|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 21, 2008 12:44:10 GMT -5
Kind of like your pronouncements of Palin's "guilt?
LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 21, 2008 12:52:58 GMT -5
saunterelle, I had to smite you for your duplicity. You are giving Obama a pass for potential violations of a monetary nature, while pointing out an already settled issue with Palin. BigDog was accusing Obama of an ethics violation. I was simply pointing out that Palin has already been found to have acted unethically. No, taking money is more then an ethical violation, it is illegal under the Illinois State Law. Big, big difference which you are either ignoring or are ignorant of the differences between a violation of ethics and state law. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 21, 2008 12:56:20 GMT -5
Your opening statement was accusatory: You forgot the most important part of the post, the potential evidence as sited. That is called cherry picking, and you did it to negate the fact that TBD wants an investigation. In fact, every response you have made has been to accuse the other side of issues, rather then addressing the potential facts as presented. That is just wrong. 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][/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 21, 2008 13:04:53 GMT -5
Kind of like your pronouncements of Palin's "guilt? LOL Again, the bi-partisan, Republican dominated council made the judgment that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," not me. I am simply reporting their findings. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 21, 2008 13:41:17 GMT -5
Ahhhh... so now you accept that they are "findings" and not a judgement of "guilt". Good. Now that you've seen the straight of it, we can move on.  |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 21, 2008 13:53:23 GMT -5
Their findings are a judgment. Read the quote.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 21, 2008 14:02:28 GMT -5
The quote is not germane to what the law is.
There can be no judgement, in the legal sense of the word, outside of a competent trier of fact be it a court or the legislature for an elected executive official. A finding is exactly that and no more. It is a report and reflects the opinion(s) of the preparer.
You are applying lay logic to a legal term, and that doesn't work.
|
|
