Forum: pol
Page 3212
Subject: Schadenfreude

  Posted by: Baldwin - [201045320] Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 15:41
Let the enjoyment begin.

Pennsylvania Obama voters getting their well deserved pink slip from the coal company.

You receiving the notice to appear for compulsory community service down at Acorn or it's successor. "Universal Voluntary Public Service." There's a sad and funny oxymoron for you.

Getting your tax increase when you haven't even taken down the Obama sign from the front yard. And what a shocker, you don't take in $250K!

You finding out your already Obama decimated 401K has just been stolen by the government and placed in the magic disappearing lockbox.

The little guys on Obamas campaign staff getting stiffed on their pay. But he cares for the little guy! Ahahah!

The The 78% of Jews who voted Obama the day the Islamic nuking commences. Not so funny. But coming.

Gun owners who believed Obama when he actually said he respected the constitutional RTBA.

People who didn't like 60's radicals protests being forced to fund the paychecks of the twenty first century second wave of protesters. Boy does that one hit home. See how bipartisan the schadenfreude will be? Obama most merciful and uniting reaching across to the other side with a rusty poison dagger.

This won't really be fun but it will be rich.
 
1Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 15:58

Baldwin - put a time frame, and specifics on your "islamic nuking" prediction. who's getting nuked, and when?

because i will put good money on it - half to the winner, half to rotoguru.com - that you're wrong with that, like you are EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAY.

now, go watch some puppet sex.
 
2Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 16:47 		I have been coming to these boards for, what, nine years, as have you Baldwin, and I have had it. I am completely fed up with your insistent attempts to destroy these boards. That is what you are doing, you are trying to drive everyone away and I will have none of it.

When you doorbell, do you continue to ring the same doorbell again and again after the residents politely decline to hear from you? For that is what you are doing here, you are ringing our doorbell and spewing forth INSANE crap, nasty, unfounded lies, innuendo and invective. Tree and sarge find it fun to taunt you, but that just makes it worse.

Imagine, if you will, you were at a JW gathering, chatting amiably about your religion and there was a man in the crowd who shouted blasphemes after every sentence spoken by another. After every story of hawking The Watchtower on a street corner, he shouted, "Jehoviah's Witnesses are all members of a blood cult who seek to enslave our children and exterminate the lot of us." Every time Jesus was mentioned he screamed, "Jesus was a fraud!" How welcome would that man be? You are that man, Baldwin. Your defense may be, "but I speak the truth", but you are, without a doubt, that man.

What in the hell has happened to you? Why do you feel the need to fling your excrement in a 360 degree radius? Do you think you are serving some purpose... let me tell you, you certainly are not. What happened to your retirement? Did it so gnaw at you that we did convert to your world view that you decided to piss in the punch bowl and torch the place?

In short, I want you to go away because I used to enjoy reading the posts of people on these boards and occasionally posting myself. You madly attempt to ruin every thread and sink the entire board into the sewer. I have no idea why you would want to continue to act like a bomb-throwing anarchist. I don't even want you to continue in the baseball league. This must end, you must go. Go knock on some other doorbell.
 
3WiddleAvi
      ID: 323531619
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 16:57 		Tree / SZ - Not sure why anyone even bothers to respond to any of his threads or posts. Ignore any thread he starts and posts he makes and see how long he lasts.
 
4Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 17:01 		1) 2 rings and a knock in case the bell isn't working.

2) I was all set to just spend the last 3 weeks of the race posting present in the Fire Marshall Bill thread as a reprise of Obama's Illinois Senate career.

3) Then I started to find out blacker and blacker information that showed me that politics and America would never be free again. I kinda thot that was worth pointing out, if only for the rights to the I told you so.

4) I am happy to post just a couple choice finds and leave. Get these trolls off my back and keep it civil if that's the way you like it and I'll be brief.

5) Seriously I really do need to get to focusing more on Bible study because I really do think the window of oportunity is closing.

6) You are correct that I should not let myself get dragged down into the gutter by Tree. And this is me holding back for all I am worth. I really gotta work on that contentious streak. But you gotta expect competitiveness at a fantasy sports site, no?
 
5Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 17:03 		I like your idea, Widdle. Please do. I begged Dave Hall not to start the poliboard. I shoulda run away the first week.
 
6Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 17:12 		see how long he lasts.

Well, he's going on 9 years and 10,000 posts.

Baldwin: My post wasn't, "Hey, you got a little worked up, there." It was, "Seriously, you are trying to destroy this board, you should go."

No one wants to read your "few choice finds", as they are not few nor choice.

The fact that you think these boards are a competition that require a reply from every post a "troll" makes should give you pause.

Hey, I do not like saying this. I've laughed many times with you. I'm tired of watching others laugh at you and your immature responses. So, please, go read the Bible for a awhile. If we all end up in a gulag factory prison system run by comrads chanting "Yes we can", you are free to come back and say, "I told you so."

Step back and take some time off.
 
7Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 17:12 		SZ

Also I'm just packing in these predictions early. Better to claim the I told you so's. No intention of spending this much effort regularly.
 
8DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 17:13 		Oh, goody. This WILL be fun.

Let the enjoyment begin.

Pennsylvania Obama voters getting their well deserved pink slip from the coal company.

You mean like the 750,000 that have already lost their jobs? Obviously Obama's fault. Moron.

You receiving the notice to appear for compulsory community service down at Acorn or it's successor. "Universal Voluntary Public Service." There's a sad and funny oxymoron for you.

Not going to happen. And if it did, it'd be better than letting the likes of you anywhere near the community.

Getting your tax increase when you haven't even taken down the Obama sign from the front yard. And what a shocker, you don't take in $250K!

Liar. And you know what? If it DOES happen, and my taxes miraculously go up instead of down (family of four, making about $55k per year), we'll talk.

You finding out your already Obama decimated 401K has just been stolen by the government and placed in the magic disappearing lockbox.

Take a look at the DJIA charts for the last 16 years. Note how rapidly it increases between 1992 (your favorite president) and 2000. Note how it has decreased in the last 8 years (MY favorite president).

There's nothing left to put in the lockbox.

The little guys on Obamas campaign staff getting stiffed on their pay. But he cares for the little guy! Ahahah!

Anything more than wild hyperbole and conjecture? Didn't think so.

The The 78% of Jews who voted Obama the day the Islamic nuking commences. Not so funny. But coming.

No, you got it wrong. McCain was the one that was going to bomb Iran.

Gun owners who believed Obama when he actually said he respected the constitutional RTBA.

None of them voted for him anyway. And at any rate I'm quite sure he has more important things on his plate.

People who didn't like 60's radicals protests being forced to fund the paychecks of the twenty first century second wave of protesters. Boy does that one hit home. See how bipartisan the schadenfreude will be? Obama most merciful and uniting reaching across to the other side with a rusty poison dagger.

Considering that that "second wave" has already been forced to pay for the ideals of the current administration (who, not incidentally, has made pretty good headway on preempting the pocketbooks of the third wave as well), I can only laugh.

This won't really be fun but it will be rich.

The only thing richer would be if any, one other than you actually believed you, you sniveling, America-hating, evil crackpot wingnut.
 
9Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 17:24 		SZ

Further I think you've got the shoe entirely on the wrong foot.

I would get e-mails from the few conservatives [including your favorite] around here just in shock at the unfair treatment I was getting.

The gang rapes around here are amazing.

What have you got here? Two libertarians and me. You've insulted Boxman away. You've nearly driven B-7 away. Who am I missing?

When I didn't post the two days before the vote, this place was a wasteland. No one around all day. I spent the time at Scott's site.

Exactly what do you expect is gonna happen here, SZ? Libertarians who half agree with you half disagreeing with you? There's a challenge.

Any regulars here who voted McCain?

No shortage of Obamamaniacs. Just who is being driven away?
 
10tree on the treo
      ID: 361053417
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 17:55 		baldwin - answer my challenge on specifics regarding the impending nuke attack from islam on thw jews, make a wager with me, and out of respect to SZ, I won't respond to anything else you say here until it is time to collect on my wager.

its that simple. you want this "troll" off your back, here's your willy wonka golden ticket....

set a who and why and when and where for the nuke, we'll pick the $$$ wagered and until that time expires and I collect, not a peep from me to you...
 
11Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 18:29 		Well it's the Iranian government who has explicitly stated that as soon as there was an Islamic bomb, [not sure what he thot the Pak bomb was], the problem of the Jewish state would be solved.

I actually believe they mean it. Whether they think they can intimidate their way to a one state solution or whether that was a promise to nuke Isreal remains to be seen.

Either Isreal keeps Iran nuke free thru strikes, the world keeps Iran nuke free thru international pressure, America keeps Iran nuke free or Iran will make the middle east Jew free.

How you make a wager out of that nuanced position I don't know.

And you are an addicted troll. You couldn't stay off my ankle if your life depended on it so what's the point?

