Time to Pay Off Obama's Allies.

[Timminz]

I think fatty is drunk.

[Phatscotty]

Two huge stories are taking place by and for the Obama administration.

1) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26240.html
The first case deals with David Axelrod. He is currently receiving a severage package from an advertising company that heavily advertises for democratic causes. They are currently producing ads costing $12 million to help support the health care reform. Not only did Axelrod found the organization, his son also works with the group. Any similarities with Cheney's relationship with Haliburton? Sounds somewhat similar to me, so is there outrage?

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/?test=latestnews
This one is huge on two fronts. First is the issue that Obama and most democrats are staunchly opposed to drilling off the shores of the US, but apparently they will extend credit to companies that wish to drill off the coast of Brazil. So instead of spending our credit and tax dollars here in the US where we can create jobs and bring in tax revenue, we have to send the money to another country. I'm pretty sure drilling there has the same global warming emissions as drilling here, so why can we not get the benefits?
The second issue in this, and where the allies are getting paid off, has to do with certain shareholders of the company receiving the credit. George Soros, the insanely rich guy who lives and breathes liberalism, is a shareholder of the company. The largest holding for his hedge-fund firm is this company. Fishy much?

When Obama starts/ extends / influences a war to directly financialy benefit himself and his cronies then I will accept that his actions are as much of a disgrace as those of Cheyney. Good to see you accepting that Haliburton are the unacceptable face of Capitalism though, you agree of course that prosecutions were/are in order for those Texan bloodsuckers ?

comic, you actually make a little sense there. I only have a problem that you try to weigh out and compare CORRUPTIONS, i mean i guess one could or would or might or wont be worse than any other....No fucking person liked the idea of haliburton or what cheney was obviously doing. It ALL has to stop. can you agree with me on that???

[Woodruff]

Is this baiting?

What about it do you consider to be baiting?

Flame baiting (or just baiting) is the intentional attempt to get someone else to flame.
hide: Baiting Specifics
* Just because you didn't directly attack another user does not make your post a meaningful contribution. If your post's intent was to provoke another user into an emotional response, to get under their skin or to otherwise piss them off, you're baiting them. Hopefully the user doesn't take the bait, but you'll probably get a warning from a mod.

I didn't see ANYTHING in Night Strike's original post that I thought was baiting.

When in position of authority do you think it appropriate for the MODERATOR (and I use that term loosely) to start controversial topics such as politics, especially in light of what is occurring in the US and around our global community?

I don't find it inappropriate in the slightest, as long as the topic as posted is not breaking any site rules.

I believe that this thread is intentional baiting to get specific members to publicly voice their opinions and perhaps in the heat of the moment state something they may regret later with the ultimate goal of the OP to get them banned.

Wow...I just don't even know what to say in response to this. I definitely don't see what you seem to be seeing.

If the OP were not a MODERATOR, who by the way are to exhibit MODERATION, thus the name, I would not take issue with the thread.

That seems hypocritical and unfair, to me.

I forgot cheneywasveryveryverytightwithhalliburton.com or classenvyagainstcorporations.com

I see, so you deny that Cheney was tied to Haliburton?

Yes, I do

Haliburton is an international Food Ingredients Corporation

Halliburton, on the other hand, is the energy company which Dick Cheney stepped down from in July of 2000 before ever assuming the vice-presidency. Halliburton is the energy company which had its cost-plus fixed fee contract renewed by the defense department because it was originally approved by the administration of Bill Clinton.

But hey! Al Gore was very very tight with Bill Clinton...Bill Clinton was very very tight with Monica Lewinsky. Therefore, we can conclude that Al Gore supports adultery.

See how that works

Have you SEEN Gore's wife? <chuckle>

[PLAYER57832]

@ player: just so you don't think I'm being mean about the spelling, I am guilty of one of the biggest typos in CC history.

I was arguing with somebody over condom distribution and the pope's stance against it (I think it was in Africa) and said something like:

"it's not full-proof" instead of "it's not fool-proof"

.....not exactly the best typo to make when discussing condoms

That is a funny one.

Typos... I make. And I still don't use a spell checker because they don't catch a lot of the worst errors.

