GOOD GOVERNMENT DISAPPEARS....WHERE WAS OBAMA ??

You might be right; how is that an excuse, or in any way related, to what Congress and Obama did with regard to repeal of the STOCK Act ?

Jon Stewart can find fault in Obama; but the ECCIE Sandbox zombies defend Obama to their dying day........... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

And the eccie sandbox zombies overlook their own parties warts to blame Obie. How dumb does that make you?

Jon Stewart can find fault in Obama; but the ECCIE Sandbox zombies defend Obama to their dying day........... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

But you only find fault with Obama over this, not Tea Turd Ted Cruz? That was my point that JL seemed to ignore. Do you give all the Tea Tards in Congress a pass? It seems so. It seems to me that eveybody has blood on their hands on this one. But you only point out Obama. Then you act as if I'm defending the SOB when in fact all I have tried to do is get you to understand how your precious Tea congressmen voted. What about you JL, after pointing out that all congressmen voted for this, are you just going to blame Obama and give these tea fuckers a pass?

Not at all; I was the one who posted the criticism of Congress;

I agreed with BL when he said;

"Whirlaway while you may hate to see the Democrats give away money. I hate to see the Republicans pass laws that allow Wall Street and large corporations get away with robbery. Plus pass laws exempting themselves from insider trading laws so they can profit. Did you know that members of Congress as a group have the highest rate of return on their investments easily out distancing any other investment group."

and I agreed when BL said this:

"The leaders of BOTH parties are as big a players in it as anyone and don't think the Tea Party is not doing the same thing. As soon as they got elected the first thing they did was hold "fund raisers" with the big money lobbies so they could get in on the gravy train."



Stick to facts..........I am no fan of Congress (GOP or Democrats)......

[/I]

Stick to facts..........I am no fan of Congress (GOP or Democrats)...... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Well I am sticking to facts, the facts are that the TeaParty side of congress voted for the exact same fucking that Obama did not veto. That is an important fact that you seem to be glossing over. What does the Tea Party darling Ted Cruz say about this matter? Can you shine the light on him in this regard instead of just Obama...

Yep; and I agreed that that was unacceptable.................. waiting to hear from the Obama zombies on their critique of Obama's repeal of the STOCK Act.....

Let's be real here; Obama could have mustered the necessary Democratic votes against this; did he even try?

Nope !

Yep; and I agreed that that was unacceptable.................. waiting to hear from the Obama zombies on their critique of Obama's repeal of the STOCK Act..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Nobody has defended it as you claim, in fact doing a search it seems both sides think this is bs. I sure do. No more money from me to the DNC until this is fixed.

Again, you have your facts wrong; I never claimed they defend him; I have claimed they refused to critique his performance ...two completely different positions..

I have repeatedly condemned Congress, Bush, and others; but the Obamazombies have their heads so far up Obama's ass, they can't even give Obama the raspberries over the obvious..........not this, not Pigford..........

Well, it appears that nobody linked to so far actually got it right. The bill which passed MODIFIED the disclosure sections in the bill, it DID NOT repeal them. As the WSJ points out http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2013/04/15/obama-signs-stock-act-rollback-into-law/ the law only 'rolls back disclosure requirements on Congressional staffers and low-level executive branch officials'

WSJ’s Washington Wire reported Friday under the legislation, only the president, vice president, members and candidates for Congress and most Senate-confirmed presidential appointees would have to submit their stock trades to a searchable online database.

Congressional and executive-branch staff would still be required to report their stock trades publicly but people seeking the information would have to request it in person, WashWire noted.

Must be the WSJ is the only publication that read both the original law,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1129cTzf1::
and the new law modifying it
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s716/text.

Again, you have your facts wrong; I never claimed they defend him; I have claimed they refused to critique his performance ...two completely different positions..

I have repeatedly condemned Congress, Bush, and others; but the Obamazombies have their heads so far up Obama's ass, they can't even give Obama the raspberries over the obvious..........not this, not Pigford.......... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

But you never come out and whip on the so called Tea Tards such as Ted Cruz. Why would you favorite be for this? You go after Obama and congress...never the Tea section of congress. You go after people for NOT posting in this thread, yet you yourself will not bash the Tea Party people in Congress directly.

I'll bash any of them who voted for this, and the President who signed it. And that includes Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, or anyone else. This is ridiculous, and invites and legalizes corruption. Like we lack corruption in Washington, anyway.

The new law simply excludes STAFF members, not the President, Vice President, Senators, Congressman, or most Senate-confrmed presidential appointees. The aforementioned still have to post their stock trades online. The staffers still have to file, just not online.

http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcomplian...back-into-law/

so I guess that means Whirlytard, Whiny and the boys are overreacting again?

Big shock

so I guess that means Whirlytard, Whiny and the boys are overreacting again?

Big shock

I don't understand why it is ok for anyone in a position to obtain non-public information should be allowed to profit on that information in the market.