Townhall.com::Obama, Hillary, Dems Take FISA Trial Lawyer Cash::By Amanda Carpenter

Funny, I could have sworn Barack Obama has stumped all over the nation about how he was going to get rid of special interests and how they were evil.

If we listen to the people who are going goo-goo over Obama he is the "hope" of America. The agent of "change". Yet he takes money from trial lawyers, which if anybody wants to be honest, is a special interest group.

In fact, he has taken more money from trial lawyers then all Republicans combined!

And who are these special interest trial lawyers? They are the same ones who are suing the phone companies in the FISA court program for millions of dollars. So the trial lawyers are basically buying votes of Democrats to vote "no" in renewing it b/c they want to get paid first. I would have to say that the trial lawyers have a vested special interest financially in this entire issue, which means Obama is also profiting from their "donations" and is just another corrupt politician, who aint gonna change a damn thing!

Remember this one, the next time he has one of those empty rhetoric speeches of granduer. Especially when he spouts out about getting rid of special interests.

Anyone with a lick of sense should have seen that particualar claim as puro, unadulteraded, grade A+ bullshit. Every politician who draws breath takes money from one interest group or another. No exceptions.
In all honesty I feel there should be absolutly no immunity for a company that breaks the law for ANY reason. But thats not the issue here. It's hardly suprising that several Dems are taking money from the people opposed to retro-immunity for the phone companies.
On the other hand it would be interesting to know how many Repubs are getting contributions direct or indirect from the telecom companies seeking to cover their asses for their involvement in these crimes.

__________________
"Oh people, know that you have committed great sins. If you ask me what proof I have for these words, I say it is because I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you!" -- Genghis Khan, Bukhara 1220

Yep. Absolutely no errors in that statement...lol.

But of course, this is the candidate who is gonna change all that! After he takes his fair share that is.

It is more then several though. Did you read the article?

Well what is the key difference here though? I dont recall Republicans, and I could be very wrong, but I dont hear them talking about ridding Washington of special interests at the same time special interests are giving them money. At least not McCain who for all intent and purposes is the nominee.

Obama is flat out saying he is "change" in Washington. And "hope" for America. This puts a huge giant hole in the rhetoric he spits out everyday that people are mesmorized by concerning getting rid of the special interests that have corrupted Washington. A huge blow this is to that statement.

Lets see if anybody but Fox or talk radio even make a story out of this. My bet is nobody else will pick it up.

This is a silly thread for several reasons. First, I doubt Less Gov opposes taking money from lobbyists, yet here he is opposing taking money from lobbyists. That's just silly. I'm sure you will pull one of those it's not about what I believe, it's about the Democrats not being consistent with what they believe. Then that would mean you think politicians should be bought and sold by corporations. If you believe that, then that's so pathetic that you don't have the right to criticize anyone for taking lobbyist money.

Secondly, this article seems pretty partisan. We're talking about $28,650 for Obama. How much has Bush taken in lobbyist money? I'll guess $100 million. Yet the article dishonestly only talks about the kind of lobbyist that gives money to Democrats but leaves out the oil, nuclear power, military industry, and all the other corporations that give money to Republicans. Just list the lobbyists that give to Dems, make it seem like Republicans take less lobbyist money in general. Just another pack of conservative lies.

Lastly, since when do trial lawyers constitute "lobbyists"? Are teachers lobbyists? Is the writers guild lobbyists? Seems like we're playing 1984 doublespeak with the English language again. Pathetic x3.

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

It is only silly b/c it shows Obama to be the hypocrit he is. He is the one dogging special interests, then taking their money. When a group of people give you money and then you vote the same way as their group wants you to, yeah I would say that is a special interest.

Well again, it isnt about me. Obama is the one saying all this stuff not me. And no the Dems arenot being consistant, as usual.

Nope, I dont like lobbyists either. If we would elect people who can say no to them, it wouldnt be a problem.

You said I believe that, not me. See my answer just above.

Why of course it is. What in politics isnt partisan?

Bush is not running for President, nor is he talking about doing away with special interests while taking money from them. That would be Obama.

Didnt Obama also take money from Big Energy? This article is not about all those other issues. The article is talking about only the FISA program. They do name the Republicans getting money from the same trial lawyers. I think it was a little over $4,000 dollars total? Comare that to $1.5 million for Democrats?

They listed the names of all politicans, both R and D, that got money from this group. No lies involved at all. On this FISA program, yeah Republicans did take less. The numbers are right there for all to see.

Well, if they are paying politicians to keep their cases open and trying to make the FISA program run out of time, then yeah that would be a special interest wouldnt it?

Nobody is double speaking except for Obama and it is not pathetic. It is just some facts on who is giving money to politicians.

