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

Sheesh, all this fuss over a nothing story.

For those who can't wait for Obama to screw up, you are losing your credibility by jumping on him based on such non-issues. It exposes your flagrant bias, no matter what it is based on.

His transition team has done nothing but comply with any and every external investigation.
What else do you want?

Is he not allowed to have an internal investigation?

It happens every day in so many organizations.

Senate has ethics committees, so do lawyers.
And cops have internal affairs divisions.
Are we to assume that every time IA clears a cop it is funny and ironic?

What's the problem?





[edit on 12/27/2008 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Nothing quite like the nostril opening stench of an unrepentant and rather pathetic political agenda.

It is however, quite refreshing to see someone actually begin to identify what they are smelling.

reply to post by schrodingers dog




Yeah, it happens every day.

Mr Obama has broken new ground by becoming the first US leader to face questioning by federal agents between election day and inauguration.

"Here the guy hasn't even gotten his tuxedo for the ball yet and already there's a prosecutor who wants to talk him," Robert Bennett, one of Washington's top lawyers, told The New York Times.

www.telegraph.co.uk... seat-scandal.html

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And please don't accuse those members who may disagree with you as having "flagrant bias". Besides being untrue and just plain hateful, it's not good for the campaign.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish

It really does not matter what anyone does to clear Obama on ANY issues or allegations. 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.

Did I miss something? I must have. Who said anything about being black? Did someone say that? This isn't a discussion about him being black - or has anything to do with him being black - and unless you are responding to a specific post where someone actually did say that ..... well
that's just ridiculous.

Remember - we also don't trust ANY of the WHITE people who are in office right now.







[edit on 27-12-2008 by spinkyboo]

reply to post by jsobecky


What does your external quote have to do with the OP?
The subject is internal investigations within an organization, and it does indeed happen every day.

And yes, when one yells "outrage" at the most insignificant situations, they do lose their credibility and expose their flagrant biases. No worries for you though, you crossed that bridge a long time ago.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


It's slime. Mud. It's like a sport for some. Poo-flinging (no offense, Mirthful) The more crap one throws, the more likely some might stick! Some get a real thrill out of the whole "guilt by association" and "guilty until proven innocent" thing. The FBI asked him questions! He MUST be corrupt! It's kind of a game.

Of course, this happened a week and a half ago. I knew about it. It's not news. It's another non-issue, IMO. Until the FBI states that they found something wrong...

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by jsobecky

 

What does your external quote have to do with the OP?

It was in response to your comment:

It happens every day in so many organizations.

I posted it because it is a unique occurrence. I understand that your zeal refuses to allow you to acknowledge that.

But of course, you knew all that. You just needed a lead-in to sling an insult at me.

I've gotta agree with BH and SD here. Internal investigations are a common occurrence, and it's a non-issue until the FBI, or another investigating agency, states they've found something to the contrary of the internal investigation's findings.

reply to post by jsobecky


T&Cs?

Perhaps you could use a refresher yourself.

Source
Main Entry: muppet
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a stupid person
Usage: derogatory slang

Stating that someone has made their personal biases pronounced is not an insult; however, calling someone a muppet is.

Enough of this pointless bickering with and insulting other members. I find it very sad that I have to remind long time members of this. Any further incidents will be dealt with according to the T&C which everybody agreed to follow.

Debate the topic not each other.

Thank you

gallopinghordes
Forum mod

I'd like to offer my opinion on the OP, without my comments being directed at anyone on this thread, because they aren't.
First of all, I think it is rather funny that an internal investigation found no wrong-doing. That is not to say that there was any wrongdoing, but I would be shocked if any group of like-minded politicians would find anything wrong with their own, especially if those findings could end their power-base. Yes, when an individual member of a party or group is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then the rest have no problem finding "guilt", as long as the larger group is not adversely affected.
Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives all react the same way.
That brings me to my rather new-found philosophy. When I joined ATS in the beginning of 2008, I was a staunch conservative. However, as the Presidential primaries and campaigns proceeded, I began to see things that I had never thought deeply about in the past. I began to see how first of all, the two-party system blocked any serious attempt to allow others to run for office. I saw what the Republican party did to try to block Ron Paul from participating in the debates, and how he got very little press. I saw how other parties again got virtually no coverage. I saw how each state had different primary rules, and how in many states, if you weren't registered in one of the two parties, you couldn't vote in the primaries. In addition, there was no consistency regarding whether cross-overs were allowed, or even whether they checked to see if people were residents. In addition, some states had direct voting, while others held rather limited "caucuses".
It also became more obvious than ever, that there really was no major differences between the two platforms on issues of importance to the nation at large. Most of the differences were regarding social issues, that in many cases shouldn't reside at the federal level anyway.
It became apparent to me that the stances taken shifted with the political winds. It also became apparent that much of the American public was not interested in issues critical to national survival, but were more interested in personalities and personal traits of the candidates.
It also became apparent that after the election, regardless of who was elected, the policies would end up being the same. In addition, the approval of the treasonous $700 billion (actually $850 billion, including the pork) "bailout bill" over the objection of the majority of Americans, showed that the politicians of both parties could care less about the American people.
Finally, it became apparent to me that the two-party system is a way to keep the American public at odds with each other, through the phony "two-party" system, that is in effect, a one-party system.
To me, it has become a waste of time to debate each other, but I strongly suspect that is exactly what the elected elite wish to happen, because that takes the heat off the real culprits, those that have stolen our Republic, and are running it into the ground. Both parties are guilty to the point, that I say "A pox on both of your houses".

reply to post by redmage

Originally posted by redmage
I've gotta agree with BH and SD here. Internal investigations are a common occurrence, and it's a non-issue until the FBI, or another investigating agency, states they've found something to the contrary of the internal investigation's findings.

