Obama Play "Checkers" With Rezco Land Deal

[maddiejoan]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obamafullwebmar16,0,6642341.story?page=3

"... This was not a big deal to us. It was not something that was critical to our property values, but it was something that I thought would be nice ‘cause I’ve got a 9-year-old daughter and a 6-year-old daughter. And in fact the way this came up was there was a, originally a play, big swingset thing that went across both properties that we had to tear down and constructing a new one, there wasn’t gonna be enough room. And so that’s what triggered my thinking that it would be nice to widen the lot. "





http://www.watergate.info/nixon/checkers-speech.shtml
"One other thing I probably should tell you because if we don't they'll probably be saying this about me too, we did get something-a gift-after the election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And, believe it or not, the day before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was.

It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he'd sent all the way from Texas. Black and white spotted. And our little girl-Tricia, the 6-year old-named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it."

[GarbagemanLB]

1. In other news, the Chicago Tribune says it is satisfied with Obama's account on Rezko!

[maddiejoan]

2. Why not?

They endorsed him.

:shrug:

[tabasco]

10. The Chicago Tribune hasn't endorsed a Democrat for President since 1872.

If you're trying to make it look like an Obama-loving left-wing rag, good luck with that!

It is a winger newspaper and if they had dirt on Obama, they would throw it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune

[maddiejoan]

14. oooopsies

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0127edit1jan27,0,847324.story

[democrattotheend]

19. That's in the primary

We'll see who they endorse in the general. Hopefully it's Obama, but I would not be surprised if it's McCain. Didn't they also endorse a Republican for the primaries? Most newspapers do both.

[madrchsod]

25. yes both dem and republican..

they also endorsed foster(democrat) over oberweiss(nazi) in the illinois 14th election because oberweiss was a total failure..he lost three previous elections.

[maddiejoan]

30. What does that matter?

They also endorsed Obama in his Senate run in '96

[mopinko]

47. it was a tough choice- obama or keyes, who didn't even

live in illinois. yeah, real left leaning folks.

[tabasco]

26. They will endorse McCain for President!

Do you have some sort of comprehension problem?

[madrchsod]

20. the tribune is so right wing it`s pathetic

although they have moderated over the years ,if there was a strong republican running they would endores them over any democrat running. they picked obama because they dislike hillary even more...

[Straight Shooter]

65. And in other serious reporting in The Economist, they say Rezko is definitely a problem for Obama.

So who ya gonna believe, Obama's hometown paper or The Economist's perspective? (Latest issue.)

[Drachasor]

82. Great way to mischaracterize the article! And it wasn't the latest one (it's a week old)

They didn't say there was any substance to what was going on, they just pointed out the Rezko trial could be a problem (because allegations with no substance could be a problem). This is blatantly from before Obama talked to the Tribune as well.

So, overall, you are quite wrong.

Btw, for everyone else, here's the article:

http://www.economist.co.uk/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10809143&CFID=17317516&CFTOKEN=63df04fdc46da310-BB7A7112-B27C-BB00-01272550506F5074

[Straight Shooter]

86. They sure didn't dismiss it as irrelevant. They made the point of mentioning it.

Why would they mention it if it wasn't relevant? You think The Economist is in the nitpicking business? If it were that crystal clear, they would have dismissed it out of hand. They didn't.

And since I haven't personally received the subsequent issue of The Economist, it is the latest issue, to me.

So, overall, you presume too much.

[democrattotheend]

3. What's your point?

The Tribune gave Obama a clean bill of health after hearing his account. I don't even get the comparison.

[maddiejoan]

4. Doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't.

[democrattotheend]

12. Can you explain, rather than insulting my intelligence?

I'm 24 and wasn't alive during the Nixon years. I don't understand the connection. Was Nixon's comment made in relation to Watergate? It sounds to me like he was just talking about getting a dog.

