1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default More Obama Hypocrisy

    This is getting to be fun.

    Here is an interesting article. And for the record, I do not see a thing wrong for a person to be paid a fair wage for a book. If this book is going to make a ton of money, the President should receive a ton of money.

    Thursday, March 19, 2009
    EXCLUSIVE: Obama's $500,000 book bonanza
    Jim McElhatton and Christina Bellantoni, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    EXCLUSIVE:

    As he empathized with recession-weary Americans, President Obama arranged in the days just before he took office to secure a $500,000 advance for a children's book project, a disclosure report shows.

    The terms of the book deal were disclosed in a Senate financial disclosure report filed Tuesday.

    Analysts say there don't appear to be any rules that would bar such transactions after a president takes office, but it's unclear whether an incoming or sitting president has ever signed a book deal upon entering the White House.

    "I don't recall any sitting president entering into a book deal," said campaign finance lawyer Jan Baran, former general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "They all have historically done that after they leave office.

    "I recall the only ones who did sign book deals while living there were first ladies, and my recollection is they gave it to charity."

    Mr. Obama approved the $500,000 advance on Jan. 15. The advance is against royalties under a deal with Crown Publishing, a division of Random House. The project calls for an abridged version of his book "Dreams From My Father" for middle-school-aged children, according to the disclosure.

    A White House aide said that the deal had been in the works for weeks and that the publisher will abridge the book. The aide, speaking on a condition of anonymity, said the publisher will get half of the money while Mr. Obama will sign off on the final version.

    In addition, the financial disclosure showed Mr. Obama brokered an amendment to an existing book deal with Crown Publishing to put off writing a nonfiction book until after he leaves office.

    The book deal came on top of nearly $2.5 million in book royalties paid to Mr. Obama last year for "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," according to the Senate report, which was filed by Robert F. Bauer, who served general counsel to Mr. Obama's presidential campaign.

    The disclosure also cites income, listed as more than $1,000, paid to first lady Michelle Obama from the University of Chicago, where she had worked as vice president for community and external affairs.

    Just as in 2007, public interest in Barack Obama the presidential candidate helped Barack Obama the author earn lots of money from book royalties, according to his latest financial disclosure report.

    Last year, Mr. Obama reported earning $949,910 in royalties from "Dreams From My Father" and $1.5 million from "The Audacity of Hope." In 2007, he reported $3.2 million in book royalties from Random House.

    Mr. Obama's books have helped boost the Obamas' income considerably in recent years, from about $1 million in 2006 to more than $4 million in 2007.

    After getting permission from the Senate ethics committee in January 2005, Mr. Obama agreed to a $1.9 million advance for two nonfiction books and a children's book, of which $200,000 was to be donated to charity, according to his 2007 financial disclosure.

    Ken Gross, former associate general counsel at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and a campaign finance expert, said there doesn't appear to be any rules that would prevent Mr. Obama from signing book deals while in the White House.

    "There are members of Congress who have had deals and they get paid, I don't know that he would have needed to sign that before January 20," Mr. Gross said.

    Last summer during a campaign event, Mr. Obama offered voters a glimpse into how he approached writing his two previous books.

    Someone at a Fairfax town hall asked whether he had words of inspiration for young writers, and he responded by talking about the importance of reading and added he'd made time to read his daughters all of the books from the Harry Potter series.

    "Ive written two books; I actually wrote them myself," he said.

    On writing, he said it helped him to keep a journal.

    "It forces you to ask questions of yourself, how to reconcile different attitudes and how to process different experiences," he said, and "voice your opinions in a coherent way."

    "By the time I wrote the book, I had a better sense of where my life had been and why I was doing what I was doing," he said.

    Chuck Neubauer contributed to this report.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    OOPPSS!! Wait a minute. The Dems are going to be very upset about this book deal. They may even call on the President to resign.

    After all, they were pretty ****ed in 1994 when that nasty Newt Gingrich thing came up.

