I Have Difficulty Supporting Obama

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby dudejcb » Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:27 am

Lousy church or not, I think all Christian churches teach about Jesus and his teachings. When I was little, the small kids (like Obama's) were in Sunday School while the adults were in the main congregation so I don't know that Obama's pastor wpent a lot of time trying to brainwash the little ones, or that Obama would allow that to occur.

I don't think I learned the wrong lessons in church either. I am one of the few who contributes frequentlyon DHC that consistently puts forth the position of non-judgemental tolerance and seeking to understand others; whether it be about gays, the poor, or Scott McClellan. So I think I got the gist of what Jesus was teaching. However I am amazed and digusted by those who claim to be Christians yet consistently miss or distort the central points of religious and philosphical teaching.

BTW: I have was confirmed Methodist, attended a lot of church with my grandmother who was a Lutheran, have relatives who are (northern) Baptist ministers, and I've also attended many Catholic services... my wife, grandfather, and most of my school age friends were Catholic and I've sat through countless services with them all. The only "lousy" churches I can think of are the televangelists, all those individuals who cloak themselves in some faith (Christianity, Judaism, or Muslim) yet preach hatred or superiority of thier faith over others; also I don't much care for "cult churches like the LDS or the notion the 7th Day Adventist's have about giving up your children to be raised by the church (as happened to a cousin of mine who married a 7th day whacko). I don't want to go on listing churches that I think are flawed cuz therre are too many, and it's usually not the church itself, just certain individuals or small groups.

If you want to believe Obama is a liar, go ahead and believe it. I think he has a better head on his shoulders than McCain, and would improve our postion in the world and our lives at home more than McCain would. that doesn't mean I agree with everything he may think, it just means exactly what it says, no more. Haviung said that I also think McCain would do a fine job. I do hope, if he wins, his opinions on how to deal with the Iraq war, Iran and other flashpoints (and our economy) will evolve a bit more.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho


Postby LIGHT12 » Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:36 am

Dude,

Reread your post. You just said there were bad churches on one side, but said, because you think Obama has a better head on his shoulders your fine with his church. To tell you the truth you know nothing about Obama, have never met him have not been in his inner circle. All you have is what he wants you to see. Poor judgement is poor judgement. Did you know the second minister at his now precious church had the same history as Wright. Did you know you and i had paid that ministers organization a $100,000 earmark attached to some bill recently.


Think you should reread, and see your decieving yourself. I am honest they are both schmucks. But McCain has atleast proved fiscally responsible over his tenure in the Senate. Obama has run for president in his stay in the Senate
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:42 am

dudejcb wrote:I was "raised" in a church, but the church didn't raise me. In fact I was president of our church youth league for about 4 years unitl I was confirmed... and by that time had witnessed enough hypocrisy--people being areses all week, and then saying good things on Sunday only--that I didn't think I need the church. I just needed to be a good person. My take is that most people take their kids to church so they will learn about the Bible and learn the lessons of charity, tolerance, and good deeds. It's not about hero worship.

I don't recall any of my friends (who went to church almost every Sunday) as necessarily being raised by the church. We all talked about the wierd aspects of our ministers and Fathers... especially my Catholic friends, who when we had snow days with no school, and we'd go to the Catholic schools to play basketball... they always said to "watch out for Father Feeney." So, while we repected church people, we didn't necessarily respect them individually unless their actions drew respect.

You know, the old saying: Authority is given but respect is earned. that applies to everyone, supervisors, managers, politicians, and clergy. Even though I was involved in lots of church activities, it was mostly with other church goers (my peers) with the subtle supervision (as best they could) of the Pastors. But I never got too chummy with the pastors on an individual level.


dudejcb wrote:The only "lousy" churches I can think of are the televangelists, all those individuals who cloak themselves in some faith (Christianity, Judaism, or Muslim) yet preach hatred or superiority of thier faith over others; also I don't much care for "cult churches like the LDS or the notion the 7th Day Adventist's have about giving up your children to be raised by the church (as happened to a cousin of mine who married a 7th day whacko). I don't want to go on listing churches that I think are flawed cuz therre are too many, and it's usually not the church itself, just certain individuals or small groups.


