• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

hummmmm, oldtimer response?????

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.
In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.
When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says the distance between the president’s rhetoric and actions makes him look hypocritical.

It’s almost as if President Obama won’t cross across a Wall Street picket line except to get inside with [his] hand out, so he can raise money,” Fleischer told TheDC, referring to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators who the president has been encouraging over the past week. “That sort of support causes him to look hypocritical.”

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-wall-street-dough-044804642.html;_ylt=Av_Xtc_B.eThvsDMbR7KM1oKewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTRpdTQ2MnRnBGNjb2RlA2dtcHJhd3RvcDIwMHB
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
In fact, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence in both parties, found that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1991.

Obama’s close relationship with JP Morgan Chase was highlighted earlier this year when he tapped Bill Daley, a former top executive with the bank, to replace Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.

“When he calls Wall Street bankers fat cats, then his base cheers, so you’ll see him constantly trying to shift back and forth, and keep Wall Street happy at one point and his base happy at another point,”

“It’s the height of hypocrisy for President Obama to demonize Wall Street on the stump while looking the other way as they line his campaign coffers.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Like I said back when it was happening- these corporates may be crooks- but they aren't dumb...They aren't going to funnel funding into a cause/individal that stands no chance of winning....

And after 8 years of Bush and 6 years of a Repub controlled Congress brought on the Bush Bust- they could see Republicans/McSame were a losing cause...In 08- backing Repubs would be like betting on a 3 legged race horse...

So they knew if they were to get any influence out of their donations they better stick their money with Obama .....
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
I knew it I knew it, before I got scrolled down to ot's comments I knew it was going to bash Bush. His arsenal is running on borrowed time and overused rhetoric.

Not a thing new for ot
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Like I said back when it was happening- these corporates may be crooks- but they aren't dumb...They aren't going to funnel funding into a cause/individal that stands no chance of winning....

And after 8 years of Bush and 6 years of a Repub controlled Congress brought on the Bush Bust- they could see Republicans/McSame were a losing cause...In 08- backing Repubs would be like betting on a 3 legged race horse...

So they knew if they were to get any influence out of their donations they better stick their money with Obama .....

that's nice.. While I can applaud your attempt at understanding the corporate worlds lack of principles.. What about Obama's total lack of principles? or is that just part of the same ol' story?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Soooooo oldtimer you lied before when you said Bush was getting rich on the FAT CATS!!!!
looks like your HERO obamma is really getting his pockets lined by THEM!!!

EH???????
YOU just are not MAN enough to admit that you are wrong

EH?????

you need to put on your big boy panties and become a real MAN and fess up!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hopalong said:
Soooooo oldtimer you lied before when you said Bush was getting rich on the FAT CATS!!!!
looks like your HERO obamma is really getting his pockets lined by THEM!!!

No- I think if you look- Big Business and the Fatcats that historically support Republicans supported Bush by a large amount in 2000- and 2004...

Don't you remember Bush at a fundraiser:
“This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.”
GEORGE W. BUSH Oct. 2000

But when the Bush Bust made it apparent that a Republican could not win-donating toward Bush/Repubs was like shovelling money down the toilet -- so they threw their money in a direction where they thought it might do some good - Obama and Dems...
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
652
Reaction score
0
Location
Southeastern Colorado
In my corporate days, I worked with a lot of these so-called crooks. I never saw anything untoward i(in 25 years) in the company I worked for.

I might add that in 1973 when the Arabs embargoed Europoort from crude oil, prices in Germany were going out of sight.. Esso (Exxon) got together with Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and the rest of the majors and said they weren't raising prices any further. It stuck and the only companies that raised prices further were the small ones, but they were constrained by the lower prices of the majors.

I have seen more integrity in major companies that I have seen in law enforcement where innocents get murdered by law enforcement and they get off without losing their jobs.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
No- I think if you look- Big Business and the Fatcats that historically support Republicans supported Bush by a large amount in 2000- and 2004...


First define big business, then go and research the biggest benefactors of corporate donations over the past 20 years.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
oldtimer wrote
But when the Bush Bust made it apparent that a Republican could not win-donating toward Bush/Repubs was like shovelling money down the toilet -- so they threw their money in a direction where they thought it might do some good - Obama and Dems..

Done a lot of good EH oldtimer??

Even experts are saying the what you refer to is the BUSH bust is not a true statement. KEEP UP with facts oldtimer and lose the tunnel vison that you have
:roll: :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
if political payoffs are looked at for what most believe they are.. bribes..
then why is only one part of the transaction a crime.. aren't all involved guilty?



for example:..

then if a person bribes a police officer.. who is guilty of a crime?

is it just the person?

or is the police officer who solicited the bribe guilty as well?



to take it one step further, if the Officer is fired, but no charges were filed,

is it then ok for all officers to take bribes?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
if political payoffs are looked at for what most believe they are.. bribes..
then why is only one part of the transaction a crime.. aren't all involved guilty?



for example:..

then if a person bribes a police officer.. who is guilty of a crime?

is it just the person?

or is the police officer who solicited the bribe guilty as well?



to take it one step further, if the Officer is fired, but no charges were filed,

is it then ok for all officers to take bribes?