Peace & Chicken Grease

__________________
"Oh people, know that you have committed great sins. If you ask me what proof I have for these words, I say it is because I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you!" -- Genghis Khan, Bukhara 1220

It is only silly b/c it shows Obama to be the hypocrit he is. He is the one dogging special interests, then taking their money. When a group of people give you money and then you vote the same way as their group wants you to, yeah I would say that is a special interest.

You did not address my point. It is "only" silly because your opinion here is rubbish and seems very hypocritical. The absurd bias in what you've said here is as ridiculous as Ahmandinejad saying that the United States is an intolerant country. It attempts to blame someone else for the sins of leaders that you support.

You've done such a ham-fisted attempt at re-defining "special interest" that it makes no sense. I gave money to Obama, so that means that I'm a special interest by your definition. Obama said that he received a donation from some old lady for a few dollars and cents, so she's a special interest too. By your self-serving definition of "special interest" any person who donates money to a campaign is a special interest group and most people can see that is absurd.


Well again, it isnt about me. Obama is the one saying all this stuff not me. And no the Dems arenot being consistant, as usual.

It's about you to the extent that it's your opinion and if that opinion is formed in a biased way, then it is discredited.

Nope, I dont like lobbyists either. If we would elect people who can say no to them, it wouldnt be a problem.

How do you feel about Bush taking tens of millions of dollars from lobbyists? Even if we do go with your warped definition of lobbyists, surely $30,000 is a great improvement over tens of millions of dollars.

George W.'s Money

Why of course it is. What in politics isnt partisan?

Partisanship is reduced to a minimum when people are consistent in what they say and are as critical of themselves as they are of others. Your argument here is only critical of one side and is horribly inconsistent with itself. Again, even if Obama took tens of thousands of dollars from so-called "special interests" that's still a vast improvement over Bush. Also, I would like to know if you give a donation to Ron Paul, do you consider that to be Ron Paul accepting "special interest" money?

Bush is not running for President, nor is he talking about doing away with special interests while taking money from them. That would be Obama.

Right and I said you would make that argument, which is why it's hard to take your opinion on this issue seriously. You make a mountain out of a molehill and ignore a mountain when you see one.

Didnt Obama also take money from Big Energy? This article is not about all those other issues. The article is talking about only the FISA program. They do name the Republicans getting money from the same trial lawyers. I think it was a little over $4,000 dollars total? Comare that to $1.5 million for Democrats?

They listed the names of all politicans, both R and D, that got money from this group. No lies involved at all. On this FISA program, yeah Republicans did take less. The numbers are right there for all to see.

You are refuting what I said by restating what I said, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Yes, the article is only talking about the FISA program because it's BIASED. Talking about only the FISA program avoids talking about the tens of millions of dollars raised by conservatives among lobbyists. Townhall is conservative. They don't talk about the conservatives getting huge lobbyist money = biased.


Well, if they are paying politicians to keep their cases open and trying to make the FISA program run out of time, then yeah that would be a special interest wouldnt it?

Nobody is double speaking except for Obama and it is not pathetic. It is just some facts on who is giving money to politicians.

Including a small portion of facts while omitting a massive amount of other relevant facts is biased, dishonest and pathetic. I'd love to hear either Townhall or you write an article about the tens of millions of lobbyist money Bush took. There's nothing more than a partisan agenda which could justify focusing on tens of thousands of dollars raised for Obama by trial lawyers while ignoring tens of millions of dollars raised by lobbyists for Bush.

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

Lastly, since when do trial lawyers constitute "lobbyists"? Are teachers lobbyists? Is the writers guild lobbyists?

Anyone who lobbies the government is a lobbyist. When Democrats decry lobbyists, they are only referring to lobbyists who are against Democratic policies. This is a kind of doubletalk that is too much even for Republicans to engage in.

__________________
chicken butt

Glad some people get it.

Trial lawyers who have current open and running cases in court against the FISA program around the country, giving money to politicians so that they will vote "no" on the FISA program, who have a vested financial interest in seeing those laws expire b/c it makes their own cases that more relevant, is point blank the very definition of a special interest. But of course, Democrats only decry those interests when it is the other side using them. When shown to be using the same kind of interests, we get the "partisan agenda" handed out and how "Bush takes more from other industries" stuff, which side steps the issue in discussion, which is the FISA program is being bought off by trial lawyers on teh Democratic side, so as to make their own court cases against the FISA program that more strong.

Bob and Jane giving a political donation simply out of good faith out of Idaho, is completely different b/c Bob and Jane are not in court trying to win court cases worth millions to clients.

This is such a blatantly obvious special interest, it isnt even worth explaining.