OMG - Obama has got to be the most corrupt President we've ever elected

reply to post by buddhasystem



Yes he did. He was not a full professor. And he did not serve his time in the legal profession fighting for people's civil rights. To the contrary, while he was a so called professor (read lecturer) he spent his time totally absent of faculty obligations such as peer reviews, workshops, and publishing and while he was a lawyer he represented slum lords and worked with real estate development groups so they could make deals that resulted in 25,000 of the poorest black people in south Chicago becoming homeless and the next level up in the income bracket being sold condos they couldn't afford.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Yes he did. He was not a full professor.

I'm only interested in truth. Please refer me to a reliable source where Obama explicitly says that he's a full professor. I asked a while ago, still waiting. If Obama did say so, this is a major issue for me. The fact that you didn't provide the proof already is somewhat indicative that it doesn't exist, but I'll wait some more. Absent that, you are a liar.

reply to post by buddhasystem

At A Recent Fundraiser, Obama Claimed He Was A "Constitutional Law Professor." "'I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,' Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser." (Brendan Farrington, "Obama: Bush Fails To Respect The Constitution," The Associated Press, 3/30/07)

hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com...

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

At A Recent Fundraiser, Obama Claimed He Was A "Constitutional Law Professor." "'I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,' Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser." (Brendan Farrington, "Obama: Bush Fails To Respect The Constitution," The Associated Press, 3/30/07)

hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com...

Thank you. This is the statement from University of Chicago. There is also another link.

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

So apparently you lied in your opening post. Shame on you.

Click here for more information.

Does this mean that you are going to ignore the following facts:

1. He did not serve as a professor.

2. He spent his time as a "civil rights lawyer" defending the slum lords and helping to get poor people evicted from their homes so that big real estate deals could be made on the property they had previously lived on?

Are you telling me you're going to ignore those facts?

Originally posted by Valhall
Does this mean that you are going to ignore the following facts:

1. He did not serve as a professor.

2. He spent his time as a "civil rights lawyer" defending the slum lords and helping to get poor people evicted from their homes so that big real estate deals could be made on the property they had previously lived on?

Are you telling me you're going to ignore those facts?

I quoted a statement from UoC which says in plain English that he was a professor. When it comes to an actual statement from Obama's employer, and a hit piece written by a right-wing hack, I tend to side with what his employer considers to be his status. He was NOT tenure-track and he never alluded he was tenure-track.

As to the civil rights record,
link

Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration.

Of course he did real estate and other things as well, and what not. I earn my living designing computer systems, but I like to cook for the whole family. What you are saying is like that I misrepresent my status of a computer expert because I can cook some good Thai dish.

Obama did a lot for voter registration. You can spin the "slum lord" story all you want, but it's pretty clear what Obama's position and contribution is.

And back to the "professor" issue -- if UoC calls him professor, you have no right to tell anyone he was not, and by insisting on this lie, you continue to be a liar.

And the tone of the OP is so hysterical to top is off...

reply to post by buddhasystem


He was not a professor. You can keep saying he was, but he wasn't. He had no title as professor and he did none of the minimum obligations/activities expected of professors. He admits himself that he was offered a professorship more than once and turned it down. Why? Because he didn't want to take on the responsibilities of being a professor....versus a lecturer. He didn't participate in peer reviews. He didn't participate in faculty workshops. He didn't publish SQUAT. He didn't apply his time to getting grants to academic work. He spent his time trying to get in public office. He wasn't a professor.

No, I'm not saying you'd be lying to call yourself a IT professional if you can cook. But you'd be lying if you padded your resume and called yourself an Executive Chef because you happen to cook food for your family.

That's what Obama did.

Now, to his legal time. You're showing you have no intention of admitting the true activities Obama was involved in while choosing to, once again, falsely pad his resume by calling it "civil rights". You're not acting as a civil rights lawyer when you help a slum lord evict 25,000 people and then participate in making sure the development deal gets done.

