BBC BLOGS - Justin Webb's America
« Previous | Main | Next »

Blagojevich and Obama

Justin Webb | 21:02 UK time, Wednesday, 10 December 2008

Is Obama damaged by the Blagojevich affair?

I suspect not - most Americans are not minded to think ill of a new president, particularly this president, particularly when there is no evidence of any kind suggesting that they should.

Efforts to link him with Mr Blagojevich will look cheap: the time is not right for Republican hopefuls to get any traction.

Though having said that, some sympathetic commentators were a little disappointed with Team Obama's initial handling of the news

This piece from earlier in the year is a nice overview of the President-elect's political life in Chicago.

A friend of mine told me once of being in a room with Mr Obama after he had done some business with some local wheeler-deelers and he joked that he wanted to wash his hands.

Looks to me that he did wash his hands rather thoroughly; and such an action - careful, forward thinking, unsentimental - would be in keeping with what we know to be his political character.

Comments

  • 1. At 9:15pm on 10 Dec 2008, OhNeverMind wrote:

    Obama the wind of change? More like the bad farts of yesteryear. Depressing eh?

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 9:36pm on 10 Dec 2008, abileen wrote:

    The lead investigator wanted to make note that he heard the mayor say he didn't want to give the seat to one of "Obama's people" beause all he would get in return was "appreciation". Of course, he didn't mean it as a compliment....

    By the way, I live in Chicago, Illinois, and I'm so glad to see this guy go. The third largest city in the U.S. with an outrageous tax rate somehow wasn't able to fund public transit or improve our notoriously awful schools. Now I know why.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 10:25pm on 10 Dec 2008, frayedcat wrote:

    Can anyone play politics without getting their hands dirty?
    "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."
    Thomas Jefferson

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 10:28pm on 10 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    There is no evidence whatsoever linking President-elect Obama to the Blagojevich fiasco. In fact, according to Fitzgerald, the prosecutor handling this case, the opposite is true. Hopefully, Blago will end up in jail, where he belongs.

    Obama is doing just fine and, thus far, he has earned the respect, admiration and support of most Americans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 10:41pm on 10 Dec 2008, dceilar wrote:

    From the posts I've read it sounds like this State has been corrupt for a while. Is there any way for the Federal Government to step in and take control over it? I'm guessing not. Which raises the question: how can this State clean itself from this corruption which sounds like it's coiled round it's heart like a worm?

    I ask this because if this was in the UK the central Government would have taken control of it. This is because local government exists purely because Parliament created it - and what it creates it can take away.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 10:51pm on 10 Dec 2008, Wingsonwinds wrote:

    Whether a direct connection is officially found or not, Why is it that so many people around or in the same places as Obama are turning out to be corrupt or off kilter in some fashion? At the minimum, I have to wonder how perceptive Mr. Obama is in people, which gives me concern over his cabinet. At the maximum, I have to question his own character. Will he be the man of soundness that everyone hopes him to be, or a puppet for people who have ill intentions or even more so a deceptive person himself. In the end, time will tell.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 10:53pm on 10 Dec 2008, LesMajestey wrote:

    Would someone show me the quote in the transcripts where the Governor asks for a bribe?

    Saying "what's in it for me?" is express or implied in almost every transaction.

    __________________

    The previous thread drifted from this media feeding frenzy about the Governor to the corruption of consumerism and then to the irrationality of greens-

    interesting implied linkages.

    Will Justin object if we start talking about whether 30% of America (and 26% of Britain) would prefer a dictator who is not concerned with legislative procedures?

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 10:56pm on 10 Dec 2008, LesMajestey wrote:

    # 6

    In a long life, I have found that people almost invariably assume that others think and are motivated as is the observer.

    In other words: a crook will see a crook and an honest man will see an honest man when each looks at the same individual.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 11:21pm on 10 Dec 2008, OldSouth wrote:

    No, I doubt this will touch the President-elect.

    Jesse Jackson, Jr., however, doth seem to protest waaay too much!

    I hope, in the wake of this stinking scandal, that the Illinois legislature will show the governor the door, and call an election for the open seat.

    Only that course can remove the stain of suspicion from the next occupant of this particular Senate seat.

    I'm not holding my breath on either event occurring, though.

    Maybe, though, some cost efficiencies can be achieved by housing both Govs. Blagojevich and Spitzer(remember him?) in the same cell. They can compare notes as they serve their time...

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 00:09am on 11 Dec 2008, Wingsonwinds wrote:

    To Les Majestey,

    People saw a savior in Hitler and he was not. Not to imply Obama is a Hitler, only to say that sometimes an honest man thinks he sees another honest man, but really he sees a crook. It is good to be discerning, as much as an observer can be, rather than to slide along with the majority. I think it is the question about the unknown of Obama that even kindles these kinds of discussions to begin with.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 00:21am on 11 Dec 2008, regular_josephina wrote:

    If anything indicated Obama was remotely involved, the investigators probably would have bugged his office as well as Blag's.

    It's admirable that Obama made it through his Chicago years with his honesty seemingly intact.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 00:34am on 11 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Old South, I think you either miss or demonstrate Les Majestey's point. I can't be sure which.

    Peace and the benefit of doubt
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 00:37am on 11 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    The New Yorker article is a long slog, but by far the most detailed account of Obama's rise that I have seen. He's not afraid to use whoever he needs, and he's not afraid to ditch them either. It at least gives the impression that he does not feel beholden to anyone, nor does he necessarily share his acquaintances' views. As these were 2 of the concerns I had about him, I am encouraged.

    To counter that, though, Axelrod's very explicit statement that Obama had discussed his senate seat with Blago rings more true than the subsequent denials.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 01:21am on 11 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    I guess that if Mr Obama can maintain that he had no connection with the Governor and the choice of his successor until late on December 15th, all will be well. That date, despite the lectern signs, is truly when he becomes "president-elect" and not a moment before. One wonders if Mr Blagojevich has any ammunition of his own which might reflect adversely on Mr Obama. Could be an interesting five days.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 01:42am on 11 Dec 2008, abileen wrote:

    #6 wrote:

    "I ask this because if this was in the UK the central Government would have taken control of it. This is because local government exists purely because Parliament created it - and what it creates it can take away."

    It's pretty much the opposite here. Our constitution was made to grant states the most rights, and the federal government the least. The name says it all: United States. If the federal government stepped in on this, it would be a scandal. I'm not saying the UK's way is a bad idea, just that that would never fly in the States.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 01:42am on 11 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #5, dceilar, in a word, no.

    Justin, I believe that you are misreading things.
    Any way one looks at, this exposure of the
    Chicago underworld reflects badly on Obama,
    since he was a product of it.

    Axelrod's comment, in particular, opens the door
    to further investigation, and as we all know, it's
    not the initial action which poisons an administration,
    it's the subsequent cover-up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 01:50am on 11 Dec 2008, LesMajestey wrote:

    # 10

    One should be careful about references to Hitler.

    Factually, Germany had Red revolution in the streets and the Nazis were the only way that the public saw of maintaining order.

    Secondly, the industrialists thought that they could control him.

    Later, propaganda took over; people got jobs and Hitler started to look like a Messiah.

    To begin with, I know of no evidence to indicate that Hitler was thought "honest".
    Rather, he was seen as the lesser of evils

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 02:38am on 11 Dec 2008, SunshinePlus wrote:

    Pleeeez. . . .there is no story here. Surely the press has more relevant and thought provoking issues to research.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 03:21am on 11 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #18. SunshinePlus: "Pleeeez. . . .there is no story here. Surely the press has more relevant and thought provoking issues to research."

    Such as? If even if two of the dots connected, the scandal could reach vast proportions; since Mr Obama is not yet, officially, President-elect, there's a good story for all sides.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 03:53am on 11 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #19, David_C, even if he does get in, there is
    still a story here. Obama is no longer as invulnerable,
    politically, as he was just a few days ago.

    Obama should have said something like,

    "We talked about potential appointees, and
    shared our views about them. I was unaware
    of any demand for bribery on the part of
    the governor."

    That would have been the end of it.

    Now, it's going to become a big thing, especially
    if the Obama administration interferes in any
    way with the investigation. The story doesn't
    end with the inauguration; it could last for years.


    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 03:54am on 11 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    An interesting and comprehensive article by the New Yorker. It confirms gut instinct - never mind the media razzmatazz. You come away knowing what you felt to be true all along - he is a consummate politician, not religious, clever and calculating, and extremely ambitious.

    Does that tell us if he will be a good president or a bad one? No.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 04:35am on 11 Dec 2008, Peter Dewsnap wrote:

    This sort of thing really worries me. Had I done anything like this in my job, I would have been fired instantly with no trial and no redress. But people in the postion of Blagojevich are asked to resign. Why are they so different? Throw them out instantly and make them pay back all the illegal money they have accumulated, plus heavy fines and a prison sentence.
    Peter D South Carolina

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 05:08am on 11 Dec 2008, BraunSA wrote:

    I don't see much worry for Obama. The DNC and the Chicago Political machine on the other hand are at least on notice. They were called in (Richard Daly) during the Bush-Gore recount. If anything it is a blessing for the World and Obama who can respectfully decline their requests. "They" will have to be ever watchful of their appearance and if even their fly is open some might cry foul as to their intentions. Obama should vacation in Hawaii and steer clear of the windy city and those entrenched there...

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 05:14am on 11 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    It occurred to me while watching the news tonight that, although the Illinois governor talked about illegal deals, there is no evidence that he actually made offers - unless that information is being withheld. Talk alone can't convict anyone. He could just say he was shooting his mouth off. In any case his career is finished.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 05:31am on 11 Dec 2008, Wingsonwinds wrote:

    Well said gunsandreligion.

    The question of Obamas Character is continually being brought to the forefront because so many of his affiliations are being exposed with questionable behavior. It isn't just about Blagojevich alone, but those exposed during his campaign also. In the height of frenzy over the ideal for change that he represents, I don't imagine, even if more such affiliations are found, it would have any major impact on his presidency right away. Obama was voted in because people wanted a savior in the midst of uncertainty and loss. They don't see Obama, they see an idea instead. The very fact this article is being discussed shows the defensiveness and uncertainty of his impact on America.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 05:32am on 11 Dec 2008, Wingsonwinds wrote:

    Well said gunsandreligion.

    The question of Obamas Character is continually being brought to the forefront because so many of his affiliations are being exposed with questionable behavior. It isn't just about Blagojevich alone, but those exposed during his campaign also. In the height of frenzy over the ideal for change that he represents, I don't imagine, even if more such affiliations are found, it would have any major impact on his presidency right away. Obama was voted in because people wanted a savior in the midst of uncertainty and loss. They don't see Obama, they see an idea instead. Yet, the very fact this article is being discussed shows the defensiveness and uncertainty of his impact on America.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 05:42am on 11 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:

    Even though i dont care for the governor, it seems the media has already found him guilty. I'm also a bit surprised Fitzgerald read so much of the complaint publicly. Can the man get a fair trial now? I wonder.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 07:25am on 11 Dec 2008, moderate_observer wrote:

    doesnt seem like much of a story. Of course Obama would be associated with the governor of illinois because he was until last month, the senator of the state. He also worked as a state senator and they are both from th same party.

    Its also not conceivable however that Obama or his people would not have discussed his possible replacement, even as a formality. That would be odd.

    Obama in a sense brought himself into this controversy. WIth the help of the media of course.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 09:21am on 11 Dec 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Philadelphia has had its share of dirty politics, and trying to link Obama to Blagojevich is a losing proposition. It's just a shame for Chicago that this comes on the heels of the previous Republican governor serving six and a half years for corruption and this governor winning on a pledge to clean things up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 10:31am on 11 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #4

    I agree that Obama has no conection.

