really bringing Change to Washington. Of course all you Obama Jock Sniffers will do your best to defend your Messiah.He won. Get over it.

I miss Louis.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I miss you too, Adrian! But I wouldn't dare post in another Obama thread after the last one. The mods gave me a spanking so severe it made my poor, perfectly shaped arse ache even more than it did after I spend a weekend at Dave's.


~:mecry::whip:

[Gregoshi]

The mods gave me a spanking so severe it made my poor, perfectly shaped arse ache even more than it did after I spend a weekend at Dave's.

Was that one of Dave's famous "Happy Endings" weekends? :sweatdrop:


On topic, I tend to agree with Dave's point in that Obama's appointments (or attempted appointments) are not giving me the warm and fuzzies. They aren't going to get much done if they spend most of their time in front of hearing committees defending a laundry list of actual or imaginary wrong-doings. However, it is beginning to look like the latest stimulus bill could be fully funded if administration officials just paid their taxes. :laugh4:

[Jolt]

Anyone see that show "It takes a Thief"? Well I guess the Obama administration is using its own version, the Treasury Secretary, in an effort to go after internation tax cheats...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/04/content_10937937.htm
Maybe Attorney general Eric Holder could start by going after his old client Mark Rich....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22lardner.html

Yes, this Administration is really bringing Change to Washington. Of course all you Obama Jock Sniffers will do your best to defend your Messiah.

All that (And previous posts)

=

Lynch: Obama?

Is there anything he done that you think it is even remotely positive? Something I suppose McCain would be the Greatest man in the world to do?

[KukriKhan]

He won. Get over it.

We hear that a lot lately over here. Even from The Man himself. Sorta like: "Our team won more seats, so sit down, shut up, and watch." which infuriates the oppostition (who also won their seats).

It's still too early for me to tell whether The Amazing Mr. O is:

1) a well-intentioned amateur, who learns quickly
2) a run-of-the-mill average politician with good speech-delivery
3) a commie 'plant' bent on wrecking the country

I should be able to decide by this summer. Meanwhile, despite his obsession with the public wallet, as long as the Constitution stays in place, he can't do any worse than the guys before him. I think.

[Whacker]

I should be able to decide by this summer. Meanwhile, despite his obsession with the public wallet, as long as the Constitution stays in place, he can't do any worse than the guys before him. I think.

Or he could just ignore it, or blatantly flaunt it, like the last yay-hoo did. Time will tell I guess. I'm still undecided.

[Gregoshi]

I should be able to decide by this summer. Meanwhile, despite his obsession with the public wallet, as long as the Constitution stays in place, he can't do any worse than the guys before him. I think.
As the late, great Slim Pikens said in Blazing Saddles "Ditto!"

[Adrian II]

I miss you too, Adrian! But I wouldn't dare post in another Obama thread after the last one. The mods gave me a spanking so severe it made my poor, perfectly shaped arse ache even more than it did after I spend a weekend at Dave's.


~:mecry::whip:Louis my dear, it's our Europinko sense of humour humor what did us in. Never has the truth been so niggardly dealt with as in that thread.

[Devastatin Dave]

All that (And previous posts)

=

Lynch: Obama?

Is there anything he done that you think it is even remotely positive? Something I suppose McCain would be the Greatest man in the world to do?

Yes, there is. He beat McCain and showed that if you run a Democrat-lite against a Democrat, the American people want the real thing, not some RINO. He's got a good salute too which Clinton never took the time to learn how to do properly. I like that he is going to fund abortions outside the United States because that means less of my tax dollar will go to some worthless foriegner to support the rest of their miserable lives. That kind of abortion is just awesome!!! :yes:

[Devastatin Dave]

Adrian, why did you get a spanking for the last thread? I'm sorry if you did.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We hear that a lot lately over here. Even from The Man himself. Sorta like: "Our team won more seats, so sit down, shut up, and watch." which infuriates the oppostition (who also won their seats).

It's still too early for me to tell whether The Amazing Mr. O is:

1) a well-intentioned amateur, who learns quickly
2) a run-of-the-mill average politician with good speech-delivery
3) a commie 'plant' bent on wrecking the country

I should be able to decide by this summer. Meanwhile, despite his obsession with the public wallet, as long as the Constitution stays in place, he can't do any worse than the guys before him. I think.

There's always option four:

A Great but tragically principled statesman.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Obama's a very good speaker and he has the personal charm that forms a key tool for political power.

Obama is smart, hard-working, and savvy with experience of politics in a rough-and-tumble venue: Chicago, IL.

Obama and the Dems are doing what they usually do -- and what their loyalists expect of them. When you are in power with a good margin of leverage, you push forward YOUR agenda as hard and as effectively as you can by any legal means. This includes responding to a crisis in a fashion that not only seeks to address the crisis but to further less popular elements of your agenda using the crisis as a means to that end.

For the most part, Obama and Pelosi are doing what they said they were going to do if elected -- though probably at a faster pace due to the current economic crisis.

