Must be something in the water..
 

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:56:21 -0500, Boater wrote:


Fitzgerald stated that "the president elect" was not named in the
indictment. What Fitzgerald didn't say is that "the president elect"
wasn't a figure in the investigation.



Fitz said something a bit stronger than your misquote.

Considerably stronger. However, if you read the complaint, it
appears, at least to me, that there was contact with at least
"[President-elect Advisor]". IIRC, when they are referred to as
Fundraiser A, or Individual D, they are potential defendants.
President-elect-Adviser didn't have a letter after it, meaning they
are probably clean. There is a Senate Candidate 5 that seemed to be
willing to play for pay.

The timing is somewhat interesting. I've read that, originally,
Fitzgerald wasn't going to indict Blagovich until spring, after Obama
considered his reappointment. The "seat selling" forced his hand.


Obama kept Blago at arm's length. Even so, some contact between the
offices is likely just because of the relationship between two high
ranking elected officials from the same state.

Blago's cursing about Obama's refusal to play ball says it all.

Bertie and the rest of the rightie extremists are just Sore Losers.

Sore losers? We are enjoying the political theater. Regardless of what
you say Harry, Barak Hussein Obama, he is going to use his full name to
be sworn in, has found himself mired in the a political scandal which he
is a player at some level.

Barak Hussein Obama will always be known as the guy who got caught up in
a corruption scandal before he was sworn into office as President. Some
will say that is what we get for electing a Chicago machine pol to be
President.

Must be something in the water..
 

Must be something in the water..
 

Must be something in the water..
 

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://volokh.powerblogs.com/posts/1228903890.shtml

And the SEIU is involved.

HAPPY FITZMAS!!

LOL, I think those of you on the right, are going to be just as
disappointed as those of us on the left, were at the last Fitzmas party.

The above link, seems to confirm, Obama didn't play ball. And, so far, I
haven't seen any evidence that *Obama* had any contact with the governor,
making his statement truthful.

Direct contact or indirect contact? Is there a legal difference?

Is one a crime and the other a conspiracy to commit crime?

Must be something in the water..
 

Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:54:16 -0600, wrote:

Frankly, the open way Blagojevich was doing this, I'm suspecting he
is nuts. I've heard a few people thinking bi-polar.

More gifts under the Fitzmas Tree.

http://volokh.powerblogs.com/posts/1228903890.shtml

And the SEIU is involved.

HAPPY FITZMAS!!


A right-wing blog with two penis extender ads on the opening page?
Some cred.

Harry,
I hate to tell you this, but those ads are based upon the cookies on
your computer. My ads were for HDTV and IMG Direct. The PJMedia
directs ads based upon the other web sites and internet searches you do.

I wonder if anyone else got penis extender ads.

I refreshed my page to see what else I got it was:
Hertz
Amazon
Poliwood.

No sex ads what so ever.





They rotate. Look it up.

Do some research on targeted Internet advertisements. The whole idea is
to show advertisements that are of interest to the viewer.

Busted again Harry.

Must be something in the water..
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:15:57 -0500, BAR wrote:


Direct contact or indirect contact? Is there a legal difference?

Is one a crime and the other a conspiracy to commit crime?

IANAL, but, so far, I don't see any crime that Obama was involved in.
I'm not even sure, that if he did pay for the Senate seat, if that would
be a crime. It sure as hell would be distasteful, I'm not sure about a
crime. I suspect, among politicians, *nothing* gets given away for
free. How do you think all that pork gets added to bills? "I'll vote
for your bill, if you will build me a bridge to nowhere."

Must be something in the water..
 

On Dec 10, 7:48*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:15:57 -0500, BAR wrote:
Direct contact or indirect contact? Is there a legal difference?

Is one a crime and the other a conspiracy to commit crime?

IANAL, but, so far, I don't see any crime that Obama was involved in. *
I'm not even sure, that if he did pay for the Senate seat, if that would
be a crime. *It sure as hell would be distasteful, I'm not sure about a
crime. *I suspect, among politicians, *nothing* gets given away for
free. *How do you think all that pork gets added to bills? *"I'll vote
for your bill, if you will build me a bridge to nowhere."

What was really funny was Daily talking about how disgusted he was in
the corruption.. He is probably just one notch above Jackson on the
most likely and deserving reciepients of a.... These two families
links to corruption are only surpassed by the Kennedys...

Must be something in the water..
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:05:00 -0500, BAR wrote:


Somebody is going to have to explain all of the conflicting statements
and news reports stating Barak Hussein Obama met with Gov. Blagojevich
on Nov. 5th. Then he didn't meet with him. That Axelrod lied on national
TV on Nov. 23rd.

Nothing for nothing, but even *if* Axelrod lied, it's not a crime, and I
wouldn't hold the presses over a politico lying. Unfortunately, it is
what they do far too often.


