Breaking News: Jesse Jackson Jr. dropped the dime on Blago

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

And Al Gore's...and Hillary Clinton's.

Is that your ignorance or your stupidity speaking? :roll:

Actually it was a pretty valid point.

Politics, like many other things in life, is a "who you know" business. It is not confined to one side of the isle or the other.

Actually, it SUCKS as a point.

There is no absolute equality in life. We're all born into different circumstances and different opportunities. If your opportunities include gaining political power, what matters is whether you're ethical about how you use your opportunities and what you accomplish once you're there.

Blago gained his political clout when he married a Chicago pol's daughter. If he'd actually accomplished anything positive while he was in office, and he hadn't gone off the deep end into bribery and corruption, no one would be complaining.

Jackson's the son of a famous civil rights hero with political baggage. Dropping the dime on Blago speaks well for him. If he's kept the rest of his legal and ethical life straight, and he's done well by his constitutants, more power to him.

Gore's done a lot to earn my respect. His biggest down side is that his speaking style is sometimes boring, which gets in the way of communicating with others about the good work he's doing. I don't know of anything in his past that would qualify as a huge scandal of bribery or corruption.

Hillary's a mixed bag. She's where she is, and that's how it is, but getting into that discussion would just derail the OP's topic so if it's important enough to you, start another thread about it.

 

[alchemize]

There's only a few options on the table for these folks. Either they were participating in the crime, or they were working with the Feds. No word on Rahm yet...

Glad to hear JJ wasn't following in his father's footsteps in this case.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Harvey
It still raises the same question... If he acted responsibly in reporting Blago's attempt to solicit a bribe, and he's done a good job of representing his constituants in the rest of his work, what's your problem?... Seriously.

Perhaps he reported Blagojevich because he did do something wrong, and squealing keeps the investigation off of him?

Hey, all I'm saying is you can't blindly trust anyone in politics. :roll:

 

[Throckmorton]

He just lost the support of the thug/gangster rapper constituency by snitching.

 

[ProfJohn]

This story means nothing when it comes to the current scandal.

Perhaps Jackson is innocent or perhaps he threw this out to make himself look like a good guy.
The fact that there was a fundraiser held right before Blago was arrested raises some serious questions.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This story means nothing when it comes to the current scandal.

Perhaps Jackson is innocent or perhaps he threw this out to make himself look like a good guy.
The fact that there was a fundraiser held right before Blago was arrested raises some serious questions.

'serious questions' is quickly because the code word for partisan hackery around here.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
raises some serious questions.

I just want to point out to the uninformed that this line right here you'll see a lot in political discussions. Translated it means "I wish to make a vague allegation but have no proof on which to base it or to even form a more specific allegation so I will simply put forth the idea of 'questions' which need to be answered for one to clear themselves of some sort of wrongdoing, the nature of which I can not describe"

edit: ha.. mike got fed up with this phrase just when I did. In 2008 it started popping up a lot from Clinton towards Obama I remember.. then McCain and Palin used it a lot.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Haha, now the question is, if he did that, why didn't the others, presuming others knew about Blagofvck selling the seat?

JJJ went to the federal prosecuters years about about a different incident, not the current one.

Did anyone besides alien42 actually read the article?

"This was completely unrelated to the current investigation regarding the U.S. Senate appointment. And it is absolutely inaccurate to describe the congressman as an informant," Edmonds said in a written statement.
Jackson, a Democrat, has given information regarding the embattled Democratic governor of Illinois, though not in the case currently under investigation, Edmonds said.

At least according to this article, there is nothing that specifically clears JJJ in this case. He even waited three years before snitching on Rod.

In 2006, Jackson reported the incident, which he believed to have been an attempt at a shakedown, the sources said.

The report, the sources said, came three three years later because Jackson's memory was jogged by another case -- that of developer Tony Rezko, whose fraud and corruption trial included testimony about $25,000 donations to Blagojevich.

OP's title is somewhat misleading.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This story means nothing when it comes to the current scandal.

Perhaps Jackson is innocent or perhaps he threw this out to make himself look like a good guy.
The fact that there was a fundraiser held right before Blago was arrested raises some serious questions.

'serious questions' is quickly because the code word for partisan hackery around here.

No more than "I will blindly believe every Democrat at face value only because he is not in the same party as George W. Bush" is around here.

Hey, it's healthy to be skeptical.

