okie
 
  -1  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 08:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Fact of the matter is, okie, we cannot control congress once they are elected into office, and they will do as they damn well please - with our without "your" approval.

No, we can't, unfortunately, and the thugs have taken over. Those of us that have gone to school, worked hard, got up every morning and gone to work on time, stayed out of debt, and have been responsible, now, the thugs have taken over and have served notice they intend to take from us and give it to the people that have been sitting on their behinds their entire life. And some of those thugs have not even paid their own income taxes. Meanwhile, they accuse the rest of us for being greedy for working for what we have, and for not wanting to pay higher income taxes, but instead favor cutting big government.

I never dreamed this country could be another giant Venezuela, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility, things are moving very fast in just a few weeks.

If this sounds like I am not the least bit happy with the socialist Obama, you have it right.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 08:51 pm
Another crook, tax dodger, Rahm Emanuel. This is incredible. These people are the biggest crooks of all time. Emanuel should be fired immediately. So should Geithner. Obama is a fraud.

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/did-emanuel-pay-taxes-on-his-free-rent.html

"NEWS broke last week that Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, lived rent- free for years in the home of Rep. Rosa De Lauro (D-Conn.) - and failed to disclose the gift, as congressional ethics rules mandate. But this is only the tip of Emanuel's previously undislosed ethics problems.

One issue is the work Emanuel tossed the way of De Lauro's husband. But the bigger one goes back to Emanuel's days on the board of now-bankrupt mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

Emanuel is a multimillionaire, but lived for the last five years for free in the tony Capitol Hill townhouse owned by De Lauro and her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.

During that time, he also served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - which gave Greenberg huge polling contracts. It paid Greenberg's firm $239,996 in 2006 and $317,775 in 2008. (Emanuel's own campaign committee has also paid Greenberg more than $50,000 since 2004.) "
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 08:55 pm
@okie,
Poor okie, has no control over congress or the president. What a shame.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 08:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Go ahead and defend your crooks, ci, I mean it, but remember, you are proving your ilk once and for all, for what you stand for, corruption. I thought some of you were better than that.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 09:03 pm
@okie,
okie, You called them crooks. Please prove your accusation? Otherwise, go to hell.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 09:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Tax dodgers are crooks, last I checked, ci. Grow up and face the truth.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 09:10 pm
@okie,
1. If you're staying at a friend's place for free, you'll have to pay taxes for that? I didn't know that. (I am quite serious here.)

2. Accusations of tax evasion is the same as corruption? I didn't know that either.
okie
 
  -1  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 09:45 pm
@old europe,
Not a weekend stay, oe, it was free housing, okay, over a period of time. Politicians know this. Free housing is the same as giving somebody money. Besides that , its a political gift, which is a violation of the office, if not reported.

oe, go ahead, everybody knows you are a liberal Democrat apologist, by why should you care, anyway, you have enough problems in Germany to worry about, I would think.

And yes, intentional tax evasion is corruption. Perhaps that is a surprise to you, but I can't help your ignorance.
old europe
 
  1  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 10:16 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Not a weekend stay, oe, it was free housing, okay, over a period of time.


So? If you are staying with a friend for 12 years, do you have to pay taxes for that? I'd really like to know the answer.


okie wrote:
Free housing is the same as giving somebody money.


Is it? In that case, it doesn't matter how long you're staying with a friend. If he lets you stay at his house in Florida or invites you to his cottage in Maine for a weekend, you'll have to pay taxes, right?


okie wrote:
Besides that , its a political gift, which is a violation of the office, if not reported.


How is it a "political gift"?


okie wrote:
oe, go ahead, everybody knows you are a liberal Democrat apologist, by why should you care, anyway, you have enough problems in Germany to worry about, I would think.


Well, you're an unrepentant torture apologist, and you're welcome to discuss any aspect of German politics with me any time you'd like to.

Also, you seem to be a bit edgy when asked a simple question.


okie wrote:
And yes, intentional tax evasion is corruption. Perhaps that is a surprise to you, but I can't help your ignorance.


That is a surprise to me. Color me impressed.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 17 Feb, 2009 11:27 pm
@old europe,
okie's concept of what is legal and what is corruption gets very confused; he doesn't know the difference.

