I have never seen any evidence showing that Rezko was a financial supporter of Barack Obama.

Now that you have seen evidence showing that Rezko was a financial supporter of Barack Obama to the tune of $168,000 and now that you know that it took months for Obama to acknowledge the extent to which Rezko supported Obama for more than a decade, does it matter to you? Does it make the subsequent real estate deal and the business that Rezko's companies reaped from the Illinois state government the least bit suspicious to you?

Now that you have seen evidence showing that Rezko was a financial supporter of Barack Obama to the tune of $168,000 and now that you know that it took months for Obama to acknowledge the extent to which Rezko supported Obama for more than a decade, does it matter to you? Does it make the subsequent real estate deal and the business that Rezko's companies reaped from the Illinois state government the least bit suspicious to you?

 

Not really. I believe someone else pointed out that Rezko has donated to many different Republican and Democratic candidates.

I have never seen any evidence showing that Rezko was a financial supporter of Barack Obama.

 

Not really. I believe someone else pointed out that Rezko has donated to many different Republican and Democratic candidates.

I didn't think that it would make any difference. Taking $168,000 from crooked donors is just par for the course in traditional, Chicago-style politics, right? :lol:

I didn't think that it would make any difference. Taking $168,000 from crooked donors is just par for the course in traditional, Chicago-style politics, right? :lol:

 

I simply said I had not seen any evidence. I never said that seeing the evidence would sway my opinion one way or th other.

I simply said I had not seen any evidence. I never said that seeing the evidence would sway my opinion one way or th other.

:thumb: Got it. The evidence does not matter.

:thumb: Got it. The evidence does not matter.

 

That is not what I said at all, but nice try.

Yet you read the half truths and innuendo spread by Obama's campaign and are silent about that campaign's efforts to intimidate broadcasters who allow Obama's critics to voice their opinions and allegations.

 

 

I believe the ad in question is a violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. If the ad is illegal, why wouldn't Obama's campaign seek to block them through threats of legal action? What's even more humorously ironic is that the ads are a violation of a law the John McCain co-sponsored. :lol:

 

Corsi is a crackpot. There, I said it. He's got so many crazy ideas, I don't know how you dispute that without making people think you, too, are a member of the "black helicopter crowd".

I believe the ad in question is a violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. If the ad is illegal, why wouldn't Obama's campaign seek to block them through threats of legal action? What's even more humorously ironic is that the ads are a violation of a law the John McCain co-sponsored. :lol:

Obama did not complain to the FEC. He complained to the Justice Department. Obama's campaign also attempted to intimidate WGN from allowing a National Republic journalist who is reviewing documents in the University of Chicago Library to appear on a talk show. The show offered the Obama campaign two-hours of air time to tell Obama's side of the story and they refused.

 

Corsi is a crackpot. There, I said it. He's got so many crazy ideas, I don't know how you dispute that without making people think you, too, are a member of the "black helicopter crowd".

Obama critics are crackpots because Obama says so. Great point! :lol:

Obama critics are crackpots because Obama says so. Great point! :lol:

 

 

I believe Corsi's wacko statements are out in the public domain for all to see. Corsi is so far out there, he should be on that late night UFO/paranormal radio show! :laugh:

The light bulb is starting to work here . . .

:lol: