LOLbama - Obama changes tune on Iraq by Zombie - Page 7 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page LOLbama - Obama changes tune on Iraq
Page 7 of 9
Thread Tools
Teratos
Veteran5
Old
121 - 07-04-2008, 01:20 PM
Reply With Quote
Neocon, flip-flop, news media
 
Teratos is offline
 
Sponsored Links
Kizzak
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
122 - 07-04-2008, 01:30 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm4n View Post
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama's top contributors include Goldman Sachs (#1 at $571,000), UBSAG (#3 at $365,000), JP Morgan Chase (#4 at $362,000), Citigroup (#5 at $358,000), Lehman Bros. (#7 at 4319,000), Google (#8 at $318,000), multinational corporate law firm Sidley Austin LLP (#10 at $294,000)and nuclear energy powerhouse Exelon (#15 at $236,000).

Regarding Wal-Mart: Obama has slammed Wal-Mart for its notorious low-wage and worker-abusing practices, saying "I don't shop there."

The reality is, Obama has appointed as his economic policy director Jason Furman (from the conservative "Hamilton Group") who has defended Wal-Mart as a blessing for poor Americans.

Obama also endorsed pro-Wal-Mart Alderman Dorothy Tillman, who joined Chicago Mayor Richard Daley in opposing a city council resolution that would have required Wal-Mart to pay workers a livable wage in the city of Chicago. The resolution passed, but was vetoed by Obama's close ally Daley, with whom he shares his chief media consultant, David Axelrod.
Two things on the donations, those are donations from people who work at those companies - are you saying people aren't allowed to make campaign contributions if they work somewhere?

500k is less than 1% of the total contributions Obama has received this cycle.

Jason Furman is from the Brookings Institute, which is clearly a liberal/left-center think tank. I hate to break it to you but there is no such thing as ideological purity in the Democratic Party, just because someone doesn't agree with you on one policy point doesn't make them an evil conservative. Also, he wasn't part of the Hamilton Group, but part of the Hamilton Project- an working group within Brookings. Maybe you should get your facts straight before making wild claims, as if you took a cursory glance at the papers the Hamilton Project was putting out you would see it's not a conservative group (Universal Health Care, expanding public schooling and helping students afford college, expanding our progressive tax system, dealing with climate change, how to assist those who lost their jobs due to the globalizing economy, working to reduce poverty (including expanding social insurance), strengthening our science and technology innovation through education and incentives).


As for Wal-Mart, on the whole it is a 'blessing for poor people', given that there are many more poor people than just those that work at Wal-Mart it does increase the consumption possibilities frontier on the average for a poor person.

As for paying a 'livable wage', I would ask what that wage was and how they came by it.

You hit the height of demagoguery with that 'pro-Wal Mart' bit btw
 
Kizzak is offline
 
JuggerNaught
AIDs Water5
Old
123 - 07-04-2008, 01:33 PM
Reply With Quote
Obama is going to be president. Get used to it.
 
JuggerNaught is offline
 
Sircle
The Man ShowX
Contributor
Old
124 - 07-04-2008, 01:34 PM
Reply With Quote
hmmm
 
Sircle is offline
 
Kizzak
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
125 - 07-04-2008, 01:40 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by -§trife- View Post
interestingly kizz, i notice you leave out the shift on obama's position on free trade. is that because you agree with most economists' position on the matter?
I haven't seen him make any changes on his position on that, hiring economists rather than politicians to help shape his economic policy doesn't count on that front.

Yes, however, I would be happy if he reconsidered his position on free trade though.
 
Kizzak is offline
 
Kizzak
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
126 - 07-04-2008, 02:06 PM
Reply With Quote
btw, in case someone is going to continue the retarded argument about campaign finance:

according to CRP, 45% of the money has come from donors under $200. 28% came from $2,300 donors, of which there were 28,125. He received $64,687,500 from those donors, which makes his overall receipts $231,026,785.

So that means $103,962,053 came from donors under $200.

If we assume the average donation for those donors came in at $100, that would mean there were 1,039,620 donors that gave under $200. If we assume it was $150, it would be 693,080. CRP reports 141,658 donors of $200 or more by the way.



Now if we compare that to McCain:

24% from donors of under $200, 46% from donors of $2,300 - of which there were 15,953. That's $36,691,900. Overall, that would make his total receipts $79,765,000.

So that's $19,143,600 from donors under $200. Assuming the same averages as with Obama, that would yield 191,436 or 127,624 under $200 donors with 52,564 $200+ donors.

Either way, Obama's small donor to large donor ratio is somewhere around 4 times larger than McCain's.
 
Kizzak is offline
 
james
VeteranX
Old
127 - 07-04-2008, 02:23 PM
Reply With Quote
Thats just liberal sheep donating their welfare money away

Plus, I think the liberals have learned from Bush's "war chest" for political ad spending built in the beginnings of his 2000 primary elections all the way through the general election paid off.
 
james is offline
 
TonyElTigre
VeteranX
Old
128 - 07-04-2008, 02:45 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizzak View Post
btw, in case someone is going to continue the retarded argument about campaign finance:

according to CRP, 45% of the money has come from donors under $200. 28% came from $2,300 donors, of which there were 28,125. He received $64,687,500 from those donors, which makes his overall receipts $231,026,785.