Obama and most of the Dem leadership TRULY BELIEVE that one big central government is the best tool both for their agenda and to accomplish the long-term goals the believe are vital to the country: mostly nationalized healthcare, a robust social welfare safety net, universal college education, and a taxation system that funds these programs while re-desitributing a portion of the wealth garnered by the more economically fortunate. That this will create something of a permanent underclass who are then dependent upon (and supportive of) the government does not bother them, because they deeply believe that those dependents will live demonstrably better lives WITH this government safety net than they could ever hope to do without those programs.

I view the whole thing as a well-intentioned economic ponzi scheme that will prove crippling in the long run -- but do not doubt their intentions.

There is a lesson here for the GOP, and for conservatives (not quite the same thing, at least at present). When you have the power, RULE. Do not placate or suck up to the opposition. Treat them politely and respectfully, do not deny them their voice, but if you have the power, use it. The opposing political "force" will be doing their best to take back that power and will NOT award you "nice guy" points that you can redeem to stop them when they're ruling. Doesn't work that way.

[Whacker]

There is a lesson here for the GOP, and for conservatives (not quite the same thing, at least at present). When you have the power, RULE. Do not placate or suck up to the opposition. Treat them politely and respectfully, do not deny them their voice, but if you have the power, use it. The opposing political "force" will be doing their best to take back that power and will NOT award you "nice guy" points that you can redeem to stop them when they're ruling. Doesn't work that way.

This point right here is a very good one. I am by no means whatsoever an eggspert on how our own government runs (I'm not completely ignorant either), BUT I am convinced that this implicit de-facto two-party method that our current system runs on has long overstayed it's welcome. I keep seeing how other nations have real, effective multiparty systems AND how they account for these variances through their lawmaking processes, and my opinion is that's what we need right now. No one party or group should be able to bulldoze legislation and policy as has been happening now and in the past.

Just my $0.02 USD.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If we'd had 4 parties last election the candidates would have been:

richard dawkins
obama
mccaine
rush limbaugh

The two party system is fine...

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Pannonian]

There is a lesson here for the GOP, and for conservatives (not quite the same thing, at least at present). When you have the power, RULE. Do not placate or suck up to the opposition. Treat them politely and respectfully, do not deny them their voice, but if you have the power, use it. The opposing political "force" will be doing their best to take back that power and will NOT award you "nice guy" points that you can redeem to stop them when they're ruling. Doesn't work that way.
Would you prefer our parliamentary dictatorship? If a party gets a comfortable enough majority, they can push through just about anything which falls short of causing a revolution. No namby pambying over compromises here, just make sure one doesn't get so unpopular that one loses the next election. Until then, anything goes.

[lars573]

Would you prefer our parliamentary dictatorship? If a party gets a comfortable enough majority, they can push through just about anything which falls short of causing a revolution. No namby pambying over compromises here, just make sure one doesn't get so unpopular that one loses the next election. Until then, anything goes.
I know I do. Considering the alternatives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[KukriKhan]

Three words:

term

lim

its

For every office. And I'm beginning to wonder if we outta elect our Supremes too.

Three more words:

Spend

ing

caps.

For election campaigns. You can raise a gazillion bucks, to prove your popularity, and for citizens to express their preference through their wallets, but...

you can only spend X amount, maximum, however you want. All contributions and expenditures reportable to the FEC (or State or County equivalent), and displayed prominently on the web, updated daily. If we can't eliminate campaign-contribution influence (as we tried to in the 70's), let's at least shine the bright light of publicity on it, so we know who our public employees are beholden to.

[Lemur]

Kukri, that's not money, that's free speech. Why do you hate monetary freedom?

[Gregoshi]

Kukri, that's not money, that's free speech. Why do you hate monetary freedom?
'Cuz that's government buy the people but not for the people. And since money talks, it ain't free speech, but just a vote for change. :yes:

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Pannonian]

Three more words:

Spend

ing

caps.

For election campaigns. You can raise a gazillion bucks, to prove your popularity, and for citizens to express their preference through their wallets, but...

you can only spend X amount, maximum, however you want. All contributions and expenditures reportable to the FEC (or State or County equivalent), and displayed prominently on the web, updated daily. If we can't eliminate campaign-contribution influence (as we tried to in the 70's), let's at least shine the bright light of publicity on it, so we know who our public employees are beholden to.
Have you ever thought that the ruling party is neither blue nor red, but green?

[KukriKhan]

So: spending caps are more objectionable than term limits?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

For election campaigns. You can raise a gazillion bucks, to prove your popularity, and for citizens to express their preference through their wallets, but...

you can only spend X amount, maximum, however you want. All contributions and expenditures reportable to the FEC (or State or County equivalent), and displayed prominently on the web, updated daily. If we can't eliminate campaign-contribution influence (as we tried to in the 70's), let's at least shine the bright light of publicity on it, so we know who our public employees are beholden to.

