[stupendousman]

The Abramoff stuff made me sick. Rightly so, the media made a big stink about it and people ended up being booted out of Congress. Some of whom had no other history of bad financial dealings in politics before.

I'm not naive and I suspect that most politicians are not squeaky clean and don't expect the media to go out for blood every time an individual is found to have done something inappropriate. But for some reason, the media can't seem to find the same amount of disgust that they did at Republicans the last couple of years as in the fact that over the past 20 years, the Clinton's have been involved with one campaign finance scandal after another, usually involving Asian and Asian Americans engaging in campaign finance fraud in order to help the Clinton's or get special treatment that isn't in the broader interest of the American people. The thing is, the same guy has been running their campaign finances the whole time (Terry McCauliffe) and despite a 20 year history of donors engaging in fraud for their benefit, then fleeing the country so that they (neither the Clintons or they themselves) aren't held accountable, we're supposed to believe that the Clintons are "shocked" to find out that people have/are engaging in finance fraud on their behalf?

Remember, these are the folks who had fund raisers in Buddhist temples and sold reservations to stay in luxurious accommodations on the taxpayer's dime then pleaded the stupidity defense when they were caught.

At what point will the mainstream media actually act as "the fourth estate" and hold the Clinton's responsible for their long-term history of corrupt campaign finance? Surely they aren't naive to think that all this smoke does not equal fire somewhere?

Yeah...I won't hold my breath either.

[- - e r i k - -]

[Citation Needed]

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

[Citation Needed]

Which part do you dispute specifically, and we'll go from there?

Here's a headstart on my part. Note the date. 10 years ago in the Washington Post. This is the first link I found when I Googled "Clinton" and "Asian Donors" among 30,000 hits:

WashingtonPost.com: The Curious Cast of Asian Donors

10 years later, more of the same:
My Way News - Democratic Donor a No Show at Hearing
Bill Clinton 'shocked' Hillary donor was a fugitive -- Newsday.com

Again...this is a continuing pattern, not a one time event. You can only plead "stupid" once before intelligent people come to understand that you have no intention of being honest about the situation, IMO.

[tie]

It isn't comparable at all to the Abramoff situation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

It isn't comparable at all to the Abramoff situation.

As I explained, it isn't. The Abramoff situation was one guy, trying to influence many - some of which hadn't been involved with shady dealings before.

This situation is LOTS of similar people, all doing shady things for one set of people over and over again. Also, I'm not sure any of the people involved with Abramoff where being asked to do things which might compromise national security - like get technology transfers which could be used for military offenses by those who oppose us, like was happening back 10 years ago. This isn't even touching on the pardons which were bought and paid for.

Like I said...serial corruption, all pretty much glossed over.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

It isn't comparable at all to the Abramoff situation.

I agree here. For one thing, the Abramoff situation is today. Some things have changed/grown since Clinton was in office including the fact that there are more outlets for media in general. I don't think the media will address politics as "nicely" to either as it had historically.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I agree here. For one thing, the Abramoff situation is today.

...and just TODAY one of Clinton's biggest supporters and fund raisers has disappeared (did you not see the link above) rather than explain how it is that all those middle class people who all lived at the same address gave such a HUGE amount of money. This after a 20 year history of this stuff happening often with them. You can't "get to the bottom" of something if your chief witness is of Asian descent and leaves to return to his homeland, now can you? This despite a 2 million dollar bail. Don't you follow the news? Or is more of the "oh..that old news" cover-up method?

Ambramoff is in jail and those he tried to influence are out of office. That's not "today" - that's months ago. The continuing pattern of illegal Asian political payoffs to the Clintons though continues TODAY and compared to Abramoff, it's largely ignored or glossed over.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...and just TODAY one of Clinton's biggest supporters and fund raisers has disappeared (did you not see the link above) rather than explain how it is that all those middle class people who all lived at the same address gave such a HUGE amount of money. This after a 20 year history of this stuff happening often with them. You can't "get to the bottom" of something if your chief witness is of Asian descent and leaves to return to him homeland, now can you? This despite a 2 million dollar bail. Don't you follow the news? Or is more of the "oh..that old news" cover-up method?

You cited three news articles stupendousman, two of which were from what... this week? You did so in context of a complaint that "Clinton scandals" aren't reported. Did you read your own links? It was an LA Times story that broke the news of Hsu's criminal history and led to the candidates who've received money to donate it to charity. This has been covered in the Wall Street Journal, Fox, Newsday, LA Times, etc... Instead of railing on the alleged lack of news coverage by citing various sources of news coverage, why don't you ask yourself why the Republican machine hasn't been hard at work on this?

