• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

See this admin though was not supposed to be "politics as usual" and to me that means if they see this corruption, it is thier duty and thier promise to report it.,

I've already stated my views. Most likely Obama didn't have first hand evidence, and definitely didn't have enough to get Blaggy convicted (such as taped conversations). It's true that choosing not to engage in political suicide by accusing a politician of an extremely serious crime with no evidence whatsoever can fall under the umbrella of 'politics as usual.' So does choosing not to invade Canada. I'm not eager to see either practice eschewed from Washington. If you think this is what Obama was talking about when he spoke of "change" you have some serious comprehension issues.
 
My apologizes, perhaps I misread your posts (or looking back, may've got it mixed up with another person without an avatar -.- I've not realize how reliant I am on avatars when reading through a thread quickly to know whose talking). It seemed to be you were stating disagreement over the thought that those repeatedly stating that Bush said they were specifically involved in 9/11 was the same kind of "repeat it and they will believe it for gospel" type of scenario.



:3oops:

No sweat. I tried uploading an avatar way back and gave up out of frustration.
 
Yeah, always annoying.

Partially too, I despise one line questions in response to a post. It seems to add nothing inciteful and seems to be the person just trying to lead and bait. Its one of my pet peeves of least favorite debate tactics. So it can get my hackles up a bit because essentially it feels I'm being purposefully hustled into a trap that's rather obvious and my previous post essentially ignored so they can stay on point of the agenda. Thus my responses to such things are generally a bit more firery.

You made a statement, I commented, and your only response was a one line question that seemed to give no insight as to your reasoning, your intentions, your point, or the context of it. Which likely lead to the response. Hard to figure out context when you don't provide any.
 
I think this really is partially chalked up to 24/7 news coverage.

Republicans can constantly come out saying "He was involved" or "We need to know if he's involved", making people wonder if he's involved.

Democrats and Obama are constantly going "no no no, he is/I am not involved at all", making people wonder if they're covering up.

Media people are reporting and speculating on it non-stop.

And thus we're getting what used to be a few weeks worth of news on this in a few days, making people want instant gratification. They don't want to wait 2 weeks for all the news to be found out because they'll be sick of all the news within 3 or 4 days. They want to know NOW, and if they can't know now they want to form an opinion of certainty NOW.

God I hate the 24/7 news cycle.

I don't have television. That's given me the luxury of saying, "Huh, well, I'll think what I'll think when all the facts come out." It's way too easy to spin everything both ways with so little available factual information.
 
But I'm not talking about rational people. I'm talking about the people who are intellectually lazy enough to draw correlation from proximity, and the people who exploit this weakness.

I think you just called a large number of Democrats irrational, Cardinal. I mean, everyone of these sites that I have been to there are dozens of people who cite unequivocally that Bush said Iraq had a hand in 9/11. It ain't even a question for them. I hear Democratic pundits say the same things. Heck, members of Congress have even said it.

That is, of course, despite Dick Cheney, three or four days after 9/11 telling us Meet the Press that there was no such connection and then repeating the same unequivocal "No" three years later, again, on Meet the Press.
 
Yeah, always annoying.

Partially too, I despise one line questions in response to a post. It seems to add nothing inciteful and seems to be the person just trying to lead and bait. Its one of my pet peeves of least favorite debate tactics. So it can get my hackles up a bit because essentially it feels I'm being purposefully hustled into a trap that's rather obvious and my previous post essentially ignored so they can stay on point of the agenda. Thus my responses to such things are generally a bit more firery.

You made a statement, I commented, and your only response was a one line question that seemed to give no insight as to your reasoning, your intentions, your point, or the context of it. Which likely lead to the response. Hard to figure out context when you don't provide any.

When I do those one-line questions, it's not because I'm laying a trap, but because I want to make sure I understand the other person's position before I go off on a completely unnecessary tangent.
 
45+23= a whopping 68% think the obama camp were involved...


only 11% say not likley at all...



Are 68% of the people wrong? What do you think?

Those numbers show that FOX News is doing a good job keeping the issue out there. However, if anybody wants to know the truth, all they have to do is ask the prosecutor, who says that nobody in the Obama camp is involved.
 
LOL...it's no wonder when the op-eds and corporate media discuss the story it starts with something like this...

'There's no evidence that Barack Obama was involved in Rod Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme -- in fact just the opposite -- but....'

Ah yes the infamous 'but' clause... What follows the 'but'?... There are any number of conspiracy thoughts about why Obama 'might be tainted' or 'casts a shadow', even though there's precisely zero evidence.

I saw Charley Gipson on the ABC evening news right after this story broke and he was talking to a couple of correspondents and he said three different times, in a couple of minutes, that there was no evidence of Obama's involvement, "BUT'....

Reaching and coming away with a handful of air...LOL

What a :joke:
 
LOL...it's no wonder when the op-eds and corporate media discuss the story it starts with something like this...

'There's no evidence that Barack Obama was involved in Rod Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme -- in fact just the opposite -- but....'

Ah yes the infamous 'but' clause... What follows the 'but'?... There are any number of conspiracy thoughts about why Obama 'might be tainted' or 'casts a shadow', even though there's precisely zero evidence.

I saw Charley Gipson on the ABC evening news right after this story broke and he was talking to a couple of correspondents and he said three different times, in a couple of minutes, that there was no evidence of Obama's involvement, "BUT'....

