Obama Broke Illinois Ethics Laws As A State Legislator?

[shagdrum]

Obama Broke Illinois Ethics Laws As A State Legislator


Apparently, on Obama’s released tax records, he discloses income from speaking fees. The problem? Accepting payment for speaking fees when you’re a legislator is against Illinois state law.

Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.

But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?

2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”

2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking).

2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”

These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.​

That’s not change we can believe in.

Just to sum up, the media can find Joe the Plumber’s tax woes within 24 hours of his having dared to question The One’s narrative, but they can’t find a clear ethical violation in the released records of a man who has been campaigning for President for two years now.

Another truth-telling moment brought to you by our fair and objective news media.

 

[StincolnLincoln]

That site is making a weak argument. Trying to draw a parallel with the keating scandal and the current economic crisis. That is a huge stretch.

When you cherry-pick facts, you can make something like that seem plausible.

It also doesn't seem to consider the fact that McCain was exonerated in that scandal. The ethics investigation found that McCain's actions,"were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate".

Either way... it doesn't disprove or discredit anything about Obama in the 1st post...

It only makes a weak argument cause that what you call it. It shows just how crooked your choice for presidency is when it comes to greed and allowing these rich money stealing and now needing to be bailed out bank exect's can pay him off. Your trying to always find stuff on Obama but now that i show something on McCain its weak. This is where again the word BIAS rings out loud.

 

[Marcus]

I have it on good knowledge that those tax returns are forgeries.

Stay tuned.

 

[shagdrum]

I have it on good knowledge that those tax returns are forgeries.

Stay tuned.

More info and links ASAP, please...

I am wondering what happened to the other two posts in this thread...:shifty:

 

[StincolnLincoln]

More info and links ASAP, please...

I am wondering what happened to the other two posts in this thread...:shifty:

i can just put them back

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

The current economic crisis demands that we understand John McCain's attitudes about economic oversight and corporate influence in federal regulation. Nothing illustrates the danger of his approach more clearly than his central role in the savings and loan scandal of the late '80s and early '90s.
John McCain was accused of improperly aiding his political patron, Charles Keating, chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee launched investigations and formally reprimanded Senator McCain for his role in the scandal. Today, John McCain is the only major party presidential nominee in US history to have been rebuked, censured or otherwise admonished after a Congressional ethics investigation.
At the heart of the scandal was Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which took advantage of deregulation in the 1980s to make risky investments with its depositors' money. McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating with federal regulators tasked with preventing banking fraud, and championed legislation to delay regulation of the savings and loan industry -- actions that allowed Keating to continue his fraud at an incredible cost to taxpayers.
When the savings and loan industry collapsed, Keating's failed company put taxpayers on the hook for $3.4 billion and more than 20,000 Americans lost their savings. John McCain was reprimanded by the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee, but the ultimate cost of the crisis to American taxpayers reached more than $120 billion.
The Keating scandal is eerily similar to today's credit crisis, where a lack of regulation and cozy relationships between the financial industry and Congress has allowed banks to make risky loans and profit by bending the rules. And in both cases, John McCain's judgment and values have placed him on the wrong side of history.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IDofbll86dY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IDofbll86dY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[StincolnLincoln]

I noticed they were removed but you and many others can go on my threads and post bull:q:q:q:q on Obama but when i post anything condeming against McSame it gets removed from your post. BIAS to the fullest i see.

 

[shagdrum]

It only makes a weak argument cause that what you call it. It shows just how crooked your choice for presidency is when it comes to greed and allowing these rich money stealing and now needing to be bailed out bank exect's can pay him off. Your trying to always find stuff on Obama but now that i show something on McCain its weak. This is where again the word BIAS rings out loud.

Crooked? McCain was exhonerated. There is nothing "crooked" in what he did. That is a fact. This source seems to be ignoring that fact, and overall cherry picking it's info. It is misrepresenting the truth. The actions of your source demonstrate that it is being dishonest and underhanded. It's bias seems to be demonstratably influencing it's reporting of the facts.

Bias only matters when it clouds judgement and/or honesty and the actions of your source pretty well show that it's judgement and/or honestly is clouded by bias.

 

[Calabrio]

I noticed they were removed but you and many others can go on my threads and post bull:q:q:q:q on Obama but when i post anything condeming against McSame it gets removed from your post. BIAS to the fullest i see.

You moron, my post demonstrating how dumb you are got deleted too.
It's not bias, it's called civility and decorum.