Ambramoff is in jail and those he tried to influence are out of office. That's not "today" - that's months ago. The continuing pattern of illegal Asian political payoffs to the Clintons though continues TODAY.

So, you're disgusted with the Clintons. Hsu graduated from UC Berkeley and Wharton school of business. As far as I know, he's an American.

[OreoCookie]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here: that the Clintons have received money from people who since then have been implicated in shady business and/or have been convicted of crimes? Or do you want to talk about the case of Hsu in particular (the first article from 1997 doesn't mention him).

I assume it's the former, although you make it seem as if the Hsu story is a recurrence of an earlier scandal: it's not as different people with no obvious relation to each other are involved (other than that they are all Asian Americans). I also haven't heard any accusations that unlike in the Abramov scandal neither (former) President Clinton nor Senator Clinton have had to reciprocate. The donations by Hsu have been returned, what else do you expect (Senator) Clinton to do?

Or more generally, what you expect politicians to do: do background checks on everybody who makes donations? What about people who have received donations from companies like Enron and their affiliates?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You cited three news articles stupendousman, two of which were from what... this week? You did so in context of a complaint that "Clinton scandals" aren't reported.

Not that they aren't reported, but that they aren't reported, or investigated in the same manner other scandalous behavior is. When a Republican is involved in scandalous behavior, the media are pit pulls who do what they can to make sure the people know exactly what they need to know to ensure that those responsible are held accountable. How exactly have the Clinton's been "held accouintable"? By making HIllary the front-runner of her party's election as a Presidential nominee?

So, you're disgusted with the Clintons. Hsu graduated from UC Berkeley and Wharton school of business. As far as I know, he's an American.

I never said he wasn't.

[OreoCookie]

@stupendousman
You said `illegal Asian political payoffs', which implies that some foreign interests are involved. If Hsu is American, it should have read `illegal American political payoffs.'

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here: that the Clintons have received money from people who since then have been implicated in shady business and/or have been convicted of crimes? Or do you want to talk about the case of Hsu in particular (the first article from 1997 doesn't mention him).

I"m trying to say that there is a pattern of the Clintons receiving and soliciting money from people of Asian descent who later have been implicated in shady business and/or have been convicted of crimes prior to their relationship with the Clintons, and in addition the pattern is that these people engage in campaign finance fraud to benefit the Clintons and it's often the case that it's found that they have received special favors that normally would not be granted by them after they have engaged in the campaign finance fraud. Finally, when it's time to be held accountable and answer "who knew what, when" they flee the country so that no accountability can exist and so there is no more "story" to tell.

I assume it's the former, although you make it seem as if the Hsu story is a recurrence of an earlier scandal: it's not as different people with no obvious relation to each other are involved (other than that they are all Asian Americans). I also haven't heard any accusations that unlike in the Abramov scandal neither (former) President Clinton nor Senator Clinton have had to reciprocate. The donations by Hsu have been returned, what else do you expect (Senator) Clinton to do?

The money has been returned TO WHO? Given that the money in question likely came from illegal sources who have yet to be discovered, how are they going to give it back? Is this like how they said in the 90's during their first round of illegal Asian contributions that they were giving money back but never did?

Or more generally, what you expect politicians to do: do background checks on everybody who makes donations? What about people who have received donations from companies like Enron and their affiliates?

Due diligence would suffice. When you see multiple large donations from the same address by a large number of people who don't have the means to donate in that manner - all of which live at the same location a known Asian american fugitive from justice (and the people at the top of Clinton's finance team surely knew who he was as he provided them with a great deal of cash and donors) used as his official residence location, red flags go up unless your a accomplice to the behavior in question.

After 20 years of illegal Asian money influence it's time that someone is held accountable. It would be different if this was one guy, one financial scandal. This is a pattern and the Clinton's have kept the same guy in charge for over 20 years. IF they keep having this problem that no one else seems to be having, wouldn't it be time to find someone that can solve the problem - or admit that you don't see illegal Asian contributions as a problem?

[Dakarʒ]

The money was given to charities.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@stupendousman
You said `illegal Asian political payoffs', which implies that some foreign interests are involved. If Hsu is American, it should have read `illegal American political payoffs.'