[maddiejoan]

22. Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkers_speech

<snip>
Nixon, having been accused of accepting $18,000 (which equates to approximately $140,000 in 2007 dollars) in illegal campaign contributions, gave a live address to the nation in which he revealed the results of an independent audit that was conducted on his finances, exonerating him of any malfeasance. The money, he asserted, did not go to him for personal use, nor did it count as income, but rather as reimbursement for expenses. He followed with a complete financial history of his personal assets, finances, and debts, including his mortgages, life insurance, and loans, all of which had the effect of painting him as living a rather austere lifestyle. He denied that his wife Pat had a mink coat, instead she wore a "respectable Republican cloth coat."
<snip>

[ExtraGriz]

21. only the court can clear him, not a newspaper

let the trial continue and everyone can find out. i think the only reason obama came forward with the extra rezko fundraising (now at $250,000) detail is because he knows its going to come out at the rezko trial.

[tammywammy]

24. Obama hasn't been implicated with anything to do with this trial

He's not a witness and hasn't been subpoenaed either.

[99th_Monkey]

52. Wrong. Using that logic, can't explain very well why won't Hillary release her tax returns?

[babylonsister]

5. Bwhahaha! Nice try!

:toast: I do believe the Trib gave him a pass after he was questioned ad nauseum, no?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5096854

[maddiejoan]

7. I'm confused

Are you referring to the Tribune Court of Law?

Oh wait --it's just a newspaper that endorsed him.

Personally, I just found his defense on the property strip to be rather "Nixonian".

[democrattotheend]

15. Was he ever charged with wrongdoing in court?

If so it's news to me. Every story I have read about Rezko has emphasized that Obama is not accused of any wrongdoing by legal standards.

[maddiejoan]

27. It doesn't smell very good though does it?

Many newspapers at the time also found Nixon not guilty of bribery --and the RNC kept him on the ticket with Eisenhower.

And why does Obama feel the need to hide behind his daughter's swingset?

His defense reminded me of the "Checkers Speech"

:shrug:

Doesn't mean he's guilty --just a little comparison of defense strategies.

[DerekJ]

38. Didn't the NYT endorse McCain?

What's your point.

[99th_Monkey]

54. Try looking at it without those Billary Glasses on, and it may look different.

[maddiejoan]

60. Wait -- Let me try.

Hmmmm


Nope.

Is what it is.

[99th_Monkey]

62. Having Bill go on Rush Limpnutz radio show to get Rethugs to vote for HIllary?

that's not a wee bit "Nixonian" to you?

are you sure you really took those glasses off?

tell the truth now.

[maddiejoan]

64. I suppose it would

if Bill actually did that.

But as he did not -- it just makes you look dishonest.

[99th_Monkey]

70. So all these people are lying?? really?

The Moderate Voice
http://themoderatevoice.com/media/talk-radio/rush-limbaugh/18313/bill-clinton-went-on-rush-limbaughs-show-day-of-texas-primary/

Talking Points Memo
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/wtf-bill-clinton-on-rush-limba.php

In fact your lying ears can listen to the actual audio right here:
http://images.radcity.net/5155/2461772.mp3

Sorry to harsh your mellow, esp. after your "ignore myself" post... but this IS what we're dealing with here in the big tent.

[maddiejoan]

72. lying no.

Horribly deluded --perhaps

Bill Clinton did NOT go on Rush's show.

Bill Clinton went on Mark Davis' show earlier that day at WBAP.
Later that day Mark Davis guest hosted for Limbaugh and replayed that interview.

[99th_Monkey]

73. Are you saying Bill really was NOT on Rush's show, or what? Now, I'm confused.

[maddiejoan]

74. That's what I'm saying

Bill Clinton did NOT go on Rush's show.

Bill Clinton went on Mark Davis' show earlier that day at WBAP.
Later that day Mark Davis guest hosted for Rush and replayed that interview.

[99th_Monkey]

81. Ahh. I see. So Bill was on twice, once earlier & once during Rush's show

when Rush was out sick. So that's supposed to make it "all ok"? .. that he was actually on twice?

[maddiejoan]

84. He wasn't on even once

is that so hard for you to understand?

