How embarrassing...where the hell do you get $1 million for Clinton from, Steve? Once again, please read the articles you post. It isn't worth addressing the rest of this post until you get your numbers within a couple orders of magnitude. I could tell you what the right numbers are, but then you'd never get around to actually reading the article you posted. Seriously, what is wrong with you, lately? This is the second news article in a row where you demonstrated questionable literacy.

Steve,

Yah it brings back memories, of the Chinese national who paid off Republicans (aka Tom Delay and company) with campaign contributions, so they would ignore the sweat shops he'd setup in the Marianas Islands, a US territory with questionable labor laws, that's just far enough outside the view of main stream America that he was able to get away with outrageous legislation with a few well placed bribes.

The "small house" in question...which, as you can see is not much more than a shack, seems to indicate that these folks probably aren't capable of coughing up $213,000 in three years for a bunch of Democrats in New York all on their own.

Steve,

This comment is a potential fallacy. You are assuming that rich people have to live in fancy houses. But if you've ever read "The Millionaire Next Door", alot of the people who have "more money than God", don't look the part, and are rich in part because they didn't try to keep up with the Jones'.

SF and ahmanrah: Just the two I would expect to come scampering to the defense of a certified crook and her sleazy presidential campaign.

SF: I agree -- how embarrassing for the Clintons to be caught red-handed taking so much money raised by a crook -- AGAIN! Some sources say $1 million over several years to all Democrats of which Hillary recieved the vast majority, some say Hillary herself recieved $1 million worth of donations raised by Hsu such as Investor's Business Daily:

Turns out the gifts were bundled together by Paw family friend Norman Hsu, a Chinese businessman who at one time owned its 1,280-square-foot house. Hsu (pronounced "shoo") now lives in New York, where he ranks as one of Hillary's top rainmakers, quietly raising well over $1 million for her campaign.

Knowing from following the Clinton's politcal career since the early '90s that these two are crooked as the day is long and knowing that Hsu's relationship with The Missus goes back nearly a decade, I believe the latter rather than the former.

You know these two are campaign finance crooks: We have the Lincoln Bedroom, White House "coffees", Chinagate and the Bhuddist temple fiasco. Twenty-plus people where brought up on charges and dozens left the country. Again, another example of people taking a fall for the Clintons.

ahmanrah,

Potential fallacy perhaps, until you consider that Hsu once listed this house as his residence -- not just owned it as the IBD quote above shows.

Also among the tiny number of millionaires that live in ramshackle houses (and that's what $257,000 gets you in San Fran), I bet you won't find a single one that has given $213,000 to political campaigns in three years -- especially if they were new to political giving. These type of people are much too frugal to throw away their money that way.

As far as Willie Tan goes, I can't find any evidence that he dealt with anyone other than Jack Abramoff who arranged some junkets for poiticials like DeLay.

According to this quote in Pacific Magazine:

Tan helped launch the garment industry in Saipan 20 years ago, and in those days the Saipan factories deserved to be labeled as "sweat shops." Tan's-and other companies'-factories were hot, full of fabric dust and crowded. In recent years, however, the three Tan Holdings factories have cleaned up their act: They are mostly air conditioned and no longer fodder for New York Times' exposés about the exploitation of Asian workers.

Tan apparently no longer operates "sweat shops".

With the Clintons we are talking about a couple of crooks who have been directly associated other crooks and crooked fundraising for their entire national political career. This isn't a matter of dispute: There are dozens of convictions of Clinton associates to prove it.

This is why I ask the question, why just donate the $23,000 to charity? If The Missus were sincere, she would go through the books (if they aren't cooked, that is), figure out how much money Hsu has raised, take an amount equal to that amount out of current campaign funds and use it to pay back all the grandmas that were gullible enough to send a portion of their Social Security checks to the Clinton legal defense fund. She won't do this because she's a crook.

some say Hillary herself recieved $1 million worth of donations raised by Hsu such as Investor's Business Daily

Oh Steve. You're making me sad. Is this how low you will go to keep yourself from looking ignorant? I can't for a second believe that you didn't know how shaky this quote was, because you didn't provide a link to it. Oh Steve, that's not a news article, that's an opinion piece written by another right-wing mouth-foamer. Here's the link you neglected to provide, so everyone can see your hoaxing:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=273279994877431

You see the title bar of your browser when you load that up? How about the URL text? It says "editorial" in there, doesn't it? Do you know what that means? It means that they didn't do any reporting, but just stated their opinion. Apparently, right-wing mouth-foamers screw up the same basic facts. Now I know why you guys seem to march in lock-step.

