Obama, a typical politician

daptech · 06-12-2009, 01:42 PM

Obama ousts AmeriCorps' IG who investigated friend - Yahoo! News

Papa_D · 06-12-2009, 02:17 PM

This whole thing wreaks of corruption all the way to the top as usual and I am not surprised that Goldsmith, a Republican, also endorsed this guys dismissal considering this fact.

Goldsmith also serves on the boards of several companies including: Finish Line Corporation, Anacostia Waterfront Corporation, Homes for Working Families, the Smith Richardson Foundation and the Fannie Mae Foundation.[2]

The crap stain of corruption runs all the way down the first ladies leg...

Michelle Malkin Obama’s Americorps scandal — and the First Lady’s meddling

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=992492

**Kronos1965** · 06-12-2009, 05:54 PM

How odd that Obama is accused of being corrupt and you believe it unconditionally but somehow dismiss completely that Malpin may have acted inappropriately/mishandled the investigation as cited but you believe him when he states he acted appropriately.

Hmmm.

37L1 · 06-12-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

How odd that Obama is accused of being corrupt and you believe it unconditionally but somehow dismiss completely that Malpin may have acted inappropriately/mishandled the investigation as cited but you believe him when he states he acted appropriately.

Hmmm.

How odd that you would take Obama's side, er, wait. . .

Perhaps this is the reason the IG was fired?

The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

In settling the case, the government agreed to lift its suspension of any future grants to the academy and Johnson agreed to immediately repay $73,000 in past grants. The academy was given 10 years to repay the remaining $350,000.

Now why would Kevin Johnson and the "academy" have to do that if there wasn't a problem?

Papa_D · 06-12-2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

How odd that Obama is accused of being corrupt and you believe it unconditionally but somehow dismiss completely that Malpin may have acted inappropriately/mishandled the investigation as cited but you believe him when he states he acted appropriately.

Hmmm.

I don't believe the guy who investigated is any less corrupt than the guy who got caught, the guy who fired the guy that caught the other guy or the guy in his own Party that said it was OK to fire him and in my mind, there are nothing but Fascist Gangsters on Capital Hill other than Ron Paul until proven otherwise.

Just because the guy who investigated was corrupt does not diminish the fact that the guy he caught was corrupt as well or that Obama was corrupt for firing the corrupt guy who caught the other corrupt guy and much like when there is a gang war, some guilty gangster always ends up getting killed because since they are all guilty, the guilty always die, lol.

Sorry if I mislead you to believe that I thought someone in this deal was innocent or acted with propriety because that's not the case and until proven otherwise, I will believe everyone involved is a scum bag but in this case, the most powerful scum bag and his wife were involved as well and happen to fire one scumbag when he exposed the wrong scum bag that happened to be playing for the WH home team, lol.

You can go on trying to split hairs about corruption and greed if you like and attempt to make this some right and left argument and get nowhere, or you can open your eyes to the complete piss hole that is Washington and just admit that most of them are guilty of corruption or unconstitutional behavior and help boot them all off the Hill.

Try being a citizen of America who believes in the Constitution above all else first instead of defending scum bags or trying to discredit those that call a scum bag a scum bag and you may see things more clearly.

If you are unable to do that, you will continue to care about one scum bag over another I suppose...

37L1 · 06-12-2009, 06:41 PM

Guess what? It must be a coincidence.

AmeriCorps is named as Public Alliessignature program. Although the first lady gets more press on her personal involvement in Public Allies as founding Executive Director of Public Allies Chicago, few know President Obama was on the founding advisory board for Public Allies.

YouTube - Kevin Johnson : Why I'm Nominating Barack Obama

YouTube - Kevin Johnson speaks for Barack Obama

Walpin, a New York attorney, was appointed by then-President George W. Bush and sworn into office in January 2007 after being confirmed by the Senate, according to a news release on AmeriCorps' Web site.

Bootzon · 06-12-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 37L1

How odd that you would take Obama's side, er, wait. . .

Perhaps this is the reason the IG was fired?