[99th_Monkey]

88. denial

isn't just a river in Egypt

i thought you knew that.

[maddiejoan]

89. You can keep saying he appeared on Rush's show --but the facts

are as I reported them upthread.

[Nitrogenica]

6. Wow, comparing him to Nixon now. What's next Hitler?

Keep on watching FOX news, and I am sorry but I'm putting you on ignore now.

Bye bye.

[maddiejoan]

8. Must have hit a nerve then.

Good.

[democrattotheend]

16. Huh?

So you are admitting that the sole purpose of this post was to "hit a nerve" and get Obama supporters pissed off? How old are you anyway?

[maddiejoan]

28. My purpose was not to hit a nerve

though it would appear that I have.

My purpose was to demonstrate what I thought of Obama's explanation for why he made his self admitted "bone-headed" mistake.


As for my age? Why does that matter?

[JoFerret]

36. Sorry but Hillary has that area covered

Hitlery and all those other charming epithets from certain Obama folk in league with freepers to destroy a great dem candidate.

[rodeodance]

57. Many Obamafolk here on DU rountinely compare Hillary supporters to Hitler--now

you whin about a potential?

get used to it.

[Yes We Did]

77. Don't you love how she picks a couple quotes out of pages upon pages...

I personally love how Maddie deliberately tries to frame this in a negative light.

If you read the articles out of Chicago on this matter though, they are actually praising Obama for his honesty and saying that he has done nothing wrong in this.

Of course, we already know that, seeing as how Obama is not the one being indited.

Every real news source has come to the conclusion that he has done nothing wrong here.

Keep pretending and spinning Maddie. It's not going to work.

[sandnsea]

9. Chatwal, Gupta, Giustra, Singh,

Burkle, Hsu, Chung, Huang...

And you still don't care about any of the slime buckets in Hillary's campaign.

Can you say hypocrite?

I knew you could.

[maddiejoan]

11. I wouldn't throw Hsu in there if I were you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090703047.html?hpid=topnews

[TML]

13. How about Vince Foster and his office cleanup?

[sandnsea]

18. The Clintons brought him into the Dem Party

Just like Obama brought Rezko in. I put the blame where the blame lies, Rezko on Obama, Hsu on the Clintons.

You just ignore whatever it is you don't want to see. It's putrid and I am truly ashamed some of you call yourselves Democrats.

[maddiejoan]

29. Actually

Hsu was with Obama first.

[Sadie5]

31. Hey, it's Obama...right

Poor naive little thing, he was duped for sure. The nerve of this bad guy helping O out, then going and telling everybody about it. you just can't have secrets anymore. It's all HRCs fault for taking money from him in the first place.

[Hawkeye-X]

33. Relevant piece of news..

Obama's campaign, which has donated to charity $7,000 in direct donations that Hsu made to Hopefund and his Senate campaign committee, confirmed last night that Hsu hosted a small event for the PAC in March 2005 in Los Angeles.

Hillary didn't.. so let's try this again...

(Giving you another chance, maddie - don't blow it)

[maddiejoan]

39. Actually

Hillary HAS given back all the Hsu money as well PLUS all moneys that were bundled by Hsu to over 260 donors.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/clinton-to-return-all-hsu-tainted-money/

[corkhead]

49. what about the other 7 sandnsea mentioned?

you must watch a lot of faux nooze; beat the drum loudly and long enough and it becomes the truth in people's minds, in spite of the facts. Maybe your talents would be best utilized working for them, if you don't already.

I am surprised Sean Hannity isn't your avatar.

[maddiejoan]

50. Got news for ya

I don't even have cable television.

I watch the following:

Bill Moyers

House

and SNL (if it's a host I like)

[corkhead]

53. Kidding aside, I have a dish, but what's funny is if you added the Daily Show to your list,

mine would be exactly the same as yours. We have a lot in common, I hope you will fight for Obama as hard as you fight for Hillary.:patriot:

[maddiejoan]

56. Heh

I watch Daily Show clips on the youtubes when I can --or from here on DU.

