John Boehner adds lobbyist to staff

[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.

grow a brain jack ass

Did you actually read the website you just posted, yes or no?

 

[Modbert]

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.

He promised to change Washington. Employing lobbyists would be considered business as usual wouldn't you say? Clearly he never said no lobbyists because he already had lobbyists on his staff previously.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Actually, my analogy was quite intelligent and well thought out.

You opted to pick apart the analogy as opposed to seeing how the two tied in to each other.

"like two peas in a pod" is an analogy, but most certainly is not accurate...surely two best friends that are compared to two peas in a pod are not small little green seedlike things wrapped in a covering also green in color.

The beauty of an analogy is it allows one to see or understand something by comapring it to something that they are more familiar with.

You, in your infinite wisdom, decided to pick apart the analogy...and such is you perogative.

But to then toss in a comment on my intelligence....well...that is just plain old desperate on your part and an obvious defense mechanism you felt you needed to use when you saw that your analogy was flawed and subsequently trumped by mine.

Have a nice day Mod.

 

[California Girl]

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.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my SO, thanks.

You're such a fucking twit sometimes, Dog. My opinion of lobbyists is not the issue. The issue - and you made it the fucking issue - is one Boehner employing lobbyists. I told you that I wasn't aware - and I am still not aware - that he had made a promise not to employ them. If he has not made a promise, he hasn't broken the fucking promise he didn't make. Try not to be such a fucking idiot.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

He promised to change Washington. Employing lobbyists would be considered business as usual wouldn't you say? Clearly he never said no lobbyists because he already had lobbyists on his staff previously.

Clearly you were not paying attention during the campaign.

Not a criticism...as many have better things to do than watch the candidates every move.

But most are smart enough to then not comment on the campaign in a debate.

Carry on.

 

[Modbert]

The beauty of an analogy is it allows one to see or understand something by comapring it to something that they are more familiar with.

You, in your infinite wisdom, decided to pick apart the analogy...and such is you perogative.

But to then toss in a comment on my intelligence....well...that is just plain old desperate on your part and an obvious defense mechanism you felt you needed to use when you saw that your analogy was flawed and subsequently trumped by mine.

Have a nice day Mod.

Before you decide to get more puffy and start decrying about how I insulted you or whatever. Do realize the line about intelligent thinking was referring to the fact that the women in your analogies were not thinking either realistically or intelligently. I said nothing about your own intelligence.

Next time, I recommend rereading or asking me for clarification before showing a lack of reading comprehension. The sad part here is you're still looking at this as "winning" and "losing." I don't consider the fact our lawmakers are being paid off and controlled by lobbyists to be a game to win or lose.

 

[Modbert]

Clearly you were not paying attention during the campaign.

Not a criticism...as many have better things to do than watch the candidates every move.

But most are smart enough to then not comment on the campaign in a debate.

Carry on.

Actually, seems like you weren't.

Republicans Promise to Change Washington - The Note

Here is House Minority Leader John Boehner speaking to the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC):

"I pledge to you right here right now that were going to run the house differently," Boehner said.

"We will be open, we will be transparent, and we will listen," said Boehner, promising to make bills more accessible to the public before they are voted on.

 

[Modbert]

This has absolutely nothing to do with my SO, thanks.

You're such a fucking twit sometimes, Dog. My opinion of lobbyists is not the issue. The issue - and you made it the fucking issue - is one Boehner employing lobbyists. I told you that I wasn't aware - and I am still not aware - that he had made a promise not to employ them. If he has not made a promise, he hasn't broken the fucking promise he didn't make. Try not to be such a fucking idiot.

This has to do with the fact Boehner has lobbyists in general. Boehner promised to change Washington, employing lobbyists is business as usual. You seem to have no problem with it, hence my asking you for your opinion.

 

[Jarhead]

The beauty of an analogy is it allows one to see or understand something by comapring it to something that they are more familiar with.

You, in your infinite wisdom, decided to pick apart the analogy...and such is you perogative.

But to then toss in a comment on my intelligence....well...that is just plain old desperate on your part and an obvious defense mechanism you felt you needed to use when you saw that your analogy was flawed and subsequently trumped by mine.

Have a nice day Mod.

Before you decide to get more puffy and start decrying about how I insulted you or whatever. Do realize the line about intelligent thinking was referring to the fact that the women in your analogies were not thinking either realistically or intelligently. I said nothing about your own intelligence.

Next time, I recommend rereading or asking me for clarification before showing a lack of reading comprehension. The sad part here is you're still looking at this as "winning" and "losing." I don't consider the fact our lawmakers are being paid off and controlled by lobbyists to be a game to win or lose.

As I have said several times on this board...I think Boehner is an ass and the fact that he is the chosen speaker for the next 2 years frustrates the hell out of me.

Washington has its issues. I am all for cleaning house on both sides of the aisle.

As for my reading comprehension issues...I will take that as constructive criticism and well warranted.

But lets be real Mod...on this board? More often than not, yours would have been meant as a dig.....Iperhpas not this time around...and maybe never with you.....but with most on this board?

I cant say "I love you" without someone commenting on my intelligence.

 

[Jarhead]

Clearly you were not paying attention during the campaign.

Not a criticism...as many have better things to do than watch the candidates every move.

But most are smart enough to then not comment on the campaign in a debate.

Carry on.

Actually, seems like you weren't.

Republicans Promise to Change Washington - The Note

Here is House Minority Leader John Boehner speaking to the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC):

"I pledge to you right here right now that were going to run the house differently," Boehner said.