    Barack Obama's $500,000 Book Deal
    By Mark Whittington
    President Barack Obama, already a successful author, signed a five hundred thousand dollar book deal just five days before being sworn into office as President of the United States. The deal was for a children's version of Dreams from My Father.
    The Barack Obama book deal, with is somewhat unusual for a person about to be a sitting President, does not appear to violate any laws or ethics rules, according to the account in the Washington Times. Previous royalties of the adult version of Dreams from My Father and the Audacity of Hope had netted Barack Obama millions of dollars.
    Even so, the relatively benign reaction to the lucrative book deal for an almost to be sitting President contrasts to the savage outrage that took place in 1994 when it was announced that then soon to be Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had signed a $4.5 million dollar book deal. The Gingrich deal included a book that would be an in depth explanation of the Contract with America, a ten point agenda that had been developed by Gingrich and his allies that Republican Congressional candidates had successfully run on to take control of both Houses of Congress.
    Accusations of Gingrich selling his office and of corrupt practices were hurtled about in the media. The real source of the outrage was that Newt Gingrich had successfully engineered the first Republican control of both Houses of Congress in forty years. Gingrich and his Republican allies were not only going to be a check on the ambitions of then President Bill Clinton, but were seriously threatening to pass their own reform agenda as outlined in the Contract with America. The book deal was just a way of attacking Gingrich.
    Newt Gingrich was eventually forced to accept a one dollar advance. The book version of The Contract with America did well, considering its topicality and the fame of its author. After leaving elected office, Newt Gingrich became a successful author of public policy books and alternative history fiction, the latter with his writing collaborator William Forstchen.
    The differing reactions to the Barack Obama book deal and the now fifteen year old Newt Gingrich book deal suggests that the media holds Republicans and Democrats to two different sets of standards. No one, yet, is suggesting even an appearance of impropriety about the Barack Obama book deal. There is, so far at least, none of the white hot criticism being directed toward Barack Obama that was directed toward Newt Gingrich fifteen years ago. That suggests that there is yet more evidence that there is indeed liberal bias in the mainstream medi.
    The differing reactions to the Barack Obama book deal and the now fifteen year old Newt Gingrich book deal suggests that the media holds Republicans and Democrats to two different sets of standards. No one, yet, is suggesting even an appearance of impropriety about the Barack Obama book deal. There is, so far at least, none of the white hot criticism being directed toward Barack Obama that was directed toward Newt Gingrich fifteen years ago. That suggests that there is yet more evidence that there is indeed liberal bias in the mainstream media.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Never mind. It's all good.

    Hillary's book deal blues
    The Congressional Accountability Project asks Sen.-elect Clinton to give up her $8 million advance and just collect royalties.

    - - - - - - - - - - - -
    By Anthony York

    Dec. 19, 2000 | SAN FRANCISCO -- In the wake of Hillary Rodham Clinton's record $8 million advance on her book deal with publisher Simon & Schuster, the Congressional Accountability Project has sent the senator-elect a letter asking her to make public the details of the contract and to reject the hefty advance altogether.

    "During your campaign for Senate, you often voiced support for campaign finance reform as a way to mitigate the corrupting influence of money in politics," the letter states. "As an advocate against public corruption, we urge you to walk your talk by altering the terms of your book contract to accept only copyright royalties under usual and customary contractual terms, for books actually sold."

    On Friday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on NBC's "Today" that the Senate Ethics Committee may launch an investigation into the deal.

    "I would think so," McCain said when asked if the committee should launch a probe. But, he added, "I don't know any details of the deal or anything else."

    Clinton's spokeswoman Lissa Muscatine has stated that lawyers thoroughly vetted the deal to make sure it complied with Senate rules on book deals and advances. "She's gotten advice from first-rate lawyers familiar with this kind of thing, and they are comfortable with the fact that she's fully in compliance with the rules and regulations," Muscatine told the Associated Press.