Dude, you are hard to follow. Your church if full of hypocrits, weird pastors, and the Catholic church you hung out at, you imply had a pedophile priest. But they weren't lousy churches. If that's not the definition of lousy, then I'm not really sure what it means.

dudejcb wrote:Haviung said that I also think McCain would do a fine job. I do hope, if he wins, his opinions on how to deal with the Iraq war, Iran and other flashpoints (and our economy) will evolve a bit more.
BTW, don't you mean devolve back to the old status quo ante. Isn't that exactly what Obama is proposing? Sure, he's putting a little lipstick on that old pig, but it's old ideas and not new ideas that he is selling. The old ideas were failures, the new ideas haven't been tried before and it is way to early to declare failure, but maybe they will. I know much of the left has been rooting for failure and Obama will give them their failure.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:43 am

L12,
Never said I was fine with his church. what I tried to convey was that I don't know (cuz I didn't witness it) that his kids were taught hatred or racism in church.

I personnally don't get those type of participatory churches where people shout out and jump up and down... but that's what they do. I don't really care, but it does make me laugh cuz it's so foreign to my church experience, and I would not do such things.

As far as not knowing Obama personally, that's true. Do any of us really know any of the candidates beyond sound bites?

I'll try not to "deceive" myself. that's not to say I won't make a mistake.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby dudejcb » Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:54 am

SpinnerMan wrote:Dude, you are hard to follow. Your church if full of hypocrits, weird pastors, and the Catholic church you hung out at, you imply had a pedophile priest. But they weren't lousy churches. If that's not the definition of lousy, then I'm not really sure what it means..

I thought it was common knowledge that many Catholic Priests have been guilty of pedofilia, and the church was guilty of looking the other way. that's bad. Catholics also did lot's of bad things historically. That doesn't mean all of the essential teachings of the church are all bad... again; it's bad individuals within on organiztion that do the bad things in most cases, not that the organization itself that is inherently bad. That sid, I don't know what they have against women priests or priests being married.

Before you go off cuz that doesn't cover every eventuality... the Nazi's werre a BAD organization. skinheads, KKK and most devil worshippers are, in my opinion, implicity bad organizations as well.

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:Having said that I also think McCain would do a fine job. I do hope, if he wins, his opinions on how to deal with the Iraq war, Iran and other flashpoints (and our economy) will evolve a bit more.
BTW, don't you mean devolve back to the old status quo ante. Isn't that exactly what Obama is proposing? Sure, he's putting a little lipstick on that old pig, but it's old ideas and not new ideas that he is selling. The old ideas were failures, the new ideas haven't been tried before and it is way to early to declare failure, but maybe they will. I know much of the left has been rooting for failure and Obama will give them their failure.
No. that's not what I meant, and I'm not rooting for failure in Iraq. I would like the war to be successful in a timely manner, and for our kids to stop dying trying to police a civil war that we unleashed and that we may not be able to stop. Ever. Whether those two things will happen remains a question mark. It would be nice to see democracy sprout and take root in Iraq. but looking at all the other countries in that region it doesn't seem to be their usual manner of governance.

Hope springs eternal.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:10 am

dudejcb wrote:It would be nice to see democracy sprout and take root in Iraq. but looking at all the other countries in that region it doesn't seem to be their usual manner of governance.
Which ones? Turkey, Israel. I think even Egypt is not that bad. Wouldn't the same have been true of Europe up until recent history? How about Japan? I know a lot of Middle Easterners. There is not some inherent desire for a dictatorship.

This whole idea of individual equality and freedom is a pretty new concept, but most everybody is all for the you leave me alone part of it. They generally have a much harder time with the I'll leave you alone part of the equation. Once they get the concept, they realize it's the only safe way to go.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby jaysweet3 » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:14 am

Other than what a friend of your read in Obama's book, what really leads you or anyone to beleive that he has a better head on his shoulders. This canadate has not completed a term in the U.S. Senate. While in the illinois state senate he showed time and time again that he is soft on crime and at the same time anti gun. Do we all see the contradiction here? He doesn't want to prosecute criminals but make it illegal for us to defend our homes.

We have seen him pander to his voting constituency time and time again to the detriment of the greater good. His empty promises about health care are rediculous. What he has proposed would never be approved in either congress or the senate. And the dems controol both.

His whole platform is basically this, "Change change change McCain is Bush change change". Every democrat is drinking the coolaide. This man is not quallified to be the president. He should never have won his senate seat in the first place. The GOP in Illinois is screwed because of Chicago. Everyone knows what that city runs on, graft and corruption.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 7785
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:25 am

John Cass was on 560 AM this morning talking about how he can't believe that the Chicago machine politics is going to run the country. How can someone from one of the most corrupt political machines in the country run on the idea of change?

Maybe Obama means he will change the entire country into a giant Democratic patronage machine. With the collapse of the Illinios Republican party, Chicago took over the state. Now with the collapse of the national Republican party, they can take over the country. Then on to the entire world.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:34 am

Dude,

I just read this. Do you actually think the left in this country believes in Democracy?

