Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Is Obama buying health care votes?


Perchoutofwater
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

whether he's "qualified" isn't really the issue. if blagojevich sold obama's senate seat to someone "qualified", would that make it ok in your book?

 

So he isn't "qualified" and Obama is giving him this position and to return the favor his brother will vote yes on the health car bill. :wacko:

 

That's just silly azhawkperch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the face of it, that looks really bad. But it gives me some pause to see this is nothing but an editorial from the Washington Times. Did the Rev. Moon write it himself?

 

If it is the truth, does it matter who wrote it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whether he's "qualified" isn't really the issue. if blagojevich sold obama's senate seat to someone "qualified", would that make it ok in your book?

 

If he sold the seat then he would be guilty whether the candidate was qualified or not. That requires proof, and not just a knee-jerk editorial article.

 

If this was proven to be sold for political gain, then whether he is qualified or not becomes immmaterial, and it is under a cloud of suspicion and should not take office.

 

All I have said is 1.) the guy IS qualified, despite perch's assertion that a different judge would be better based on perch's extensive legal history :wacko: and 2.) I will wait for ACTUAL PROOF before condemning the nomination.

 

Apparently those distinctions are too clear for you? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a company is qualified to do a job, does it matter who used to sit on the board of directors?

 

No it doesnt.

 

Unless there are provable causal links that can prove favoritism or fraud. Despite a lot of noise about Cheney and Halliburton, a specific link has not been proven.

 

But considering that Halliburton still has the contracts, I guess that means that this guy should be the judge as well. :D thanks for proving the point!! :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesnt.

 

Unless there are provable causal links that can prove favoritism or fraud. Despite a lot of noise about Cheney and Halliburton, a specific link has not been proven.

 

But considering that Halliburton still has the contracts, I guess that means that this guy should be the judge as well. :D thanks for proving the point!! :wacko:

 

I wish you had been here for that last 8 years or so. I'm sure you would be calling everyone here you've been agreeing with these last few months conspiracy theorists :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you had been here for that last 8 years or so. I'm sure you would be calling everyone here you've been agreeing with these last few months conspiracy theorists :wacko:

 

I would love to. I like proof. They are a lot better than radical op-eds . . from either party. I dont care what may be assumed, facts and proof work better than half-ass guesses Perch. I will always take that view . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko: I love seeing the contortionists here desparately trying to rationalize their precious Obama's stinky deals. As long as it's your guy, he gets a pass and can do no wrong.

 

But he's qualified to be a Judge, so it's ok. :D

There's no proof that Obama is doing this to influence his brother's vote, so it's ok. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D I love seeing the contortionists here desparately trying to rationalize their precious Obama's stinky deals. As long as it's your guy, he gets a pass and can do no wrong.

 

But he's qualified to be a Judge, so it's ok. :D

There's no proof that Obama is doing this to influence his brother's vote, so it's ok. :D

 

Innocent until proven guilty I guess doesnt apply for Democrats huh? :D

 

What on earth is wrong with actually wanting proof instead of a frenzied op-ed flurry from conservatives? Do you REALLY want to disqualify a guy based on a rumor or conspiracy theory?

 

I guess proof and facts are too much to ask for? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D I love seeing the contortionists here desparately trying to rationalize their precious Obama's stinky deals. As long as it's your guy, he gets a pass and can do no wrong.

 

But he's qualified to be a Judge, so it's ok. :D

There's no proof that Obama is doing this to influence his brother's vote, so it's ok. :D

 

The smell of micro thermite is strong in this one.

 

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by reading some of the most recent posts, I can see clearly now how Obama got as many votes as he did. :wacko:

 

I voted for him because some crazy ACORN lady bought me a pack of smokes and a foty of malt liquor. Also he promised me that I wouldn't have to pay for gas or my house. chaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Innocent until proven guilty I guess doesnt apply for Democrats huh? :D

 

What on earth is wrong with actually wanting proof instead of a frenzied op-ed flurry from conservatives? Do you REALLY want to disqualify a guy based on a rumor or conspiracy theory?

 

I guess proof and facts are too much to ask for? :wacko:

 

What kind of proof are you looking for here? I suppose you want a signed and notarized memo from Obama to Congressman Matheson saying that he is appointing his brother to the Court in expectation that he will change his position on the Healthcare vote? Anyone who follows politics knows that there are no coincidences in Washington. The timing of this is a smoking gun. Obama just happens to appoint the Congressman's brother to the position on the same day that he's exclusivley inviting the Matheson to a meeting to discuss his stance on Obamacare??? Have you never heard of the appearance of impropriety? Shouldn't we expect better of our President? Shouldn't we expect that he doesn't make decisions which might look unethical (whether they can be proven to be or not)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of proof are you looking for here? I suppose you want a signed and notarized memo from Obama to Congressman Matheson saying that he is appointing his brother to the Court in expectation that he will change his position on the Healthcare vote? Anyone who follows politics knows that there are no coincidences in Washington. The timing of this is a smoking gun. Obama just happens to appoint the Congressman's brother to the position on the same day that he's exclusivley inviting the Matheson to a meeting to discuss his stance on Obamacare??? Have you never heard of the appearance of impropriety? Shouldn't we expect better of our President? Shouldn't we expect that he doesn't make decisions which might look unethical (whether they can be proven to be or not)?

 

Very valid points. So you think that simply based on perception we should dictate appointments, contracts and who we do business with? :wacko: No facts, but simply perception?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information