"We will be open, we will be transparent, and we will listen," said Boehner, promising to make bills more accessible to the public before they are voted on.

Where did he say "no lobbyists"?

 

[Modbert]

As I have said several times on this board...I think Boehner is an ass and the fact that he is the chosen speaker for the next 2 years frustrates the hell out of me.

Washington has its issues. I am all for cleaning house on both sides of the aisle.

As for my reading comprehension issues...I will take that as constructive criticism and well warranted.

But lets be real Mod...on this board? More often than not, yours would have been meant as a dig.....Iperhpas not this time around...and maybe never with you.....but with most on this board?

I cant say "I love you" without someone commenting on my intelligence.

Boehner being speaker will change nothing in Washington. That's the thing that people who voted for the GOP must realize. Simply being frustrated about it will change nothing unless you vote accordingly as well.

As for this board, plenty of assholes on it but KBO.

 

[Jarhead]

This has absolutely nothing to do with my SO, thanks.

You're such a fucking twit sometimes, Dog. My opinion of lobbyists is not the issue. The issue - and you made it the fucking issue - is one Boehner employing lobbyists. I told you that I wasn't aware - and I am still not aware - that he had made a promise not to employ them. If he has not made a promise, he hasn't broken the fucking promise he didn't make. Try not to be such a fucking idiot.

This has to do with the fact Boehner has lobbyists in general. Boehner promised to change Washington, employing lobbyists is business as usual. You seem to have no problem with it, hence my asking you for your opinion.

Walking through the front door of the house is business as usual too...should they no longer do that?

Do youy think he meant he was changing the way they do EVERYTHING?

Dont get me wrong....Boehner does not deserve to be the speaker in my eyes....and he is an ass for bringing on a lobbyist...

 

[Yurt]

I remember Obama promising no lobbyists in his administration... last time I checked he had over 40... but I haven't read anything from the GOP making such a promise.

Instead of acting in a partisan manner, why not criticize the Republicans? I can easily criticize Obama for having lobbyists in his administration, better question is whether you can stop defending the Republicans for having lobbyists.

lol...coming from one of the staunchest left wing political hacks on this board thats funny....

you never created a thread dogging obama for it, but you sure as hell create numerous threads dogging republicans for this and that

 

[Modbert]

Where did he say "no lobbyists"?

Never said he promised no lobbyists. My point is Boehner has promised change in Washington. One of the biggest obstacles to any change in Washington is the lobbyists and the lawmakers who are in their pockets. Lobbyists aren't looking out for you or me, they're looking out for the people they're representing interests. For example, Boehner has been buddies with Big Tobacco for years.

Do you want the GOP to be looking out for The American People or Philip Morris?

 

[California Girl]

This has absolutely nothing to do with my SO, thanks.

You're such a fucking twit sometimes, Dog. My opinion of lobbyists is not the issue. The issue - and you made it the fucking issue - is one Boehner employing lobbyists. I told you that I wasn't aware - and I am still not aware - that he had made a promise not to employ them. If he has not made a promise, he hasn't broken the fucking promise he didn't make. Try not to be such a fucking idiot.

This has to do with the fact Boehner has lobbyists in general. Boehner promised to change Washington, employing lobbyists is business as usual. You seem to have no problem with it, hence my asking you for your opinion.

He announced it, he was 'transparent' about it. I have no problem with employing the right person into the right job... if that person was a lobbyist, so be it. He did not promise not to employ lobbyists so there is no promise to break. I'll criticize Boehner when there is reason to... but I'm not gonna have a hissy fit over something that he hasn't done.

I am waiting, and watching, to see whether they actually do change the way they do business.... ie, earmarks and doing deals behind closed doors, and the rest of the shit that both parties have done for decades.

Your problem is that you see 'changing the way they do business' as an excuse to bitch every time they do anything you don't like. I don't see it that way. I bitch about important stuff.

 

[Yurt]

Where did he say "no lobbyists"?

Never said he promised no lobbyists. My point is Boehner has promised change in Washington. One of the biggest obstacles to any change in Washington is the lobbyists and the lawmakers who are in their pockets. Lobbyists aren't looking out for you or me, they're looking out for the people they're representing interests. For example, Boehner has been buddies with Big Tobacco for years.

Do you want the GOP to be looking out for The American People or Philip Morris?

lmao....so he keeps one thing the same, but it is your hack belief that this must mean nothing will change

 

[Two Thumbs]

Damn I wish I hadn't read this usless posting.

Republicans hire lobbyist?

color me shocked to death.

 

[Modbert]

lol...coming from one of the staunchest left wing political hacks on this board thats funny....

you never created a thread dogging obama for it, but you sure as hell create numerous threads dogging republicans for this and that

I'm a staunch left winger? News to me. Pretty weird since I and some of the biggest libertarians on this board are often in agreement.

I never had to create a thread dogging Obama for it, there were already plenty made by Republicans on this board. The only reason I can create threads dogging anyone for anything is because nobody has.

Though I will point out that many of my threads which happen to be non-political get completely ignored because people such as yourself rather discuss which ideology's dick is bigger.

 

[Modbert]

Walking through the front door of the house is business as usual too...should they no longer do that?

Do youy think he meant he was changing the way they do EVERYTHING?

Dont get me wrong....Boehner does not deserve to be the speaker in my eyes....and he is an ass for bringing on a lobbyist...

Nope, just the things wrong with Washington. Lobbyists being one of the biggest.

 

[Modbert]

lmao....so he keeps one thing the same, but it is your hack belief that this must mean nothing will change

If they're not willing to change the big things, why would they be willing to change the small ones?