I keep hearing that Obama is being call out because he came out of Chicago politics which is the most corrupt city in America, and while every one is entitled to their opinion, don't let the facts/truth kick you in the butt. Washington, DC is the most corrupt and now that Obama will be moving there, at lest let him get there before he is given the:1st . He is in good company, don't you think? Welcome to American politics, and Obama did not rain it in. After all, I can see why there are some people upset that he could actually attack corruption in politics, it is like when you introduce Raid to roaches, they are not all that happy to know someone is actually trying to get rid of them.

Chicago is by far the most corrupt city when it comes to politics. You are confusing political corruption with crime in general. Chicago has a rich history of political scandal. It has a rich history of politicians tied to the mafia. It has a rich history of politicians abusing their power.

We can go back to the organized crime of the 20s, the crooked cops making more in payoffs from the mob than they were drawing from the city, the long term corruption of the entire Daley family dynasty, we have Governors going to prison (Blagojevich will be joining) We have the voter fraud that gave JFK Illinois in 1960, where miraculously, a large number of dead people arose again to vote Democrat. According to the Chicago Sun Times, in the last 30 years, 79 local officials have been convicted of a crime, including three governors, one mayor, and a whopping 27 aldermen from the Windy City. If you include the entire Federal district of Northern Illinois (which means you take Chicago and its suburbs) between 1995 and 2004, 469 local politicians were found guilty of corruption of some kind or another. FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY NINE. There are many more examples of corrupt government in Chicago, but, to list them all would take more time than I want to take, and cause undue strain on my wrists as I type. All of my mom's family is from the Chicago area. I have been hearing stories about corruption there since I was a kid. My uncle had to deal with these corrupt politicians with ties to the mafia in order to get permits and such to do his job (he was an architect before retiring). Chicago is as corrupt as corrupt gets when it comes to politics...Chicago has raised political corruption to an art form.

Why don't we just say America is corrupt? The financial system is corrupt, you can find politicians in all fifty states that are corrupt, big business is corrupt, wall street is corrupt, see where I am going with this? Obama did not reign in corruption. He already is going to have a full plate trying to clean up Bush's crap and until Fritz say Obama is guilty or were involved in wrong doing, I reserve the right to withhold judgement. I have no ax to grind as Obama did not put this system together, nor is he Chicago. Kind a remind me of another statement I heard some where that went something like this: Can anything good come out of Nazaret?:mute:

Full speed ahead for that cabinet? Watch for speed bumps then.

Today in the news, Bill Richardson, who is President-elect Barack Obama’s designate for Commerce Secretary, is now under investigation for guess what people, pay to play politics.



Wonder if BO will come out saying that he never had contact with Richardson at all?

All will go through a background check, and I am sure they all had to submit a statement claiming they were clean. Obama would have no way of knowing other wise until reports come back from the background check. If to many come back unfit, he may have to outsource or pick babies/infants.

I've been through their background check many moons ago, as I was an FBI employee. I process sensitive applications (highprofile), so I know how the system work, even though it may be more advance because of today's culture of corruption. Obama picks them and then they are checkout, so what are you implying?

I'm surprised Uris by the number of people Obama has been in assosiation with that are just corrupt. The list of people just keep getting longer and longer. And at this rate, his cabinet will be in prison.

Davious, is the doctored quotation in post #52 a response to my question? If that statement is the basis for your repeated assertions that Obama said his staff never met with Blagojevich, then I think you need to re-read it carefully:

"I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat."

He is not saying that no one on his team met with the Governor, merely that none of his staff would trade political favors to secure the seat for Obama's preferred candidate.

Obama can't help the fact that he knows people, he did not live in a vacuum, none of us do. To hold Obama responsible for what others do is worst than blaming Palin for her daughter coming up pregnant, and I remember some were outrage that others wanted to hold her responsible for that. Most people don't go around announcing they are corrupt, so just look at it as the unveiling of the corruption of America's society. It does not say much for Americans or America, we will just have a lot of republicans and democrats in prison, so don't be shortsighted and forget how many republicans are now afraid to drop the soap!

If we were all held responsible for people we have associated with over the years the world would be in a whole other world of hurt.. As far as politics goes, everyone, I mean every politician, republican and democratic alike would have "bad associations" every single one....its just how it is. Our government in general has always been "corrupt" it hasn't been good since who knows, never?.....how do you think we became the superpower we became.....I think Obama is being sincere and has done nothing wrong, I don't get the GOP and how they are determined to keep him out of office....I guess they are completely proud of how our current president has behaved. You guys, we all get our opinions and info off the net and or the news, no one really knows anything I think....its just fuel for the fire right now for the GOP....what they need to focus on is their own party.