    But as far as earning? Let him be President not President-elect. Thats when he can start earning.

    I do not like Jessie Jackson JR for the same reason I am no fan of Caroline Kennedy. Being given positions just because of name, but right now he is going to be collaratal damage in this.

    I just hope it takes Axelrod down.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 10:44am on 11 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    I don't see evidence of a direct link at all, however if the president elect had been Bush II not Saint Obama you'd all be screaming 'inpeachment' at the top of your voices.

    Obama is simply lucky he's still riding the wave of good PR.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 10:55am on 11 Dec 2008, KAS1865 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 33. At 11:20am on 11 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 30

    "I do not like Jessie Jackson JR for the same reason I am no fan of Caroline Kennedy. Being given positions just because of name, but right now he is going to be collaratal damage in this."

    I am not impressed by either of the Jessie Jacksons. I agree that nepotism is the last thing we need, but the problem is not limited to the Kennedys; how about former Florida Governor Jeb Bush considering running for Mel Martinez' senatorial seat?

    Should we assume that only a few families in a nation of over 300 million people have the attributes and qualifications needed for higher office? Perhaps we should consider a monarchy shared by two or three influential families, as a minimum those exemplary specimens of humanity would marginalize all the Blago like minions of this world...

    Apologies for the sarcasm.


    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 11:22am on 11 Dec 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Well if Obama had turned up on any of the transcripts that would have been a story! As it is there does'n't seem to be any link at all. Did Obama discuss his replacement at some point with Blagojevich? Yes. Was he involved in the recent discussions which are now the subject of legal proceedings? No. As for the point made by Wings above .. "The question of Obamas Character is continually being brought to the forefront because so many of his affiliations are being exposed with questionable behavior." I think that this has been dealt with at length already, though for some those questions will never go away, just like the birth certificate 'issue'. Unless there are startling new revelations this is a non-issue for Obama.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 11:35am on 11 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 26

    I respectfully disagree. I did not vote for Obama because I consider him a latter day Saint or a man with divine powers capable of solving all our problems. I voted for him because I liked his fiscal, economic, and foreign policy proposals; and because I am impressed with his education, knowledge of national and international issues, and his demeanor.

    The fact that he attended events or had contact with prominent people in Illinois should not be regarded as complicity in wrongdoing or an endorsement of the actions and values espoused by some politicians in that state. As a senator from Illinois he had to participate in events with the Governor of his home state, the same way every other senator does. It is also wrong to demonize an entire state because of the actions of some corrupt politicians, most people in that state are decent hard working people, they simply have very poor judgment when it comes to voting. The same could be said for Louisiana, Ohio, New Jersey, and Florida.

    I agree that it is premature to judge Obama's effectiveness as President, but everything he has done thus far suggest that better days are ahead, in spite of all the damage done by his predecessor.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 11:41am on 11 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    Chicago politics has been corrupt for a very long time now. During my research into Al Capone, I learned a lot about it. None of this is new.

    As for if Obama is involved, as far as I can tell he isn't. Would this sort of politics have corrupted him as well? You can go 2 directions, either live with it and eventually become corrupted just like everyone else, or you can actively fight it. The only way really to tell which way the USA Prez chose is to simply watch him and the choices he makes. Sorry kids, we will never know for certain. We can make inferences based on what the man actually does, rather than on rumors on what he might do or be like.

    Therefore, I feel we should wait and watch for a few years, as it will take that amount of time to find out what effect Obama is having on things. It's not instant, as some who have posted here and the media have led us to believe. Bear in mind the man isn't even in office yet! Once we have more evidence, we can then predict what will happen next with more certainty. Since Obama is a relative newcomer to US politics, we have precious little "track record" to base predictions on.

    Let us wait, and see if we want to find the truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 12:26pm on 11 Dec 2008, freecode wrote:

    It's amazing to me to read the racist right try to link Obama to anything - Rush Limbaugh said Obama was only in it for blacks - O'Reilly claiming Obama was a terrorist, now they are trying everything they can find to link him to anything they can at all.

    The real truth is that Obama not being a corrupt politician is what has been the real miracle here. 50% of all Illinois Governors in the last 8 terms have gone to jail. That's a sad statistic and a statement to Chicago's political system. It's not that different from Detroit, New York or other older, large cities with entrenched corrupted political systems.

    The racists are desperate to blame anything on Obama at this point; the reality is that he is an exception, and he isn't corrupted.

    However, if you are a member of the class that raped the nation for profits under Bush - you're desperate to return to those times when you can wreck the world for your own greed. After all, the nation was known for having the best government money could buy for the last eight years - it was all about selling out the nation and stealing the Surplus that existed under Clinton. Yet you don't hear them squealing about that theft - because they benefitted - plain and simple.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 12:30pm on 11 Dec 2008, LesMajestey wrote:

    I agree with the comment that a more interesting topic should be found.

    This is an example of media feeding frenzy.

    Trades are the business of politics. Bribes are illegal. Where is the evidence that the Governor asked for more than some trade?

    Cook county politics, as mentioned above, have been infamous at least since the days of Al Capone.

    What topics could be of more interest?

    a) Thirty percent of US citizens polled said that they "preferred a strong leader who does not have to bother with elections or parliaments"! (and 26% of Britons).

    b) Policy toward Iran. Reports that its population is pro-USA and democratically-inclined, but repressed by the mullahs and their Revolutionary Guard, that the number of blogs in Iran is astoundlingly high in comparison with other countries, etc.

    c) Policy toward the United Nations and toward international law. Views of the "Right to Protect" and the "Right to Intervene".

    d) Policy towards Latin America.

    Those are some important topics. This frenzy over another Illinois governor and imagined links to Obama and imagined his corruption is:

    1) tabloid-style pandering

    2) requiring no thought, effort or research

    3) is not news, but rather manufactured news.

    Surely, the BBC has some people who can look at American issues and investigate?

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 12:32pm on 11 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    Anyone with a friend called Toni Preckwinkle, has to have something going for them

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 12:50pm on 11 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    #37 Its amazing to me to see you claim that anyone who criticises Obama is a racist while simultaneously claiming that anyone who supported Bush is a thief.

    Yet another case of the insane polarisation I constantly see on this blog which basically boils down to Democrat = Saint. Republican = paedophilic warmongering satan worshiper.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 12:59pm on 11 Dec 2008, Reuben wrote:

    Of course Obama discussed the appointment for the Senate Seat with Blagojevich, he's the Governor entrusted, by the Illionois State Constitution, with the responsibility of that appointment.

    Sure Blago looks like a creepy Russian mobster from the movies, and Chicago a troubled history of political corruption, that doesn't mean Blago was really trying to sell the senate seat. Blago's statement to the fed points the finger at JJ Jr. In America, the burden of proof rests on the accuser.

    Who stands to gain by Blago's removal for corruption, or JJ Jr. being under a cloud of suspicion?

    Who would the democratic party of Illionois want to fill that seat?

    Would an immediate special election instead of a political appointment be more of an advantage to the democratic party than gambling on an uncertain political situation two years from now?

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 1:08pm on 11 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    How Obama Fought Through The Illinois Ethics Swamp

    "The New York Times reported on Wednesday morning that the President-elect played an important role in helping pass the ethics bill that ultimately was responsible for Blagojevich's downfall."
    Well worth a read

    Peace and the Augean Stables
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 1:25pm on 11 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 40

    "Republican = paedophilic warmongering satan worshiper."

    Actually, many of us regard the Republican party as an organization controlled by Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force. We don't consider Republicans Satanic worshipers, instead we see them as what they are, religious fanatics intent on suppressing everybody else's views and imposing theirs upon others. You are spot on on the warmongering part though.

    I wonder how they are dealing with the latest remarks made by their hero regarding the incompatibility of creationism and volution...

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 1:30pm on 11 Dec 2008, Iapetus wrote:

    #40: "Yet another case of the insane polarisation I constantly see on this blog which basically boils down to Democrat = Saint. Republican = paedophilic warmongering satan worshiper"

    Of course, if you went to a Republican-leaning blog or forum, the formula would be

    Republican = Saint. Republican = paedophilic Marxist satan worshiper

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 1:46pm on 11 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Sciurus,

    "Would an immediate special election instead of a political appointment be more of an advantage to the democratic party than gambling on an uncertain political situation two years from now?"
    Some consideration of just that question, here. In any event, the post will be up for "normal" election in 2010.

    Peace and Chicago Politics
    ed



    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 1:47pm on 11 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #38

    Regarding your iem 3 topic. How about this for an HYS:

    Is it time for the U.N to show more consideration to the United States views?

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 1:49pm on 11 Dec 2008, Reuben wrote:

    Peter_Sym (#40):

    I agree with you:

    freecode's one and only post (ever) has expressed the same kind of ignorant prejudice that discourages thoughtful political discussion with polarizing labels.

    He describes his ideological opponents as the epitome of evil, when at their worst they are merely un-enlightened. And he elevates the leaders of the progressive movement to sainthood, when they are anything but saints.

    Obama's questionable associations have gone ignored for the same reason that Dubya has not been impeached: the political establishment in Washington does not want to set off a partisan civil war between progressives and conservatives.

    Give President Elect Barrack Hussein Obama a chance to succeed in office;
    If he does well in his 1st term, support his best efforts and re-elect him in 2012. If he fails, oppose his worst propositions and then elect someone else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 2:06pm on 11 Dec 2008, lochraven wrote:

    #8 LesMajesey said:"In a long life, I have found that people almost invariably assume that others think and are motivated as is the observer.

    In other words: a crook will see a crook and an honest man will see an honest man when each looks at the same individual."

    I brought this up again because I thought it is worth reading and thinking about it again.
    Another way of saying it is, "It takes one to know one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 2:09pm on 11 Dec 2008, Montressor wrote:

    I nominate #38 LesMajesty for "Next BBC News Blogger."

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 2:17pm on 11 Dec 2008, jay2204 wrote:

    Obama obviously new nothing of this. He would have his opinions on who should be his successor but that is as far as it would go.

    As for Governor Blagojevich, he should face prison, he has gona directly against the American ethos of freedom and equality.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 2:27pm on 11 Dec 2008, LesMajestey wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 52. At 3:00pm on 11 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    "46. At 1:47pm on 11 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:
    ref #38

    Regarding your iem 3 topic. How about this for an HYS:

    Is it time for the U.N to show more consideration to the United States views?"




    And what particular views would these be?

    John Bolton's? Bill Clinton's? David Dukes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 3:06pm on 11 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    #43. Do you remember Clinton firing Cruise missiles at Sudan, Iraq (4 times was it?) & afghanistan, plus the Somali debacle and bombing Serbia flat. Quite keen to use force for a 'peacemaker' was Bill. Equally what party did the only US president ever to use nuclear weapons represent? Who nearly started WW3 over Cuba and which two presidents presided over 55,000 US deaths in vietnam?

    Thats why I think the Republicans being labelles as war mongers is quite amusing.

    #44 agreed totally. Its quite pathetic really because the difference between republican policies and democrat policies are pretty subtle at least compared to the variation between parties in most countries.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 3:21pm on 11 Dec 2008, KAS1865 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 55. At 3:29pm on 11 Dec 2008, Oz2StL wrote:

    I am also an from Illinois and would just like to mention the this guy has been under investigation since he got elected. Don't know how he got reelected (possible involves good ole Chicago). The State has a seperate case they are working on against him that is being sat on will this federal investigation runs its course.

    Remeber the wire tapes were already in place, and were lucky enough to catch this "sale." Thats what the feds jumped on, and probably have other charges they are withholding. Also the Illinois legislator has been working on booting this guy for almost a year. The majority of us in Illinois have been celebrating his arrest, and media attention with hopes it will finally clean up are government. At least a little.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 3:41pm on 11 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    Corruption crosses party lines.

    A question for supporters of Democrats:

    Isn't Blago's transgressions far worse than Ted Steevens or Duke Cunningham's?

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 3:56pm on 11 Dec 2008, SirAndyRChicago wrote:

    Justin, you used to be a journalist before you seemingly joined the communications team of the President-Elect. Your job is to be robustly skeptical of all politicians, yet you can’t wait to excuse Obama before you know the facts.

    Luckily, there are some real journalists at Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16465.html) who want to ask Obama some tough questions:

    1 – “Did you communicate directly or indirectly with Blagojevich about picking your replacement in the U.S. Senate?”

    2 – “Why didn’t you or someone on your team correct your close adviser David Axelrod when he said you had spoken to Blagojevich about picking your replacement?”

    3. “When did you learn the investigation involved Blagojevich’s alleged efforts to ‘sell’ your Senate seat, or of the governor’s impending arrest?”

    5 – “Did federal investigators interview you or anyone close to you in the investigation?”
    6 – “When did you and Blagojevich last speak and about what?”

    7 – “Do you regret supporting Blagojevich (in both his races for Governor, even though you knew his was under Federal investigation—my addition)?”

    Justin, you are the Chris Matthews of the BCC--how sad for you and what a terrible indictment of the BBC that someone so senior is allowed to show such unambiguous bias.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 4:11pm on 11 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    "A question for supporters of Democrats:

    Isn't Blago's transgressions far worse than Ted Steevens or Duke Cunningham's?"
    A question for the poser: Why does the comparison of two wrongs matter?

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 4:15pm on 11 Dec 2008, LesMajestey wrote:

    # 49 Thanks (I think), but what is it?

    My effort to change the topic to the R2P question, on this basis that this was a manufactured news item already talked to death- was removed.

    ___________________________

    Continuing with the present banal and overdone exploration:

    The Christian Science Monitor today reports a massive increase in FBI corruption investigations

    and seems to consider the Governor's investigation to be newsworthy.

    Perhaps others may successfully suggest more interesting topics for Webb's America Forum?

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 4:22pm on 11 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    MK (#56), I will stipulate that both Republicans and Democrats can be corrupt, and that the alleged misdeeds of Blagonevich are worse than those of Ted Stevens. This is not a profound insight. What conclusion are you trying to imply?

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 4:38pm on 11 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #52

    John Bolton would be fine but how about the majority of american people who see.

    A corrupt orginization who rapes children, condones dictatorships, has a person assigned just to bash Israel and can't resolve crisis.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 4:41pm on 11 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #58

    to the responder, The Dems have been claiming they would remove the culture of corruption.

    It seems the Dems are far worse than the Republicans.

    William Jefferson who had the frozen money was protected by the Dems.

    The republicans shunned Larry Craig

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 4:45pm on 11 Dec 2008, SirAndyRChicago wrote:

    Justin your willful ignorance (or deliberately misleading characterization) of Obama’s record in Chicago must be corrected. Haven’t you learnt anything about Illinois politics in the last 48 hours? You do not succeed as a politician here—it is flat out impossible to succeed here, if you don’t come through the “machine”.

    The “machine” is as corrupt as the day is long and Obama has used it to good effect and remained silent on the “crime wave” around him. See this balanced assessment in the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122895356506696347.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.

    To witness a crime (pay to play is the ONLY way business gets done in Chicago), as Obama must have done during his many years in Illinois, and not report it is criminal and morally repugnant. To profit by it—witness the joint purchase of the property with Rezko is unambiguously wrong.

    The facts are, Obama:
    Actively campaigned for Blagojevich through both his campaigns for Governor even though he knew he had been under investigation since 2003

    Endorsed machine candidate Todd Stroger for Cook (Crook) County President (who since systematically began installing his friends and relatives in key positions in county government, including his cousin as CFO—wonder why he did that?) over fellow Democrat and well know Illinois reformer Forrest Claypool

    Benefited financially from a sweetheart property deal involving convicted felon Tony Rezko—still under investigation—let’s see where this goes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/18/whistleblower-hits-obama-friends-appraisal)

    At best, turned a blind eye to corruption on an unprecedented level that has impacted Illinoisans through the highest sales tax in the country (to pay for the corruption, cronyism and incompetence) and the closure of 20% of Cook County health clinics for the same reason.

    Justin, either you need to do more reading on Chicago politics, or you need to stop drinking the Cool Aid. Either way, you should stop misinforming your readers about our tainted President-Elect’s ugly past.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 4:58pm on 11 Dec 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    For the love of whichever god you believe in, or the Higgs Boson for the atheists, don't respond to to Magickirin's #61! we all know what happen's as soon as the 'I' word comes up, it's mass referrals and potential bannings!

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 5:06pm on 11 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    SirAndyRChicago (#63), whatever Obama did in Chicago politics to get ahead, he got through the system and got himself elected President despite the best efforts of many people to smear him. Your post is just more guilt-by-association stuff. Do you have any personal knowledge of any supposed misconduct that we haven't all heard before?

    Obama will be our next President, by the choice of a clear majority of American voters. Get used to it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 5:09pm on 11 Dec 2008, Andy Post wrote:

    Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a partisan issue? I'm a Democrat and, yes, I was happy to see Sen. Stevens busted, but I would also like to see Blagojevich do time -- significant time like, say, double digit years. I see corruption as a threat to all of us, conservatives, moderates and liberals alike. Am I wrong?

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 5:15pm on 11 Dec 2008, LesMajestey wrote:

    # 59

    The post about R2P was removed because it cited a URL with a .pdf.

    A question for ED:

    Security Council Resolution 1674 is quite important to the claims about the legality of a right to intervene.

    But, how to download it? There is also seemingly a problem because it is http instead of https.

    R2P is a North American issue now. The munkdebates in Canada yesterday had John Bolton, Mia Farrow, and others discussing it.

    The underlying, root, issue is the need to change the UN mandate to allow the establishment of enforceable and universally applied international law.

    In fact, smoke and mirrors must now be used to claim this, even for genocide.

    To my mind, this is far more important than the utter banality of Cook county corruption.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 5:39pm on 11 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    AndyPost (#66), no, you are right. Most Americans of any party find the misconduct of Stevens and Cunningham, and the alleged misconduct of Jefferson and Blagojevich to be reprehensible. It is pointless, as MK has done, to try to measure these misdeeds and the response of the parties to them and conclude that one party is "far worse" than the other.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 5:45pm on 11 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #38. LesMajestey: "This frenzy over another Illinois governor and imagined links to Obama and imagined his corruption is:

    1) tabloid-style pandering"

    Since this is the lead story in every reputable newspaper and television network, it can hardly be described as "tabloid-style pandering." After the Rezko-Wright-Ayers revelations, Americans are understandably curious about how far corruption goes. At his most recent press conference, Mr Obama said "I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I’m confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat."

    Let's hope this does not go down in history in the same way as other, similarly declarative phrases have: I am not a crook; Watch my lips - no new taxes; I did not have sex with that woman.

    This not tabloid-pandering but of real concern to voters who overlooked some of the more scurrilous accusations during the primaries.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 6:05pm on 11 Dec 2008, AngelaE8654 wrote:

    I agree with the blog writer that people aren't going to be thinking that Obama had anything to do with it. I don't; and I vote Republican. I am an average American citizen and I don't think Obama had anything to do with this guy's corruption. Even I would think that trying to tie him to it would be a cheap shot. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 6:32pm on 11 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #69, David_C, our politicians would be more
    successful overall if they promised during the
    campaign that:

    1. "I am a crook."
    2. "I will raise your taxes."
    3. "I am a parody of sexual virtue."

    At least we would know where they stood.
    Then, they could promise to be "our crook."

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 6:37pm on 11 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    Re #26 Wingsonwinds,

    Your conclusions about Obama's savior status getting him elected ignores completely the fact that McCain wanted to implement fiscal policies that would have hit millions of employed middle class Americans in the already tattered pocketbook and that he alienated independents and moderates from his own party by choosing someone from the far right as his VP.

    No, it couldn't possibly be that people didn't like McCain's policies. We must all be stupid lemmings incapable of critical thought, looking for a savior.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 6:40pm on 11 Dec 2008, LesMajestey wrote:

    # 69 "tabloid-style pandering"

    The CSM and other reputable news sources are picking up on the story, so there may indeed be more to it than banal Cook county corruption.

    Putting on our Deer-stalker caps:

    The federal attorney takes the unusual step of publishing tapes on which an indctment is based. Obviously, much press attention is sought.

    A key message "I want something..Obama offers nothing".

    Is this but the first salvo in an exchange of revelations?

    The Senate appointment is important. The Governor apparently does not want to cooperate.

    Is the response "co-operate, resign or go to jail"?

    ____________________

    My editorial comment is that, to play such a game, one must be invulnerable to counter-attack.

    If the Governor leaves office, how is the appointment handled?

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 6:44pm on 11 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    #40 Peter_Sym,

    As a Republican, I can assure that I am neither paedophilic nor warmongering.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 7:15pm on 11 Dec 2008, Andy Post wrote:

    "If the Governor leaves office, how is the appointment handled"

    The Lt. Governor would become Governor and he would make the appointment.

    The Illinois AG has stated that she will ask the Illinois Supreme Court to remove Blagojevich as unsuited to serve, but if the court demurs, the state legislature would presumably start impeachment proceedings. However, that could take months. In the meantime, the legislature would avail itself of its power to take the appointment away from the Governor and set up a special election. I suppose they could restore the power to the executive after the election and Blagojevich's removal if they saw fit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 7:29pm on 11 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:

    here's something.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm?se=yahoorefer

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 7:48pm on 11 Dec 2008, joshkin2001 wrote:

    For me,
    I'm going to reserve judgment on Obama's associations until Joe Biden gets drunk, goes hunting, and shoots someone in the head....

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 7:53pm on 11 Dec 2008, SirAndyRChicago wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 79. At 7:57pm on 11 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Andy, I am also a registered Democrat and I feel exactly the same way you do. Unfortunately, corruption is a major problem in our government (federal, state and local)and it requires the involvement of our judicial system, media, public, and the cooperation of members of both parties to eradicate.

    It is a bi-partisan issue and trying to justify some crimes by insinuating they were not as significant as others helps perpetuate the problem. We must throw all the bums out and must make sure they serve time.

    I just wish people would focus on the facts and not take advantage of situations to score a few political points or smear the opposition. We desperately need a government that works, and damaging the credibility of our leaders when there is no evidence of guilt impairs their ability to govern and our ability to deal with the serious problems we are facing. Sadly, the media needs sensationalism to survive, and suggestions of Machiavellian plots is a good way to keep a story alive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 8:06pm on 11 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Les Majestey,

    "A question for ED:

    Security Council Resolution 1674 is quite important to the claims about the legality of a right to intervene.

    But, how to download it?"


    Full text of UNSC Resolution 1674 , And. regarding R2P, some material.Resolution 1265 also applies, as does UNSC 1296

    Always glad to be of service

    Peace and the best International organisation we have
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 8:10pm on 11 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    56, Magic.
    "Isn't Blago's transgressions far worse than Ted Steevens or Duke Cunningham's?"

    Crooked is crooked, the degree hardly matters. They are all bums.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 8:17pm on 11 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    9, OldSouth.

    What does an aspiring politician, presumably honest, do when his district, or city, or state is corrupt? Does he make minor concessions to his principles until he can get out from under? Does he quit politics?

    Are any political beauracracies untainted? I rather doubt it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 8:23pm on 11 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    71, gunsandreligion.
    1. "I am a crook."
    2. "I will raise your taxes."
    3. "I am a parody of sexual virtue."

