PDA

View Full Version : Why are there so many corrupt people connected to Obama?


Yar-El
12-09-2008, 10:29 PM
Moved to Hot-topics as Political natured...

Why are there so many corrupt people connected to Obama?

Gov. Rod Blagojevich (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28148126/)

Jeremiah A. Wright (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw)

Bill Ayers
Tony Rezko
ACORN

How did he win when he has these types of friends?

Litofsky
12-09-2008, 10:46 PM
Because McCain had worse friends? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W_Bush) Let's not forget Rick Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Davis_(politics))!

No, seriously, though, these types of threads are rather pointless (seeing as that Obama's already been elected, and I don't think the results are disputed), in my opinion.

Q
12-09-2008, 10:49 PM
Why are there so many corrupt people connected to Obama?
This is just a shot in the dark, here, but maybe because he's a politician?
How did he win when he has these types of friends?
Another shot in the dark: Because his BS was better than McCain's?
No, seriously, though, these types of threads are rather pointless (seeing as that Obama's already been elected, and I don't think the results are disputed), in my opinion.
QFT.

CommanderQ
12-09-2008, 10:50 PM
Oy, well, the question on how Obama won with those friends has yet to be answered. Alot of these people are very very very corrupt, so if they'd had been discovered before the elections, I imagine it would've been rather damaging to Obama, but right now, it doesn't mean alot, it does mean, though, that Obama didn't chose the most honest of people as friends...

Chevron 7 locke
12-09-2008, 10:52 PM
The main reason Obama won was because he prmosed change in my opinion.

Q
12-09-2008, 10:52 PM
Oy, well, the question on how Obama won with those friends has yet to be answered. Alot of these people are very very very corrupt, so if they'd had been discovered before the elections, I imagine it would've been rather damaging to Obama, but right now, it doesn't mean alot, it does mean, though, that Obama didn't chose the most honest of people as friends...
But they were discovered before the election. It made no difference.

CommanderQ
12-09-2008, 10:57 PM
True, Obama still had more votes, I just find it interesting that if this information was found out before the elections, that some of these guys weren't brought to the widespread media until after the election. Obama still won, so, Hail to the Chief.

Sabretooth
12-09-2008, 11:06 PM
How did he win when he has these types of friends?
Heh, I dunno about American politics but I know that down here, you need corrupt friends to win. :D

CommanderQ
12-09-2008, 11:19 PM
Yeah, I guess your right with that. In politics, well dishonesty and politics almost always go together, and I imagine that there were probably alot of corrupt people we don't know of yet were friends of both candidates here.

Q
12-09-2008, 11:40 PM
Heh, I dunno about American politics but I know that down here, you need corrupt friends to win. :D
Hahaha, small world. :D

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-09-2008, 11:50 PM
True, Obama still had more votes, I just find it interesting that if this information was found out before the elections, that some of these guys weren't brought to the widespread media until after the election. Obama still won, so, Hail to the Chief.i find it interesting that you managed to miss this information.

Heh, I dunno about American politics but I know that down here, you need corrupt friends to win. :D

New topic: How did McCain lose when he had so many corrupt friends?

Q
12-09-2008, 11:52 PM
New topic: How did McCain lose when he had so many corrupt friends?
Because none of them were in the mainstream media? :p

Web Rider
12-09-2008, 11:59 PM
Because everyone loves Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney! They never did nuthin to nobody!

CommanderQ
12-10-2008, 12:00 AM
i find it interesting that you managed to miss this information.


No, I didn't miss it, I knew about it probably quickly after it occured. What I found surprising was how most of it didn't reach the mainstream media until later. Well, there's definately strategy in the Media as well, isn't there?

Q
12-10-2008, 12:20 AM
Because everyone loves Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney! They never did nuthin to nobody!
Wrong. Dick Cheney is a killer.

He killed my beloved Grumman Aerospace! :swear:

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-10-2008, 06:03 AM
No, I didn't miss it, I knew about it probably quickly after it occured. What I found surprising was how most of it didn't reach the mainstream media until later. Well, there's definately strategy in the Media as well, isn't there?you have a point the only time i've ever seen anything about reverend wright or acorn is on a couple of blogs.

except when almost every network practically looped that clip of wright yammering at the pulpit.

or when they droned on about acorn killing infants or whatever and asking obama and biden what they thought of it.

<snipped>

(i'm getting at the fact that you're wrong)

Yar-El
12-10-2008, 10:36 AM
I quess the question is - Can a politician not be corrupt? Can you be put into power without taking corruptive steps? It feels pointless to vote if no mater who gets into office they will abuse power.

