55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Nope. But it does make President Obama's assertion that Blago was an acquaintance and he barely knew him pretty suspect.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:18 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Nope. But it does make President Obama's assertion that Blago was an acquaintance and he barely knew him pretty suspect.


Why, exactly?

I can provide you many pictures of your politicians shaking hands with all sorts of unsavory folks. I'm sure you wouldn't accept arguments that this indicates some sort of proof of dirty business between the people in question, and the politicians in question - right?

I only ask, b/c that seems to have been your position every time a picture of, say, Abramoff shaking GWB's hand, came up. Things seem to be a little different now.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
"Pretty suspect" of what?

From ABC News:
Quote:
Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

December 09, 2008 3:37 PM

"Obviously like the rest of the people of Illinois I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the US attorney's office today," said President-elect Obama this afternoon in Chicago, speaking of the criminal complaint against Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich for corruption. "But as this is a ongoing investigation involving the governor I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time."

Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

But on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.

While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

(UPDATE: An Obama Transition Team aide says that Axelrod misspoke on Fox News Chicago.)

(UPDATE #2: Axelrod this evening issued a statement saying. "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.")

There are no allegations that President-elect Obama or anyone close to him had anything to do with any of the crimes Gov. Blagojevich is accused of having committed.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
So why are you changing the subject? I didn't mention a word about a 'dirty machine'. I only proved that Obama was up to his eyeballs in the Chicago machine and, in my opinion, based on what we CAN prove, he was not uninvolved in the corruption of that. I mentioned no specific crime. And I don't think President Bush ever disavowed a relationship with Abramoff either or used the 'barely knew him' or 'he isn't the person I knew' defense that President Obama uses fairly consistently.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:34 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

So why are you changing the subject? I didn't mention a word about a 'dirty machine'. I only proved that Obama was up to his eyeballs in the Chicago machine and, in my opinion, based on what we CAN prove, he was not uninvolved in the corruption of that. I mentioned no specific crime.


Well, while I won't argue that Chicago is the cleanest political town, I think it's sort of useless to post pictures of people together without any specific accusations of them doing anything bad whatsoever; wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
And I don't think President Bush ever disavowed a relationship with Abramoff either or used the 'barely knew him' or 'he isn't the person I knew' defense that President Obama uses fairly consistently.


You're incorrect. The WH and Bush's political advisers used the 'hardly knew him' line more than once towards Abramoff, when the evidence clearly shows that they took pictures together on at least 6 occasions, and Abramoff's lobbying group had hundreds of contacts with the WH in the first year of Bush's term.

Quote:

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

In correspondence made public February 9, 2006, by the "liberal activist group" American Progress Action Fund, Jack Abramoff said that President George W. Bush "met him 'almost a dozen' times, disputing White House claims Bush did not know the former lobbyist at the center of a corruption scandal," Reuters reported.

"'The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows,' Abramoff wrote in an e-mail to Kim Eisler, national editor for the Washingtonian magazine. ... Abramoff added that Bush also once invited him to his [Crawford,] Texas ranch."


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush_and_Jack_Abramoff

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It is quite useful to post pictures that pretty well throw out any "I barely knew him" defense and clearly illustrate participation in the process. Didn't you get tired of President Obama's claims not to 'really know' or 'have any relationship' with ANYBODY he associated with coming up through the political machine? By the time he was through, the poor guy had absolutely no friends at all.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:38 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

It is quite useful to post pictures that pretty well throw out any "I barely knew him" defense and clearly illustrate participation in the process. Didn't you get tired of President Obama's claims not to 'really know' or 'have any relationship' with ANYBODY he associated with coming up through the political machine? By the time he was through, the poor guy had absolutely no friends at all.


See my addition to the post preceding this one. You were incorrect re: the Abramoff-Bush connection. Unless you are willing to admit that Bush was lying when he claimed to not have known Abramoff...

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:39 pm
@Foxfyre,
What's wrong with "political associations" if it's only a photo op? There must be thousands of those on both sides of the isle that can be misinterpreted by people of bias. Does those photo make them participants of crimes?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Obama was the Senator from Illinois; Blago was governor. You think it's indicative of a conspiracy of some sort, that they have been at the same events, shook hands, and had pictures taken together?

Cycloptichorn


According to Foxfyre (also delusional with a capital "D") showing a picture of Blago and Obama at the same event is proof that Obama "was up to his eyeballs in all the corruption in the Chicago machine?"

Additionally, Foxfyre implies that nothing other than Obama being "up to his eyeballs in all the corruption in the Chicago machine" can explain Obama's rise from a community organizer to a wealthy legislator. Foxfyre ignores well known facts that Obama left his job as a community organizer in order to go to law school, that Obama excelled in law school, that Obama became a lawyer, that Obama married another lawyer, that Obama was duly elected to public office, and that Obama wrote best selling books. Mr. and Mrs. Obama's success and wealth is clearly the result of many years of their own hard work.

Foxfyre has not substantiated her libelous claim that Obama "was up to his eyeballs in all the corruption in the Chicago machine."
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:42 pm
@Debra Law,
Foxie can determine Obama's crimes through the pictures she sees. It's a special gift of conservatives.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
A photo op of a hand shake is not an indication that somebody 'knew somebody'. It is a good indication that somebody 'met' somebody, though not necessarily a meeting that would be in any way memorable. We recently began attending a new church and some folks we were introduced who did not recall the meeting several days or weeks later, nor did we remember everybody we were introduced to and shook hands with. Over my professional life, I attended a whole lot of occasions with important people, including hand shakes and photo ops with President Carter, President Clinton, and President Bush, and I'm pretty sure that should I meet up with most of those people today, they might not even remember the occasion, much less me.

People we meet up with regularly at varous functions, are enjoying ourselves with, confer with during meetings or gatherings, or attend and are introduced together at various occasions, we remember, and yes, establish a relationship with. I would not characterize those relationships as 'not knowing somebody' or 'not having a relationship' as Obama did related to Blago. No, he wasn't implicated in any of Blago's misdeeds, but he damn sure knew him and pretty darn well from appearances.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Based on the obstruction of justice and I believe the perjury charges, Bill Clinton was suspended from the Arkansas State Bar and was banned from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here's what you initially wrote:

Quote:
the crime was upheld by a Superior Court and was recognized by th Supreme Court and the Arkansas State Bar.


Clinton's law license was suspended and he paid a fine based upon a settlement reached with Clinton. The Arkansas bar did not find that Clinton had committed a "crime," nor did the US Supreme Court. As for the "superior court," I have no idea what you're talking about. If you mean the federal district court, it never held that Clinton committed perjury either.

Foxfyre wrote:
This has all been well documented on other threads as has Barack Obama's connections/involvements with Resko, Ayers, and others on the Chicago political scene.

That's not documentation, that's innuendo.

Foxfyre wrote:
And that doesn't even include the political implications of how he went from a lowly community ACORN organizer to a wealthy member of the state legislature or Blago who he said he barely knew. . . .

And yet more innuendo
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

A photo op of a hand shake is not an indication that somebody 'knew somebody'.


How about inviting them to your ranch? I guess you invite random people who you don't know back to your place all the time.

Quote:
It is a good indication that somebody 'met' somebody, though not necessarily a meeting that would be in any way memorable. We recently began attending a new church and some folks we were introduced to did not recall the meeting several days or weeks later, nor did we remember everybody we were introduced to and shook hands with. Over my professional life, I attended a whole lot of occasions with important people, including hand shakes and photo ops with President Carter, President Clinton, and President Bush, and I'm pretty sure that should I meet up with most of those people today, they might not even remember the occasion, much less me.


Sure; but then again, you aren't a corrupt politician who is doing business with these people. There's no reason to expect that they would remember you, but lots of reason to suspect that they would remember the people in question.

Quote:
People we meet up with regularly at varous functions, are enjoying ourselves with, confer with during meetings or gatherings, or attend and are introduced together at various occasions, we remember, and yes, establish a relationship with. I would not characterize those relationships as 'not knowing somebody' or 'not having a relationship' as Obama did related to Blago. No, he wasn't implicated in any of Blago's misdeeds, but he damn sure knew him and pretty darn well from appearances.