This would be good to have, but the "X amount" will have to be high, otherwise it will be impossible for unknown candidates to overcome those with name recognition. We'd end up with bush-clinton-bush-clinton etc.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why is it that instead of tackling the problem, people seem to want to change their own government in order to fit around the problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Xiahou]

This would be good to have, but the "X amount" will have to be high, otherwise it will be impossible for unknown candidates to overcome those with name recognition. We'd end up with bush-clinton-bush-clinton etc.Not only name recognition, but pork. Once they're in, the politicians can do all the vote buying they want and they don't even have to raise money- they have access to the government coffers.



Kukri, that's not money, that's free speech. Why do you hate monetary freedom? It is free speech.

I also don't like the idea of term limits- but I really don't like the idea of career politicians either. Id rather the voters throw them out of office, but that doesn't seem to happen much....:sweatdrop:

How about we start our reforms by repealing the 17th Amendment. :2thumbsup:

[Husar]

If you want equal voting chances, you have to switch to a communist democracy, and no, i don't mean communist aristocracy or dictatorship like the ones we have seen.
But as long as you have capitalism you will always have some ricvh and some poor candidate and the rich candidate will always win as long as all theclever capitalists vote for whoever gives them more posters to look at.

That is the truth from your friendly neighbothood Husar, deal with it!

[Lemur]

But as long as you have capitalism you will always have some ricvh and some poor candidate and the rich candidate will always win as long as all theclever capitalists vote for whoever gives them more posters to look at.
Dude, the late 1800s called and they want their rhetoric back.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/3b_6.gif

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Okay, for an order of Belgian-style fried potatoes with may, answer me this:

"When, exactly, was it EVER possible to keep money and politics separate?"

I've got lots of fingers left for counting, because I've used NONE to tote up any examples thus far. The two elements are inseparable. Money influences politics and politics influences money.


Therefore:

I'd say let anyone contribute what they want and to whom. If you can buy a pol, that's up to you. However, I'd add one legal caveat. ALL donations must be reported in detail by doner, donee, date, & amount. If they're bought, at least I know by whom. Heck, I may even think its worthwhile. Make the penalties for HIDING this information catastrophic to the persons hiding the info.

[Husar]

Dude, the late 1800s called and they want their rhetoric back.

Well, that was a nice picture but if you look closely, I also said somethiong against people who apparently vote for whoever has his posters everywhere, quite frankly, it sounds like most voters are dumb sheeple when you read this thread. Either you guys are wrong or there is a desperate need for more education, or maybe an IQ limit below which people are not allowed to vote anymore.
Just make an amendment to the constitution that bans people with IQs lower than 100 from voting
then we can have threads and supreme court rulings about which IQ test is the least partisan. :laugh4:

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm all for complete and total freedom to donate as much to whoever whenever as long as:

1: it is your money to donate

2: it is reported

And by reported I don't mean a little website run by Senators Obama and Coburn that about .005% of the population visits, I mean the FEC needs to make this information recent, availalable and in-your face and essentially needs to turn into an IRS-like entity to make sure the money matches the donors etc. The information needs to be pushed on people, not just available when they ask. It needs to be pushed on media, and it needs to be REQUIRED that the accurately media report it. Think the National Weather Service severe storm warnings that radio and TV must break to when the signal goes out. Think large 3rd page advertisements in every newspaper say, monday wednesday and sunday. In fact, the print, internet and television "ads" would be designed by the FEC so no one was intentionally or unintentionally leaving out info and the same info was reported everywhere you look.

and yes, dear conservatives, that does entail the FEC become bigger government with more staff and more money and more power. it would be a mix of less regulation on the donor-reciever end, and more regulation in reporting practices.

The main problem would be finding a way to staff and appoint people to this agency that didn't put all power in the hands of the president or a House committee. Maybe it could be done from the state level up, i dunno.

[LittleGrizzly]

How about a system where 50% of your political donation has to go to less well funded candidates to kind of level up the playing field...

The main problem is i was imagining this within the 2 party system, it gets a bit more complicated once you get onto 3rd parties and the like, it could work though and it would take away some of the advantage of handing out favours for campaign funds...

[Major Robert Dump]

How about a system where 50% of your political donation has to go to less well funded candidates to kind of level up the playing field...

The main problem is i was imagining this within the 2 party system, it gets a bit more complicated once you get onto 3rd parties and the like, it could work though and it would take away some of the advantage of handing out favours for campaign funds...

won't work, because then we'd be funding EZ Million, Al Sharpton and Pat Buchanan every election.

[LittleGrizzly]

Sure the nuts get a little funding... but in compensation so do the half decent candidates who get drowned out by the richer ones... EZ sounds like some kind of rapper of something...

I usually lean towards state funding as i loath the practice of policy for cash, but i know you americans really don't like spending money... so i figured the easiest way would be to force the rich candidates to share some of thier resources with the less well funded ones...

Unless your worried that the crazy candidates with a little funding could win...i suspect they would just show thier crazyness to a wider audience...

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[LittleGrizzly]

I think the best way would be a series of national debates, the tv companys would show them out of thier own interest, you could even have them go a little in depth with a debate for each subject, one for foriegn policy one for economy ect. or maybe more than one for important issues...

This would be a decent amount of advertising for each candidate and would not be needed to be paid for... maybe even putting more attention on policy differences

[a completely inoffensive name]

...