Article -
SO WHO'S CORRUPT NOW? (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/10/1708215.aspx)
NBC is finally taking notice. Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann are now asking the right questions. Lets see if this will actually go somewhere, or if this will just fade away in time.

*** So who’s corrupt now? Since his election last month, Obama and his team have masterfully choreographed every cabinet announcement, press conference, and meeting for maximum effect -- until yesterday, that is. On a day when the agenda was a meeting with Al Gore on energy and climate change, all hell broke lose after Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) was arrested for allegedly offering Obama's Senate seat for some kind of payment in return. It didn't tell us anything new about Blagojevich (he had been straddling the ethical line for some time), or Illinois politics (Blago could become the state's fourth governor in 40 years to go to prison), or even Obama (who is in no way implicated in the government's report). But it does begin to advance a GOP argument that the Democrats -- who campaigned against a Republican "culture of corruption" -- are no longer so innocent themselves. Are the ethical and legal issues that have recently dogged some Democrats (William Jefferson, Tim Mahoney, Charlie Rangel) beginning to approach what we saw in the last few years from Republicans (Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Bob Ney, Don Sherwood, Ted Stevens, etc.)? And while the term “culture of corruption” gets thrown around a lot, the fact is that a state possibly having four governors go to prison in 40 years is most definitely a culture of corruption.

*** Why didn’t Dems do something earlier? Republicans have themselves a talking point they will constantly throw in Obama's face (and Rahm's and Axe's), simply because they are all Chicago pols. This means Obama will always have to look more transparent than usual and, well, less Chicago-y. The one criticism, by the way, that really could stick to the entire Illinois Democratic political establishment: passivity. It was a running joke for years that Blago had a corrupt side, so why didn't more Democrats step up. Sure, politics is politics, and sometimes you have stand by folks who you THINK are corrupt but you can't prove it since no one wants to sound like Joe McCarthy. Still, the passivity here is something that will likely tug at many Illinois Democrats. Could they have done something sooner?

*** The impact on Obama: As for the scandal’s impact on Obama, no doubt that it will be embarrassing for him and his incoming administration, even though the president-elect isn’t implicated here (in fact, the affidavit makes it crystal clear that Obama and his team weren’t willing to play ball). We’re probably going to see a top Obama aide -- Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett? -- on tape with Blagojevich. And that shouldn’t be too surprising (after all, why wouldn’t you return your governor’s phone calls in this post-election period?) But Obama also didn’t help himself with his initial comment yesterday on the matter. Unlike other Illinois Democrats, he didn’t condemn Blagojevich’s actions, if true. Instead, he said he was “saddened and sobered” by the news, adding that it wasn’t appropriate to comment on the issue. But then he later did comment, saying, "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.” Yet that contradicted an interview last month by Obama adviser David Axelrod, who said that Obama had spoken with Blagojevich about the vacancy. Axelrod issued a statement last night saying that he was “mistaken” in that interview. Team Obama's initial response yesterday to the scandal seemed par for the course: During his two years on the campaign trail, Obama often swung and missed on his initial statement regarding a controversy -- Bitter-gate and Jeremiah Wright come immediately to mind -- before finding a better response 24 to 48 hours later.

Jae Onasi
12-10-2008, 02:25 PM
The Feds were very careful to point out that Obama was not linked to the indictments of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Obama had made some recommendations for his replacement to the governor, and the governor was mad because that person apparently wasn't one of those who had offered him anything for the Senate seat.

It is HUGE news here in the Chicago region, of course, so it's been the topic of talk radio nearly non-stop since the story broke yesterday morning.

Nedak
12-10-2008, 02:32 PM
Why are there so many corrupt people connected to Obama?


Because he's a politician...ffs

Litofsky
12-10-2008, 05:15 PM
Because he's a politician...
QFT.

Heh, I dunno about American politics but I know that down here, you need corrupt friends to win. :D
Good Sir, this is the Universal Rule of Politics! o_Q

The Doctor
12-11-2008, 03:21 PM
To re-post an edited version of what was deleted previously:

So what, "Yar-El", have you just decided to take up the job of dredging up old arguments that have been settled while Garfield is away, then?

I will openly admit that a lot of politicians are corrupt and wealthy. But a lot of that comes from corporate bribes to keep them off their backs, something I'm sure McCain has had his hand in several times in the past. You wanna talk about freedom from Government control, let's talk about freedom from corporate control. Right now, our entire lives are run by them. Look at where you live, what you eat, your computer. Unless you're some sort of free spirit and built your own computer from scratch, grow your own food, and built your own house, your life is dictated by corporations, which are vastly more corrupt, unpredictable, and greedy than any government officials could ever be. And corrupt government officials start with corporate bribes.