When I was in office- every campaign donation from $20 on up had to be logged in..The States Attorney General/Governor- Marc Racicot had ruled that even letting someone buy an officer coffee was considered a gratuity....He even went so far that if you were sitting with an old friend in the evening that bought you a beer- it might be considered a kickback...
His rule was that if your action even created the perception of impropriety it should not be done..

Without guidelines- political promises and payoffs have been going on since 1789- when Treasury Secretary Hamilton proposed the Whiskey tax- to pay for the individual states Revolutionay war costs- which George Washington opposed- but when he was offered the chance to move the national capitol to his home state of Virginia- and the ability to design it- he readily agreed to the idea.....

The sad thing is now with last years SCOTUS ruling-- corporate entities are identified as "people"-- and now can do all the campaigning and campaign financing they want to-- in anonymity- and not even be held to any credibility for what they put out ... :(

Before this country can get back on the right track- besides tax reform- we need campaign donation reform- lobbyiest reform- and term limits for all those old fogies getting rich sitting on the Hill...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Oldtimer wrote: Without guidelines- political promises and payoffs have been going on since 1789- when Treasury Secretary Hamilton proposed the Whiskey tax- to pay for the individual states Revolutionay war costs- which George Washington opposed- but when he was offered the chance to move the national capitol to his home state of Virginia- and the ability to design it- he readily agreed to the idea.....

Washington opposed the Whiskey Tax? He led, along with "Lighthorse Harry Lee", 13,000 men to western Pennsylvania to enforce it.

It is not true, as has been supposed, that the Capitol location was chosen because it was close to George Washington's home and therefore would make it easier for him to commute (there was no White House at the time). Actually, the location was chosen as a sop to the southern states that would only agree to Hamilton's deal if the capital was moved South (it was a prestige thing). But the city did later take Washington's name, going down in history as Washington, District of Columbia.

Washington DID NOT design the Capitol Building. Jefferson and Washington held a contest and Thornton won and designed it. :roll:

BY the way. Jefferson had the Whiskey Tax repealed because he was against Federal power over the states. HE WAS A REPUBLICAN.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Oldtimer said:
The sad thing is now with last years SCOTUS ruling-- corporate entities are identified as "people"-- and now can do all the campaigning and campaign financing they want to-- in anonymity- and not even be held to any credibility for what they put out ... :(

"The participation of corporations in elec­tions is nothing new, nor something at which the media should have feigned such derision when the decision in Citizens United was handed down. While many politicians and media cor­rectly warned that this was a decision not to be taken lightly, it also overstated its immensity in many ways, while understating the significant interest corporation, unions, and other groups already play in electing our officials.

Corporations have long had the ability to set up the Political Action Committees (PACs) that act as large benefactors to various campaigns, and in turn have great leverage to influence policy.

During the health care debate, PACs related to the health care profession poured millions into the coffers of Congress, including a cool million dollars for Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) from 2008 to 2010, the lifespan of the often-heated health insurance reform. Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Commit­tee, aligned himself with many other Blue Dog Democrats to stall the bill, bucking Democratic leadership at many points of the legislative pro­cess."

Case law dates back to 1819 in defending corporations as "people". Corporations can enter into contracts and they can be held liable for their actions.

In fact, they are a group of people with intermingled interests, same as unions.

As far as being "Anonymous", they are treated no different from all "Non-Profit" Corporations as they do not have to divulge the personal donations of donors, but the FEC requires the Corporation to make public the TOTAL donation to a campaign by a corporation or non-profit entity.

I suppose some people want the Unions to elect the Presidents of the future? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
BY the way. Jefferson had the Whiskey Tax repealed because he was against Federal power over the states. HE WAS A REPUBLICAN.

No doubt about that as he supported slave labor - had a black/slave mistress (which he fathered children with that he kept as slaves)- went around the Constitution amd used an executive mandate to purchase the Louisiana Purcase- was the first President to order the invasion of a sovereign nation- ran his country into economic problems during his second term- and expanded the Federal governments powers over states rights more than any President for years following...
Kind of sounds like a Republican..... :wink: :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
BY the way. Jefferson had the Whiskey Tax repealed because he was against Federal power over the states. HE WAS A REPUBLICAN.

No doubt about that as he supported slave labor - had a black/slave mistress (which he fathered children with that he kept as slaves)- went around the Constitution amd used an executive mandate to purchase the Louisiana Purcase- was the first President to order the invasion of a sovereign nation- ran his country into economic problems during his second term- and expanded the Federal governments powers over states rights more than any President for years following...
Kind of sounds like a Republican..... :wink: :lol:

Fathering black children has never been proven. Oh but they wanted to badly.

I've already showed you where Congress approved the Louisiana Purchase and showed you you were lying once. After all, it was the greatest real estate deal in the history of the world at $.04 per acre. What would we be without it?


The last one is too big of a joke to respond to. :roll:

But I'll bet all his grandkids knew who their daddy's were.

Is that all the answer you have to your argument? What about G. Washington taking bribes to design the Capitol? :lol: :shock: :shock:

Don't you want to argue that "Corporations" have never had "peoples" rights?

I'd be glad to show you a few dozen SCOTUS decisions if I thought it really mattered.

But it don't and neither do you.................................................
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
Mike said:
Fathering black children has never been proven. Oh but they wanted to badly.

....



You mean you've never claimed those babies?


After all this time?
 

Latest posts

Top