Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

As much as BHO will suck for America...

Clue: Your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal are leaving this nation at the bottom of the lowest, slimiest societal, ethical, moral and financial pits we've been in for decades, possibly ever. :thumbsdown: :|

Even if he "sucks," as you so mistakenly believe, the only way out of where he's left us is up. There are no guarantees, but for the first time in eight years, I have some hope.

He will not be the meek president the likes of CsG expects him to be, quite the contrary, he will authorise troops in Pakistani areas and allow full air support for all missions.

I think it's great that we're finally taking this WoT thing seriously.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I posted this in the other thread, but this was my take:

It's pretty clear that Blago asked for some kind of compensation from the Obama camp for the Senate seat. They basically told him "you'll get our appreciation".

So - they were solicited to offer him a bribe. The question is did they negotiate? If so, that's a crime. Did they say "you'll get our appreciation" and not report it to the Feds? I dont know if that's a crime or not...I would guess it probably isn't. But would not reporting the crime be unethical? Clearly the answer is yes.

So I hope his camp reported this and cooperated with the Feds...

I find great humor to see the role reversal on Harvey (programming his new macros already I see), but I must say I didn't expect any scandals to hit at least until he was sworn in!

And what's the scandal? That Obama and Blago know each other and have political contact with each other? So what? Seems like all the Obama haters have at this point are a lot of questions and not much else.

 

[OCGuy]

All the attack dogs from the last 8 years are on the defensive. This is going to be fun. :laugh:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
I posted this in the other thread, but this was my take:

It's pretty clear that Blago asked for some kind of compensation from the Obama camp for the Senate seat. They basically told him "you'll get our appreciation".

So - they were solicited to offer him a bribe. The question is did they negotiate? If so, that's a crime. Did they say "you'll get our appreciation" and not report it to the Feds? I dont know if that's a crime or not...I would guess it probably isn't. But would not reporting the crime be unethical? Clearly the answer is yes.

So I hope his camp reported this and cooperated with the Feds...

I find great humor to see the role reversal on Harvey (programming his new macros already I see), but I must say I didn't expect any scandals to hit at least until he was sworn in!

And what's the scandal? That Obama and Blago know each other and have political contact with each other? So what? Seems like all the Obama haters have at this point are a lot of questions and not much else.

All depends on what the Obama camps response was when asked to commit an illegal act.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
All the attack dogs from the last 8 years are on the defensive. This is going to be fun. :laugh:

Fun wouldn't be the word i'd use, more like sad. Already, as has been mentioned by 2 people, we have very few facts and it's already being called a witch hunt, the OP attacked personally, etc. Every tactic in the book is being used in Obama's defense, except a genuine desire for the truth. And for the record, I have no clue what Obama's involvement would be. Even if Obama orchastrated the whole thing through some unbelievable plot of near impossible probability, he'd still become the prez and would at worst be slapped on the wrist by the democrat controlled congress.

 

[XZeroII]

It's not true. Obama can do no wrong. In face, I think that it might be a safe bet to say that he is God.

 

[winnar111]

Aide: Axelrod 'misspoke'

http://www.politico.com/blogs/.../Aide_Ax_misspoke.html


An Obama aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, took back David Axelrod's remark last month that Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich had spoken recently.

"What the president-elect said today is correct, David Axelrod misspoke," the aide said.

Obama said today the men had not spoken.

An open question: When they last spoke.

UPDATE: Axelrod says the same in a statement:



I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject.

The statement doesn't answer a question that I've asked, so far fruitlessly, of the transition, which is when Obama and Blagojevich last spoke on any subject, and what about.




Maybe Bush 'misspoke' in 2002 about WMDs.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Maybe Bush 'misspoke' in 2002 about WMDs.

But U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't appear to have misspoken when he said, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

However, your Traitor In Chief "misspoke" when he said:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He's done nothing but betray that oath since the day he took office. :thumbsdown: :|

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

All the attack dogs from the last 8 years are on the defensive. This is going to be fun. :laugh:

If you're referring to those of us who have CORRECTLY called out your Traitor In Chief and his gang of criminals for the last eight years, I don't see any of us on the defensive. Do you see anyone defending Blagojevich? :roll:

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has the bad guys in his sights, and none of it has anything to do with anyone or anything we need to defend, here. :laugh:

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Clue: Your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal are leaving this nation at the bottom of the lowest, slimiest societal, ethical, moral and financial pits we've been in for decades, possibly ever. :thumbsdown: :|

Praise Christ that we got some good old Chicago politicians in there to change things up.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Maybe Bush 'misspoke' in 2002 about WMDs.

But U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't appear to have misspoken when he said, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

That's twice you've failed to comprehend a very simple concept that's been explained to you.

 

[First]

rofl, it's going to be a looong 8 years for Repubs.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Maybe Bush 'misspoke' in 2002 about WMDs.

But U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't appear to have misspoken when he said, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

However, your Traitor In Chief "misspoke" when he said:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He's done nothing but betray that oath since the day he took office. :thumbsdown: :|

And yet, the American people sent him back to office, eh?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Maybe Bush 'misspoke' in 2002 about WMDs.

But U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't appear to have misspoken when he said, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

However, your Traitor In Chief "misspoke" when he said:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He's done nothing but betray that oath since the day he took office. :thumbsdown: :|

And he and his traitors of a coaliton lied with a straight face when they presented evidence that was KNOWN to be false, there is a reason why Blair doesn't want to be in England these days, actually, there are twoo, first one, he's living off of your pension funds, and second, he betrayed his own nation and our punishment for that is death.

It was a pathetic little war based on lies but it's over now, lets get back to the real hotbed.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Maybe Bush 'misspoke' in 2002 about WMDs.