 
12Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 19:16 		Here is how new posters are insulted by Seattle Zen who disagree with his liberal views.
See posts 62 and 63.

Khahan is a long-time rotoguru member, though I don't remember ever being in one of his leagues.
 
13holt
      ID: 25923117
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 20:11 		"you are trying to drive everyone away and I will have none of it."

WTF are you talking about SZ? Pulling the SS gloves on already? You can't handle someone sharing an opinion you don't agree with?

If anyone is driving people away from this forum it's the gang of left-wingers, not Baldwin. He must get a kick out of making steam come out of your ears day after day. I can't think of any other reason he'd keep posting here.

If you want to never hear an opposing point of view, there are plenty of message forums around where you'll only find liberals cheering each other on. Maybe try that out.
 
14Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 21:46 		Either Isreal keeps Iran nuke free thru strikes, the world keeps Iran nuke free thru international pressure, America keeps Iran nuke free or Iran will make the middle east Jew free.

How you make a wager out of that nuanced position I don't know.

you're saying it would be the fault of Obama, and the jews.

i take great umbrage of that. enough so, that if you said to my face it was the jews fault that israel might get nuked, i'd kick your teeth out of the back of your head.

And you are an addicted troll. You couldn't stay off my ankle if your life depended on it so what's the point?

you're like a little mouse, and it's fun to see you squirm in the hands of the cat.

what's the point? it's your golden ticket, amigo. i'm giving you a perfect opportunity, but it appears that you don't even have enough faith in your own lies and bile to back it up with some cold hard cash.

not surprising, really. but, the offer stands. still, i don't expect you to be man enough in your convictions to back it up.
 
15Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 22:03 		You can't handle someone sharing an opinion you don't agree with?

Bat-shit crazy is not an opposing opinion, it is destructive to civil discourse.

And Khahan is hardly a "new" poster. It's just that he is "very scared" of the space bar and half of the letters on his keyboard, so he doesn't post much.

THAT, my friends, is civil discourse.
 
16Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 22:17 		You are sooo dense, Tree.

How could anyone read what I wrote and interpret that as it's the Jews fault? It isn't anyone's fault but the crazy Iranian leader who said as soon as there is an Islamic bomb the 'Jewish problem' would be soved.

How you stop him from carrying out that threat is the the three options I mentioned followed by the result of failing to stop him.
 
17Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 22:20 		You can't handle someone sharing an opinion you don't agree with?


Exactly. SZ went so far as to make an ultimatum to the Poliboard that either Boxman was excluded from the Poliboard leagues or SZ would boycott then. After which naturally SZ couldn't be bothered to play in Poliboard leagues anyway. But it was that important to insult a regular poster that egregiously just because SZ can't handle the truth.
 
18Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 22:21 		Very civil of SZ, inclusive...diversity loving even. Bah
 
19Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 23:20 		And Khahan is hardly a "new" poster. It's just that he is "very scared" of the space bar and half of the letters on his keyboard, so he doesn't post much.

Please elaborate, that makes no sense. He posts a lot on other threads not in the politics section. He doesn't appear to to be "very scared" of the space bar and half of the letters on his keyboard when he posts in other sections.

Who would want to post when they get insulted for no reason by Seattle Zen. I'm beginning to understand why there are few non-liberal posters here. Who needs that grief. Life is too short. And when new liberal posters show up, they do not have to deal with the same garbage.

Boxman is welcome to take my place in the football league. I could care less what Seattle Zen dictates.
 
20Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 23:49 		How could anyone read what I wrote and interpret that as it's the Jews fault? It isn't anyone's fault but the crazy Iranian leader who said as soon as there is an Islamic bomb the 'Jewish problem' would be soved.

then why even mention Obama, or the jews? if they aren't at fault, there is no reason to even mention them in your original post.

but hey, you change your tune all the time, so if that's what you believe now, good on you.
 
21Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 04:21 		Why mention Obama? Because he is their wetdream american president. Just listen to them in their own words. From one end of the world to the other muslims, PLO types, Hamas leaders, Insurgents in Iraq, Gadaffi...these guys are dancing in the streets. And with good reason. They have less to fear from him than the last fly of the year who hangs around motionless between the double pane windows.

Which should make every sane Jew beyond nervous.
 
22walk
      ID: 139332920
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 06:41 		I did not want to post in this thread cos I felt what Widdle said, that reinforcing such outlandish posts was not a good idea.

Baldwin. I feel you sometimes make astute posts and other times just go off on some intense, frequent almost crusade of extreme viewpoints that cross the line of reason and common sense. However, as a poli discussion board, there should be a lot of latitude. I don't think one can deflect one's behavior, particularly your recent spate of intensely frequent postings, including the initiation of any thread, on being dragged down in the gutter by others. It's not like a lot of the recent postings were replies. These are proactive. I think you can elevate the discourse if you want.
 
23biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 08:46 		Do we have a diagnosis?
 
24sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 09:21 		paranoid schizophrenia?
 
25Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 09:30 		Which should make every sane Jew beyond nervous.

again, don't speak for my people.

the reason people around the world are reacting the way they are is because after 8 years of your president leaving scorched earth in his wake, they're looking forward to a president who might actually listen to what someone else has to say.

they also looked at us as some redneck cowboy nation. the election of a black man dispells that myth.
 
26walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 09:36 		Right, I am Jewish, too, and it should not make me nervous. That's telling me how to think and feel and implying that if I don't think and feel that way, then I am not sane or new Jewish enough. That's not cool.
 
27Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 09:38 		oh, and i guess you're not strong enough in your beliefs to back them up with a wager. typical of you.

but, either way, you'll get your wish. Charlie is right about you, although i felt he was too nice.

you're the terrorist. you're that nutcase who straps a bomb to his chest, and walks into a celebration and detonates himself. you're Bin Laden, you're the PLO, and you're a loon like Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

you just want to bomb other people's parades, and instead of trying to work with people to make this world a better place, you just want to tear down and destroy those who have a different outlook than you.

it must be a lonely place, sliding into old age as a bitter, angry, and scared little man.

here's one less person you'll have to converse with, because it's just too stupid and too wasteful to try and engage you in any sort of remotely intelligent discourse, because you'd much rather toss grenades that sit down across the table and talk.
 
28walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 09:57 		Iraqis Moving Faster Now that Obama is Elected

This is really not the right thread for such news, but given the thread is basically saying: "now look what you've done" (in a negative light), it seems quite appropriate to point out an example of much more relevant and much more direct (at least intended) behavioral change as a result of the election outcomes. And change that I think most in America would deem as positive.

Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011,” said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. “If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama.”

Of course, given the volatile and fractious state of Iraqi politics, the security agreement could still be delayed. But with Iraqis believing that Mr. Obama, as president, would move faster to withdraw American troops, Iraqi and American officials said obstacles to a security agreement appeared to be fading.

And to be balanced within the context of quoting within the same article:

Mr. Obama’s election could provide a chance for Iraq to start a new chapter, with greater ability to control its own destiny. But it also will leave Iraq more on its own between aggressive neighbors and unable to look to the Americans as mediators when political factions argue. So there is at once a sense of possibility and the potential for implosion.

Either way, THIS is the type of stuff we really should be discussing...
 
29Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 11:26 		Just listen to them in their own words. From one end of the world to the other muslims, PLO types, Hamas leaders, Insurgents in Iraq, Gadaffi...these guys are dancing in the streets.

Here's some Muslims dancing in the streets:

First and foremost,

Congratulations to Barack Obama and Joe Biden on becoming the new president and vice president of the United States of America.

And Congratulations to Kurds for Obama supporters and congratulations to all Americans.

We are all very proud of the role of Kurds for Obama in tonight's results. We all fought hard in at least seven states to turn over votes to the Democratic ticket in many of the key swing states. Our hard and long efforts have paid off, as have the efforts of many across the United States who supported Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

While we are overjoyed with the victory in what seems is the end of a long hard-fought campaign, this is only the beginning for Kurds for Obama. In the coming months, Turkish lobbyists and other interests groups will flood DC and attempt to corrode democracy using methods of deception and many of their initiatives will rival or directly oppose Kurdish-American efforts.

We need to work many times harder to ensure that the Kurdish voice continues to be heard, that rights are respected, and that justice prevails over politics. We need to ensure that our message resonates with the new American presidential administration. link

Yes, that would be the Kurds that have fought side by side with us in Iraq since Day 1 of the invasion. That would be the Kurds that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and a cadre of others who could easily fall into the category of Schadenfreude, since they were not only silent on Saddam's genocide in the Anfal campaign and the Halabja poison gas bombings, they fought any attempt to sanction Saddam or even reprimand him.

It's fashionable among the current crop of historical revisionists to constantly warn of the danger to Israel, while seeming to ignore that Israel has a developed nuclear program, as well as the finest and most technologically advanced military in the entire region. Why is it that it's presented as if there's no way they could possibly defend themselves?

