who wants a traitor for President?

Nice title for the thread...

With that said, I guess a select few of the Democrat party and most ALL the Republican party is pretty much out of the race for the White House then huh?

Anyone know of a good Independent candidate?


Jamie

 

Oh, and Helen, it was nice for you to cut out this part right in the middle of the article.. I have highlighted it for you...


Unlike many in her party, 2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has been silent about the influence peddling scandal erupting around lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose plea bargain with the Justice Department is said to have more than a few on Capitol Hill quaking in their boots.

Now we know why.

Turns out, Mrs. Clinton is among the dozens of Democrats who accepted Mr. Abramoff's tainted contributions.

Clinton spokeswoman Ann Lewis told The Buffalo News on Thursday that "after examining our records we found two contributions for $1,000 from tribes which have been clients of Jack Abramoff in the past."

"To ensure that there is no question of any connection with Mr. Abramoff, Friends of Hillary will contribute the total of $2,000 to a New York charity," Lewis said.

News of Mrs. Clinton's Abramoff connection comes the same day that her 2000 Senate campaign acknowledged it violated Federal Election Commission regulations by hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash given by Hollywood mogul Peter Paul.

All this transpires against the backdrop of the Clinton campaign finance scandal of the late 1990s, where millions of dollars of illegal Chinese campaign cash found its way into Democratic Party and Clinton legal defense fund coffers.

The consequences of those transactions dwarf anything expected to emerge from the Abramoff imbroglio.

After Chinese intelligence and U.S. aerospace mogul Bernie Schwartz plied the DNC with donations, the Clinton Commerce Department permitted Schwartz's company, Loral, to share missile guidance technology with Beijing.


Hum... Only $2000 out of how much money did this guy raise for Bush or anyone in the GOP? Also, the money came from clients of Jack, not Jack himself.


Jamie

 

Can an honest person be elected twice?

 

Thank you, Helen, for abiding by the Copyright Laws and Posting Rules.

They are listed here for everyone's review:

LINK

 

Sounds like an honest mistake. Although it's hard to see this when the only two small paragraphs that were cut out shows that the Clinton's:

1. Didn't even know they had accepted any money from Jack Abramoff.

2. In fact, they didn't take any money from Jack Abramoff, the money came from some of his clients.

3. It was only $2000 out of how much money was rasied? IN comparsion, it's a drop in the bucket.


Jamie

 

LadyEagle,

It wasn't my intention to break some rules, but the article as it was wasn't fair or balance, with the statement left out.

There are some people that would jump to conclusions without reading the article.

As far as one of us breaking the rules and the other one not, I think we both broke them as more than 25% of the article was orginally posted. I only added the three (3) sentences that were missed.

Again, I don't thinik Helen or myself meant to break a rule, but I also don't see one doing better than the other when it comes to the rules in this case.

Jamie

 

My question would be can an honest person be elected period.


Jamie

 

This shows the importance of posting the links and reading them to see what the poster has left out. No one is obliged to post what counters their point, but it is misleading if the article they cite does counter their point.

NewsMax tends to quote mine anyway - not exactly a reliable source, especially on certain topics.

 

Isn't it funny that when people are caught lying, they accuse their accuser of lying. When they're caught stealing, they accuse their opponent of stealing. When they're caught being unpatriotic, they accuse everyone else of being unpatriotic. The things we dislike about ourselves, we hate in other people. And the louder someone complains, it's a sure bet they're guilty of worse.

 

who wants a traitor for President?


Over 50 million people voted for Kerry in the last election.

 

good point carpro. sadly

 

I dont know if she is traitorous...I know I abhor the idea of her becoming President. I especially do not desire her to become the first woman President. That trailblazing title belongs to someone more worthy than someone who stands idly by watching her spouse act the fool.

capro - hilarious. Yet sadly true.

 

We've got a traitor now. What's the difference?

 

Brother James, what is that supposed to mean? How do you constitute President Bush as a traitor?

 

A rather rash and totally unsupportable statement.

 

Largely but not totally - if the current president subverted the constitution, a case could be made that he is a traitor. Sure, it's far-fetched, but no more than the slanders against Clinton & Kerry and possibly less, if the ifs are true.

 

Largely but not totally - if the current president subverted the constitution, a case could be made that he is a traitor. Sure, it's far-fetched, but no more than the slanders against Clinton & Kerry and possibly less, if the ifs are true. </font>[/QUOTE]Unsupportable is the proper word.

Even if the if became true there would still be no case at all for treason.

"The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort."

That's all. There is no other cause for a charge of treason.

Totally unsupportable is even better.