If I have to choose one or the other, the corporate control we'd have with a Republican in office or the government control we'll have with Obama, then I choose Obama, because I trust him, and while no politician can be called completely honest, he has been the closest thing to it this entire election, and his goals are as realistic as they are well-planned. If the government can be seen as a benevolent force, which I think Barack Obama can make strident steps toward doing that, then I say let them take the power out of the hands of those big businesses that completely own the lives of American citizens. We don't really have a free market anymore, we have corporation-ism, and it needs to stop.

If government grants for college open up more readily, like Obama wants to see happen in his term, and if things become cheaper and more accessible as well, then there's no need for that much money to "open up opportunities", and besides, if there are any opportunities that require 250,000 dollars a year or more to open, I certainly don't know of them. Will these individuals have to give up their money they feel so entitled to? Yes, and it's about damned time. Does that mean they won't get their fancy, superfluous tidbits like nice cars or a huge home? Maybe, but nobody needs those things, and the drive for those objects are materialistic, and materialism is the first step in decadency, the force from within which fell Rome.

It's time we start realising what really matters. Knowledge, intellect, the ability to create beautiful art with both words and images, the power to pierce the darkness of the unknown with light of discovery and truth. A power to think abstractly, and devise new and unique philosophies. That's what got us here, that's the drive of our progress, and that is the true beauty of humanity. And greed, as well as the drive for pretty things with no real ulterior value, need to be quashed thusly. Will some people not like it? Maybe, but you carry on an intervention even when the crack addict screams to be allowed to leave. And that's what greed is. It's an addiction.

As far as Barack Obama's supposed "friends"? I'm going to just stop addressing them altogether, because the things you're claiming, and your party have been claiming, are lies. I'll just throw some links at you, and then I just want that part of this discussion closed because it's complete bull, and I'm tired of hearing about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Ayers_controversy

That's the truth about the Ayers controversy. So, and I know this is a debate and everything, and you have a right to your opinion, but seriously, for the love of god, please drop it. Because even if Obama was tied with Ayers in some personal way, which he really isn't, it proves nothing about his opinions on the country. I have friends that are conservative republicans, and I sure as hell don't agree with them on jack. My uncle is a Conservative/Republican, and a racist. Are you going to have the gall to tell me that I am as well, because I'm none of those things, but if your philosophy holds true, then I am, and I will not stand for being called that, because my ideas are my own and nobody tells me how to think, and I happen to think that Capitalism is destructive and racism is an irrational hate that must be eradicated for the sake of everyone, everywhere. A person's color does not dictate the kind of person he is, nor his character nor level of education, and neither does long-dead affiliations with men and women he knew very little about to begin with.

You want to talk about guilt by association, how about Palin labelling Obama a terrorist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMZnkcTjVs8
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/sarah-palin-calls-barack-obama-a-terrorist/1047433319
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6c12dfc636/sarah-palin-calls-barack-obama-a-terrorist-from-dillardsisters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/mccain-does-nothing-as-cr_n_132366.html
http://sharpynews.com/politics/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-news/mccain-supporter-calls-obama-a-terrorist-palin-sarah.html

By the by, I don't care if Palin is hard-working, she ran for an office that requires tact, finesse, and intellect, things which she is wholly unfamiliar with. She is a moron of the highest caliber with absolutely no knowledge of basic facts that any proper human being should know. If she wants to hold an office in the American government, she has to be educated, and if she wants to hold one of the highest in the nation, and even the world, she needs to be informed. She is neither. And, quite frankly, I'm tired of a monkey wearing a suit running the oval office. There's limits on how mentally inept a person can be in terms of handling affairs of the nation, and Palin tapdanced across that line ages ago. Call me crazy, but I'd like a leader that's smarter than the general populus, like Obama. Because the general populus is lucky to tie their shoes on in the morning, with the horrendous public education the US has today. Clearly, Palin has something in common with them on that point, but she doesn't need to be a leader for that exact reason.

I'm honestly sick of hearing this losing party rhetoric. Obama's the next President of the United States, and no amount of complaining or lying is going to change that. :dozey:

GarfieldJL
12-11-2008, 05:16 PM
I've been busy, and to be completely blunt, none of this is settled because the Governor of Illinois is also connected to Tony Rezko and Obama, and they all interconnect.

jonathan7
12-11-2008, 05:22 PM
I will openly admit that a lot of politicians are corrupt and wealthy.

Personally I think here in lies the problem - unfortunately it seems to me that these days the "best" politicians are only the ones who aren't caught with there hand in the cookie jar.