Why are the people involved always of Asian descent and end up fleeing to the far east? Do we know of any Asian "foreign interests" that have achieved goals they normally would not have if not for the action of the Clintons? You don't have to google much farther than "chinese satelite" and 'indonesian coal" to get a couple of examples. But again...it's not ME that should be investigating and reporting on why the Clinton's again and again are found to have been involved with illegal Asian related finance fraud. That's the media's job and they've done a piss poor job at that. Otherwise, this stuff would have stopped a long time ago (McCaullife would have been fired) or the Clinton's wouldn't be running for office,

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

The money was given to charities.

What charities was the money from the 90's given to? In order to determine if what they are saying now is true, then we should see how their previous claims of doing so hold up. The fact is, they never gave any of it back during their first round of scandals, and they aren't really likely to be giving any back now. The Clinton's claiming they are going to do something isn't the same as them doing it, as past experience has demonstrated.

[Dakarʒ]

I didn't claim the money from the 90s was given to charities.

[OreoCookie]

Again, what do you think should be done practically?
How should you ensure that donors don't have a criminal record (due diligence is just a buzzword)? What should happen to the money/person in charge if you discover a donor has a criminal record?

I don't see how you can ensure that donors don't have a criminal history before they donate.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Ambramoff is in jail and those he tried to influence are out of office. That's not "today" - that's months ago.

Er, citation? It most definitely is "today." For example, 18 hours ago on the AP:

The Associated Press: Doolittle Aides Subpoenaed in Probe

I guess you just don't care, because it is a Republican scandal? Sorry, I don't understand your position at all.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why are the people involved always of Asian descent and end up fleeing to the far east? Do we know of any Asian "foreign interests" that have achieved goals they normally would not have if not for the action of the Clintons?

So you're saying that either one of the Clinton's was helping them with their crimes? Certainly the articles make no allegations that Hsu's donations have had strings.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Otherwise, this stuff would have stopped a long time ago (McCaullife would have been fired) or the Clinton's wouldn't be running for office,

Perhaps the matters have been investigated and nothing incriminating has been found? I assume you attribute this to the `special treatment' the Clintons have been awarded by basically anyone: the media/press, the judiciary, you name it. Even the Republicans keep quiet about it (that should be a sign).

It's abundantly clear that you simply don't like the Clintons (which is fine with me). Why don't you dislike them for things they have done instead of things which you apparently wish they have done?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I didn't claim the money from the 90s was given to charities.

You claimed that the money had been given back. It doesn't matter where it's "going back" to. If they claimed it was "going back" in the 90's but kept it, why on Earth would you believe that wherever they claim it's "going back" to know will ever see it?

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You claimed that the money had been given back. It doesn't matter where it's "going back" to.

Then don't ask. Next time, I'll know better than to try and help.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Again, what do you think should be done practically?

Well, I guess for a start they could dump the guy who keeps getting them into trouble and show some accountability. The fact is, THEY are THE ONLY ONES with a long-term problem of widespread illegal Asian related donations and then having these people leave the country before we can find out who knew what, when. How is it that everyone else avoids this, but the Clinton's always seem to be caught with this sort of thing? Either they are soliciting these illegal donations as they were back in the 90's (going as far as putting representatives of foriegn interests like John Huang in government positions while they helped solicit funds) or the people they have in charge are unable to do their job and need replaced. In this case, their close associate Terry McCauliffe.

For the most part, none of the other campaigns have this problem, but the Clinton's have for over 20 years. The question is: WHY? It's the question the media and Clinton's apologists don't seem to want the answer to.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Er, citation? It most definitely is "today." For example, 18 hours ago on the AP:

The Associated Press: Doolittle Aides Subpoenaed in Probe

I guess you just don't care, because it is a Republican scandal? Sorry, I don't understand your position at all.

No. I care. I want people who have been involved with that put away or out of office -Republican or Democrat. But that stuff happened years ago and Abramoff is no longer giving illegally. The Clinton's on the other hand seem to be doing the same corrupt things they've done for over 20 years and all I seem to be able to get is a "yawn" or apologies around here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So you're saying that either one of the Clinton's was helping them with their crimes? Certainly the articles make no allegations that Hsu's donations have had strings.

The illegal campaign contributions from the criminal? I suspect since there's a long pattern of the Clinton's receiving illegal campaign contribution from Asian related sources, and there's been a series of extraordinary examples where quite a few of the suspected sources of some of this money have benefited in ways they wouldn't have without Clinton intervention, that it's quite possible that the same is true here. But of course, we can't really know all the facts because these friends of Bill and Hillary always seem to leave the country and make themselves unavailable for either severe prosecution or to answer questions under oath. Funny that, eh?