The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

In settling the case, the government agreed to lift its suspension of any future grants to the academy and Johnson agreed to immediately repay $73,000 in past grants. The academy was given 10 years to repay the remaining $350,000.

Now why would Kevin Johnson and the "academy" have to do that if there wasn't a problem?

Hmmm indeed.

Timely and right on as usual.

**Kronos1965** · 06-12-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 37L1

How odd that you would take Obama's side, er, wait. . .

An example of your reading into things but as you have often accused me of being an Obama supporter to the exclusion of being against any of his policies or actions, I'm not surprised.

I never said Obama was innocent or guilty or acted in retribution or acted appropriately.

But if you're going to pull out the "you never said you didn't card", then why only respond to my post when others on Off Topic have more clearly articulated their one-sided dislike for "XYZ" person...?

Quote:

Re: Obama, a typical politician
How odd that Obama is accused of being corrupt and you believe it unconditionally but somehow dismiss completely that Malpin may have acted inappropriately/mishandled the investigation as cited but you believe him when he states he acted appropriately.

Hmmm.

I'm trying to see how I'm siding with Obama. IF I did, I would be clear about it. IF you require some sort of legal copy at the bottom of my posts, write it up and I'll include it.

Apparently, if I hate everyone and say everything is lousy, I get a free pass by you?

**Kronos1965** · 06-12-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa_D

I don't believe the guy who investigated is any less corrupt than the guy who got caught, the guy who fired the guy that caught the other guy or the guy in his own Party that said it was OK to fire him and in my mind, there are nothing but Fascist Gangsters on Capital Hill other than Ron Paul until proven otherwise.

Just because the guy who investigated was corrupt does not diminish the fact that the guy he caught was corrupt as well or that Obama was corrupt for firing the corrupt guy who caught the other corrupt guy and much like when there is a gang war, some guilty gangster always ends up getting killed because since they are all guilty, the guilty always die, lol.

Sorry if I mislead you to believe that I thought someone in this deal was innocent or acted with propriety because that's not the case and until proven otherwise, I will believe everyone involved is a scum bag but in this case, the most powerful scum bag and his wife were involved as well and happen to fire one scumbag when he exposed the wrong scum bag that happened to be playing for the WH home team, lol.

You can go on trying to split hairs about corruption and greed if you like and attempt to make this some right and left argument and get nowhere, or you can open your eyes to the complete piss hole that is Washington and just admit that most of them are guilty of corruption or unconstitutional behavior and help boot them all off the Hill.

Thanks for clarifying. I saw what I believed to be an inconsistency in the post and you clarified it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa_D

Try being a citizen of America who believes in the Constitution above all else first instead of defending scum bags or trying to discredit those that call a scum bag a scum bag and you may see things more clearly.

If you are unable to do that, you will continue to care about one scum bag over another I suppose...

Our definitions differ. I believe that whining and stomping my feet, crying foul at every turn or event is hardly being a productive citizen. It's in vogue for many on this Forum to do.

You call it patriotic to secede from the United States. I call it treason.

You favor a strict and narrow view of the Constitution and any value otherwise is treasonous. I call it patriotic to work through the foibles of the Government no matter how poorly it runs and seek solutions.

Depends upon whose ox is gored. (I love using that phrase!)

BTW. I do believe in the Constitution as I would defend your right to say whatever it is you say even if I may disagree with it.

Papa_D · 06-12-2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

You favor a strict and narrow view of the Constitution and any value otherwise is treasonous. I call it patriotic to work through the foibles of the Government no matter how poorly it runs and seek solutions.

Depends upon whose ox is gored. (I love using that phrase!)

BTW. I do believe in the Constitution as I would defend your right to say whatever it is you say even if I may disagree with it.

Until the Constitution, which elected officials have sworn to uphold is legally altered, every official that violates it should at a minimum be replaced. If they don't believe in the entire Constitution and obey it, they have no business representing the people and no amount of mob rule or public mandate for change can alter that fact.