Trying to make sense of okie's background and knowledge about economics or politics is futile. As far as he's concerned, all the Obama administration and congress are crooks.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 12:17 am
@old europe,
Old Europe does not know that Obama came from Illinois and worked hand in hand with some of the most corrupt politicians in the USA. Obama backed the impeached governor, Blagojevich,to the hilt when he was running for governor.

Obama must either be very dumb( probably not) or very ignorant( How could a US Senator not know what is going on in his state?) OR able to live with corruption. But Obama lives with the corruption of Affirmative Action.
Obama has promised transparency. Yet no one knows whether he got AA to enroll in Columbia. Not the next post for the tragedy of AA.
genoves
 
  -3  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 12:21 am


Okie- You are correct. Thank you for your heads up on the term--Social Justice meaning EQUALITY OF OUTCOME. The left prates about Equality and says that it is racism, racism, racism that is blocking good African-Americans and Hispanics from good jobs--such as partners in big law firms.

The FACTS given below show that African-Americans are not able to compete even with AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Law Firms Still Lag in Minority Hiring
By: David Rubenstein and Jennifer Juarez Robles
The top echelon of Chicago's largest law firms are as white today as they were three years ago, according to a survey by The Chicago Reporter. Since 1987, the biggest, most influential firms have brought on 250 new partners, only five of them black, two Hispanic and two Asian. In other words, the firms have filled partner slots with 27 times more whites than minorities.

A more encouraging trend was found among the legal rank and file, the entry-level associates. While the total number of associates has increased by 16 percent, the number of minority associates has grown more than twice as fast, by 35 percent.

Other highlights of the survey, which was developed in part by journalism students at Roosevelt University, include:


There were 27 minority partners in early 1990, compared to 25 minorities at the same firms in 1988 and 24 in 1987. Blacks, Asians and Hispanics were stuck at 1.2 percent of all partners in each of the three years examined in the survey.
Sidley & Austin, the largest law office in Chicago, had one black partner. The number two and three largest firms, Mayer, Brown & Platt and Katten, Muchin & Zavis had none.
In 1989, there were only eight Hispanics among the roughly 2,000 partners in 21 of Chicago's largest firms. Among the top five firms in Chicago, there was only one Hispanic partner, at Mayer, Brown.
The number of minority associates climbed to 130 in 1990 from 96 in 1987.
Three firms - Katten, Muchin; Altheimer & Gray; and Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson - did not employ any Hispanic attorneys in the past three years. And two firms - Schiff, Hardin & Waite and Altheimer & Gray - did not hire any Asians.
While the total number of summer associates - minority and white - increased by 24 percent at 20 firms, the number of minorities in this category has nearly doubled since 1987. Summer associates are law school students who work as apprentices for the firm and may be offered jobs after graduation. Last summer, 73 minorities, including 47 blacks, worked for 20 of the large firms compared to 37 minorities, 24 blacks, at these firms in 1987.
Not one of Chicago's 25 biggest firms has an American Indian partner. There is one entry level Native American attorney, an associate at Sidley & Austin, the law firm with the most minority associates.

These statistics are based on surveys asking about minority representation from 1987 to 1989 that the Reporter sent to Chicago's 25 largest law firms, as ranked by Crain's Chicago Business Several of the firms did not respond or provided incomplete data, so the survey was augmented with minority hiring data from the Directory of Legal Employers, published by the National Association of Law Placement, a 19-year-old educational agency for those involved in legal recruiting.

Few Minority Graduates
Many of the firms surveyed said that the reason they do not hire more minorities is that there are too few highly qualified blacks and Hispanics.

"The law firms only want the cream of the crop, but there are fewer minority attorneys available at that level," said Steven H. Pugh, one of two black partners among 700 partners in 21 firms analyzed.

"If your experience as a law firm is to hire from the top 15 law schools in the nation and then only the top 25 percent of the class, you have just about taken minorities out of the picture," said Pugh of Chapman & Cutler. "I think you are only talking about a pool of 100 [minorities]. And all the law firms are going after that same number."

Indeed, American Bar Association (ABA) data show that for every minority who graduated from the nation's top 25 law schools in 1989, as ranked in US. News and World Report, there were six whites.

Closer to home, minorities were even less well-represented. There were 14 whites for every minority who graduated in 1989 from the three top-25 schools in Illinois: University of Chicago, Northwestern University and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Not only do few blacks and Hispanics attend big-name schools, they tend to have lower grades than their white counterparts, law firms complain.