And I'm sure I'll be doing just that for whoever is the Democratic nominee --at the least I'll be tearing into McCain with a vengeance.

[Skip Intro]

17. OMG. Now he's hiding behind his kids? It was for the children, "the 6-year old."

Obama, did you make a shady real estate deal?

Look at my beautiful children.



I don't know what to say. It's disturbing.



btw, I effn' LOVE your avatar - a work of art

[maddiejoan]

35. It's pure 1952 Nixon

It's the "Checkers" defense for god's sake.


and thanks!

(It's Audrey Tatou from "Amelie")

[MojoMojoMojo]

23. Rezko paid for $500,000 of Obamas house.Any idiot can see that

Why did Rezco "borrow" $3.5 million of Iraqi money 3 weeks before the house deal?

If nothing was fishy why put the land into his ex wifes name?
Why doesnt Obama build a fence to separate the property?
Why does Obama pay to have Rezcos lawn mowed?
Why dont people realize a bullshit artist is at work here?
Why does Obama have a friend who is a slumlord who cuts off the heat of his tenants in the middle of winter?
Obama presents himself as an advocate for the poor in the area of housing.
Obviously Obamas only out to help himself.
Why would you support the enabler of the biggest slumlord in the country?

[maddiejoan]

32. Didn't you hear?

[madrchsod]

37. i take it you have no links to any of these facts?

[maddiejoan]

40. delete

wrong post response

[MojoMojoMojo]

43. Prove anything Ive said as wrong.You are too lazy to research your candidate before you support him.

Typical Obama supporter.

[ThatBozGuy]

59. "Prove Im wrong"

"Why would you support the enabler of the biggest slumlord in the country?"

You are wrong about Mr Rezko being the biggest slumlord in the country, he is a little fish when it comes to that kind of developing.

In fact you are the biggest slumlord in the country, as well as myself and every other taxpayer, through HUD.

Try to relax breathe and not exaggerate you ll find life will pass you by much smoother that way as it rolls over your failure to be Cohesive,Convincing or Coercive rather than being just Contrary or Corrosive.

Itried to put this in as many Large C words as I could to assist your disorder.

[QC]

34. Is this Michelle's respectable cloth coat?

[maddiejoan]

44. ...

;)

[JohnnyLib2]

45. Heh. Pat Nixon, she ain't.

But the OP certainly sounds familiar to this old guy. Good job.

[ThatBozGuy]

41. Thats an astute political allusion, of an insider who regularly traded donations for access.....

and does a very good job to illustrate, why career politicians are likely to continue behavior they have shown in their connected donors.

But it is only an allusion or better yet an illusion to the current situation.

Apples and oranges

Please remember the checkers speech was 20 years before Mr Nixon's final failing, with over 30 years of being part of the Political culture of favors for access, and scratch my back Ill scratch yours behaviors.

Your own political allusion has shown the sense of Mr Obama's stance that politics and experience can breed way too many balances to too many masters that are not the American people.

Thank you for pointing our what the likely out come of a politician with 35 yeas of experience such as Mr McCain and others can likely lead to.

Glad you cleared up for us the choice should be against Washington insiders, before to many make the mistake in the primaries and continue to oppose Mr Obama's candidacy of transparency and are coerced to choose a washington insider who by your inference will end up like Mr Nixon.

[maddiejoan]

42. The observation

is to demonstrate that Obama is more of the same.

He simply traded up his Illinois insider status for bigger fish to fry.

To claim that Mr. Obama is not a career politician is laughable at best.

[ThatBozGuy]

46. I realize the point you were "trying" to make, but the point you made was actually the opposite....

and I thank you for making it easy for people to see what Washington and people with long term political experience and insiders are capable of and the likely outcome of choosing someone like that.

Mr Nixon was vetted alot between the checkers speech of 1953 and his presidency and its good that you demonstrated how things can change over periods of a decade or so.

[maddiejoan]

48. serious?

