Obama's electability

How do you know it's false, Joe? Or did you just mean it hasn't been proven to be true?

These are the facts, per the Times:

Quote:

A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

LINK

Ticomaya wrote:

How do you know it's false, Joe? Or did you just mean it hasn't been proven to be true?

By "false" I mean "there is ample evidence to convince a disinterested observer that it is false."

Ticomaya wrote:

These are the facts, per the Times:

Quote:

A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

LINK

And...?

Here are the allegations of fact to which I responded:

[i](1) It was about this time that Tony helped the senator and his wife buy a house...[/i] Point out where your excerpt says that Rezko helped Obama buy his house. [i](2)...and when the senator couldn't afford to buy the lot next door...[/i] Point out where your excerpt says that Obama couldn't afford to buy the next door lot, or even that Obama was interested in buying the next door lot. [i](3)...to give himself a little breathing room - Tony bought the lot and sold them part of it at a bargain.[/i] Point out where your excerpt says that Rezko sold the strip of land to Obama at a bargain price.

Go ahead, show me how your excerpt from the Sun-Times (not the Times, by the way) refutes the points that I addressed. I'm eager to see this.

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

How do you know it's false, Joe? Or did you just mean it hasn't been proven to be true?

By "false" I mean "there is ample evidence to convince a disinterested observer that it is false."

Seems like there's enough evidence to convince a disinterested observer that it might be true.

I asked you what you knew. If you know more than I do, you haven't stated it yet. And you haven't stated a sufficient basis, in my view, for your proclamation of its falsehood.

Point out where I claimed my excerpt from the Times (btw, I'll call the Chicago rag whatever the hell I want to) refuted anything. I merely asked you how you knew those points were false, and then quoted the facts from the Times.

But now you go ahead and show me your proof of the falsity of the claims made in the article Au quoted. I'm equally eager to see this.

Ticomaya wrote:

I asked you what you knew. If you know more than I do, you haven't stated it yet. And you haven't stated a sufficient basis, in my view, for your proclamation of its falsehood.

Obama's home purchase has been scrutinized by both Chicago papers, neither of which is terribly sympathetic to the senator. Obama gave a 90-minute interview to the editorial board of the Tribune, which ultimately concluded that, although Obama was unwise to have dealings with Rezko, Obama's explanation of the transaction, in which he said "[t]his notion that somehow I got a discount and Rezko overpaid is simply not true," was "plausible."

Addressing the specific allegations (based on the foregoing linked stories):

[i](1) It was about this time that Tony helped the senator and his wife buy a house...[/i] Rezko toured the house with Obama for about 15-30 minutes. At most, he provided advice regarding the value of the property. Apart from that, Rezko did nothing to "help" Obama buy the house.

(2)...and when the senator couldn't afford to buy the lot next door...
Obama was not even interested in purchasing the side lot, and the sellers confirm that the two transactions were not related in any fashion.

(3)...to give himself a little breathing room - Tony bought the lot and sold them part of it at a bargain.
Rezko bought the side lot for $625,000. Even though Obama's appraiser valued the strip at $40,500, "Obama paid the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of the land." Far from being a bargain, it could be argued that Obama paid more than twice what the strip of land was worth.[/list]

Now, under normal circumstances, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But where there are substantial incentives to find the evidence and sufficient time to uncover it, and there has been, to date, nothing found to refute the only plausible explanations that have been offered, I feel confident that the factual allegations of wrongdoing are simply false, just as I feel confident that the absence of evidence of alien abductions or the Loch Ness Monster or Iraqi WMDs is evidence of the falsity of those claims. If you, on the other hand, are credulous enough to be satisfied that mere claims, without any supporting facts, are sufficient evidence of those claims, then I suppose you're entitled to make that conclusion.

Ticomaya wrote:

Point out where I claimed my excerpt from the Times (btw, I'll call the Chicago rag whatever the hell I want to) refuted anything. I merely asked you how you knew those points were false, and then quoted the facts from the Times.

The facts are pretty well-known, and I never said that those facts were false. Rather, I was addressing certain conclusions that were simply not supported by the facts. That you, for some unknown reason, thought it necessary to repeat the facts is, I suppose, your affair. If you didn't post them to refute my assertions, then I don't know why you posted them. But then you're free to post any sort of irrelevant crap that you choose. I can't stop you.

Ticomaya wrote:

But now you go ahead and show me your proof of the falsity of the claims made in the article Au quoted. I'm equally eager to see this.

Done.