It appears he's continuing his lies all the way to November 6th. Oh, and I just love learning that he, his wife, their vacations and their narcissistic activities have cost us taxpayers $1.4 billion. I'm sure you'll spin that as well.

Will the presidents worse than Jimmy Carter please stand up

Oh wait its just Obama

Click here for more information.

Next I'm sure you'll be providing us with other "credible" resources like Red State, Newsmax and Briebart. Gotta love the hyperbole, "the most corrupt president we've ever elected." My guess is you can't even name the past 10 presidents in order and their party affiliation without Wikipedia to guide you, much less the 33 previously.

Not taking time right now (WAY too tired) to read through 17 pages, but have to add something to your list. How about the consulate situation? The facts:

1. There were multiple light incidents in Libya before the attack on Sept. 11.
2. The State Department chose to not have a Marine contingent there, and to hire locals for "security".
3. Some of said locals were witnessed apparently pointing out the secret safe house, where the ambassador had fled, to the attackers.
4. There was no demonstration taking place at the time of the attack.
5. The video they talk about was months old.
6. Even though all intel showed this to be a clearly planned event, by pros, his people have pushed, to the point of "ludicrous", the nonsense story that this was an out of control demonstration, because of said old video.
7. More than two weeks later, all reports are that the FBI, supposedly sent to investigate, hasn't been to the scene yet AT ALL. A CNN reporter, though, was apparently able to get there and retrieve a diary belonging to the ambassador.
8. Even though those pretending this was some random act are now backing off a bit, in light of all the attention, the president still won't call this a terrorist act.
9. Long time Washington DC people have stated that it seems as though a coverup the size of Watergate could be taking place.

So....I won't state my opinions, or my conclusions, but invite you to connect the dots. What reason to lie about the attack? Why no more protection? Why no investigation, over two weeks later, by the FBI? Someone once said, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide." I will leave you to discover who that someone is, and suggest that we hold that person to his own words. S&F for the thread, OP.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
Will the presidents worse than Jimmy Carter please stand up

Oh wait its just Obama

It's very easy to see why Carter and Obama were just 1 term presidents.

- Socialism doesn't work. - Obama didn't even try. - Over 100 rounds of golf -

- The republicans will reduce the price of gas and grow the GDP at 5%.

I’ll just add this article I just read to this thread rather than make another since it fits the theme here perfectly.

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President
Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Really His Highness's - "needs" costs more than the entire Royal Family? This is insane…

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

Read more: dailycaller.com...

I agree that no one expects the POTUS to fly coach and eat at McDonalds while on TDY like the rest of the peons in government do when they travel but look at some of this stuff.

Here is a sample of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the president:

The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a year, according to the book. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 “czars.”

The president’s family’s gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing: “First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year.”

The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer: “Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine,” Gray wrote about the Obama family dog. “It has been reported that the first family’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year.”

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Seriously look at some of this crap – the guy needs a staff of how many again? 469 – and 2/3rds of them make more than 100K a year.

Neat way to repay all those campaign “donations” with taxpayer funded jobs huh? Just for some prospective that’s almost the size of a battalion in the military and they sure don’t make 100K a year. There are only two people in a military BN who might (depending on housing allowance) make over 100K the Commander and the XO.

42 days of vacation for the FLOTUS – being the first homemaker must be taxing (lol I made a pun) indeed. I mean my wife works hard at home but I don’t give her 42 days of vacation. We took 10 last year.

Finally, I own a dairy farm and have more than 100 head of cows and goats.

I don’t spend 102K a year to feed house and provide first class vet care for them all but the First Dog has a guy who makes 100K+ a year to scoop his poop?

We need to scoop out the White House -

reply to post by Golf66


Obama's new house has appeared on the internet.

I think the pool is too small.

