Surprise!!! Obama's Team Clears Obama...(?)

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I don't get the irony. I mean, people, companies, political entities do internal investigations ALL the time.

And look where THAT has got us- robbed blind of $700 billion.

reply to post by jd140


Well, I see have totally wasted my time and energy!

Anyone want to have an intelligent discussion about this?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What I DON'T understand is why we cannot disagree without you and others calling names like hypocrite, disciple, sheeple and so on.

You are acting like you are innocent. Tell ya what. Why don't YOU start by not insinuating that posters who don't like Obama are just racist. YOU have called people racist all over the place when people post that they don't like what Obama's doing. How about YOU show us all what a good little ATSer is supposed to act like, and then we'd have a good example to follow.

ON TOPIC - ONCE AGAIN - the point of the topic is - it is dirty politics as usual when everyone else does it. When Obama does it, it is not only dirty politics as usual but ALSO an ironic joke because his entire campaign theme was 'change' ... and obviously this isn't change. It is nothing more than politics as usual.

reply to post by Walkswithfish


Why are you so racist? Is that the only thing you think about? Collective group identity? sad.......

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I do want an intelligent conversation BH! Sadly I feel as if that may be highly improbable. If you refer to my previous posts you will see how I feel. As conspiracy theorists, I cannot help but see news articles such as these, segregate us here at ATS. We are essentially self dividing. All THEY have to do is conquer. Maybe that is a little extreme but hey, we must be alert and prospective thinkers.

BTW: The last several pages of this thread, when juxtaposed with mainstream forums or discussions, seemed very similar to one another.

On Topic:

I have a simple philosophy in regards to politicians. If someone is a politician, I have to assume the corporates have gotten to them at some point in time. Hence, lobbyists.





[edit on 27-12-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

Seeing the irony in a politician investigateing himself is obvious.Its kind of like a person on trial being there own jury.

The idea that if you question Obama you are either a Bush backer or racist has really gotten lame,why can't anyone question this empty suit out of concern for this country.Obama rises out of one of the most corrupt political citys in the country haveing been part of this political system and or the people in this system for the past 20 years and "we the people" are just supposed to think he has done no wrong and not been involved in any of the games these people play.....Thats extraordinary and a litte naive.

Has Obama picked anyone for is staff or cabinet that is not a Chicago politician or a Clinton lacky.Oh I'm sue he has.... hasent he?

reply to post by Walkswithfish


Wow, you are without a doubt the most Racist person I have ever seen. Why are you so full of hatred? Why do you feel it necessary to tag everyone with a collective group Identifier? Like you mentioned earlier, not only is Obama "Black" but now you also tagged him as "far left of your ideology". Anything but an American right? Does it make you feel good to place people into groups and categorize them like that? Would you like to bring back Jim Crow laws also?

Did it ever occur to you that people don't like your savior because he's full of crap? And there really is no other reason? Or do you simply not have the brain capacity to fathom such a thing, so you must create an alternate reason for it? One that strips away your objectivism and shows your own racism to the world.

I love "equality" people, you all make me laugh. Your obsession with racial group identity is the definition of what racism is, and yet, you go on, thinking you're a part of some enlightened group of hero's riding in to save the day. But the sad reality is, the world you live in, or rather the world you see, is a segregated one, with Women to the left, Blacks to the right, Hispanics at the bottom, and Whites......those dastardly Whites are at the top. You see where I'm going here? Thats how you see the world, and you see it that way, because you are a racist.

I pity you.

Ehh, not really I guess, you're to pathetic to pity.

Originally posted by aravoth
reply to post by Walkswithfish

 

Why do you feel it necessary to tag everyone with a collective group Identifier? Like you mentioned earlier, not only is Obama "Black" but now you also tagged him as "far left of your ideology". Anything but an American right? Does it make you feel good to place people into groups and categorize them like that? Would you like to bring back Jim Crow laws also?

I tagged no one in particular, however if the shoe fits... wear it with pride.

It is amazing how you gathered so much from what I have said here.

Please do not pity me, pity those who are so blinded by partisanship that they fail to see what and who is really motivating them.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Walkswithfish]

reply to post by Walkswithfish


I have read every post in this thread, including the one you said...

There are some who simply will not accept anything other than the fact that Obama is Black he is president and there must be a conspiracy, he must be a criminal because he is black and sooner or later we will find something that sticks to him so we can throw him in jail with the other blacks where he belongs, and get him out of our WHITE house

No one mentioned anything about race before you posted that. You tried to get people defending something they don't think or say because your argument sucks.

Disagreeing with someone is not "blinded by partisanship." Do you agree with George Bush? What? You don't? Why are you so blinded by partisanship?

