Supreme Court rules signatures are Public!

[sangha]

Iraqi Oil for Food Billionaire and Fugitive Nadhmi Auchi funneled money to Tony Rezko who paid for the Obama's House and a $625,000 tract of land for which the Obama paid just over $100,000.

Let's start there.

Oh I C, we're going to use the talking points and not factual info. No wonder you concurred.

Let's see the facts Frank if you can't provide those facts, you're a lost man.

I've posted the facts about the Obama "Just words? No Deeds!" bribe many times.

In a nutshell, when the Obama's bought their house using fund provided by Convicted Felon Tony Rezko, who received a funds wire from Auchi a few days before. (Why is Rezko receiving funds from an Iraqi Oil for Food Fugitive? I dunno, maybe you can tell me). Simultaneously, a trust controlled by the Obamas was deeded a parcel of land from Mrs. Rezko who paid $625,000 but sold to to the Obama's for $104,500!!

Follow that?

Tony's wife sells the land to the Obamas who had been very helpful in seeing that Tony got tens of million in properties not long before

Is that a 500,000+ Bribe? What if Obama was Cheney and Rezko Jack Abramoff?

AFTER Tony was indicted for fraud, and his dealing were going to be scrutinized, Obama suddenly remembered that what he actually bought was a "Sliver" of the vacant parcel.

Do you follow that?

Nobody ever did legitimate business like that!

If I was going to sell Obama a sliver, Id' get it subdivided (if even possible -- that's another article) and sell him the sliver. The Rezko's sold him the entire parcel and I could not find any record of any approval for a subdivision when I checked the Cook County clerks office during the time prior to the Rezko indictment.

If conservatives didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Franks' recitation of "the facts" includes such gems as

"Is that a 500,000+ Bribe? What if Obama was Cheney and Rezko Jack Abramoff?"

" Obama suddenly remembered"

"Nobody ever did legitimate business like that! "

None of the above quotes are a "fact"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh I C, we're going to use the talking points and not factual info. No wonder you concurred.

Let's see the facts Frank if you can't provide those facts, you're a lost man.

I've posted the facts about the Obama "Just words? No Deeds!" bribe many times.

In a nutshell, when the Obama's bought their house using fund provided by Convicted Felon Tony Rezko, who received a funds wire from Auchi a few days before. (Why is Rezko receiving funds from an Iraqi Oil for Food Fugitive? I dunno, maybe you can tell me). Simultaneously, a trust controlled by the Obamas was deeded a parcel of land from Mrs. Rezko who paid $625,000 but sold to to the Obama's for $104,500!!

Follow that?

Tony's wife sells the land to the Obamas who had been very helpful in seeing that Tony got tens of million in properties not long before

Is that a 500,000+ Bribe? What if Obama was Cheney and Rezko Jack Abramoff?

AFTER Tony was indicted for fraud, and his dealing were going to be scrutinized, Obama suddenly remembered that what he actually bought was a "Sliver" of the vacant parcel.

Do you follow that?

Nobody ever did legitimate business like that!

If I was going to sell Obama a sliver, Id' get it subdivided (if even possible -- that's another article) and sell him the sliver. The Rezko's sold him the entire parcel and I could not find any record of any approval for a subdivision when I checked the Cook County clerks office during the time prior to the Rezko indictment.

If conservatives didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Franks' recitation of "the facts" includes such gems as

"Is that a 500,000+ Bribe? What if Obama was Cheney and Rezko Jack Abramoff?"

" Obama suddenly remembered"

"Nobody ever did legitimate business like that! "

None of the above quotes are a "fact"

If I'm asking: "Is that a 500,000+ Bribe? What if Obama was Cheney and Rezko Jack Abramoff?" it clearly means I'm not stating it as "fact" I'm trying to get the one or two remaining Democrats who are not full blown Fascists to see that maybe there's something very wrong here.

Meanwhile the facts I laid out on when the Obama got the land and what happened after are indisputable and backed up by records at Cook County.

 

[sangha]

If I'm asking: "Is that a 500,000+ Bribe? What if Obama was Cheney and Rezko Jack Abramoff?" it clearly means I'm not stating it as "fact" I'm trying to get the one or two remaining Democrats who are not full blown Fascists to see that maybe there's something very wrong here.

