Democratic Hypocrits

[ArlJim78]

I think this is the reason why you heard all the wailing from politicians about the recent supreme court decision. democrats want to have the lobbyists and corporate donors come directly to their retreats, donations in hand.

Like this one documented by Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0210/Dem_senators_spent_weekend_with_bank_energy_tobacc o_lobbyists.html?showall), the winter meeting of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign committee is loaded with the supposedly despised corporate fat cats and lobbyists. they even obtained the guest list:lol:

"The guest list for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's "winter retreat" at the Ritz Carlton South Beach Resort doesn't include the price tag for attendance, but the maximum contribution to the committee, typical for such events, is $30,000. There, to participate in "informal conversations" and other meetings Saturday, were senators including DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez; Michigan's Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow; Bob Casey of Pennsylvania; Claire McCaskill of Missouri; freshmen Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Begich of Alaska; and even left-leaning Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Across the table was a who's who of 108 senior Washington lobbyists, including the top lobbying officials for many of the industries Democrats regularly attack: Represented were the American Bankers Association, the tobaco company Altria, the oil company Marathon, the Edison Electric Institute, which has battled climate regulation, several drug manufacturers, the defense contractor Lockheed, and most of the large independent lobbying firms: Ogilvy, BGR, Quinn Gillespie, Heather Podesta, and Tony Podesta."
_______________________________________________

This part is particularly rich. The chairmen of this committee, democratic senator Robert Menendez issued this statement (http://www.dscc.org/news?type=press_release&press_release_KEY=1050)the day before this shindig began,

“While we invite Republicans to work with us, they have shown a stunning disinterest in doing so. In fact, Republicans prefer to bet on the failure of the President and of the country. But Republicans will be on the ballot this November too, and their only solutions are a return to the very policies favoring corporate interests that got us here in the first place. In the upcoming elections, voters will face a choice between Republicans who are standing with Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies - or Democrats who are working hard to clean up the mess we inherited by putting the people's interests ahead of the special interests.”

umm Mr. Menedez, have you not looked at your very own guest list for this weekend? Looks like lot of fat cats to me.

Oh yes, thank you for your great example Mr. Menendez of how to work for the people and not the special interests, by hosting a group of corporate lobbyists at a Miami resort.

Spare me the phony outrage about how it will be so awful for corporations to run their own political ads on TV, yet it's perfectly acceptable to have private conversations with them while you rub shoulders at a resort after they have donated to your campaign committee.

[boxcar]

This is what progressives, liberals, statists -- whatever label you want to use -- are. Liars and Hypocrites. And this is why we have many on this forum who champion such political leaders; for they are as morally bankrupt as their fearless leaders.

Boxcar

[riskman]

Hey these people are just exercising their constitutional right to free speech? We have the best government money can buy. What our Supreme Court has done is to remove any semblance of honesty from government. It’s now up to us as individuals to declare our allegiance to our favorite corporation.

[Tom]

You mean those not already in line with Soros and the unions?

[mostpost]

Both parties have these retreats for their donors. Any donations given at these events must be within the law. Corporations, or donors, are limited in what they can give to a party or candidate. Citizens United v. FEC did not change that. What it did was give corporations unlimited power to finance ad campaigns in favor of their preferred candidates, or against candidates which they opposed. We could have a long discussion of why that is harmful to the nation, but I am not getting into that here.

As far as lobbying itself is concerned, I don't consider it a great evil.
Lobbying is like alcohol. It's not bad in itself, only when it's abused.

[boxcar]

Both parties have these retreats for their donors. Any donations given at these events must be within the law. Corporations, or donors, are limited in what they can give to a party or candidate. Citizens United v. FEC did not change that. What it did was give corporations unlimited power to finance ad campaigns in favor of their preferred candidates, or against candidates which they opposed. We could have a long discussion of why that is harmful to the nation, but I am not getting into that here.

As far as lobbying itself is concerned, I don't consider it a great evil.
Lobbying is like alcohol. It's not bad in itself, only when it's abused.