We may finally get a new greenfield refinery.
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/06/04/news/top/4e608d46402d5adb8625745e00110beb.txt

By a solid 58 percent to 42 percent margin, county voters approved Hyperion's request to rezone 3,292 acres of farm land for a new classification, Energy Center Planned Development.


While conceding defeat, opponents vowed to keep fighting the controversial project on every imaginable front, pressing on with a lawsuit it filed against the county over the zoning procedures and opposing Hyperion as it applies for a bevy of state and federal permits.

"We have strategies in place to slow or delay all the permit processes," Ed Cable, chairman of the anti-Hyperion group Save Union County, said after the vote.


They don't care what the majority says. Never did and never will. Unless the majority agrees with them and then they are all for democracy. Now that's hypocracy.

Will Obama back the residents of the county? I'll go out on a limb and say not a chance. That's pro-democracy :rofl:
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby jaysweet3 » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:37 am

That really is a scary thought. Just think of the political pull Rezko will have.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 7785
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby dudejcb » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:05 am

I read the article and didn't really get a sense that this was left or right type issue. Seemed like it was more of a "who's ox is being gored" type thing where those nearest the plant site were opposed to the rezoning, and those who lived further away thought it was agood idea. I imagine those nearby might think their property values will decrease. Who knows?

So, what's your point? We need additional refining capacity and it's a good thing to have the plant be as efficient and non-polluting as possible.

I will bet Obama would support the plant and honor the vote. Energy has finally emerged as the huge issue it is, and I sincerely doubt any politician would oppose something of this sort. Especially in times of $4 per gallon (and rising) gallon gas.

PS: I am tired of the continuing lame assertion that anyone more liberal on certain issues is somehow non-democratic, socialist or communist. If I recall correctly, most totalitarian type goverments are not left leaning or pro individual rights. liberals are pro democracy, pro individual rights, and progressive. Opposing democracy is not progressive.

However, in our country, if someone feels they have been damaged, and have some evidence supporting that claim, they do have redress in the courts. I doubt the lawsuits these guys threaten will have the legal grounds to get past summary judgement.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:10 pm

dudejcb wrote:PS: I am tired of the continuing lame assertion that anyone more liberal on certain issues is somehow non-democratic, socialist or communist. If I recall correctly, most totalitarian type goverments are not left leaning or pro individual rights. liberals are pro democracy, pro individual rights, and progressive. Opposing democracy is not progressive.
The totalitarians always come to power with the ideas of the collective. The things that are good for "society" and if we have to harm some individuals, then that's just what is necessary. I know you don't think taking 30, 40, 50% or more of someones income is harm. If that's not harm then I don't know what is. They justify this exhorbanant harm to some inidividuals in the name of the common good and disparage them as being greedy, etc. if they don't want to go along. They don't "need" that much. Of course, about 99% of Americans have more than they truly need.

Look at Chavez. I think it safe to call him a progressive and he is a pretty stereotypical dictator want-to-be. Look at all the progressive Americans that fawn over him and Fidel. Does that make him a conservative or a religious fanatic?

I know you have this idealistic view of "progressive" politics. We generally agree 100% on the ideals, but the progressive policies never work in practice. As you concede, people take advantage of the system and don't work any harder than they absolutely have to. It always devolves into a power struggle over how to divide up the scraps. I don't know how you don't see this in Democratic party. Virtually everybody on the right sees this in the Republican party, which is why we support smaller government, term limits, local authority, and anything else to keep the power out of their hands and why they lose elections.

Progressive policies are a recipe for failure because they rely on people defying human nature.

Maybe your just out of touch with reality like the diehard libertarians. For them its a religion and you don't compromise your sacred beliefs. I am generally libertarian in my beliefs, but I don't ignore Republican malfeasance by saying that is not libertarianism. I have no idealistic view of some incompetant boob running for President that has accomplished absolutely nothing worth of setting himself ahead of the pack other than singing and dancing to a fawning audience of the most ignorant voting block in the country. Why do you think he relies more heavily on the 18 years kids than the 45 year olds that are married with children?

dudejcb wrote:However, in our country, if someone feels they have been damaged, and have some evidence supporting that claim, they do have redress in the courts. I doubt the lawsuits these guys threaten will have the legal grounds to get past summary judgement.
I almost guarantee they will delay the process significantly. Show me one new refinery that hasn't been delayed and the lawsuits were dismissed summarily. Remember time is money. They have a very simple strategy. Delay, delay, delay until the investors decide it's better to invest their money elsewhere, say in China. All they have to do is find one "progressive" judge to slam the breaks on the entire project and force the cost of the project to rise by millions of dollars. Then they will get over that hurdle and very likely the same judge will come up with another excuse to slam the breaks on again.

