Jets Insider.com Forums - View Single Post - "Outfitgate" The Great Palin Wardrobe Contoversy Discussion 2008 (Merged x1)

King Ryan · 10-24-2008, 11:43 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2821424]It's called sleep and work Tanny. Sorry.:mad:

I disagree that clothes purchased for Campaign use (appearance) and then donated/auctioned for charity after the campaign is over, would fall under your claim of illegallity.

But please, feel free to sue them, and if you win....I'll be happy to admit you were right after all.

As I said earlier, I am tired of defending someone I don't support having done something I don't think they should have done. But there is a difference between that, and being outright illegal, which I do not believe this was.

I'm curious, is Obama flying to see his Grandmother on normal airlines with tickets he purchased himself? Or on his Campaign Plane?

How many staffers are with him there? How many meals is he eating there? Did campaign money go to pay for any of it?

I don't know. Neither do you. frankly, at this late date I don;'t care, outside of the humorous knowledge that you will claim you know that no campaign money was spent on this trip whatsoever, no volunteer time used, etc, etc, etc, and that you know, without a doubt, that Obama has never spent a penny of campaign money that wasn;t absolutely vital....like his greek columsn and laser ligth show.[/QUOTE]

To me:

It appears B is violated by McCain/Palin regardless of the post-controversy decision to give the items up for charity.

It appears E is violated by Obama unless he makes a campaign appearance in Hawaii on the same trip. I know he stopped in NV for a campaign appearance, but I do not know his schedule while in Hawaii.

how can you disagree with that violation of B? it seems rather clear to me that clothing is automatically converted to Personal Use, which is then a violation of the law when federal election campaign funds were used on it. I'm just wondering what part of it is vague enough for you to think it is legal

that being said, personally I don't necessarily think it should be illegal. But then again I disagree with a LOT of laws, especially when there is no victim (prostitution, drugs, consensual same-sex sexual contact, etc)

10-24-2008, 11:43 AM	#153
King Ryan take a guess Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Montville, NJ Posts: 5,473	[QUOTE=Warfish;2821424]It's called sleep and work Tanny. Sorry.:mad: I disagree that clothes purchased for Campaign use (appearance) and then donated/auctioned for charity after the campaign is over, would fall under your claim of illegallity. But please, feel free to sue them, and if you win....I'll be happy to admit you were right after all. As I said earlier, I am tired of defending someone I don't support having done something I don't think they should have done. But there is a difference between that, and being outright illegal, which I do not believe this was. I'm curious, is Obama flying to see his Grandmother on normal airlines with tickets he purchased himself? Or on his Campaign Plane? How many staffers are with him there? How many meals is he eating there? Did campaign money go to pay for any of it? I don't know. Neither do you. frankly, at this late date I don;'t care, outside of the humorous knowledge that you will claim you know that no campaign money was spent on this trip whatsoever, no volunteer time used, etc, etc, etc, and that you know, without a doubt, that Obama has never spent a penny of campaign money that wasn;t absolutely vital....like his greek columsn and laser ligth show.[/QUOTE] To me: It appears B is violated by McCain/Palin regardless of the post-controversy decision to give the items up for charity. It appears E is violated by Obama unless he makes a campaign appearance in Hawaii on the same trip. I know he stopped in NV for a campaign appearance, but I do not know his schedule while in Hawaii. how can you disagree with that violation of B? it seems rather clear to me that clothing is automatically converted to Personal Use, which is then a violation of the law when federal election campaign funds were used on it. I'm just wondering what part of it is vague enough for you to think it is legal that being said, personally I don't necessarily think it should be illegal. But then again I disagree with a LOT of laws, especially when there is no victim (prostitution, drugs, consensual same-sex sexual contact, etc)