"Some say," you say? As in more than one? Don't make me laugh. You got another source, cough it up. Let me ask you another question: do you know this guy? Because I was looking at the IBD editorials, and he writes a lot like you. Maybe that's just the lock-step I was referring to before.

$1 million over several years to all Democrats of which Hillary recieved the vast majority

"Vast majority?" Hedging our bets, are we? What do you mean by "vast majority?" More than half? Where are you getting this information? Your ass, again?

defense of a certified crook

I never defended Hsu, and I didn't even defend Clinton. I'm not going to waste my time on the latter until you get your numbers straight. There's no point defending someone against defective accusations.

This last comment of yours was really transparent. You knew you screwed up, and you tried to cover it up. Didn't you learn anything from Nixon? You're hedging your bets, leaving out the links, and pretending that an opinion piece (the one in IBD, not this one) is news. The sad thing is that I think you spent quite a bit of time searching for this article since I posted that comment.

It's one thing to be wrong. It's another thing to be biased. But the worst thing is when you can't admit your own mistakes. That's what really makes a person look like a buffoon.

We have the Lincoln Bedroom, White House "coffees", Chinagate and the Bhuddist temple fiasco.

You know, I've recently done enough research to know how inaccurate your characterizations of Bill's supposed financial misdeeds. Another time, I'll kick your ass on that, too. But I don't want to muddy the waters so you can slip away by changing topics.

Tan apparently no longer operates "sweat shops".

That's not the point.

http://tinyurl.com/2feovo

As far as Willie Tan goes, I can't find any evidence that he dealt with anyone other than Jack Abramoff

Well since Jack couldn't have got much done in Washington without the help of those who write the legislation...we know it didn't stop with him.

Here's a little article for your edification...it comes from a liberal source, but hey who else is going to talk about the things conservatives want swept under the rug.

http://tinyurl.com/2feovo

SF:

I'm getting tired of repeating myself here.

What difference does it make if it is an editorial? Obviously the information that they have indicates that Hsu has helped raise "more than $1 million" for The Missus' '08 campaign. They probably listen to and read lots of sources just like I do -- no doubt more because it's their job to keep up with politics while it's just a hobby for me.

You take this information and the WELL-DOCUMENTED FACT that the Clintons not only ARE campaign finance crooks but have associated with hundreds of campaign finance crooks over the past 20-25 years, and it isn't a stretch to beleive that the guy helped raise over $1 million for The Missus.

BTW, I don't need YOUR research on the Clinton campaign finance scandals because we have the actual record. I'm not going to beat a dead horse by listing all of the people who have been involved with Clinton campaign finance, but here's a tiny sample:

Including the convictions against John Huang, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia, and James Riady (who was fined $8.6 million – the largest fine ever levied against an individual in a campaign finance related matter), the Justice Department task force secured criminal convictions against 22 people by 2001.[52]

This is from Wikipedia, but if that isn't good enough for you, you can choose any of thousands of other sources.

As far as kicking my ass in a debate in this forum goes, in your wildest wet dreams. Most of the time I just decide that debating you liberals is completely futile. I'm not going to convince you of anything, you're not going to convince me of anything (certainly not with the pathetic arguments you put forth most of the time).

If you really want to kick my ass in an argument, name for me a Republican that has been associated with 22 convicted crooks in fundraising scandals during the same period of time the Clintons have been.

And they called Reagan the Teflon president. It is to laugh.

As far as defending the Clintons go, I guess I don't know what you would call what you are doing here by way of ridiculing the notion that Hsu raised $1 million or more for The Missus.