Well, they say you can judge a man by the company he keeps.

"They", must be the same person that voted Bush into office twice, or "They" must be the one who can look into Putin soul and draw the wrong conclusion. "They" have a tendency to be wrong as many times as "They" have been right. I have never met "They", but I do hear a lot about him/her and it is not all good!

Ah, yes but many if not most of those Republicans didn't have direct association with the Bush administration other then just being a Republican or have had a meeting at one time or time to time because that's part of the job. But in these cases, these are people Obama is selecting to serve on his staff with "drastically increased government openness with a new level of transparency and accountability."

So far we have not seen openness, only lies.
Absolutely no transparency.
And no accountability coming out of Obama or his new cabinet.

And now today in the news, another of Obama's trustworthy staffers is now in trouble, thanks to Rezko.





That's what, three now of Obama's trustworthy staffers in less then two weeks that looks to be corrupt as hell and will likely be gone. Out of a staff of 35 people, which is not a fully selected staff yet.

Doing a great job of selecting people here.

I am so glad that Obama won the election, as it seem everyone that sat on their ass for eight years under the Bush administration are now so embarrass with their performance that they are overreaching to find anything that would give them some name recognition. Now this, I am enjoying, keep it coming!

I keep saying, Americans are Americans and most have join them as they could not fight them, and since most people's livelihood is connected to the choices people make, it is going to be what it is.

I had to leave a position I had for some twenty years because of republican appointments in the area that I was in. The changes that were being made mandated me to falsify documents that if caught went with five years in prison. My peers went along with it, but because I did not they were caught. Since the mandate came from the top, they just all received suspensions. I held them off for as long as I could and Bush got four more years. My decision was made clear and so I resigned and was given my exit interview to be completed on my own which was not the proper channel. Needless to say, there was a whole lot of cleaning going on. Did I mention I was employed by the Government?:fallen:

Said all that to say this, the system is only as good as the people and it don't have anything to do with being a republican or a democrat, don't have anything to do with being a christian or non-christian. So I was not surprise when Rev. Wright was attacked for calling out America because truth is not welcome in America and that Reality is a bitch!:Slap:

So be it, the DNC is turning in on its self before its even truly in power. But I wont go into that as we can do that in another thread later.

But today, even more bad news for dems that will force this to continue dragging on.



Now that this has failed we could have months of watching the left eat itself. All that they have now is a ugly impeachment that will give the Gov. a chance to have a very public impeachment proceedings, and he can then force all evidence be forced out into the public view before he gets impeached. How many Dems are going to want that?

You are viewing things with republican glasses, if they sneeze you are going to report they have cancer!

With all that so-called bad news Obama is a busy bee, see how focus he is with the business at hand. Bush must be feeling insignificant at this point, don't you think, even the republicans are more into Obama than they are into him.

I am also enjoying the press falling all over them self and foaming at the mouth, I think since the news business is doing so badly the competition is fierce and Obama is now the only thing that sell.

Don't get to happy, if you haven't learn much, at least realize that you can't underestimate Obama, if you don't believe me ask Hillery and McCain. The Dems are where all the action is at.

Oh, by the way, Obama return the favor and named a republican to head transportation, I don't think all that bashing republicans are doing is making much of a difference with Obama.:evilnod:

I just heard N. Gingrich is trying to school you guys, he wants you republicans to straighten up and fly right and leave Obama alone!:naughty: :laugh:

Ah, but atleast I can take the blinders off and see the whole picture. :P

Busy telling new lies. What will he say on what shall it be tomorrow?

And this at a press conference.



Another words, don't wast your question asking me a hard question on weather or not I favor a special election to fill my vacant seat. Or that I want to confirm that he did even though I lied numerous times about not having contact with Blago to start with. Oh, and Rahm is on 21 tapes that the FBI has talking with Blago about the seat.

I also wonder if that "Don't wast your question." is also a warning for if you ask another hard question, then we in the Obama administration will cut off your news outlet from further access like they did when WFTV asked Biden a tough question and told them no further access to Obama or any one else in their campaign.




Foaming at the mouth? I would say finally starting to ask some real questions, other then hard questions like... "Would you like a pillow?" Like many have said this whole time, the media would never ask one hard question. And as I've also said, we know absolutely nothing about Obama because of this, and now we are finally starting to find out about him. But those who support him are afraid of learning any thing out of fear they screwed up bad.