Reaching and coming away with a handful of air...LOL

What a :joke:
To be fair -- that there -currently- is no evidence -that has been made public- in no way means that there is no evidence at all.

It is, after all, the reporters' job to find such things out.
 
I think you just called a large number of Democrats irrational, Cardinal. I mean, everyone of these sites that I have been to there are dozens of people who cite unequivocally that Bush said Iraq had a hand in 9/11. It ain't even a question for them. I hear Democratic pundits say the same things. Heck, members of Congress have even said it.

That is, of course, despite Dick Cheney, three or four days after 9/11 telling us Meet the Press that there was no such connection and then repeating the same unequivocal "No" three years later, again, on Meet the Press.

Are you sure you clicked the "quote" icon for the right person? Because that doesn't address what I said in any way whatsoever.
 
I've already stated my views. Most likely Obama didn't have first hand evidence, and definitely didn't have enough to get Blaggy convicted (such as taped conversations). It's true that choosing not to engage in political suicide by accusing a politician of an extremely serious crime with no evidence whatsoever can fall under the umbrella of 'politics as usual.' So does choosing not to invade Canada. I'm not eager to see either practice eschewed from Washington.

So obama did not campaign on corruption and change? Do I really need to google some quotes for you?


If you think this is what Obama was talking about when he spoke of "change" you have some serious comprehension issues.



Right, because you fail to listen, I am the one with the issue. :roll::lol:
 
45+23= a whopping 68% think the obama camp were involved...


only 11% say not likley at all...



Are 68% of the people wrong? What do you think?

I think there is a very strong possibility that some in the Obama camp were involved. I also think that we'll never see light of day of those links. Too much Chicago going on for us to get to the bottom of it all.
 
Are you sure you clicked the "quote" icon for the right person? Because that doesn't address what I said in any way whatsoever.
It does.
You were refrring to people that hear the same thing over and over and get a false impression from it.
This would include those who think that, without a doubt, Bush linked saddam to 9-11.
 
Are you sure you clicked the "quote" icon for the right person? Because that doesn't address what I said in any way whatsoever.

I'm sure I addressed your comments. The implication of your comments was that those who believe Bush made a connection btw Iraq and 9/11 are irrational. Hence, I was noting that you just characterized a very large number of Democrats as irrational.

If that was not the implication you intended to be read from your comments, my apologies.
 
It does.
You were refrring to people that hear the same thing over and over and get a false impression from it.
This would include those who think that, without a doubt, Bush linked saddam to 9-11.

Nope.
............
 
I'm sure I addressed your comments. The implication of your comments was that those who believe Bush made a connection btw Iraq and 9/11 are irrational. Hence, I was noting that you just characterized a very large number of Democrats as irrational.

If that was not the implication you intended to be read from your comments, my apologies.

While repetition is indeed a device to use over weak minds, that wasn't what I was talking about. I was referring to something even more pathetic: The correlating of two ideas because they occupy close proximity. E.G. you wait at the bus stop on 5th and Main, and I wait at the bus stop on 5th and Main. Conclusion: you and I are lifelong friends. In the Bush example, it was the mere proximity "Saddam" or "Iraq" shared with "9/11." By hearing the two words together, an extremely undiscerning listener would assume that one had something to do with the other. This works doubly so with images. If I were to put this around the internet enough, how long do you think it would take before you started hearing rumors that Microsoft had something to do with 9/11?
Conspiracy2.jpg


Yeah, I know, it's retarded. And that's what this whole Obama/Blagojevich scandal is as well: retarded. Because people keep hearing the word "Obama" every time the Blagojevich scandal is brought up, they think there must be reason to think Obama was involved in some way, even though absolutely no factual evidence points to that.
 
Yeah, I know, it's retarded. And that's what this whole Obama/Blagojevich scandal is as well: retarded. Because people keep hearing the word "Obama" every time the Blagojevich scandal is brought up, they think there must be reason to think Obama was involved in some way, even though absolutely no factual evidence points to that.

I understand what you were saying, I just drew an implication from it.

But, I am a discerning observer, yet I firmly believe that Obama was involved. I just don't know the level. Who (And I'll exercise some license here) in their right mind doesn't believe that the former Senator and now President-elect would not be involved in the selection process? That much is obvious. The second reason...Rahm. It seems he was in frequent contact with Blago, far too much to be exchanging pleasantries.

The more fascinating part of this was Obama's reax to it. Yet another instance of, "This is not the ~insert name~ that I knew." Fascinating.
 
I understand what you were saying, I just drew an implication from it.

But, I am a discerning observer, yet I firmly believe that Obama was involved. I just don't know the level. Who (And I'll exercise some license here) in their right mind doesn't believe that the former Senator and now President-elect would not be involved in the selection process? That much is obvious. The second reason...Rahm. It seems he was in frequent contact with Blago, far too much to be exchanging pleasantries.

The more fascinating part of this was Obama's reax to it. Yet another instance of, "This is not the ~insert name~ that I knew." Fascinating.





Obama=Sgt Shultz. "I know nothing" :lol:
 
Oh, and for the record, I actually do think someone Obama's staff did know at least a bit about what was going on...and that was Emanuel. I don't know or have enough to say that Obama knew really much of it, but I do think Rhom had at least some idea. Though I will also admit I have not looked a gigantic amount at this so I may be wrong...but if asked in such a poll I'd likely say "yes" if it was asked about staff and probably lean towards "no" in regards to Obama specifically.
 
Back
Top Bottom