Obama Administration spent tax money to buy Obama's book.

Josh_R

Registered User
#51
That's all well and good but, how do you explain the fact that the Washington Times FUCKING LIED and said no other presidential books were in embassy libraries, when in fact they are?

YEEEEEAHHHHHHH!!!!!!
First, I never referenced the Washington Time article, I posted the Fox news article. Second, the original WT article said this:
A review of the expenditures in a federal database did not reveal any examples of State Department purchases of books by former Presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.
They never said there were no Bush/Clinton books in the libraries, only that the database did not reflect any purchases of those books.
They followed up that article by clarifying thusly:
The Times‘ report was based on a review of purchasing records available on a federal spending database. Keyword searches for book titles by former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not reveal any records of purchases, while searches for books by Mr. Obama revealed tens of thousands of dollars spent mostly in the year after he was sworn into office.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
#52
First, I never referenced the Washington Time article, I posted the Fox news article. Second, the original WT article said this:
The article you posted directly referenced and drew from the WT article. It was not an original FN article. Perhaps if you took 10 seconds of your life to read it rather than angrily posting every Obama hit piece you come upon, you'd realize that.

They never said there were no Bush/Clinton books in the libraries, only that the database did not reflect any purchases of those books.
They followed up that article by clarifying thusly:
Which was proved to be wrong in the followup FN article I posted, hence the source of the FAUXRAGE!
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#53
First, I never referenced the Washington Time article, I posted the Fox news article. Second, the original WT article said this:
They never said there were no Bush/Clinton books in the libraries, only that the database did not reflect any purchases of those books.
They followed up that article by clarifying thusly:
I know exactly what they said. They either lied or their researchers are incompetent. Take your pick.

Like I said, this is much ado about nothing. I get that we're broke and we should reign in spending and be vigilant about watching government agencies buying $16 muffins. But a $20 book written by a sitting president to be stocked in embassies around the world (whose job is to promote our values through diplomacy) isn't an example of that.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#54
The article you posted directly referenced and drew from the WT article. It was not an original FN article. Perhaps if you took 10 seconds of your life to read it rather than angrily posting every Obama hit piece you come upon, you'd realize that.



Which was proved to be wrong in the followup FN article I posted, hence the source of the FAUXRAGE!
You clearly have reading comprehension issues. My outrage stems from the fact that the government spent tens of thousands of dollars on the President's book so that they could giver them away to people. I don't care how many other people's books were also bought. A sitting President profited from a government purchase. This is a problem for me, but the biggest problems is the blatant waste of money. So, no, my fauxrage is not due to the fact that "Obama is the only president whose book is in an embassy library".
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#55
I know exactly what they said. They either lied or their researchers are incompetent. Take your pick.

Like I said, this is much ado about nothing. I get that we're broke and we should reign in spending and be vigilant about watching government agencies buying $16 muffins. But a $20 book written by a sitting president to be stocked in embassies around the world (whose job is to promote our values through diplomacy) isn't an example of that.
It isn't a purchase of A $20 book, it is the purchase of $79000 worth of $20 books, or muffins, or bottles of water, or $100 hammers, or $10000 toilets...
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#56
So, no, my fauxrage is not due to the fact that "Obama is the only president whose book is in an embassy library".
But for people here, and the Washington Times' target audience, that's EXACTLY what it's about.

I still think you're offbase on the intents here and what is trying to be accomplished. You realize that one of the main purposes of diplomacy is also to facilitate economic relationships between countries right? You really need to try and look at the big picture here.

It isn't a purchase of A $20 book, it is the purchase of $79000 worth of $20 books, or muffins, or bottles of water, or $100 hammers, or $10000 toilets...
Those other things you quoted are irrelevant. They didn't spend $200 on a $20 book.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
#57
You clearly have reading comprehension issues. My outrage stems from the fact that the government spent tens of thousands of dollars on the President's book so that they could giver them away to people. I don't care how many other people's books were also bought. A sitting President profited from a government purchase. This is a problem for me, but the biggest problems is the blatant waste of money. So, no, my fauxrage is not due to the fact that "Obama is the only president whose book is in an embassy library".
Assuming that's true, it should be easy to point me to your outrage thread here about spending $2.9B on an F-35 engine we don't need.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
#59
So according to the amateur White House press secretaries we have here, it's the status quo - what's always been done.

That's fine and dandy, until you are reminded that he was supposed to be the Messiah of change - put a stop to "business as usual" and all that...
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#60
So according to the amateur White House press secretaries we have here, it's the status quo - what's always been done.

That's fine and dandy, until you are reminded that he was supposed to be the Messiah of change - put a stop to "business as usual" and all that...
That would be a valid point if this was something to be outraged about.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
#61
So according to the amateur White House press secretaries we have here, it's the status quo - what's always been done.

That's fine and dandy, until you are reminded that he was supposed to be the Messiah of change - put a stop to "business as usual" and all that...

hey lookie, someone is still naively clinging to a campaign slogan. here is a tip... there never was a chicken in every pot, Tippecanoe and Tyler too never involved an actual canoe and Nixon really wasnt "The One".. get over the campaign slogan already.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
#62
besides the embassy's needed a new presidentially authored book to give out, Bush's had all been used up

 

wasp

my farts stink
#63
~3950 books. how many embassies do we have?
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
#65
hey lookie, someone is still naively clinging to a campaign slogan. here is a tip... there never was a chicken in every pot, Tippecanoe and Tyler too never involved an actual canoe and Nixon really wasnt "The One".. get over the campaign slogan already.
And then there were three...

Were the promises of transparency (that have since been thrown out the window) a campaign slogan?
 

MagicBob

Registered User
#66
And then there were three...

Were the promises of transparency (that have since been thrown out the window) a campaign slogan?
so do you want to cling to campaign slogans? or you do realize the stupidity of doing so?

or are you going to cherry pick things that you think you can slam Obama over? Pick a tack and stick to it.

and if you want to start discussing Obama admin transparency, lets get down to it. You put forth the metric that you think it should be measured by and and then put forth the number you think they are currently at.... please, I get it, you just want to rant and throw stones without any real measure, no basis in reality... so rant away and go fish someplace else.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#67
Who said I am outraged? I am just noting the hypocrisy.
Not saying you are, that's the point. Nobody should be. Where is the hypocrisy? Democrats love spending taxpayer dollars remember? And you know what transparency means right? There was no cover-up, no lying about it, no shady accounting on this.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
#68
so do you want to cling to campaign slogans? or you do realize the stupidity of doing so?

or are you going to cherry pick things that you think you can slam Obama over? Pick a tack and stick to it.

and if you want to start discussing Obama admin transparency, lets get down to it. You put forth the metric that you think it should be measured by and and then put forth the number you think they are currently at.... please, I get it, you just want to rant and throw stones without any real measure, no basis in reality... so rant away and go fish someplace else.
Go suck a dick.

This is just the latest:

Barack Obama accused of breaking transparency pledge

President Barack Obama has been accused of breaking his promise to make the US government transparent, after it emerged public bodies may soon be allowed to lie about what records they hold.

Earlier this year President Obama insisted on collecting an award for his commitment to transparency behind closed doors at the White House Photo: AFP/GETTY
By Jon Swaine, New York6:16PM BST 25 Oct 2011 13 Comments
Mr Obama's justice department has proposed that if documents requested by the public are exempt from freedom of information laws, federal agencies should be able to "respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."
Transparency campaigners described the move as a "stunning" reversal of Mr Obama's pledge to run "the most transparent administration in history" during his campaign for the presidency.
In a joint statement, the American Civil Liberties Union, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and OpenTheGovernment.org said the plan threatens to "destroy integrity in government".
"It is very problematic," said Patrice McDermott, the director of OpenTheGovernment.org. "There are options open to them other than this nuclear option of lying to requesters".
The plan is the latest in a string of controversial moves by Mr Obama, who earlier this year even insisted on collecting an award for his commitment to transparency behind closed doors at the White House.

His administration has pursued whistle-blowers far more aggressively than George W. Bush's, using the Espionage Act to prosecute five alleged leakers.
Only four other such cases had ever been brought by all other US presidents.
Mr Obama has also continued Mr Bush's policy of keeping secret the legal reasoning behind highly controversial decisions, such as last month's killing in Yemen of Anwar al-Awlaki, the senior al-Qaeda cleric, who was an American citizen.
Justice Department lawyers are believed to have drafted a memo explaining how the killing could avoid breaking laws banning assassination and murder, and various constitutional protections for US citizens. But aides have refused to discuss even whether the memo exists.
Mr Obama also promised to release logs of visitors to the White House. Yet only one per cent of meetings have been listed and officials reportedly hold meetings in nearby coffee shops to deliberately avoid being subject to official logs.
"The administration has an official commitment to transparency, but it has been very disappointing," said Ms McDermott. "There is widespread distress among openness and civil liberties campaigners."
The new proposal would typically apply to documents relating to national security, many of which are exempt from freedom information laws. Presently government agencies may state that they can "neither confirm nor deny" the existence of records.
Freedom of information campaigners, who have succeeded in re-opening a consultation on the proposal, have requested that it be changed so that requesters are told the documents are exempt from FOI "if they exist", so they are not discouraged from appealing against the decision.
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#70
hey lookie, someone is still naively clinging to a campaign slogan. here is a tip... there never was a chicken in every pot, Tippecanoe and Tyler too never involved an actual canoe and Nixon really wasnt "The One".. get over the campaign slogan already.
You really are the most dishonest, disingenuous bag of wet dog shit I think I've ever come across. So now the whole change thing was just a campaign slogan? You're actually going to sit here and try to claim that Obama got elected based off of anything other than he ran against the party of a very unpopular outgoing President and promised "change" from said unpopular president? You are either a bold faced liar, a complete and utter moron or both.
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#73
I don't even really give a shit about the books being bought. I'm sure it's happened for other politicians before and I'm sure it'll happen in the future but to dismiss a perfectly valid point like "the guy ran, and was elected, on the promise of change so the business as usual pocketing of tax payer money by selling his book to government agencies is bullshit" by saying it was just meaningless campaign slogan is just down right retarded.
 
#74
I don't even really give a shit about the books being bought. I'm sure it's happened for other politicians before and I'm sure it'll happen in the future but to dismiss a perfectly valid point like "the guy ran, and was elected, on the promise of change so the business as usual pocketing of tax payer money by selling his book to government agencies is bullshit" by saying it was just meaningless campaign slogan is just down right retarded.
You've met MagicBob before this, right?
 
#75
Look at what these fucking VANDALS threw on my lawn this morning, i'm getting tired of my property being sullied.



You sick bastard.
 
Top