Believing in freedom of speech is great but what about the rest of the Constitution and all the violations being perpetrated by our elected officials? When our elected officials ignore the Constitution they were sworn to uphold, it is hardly a mere foible and blatant criminal behavior can hardly be described as a minor flaw or fault.

Of course if you don't believe that the oath of office is legally binding in any way and simply a formality, I suppose you can justify about anything that goes on up there and call it patriotic to allow them all to do as they please with no legal repercussions whatsoever.

**helomech** · 06-12-2009, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

You call it patriotic to secede from the United States. I call it treason.

You favor a strict and narrow view of the Constitution and any value otherwise is treasonous. I call it patriotic to work through the foibles of the Government no matter how poorly it runs and seek solutions.
:

So show me where it is treason to secede? You can't because the constitution does not give that power to the federal government.

Yeah I see what you mean, even Thomas Jefferson agrees the constitution should be interpreted.

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)

**Kronos1965** · 06-12-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helomech

So show me where it is treason to secede? You can't because the constitution does not give that power to the federal government.

Yeah I see what you mean, even Thomas Jefferson agrees the constitution should be interpreted.

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)

You won't open your eyes to information other than your own beliefs so there's no point.

Back at you...

Marcus Tullius Cicero, quotes about Treason:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

**helomech** · 06-13-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

You won't open your eyes to information other than your own beliefs so there's no point.

Back at you...

Marcus Tullius Cicero, quotes about Treason:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

My eyes are open to the constitution and what it is supposed to mean, you still have not shown me anything in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to stop a state from seceding, and you never will. Don't forget all powers not delegated to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states and the people. So that means secession is a power reserved to the states.

I don't think secession is treason. I think every one in our government is guilty of treason for not following the constitution, but I guess it is okay to do that if it is the government right?

I really can't believe you can't understand the constitution. You have got to be just stirring the pot.

And why should I or anyone else care what Marcus Tullius thinks? He was not a founding father, and had nothing to do with the U.S.
Show me a quote from someone involved in the constitution that says secession is treason. Bet you can't do that either. I can show you some that say it and civil war are very important, and are not treasonous.

**Kronos1965** · 06-13-2009, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helomech

I really can't believe you can't understand the constitution. You have got to be just stirring the pot.

Glad to know you're the defining moment of right in the world and any opinion not yours is wrong or stirring the pot. Maybe you can provide me a list of opinions I can have in advance that would not earn me the title?

I find it odd that you quote Abraham Lincoln; a diehard and defining Federalist whose only purpose was to preserve the Union. Somehow, you INTERPRETED his comments to your way of thinking. You must have missed the other quotes attributed to him or remember why the Civil War was fought for that matter.

Golly, "I can't believe you can't understand history!"

Oooh ooh...

"United we stand, divided we fall!"

Patrick Henry used the phrase in his last public speech, given in March 1799, in which he denounced The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Clasping his hands and waving his body back and forth, Henry declaimed, “Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.” At the end of his oration, Henry fell into the arms of bystanders and was carried almost lifeless into a nearby tavern.

Isn't he that same guy that also said; "If this be treason, make the most of it!"???

Guess we can dig up any old respectable dead guy and make his quotes fit our way of thinking eh?

**Kronos1965** · 06-13-2009, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helomech

And why should I or anyone else care what Marcus Tullius thinks? He was not a founding father, and had nothing to do with the U.S.
Show me a quote from someone involved in the constitution that says secession is treason. Bet you can't do that either. I can show you some that say it and civil war are very important, and are not treasonous.

I quoted Marcus Tullius full well knowing that you would dismiss it for the reason you stated. You never stated the conditions on which I could quote but as I earlier stated, you aren't open to ideas other than your own.

Now I can't wait to see how you dismiss Patrick Henry; one of your oft-quoted Founding Fathers...I suppose you'll tell me that it was a different Patrick Henry, a coerced Patrick Henry, the quote couldn't possibly be attributed to Patrick Henry, you can only quote Patrick Henry on specific dates in which he was wearing those nifty buckled shoes..., or "you took his quote out of context and I have secret papers telling me and all those who think like me what he REALLY REALLY meant..."