Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Next President 2008 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2193)	2/2/2008 1:09:41 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3215

Hill and Bill Clinton ran the most corrupt and morally bankrupt White House since Nixon. Google "Clinton convicts" and see the results, that is the legacy of the Clintons. If you care about ethics, morals, integrity, then you must vote to reject the Clinton Dynasty. America Deserves better. Al Gore lost because of the scandals of the Clintons. remember George W ran on restoring "honor" and dignity to WH. Vote McCain, Vote Romney, Vote Obama.. God bless our country Posted by: Jimmy O \| February 2, 2008 09:32 AM

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2193)	2/2/2008 1:11:06 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 3215

More corrupt camp donations for Obama! WHERES THE MEDIA??? NON-BLACK VOTERS ARE SICK OF THE BIASD MEDIA OUSHING OBAMA DOWN OUR THROATS! But back on Oct. 5, in the aftermath of federal bribery/extortion/conspiracy/other miscellaneous badness indictments of former Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill Presidential candidate Barrack Obama desperately wants campaign cash senator Obama campaign already has its hands full with other indicted bankrollers Rezko. Now Mr. Hill's campaign finance report shows donations to on April 28, and federal campaign finance reports indicate Mr. Obama received Mr. Hill's donation June 22 as well. The Obama camp couldn't immediately be reached for comment Friday about Mr. Hill's Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 in Obama is referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko As Barack Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations as it might seem. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced this week it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Calculations by the media and Obama's own staff of Rezko's financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. In the case of Obama, public records don't make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has not raised money for Obama's presidential campaign. Various media outlets have reported much larger numbers, though they haven't clearly explained their methodology. The New York Times has pegged Rezko political cash for Obama at $150,000, the Sun-Times at $168,000 and the Los Angeles Times at $200,000. Last weekend, a report by ABCNews.com suggested more than $185,000. The event at Rezko's home resembled a posh dinner party, complete with valet parking and catered dinner. Obama spoke after the meal, and told the crowd about how when he was still in Harvard law school Rezko, a developer, had tried to hire him. Obama staffers set up shop around the kitchen table, where they collected checks. One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn't heard if the campaign now plans to give it away. Still, Sreenan said he was baffled by the notion of giving money raised at Rezko's home to charity. "If [Obama] wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I'm fine with that," he said. "But I don't see how this makes a difference now -- the money still got him elected. And how do I know it's not going to a charity that's offensive to me?" Barack Obama has surfaced in the federal corrupton case against his longtime campaign fund-raiser, Tony Rezko Obama's relationship with Rezko came under greater scrutiny this week after prosecutors disclosed Rezko received $3.5 million from an Iraqi billionaire while claiming to be broke

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2193)	2/2/2008 1:12:40 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3215

It is not a surprise that Ann Coulter is suporting Hillary. Ann Coulter is right. Both the Clintons are centrists and are moving more towards the right. Clinton's policies during his presidency are more conservative than liberal. In fact, the Clintons are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are cold and calculating Republicans disguised as Democrats. McCain on the other hand is more a liberal than a conservative. He is certainly more liberal than Hillary. The McCain-Feingold, McCain-Liberman and McCain-Kennedy bills are excellent indications of why McCain is more liberal than Hillary. Ann Coulter's support for Hillary is refreshing for the Republicans who needed a voice. After examining the Clintons legacy and the prospect of a Clinton co-presidency, it sends shivers through my spine. The thought of mandated health insurance plan by Clinton for the poor like many of us is just beyond belief. Forcing us to buy health insurance at inflated prices is morally wrong, obnoxious and reprehensible. She does not understand the ground realities of poor America because she had not been there. She criticized Obama for raising the issue of mandated health insurance. Is she going to fine us or send us to prison for not buying health insurance we cannot afford. By the way, the sleazy and shady dealings surrounding the Clintons did not come up in the discussions. We need to look more into her integrity. Nothing was raised regarding the New York Times article on the Canadian businessmen who donated $30 millions to the Clintons for political patronage. Doesn't the press and the media, consider that such shady business dealings relevant to the discourse or has truth become irrelevant with the media? The question is, can we trust the Clinton co-presidency who has repeatedly shown a lack of moral integrity and a deficit of truthfulness? Posted by: sbgamatt \| February 2, 2008 10:31 AM