jdobbin Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) Breaking news now. No link yet. This just in. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493919/ New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped in December by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of Commerce, has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state. Edited January 4, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Breaking news now. No link yet.This just in. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493919/ This must be the wave of change President-Elect B. Hussein Obama was speaking of. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
punked Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Yah can you believe him appointing a minority. Quote
Shady Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Ok, we need to start a forum pool or something. Who's the next Obama Administration official to be investigated for fraud and abuse? I'm gonna go with AG Eric Holder. I say we each put in $5 dollars, winner takes all. Change, corruption you can believe in! Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 I say we each put in $5 dollars, winner takes all. Didn't you recently condemn all gamblers as degenerates, or was that just because you were losing an argument? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Didn't you recently condemn all gamblers as degenerates, or was that just because you were losing an argument? Nope, just using gambling websites as news sources. So, are you in for the $5 dollar pool? Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Nope, just using gambling websites as news sources. So, are you in for the $5 dollar pool? Then what is degenerate about using information supplied by gambling oddsmakers not as a news source but as an indication about the chances of either party's victory? It did, after all, provide far, far more insight into Franken's odds than your analysis could provide. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
kimmy Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 Yah can you believe him appointing a minority. yeah, people are obviously picking on Richardson because he's a minority. That's what I got out of reading the article. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
punked Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 yeah, people are obviously picking on Richardson because he's a minority. That's what I got out of reading the article. -k What I got was you are innocent untill proven guilty. Quote
Shady Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 What I got was you are innocent untill proven guilty. If he's not guilty, why did he withdraw? Quote
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) If he's not guilty, why did he withdraw? Becuase Dems aren't stuipd (Except Blaggo). Republicans are the ones who keep themselves in the lime light during investigations and make their parties look like idiots. Guilty or not it would be a stuipd for anyone who wants to have a future to stay out there while a FBI investigation is going on. Every other day the headline will be "FBI says this about Sec. Richardson" by the time he is done he will look guilty regardless. You will agree he is innocent until proven Guilty right? Edited January 6, 2009 by punked Quote
jdobbin Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Posted January 6, 2009 If he's not guilty, why did he withdraw? Because it might be too hard to do his new job and clear his name at the same time. Republicans are convinced he is guilty. I guess we can dispense of any investigation and trial. Quote
kimmy Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 What I got was you are innocent untill proven guilty. If that's what was on your mind, why did you post the whiny-sounding crap about him being a minority, as if that had anything to do with the kickback charges being made against Richardson. btw, I'm sure that Richardson will receive the benefit of the doubt just as much as Norm Coleman has. If he's not guilty, why did he withdraw? Because the allegations would undermine his tenure from the moment he started. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
jdobbin Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Posted January 6, 2009 btw, I'm sure that Richardson will receive the benefit of the doubt just as much as Norm Coleman has. Benefit of the doubt on what? Quote
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 If that's what was on your mind, why did you post the whiny-sounding crap about him being a minority, as if that had anything to do with the kickback charges being made against Richardson. Becuase he is a minority and appointing a prominent Hispanic to a Cabinet post would be a nice change from Bush just like Obama promised. We will see if Richardson is innocent I hope if he is you are the first to rush to this board and proclaim it. Just as you one of the first to proclaim his guilt. Something tells you weren't. PS. My problem with Coleman is not his house building it is that he is a shitty Senator and he is a opportunist. Quote
Shady Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) Becuase he is a minority and appointing a prominent Hispanic to a Cabinet post would be a nice change from Bush Yeah, because Alberto Gonzales former Attorney General, and Linda Chavez former Secretary of Labor aren't Hispanic. Not to mention, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, and former Secratary of Education Rod Paige, as other minority appointments. You just been punked! Edited January 6, 2009 by Shady Quote