    While her lawyers may be first-rate, her political advisors are apparently tone-deaf. The last thing a newly elected senator wants, particularly one with Clinton's reputation in GOP circles for exploiting legal loopholes, is to be shadowed by the specter of an ethical violation. Before she even takes the oath of office, New York's junior senator finds herself giving answers to the press that are downright Clintonian.

    The book deal has given Clinton haters new ammunition to pound the rising Democratic star before she even takes office. Already, comparisons are being made to the $4.5 million advance Newt Gingrich received for his book from HarperCollins, which is owned by conservative news magnate Rupert Murdoch.

    "This is a sign of the utter hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and the press," the National Review's Rich Lowry said on Fox News Channel Monday. The Washington Times noted the media's virtual silence about the Clinton deal in contrast with the "high-pitched whining and screaming" surrounding the Gingrich deal.

    But Ruskin says comparisons between the two are premature. "This deal we don't know very much about yet. We know what the Clinton spokespeople say about it, but we don't know anything about it yet," says Ruskin, who heads the Congressional Accountability Project and authored the letter.

    That's why Ruskin has called on Clinton to submit her book contract to the Senate Ethics Committee to see if it complies with standards of conduct and conflict of interest.

    The CAP is a congressional watchdog group that regularly monitors the ethical behavior of members of Congress and has filed ethical complaints against Democrats and Republicans alike -- including Rep. James Moran, D-Va., and Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill. The group also filed an ethics complaint against Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for using "heavy-handed" tactics to pressure high-tech lobbyists to funnel money to Michigan Sen. Spence Abraham's reelection bid in exchange for legislative favors.

    Simon & Schuster's parent company, Viacom, is an active player on Capitol Hill. During the last election cycle, its political action committee gave $206,461 to candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That money was split between the parties with $104,384 going to Democrats, and $102,077 to Republicans. Clinton received $6,000 from the PAC, and her opponent, Rep. Rick Lazio, received $8,000. The company also gave $23,000 in unregulated soft money, according to CRP spokesman Steve Weiss. But "that's not going to break down any doors," he says.

    However, he did say the Clinton deal demands a closer look. "Any time there's a situation involving a member of Congress and a large contribution of some sort, voters ought to pay attention," Weiss says. "This is just one way that members in Congress are able to exert influence over business and industries out there in a way that could provide that member with an opportunity to thank that industry later through legislation."

    One fact cited in Ruskin's open letter to Clinton, which was also sent to the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Ethics committee, is that Clinton's deal would not have passed muster in the House. "Your book advance would be impermissible under the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, which prohibit House members from accepting any book advance," the letter states.

    That hardly surprises Weiss. "That sounds like the Senate," he says upon learning the House maintains more rigid ethical standards than the Senate. "In the world of campaign finance laws, the Senate will pass rules and regulations then exempt themselves. For example, beginning in 2001, all candidates for the House and for president have to file their returns electronically" so voters can easily track their contributions on the Internet. "But the Senate doesn't. They passed the law, but exempted themselves," he says.

    So even though different standards apply to the Clinton and Gingrich deals, Clinton is still left in a politically undesirable position of invoking her lawyers to claim that her deal complies with the letter of the law, while her critics have ammunition to say Clinton is violating the spirit of the law.

    But Ruskin said the Senate has a tendency to protect its own, and was skeptical it would intervene on Clinton's deal. "Neither major political party much supports reforms to police and enforce rules against corruption in Congress," he says. "The battle against corruption in Congress has collapsed. Democrats and Republicans work together to prevent investigations of each other. So this is just sort of business as usual."

    But whether or not those rules of Senate decorum apply to Sen. Clinton remain to be seen.


    salon.com
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Wait. I'm confused.

    Can someone help me with why Newt was wrong and Pres. Obama and Hillary were OK?

    Thanks.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Hey it a time of Change! You just don't get it George.

    Is it OK to laugh at this bunch of goobers yet? I see Jimmy Carter was at the White House earlier this week. What job do you suppose he got? As competent as typical Obama appointment.

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Wait. I'm confused.