Perhaps the matters have been investigated and nothing incriminating has been found?

How can you "investigate" thoroughly when your witnesses leave the country. Where is Hsu now to explain himself and where his money came from?

It's abundantly clear that you simply don't like the Clintons (which is fine with me). Why don't you dislike them for things they have done instead of things which you apparently wish they have done?

They've put themselves in a position where over a twenty year period been engaged in a pattern of getting caught accepting illegal asian-related campaign money, which usually is never returned and never further investigated because their fund raisers leave the country. I wasn't born just yesterday, so I can see that the pattern stinks of corruption, and that's something to dislike. Sorry you only seem to dislike Republican corruption and wish to make excuses for the corruption of those who you do like.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Then don't ask. Next time, I'll know better than to try and help.

How is repeating assurances that have been shown to be false in the past "help"?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How can you "investigate" thoroughly when your witnesses leave the country. Where is Hsu now to explain himself and where his money came from?

You are confusing things: the judiciary investigates crimes, not some committee that tries to raise funds for political campaigns. Even without a verdict, it's clear that the person in question now (Hsu) has a shady background and hence his donations will not be used for the campaign.

You shouldn't mix those two.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sorry you only seem to dislike Republican corruption and wish to make excuses for the corruption of those who you do like.

First of all, I don't like Hillary Clinton particularly all that well. Second of all, don't make up things about me or my political opinions, e. g. that I only dislike `Republican corruption'. You seem to forget that I'm not American and neither a Democrat nor a Republican. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you would like me to `dislike only Republican corruption', because it would fit better in your view of the world. I object to being forcibly put into a category that I don't belong to.

Again, I think there have been more serious allegations to either of the Clintons (Whitewater for instance), most of which have been extensively scrutinized without being able to find something that has led to any criminal charges in court (which obviously doesn't mean they are innocent). Even more importantly, you can dislike the Clintons because of their political views and their voting records. The latter includes the least mud-slinging as we can `entertain' ourselves with theories all day long without going anywhere (e. g. the Clintons' affinity to shady Asian people').

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You are confusing things: the judiciary investigates crimes, not some committee that tries to raise funds for political campaigns. Even without a verdict, it's clear that the person in question now (Hsu) has a shady background and hence his donations will not be used for the campaign.

It was clear before when the Clintons were using him for fund raising, and it was clear when all these poor people living in the same house he used gave huge amounts of cash that the donations where suspect. It wasn't until someone got the information to the media and likely forced their hand that any regret was shown. I guarentee you that the people in question knew that the donations in question were likely illegal but weren't going to do a thing until they were forced to. That's been Terry McCauliffe's MO for 20 years.

First of all, I don't like Hillary Clinton particularly all that well. Second of all, don't make up things about me or my political opinions, e. g. that I only dislike `Republican corruption'. You seem to forget that I'm not American and neither a Democrat nor a Republican. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you would like me to `dislike only Republican corruption', because it would fit better in your view of the world. I object to being forcibly put into a category that I don't belong to.

I've documented that the Clinton's have been involved in illegal Asian fund raising for over 20 years. Instead of joining me in wondering why they aren't being held accountable, you've made excuses and tried to reduce this to "well, this one time some guy the Clinton's didn't know did something bad and later gave them some money that they'd simply forgotten about, so whats the big deal ". Given the facts, its not a leap of logic to make the assumptions I have.

Again, I think there have been more serious allegations to either of the Clintons (Whitewater for instance), most of which have been extensively scrutinized without being able to find something that has led to any criminal charges in court (which obviously doesn't mean they are innocent).

That's the same thing members of organized crime used to say. I remember Jimmy Hoffa getting before the cameras and using the same defense. The problem is that for the same reason organized crime is hard to prosecute, these illegal attempts to influence the election are equally tough to prosecute because THE WITNESSES VANISH. We've had 20 years of it now. A 20 year pattern of attempted influence over the government using illegal campaign contributions is pretty serious. Maybe not to you...but again, you apparently aren't so concerned about campaign finance illegalities. The media on the other hand claimed to be...well...unless it's involving the Clintons.

Even more importantly, you can dislike the Clintons because of their political views and their voting records. The latter includes the least mud-slinging as we can `entertain' ourselves with theories all day long without going anywhere (e. g. the Clintons' affinity to shady Asian people').