    At last, an honest politician. I promise to vote for you, Guns.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 8:37pm on 11 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    The "something" linked to by middlecroony (#76) is a report of a study showing that North Dakota is more corrupt than Illinois on a per capita basis. Well, of course. Illinois has twenty times the population of North Dakota, yet each state has only one governor and one of the other state officers. Illinois has only a few more members of its legislative assembly than North Dakota. This is merely a statistical curiosity, not a revelation which should change the popular view that Chicago is a corrupt town.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 8:37pm on 11 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Les Majestey,

    "A question for ED:

    Security Council Resolution 1674 is quite important to the claims about the legality of a right to intervene.

    But, how to download it?"


    Full text of UNSC Resolution 1674 , And. regarding R2P, some material.

    Resolution 1265 also applies, as does UNSC 1296

    Always glad to be of service

    Peace and the best International organisation we have
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 8:40pm on 11 Dec 2008, KHRawal wrote:

    Just a little while ago, Illinois Lt. Governor Pat Quinn commented that he would make the Senator selection his top priority if he becomes the governor. This, I reckon, is a bunch of stinking baloney. His pretextual argument that holding a special election to fill the open (Senator) position could "leave Illinois and the nation short of a senator for months at a critical juncture in history" is nothing short of a charade.

    Before anyone comes charging at me and accuses me of being a right-wing nut, I wish to clarify that I voted FOR Obama. However, when Obama was running for the office, what good did he really do for the people of Illinois vis-à-vis his disposition of duties as a Senator? Let's allow his voting record to speak for itself! Does anyone care to know how many votes did he miss in the Senate???

    Case in point: even when these buffoons are holding their office, they are not that productive so what on earth does Quinn mean by inferring that going down an election route will cause a "long" vacuum!! I don't get it! I thought we were supposed to be a Democratic society - precisely the reason why we invade other countries so that we can help them choose their leaders electorally, not any other way!!! Aren’t we speaking from both sides of the mouth when we suggest filling a position non-electorally???

    Does Quinn want a "piece of the action" too and is that the reason why he wants to "control" this appointment rather than allowing citizens to vote their choice?!? I HOPE NOT!

    Enough is enough! I vote to vote for an Obama replacement in the Senate --- and no other way should this position be filled! In fact, I also vote for Blagojevich’s immediate impeachment and would like to see the Governor’s position also be put on the ballot along with the open US Senator position.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 8:42pm on 11 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Croony,

    Thanks for that, but we should note that there need not be any correlation between the existence of corruption and prosecutions....In fact there may be a reverse correlation....

    Peace and prosecution
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 9:05pm on 11 Dec 2008, Andy Post wrote:

    'His pretextual argument that holding a special election to fill the open (Senator) position could "leave Illinois and the nation short of a senator for months at a critical juncture in history" is nothing short of a charade.'

    Hmm, I'm not sure I'm with you there. Just looking at numbers (435 representatives, 100 senators), a senator represents the most powerful representative (in the non-governmental sense) a state has in the Federal government. Without both senators, Illinois becomes by far the least powerful state in the union. If I were a citizen of Illinois, I wouldn't be very happy with that. Of course, if I'd utterly lost confidence in my elected officials, my feeling might be different. I don't think Illinois feels that way, though, having just seen the country express faith in an Illinois senator the way it just did.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 9:33pm on 11 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #40. Peter_Sym: "Yet another case of the insane polarisation I constantly see on this blog which basically boils down to Democrat = Saint. Republican = paedophilic warmongering satan worshiper."

    I can only assume you're not American, since in American useage, there is no diphthong in 'paedophilic' - in the US it would be pedophiliac. If you were an American voter, you would understand that Republicans, warmongering or not, are not known for worshipping satan, but rather Christ, hence the large number of Evangelicals who voted for Mr McCain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 9:45pm on 11 Dec 2008, junkmonkey wrote:

    Blagojevich is Governor of Illinois, not just of Chicago. Chicago has about 4 million people in it, Illinois has about 10 million people in it. Also, please stop confusing the Mayor of Chicago with the Governor.

    To those who say, where's the evidence? You are correct if you go by what has been released. But no prosecutor will willingly release the evidence before a trial.

    Generally the prosecutor has to release SOME evidence to get people to believe him/her that a crime has been committed. Blagojevich has kindly provided the prosecutors plenty of fodder for the newsies without forcing them to prematurely release any damning evidence.

    In the US, the fact that he was arrested, is a strong indication that there is plenty of evidence to be had. You don't get to do the 'perp walk' this early in the affair if a conviction seems unlikely.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 9:55pm on 11 Dec 2008, junkmonkey wrote:

    We have to have a special election to fill Rahm Emmanual's office anyway, so why not extend the election state wide and fill Obama's seat at the same time? I just don't trust Pat Quinn to make this appointment eaither at this time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 11:40pm on 11 Dec 2008, Wingsonwinds wrote:

    Its interesting how comments turn critical so quickly. There is clearly a lot of support for Obama and as stated in other blogs, I don't see that anything said is going to change that.

    However, I think it is right for people to be concerned about his affiliations because in only a short time span already three affiliates of his have been found with questionable behavior and Obama hasn't even taken office yet.

    IN response to criticisms above, I will openly state that I voted for McCain because I liked his experience, his track record and the fact that he had some independent ideas for the future. I did not agree with all his policies, but I strongly disagreed with Obama's policies to enlarge government. I am opposed to the enlargement of government because the larger it because, the less that accountability is made possible. The lack of accountability is what led to our current recession.

    In the end, government is controlled by politicians out for their own self interests. They will say anything to win our votes and stay or be promoted to a higher office. Because of this, we must vote with the candidate we believe most trustworthy.

    Trust is a major factor because no matter what we think we know, we are completely dependent on a bias media and on information revealed to us by others, not first hand experience. Therefore, the character of each candidate from an observers perspective is very significant in determining whether a candidate will follow through with his policies and even more so, do it in a way that does not cause additional damage to us and our children in the long run.

    The truth is, even if I give Obama's character the benefit of the doubt, in an effort to hope the best for our country over the decision that has already been made by voters, I cannot help but to be concerned at minimum over his judgment in the people he surrounds himself with, which ultimately leads me to be concerned about his cabinet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 00:01am on 12 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    Re #92 Wingsonwinds,

    I think the criticism stems not from the fact that you voted McCain by conscience, but that fact that your comment like that at #26 does not respect that some other people voted Obama for the same reason.

    Regards.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 00:33am on 12 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    90. At 9:45pm on 11 Dec 2008, glenbarrington wrote:

    "In the US, the fact that he was arrested, is a strong indication that there is plenty of evidence to be had. You don't get to do the 'perp walk' this early in the affair if a conviction seems unlikely."




    Now we know how Sacco and Vanzetti etc were convicted.

    The idea of a trial is to test the prosecution's evidence. For, sometimes, it has been found to be wanting and the accused is acquitted.

    That happen's in the US as much as elsewhere.

    Though anyone who followed the first OJ Simpson Trial cannot but be amazed at the way the prosection leaked evidence and sought to play the media game.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 00:35am on 12 Dec 2008, Wingsonwinds wrote:

    By saying people voted for an ideal is not a criticism, to some extent we all vote for this. My point in stating that was to respond to the dogamism and defensiveness over a man that nobody really knows. It surprises me how unwilling people who support him are to see the signs, which in most any other candidate or situation, would cause a red flag to go up. His affiliations are questionable. This red flag may or may not mean anything, but it would be foolish to completely close our eyes to it. Questioning something does not make what you believe less value, it simply reafirms or teaches us what part is truth and what is not.



    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 03:49am on 12 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    43 DominickVila
    Pardon my bluntness, but while neither Republican nor Democrat I'd like to tell you that you wrote an absurd load of prejudiced rubbish in this posting. There is no religion or religious group on the face of this earth more "intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force", than are radical Muslims and the religion of Islam.
    Talk about "religious fanatics intent upon suppressing everybody's views and imposing theirs on others", they are all that and more!
    My bet is that a bad dose of political correctness, lack of guts and convoluted thinking would prevent you stating that obvious reality, so instead you safely vent your spleen ridiculously on Republicans. Amazing!
    Well, one thing is certain, and I'm sure you know this, Republicans won't blow you up for disagreeing, so without fear of reprisal you can safely say your bit.
    And by the way, within the context of your thinking, who is the United States fighting in Afghanistan, the Republicans or the radical Muslims of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
    Incidentally, for all to see you exposed your own deep prejudice and intolerance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 05:07am on 12 Dec 2008, pauljap wrote:

    Democracy
    Swing voters
    Time for a change
    Politicians, what is the choice?
    Politicians, what is the difference?
    Politicians with principles?
    Politicians are in it 'cause it is the easiest way they know of getting what they want from life.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    And people are taking this seriously?
    As Neil would say
    "That's really heavy, man!"

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 08:10am on 12 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    96. At 03:49am on 12 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
    43 DominickVila
    Pardon my bluntness, but while neither Republican nor Democrat I'd like to tell you that you wrote an absurd load of prejudiced rubbish in this posting. There is no religion or religious group on the face of this earth more "intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force", than are radical Muslims and the religion of Islam."


    Pardon my introduction of commonsense but your use of the word "crusade " demonstrates breathtaking ignorance and is of course profoundly offensive.

    Look up what the crusades were.

    "Talk about "religious fanatics intent upon suppressing everybody's views and imposing theirs on others", they are all that and more!
    My bet is that a bad dose of political correctness, lack of guts and convoluted thinking would prevent you stating that obvious reality, so instead you safely vent your spleen ridiculously on Republicans. Amazing! "



    This "obvious reality" is just another example for you to demonstrate your intolerance.

    "Well, one thing is certain, and I'm sure you know this, Republicans won't blow you up for disagreeing, so without fear of reprisal you can safely say your bit."


    Really, tell that tonumerous Afghanistani families, Somali schoolchildren. Republicans love blowing things up, provided the sufferers are the right colour etc.


    "And by the way, within the context of your thinking, who is the United States fighting in Afghanistan, the Republicans or the radical Muslims of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?"


    And non-radical Afghanistanis who do not want their livelihood bulldozed or their children bombed.


    "Incidentally, for all to see you exposed your own deep prejudice and intolerance. "


    Coming from someone who uses the word "crusade" in such an offensive manner that is rich.







    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 12:10pm on 12 Dec 2008, tiptoplisamich wrote:

    66. At 5:09pm on 11 Dec 2008, AndyPost wrote:
    Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a partisan issue? I'm a Democrat and, yes, I was happy to see Sen. Stevens busted, but I would also like to see Blagojevich do time -- significant time like, say, double digit years. I see corruption as a threat to all of us, conservatives, moderates and liberals alike. Am I wrong?


    No, AndyPost, you are not alone. This goes beyond party lines, which is why as the media reports "a sad day for Illinois", the people of Illinois (from BOTH political parties) are cheering together to see Blago go.
    If it weren't so pathetic, it would be amusing how the media ignores all fly-over midwest states, but then acts as though they are home-grown knowlegeable when a story occurs in the midwest. (Sorry, but the international media pool is even more comical as obviously Google is being worked overtime with AL Capone and Obama---the only 2 people they know from Illinois---are injected into every story as they try to play extreme catch-up).

    I'm a registered Republican and I think it's ridiculous that the media zeroed in on this hypothetical Obama link. (Obama is from Illinois! Surely Obama must be linked to Blago!--Nonsense. I am originally from Illinois, so using the media's convoluted logic I suppose I am linked to Blago as well---just not famous enough to make the media radar).