    Can someone help me with why Newt was wrong and Pres. Obama and Hillary were OK?

    Thanks.
    You keep trying to inject common sense into the Government.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  7. #7
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    So the Dems can take all kinds of money for silly book deals, but the poor working folks at AIG can't have their bonuses... Interesting

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    So the Dems can take all kinds of money for silly book deals, but the poor working folks at AIG can't have their bonuses... Interesting
    The POOR working folks at AIG? Are you kidding me? Your train is completely off the tracks. These are the same people who ran their company into the ground and are now wanting the US taxpayer to bail them out. Some of the bonuses given are more than than most people make in a lifetime.

    Gawd are you stupid.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #9
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The POOR working folks at AIG? Are you kidding me? Your train is completely off the tracks. These are the same people who ran their company into the ground and are now wanting the US taxpayer to bail them out. Some of the bonuses given are more than than most people make in a lifetime.

    Gawd are you stupid.
    My friend, 74 folks got 70 million dollars, those aren't the ones I'm talking about. The average bonus was $19,000. So some of the clerks and lower level executives were counting on a measly $5,000 or $10,000 bonus. Nobody seems to care about them. I am given targets for a bonus, if I reach that target then I get my bonus. Those employees did what they had to get their bonuses and deserve them. If they were in a union this wouldn't happen.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    My friend, 74 folks got 70 million dollars, those aren't the ones I'm talking about. The average bonus was $19,000. So some of the clerks and lower level executives were counting on a measly $5,000 or $10,000 bonus. Nobody seems to care about them. I am given targets for a bonus, if I reach that target then I get my bonus. Those employees did what they had to get their bonuses and deserve them. If they were in a union this wouldn't happen.
    Then how do they explain the company's failure?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #11
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Then how do they explain the company's failure?
    Who is they??

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default


    The reason AIG is a bunch of crooks is not because of the 'bonuses' but because they've somehow managed to walk away with the first set of billion dollar bailouts.. and everyone seems fine with it.


    Also note that AIG is now suing the Government for 306Mil in tax payments.

    "Too Big To Fail" is very quickly approaching "Go F Yourself"..
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Who is they??
    Are you stupid? It's a rhetorical question, so don't answer.

    "They" refer to the people you claim met their goals and should be paid their bonuses.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Odd. I don't manage my business correctly I go bankrupt and go away. No perks,parachutes or bonuses. Same should happen to AIG. Trust me someone WILL take their place. At least they're on the hotseat for it. T.C.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    I don't see a problem with anyone getting advances on any book deals no matter who they are, what their job is, or when they sign the deal.

    More power to 'em.




    In fact, if any of these people would write a book after office I probably would read it.
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

    IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
    http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
    EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickey View Post
    I don't see a problem with anyone getting advances on any book deals no matter who they are, what their job is, or when they sign the deal.

    More power to 'em.




    In fact, if any of these people would write a book after office I probably would read it.
    Of course not. That's the point.

    But the libs cannot answer a question like this directly and it is fun to watch. They have to obfuscate the issue and try to turn the argument around.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    gamewell35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    Odd. I don't manage my business correctly I go bankrupt and go away. No perks,parachutes or bonuses. Same should happen to AIG. Trust me someone WILL take their place. At least they're on the hotseat for it. T.C.
    Its not just that easy; the impact on the nation as a whole would have been devastating; people who's retirement monies from there companies would have seen the their pensions become extinct with the stroke of a pen alone. Perhaps what the government should have done starting back with GW Bush was to let them go into bankruptcy; that way they could have voided the personal service contracts and thus eliminate bonuses and then start giving them bailout monies

  18. #18
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    Odd. I don't manage my business correctly I go bankrupt and go away. No perks,parachutes or bonuses. Same should happen to AIG. Trust me someone WILL take their place. At least they're on the hotseat for it. T.C.
    Sounds nice up front. Unfortunately it isn't that simple. My neighbor gets her pension checks form AIG, she didn't work for them, they just manage the pension fund. SO what do you do with all of those people.