Web Rider
12-11-2008, 05:50 PM
I've been busy, and to be completely blunt, none of this is settled because the Governor of Illinois is also connected to Tony Rezko and Obama, and they all interconnect.

And Obama is connected to Hillary, who is connected to Bill, who is connected to Leibermann, who is connected to Bush.

oh no! Every politician is connected!

Jammy-Jedi
12-11-2008, 06:36 PM
Why are there so many corrupt people connected to Obama?

Because if you dig deep enough you will find dirt, and politicians spend a long time digging.

The Doctor
12-11-2008, 10:14 PM
I've been busy, and to be completely blunt, none of this is settled because the Governor of Illinois is also connected to Tony Rezko and Obama, and they all interconnect.
The Governor himself has already stated that Obama refused to be involved with any such actions he himself may be guilty of. Besides, if you look hard enough, any two people can "interconnect" with each other in some way. Provide evidence that Obama was involved, and we can talk. Otherwise, I beg of you: stop trying to prop up your straw men in here. They fall over and get straw everywhere.

Yar-El
12-11-2008, 10:21 PM
To re-post an edited version of what was deleted previously:

So what, "Yar-El", have you just decided to take up the job of dredging up old arguments that have been settled while Garfield is away, then?

I will openly admit that a lot of politicians are corrupt and wealthy. But a lot of that comes from corporate bribes to keep them off their backs, something I'm sure McCain has had his hand in several times in the past. You wanna talk about freedom from Government control, let's talk about freedom from corporate control. Right now, our entire lives are run by them. Look at where you live, what you eat, your computer. Unless you're some sort of free spirit and built your own computer from scratch, grow your own food, and built your own house, your life is dictated by corporations, which are vastly more corrupt, unpredictable, and greedy than any government officials could ever be. And corrupt government officials start with corporate bribes.


I can't argue with your statement. You hit upon something that is real.

Jae Onasi
12-11-2008, 10:46 PM
Personally I think here in lies the problem - unfortunately it seems to me that these days the "best" politicians are only the ones who aren't caught with there hand in the cookie jar.
Yeah, the days of Paul Simon and Bill Proxmire are unfortunately long gone. :(

And Obama is connected to Hillary, who is connected to Bill, who is connected to Leibermann, who is connected to Bush.
oh no! Every politician is connected!
We have a new game: "The Six Degrees of Barack Obama." :D

GarfieldJL
12-11-2008, 11:35 PM
And Obama is connected to Hillary, who is connected to Bill, who is connected to Leibermann, who is connected to Bush.

oh no! Every politician is connected!

Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers are not politicians, Rev. Wright was his pastor for 20 years. He also was running Project Vote for ACORN.

The Doctor
12-11-2008, 11:56 PM
I've had the same pastor at my own church for 20 odd years myself. That doesn't mean that I agree, support, or endorse everything he says, does, or believes. Not by a long shot.

You've heard a handful of lines, taken out of context, from a single sermon Wright has given in his entire lifetime. You know nothing about who he is, or what he really believes.

Your logic is flawed, plain and simple.

Web Rider
12-12-2008, 12:12 AM
Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers are not politicians, Rev. Wright was his pastor for 20 years. He also was running Project Vote for ACORN.

Oh my, politicians have connections to people who aren't politicians! Quick! Call up Steve Jobs and make sure he's never gone to a bar with Al Gore!

Jae Onasi
12-12-2008, 12:49 AM
Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers are not politicians, Rev. Wright was his pastor for 20 years. He also was running Project Vote for ACORN.
Is there a point here? The OP said 'corrupt people' and didn't specify just politicians. If you're trying to say because Rezko and Ayers aren't politicians so they don't count, then their connections to Obama also don't count.

The Ayers issue is completely overblown. Yes, what Ayers did in the 60's and '70s is reprehensible and inexcusable, and he should make reparations for the damage done. However, who he is today is clearly different from who he was 30 years ago. He's a professor living a productive life, and obviously not involved in bombing things. Is he extremely liberal? Sure, and that influence on Obama should be noted. Has he been acting as a terrorist during his association with Obama? No, and so far as I know he's done nothing illegal at any point during the time he's known Obama. I have a couple friends who have made mistakes in the past that put them in jail, but they've learned from the mistakes, fixed the problems, and became productive members of society. Did I ditch them when I found out about their past? No, because they'd turned over a new leaf and moved on.

Topic Closed! Please continue discussion of Obama's reputation, the contents of this thread etc here; http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=194417 For ease of moderation on a topic that frequently ignited passions, we would like all discussion specific to Obama carried out in that thread. - Thanks for your co-operation :) -- j7