Say Anything Blog

Not sure how that is particularly sleazy—they’re obligated somehow to say that they contributed their own money to the campaign before Super Tuesday?  Why?  I mean, I can come up with some reasons why that knowledge might have hurt her in the voting, but her not revealing it before the voting seems practical, not sleazy.  If I’m missing something, please fill me in—I’m open to changing my opinion.

I don’t know how this is sleazy either.

There are plenty of glaringly sleazy Clinton tactics. No need to go fishing for one.

The sleaze isn’t in the loan itself.  John Kerry’s bogus “mortgage” loan to his campaign was far more dishonorable and deceitful.

What’s sleazy about this is the Clintons sitting on the information and not disclosing until after the polls had closed on Super Tuesday… safely beyond the point where any negative feedback would effect the voters opinions when going to the polls.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

What’s sleazy about this is the Clintons sitting on the information and not disclosing until after the polls had closed on Super Tuesday… safely beyond the point where any negative feedback would effect the voters opinions when going to the polls.

I don’t see why this would hurt her with voters. It’s her money, she could do with it what she pleases. I don’t see the big deal.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

Mitt Romney has never voluntarily released info about his personal campaign loans either. Its their money and they can all spend it however they want.

“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

This was the best Clinton smear you could come up with?  Pretty weak.

Its their money and they can all spend it however they want.

pparets,

No, they can’t.  If it is spent on campaigning for a federal elective office or if it is loaned to such a campaign, it must be reported.

Incidentally, do you actually know that Romney has loaned money to his campaign and not disclosed it, or are you merely speculating that such is the case?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Batone:

It must be reported.

Never said it didn’t. But they can spend all their own money any way they want on their own campaign.

Or are you merely speculating?

If you recall, during the Florida Republican debate, Mike Huckabee asked Mitt Romney to tell the voters how much of his own money he was spending in Florida.
Romney [rightly] declined to do so and instead said that he had raised 7 million in donations in the last few months, more than any other Rep. candidate.

“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

Its not about the facts or being fair pparets, its about attacking a Clinton, any Clinton for any reason!  It doesn’t matter that a Republican may have done the same thing.  It only matters that a Clinton did it and therefore, it must be sleazy.

Thank you, for being honest pparets, your one of the most intellectually honest contributors to this site!

Thanks, Hannitized: If you are a regular, you know I frequently get my head handed to me!  Haha!

I have been called a shill, troll, sock-puppet, whiner, liberal and much, much worse.

I truly think most of the folks here try to be honest in what they say. Some contributors are pretty fixed in their thinking and don’t like to see or think about stuff they disagree with.

I try to be honest and relevant.  Sometimes I is, sometimes I ain’t. 

“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

I try to be honest and relevant.  Sometimes I is, sometimes I ain’t.

pparets,

You is indeed, and I have always respected that fact.  Still, the question was not about Romney having spent his own money, but about money you implied that he had loaned to his campaign.  A loan must be accounted for, reported, and either paid back or forgiven.  If you have anything beyond idle speculation that Romney has in fact loaned money to his campaign but not reported it that would be a serious violation of federal campaign finance law, and would thus reflect on his fitness to be president, much as if he was accepting campaign contributions from the Chinese PLA that were laundered through a series of overseas Chinese conduits and filtered back to the US through a Buddhist Temple or a Little Rock restauranteur.

H,

I don’t suppose you have anything beyond idle speculation that “a Republican may have done the same thing.”  Of course you don’t.  Bereft of any evidence to mitigate the actions of “Bonnie and Clyde” Clinton, you pull out the spitballs and start to huff and puff in self-righteous indignation.  Phooey!  I thought perhaps your partisanship was more tempered by your intelligence.  My bad!

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Heck, I didn’t have time to respond to this yesterday.  But it deserves a proper response, because this spinning out of control is very irritating.

Still, the question was not about Romney having spent his own money, but about money you implied that he had loaned to his campaign.  A loan must be accounted for, reported, and either paid back or forgiven.  If you have anything beyond idle speculation that Romney has in fact loaned money to his campaign but not reported it that would be a serious violation of federal campaign finance law, and would thus reflect on his fitness to be president,

Bat, where in the world do you get the idea that Clinton loaned her money campaign, but failed to report it.  The link Rob provided does not state anywhere that she didn’t report it.  To the contrary, it only reported that she did announce the loan, AS DID ROMNEY.