Name one that has had a corruption scandal 5 weeks after the election
and 5 weeks before being sworn in?

Frankly, I still can't name one, except, possibly, the Supreme Court coup
that put GWB in office. ;-)

Must be something in the water..
 

On Dec 10, 8:01*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:05:00 -0500, BAR wrote:
Somebody is going to have to explain all of the conflicting statements
and news reports stating Barak Hussein Obama met with Gov. Blagojevich
on Nov. 5th. Then he didn't meet with him. That Axelrod lied on national
TV on Nov. 23rd.

Nothing for nothing, but even *if* Axelrod lied, it's not a crime, and I
wouldn't hold the presses over a politico lying. *Unfortunately, it is
what they do far too often.

Name one that has had a corruption scandal 5 weeks after the election
and 5 weeks before being sworn in?

Frankly, I still can't name one, except, possibly, the Supreme Court coup
that put GWB in office. ;-)

I never really thought you would "party line" the justification for
this obvious and blatant bad behavior and bad the continuing bad
judgment of Obama for decades... Frankly, I am surprised there
Thunder...

Must be something in the water..
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:56:21 -0500, Boater wrote:


Fitzgerald stated that "the president elect" was not named in the
indictment. What Fitzgerald didn't say is that "the president elect"
wasn't a figure in the investigation.



Fitz said something a bit stronger than your misquote.

Considerably stronger. However, if you read the complaint, it
appears, at least to me, that there was contact with at least
"[President-elect Advisor]". IIRC, when they are referred to as
Fundraiser A, or Individual D, they are potential defendants.
President-elect-Adviser didn't have a letter after it, meaning they
are probably clean. There is a Senate Candidate 5 that seemed to be
willing to play for pay.

The timing is somewhat interesting. I've read that, originally,
Fitzgerald wasn't going to indict Blagovich until spring, after Obama
considered his reappointment. The "seat selling" forced his hand.


Obama kept Blago at arm's length. Even so, some contact between the
offices is likely just because of the relationship between two high
ranking elected officials from the same state.

Blago's cursing about Obama's refusal to play ball says it all.

Bertie and the rest of the rightie extremists are just Sore Losers.

Sore losers? We are enjoying the political theater. Regardless of what
you say Harry, Barak Hussein Obama, he is going to use his full name to
be sworn in, has found himself mired in the a political scandal which he
is a player at some level.

Barak Hussein Obama will always be known as the guy who got caught up in
a corruption scandal before he was sworn into office as President. Some
will say that is what we get for electing a Chicago machine pol to be
President.


Idiot.

Must be something in the water..
 

On Dec 10, 8:01*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:05:00 -0500, BAR wrote:
Somebody is going to have to explain all of the conflicting statements
and news reports stating Barak Hussein Obama met with Gov. Blagojevich
on Nov. 5th. Then he didn't meet with him. That Axelrod lied on national
TV on Nov. 23rd.

Nothing for nothing, but even *if* Axelrod lied, it's not a crime, and I
wouldn't hold the presses over a politico lying. *Unfortunately, it is
what they do far too often.

Name one that has had a corruption scandal 5 weeks after the election
and 5 weeks before being sworn in?

Frankly, I still can't name one, except, possibly, the Supreme Court coup
that put GWB in office. ;-)

Furthermore, you are generally pretty well informed. You do know that
although it was buried in the New York Times and never mentioned at
all in the MSM for the most part, 27 media outlets including the NYT,
Miami Sun, and others through the sunshine laws did a count of the
votes in Florida a couple of months after the election. The result was
clear and found that in fact, Bush won, that's why it was buried on
page D 27 (or something like that) in the New York Lies.. Only the
ideologues and the intentionally uninformed still hang on the "Bush
stole the election" bandwagon. Again, I never expected that from you...

Must be something in the water..
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:56:42 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


What was really funny was Daily talking about how disgusted he was in
the corruption.. He is probably just one notch above Jackson on the most
likely and deserving reciepients of a.... These two families links to
corruption are only surpassed by the Kennedys...

I don't know much about Daley, but I do know his father was "the last of
the bosses". Illinois isn't coming off to well lately. Along with
Louisiana and Alaska, they are probably the most corrupt states we have.

Must be something in the water..
 

On Dec 10, 8:08*pm, wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:01*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:05:00 -0500, BAR wrote:
Somebody is going to have to explain all of the conflicting statements
and news reports stating Barak Hussein Obama met with Gov. Blagojevich
on Nov. 5th. Then he didn't meet with him. That Axelrod lied on national
TV on Nov. 23rd.

Nothing for nothing, but even *if* Axelrod lied, it's not a crime, and I
wouldn't hold the presses over a politico lying. *Unfortunately, it is
what they do far too often.