It's clear that Rezko was always on the lookout for "a clout," Chicagoese for a political patron -- in Rezko's case, a patron who could give a Syrian immigrant the same opportunity to work the system as an Irish lawyer who'd gone to Catholic school with the mayor. In Obama's case, though, Rezko has asked for very little. He's only received one political favor, and it didn't benefit him financially: On Rezko's recommendation, the son of a campaign contributor served an internship in Obama's Senate office. It could be that Rezko was saving his chits until the senator achieved the one office unattainable to a machine pol.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to have derived some material benefit from his friendship with Rezko. During his first year in the Senate, flush with the book advance for "The Audacity of Hope," Obama and his wife decided to trade up from a condo to a bigger, more secure home in Kenwood, a South Side neighborhood of turreted, balconied piles popular with University of Chicago econ professors looking to blow their Nobel Prize loot. They found a $1.65 million house with four fireplaces, a wine cellar and a black wrought-iron fence. The doctor who lived there also owned the vacant lot next door and, although the properties were listed separately, wanted to sell both at the same time. Despite their new income, the Obamas could not have afforded both parcels. The Obamas closed on their house in June 2005. On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the vacant lot for $625,000. They later sold a portion of the lot to the Obamas, for $104,500, so the family could expand its yard. The Rezkos then paid $14,000 to build a fence along the property line.

You certainly give a lot of weight to the opinions of a newpaper's editorial board.

Nothing except agree to purchase the lot next door and sell a portion of it to the Obamas so they could expand their lot size.

Sure ... that seems plausible.

Given the facts, it is not a stretch to think that Obama was interested in buying the side lot at the time Rezko purchased, it, and that the two transactions were certainly related.

It could be argued that the value of the strip of land was worth quite a bit more, because it greatly reduced the developmental value of the remaining Rezko property.

Your opinion is driven by your support of Obama as a political candidate ... it's that simple. It is for that reason alone you are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

You apparently cannot state any facts to prove the falsity of the claims in the article posted by Au. On the contrary, you seem to be taking the position that because you do not believe the statements made in that article can be proven true, that somehow proves their falsity. I responded in the first place only to find out if you had any facts other than the ones I posted that would prove the falsity you were proclaiming. Turns out you cannot make your case, and as I said, you only posted your opinion.

My disinterested observer does not believe the totality of the transaction passes the "smell test." And he thinks your disinterested observer smokes dope frequently.

LINK

It is a matter of record that Obama contributed something like $150,000 to Rezko related charities.

The charges against Rezko had nothing to do with Obama, who has donated $150,000 in Rezko-related contributions to charity.

Besides his decision to give the $2,300 in presidential campaign cash from Alsammarae to charity, Obama has donated to several charities $159,085 in Rezko-related contributions from his Senate campaign. He also has sought to put all Rezko questions to rest by doing lengthy interviews with the Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune about Rezko on March 14.

au1929 wrote:

The senator was "saddened," he said, by the jury's work. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury. That once again shines a spotlight on the need for reform." Alas, the spotlight might shine on something besides "reform," so it's under the bus for another unsavory someone in the senator's past. Tony joins a growing crowd.

That's not the Rev Wright I knew!

I doubt Bill Ayers the mad-bomber is the Bill Ayers Obama knew either.

Pattern?

Exactly: your quote proves as well that opposite to your claim, Obama didn't give "something like $150,000 to Rezko related charities ".

The charges against Rezko had nothing to do with Obama, who has donated $150,000 in Rezko-related contributions to charity.

I understand that (like the journalists did and others): Obama gave 150,000 of the contributions which were thought to be Rezko-related to charities. And not "to Rezko-related charities".

But I'm no native-English speaker. So you will be correct.

Sorry.

The contributions were made, of course, after Rezko became a headache for Obama. They sure don't support a picture of a purely casual relationship between Obama and Rezko though.

Foxfyre wrote:

The contributions were made, of course, after Rezko became a headache for Obama. They sure don't support a picture of a purely casual relationship between Obama and Rezko though.

I didn't intend to respond to any of that with my above posts.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The contributions were made, of course, after Rezko became a headache for Obama. They sure don't support a picture of a purely casual relationship between Obama and Rezko though.

I didn't intend to respond to any of that with my above posts.

Most Obama supporters don't

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The contributions were made, of course, after Rezko became a headache for Obama. They sure don't support a picture of a purely casual relationship between Obama and Rezko though.

I didn't intend to respond to any of that with my above posts.

Most Obama supporters don't

I doubt that most Obama supporters would accept me as their spokesperson, especially with those three, four post here in question.

Though they were correct, as you said yourself.

It seems that all the right can do is nit pick Dems on personal matters. I could less about those things. We now need a president who will do something about deficits, the wars, the economy, the dollar, health-care coverage, the environment, social security, and other important matters affecting the health of the country.

I think that Obama is much more able to accomplish cures.