    Hopefully not lost in all the "Obama speculation" is that yet another Illinois governor from a state that breeds corruption is facing federal charges and the people of Illinois face a Make-or-Break moment AGAIN!! Do the voters take a stand against corruption and for the first time weed it out? (Yes, that would mean that Czar Daly of Chicago might actually have to be replaced!) or do the voters of Illinois continue with the same-old same-old style of politics in their state?

    Hopefully there are enough of us who can remain focused on the significant and primary target of this investigation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 12:19pm on 12 Dec 2008, tiptoplisamich wrote:

    86. At 8:40pm on 11 Dec 2008, KHRawal wrote:
    Just a little while ago, Illinois Lt. Governor Pat Quinn commented that he would make the Senator selection his top priority if he becomes the governor. This, I reckon, is a bunch of stinking baloney. His pretextual argument that holding a special election to fill the open (Senator) position could "leave Illinois and the nation short of a senator for months at a critical juncture in history" is nothing short of a charade....
    ...Enough is enough! I vote to vote for an Obama replacement in the Senate --- and no other way should this position be filled! In fact, I also vote for Blagojevich?s immediate impeachment and would like to see the Governor?s position also be put on the ballot along with the open US Senator position.




    You are absolutely right. There is no other way for the people of Illinois to clean up their own "house" so to speak than to put the corruption of this situation in the hands of the people in the ballot box. At this point, any governor-appointed Senate replacement would be tainted, no matter how well-meaning the Lt. Governor's intentions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 12:48pm on 12 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    #89. No I'm not an American but I lived there a while. I appreciate that many evangelicals vote Republican but if I had been able to vote in the last US election I'd have probably gone for McCain and I'm an atheist... I'm sure I'm not unique. The biggest reason why I wouldn't have voted McCain was the Palin god-squad he felt obliged to add to his ticket to appease the evangelicals.

    If Obama had stood up and said 'I don't believe in God' he might have swung it for me... as it was he portrayed himself as just a good a church goer as McCain. The worst thing is that I personally believe that McCain genuinely believes whats in his Bible but Obama probably doesn't. That makes McCain deluded and Obama a fake who'll say anything for votes. I'm not sure whats the worse option.

    In any case I'm basically a neutral- its amusing that both hard core dems and hard core republicans have both taken offence at my comments. It rather proves the ridiculous polarisation between the supporters of two parties with really very similar policies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 2:55pm on 12 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    99. At 12:10pm on 12 Dec 2008, tiptoplisamich wrote:

    "obviously Google is being worked overtime with AL Capone and Obama---the only 2 people they know from Illinois---are injected into every story as they try to play extreme catch-up)."


    Wasn't Al Capone from New York?

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 3:41pm on 12 Dec 2008, John Conrad wrote:

    Mr. Obama got off to a BAD START by indicating he was deeply saddened, keeping appraised of developments, etc. etc. etc.

    1. Right now he's got to be working 24/7 heating up the pan because as "commander in chef" in waiting, he's got bigger fish than this to fry.

    2. Since law enforcement agencies are on the case and an arrest has been made, the matter is not a political issue, it is a legal issue, and SUB-JUDICE, and as a lawyer, he ought to have known better than to meddle in it at all.

    "Since this matter is now in the hands of the law, it would be improper for me to comment at this time", is just fine.

    The old saying, "Don't open your mouth with your brain out of gear" has a lot to recommend it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 5:22pm on 12 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    Re #95 Wingsonwinds,

    Your argument here seems much more reasonable to me, though I still don't see the red flags as being as meaningful as you do.

    I have heard the debate regarding Wright and Ayers etc. I looked at each case and their circumstances and made my own judgments regarding what, if anything, they said about Obama. I did not, as you say, just close my eyes to it.

    I'm sure there are some people who would have voted for Obama short of him dancing the tango in public with Satan himself, just as some people voted for McCain for very poor reasons.

    My points are these: 1) I don't think the average Obama voter was blind to anything. 2) Simply stating that people who voted differently than you did were somehow blind is counterproductive. Instead I would suggest an effective demonstration of that blindness and let people draw their own conclusions. 3) The election is over. Obama won. We're in this together for the next 4 years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 5:48pm on 12 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    "43. At 1:25pm on 11 Dec 2008, DominickVila wrote:
    Ref 40

    "Republican = paedophilic warmongering satan worshiper."

    Actually, many of us regard the Republican party as an organization controlled by Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force. We don't consider Republicans Satanic worshipers, instead we see them as what they are, religious fanatics intent on suppressing everybody else's views and imposing theirs upon others. You are spot on on the warmongering part though.

    I wonder how they are dealing with the latest remarks made by their hero regarding the incompatibility of creationism and volution..."



    nice thoughtful self analysis of his countries situation.


    however

    "96. At 03:49am on 12 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
    43 DominickVila
    Pardon my bluntness, but while neither Republican nor Democrat I'd like to tell you that you wrote an absurd load of prejudiced rubbish in this posting. There is no religion or religious group on the face of this earth more "intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force", than are radical Muslims and the religion of Islam.
    Talk about "religious fanatics intent upon suppressing everybody's views and imposing theirs on others", they are all that and more!
    My bet is that a bad dose of political correctness, lack of guts and convoluted thinking would prevent you stating that obvious reality, so instead you safely vent your spleen ridiculously on Republicans. Amazing!
    Well, one thing is certain, and I'm sure you know this, Republicans won't blow you up for disagreeing, so without fear of reprisal you can safely say your bit.
    And by the way, within the context of your thinking, who is the United States fighting in Afghanistan, the Republicans or the radical Muslims of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
    Incidentally, for all to see you exposed your own deep prejudice and intolerance."



    Another letter trying to raise the mid east into a discussion that has so far gone no where near this.(apart from war mongering lol).
    Starts with absurd prejudice being thrown at dominick despite none, then goes into a rant against Muslims.
    a racist rant from a guy know to be a racist on this site.
    talks about venting while blowing more wind, and continues with more blaming others and ignoring reality to finish with another insult thrown at Dominick.

    A Droll troll if ever there was.


    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 6:57pm on 12 Dec 2008, KHRawal wrote:

    88. At 9:05pm on 11 Dec 2008, AndyPost wrote:

    "Hmm, I'm not sure I'm with you there. Just looking at numbers (435 representatives, 100 senators), a senator represents the most powerful representative (in the non-governmental sense) a state has in the Federal government. Without both senators, Illinois becomes by far the least powerful state in the union. If I were a citizen of Illinois, I wouldn't be very happy with that. Of course, if I'd utterly lost confidence in my elected officials, my feeling might be different. I don't think Illinois feels that way, though, having just seen the country express faith in an Illinois senator the way it just did."
    ---------

    Andy: your point’s well taken. However, please understand, Mr. Obama's voting record has left a LOT [with emphasis!] to be desired, while he was a U.S. Senator. To illustrate and this is purely based on my independent recollection at this time, Obama, while in the U.S. Senate, missed nearly half of his senate career running for the office of the President. Consequently, causing him to miss almost (if not over) 50% votes!

    Now granted, as you said, "without both senators, Illinois becomes by far the least powerful state in the union." But you are gravely missing a point here my friend! I reckon, merely holding the office physically (i.e. keeping the seat warm!) just does not count --- rather performing duties and obligations of representing one's constituents by first staying, not absent, but present in the Senate, and then casting votes in the Senate are even more important! Looking at Obama’s U.S. Senate (presence and voting) records, I would argue that even with Obama holding the U.S. Senate seat for my state, I couldn’t say were powerful, let alone the most powerful, state in the union. Instead, we were perhaps, along with the State of Arizona, the most ill-represented state(s) due to our U.S. Senators’ other concurrent aspirations and obligations!

    Frankly, if these buffoons would listen to us i.e. “their constituents”, I would like to see two Bills passed i.e.:

    1) if one decides to run for another public office while currently holding public office, they must first resign from their current public office before they can run for the new office.
    2) Any and all public office holders must case their votes (YES or NO) not less than 95% of the time. Failing to do so would disqualify them from running for that office again, and it would also cause them to lose their pension benefits associated with that position.

    Trust me; that will bring these clowns back to their senses!!!

    Cheers!

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 8:33pm on 12 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #98 Simon21
    Just the usual of old piffle, Simon! Apart from your 'breath' evidently being 'taken' away very easily, you could have saved your breath suffering that fate by reading my comments more carefully. You would have discovered from the quotation marks that I was quoting the word "crusade" from posting 43.
    Regarding 'common sense', once again you've demonstrated that you have little or none, in an endeavour to find fault with an old adversary shooting your mouth off before engaging your brain - and even on that score I'm being generous! As to your
    "profoundly offensive" reference to the use of "crusade", in an effort to sound profound you've produced a pompous load of politically correct twaddle!
    As a matter of interest, explain to us what is so offensive about the word "crusade". Please do.
    Meanwhile, you look up "what the crusades were"! I already know about those to which you obliquely and none too subtley refer, but for your politically correct benefit I suggest you begin by 'looking up' the history of Muslim 'crusades' that began out of Saudi Arabia in 632 AD. No doubt you will know about the Christian crusades. Political correctness allows you to discuss them, but not the former.
    As to me demonstrating my 'intolerance', I simply reacted to intolerance in 43 that you very obviously favour.
    The rest of your simple-minded rubbish is not worth a response, but I will say that you incessantly come across a thoroughly politically correct phoney for whom truth and honesty is too uncomfortable or frightening to contemplate consideration, let alone expression.

    #105 Happyglaze
    Actually, nothing 'happy', just a moronic glaze beyond all known cures! Your comments about me being racist are of your own making from previous combative encounters, the product of your very limited mind, resulting poor deductions, and gross ignorance. Concoct what you will of my postings, you haven't a clue.
    Read what I wrote to 'Simple Simon' above, it applies to you too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 9:56pm on 12 Dec 2008, tiptoplisamich wrote:

    102. At 2:55pm on 12 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:
    99. At 12:10pm on 12 Dec 2008, tiptoplisamich wrote:

    "obviously Google is being worked overtime with AL Capone and Obama---the only 2 people they know from Illinois---are injected into every story as they try to play extreme catch-up)."


    Wasn't Al Capone from New York?


    Al Capone got his start in New York, yes, as in he was born in Brooklyn and killed his first couple of people there, cutting his teeth on mob life.
    He made his name and fame and wealth and power by being the leader of Chicago's organized crime syndicate during the era of Prohibition.
    Of all the crimes he committed, or ordered others to commit in his name, he was finally put away in prison for income tax evasion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 10:47pm on 12 Dec 2008, Wingsonwinds wrote:

    #104. To mdalerwill

    I agree with you that there are those who would vote for McCain or Obama regardless. I understand each person has a legitimate and valued perspective and I do not assume I am the one who knows all things! (Far from it!) For all our sakes, I truly do hope Obama turns out to be the man of the hour!

    Your statement, "I don't think the average Obama voter was blind to anything." is valid to an extent. Clearly you haven't met every Obama voter, but I have no doubt there were many who thought it over and truly felt what Obama offered was better for the country. Certainly valid! On the other hand, I would say there were those who didn't think it over or feel strongly about one party or the other, but were taken in by the media's frenzy over Obama instead.

    Your Statement "Simply stating that people who voted differently than you did were somehow blind is counterproductive." I did not say people who voted for Obama were blind (though I do think Some were) but I said that those who refuse to acknowledge the questionable nature of some of his affiliations are blind or perhaps blinding themselves would be a better way of putting it.

    The primary purpose of my comments on this blog are to encourage people not to be afraid to put the question out there. It cannot be answered right away, but should be acknowledged.

    Please bear in mind I had questions about some of McCain's actions also and I am not even a big question asker compared to some.