It isn't a question of "liking the Clintons". I don't like or dislike them. My critique isn't emotion based and this isn't personal. I DISLIKE corruption, and the Clintons stink of it because they are continually being caught TAKING ILLEGAL MONEY from shady Asian people. Again, an unusual pattern of illegal activity, all surrounding the Clinton's. Not a coincedence, I assure you.

[stupendousman]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

According to this story, they're keeping all the money Hsu collected, including around $300,000 he claims came from a small family of middle class workers who live in a small shabby house which used to be owned by Hsu.

Like I said...more of the same Clinton corruption - all with a "yawn" and "so what" from Clinton's supporters as compared to the "heave ho" people give republicans when they do things less then ethical. Sad.

[tie]

I'm sorry, you're right, and my response could easily be construed as an attempt to change the topic/derail the thread. I just found it surprising that your attitude toward the Abramoff thing was so different, and your assertions that has all been taken care of so wrong.

I think a big reason your arguments are falling on deaf ears, though, is that not everyone sees the same pattern you seem to take as self-evident. This whole thing about a 20 year pattern of corrupt Asians just doesn't make any sense to me (especially when you are grouping in US citizens). No, I don't see the connection. And without a connection, this is just a minor incident.

[BadKosh]

Charlie Trei? Wasn't he mixed up with the Clintons and the Ron Brown death scandal, involving US missile staging technology? The tech we 'gave' the ChiComs?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

I'm sorry, you're right, and my response could easily be construed as an attempt to change the topic/derail the thread. I just found it surprising that your attitude toward the Abramoff thing was so different, and your assertions that has all been taken care of so wrong.

Well...I really didn't mean to assert that "all has been taken care of". As I stated, the guy is in jail and everyone involved IS being taken to task and held accountable (as should be the case), even if there are still investigations underway. He's not going to be giving illegal payoffs to anyone anymore, and he wasn't part of a long term pattern of a certain person/group of people giving illegal cash to a certain party or candidate.

I think a big reason your arguments are falling on deaf ears, though, is that not everyone sees the same pattern you seem to take as self-evident. This whole thing about a 20 year pattern of corrupt Asians just doesn't make any sense to me (especially when you are grouping in US citizens). No, I don't see the connection. And without a connection, this is just a minor incident.

Did you read the threads I posted? US Citizens or not, once they have been found to have been involved with an organized effort to engage in election fraud, they LEAVE THE COUNTRY TO MOVE BACK TO THE FAR EAST or plead guilty and get ZERO jail time.

Intelligence sources reported that during the 1996 election, there was a concentrated effort by the Chinese and other Asian groups to illegally influence the election. If you're part of a scheme to get foreign money into the election cycle, you're not going to be able to do it by sending over Chinese nationals entirely for the purpose of planting illegal money. It makes perfect sense to pair with Asian born people who have no communication gap with those involved who later become citizens.

The Clinton's have been supported since their Arkansas days by the Indonesian based "Lippo Group" business who owned banks and other businesses in Arkansas. The banks are owned by Indonesian businessman Mochtar Riady who has met regularly with the Clintons. During the 96 election cycle, a HUGE number of the people caught funneling illegal Asian money to the Clintons also (SHOCK) where associates of Riady and the Lippo Bank.

John Huang was an employee of Riady (but I believe a naturalized American Citizen) and not only was he engaged in illegal fund raising for the Clintons, but he was set up at the Commerce Department where the Clinton's pretty much converted it to a fund-raising arm of the DNC - switching approval for various things their donors wanted but couldn't get via regular channels (satelite tech, as was mentioned which was previously controlled by the military). John Huang was recommended by (SHOCK) BILL CLINTON HIMSELF for the position he was in after being asked in an Oval Office meeting to place him there by one of the Riady's.

There's really nothing NOT to get. When you've got a pattern of these Asian businessmen with money connections to the far east illegally fund raising for YEARS AND YEARS all for the same candidate (or his wife) with their help (but with "plausible deniability" built in), there's no credible "SHOCK" you can express once the next shoe falls. Where are the media to question whether Hsu is a part of this pattern or is in any way assocaited with all people who were caught red handed during the Clinton's previous elections? Oh my...we can't drudge up the "past" now can we. That's "old news". Bwahahaha.