While no data is available on students' grades by race, minorities' scores on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), considered a reliable predictor of future law school performance, are 10 points lower than whites', according to the Law School Admission Council in Newton, Penn., which is affiliated with the group that oversees the LSAT. The mean for all test-takers is 32; the mean for minorities is 22 on a scale of 10 to 48.

Associate Dean Robert Clayton of Tulane University Law School explained the implications of LSAT data, using an example from the University of Chicago. In 1989 the average LSAT score for an entering freshman there was 44, and only 48 blacks out of 5,000-plus law school applicants score that high, said Clayton, a member of the council committee that compiled the figures.

"What that means is that you are introducing, based on your admission criteria, black and Hispanic students who are predicted to finish in the bottom 50 percent of the class," he said. And the higher the standards of the school, the further down in class rank minorities are likely to be.

****************************************************************
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 10:41 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Not a weekend stay, oe, it was free housing, okay, over a period of time.


So? If you are staying with a friend for 12 years, do you have to pay taxes for that? I'd really like to know the answer.

I think if it is a political favor, a gift, I think so. Same as the loaning of a car and driver for Daschle. Not a case of hospitality, oe. If it was, thats different. Emanuel is a foul mouthed cheap Illinois politician, thats all, and crooked as well.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 10:42 am
@okie,
okie, Your thinking is all screwed up.
Advocate
 
  1  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 02:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Okie, why have you not said a word about Norm Coleman, the biggest sleaze out there. The FBI is investigating him for taking $75,000 under the table from a govt. contractor. The plot involves his model/actress wife who allegedly got the money for her advice on insurance. Unfortunately for the two, she was not connected with an insurance firm.

In the meantime, Coleman is being celebrated and promoted by the Reps. WTF!
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 02:46 pm
@okie,
okie, Get a life! Your assumptions and comments about who's honest and who isn't makes you the laughing stock on a2k. Our country has an imperfect legal system that over-rides your silly charges against our politicians.

Get over it; your "voice" only shows how ignorant you are.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 03:17 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Okie, why have you not said a word about Norm Coleman, the biggest sleaze out there. The FBI is investigating him for taking $75,000 under the table from a govt. contractor. The plot involves his model/actress wife who allegedly got the money for her advice on insurance. Unfortunately for the two, she was not connected with an insurance firm.

In the meantime, Coleman is being celebrated and promoted by the Reps. WTF!


If Coleman is corrupt, then he should pay the price, as should every corrupt politician. Equal opportunity, thats what it should be. And last I heard, Coleman is not on Obama's staff.

Just as predicted, lefties don't care about corruption n0w, when its their corruption. Corruption only applies to Republicans. Besides, the morality of Democrats only apply to their public policy, how much they can tax the bejeebersw out of hard working people and give it to the slackers. Personal corruption doesn't count. Only we have to pay taxes, they don't.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 03:24 pm
@okie,
What a blind, asinine, observation.

If my sons were as stupid as you, I would have disowned them.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 04:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
If my sons were as stupid as you, I would have disowned them.

That made me laugh.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 18 Feb, 2009 04:04 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Okie, why have you not said a word about Norm Coleman, the biggest sleaze out there. The FBI is investigating him for taking $75,000 under the table from a govt. contractor. The plot involves his model/actress wife who allegedly got the money for her advice on insurance. Unfortunately for the two, she was not connected with an insurance firm.

In the meantime, Coleman is being celebrated and promoted by the Reps. WTF!


If Coleman is corrupt, then he should pay the price, as should every corrupt politician. Equal opportunity, thats what it should be. And last I heard, Coleman is not on Obama's staff.

Just as predicted, lefties don't care about corruption n0w, when its their corruption. Corruption only applies to Republicans. Besides, the morality of Democrats only apply to their public policy, how much they can tax the bejeebersw out of hard working people and give it to the slackers. Personal corruption doesn't count. Only we have to pay taxes, they don't.


I care about corruption. I don't think Emmanuel should have been staying in that guy's house for free, especially without reporting it. It's bad form and if he violated laws doing so, he should be investigated and punished for doing so.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1172
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 03/20/2025 at 02:15:03