 

[StincolnLincoln]

You moron, my post demonstrating how dumb you are got deleted too.
It's not bias, it's called civility and decorum.

No its called Bias idiot for something that proves McSame was invloved in some bull:q:q:q:q and now since its actual facts on someone you choose it gets removed. As far as being a moron i think you have me beat totally idiot.

 

[Calabrio]

If you want to debate Keating, Stincn-
go here and finish your last attempt:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=47016&page=2

There's complete transparency and public knowledge of what Keating 5 was, who was involved, and the details associated with it.
Further more, McCAIN BROKE NO LAWS. That alone differentiates it from this thread.

If you'd like to argue that Obama DID NOT break any laws, please do so.
But don't say that it doesn't matter, then sight an example where a person DID NOT break the law in an effort to excuse it.
That just... well, ignorant. Familiar territory for you, I know.

 

[shagdrum]

I think Bryan pointed out in another thread that if a moderator or admin is active in a thread, he doesn't moderate that thead.

So, it is rather clear that Calabrio is not moderating this thread. If you are trying to claim bias on his part in editing you it is rather obvious that is not the case.

 

[StincolnLincoln]

Crooked? McCain was exhonerated. There is nothing "crooked" in what he did. That is a fact. This source seems to be ignoring that fact, and overall cherry picking it's info. It is misrepresenting the truth. The actions of your source demonstrate that it is being dishonest and underhanded. It's bias seems to be demonstratably influencing it's reporting of the facts.

Bias only matters when it clouds judgement and/or honesty and the actions of your source pretty well show that it's judgement and/or honestly is clouded by bias.

Oh really there was nothing crooked in what he did lmao how blind are you. Your in here trying to prove Obama as a crook and i post something that shows McSame aiding a crook. and getting paid for it as well.

 

[StincolnLincoln]

If you want to debate Keating, Stincn-
go here and finish your last attempt:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=47016&page=2

You know what i can go anywhere i want to go on here. You dont by far dictate where anyone goes on this site. I chose this thread for a reason.

 

[Calabrio]

You know what i can go anywhere i want to go on here. You dont by far dictate where anyone goes on this site. I chose this thread for a reason.

Because I made you look stupid in the last thread you tried to drop the "Keaton 5" misdirection into.

But, for the sake of entertainment, let's debate this-
make your point.

McCain was involved in a Democrat scandal. He accepted campaign contributions from a banker in the 80s. Despite relentless and desperate investigation from the Democrat controlled congress, they found nothing illegal. As mentioned, it was poor judgment, but nothing illegal.

Now what does that have to do with taking nearly $150,000 in speaking fees when it's against Illinois law for a legislator to do so?

 

[turborich]

Obama is nothing more then a big fake!

I like how people try to bring up McCain for his involvement in Keating. The fact still remains that he was cleared of any wrong doing. So, get over it & let's talk about the current issues like Obamas tax returns, Obamas racist church, Obamas ties to domestic terrorist. You know, the real issues!

 

[StincolnLincoln]

I think Bryan pointed out in another thread that if a moderator or admin is active in a thread, he doesn't moderate that thead.

So, it is rather clear that Calabrio is not moderating this thread. If you are trying to claim bias on his part in editing you it is rather obvious that is not the case.

if i wanted to blame him for the deletion i would but where did you even see me say it was him. I simply said its funny how i post something bad about McSame and it gets deleted but when in my thread stupid stuff was posted and i didnt even complain but as far as Calabrio goes i can care less what he thinks of my post. I notice that some McSame supporters like him and you get all pissy and start calling names when you dont like something posted about the idiot McSame. You have your views and i have mine.

 

[StincolnLincoln]

Because I made you look stupid in the last thread you tried to drop the "Keaton 5" misdirection into.

But, for the sake of entertainment, let's debate this-
make your point.

McCain was involved in a Democrat scandal. He accepted campaign contributions from a banker in the 80s. Despite relentless and desperate investigation from the Democrat controlled congress, they found nothing illegal. As mentioned, it was poor judgment, but nothing illegal.

Now what does that have to do with taking nearly $150,000 in speaking fees when it's against Illinois law for a legislator to do so?

Is that what you think u did. You are really stupid for thinking you made me look like you(stupid) you dont know me to make me look stupid thats the funny part all you have is insults to try and make yourself seem smart. further more he still looks like a fool no matter how much crap you try and pull up on Obama.

 

[Calabrio]

I notice that some McSame supporters like him and you get all pissy and start calling names when you dont like something posted about the idiot McSame..