Get over it, no one is going to take any intellectual advice from a militant racist like yourself, go away.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by aravoth]

Originally posted by Unlimitedpossibilities
Sadly I feel as if that may be highly improbable.

It's beginning to look that way, yeah.

I have a simple philosophy in regards to politicians. If someone is a politician, I have to assume the corporates have gotten to them at some point in time.

I understand that. And as long as you know you're making an assumption, that's cool. As I said, I think it's smart to question government.

And maybe you've hit on something here. A major difference, if you will.

I avoid assumptions at all costs. I will not judge someone just because they fit into a group (politicians). I give an individual a chance to prove themselves. I will judge them on their results and actions, not the results and actions of others. I will not make assumptions based on what others in their group have done in the past. If I did, I would assume that:

All priests are child molesters
All kids are rotten, disrespectful and vile
All men are cheating pigs
All women are manipulative bitches
All Republicans are lying, racist, closet gays and child abusers
All Democrats are soft, socialist, gun-hating, intern-poking, Senate seat sellers.

Maybe that's "naive", but I don't think so. I prefer to keep an open mind. And Obama's internal investigation has given me no reason to think he's a "dirty politician".

Internal investigations happen all the time. This is a complete non-issue. People are so worked up with the political BS that we have seen for awhile now that they cannot even give Obama a chance to get out the door before they cry foul!

Just like one poster has tried telling people, over and over now, this was an internal investigation that holds NO LEGAL MERIT to tell Obama that he can go on with other business and not worry about any future surprises over this.
In fact, if Obama HADN'T had this done, he would have been a fool!

Get over it, people. Good lord.

I wonder if people are naeive enough to believe that EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATION doesn't have people ASSIGNED to head internal investigations JUST LIKE THIS? They would be foolish not to. Most likely carried out by very well trusted advisors. Karl Rove types.


[edit on 27-12-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

This exoneration of guilt was just a message to the new boss that he needn't worry about legal troubles down the line.

Nothing ironic or comical about it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Oh yes. Indeed I do know it is an assumption. I also know the difference between presumption and assumption (I think ).

Yes it seems assumption ought to be avoided since they lead to prejudice, stereotypes, etc. Actually, the very idea of 'assumption' is quite presumptuous to say the least, based on www.dictionary.com's 2nd definitition of presumptuous of course.

1. full of, characterized by, or showing presumption or readiness to presume in conduct or thought.
2. unwarrantedly or impertinently bold; forward.

dictionary.reference.com...

It seems as though one of the largest of human fallacies is the tendency to use superlatives without any given thought. You had some great examples with the use of "all" before every assertion about a particular person or group of persons. That is why I tend to use 'most' or 'the majority' quite frequently to avoid any generalizations about a particular people.

Maybe that's "naive", but I don't think so. I prefer to keep an open mind. And Obama's internal investigation has given me no reason to think he's a "dirty politician".

Before we continue and to avoid ASSUMPTIONS about one another, lets first define "dirty" or "dirty politician". Let us stipulate if you will.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

Semper my friend (I would never call you a boy), while I can see the irony you allude to, I think that the person who called the investigation "comical" was much more on point.

I can only imagine that the person who announced this has his tongue planted firmly in his cheek, and struggled not to laugh.

Originally posted by pteridine
I believe that Obama, his team, and most of Illinois knew of the proclivities of their governor and were wise enough to stay away from that political lightning rod.

Sure. Blago was "Just a guy who lived in the same city I did".

How Close Were Blagojevich and Obama?

One of the weirder bits of Ryan's epic Obama story in the New Yorker earlier this year dealt with Blagojevich and Obama's relationship--and the question of just how tight it was. Ryan got conflicting information:

That year, he gained his first high-level experience in a statewide campaign when he advised the victorious gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich, another politician with a funny name and a message of reform. Rahm Emanuel, a congressman from Chicago and a friend of Obama’s, told me that he, Obama, David Wilhelm, who was Blagojevich’s campaign co-chair, and another Blagojevich aide were the top strategists of Blagojevich’s victory. He and Obama “participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor,” Emanuel said. “We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two.” A spokesman for Blagojevich confirmed Emanuel’s account, although David Wilhelm, who now works for Obama, said that Emanuel had overstated Obama’s role. “There was an advisory council that was inclusive of Rahm and Barack but not limited to them,” Wilhelm said, and he disputed the notion that Obama was “an architect or one of the principal strategists.”

blogs.tnr.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
What the internal investigation results say is that the Obama team found no evidence that their members were involved in any dealings with the governor and, legally, absolves no one of anything. This is not the final answer because the law enforcement officers are continuing the investgation and those results will be binding. It was important to Obama to do the internal investigation because any hesitation would bring accusations and require resources, better used elsewhere, to rebut them. It would also allow removal and isolation of any questionable person or group within the organization, as quickly as possible, to distance the new Administration from political scandal.