Name one that has had a corruption scandal 5 weeks after the election
and 5 weeks before being sworn in?

Frankly, I still can't name one, except, possibly, the Supreme Court coup
that put GWB in office. ;-)

Furthermore, you are generally pretty well informed. You do know that
although it was buried in the New York Times and never mentioned at
all in the MSM for the most part, 27 media outlets including the NYT,
Miami Sun, and others through the sunshine laws did a count of the
votes in Florida a couple of months after the election. The result was
clear and found that in fact, Bush won, that's why it was buried on
page D 27 (or something like that) in the New York Lies.. Only the
ideologues and the intentionally uninformed still hang on the "Bush
stole the election" bandwagon. Again, I never expected that from you...

EDIT, I may have the name of the Miami paper wrong, but there were
over 20 media outlets who sued and did the recount.

Must be something in the water..
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:08:52 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


Furthermore, you are generally pretty well informed. You do know that
although it was buried in the New York Times and never mentioned at all
in the MSM for the most part, 27 media outlets including the NYT, Miami
Sun, and others through the sunshine laws did a count of the votes in
Florida a couple of months after the election. The result was clear and
found that in fact, Bush won, that's why it was buried on page D 27 (or
something like that) in the New York Lies.. Only the ideologues and the
intentionally uninformed still hang on the "Bush stole the election"
bandwagon. Again, I never expected that from you...

I didn't say Bush didn't win. All evidence I have seen says he would
have. I said there was a Supreme Court coup, and I'll stand by that.

Must be something in the water..
 

On Dec 10, 8:15*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:08:52 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
Furthermore, you are generally pretty well informed. You do know that
although it was buried in the New York Times and never mentioned at all
in the MSM for the most part, 27 media outlets including the NYT, Miami
Sun, and others through the sunshine laws did a count of the votes in
Florida a couple of months after the election. The result was clear and
found that in fact, Bush won, that's why it was buried on page D 27 (or
something like that) in the New York Lies.. Only the ideologues and the
intentionally uninformed still hang on the "Bush stole the election"
bandwagon. Again, I never expected that from you...

I didn't say Bush didn't win. All evidence I have seen says he would
have. *I said there was a Supreme Court coup, and I'll stand by that.

Ok, not that it matters, but I take your word for it.. phew, I thought
you were going to the "far left loonie" side.. ;)

Must be something in the water..
 

Must be something in the water..
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:25:30 -0500, BAR wrote:


You are referring to the Florida Supreme Court.

No.

Must be something in the water..
 

Must be something in the water..
 

Must be something in the water..
 

Must be something in the water..
 

On Dec 10, 9:33*pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 10, 7:48 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:15:57 -0500, BAR wrote:
Direct contact or indirect contact? Is there a legal difference?
Is one a crime and the other a conspiracy to commit crime?
IANAL, but, so far, I don't see any crime that Obama was involved in. *
I'm not even sure, that if he did pay for the Senate seat, if that would
be a crime. *It sure as hell would be distasteful, I'm not sure about a
crime. *I suspect, among politicians, *nothing* gets given away for
free. *How do you think all that pork gets added to bills? *"I'll vote
for your bill, if you will build me a bridge to nowhere."

What was really funny was Daily talking about how disgusted he was in
the corruption.. He is probably just one notch above Jackson on the
most likely and deserving reciepients of a.... These two families
links to corruption are only surpassed by the Kennedys...

Other than some crap you read on a reich-wing web site or heard on
right-wing hate radio, what serious evidence do you have that pins
Richard M. Daley to real corruption?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, let me see... About as many times as you have told the truth here
in the last 15 years.. That would be uh, zero...

Must be something in the water..
 

Must be something in the water..
 

On Dec 10, 9:56*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:33 pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 10, 7:48 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:15:57 -0500, BAR wrote:
Direct contact or indirect contact? Is there a legal difference?
Is one a crime and the other a conspiracy to commit crime?
IANAL, but, so far, I don't see any crime that Obama was involved in.. *
I'm not even sure, that if he did pay for the Senate seat, if that would
be a crime. *It sure as hell would be distasteful, I'm not sure about a
crime. *I suspect, among politicians, *nothing* gets given away for
free. *How do you think all that pork gets added to bills? *"I'll vote
for your bill, if you will build me a bridge to nowhere."
What was really funny was Daily talking about how disgusted he was in
the corruption.. He is probably just one notch above Jackson on the
most likely and deserving reciepients of a.... These two families
links to corruption are only surpassed by the Kennedys...
Other than some crap you read on a reich-wing web site or heard on
right-wing hate radio, what serious evidence do you have that pins
Richard M. Daley to real corruption?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, let me see... About as many times as you have told the truth here
in the last 15 years.. That would be uh, zero...

