[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Hillary’s remarks had nothing to do with the real estate deal. To paraphrase heavily, in response to Obama’s recent “Reagan” comments, she said that she was fighting against those policies, while Obama was doing legal work for “Rezko”, “your donor”, a “slum lord.”
Did you even see the debate? If not, why are you commenting in this thread? To be snarky perhaps?
[/QUOTE]
There is no debate, Carol. Give it up. This dog won’t hunt, and it’s the only dog in the kennel. If Obama becomes POTUS and serves two full terms without a breath of scandal, you’ll still be here up to 2016 posting “Rezko!” every week. And every time you post it will be more embarrassing than the last time, and not to Barack Obama. “Rezko” will be the new “Whitewater.”
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
There is no debate, Carol. Give it up. This dog won’t hunt, and it’s the only dog in the kennel. If Obama becomes POTUS and serves two full terms without a breath of scandal, you’ll still be here up to 2016 posting “Rezko!” every week. And every time you post it will be more embarrassing than the last time, and not to Barack Obama. “Rezko” will be the new “Whitewater.”
[/QUOTE]
So what is your opinion of Obama’s doing legal work for slum lord Rezko? Did you believe his "No no no no, it was just five hours of work “denial”? Did he do work for Rezko, before he was against it? We’ve heard that one before.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
So what is your opinion of Obama’s doing legal work for slum lord Rezko? Did you believe his "No no no no, it was just five hours of work “denial”? Did he do work for Rezko, before he was against it? We’ve heard that one before.
[/QUOTE]
Hypothetical question: George W. Bush financially supports a non-profit that gives puppies to cancer patients. I work for a law firm that does work for the non-profit. Did I just work for a war-monger?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
So what is your opinion of Obama’s doing legal work for slum lord Rezko? Did you believe his "No no no no, it was just five hours of work “denial”? Did he do work for Rezko, before he was against it? We’ve heard that one before.
[/QUOTE]
He didn’t work for Rezko ever, at all. End of story.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Hypothetical question: George W. Bush financially supports a non-profit that gives puppies to cancer patients. I work for a law firm that does work for the non-profit. Did I just work for a war-monger?
[/QUOTE]
Did you accept donations from his shady friends and shady land deals from him and his wife?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Did you accept donations from his shady friends and shady land deals from him and his wife?
[/QUOTE]
There was no “shady land deal.” That’s a flat out lie. There is also no evdience that Obama ever used his office to benefit Rezko. There is no story here and I find your desperation in trying to fake up some kind of a scandal very encouraging indeed. It just goes to show how squeaky clean Obama really is and how little the Pubs have to attack him with.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There was no “shady land deal.” That’s a flat out lie. There is also no evdience that Obama ever used his office to benefit Rezko. There is no story here and I find your desperation in trying to fake up some kind of a scandal very encouraging indeed. It just goes to show how squeaky clean Obama really is and how little the Pubs have to attack him with.
[/QUOTE]
You could maybe say that Obama preferentially offered an internship to some kid who knew Rezko (link) although that doesn’t benefit Rezko in any direct way and is pretty small potatoes if you ask me.
Yeah, is there any evidence that Rezko benefited unduly from his donations to Obama? I believe there is not. Absent that, all you can really complain about is that he took a legal donation from some guy who later turned out to be a douchebag.
Jack Ryan I think at one point literally had a guy with a camera following Obama around 24/7 and couldn’t rattle him. Then, you know, the Tribune published his divorce records and forced him out of the race, but oh well.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Edwards’ father left the mill on his own-- he claims he was getting passed over by guys with college educations. And he had been in a supervisory role since John Edwards was 3 years old. Boston Globe Link.:
But his shtick went over with you, and you read between to the lines to find something that wasn’t there. That’s another reason I’m sick of hearing about it.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There was no “shady land deal.” That’s a flat out lie.
[/QUOTE]
American Heritage says that one definition of “shady” is “Of dubious character or honesty; questionable.” Well, the land deal has been questioned, for almost two years, by the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, and I heard today (no cite) that it is now getting press in the national media, CBS News, I believe.
In any case, the Hillary did not mention the land deal in the debate, you mentioned it in this thread. Her comments were about legal work Obama did on behalf of Rezko associated entities. Did you watch the debate?
I would love to vote only for squeaky clean politicians, but I do actually like to participate in the democratic process and not just stand on the sidelines feeling superior.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I would love to vote only for squeaky clean politicians, but I do actually like to participate in the democratic process and not just stand on the sidelines feeling superior.
[/QUOTE]
No need to choose. You do the one in the primary, the other in the general.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Did you accept donations from his shady friends and shady land deals from him and his wife?
[/QUOTE]
Were the shady donations any worse than the donations from Norman Hsu?
Ever hear of Whitewater? Is Obama’s land deal any shadier than that?
There’s a word I am looking for… it the word you use when you find out evenagelical minsters in Boulder are gay; or when some holier than thou congressman takes a wide stance; or any one of the things that Republicans seem to do all the time?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
American Heritage says that one definition of “shady” is “Of dubious character or honesty; questionable.” Well, the land deal has been questioned, for almost two years, by the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, and I heard today (no cite) that it is now getting press in the national media, CBS News, I believe.
[/quote]
You are misinformed. There was nothing “dubious” about Obama buying some land at slightly above fair market value and none of those newspapers are “questioning” it (unless you count rightwing columnists, some of who have lied and distorted the story). There is nothing to question. There was nothing the slightest bit illegal or unethical about it. Obama and Rezko owned adjoining plots of land. Obama wanted to buy some of Rezko’s. They had the land appraised and Obama paid a little bit more than the appraised value. That’s it. That’s the whole story. Please tell me why it’s either “shady” or “dubious.” Please support your answer with evidence.
In any case, the Hillary did not mention the land deal in the debate, you mentioned it in this thread. Her comments were about legal work Obama did on behalf of Rezko associated entities. Did you watch the debate?
[/QUOTE]
No, I didn’t watch the debate, and I was addressing your own insinuations, not Hillary’s. You seemed elated that she mentioned Rezko. Whenever Rezko’s name is mentioned by a rightie, the bogus accusations of a “shady land deal” are sure to follow, even though the chances are low to non-existent that they’ll even know the details of what is alleged. Nothing about Obama’s purchase of a strip of land from Rezko was illegal or unethical.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You are misinformed. There was nothing “dubious” about Obama buying some land at slightly above fair market value and none of those newspapers are “questioning” it (unless you count rightwing columnists, some of who have lied and distorted the story). There is nothing to question. There was nothing the slightest bit illegal or unethical about it. Obama and Rezko owned adjoining plots of land. Obama wanted to buy some of Rezko’s. They had the land appraised and Obama paid a little bit more than the appraised value. That’s it. That’s the whole story. Please tell me why it’s either “shady” or “dubious.” Please support your answer with evidence.
[/QUOTE]
It’s questionable, and dubious, hence shady. Obama himself said it was a mistake for him to do business with Rezko.
There’s three news articles in the last ten months. All by news reporters, not columnists, let alone “right-wing columnists who have lied and distorted the story”.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No, I didn’t watch the debate, and I was addressing your own insinuations, not Hillary’s. You seemed elated that she mentioned Rezko. Whenever Rezko’s name is mentioned by a rightie, the bogus accusations of a “shady land deal” are sure to follow, even though the chances are low to non-existent that they’ll even know the details of what is alleged.
[/QUOTE]
Referring specifically to your post #27, your mention of “land deal” did nothing to address anything I had posted, or anything that Hillary said in the debate. Why bring it up? Because a rightie is sure to mention it? Uh huh. That’s some argument there.
