7 of top 14 Obama supporters are...corporate interests

13

Comments

  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    callen wrote:
    euros? Surely not greenbacks.....don't understand why the weak ass dollar's not scaring the shit out of people right now....wanna buy some decent stocks....catapilliar, boeing, GE.

    Clinton balanced.


    Trust me, i do NOT want to be holding dollars.
    Unfortuantely the US has something called "legal tender" laws which REQUIRE purchases to be made in USD.

    I am only going to be holding as much $ as is needed for short term transactions, and also enough held in reserve to account for a suspiscion that gold will pull back $20 or so in the short term. There is still a ever-decreasing possibility that stocks could rebound in the next month, and that could temporarily depress gold.

    That is the ONLY reason i'm holding cash back.

    Basicaly because i listened to my dumb ass FM and did not liquidate and go in to gold in August. :rolleyes: ... and now i'm literaly chasing the market.

    Bah.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    soulsinging wrote:
    those are the highest return investments. and making a few extra bucks is worth a few legal or human rights violations, esp when you can rationalize it by saying you werent really THAT involved.

    You're absolutely right. You can rationalize anything if you really want to...look at Nazi Germany. You did a good job of rationalizing away Obama's donors earlier in the thread. Not much you can say to that...but that I'm sure you're all aware there IS a practice of corporations making rather large contributions through employees so that they are able to appear not 'connected' to one another. OR haven't you heard?? It wouldn't look too good if these firms started their own political action committees for Obama. People would start to question what's in it for them and rightly so since Obama's speeches have been against special interests. Is this the case with Obama? Are these legit donors or is it more than just that simple? Hard to tell. It definitely is quite the coincidence that so many donors just happen to come from financial firms. His vote against the credit card interest rate cap starts to look kinda like a favor. But nah, Obama wouldn't do that. It's only speculation and pretty hard to prove. So can we trust Obama to protect the people's concerns over predatory lending and other related issues? Or should these coincidences be of no concern? It just seems odd how liberals traditionally hold conservatives to the flames for these same types of matters and as of late Hillary, also. Obama, the golden child, continues to earn free passes.

    Concerning the Nader article...it shocked me. And yes, I do view it as hypocritical. Today I have contacted his campaign and even his myspace page asking for answers and any further info they can share on this matter. I'm not going to just rationalize this away as if it isn't something of substance because it is. It would serve all of you well to do the same concerning the claims against your candidate instead of just giving them a free pass as if it doesn't matter to you anymore because it's Obama and not Hillary. Have any of you addressed the Obama campaign about the nuclear power industry support, about the holes in his healthcare plan, anything at all? Or do you just sit back and let them call all the shots for you while you simply follow behind whatever direction they take? It's up to you, to all of us to keep our politicians in check and let them know we are watching, force them to be more honest and upfront, let them know what matters to us! If you give them no challenge then they WILL do the LEAST amount for you it takes to get them by. So it's all up to you what is good enough. If you want change...you have to make it.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Obama, the golden child, continues to earn free passes.


    Not to beat a dead horse (or candidate) but i really like the irony here where Obama is outed on accepting millions from an industry that is proclaimed "The Last Plantation" ... literally accepting millions from racists in action. And yet the man is never once questioned in his empathy or apathy for "black people". Why? Probably because of a racist opinion that goes something like this: "Yeah, but Obama is black."

    But then, Ron Paul gets one measely contribution from a guy in the klan and bada-bing ... Racist.
    (this story by the way, now outed as having been a "zionist" plot. no shit)

    :rolleyes:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    If I don't care too much about the nuclear power issue (I actually don't mind the idea of nuclear power), believe Obama when he says he voted against the interest rate cap because he didn't want to sweeten a bad bill (he voted against the entire bill), and think opening up Federal health insurance at subsidized rates (but not making it mandatory) is a reasonable compromise and good first step toward universal health care, can I still call myself a Liberal?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    RainDog wrote:
    If I don't care too much about the nuclear power issue (I actually don't mind the idea of nuclear power), believe Obama when he says he voted against the interest rate cap because he didn't want to sweeten a bad bill (he voted against the entire bill), and think opening up Federal health insurance at subsidized rates (but not making it mandatory) is a reasonable compromise and good first step toward universal health care, can I still call myself a Liberal?

    You don't have to ask permission from me.

    So do you view the contributors mentioned in the OP as all coincidences? Do you think there is no connection to the interest rate vote or the banking industry in general? Would you feel the same if it was Hillary?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    You don't have to ask permission from me.

    So do you view the contributors mentioned in the OP as all coincidences? Do you think there is no connection to the interest rate vote or the banking industry in general? Would you feel the same if it was Hillary?
    I don't know if they're coincidences or not. I will say that the reason we know who those contributors are is because of the Obama-Feingold ethics bill that was passed. And I wouldn't really hold these against Hillary Clinton either.