Yup. You got nuttin' but the crap you suckle on from the reich-wing
sites. You weren't even aware that the current Daley in Chicago isn't
the one you vaguely remember.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, since I don't listen to talk radio, can I assume you make up the
rest too? Of course I can, you couldn't have an intellectually honest
conversation if your life depended on it, dismissed...

Must be something in the water..
 

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:15:57 -0500, BAR wrote:


Direct contact or indirect contact? Is there a legal difference?

Is one a crime and the other a conspiracy to commit crime?

IANAL, but, so far, I don't see any crime that Obama was involved in.
I'm not even sure, that if he did pay for the Senate seat, if that would
be a crime. It sure as hell would be distasteful, I'm not sure about a
crime. I suspect, among politicians, *nothing* gets given away for
free. How do you think all that pork gets added to bills? "I'll vote
for your bill, if you will build me a bridge to nowhere."

If Obama knew of the crime and did not report it, he could probably get
charged with conspiracy to commit a crime.

Must be something in the water..
 

Must be something in the water..
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:03:47 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


If Obama knew of the crime and did not report it, he could probably get
charged with conspiracy to commit a crime.

I don't think so. Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime. To my
knowledge, few states require you to report a crime. Clearly, you
should, but I don't think it's a requirement.

Must be something in the water..
 

On Dec 10, 4:09*pm, Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:





Boater wrote:

They rotate. Look it up.

I did, I clicked on it over 10 times, and I showed you the ads I saw.
Nothing that came close to be a sex ad. *They showed you penis
extender ads *based upon your internet history gathered via cookies
and ad trackers. *Yesterday I was looking at HDTV to buy my mom for
Christmas, hence the ad for the HDTV. *I also reserved a rental car with
Budget a few days ago, hence the ad for Hertz. * Very few people who
visit that site, ever see ads for penis extenders. *You are one of
the lucky ones.

I am just trying to be helpful. *You wife may know about ad trackers
and wonder why she keeps getting sex ads every time she logs onto
your computer.

Sure, Reggie. I believe you. Not.

For someone who spends as much time on the internet as you do you really
are naive.

It is hard to believe but this is the first link when I did a Google on
"ad trackers":

"All too often adverts you see online are your past come back to haunt
you. Advertisers use tracking cookies to capture the web history of
users and monitor usage of a particular site. That information is used
to serve up adverts most likely to influence you."

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/tec...-to-evade-web-...

The fact that you saw a penis extender was not a reflection of the
quality of the blog Tom linked.

It was a reflection of your internet usage and ad tracker cookies.

It's interesting how you take a snippet of "maybe" and turn it into
something universally true and cast in stone. I'm aware of "tracking"
cookies. I dump all but a few of them off my desktop every other day. I
doubt my book purchases on Amazon or my photo gear purchases here and
there gave the result you believe.

I will admit, though, that today, for the first time in my memory, you
provided a bit of useful info on that wireless shutter.

Otherwise, though, I couldn't attest that you know schitt.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pffffttt, windoze hero's ;) Just because you click "clear cookies"
doesn't mean you don't still have tracking going on. Does your IE have
a Google bar? snerk

Must be something in the water..
 

Well for a few weeks now Sen. Dick *The Turban* Durbin has been
calling for the pardon of former Gov. (and petty thief) George Ryan.

Maybe his thinking is that it would improve tthe image of Illinois not
to have to governors locked up at the same time.

?;^ Q

Must be something in the water..
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:41:27 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

Well for a few weeks now Sen. Dick *The Turban* Durbin has been
calling for the pardon of former Gov. (and petty thief) George Ryan.

Maybe his thinking is that it would improve tthe image of Illinois not
to have to governors locked up at the same time.

?;^ Q

Hey you -

I returned yours from yesterday.
--
John

Blue skies, Smilin' at me.....
 

"I don't think there's any cloud over this opening ... I think
there's nothing but sunshine over me."

Blagojevich. The day before he was arrested.

Blue skies, Smilin' at me.....
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:06:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

"I don't think there's any cloud over this opening ... I think
there's nothing but sunshine over me."

Blagojevich. The day before he was arrested.

Seems appropriate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMYSWiPm7E0

Blue skies, Smilin' at me.....
 

On Dec 11, 7:13*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:06:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

"I don't think there's any cloud over this opening ... I think
there's nothing but sunshine over me."

Blagojevich. The day before he was arrested.

Seems appropriate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMYSWiPm7E0

LOL!

Blue skies, Smilin' at me.....
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:06:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

"I don't think there's any cloud over this opening ... I think
there's nothing but sunshine over me."

Blagojevich. The day before he was arrested.

They should keep his fantasy alive with a nice, long visit to
Guantanamo. Should be tried as a domestic terrorist.

jps