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Yeah, because Alberto Gonzales former Attorney General, and Linda Chavez former Secretary of Labor aren't Hispanic. Not to mention, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, and former Secratary of Education Rod Paige, as other minority appointments. You just been punked! Alberto Gonzales isn't he the one being investigated right now and who has the tax payers paying for his high priced lawyer? Linda Chavez she is the one who never took the post becuase ALLEGATIONS which proved false of her employing an illegal immigrant right? PS. You named 4 over the course of 8 years. Obama already has more then that number. BRING ON THE CHANGE!!! Quote
kimmy Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Becuase he is a minority and appointing a prominent Hispanic to a Cabinet post would be a nice change from Bush just like Obama promised. Which again has nothing to do with the actual reason Richardson is resigning. I'm sure Obama will be able to find some qualified minority cabinet candidates who aren't being accused of exchanging government contracts for political contributions. I seem to recall quite a few minorities in the Bush cabinet, btw. We will see if Richardson is innocent I hope if he is you are the first to rush to this board and proclaim it. Just as you one of the first to proclaim his guilt. Something tells you weren't. Where did I proclaim his guilt, einstein? PS. My problem with Coleman is not his house building it is that he is a shitty Senator and he is a opportunist. Oh, ok then. So, care to explain how referring to him as Norm "Buy Me A House" Coleman in the other thread jives with your enthusiasm for the presumption of innocence? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Which again has nothing to do with the actual reason Richardson is resigning.I'm sure Obama will be able to find some qualified minority cabinet candidates who aren't being accused of exchanging government contracts for political contributions. -k You mean like Bush did when Linda Chavez was under investigation for employing illegal immigrants when she was named labour secretary? Don;t let facts get in the way of your witch hunt though. Quote
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) Oh, ok then. So, care to explain how referring to him as Norm "Buy Me A House" Coleman in the other thread jives with your enthusiasm for the presumption of innocence? -k Like I said his house building has never been a problem of mine it was that he was a shitty Senator. I was for Franken way before Coleman had suits bought for him. "Where did I proclaim his guilt, einstein?" So are on my side then Richardson is innocent until he is proven guilty? Edited January 6, 2009 by punked Quote
kimmy Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 You mean like Bush did when Linda Chavez was under investigation for employing illegal immigrants when she was named labour secretary? Don;t let facts get in the way of your witch hunt though. I'm on "witch hunt"? That's all you have left, isn't it. Hey, how about addressing your "Norm 'Buy Me A House' Coleman" quip? Seems like an ironic comment coming from such a dedicated proponent of the right to be presumed innocent. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 I'm on "witch hunt"? That's all you have left, isn't it.Hey, how about addressing your "Norm 'Buy Me A House' Coleman" quip? Seems like an ironic comment coming from such a dedicated proponent of the right to be presumed innocent. -k I addressed it above. Although it is going to be hard for him to prove his innocence if he loses his Senate race becuase he will not be able to use campaign money to defend himself. Quote
kimmy Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 I addressed it above. oh? I must have missed that. In this thread you're hopping mad because Shady is mocking "Corruption you can believe in" before Richardson has been convicted of anything. In the other thread you were mocking Coleman based on that house business that he has also not been convicted of yet. And the difference is ... uh... that Coleman is "a shitty Senator"? But isn't a shitty senator still entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Although it is going to be hard for him to prove his innocence if he loses his Senate race becuase he will not be able to use campaign money to defend himself. Well, I suspect that shitty senators are also still entitled to fair trial. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 oh? I must have missed that. In this thread you're hopping mad because Shady is mocking "Corruption you can believe in" before Richardson has been convicted of anything. In the other thread you were mocking Coleman based on that house business that he has also not been convicted of yet. And the difference is ... uh... that Coleman is "a shitty Senator"? But isn't a shitty senator still entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Well, I suspect that shitty senators are also still entitled to fair trial. -k Fair trial or not he wont be able to use his campaign money if he loses this race to defend himself. Coleman is a shitty Senator here I got a Question for him. Who bought his suits? Quote
kimmy Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Fair trial or not he wont be able to use his campaign money if he loses this race to defend himself. I doubt he'd be able to use campaign money for his court case regardless. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.