Despite all this, Hillary Clinton is still in politics and the front-runner for her party's nomination for President. While I'm not harboring any false illusions that Republican candidates are in any way squeaky clean, I PROMISE you that if there was any Republican candidate with the public record of corruption the Clinton's have been involved with (illegal financing, selling the White House for contributions, perjury, subornation of perjury, illegal theft of FBI files on their enemies, widespread smear campaigns, etc.) they would NEVER be a front runner for anything. Again, the stuff that the Clinton's have been involved with make Abramoff look like kindergarten, and they get away with it time and again and those involved at worse get a slap on the wrist and often times not even that. There's something VERY WRONG here.

[stupendousman]

James Riady - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the guy who met with Clinton in the White House, told him to put Huang into place as a fund raiser, and Clinton obliged.

PLEASE tell me you no one is so naive as to think that everything I've shown here doesn't point to a clear pattern of corruption over several years where no one really has been held accountable. Riady just had to pay a fine.

I'm registered indepedent in a state where i don't think independents can vote for primary candidates. While I'm more conservative than liberal, I've voted for probably more Democrats than Republicans in my day (mostly local and state candidates). I don't support Barrack as a candidate (actually, I"ve yet to find one for 08 I do like) due to some pretty big difference on the issues, and I don't think he's squeaky clean either. But he's at least a guy I can respect who I don't think is on a power trip and corrupt. If you Democrats know what's good for you....you won't elect Hillary your candidate. I think it's posible for Barrack to beat any of the Republicans. I don't think HIllary will be able to. You can choose between someone people can respect and someone who has shown that bad ethics and corruption are simply a means to justify an end. It would be sad if that's the standard that the Democrats rubber stamp, but it's starting to look that way. Some people never learn and if Hillary ends up the democrat's candidate, win or lose, you guys will end up suffering I assure you.

[stupendousman]

Someone on Fred Thompson's staff must be a Mac user. I'm pretty sure they are reading my posts

Rival charges Hillary Clinton turned blind eye to Hsu's past - Examiner.com

"You have to look at this with a great deal of skepticism that - having been through this sort of thing in '96 - that nobody thought to say, 'Hey, you know, we better take another look at this before we take all this money,' " he said.

"And the fact that nobody did - or if they did, they decided to just put their finger in front of their lips and say shhh and try to sneak off into the distance - tells you a great deal about the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign is the Bill Clinton campaign redux."

Too true, too true. It's time someone prominent said it as well. Too bad they just made Charlie Trie the example when there's a large pool to choose from to make the case.

[stupendousman]

Wow.

Hillary is still the Dem. front runner and all we get is crickets on her history of being involved in corrupt fund raising campaigns and political pay-offs.

Hear that....that sound...that's defeat knocking at your door democrats, and the only one you have to blame for giving it the directions to house is you and your silence on Hillary. Act now before it's too late.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wow.

Hillary is still the Dem. front runner and all we get is crickets on her history of being involved in corrupt fund raising campaigns and political pay-offs.

Hear that....that sound...that's defeat knocking at your door democrats, and the only one you have to blame for giving it the directions to house is you and your silence on Hillary. Act now before it's too late.

I prefer to keep it quiet until they actually nominate her. Corruption aside, I don't think she's electable. She's going to have to speak more which will inevitibly harm her campaign. Let them nominate her, then release the Kracken!

i.e.; I don't sweat Hillary. As long as no more Republican scandals come down the pike, (which is asking quite a lot these days) they have a fighting chance at maintaining the Presidency against whomever gets the Dem nod.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I prefer to keep it quiet until they actually nominate her. Corruption aside, I don't think she's electable. She's going to have to speak more which will inevitibly harm her campaign. Let them nominate her, then release the Kracken!

i.e.; I don't sweat Hillary. As long as no more Republican scandals come down the pike, (which is asking quite a lot these days) they have a fighting chance at maintaining the Presidency against whomever gets the Dem nod.

As I stated, the Dems are inviting defeat to their door. I'm not sweating Hillary at all. I guess what I'm venting about is the double standard and hypocrisy of the mainstream media and the Democrats in general when it comes to corruption.

While I have my own opinions and political views and believe that there should be parties to represent them, I'd hope as reasonable Americans we could all share a standard for basic ethics which would make candidates like Clinton unelectable even in their own parties. While the Republicans aren't squeaky clean, the do seem to have a clear record of throwing even major party players overboard when it seems as though they've been caught not by the rules or being indiscreet. Even if Bill or Hillary was as far right as it came in there political views, neither would ever be the front runner for the Republican candidate for President because of their lack of proper ethics. The fact that the Democrats - fellow Americans and some of my neighbors, don't seem to care about ethics as long as their guys are involved makes me a little sad. The fact that there is a double standard and clear hypocrisy makes me a little angry.