I do not find the internal investigation ironic. I find it to be good administration.

[edit on 12/26/2008 by pteridine]

Except it didn't say that. It said Obama was not involved. It didn't say his whole team was in the clear.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Sooooooooooooooooooooo the need for an internal investigation. There was an external investigation performed as well with NO finding of wrongdoing on Obama or his staff's part.

Wrong. Wait till Blago starts singing, or Raum gets the hot needles under the fingernails.

The investigation has only just started.

Originally posted by pteridine
Theorize away, but in this case, with such an obviously corrupt Governor, I would find it hard to believe that Obama would not maintain a safe distance between himself and the Governor. I suspect that this will go nowhere and conspiracy theorists will be disappointed, for now, but certainly the future holds promise of some of the comical irony or ironic comedy that you yearn for.

It will go nowhere because it will be swept under the rug in the euphoria of the vulgarly expensive inauguration party coming up.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In addition, Obama has conducted an Internal Investigation to ascertain that level of association and involvement to report his finding to the people, because he has promised transparency. That's the change. NOT to absolve himself! He cannot do that. But to tell us what he found.

That's not change. Every politician does that. Bush did it several times also.

And having an occasional different stance on issues does not mean being objective. Try looking at some of the allegations into his character flaws. His associations. Those are as important as his policies.

Originally posted by Unlimitedpossibilities
Before we continue and to avoid ASSUMPTIONS about one another,

I wasn't making an assumption about you, I was responding to your statement. You said if someone is a politician, you assume the corporates have gotten to them. Did you not mean "all" politicians?

lets first define "dirty" or "dirty politician". Let us stipulate if you will.

Excellent idea! Thank you!

As I said earlier, conducting an internal investigation doesn't, in itself, equate to "dirty politics".

Finding one's organization innocent in an internal investigation doesn't, in itself, equate to "dirty politics".

"Dirty Politics" to me would be any self-serving act that is illegal (selling seats or buying votes) OR dishonest. I consider anything a politician does that is self-serving, with the purpose and intent of being dishonest, acting illegally or covering up something they've done (that is our business) as "dirty politics".

I have no reason to think that Obama did this to cover up anything, be dishonest about anything or do anything illegal.

I'm picking up the same underlying sentiment here as in all of the birth certificate threads. Obama does what is legally required and normally acceptable, and yet that is not enough.

Just replace "internal investigator" with factcheck.org and "federal investigator" with "Hawaii Department of Health" and you'll see how the situations are similar.

Anyway, I'd just like to say that I'm an internal auditor. If you've ever heard of Sarbanes-Oxley, then you know what it is I do.

What Obama's investigator did is no different than what any internal auditor would have done. We go in to the situation, research the paper trail, and draw our conclusions from the evidence. Had anyone been involved in the Illinois scandal, the auditor would have reported this to Obama and recommended a fix. In the audit world, these would have been called "relevant exceptions". This investigator found no relevant exceptions in the dealings between Blago and Obama.

It's completely normal to have someone working within the entity perform the audit, especially when there are outside entities that are going to perform a legally binding one.

Obama's Report not only found Obama had no inappropriate contact with Blago's office, but others in his staff and transition team, including Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Eric Whitaker.

In addition, the accounts contain no indication of inappropriate discussions with the Governor or anyone from his office about a “deal” or a quid pro quo arrangement in which he would receive a personal benefit in return for any specific appointment to fill the vacancy.
...
On December 11, 2008, the President-Elect asked the White House Counsel-designate to determine whether there had been any staff contacts or communications – and the nature of any such contacts of communications – between the transition and Governor Blagojevich and his office relating to the selection of the President-Elect’s successor in the United States Senate.

The results of that review are as follows:

Thank you, Avenginggecko. That kind of brings it all into perspective, doesn't it?

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Well i didnt vote for em... does it suprize me this is happening .. no I knew it would.

You silly people 'voted' him in.. considering we even really have a say.


Buyers remorse anyone?

reply to post by Cio88



After the intelligence briefings on Bush's war and the state of the economy, Obama demanded a recount.
Many of us may not like all of Obama's policies, but the thought of Sarah-the-Airhead as VP really helps us rationalize our choice.
The fuss made over an internal investigation and report to Obama that was made public as part of the "transparency in government" philosophy shows that many have not accepted our new President and would like to justify their votes for the losing ticket.

Interesting:

Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

But on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.

While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

ABC News
Emphasis Mine

Ooops

Semper