Illinois Governor Arrested...

[Guest]

. . . I can't tell you how many emails I've gotten from people "wishing that they could reach through the computer monitor and choke me" . . .

I'm sorry, that made me spit out my drink.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Obama made a mistake like bush, bush put his father's people around him...obama has done the same with clinton's people and i'm sure that this is only the first of many "gates" ...the clintons were very polor and masters of spin control...plus so many people are jealous of Bill as he is the master sales person...

What the hell are you talking about?

How does the IL Gov. scandal qualify in any way as an "Obama mistake"? He made a mistake by winning the election and vacating his Senate seat, thus giving Blago something that he then tried to sell? Obama didn't appoint Blago, you know. The Clintons had nothing to do with it either. Governors are elected.

Seriously. You sound feverish.

 

[Stella_Omega]

there are no gates now, and hopefully will not be. Obama seems to be much more family oriented and has not had any skeletons in his closet like so many others have in DC.....

can we all agree that we've suffered through 20 years of bush and clintons. those that are pro clintons are not happy with bush...those that are or were pro bush never liked the clintons?

look at how divided people are on politics and how you have to be a republican or democrat and there is zero room to be a free thinker. look at how quickly people get heated up when you talk about politics? I can't tell you how many emails I've gotten from people "wishing that they could reach through the computer monitor and choke me" please that is just silly. why can't poeple talk about things with out resorting to violence?

back to the point. .... the "gate" thing was in reference to the clintons and how they always seem to be in some type of trouble. its like with the blue dress, if Bill would have come out and said that "look I made a mistake" i could respect that but he spun it...not sure if that was from being a politician or a lawyer.

That's amazing, the way you turn "freedom of thought" into "freedom from thought."

 

[dr_mabeuse]

look at how divided people are on politics and how you have to be a republican or democrat and there is zero room to be a free thinker. look at how quickly people get heated up when you talk about politics? I can't tell you how many emails I've gotten from people "wishing that they could reach through the computer monitor and choke me" please that is just silly. why can't poeple talk about things with out resorting to violence?

People want to reach through their computer monitor and choke you probably because your ignorance and fatuousness are just so breathtakingly frustrating, my dear. I'm sure it has nothing to do with politics.

 

[Stella_Omega]

People want to reach through their computer monitor and choke you probably because your ignorance and fatuousness are just so breathtakingly frustrating, my dear. I'm sure it has nothing to do with politics.

I just couldn't think of a nice way to say that...

 

[Guest]

I just couldn't think of a nice way to say that...

Zoot is a gentleman.

I couldn't, either. I'm still wiping diet cherry pepsi from my monitor.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_mabeuse
One of the most remarkable things in all this is how Obama came up through the slime of Illinois politics without being corrupted himself. I told you guys this was true way back during the primary season, that he was clean as a whistle, but you didn't believe me, insisting he was just another Chicago Machine hack, and now I'm here to stick my tongue out and tell you you were wrong and I was right! Take it from me, he had nothing to do with Rezko and he had nothing to do with Blago. As I've said all along, Obama is from Chicago but not of it.

Blagojevich is a smear on the Democratic party because people have known he was a shameless crook and lowlife since at least 2006 and they didn't do anything about it. Before that he was more or less okay, or at least he kept his larceny within acceptable bounds, but since then he's been running a kleptocracy and he's been under one investigation after another, which is why Obama and most pols with half a brain steered well clear of him (including Mayor Daley). There was talk of impeachment long before he was caught in this current scandal. You'll notice he was conspicuously absent during the Democratic convention and never appeared with Obama during the campaign, and for good reason. (bolding added by me)

So as for Obama, you can hate him for his politics or hate him for his personality, or hate him for his race, but he's not a crook and he's not a sleaze and never has been, and that's just the truth of the matter.

Obama didn't completely wash his hands of Blago.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5321475.ece

Judging from other things that appear on this site, I don't know how reliable it is. I also realize it is not exactly a ringing endoresement, but it did benefit Blago.

I'm also not sure how clear he steered of Rezko:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor...-_b_82863.html

Apparently, they had more business and political dealings than Obama has admitted. My posting a link to the Huffington Post is rather unusual. Generally, I don't tust them, but Obama has always been their palsy-walsy.
__________________

Going back to January 23 of 2008 for that hot story, huh, Box? There's a piece of news that really went somewhere. That was old news in Chicago. Rezko had dealings with lots of people. That's the nature of the beast. He's now sung to the feds like a La Scala tenor and nothing's come out about Obama. Not a peep.

And forgive Obama for endorsing a governor who was rumored to be under investigation back in 2006. I guess he should have dumped on him because of rumors and because everyone Obama associates with is guilty until proven innocent, right?

A little obsessed, aren't we, Box?

I merely disagreed with your post saying Obama steered clear of Blago in 2006, and pointed out why I disagreed with it. He wasn't exactly "rumored" to be under investigation, by the way. Even your post described him asd a known crook as long ago as 2006. The fact that the story is almost a year old doesn't make it untrue.

