It takes a Thief....

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/20...t_10937937.htm
Maybe Attorney general Eric Holder could start by going after his old client Mark Rich....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/op...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.

Why so much hate ? :no:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevDave, who else?

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:

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.

Who's making fun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Who's making fun?

---

Not the correct term I guess. Political Gang bang ?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/20...t_10937937.htm
Maybe Attorney general Eric Holder could start by going after his old client Mark Rich....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/op...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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

...

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...

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.