Because Rob deciced to put a spin on this, you think somehow it changes the reality.  But sorry, your laci of intelligence to pick up this MAJOR detail seems to be escaping you for some reason.

I don’t suppose you have anything beyond idle speculation that “a Republican may have done the same thing.” Of course you don’t.

Of course I do, and of course you will not reply to this factual data I am going to provide because I am sure it is beyond you to be honest or to apologize.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/25/romney-says-he-will-loan-his-campaign-more-money/

Romney, who loaned his campaign over $2 million in January, said he was forced to make a second loan in order to continue to get his message out and finance advertising in crucial campaign states. The Massachusetts Republican declined to say how much he will give his campaign this quarter.

“It would be nice not to have to loan or contribute to your own campaign,” he told reporters during an all day national fundraising call event on Boston. “But the reality is if you want to have a strong campaign that gets out there and can talk across the nation, you’re going to have to do what’s necessary. If other people are making sacrifices, I sure have to as well.”

The link Rob provided does not state anywhere that she didn’t report it.  To the contrary, it only reported that she did announce the loan, AS DID ROMNEY.

Because Rob deciced (sic) to put a spin on this, you think somehow it changes the reality.  But sorry, your laci (sic) of intelligence to pick up this MAJOR detail seems to be escaping you for some reason.

H,

If you are going to be contentious, it helps to pay attention enough to know just what you’ll have to contend with.  Berating someone else for a “lack of intelligence is amusingly lame, if not downright embarrassing when you yourself have neither the right facts nor the right person.  Twit!

First, the original post isn’t Rob’s, fool.  It’s mine.  Which you’d know if your reading comprehension was functioning properly.

Second, didn’t say the Clintons hadn’t reported the loan.  I said that, conveniently, they held off any public acknowledgment of the loan until after the polls had closed on Super Tuesday… a FACT taken from the cited Politico.com article.

Look, had you merely posted the fact that Romney did indeed loan his campaign money, that would have been the end of the discussion, and I would have had at least a grudging respect for your intelligence and your diligence.

As it is, you made an ass of yourself, and all I can think to do is try to make you aware that if you want to play with the grownups, kid, you’re gonna need something more than “a worn out glove, and homemade bat, and a brand new pair of shoes.”

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

If you are going to be contentious, it helps to pay attention enough to know just what you’ll have to contend with.  Berating someone else for a “lack of intelligence is amusingly lame, if not downright embarrassing when you yourself have neither the right facts nor the right person.  Twit!

Look Bat, if you want to focus on some minor detail that was overlooked, fine.  Enjoy your victory.  It was 4:30 in the morning when I responded to this post and I have to respond to emails and knock out a ton of work before I skip off to the Navy Marine golf course.  Yes, I am playing with retired Colonels, this time from the Marines.  This guy is a WWII vet.  Im sure you dont care…but there you have it.

I was completely buried yesterday and I confused this post with the Obama lie Rob gave us yesterday.  There is more info to hold against me if you feel it hurts my argument.  Hint: It doesnt.

Second, didn’t say the Clintons hadn’t reported the loan.  I said that, conveniently, they held off any public acknowledgment of the loan until after the polls had closed on Super Tuesday… a FACT taken from the cited Politico.com article.

Take a breath BAT.  I know this, but you are the fella who is arguing that it is illegal not to report a loan.  I was forcing you to spell out that she didnt do that and instead to focus on the point that timing of the announcement was the issue.  An point not discussed in the Politico article. 

I believe it wasn’t mentioned because it was irrelevant.  The only relevance to its importance was created by you, and sorry, I thought it was Rob, because I responded to this article at 4:30 in the morning.

Look, had you merely posted the fact that Romney did indeed loan his campaign money, that would have been the end of the discussion, and I would have had at least a grudging respect for your intelligence and your diligence.

Well, fine.  If it makes you feel good to be upset about the confusion.  Enjoy it.  I hope that bitterness goes well with your orange juice and toast.  Cheers.

Bat One you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. In doing so you ommited, or conveniently disregarded whether Hillary was required to divulge such information prior to when she actually did. Using rules and regulations to ones advantage is not against the law.