But U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't appear to have misspoken when he said, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

However, your Traitor In Chief "misspoke" when he said:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He's done nothing but betray that oath since the day he took office. :thumbsdown: :|

And yet, the American people sent him back to office, eh?

Not the smart ones.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Maybe Bush 'misspoke' in 2002 about WMDs.

But U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't appear to have misspoken when he said, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

However, your Traitor In Chief "misspoke" when he said:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He's done nothing but betray that oath since the day he took office. :thumbsdown: :|

And yet, the American people sent him back to office, eh?

Not the smart ones.

Didn't he get elected in the first place because Gore voters were too dumb not to vote for Pat Buchanan?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
All the attack dogs from the last 8 years are on the defensive. This is going to be fun. :laugh:

Well, not ALL the attack dogs. I'm pretty sure you and a large part of the right-wing in this country spent the last several bazillion years attacking Democrats, liberals, whoever, pretty much non-stop over everything, and nothing. I'd say that you might start doing it MORE, but that doesn't really seem possible.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Maybe Bush 'misspoke' in 2002 about WMDs.

But U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't appear to have misspoken when he said, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

However, your Traitor In Chief "misspoke" when he said:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He's done nothing but betray that oath since the day he took office. :thumbsdown: :|

And yet, the American people sent him back to office, eh?

Not the smart ones.

Didn't he get elected in the first place because Gore voters were too dumb not to vote for Pat Buchanan?

Nope.

Btw, Democrats are better educated and have higher IQ's than Republicans. Just an FYI.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
All the attack dogs from the last 8 years are on the defensive. This is going to be fun. :laugh:

Fun wouldn't be the word i'd use, more like sad. Already, as has been mentioned by 2 people, we have very few facts and it's already being called a witch hunt, the OP attacked personally, etc. Every tactic in the book is being used in Obama's defense, except a genuine desire for the truth. And for the record, I have no clue what Obama's involvement would be. Even if Obama orchastrated the whole thing through some unbelievable plot of near impossible probability, he'd still become the prez and would at worst be slapped on the wrist by the democrat controlled congress.

And there it is. We have even less than "few facts", we have NO facts, and yet the "attack dogs" on the right are already wading hip deep into this and proclaiming Obama to be guilty of SOMETHING. The OP was "attacked" because he made a ridiculous, outlandish claim with absolutely no proof to back it up. A genuine desire for truth is admirable, yet usually requires that conclusions come AFTER the facts are known.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Maybe Bush 'misspoke' in 2002 about WMDs.

But U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't appear to have misspoken when he said, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

However, your Traitor In Chief "misspoke" when he said:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He's done nothing but betray that oath since the day he took office. :thumbsdown: :|

And yet, the American people sent him back to office, eh?

Not the smart ones.

Didn't he get elected in the first place because Gore voters were too dumb not to vote for Pat Buchanan?

First time might have been an honest mistake, second time... how stupid can you be, i mean SERIOUSLY, HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: winnar111
Didn't he get elected in the first place because Gore voters were too dumb not to vote for Pat Buchanan?

First time might have been an honest mistake, second time... how stupid can you be, i mean SERIOUSLY, HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?

Smart enough to avoid John Kerry.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Was the conversation legal? maybe, and I have nothing to suggest it wasn't but it doesn't mean you rabid BHO apologists can claim there is nothing tying BHO to Blago.

The more the lefties piss you righties off the better.

You packing your bags yet?

Why would I pack my bags? As much as BHO will suck for America, I will succeed here in America because I don't let the gov't hold me down. You see, I don't let things happen to me, I control my path. You should try it some time...

Well, don't speak too soon. The economy could get even worse. BHO could totally kill America... at which it might be a good idea to find a more accommodating country. After all, those illegal immigrants -- well, some of them are going back and leaving America; no jobs..

 

[Duwelon]

http://www.foxnews.com/ - has it as the main story w/ pictures. The main story doesn't mention at all that Blagojevich is a Democrat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/ - a headline only, the top story instead is about teen pyro's, as if that's something new. Doesn't list his political party in the headline. CBS news does actually give his political affiliation in the 4th paragraph.

The 51-year-old Democrat was also accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics - that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.

http://www.cnn.com/ - has some headlines, but are somewhat vague. The article at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...is.governor/index.html does mention he's a democrat at the very end of the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7773717.stm
the BBC US News site has it as their main story, and mentions he's a Democratic governor in about the middle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ - it's not the main story, which is about the economy instead, but rather a side story. They mention he's a democrat in the picture caption at the top and at the beginning of the story.

This is a pretty big scandal, and it's amazing that the media is so reluctant to tell people his political affiliation. Every time a republican so much as farts in church it's all over the headlines with a giant (R-ST) in the headline usually.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

And there it is. We have even less than "few facts", we have NO facts, and yet the "attack dogs" on the right are already wading hip deep into this and proclaiming Obama to be guilty of SOMETHING. The OP was "attacked" because he made a ridiculous, outlandish claim with absolutely no proof to back it up. A genuine desire for truth is admirable, yet usually requires that conclusions come AFTER the facts are known.

Where does that leave the people who consistently insist the opposite? That Obama is guilty of nothing, and no investigation should take place? The spectrum is equally heavy on both sides, and when every allegation is written off as being part of a "smear campaign" without any substantial, meaningful investigation coming to fruition, it starts to get old.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Evan
rofl, it's going to be a looong 8 years for Repubs.

Not if they do the right thing and leave pronto.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Evan
rofl, it's going to be a looong 8 years for Repubs.

Not if they do the right thing and leave pronto.

Go with them, to kill the cancer you have to remove every piece.