I mean, isn’t that a bit like saying that you won’t take a bribe from a business owner, but you will take a bribe from his wife?
The problem is that you are projecting your lack of ethical standards onto others. Liberals don’t always act like republicans do.
You are making empty accusations without any evidence.
Hannitized - 07:06pm on 06/05/2008
Hannitized, you’re full of it.
Obama is superficial, as usual, the MSM only needs to dig as far as Axelrod who was “super lobbyist” to every one, including energy compaies, in Chicago.
Is he going to dump Axelrod? I’d like to see someone ask him......but they won’t.
patriot - 08:06pm on 06/05/2008
Liberals don’t always act like republicans do.
Sad but true. Because if they did, I would pay less in taxes, live in a safer world, pay less for fuel, be able to hire educated young people, and racism would be almost non existant.
Oh well, one can always hope...???
atease
atease - 08:06pm on 06/05/2008
Obama campaign’s standards still allow for contributions from the spouses and relatives of lobbyists.
Aren’t those “loopholes” that the free lunchers always yammer about?
Kevin - 09:06pm on 06/05/2008
But Kevin,
You are making empty accusations without any evidence.
according to some.
atease
atease - 09:06pm on 06/05/2008
You are making empty accusations without any evidence.
Fact: Obama says he won’t accept money from lobbyists.
Fact: Obama has received money from the spouses and relatives of lobbyists.
Conclusion: Obama is being blatantly deceptive.
Change!
Rob - 09:06pm on 06/05/2008
If Obama were a Republican this gaping loophole in his “ban” on lobbyist money would be thrown right back in his face.
No if he were a Republican he wouldn’t make the offer.
Hawk - 07:06am on 06/06/2008
Another word for lobbyist: constituent.
Why does Obama wish to ban constituent money? Such a thing isn’t in line with the principles of being “democratic”.
likwidshoe - 07:06am on 06/06/2008
Fact: Obama says he won’t accept money from lobbyists.
Fact: Obama has received money from the spouses and relatives of lobbyists.
Conclusion: Obama is being blatantly deceptive.
How much money did those spouses and relatives give? Was it the standard normal amount every normal citizen can contribute to a campaign, yes or no?
You are just being a dishonest dipshit.
Hannitized - 11:06am on 06/06/2008
Why does Obama wish to ban constituent money?
Whistler,
Because, being a Democrat, appearances are what is most important. Its the triumph of style over substance, fluff over fact, and platitudes over prinicples.
The problem is that you are projecting your lack of ethical standards onto others. Liberals don’t always act like republicans do.
You are making empty accusations without any evidence.
Hannitized, you’re full of it.
Obama is superficial, as usual, the MSM only needs to dig as far as Axelrod who was “super lobbyist” to every one, including energy compaies, in Chicago.
Is he going to dump Axelrod? I’d like to see someone ask him......but they won’t.
Sad but true. Because if they did, I would pay less in taxes, live in a safer world, pay less for fuel, be able to hire educated young people, and racism would be almost non existant.
Oh well, one can always hope...???
atease
Aren’t those “loopholes” that the free lunchers always yammer about?
But Kevin,
according to some.
atease
Fact: Obama says he won’t accept money from lobbyists.
Fact: Obama has received money from the spouses and relatives of lobbyists.
Conclusion: Obama is being blatantly deceptive.
Change!
No if he were a Republican he wouldn’t make the offer.
Another word for lobbyist: constituent.
Why does Obama wish to ban constituent money? Such a thing isn’t in line with the principles of being “democratic”.
How much money did those spouses and relatives give? Was it the standard normal amount every normal citizen can contribute to a campaign, yes or no?
You are just being a dishonest dipshit.
Why does Obama wish to ban constituent money?
Whistler,
Because, being a Democrat, appearances are what is most important. Its the triumph of style over substance, fluff over fact, and platitudes over prinicples.