But you did state it as fact. You even started your rant by saying you would post "the facts". Here is what you said about your "facts"

I've posted the facts about the Obama "Just words? No Deeds!" bribe many times.

In a nutshell,

After claiming you would recite the "facts", you then proceeded to editorialize

Meanwhile the facts I laid out on when the Obama got the land and what happened after are indisputable and backed up by records at Cook County.

The "facts" show that there was no wrongdoing. All you did was ask if there was wrongdoing. You had to ask, because you can't make a case.

But you will lie and claim you proved yourself right

 

[Yurt]

Who said we do? You seem to not get the point here, you're on the border line of just not either knowing or being willingly obtuse.

I was merely pointing out why many people would like those names public. They would simply not want to give money to such people.

it is not official, i am not being obtuse, you're being deceiving....

do you believe people's thoughts should be public....all your posts indicate that you support people's right or whatever you're thinking to know that business's are bigotted or not....do you believe those people have a right to know if a business is bigotted....yes or no

tell us what you think and stop hiding behind questions....this what you do, you hide behind others and then when called to the floor you proclaim, oh no, i am merely talking about them, when the whole time it is clear you support their beliefs

In a previous post I said if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say.

Now yurt is proving it true by claiming the SCOTUS ruling means you have to make all your thoughts public

uh no....i am suggesting that is modbert's desire based on his question/statements

i never said scotus said that....have you graduated 4th grade?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If I'm asking: "Is that a 500,000+ Bribe? What if Obama was Cheney and Rezko Jack Abramoff?" it clearly means I'm not stating it as "fact" I'm trying to get the one or two remaining Democrats who are not full blown Fascists to see that maybe there's something very wrong here.

But you did state it as fact. You even started your rant by saying you would post "the facts".

Meanwhile the facts I laid out on when the Obama got the land and what happened after are indisputable and backed up by records at Cook County.

The "facts" show that there was no wrongdoing. All you did was ask if there was wrongdoing. You had to ask, because you can't make a case.

But you will lie and claim you proved yourself right

Giving a US Senator $625,000 of land for $104,500 is not "wrongdoing"?

No?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What's next, no more anonymous donations, especially to political campaigns and causes?

Donations to candidates may no longer be anonymous with the new rollback of campaign finance restrictions. I want the light to shine on all of that.

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

Sure, with full disclosure for every candidate in the system.

 

[sangha]

it is not official, i am not being obtuse, you're being deceiving....

do you believe people's thoughts should be public....all your posts indicate that you support people's right or whatever you're thinking to know that business's are bigotted or not....do you believe those people have a right to know if a business is bigotted....yes or no

tell us what you think and stop hiding behind questions....this what you do, you hide behind others and then when called to the floor you proclaim, oh no, i am merely talking about them, when the whole time it is clear you support their beliefs

In a previous post I said if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say.

Now yurt is proving it true by claiming the SCOTUS ruling means you have to make all your thoughts public

uh no....i am suggesting that is modbert's desire based on his question/statements

IOW, you can't argue with anything he said, so you'll just make stuff up

i never said scotus said that....have you graduated 4th grade?

You argued that if they can make your name public when you sign a petition, then they can force you to make all your thoughts public

Stop running away from your own words. Defend yourself, you coward

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh.

You didn't read the case or the decision.

The State had access to the petition, the issue was public disclosure.

I would be upset, but I've yet to met a Progressive/Liberal/Tool would read an attachement even when they attach the article themselves

Doesn't matter

You signed the petition. It becomes a public document. If you are not willing to have your name associated with supporting the candidate or issue, you should not be signing it

Doesn't bother me, I have weapons so when assholes like you come around to threaten me or attack me I am prepared. There is absolutely no reason joe public needs the names EXCEPT as a tool to harass.

You talk like a lance corporal. Big Bad NCO. Sheesh.

 

[sangha]

If I'm asking: "Is that a 500,000+ Bribe? What if Obama was Cheney and Rezko Jack Abramoff?" it clearly means I'm not stating it as "fact" I'm trying to get the one or two remaining Democrats who are not full blown Fascists to see that maybe there's something very wrong here.