Making an error as to who reported what does not negate ones oppinion, nor do heaps of derision from you. Try a different tactic. I know you can do better.

H,

As before, I really don’t much give a shit who you purport to be playing golf with, or how late you were up last night.  Your “facts” were in error, as were your conclusions and your accusations.  Period.

e,

Follow along, please, so we don’t have to repeat anything.  I did not say that the Clintons have violated federal election law by not reporting the loan.  Nor did I suggest that the timing of their public announcement was a violation.  The fact that the Clintons are conniving, deceitful, and world-class parsers and dissemblers does not mean that they violated any laws by withholding this information until after Super Tuesday.

Technically, a candidate has 30 days to report such a loan. Apparently, Mr. Romney chose to announce his loans to his campaign right away.  The Clintons chose not to do so.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Technically, a candidate has 30 days to report such a loan. Apparently, Mr. Romney chose to announce his loans to his campaign right away.  The Clintons chose not to do so.
Bat One on February 7, 2008 at 09:37 am

And because of your hatred you decided to make an issue out of a non issue. Brilliant.
Once again: Using rules and regulations to ones advantage is not against the law.
Ps: Do not allow your hatred to consume you.

And because of your hatred you decided to make an issue out of a non issue.

e,

Please don’t try to paint me with your rhetorical makeup brush.  I don’t hate the Clintons at all.  I’ve never met either one of them.  Disrespect and contempt are not the same thing as hate.  I would have thought you are old enough to know the difference.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

You have artfully dodged the issue by deflecting attention elsewere. this is not your karate class.

You have artfully dodged the issue by deflecting attention elsewere. this is not your karate class.

e,

Indeed, it is not.  Those students are challenging.  If you want to see me dodge something, artfully or otherwise, throw something worthy of the effort.

Nowhere have I suggested that the Clintons broke the law.  That was your suggestion not mine.  You’ve accused me of making a mountain out of a molehill.  That is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it.  I disagree, and offer that only a naif would think that the timing of the announcement was not a primary (pun intended) consideration… which was the whole point of the original post in the first place.

You’ve accused me of hatred, and I’ve explained that hatred and contempt are not at all the same thing.  Your molehill, Ellinas, ain’t my mountain.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One. Hate implies the negative evaluation of a certain person, pridefulness indicates a positve evaluation of oneself,and regret involves evaluating what one has done as being wrong.
When the symbolic type of disgust is concerned with immoral deeds, disgust is quite similar to hate.

From the book The Subtlety of Emotions By Aaron Ben-Ze’ev
Try reading something more than the dictionary.

e,

Honestly, I appreciate the fact that you would go to all that trouble on my behalf.  And here we barely know each other.

Still, I’ m convince that I am a much better judge of my own emotions than either Mr. Ben-Ze’ev or you.

Looking back, I can say with confidence that despite my “colorful” past, there is not one person on this earth toward whom I feel hatred.  None

As for my reading habits, they are eclectic and voluminous, but they do not include primers on psychology.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Ok! so you don’t hate them. Do you love them? I don’t think so.
When you dance others are better qualified to judge you. You are IMO conceited and unable to accept constructive criticism. No matter how much you want to deny it, there is a connection between hate , contmpt and disgust.
Now back to the subject.
It is true that you have not suggested it but you are certainly implying it: “More Clinton Campaign Funding Sleaze” is the title of your thread.
You read like a cheap periodical (tabloid),and then you attempt to take the high road by playing with words.

e,

Okay… but this is the last time.  Then we MoveOn.

Do you love them? I don’t think so.

Heavens No!  Why would I? (a rhetorical question)

You are IMO conceited and unable to accept constructive criticism.

Yes, to a degree.  Its healthy.  Didn’t you learn that from that Ben Ze’ev book you were hawking earlier?  Or have you bothered to read it yet?

As for constructive criticism… perhaps if you actually offered some…

...then you attempt to take the high road by playing with words.

Excellent!  You ARE learning after all!  Words, and our use of them to communicate our ideas and feelings is what this is all about.  I love words, and I try to use them with care and with flair.  With respect, with precision, and most of all imaginatively.

And to think that as a kid I used to get kicked out of English classes with appalling regularity.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I disagree, and offer that only a naif would think that the timing of the announcement was not a primary (pun intended) consideration… which was the whole point of the original post in the first place.

