Democrat / Clinton fundraising scandals continue

Petraeus and Crocker happen to be officials of the government, cyclops, have you lost your mind? You don't think they should have a right to be heard?

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.

okie wrote:

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.

I'm unclear as to which office you think MoveOn.org is running for. Can you enlighten us?

I'm unclear as to which office you think MoveOn.org is running for. Can you enlighten us?

Cyclops, I haven't found the documentation, but I think it should be a violation of law for media to charge two radically different rates for political advertising, to opposing sides in the policital debate.

Of course I am serious. As serious as the law is. Unless you can show me which office MoveOn.org has filed paperwork for and is actually running for your argument is nothing but BS.

Your argument would mean that no business can give a discount to anyone that supports a candidate or a party without violating the law. One problem with your argument okie. The law doesn't say that. If MoveOn was actually running for office then any discount would count as a political contribution. So, I ask again, which office has MoveOn filed to run for.

It is perfectly legal for the Wall Street Journal to give discounts to Republicans just not candidates. Why do you think it is illegal for the NYTimes to give a discount to members of MoveOn.org?

parados wrote:

Of course I am serious. As serious as the law is. Unless you can show me which office MoveOn.org has filed paperwork for and is actually running for your argument is nothing but BS.

Your argument would mean that no business can give a discount to anyone that supports a candidate or a party without violating the law. One problem with your argument okie. The law doesn't say that. If MoveOn was actually running for office then any discount would count as a political contribution. So, I ask again, which office has MoveOn filed to run for.

It is perfectly legal for the Wall Street Journal to give discounts to Republicans just not candidates. Why do you think it is illegal for the NYTimes to give a discount to members of MoveOn.org?

I think it should be illegal, but if it isn't, it is certainly unethical. That is why I think McCain Feingold needs to be revoked and we need to redesign campaign finance law completely. I will keep a sharp eye on this. Rush pointed out this morning that Moveon got started by the Clintons in response to moving on from all of their scandals of corruption.

Moveon is running for almost all pertinent national and state political office, Parados, but they don't run directly, they do it by proxy by supporting their stooges.

[We need to revoke McCain Feingold because it doesn't go far enough? So, you are against free speech? or are you for free speech? You don't seem to know.

I see you are ignoring the fact that MoveOn didn't get a discount. They got the standard "standby" rate.

Quote:

Moveon is running for almost all pertinent national and state political office, Parados, but they don't run directly, they do it by proxy by supporting their stooges.

How much Bull S*** can you possibly try to sell us? Either people can band together to support causes and candidates or they can't. You can't have it both ways.

parados wrote:

[We need to revoke McCain Feingold because it doesn't go far enough? So, you are against free speech? or are you for free speech? You don't seem to know.

I see you are ignoring the fact that MoveOn didn't get a discount. They got the standard "standby" rate.

There you go again misquoting me again. Did I say it didn't go far enough. It went in the wrong direction.
"Standby rate" huh, is that the rate you get when the article comes out on the day you want? Give us all a break, Parados, get serious.

Quote:

Quote:

Moveon is running for almost all pertinent national and state political office, Parados, but they don't run directly, they do it by proxy by supporting their stooges.

How much Bull S*** can you possibly try to sell us? Either people can band together to support causes and candidates or they can't. You can't have it both ways.

Fine, band together, but the band doesn't have to buy the party does it, Parados?

And this great Clintonista group, moveon, takes a full page ad to call the commanding officer of our forces in Iraq a betrayer. Keep it up and show your true colors, as to who you are and who you identify with, Parados.

Now we hear the judge is going to offer Hsu bail. For a guy that has run twice and tried to commit suicide. Give us all a break, judge, good grief?

Quote:

Now we hear the judge is going to offer Hsu bail. For a guy that has run twice and tried to commit suicide. Give us all a break, judge, good grief?

Why don't you go down and protest in his court room if you feel so strongly. Hell, take a gun with you.

parados wrote:

Quote:

Now we hear the judge is going to offer Hsu bail. For a guy that has run twice and tried to commit suicide. Give us all a break, judge, good grief?

Why don't you go down and protest in his court room if you feel so strongly. Hell, take a gun with you.

Need anymore be said about Parados's babblings here? Besides trying to put words in my mouth, he has really gone over the top here. I would not allow Norman Hsu out on bail, for his own safety, and because I think he might have needed information, we should keep him locked up. He has already proven to be an extreme flight risk.

To cover some ground previously mentioned, Hillary proposes to give the money back to donors associated with Hsu, and information already learned tells us that Hsu gave some of these donors the money in the first place, so not so fast, Hillary. I think Parados is just getting nervous about Hillary's campaign so he getting shrill and suggesting really ridiculous things, like taking a gun into the Hsu courtroom. Yi, yi yi, Parados, you may need some help, are you in your right mind? What is so strange about suggesting Hsu stay in custody? After all, the man is a big time swindler and just because he is Hillary's friend and really great fundraiser should make no difference. You do care about corruption, don't you?

So much for this being a country of laws if you feel politics should trump laws.

Who is babbling? Are you the court? Do you feel the court should listen to you? You are free to babble all you want but the court of law is who makes the decisions based on the arguments brought before them. The court is also governed by laws that say what he can require in bail. So, now you are saying the courts should ignore the laws for your political reasons? So much for this being a country of laws if you feel politics should trump laws.

Let the law run its course. You have already convicted him and anyone associated with him. I believe in the US constitution. The problem okie is you won't apply the same standard to Romney and Guilliani when it was pointed out they had a fund raiser who raised hundreds of thousands that is accused of a crime.

I see you have decided to drop the discussion of the MoveON and the NYTimes now that we have seen your 'facts' were wrong. But that still doesn't answer why you think McCain/Feingold is a bad law but agree with them in restricting campaign ads.

I believe in the US constitution

parados said...

Quote:

I believe in the US constitution

Thats almost funny,coming from you.
You believe in the Constitution when it suits you,is what you should say.

Do you believe that the President is the C in C and has control over the military?

Section 8. The Congress shall have power ...

To declare war,
...

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Do you believe the Pres has the right to appoint people to Cabinet positions that he can work with?

and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Do you believe he has the authority to appoint USSC justices that agree with his policies?

You must answer yes to all of these questions,because you believe in the Constitution.

Yet,you have opposed ALL of those things when Bush does them.

Again, you have not proven I said anything wrong in regard to the New York Times. We all know it is an extremely liberal newspaper, and probably showed favoritism to Moveon, and when called on it, they gave Rudi the same rate. In regard to McCain Feingold, if you want to debate it, I started a thread on it a long time ago. About the law, I think it went in the wrong direction and I think we need to scrap it and start over. From that statement, you came up with all kinds of outlandish assumptions about what I said. If you want to debate it in a reasonable manner, then go to that thread thats been dormant a long time.