On the other hand, Kurds in Iraq are being bombed by Turkish jets(purchased from the US), shelled by Iranian artillery, and Kurdish populations in Turkey, Iran and Syria are systematically oppressed while the Bush administration(and Clinton before him, and Bush, Sr before him and Reagan before him) either ignores their plight or actively provides the weapons that maintains their oppression and their misery.

Why would Kurds see an Obama administration as positive?

Over the past 15 years, Biden has also worked against a number of planned U.S. arms transfers to Turkey on grounds of alleged human rights violations and other reasons.

In the latest such case in 2003, he opposed the use of a U.S. Ex-Im Bank loan for the purchase of naval helicopters. Eventually the matter was resolved, but Turkey, when signing a 2005 contract for the U.S. Sikorsky Aircraft for 17 S-70B Seahawk helicopters, opted not to use the loan.

When the United States was in deep trouble in Iraq two years ago, Biden came up with a proposal to divide the war-torn country into three parts along ethnic and sectarian lines under a very loose confederation. Turkey is strongly opposed to the division of Iraq, and the idea was later shelved when ensuing U.S. policies helped improve the situation in Iraq.


link

It's clear that the Baldwin wing of the right wants Muslims, generically to be considered the enemy. They have seemed oblivious as to how this has polarized our relationships with Muslim nations we count on as allies in politics and business. We've pushed Azerbaijan, Turkemnistan, Kazakhstan and other former Central Asian USSR states into closer working relations with Russia, while Indonesia and Malaysia find it harder to be moderate with the constant anti-Muslim rhetoric eminating from the rabid right.

Worst of all, the 'all Muslims are enemies' crowd is adamant in their opposition to improved relations with Iran. It's as if the only words they've ever heard out the country is,
"As soon as we get a nuclear bomb, Israel is toast."
They can hardly contain their contempt at the thought of tensions easing with Obama's election. They have no desire to explore a policy that examines diplomatic possibilities, not only because their hopes for visions of Tehran being a parking lot would be dashed, but that the real possibility of regime change would be credited, at least in part, as an Obama success.

As we can see before Obama has spent one day in office, there can't be even the remotest thought of an Obama administration accomplishing something positive. The cynicism is breathtaking, even a good example of Schadenfreude. Those who wish to wallow in their enjoyment of misery have every right to do so. It is, after all, and will certainly remain with Obama as President, a free country.
 
30walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 11:40 		Nice one, PV, as usual.
 
31walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 11:45 		Mixed Emotions for (NY) Muslims on Obama Victory

Almost sad. It's a good thing for relations, but they are afraid to say so...cos of American backlash and fear. Well, at least we are in the right direction.

I have a good work colleague who I thought was very smart and nice. When we spoke politics 5 weeks ago, she said: "I cannot vote for Obama cos of his Muslim ties." I said "what ties and is that not a good thing/why does it matter?" And she said: "Hello, who are we fighting? Who are the terrorists?" I then tried to educate about stereotyping and generalizing, and maybe had a little impact, but I am sure her view was not held by just a few folks in this country. We need folks to realize that we are not at war with Islam. Freakin Bush did not educate folks on this...amongst other things he did in this regard...
 
32Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:45 		We need folks to realize that we are not at war with Islam

Tell it to Islam. Famous last words there.
 
33DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 18:06 		Logic 101:

All terrorists are Muslims (humor me for a minute).

Therefore, all Muslims are terrorists.


I'm pretty sure that that is the thinking here.
 
34Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 01:55 		Hundreds of millions of Muslims think they are at war with us so what you think about it is irrelevant. It may take two to argue but it only takes one to war.
 
35Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 12:12 		wetzel - the problem is that million of STUPID americans think we're at war with all Muslims.

if they would pull their heads out of their collective asses, and quite being a bunch of ignorant, racist fcuks, the world might be a better place.
 
36walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 12:37 		Agreed, Tree. This is what is scary to me. A religulous war based on ignorance, fear, aggression and stupidity. Obama sees this and I think will work towards healing the divide.
 
37DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 13:27 		"wetzel - the problem is that million of STUPID americans think we're at war with all Muslims.

if they would pull their heads out of their collective asses, and quite being a bunch of ignorant, racist fcuks, the world might be a better place."

I say we send them to fight the war. Two birds, one stone and all that.
 
38Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 13:36 		Here is the amazing thing. I never even implied all muslims are at war with us. I specifically said hundreds of millions, not a couple billion.

And then you use that closed mind of yours to claim anything I say on the subject is a racist lie, when a substantial minority will happily tell you they are at war with us. Their leaders have told them and us in no uncertain terms that they are. And nothing you can say changes that or makes it a lie.

As to whether Obama can 'heal' that...no and maybe worse than no.

The ones who are at war, are at war purely because that's how they read the Koran and nothing you can say or do will change that. It is not a reaction to actions or relations that can be changed.

Further these are exactly the sort who believe that the only kind of a good former muslim is a dead former muslim. So if and when they are convinced that he was raised going to a madrassa and genuinely has left off being a muslim, that he is not just being sureptitious about it to fool us...the results will be worse than they would have been if he had never had any connection at all.
 
39DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 15:32 		38: "And then you use that closed mind of yours to claim anything I say on the subject is a racist lie..."

32: "Tell it to Islam."

Sorry, that seems pretty clear, racist. Try again.
 
40Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 18:20 		A) Islam isn't a race, it's a religion.

B) Unfortunately it's a religion whose believers, [not the nominal ones] believe you need to convert or die, now.

C) That isn't racist to state that. It is quoting them.

D) Why is it so hard for you to take seriously what people say? How many heads do they need to cut off? How many suicide bombers until you realize they mean it?
 
41walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:09 		Because I think it's a very small minority of folks who practice that religion who feel that way, Baldwin. A very small minority. This does not excuse any extremist views by anyone, and there are extremists in every religion.
 
42Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:19 		I can't think of another today that teaches that they personally need to go forth to all the world and convert by the sword and murder all the infidels. That this is the special time in history when that is the immediate task at hand.

I estimate the number of those who hold these views as @ 100 million. But you keep your head in the sand and call anyone who peeks a racist. The easier to cut your head off.
 
43Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:19 		Because I think it's a very small minority of folks who practice that religion who feel that way, Baldwin. A very small minority.

Define A very small minority. Got any numbers?
 
44Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:20 		And that number is before they manage to radicalize more. You liberals know all about radicalizing. It can happen.
 
45Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:32 		good thing i don't look at Christianity the same way some of y'all look at islam.

after all, christianity is the religious that includes abortion clinic bombers, people who shoot doctors, encourage the murder of homosexuals, and picket the funerals of dead iraqi soldiers.
 
46walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:35 		Well. What's your number? Define how many radicals they have?
 
47walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:37 		And define "radical." You think us liberals are radical. I think Palin is radical. Are either?
 
48jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:52 		Does the number really matter? The point is there are enough that
want to hurt us that we have to be worried about it and protected
from it.




 
49astade
      ID: 23100322
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 21:55 		lol.

two points:

1.) who is 'us'?

2.) worried and protected like we have been since 2001?

While I grant you we haven't been attacked, I riddle you this: How many lives have we lost abroad? How many more people hate 'us'?

 
50walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:01 		Why do they want to hurt us, jedman? It is because, as some say, that radical extremists do not like our way of life, our freedoms? Or is it because they think we are meddling in their affairs? The "#" thing came from the suggestion that we are somehow up against a religion. I am saying we are up against extremists, and the religion is not the issue. I do not think we need to be afraid of folks based on their religion.
 
51jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:06 		Us meaning the United States of America.

Riddle me this? How many lives may have been saved because of
those who put themselves in harm's way to protect us?

Are you denying that there are terrorists who want to harm us here
in America and are you denying that we need to be protected from
them? Or are you just saying it should be done in a different way
than has been done?
 
52astade
      ID: 23100322
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:13 		Jedman,

'us' is relative. other western countries have suffered from terrorist attacks since 9/11 (see London, Madrid, etc).

With regards to lives being 'saved'. That's something you and I cannot answer, but I find it humorous that despite the United States failure in the middle east that your statements suggest a success.

I think alot of things could have been done differently. Without being a Monday morning QB, I will say that by building consensus amongst nations and being less heavy handed, perhaps less people abroad would hate us.

...and before others chime in, I am not a liberal.

 
53Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:16 		lol

1.) who is 'us'? - Astade
Muslim religious commandments:

9:123 Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Laugh it up Astade. Unless you are muslim, you are just a rolling head to them.
 
54jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:31 		walk- I agree that we are not at war with a religion, just those
extremists within a religion.

astade - my frame of reference is the USA. Of course others are
subject to terrorism, but I would hope the government of other
countries would be taking steps to protect their citizens as well.

I don't know that I said we have had a total success in the
Middle East, I do have mixed emotions about the war. But we do
not know, as you said, how many lives may have been saved
through our actions there.

I think we are always going to be hated to some degree
throughout the world. When you stand up for freedom and
democracy, there are always going to be those that don't like it.
 
55Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:35 		Does the number really matter?

Yes. There are approximately 10 million Muslims in the United States. This site estimates 1.84 billion Muslims worldwide. For the sake of easy math, let's call it 2 billion.

Now, given that Baldwin estimates that 100 million Muslims worldwide need to go forth to all the world and convert by the sword and murder all the infidels, that would mean that 5% of Muslims worldwide and 500,000 in this country are lurking around the next corner with a scimitar prepared to take your head as a souvenir.

With a number as big as a half a million people, there should be boatloads of stats to support the idea that these people are committed to killing non-believers, not only individually, but en masse.

Other than the 9/11 attacks and the first World Trade bombing (not a suicide bombing), I'm having a hard time remembering any high profile attacks of terror in this country perpetrated by Muslims.
OK, Sirhan Sirhan shot Bobby Kennedy, the former H Rapp Brown turned Muslim and shot a cop, and the kid from Serbia who went on a killing spree last Valentine's Day here in Salt Lake City may have been a Muslim, but there was no indication his actions were jihad driven. Obviously there are other cases of Muslims committing heinous crimes in this country, but nothing approaching the level of mass murder, suicide bombings or even an occasional beheading. There's no evidence that Muslims commit more crimes per percentage of population than any other large group, and less than many. What are these half a million treacherous Muslims waiting for?

there are enough that
want to hurt us that we have to be worried about it and protected
from it.

What do you suggest that isn't being done? Deny all Muslims their 2nd Amendment rights? Should that amendment be reserved only for Christians? Take away their cabbie licenses? Maybe you'd rather hitch a ride with the white boys in the Hell's Angels than with a Muslim cabbie. Would you feel safer? Would you feel safer eating at Bubba's Chicken, Rib, Blood and Crip Hangout Joint than eating in a suburban Middle East Cafe?

Are you really going to let fear, much of it based on an interpretation of the Koran by the likes of Joseph Farah, distort your day to day reality?
 
56jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:41 		Boy, PV, you read a lot into my post that I did not intend.
I am not suggesting that we need to do anymore than we are. I am
implying that Baldwin's numbers are way high, but the number is
high enough that our government needs to be vigilant about it,
which they have been.
I am implying that since we have not had another attack on our
country since 2001 that there are some things working in trying to
protect us.
I sleep well at night and happen to have a very good Muslim friend.
I am not at war with Islam, just the terrorists.
 
57astade
      ID: 23100322
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:43 		Jedman,

You raise some good points. Again, it is tough to speculate about protecting our own when we are losing them abroad. Regarding international politics and anti-US sentiment, I will state that things have drastically taken a negative tone. I don't know many people on this forum directly, but as someone who has traveled abroad alot over the last 7 years (maybe Neverclinic wins due to being imbedded in the UAE). Foreigners tend to be fine with Americans, individually, but hate our foreign policy. So when I stated 'more people hate us', that is what I was driving at.

On the domestic front sometimes it's tough to see it, but I guarantee that it makes it tougher for the US to work with other countries (with similar interests at heart) and it probably contributes to anti-US sentiment.

 
58walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 23:04 		jedman, astade, me and PV I think are all on the same page here. Good discussion. I do not fear what Baldwin fears, however.
 
59Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:31 		Unless you are muslim, you are just a rolling head to them.

by the logic in the silly post of 53, we should have wiped this planet clean of the scourge of Christianity at least a dozen times from about 1095 on, when there were a slew of Crusades across Europe that were of the "convert or kill" mantra.

we should have done it again in in the late 1400s, when the Spanish Inquisition took place. heck, i haven't even taken into account the various other Inquisitions that took place over the years.

Who were the targets of these Crusades and Inquisitions? mostly Jews and Muslims. We jews have learned to accept you murdering scum, but is there any question as to why the Muslims have a hard time with things, especially now that THEY have the numbers?

------

obviously, some of what i said above was tongue in cheek, but the reality remains that the Muslim religion - and a VERY small segment of it at that - does not have a monopoly on killing in the name of (insert the name of your God here).

on more than occasion throughout history, Christians went on church-sponsored killing spree, and we've allowed that religion to exist, and thrive, for centuries.

if everyone had the racist (or whatever term Baldwin would prefer, since we're dealing with religion here, and not race), murdering attitude that Baldwin had, then Christianity would have, and should have, ceased to exist centuries ago.
 
60Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:43 		It mostly depends on what mospue they attend and whose fatwa they will act on. It's different in every locale. It is also dependent on whether or not something happens to be inflaming them atm.



 
61Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:43 		I think we should all be concerned with the claim that 100 million Muslims think they're at war with us and are committed to killing not only those of us in the United States, but infidels in general.
The claim is designed to accomplish one thing and one thing only - distort reality with the intent to dehumanize Muslims.

I don't dispute that there is a school of Islam whose tenets are as Baldwin describes, and that it is taught at various levels at various mosques around the world. I might even agree that 100 million Muslims are sympathetic to the cause of global jihad in varying degrees. But there's a big difference between having sympathies for a cause and actively taking up arms, especially in a campaign to murder infidels indiscriminately.
There's many people who are sympathetic to the cause deemed pro-life, but a minute percentage who actually go out and kill abortion doctors or bomb abortion clinics.

My guess as to the number of Muslims who are committed to the murder of all infidels as a tenet of Islam is less than 1 million worldwide, with a very small number, maybe a thousand residing in the US. Post 9/11, I would think that those sympathetic to radical Islamic violence are mostly identified and watched like hawks by the various agencies charged with that task. I would support an almost complete moratorium on Muslims immigrating to this country on a temporary basis. The more Muslims allowed to emigrate here, the better the chance some of that percentage who do mean us harm increases. Unfortunately for Muslims, profiling is a necessary element in our current situation. Organizations like CAIR need to realize that profiling is a much preferred tactic than mass incarceration or suspension of habeas corpus.

So let's try to put things into some kind of perspective. If 100 million Muslims are committed to killing infidels, we would be seeing murders like the artist in the Netherlands by the hundreds daily in Europe. We would be seeing attacks like Madrid, London 7/11, Bali nightclub, Beslan school massacre, Khobar Towers, African Embassy attacks and USS Cole weekly if not daily. Israel would experience 100 times the terrorist violence it does currently.

Much of the violence that can be attributed to Muslims has little to do with religious tenets and more to do with internal power struggles and mini civil wars, especially in Africa.
Most of the violence in Iraq is Muslim on Muslim violence, although Christians have been(and still are) victimized due to the post-Saddam power vacuum.
I would argue that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is more politically motivated than religious and always has been.

This past weekend,

three of the Bali bombers were executed in Indonesia.

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. While there were a few bomb threats and some sympathy for these terrorists as martyrs, one would have expected massive violence in the streets and almost complete civil disobedience if millions of Indonesian Muslims were in concert with the ideology of jihad against infidels. No infidel would be safe in Indonesia if we were to take Baldwin's estimates literally.

Venus Williams won a tennis tournament against a Russian in Qatar this weekend. No one was beheaded.
 
62Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 10:04 		I really don't know how many Muslims we're talking about here. I would just like to expound on the movie "Where is Osama Bin Laden?". It's by the same guy that made Super Size Me.

Point of the story, he interviews a wide swath of people across different religions around the world as he literally looks for OBL.

The Muslim kids in the Wahabbi schools in Saudi Arabia were clearly under orders to say nothing bad about America in front of the cameras.

The least tolerant (on camera anyway) were the Hasidic Jews. Those guys came off as pricks.

Good movie. Check it out sometime.
 
63Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 12:00 		The least tolerant (on camera anyway) were the Hasidic Jews.

haven't seen the film, but yea, Chassids - and ultra religious jews of any sect, for that matter - tend not to be a tolerant bunch.
 
64Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:47 		If anything I am being on the conservative side. [big surprise] The most aggressive spreaders of islam and builder/funder of new mosques is the most militant Wahabi/Saudi flavor. That is a tinderbox waiting for a match and a very widespread phenomenon.
 
65Boldwin
      ID: 71154815
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 09:12 		No great place to put this but wow!

Illinois governor taken into federal custody!!!

Not that it hasn't been a real possibility for months now. And not that he's any more corrupt than the last string of governors.
 
66Boldwin
      ID: 71154815
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 09:21 		Confirmations coming in but they all seem to be just quoting Chi Trib so unless that was hacked...

He's been selling influence forever. His closest confidants have been wearing wires with him to save themselves.

The other shoe waiting to drop is whether he has been taking bids on the open Obama senate seat that is his to appoint.

Jesse Jackson was a complete wall of silence 'no comment' yesterday about his son's chances. I wonder if the shakedown artist was getting shaken down?
 
67Boldwin
      ID: 71154815
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 09:37 		Or as he is known in Illinois, "Public Official A", (from redacted testimony).
 
68Perm Dude
      ID: 22115698
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 10:02 		I was just reading about this. Not much official information, but apparently the fed have been secretly taping him for some time now.
 
69Boldwin
      ID: 71154815
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 10:03 		Breaking news contends he wasn't being offered enuff for the senate seat. He was looking for @ $15,000,000 for it. To be paid for by the position he would move to upon leaving the governor's mansion. This is in the middle of a huge federal investigation of Illionois influence peddling. Knowing he's the main target he's still trying to sell the senate seat. Just mindboggling, how arrogantly corrupt Illinois politics is.
 
70Boldwin
      ID: 71154815
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 10:06 		Did I mention our previous governor now resides at a minimum security facility in Oxford, Wisconsin?

But no, that isn't enuff to scare Illinois governors straight.
 
71DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 10:17 		Damn shame. Really hate to see a good man railroaded like that.

*snicker*

Bah, couldn't do it with a straight face!
 
72Perm Dude
      ID: 22115698
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 10:23 		"[the open Senate seat] is a [expletive] valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing."

 
73Boldwin
      ID: 71154815
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 10:35 		Can you imagine Jesse Jackson with one phone on each ear? One is Bloggo trying to shake him down and the other is the Feds pressuring him to turn Bloggo in.

No wonder Jesse was close-lipped with reporters for once in his life.
 
74Boldwin
      ID: 71154815
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 10:45 		Or could Jesse be sweating the idea of his 'too low' offer being on some wire transcript?
 
75DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 11:05 		The DOJ statement, for your amusement
 
76Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 12:37 		Send 'em away for a long time.
 
77Boldwin
      ID: 71154815
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 12:52 		FWIW I think 'candidate A' is Lisa Madigan.
 
78Boldwin
      ID: 71154815
      Tue, Dec 09, 2008, 12:54 		It should be noted that Bloggo and Illinois senator Dick Durbin have recently been vocal advocates towards having the former governor Ryan pardoned by outgoing president Bush.
 
79Baldwin
      ID: 571134912
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 06:39 		So I am wondering if Dick Durbin has already contacted Bush about pardoning Blogojevich?
 
80Perm Dude
      ID: 41131911
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:05 		Durbin was also a strong advocate of making the replacement have to stand for a special election for the seat.

This all doesn't stop Bill O'Reilly, among others, from trying to tar Obama with this.
 
81walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:06 		Scott Turow (NYT)

Timothy Egan (NYT)

This is really an amazing story of delusional power, greed and sheer oblivion. I hope this guy serves hard time.
 
82Perm Dude
      ID: 41131911
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:10 		Who said it: Rod Blagojevich or Tony Soprano?
 
83walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:14 		What Happens to the Open Illinois Senate Seat Now?

This is really an unbelievable story. If I had seen this in a movie, I would have complained that "nothing so obviously stupid and transparent and illegal would ever happen like that in real life."

It's just unreal!
 
84DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:25 		Re: 80...

And here I thought for a moment we might be able to put the partisan "gotcha" crap behind us and all agree that he's a sleazeball that ought to be locked up for quite a while, shot, hung, then shot again, and defenestrated, and leave it at that. (One might think that a simple point at the LAST governor would be enough to silence that sort of garbage.)

I guess I should have known better.
 
85walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:31 		I am not worried about the right wingers who might say this is somehow connected to Obama. It's not. However, I am disappointed that it's a response.

I am more worried that somehow folks like this can somehow get to be governor, and continue in office until they do something so incredibly stunning and stupid. I feel like I am reading something that would be happening in Russia, or the Soviet Union of past.

This Article has some great quotes:

“The combination of arrogance and stupidity that would prompt him to continue in these types of behaviors is just stunning,” Dr. Redfield said. “There’s no feedback loop or reality check.”

“I almost fell over,” said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and a frequent critic of the governor. “I was speechless and sickened. In all of the millions of indictments I’ve read over the last years, I can’t remember anything as vile as this.”

and my fave:

“I’m not sure he’s playing with a full deck anymore,” Mr. Jacobs said. “I think he brought a lot of this on himself. He’s so gifted, but so flawed in a number of fundamental areas. It’s like he dared the feds to come get him.”

Many quotes like this were/are made about politicians and celebrities. However, in this case, they seem very freakin accurate!

 
86Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:36 		And here I thought for a moment we might be able to put the partisan "gotcha" crap behind us

Dreamer. Here's the headline on today's Huffington Post:

PAPER: FBI INVESTIGATING SENATOR COLEMAN
 
87DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:44 		Sigh.
 
88walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:53 		NYT: Obama’s Effort on Ethics Bill Had Role in Governor’s Fall
 
89Perm Dude
      ID: 41131911
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 10:55 		The Coleman investigation dates from some time ago--there were certainly some influence peddling whispers going on during the campaign.

O'Reilly is in his element--with a lot of muck flying around, he has no trouble getting into the mix and tossing a lot around himself, all the while congratulating himself on our behalf for doing do.
 
90Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 11:02
 
91Baldwin
      ID: 351123109
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 17:38 		Out of curiosity how well has the MSM that you listen to communicated the fact that Blagojevich is a Dem from the same nest that hatched Obama? Do they even mention he is a Dem?

To be fair Illinois is a bipartisan destroyer of politician ethics. You can count the honest ones on one hand and you count the silverware when they leave too. Jim Edgars was probably the only one in the last hundred years who wasn't corrupt 24/7 but I wonder if even he had any effect on the toll road execs donating 1/3 of their pay to the machine, and that process extended to every corruptible part of the structure.
 
92Baldwin
      ID: 351123109
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 17:49 		While we are at it, Jesse Jackson Jr. was 'senate candidate #5' mentioned in the indictment or whatever you call that FBI statement.

So we now know why Jesse Sr was so close lipped. His faction was 'only' willing to come up with a half mil 'pay-to-play', leading Blago to call them/him M*****F*****. No big surprise they would have a foundation board seat in pocket for just such a rainy day. Or whatever the plum was they offered worth $500K.

A TV reporter at the time reported that Obama was in town to talk to Blagojevich about his replacement, something confirmed by Obama high ranking aide Axelrod and recently denied by Obama.
 
93Perm Dude
      ID: 41131911
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 18:10 		Actually, Axelrod said he was mistaken. He thought Obama was in Chicago meeting with them but he was wrong.

As we can tell from the transcripts of the Governor, he was pissed that all he'd get from Obama was "appreciation."

 
94Tree
      ID: 5911341016
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 18:30 		Out of curiosity how well has the MSM that you listen to communicated the fact that Blagojevich is a Dem from the same nest that hatched Obama? Do they even mention he is a Dem?

what nest is that, the next of Illinois?

yes, it's widely reported that Blago is a Dem.

it's also been widely reported that Blago and Obama pretty much came from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CAMPS in the Illinois Democratic party, pretty much the opposite... of what you stated above.

Considered your record of exaggeration, mis-truths, and flat out lies in the past few months, your statement isn't any surprise.

from the linked article:
The two Illinois politicians have never been close and have largely operated in different Democratic Party camps in the state. Blagojevich's disdain for Obama was clear in court documents; he is quoted as calling the president-elect a vulgar term in one phone conversation recorded by the FBI.

and

Obama's circle of major Illinois political allies and supporters is largely separate from Blagojevich's, with two major exceptions. Both Obama and Blagojevich got extensive money and support from Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who is awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June on charges of using clout with Blagojevich's administration to help launch a $7 million kickback scheme. And Obama is close to Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, who has been the governor's staunchest legislative ally.

so, obviously, there are some connections, but it would be impossible for that not to be - it is, after all, politics.

nice try though. infinite monkeys at work.

 
95Baldwin
      ID: 351123109
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 19:20 		Yes, the nest that is Illinois politics. Criminals, he's been surrounded and raised up by criminals. But he walked above the slime without being touched. No wonder they whisper antichrist. How did he do that?

There are no 'completely different camps. The Dems and Reps are co-conspirators in the same scams and scandals. The whole republican party is just a willing stalking-horse for the dems in most places.

There is a slight degree of seperation between Chicago and downstate dems but that is just about who will be top dog. If Obama is more Chicago than downstate, that is no exoneration. There is no more corrupt place in the country than Cook county. That and Louisiana, every other den of thieves is only in the minor leagues of corruption.
 
96Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 21:06 		I cannot believe 67 million people voted for a corrupt Marxist who wasn't even eligible to be President.
 
97Baldwin
      ID: 351123109
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 21:23 		I on the otherhand do not have that much respect for the intelligence liberals and am not surprised.
 
98Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 23:11 		grammar and/or spelling mistakes are always best when mocking someone else's lack of intelligence.

what exactly was post 97 trying to say?
 
99Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 04:09 		I do not think we need to be afraid of folks based on their religion. - Walk

This is because you are willfully ignorant of what Wahabi imams are explicitly teaching around the world. It pleases you to sing kumbaya while others you disrespect, thanklessly save yer butt.
 
100Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 04:15 		Actually, Axelrod said he was mistaken. He thought Obama was in Chicago meeting with them but he was wrong.

As we can tell from the transcripts of the Governor, he was pissed that all he'd get from Obama was "appreciation." - PD

Speaking of willfully blind, PD believes Blagojevich received the knowlege that all Obama was willing to offer for his choice being installed was appreciation, thru what exactly PD? Telepathy? I'll give him credit for offering less than the Jesse Jackson camp, but I will not credit him with powers of divine revelation.


 
101walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 09:20 		Okay then, I am afraid of YOU, based on your relgious views. Sound better?
 
102Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 09:24 		Again, you just refuse to listen to what religious people actually say and do.
 
103Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 09:31 		While we all take a bad picture from time to time...

 
104walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 09:42 		No I don't. You generalize from extremists to the entire sub-pop. There are millions of muslims. I am sure there are thousands of normal Christians and Jews, too.
 
105Perm Dude
      ID: 111113119
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 10:22 		#100: I quoted the transcript from the taping of the governor. I have no idea how he got it. Maybe he talked with people. More likely (given your penchant for guilt by association) maybe he just knew, having known Obama in Chicago, that Obama was a standup guy and couldn't be bought.

Are you reduced to saying that the Obama people, in conveying that they wouldn't get into the swamp with Blogo, are in the wrong?
 
106Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 16:42 		I will extend my remarks. Somehow Blagojevich was informed that Obama was not willing to repay Patty Blagojevich with the same kind of 'make-work' easy money with which Michele Obama had been showered with despite her complete lack of qualifications.
 
107Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 16:47 		And somehow Obama can't take two steps without being offered the same easy money foundation jobs that Rod Blagojevich was looking for. But the guy who was only looking for the insider benefits was more corrupt than the guy who kept landing the insider benefits like Woods Foundation, Annenberg Foundation, etc. etc. Riiiight.
 
108Perm Dude
      ID: 3611571114
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 17:09 		All we know is that Blago is a corrupt politician. The rest is nonsense. Michelle Obama, by all accounts, is a smart driven woman who has been qualified in her appointed and paid positions.
 
109Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 17:32 		Again, you just refuse to listen to what religious people actually say and do.

like shoot doctors? like blow up nurses? like heap scorn on the dead? like mock dead American soldiers?

that's something religious people do. not all of them, but some of them. however, if i extend the same courtesy to christians that you extend to muslims, then, i, in essence, believe you capable of not only murder, but boasting proudly of it.

this is the double standard YOU practice. do i think that you, personally, are capable of killing somebody? nah, not really. i think you'd piss yourself first. but, because people who believe as you do have, in fact, killed for centuries and continue to do so right up and through this day, then using your standards, i believe you might very well be a murderer too.

at the very least, you'd hide a murderer in your house if you believe he killed for a good cause.

p.s. i love how you continue to heap scorn on Obama for yet another thing he's not involved with.

one thing i do believe is that he's african-american, and he's got a muslim-sounding name, and THOSE things scare you, so you're willing to try and pin anything on him.
 
110walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Dec 15, 2008, 13:46 		NYT: Fascinating Blago stuff
 
111Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 07:49 		Outstanding take on Blago-Obama interaction...

Reporter being interviewed on WLS: Jarret had absolutely zero qualifications to be senator. Obama was asking for a purely cronyism political favor and asking it for free and Blago's traditional Illinois political sensibilities were outraged. "You want me to do you a political favor and you don't want to do me one in return"?
 
112Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 08:18 		Decifering Baldwinspeak 101

Today's lesson:

When a Democrat is rumored to prefer a particular candidate for a political appointment that another official makes, it is a purely cronyism political favor and asking it for free.

When it's a Republican, any shred of public scrutiny from any source not fitting B's prerequisites as "real Republicans" (perhaps a dozen known living people) regarding the the process by which any public preference, suggestion or endorsement is made or the qualifications of said candidate is blatent abject liberal obstructionism or neocon sabotage in it's ugliest form.
 
113Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 13:13 		When it's a Republican, any shred of public scrutiny

I was the leader [here] in condemning the nomination of Harriet Miers for SCOTUS justice because she was unqualified and frankly she was more qualified than Jarret was to be senator.
 
114Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 13:52 		Today's followup lesson:

Baldwinspeak:

"I was the leader [here] in condemning the nomination of Harriet Miers for SCOTUS


Translation:

"I fancy myself as having been the leader of that charge and even though my forum activity regarding that topic on the day of the nomination and in the 3 weeks that followed amounted to a single onanistic praise of a Coulter column and an insult lobbed at Tree, Guru's archiving of all the old threads should allow that claim to go unchallenged."


Of course he didn't plan on a slow day in the newsroom for Mith. Here's what old Baldy calls "leading" the charge against an unqualified Republican SCOTUS nomination

 
115Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 15:28 		Well ok, I see now that that occurred during one of my attempts at retirement. I was however unequivical in not supporting Meirs, especially with such candidates as Ingrams and Coulter standing right there tan and ready.
 
116Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 15:30 		Ergo I was all for public scrutiny and then rejection of a republican just as I am fully justified in calling Jarret unqualified and a candidate purely due to her being a crony of Obama's.
 
117Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 12:09 		Ergo, you were nothing resembling a "leader" of any kind.

Back to the topic, a check at Jarret's Wiki page shows that she's a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of Michigan Law School, held high level positions in the Chicago mayor's office under both Washington and Daley, ran the city's Department of Planning and Development for four years and chaired the transit board for five.

Outside of government, her business experience, according to Wiki:
She is currently the CEO of The Habitat Company, a real estate development and management company, which she joined in 1995. She was a member of the board of Chicago Stock Exchange (2000-2007, as Chairman, 2004-2007).

She is also the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Chicago Medical Center,[10] Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Chicago and a Trustee of Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.[11][11] Jarrett serves on the board of directors of USG Corporation, a Chicago based building materials corporation.
And perhaps most importantly, she's been an advisor to Obama throughout his term as Senator. One would think that such a position alone would almost adequately prepare someone for the position of Senator.

Apparently you disagree. What level of experience do you claim is necessary qualify for US Senate?

Would you say that Dick Lugar, George Voinovich, Bob Corker and Norm Coleman were unqualified whent they ran for their respective Senate seats? The previous pinnacles of their experience were as mayors of Indianapolis, Cleveland, Chattanooga and St. Paul, respectively. Mitch McConnell was nothing more than a local county executive. Susan Collins was Deputy State Treasurer. Chuck Hagel, Orinn Hatch and Robert Bennett had no experience in government at all. Pete Domenici was something called a "city commission chairman". Arlen Specter was the DA of the city of Philadelphia. Is it your opinion that any or all of them were unqualified when they ran? Am I to assume they would have raised your ire had they been appointed by their respective governors?

Exactly what prerequisites are necessary to qualify for a US Senate seat?

We just finished with a campaign season in which the McCain/Palin-supporting right collectively insisted that the responsibilities of a Senator from IL pale in comparison with that of the Governor of the least densely populated state in the union, and that a term as mayor of Wasilla, a town of several thousand people at the time, is adequate training that governorship position.

Is it me or is there a rather blatant discrepency in these standards for qualification?
 
118Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 12:35 		Re: 114, I can't see the thread in question, but I remember voicing my opposition to Miers' nomination loudly on this board.

Re: 117, Don't get dragged into this debate. Baldwin thought the Mayor of Wasilla was qualified to be President. His calling out of Jarrett's alleged lack of credentials is just another act of shameless Obama hatred. The caliber of Baldwin's arguments have gotten increasingly worse as he has become, amazingly, increasingly more partisan and bitter.
 
119Seattle Zen
      ID: 91172012
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 13:20 		The link in MITH's post 114 has been moved here, it was worth bringing back to life.

Baldwin is being serious when he thinks that a radio talk host or an alcoholic anorexic are viable Supreme Court nominees. Never has his dimwittedness been more apparent.
 
121Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:33 		a) Blago definately has five candidates on his list more qualified.

b) I guarantee Coulter and Ingrams would be the two best justices on the bench if they were appointed.

c) The only reason you can't see that is because you are a liberal.
 
122Perm Dude
      ID: 811502010
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:39 		I guarantee Coulter and Ingrams would be the two best justices on the bench if they were appointed.

Better that Scalia?

Why not Hannity? He has a better handle on the issues. Lou Dobbs? Rick Warren? James Dobson?
 
123Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:48 		Duh...because they are each top notch lawyers...fully up to speed on the legal issues of the day.
 
124Perm Dude
      ID: 811502010
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:53 		Top notch in what way, exactly? Seriously--how would you measure a lawyer as being "top notch?" Are they trying cases? Perhaps they are giving legal opinions on specific cases behind the scenes?

I'm not being an obstruction here. I just don't think you have any idea what you are talking about, calling non-practicing lawyers "top notch" enough to weigh SCOTUS cases, because you don't know what "top notch" means when it comes to lawyers.