For $29,000,000 I could have done a better job.
- 210 North Kalaheo Avenue- $29,000,000 Zillow.com

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Golf66

 

Obama's new house has appeared on the internet.

I think the pool is too small.

For $29,000,000 I could have done a better job.
- 210 North Kalaheo Avenue- $29,000,000 Zillow.com

Looks to me like he is going to have "hot-seat" it in the Media Room (We call that the living room in our house.) if Jay-Zee and Beyonce and the crew show up at the same time.

I think it’s too small he will most certainly need an alternate location elsewhere.

Perhaps with some creative financing and second term (including appropriate deals and kickbacks of course) he can get a few more of these "middle-class" people he surrounds himself with and understands so well to gift him a resort home in Colorado or a fancy Penthouse in NYC.

He is after all an everyman and it is his struggle ( ) to the top and his support from the "grass roots" (you know type people who gift 30 million dollar houses) effort who give him his mandate.

He is a man of the "people" after all.

reply to post by Golf66


There is a great golf course naerby.

The Obama Presidential Library will be at the University of Hawaii.

Speaking fees will pay the 30 year mortgage.

Look at Bill Clinton. He has $25 Million!

My opinion on all this is ....

1. Republicans are corrupt
2. Democrats are corrupt
3. Everyone is corrupt
4. Republicans use bad information to cast doubt on democrat candidates/administrations
5. Democrats use bad information to cast doubt on republican candidates/administrations
6. Everyone uses bad information to cast doubt on opponent candidates/administrations
7. Most of the information people use to cast doubt on others is only partly true
8. Politics is not science; it doesn't require facts; it just requires an opinion

Now, does this mean there's NO lesser evil? Possibly. The idea is that all humans have flaws and/or shortcomings. However, what candidate best represents the US? That's a worthy question.

You might think that my reaction is dismissive, but this is what my experiences tell me.

Before anybody casts stones at me...

I voted for a republican governor in a blue state because I thought our blue state is too blue and needed its waters shaken to be more balanced. I'm a swing voter. I vote for independents too.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
My opinion on all this is ....

1. Republicans are corrupt
2. Democrats are corrupt
3. Everyone is corrupt
4. Republicans use bad information to cast doubt on democrat candidates/administrations
5. Democrats use bad information to cast doubt on democrat candidates/administrations
6. Everyone uses bad information to cast doubt on opponent candidates/administrations
7. Most of the information people use to cast doubt on others is only partly true
8. Politics is not science - it doesn't REQUIRE facts - it just requires an opinion

Now, does this mean there's NO lesser evil? Possibly. The idea is that all humans have flaws and/or shortcomings. However, what candidate best represents the US? That's a worthy question.

You might think that my reaction is dismissive, but this is what my experiences tell me.

edit on 28-9-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

President Mitt Romney will grow the economy at 5%.

He will also give the USA a AAA credit rating again.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Haha there's a typo in my quote about the democrats attacking their own kind.

Romney is good with the economy, I agree.

He better represents business people than Obama, true.

Do I foresee him being an ok president? Yes. Either way should work.

But economy and business are not the only important matters in a country.

Keep in mind that there're more registered democrats than registered republicans, last I checked.

This means that, whether the economy is important or not, democrats tend towards safety nets. Safety nets are expensive. It's paid for by increasing taxes. However, even republicans can cost our country great amounts. George W. Bush lowered our taxes and while on the surface this looks good for business, one must also consider that he was president of our country when we inititiated Operation Iraqi Freedom and the resulting war cost billions of dollars and this is something everybody across the world will be paying for a long time. I'm not saying that starting the war in Iraq was good or not good, I'm only saying that, when you sum up everything, voting for a republican doesn't necessarily mean that government will shrink and that budgets will balance. I could point to countless examples of budget busting programs started by both republican and democrat administrations. Bottom line, vote for who best represents YOU. But don't expect any miracles. Don't expect the country to be saved over night. It's the people that solve the problems, at the end of the day.