Incorrect. I've attempted an honest engagement of the subject with you TWICE now. I don't name call and avoid the debate, to the contrary, I'm trying to pull you back in the argument and get greater clarity.

 

[StincolnLincoln]

Incorrect. I've attempted an honest engagement of the subject with you TWICE now. I dono't drop names and avoid the debate, I'm trying to pull you back in the argument.[/QUO

I decided to come here with it and u wanna start talking crap but as it stands when you dont like something that has been said and there is actual proof Calabrio you go to the name calling that right there is a weak means of trying to get my attention to talk about something you want to talk about. I posted what i found and i stand on it. Just as you have on many post.

 

[shagdrum]

Oh really there was nothing crooked in what he did lmao how blind are you. Your in here trying to prove Obama as a crook and i post something that shows McSame aiding a crook. and getting paid for it as well.

your buying into a source that is blatantly manufacturing an issue here. Any basic fact checking prove that and discredits this source. You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the keating thing.

Besides, all it serves to do is distract from the original subject of this post; evidence that suggests the Obama broke the law.

Assuming it checks out, Marcus's claim that the records cited were forged would counter that argument by disproving it.

Your argument ignores it and attempts to shift the debate. It is a red herring that distracts from the focus of this thread. Admin was right to remove your comments about the Keating five as they only to distract from the debate here.

If you wanna debate the keating five then you should go back to the thread that you were debating it in, or you or Calabrio should start a new thread on the keating five.

If you are simply going to keep asserting the relevance of the keating five but refuse to debate it; then you are being rude to anyone who tries to debate you, you are effectively making a fallacious proof by assertion/verbosity argument, and only serve to distract from any debate in which you bring up the keating five. Admin should remove any post you make (in whole or in part) on the keating five to maintain civility and decency.

In other words, :q:q:q:q or get off the pot.
If you are going to debate the keating five, do it in the appropriate thread, please. Don't attempt to change the focus of this thread.

 

[StincolnLincoln]

your buying into a source that is blatantly manufacturing an issue here. Any basic fact checking prove that and discredits this source. You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the keating thing.

Besides, all it serves to do is distract from the original subject of this post; evidence that suggests the Obama broke the law.

Assuming it checks out, Marcus's claim that the records cited were forged would counter that argument by disproving it.

Your argument ignores it and attempts to shift the debate. It is a red herring that distracts from the focus of this thread. Admin was right to remove your comments about the Keating five as they only to distract from the debate here.

If you wanna debate the keating five then you should go back to the thread that you were debating it in, or you or Calabrio should start a new thread on the keating five.

If you are simply going to keep asserting the relevance of the keating five but refuse to debate it; then you are being rude to anyone who tries to debate you, you are effectively making a fallacious proof by assertion/verbosity argument, and only serve to distract from any debate in which you bring up the keating five. Admin should remove any post you make (in whole or in part) on the keating five to maintain civility and decency.

In other words, :q:q:q:q or get off the pot.
If you are going to :debate the keating five, do it in the appropriate thread, please. Don't attempt to change the focus of this thread.

like u havent bought into bias sources. and as far as being rude i am far from being that especially if not attacked with obvious name calling like children do in your thread by him and you. So who is actually being rude and as far as your thread who cares if its your thread you didnt seem to care when you posted garbage on mine so be it. There are many attempts to change the focus on my Bump the Drama Vote Obama thread so what makes your thread so special.

 

[shagdrum]

u just been :q:q:q:qted on then

What?

I am not trying to be insulting or facetious here but...are you intoxicated while you are typing these posts?

 

[StincolnLincoln]

What?

I am not trying to be insulting or facetious here but...are you intoxicated while you are typing these posts?

read again Shag

 

[Calabrio]

I decided to come here with it and u wanna start talking crap but as it stands when you dont like something that has been said and there is actual proof Calabrio you go to the name calling that right there is a weak means of trying to get my attention to talk about something you want to talk about. I posted what i found and i stand on it. Just as you have on many post.

If you are a capable, could you please make your argument?

 

[shagdrum]

like u havent bought into bias sources. and as far as being rude i am far from being that especially if not attacked with obvious name calling like children do in your thread by him and you. So who is actuakky being rude and as far as your thread who cares if its your thread you didnt seem to care when you posted garbage on mine so be it. There are many attempts to cahnge the focus on my Bump the Drama Vote Obama thread so what makes your thread so special.

Your edit doesn't look much better....

When have I even posted in one of your threads?