Billary Clinton takes a hit on National TV..no more false info slinging!

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Shayna]
Quit making assumptions about me. I did read the link you provided (though I had to fix it in the address window in order to do so). In fact, it’s still open in another tab on my browser.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry.

So how do you explain the simultaneous purchase of the mansion and the adjacent property from the same person by Obama and Rezko, the real estate developer paying full price (amazing for a developer) and Obama getting a $300,000 break? This is while Obama was a US senator.

The slimy Rezko buys the favours of a US Senator and probably gets to write off the cost on his taxes through his business.

Obama gets to live in a mansion for 100s of thousands dollars less which if he purchased at a more reasonable price would have required him to earn more income for which he would be income taxed. I wonder if the price reduction would also lower his property taxes.

This was a shady deal intended to deceive. if there was no bad intent on Obama’s part, it sure displays naivity. that we sure don’t need in a president.

And yes, Obama has apologized and returned campaign contributions. Like he had a choice.
And then I read this about a statement by Obama’s campaign staff that baffles me.

42

I’m trying to get out the door to enjoy some of this beautiful weather before we get hit with the next wave of storms, so this will be cursory, and I won’t be back the rest of the day to respond further if necessry. So with that in mind. . .
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]

Sorry
[/quote]
Thanks.

Question; do you know what the appraised value of the home was? Not the asking price, but the actual appraised value. Are you aware of what, if any, defects appeared in the inspection that took place as a condition of the sale? Are you aware of any repairs that the Obamas agreed to pay for or perform themselves in exchange for the reduced price? Have you ever purchased property before? You are aware, aren’t you, that sellers often have to take reduced prices on their properties, in spite of how much they wish they could get for it, right?

What that has to do with the price paid for land that is unencumbered by a physical dwelling, by a completely different party, is a mystery to me.

Pure conjecture. What favors do you allege Rezko actually received directly from Obama?

I disagree with your first conclusion, and don’t deny you the right to your second.

I don’t assign any weight to something said by a staff member, that clearly Obama has said the opposite to, himself. Who knows if that guy spoke with any authority whatsoever.

Ok, I’m off. Have a great day!

43

After reading this thread, I did a little poking around. I went to the F.A.I.R. website. (Where Media Matters is progressive, F.A.I.R. is the conservative press watchdog.) On a sidebar called CounterSpin, I clicked on a link to the Black Agenda Report. Glen Ford’s column there threw some rocks at Senator Obama’s image as the peace guy.

[QUOTE=Glen Ford]
Barack Obama reacts to the world’s response to imperialism in precisely the same way as his white counterparts; he proposes more war. Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military, to alleviate the shortage of manpower that Iraq attrition has wrought. In his speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Obama gave away their destination: Waziristan. Obama wants a more aggressive approach to the so-called “war on terror,” to take “the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
[/QUOTE]

If you read the whole piece, it’s obvious that Ford does not like Obama one bit. The piece dates from August 8, 2007.

At any rate, when Senator Clinton says Barack is not the peacenik he appears to be, she’s not pulling it out of thin air.

Some of you, when you use the phrase “all the Clintons’ lies,” seem to echo the knee-jerk Clinton-haters.

44

[QUOTE=AskNott]
<snip>

At any rate, when Senator Clinton says Barack is not the peacenik he appears to be, she’s not pulling it out of thin air.

Some of you, when you use the phrase “all the Clintons’ lies,” seem to echo the knee-jerk Clinton-haters.
[/QUOTE]

I do not dislike Hillary and Bill Clinton. I simply do not want them running the country again. It’s really that simple. I don’t think Barack is a Black-hole where no lie can touch him - bad use of word but still you get the point. I do think he would bring fresh ideas and a new face to the white house and gov’t as we know it. If HRC get’s elected it’ll feel like the coming of the same ol’calvary. I don’t want that, and that is why I am voting and campaigning for Obama. I believe he will do this country a lot of good, he is not and will never be a knight in shining armor. But he will give new ideas a chance in the stale, smelly, old basement of a gov’t we have now. So I’m not a knee jerk Clinton hater…I don’t mind the Clintons at all. I simply do not want them running the country again.