But speaking out of both sides of your mouth is a "GREAT EVIL"! And that's the point to this thread. What part of the term "hypocritical", don't you understand? Out of one side of their mouth, the DEMS constantly demonize "big business", the private sector, the corporate world because they're sooo eeevil and greeedy and make all their excessive profits on the backs of all the poooor people for whom the DEMS are their self-appointed, annoitnted champions. :rolleyes: But then turn right around and wine and dine these "bottom feeders" out of their lust for their money, all the while making back room, private deals designed to screw the public!

The Democratic Party is repugnant and despicable. A mountain of cow manure smells much better than one liberal politician!

Boxcar

[mostpost]

But speaking out of both sides of your mouth is a "GREAT EVIL"! And that's the point to this thread. What part of the term "hypocritical", don't you understand? Out of one side of their mouth, the DEMS constantly demonize "big business", the private sector, the corporate world because they're sooo eeevil and greeedy and make all their excessive profits on the backs of all the poooor people for whom the DEMS are their self-appointed, annoitnted champions. :rolleyes: But then turn right around and wine and dine these "bottom feeders" out of their lust for their money, all the while making back room, private deals designed to screw the public!

The Democratic Party is repugnant and despicable. A mountain of cow manure smells much better than one liberal politician!

Boxcar
So you are saying that Democrats are taking money from "Big business" and using that money to advance their agenda. Just what is that agenda? Put simply, it is to advance the fortunes of the less fortunate, to provide a semblance of equity. Democrats look to reduce the power of those who have all the power and to increase the power of those who have none.
If part of that plan is to speak out against lobbying excesses or illegalities, and accept contributions from legitimate lobbying groups, that is not hypocrisy. As I said before, the act of lobbying is a legitimate exercise of an organization presenting its point of view to the legislature or to a regulatory body. The problem arises when a lobbyist takes a government position while maintaining his allegiance to his former employer, and makes decisions based on what is best for that employer rather than what is best for the country. Or, of course, there is a problem if a lobbyist uses money to influence a legislator.

As I pointed out, both parties hold annual events of this kind. The purpose is twofold; to raise money (FOR BOTH PARTIES) and it gives lobbyists the oportunity to interact with government.

[Snag]

So you are saying that Democrats are taking money from "Big business" and using that money to advance their agenda. Just what is that agenda? Put simply, it is to advance the fortunes of the less fortunate, to provide a semblance of equity. Democrats look to reduce the power of those who have all the power and to increase the power of those who have none.


My Dad use to say that the reason there are so many "less fortunate" is becasue of the policies of the Dems. If their policies really worked, there wouldn't be any less fortunate. The Dems have had the purse strings for 3 plus years now and look at how many "less fortunate" folks we have.

[lsbets]

So you are saying that Democrats are taking money from "Big business" and using that money to advance their agenda. Just what is that agenda? Put simply, it is to advance the fortunes of the less fortunate, to provide a semblance of equity. Democrats look to reduce the power of those who have all the power and to increase the power of those who have none.


You're kidding, right? Please tell me how the Democrats have reduced the power of Goldman and GE. I think most would argue that power has been consolidated amongst the super haves under this administration, and that they have more power than ever. This administration has advanced the fortunes of their friends while screwing the people and trying to convince the people they are looking out for them. Hopefully not too many fall for it as you have. What have we gotten under the Obama regime? Less prosperity, less freedom, and less security. Sounds great. :faint:

[boxcar]

So you are saying that Democrats are taking money from "Big business" and using that money to advance their agenda. Just what is that agenda? Put simply, it is to advance the fortunes of the less fortunate, to provide a semblance of equity. Democrats look to reduce the power of those who have all the power and to increase the power of those who have none.
If part of that plan is to speak out against lobbying excesses or illegalities, and accept contributions from legitimate lobbying groups, that is not hypocrisy. As I said before, the act of lobbying is a legitimate exercise of an organization presenting its point of view to the legislature or to a regulatory body. The problem arises when a lobbyist takes a government position while maintaining his allegiance to his former employer, and makes decisions based on what is best for that employer rather than what is best for the country. Or, of course, there is a problem if a lobbyist uses money to influence a legislator.

As I pointed out, both parties hold annual events of this kind. The purpose is twofold; to raise money (FOR BOTH PARTIES) and it gives lobbyists the oportunity to interact with government.