We knew the Republicans had a very slim if any chance of winning. Nothing new. McCain was just the best shoot, and even that we knew was slim at best. And on Hillary, she hopes to become part of Obama's staff so she can get out of repaying her campaign debt because of a little law that says when she accepts the sec of state position, all she has to do is pay pennies on the dollar on that millions in debt, and its done and gone. Right now its what $.05 to the dollar on what she owes and will be out of debt for that. Nice. But unless Obama wants to break the law and appoint her to that position, I doubt she will be the Sec of State because of Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution.



Another words, if you are a senator, and get a pay raise while you served, you can not be Sec of State while you still hold your seat. And she got a pay raise thanks to Pres. Bush in Jan of 2008. So she is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires.

Two Republicans so far, out of the 35 positions he has to fill. All Pres. do that as a vain attempt to be able to claim they want to work with the other side, while they do little further to show it. Pres. Bush appointed one as his token Dem, I guess these two will be his token Republicans.

I've read his claims as to why. He has a point, but forgets one little thing. In the end, Republicans have nothing to lose now. They have no power come next year, so why sit quietly on their hands and not say any thing when some thing doesn't look right. For speaking up is the only thing they will have now and pointing out possible wrong doing until America wakes up and votes Obama and the rest of his corrupt cronies out of office.

[QUOTE=Amish Nick]Ah, but atleast I can take the blinders off and see the whole picture. :P



If Obama say the sky is blue, you would say that he lie because the sky is only a reflection.



Until the tapes are release that is just speculation, and we already know from what Fritz said, the Gov. was upset with whomever he talk with because they were only willing to appreciate his effort. There is nothing wrong with Rahm talking to the Gov., what would be wrong is if he was asked to pay to play directly, in a manner that any reasonable person would understand/see it that way, and he did not report it. People talk crap all the time how do you prove they were serious unless you take them on?



I think I heard that was because of space, FOX news did not lose access and they were a 24 hour seven days a week pain in the butt, still is.




Why would those that supported him be afraid? Did you not see his approval ratings? I don't think these are the fearful people you are talking about, are they, I call that projecting much.


.

That must be why Hillery will be taking a $4,000 plus pay cut if conform.



Obama is ahead of the norm, so far, that is, if we are keeping score.



We all have a lot to lose if we go into a depression, I don't think it would affect only Dems. Would you give Obama credit if he were able to turn things around? Or would you continue to yell at clouds, because you are a republican and he is a democrat?

We are more than republicans, democrats, independents and the rest of us who see the system for what it is, a man made system that should work on the behalf of/for all us humans/Americans.

Asking "How are you not a Marxist" is not a tough question. It's a leading, inflammatory question, and it's clearly biased. It's like asking "How are you not the next Adolf Hitler? And by the way, do you still beat your wife?" The very premise of the question warrants ridicule. No wonder Biden laughed in her face.


If you can't see that, then I truly question your assertion that you are able to take off your Republican blinders.

Being asked if you are or are not a Marxist is NOT the same thing as asking someone if they still beat their wife. Marxist philosophy dictates certain beliefs in how governments should run, what its responsibility to the people should be, etc. Given that some of the viewpoints of the Obama/Biden campaign, and their philosophy towards socialized health care and other issues match those of what would be considered Marxist philosophies, it was a perfectly fair and legitimate question. If a Presidential candidate campaigned on rewriting the Constitution to drastically reduce the power of Congress and the Supreme Court, setting up the Presidency as the final authority on everything, would it be an unfair question to ask if that candidate planned on bringing a monarchy or dictatorship to the USA? I don't think so. Given those circumstances, it seems to be a perfectly reasonable line of questioning. By the same token, if Obama and Biden's campaign focused on beliefs that were aligned with Marxism, how can asking them if they are Marxist be unfair? It is their beliefs that led you to notice the similarities to begin with.

If you think Obama/Biden's campaign is aligned closely enough with Marxism to warrant the "Are you a Marxist" question, then you really don't know enough about Marxism or are spuriously exaggerating Obama's positions. It's like saying that the current USA, which has some socialist policies, is Marxist because we have government involvement in education and roads. It's a slippery slope.

Obama and Biden go further than that though. Sorry, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, asking if it is a duck is not unreasonable. Barack Obama has in previous campaigns, been endorsed by Chicago area socialist groups, he gave a eulogy at a funeral for a long time socialist activist (Saul Mendelson), actively campaigned in 2006 for openly socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Obama's comments about spreading the wealth around, (isn't the redistribution of wealth one of the primary principles of socialism?) his belief that the Government needs to be in more control over the day to day lives of Americans (another key point to socialism is the state running the day to day lives of its people), and there are other examples.

