Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
It's a shame that the sex angle is getting all the attention. Questionable financial dealings are more of a concern to me, and what started the investigation in the first place.
$4300 on a prostitute is paying too much, don't you think?
Well, I don't care what a man spends his own money on. As far as we know, he spent his own money. The IRS was just watching his for irregularities and wondered what he was taking that type of money out of his accounts for so they investigated. It appears the financial part was legal.
Let me state that what he did was unlawful but it seems obvious that the Reps and financially powerful were paying special attention to him so they could find something to end his career. I loath the idea that if you question the government or their corporate cronies, they can "sic" the IRS, FBI, etc on you. The lesson is "Know your place and don't question the powerful or we'll get you too."
Reminds me of the Seigleman thing in Alabama. Seigleman is in jail for 7 years solely because he pissed of the Bush admninstration.
^^^I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion. I've heard word that Spitzer was a periphery casualty. The main target may have been the guy who headed the prostitution ring, who works for, you guessed it, the IRS.
Maybe I just don't trust unlimited intrusion because history has shown when unbridled power to "investigate" is granted with no accountability, it will be abused. Every time!
I find it just a little convenient that this administration would just so happen to trip over information on one of its chief enemies. Too much of a coincidence for me.
and it appears on all levels to be a sense of higher ground!
Rethinking my support of Hillary, ClarkGriswold
I'm glad there are some Hillary supporters that are level-headed out there. I've heard and seen so many irrational arguments against an Obama presidency and for another Clinton one. I truely do believe that Obama is trying to rise above the fray. He immediately got rid of one of his aides after she called Hillary a monster. I mean that's not that bad. Then one strong Hillary contributor basically says that Obama is lucky to be where he's at. And he's only there cause he's black. Hillary refuses to take her off her campaign or even rebuke the statement. That's the difference right there.
and it appears on all levels to be a sense of higher ground!
Rethinking my support of Hillary, ClarkGriswold
I'm glad there are some Hillary supporters that are level-headed out there. I've heard and seen so many irrational arguments against an Obama presidency and for another Clinton one. I truely do believe that Obama is trying to rise above the fray. He immediately got rid of one of his aides after she called Hillary a monster. I mean that's not that bad. Then one strong Hillary contributor basically says that Obama is lucky to be where he's at. And he's only there cause he's black. Hillary refuses to take her off her campaign or even rebuke the statement. That's the difference right there.
Ok so now that psycho hosebag Ferraro is saying this......
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
WTF is she talking about? Obama is where he's at because he's black? What about Al Sharpton? What about Allen Keyes? They didn't get too far. And how is she "addressing the problems we're facing in this world" by saying things like that? This lady is off her rocker. And I'm totally attacking her cause she's white. WTF?
I just read that Obama will actually come out of Texas with more delegates than Clinton. Yet, she won. Interesting. **scratches head**
That's great, that means the real government isn't letting a handful of racist people decide the election. I was appalled at some of the things I heard here in Tennessee.
I mean, seriously, have people been watching the debates? (no.)
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Mar 12, 2008 3:05:50 GMT -5
danbird said:
Ok so now that psycho hosebag Ferraro is saying this......
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
WTF is she talking about? Obama is where he's at because he's black? What about Al Sharpton? What about Allen Keyes? They didn't get too far. And how is she "addressing the problems we're facing in this world" by saying things like that? This lady is off her rocker. And I'm totally attacking her cause she's white. WTF?
When I heard that, I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or puke. ;D
I know I've been saying that I would not vote for any Reps and a Rep victory would be tacit approval of the Bush Administration but Hillary is getting so bad I'm actually thinking of voting McCain if she get the Dem nomination.
It would be fitting to let the Reps inherit their own impending economic disaster. You know they will blame the Dems for all the unavoidable economic woes in the next 4 years if one is elected.
Ok so now that psycho hosebag Ferraro is saying this......
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
WTF is she talking about? Obama is where he's at because he's black? What about Al Sharpton? What about Allen Keyes? They didn't get too far. And how is she "addressing the problems we're facing in this world" by saying things like that? This lady is off her rocker. And I'm totally attacking her cause she's white. WTF?
When I heard that, I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or puke. ;D
I get what she's saying.
*Obama is "safe" - he's not too black, he's not a minister (yet can talk like one), he's young and attractive, has a stable family, not too many skeletons, views that aren't overly radical. None of the other black presidential candidates have been moderate enough.
*if she were black and saying these things, there might be a little buzz about it, but not to this extent
These are the problems we're facing in this world. Oops just said "that means the real government isn't letting a handful of racist people decide the election." Ferraro is just saying that - that people are getting all excited about being able to elect a black president - or a female president - and not necessarily looking any further than that.
It's like that episode of "Will and Grace" where he wanted to vote for the gay candidat and she wanted to vote for the female candidate, just because each looked like them. Only to find out that their view were appalling.
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Mar 12, 2008 8:52:35 GMT -5
troo said:
Another reason we must stop Hillary.
I know I've been saying that I would not vote for any Reps and a Rep victory would be tacit approval of the Bush Administration but Hillary is getting so bad I'm actually thinking of voting McCain if she get the Dem nomination.
It would be fitting to let the Reps inherit their own impending economic disaster. You know they will blame the Dems for all the unavoidable economic woes in the next 4 years if one is elected.
This is probably the last chance for the Democrats. More gop Supreme Court Nominations will result in Monarchy.
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Mar 12, 2008 8:56:11 GMT -5
dcbee said:
southgajd said:
When I heard that, I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or puke. ;D
I get what she's saying.
*Obama is "safe" - he's not too black, he's not a minister (yet can talk like one), he's young and attractive, has a stable family, not too many skeletons, views that aren't overly radical. None of the other black presidential candidates have been moderate enough.
*if she were black and saying these things, there might be a little buzz about it, but not to this extent
These are the problems we're facing in this world. Oops just said "that means the real government isn't letting a handful of racist people decide the election." Ferraro is just saying that - that people are getting all excited about being able to elect a black president - or a female president - and not necessarily looking any further than that.
It's like that episode of "Will and Grace" where he wanted to vote for the gay candidat and she wanted to vote for the female candidate, just because each looked like them. Only to find out that their view were appalling.
Those type statements are potentially much more damaging in the general election than helpful in the primaries (regardless of degree of accuracy).
I know I've been saying that I would not vote for any Reps and a Rep victory would be tacit approval of the Bush Administration but Hillary is getting so bad I'm actually thinking of voting McCain if she get the Dem nomination.
It would be fitting to let the Reps inherit their own impending economic disaster. You know they will blame the Dems for all the unavoidable economic woes in the next 4 years if one is elected.
This is probably the last chance for the Democrats. More gop Supreme Court Nominations will result in Monarchy.
You are correct. The Supreme court is an all encompassing reason to vote Dem this time. Thanks for putting me back on track.
When I heard that, I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or puke. ;D
These are the problems we're facing in this world. Oops just said "that means the real government isn't letting a handful of racist people decide the election." Ferraro is just saying that - that people are getting all excited about being able to elect a black president - or a female president - and not necessarily looking any further than that.
Yeah but, she didn't say that. She only mentioned Obama. If she said that people are only voting for these candidates cause they're black or female, that'd be a completely different story. But of course she left out the female part. How convenient. There are two sides to a coin, and if she wants to bring up race then she's got to bring up gender as well. Cause there's just as many white women voting for Hillary, cause she's a women, than there are African-Americans voting for Barack cause he's of the same ethinicity.
I actually think there are a ton of white voters, especially in the south, voting for Hillary mainly cause she's NOT black. That's racism. I agree with what Hillary said when asked about Ferraro's comments. She said that it's important that we stick to the issues. So reign in the crazies in your campaign, and stop having them "float" these divisive issues.
I came up with what should be Hillary's campaign slogan......
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Mar 12, 2008 12:20:16 GMT -5
danbird said:
dcbee said:
Divide and Conquer
EXACTLY. That's why the press prefers to keep sex and gender a priority in it's polls and coverage. They'd lose sponsors if they began speaking of the real issue-class. Hillary represents the old money network which not only struggles to maintain its wealth(thus the real need to be moderate -KEEP THOSE TAXES LOW !), but seeks to swell it.
Obama seems to garner the folks who want real change from the aristocratic/corporate rule that has dominated politics in modern times. Unfortunately, he will also be bound by the rule of the Democratic Party icons, thereby also promoting the status quo, having given up "real change" for comfort. He carries the right message, but he's on the wrong train. Real change won't happen within a system that resists it by any means necessary.
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Mar 12, 2008 12:21:47 GMT -5
danbird said:
dcbee said:
These are the problems we're facing in this world. Oops just said "that means the real government isn't letting a handful of racist people decide the election." Ferraro is just saying that - that people are getting all excited about being able to elect a black president - or a female president - and not necessarily looking any further than that.
Yeah but, she didn't say that. She only mentioned Obama. If she said that people are only voting for these candidates cause they're black or female, that'd be a completely different story. But of course she left out the female part. How convenient. There are two sides to a coin, and if she wants to bring up race then she's got to bring up gender as well. Cause there's just as many white women voting for Hillary, cause she's a women, than there are African-Americans voting for Barack cause he's of the same ethinicity.
I actually think there are a ton of white voters, especially in the south, voting for Hillary mainly cause she's NOT black. That's racism. I agree with what Hillary said when asked about Ferraro's comments. She said that it's important that we stick to the issues. So reign in the crazies in your campaign, and stop having them "float" these divisive issues.
I came up with what should be Hillary's campaign slogan......
Divide and Conquer
Here are some bad reasons to vote for someone for President: 1 - Because their daddy was Pres. 2 - Because their husband was. Can anyone tell me gwb or Hillary would have had/have a reasonable chance of election otherwise? We don't need nepotism/dynasties/monarchy.
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Mar 12, 2008 12:25:10 GMT -5
kdogg said:
It's a shame that the sex angle is getting all the attention. Questionable financial dealings are more of a concern to me, and what started the investigation in the first place.
$4300 on a prostitute is paying too much, don't you think?
I reserve judgement until I see a picture of the service provider and an itemized list of services rendered.
Okay, but Ferraro has always said that if she were Gerald Ferraro, she wouldn't have been selected as Mondale's VP candidate. She may not be talking about Hillary now, but she's definitely not leaving sex out of the equation.
And I also learned today that she said the same "if he weren't black, he wouldn't be in this" thing about Jesse Jackson.
Yeah but, she didn't say that. She only mentioned Obama. If she said that people are only voting for these candidates cause they're black or female, that'd be a completely different story. But of course she left out the female part. How convenient. There are two sides to a coin, and if she wants to bring up race then she's got to bring up gender as well. Cause there's just as many white women voting for Hillary, cause she's a women, than there are African-Americans voting for Barack cause he's of the same ethinicity.
I actually think there are a ton of white voters, especially in the south, voting for Hillary mainly cause she's NOT black. That's racism. I agree with what Hillary said when asked about Ferraro's comments. She said that it's important that we stick to the issues. So reign in the crazies in your campaign, and stop having them "float" these divisive issues.
I came up with what should be Hillary's campaign slogan......
Divide and Conquer
Here are some bad reasons to vote for someone for President: 1 - Because their daddy was Pres. 2 - Because their husband was. Can anyone tell me gwb or Hillary would have had/have a reasonable chance of election otherwise? We don't need nepotism/dynasties/monarchy.
But isn't getting your name onto the Presidential List just luck anyway? Being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people? Otherwise you're just some other smart person with a few good ideas.
If Obama hadn't spoken so well at the last Dem convention, he wouldn't be in the race now.
It's a shame that the sex angle is getting all the attention. Questionable financial dealings are more of a concern to me, and what started the investigation in the first place.
$4300 on a prostitute is paying too much, don't you think?
I reserve judgement until I see a picture of the service provider and an itemized list of services rendered.
nah, its waaaaaaaaaay too much.
from what i gathered of my recent trip to amsterdam, the hookers there are about 50 bucks for i think 15 or 20 minutes of time. and we arent talking about the one with a single tooth in her head pushing 70 - im talking about 20 something, incredibly hot, incredibly fit girls. when i was wandering around the red light disctrict, the one think i kept thinking was "wait, that girl is a hooker?!"
i kept listening in on negotiations (they happen right on the street when you walk by...) and that seemed to be the average. i dont know what that price includes, but i would assume sex - possibly more? im guessing the interwebs would have a more definite answer.
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Mar 12, 2008 13:02:32 GMT -5
dcbee said:
southgajd said:
Here are some bad reasons to vote for someone for President: 1 - Because their daddy was Pres. 2 - Because their husband was. Can anyone tell me gwb or Hillary would have had/have a reasonable chance of election otherwise? We don't need nepotism/dynasties/monarchy.
But isn't getting your name onto the Presidential List just luck anyway? Being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people? Otherwise you're just some other smart person with a few good ideas.
If Obama hadn't spoken so well at the last Dem convention, he wouldn't be in the race now.
"just some other smart person with a few good ideas." this applies to reason 1 above, exactly how?
Was Obama speaking well at the Dem Convention a result of luck or his accomplishmenti? OK, I know speechwriters, but they just pick the words for his message. How does Obama doing well as the result of making a good speech equate to Hillary doing well as a result of having had her husband elected President?
because he was lucky enough to be the one selected to speak the words
just like she was lucky enough to be married to someone who successfully won his bid for president. And Bill was lucky enough to be running against an unpopular president. (and lucky enough to have partnered up with Hillary years and years before???)
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Mar 12, 2008 14:44:29 GMT -5
dcbee said:
because he was lucky enough to be the one selected to speak the words
just like she was lucky enough to be married to someone who successfully won his bid for president. And Bill was lucky enough to be running against an unpopular president. (and lucky enough to have partnered up with Hillary years and years before???)
Fair enough, can we just flip a coin now and move on to the general?