No Obama won't explicitly oppose it, but he will support the beaurocracy that will kill it. I don't see the difference. Maybe that's progressive and not liberal or marxist or anti-democratic. The end is the same, so I'm not going to get too hung up on the semantics.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby seastreet » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:58 pm

dudejcb wrote:PS: I am tired of the continuing lame assertion that anyone more liberal on certain issues is somehow non-democratic, socialist or communist. If I recall correctly, most totalitarian type goverments are not left leaning or pro individual rights. liberals are pro democracy, pro individual rights, and progressive. Opposing democracy is not progressive.


Your are definitely wrong on that one. Totalitarian regimes can arise from socialism style or theocratic style governments. Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are prime examples from the left, while the Iranian Revolution is one from the right.

Democracy would be nice if this country was one. Fact is that it is a representative republic founded on democratic principles. That is a far cry from a democracy. A democracy is a mob rule mentality, that is based on emotions and the fad of the moment, in which one part of the country can dictate policy for the rest of the country. The founding fathers didn't want that. They wanted all areas to have a say under equal representation. That was the exact reason the electoral college was set up. Otherwise, presidential candidates would only campaign in the northeast and California, and to hell with the rest of the country. Check out Article 81 of the Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton for further explanation. That is a good read for those who still don't understand how our government works.

Originally, the Democrats were set up to envision mob rule mentality. Republicans, by the very definition, believed in the founding fathers' intent for a representative republic. Unfortunately, bith parties have drifted left, so that Democrats have become the visionaries of socialism, and the Republicans have become big government bureaucrats. Liebrals do not believe in indvidual rights. They believe in a collective brand of government. Everything for government, instead of the individual. Union labor is a prime example. Individuality is not allowed.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:20 pm

seastreet wrote:Your are definitely wrong on that one. Totalitarian regimes can arise from socialism style or theocratic style governments. Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are prime examples from the left, while the Iranian Revolution is one from the right.
I have to disagree with a part of this statement. There is nothing at all from the right in the formation of the government of the Iranian Revolution. The socialist message of the NAZI party only put them to the right of the communists. The absolutely essential element of a totalitarian government is the idea of group over individual. It doesn't matter what that group is. If being religious made you right leaning, then the Democrats wouldn't have a chances. There are a lot of very liberal "religious" people and very conservative secular people. Totalitarianism requires eliminations of individual rights.

There is a lot of semantics about left and right, but the fundamental difference is the relative importance of the collective and the individual. Hard left is totalitarianism and hard right is chaos. Far too many people are extreme right-wingers with regards to themselves and extreme leftists with regards to everyone else. The stereotypical groups that fall into this category are the aging pot-smoking hippies and religious zealots.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Chris Bishop » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:02 pm

Well boys, congratulations on electing Obama your President. Man, i did not think that contest would ever end. Hilary gave him a good run but could not clinch the presidency. Looks like the whole world was routing for him to be your president. Congratulations again :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Chris Bishop
hunter
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:49 pm

Postby dudejcb » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:24 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:There is a lot of semantics about left and right, but the fundamental difference is the relative importance of the collective and the individual. Hard left is totalitarianism and hard right is chaos. Far too many people are extreme right-wingers with regards to themselves and extreme leftists with regards to everyone else. The stereotypical groups that fall into this category are the aging pot-smoking hippies and religious zealots.

Just cuz I used to smoke pot doesn't make me a righty-lefty switch hitter!
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby LIGHT12 » Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:44 pm

seastreet wrote:
dudejcb wrote:


Originally, the Democrats were set up to envision mob rule mentality. Republicans, by the very definition, believed in the founding fathers' intent for a representative republic. Unfortunately, bith parties have drifted left, so that Democrats have become the visionaries of socialism, and the Republicans have become big government bureaucrats. Liebrals do not believe in indvidual rights. They believe in a collective brand of government. Everything for government, instead of the individual. Union labor is a prime example. Individuality is not allowed.



just quoted part of your post. But the entire thing is one of the best posts in this new forum thus far.
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

Postby Preacher1011 » Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:06 pm

Forum Title: "I Have Difficulty Supporting Obama"

Me too. 'Nuff said.
Locked&Loaded wrote: I got out shot by a 13 yeard old girl.


jrockncash wrote:Is that mask only for ghosts or can fat guys with little weiners use it too?