The Clintons are co-conspirators in so many scandals it isn't even funny -- you can't dispute this. They keep weaseling out of convictions because there are a lot of people -- curiously many of them Chinese and Indonesian -- who have literally billions riding on the political futures of the Clintons dating all the way back to when Indonesian banking was all the rage in Little Rock, Arkansas of all places, interestingly at the same time The Missus' husband was governor.

Again, this isn't some right-wing conspiracy theory -- it is well-documented fact.

I'll check back in on this thread, but if you can't come up with anything better than the same juvenile points you've attempted to make thus far, I'm done with it unless you or someone else has something constructive to add to the debate.

OK, so let's summarize. You have no other links. You have no other sources. You got your information from an opinion page, and posted it on your opinion page as fact. And you didn't SAY it was from an opinion page, or provide a link, because you KNEW how lame it was. What is this publication you are quoting? Investor's Business Daily? Is that anything like Talon News? Let's have fun with things you say:

They probably listen to and read lots of sources just like I do -- no doubt more because it's their job to keep up with politics while it's just a hobby for me.

HAHAHA! Tears in my eyes! Probably, huh? Well, first of all, this periodical is entirely devoted to business news except for it's psychotic mouth-frothing screeds. So it is not "their job" to keep up with politics. These are written by the editor of an unheard-of online business publication. Do you know what that means his job is? That's right, it's to edit business news. Guess what? It's just a hobby for him, too!

So you read lots and lots of sources? Name ONE single source, ONE FUCKING SOURCE, that says Clinton took $1M dollars from Hsu. Even rags like the Washington Times dare not print such lies.

This is the best you got to back up your statement? Some other guy's opinion, which is "probably" well-researched...because he writes a small time investment newsletter online? Stop and listen to yourself, dude.

What difference does it make if it is an editorial?

Editorials are not news. They are not subject to the same standards. They are opinion pieces. Nobody quotes Maureen Dowd for factual information. They don't site sources, and they in fact don't need to have a single first-hand source. Is this suddenly a freaking mystery to you?

You otherwise seem to be aware of this when you divide your site into "News" and "Opinion" sections. Even on this, your own blog, which does not purport to be news, you seem to sense the distinction. So I think you can answer your own damn question.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself here.

Really? Because this is the first time you had to defend this laughable attribution, as far as I've seen. Did you write this ahead of time?

Obviously the information that they have indicates that Hsu has helped raise "more than $1 million" for The Missus' '08 campaign.

Let's make a deal, Steve: by Wednesday next week, if you can find a reasonable news source that says that Clinton got $1M from Hsu, I'll eat my words. If not, you admit that YOU were wrong. Deal?

Let's face it: even if you do come up with a source, you know as well as I do that you were basing the $1M on a misreading of the LAT article above. After I pointed it out, you started feverishly googling until you found somebody as half-cocked as yourself. Part of you realized that this wasn't very good evidence, so you left the link out. You have no other supporting data -- despite all these tons of news sources you read -- or you would have posted it. But if you can find a legitimate publication that will back you up after the fact, I'll take the hit. That's how confident I am that not only are you talking out of your ass, but $1M dollars is just an absurd figure.

BTW, I don't need YOUR research on the Clinton campaign finance scandals because we have the actual record.

I'm afraid you do. Unfortunately, it will have to wait for another time, because I want to devote the rest of this thread to giving you a real rhetorical pounding for your sloppiness. Bad Steve!

Most of the time I just decide that debating you liberals is completely futile.

Oh, you're making this fun. So this is why you stop commenting? That's funny, because a few threads ago ( http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2007/08/democrats_femal.html ), you were all ready to declare victory when I stopped commenting for a couple days:

After only a dozen or so comments it's game, set and match for the conservatives apparently.

It seems that you actually interpret one party's silence as an admission of defeat. That's why I said this later on:

I guess that means all the times you stopped commenting on a topic that you had commented on (not just posted) that you LOST and KNEW IT. Thanks for letting me know, I'll take your future silences as your admission of defeat.

So I think we already know what it means when you stop talking...it means you've lost. The truth of the matter is that once you start commenting on a thread, you keep going as long as you feel like you have a good sword to swing. And the funny part is that you tend to argue through repetition, usually ignoring what the other party says, unless it's REALLY easy to refute. So you don't seem to mind repeatedly ramming your head up against a wall unless it starts to bump back.

As far as kicking my ass in a debate in this forum goes, in your wildest wet dreams.

Well, here's a thread just a day ago where I kicked your ass:

http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2007/08/kansas_appeals.html

Once again, you misunderstood the article you posted. Then, you stopped talking after I pointed it out, which we already know means you a forfeit for you. You were REALLY active up until then. I could post others, but your archives don't work.

And PLEASE, don't mistake me for a republican: kicking your ass in a debate will not be my "wildest wet dream", or even a somewhat arid dream. It's actually a bit routine, and it's starting to get boring. You can just SAY that I don't, but that doesn't make it so.

Oh, speaking of Talon News (back at the top): seriously, what is WITH you guys? The more I think about it, this is the year that the GOP has gone GAY. Not that there's anything wrong with that! But you guys just don't seem too comfortable with it yet.

And lest we forget: are we on for my little wager? All that's at stake is your credibility as a well-informed commentator, so you've got nothing to lose ;)

You're on buddy. Or is the Wall Street Journal one of those "rags" that don't fit the liberal definition of a credible source?:

Beyond his $23,000 in personal contributions to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hsu had raised well over $1 million for the New York senator's presidential campaign, making him one of her top 20 "bundlers." His reach extended well beyond the presidential race, as he has also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for House and Senate Democrats and governors across the country.

online.wsj.com/article/SB118839894990612189.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Forget next Wednesday -- this took all of about four minutes.

“It seems that you actually interpret one party's silence as an admission of defeat.”

Funny, that seems to be exactly what you’re doing.

Don't give yourself too much credit, dude. Like I said, debating you liberals gets tedious and it's pretty hard to keep up with every thread given the limited time I have (I just so happen to be on vacation through Labor Day).

Sometimes it's enough to keep up with the posting and I regret not having the time to be consistent with that sometimes. You'll probably notice that my commenting tends to be light at times and sometimes I just don't have the time to follow up on the threads.

This being said, I appreciate the dedication of all the commenters on this site because I realize the time constraints involved in running a blog as well as posting comments.

"Let's face it: even if you do come up with a source, you know as well as I do that you were basing the $1M on a misreading of the LAT article above."

I honestly don't know where you've been for the past couple of days as this story has unfolded because I have heard the $1 mil figure from a number of sources and read it in several of them before I settled on referencing the original LA Times piece.

BTW: Consider your ass kicked.

Shit, ok, it looks like you were right! I'll look into it a little more, but I'm willing to concede the point at this point. WSJ is certainly legit.

BTW: Consider your ass kicked.

Heh, I'll take it like a man. I underestimated you sir, but it won't happen again.

Basically, I assumed you were pulling it out of your ass, and that much is obviously NOT the case. So even if it turns out that the figure is off, I is wrong when I thought you were misreading and covering. Sorry for accusing you of basically lying. On top of that, I have to admit you kept your cool in the face of my comments, which is strangely graceful considering how angry a lot of your posts are.

This being said, I appreciate the dedication of all the commenters on this site because I realize the time constraints involved in running a blog as well as posting comments.

OK, now you're just showing off... you ARE allowed to be a little of an asshole, you know.

The WSJ is legit at least until the sale is complete and Murdoch owns it, right?

All kidding aside, thanks for all the high compliments. That's saying something coming from a liberal. I don't ever consider my comments to be angry; I just consider them to be a passionate (and sometimes inflammatory) defense of my position.

I figure that at least a few people are reading this and I had better have my shit straight before I put something up here and try to defend it. I enjoy a good debate and wish I had more time to devote to it sometimes.

Thanks for your contributions. If folks like you weren't reading and commenting, this would all be an exercise in futility. Even though debating liberals seems like and exercise in futility in itself occasionally, I enjoy it, and I guess you feel the same way about debating conservatives or you wouldn't be here.

Looks like Hsu is on the run....what a loser. I doubt he will create as much of a black mark on the democratic hopefuls as you'd like though.