[stupendousman]

Democratic fundraiser held without bail - Yahoo! News

Finally some sanity. The guy is now being held without bail. The pure comedy gold is that his lawyer is asking for his orignal 2 million in bail back. Maybe I'm missing something...but don't you forfeit bail when you fail to show up? Bail is the device used to ensure you don't become a fugitive, right? The prosecutor made a good point that Hsu doesn't appear to have any money that wasn't stolen for the purpose of giving to Democrats, so they have none of HIS money to give back.

The best quote in the whole thread is the following:
"'Why didn't they go get him?' Brosnahan said outside court. 'He was contributing to California politicians.'"

Here's a guy stealing millions to give to Hillary Clinton while he roams free. Only after his most recent brush with the law do they decide to "give back to charity" his money...and we still have ZERO evidence the Clinton's gave ANY money back as they'd promised to do in the 90's but lied about.

....and Hillary is still the democrat front runner? Guys...this will zap you in the *ss in the long run. I promise.

[stupendousman]

CLINTON HAS 33-POINT LEAD

...the set-up to LONG TERM screwing. Sorry guys...you're not going to be able to blame anyone but yourselves.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

CLINTON HAS 33-POINT LEAD

...the set-up to LONG TERM screwing. Sorry guys...you're not going to be able to blame anyone but yourselves.

When the Hell are you going to start making sense? What is the point of this post?

How is Hillary Clinton's 33-point lead going to lead to "LONG TERM screwing"? Do you have a premise for any of the points you are trying to make or is this just more rabid anti-Hillary hysteria?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

When the Hell are you going to start making sense? What is the point of this post?

Read the entire thread, then get back to us.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

When the Hell are you going to start making sense? What is the point of this post?

How is Hillary Clinton's 33-point lead going to lead to "LONG TERM screwing"? Do you have a premise for any of the points you are trying to make or is this just more rabid anti-Hillary hysteria?

He hasn't gotten past the Clintons yet, so he'll scream about them the rest of his natural life. Apparently, because they allegedly got away with some stuff, that justifies not going after anyone else, in his mind.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

He hasn't gotten past the Clintons yet, so he'll scream about them the rest of his natural life.

How does one "get past" the current front runners for the office of President of the United States? If they were not running for a major national office, you might have a point. Given that they are, you do not.

Apparently, because they allegedly got away with some stuff, that justifies not going after anyone else, in his mind.

No need for "apparently". I'll spell it out for you.

1. The Clinton's are corrupt.
2. History has shown us that electing corrupt politicians has disasterous effects on the party who elects them.
3. All signs point to democrat disaster in the near future.

If the Democrats were not as a majority backing a totally corrupt couple for their parties nomination, there would be no need to "go after them". You see, people like the Clinton's aren't let be the front runners in the Republican party normally. For the most part, when they stink as bad as them ethically, the Republicans throw them overboard. Not necessarily because the Republicans are less corrupt as a whole, but because their party base does not tolerate corruption the same that Democrats have historically. I believe that this is why the Democrats have seen their political fortunes dwindle this past 1/4 century and why with the last bout of Republican corruption, they got hammered as well. Based on the polls, I forsee major Democrat defeat in the near future. My prediction.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Read the entire thread, then get back to us.

Umm, I've read the entire thread and none of it seems to make much sense accept your hostility toward the Clintons and your suspicions of "Asians". So, I will repeat myself again.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

How is Hillary Clinton's 33-point lead going to lead to "LONG TERM screwing"?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, I've read the entire thread and none of it seems to make much sense accept your hostility toward the Clintons and your suspicions of "Asians". So, I will repeat myself again.

It's not my fault English is apparently not your first language. I would understand if you didn't agree with me, but to not understand what I'm saying either points reading comprehension problems or purposed ignorance.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not my fault English is apparently not your first language. I would understand if you didn't agree with me, but to not understand what I'm saying either points to reading comprehension problems or purposed ignorance.

No, I'm quite competent with the English language. So, that's not the problem. Maybe it's your dis-jointed, dis-connected statements that is the problem. Either way, I am done with you. You earn the distinction of being the second person I ever put on ignore. Cheers!


<edited>
Since you never asked, you never got to hear my opinion of the Clinton's. I think they are both unusually corrupt politicians, more corrupt even by the normative levels of corruption we find in our Senatorial or Presidential candidates. But your continuous frothing in regards to Hillary Clinton and this Hsu character is quite alarming. You seem to have so much hostility towards the Clinton's that you can't see the rest of the corruption and decay that is all over the political landscape in this country. And that is what scares me: People so blind with hatred towards one candidate or party they don't evaluate *all* the candidates (and their fitness to hold office) in a coherent, consistent manner. They can't see the forest for the trees, or tree.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No, I'm quite competent with the English language. So, that's not the problem. Maybe it's your dis-jointed, dis-connected statements that is the problem. Either way, I am done with you. You earn the distinction of being the second person I ever put on ignore. Cheers!

It's always eaiser to blame the messenger when you can't refute the message. Cheers!

But your continuous frothing in regards to Hillary Clinton and this Hsu character is quite alarming. You seem to have so much hostility towards the Clinton's that you can't see the rest of the corruption and decay that is all over the political landscape in this country.

WRONG. I explained my distaste for ALL corruption. I specifically gave the Abramhoff situation as an example. I have "hostility towards the Clinton's" for EXACTLY why you stated - that they are "both unusually corrupt politicians, more corrupt even by the normative levels of corruption we find in our Senatorial or Presidential candidates". The fact is that despite all the other corruption, they are UNUSUALLY corrupt and they ARE THE FRONTRUNNERS for the Democrat candidacy for President. That says A LOT!

It's not about hatred of the candidates. I don't hate Bill or Hillary. NOT. ONE. BIT. It's about not being able to understand the mentality of people who would put them up as the standard bearers for their party, despite all we know. It just BOGGLES THE MIND and it's not something that the Republicans would ever do and I think it's going to hurt the Democrats SERIOUSLY in the long run. I think that's fair game for discussion without the intellectual sophistry that goes along with the "I'm not listening to you because you are a hater" rebuttal that's all too common when someone can't refute what's going on.

[stupendousman]

I wonder if Bill will also claim to be "shocked" to learn that Hillary had been engaged in what amounts to illegal wiretapping of their political opponents:

TheHill.com - GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping

According to a former Clinton campaign worker, it was apparently routine for Clinton's people to monitor "frequencies used by cell phones" in order to intercept private calls for political gain. This has been illegal since at least 1986.

The funny thing is that now the mid-nineties scandal were a GOP conference call was intercepted by Clinton supporters and leaked to the press by Democrats doesn't look like such an isolated incident. This was apparently something that Clinton's people had been doing illegally for years. Add this to their illegal interception of the private raw FBI files on their enemies and you get a pretty clear picture of just a small part of the corruption Bill and Hillary have been involved with at the get go. They are starting to make Nixon look like a schoolboy.

I'm telling you Democrats....bail while you still can. You'll thank me later.

[stupendousman]

MORE SHOCKING NEWS!!!

I bet Bill was REALLY shocked to find out that a bunch of down on their luck Asian dishwashers and some people who can't even be tracked down at their listed place of residence have just been found to have given Hillary almost HALF A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!

An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton - Los Angeles Times

Yes, I was equally as SHOCKED to find out that some people gave $2,000 to her campaign who most likely don't make that in 2 months and likely have a hard time affording quality food and shelter for themselves. Some of these folks where SO HUNGRY THEY COULDN'T EVEN REMEMBER THAT THEY GAVE the money in question or that they ever had that much!!!



Dems....again, I'm begging you. You have Obama. Obama is smart, charismatic and compared to Bill and Hill, respectable. While I disagree with him on most things, and think that he's not the right person to lead the country, I wouldn't be embarrassed that he was the President and I could respect him as leader of the United States whether I agreed with him or not.

Ditch Hillary before it does 2006 Republican Ethical Problem level damage to your party, and the country. For the sake of the children......

[stupendousman]

Isn't there anyone here how will defend Hillary's political corruption, despite the fact that "polls" show her far and away the Democrat favorite (not that the Republican choices are much better)?

[stupendousman]

I also wonder if Bill is shocked to learn that Mrs. Clinton's serial dishonesty is apparently going to be used against her by her own Democrat opponents. In this case, quite successfully.

Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate - Roger Simon - Politico.com

Hillary not only has NO business being President, she doesn't have any business being the Democrat front-runner. Any of the guys running (save for a couple on the fringe like Kucinich) are more respectable and have a better shot in the general election that she does. More importantly, I don't think that any of the other mainstream guys would end up to be such a long-term embarrassment, as Bill and Hillary always fall-back into sleazy mode once they get what they want.