Nixon was scum in 1952 as well.

Are you saying Washington spoiled Nixon?

:rofl:

Sweetie --Nixon spoiled Washington.

[ThatBozGuy]

55. I was saying that Mr Nixon got worse, and you demonstrated, that people with that background, in ...

in Governor and Presidential politics as their base experience that they flag when running for president are more likely to revel and wallow and likely to fail us.

The other point that Mr Nixon showed so well as you pointed out that people with things to hide often will not be transparent to the American people, I mean Mr Nixon hid things from the public all the time as the tapes proved and much like today the underlying things that were discovered were the International underpinnings to the corruptions. International exposure to china was a leading factor in much of Mr Nixons business dealings during his administration.

Again Mr Obama's drive for transparency in personal finance impacting things is why your pushing for openness and I would like to thank you for looking into that.

By your definitions and direction in this you have made it fairly obvious that anyone that would hide facts of their finacial dealings in real estate and other situations should be asked to be open and forthcoming as Mr Obama was on friday and previous dates.

Please feel free to push to have those who have the expeirience of Mr Nixon and as vetted as Mr Nixon was to be transparent with their finacials and I believe you will have saved us from the wrong candidate.

Thank you again for your support of Mr Obamas views.

[maddiejoan]

58. This would assume

That Mr. Nixon and Mr. Obama were fully vetted by their respective processes.

I've read the Tribune Interview --I'm not convinced.
To believe Mr. Obama's account --I'm expected to believe that he really couldn't imagine Rezco asking for the favor to be returned.
Even the mortician at the beginning of The Godfather wasn't THAT stupid.

None of this really looks good for a candidate running with "Judgement" as his campaign banner.

For the record --I doubt very much Nixon was innocent of the bribery charges as well.

So.

Nice try.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-kass_bd16mar16,1,4243773.column

[ThatBozGuy]

61. Thank you for showing Ms Clinton in the 90s was similar to Mr Nixon of 1953

How can you say contradictory things about Mr Nixon in the same post and not realize....

That you make Mr Obama s point. In one sentence you say he wasn't vetted and then several sentence later you say he was.

You also would probably be much more centered and served if fiction of the Godfather wasn't how you measured Ms Clinton's comparisons to Mr Nixon as you showed us in your original post above.

You demonstrated quite well that Ms Clinton in the 1990s is similar to Mr Nixon in 1953.

I mean they were both faced with questions of impropriety early on, became Washington insiders
and gained more power and responsibility to washington insiders by trading favors prior to their
running for president 12 or so years later.

We are just lucky you pointed out Ms Clinton is likely to end up like Mr Nixon, with their shared experience levels of washington politics backing them, before she won the presidency like Mr Nixon did.

Thank you so much for supporting Mr Obamas open and transparent government initiatives by pointing out Ms Clinton's parallels to Mr Nixons secrecy and the possibility that she may be dangerous.

Thank you again for your support of Mr Obama and saving us from Ms Clintons dangerous possible future and the damge it may have done to us.

[maddiejoan]

63. sorry, Boz

But your attempts to distort the incredibly obvious make you look rather silly.

[ThatBozGuy]

66. Mirrors are an interesting thing arent they.

So is distortion because it is subjective.

We are both doing the same thing with the same content, the difference is you believe your stretch to be "true" you can only see my point as wrong and the absurdity in my same behavior as yours.

I don't believe Mr Nixon has a damn thing to do with either candidates behavior today, but your so lost in your world, you are disconnected from the parody.

I see the parody I have presented and the absurdity you see is a reflection of yourself.

When your behavior and wrongness is reflected back at you, you recognize the dissonance, next time look at yourself as if it was me and I wont have to hold up the mirror.

[maddiejoan]

67. With all due respect

You have been here less than a month.

You don't know me at all.

Mr. Obama used the Mr. Nixon "Checkers" defense over a similar accusation of impropiety.

The sole purpose of this OP was to draw that comparison.

Any conclusuions to be derived from there are up to the reader.