45

I mosly liked Bill. I have nothing against Hillarity. I do sort of ache for a change. Thats why I voted for Kucinich. To some degree a vote for Clinton and Obama has a feeling of the same old thing. We do need to shake things up.
Obama and Clinton do offer a change. A black or a woman would certainly be overdue. But, I would not have picked them to break the mold. He ,in my opinion needs more seasoning.

46

[QUOTE=AskNott]
…“all the Clintons’ lies,” seem to echo the knee-jerk Clinton-haters.
[/QUOTE]
Does one really have to be a ‘knee-jerk Clinton-hater’ to dislike their lies? Is one to embrace dishonesty and deceit-as-a-tactic simply because they like somebody or because their ideological opponents criticize it? In other words, is it ipso-facto wrong to criticize someone for lying as long as they’re on your side?

Those two are blatant liars, and they have been all throughout their careers. It is simply S.O.P. for them. Why is it a sign of disloyalty and/or alignment with the other side to point it out when they lie and hold them to task for it?

The fact that righties are the ones who primarily complain about the Clintons’ dishonesty does not mean that that dishonesty does not exist, and I’ve been heartened to see so many posters here getting turned off by the dishonesty that those two employ and calling bullshit on their…well…bullshit.

47

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Sorry.

So how do you explain the simultaneous purchase of the mansion and the adjacent property from the same person by Obama and Rezko, the real estate developer paying full price (amazing for a developer) and Obama getting a $300,000 break? This is while Obama was a US senator.

The slimy Rezko buys the favours of a US Senator and probably gets to write off the cost on his taxes through his business.

Obama gets to live in a mansion for 100s of thousands dollars less which if he purchased at a more reasonable price would have required him to earn more income for which he would be income taxed. I wonder if the price reduction would also lower his property taxes.

This was a shady deal intended to deceive. if there was no bad intent on Obama’s part, it sure displays naivity. that we sure don’t need in a president.

And yes, Obama has apologized and returned campaign contributions. Like he had a choice.
And then I read this about a statement by Obama’s campaign staff that baffles me.
[/QUOTE]

From what I read there was a home and a lot that the DR {owner} was trying to sell together. Obama got the house for below asking price and Rezko’s wife bought the now divided vacant lot at full price. Then the next year he bought the property from her , {or part of it?} for just above fair market value.

What stinks about that? Perhaps Obama couldn’t handle the whole property in one year and it was done this way to get him the house and the property over two years instead. Who knows. I agree with Obama that it looks bad but he didn’t buy the house from Rezko at a reduced price. He bought it from the owner. Thats between him and the owner. If you could connect some favor done for Rezco that smacked of buying political influence you’d have something more substantial. Admittedly it gives the appearance of impropriety but it sure isn’t clear to me that Obama sold his soul o the devil.

48

In case you’re wondering, I’ve given support to Edwards and Obama. Indiana’s primary happens in early May, and everything is decided by then. The only way a Hoosier can support a presidential candidate in the primary is with money. Given my choice, I’d take Edwards, but any of the three will do. Barack took SC today, where John was hoping to do well. I’m a lousy predictor of elections, so I won’t waste your time with my guess.

49

[QUOTE=DSeid]
I didn’t see the show but l can guess the content. Probably cribbed from fact check … and not bad if they did.

On the scorecard:

Lies about the other-

The Clintons - lied about working for Rezco, lied about Obama’s war position, lied about Obama expressing admiration for Rebublican ideas, lied about the Trib saying that Obama took a pass - although others have said so. That’s 4 right off.

Obama - no lies. Zero Swiftboats.

Lies about their own record-

Clinton - lied when she said that she never expressed the same admiration for Reagan’s political acumen.

Obama - lied when he said he never advocated for single payor. He once did.