Image
User avatar
Preacher1011
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 8448
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:14 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN

Postby LIGHT12 » Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:26 pm

Rev. Wright: spiritual advisor radical church leader.

William Ayers: worked with Obama on a commitee in Chicago. is a domestic terrorist. Had McCain had a similar with David Koresh would you give him a slide.


Rev. Michael Pfleger: $200,000 in federal earmarks to his organization do to Obama. Another radical church leader.

If McCain or any republican had such connections, would you not be asking for there heads. But obama allowed to rest on i'm for change.
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

Postby seastreet » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:03 am

LIGHT12 wrote:Rev. Wright: spiritual advisor radical church leader.

William Ayers: worked with Obama on a commitee in Chicago. is a domestic terrorist. Had McCain had a similar with David Koresh would you give him a slide.


Rev. Michael Pfleger: $200,000 in federal earmarks to his organization do to Obama. Another radical church leader.

If McCain or any republican had such connections, would you not be asking for there heads. But obama allowed to rest on i'm for change.


Let's not forget Tony Rezko. Convicted yesterday in federal court and was a fund raiser, friend and had shady business dealings with Obama. Noticed that the story was pretty much buried by the mainscream media. It would have been top story for 6 weeks if it involved McCain instead of Obama. Double standard does exist for the liberal's chosen messiah.

Here's the story...

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/rezko.trial.verdict.2.740375.html

Here's some background on Obama's connection with Rezko...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4111483

Truth is that Obama is nothing more than another crooked, Cook County Illinois politician. When the 527 orgs are done with Obama, he won't be able to show his face anywhere but Chicago, where he will be among like minded thieves and scum.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby LIGHT12 » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:01 am

I forgot about Rezko, Rico charges are no small thing. Hell a republican can't say something nice to a 100 year old man at his birthday party, but a dem can commit about any crime they want and get away with it in the press. I say that because its true. Not because Obama has been found to commit a crime. Oh wait he had campaign finance charges against him after one run for office go figure it got washed away also. Those charges involved Rezko.
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

Postby dudejcb » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:43 pm

here's the NYT article on Rezko that just came out. Notice what it says and how the RNC plays it.

"CHICAGO — Antoin Rezko, a once-powerful fund-raiser who helped propel the career of Senator Barack Obama, was found guilty on Wednesday by a federal jury of 16 counts, including fraud, money laundering and bribery in an influence-peddling scheme that touched the highest levels of the administration of Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois.

Mr. Rezko, 52, was acquitted on eight other charges, including attempted extortion. After the verdict, he surrendered to the authorities. Sentencing is Sept. 3.

While Mr. Obama’s friendship with Mr. Rezko has been debated on the campaign trail, no evidence surfaced in the courtroom to suggest that Mr. Obama was involved in any wrongdoing.

In a statement, Mr. Obama said that he was “saddened” by the verdict.

“This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,” he said, adding that the charges against Mr. Rezko “once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform.”

“I encourage the General Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future,” Mr. Obama said.

During the Democratic primary race, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton repeatedly called attention to Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Rezko in an effort to raise questions about Mr. Obama’s judgment.

Minutes after the verdict was announced, the Republican National Committee began circulating an e-mail message titled “Rezko: Obama’s Longtime Friend and Money Man” that sought to link the two over a 20-year period. The committee also posted a Web site and a video."
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:50 pm

Dude,

Obama and Rezko have been involved in shady deals. Obama doesn't even deny that Rezko was involved in the purchase of his house and adjoining lot that he couldn't have done with his income at the time. I'm sure Tony just wanted to help out his good buddy Barrack :no:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483

The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."

On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.

While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.


Ed
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby seastreet » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:01 pm

Simple guilt by association. Again... if this were a Republican with shady ties, it would be top story for the next six months on every mainscream media outlet.

It is starting to look like Obama follows in the Clinton's footsteps of having numerous scandals around every turn. Typical Cook County, Illinois politician.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby LIGHT12 » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:05 pm

thanks Spinnerman,

This incident also was very much against the new Campaign finance reform bill, but was pushed under the rug. Why may I ask.

Dude, Spinnerman is from the area, has seen what Obama really is. I am from AZ and know what McCain really is. I will tell you there is little difference in the two men. I just give McCain a bit of an edge because he has a little bit better politics. i honestly would rather poke my eye out with a wooden spoon than vote for him. i have not voted for him yet in my life. If anything McCain is better at hiding his personal life. Obama doesn't seem to think he has to.

Here is another question for you. Obama was hand picked by the Chicago political elite for his spot. Do you really want the Chicago political family running this country
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: On the X and 6 guests