Obama has said he represented Rezko in court, but has no other association, but that is, apparently, not completely true.

I have no animosity towad Obama; I just do not think he is "The Messiah" as some on this foum seem to do. I voted FOR McCain, because I thought he was the better choice. I still think so, even though he lost. I did not vote AGAINST Obama.

As for whether or not he is a sleaze and a crook, that remains to be seen.

 

[jeninflorida]

Glad that I provided you with entertainment.

I'm sorry, that made me spit out my drink.

 

[jeninflorida]

Wow, I didn’t expect that comment from you. Whatever, in the end everyone is in his or her place due to his or her actions. We live a great life and enjoy….and yes I think that this note and many of the others are from fools that do not take responsibility for his or her life and want a hand out.

People want to reach through their computer monitor and choke you probably because your ignorance and fatuousness are just so breathtakingly frustrating, my dear. I'm sure it has nothing to do with politics.

 

[Guest]

Wow, I didn’t expect that comment from you. Whatever, in the end everyone is in his or her place due to his or her actions. We live a great life and enjoy….and yes I think that this note and many of the others are from fools that do not take responsibility for his or her life and want a hand out.

His post was erudite and specific.

And also kind.

The fact that you, once again, missed the point illustrates his accuracy.

 

[jeninflorida]

Are you kidding me? Obama has many of clinton’s people around him. The responses from Rahm Emanuel have been classic Clinton…don’t answer the question divert….then after a week respond with something like “Your wasting my time” or “Your wasting your time” why not answer the question?

Lets repeat history and walk blindly into the future.

What the hell are you talking about?

How does the IL Gov. scandal qualify in any way as an "Obama mistake"? He made a mistake by winning the election and vacating his Senate seat, thus giving Blago something that he then tried to sell? Obama didn't appoint Blago, you know. The Clintons had nothing to do with it either. Governors are elected.

Seriously. You sound feverish.

 

[jeninflorida]

When do you think America became so polarized? In my own history I feel that America became very polarized during the Clinton presidency.

Jumping subjects:
And sorry that I don’t agree with most of you but GM needs go into BK…and let them restructure everything…and maybe it’s time for GM to fail.

This is fun and maybe I will learn something from all of you 

What the hell are you talking about?

How does the IL Gov. scandal qualify in any way as an "Obama mistake"? He made a mistake by winning the election and vacating his Senate seat, thus giving Blago something that he then tried to sell? Obama didn't appoint Blago, you know. The Clintons had nothing to do with it either. Governors are elected.

Seriously. You sound feverish.

That's amazing, the way you turn "freedom of thought" into "freedom from thought."

 

[jeninflorida]

the feds have spent 350 billion so far....on what? what type of restrictions were placed on Wall Street? and now AIG needs another 10 billion....

Wow, I didn’t expect that comment from you. Whatever, in the end everyone is in his or her place due to his or her actions. We live a great life and enjoy….and yes I think that this note and many of the others are from fools that do not take responsibility for his or her life and want a hand out.

 

[shereads]

Paula Poundstone of NPR's "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" suggests that the empty Senate seat should be awarded to the best-behaved prisoner at Joliet.

I like that. It's an incentive for good behavior, and assures Illinois a senator who'll already know the drill.

 

[shereads]

the feds have spent 350 billion so far....on what? what type of restrictions were placed on Wall Street? and now AIG needs another 10 billion....

and AIG will be paying year-end bonuses of up to $3 million.

 

[Stella_Omega]

When do you think America became so polarized? In my own history I feel that America became very polarized during the Clinton presidency.

Jumping subjects:
And sorry that I don’t agree with most of you but GM needs go into BK…and let them restructure everything…and maybe it’s time for GM to fail.

This is fun and maybe I will learn something from all of you 

I agree with you, Jen, the Clinton years did see an enormous program of invective designed to polarise the country. Can we say;

Newt Gingrich?
Rush Limbaugh?

Just to name the two brightest stars of an exttraordinary smear campaign-- not onlay against the Clintons, (And remember, Starr never could prove any wrong-doing for the original charges) but against all democrats and liberals.

If you are serious about "learning something," you will need to learn to think along a wider spectrum.
here's a book review pertaining to the Clinton impeachment, that might give you something to think about.

Maybe.

If you want to talk about GM, start a new thread.

 

[Boxlicker101]

and AIG will be paying year-end bonuses of up to $3 million.

I assume that's 3M per exec, not 3M total. They shouldn't get any bonuses. If anything, their salaries should be docked fo poor performance. Unless, that is, successful panhandling from the gov. is considered to be an accomplishment.

Couldn't the gov. put a restriction on the moneyh, such as no bonuses?