[Fircoal]

Is this baiting?

What about it do you consider to be baiting?

Flame baiting (or just baiting) is the intentional attempt to get someone else to flame.
hide: Baiting Specifics
* Just because you didn't directly attack another user does not make your post a meaningful contribution. If your post's intent was to provoke another user into an emotional response, to get under their skin or to otherwise piss them off, you're baiting them. Hopefully the user doesn't take the bait, but you'll probably get a warning from a mod.

I didn't see ANYTHING in Night Strike's original post that I thought was baiting.

When in position of authority do you think it appropriate for the MODERATOR (and I use that term loosely) to start controversial topics such as politics, especially in light of what is occurring in the US and around our global community?

I don't find it inappropriate in the slightest, as long as the topic as posted is not breaking any site rules.

I believe that this thread is intentional baiting to get specific members to publicly voice their opinions and perhaps in the heat of the moment state something they may regret later with the ultimate goal of the OP to get them banned.

Wow...I just don't even know what to say in response to this. I definitely don't see what you seem to be seeing.

If the OP were not a MODERATOR, who by the way are to exhibit MODERATION, thus the name, I would not take issue with the thread.

That seems hypocritical and unfair, to me.

I agree, but I think the bigger point is that if NightStrike has done what they say he has , which is believable, then he should be removed from his position as a mod. I don't have any problem with a mod posting topics of any sort. I just have a problem with a mod overreacting and having a banning tantrum. Not saying this as or hasn't happened. Just IF. (And it's not like I wouldn't myself ever XD)

I believe that this thread is intentional baiting to get specific members to publicly voice their opinions and perhaps in the heat of the moment state something they may regret later with the ultimate goal of the OP to get them banned.

That's called P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A

[Woodruff]

I agree, but I think the bigger point is that if NightStrike has done what they say he has , which is believable, then he should be removed from his position as a mod. I don't have any problem with a mod posting topics of any sort. I just have a problem with a mod overreacting and having a banning tantrum. Not saying this as or hasn't happened. Just IF.

I absolutely agree.

[notyou2]

Moderators are to moderate. Posting divisive subjects is moderating?

[Night Strike]

Moderators are to moderate. Posting divisive subjects is moderating?

So we aren't allowed to speak our minds or share our opinions? Let's get back on the topic of payoffs rather than moderating.

[notyou2]

If you accept a position of authority, you need to practice moderation and appear unbiased. You are entitled to your opinions. Should you air your opinions on sensitive objects when in a position of authority? I personally believe you shouldn't, because then you no longer appear to be non-partisan/unbiased, and it undermines your authority.

[Woodruff]

Moderators are to moderate. Posting divisive subjects is moderating?

Their position as a moderator applies to how they GOVERN (for lack of a better word) and has nothing to do with how they post.

[notyou2]

Wood, do you not understand the difference between appearing unbiased and actually showing bias?

[Night Strike]

notyou2, could you please leave my topic on-topic? If you have a problem with me starting this thread, go PM Optimus Prime. Or just don't post in the thread. Talk about moderator bias in its own thread.

[Woodruff]

Wood, do you not understand the difference between appearing unbiased and actually showing bias?

Absolutely, I do...but I definitely think that context is involved.

Showing bias in postings (pro-Republican or anti-Wheaties or pro-PETA or anti-whatever) is irrelevant to his duties as a moderator.

As long as he's not showing bias against individuals in carrying out his moderating duties, that's ALL that matters. Period.

[PLAYER57832]

Wood, do you not understand the difference between appearing unbiased and actually showing bias?

Absolutely, I do...but I definitely think that context is involved.

Showing bias in postings (pro-Republican or anti-Wheaties or pro-PETA or anti-whatever) is irrelevant to his duties as a moderator.

As long as he's not showing bias against individuals in carrying out his moderating duties, that's ALL that matters. Period.

Exactly,

Now to get back to the topic at hand.