The point is, if Barack Obama accomplishes what he promised to do, the United States of America will be closer to being a socialist nation than it would be if he fails to accomplish them. If he is going to lead the nation closer to socialist philosophy, asking whether or not he is a socialist is a perfectly valid question.

Didn't we do that already, in 2004? I remember all these fake constitutional lawyers defending Bush's right to go to war without congress, to wiretap outside the law, to engage in blackbag break-ins on anybody deemed a suspect in the "War on Terror," all of it supposedly not subject to the Courts or Congress. If the President wants to break long-standing International Treaties signed by law, supposedly he can do that all by his lonesome, as well, by just issuing a presidential finding. We've been there, done that, and good King George is sailing off into Bad President history, and taking Cheney. Good question, indeed. Not a good one to be asking about Obama, though, who hasn't even taken office.

Also, I want to say, you guys are just pitifully ignorant of Marxism if you think it's about socialized medicine. Is that all? Then who cares! Jeez... We shoulda gone Marxist years ago. Sadly, I guess they don't teach schoolchildren about the nature of Marxism since the Cold War ended.

Guess what? We have had socialized medicine in this country since 1965. It's called Medicare. Anybody retired or on Disability gets it, and many others as well. The distinction between that and universal health care is only one of size, not of essence. We instituted Medicare back during the most tense years of the Cold War, when we were fighting the spread of communism around the world.

This is typical obfuscation. You lump things together and throw a bad word at it and it's a big deal. No wonder Republicans got beat like a drum in the last election. All bun, no meat. I laugh when I hear Republicans say that they can repair themselves by going back to their core beliefs, because as far as I can tell, they don't have any anymore. Their core belief seems to be, "We oughtta be running the country, not those guys," which is not a core belief but an aimless ambition.

The most important elements of Marxism are: 1) nationalization (government take-over) of private businesses and 2) centralized planning of the economy. We got more of that under Bush in the last three months than we did under all previous Democrats except FDR. The Republicans, for all their rhetoric, have been, in practice, MORE Marxist than any nightmarish drivel they can spout about Obama. And, no, they aren't Marxists, either. They just weren't able to govern effectively because they lurched from one extreme position to another.

Repeating famous saying doesn't all of a sudden make your statements facts. Please back up your duck/quack statement with facts or at least an example that make sense.

Disingenuous, much! The campaign is over and in case you didn't get the news, Obama got the nod. Apparently, the people prefer what you are mislabeling to what they had. If what you are describing leave such a bad taste in your mouth, imagine how the majority felt with what they just rejected. Did I mention the opposition was rejected and the election process is over!?.

Very misleading statement, Bush may not believe in spending the people's money on health care for everyone, but he had no reservation wasting money on a war he had to lie himself into. I am not going to talk about all problems this country find itself in under Bush's watch, but then again, this is what you see as perfect capitalism in action, enjoy the deception. Psss, the election is over, Obama won and no amount of name calling or mislabeling is going to change that reality, your ideology/ideologies has been rejected, much, and good riddance!:howdy:

Actually, Obama IS saying that.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/...m18good.article

The Chicago Sun Times directly contradicts the Obama claim. it states Rahm Emmanuel had direct contact with Blagojevich, specifically concerning the Senate seat, and the Obama camp pressed for Valerie Jarrett to get the appointment. It directly contradicts Obama's claim that Rahm Emmanuel had no contact with Blagojevich regarding the Senate seat.

Chicago Sun Times says Emmanuel talked with Blagojevich regarding the Senate seat, Obama says Emmanuel did not talk with Blagojevich regarding the Senate seat. One of them is lying, and I bet it isn't the Sun Times. The Chicago Sun Times has no reason to falsify the story, while Obama has every reason to try to cover up his own and his staff member's asses.

The fact that they wanted to get Jarret Obama's old Senate Seat has been common knowledge since early November, even before the election. I went googling for it just now, because I remember the talking heads chewing it over on CNN's Situation Room. This is one of the articles I came up with:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...use-not-senate/


And that makes it remarkable to me that everybody is so excited about this, as if there was some big secret about all this, as if it was a conspiracy or the truth was only recently dug up by journalists or prosecutors, when hey, this was common knowledge weeks ago, all out in the open. Big deal.