So, you're perfectly okay with the DEMS when they publicly demonize these very evil, greedy corporations but that they also court, woo and embrace "privately" behind closed doors where I suppose they're not so evil and greedy -- not when politicians want something from them. Now, you tell me, sir, what the Dems' agenda is? We've gone through this exercise before. With whom do you think the politicians' loyalties lie -- with Joe Blow Voter who may donate a few bucks to a politician or with these corporations who donate in the aggregate millions to these crooks? Money talks very loud, doesn't it? And it's especially loud when it's piled high. Any moron would know that the politicians are going to be beholding to the BIG, MONEYED corporations. So, I'm not quite sure how your denial of all this would characterize you. :rolleyes:

You say that "everyone" does this, but not everyone publicly demonizes the private sector at every possible opportunity but is equally as quick to stuff their pockets with these "evil" corporations' money. You just don't want to admit that you and your ilk are drunk on the kool-aid because you believe that these two-faced, forked-tongued hypocrites really do have the little guy's best interests at heart. Are you that foolish? That naive to believe this? You don't see that you're being played?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

My Dad use to say that the reason there are so many "less fortunate" is becasue of the policies of the Dems. If their policies really worked, there wouldn't be any less fortunate. The Dems have had the purse strings for 3 plus years now and look at how many "less fortunate" folks we have.

My father used to say this country will be brought down by the haves vs. the have nots. I used to laugh when he said that.

I stopped laughing about 10 years ago.

[boxcar]

My father used to say this country will be brought down by the haves vs. the have nots. I used to laugh when he said that.

I stopped laughing about 10 years ago.

Keep laughing 'cause your daddy was wrong. This country is being brought down by the have-not's ongoing lust for the have's money.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Keep laughing 'cause your daddy was wrong. This country is being brought down by the have-not's ongoing lust for the have's money.

Boxcar
That is an absolutely bizarre take on things. To look at someone who is just trying to provide the basics for his family and accuse him of lusting for money, shows a lack of empathy and decency that is shocking. It indicates a cruelty that is a total disconnect from your phony bible thumping. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: x1000000
On second thought it meshes perfectly with your lack of understanding what the Bible is about.

[boxcar]

That is an absolutely bizarre take on things. To look at someone who is just trying to provide the basics for his family and accuse him of lusting for money, shows a lack of empathy and decency that is shocking. It indicates a cruelty that is a total disconnect from your phony bible thumping. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: x1000000
On second thought it meshes perfectly with your lack of understanding what the Bible is about.

A moral, spiritual, virtuous poor WORKING person would not be looking for handouts from anyone. Instead, he would be looking for ways to better his lot in life instead of sticking his hands in other people's pockets to help himself to money he did not earn. His sense of pride, self-esteem, self-worth and his overarching concern to glorify God would not allow him to stoop to such levels -- certainly not through the godless, wicked state. Yes, he might seek temporary help through friends, relatives or his church family -- but not from the government.

And by the way, what part of my tag line don't you understand? There are plenty of people on the public dole right now who are abusing it. You might enjoy being taken for a naive sucker, but not all of us do!

Boxcar
P.S. If you think you're so morally superior to me, feel free to follow the early church's example in Acts. Dump ALL your worldly possessions at the gate of the White House with a note to BO to dispense with them as he sees fit. Let's see how far that will get you!

[mostpost]

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. -- 2Thes.3:10
So did Paul mean if a man were ill or crippled we should turn him away. What if no jobs were available. There is a difference between will not and cannot. You lump everyone into the will not category. Some are indeed in that category, but most are in the cannot category.
Also, would Paul have given that invocation today. Or would he have understood that this is a different time. In the time of Paul a person was likely to receive sustenance through his own direct efforts. Anyone could grow sufficient food to feed himself. You could make a judgement that a person was not willing to do his share. Nowadays, life is much more complex.
Yet you insist on making the blanket judgement that everyone without a job wants to be without a job.
As to the question of whether I am morally superior to you. I am, because I don't think I am morally superior to you, whereas you think you are morally superior to everybody.