 

[jeninflorida]

Playing devil’s advocate,

you don't think that anyone on the left was just as bad as Rush or Newt?

today we have MSNBC and Fox. So which ever side you are on one can listen to what he or she wants. to me both are preaching. so I just turn the media off.

are you kidding me by putting in a quote from the new york times? this news paper is so freaking left wing and unable to see the truth. which is worse rush or the new york times.

What I don’t understand is how Jack Cafferly gripes about Rush. I was channel surfing last night. Jack called for Rush to be off the air and went into a little rant for a 40 seconds. Why is it that Jack can rant but Rush can't? why not let all these fools talk...isn't that "freedom of the speach?"

if one can't see that the left is just as bad as the right....we are in a world of hurt.

I agree with you, Jen, the Clinton years did see an enormous program of invective designed to polarise the country. Can we say;

Newt Gingrich?
Rush Limbaugh?

Just to name the two brightest stars of an exttraordinary smear campaign-- not onlay against the Clintons, (And remember, Starr never could prove any wrong-doing for the original charges) but against all democrats and liberals.

If you are serious about "learning something," you will need to learn to think along a wider spectrum.
here's a book review pertaining to the Clinton impeachment, that might give you something to think about.

Maybe.

If you want to talk about GM, start a new thread.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Playing devil’s advocate,

you don't think that anyone on the left was just as bad as Rush or Newt?

today we have MSNBC and Fox. So which ever side you are on one can listen to what he or she wants. to me both are preaching. so I just turn the media off.

are you kidding me by putting in a quote from the new york times? this news paper is so freaking left wing and unable to see the truth. which is worse rush or the new york times.

What I don’t understand is how Jack Cafferly gripes about Rush. I was channel surfing last night. Jack called for Rush to be off the air and went into a little rant for a 40 seconds. Why is it that Jack can rant but Rush can't? why not let all these fools talk...isn't that "freedom of the speach?"

if one can't see that the left is just as bad as the right....we are in a world of hurt.

Pointing out that someone with brains thinks Rush is hurtful to this country does not prove Rush is innocent of doing damage.

Sweetie, don't worry about playing devil's advocate. He has far better-qualified people on his payroll, and you are not doing his cause any good.

And look up the proper definition of "freedom of speech." It does not mean; "Rush can say what he wants and no one can say he's a vicious asshole."
It does not mean; "Jen can demonstrate her ignorance without being laughed at."

 

[jeninflorida]

My point is this, the guys are msnbc are spitting out just as much crap as rush if you can’t see that or understand that….

Pointing out that someone with brains thinks Rush is hurtful to this country does not prove Rush is innocent of doing damage.

Sweetie, don't worry about playing devil's advocate. He has far better-qualified people on his payroll, and you are not doing his cause any good.

And look up the proper definition of "freedom of speech." It does not mean; "Rush can say what he wants and no one can say he's a vicious asshole."
It does not mean; "Jen can demonstrate her ignorance without being laughed at."

 

[Stella_Omega]

My point is this, the guys are msnbc are spitting out just as much crap as rush if you can’t see that or understand that….

No, sweetie, that wasn't your point, and it's incorrect regardless.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeninflorida
My point is this, the guys are msnbc are spitting out just as much crap as rush if you can’t see that or understand that….

No, sweetie, that wasn't your point, and it's incorrect regardless.

The difference between Rush and Gingrich on one side and MSNMBC and the NY Times on the other is that the former are commentators and it is known they are expressing their opinions. The latter are supposed to be presenting the news, not expressing opinions and spreading gossip and rumor and calling it news. They have a right to do so, of course, but they are doing a disservice when they exercise that right.

 

[sr71plt]

My point is this, the guys are msnbc are spitting out just as much crap as rush if you can’t see that or understand that….

MSNBC didn't really get revved up to the polarized Fox level until after the Clinton administration, did it? It wasn't formed until 1996. Fox has been going since 1986--and Rush Lumbaugh has been "entertaining" us since at least 1988.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

MSNBC didn't really get revved up to the polarized Fox level until after the Clinton administration, did it? It wasn't formed until 1996. Fox has been going since 1986--and Rush Lumbaugh has been "entertaining" us since at least 1988.

I hope you know that the Clinton admin. ended on Jan. 20, 2001. And boxlicker has a point. There is a difference between expressing opinions that are presented as be opinions and passing opinons off as news.

 

[sr71plt]

I hope you know that the Clinton admin. ended on Jan. 20, 2001. And boxlicker has a point. There is a difference between expressing opinions that are presented as be opinions and passing opinons off as news.

I believe I posted that MSNBC didn't get revved up (you do have a dictionary, don't you?) to the level of Fox, which had been doing this polarization thing for a decade already, until after the Clinton administration. (And of course I wouldn't have the foggiest idea when a presidential administration is over--having spent all that time checking all those other dates I put in my posting ).

I can see why you and some others here would have preferred that the left waited more than a decade to start slinging the partisan "stuff" that the right was slinging for that long on a TV network.