If you would like, in this thread, to demonstrate a similar comparison between Nixon and Hillary -- I invite you to do so.

As of now - your only 'observation' is equivalent to Pee Wee Herman's "I know you are but what am I?"

[ThatBozGuy]

69. The funny thing about "with all due respect" is.....

It always means the opposite:

5116453, With all due respect
Posted by maddiejoan on Sun Mar-16-08 09:03 PM

You have been here less than a month.

You don't know me at all.

You have no idea how long I have "been" here or what I have observed and you are enjoined by the rules from doing this but Im sure pointing that out felt good for you, since longevity is somehow equal to experience in you circle.

Mr. Obama used the Mr. Nixon "Checkers" defense over a similar accusation of impropiety.

Again that is an apples and oranges subjective OPINION not fact, you should learn the difference it will help you weather your difficulties in the near future. You should also make attempts to allusions where you do not understand the subject other than you got a chance to compare Mr Obama to Mr Nixon, pat your self on the back for being such a good democrat. You probably should look into the underlying monies that were discussed in the checkers speech and the outcome.

The sole purpose of this OP was to draw that comparison.
Any conclusuions to be derived from there are up to the reader.

No the sole purpose of this OP was to gain peer approval from a group of people that are reveling in taking potshots at a democratic candidate. You get your pats on the back and your giggles from those who are sad enough and desperate enough to find that as a camaraderie and bonding point with you.

You should question why you are here when attacking a democratic candidate is what you gain pleasure from.

[maddiejoan]

71. I am enjoined by the rules

from dismissing your validity as a DU member based on longevity.

I am not enjoined by the rules from observing that you have very little knowledge of who I happen to be based on your rather short time of exposure to me.

However, if you may make observations about me at this point with such limited knowledge, I see no reason not to return the favor by observing your behavior from your posts.

I find you to be patronizing, boorish and somewhat over-pleased at what you believe to be an intellect.

Of course this is an opinion, you dolt.

It was never presented as fact. It's my OBSERVATION.

As far as the underlying monies? They are 300,000 US$ in Obama's case to what amounts to about half that in todays dollars for Nixon.

It's not "apples and oranges" it's "oranges and oranges" or if you like "oranges and a tangerine about half the size"

Don't tell me what my purpose is --I'll tell YOU.

[ThatBozGuy]

79. Thank you for your observations, I am definatly patronizing to those who find pleasure in attacking.

Democratic candidates with right wing smear jobs, I left the republican party because of people who enjoyed inflicting pain, who reveled in people who would attack others and gained a peer approval in such behavior.

Posted by maddiejoan on Sun Mar-16-08 09:35 PM
I am enjoined by the rules
from dismissing your validity as a DU member based on longevity.
I am not enjoined by the rules from observing that you have very little knowledge of who I happen to be based on your rather short time of exposure to me.

It doesn't take a long term exposure to observe someone in a bar who has had to much to drink and is belligerent.
It doesn't take a long term exposure to observe someone in a gang of jocks who pick on weaker people as bullies to gain approval.
It doesn't take a long term exposure to observe a dog who has been beat that bites back at anyone, not just those that harmed it.

There are many ways in life that short term observation and exposure is enough to make judgments of character or viciousness.

Again I realize it is difficult in measuring timeframes when your currently involved in an environment where longevity equals experience despite action.

However, if you may make observations about me at this point with such limited knowledge, I see no reason not to return the favor by observing your behavior from your posts.

I find you to be patronizing, boorish and somewhat over-pleased at what you believe to be an intellect.

Of course this is an opinion, you dolt.

It was never presented as fact. It's my OBSERVATION.

As far as the underlying monies? They are 300,000 US$ in Obama's case to what amounts to about half that in todays dollars for Nixon.

It's not "apples and oranges" it's "oranges and oranges" or if you like "oranges and a tangerine about half the size"

I was making a reference to the checkers speech and monies involved in that time frame, which by the way the $18 000 from Mr Nixons 1953 inflation adjusted is $139,179 and 37 cents

Mr Obama recieved no such monies and your exaggeration, wishes and opinions do not change those facts.

