Discussion in 'Overtime: Off-Topic Discussion' started by Ghambit, May 28, 2010.
Wall Street puts its money behind Obama | Reuters
The one I had is a very legitimate source. It has every candidate elected for there party, including the 3rd party's.
I really don't know what you're looking for. That had the exact numbers
i cant take him serious after "WE ALL CAN SEE HE CANNOT RAP DOPE"
worst line ive ever heard
theres something I dont understand about that article
Where did they get the number 57% from? It said Obama raised 7.9 million from wallstreet. But he raised 750 million in his campaign. I think im missing something, can you help me out here?
that was a quote to the other guy addressing him
my question to you was, did Obama raise $325 million from big corporations?
because you said thats where 50% of his contribution came from
He received 57% from the financial industry. They gave 43% to other candidates.
Internet bad. TV good.
Such simplistic drivel is what I would expect from my mother. She is 50-something years old and can't use a computer.
You know, it's funny. I used to believe everything CNN told me, and I became a paranoid lunatic who thought terrorists were going to attack us unless we gave up some of our rights for "security".
You have things completely backwards.
The official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory with zero proof. So is the magic bullet that supposedly killed Kennedy. The dots have literally been selectively connected on these, and gullible people eat that shit up.
A paid researcher would be discredited if he referenced a reliable internet source, but he'd be perfectly fine if he referenced CNN? I hope you're not paying anyone to do research. But then again, based on your comments, that just might be what you're doing.
You're a coincidence theorist.
Just because the imagination is complex does not mean reality is simple...
I don't really watch the news (lets face it, its boring) and have spent time surfing the net looking up the same subjects as you because they are interesting, so implying that my beliefs derive from what Ive been exposed too the most, is utter stupidity.
It's just common sense that ANYONE can present ANYTHING as fact on the internet, so logically, how can you argue that it holds more weight than organized news stations with people trained to filter out bullshit? Even with the corruption in news, it still has more overall credibility..
Anyway, If you genuinely want to use the internet to help you interpret truth better, then peep game:
It's not complex at all.
The undermining of our constitution and takeover by the federal government is out in the open. Most people are just too stupid to see it, but they'll see eventually...hopefully before it's too late.
there's plenty of well researched sites online that can be used for reference and proof of plenty of topics, just like there are plenty of terrible and biased/uninformed books in the library.
oh.....so thats nothing
he got about 7-8 million from financials according to that article no?
He received 750 Million in his entire campaign.....
so am I correct in saying theyre donation were insignificant?
and am I right in saying all of those contributions come from families of employees of those companies rather than the company itself?
you need to read the numbers, and do the math yourself instead of just reading Goldman Sachs donated a milllion, and think its something noteworthy
Oh, and onitabas
Do you see anything in this article that might make you think again?
Top Contributors to John McCain | OpenSecrets
Goldman Sachs donated 233,000 to Mccain
so did just about every other company
That is not lobbying. Thats families who work for companies having different opinions on who the president should be.
Please, I want to hear your answer for this, because I think ive finally proved my point beyond a reasonable doubt
It's alot easier to post something on the net, than it is to have a published book in your local library....
Of course you can find almost any fact on the net, it's the limitless possibilities for BS that I am discussing.
Wall Street put their money into the candidate who was most willing to defend their position. And that person was overwhemingly Obama. Also Obama encouraged his donors to split up their donations below $200, and when you do that you don't have to report who they are. And the results are evident - Obama has been defending Wall Street's interests at every opportunity, even before he became President. His chief economics advisor is Larry Summers, a long time Wall Street big wig, and the Treasury Secretary is Timothy Geithner who himself was deeply embedded in Citigroup and almost became their CEO.
As for Goldman donating to McCain, well duh. That is what corporations do - they literally donate to everybody. And what is the result? Both Democrats and Republicans have roughly identical policies when it comes to the economy.
Then why are you making a point that Obamas campaign got funded by corporations? Are you agreeing with me, that the fact that they donated that money did not influence him to bail them out?
The banks were chosen by George Bush by the way. Obama just happened to be president when the bailouts occurred. McCain would have done the same exact thing. All three of them were in contact during the elections discussing the topic.
The campaign contributions have 0 to do with the bailouts. It was never about special interest. It was keeping powerful companies from crumbling in front of the worlds eyes. Thus preventing a perception of lack of stability.
Obama has 0 special interest. You still give me nothing. And enough of this wall street crap. Because one million dollars from the 14,000 employees at Goldman Sachs doesnt mean shit. Especially when the emplyees of the same company are donating to the opposing campaign.
So whose his special interest? Who does he owe? In whose pocket is he?
Yea and his cheif of staff is Rahm Emmanuel
Rahm Emmanuel was always against Obama, and the people Obama was supperted by in Chicago.
Just because someones is in his cabinet or staff, it doesnt mean that he is 100% with them. In fact he likes to keep his "enemies" close. And in Rahms case, real close.
I think you're having trouble distinguishing what a reliable source is. Wikipedia can help:
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But even reliable sources like news articles can be notoriously unreliable, and opinionated blogs can sometimes be more informative. The above standards are based on verifiability, not truth. So even though you may be consulting so-called "reliable sources" you may not be getting the truth, but whatever spin the corporate interests who own the outlet want you to get. Fox News is notorious for this, for example.
Oh wait I get it
George Bush initiated the bailout for Citigroup, because he knew that Obama was going to win, who would appoint Giethner to Treasury Secretary just so Timothy could clear his little debt with Citi?
Was that the plan onitabas?
Because you still imagine him to be some sort of populist when he is in fact beholden to big business and special interests and his record as a Senator and President indicates as such.
No, I disagree with that.
Obama voted for the $700 billion and proceeded to further the bailouts when he was President.
I do agree with this, there would be little difference between McCain and Obama in regards to the financial crisis.
You are totally wrong here. As their donations to Obama, his nominations to his cabinet positions, and the actions he has taken as President show that he is working to keep Wall Street the behemoth that it is with no oversight. Yes, the bailouts did prevent the companies from crumbling, but that isn't what was the issue with the bailouts.
The issue was that we gave these institutions billions of dollars with no oversight and no binding conditions to prevent a future meltdown from happening. We literally just gave them money. When the time came up to actually regulate Wall Street in a meaningful way, Obama not only sat back but he fought against it. He opposed the Brown-Kauffman amendment which would have broken up the big banks so if they did fail, they wouldn't bring down the whole economy. When it came to reimplementing the Glass-Steagall act via the Volcker rule, it wasn't even brought up in the Senate because it was feared it might pass. The one good piece off the legislation that did make it through was Blanche Lincoln's amendment on opening the derivatives market was also opposed by Obama.
Ridiculous and I dare you to prove that statement. Show me where Obama has taken a stand against the big power sectors of the economy and foreign policy.
Because you don't live in reality.
As has been proven multiple times by his actions and associations, Wall Street, the coal industry, defense contractors, the health care industry, Israel and so forth.
This doesn't matter shit because the Treasury secretary is directly answerable to the President. Look at Robert Gates, the defense secretary. The man is a Republican but because Obama appointed him he has to follow through on Obama's demand to end Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Separate names with a comma.