    Acknowledging red flags is important because it allows us to identify the lie or the delusion sooner rather than after its too late.

    Since few Americans have ever experienced a dictatorship or more socialistic environment, I suspect many have become complacent about the freedoms they now possess. I suspect this complacency in crisis has lead many Americans to hand over more of the people's responsibility to the government.

    Don't you know that responsibility is what gives the people power. Our power "together" is what sustains our freedom in a corrupt world and admist corrupt politicians. If voters give that away and then refuse to question it, how long will our freedom's last?

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 11:47pm on 12 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    Re #109 Wingsonwinds,

    Well put, and I would agree to at least some degree with most of what you stated, particularly in the last paragraph.

    Let me boil it down to this then:
    How long must we continue to ask the same questions regarding the same associates?

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 00:20am on 13 Dec 2008, labcoat_samurai wrote:

    96: Robloop

    "There is no religion or religious group on the face of this earth more "intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force", than are radical Muslims and the religion of Islam. "

    Supposing you're right.... so?

    His point, which was a gross overgeneralization, was that the republican party is run by religious zealots. Your argument, true or false, does not contradict that.

    In fact, your whole argument amounts to "Muslims are worse" which is a gross oversimplification. Certainly you are unlikely to find many Christians calling for the execution of a man for writing a book or an artist for drawing an unflattering cartoon, but is it appropriate to generalize their behavior to all muslims? I think not.

    More importantly, we don't even need to. We should strongly and vigorously oppose Islamic fundamentalism, but we do not need to accuse all muslims of being Islamic fundamentalists in order to oppose the ones who are. I also strongly and vigorously oppose Christian fundamentalism, though, admittedly, I am less concerned about being blown up by an evangelical for saying something bad about Jesus.

    But I am concerned about our next generation of biologists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 00:55am on 13 Dec 2008, labcoat_samurai wrote:

    110 mdalerwill

    "How long must we continue to ask the same questions regarding the same associates?"

    Until we get everyone to give the answer we want? I kid, but it seems that way sometimes, doesn't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 01:06am on 13 Dec 2008, Wingsonwinds wrote:

    I would say ask it and hold it somewhere in storage memory! If there are further incidents to back it up or further found affiliations, we can start to put the pieces together. If not, then we can only assume those incidents are not significant on any major level.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 03:02am on 13 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    111 labcoat_samurai
    If you return to my 96 you'll see that I referred to "radical Muslims".
    Then there is no point in asking me
    "Supposing you are right ...so?" before gaining an understanding of the context of my comment. I didn't try to "contradict" the other writer's comment, simply used a little logic to emphasize the absurdity of his disparaging generalization about Republicans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 2:33pm on 13 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    107. At 8:33pm on 12 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
    #98 Simon21
    Just the usual of old piffle, Simon! Apart from your 'breath' evidently being 'taken' away very easily, you could have saved your breath suffering that fate by reading my comments more carefully."


    Is thyis an argument? Usual waffle

    "You would have discovered from the quotation marks that I was quoting the word "crusade" from posting 43.
    Regarding 'common sense', once again you've demonstrated that you have little or none, in an endeavour to find fault with an old adversary shooting your mouth off before engaging your brain "


    Is rthis another argument? Or more waffle

    - and even on that score I'm being generous! As to your
    "profoundly offensive" reference to the use of "crusade", in an effort to sound profound you've produced a pompous load of politically correct twaddle!"



    More waffle, but it does not correct your bigoted and profund ignorance.

    Perhaops you think the word holocaust should be slung around willy nilly too?

    The fact you do not know what the crusades were or why the term is offensive in this manner is maater of your prejudices.

    "As a matter of interest, explain to us what is so offensive about the word "crusade". Please do."


    Oh do you need lessons? Read Sir Steven Runciman, jonathan Prawer or even Terry Jones etc before talking about a subject on which you know nothing.

    It is never wise to use terms which one does not know the meaning of.


    "Meanwhile, you look up "what the crusades were"! I already know about those to which you obliquely and none too subtley refer, but for your politically correct benefit I suggest you begin by 'looking up' the history of Muslim 'crusades' that began out of Saudi Arabia in 632 AD."


    Again ignorance. There were no cusades out of Saudi Arabia, there could be none because of what the term means.


    " No doubt you will know about the Christian crusades. Political correctness allows you to discuss them, but not the former."

    COuld you point to a history of the moslem "crusades" written by a credible historian. Oh and on the way could you refer me to an account of Roman "Holocausts" or Inca "nazis"

    While you at it please tell me the name of the moslem "pope" who preached these crusades.

    History is plainly not your subject.


    "As to me demonstrating my 'intolerance', I simply reacted to intolerance in 43 that you very obviously favour."

    Bigotry is bigotry whether the victims are moslems or not.



    "he rest of your simple-minded rubbish is not worth a response, but I will say that you incessantly come across a thoroughly politically correct phoney for whom truth and honesty is too uncomfortable or frightening to contemplate consideration, let alone expression."


    Along with crusades you also have a problem with the concept of honesty and an obsession with political correctness.

    Anyone who speaks of Moslem "crusades" knows nothing about the truth, honesty or history.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 2:36pm on 13 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    111. At 00:20am on 13 Dec 2008, labcoat_samurai wrote:
    96: Robloop

    "There is no religion or religious group on the face of this earth more "intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force", than are radical Muslims and the religion of Islam. "

    Supposing you're right.... so?

    His point, which was a gross overgeneralization, was that the republican party is run by religious zealots. Your argument, true or false, does not contradict that. "




    This individual does not know what a crusade was and is just using it as a term of abuse to the very people who were the victims of the crusades.

    It is grossly offensive - as Boris Johnson found in his recent documentary.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 4:50pm on 13 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    115 Simon21
    Simon, you really should try to get a grip on yourself! All this excitement and then desperate anxiety to conceal your lame-brained ignorance is leading to wild statements that exceed the bounds of slander.
    As the ending of your e-mail demonstrates graphically, you haven't a clue what you are talking about in regard to crusades, yet endless froth round the mouth regarding a subject about which you haven't a clue.
    Further, you haven't yet explained what is so "offensive" about the word "crusade". (Maybe you should ask Billy Graham why he calls his large gatherings "crusades"!)
    Begin with that. Please do, as I asked, and then (this should really get your knickers in a knot!) study the Muslim crusades that swept throughout the Middle East, Turkey, even into India, into Egypt, then cross North Africa, eventually into Spain and south-eastern Europe. You converted to Islam or lost your head! Highly 'offensive' stuff that!
    As to Boris Johnson I don't give a continental fig what he or anyone else says about the Muslim or Christian crusades. If they don't honestly reflect historical reality they are not worth considering.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 5:37pm on 13 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    117. At 4:50pm on 13 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
    115 Simon21
    Simon, you really should try to get a grip on yourself! All this excitement and then desperate anxiety to conceal your lame-brained ignorance is leading to wild statements that exceed the bounds of slander."


    Hysterical hyperbole and childish abuse is no argument.

    "Exceeds the bounds of slander". This is meaningless.

    What did I say about you using words you do not understand?

    Look up what slander actually means. That way you will look less foolish.

    What are the "boundaries of slander" (more interestingly what is beyond them??)

    Is it like being more dead than dead?

    Apologies if English is your second language.


    "As the ending of your e-mail demonstrates graphically, you haven't a clue what you are talking about in regard to crusades, yet endless froth round the mouth regarding a subject about which you haven't a clue."


    Yes once again no argument. You do not understand what the term crusade means, that is your problem, not mine.

    "Further, you haven't yet explained what is so "offensive" about the word "crusade". (Maybe you should ask Billy Graham why he calls his large gatherings "crusades"!)"


    Hmm have a I not? Here was I thinking I had made it pretty clear. Let's try again. Would you use the term holocaust so casually? Why not?

    Light dawning now? Billy Grahame was a christian bigot - he probably approved of the crusades.

    I again ask you name some Roman holocausts, Inca Nazis, Pre-colonial Aboriginal marxists


    "Begin with that. Please do, as I asked, and then (this should really get your knickers in a knot!) study the Muslim crusades that swept throughout the Middle East, Turkey, even into India, into Egypt, then cross North Africa, eventually into Spain and south-eastern Europe. You converted to Islam or lost your head! Highly 'offensive' stuff that!"


    No more highly offensive then your ignorant bigotry.

    You have not answered the question name one credible historian who speaks of moslem crusades?

    Oh and your bizzare idea that everyone in the Middle east and Spain and Turkey were forced to become moslems will amuse the Spanish, greeks, Hindus etc etc

    Plainly your knowledge of Islam is on a par with your knowledge of history ie non-existant.

    Once again you are making yourself look foolish dealing with subjects about which you no know nothing.

    "As to Boris Johnson I don't give a continental fig what he or anyone else says about the Muslim or Christian crusades. If they don't honestly reflect historical reality they are not worth considering."


    You don't give a fig because you don't know who Boris Johnson is and have not read any history.

    Apparently you have not consulted a dictionary either











    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 6:24pm on 13 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    111.


    In fact, your whole argument amounts to "Muslims are worse"

    In fact it is a racist argument.


    nice of you to slam the rob.

    who ACTUALLY SAID "radical Muslims and the religion of Islam. "

    see rob? " and the religion of Islam"

    You did say the religion was at fault so does not that also imply that the followers of that religion be included.

    Maybe not.In your world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 6:26pm on 13 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    oh the reason I included the bit about "the religion of Islam" was in reference to this


    114. At 03:02am on 13 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
    111 labcoat_samurai
    If you return to my 96 you'll see that I referred to "radical Muslims".
    Then there is no point in asking me"

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 6:28pm on 13 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    89 love the fact that you only address the issue of worshiping the devil, but stayed away from the other bits.
    LOL
    subtly put there DC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 6:32pm on 13 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #118 Simon21
    Keep talking, Simon, it exposes your blind ignorances and refusal to learn. You'd be comical if not given to angrily spouting so much drivel.
    Nevertheless, out of sympathy toward your politically correct avoidance of reality, I've looked up 'Muslims crusades' on Google. Give it a try. There's a lot there. It should take about a month for a slow-learner to read! And don't forget to tell Boris Johnson about it too.


    And by the way, once again through your desperate efforts to shut me up we are distracting from Justin's blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 7:00pm on 13 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    122. At 6:32pm on 13 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
    #118 Simon21
    Keep talking, Simon, it exposes your blind ignorances and refusal to learn. You'd be comical if not given to angrily spouting so much drivel."


    Oh dear is this your argument?

    I was hoping to get a refrence (one would do) to all these moslem "crusades"


    "Nevertheless, out of sympathy toward your politically correct avoidance of reality, I've looked up 'Muslims crusades' on Google. Give it a try. There's a lot there."


    Is there? Well that proves it!

    I googled little green men and got lots of references too. Does that mean they exist?

    I can't understand why they have historical debates when all they have to do is count up the google references.

    Maybe we could settle the existence of god in the same way.

    When you find a reputable historian do let me know.

    I gave you three.

    " It should take about a month for a slow-learner to read! And don't forget to tell Boris Johnson about it too."


    Hmm it would take considerably more than that to read the relevant historical works.

    But we have already established you do not read books.

    "And by the way, once again through your desperate efforts to shut me up we are distracting from Justin's blog."


    As I recall it was you who used the word crusade so incorrectly , not me.

    For the third time if you use words you do not know the meaning of you will end up looking foolish.

    And as I say, don't go round telling any Greek he is in fact a converted moslem. they are apt to get sensitive on the subject

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 7:07pm on 13 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    122 your desperate desire to keep the I issue in the front is not exactly hidden there Loop.

    you went on about it first.
    now we are back in the playground .

    with your drivel

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 3:19pm on 14 Dec 2008, Steve-Beacon wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 126. At 3:34pm on 14 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    wow will this beacon be as bright as the one on the other post?
    eeek

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 4:00pm on 14 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    sorry mods thought we had a pearl coming our ways.

