So by extension, Obama is fraudulent, thieving and calls women c*nts?

Oldstone said:

So by extension, Obama is fraudulent, thieving and calls women c*nts?

OS,
I love ya dude but if the shoe were on the other foot.... Well, let's just say MOL would be going berserk!

johnlockedema said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

Oldstone said:

So by extension, Obama is fraudulent, thieving and calls women c*nts?

OS,
I love ya dude but if the shoe were on the other foot.... Well, let's just say MOL would be going berserk!

Even the usual far lefties here seem embarrassed by Obama's acceptance of these funds, judging by their silence.

I'll own that.

Red Barchetta said:

johnlockedema said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

Oldstone said:

So by extension, Obama is fraudulent, thieving and calls women c*nts?

OS,
I love ya dude but if the shoe were on the other foot.... Well, let's just say MOL would be going berserk!

Even the usual far lefties here seem embarrassed by Obama's acceptance of these funds, judging by their silence.

I'll own that.

Props to you, little red boat, for being honest.

mbaldwin said:

johnlockedema said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

Oldstone said:

So by extension, Obama is fraudulent, thieving and calls women c*nts?

OS,
I love ya dude but if the shoe were on the other foot.... Well, let's just say MOL would be going berserk!

Even the usual far lefties here seem embarrassed by Obama's acceptance of these funds, judging by their silence.

Or it's not a very interesting topic? Both sides get money from unsavory characters. And I think the superpac thing will blow up on both parties. Maybe some good will come out of it and lead to much needed reform in the way we fund election campaigns.

M, it's not very interesting here since it is an Obama bundler! If it were a Romney supporter under the same cloud we'd be reading a parade of posts. Not a whine, but a fact.

johnlockedema said:

mbaldwin said:

johnlockedema said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

Oldstone said:

So by extension, Obama is fraudulent, thieving and calls women c*nts?

OS,
I love ya dude but if the shoe were on the other foot.... Well, let's just say MOL would be going berserk!

Even the usual far lefties here seem embarrassed by Obama's acceptance of these funds, judging by their silence.

Or it's not a very interesting topic? Both sides get money from unsavory characters. And I think the superpac thing will blow up on both parties. Maybe some good will come out of it and lead to much needed reform in the way we fund election campaigns.

M, it's not very interesting here since it is an Obama bundler! If it were a Romney supporter under the same cloud we'd be reading a parade of posts. Not a whine, but a fact.

John, both sides do it. The real story here is the growing -- and, in my opinion, dangerous -- influence of the super pacs.

stateguy said:

I thought that Obama returned Corzine's contributions?

Maybe Corzine's friend's (the bundlees?) think the President will help Corzine explain where the $1.6 billion in missing money went.

Obama returned the money that Corzine personally donated, he's accepted a huge amount that Corzine raised for him-including the over half million dollars he's bundled in 2012, well after the financial shenanigans at MF Global last fall, with 1.6 BILLION dollars of investor money seemingly vanished into thin air while Mr. Sweatervest CEO says 'I dunno where it went'

LOST said:

Now I'm confused. Corzine asked others to contribute to Obama, they did so but Obama should give back the money? Why?

Cuz he's a democrat, apparently.

johnlockedema said:

LOST said:

Now I'm confused. Corzine asked others to contribute to Obama, they did so but Obama should give back the money? Why?

Because the whole idea of 'bundling' implies promises owed-in this case, you're getting promises owed through a guy who might be in jail.

Having someone fund raise for you who's at the center of a Wall Street 1.6 billion dollar fraud (gee, on behalf of President 'we have to watch out for the little guy') is plain stupid.

1. Gotv wins elections.

2. The only place I see the word/concept of bundling is in your opinionated thread title/first post.

3. So, it appears the "whole idea of bundling" is a product of your severe ODS*



*Obama Derangement Syndrome.

This is what happens because of our system for elections. And now magnified for the worse by the CU decision. Unfortunately, any politician who might prefer to 'rise above the fray' so to speak and only accept 'squeaky clean' money probably can't get elected no matter how noble his cause.

johnlockedema said:

wharfrat said:

johnlockedema said:

LOST said:

Now I'm confused. Corzine asked others to contribute to Obama, they did so but Obama should give back the money? Why?

Because the whole idea of 'bundling' implies promises owed-in this case, you're getting promises owed through a guy who might be in jail.

Having someone fund raise for you who's at the center of a Wall Street 1.6 billion dollar fraud (gee, on behalf of President 'we have to watch out for the little guy') is plain stupid.

1. Gotv wins elections.

2. The only place I see the word/concept of bundling is in your opinionated thread title/first post.

3. So, it appears the "whole idea of bundling" is a product of your severe ODS*



*Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Google is your friend; did you think I coined the term 'bundling', lol?

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=bundling+campaign+contributions&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

While I never thought you had the smarts to coin the term bundling, you try to make your case on scant fact.

Of course, with you that is nothing new.

BTW--care to comment on the Frank Rich article?

if I was running for office, I'd accept any legal contribution. and if anyone started bloviating about the "optics" of accepting contributions from "tainted" donors, I'd tell them to take a hike. if the contribution is legal, who cares?

now if someone wants to start a thread about the corrupting influence of the huge amounts of legal contributions that are raised by the campaigns, that's an issue worth discussing.

Keep those big bucks comin' as long as these are the rules! Woo hoo.

ml1 said:

if I was running for office, I'd accept any legal contribution. and if anyone started bloviating about the "optics" of accepting contributions from "tainted" donors, I'd tell them to take a hike. if the contribution is legal, who cares?

now if someone wants to start a thread about the corrupting influence of the huge amounts of legal contributions that are raised by the campaigns, that's an issue worth discussing.

Obviously a lot of people care, which is why candidates return 'tainted' money. It's not that unusual an occurrence.

BCC said:

ml1 said:

if I was running for office, I'd accept any legal contribution. and if anyone started bloviating about the "optics" of accepting contributions from "tainted" donors, I'd tell them to take a hike. if the contribution is legal, who cares?

now if someone wants to start a thread about the corrupting influence of the huge amounts of legal contributions that are raised by the campaigns, that's an issue worth discussing.

Obviously a lot of people care, which is why candidates return 'tainted' money. It's not that unusual an occurrence.

Two reasons - One is that a lot of people seem to like phony outrage. Second is that most politicians are cowards and will return even legal contributions if some cable talk show host wails about it enough.

The real corruption in the system comes from the oceans of legally contributed money. And who's discussing that?

ktc said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

Oldstone said:

So by extension, Obama is fraudulent, thieving and calls women c*nts?

OS,
I love ya dude but if the shoe were on the other foot.... Well, let's just say MOL would be going berserk!

More made up bull**** from the right here. "But if..." that is jdl's and slyfoxy's favorite game. Such victims of imaginary injustice! Sad.

You're now defending a person at the center of a $1.6 BILLION DOLLAR fraud?

I think the Rolling Stone Magazine recently referred to it as embezzlement.

mjh said:

johnlockedema said:

You're now defending a person at the center of a $1.6 BILLION DOLLAR fraud?

No, dude, that's not what has been said. People are defending Obama for keeping the money.

It's not Obama's to keep.

ml1 said:

BCC said:

ml1 said:

if I was running for office, I'd accept any legal contribution. and if anyone started bloviating about the "optics" of accepting contributions from "tainted" donors, I'd tell them to take a hike. if the contribution is legal, who cares?

now if someone wants to start a thread about the corrupting influence of the huge amounts of legal contributions that are raised by the campaigns, that's an issue worth discussing.

Obviously a lot of people care, which is why candidates return 'tainted' money. It's not that unusual an occurrence.

Two reasons - One is that a lot of people seem to like phony outrage. Second is that most politicians are cowards and will return even legal contributions if some cable talk show host wails about it enough.

The real corruption in the system comes from the oceans of legally contributed money. And who's discussing that?

You're talking about two different things, as you realize.
I agree with your last paragraph but not the first. You have no idea how much of the outrage is phony and I suspect that much of it is not. People would wonder why some sleazeball would be donating money to this guy and what he hoped to gain.
The fact that something is legal doesn't make it acceptable and politicians are aware of that. If some Mafia Don (if there are any still around) were found to be making a legal donation to a candidate, do you think the politician would keep it? When he returned it, would that be cowardice, or because of some bloviator on TV, or simple common sense?

Well, the story is in, Corzine's hand was in the cookie jar and he couldn't pull it out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-panel-memo-ties-corzine-to-missing-mf-global-funds/2012/03/23/gIQAvUiwWS_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

A House Committee issued a memo Friday tying former U.S. senator and former New Jersey governor Jon S. Corzine to a major transfer of funds out of MF Global, the brokerage firm that collapsed under his leadership with $1.6 billion of customers’ money missing.

On Oct. 28, as the cash-strapped firm struggled to stay afloat, MF Global transferred $200 million of customers’ money to J.P. Morgan Chase, the memo by the staff of the House Financial Services Committee said.

The money was used to cover a $175 million overdraft in one of MF Global’s accounts at J.P. Morgan in London, the memo said. Covering the overdraft was an urgent matter because, as an MF Global executive wrote at the time, the big bank was “holding up vital business,” the memo said.

According to the memo by congressional investigators, another MF Global employee wrote an e-mail saying that the $200 million transfer was “Per JC’s [Jon Corzine’s] direct instructions.”

Precisely what was per Corzine’s direct instructions is likely to be explored during a congressional hearing Wednesday. From the snippet quoted in the House memo, it is not clear how explicitly the e-mail addresses that point.

A spokesman for Corzine said he “never directed that customer funds should be used” to cover the overdraft. In a statement, spokesman Steven Goldberg said Corzine never told anyone which account should be used.

“Nor was he informed the customer funds had been used for that purpose,” Goldberg said.

The author of the e-mail referring to Corzine, former MF Global assistant treasurer Edith O’Brien, has been called to testify at Wednesday’s hearing. The committee this week voted to subpoena O’Brien after she declined to testify voluntarily. She could invoke her constitutional right to remain silent.

O’Brien worked in the firm’s Chicago office, which was responsible for ensuring that the company properly handled customer accounts, the Financial Services Committee said in a recent news release.

O’Brien “has unique, personal knowledge regarding how and why customer funds went missing,” Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.), chairman of the panel’s subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said in the news release.

A lawyer who reportedly represents O’Brien did not respond to an e-mail after the close of business Friday.

this is noteworthy, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/john-corzines-life-and-career/2011/11/02/gIQADms4fM_gallery.html#photo=20

March 6, 2002
Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Corzine (D-N.J.) introduce the Investor Confidence in Public Accounting Act of 2002 at a news conference on Capitol Hill.
Robert A. Reeder/The Washington Post

(Title Bout: Fannie and Freddie Mac vs. State of NJ and MF Global) and the winner is ->