Lobbyists are evil. That's why Obama avoids them.

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by zzzz, Jun 19, 2009.

  1. zzzz

    zzzz 2,500+ Posts

  2. groverat

    groverat 2,500+ Posts

  3. Oilfield

    Oilfield Guest

    The George Strait song, "Ocean Front Property" comes to mind. Anybody that buys that lobbyist pledge from Obama should have their head examined.
  4. UT1986

    UT1986 500+ Posts

    I wholeheartedly agree with your first statement. Lobbyists are like that song written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong and sung by Edwin Starr " War! huh good God
    What is it good for? Absolutely nothing"

    I guess they have a purpose, then again so do cockroaches.
  5. gecko

    gecko 2,500+ Posts

    Culture or corruption.
  6. 911_horn

    911_horn 500+ Posts

    well we got change, but not exactly what we had hoped it would be. sometimes change is more corrupt and worse than the ****** hand you had prior.

    this loser turd polishes and makes these statements that technically are correct, but he knows are corrupt. His ******** about not taking money from big oil. He took money from many oil executives. he would argue that it didn't come from oil companies. no ****. they aren't allowed to give him money. so sick of this guys ********, and his boot licking minions who cannot even see right from wrong anymore.
  7. groverat

    groverat 2,500+ Posts

    This thread, so far, is an excellent example of why the West Mall is basically worthless right now. There are ZERO ideas here, it is entirely the exact same partisan whining that is featured in essentially every single other thread. It is repetitive and melodramatic at the same time.

    So, angry conservatives, what do you suggest? What political movements are doing something about this? What improvements can be made?
  8. kgp

    kgp 1,000+ Posts

    It seems like freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances is worth protecting. But lobbying is evil. Hmm.

    The way to limit corruption's scope is to limit the power and money concentrated in Washington. Every 'reform' will have a legal or available illicit backdoor. We are doing the exact wrong thing with putting more money and power in one place.
  9. Oilfield

    Oilfield Guest

    As usual, KGP hit the nail on the head. The key is to reduce the size and scope of government. When you do this, and only when you do this, will you reduce (not eliminate) the influence peddling and corruption. Because Obama has taken us on the course of increasing the size of government exponentially, then the corruption will also increase exponentially. Yesterday there was a story about ACORN using government grant money to lobby Congress. How incredibly rich is that?

    The link
  10. 911_horn

    911_horn 500+ Posts

  11. alden

    alden 1,000+ Posts

  12. Oilfield

    Oilfield Guest

    Sure there is something you can do which you can crow about and call a great viscory like McCain's campaign reform. Only problem is it doesn't work.
  13. groverat

    groverat 2,500+ Posts

  14. BOSS

    BOSS 100+ Posts

  15. BOSS

    BOSS 100+ Posts

    Here's my take on the local government argument that has been set forth:

    I am a resident of the State of Texas and a citizen of the United States of America. When the State of Texas enacts laws, I am required to follow them and be subject to them. When the United States of America passes laws, I am likewise obligated to subject myself to them.

    If the power center was shifted to more local governments (whether we define local as state, county, municipal or otherwise), there would no doubt be corruption and improper political influence on those levels.

    However, I am not affected by the political influence of forces outside my state. If the redwood lobbyists want to spend millions to pass legislation in California, then they can knock themselves out. It will have little to no influence on me.

    When the oil lobbyists spend millions to impact legislation in Texas, it will drastically affect me, but it will not largely impact someone in say North Dakota.

    At the end of the day, the citizens of the State of Texas have more say in voting out the bums in our legislature who deal with lobbyists. I'm not concerned with whether some representative from Hoboken takes money under the table to influence a vote.

    I may still care if a representative from Hale Center takes improper money, and have nearly as little say in their election, but I think I share a whole lot more in common with someone from Plainview than I do someone in Fargo.

    And at the end of the day, I can only point fingers at the citizens of this state, rather than be incredibly frustrated by the representatives and senators from other states whose interests are nearly 180 degrees from mine.

    That's just my two cents on the matter.
  16. zzzz

    zzzz 2,500+ Posts

  17. groverat

    groverat 2,500+ Posts

  18. MaduroUTMB

    MaduroUTMB 2,500+ Posts

  19. naijahorn

    naijahorn 250+ Posts

    Always interesting what zzzz chooses to quote and not quote

  20. zzzz

    zzzz 2,500+ Posts

    And the seventh paragraph paints the fundraising in a different light than the main thrust of the article how?

    Both point out the reason they held back-to-back fundraisers at the same hotel was to technically comply with his pledge.

  21. groverat

    groverat 2,500+ Posts

    Would you argue that Obama does not at least represent an improvement?
  22. ScoPro

    ScoPro 1,000+ Posts

  23. groverat

    groverat 2,500+ Posts

    Well reasoned.
  24. zzzz

    zzzz 2,500+ Posts

    I'd like to think he represents an improvement in that he really believes the influence of big business on Washington is bad. But as you and others would point out, he's also a pragmatist. So he is willing to accept the old way of doing things as long as it helps him and his party. See his pledge to rely on public financing for example.

Share This Page