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 4:28pm on 14 Dec 2008, Steve-Beacon wrote:

    Hey happylaze, crime syndicates operate everywhere. Chicago is no exception.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 11:39pm on 14 Dec 2008, american grizzly wrote:

    Chicago is one of the most politically corrupt cities in the US political circles. Obama is part of that city, how dirty only time will tell.
    So the US will now wait a few years to pull out of Iraq, only to have Obama waste our time, money, and troops in Afghanistan. At least Iraq had oil. What does Afghanistan have to offer? The clenched fist of tribalism?
    The US wastes too much money,troops, and time on Nato, and the UN.
    I think it is time for the US to conduct business like all the others do. Take our troops secure our own borders, enter a period of isolationism when it comes to national defense and interests. Let the US withdraw from all the worlds problems. Kosovo, Georgia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Somilia, Zimbabwei, and all the other screwed up parts of the world.
    Let the multi-lateralism of the rest of the world deal with them. The UN can make some noise, as far as NATO let the Eu take it over call it EUTO.
    The US can pursue its own policies and sever the purse strings of the UN and Nato. Charity begins at home.
    Develop secure borders, economy, a strong national defense, break the oil energy cartels by pursuing a US independent energy policy. Become more domestic orientated, but still conduct world business with others who wish to do business.
    We can let the others like the EU, and who ever else correct the problems of the world. Take the UN headquarters to another country give the US a rest.
    Only the future will tell of the Obamanation of the US? So far it looks like Clinton won with all the positions being filled. Gates is just a transitional figure; party politics will prevail.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 10:38am on 15 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    #123. I don't quite understand your argument. Is it just objecting to the use of the word 'crusade' that bothers you or are you claiming that Islam wasn't spread with the sword across a quarter of the world?

    If the latter go to wikipedia and enter 'spread of islam' which is quite a good summary and ends with 40 referenced footnotes and about a dozen textbook references on the subject.

    For a 'peaceful religion' quotes like 'anthropology professor Kamuyu-Wa-Kang'ethe points out that there are also examples of African societies (notably Egypt and Somalia) that had their ethnic heritage almost completely wiped out by the encroaching Muslims, due to prohibition against long-standing African cultural traditions in favor of foreign, Muslim beliefs, and the castration of African males and rape of African females, who refused to convert'

    rather rock your argument.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 11:12am on 15 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    #129 "At least Iraq had oil. What does Afghanistan have to offer? The clenched fist of tribalism?"

    It offers the shortest route for an oil pipeline running from central asia to the sea, which is the reason cynics claim that the US invaded in the first place (not my opinion BTW)

    That apart you can withdraw from Afghanistan but will Afghanistan withdraw from you? How long before more hijacked airliners come your way? You can't secure your land borders, you certainly can't secure your coasts and securing your airspace doesn't work for planes originating in the US.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 11:14am on 15 Dec 2008, Steve-Beacon wrote:

    Hey BBC News, post 125. is perfectly true. Do you have too many political friends in America?

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 5:54pm on 15 Dec 2008, Steve-Beacon wrote:

    Blagojevich should be in prison. Graft is a felony. Illinois has every right to put Rod in jail for many years. He needs a lesson in humility and discretion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 6:14pm on 15 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    131. At 11:12am on 15 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
    #129 "At least Iraq had oil. What does Afghanistan have to offer? The clenched fist of tribalism?"

    It offers the shortest route for an oil pipeline running from central asia to the sea, which is the reason cynics claim that the US invaded in the first place (not my opinion BTW)

    That apart you can withdraw from Afghanistan but will Afghanistan withdraw from you? How long before more hijacked airliners come your way? You can't secure your land borders, you certainly can't secure your coasts and securing your airspace doesn't work for planes originating in the US."


    But you think it easier to secure Afghanistan?

    "You can't ecure your own borders, but you can secure someone elses?"


    Hijackings, bombings assassinations have occurred for decades and will continue into the future, whatever happens in Afghanistan

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 6:30pm on 15 Dec 2008, Simon21 wrote:

    "130. At 10:38am on 15 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
    #123. I don't quite understand your argument. Is it just objecting to the use of the word 'crusade' that bothers you or are you claiming that Islam wasn't spread with the sword across a quarter of the world? "


    1. Crusade is a specific historical term. It refers to Christian miliatry campaigns, end of story

    2. If the latter go to wikipedia and enter 'spread of islam' which is quite a good summary and ends with 40 referenced footnotes and about a dozen textbook references on the subject.

    For a 'peaceful religion' quotes like 'anthropology professor Kamuyu-Wa-Kang'ethe points out that there are also examples of African societies (notably Egypt and Somalia) that had their ethnic heritage almost completely wiped out by the encroaching Muslims, due to prohibition against long-standing African cultural traditions in favor of foreign, Muslim beliefs, and the castration of African males and rape of African females, who refused to convert' "



    Are you seriously suggesting that the population of pre Islamic Egypt, the whole of North Africa, the whole of Turkey, the whole of Indonesia, the Mongols, the bedouin, the Bangladeshis was annihlated and repopulated by moslems?

    Are you suggesting that the few thousands who made up the orignal arabic armies were able to forcibly convert such a vast population?

    Is this common sense to you?

    And can you please point out in Islam where castration is insisted upon?

    I thought the Greeks, the Jews, the Zorastrians, the Asasyrians were ableto amintain their religions for over a thousand years under Islam.

    How did they do that if all the men were castrated?


    But hey if you are in to Wikipedia look up the Albigensian crusade, the 30 years war, the sack of Magdeburg, Drogheda, the introduction of the "prince of Peace" into the Americas (what happened to Atahualpa,the last Inca) and the Greysteel Pub, Eniskillen bombing in Northern Ireland.

    Perhaps you can explain why there were so few religious minorities in Christian europe before the reformation?

    And where was Auschwitz again? And what was the predominant religion of the guards?

    In terms of tolerance (not considered a virtue until fairly recently in religious affairs), Islam has had it all over Christianty.

    Indeed Chriatian writers took this as a sign of moslem corruption.

    And not one islamic "terrorist" outrage matches one routine day on the railway sidings and chambers at Auschwitz.


    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 6:33pm on 15 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    129 america has not funded all they claim. they have a bad trackrecord of supplying the dosh when it comes up time to pay.
    How can they hey have been in debt for so long.
    Agreed break US dependancy on others but up to now america has been rather dependant on others feeding them like a big cry baby. or a world parasite.

    just to get a nasty tone in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 6:45pm on 15 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    130 peter isn't that a bit syplistic?

    Really muslims wiped out the culture of africa eh.
    Not the colonial europeans. who BTW really did a number on south america.

    Have you noticed they have a lot of churches, that I doubt were there before the europeans turned up.

    The crass hypocrisy and one sidedness of you argument is frankly pathetic.

    Have you ever met an Arawak indian?
    How many aztecs do you know?

    and what is this guy saying

    http://www.bluenc.com/robin-hayes-says-we-will-win-in-iraq-by-spreading-the-message-of-jesus-christ-there


    but i would agree that 131 part about the reason for the war.
    after all the stated goal was to stop Saddam getting a WMD to drop on Israel.(he was never going to get a missile to the states).

    I think they were real honest about it just americans could not see that that was wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 6:49pm on 15 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    130 Also how many american Indians have you met.
    probably some ,after all the early christian settlers did not manage to kill all they wanted.( Pesky federal non religious government stopping their slaughter ).

    Admittedly after they did their fair share.

    Convert take a white name or die.

    No different.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 9:37pm on 15 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    135

    simon just being provocative here ,(see if we can get a hook out to sam).

    Q How did they do that if all the men were castrated?
    A Hareem.


    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 9:38pm on 15 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    "And not one islamic "terrorist" outrage matches one routine day on the railway sidings and chambers at Auschwitz."


    simon too true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 11:17am on 16 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    "Are you seriously suggesting that the population of pre Islamic Egypt, the whole of North Africa, the whole of Turkey, the whole of Indonesia, the Mongols, the bedouin, the Bangladeshis was annihlated and repopulated by moslems?"

    No. professor Kamuyu-Wa-Kang'ethe suggested that. I'm suggesting it happened in North Africa. Modern Moroccans, Egyptians, Libyans etc are mostly genetically arab. The guys who built the pyramids were Africans. This can be shown with DNA fingerprinting of egyptian mummies and comparing it to the DNA of modern north africans. The population demographic has massively changed.

    It wasn't that hard to do, mainly because the native populations were pretty tiny. Egypt was only populated about 10 miles each side of the Nile. Remember the French managed to ethnically cleanse nearly 1 million cathars. Mass ethinc cleansing WAS possible in the middle ages and DID happen.

    #140. Agreed. However you're not exactly comparing like with like. Give Bin Ladin a million strong army equipped with cutting edge weaponry and see what he does with it. One small stolen nuke in London or Washington would match the entire Jewish deathtoll in WW2 in milliseconds.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 11:23am on 16 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    #135. I've just re-read your post. I suggest you do the same with mine. The quote says 'some african societies' NOT every single person in every single country that became muslim.

    neither am I trying to argue that muslims are worse than Christians (or any other religion for that matter) merely trying to add a little balance. It would appear that you think that no muslim ever killed anyone. The various examples of genocide carried out by a few thousand whites in the new worlds shows EXACTLY how easy it would have been for a few thousand muslims to do that same in Africa.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 7:12pm on 16 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    142 balance , OK

    The point is someone said this

    "96. At 03:49am on 12 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
    43 DominickVila
    Pardon my bluntness, but while neither Republican nor Democrat I'd like to tell you that you wrote an absurd load of prejudiced rubbish in this posting

    There is no religion or religious group on the face of this earth more "intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force", than are radical Muslims and the religion of Islam. "

    This last statement is the one you are defending.


    now to be fair Dom did say

    "Actually, many of us regard the Republican party as an organization controlled by Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force. "


    This says "many of us regard" , an opinion not even remotely saying it was a fact .it does not say

    " There is no religion or religious group on the face of this earth more "
    A statement suggesting certainty.Oh and a little racial tension.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 8:40pm on 16 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Happylaze (143),
    Well put.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 9:09pm on 16 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    So 'Anti-semitism' has to take its literal meaning, not what the term was actually coined for, yet 'Crusade' must not be used for its literal meaning, but must be reserved exclusively for one historic usage.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 9:17pm on 16 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    144 thanks (you know what they say about monkeys at typewriters) but I suspect there will be no end to this given that the crusading gerkins are off to join up in the godless battle .


    67. At 6:56pm on 16 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:
    64 WHAT?

    You really think your tough don't you. Go join up with the army buddy we all need strong willing hero's like you to fight on behalf of the country and or dreams.
    GO on join up.

    You don't even have the courage to face your own prejudice.

    Complain about this comment

    68. At 8:26pm on 16 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:
    ref #67

    That I feel I could take on a cowardly mullah?

    Let's face it Khomeni was a coward too and had the moral worth of pig droppings

    Complain about this comment

    69. At 8:52pm on 16 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:
    68

    Well e mail us from the front then, have fun.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 9:35pm on 16 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    145 well I didn't say that

    but yes


    "The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes.[1] Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins."
    wiki


    Now I was never allowed too take latin at school but i would wager that the


    Oh look what I found on the net.

    "The origin of the word may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux "

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 9:39pm on 16 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    opps sorry should I just start being rude and nasty so you guys will have an excuse to ignore my comments.
    I could write just like jacksforge and call you silly nicknames. then you could just pretend to be offended, that would make it easier eh?

