bballfamily Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Do not do as I do, do as I tell you. The elitists want us to follow the rules, but they are too good to live by these same rules, afterall they are better and smarter than the rest of us. In the past few years as Republicans were caught doing the wrong thing, as honorable people they left office, but for Dems, oh it was just an oversight or a mistake, yeah right. 1. Rangel -taxes 2. Daschel - taxes 3. Geither - taxes 4. Dodd - Home mortgage sweet heart deal 5. Obama - No lobbyists in his adminstration 6. Obama - The 'Green' President sets the thermostat at 78 degrees in the Oval Office. He has lived in Chicago for decades, DC weather should be mild by comparision. No matter which side has the their hypocritical moments it is all a reflection of why we should have smaller government and less interference in our lives. Feel free to add to the list for any hypocrit in office, as it will help my arguement for less government.
cch5432 Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Feel free to add to the list for any hypocrit in office, as it will help my arguement for less government. Hypocritical Democrats in no way helps the argument for small government. That is like saying the Bush administration's huge spending is proof that big government is better. The only argument for small government is the very reasons why small government is more effective. Everything else is worthless. The fact that politicians are hypocritical, regardless of party, proves nothing except that politicians are hypocritical. This is a waste of our time and the negativity is part of the reason our political system spits out horrible candidates to us.
Hatz Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Do not do as I do, do as I tell you. The elitists want us to follow the rules, but they are too good to live by these same rules, afterall they are better and smarter than the rest of us. In the past few years as Republicans were caught doing the wrong thing, as honorable people they left office, but for Dems, oh it was just an oversight or a mistake, yeah right. 1. Rangel -taxes 2. Daschel - taxes 3. Geither - taxes 4. Dodd - Home mortgage sweet heart deal 5. Obama - No lobbyists in his adminstration 6. Obama - The 'Green' President sets the thermostat at 78 degrees in the Oval Office. He has lived in Chicago for decades, DC weather should be mild by comparision. No matter which side has the their hypocritical moments it is all a reflection of why we should have smaller government and less interference in our lives. Feel free to add to the list for any hypocrit in office, as it will help my arguement for less government. I agree with the premise of your bottom statement. However the bolded does make me :lol:. Do we need to be reminded of Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich who condemned the adultery of Clinton while having affairs of their own? What about the expolits of Bob Barr? Ken Calvert of CA? Truth is there is enough hypocricy and little honor for either party to admonish the other on ethics and morality.
HHSDad Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 I am very, very disappointed in Obama speaking out of one side of his mouth and selecting his administration out of the other side. He now has 17 lobbyists in his administration, not to mention two tax EVADERS in his cabinet, one of who will head the IRS.
trampler Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 My all-time favorite is Jesse Jackson, a supposed minister and spiritual counselor, offering marriage counseling to Bill Clinton at exactly the same time that he, himself was having an illicit affair and fathering a child with his adulteress.
woodsrider Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 I am very, very disappointed in Obama speaking out of one side of his mouth and selecting his administration out of the other side. He now has 17 lobbyists in his administration, not to mention two tax EVADERS in his cabinet, one of who will head the IRS. That's change we can believe in. :puke:
75center Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 I am very, very disappointed in Obama speaking out of one side of his mouth and selecting his administration out of the other side. He now has 17 lobbyists in his administration, not to mention two tax EVADERS in his cabinet, one of who will head the IRS. It takes a thief to catch a thief?
75center Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 I agree with the premise of your bottom statement. However the bolded does make me :lol:. Do we need to be reminded of Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich who condemned the adultery of Clinton while having affairs of their own? What about the expolits of Bob Barr? Ken Calvert of CA? Truth is there is enough hypocricy and little honor for either party to admonish the other on ethics and morality. More than enough. :thumb:
bballfamily Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Hypocritical Democrats in no way helps the argument for small government. That is like saying the Bush administration's huge spending is proof that big government is better. The only argument for small government is the very reasons why small government is more effective. Everything else is worthless. The fact that politicians are hypocritical, regardless of party, proves nothing except that politicians are hypocritical. This is a waste of our time and the negativity is part of the reason our political system spits out horrible candidates to us. You speak of negativity, that is all we heard from The Dems for 8 years. I believe the hypocrit complaint is valid as it shows that big government does not work because of the failure of elected officals to live up to their own, so-called, beliefs. In addition to the fact that big government is cumbersome and bureaucratic.
bballfamily Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Nancy Killefer who was appointed by Obama to some new performance director job withdrew her nomination over failure to pay taxes. Reported on Drudge's site. Bad she did not pay taxes, but decent enough to withdraw her nomination.
bballfamily Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Daschel withdraws his name from nomination. My view of him goes up for him doing the right thing and dropping out.
cooperstown Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Daschel withdraws his name from nomination. My view of him goes up for him doing the right thing and dropping out. And my view of Obama goes down for not withdrawing one of these suspect nominations. I'll give him that he likely had no idea of the problems with these nominations at the time he made them, but his refusal to then withdraw them belies his campaign promises to "clean up Washington", his inaugural address to instill a "new era of responsibility" and his constant championing of "ethics reform." In June, Obama said: "I know that in every campaign, politicians make promises about cleaning up Washington. And most times, you end up disappointed when it doesn't happen. "So it's easy to become cynical -- to believe that change isn't possible; that the odds are too great; that this year is bound to be no different from the last. But I also know what I've seen and what I've done. I know that for me, reform isn't just the rhetoric of a campaign; it's been the cause of my career." These nominations have quickly shown that when faced with the choice between honoring these promises and the reality that is Washington politics, Obama is more than willing to compromise.
acemona Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 The problem is that no one that could be nominated for any position is going to be perfect, they have been in politics and their hands have to be dirty in some way. I never live up to the ideas that I profess on here, but that doesn't mean that they aren't good ideas.
cooperstown Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 The problem is that no one that could be nominated for any position is going to be perfect, they have been in politics and their hands have to be dirty in some way. I never live up to the ideas that I profess on here, but that doesn't mean that they aren't good ideas. I don't know that the situation is quite that dire (maybe it is), but bottomline is that it most certainly is not the platform that I heard Obama running on. Again, I don't have a problem that some of his nomination choices had "issues". I have a big concern, however, that Obama refused to back off these choices once they became known. How does such an attitude help usher in this new change in Washington we've been hearing so much about?
Recommended Posts