|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 20, 2008 10:55:05 GMT -5
Now let's see just exactly how our resident leftists explain this away. These are the problems you run into when a candidate is so thoroughly shielded by the "mainstream" news media. Once his public record really gets looked into, you can find all kinds of things out although (in this case) probably far too late that it matters. [/url] Oct 19 2008 12:00AM
sayanythingblog.com/index.php
Apparently, on Obama’s released tax records, he discloses income from speaking fees. The problem? Accepting payment for speaking fees when you’re a legislator is against Illinois state law
Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.
But what about Barack Obama?s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?
2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a ?Foundation director/Educational speaker.?
2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for ?Legal services/attorney? (and nothing for speaking)
2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for ?LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.?
These ?speaking fees? are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.
That’s not change we can believe in.[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 20, 2008 11:52:03 GMT -5
Well, I guess his and Palin's ethics violations cancel each other out.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 20, 2008 12:00:58 GMT -5
Nice try, and exactly what I would expect. So good of you to respond in such a predictable manner. Palin's alleged ethics violations in no way involve any suggestion or appearrance of monetary enrichment.
Care to try again?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 20, 2008 12:19:13 GMT -5
You're right in that there was no monetary gain for Palin, but there was certainly a monetary loss for the trooper who lost his job because of her (and her husband's) personal vendetta that made her cross the line. In my opinion, this is a much worse offense because she made it personal. Similar actions have been undertaken by the Bush Administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Oct 20, 2008 13:26:23 GMT -5
Right comparing discretions of a POTENTIAL VEEP.
To those of the POTUS......right.
No they're the same...
She is a VEEP potential
He is running fro PRESIDENT.. BIG Difference.
If the "downstream" media wasn't so in the tank in making sure B. Hussein gets elected there would be an AVALANCHE of these types of stories. His Chicago days are littered with Filth.
Send in the unicorns.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 20, 2008 13:36:12 GMT -5
McCain is 72 years old. If he wins, he will be the oldest President elect in history. Are you seriously suggesting that his VP doesn't have to be ready to take over as President at a moment's notice? Shouldn't the VP be held to the same strict ethical standards?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 20, 2008 14:29:00 GMT -5
You're right in that there was no monetary gain for Palin, but there was certainly a monetary loss for the trooper who lost his job because of her (and her husband's) personal vendetta that made her cross the line. BZZZZZZZZT. Oh I am sorry, but once again that is the wrong answer. Trooper Wooten, the ex-BIL, poacher, drunk on duty child abuser, is still employed by the Alaska State Troopers. Nice try on your part to stretch the truth. Isn't it inconvenient when little things like facts get in the way of what sounds like a good argument? Well your opinion and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. If you are making some vague, vieled reference to the US Attorney firings, nice try. While there is a Special Independent Counsel empowered to look into the US Attorney firings, once again the discharge of a political appointee at any time and without cause is not unethical. You could ask Bill Clinton who discharged all 96 sitting US Attorneys in one shot. Palin made what personal, exactly? Whether the trooper was her brother in law or not why can she not as Governor demand an explanation of why an employee with that large a measure of public trust and responsibility who was implicated in numerous crimes (including a felony child abuse) was not criminally prosecuted and terminated from employment? The Director of Public Safety, the subsequently fired Mr. Monegan, had a record of insubordination and failure to follow executive direction and orders already. This imbroglio only added to the ledger. Now let's take a step back and note that Barack was taking tens of thousands of dollars illegally. He was forthright enough to contemporaneously declare them on his tax returns. Bravo for him, but the fact still remains that taking all that money was and is illegal under Illinois law. It's probable that the statute of limitations has already run on these offenses, unless there are instances from 2005 and forward, where he did the same thing. Time will tell, but this disclosure paints Barack as just another ward heeler, corrupt politician from Chicago out to get as much as he can for himself. If you can't see the differences, then you are either blind or incapable of reasoned, critical thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 20, 2008 14:52:57 GMT -5
Keep in mind, a bipartisan committee investigated Palin and found her guilty of an ethics violation. Which committee gave Obama a fair trial and judged that he broke ethics laws? Or was it just one guy's opinion posted on his blog?
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Oct 20, 2008 15:07:34 GMT -5
Keep in mind, a bipartisan committee investigated Palin and found her guilty of an ethics violation. Which committee gave Obama a fair trial and judged that he broke ethics laws? Or was it just one guy's opinion posted on his blog? Tony Rezko....... I cannot wait...here it comes. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 20, 2008 15:11:29 GMT -5
Okay, Tony Rezko, that's not Barack Obama is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Oct 20, 2008 15:14:40 GMT -5
Okay, Tony Rezko, that's not Barack Obama is it? Not yet. It will be soon enough. Rezko IS TALKING as we speak. He can ONLY rat on a couple people..those people can and will rat on your hero. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 20, 2008 16:01:06 GMT -5
Keep in mind, a bipartisan committee investigated Palin and found her guilty of an ethics violation. Which committee gave Obama a fair trial and judged that he broke ethics laws? Or was it just one guy's opinion posted on his blog? Apparently you haven't been reading my back and forth with Mink on that point. There is no finding of guilt by a competent court, or by the legislature of the state of Alaska in an impeachment proceeding. What there is amounts to a finding by an investigator, a statement of opinion that the investigator believes she acted improperly under an ethics law that involves the taking of money, which nowhere in the allegation do I find that anyone accussed her of doing so. No matter... it fits your agenda so you run with it. But it was also the investigator's opinion that Palin was within the rights and prerogatives of her office to dismiss the Public Safety Director without cause at any time. The same investigator also concluded that while he felt that Palin might have violated ethics laws he could not and would not recommend any criminal sanctions. As to the "bi-partisan" nature of the investigation, there is a bit of truth wrapped around a big fat lie. Perhaps you overlooked this article, from ABC News. The article from early September notes that State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat, was the "project manager" appointed by the Legislative Counsel Committee. Senator French is very much a partisan, who denied discovery to the Governor's attorney and who fought tooth and nail to not release any report until October 31... exactly five days before the election. For you to continue to insinuate that she is "guilty" of something, when such is not the case, and to deny that there is not political motivation at the core of this exercise is so baseless that it is no longer funny. There is no way that you could be that obtuse. As such that makes you nothing more than a vile propagandist. As to Senator Obama's quite apparent ethical lapses involving tens of thousands of dollars and his tax returns, I have not said anythjing about his guilt or innocence. I would like to see those allegations investigated forthwith by both the state of Illinois and by the mainstream media with dare I say half as much zeal as the latter has shown in trying to destroy Governor Palin over horse sh!t. Unless or until your own party comes clean on Obama's past, there is always going to be a cloud. |
|