  19. #19
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Are you stupid? It's a rhetorical question, so don't answer.

    "They" refer to the people you claim met their goals and should be paid their bonuses.
    OHHH, They are the people who sit ion cubicles and get goals to meet, just like you and everyone else with a job. As part of meeting that goal they get compensated and expect that compensation. I'm talking about the guy who does his job and has no control over how the company operates or the direction it goes. I'm not talking about those 73 top execs, some of whom didn't even control direction.

  20. #20
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post

    The reason AIG is a bunch of crooks is not because of the 'bonuses' but because they've somehow managed to walk away with the first set of billion dollar bailouts.. and everyone seems fine with it.


    Also note that AIG is now suing the Government for 306Mil in tax payments.

    "Too Big To Fail" is very quickly approaching "Go F Yourself"..
    I wouldn't call AIG a bunch of crooks. I would call them smart business men for working out the deal they did. And our legislators and President were more than happy to just hand them a blank check and tell them to go have a good time. If the bum on the corner asks you for a couple of bucks for dinner and you hand him $10 only to watch him go by a 6 pack who is the idiot? Certainly not the bum.

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    I wouldn't call AIG a bunch of crooks. I would call them smart business men for working out the deal they did. And our legislators and President were more than happy to just hand them a blank check and tell them to go have a good time. If the bum on the corner asks you for a couple of bucks for dinner and you hand him $10 only to watch him go by a 6 pack who is the idiot? Certainly not the bum.
    Hey dippity do da....

    It's not that simple. These people knew the laws and knew how to set themselves up to get very fat, very fast. Sure, there is no law that they broke but there is something very wrong with no laws to avoid what has happened. We need to put laws in place to avoid a central hub of an economy and avoid this in the future. These same "crooks" took advantage of the system and cleaned out your account in the process.
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

    IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
    http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
    EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

  22. #22
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickey View Post
    Hey dippity do da....

    It's not that simple. These people knew the laws and knew how to set themselves up to get very fat, very fast. Sure, there is no law that they broke but there is something very wrong with no laws to avoid what has happened. We need to put laws in place to avoid a central hub of an economy and avoid this in the future. These same "crooks" took advantage of the system and cleaned out your account in the process.
    Exactly. But don't blame AIG. Blame the real crooks, the government. The democrats pushed this nonsense through, and a democratic president signed off on it. They are the ones that did this. AIG merely took what the government gave them. Once again, we see governments ineptitude.

  23. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Wait. I'm confused.

    Can someone help me with why Newt was wrong and Pres. Obama and Hillary were OK?

    Thanks.
    There is another thread on here about AIG. Let's try to focus on this issue.

    Funny how when the libs are caught they try to change the subject.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    OHHH, They are the people who sit ion cubicles and get goals to meet, just like you and everyone else with a job. As part of meeting that goal they get compensated and expect that compensation. I'm talking about the guy who does his job and has no control over how the company operates or the direction it goes. I'm not talking about those 73 top execs, some of whom didn't even control direction.
    You tell him to suck it up and bear the consequences of his not being well informed enough to know his company was building a house of cards. You know, personal responsibility and all that.

    Then you finish by saying, "ain't capitalism great?"
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #25
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    You tell him to suck it up and bear the consequences of his not being well informed enough to know his company was building a house of cards. You know, personal responsibility and all that.

    Then you finish by saying, "ain't capitalism great?"
    But back to the topic. How come Newts book deal was a crime but the likes of Clinton and Obama is not?

    P.S. George brought up the Clintons this time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pres. Obama and the Disabled
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 04-01-2009, 12:53 PM
  2. Obama Thanks Our Veterans
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 03-26-2009, 02:16 PM
  3. Auzzies And Obama
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum News Center
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-19-2009, 06:40 PM
  4. DCFD prepairing for Obama?
    By FireBuffMI in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-18-2009, 05:34 PM
  5. Another Obama Character Flaw?
    By PhillyRube in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-02-2008, 09:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register