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 00:31am on 17 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    No, Jack, you didn't say it so my question was not aimed at you. However, as you answered it, I notice that you covered only the crusade part. You point out the origin of the word. Fair enough, I'm not going to argue with it. So the word was first used to describe christian attempts at securing the 'Holy Land', but has subsequently been used to describe any noble endeavor (noble in the eye of the endeavorer that is). It was not meant to be a negative word (against something), but a positive one (for something).

    A number of people have attempted to point out the the phrase 'Anti-semitism' was used initially for one purpose. That some now wish to use it in its literal sense is neither here nor there - it doesn't change what the phrase was first used for. So why would someone get so uptight (and that's not actually a phrase I would use to describe the more relaxed happylaze) on the use of one and be relaxed on the other? Personally, it really isn't that important, I just found this apparent inconsistency to be a little curious.

    Yes, I know there is no such word as 'endeavorer', but as I am the first to use it, it means what I want it to mean!

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 00:53am on 17 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Shouldn't it be spelt "endeavourer", what with you being British and all?

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 01:03am on 17 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    149 fair nuff man.
    but there is no inconsistency.


    The literal meaning of anti semite is against semites.

    the literal meaning of crusades is Holy war by people wearing crosses .

    That would be the Christians.

    I would certainly use the word myself for many wars by many people , but that does not make me right.

    It is a more INCLUSIVE use but one I would find acceptable.

    but what you are defending is the ability of one people to restrict the use of a word anti semite from the literal meaning to one group at the EXCLUSION of others.

    Not fair


    Don't tell me about inconsistencies when you do not recognise them.


    PS i did say it(semantics of anti semitism) several times in case you missed it.

    and
    "145 well I didn't say that

    but yes"YES

    it is true but I am with you I would allow a broader usage of Crusade wrong as I like to be.
    But I will not restrict the word anti-semitism to just jews.





    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 01:11am on 17 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    150 he 's making it up so whatever.

    I feel this constant defence by various people about this linguistic anomaly so strange.


    It is not like I was trying to start something other than noticing it.
    But boy there re so many ready to jump against that I just don't get it.

    PS that madoff thing is hilarious.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 01:32am on 17 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Some folk seem very touchy/defensive, e.g. David responded to my comment about cities needing fuel to keep in food by lashing out at the UK...like he takes any criticism of LA very personally.

    Just don't criticise anything Scottish!

    G'night

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 02:10am on 17 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Oral history in action

    Truth spoken softly
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 02:21am on 17 Dec 2008, KimB1402 wrote:

    It is quite obvious that Obama's name has been dragged into this Blagojevich affair to overshadow his preseidential win and to cause a scandal.
    I for one do not believe that Obama had anything to do with the whole affair, but has caught up in the controversial whirlwind of the case.
    It is only natural that Obama would be interested and intrigued to see and know who his pre - decessor is going to be, yet to say he had any real involvement in the matter without concrete evidence is unjustified.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 08:36am on 17 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    I'd suggest we create a new word in the English language (Shakepeare made up 600- I should be allowed 1)

    Crescentsade.

    A holy war designed to spread Islam. Any problems?

    Regarding the quote you repeated in #143

    "There is no religion or religious group on the face of this earth more "intent on using crusades to advance their ideology and intolerance of other religions and cultures by force", than are radical Muslims and the religion of Islam. "

    I'd largely agree with it but highlight the RADICAL muslim bit. I work for a major university and many of friends are muslim stduents and they're equally frightened and ashamed of what a handful of muslims think, want and do.

    A perfect example is the Sudanese civil war and especially darfur. In that conflict Arab, muslim sudanese are hellbent on ethnically cleansing black, anamistic african sudanese in what can only be called a holy war.

    The jangaweed militia are hardly representive of most muslims but they're as zealous and bloodthirsty as the worst norman knight ever to go on crusade.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 12:42pm on 17 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Peter,

    "than are radical Muslims and the religion of Islam."....
    I'd largely agree with it but highlight the RADICAL muslim bit.
    But not bother deleting or disowning the general characterisation of "the religion of Islam"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 1:32pm on 17 Dec 2008, KimB1402 wrote:

    It has been revealed today thought that the whole Blagojevich scandalis almost at a standstill as there is apparently no concrete evidence to suggest any dirty dealings or backhanders in the competition for the senate seat. Although I do not agree with the circumatances that Blagojevich may have got himself in if there is no real evidence, then why did they feel the need to arrest him.

    Also here I do not see the relevance of the issue to do with radial muslims as it has no real effect or cojuction with the Blagojevich case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 2:46pm on 17 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    157 look what I have clipped
    "and the religion of Islam."


    so peter I suggest the comment be restricted.
    But then he who wrote it has shown them selves several times to be a bigot on this and other issues.

    "The jangaweed militia are hardly representive of most muslims but they're as zealous and bloodthirsty as the worst norman knight ever to go on crusade."
    this however is true


    My wish to sort the meaning of the word out is because I feel the recognition of this anomaly may help to calm people down. As long as they do not all get as offended as I have seen here. Calling me anti semetic or racist over it was not smart (not you peter)

    A sorry state of affairs .

    158 read here long enough and you will see that at every opportunity that the 'I issue" gets dragged into almost all conversations by some.



    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 2:52pm on 17 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    158 and that was why waterman so rightly pointed out the "innocent till proven guilty"

    When have the GOP ever waited long enough to find out the facts.

    He may still be guilty , but I will wait until the full unedited transcripts are out.

    What I have heard so far is like many things here.

    People take offence because they do not understand what was said in the first place.
    I never realised until coming here to this blog how many people have a problem with comprehension.

    Regular discussions take much longer because you have to explain to some what certain words mean.

    I suspect Blaggo will be doing a lot of explaining.
    If he is innocent I suspect it will do no good because of this lack of comprehension.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 4:44pm on 17 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    KimB1402 (#158), presumably the US Attorney thought there was enough evidence for a prosecution, so chose to make an arrest when he did to (hopefully) avoid having a tainted Senate appointment made. He's not required to submit all of his evidence to you or to the newspapers for evaluation first. It's his call.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 4:49pm on 17 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    Is Madoff innocent until proven guilty?

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 5:18pm on 17 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Sean's Dad

    "Is Madoff innocent until proven guilty?"
    He has apparently confessed...(to his sons, who. it would seem, turned him in - so much for filial devotion!)

    Peace and nepotism
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 5:30pm on 17 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    161 true but then US Attorneys can have
    political motivation.
    It has happened before.

    162
    Madoff however dear seanspa admitted he created a huge fraud to some(ok not proof) but I think the empty bank accounts are.

    Go tell them who lost out so much that he is innocent , they will say "cool give me my money".

    I could see there is a plot to get him , but will doubt it for the meantime.


    nothing to do with madoff but I got this out of this interesting article
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16608.html

    "Short sales are bets in the market that a stock’s value will decline. "

    again I have to say the people should sue all who have allowed wall street to exist according to New york law, i believe.

    It is illegal to gamble in new york.

    isn't it?

    All those that allowed it should be charged with creating an illegal gambling establishment.

    How about that for proles strike back.

    The people who made 401k advantageous so people would invest in the stock market and penalise peopel for saving in banks(in states where gambling is illegal) should be charged with over state line racketeering .



    that is what Judge Dredd would do.

    And he's always right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 5:37pm on 17 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    ahh markets doing well ,eh,Ed. ;)
    oh well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 5:38pm on 17 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    Jack, you make a lot of sense in #164 but unfortunately I think you have one aspect the wrong way around. It is the people who manipulate the system with inside knowledge and with property they do not own that cause most of the problems. The gamblers are the victims.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 5:49pm on 17 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Sean's Dad,

    "The gamblers are the victims."
    As always, but you can't con an honest man....

    Peace and realistic returns
    ed

    P.S. Maybe I should mention Blagojevitch or Obama to avoid the topic cops... ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 6:30pm on 17 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    166 sorry then, that was what I was trying to show.

    Those that created a system where people were forced to gamble. Forcing people to be victims.

    Retirement plans where if you cash them in early you lose half your money, because "they " set it up to force you to gamble.

    They being all that have been running the show for so long now that no one questions them it seems.

    I have always been amazed by the wall street casino being in operation, but even more amazed when the Gov. starts threatening people with penalties if they do not gamble.

    Hang them all I say, After a fair trial. and when I say hang I mean put them in jail.
    But not one of them Jails that Cheney ran (in US) because those were torture jails.

    Glad we could agree on something. Hippy day to you

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 6:50pm on 17 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    "you can't con an honest man"

    Are you saying that only a greedy man is conned? Tell that to the poor sods who get ripped off after high winds, by passing strangers who happen to notice loose roof tiles and offer to fix the problem.

    The honest and the greedy are equally gullible, just to different cons.

    Taking Ed's lead, I should add that Obama would not pull such a scam, but Blago may be the sort (should he be found guilty).

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 00:16am on 18 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    "Are you saying that only a greedy man is conned? "
    In essence, yes. If you aren't tempted by an unfair share or "something for nothing", you're a pretty difficult "mark". An honest person suspects anything which seems too good to be true.

    Of course, we should be wary of all generalisations, including this one.

    Peace and Obama and Blago ;-)
    ed
    "
    Well, Frankie Lee, he sat back down
    Feelin' low and mean
    When just then a passing stranger
    Burst upon the scene
    Saying, "Are you Frankie Lee, the homeowner
    Whose slates are all in pieces?
    ..."

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 01:22am on 18 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    Many rules have exceptions. The exception is the 'too good to be true rule' as any exception still means you have to pay for your lunch, and probably everyone else's lunch as well.

    What a day. I've agreed with both Ed and Jack, and I haven't even started drinking (a toast to Obama) yet. I'll drink to that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 07:29am on 18 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    171 lol have a bong for me

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 2:52pm on 19 Dec 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:

    #157. The koran is clear cut: people of the book (Jews and Christians) are to be respected and allowed to keep their religions because basically they're worshiping the right god. Idol worshipers should be put to the sword. I can dig out the exact quotations if you like.

    Most muslims have a sensible interpretation of the Koran and ignore the slaughtering parts. One of my friends even keeps beer in his fridge for me because Islam stresses the importance of hospitality to guests, but too many take it literally.

    I'd extend exactly the same criticism to certain christians you equally pick and choose certain lines to justify whatever they want. I'm equally prejudiced against anyone who literally follows bronze age literature.

    There's no such thing as the 'characterisation of a religion' just the characters of those who follow it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 3:17pm on 19 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Peter (173),

    "There's no such thing as the 'characterisation of a religion' just the characters of those who follow it. "
    An ideal, rather than universal practice, but I agree with your intent.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed


    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 5:02pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    173 nice stuff there.
    next time those that would have us start ww3 over their interpretation of who is the worst terrorist it would be nice if you would come back at them with responses like this.

    Because rather a lot of time is wasted on trying to explain to them that are racists that this attitude of they are all is not right.

    nice thoughtful post here though.


    "I'd largely agree with it but highlight the RADICAL muslim bit. I work for a major university and many of friends are muslim stduents and they're equally frightened and ashamed of what a handful of muslims think, want and do. "

    Showed you not to be a gherkin about it ,but the same could really be said of Christians (especially it seems those in the US). The handfull did seem to swell for a while after 9/11 as I suspect it did on the other side.


    PS what about that nanosilver,Eh?

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 9:21pm on 21 Dec 2008, DickGetty wrote:

    Test

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 3:47pm on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    176
    fail?

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 04:53am on 15 May 2009, GC wrote:

    I honestly don't think it was all that damaging

    Horse Racing Tips

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.