I realize anyone who enjoys attacking democrats would not have a base of judgment of respect, but I have been nothing but respectful to Ms Clinton and with the exception of calling the overwhelming foibles and faults such as these you have demonstrated, Ms Clinton's supporters.

Don't tell me what my purpose is --I'll tell YOU.

Your words here mean nothing when it comes to the sincerity of what you meant. You can not tell anyone you did not mean to post this to attack a democratic candidate so that you can get pat on the back for the attack by your peers, and that you did not revel in invoking that attack.

Because much like Ms Clinton your own words and behavior are much more damning to herself than anything anyone has to say about her, your words are much more damning of yourself than anything I need to say. That behavior that attacking and wilding in the attack of a democratic candidate can be observed in your own posts about this post in another section of this site.

You attack a democrat and then go search for approval and link here so that other can continue the attack.

Forum Name Hillary Clinton Supporters Group
Topic subject I'm incorrigible
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x8063#8063
8063, I'm incorrigible
Posted by maddiejoan on Sun Mar-16-08 07:03 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5114731&mesg_id=5114731

Your words and those of your compatriots are much more damning about your motivation and reasons for this post and your reveling in attacking a democratic candidate, "Don't tell me what my purpose is --I'll tell YOU." You were correct I only had to let you tell me how destructive and what your motivation was. Its no longer about supporting Ms Clinton it is about taking potshots that is where you take your pleasurre and even thank those that applaud you for this destructive behavior.

[maddiejoan]

83. your continued personal attacks aside

"I was making a reference to the checkers speech and monies involved in that time frame, which by the way the $18 000 from Mr Nixons 1953 inflation adjusted is $139,179 and 37 cents

Mr Obama recieved no such monies and your exaggeration, wishes and opinions do not change those facts."

Obama recieved $300,000 in savings off the asking price of his house.
Nixon received by your count $139,179 and 37 cents.

As I say --roughly half.

If pointing out who I believe we are dealing with in a Mr. Obama as President is tatamount to being 'destructive' it is not my fault.
He is what he is and what he apppears to be.

If you do not enjoy seeing it -- don't shoot the messenger. Examine your candidate.

*BTW --since you are so fond of quoting the rules --my former-republican friend --you will also note that calling someone out over another thread posted elsewhere is also against the 'rules'.

[ThatBozGuy]

85. It is the statement he recieved 300 000 from....

Mr Rezko had no money involved in the purchase of the home. The Obama's had the highest offer and it was accepted by the seller.

Again you confuse supposition and inference as fact and even give it a monetary value.

I do not shoot the messenger, when the information is not interpreted incorrectly by the messenger, as it has been in your case.

Again please feel free to demonstrate "personal attacks", I have refuted your information and discussions if you feel that is personal perhaps you should step away a bit.

As to the rules, while it makes you uncomfortable because of your behavior, that is not my "fault":

I know it was awkward to realize that you were engaging in this behavior.

Do not use the DU Groups to "rally the troops" to go participate in discussion threads elsewhere on our website, or to likewise encourage members to vote in polls or recommend threads or alert on posts.

You will also notice I am permitted to assist you in an effort to educate you to not continue the behavior.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior.

Good day.

[maddiejoan]

90. I bet you're the life of the party.

[okasha]

51. Oh my.

BO's even got the notorious five o'clock shadow.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

68. Verrrrrrrry interesting ... striking similarities.

:kick:

[Yes We Did]

75. It's called transparency Maddie.

Something Clinton knows nothing about.

This man has answered every question on this and every other issue.

When is Hillary gonna start giving some real answers for a change?

[maddiejoan]

76. When hasn't she?

[cd3dem]

78. wasn't this issue chased away with the others by calling it racism?

[Hoof Hearted]

80. When you've never been in a REAL campaign you tend to blame your shit on children.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

87. Kicking for the morning crowd....

:kick: