Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: I have a question:

  1. #1

    I have a question:

    What separates a Governor who takes money in exchange for a Senate appointment (Blagojevich) from a Senator who takes lobbyist money from Fannie Mae/banks to create a housing/derivatives bubble that crashes the economy (Obama)?

    Why does one get criminally charged while the other goes to the Oval Office? Is one morally above the other?

  2. #2
    Board Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn Heights
    Posts
    2,462
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2903984]What separates a Governor who takes money in exchange for a Senate appointment (Blagojevich) from a Senator who takes lobbyist money from Fannie Mae/banks to create a housing/derivatives bubble that crashes the economy (Obama)?

    Why does one get criminally charged while the other goes to the Oval Office? Is one morally above the other?[/QUOTE]

    Wow what a ridiculous question. But I understand where you're coming from.

    Simply put, the lobbyists do not put money into Obama's [B]pocket[/B] the money goes to his [B]campaign[/B]

    The douche gov was seeking to profit for himself by selling the senate seat to the highest bidder. He would have used that money on whatever he wanted.

    Obama can't use any of the money donated to his campaign for himself.

    Do you really not see a difference?

  3. #3
    on a legal basis, I see a difference
    on a moral basis, I see no difference whatsoever

    both are ploys to further their careers

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,160
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2903984]What separates a Governor who takes money in exchange for a Senate appointment (Blagojevich) from a Senator who takes lobbyist money from Fannie Mae/banks to create a housing/derivatives bubble that crashes the economy (Obama)?

    Why does one get criminally charged while the other goes to the Oval Office? Is one morally above the other?[/QUOTE]

    Of course that means we will have absolutely no senators, congressmen, or presidents, not to mention state politicians, or local politicians... in fact, we would have no politicians of any stripe whatsover. We'll just have to let the military run things, or even better, the Church. Problem solved. :rolleyes:

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2904106]Of course that means we will have absolutely no senators, congressmen, or presidents, not to mention state politicians, or local politicians... in fact, we would have no politicians of any stripe whatsover. We'll just have to let the military run things, or even better, the Church. Problem solved. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, that's the only alternative. The only one.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,160
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2904107]Yeah, that's the only alternative. The only one.[/QUOTE]

    Well it would make CanadaSteve and JCnflies happy. Just picture the Church as one giant free market corporation and you'll be fine, BB. It's all good....;)

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2904116]Well it would make CanadaSteve and JCnflies happy. Just picture the Church as one giant free market corporation and you'll be fine, BB. It's all good....;)[/QUOTE]

    So clearly, we have a choice: Current system, martial law, or a theocracy.

    Those are the only options. Man, that sucks.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2903984]What separates a Governor who takes money in exchange for a Senate appointment (Blagojevich) from a Senator who takes lobbyist money from Fannie Mae/banks to create a housing/derivatives bubble that crashes the economy (Obama)?

    Why does one get criminally charged while the other goes to the Oval Office? Is one morally above the other?[/QUOTE]


    one difference is that the Gov gets to make the appointment by himself, where-as the Senator wasn't in direct control of causing the negative issue (it's more on the Fed imho with the cheap and fast cash they were pimping... rather than more on Fanne/Freddie, etc)

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,160
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2904118]So clearly, we have a choice: Current system, martial law, or a theocracy.

    Those are the only options. Man, that sucks.[/QUOTE]


    Yes, but in two out of three, our leaders will wear funny hats, not to mention the parades and pageants. It could be fun...

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,759
    [QUOTE=Vilma;2904002]Wow what a ridiculous question. But I understand where you're coming from...[/QUOTE]

    That's funny. Not a day goes by at work where I don't say that same exact thing...;)

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2904306]Yes.[/QUOTE]

    Incorrect

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2903984]...a Senator who takes lobbyist money from Fannie Mae/banks to create a housing/derivatives bubble that crashes the economy (Obama)?

    [/QUOTE]

    You believe Obama crashed the economy?

  13. #13
    [quote=Vilma;2904002]Wow what a ridiculous question. But I understand where you're coming from.

    Simply put, the lobbyists do not put money into Obama's [B]pocket[/B] the money goes to his [B]campaign[/B]

    The douche gov was seeking to profit for himself by selling the senate seat to the highest bidder. He would have used that money on whatever he wanted.

    Obama can't use any of the money donated to his campaign for himself.

    Do you really not see a difference?[/quote]

    Incorrect. Because, you see, doling out political favors in exchange for campaign contributions is just as illegal as doling out political favors in exchange for cash money.

    The real difference is that the OP is mistaking correlation for causation.

    In other words, there's no evidence at all that Obama took political positions as a quid pro quo for any lobbyist's gifts. With Blagojevitch, he simply said "I am selling this to the highest bidder"

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2903984]What separates a Governor who takes money in exchange for a Senate appointment (Blagojevich) from a Senator who takes lobbyist money from Fannie Mae/banks to create a housing/derivatives bubble that crashes the economy (Obama)?

    Why does one get criminally charged while the other goes to the Oval Office? Is one morally above the other?[/QUOTE]

    DO you really think this is a subprime problem?

    Come on..

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us