But you did state it as fact. You even started your rant by saying you would post "the facts".

Meanwhile the facts I laid out on when the Obama got the land and what happened after are indisputable and backed up by records at Cook County.

The "facts" show that there was no wrongdoing. All you did was ask if there was wrongdoing. You had to ask, because you can't make a case.

But you will lie and claim you proved yourself right

Giving a US Senator $625,000 of land for $104,500 is not "wrongdoing"?

No?

Now you're just lying

Even you have admitted that Obama only purchased a "sliver" of the land worth 625k.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Donations to candidates may no longer be anonymous with the new rollback of campaign finance restrictions. I want the light to shine on all of that.

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

Sure, with full disclosure for every candidate in the system.

Republicans are in favor of full disclosure, Jake.

 

[sangha]

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

Sure, with full disclosure for every candidate in the system.

Republicans are in favor of full disclosure, Jake.

Umm, the law already requires full disclosure

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But you did state it as fact. You even started your rant by saying you would post "the facts".




The "facts" show that there was no wrongdoing. All you did was ask if there was wrongdoing. You had to ask, because you can't make a case.

But you will lie and claim you proved yourself right

Giving a US Senator $625,000 of land for $104,500 is not "wrongdoing"?

No?

Now you're just lying

Even you have admitted that Obama only purchased a "sliver" of the land worth 625k.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh.

You didn't read the case or the decision.

The State had access to the petition, the issue was public disclosure.

I would be upset, but I've yet to met a Progressive/Liberal/Tool would read an attachement even when they attach the article themselves

Doesn't matter

You signed the petition. It becomes a public document. If you are not willing to have your name associated with supporting the candidate or issue, you should not be signing it

really....so voting records should be public?

Move along, Yurt. That is a false analogy and not worth the time here.

 

[sangha]

Giving a US Senator $625,000 of land for $104,500 is not "wrongdoing"?

No?

Now you're just lying

Even you have admitted that Obama only purchased a "sliver" of the land worth 625k.

So you have nothing?

I'm not surprised

 

[JakeStarkey]

If there is one thing about Scalia, he is consistent with taking the Conservative/Libertarian position. I may not agree with even half of the decisions he sides with, but when even he is voting for this, it should say something.

Absolutely correct, modbert. Thomas is in la la land on this one, joined here by Yurt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When you put your signature down as supporting a particular "thought" you are making it public.

Don't want your thoughts public, keep'm to yourself.

<or post them on the internet>

then you believe the ballot should be public as well....?

Of course not, because a petition is not part of the voting process. It is part of the election process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

then you believe the ballot should be public as well....?

A ballot isn't a thought.

when you vote for the initiative at the ballot box, it is the same process as putting your sig on a petition....the only difference is a vote vs a signature...

this posts shows more evidence that you in fact believe we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding our thoughts

False logic, and you would fail a government assessment if you tried this nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sure, with full disclosure for every candidate in the system.

Republicans are in favor of full disclosure, Jake.

Umm, the law already requires full disclosure

Well, true we did find that Obama received money from Jihadists

 

[sangha]

A ballot isn't a thought.

when you vote for the initiative at the ballot box, it is the same process as putting your sig on a petition....the only difference is a vote vs a signature...

this posts shows more evidence that you in fact believe we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding our thoughts

False logic, and you would fail a government assessment if you tried this nonsense.

That would match the psychological assessment that he failed

 

[bodecea]

Sigh.

You didn't read the case or the decision.

The State had access to the petition, the issue was public disclosure.

I would be upset, but I've yet to met a Progressive/Liberal/Tool would read an attachement even when they attach the article themselves

Doesn't matter

You signed the petition. It becomes a public document. If you are not willing to have your name associated with supporting the candidate or issue, you should not be signing it

Doesn't bother me, I have weapons so when assholes like you come around to threaten me or attack me I am prepared. There is absolutely no reason joe public needs the names EXCEPT as a tool to harass.

Are you expecting anyone to threaten or attack you? Are you expecting rightwinger to threaten or attack you?