After all of this, you still fail to communicate WHY this is sleazy.  Why?  What voter, who is going to vote for Clinton would care that she loaned her campaign money?

Are you suggesting that people don’t vote on issues?  Are you suggesting that people only jump on the bandwagon and if a candidate didnt have enough money for their campaign they must be a less worthy candidate as one who did?

This whole phony argument is pointless, unless of course it originates from a sense of hatred for the Clintons.

This whole phony argument is pointless, unless of course it originates from a sense of hatred for the Clintons.
Hannitized on February 7, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Hannitized if you read his last response to me it is obvious that he is a partisan hack wihout any modicum of decency.

Hannitized if you read his last response to me it is obvious that he is a partisan hack wihout any modicum of decency.

e,

Would this be some of that “constructive criticism” you were talking about earlier?  Hmmm?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

No. The previous post is not constructive criticism.
Its critcism period.

e,

Whatever!  I can certainly live with it in any case.  The very essence of the individual liberty so prized by those of us in/on the Right is the acceptance of the intrinsic differences between us.  My freedom to criticize the Clintons is no more or no less than your freedom to disagree… or to criticize Mr. Bush.  Like I said, I can live with it!

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I had no doubts that you can live with it.
Do not portray your self as being “better than thou”.
You are not. When you are called on a sleaze move, you will receive far more respect (that is if you care, or have any scruples) when you own up to it than if you try to wiggle out like a weasel.
This time you acted more like a weasel and a partisan hack then a gentleman. When you agree to cross swords and you pull a pistol than you are also a coward.

When you agree to cross swords and you pull a pistol than (sic) you are also a coward.

e,

A colorful, if largely ineffectual analogy.  I would instead suggest that you reconsider the wisdom of bringing a mere knife (a sword?... not hardly!) to a gun fight.

I didn’t know that gentlemanly behavior was any sort of a prerequisite here, but then I’m not convinced that name calling (“weasel”, “partisan hack”, “coward”) entitles you to that sort of treatment in the first place.  Granted I have resorted to personal invective at times.  But then, I have never castigated an opponent here for not being a gentleman… or a lady.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Ohhh!!!! Did I hurt your feelings?
Name calling is name calling. Get over it.

Hurt my feelings?  Hardly!  I’ve been called far worse, and by far better people too.  In any case, I’ve not been intemperate here toward you.  Nor have I called you any names, have I.

Going back through this thread, I don’t see that I’ve called you any names at all.  I did call “H” a “twit” which was intemperate and ungentlemanly, though hardly unwarranted.  And I have certainly unloaded on the Clintons.  But they ARE public figures, and they ARE seeking high office, and they most certainly DO have a record of misfeasance and deceit.

As for you, I am sorry you’re having a bad day.  Sorry too, that you’ve not managed to improve your prospects or your mood by scoring any points here with me.  Perhaps nest time…

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Going back through this thread
Bat One on February 8, 2008 at 08:12 am

There you go again.
No. Not this thread. But why are you limiting it to just this thead?

e,

If its important enough for you to go back through all the many comment threads over the past few years to see if I have have ever been so intemperate as to call you a name, by all means be my guest.  It certainly isn’t worth MY time and trouble to do so, but if its really that important to you, and you have that much spare time on your hands…

But if you are intent on such an undertaking, let me suggest that you also take note of the number of times over the years that I have acknowledged a mistake and/or apologized for something I wrote.  I’d be willing to wager that there are more of the latter instances than there are instances when I have called you a name.

Do let me know what you find in any case.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I wonder how much interest Hillary is collecting on this loan.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Bat One I am not going to look for past transgressions of yours. No need.
Have a nice day.

I wonder how much interest Hillary is collecting on this loan.

R108,

Probably more than that 5 year “cap” she proposed for adjustable rate mortgages.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I dont think it is sleazy persay. “They” didnt make their argument very clear, perhaps “they” were eluding to the fact that maybe she loaned the money to her campaign because she got it from “someone” that would be better left unknown.But is still not fact!!  I like Obama anyway, and I am a southern white , Iraq vet, male. Imagine that!!

I like Obama anyway, and I am a southern white , Iraq vet, male. Imagine that!!

Suicide.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!