I suppose you believe that someone who is "top notch" in one field (such as political commentary) is automatically top notch in another for which they've received some training? Surely you don't want me to come up with examples with which you would disagree with yourself?
 
126Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 16:10 		They aren't Bork level, but then again no one on the SCOTUS is currently either. I mean that they have a firmer grasp on how the constitution should be interpreted and applied than anyone else on the bench. There are only two decent justices as it is and you know who they are.
 
127Perm Dude
      ID: 811502010
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 17:50 		And you seem to believe that Coulter (for instance) would be better than Scalia and Thomas.

Riiiight. Even in your own self-delusion you have to realize you've gone too far in that comment.

 
128Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 17:59 		I'm not sure Thomas ever got over the post traumatic stress of being lynched. Scalia and Coulter are close. I'd still pick her over him.
 
129Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 18:29 		Coulter on the Supreme Court. guess we're seeing what a Baldwin porn would look like.

oy. i never thought i'd see the day where i missed Steve Houpt and Toral. but wow. this board really needs an influx of intelligent conservatives, because there is a serious dearth here now.
 
130Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 18:35 		It will never happen with you here.
 
131DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 15:37 		Or you. Any intelligent one would be ashamed to have to keep you as company.
 
132Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 21:34 		Do I strike you as insecure enuff to believe that?
 
133Perm Dude
      ID: 711382110
      Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 22:07 		Typically, it isn't a matter of security. In fact, people who tend to be smugly self-secure tend to wander into the worst error because of their lack of self-examination.

Why bother examining your own beliefs when you feel so secure in them?



 
134Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 22:11 		You don't have to believe it for it to be true. The fact remains that any conservatives that might want to post on this board would be turned off once they saw that the most vocal conservative here regularly trots out absurd arguments like Ann Coulter being not only qualified to be a Supreme Court justice, but that she would be the best one. That argument is so inane that I am actually embarrassed for you.
 
135Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Mon, Dec 22, 2008, 00:20 		Don't be.
 
136Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Dec 22, 2008, 01:38 		Don't be.

someone's gotta be, since you have no sense of shame.

or honesty or integrity for that matter...
 
137Perm Dude
      ID: 3111212919
      Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 14:45 		Senate Dems will not seat Blago appointee.

Good for them. It would have been easy just to let another Dem in the caucus while things sort themselves out. This feels like the exact correct thing to do.
 
138Perm Dude
      ID: 3111212919
      Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 14:53 		Meanwhile, the Illinois Sec of State says he won't certify Blago's pick anyway.
 
139Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 15:02 		Greg Jarret interviewing Bill Salmon on FNC just now with both criticizing Harry Reid for what they call an unprecedented exclusion of a Senate nominee. They rolled footage of Burris with Jarret speaking over the video, "theres a picture of Mr. Burris, and look, he's a smart guy". Jarret continued, "you're pretty hard pressed to say that this guy doesn't belong." Salmon replied in agreement, referring to the "shrewdness" of the pick on Blogo's part.

The other anchor jumps in and completely contradicts them, noting he's not a new face, cites his failed runs for mayor and governor, says he's known as a typical "machine hack". Jarret and Salmon share a chuckle.

Bizarre exchange. 3 Dems discussed inside 90 seconds by 3 FNC on air talents and the only one who escapes criticism is Blogo.
 
140DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 15:50 		And this pains me much to say--but the Fox News guys are right.

Granted that the governor is a despicable person who is clearly shopping at the bag store (you can find him in Aisle 7: Douches).

But, thanks to the equally baggy Illinois state house and senate dragging their feet on both a special election and an impeachment (Shocking Bipartisanship Alert: I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that all these bags are Democrats), the governor's got the right under the law to appoint someone.

Further, the guy he appointed seems to be a fairly reasonable choice for the position, all things concerned: a pretty long career in state government (former IL attorney general, unsuccessful runs for governor in the past) who doesn't seem despised even by people from the other party. Slightly worrisome is that he has had a few ties to the governor (specifically, hosting a couple of fundraisers).

So, even taking the governor's bagginess into account, how can anyone justify NOT appointing the guy? Governor's got the right to do it, guy's a pretty decent choice for the position...



(And a side note: the parallels to the thread I posted yesterday about the 19 year old KKK memeber getting elected are striking, to me anyway.)

 
141Perm Dude
      ID: 3111212919
      Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 17:07 		The guy is tainted. That's why. Reid made clear weeks ago that they would likely reject anyone Blago appointed, so this not only is not surprising but has nothing to do with the the qualifications of the guy.
 
142Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 17:25 		The only 'accomplishment' this guy is hanging his hat on is that he managed to socialize public transportation for the elderly in Cook County.

He's as bad as everyone is saying but let us not lose sight of the fact that there are only a handful of politicians with the right to throw stones at him. They almost to a man, sell their public acts in violation of the law and shamelessly fundraise every day of their life in politics.
 
143Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 17:48 		the equally baggy Illinois state house and senate dragging their feet on both a special election and an impeachment (Shocking Bipartisanship Alert: I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that all these bags are Democrats)

You're right - the citizens of IL will be disenfranchised of some of their representation for as long as Congress is in session with that seat (and Emanuel's in the House, right?) unfilled.

But even if they and the state house had been in session since the scandal broke, I don't know that Blago could have been removed from office or stripped of his power to appoint the interim senator by today.

Assuming not, Senate Dems would be criticized, whatever they do. If Reid had instead announced his support for Burris, the story would have been about the currupt Chicago political machine still being allowed to service the shameless Democrats.
 
144dwetzel on BB
      ID: 559392915
      Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 18:29 		They absolutely had time to change the law to force a special election. The state legislature was called into session two weeks ago for the single purpose of passing such a bill. Some members got cold feet after that.

I suppose in theory that the governor could have just not signed that law. How perverse is that? But at least then it would be all back on him.
 
145Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 23:10 		BTW the laws are different between senate and house. House seats in this situation automatically trigger an election.
 
146DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 14:40 		Can the Senate say no?

I pretty much agree with this, though I could have done without the last couple of sentences.

People who were fond of quoting the phrase "rule of law" when it was convenient for them can't easily run away from it now, when it leads to conclusions they don't like.
 
147Perm Dude
      ID: 01129319
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 14:45 		The Senate has more power that the House in this regard (always has, in fact). If they judge the guy not to be credentialled then they aren't required to seat him.

I do see that the GOP has suddenly discovered civil rights on this matter. What a joke. A week ago Blago was a corrupt big city politico who tainted everyone (Rahm, Obama, Jackson, Jr.) who hailed from Chicago. Now the GOP says we should seat Blago's rushed pick because he's black.
 
148Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 14:50 		The only way the GOP wins in this is if a special election is held and they get their candidate in. How does the GOP acting against their own interests and recomending Burris make them racist or corrupt?
 
149Perm Dude
      ID: 01129319
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 14:52 		Anytime the GOP can force Democrats to act defensive they are acting in their own best interests.

It is the standard GOP playbook: Attack Dems and sow confusion, try to force themselves into the breach, screw national interest.
 
150Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 14:57 		You're not going to bring up Karl Rove? 8]

 
151DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 15:14 		Agreed that that's a stupid reason to seat him or not seat him. And agreed that playing that race card is pretty despicable.

Here's the aforementioned article of the Constitution:

"Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

The second paragraph is the relevant one, obviously. It doesn't specifically say that anything different would apply to the Senate as opposed to the House.

And here's (forgive me for using Wikipedia, but it's a pretty decent start) a description of the Supreme Court case involving Adam Clayton Powell that Greenfield mentioned: Powell v. McCormack

So, from a purely legal perspective, here's the problem as I see it:

1. Until something changes, the governor has the right according to the laws of the state of Illinois to appoint a replacement.

2. He did so.

3. The replacement is legally qualified (by the Constitution) to serve as a senator.


End of discussion. The guy's a senator. Whether he appointed Roland Burris, himself, Mike Ditka, or someone by lottery from among the Constitutionally-acceptable replacements, they're a senator. You can argue and whine about what an idiot he is or how tainted he is (and all of that is true enough), but it doesn't matter.
 
152Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 15:30 		Well as you pointed out, the senate can refuse to seat him so 'The guy's a senator' may be a hollow description if they exercize that and I think the odds are he won't be seated.
 
153DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 15:35 		Well as you pointed out, the senate can refuse to seat him

I did?
 
154Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 15:37 		The second paragraph is the relevant one, obviously. It doesn't specifically say that anything different would apply to the Senate as opposed to the House.

That may be true regarding the senate and house rules allowing them control of their own standards for membership...

However I heard it from Lisa Madigan's own lips [one of the top Illinois politicians] that applicable [Illinois?] rules make the vaccant senate seat a governor's appointment and the vaccant house seat an event automatically triggering a special election.
 
155Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 15:41 		AFAIK it is unsettled as to whether after impeaching him, the Illinois legislature can undo his senate appointment. I lean towards believing they can't and that they will be relying on the USA Senate to refuse to seat him.
 
156DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 15:43 		Ah, I think we're talking at completely different targets then. No idea about Emanuel's seat; I'll take your word for it.

I was referring to the people in Washington that are puffing up their chests and attempting to be outraged. Which they can be, of course, but I don't think legally they have a leg to stand on. It may or may not stop them from trying.
 
157Perm Dude
      ID: 01129319
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 15:53 		We're looking at February before the impeachment proceedings really get going, and the legal tangle over the IL SecState withholding his signature, on top of the Senate Dems seemingly holding firm not to seat anyone Blago picks will almost certainly make the pick a moot one. If he's not seated before Blago gets the boot then the next governor will get a chance to make a pick.

The Powell case was about a sleazy candidate. This one is about a sleazy process.
 
158DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 16:08 		It could be that long before impeachment, true. At this point I contend it isn't terribly relevant any more.

I don't know that Jesse White (the IL Sec. of State) has much of a leg to stand on either. He may or may not give it a try.

Then, as you note, the US Senate might try to block things further. But I think Powell is pretty clear: the US House (or, by logical extension, the Senate) has the right to say "nope, you aren't old enough" or "no, you haven't been a resident of the state for X number of years".

It would be a very, very interesting legal question of the US Senate refused to seat Burris, then Blagojevich was impeached, then the new governor tried to appoint someone else to the ostensibly vacant seat. I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I have to think that if you forced me to put a $10 Rotoguru bet on it, I'd say Burris would win the case if he pressed it.

And to your last point: Of course it's a sleazy process, because it has Blagojevich's hair gel all over it. But like it or not, it IS the legal process.
 
159Perm Dude
      ID: 01129319
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 16:20 		But that's exactly the point: The federal case being developed against the Governor is exactly to the point that the process is not legal, because of the pay-to-play allegations.
 
160DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 16:27 		Which are, to this point, just allegations. Nobody's been convicted of anything. (Further, I don't know if any of those allegations involve Burris--haven't heard anything to the effect that they do.)

Now, do I believe that they're true? Duh, of course.

Assume the worst for the moment: they find a video tape of a $100,000 wad of cash being given from Burris to Blagojevich. I'm not sure that even then, from a legal perspective, the Senate could do anything other than seat him and then expel him. Which may amount to the same thing as not seating him, but it's not exactly the same.

 
161DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 16:33 		And for the record, I think that they probably SHOULD, in an ideal world, be able to ignore any Blago appointment. And if the Illinois state legislature had gotten off it's collective keister, that might have happened.

But I don't think that's what the law says.
 
162Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 16:44 		Just by doing a cursory google search for Roland Burris and by looking at his political career, there doesn't appear to be anything corrupt about him yet.

One thing that did stick out is that he's on the board of directors for Inland Real Estate Corporation. It is a publicly traded real estate investment trust company that specializes in medium-sized shopping centers. Not sure of any possible Rezko problems with that, but I would imagine that would have come to light by now.

It trades under the symbol IRC and the stock performance has been in freefall like most of the market, but it looks like around very early December that the stock has tried to return to it's September numbers.
 
163DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 17:19 		The real estate company I work for has just listed a couple of vacancies in centers Inland owns. (If anyone is looking for retail space in the Champaign, IL area, let me know!) Obviously, that's not a huge nugget of information, but in my limited dealings with them so far, they seem like fine folk who know what they're doing.

I highly doubt that someone being on the board of directors there would have much of anything to do with the day to day operations, of course, and I have no idea what other properties they have, but if they stuff they have that we're working on is representative of their portfolio as a whole, they really do know what they are doing.

 
164Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 18:40 		Did you see the news yesterday and today with Bobby Rush and Roland Burris invoking the race card? It is pathetic and unreal regarding the lows to which politicians will go.
 
165Perm Dude
      ID: 01129319
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 20:24 		Rush is a guy with a 60's racial mentality who is the kind of politician Obama has been running against for some time. It is worth noting that Rush has been holding a grudge against Obama ever since he ran against Rush in his first race.

They act like Chicago Al Sharptons, where this will be a blow against the black man if this doesn't go through. And sadly the racial flames are being fanned by Limbaugh and others in the GOP who merely see this as an opportunity to attack Dems.

But does anyone doubt that those same people would be attacking Dems is they accepted Burris' appointment as being tainted?
 
166Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 20:28 		Sorry. The race card here is pathetic and it is not a partisan issue.
 
167Perm Dude
      ID: 01129319
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 21:25 		Is certainly is pathetic. And it is being toss down by Limbaugh and others for partisan reasons.
 
168Baldwin
      ID: 711143122
      Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 23:15 		Was Rush even on today? I thot he was on vacation.
 
169Baldwin
      ID: 711143122
      Thu, Jan 01, 2009, 01:08 		Rush wasn't on today, in fact he hasn't been around for a week and won't be back until the fifth...

...which leads me to ask what PD meant when he said, And it is being toss down by Limbaugh and others for partisan reasons?

Perhaps you had a brainsnap and mistook discussions of what Bobby Rush said for...?
 
170Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 15:22 		Richardson withdraws nomination as Commerce Secretary
 
171DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 17:29
Someone agrees with me. I guess that's a good thing?

link
 
172Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 11:09 		Latest buzz on Gov Blago...

There is the chance that even if he is impeached in the next couple days, he would have the ability to refuse to call the new senate into session so that they would thus be unable to convict him.

Granted that would be mindboggling but this guy has been pulling massively confrontational stunts against the Illinois legislature as a matter of course.

He once called a special session to force them to deal with an issue and then failed to show up himself tho he was in town. This is the one guy shameless enuff to pull this trick.
 
173Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 18:25 		Harry Reid:
"A lot of people tried to make this a racial issue, but Roland Burris has not, and will not," Reid said.

"He obviously is a very engaging, extremely nice man. He presents himself well," added Reid, who met with Burris for the first time this morning.
Well no, he played a heavy clumsy race card like he was stuck in a time warp, he slurs his speach and needs to have every question repeated before he can formulate an answer.

Other than that we can at least point out that he fits right in with a recent trend in Illinois of sending unqualified and wrongheaded senators to congress.



See Althouse
 
174Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:53 		Blagojevich is unanimously thrown out of office. [with perhaps a few refusing to vote] Looks like he will be banned from future office in Illinois as well.
 
175walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:56 		Wow, yeah, I just read that.

59-0

I wonder what he will do next? I think he's gonna try and do something on TV.
 
176Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 18:00 		The only cloud is that now the other Illinois polititians who are every bit as corrupt if not moreso, almost to a man, will now be raising my taxes. The only plus in Blago's resume was his holding the line on taxes. Fees he raised, but he resisted taxes.
 
177Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 18:01 		WLS offered him a radio gig, but that was prolly too small and just a gimmick.

Lobbyist? Lawyer?
 
178Perm Dude
      ID: 55072921
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 00:31 		#174: Not only was the vote for both resolutions unanimous, but everyone was present and voted.

Roll Call (pdf)
 
179Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 04:46 		A few changed their votes from present to yes, at the last second after seeing it was unanimous. When I posted there were still two voting present.
 
180Boldwin
      ID: 581202816
      Mon, Mar 02, 2009, 20:36 		I thot this was funny.

My guess is that it is raw stenography. Anyone familiar with that?
 
181DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Mar 02, 2009, 23:01 		If you look at the "original", it looks OK. My guess is that it's some crappy OCR software at work.
 
182DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, May 13, 2009, 15:09 		Rezko and Rove?
 
183Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 17, 2010, 19:44 		Verdict: 1 count guilty, 23 counts mistried.
 
184Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 14:26
 
185Mith
      ID: 98342014
      Tue, Nov 20, 2012, 10:12 		Schadenfreude
 
186Boldwin
      ID: 1010402018
      Tue, Nov 20, 2012, 23:38 		Criminals who refuse to count the military vote don't deserve that concession speech.
 
187sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Nov 20, 2012, 23:47 		proof? And no rightwing blogs. An actual news source.
 
188DWetzel
      ID: 25740420
      Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 00:56 		Fortunately, he had to give it to real Americans, not Christofascists.
 
189sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 01:00 		Wonder how much trouble Rove will be in, for running an illegal Super-PAC?
 
190DWetzel
      ID: 25740420
      Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 01:33 		It's only illegal if the liburulz are doing it, dude. If the Christofascists are doing it, it's good old American ingenuity at work.
 
191sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 01:54 		BUSTED! Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS failed to file legally required paperwork

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, or Crossroads GPS for short, the SuperPAC founded by longtime Republican operative Karl Rove, filed as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organization with the federal Internal Revenue Service, as legally required by federal law. However, Crossroads GPS has its legal address in Warrenton, Virginia, and Crossroads GPS is required by Virginia state law to register as a charitable organization. Crossroads GPS did NOT register as a charitable organization in Virginia.

Failing to register in VA, makes them ineligible to do any fund raising.