Jumbo Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 I don't really know Mad Mike, so can't comment. He's trouble. But he drives a cool car and takes great pictures. That gets you a lot of slack on ES. Not as much as Hunny or keeastman, but a fair amount for a guy. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 To provide another creative way for some members to show what juvenile jackasses they are in addition to the traditional method of simply posting. Hey!! Finally!! ES is catering to the fans!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Some of you are hilarious. HINTS?! Obama's people told the idiot that all he would get was the Presidents appreciation. Now the talk is that Obama's camp were the ones that brought in the feds, or at least helped them.If you look at what the crook is saying on the tapes, he is furious that Obama wasn't going to help him out. We've heard 3 minutes of 300 minutes: lets not just clear everyone and call it a day.. And when i say hints mr. can't understand i agree with you.. I meant: Mr. Drago wanted money and Mr. Obama's team said no. Then the F' bombs started dropping.. See: easy. Now argue with someone that actually disagrees with you. Though i was 100% correct in my assumptions on the meetings: I would have been shocked if it didn't happen. You can't have a smooth transition of power if nobody talks to anyone else about the vacancy. It's basic fundamentals. The lying cheating stealing part is disconcerting. Reading the article on Nov 5th 2008: (Thank you.) Reading the article on Jesse Jackson Jr. (uh ohh) And finding out this morning they have 300 minutes that Drago will have access to for his defense: (it will get ugly for someone) Again, the simple solution: Lie Detector Testing every 6 months... All sides should agree on this. Have you taken money or gifts based on your job? Have you done anything illegal in the last 6 months? any lie/inconclusive is followed up by more testing....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 If the Press would label Blagojevich a Democrat as many times as they say "Obama had nothing to do with it"....maybe my disgust at the liberal media would lessenMaybe not When it came to network coverage on the big 3, it was shown last night that: ABC: Said he had roots in the Chicago Democratic machine. NBC: Did Not Identify Blagojevich as a Democrat at all CBS: Said he and Obama have both been leaders in the Illinois Democartic party for years. Very minimal mention to nonexistent. It does bring back up questions of associations and dealings. And yeah if it was a GOP type there would be questions of how this will affect the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Then I suppose you are in favor of investigating obama, and having an open dialogue about this case and not just using humilation tactics to back off dissenters.I want obama to use his new office to blow these guys out of the water, I hope you want the same thing if you are willing to. I will understand if you dont feel this way, the left gets the nod for party loyality. If Obama was invovled, of course investigate it. However, the Attorney General said that Obama wasn't invovled. So what exactly is there to investigate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/questions-arise.htmlThat would be wrong On the Chicago TV show "Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz" on June 27, 2002, state Sen. Obama said, "Right now, my main focus is to make sure that we elect Rod Blagojevich as Governor, we..." "You working hard for Rod?" interrupted Berkowitz. "You betcha," said Obama. "Hot Rod?" asked the host. "That's exactly right," Obama said. In 2004, then-Gov. Blagojevich enthusiastically endorsed Obama for the Senate seat after he won the nomination, and Obama endorsed Blagojevich for his 2006 re-election race in early 2005. In the Summer of 2006, then-U.S. Sen. Obama backed Blagojevich even though there were serious questions at the time about Blago's hiring practices. uh... in the PRIMARIES dude, in the PRIMARIES. Who in world do you think the democratic gov (senator) is going to support in the senatorial (gubernatorial) election in their own state? c'mon now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 It was just reported Blago had a conference call taped. And Valerie Jarrett was allegedly in on this call as well as someone from D.C. There are rumors in the Chicago media that Jarrett heard something from Blago which made her uncomfortable and told Rahm Emmanuel. He then proceeded to contact the FBI. Who knows if it is true but rumors are swirling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Jumbo is mod-pwning this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinSkins Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 I did find it hard to believe that during the campaign McCain didn't hammer Barrack for being a senator from the most corrupt state in the Union. People that think Obama is squeaky clean are naive, or just plain dumb. Hard as it may be to believe right now, Illinois comes in at 18 on the political corruption scale. http://news.aol.com/article/north-dakota-tops-state-corruption-list/274636 I've only lived in eight states so I'm not sure I can name the most or least corrupt one. One was Illinois and there was certainly corruption there but saw enough similar questionable behavior in all the other seven states that I would be reluctant to make the same undocumented sweeping generalization as you have. It seems you may not be a person who allows his argument to be limited or influenced by any facts? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.