Illinois Governor Arrested...

[midwestyankee]

Here is something I just saw that relartes to what the subject has become, I don't necessarily agree with the opinion being presented; I just want to toss it out.

I have to wonder about Valerie Jarrett. It would seem to me that lobbying for her appointment to the Senate is rank cronyism, certainly not "Change we can believe in."

I can say the same thing about the possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy.

I was thinking of continuing the conversation but for two concerns:

1) This is not a conversation as you clearly are interested only in spouting your opinion and not in engaging anyone else, and

2) You clearly judge first and then look for confirming facts.

What's the point? If you're so completely convinced of the rightness of your opinion, why even raise the issue? Why not simply sit in your corner all happy that you dislike the new President?

 

[Guest]

I was thinking of continuing the conversation but for two concerns:

1) This is not a conversation as you clearly are interested only in spouting your opinion and not in engaging anyone else, and

2) You clearly judge first and then look for confirming facts.

What's the point? If you're so completely convinced of the rightness of your opinion, why even raise the issue? Why not simply sit in your corner all happy that you dislike the new President?

Intelligent and astute people are so fucking sexy.

 

[midwestyankee]

Intelligent and astute people are so fucking sexy.

I'd rather see it as sexy while fucking, but chacun a son gout.

 

[Guest]

I'd rather see it as sexy while fucking, but chacun a son gout.

You know as well as I that the mind is an erogenous zone.

*swoon*

 

[freshface]

I smell sarcasm.

So what would you want them to do? What could they so at this point in time to make you feel safe? Do tell.

I think she's hoping for a resignation. Obama's that is. I don't think anything less will make her feel safe.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Here is something I just saw that relartes to what the subject has become, I don't necessarily agree with the opinion being presented; I just want to toss it out.

I have to wonder about Valerie Jarrett. It would seem to me that lobbying for her appointment to the Senate is rank cronyism, certainly not "Change we can believe in."

I can say the same thing about the possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy.

I was thinking of continuing the conversation but for two concerns:

1) This is not a conversation as you clearly are interested only in spouting your opinion and not in engaging anyone else, and

2) You clearly judge first and then look for confirming facts.

What's the point? If you're so completely convinced of the rightness of your opinion, why even raise the issue? Why not simply sit in your corner all happy that you dislike the new President?

Like everybody else on this kind of thread, I express my opinion and defend it against those who disagree, as long as those disagreements are stated in a civil manner. I do have certain opinions; you can call them judgements if you want, but I don't. If I feel the necessity, I look up confirming facts, although those opinions have usually been formed by other things I learned, sometimes long ago.

I have never expressed dislike of the president-elect, and I never will, although I may criticize him if I think he is not living up to his promises, such as I did in the post that appears above. I voted FOR McCain, not AGAINST Obama. I would have voted for Obama over any of the other Republican contenders. I did vote for Obama in the CA primary.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think she's hoping for a resignation. Obama's that is. I don't think anything less will make her feel safe.

Oh, well. All the rest of us have just lived through eight very unsafe years. She may not feel safe-- but she's a helluva lot safer than she thinks she is.

 

[freshface]

Oh, well. All the rest of us have just lived through eight very unsafe years. She may not feel safe-- but she's a helluva lot safer than she thinks she is.

Indeed

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I think she's hoping for a resignation. Obama's that is. I don't think anything less will make her feel safe.

Obama did resign his Senate seat, but how can he resign the presidency when he hasn't even been sworn in yet? For that matter, why would he want to, even after being sworn in?

 

[midwestyankee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Here is something I just saw that relartes to what the subject has become, I don't necessarily agree with the opinion being presented; I just want to toss it out.

I have to wonder about Valerie Jarrett. It would seem to me that lobbying for her appointment to the Senate is rank cronyism, certainly not "Change we can believe in."

I can say the same thing about the possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy.




Like everybody else on this kind of thread, I express my opinion and defend it against those who disagree, as long as those disagreements are stated in a civil manner. I do have certain opinions; you can call them judgements if you want, but I don't. If I feel the necessity, I look up confirming facts, although those opinions have usually been formed by other things I learned, sometimes long ago.

I have never expressed dislike of the president-elect, and I never will, although I may criticize him if I think he is not living up to his promises, such as I did in the post that appears above. I voted FOR McCain, not AGAINST Obama. I would have voted for Obama over any of the other Republican contenders. I did vote for Obama in the CA primary.

There's a difference between informing the Governor's office of your preference and "lobbying for her appointment." It's quite clear from statements made by the U. S. Attorney that no one on Team Obama did any lobbying on behalf of any preferred individuals. This is opinion masquerading as judgment. Discussing opinions is like painting on water: there's no hope of any permanent change or improvement of any kind.

An assertion is an opinion up to the point where the assertion is backed up by fact. Before that, it's just an opinion that has no more or less merit than any other's opinion. There is no point in discussing opinions because there's no there there. Instead, let's discuss judgments made from facts. Then there's something that might actually change another's mind. If all you want to do is to swap opinions, the local bar is a suitable venue.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There's a difference between informing the Governor's office of your preference and "lobbying for her appointment." It's quite clear from statements made by the U. S. Attorney that no one on Team Obama did any lobbying on behalf of any preferred individuals. This is opinion masquerading as judgment. Discussing opinions is like painting on water: there's no hope of any permanent change or improvement of any kind.

When you refer to "the U. S. attorney" do you mean the incoming White House counsel? Since he is, essentially, Obama's attorney, he is not going to say anything negative about his client. If he were a part of the AG Staff, that would be a different matter.

There is a thin line between making a suggestion and lobbying. If Emanuel called up Blago and said something like: "The president-elect wants you to appoint Valerie Jarret to succeed him as senator" that would be lobbying, as I see it. On the other hand, if there was a conversation between the two men and Blago asked about Obama's preference to succeed him and Emanuel mentioned Jarrett, that would be a suggestion, not lobbying. If Emanuel then went on to extol the virtues of Ms. Jarrett, that would become lobbying. That is, of course, my opinion, and you can agree or not.

It was said by the incoming White House Counsel that nothing inappropriate was said. I'm not sure what that means. Lobying for the choice of Jarett would not have been illegal, and might not have been considered to be inappropriate by Obama's lawyer. However, it would have been what I consider to be cronyism, which is definitely not "Change we can believe in."

An assertion is an opinion up to the point where the assertion is backed up by fact. Before that, it's just an opinion that has no more or less merit than any other's opinion. There is no point in discussing opinions because there's no there there. Instead, let's discuss judgments made from facts. Then there's something that might actually change another's mind. If all you want to do is to swap opinions, the local bar is a suitable venue.

I am always glad to discuss judgements made from facts. However, sometimes the "facts" might be dubious. Or there may be other facts that are ignored. The judgement by the WH staff counsel was, supposedly, valid but there might be more facts that we don't know about. I would almost need to see or hear a transcript of the conversation before I could make a real judgement. Even before that, I will easily concede that neither Obama nor any of his staff or incoming staff did anything illegal.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Obama did resign his Senate seat, but how can he resign the presidency when he hasn't even been sworn in yet? For that matter, why would he want to, even after being sworn in?

Oh, darlin', you're a keeper. I wouldn't kick you out of bed for eating crackers, and you'd keep me laughing with your wit.

You did mean to be funny, didn't you?

 

[Guest]

Oh, darlin', you're a keeper. I wouldn't kick you out of bed for eating crackers, and you'd keep me laughing with your wit.

You did mean to be funny, didn't you?

No, you're a keeper.

 

[midwestyankee]

I am always glad to discuss judgements made from facts. However, sometimes the "facts" might be dubious. Or there may be other facts that are ignored. The judgement by the WH staff counsel was, supposedly, valid but there might be more facts that we don't know about. I would almost need to see or hear a transcript of the conversation before I could make a real judgement. Even before that, I will easily concede that neither Obama nor any of his staff or incoming staff did anything illegal.

The U. S. Attorney who is bringing the case against Blagojevich is Patrick Fitzgerald, the same man who investigated the Valerie Plame leak and then prosecuted Scooter Libby. He has said repeatedly that Obama has done nothing wrong with respect to the transfer of his Senate seat to another individual from Illinois. He has also said that no one on Obama's team has done anything wrong with respect to the transfer of the Obama Senate seat to another individual from Illinois. What more do you want? Are you expecting a personal audience with Fitzgerald to satisfy your curiosity?

Lobby:

verb (used without object)
4. to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body.
–verb (used with object)
5. to try to influence the actions of (public officials, esp. legislators).
6. to urge or procure the passage of (a bill), by lobbying.

So how does passing on names to Blago become lobbying? Do we see a pattern of persistent activity intended to influence the decision? When Team Obama says, "Here are four names that are acceptable to us" what part of that seems to you to be "lobbying" and not merely passing on information about a preference?

 

[Stella_Omega]

No, you're a keeper.

Does that mean you're going to keep me?

(Flirting in this thread-- not such a good idea!)

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Does that mean you're going to keep me?

(Flirting in this thread-- not such a good idea!)

Can I help?

 

[midwestyankee]

You know as well as I that the mind is an erogenous zone.

*swoon*

Sorry, I'd missed this earlier.

Yes, it certainly is. Question: what is the sound of one frontal lobe orgasming?

 

[Guest]

Sorry, I'd missed this earlier.

Yes, it certainly is. Question: what is the sound of one frontal lobe orgasming?

I'm not certain.

I generally lose track of myself at that point.

 

[Guest]

Does that mean you're going to keep me?

(Flirting in this thread-- not such a good idea!)

No? But I flirt in every thread.

It's just my nature.

Like it's natural for some to constantly obfuscate, others to deliberately or accidentally misinform . . .

Can I help?

Silly old bear.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The U. S. Attorney who is bringing the case against Blagojevich is Patrick Fitzgerald, the same man who investigated the Valerie Plame leak and then prosecuted Scooter Libby. He has said repeatedly that Obama has done nothing wrong with respect to the transfer of his Senate seat to another individual from Illinois. He has also said that no one on Obama's team has done anything wrong with respect to the transfer of the Obama Senate seat to another individual from Illinois. What more do you want? Are you expecting a personal audience with Fitzgerald to satisfy your curiosity?

Lobby:

verb (used without object)
4. to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body.
–verb (used with object)
5. to try to influence the actions of (public officials, esp. legislators).
6. to urge or procure the passage of (a bill), by lobbying.

So how does passing on names to Blago become lobbying? Do we see a pattern of persistent activity intended to influence the decision? When Team Obama says, "Here are four names that are acceptable to us" what part of that seems to you to be "lobbying" and not merely passing on information about a preference?

Apparently, we have a misunderstanding here. Because the Chicago Tribune article you posted referred to WH Counsel Craig, I asumed you were citing him. Until now, I don't believe you have mentioned Fitzgerald, and I assumed you meant Craig, who is also an attorney who works for the US government. If Craig said something good about Obama, I wouldn't believe him. I don't mean I would consider him to be a liar, I just don't believe laudatory things lawyers say about their clients. ETA: I do believe Fitzgerald if he says nothing illegal was done by Obama or his associates.

Once again, I repeat, I don't believe that Obama or anybody associated with him has done anything illegal, which is, I would assume, what Fitzgerald means by saying "nothing wrong." It would not be illegal for Obama or anybody else, including you or me to lobby Blago. to appoint a friend as senator. However, unless Obama's friend is extremely qualified for the post, I would describe that lobbying as cronyism.

As for whether or not any lobbying took place, as defined in #5 above, I don't know and neither do you. Presenting a list of names would not be. Presenting a list of names and praising one of the candidates and highly recommending the appointment of that candidate would be. Since none of us knows what was said, none of us knows if any lobbying took place.

 

[Guest]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/sweetsubsarahh/whistling.jpg

 

[cloudy]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/sweetsubsarahh/whistling.jpg

STS, for sure.

 

[midwestyankee]

Apparently, we have a misunderstanding here. Because the Chicago Tribune article you posted referred to WH Counsel Craig, I asumed you were citing him. Until now, I don't believe you have mentioned Fitzgerald, and I assumed you meant Craig, who is also an attorney who works for the US government. If Craig said something good about Obama, I wouldn't believe him. I don't mean I would consider him to be a liar, I just don't believe laudatory things lawyers say about their clients. ETA: I do believe Fitzgerald if he says nothing illegal was done by Obama or his associates.

Once again, I repeat, I don't believe that Obama or anybody associated with him has done anything illegal, which is, I would assume, what Fitzgerald means by saying "nothing wrong." It would not be illegal for Obama or anybody else, including you or me to lobby Blago. to appoint a friend as senator. However, unless Obama's friend is extremely qualified for the post, I would describe that lobbying as cronyism.

As for whether or not any lobbying took place, as defined in #5 above, I don't know and neither do you. Presenting a list of names would not be. Presenting a list of names and praising one of the candidates and highly recommending the appointment of that candidate would be. Since none of us knows what was said, none of us knows if any lobbying took place.

I've referred to U. S. Attorney Fitzgerald more than once but that's really neither here nor there. If I'd meant to refer to one of Obama's own attorneys, I'd have said so.

As to "none of us knows if any lobbying took place," then what's the point of this statement that you made recently:

I have to wonder about Valerie Jarrett. It would seem to me that lobbying for her appointment to the Senate is rank cronyism, certainly not "Change we can believe in."

Seems to me that you were suggesting that Team Obama had been lobbying on behalf of Valerie Jarrett. If not, why bother to use the word?

 

[midwestyankee]

I'm not certain.

I generally lose track of myself at that point.

So you're telling us that you've experienced a single lobe orgasm? This is an interesting revelation.

 

[shereads]

As to "none of us knows if any lobbying took place," then what's the point of this statement that you made recently:

Yankee, my dear, you will face better odds pinning Jello to the ceiling than pinning down Box's logic.

Not just any Jello or any ceiling, mind you. We're talking about new Jello Super-Slippery Style®, and the ceiling of a Teflon factory. During an earth tremor. After a service visit by Acme Industrial Ceiling Polishers.

A brilliant effort, though. Good luck with it.