That’s it. The Clintons Swiftboat. Obama doesn’t. Is he perfect? Of course not. Who should care that she was on the board of Walmart, she didn’t do anything bad there? But he hasn’t made up shit about her like they have about him.
[/QUOTE]

On Iraq Obama:

"In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]
"When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards’ votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’”

Also, Obama aides have lied about his Iraq voting records twice now.
On REZKO from facts.hillaryhub.com (you can check out the source of the statements from there - I don’t know how to insert url - And while you’re browsing look at the other attacks of Senator Obama - the number of attacks are not even close.):

"Tony Rezko has been described as Sen. Obama’s “political patron” and friend of 17 years.

Tony Rezko and his associates have directly donated over $200,000 to Sen. Obama, and bundled more, but Sen. Obama has only returned $85,000. Sen. Obama’s name recently appeared in court documents because it was revealed some money Rezko raised was funneled through at least one straw donor or stolen from the government.

Sen. Obama wrote letters to city and state officials that helped secure $14 million for Rezko in taxpayer money.

Sen. Obama helped Rezko impress potential investors by appearing at his business meetings.

Most famously, Sen. Obama and Rezko were involved in a controversial real estate transaction."
On Republican Ideas:

The mistake was understandable and when corrected the Clintons have never repeated the accusation. If you read Obama’s statements about the Republicans and Reagan, you would come to the same conclusion. They did, however, air Obama’s statements over the radio carefully not accusing Obama of praising Republican ideas. I think that’s only fair. It was clear from Obama’s statements that he was trying to pander to the Republicans. Let him explain his statements to the Democrats.

On the Tribune saying Obama took a pass:

They have never repeated that again after correction. That could have very well been a mistake - it was a journalist from another newspaper that said that Obama was taking a pass.

50

[QUOTE=Shayna]
Hentor has decided to take a page out of the Hillary Clinton play book and malign and mischaracterize those who disagree with him, by painting us as mindless morons who’ve been sucked into worshiping our cult leader. Obviously we’re “glazed over” and cannot have possibly come to our opinions with an honest assessment of the data.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if that is what he was talking about, it is a pity. Because I think we are falling into a series of fallacies.

It is a mistake (in my opinion) to assume that Obama is lying because “all politicians are liars”, just as it is a mistake to say that all criticisms of Hilary are knee-jerk Clinton-hating. And it is an even worse mistake to say that anything Hilary or Bill does is OK because Bush lied about Iraq. That doesn’t follow logically, and it smacks too much of accepting sleaze from your side and condemning it from the other.

If we (as a nation) say “all politicians are sleazy so Obama must have done something wrong - no smoke without fire”, we are encouraging Hilary et al. to continue to blow smoke. Do we really want a campaign based on the politics of personal destruction? Or do we really want to set the bar at “anything goes providing we don’t get into a war over it”?

Leaving aside the obvious truth that what is sauce for the goose in the primaries is sure as hell going to be sauce for the gander in the general election.

Regards,
Shodan

51

[QUOTE=Shodan]

Do we really want a campaign based on the politics of personal destruction? Or do we really want to set the bar at “anything goes providing we don’t get into a war over it”?
[/QUOTE]
No.

52

[QUOTE=Anduril]
On Iraq Obama:

"In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]
"When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards’ votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’”

[/QUOTE]

You have to take it in context. He was speaking at the Kerry convention. No good Democrat is going to undermine his nominee at the convention so he tried for the sake of party unity to minimize the differences.

53

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
You have to take it in context. He was speaking at the Kerry convention. No good Democrat is going to undermine his nominee at the convention so he tried for the sake of party unity to minimize the differences.
[/QUOTE]
May a Republican invoke the same party unity context ethic for things he says?

54

I think if you ask someone at their party’s convention about an issue that you know is a point of disagreement between that person and the nominee, then you should expect them to minimize said disagreement to the greatest extent possible. After the convention was over, I would hold the pols to a different standard.