 

[SandEagle]

is it possible that someone wasn't happy with this and thus decided to go after him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGFOn8X1X4

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zebo

He's probably the best choice too. Very popular in his district and Ill at large. Only thing holding him back is his name.

Eh? The only reason he's where he's at is because of his name.

So what? Once he was in office, he obvious did the right thing in reporting Blago's attempt to extort bribes from him to the authorities. If he's done a good job of representing his constituants in the rest of his work, what's your problem? :roll:

I don't have a problem with him dropping the dime(if that's what really happened). My comments were in response to Zebo's statement.

It still raises the same question... If he acted responsibly in reporting Blago's attempt to solicit a bribe, and he's done a good job of representing his constituants in the rest of his work, what's your problem?... Seriously.

You clearly can't read.

I don't have a problem with him dropping the dime(if that's what really happened). My comments were in response to Zebo's statement.

Sheesh

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
raises some serious questions.

I just want to point out to the uninformed that this line right here you'll see a lot in political discussions. Translated it means "I wish to make a vague allegation but have no proof on which to base it or to even form a more specific allegation so I will simply put forth the idea of 'questions' which need to be answered for one to clear themselves of some sort of wrongdoing, the nature of which I can not describe"

edit: ha.. mike got fed up with this phrase just when I did. In 2008 it started popping up a lot from Clinton towards Obama I remember.. then McCain and Palin used it a lot.

Only the uninformed would believe that phrase only recently made an appearance. It's been tossed around in here for years. Yet suddenly it's just now become a code word for partisan hackery?

Funny how that works. I guess it's time for the self-appointed definers to redefine what's acceptable now that they've switched from offence to defence? Seen a lot of that in here recently too. Apparently they don't like swallowing the very medicine they've been manufacturing for the last two presidential terms.

Partisan hackery indeed.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
raises some serious questions.

I just want to point out to the uninformed that this line right here you'll see a lot in political discussions. Translated it means "I wish to make a vague allegation but have no proof on which to base it or to even form a more specific allegation so I will simply put forth the idea of 'questions' which need to be answered for one to clear themselves of some sort of wrongdoing, the nature of which I can not describe"

edit: ha.. mike got fed up with this phrase just when I did. In 2008 it started popping up a lot from Clinton towards Obama I remember.. then McCain and Palin used it a lot.

Only the uninformed would believe that phrase only recently made an appearance. It's been tossed around in here for years. Yet suddenly it's just now become a code word for partisan hackery?

Funny how that works. I guess it's time for the self-appointed definers to redefine what's acceptable now that they've switched from offence to defence? Seen a lot of that in here recently too. Apparently they don't like swallowing the very medicine they've been manufacturing for the last two presidential terms.

Partisan hackery indeed.

Notice I said "in 2008," I was referring to when I myself heard the term pop up often this year, not its invention.

Then you proceed to use ad hominem tactics but because you have nothing to base those on, first you attempt to establish that I am part of some larger group that you can more legitimately go after.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
raises some serious questions.

I just want to point out to the uninformed that this line right here you'll see a lot in political discussions. Translated it means "I wish to make a vague allegation but have no proof on which to base it or to even form a more specific allegation so I will simply put forth the idea of 'questions' which need to be answered for one to clear themselves of some sort of wrongdoing, the nature of which I can not describe"

edit: ha.. mike got fed up with this phrase just when I did. In 2008 it started popping up a lot from Clinton towards Obama I remember.. then McCain and Palin used it a lot.

:laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
raises some serious questions.

I just want to point out to the uninformed that this line right here you'll see a lot in political discussions. Translated it means "I wish to make a vague allegation but have no proof on which to base it or to even form a more specific allegation so I will simply put forth the idea of 'questions' which need to be answered for one to clear themselves of some sort of wrongdoing, the nature of which I can not describe"

edit: ha.. mike got fed up with this phrase just when I did. In 2008 it started popping up a lot from Clinton towards Obama I remember.. then McCain and Palin used it a lot.

Only the uninformed would believe that phrase only recently made an appearance. It's been tossed around in here for years. Yet suddenly it's just now become a code word for partisan hackery?

Funny how that works. I guess it's time for the self-appointed definers to redefine what's acceptable now that they've switched from offence to defence? Seen a lot of that in here recently too. Apparently they don't like swallowing the very medicine they've been manufacturing for the last two presidential terms.

Partisan hackery indeed.

Notice I said "in 2008," I was referring to when I myself heard the term pop up often this year, not its invention.