He knew him about as well as Bush knew Abramoff, and your failure to see the equivalence in the two tells us about all we need to know regarding: partisanship and your opinion of Obama's connection to Blago.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:52 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I only proved that Obama was up to his eyeballs in the Chicago machine and, in my opinion, based on what we CAN prove, he was not uninvolved in the corruption of that.

How did you "prove" that?

Foxfyre wrote:
I mentioned no specific crime.

Of course not. How could you?
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:55 pm
@joefromchicago,
Of course, being from Chicago, you have become blind to the fact that Chicagoans are gangsters, whether you can prove it or not.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 03:56 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Of course, being from Chicago, you have become blind to the fact that Chicagoans are gangsters, whether you can prove it or not.


Great point! Perhaps he is actually part of the machine? After all, he apparently rose from Fetus straight to Lawyer, with no explanation of how.

cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 04:03 pm
@joefromchicago,
I didn't prove that nor did I claim that I did. But it was 'proved' or at least the 'proof' was strongly defended on all the threads involving the President, how he acquired his house, the activities he was involved with in Chicago and the people he was involved with to make it to the state legislature and then to the U.S. Senate. He certainly had nothing remarkable in the wayof credentials, legislation, leadership, or accomplishments to justify his amazing rise to the top. And he has no other way to explain how a guy claiming to be of very modest background, who had a huge college loan debt, who worked for a not-for-profit organization and a year or so as an untenured law instructor was able to afford a million plus mansion and achieve high office.

I suppose you will say that's not 'proof' at all. But I think most would think there's enough smoke to strongly suspect a fire. And given the level of corruption surrounding those associated with him, it's very difficult to believe that he remained untainted in any way from that. If he winds up pardoning Blago, that will be just more gasoline poured on.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 04:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Of course, being from Chicago, you have become blind to the fact that Chicagoans are gangsters, whether you can prove it or not.


Great point! Perhaps he is actually part of the machine? After all, he apparently rose from Fetus straight to Lawyer, with no explanation of how.

cycloptichorn

I vaguely recall that there were some other events that may have occurred in the interim.

And oddly enough, From Fetus to Lawyer just happens to be the working title of my autobiography.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 04:11 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I suppose you will say that's not 'proof' at all.

Proof? Hell, it doesn't even make for very good innuendo.

Foxfyre wrote:
But I think most would think there's enough smoke to strongly suspect a fire. And given the level of corruption surrounding those associated with him, it's very difficult to believe that he remained untainted in any way from that.

So, in other words, because there's no proof of corruption, that proves he's corrupt. Gotcha.

Foxfyre wrote:
If he winds up pardoning Blago, that will be just more gasoline poured on.

You're living in a fantasy world.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 04:28 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't prove that nor did I claim that I did. But it was 'proved' or at least the 'proof' was strongly defended on all the threads involving the President, how he acquired his house, the activities he was involved with in Chicago and the people he was involved with to make it to the state legislature and then to the U.S. Senate. He certainly had nothing remarkable in the wayof credentials, legislation, leadership, or accomplishments to justify his amazing rise to the top. And he has no other way to explain how a guy claiming to be of very modest background, who had a huge college loan debt, who worked for a not-for-profit organization and a year or so as an untenured law instructor was able to afford a million plus mansion and achieve high office.


You're joking, right? Obama's qualifications are on par with pretty much any Congressman out there: Law degree, top of his class, involved as a State Senator, won a national office. I will readily admit however that former Senator Ryan's sexual perversions probably helped him out a lot Laughing

He bought the house based on the proceeds from his first book. Remember that thing? Also, 'nontenured professors' still make quite a bit of money, especially if they consult on the side (which, just so you know, they all do). And you ought to really check your facts before posting, as Obama was a law professor for 12 years, not 'a year or so' as you claimed.

Here's the University of Chicago statement on his time there:

Quote:
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.


I think this is another incident in which you don't know what you are talking about, yet felt perfectly free to post accusations and slurs anyway. And you were completely wrong about almost everything you said. But will you admit this? Intellectual honesty would demand that you should admit errors when they are pointed out.

Cycloptichorn

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 07:45:19