    One of my primary reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton is because she's a Clinton. Been there done that. And I don't really see her growing the number of "liberal" voters in this country. In fact, I see her shrinking that number the same way her husband did.


    P.S., sorry if my last post sounded a little snarky. Rough day, you see.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    RainDog wrote:
    I don't know if they're coincidences or not. I will say that the reason we know who those contributors are is because of the Obama-Feingold ethics bill that was passed. And I wouldn't really hold these against Hillary Clinton either.

    One of my primary reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton is because she's a Clinton. Been there done that. And I don't really see her growing the number of "liberal" voters in this country. In fact, I see her shrinking that number the same way her husband did.


    P.S., sorry if my last post sounded a little snarky. Rough day, you see.

    I know your voting strategically and that you're ideal stance on the issues, at least on healthcare, isn't what you're getting with Obama...but you feel the baby steps are enough and don't want another Rep in office. But I, myself, have serious doubts about Obama and Clinton. I've see the half-assed years of Clinton that went by as wasted time with little real progress. So I can't see myself, in good conscience, voting for a person who says he 'wants to expand and modernize the military'. How is he going to expand the already bloated defense budget and ridiculously large and wasteful military while also implementing these social programs he touts? You know my other gripes...you're cool with the nuclear power even though it's short sighted and we have no way to dispose of it's waste properly. You're cool with the gradual withdrawl which can change at any moment and it that seems he wants to have a presence in the middle east, whatever that means....Anyhoo, I have to vote for the person who best fits my ideals of what is best for this country. With the Democratic candidates all I'm seeing is 'Welcome to nowhere fast' and I don't want to waste another 4 years.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    It's not that strategic. I actually like Obama. Yes, I would prefer a single payer healthcare system - but it's not up to the president to enact one. Congress has to write it up - and I think that if they actually did, he would sign it. However, I know he won't push for single payer, and I accept that.

    I believe gradual withdrawl is the best option, not a compromise. And I don't see a problem with having troops in the Middle East, provided they're in friendlier territory. As for modernization of the millitary, I believe improved technology - particularly in the area of Special Forces - would be the best way to deal with actual terrorists. I don't believe he's in favor of invasion and occupation.

    He's also said that he wouldn't support new nuclear power plants without vastly improved methods of dealing with the waste. Again, I'm o.k. with that stand.

    No, he's not an "ideal" candidate - and, put simply, there is no such thing.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    RainDog wrote:
    It's not that

    No, he's not an "ideal" candidate - and, put simply, there is no such thing.

    Very true. But there are people out there closer to my 'ideal' than Obama who I believe would fight harder for the kinda changes I'd like to finally start seeing in this country.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Very true. But there are people out there closer to my 'ideal' than Obama who I believe would fight harder for the kinda changes I'd like to finally start seeing in this country.
    That's cool. Provided he wins on Tuesday, I'll have 8 months to change your mind. :D

    Until then, shake?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    RainDog wrote:
    That's cool. Provided he wins on Tuesday, I'll have 8 months to change your mind. :D

    Until then, shake?

    I'll be glad to shake but that doesn't mean I'm going to quit voicing my concerns about Obama and the Democratic party.

    So *shakes* :)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    This is a conventional politics thread, Roland.
    We're not wanted here.

    Never mind you that the men behind the Federal Reserve are the same men backing Obama.

    Lets just take the conventional view of this.
    What in your opinion does it mean that "Wallstreet" is funding Obama?

    :rolleyes:

    :D:D:D

    Conventional....that about sums it up. Getting some people to understand economics is like...well... you know already quite well I'm sure.

    Obama is better than McCain and Hillary, but not the best obviously. Thats about as real as it gets. I suppose some don't care about depreciating wealth and how the fed is structured to channel wealth specifically in a certain direction (away from the population). You need to strike at the root, many like to hack away at the branches in denial for some reason.

    Forgot to mention...check out the documentary by Robert Kane Pappas - "Orwell Rolls in his Grave" the beginning of that perfectly explains my take on Obama and the mainstream candidates in general. Highly recommended viewing.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    soulsinging wrote:
    those are the highest return investments. and making a few extra bucks is worth a few legal or human rights violations, esp when you can rationalize it by saying you werent really THAT involved.

    it also said they were mutual funds, right? does anyone on here know what exact stocks are in their 401k's mutual funds?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    soulsinging wrote:
    im not sure i understand your question.

    i can say this, though:

    1. there isn't really a major law firm in this country that doesn't do lobbying. hell, i applied to and interviewed with half the firms on that list. the firm i am working for does lobbying too.

    2. they bury the determinative part in the middle of a sentence turned into a question to make a perfectly legit answer seem incredulous: "these funds are coming from the employees of these firms." now, maybe the author has never worked a day in his life in a law firm, but that is not farfetched at all. there can be a hell of a lot of equity partners in a firm, and they are perfectly capable of doing whatever they damn well please with their money. if the money is coming from private citizens within the firm, i see nothing shady about that. nobody would blink twice if ed made a large donation to ralph nader. why should citizens be banned from financially supporting candidates of their choosing becos they work for a law firm? should we ban greenpeace members from donating to any campaigns becos their organization lobbies for change too?

    3. im very curious what 6 donors he felt we did not need to know about... i thought censorship and screening and propaganda was what evil corporations did. im glad he has decided to filter things for us.


    i guess it depends on if these 2 sentences are different to you or not:
    'Citigroup gave Obama $X.'
    'The ppl who run Citigroup gave Obama $X.'

    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.asp

    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/moneyweb.asp?cycle=2008


    a lot of execs on the list, and it's not just that but having an exec of citigroup, actually the guy who called the treasury dept asking for a favor for enron, as one of his top advisors, i've posted another article or part of one before stating some of his top donors, at the time, were credit card lobbyists, nuclear poewr lobbyists...not just employees who have a right to give money to whomever they support, but lobbyists and top executives...yes, they have a right, too. all i'm saying is if this were that 'mullet-headed bitch' would you all shrug it off? what if it were mccain or bush or romney or whoever the other person is?

    and what's nader have to do w/ anything in the original post?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    You're absolutely right. You can rationalize anything if you really want to...look at Nazi Germany. You did a good job of rationalizing away Obama's donors earlier in the thread. Not much you can say to that...but that I'm sure you're all aware there IS a practice of corporations making rather large contributions through employees so that they are able to appear not 'connected' to one another. OR haven't you heard?? It wouldn't look too good if these firms started their own political action committees for Obama. People would start to question what's in it for them and rightly so since Obama's speeches have been against special interests. Is this the case with Obama? Are these legit donors or is it more than just that simple? Hard to tell. It definitely is quite the coincidence that so many donors just happen to come from financial firms. His vote against the credit card interest rate cap starts to look kinda like a favor. But nah, Obama wouldn't do that. It's only speculation and pretty hard to prove. So can we trust Obama to protect the people's concerns over predatory lending and other related issues? Or should these coincidences be of no concern? It just seems odd how liberals traditionally hold conservatives to the flames for these same types of matters and as of late Hillary, also. Obama, the golden child, continues to earn free passes.

    Concerning the Nader article...it shocked me. And yes, I do view it as hypocritical. Today I have contacted his campaign and even his myspace page asking for answers and any further info they can share on this matter. I'm not going to just rationalize this away as if it isn't something of substance because it is. It would serve all of you well to do the same concerning the claims against your candidate instead of just giving them a free pass as if it doesn't matter to you anymore because it's Obama and not Hillary. Have any of you addressed the Obama campaign about the nuclear power industry support, about the holes in his healthcare plan, anything at all? Or do you just sit back and let them call all the shots for you while you simply follow behind whatever direction they take? It's up to you, to all of us to keep our politicians in check and let them know we are watching, force them to be more honest and upfront, let them know what matters to us! If you give them no challenge then they WILL do the LEAST amount for you it takes to get them by. So it's all up to you what is good enough. If you want change...you have to make it.


    i'd be interested in hearing an answer to this, myself. their stock answer seems to be 'i don't care!!'
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i'd be interested in hearing an answer to this, myself. their stock answer seems to be 'i don't care!!'

    Yeah but he knows how to talk, Kabong.
    And that is a very important skill.

    Oh, and the rest of the world will like us a lot more, because he will be a "uniter".

    :rolleyes:

    Serioulsly. "He knows how to talk"?
    Seriously?

    Bonus:
    "I'm A Uniter, Not A Divider"
    - George W. Bush

    Seriously.
    :rolleyes:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Yeah but he knows how to talk, Kabong.
    And that is a very important skill.

    Oh, and the rest of the world will like us a lot more, because he will be a "uniter".

    :rolleyes:

    Serioulsly. "He knows how to talk"?
    Seriously?

    Bonus:
    "I'm A Uniter, Not A Divider"
    - George W. Bush

    Seriously.
    :rolleyes:

    http://stumpsspirit.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hc019

    :p
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    http://stumpsspirit.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hc019

    :p


    404 — File not found.
    You can create your own free blog on WordPress.com.


    :(
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    404 — File not found.
    You can create your own free blog on WordPress.com.


    :(


    http://stumpsspirit.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hc019-pic-a.jpg


    :p
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    http://stumpsspirit.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hc019-pic-a.jpg


    :p

    Yup, the whole country has gone retarded. I guess they just want something "amazing and fresh".

    The Great Black Hype... uh .... I mean Hope
    :rolleyes:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?

Categories