Internal investigations can be done by external groups. This was done by Obama's incoming WH counsel, which makes it so comical.

The FBI stepping in makes it a different can of fish, however.

I also think the fact that it was wrapped up so quickly speaks volumes about it's veracity.

Originally posted by redmage
T&Cs?

I take the view of the late great Jim Henson:

Muppet
Trademark (U.S.) Sept. 26, 1972, claiming use from 1971, but in print from Sept. 1970. Name coined by creator Jim Henson (1936-1990), who said, despite the resemblance to marionette and puppet (they have qualities of both), it has no etymology; he just liked the sound.

I just like the way it sounds.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

I hate to break it to you ... but Palin is more qualified and a WAY better choice then Obama ..

Try not watching CNN as much and do your OWN research and you may find it so as well..

denial is surely your first reaction

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Cio88]

edited to remove personnal attack.
gallopinghordes
forum mod

[edit on 27-12-2008 by gallopinghordes]

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


"First of all, I think it is rather funny that an internal investigation found no wrong-doing. That is not to say that there was any wrongdoing, but I would be shocked if any group of like-minded politicians would find anything wrong with their own, especially if those findings could end their power-base."..

I think that the above pretty well sums up the argument here. You see, I don't see the "internal investigation" the same way you, or others do. To me this is a complete non-issue because the internal investigation was not designed to LAY FAULT WITH ANYONE. It is a "policing" of your own. You investigate internally to make sure nothing comes of it later.
However, if the internal investigation was also an attempt to build a case against ANYONE the anti-Obama folks here would have an argument. And yes, at that point it would be pretty funny AND ironic. However, this is just a covering of the bases...

PS... To further emphasize the point, if the internal investigation had found that someone on the transition team was in the wrong, it would have been brought to Obama's attention so he could take steps to either remove that person from the transition team, or to make sure he distanced himself from said person. And that may have happened. The only remarks we saw were that Obama wasn't found to have done anything wrong. Ergo, he has nothing to worry about with the FBI...

I really don't understand the argument here folks. I'm trying to understand your side of it, but I simply can't.

Non-issue.

To JsoBecky: If someone allowed an EXTERNAL group to do an investigation, it wouldn't be called an INTERNAL investigation. Am I wrong?

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

reply to post by Jay-in-AR

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
To JsoBecky: If someone allowed an EXTERNAL group to do an investigation, it wouldn't be called an INTERNAL investigation. Am I wrong?

I thought so too, until I looked up the official definition. Google had dozens of firms that do it for corporate customers, etc.. Audits are one form of internal investigation.

reply to post by jsobecky


I guess it depends on the perspective, eh? I mean, to the group, sure they are hiring someone to do an internal investigation. However, to the investigator, it isn't.
Moot point anyhow, as I've illustrated, once again, in my previous post.

PS: Also, maybe they wouldn't NEED to hire someone to do an investigation for them? I'm sure their transition team is chalked full of competent lawyers who can investigate quite well on their own.


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

I like posting about things BUT don't turn this site into a political trashing forum.....please? Politics has so much negativity in it from what I have seen on other boards/forums and I don't want it on ATS if possible.

Postings become mean spirited and go from bad to worst in a short period of time. Name calling, political party smearing and other things. I know you have your first amendment rights, but try to keep it under control.

I have been on some sites that were so out of control, it was shut down by the newspaper because people calling in complaining about the board being so hostile. But then again if they had moderators or some type of oversight that probaly would have never happened.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by hardeeboy]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


the only color i see in obama is red...from his butt being kissed. i'd love to hear what would have been said if it was bush that cleared himself. regardless of the agreeing agencies.
you obama supporters have found the only honest politician
BUT YOU JUST CANT FIGURE OUT WHY!

I FORGOT HE CAME FROM CHICAGO,THE NATIONAL SEAT OF HONESTY

IF YOU THINK BAGO DIDNT ASK FOR ANYTHING FOR THE SEAT FROM OBAMA'S CAMP,I HAVE A BRIDGE TO SELL YOU . do you sincerely believe they were the only one's who weren't asked for something?
part of the deal was over barry's wife getting special favors. you know like being put on boards of major companies. bagos wife was experienced in business,and michelle was not.he wanted her placed immediatly,and was told no,this infuriated him. i'm sure none of that came up until the fbi report.right?



[edit on 28-12-2008 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 28-12-2008 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by Walkswithfish


You are short changing pretty much everybody who thinks Obama is crooked by labelling them as racist, it's simply a boring straw man argument. Obama came from Chicago politics, this alone is worrying enough, without this kind of thing happening before he is even prez.

Please don't run around calling people racist in the hope that they will back off from searching for the truth, thanks.

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by jd140

 

Yeah,

I'm in the middle of a History search and pulling all their comments about GWB from the time he was elected, just to illustrate the hypocrisy that is rampant..

YES! Because we don't want any rampant hypocrisy here. After all, folks like you and jd140 were goood patriots during the Clinton years, weren't you?

I don't see blind defense of the President-elect here.

I see folks asking you and yours for evidence of the blind accusations against the President-elect so prolific on these boards and rightfully taking each of you to task for having none.

I'm sure you did much the same if anyone wrongly attacked President Bush, though I highly doubt you did if they wrongly attacked President Clinton.

We're all anxiously awaiting the results of your exhaustive History search showing how everyone is a hypocrite but you Simper.




[edit on 28-12-2008 by Article11]