Democrat / Clinton fundraising scandals continue

Who else besides Halliburton, or Brown & Root, is capable of doing alot of the work they are doing in Iraq?

parados wrote:

[
Funny stuff there okie.. How could you forget GW Bush sold his stake he bought in the Texas Rangers for millions after he bought it for a few hundred thousand. And while Bush only put up enough money for 1.8% of the Rangers he got 12% of the sales price. This was while he was governor of Texas. And you wonder why Hillary isn't in jail?

And how long did he hold his stake to make that kind of money? It is not unusual for owners of sports teams to turn alot of profit after owning a team.

While Clinton's account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period. An investigation of the cattle futures market at that time by Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa) found that in one 16-month period 32 traders made more than $110 million in profits from large trades

How many people do you know that buy 2% of something but then when it comes time to sell they magically get paid as if they owned 12% without buying any more of it? Please find me one other partial owner of sports team that got a deal like that.

Somehow you think it is unusual for someone to make $100,000 on $1000 worth of investment in options?

Quote:

While Clinton's account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period. An investigation of the cattle futures market at that time by Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa) found that in one 16-month period 32 traders made more than $110 million in profits from large trades

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

parados,
You seem to have fallen into the same argument you like to accuse the conservatives of using.

You are saying that since Bush did it,its ok for Hillary to do it.
Two wrongs dont make a right.
If Bush did it, he should be prosecuted.
If Hillary did it,she should be prosecuted.

How hard is that to figure out?

parados wrote:

How many people do you know that buy 2% of something but then when it comes time to sell they magically get paid as if they owned 12% without buying any more of it? Please find me one other partial owner of sports team that got a deal like that.

Do you have a good documentation of that. I googled it and the main one to come up on it was socialist party or something like that, at which time I gave up. Lots of people have turned big profits on sports teams, Parados.

According to a press release dated June 18, 1998 from the Dallas Morning News, Bush paid $606,000 for about 1.8% of the team and became the managing general partner of B/R Rangers Associates, Ltd., a limited partnership that owned the team. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Bush was given an additional 10.2% of the proceeds as additional compensation if the team was sold. The incentive compensation became effective if the other partners received their entire investment back plus a 2% return per year.

Quote:

Somehow you think it is unusual for someone to make $100,000 on $1000 worth of investment in options?

Quote:

While Clinton's account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period. An investigation of the cattle futures market at that time by Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa) found that in one 16-month period 32 traders made more than $110 million in profits from large trades

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

Yes, I do find a 10,000% return on an investment out of the ordinary. I happen to have $1,000 I want you to invest and I expect a hundred grand back, Parados, after all such is only ordinary. Maybe you can do better than ordinary and return a half million for me?

And now Hillary wants to give the money back to the supposed donors in the Norman Hsu case, implying they can redonate the money. I would say not so fast dear Hillary, as how do we even know it was their money in the first place? I seriously doubt if alot of it was, given the bundling activities and stolen money or whatever it was by Mr. Hsu, wherein it is highly suspicious he may have channeled money through those people to redonate back to Clinton, thus avoiding breaking the maximum donation regulations.

mysteryman wrote:

parados,
You seem to have fallen into the same argument you like to accuse the conservatives of using.

You are saying that since Bush did it,its ok for Hillary to do it.
Two wrongs dont make a right.
If Bush did it, he should be prosecuted.
If Hillary did it,she should be prosecuted.

How hard is that to figure out?

When did I say either should be prosecuted? Neither did anything illegal.

okie is making claims based on his bias not on any facts. okie set the standard that every candidate should be aware of the activities of their donors. I am merely pointing out facts that show his bias.

If they got the money from Hsu then they can't donate it without violating Federal law. Giving it back to them doesn't change who they got it from in the first place. Maybe they should get it back and donate it to GOP candidates. Then I bet you would be OK with it.

Bumble Bee, you haven't gotten rid of William Jefferson yet for taking bribes a long time ago, he still sits in Congress, so why are you getting all hot and bothered about Republicans taking a harmless bribe? In fact, why should Republicans care anymore about crime, since Democrats apparently don't, unless of course it is a Republican?

If we followed the Democrats example, we wouldn't care about corruption anymore, Parados. I would think you would have gotten the point, but apparently it takes more explanation for you.

Among new things, the New York Times is giving special prices to MoveOn.org. Very special price, yes indeed. Question, does that constitute a political favor that might be illegal? We better check into this now. The list is endless.

If we followed the Democrats example, we wouldn't care about corruption anymore, Parados. I would think you would have gotten the point, but apparently it takes more explanation for you.

Among new things, the New York Times is giving special prices to MoveOn.org. Very special price, yes indeed. Question, does that constitute a political favor that might be illegal? We better check into this now. The list is endless.

It seems to me that you spend a lot of time trolling for the right-wing Outrage of the Week, and then parroting it...

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It seems to me that you spend a lot of time trolling for the right-wing Outrage of the Week, and then parroting it...

Cycloptichorn

You could say this about any number of libbies here and there tireless trolling of left-wing whininess, well, not YOU personally, you would never actually do that, but you in the general sense. Take bumblebeeboogie for example. Don't recall your scolding of her relentless walls of text that block up the pages here.

okie wrote:

If we followed the Democrats example, we wouldn't care about corruption anymore, Parados. I would think you would have gotten the point, but apparently it takes more explanation for you.

Among new things, the New York Times is giving special prices to MoveOn.org. Very special price, yes indeed. Question, does that constitute a political favor that might be illegal? We better check into this now. The list is endless.

Why would it? You're unbelievable.

The NYT, as a business, has the right to charge what they want to who they want. Do you deny this?

It seems to me that you spend a lot of time trolling for the right-wing Outrage of the Week, and then parroting it...

Cycloptichorn

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It seems to me that you spend a lot of time trolling for the right-wing Outrage of the Week, and then parroting it...

Cycloptichorn

You could say this about any number of libbies here and there tireless trolling of left-wing whininess, well, not YOU personally, you would never actually do that, but you in the general sense. Take bumblebeeboogie for example. Don't recall your scolding of her relentless walls of text that block up the pages here.

Well, I have asked her to provide personal analysis instead of just posting reams of materials.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=734996&highlight=bbb#734996

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

If we followed the Democrats example, we wouldn't care about corruption anymore, Parados. I would think you would have gotten the point, but apparently it takes more explanation for you.

Among new things, the New York Times is giving special prices to MoveOn.org. Very special price, yes indeed. Question, does that constitute a political favor that might be illegal? We better check into this now. The list is endless.

Why would it? You're unbelievable.

The NYT, as a business, has the right to charge what they want to who they want. Do you deny this?

It seems to me that you spend a lot of time trolling for the right-wing Outrage of the Week, and then parroting it...

Cycloptichorn

Oh really? Would it be okay for Fox News to charge a few tens of thousands less the going rate for Republican campaign ads as compared to Democrat campaign ads, would that be okay with you? Would it be okay for an airline to charge half the going rate for one political party vs another? I think you are going to run into a few problems here, cyclops.