Then you proceed to use ad hominem tactics but because you have nothing to base those on, first you attempt to establish that I am part of some larger group that you can more legitimately go after.

Great. So then you already know it was just as much partisan hackery as it's ever been. All you had to say was "I agee."

Stop the whining about ad hominem tactics as well considering you began a post with "I just want to point out to the uninformed..."

 

[Farang]

How was my post ad hominem.. I was just pointing out a phrase often used and defining it, so obviously that would be addressed to those who don't know its definition--that is, those who are not informed, or uninformed, of its meaning.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This story means nothing when it comes to the current scandal.

Perhaps Jackson is innocent or perhaps he threw this out to make himself look like a good guy.
The fact that there was a fundraiser held right before Blago was arrested raises some serious questions.

'serious questions' is quickly because the code word for partisan hackery around here.

No more than "I will blindly believe every Democrat at face value only because he is not in the same party as George W. Bush" is around here.

Hey, it's healthy to be skeptical.

It's good to see ProJo finally regaining his mental health after the last 8 years.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Farang
How was my post ad hominem.. I was just pointing out a phrase often used and defining it, so obviously that would be addressed to those who don't know its definition--that is, those who are not informed, or uninformed, of its meaning.

Right Go tell that to someone that was born yesterday. Maybe you can convince them that giving "the uninformed" a head's up had no ill intent to it? Nor did you define it. You redefined it, in a partisan hackish and pre-emptive manner, to attempt to shut down anyone who would dare to state that there are some serious questions to be answered.

There ARE serious questions yet to be answered because none of what JJJ reported previously has any direct bearing on the specific issue at hand concerning Blagojevich. The information posted in the OP's link sure doesn't exonerate him. It potentially bodes well for his past behaviour but it's by no means a 'get out of scrutiny free' card for the current events.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Farang
How was my post ad hominem.. I was just pointing out a phrase often used and defining it, so obviously that would be addressed to those who don't know its definition--that is, those who are not informed, or uninformed, of its meaning.

Right Go tell that to someone that was born yesterday. Maybe you can convince them that giving "the uninformed" a head's up had no ill intent to it? Nor did you define it. You redefined it, in a partisan hackish and pre-emptive manner, to attempt to shut down anyone who would dare to state that there are some serious questions to be answered.

When you take not consideration it's ProJo he's speaking of he's actually pretty spot on. No different than Harvey talking about Bush or you pretending to be objective.

 

[Farang]

ad hominem does not mean condescension, perceived or real

I don't know how it is partisan either. I don't care about Illinois state politics, I find the use of the term annoying because it always accompanies an attempt to make unsubstantiated allegations. I don't see how from that you can find if I am a Democrat, a Republican, or a Communist, other than that in this case I am taking issue with the criticism of a Democrat.

 

[Chunkee]

Blag will probably walk.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Farang
How was my post ad hominem.. I was just pointing out a phrase often used and defining it, so obviously that would be addressed to those who don't know its definition--that is, those who are not informed, or uninformed, of its meaning.

Right Go tell that to someone that was born yesterday. Maybe you can convince them that giving "the uninformed" a head's up had no ill intent to it? Nor did you define it. You redefined it, in a partisan hackish and pre-emptive manner, to attempt to shut down anyone who would dare to state that there are some serious questions to be answered.

When you take not consideration it's ProJo he's speaking of he's actually pretty spot on. No different than Harvey talking about Bush or you pretending to be objective.

I'll take into consideration that it's you making that claim too. Guess that makes me somewhat more objective than you?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Farang
How was my post ad hominem.. I was just pointing out a phrase often used and defining it, so obviously that would be addressed to those who don't know its definition--that is, those who are not informed, or uninformed, of its meaning.

Right Go tell that to someone that was born yesterday. Maybe you can convince them that giving "the uninformed" a head's up had no ill intent to it? Nor did you define it. You redefined it, in a partisan hackish and pre-emptive manner, to attempt to shut down anyone who would dare to state that there are some serious questions to be answered.

When you take not consideration it's ProJo he's speaking of he's actually pretty spot on. No different than Harvey talking about Bush or you pretending to be objective.

I'll take into consideration that it's you making that claim too. Guess that makes me somewhat more objective than you?

Nah you're just as biased and full of your self as any of us. I think it's a little to soon to be passing judgment on anybody but Blago as this moment.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
Blag will probably walk.

I doubt our former governor would take that bet.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Chunkee

Blag will probably walk.

WTF are you smoking? :roll: