If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Center for Public Integrity)   A pledge not to take lobbyists' money isn't stopping President Obama from, well, letting lobbyists fundraise for him   (publicintegrity.org) divider line 37
    More: Fail, President Obama, Manufacturers of America, Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group, Duke Energy, Jada Pinkett Smith, Trinidad and Tobago, lobbying  
•       •       •

416 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 11:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-08 11:20:36 AM
Obama is SO LAZY!

How lazy his he?

Obama is SO LAZY, that he lets lobbyists fund raise FOR him.
 
2013-03-08 11:25:41 AM
Obama is in so much trouble, he needs lobbyists rather than just an Adelson or Koch.
 
2013-03-08 11:27:49 AM
Loading Care...
 
2013-03-08 11:32:25 AM

BeesNuts: Loading Care...


Care failed to load.

Try again? ( ) Y (X) N
 
2013-03-08 11:33:10 AM
Stupid President Fart won't unilaterally disarm grumble grumble guess I'll get my shinebox.
 
2013-03-08 11:36:08 AM
Is this the thread where we refuse to hold our guy to the expectations he set for himself because the other side doesn't meet those expectations?
 
2013-03-08 11:37:01 AM
There's nothing illegal about registered lobbyists contributing to a presidential campaign, as long as those donations are reported. But Obama's campaign went further and voluntarily rejected such contributions. Still, some of his bundlers lead or work for law firms that also provide government lobbying services, although they are not lobbyists themselves.

...that's it? That's the thing? Ok...
 
2013-03-08 11:37:23 AM
All Hail Zombie Ayn Rand! Our new ruler! Forever and ever!!
 
2013-03-08 11:38:03 AM

GoldSpider: Is this the thread where we refuse to hold our guy to the expectations he set for himself because the other side doesn't meet those expectations?


Did you read the article? How is he not being held to his own expectations?
 
2013-03-08 11:38:58 AM
Willful ignorance.
 
2013-03-08 11:40:52 AM

Car_Ramrod: Did you read the article? How is he not being held to his own expectations?


I said "thread" not "article".
 
2013-03-08 11:42:01 AM
USA, best govt money can buy
 
2013-03-08 11:46:33 AM

GoldSpider: Car_Ramrod: Did you read the article? How is he not being held to his own expectations?

I said "thread" not "article".


So, what exactly is your complaint? That people aren't criticizing Obama for something he didn't do?
 
2013-03-08 11:50:48 AM

Car_Ramrod: There's nothing illegal about registered lobbyists contributing to a presidential campaign, as long as those donations are reported. But Obama's campaign went further and voluntarily rejected such contributions. Still, some of his bundlers lead or work for law firms that also provide government lobbying services, although they are not lobbyists themselves.

...that's it? That's the thing? Ok...


RAGE!
 
2013-03-08 11:54:45 AM
That does it. I'm not voting for his third term.
 
2013-03-08 11:55:10 AM

Car_Ramrod: So, what exactly is your complaint? That people aren't criticizing Obama for something he didn't do?


They're excusing him on a technicality.  Yes, he did pledge to reject donations from "registered lobbyists"; a pledge that reasonable people can interpret as an effort to reduce the influence of connected special interests.  "He only meant registered lobbyists!  Gotcha!" kind of falls short of that expectation.
 
2013-03-08 11:56:39 AM

GoldSpider: Is this the thread where we refuse to hold our guy to the expectations he set for himself because the other side doesn't meet those expectations?


No, it's the thread where we read the actual content of the article, and I realize that Drew is just trolling us for page views.
 
2013-03-08 12:00:58 PM
Not really seeing him fail here.


Improper use of tag?
 
2013-03-08 12:03:10 PM

TV's Vinnie: All Hail Zombie Ayn Rand! Our new ruler! Forever and ever!!


I like her stance on brains.
 
2013-03-08 12:03:42 PM

GoldSpider: Car_Ramrod: So, what exactly is your complaint? That people aren't criticizing Obama for something he didn't do?

They're excusing him on a technicality.  Yes, he did pledge to reject donations from "registered lobbyists"; a pledge that reasonable people can interpret as an effort to reduce the influence of connected special interests.  "He only meant registered lobbyists!  Gotcha!" kind of falls short of that expectation.


No, it doesn't. Once again, did you RTFA:

some of his bundlers lead or work for law firms that also provide government lobbying services, although they are not lobbyists themselves

So, not only must Obama deny lobbyist money, he must deny money from anyone that works for a company that employs lobbyists? That's quite a lot of companies. That's pretty unreasonable.
 
2013-03-08 12:09:29 PM

Car_Ramrod: So, not only must Obama deny lobbyist money, he must deny money from anyone that works for a company that employs lobbyists? That's quite a lot of companies. That's pretty unreasonable.


If I wanted to convince people that I wasn't going to be influenced by lobbyists, I'd probably try a little harder to distance myself from them.  But that's just me.
 
2013-03-08 12:27:03 PM

GoldSpider: Car_Ramrod: So, not only must Obama deny lobbyist money, he must deny money from anyone that works for a company that employs lobbyists? That's quite a lot of companies. That's pretty unreasonable.

If I wanted to convince people that I wasn't going to be influenced by lobbyists, I'd probably try a little harder to distance myself from them.  But that's just me.


President GodlSpider, pure as the driven snow.
 
2013-03-08 12:30:23 PM

GoldSpider: Car_Ramrod: So, not only must Obama deny lobbyist money, he must deny money from anyone that works for a company that employs lobbyists? That's quite a lot of companies. That's pretty unreasonable.

If I wanted to convince people that I wasn't going to be influenced by lobbyists, I'd probably try a little harder to distance myself from them.  But that's just me.


Keep tilting at those windmills. The fact is that Obama is abiding by his promise, and you came in this thread half-cocked thinking the article proved that wrong based upon the headline, even saying "we refuse to hold our guy to the expectations he set for himself". Now that it's been pointed out the article doesn't say anything of the sort, you're moving the goalposts. We get it, Obama bad. Happy Friday.
 
2013-03-08 12:36:45 PM

GoldSpider: Car_Ramrod: So, not only must Obama deny lobbyist money, he must deny money from anyone that works for a company that employs lobbyists? That's quite a lot of companies. That's pretty unreasonable.

If I wanted to convince people that I wasn't going to be influenced by lobbyists, I'd probably try a little harder to distance myself from them.  But that's just me.


So he shouldn't take any money from anybody, ever. Because how far away from lobbyists does the man need to be for you to be satisfied?
 
2013-03-08 12:50:01 PM
ct.fra.bz

When Republicans start acting like they care who fundraise for them, then I'll worry.
 
2013-03-08 12:50:28 PM
I worked for an organization that occasionally lobbied congress.  Clearly I cannot donate to Obama.
 
2013-03-08 12:55:17 PM

James!: I worked for an organization that occasionally lobbied congress.  Clearly I cannot donate to Obama.


I currently work for a non-profit and we hire lobbyists on a regular basis (one of the lobbyists is even one of my good friends!). I clearly should be banned from giving money to anyone.
 
2013-03-08 12:58:45 PM

Car_Ramrod: James!: I worked for an organization that occasionally lobbied congress.  Clearly I cannot donate to Obama.

I currently work for a non-profit and we hire lobbyists on a regular basis (one of the lobbyists is even one of my good friends!). I clearly should be banned from giving money to anyone.


We are the shady dark side of politics!
 
2013-03-08 01:14:27 PM
This is an impeachable offense for sure. He should have stuck with those lies that don't hurt anyone: Namely starting wars on false pretenses. They seem to go over pretty well with the Right.
 
2013-03-08 01:19:24 PM
This is how it works, people, same as in your individual life.

You picked your nose in kindergarten once, you will forever be a public nose picker so don't complain when you don't get chosen for the corner office at 52 when you made your grave a long time ago.

Same thing here, just because you were a lobbyist once and quit that job to do direct fundraising doesn't mean squat. It's like Benghazi or arugula or Kenya or something.
 
2013-03-08 01:34:58 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: So he shouldn't take any money from anybody, ever. Because how far away from lobbyists does the man need to be for you to be satisfied?


No, he shouldn't make a disingenuous promise.  "You know, I'd love to get money and special interest influence out of politics, but these are the rules my opponent is is playing by, and I don't feel we can risk the country's future on principle." would have been perfectly fine by me.
 
2013-03-08 01:46:16 PM
 Another case of "it's okay if our side does it".

 You're outraged if you are on the right, blind to it if you're on the left and depressed if you are sick of both sides.
 
2013-03-08 02:49:07 PM
Just another case of Obama lying - nothing new here, he does it all the time
 
2013-03-08 07:06:45 PM
I always believe.
 
2013-03-08 07:21:05 PM
What does it matter after Citizen's United? Can you even stop someone from campagning on your behalf?

Kim Jong Un could pay to air commercials supporting Ted Nugent for POTUS if he wanted to. Neither Ted nor anyone else could stop him. Money is speech and it is easily convertible from foreign currencies.
 
2013-03-08 07:35:05 PM

GoldSpider: The My Little Pony Killer: So he shouldn't take any money from anybody, ever. Because how far away from lobbyists does the man need to be for you to be satisfied?

No, he shouldn't make a disingenuous promise.  "You know, I'd love to get money and special interest influence out of politics, but these are the rules my opponent is is playing by, and I don't feel we can risk the country's future on principle." would have been perfectly fine by me.


What part of "he IS keeping his promise" do you not understand? People are even using small words with you.
 
2013-03-11 09:08:56 AM
Blaming this politician or that is missing the point and the opportunity. Frankly, if Republicans also see the problem with our lobbying and campaign financing system, all the better.

The real question is this: what are we going to do to reform an obviously broken system? Money has totally coopted the political process, deafening the ears of political representation to the voices of any but the very wealthiest among us.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report