Azazello1313 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Very valid points. So you think that simply based on perception we should dictate appointments, contracts and who we do business with? No facts, but simply perception? are you seriously this dense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I guess it IS too much to ask for proof. So much for the "fair and balanced" posters on this board Your right, Blind eyes, can't see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 are you seriously this dense? and here I thought you could have followed this to the logical conclusion . . . sorry Az . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Very valid points. So you think that simply based on perception we should dictate appointments, contracts and who we do business with? No facts, but simply perception? Judges and Politicians are supposed to recuse themselves from situations which would put the public trust at risk. They do this to avoid the appearance of impropriety whether or not they would ACTUALLY act unethical in the situation. Why do you think they do this even if there is no proof of unethical behavior? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Judges and Politicians are supposed to recuse themselves from situations which would put the public trust at risk. They do this to avoid the appearance of impropriety whether or not they would ACTUALLY act unethical in the situation. Why do you think they do this even if there is no proof of unethical behavior? Aww, hell. It's not like the obamessiah is trying to engineer elections or anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) how about if our elected officials want to pass something -- let alone something that will totally re-work 1/6th of the economy, and that a clear majority of the public do not want -- that maybe they come up with something that can attract broader support, so they don't HAVE to cajole votes with pork, kickbacks, exclusions, and choice nominations. I mean, if there's anything I would ask for in all of this, it's that. Edited March 5, 2010 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 how about if our elected officials want to pass something -- let alone something that will totally re-work 1/6th of the economy, and that a clear majority of the public do not want -- that maybe they come up with something that can attract broader support, so they don't HAVE to cajole votes with pork, kickbacks, exclusions, and choice nominations. I mean, if there's anything I would ask for in all of this, it's that. I agree with you Az . . and I dont like the current bill. It is pretty obvious that just like during Clinton's term in office, as soon as the Republicans win back more seats (and they sure as hell will) that nothing will be done . . . again. Opportunity lost, and America loses again. Status quo remains . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 ...just like during Clinton's term in office, as soon as the Republicans win back more seats (and they sure as hell will) that nothing will be done . . . again... actually, quite a lot was done when the republicans took congress during clinton's presidency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 actually, quite a lot was done when the republicans took congress during clinton's presidency. On health care reform? Or when the contract with America was passed through reconciliation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) There is no conspiracy theory. There are facts. 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? 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. There's no proof that Obama is doing this to influence his brother's vote, so it's ok. Matheson votes no on health care bill. Wow, how silly do you guys feel now? Edited March 22, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Matheson votes no on health care bill. Wow, how silly do you guys feel now? He only voted no because these guys on a message board pointed out the devious plan ahead of the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) Matheson votes no on health care bill. Wow, how silly do you guys feel now? Sooo the vitrol filled anger from Az, Savage, Mucca and others was completely misplaced? Fueled by conspiracy theorists and grasping at straws? patiently waiting for a retraction . . . . but I think I will be here awhile . . . You werent that dense to fall for this . . were you Az? How embarassing for you . . . . . Edited March 22, 2010 by bpwallace49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Matheson votes no on health care bill. Wow, how silly do you guys feel now? I had no dog in the fight, but the fact that Matheson stuck to his principles and voted as his constituents wanted does not rule out the possibility that Obabma was trying to influence his vote. Obama was fairly aggressive in campaining for votes over the last few weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 the possibility that Obabma was trying to influence his vote. Obama was fairly aggressive in campaining for votes over the last few weeks. That's his job, isn't it? At least part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 That's his job, isn't it? At least part of it. Not buying votes, if that was the attempt. And bp, link to my vitriol on this issue? I've scalded EVERYONE for impropriety and corruption in the process but you won't find any vitriol here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Not buying votes, if that was the attempt. And bp, link to my vitriol on this issue? I've scalded EVERYONE for impropriety and corruption in the process but you won't find any vitriol here. Wv, my apologies. I confused this thread with the IRS and falsely included you. I have edited it to include Mucca instead . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Looks like he failed at buying any Republicans in secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Wv, my apologies. I confused this thread with the IRS and falsely included you. I have edited it to include Mucca instead . . All wingnuts look alike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Sooo the vitrol filled anger from Az, Savage, Mucca and others was completely misplaced? Fueled by conspiracy theorists and grasping at straws? patiently waiting for a retraction . . . . but I think I will be here awhile . . . You werent that dense to fall for this . . were you Az? How embarassing for you . . . . . wait, what? vitriol? perhaps you ought to re-read my posts in this thread. so matheson has some integrity and sense, good for him. how does that in any way rule out or excuse the impropriety of giving his brother a juicy appointment at the very time he was trying to convince the guy to vote for his bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) Don't sprain an ankle backpedaling on your conspiracy theory that didn't happen. Edited March 22, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.