If you are talking about a specific issue that can be/needs to be fixed, then there is benefit to bringing it up. Blackwater was such a case. The corruption involved greatly harmed our mission in Iraq. That Blackwater is now losing money is irrelevant to the fact that they did cause great harm in Iraq. Money was part of it, though the primary comparison was to US army forces or direct employees doing the same work, rather than to other contractors (as Lunns chart showed). Also, it had to do with the whole concept of whether it is OK for the US to essentially hire mercenaries instead of using military personnel for security tasks.

Trying to make a general slurr -- "well, Bush might have been bad, but Obama is just as bad (or almost as bad)" is pointless. No administration is perfect. Using that as an excuse for bad behavior is just stupid, but acknowledging it as a reality and focusing on the individual ways to improve individual administration's actions might actually result in change.

That is why I took issue, Nightstrike. There was nothing in your post about fixing anything. It was merely an attack on Obama, by comparing him to the previous administration. And, further, I don't really feel there is a direct comparison.

Rewarding people who help a campaign, to a point, is part of how our system works. Few people do things for purely altruistic reasons. Let's face it. The problem is when it gets excessive, when it means truly incompetent people (not just someone perhaps less qualified, because that is subjective) are put in positions or when true harm is ignored/caused as a result. This DID happen with Blackwater. Unless I am missing something, you have not shown it to be the case with Obama.

[pimpdave]

Hey Night Strike, you never answered my question.

[Woodruff]

Hey Night Strike, you never answered my question.

Nor did you answer mine to you.

[pimpdave]

Hey Night Strike, you never answered my question.

Nor did you answer mine to you.

I asked first.

[Woodruff]

Hey Night Strike, you never answered my question.

Nor did you answer mine to you.

I asked first.

I never really considered you someone that would be afraid to answer a simple question before. How unfortunate for you.

[pimpdave]

I never really considered you someone that would be afraid to answer a simple question before. How unfortunate for you.

Are you Night Strike's multi? Why respond to a question with a question? Why not just answer mine first and then follow up. That's usually how these things work.

Also, stop taking this off-topic. My question relates to the topic, in that I only want to know if NS thinks he should be held to the same standard he demands of the President.

You're just filibustering. How unfortunate for you.

[Woodruff]

I never really considered you someone that would be afraid to answer a simple question before. How unfortunate for you.

Are you Night Strike's multi? Why respond to a question with a question? Why not just answer mine first and then follow up. That's usually how these things work.

I am not Night Strike's multi (what an idiotic question). As well, your question wasn't directed to me...why would I answer it? That makes no sense at all.

Also, stop taking this off-topic. My question relates to the topic, in that I only want to know if NS thinks he should be held to the same standard he demands of the President.
You're just filibustering. How unfortunate for you.

My question relates directly to your statements about Night Strike in this thread. So in order for me to be off-topic, you would already have had to have been off-topic.

So were you going to answer it, or just continue to run from it?

[pimpdave]

My question relates directly to your statements about Night Strike in this thread. So in order for me to be off-topic, you would already have had to have been off-topic.

Wrong. Invalid.

Filibustering.

[Woodruff]

My question relates directly to your statements about Night Strike in this thread. So in order for me to be off-topic, you would already have had to have been off-topic.

Wrong. Invalid.
Filibustering.

And the answer is...he'll run from it. A shadow of his former self.

[pimpdave]

And the answer is...he'll run from it. A shadow of his former self.

Flaming and trolling... will a favorite of theirs' not get banned?

[Night Strike]

So, seeing as it's time for everyone to pay off their allies, why don't you hold yourself to the same standard you demand of the federal government and also of all of us in here? How would you respond if the same was done to you that you have done to many of us?

Considering I don't have any allies to pay off, your analogy doesn't apply (not that it was a very analogous situation anyway). I haven't done anything to anybody that was against the rules in regards to my moderating. And since this is now the 2nd thread you've attempted this smear campaign against me with absolutely no evidence, let's get back on topic.

[Phatscotty]

And the answer is...he'll run from it. A shadow of his former self.

Flaming and trolling... will a favorite of theirs' not get banned?

never on topic man. Obama allies are getting paid off just like every single presidents allies get paid off. stop being a schill for obama. I know you have a brain, please think in those ways that make your head hurt