So that means $103,962,053 came from donors under $200.

If we assume the average donation for those donors came in at $100, that would mean there were 1,039,620 donors that gave under $200. If we assume it was $150, it would be 693,080. CRP reports 141,658 donors of $200 or more by the way.



Now if we compare that to McCain:

24% from donors of under $200, 46% from donors of $2,300 - of which there were 15,953. That's $36,691,900. Overall, that would make his total receipts $79,765,000.

So that's $19,143,600 from donors under $200. Assuming the same averages as with Obama, that would yield 191,436 or 127,624 under $200 donors with 52,564 $200+ donors.

Either way, Obama's small donor to large donor ratio is somewhere around 4 times larger than McCain's.

So you are admitting Obama has large financiers as well, you just dont think its "as bad" as mccain?

So you admit Obama has again deceived his supporters?
 
TonyElTigre is offline
 
Kizzak
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
129 - 07-04-2008, 02:53 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyElTigre View Post
So you are admitting Obama has large financiers as well, you just dont think its "as bad" as mccain?

So you admit Obama has again deceived his supporters?
nobody in a major party running for president since they implemented contribution limits has not had people donating the max amount.

I would also ask you to point out where Obama said that he would shun donations from individuals just because they can donate more than a couple hundred dollars. He hasn't accepted PAC money, which is consistent with what he's said in the past.



That said, I don't have a problem with PACs so long as people are limited in the amount they can give to any one PAC and to all PACs in an election cycle as well as to the party committees. Three board members of Home Depot giving something like 250k to the RNC in 04 was a bit much.
 
Kizzak is offline
 
TonyElTigre
VeteranX
Old
130 - 07-04-2008, 02:55 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
bama's top contributors include Goldman Sachs (#1 at $571,000), UBSAG (#3 at $365,000), JP Morgan Chase (#4 at $362,000), Citigroup (#5 at $358,000), Lehman Bros. (#7 at 4319,000), Google (#8 at $318,000)
are individuals?
 
TonyElTigre is offline
 
Kizzak
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
131 - 07-04-2008, 02:59 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyElTigre View Post
are individuals?
When you make a campaign contribution, you are required to disclose your employer - those are individuals that work at said firms that have made donations.
 
Kizzak is offline
 
Kizzak
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
132 - 07-04-2008, 03:11 PM
Reply With Quote
For Obama: 210 donations from individuals at Goldman Sachs over $1000, 141 donations of at least $2,300, 131 donations of under $1000 (but at least $200)

There were also 125 donations of any dollar amount from employees that went to McCain, 217 that went to Hillary, 55 that went to Dodd, 4 that went to Paul, and 1 that went to Gravel among all the various contributions.

There were 701 donations from Sachs employees that went to some presidential candidate this cycle over $1000 and 455 that were $2,300 or more. I do not know how many they made of any dollar amount because CRP's only goes through 1000 entries.



So unless you are proposing legislation that states people may not donate if someone at their firm has already donated to that candidate, it shouldn't come as a surprise that firms in which individuals are paid fairly well will likely see many donations to candidates.
 
Kizzak is offline
 
HumDumpin
VeteranX
Old
133 - 07-04-2008, 03:14 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by james View Post
Thats just liberal sheep donating their welfare money away
As opposed to the neo-con sheep donating their tax money to no-bid contractors like Halliburton. You're saving up for the Cheney retirement plan - you go broke and die, he gets all your money.
 
HumDumpin is offline
 
MolimOrion
VeteranXV
Old
134 - 07-04-2008, 03:17 PM
Reply With Quote
LOLbama
 
MolimOrion is offline
 
cogzinofa
VeteranX
Old
135 - 07-04-2008, 03:33 PM
Reply With Quote
oh, and

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...5/1167856.aspx
Quote:
Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:47 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell confirms that Obama has asked for, and will soon receive, a military operational and intelligence briefing. Morrell said it will be his second such brief in recent months. The briefing, however, will be nothing more than any member of the Senate would receive.
it's entirely possible that he's hedging because he just stated receiving national security briefings...you know, because they don't start doing that for candidates until it's clear who's the winnar.
 
cogzinofa is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
136 - 07-04-2008, 03:34 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
..you know, because they don't start doing that for candidates until it's clear who's the winnar.
Quote:
The briefing, however, will be nothing more than any member of the Senate would receive.
lol que? obama could have gotten these briefings ever since he became senator.
 
triple is offline
 
cogzinofa
VeteranX
Old
137 - 07-04-2008, 03:38 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by triple View Post
lol que? obama could have gotten these briefings ever since he became senator.
rtfa.
Quote:
Morrell said that McCain, as a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, receives operational and intelligence briefings more frequently, and by virtue of his position is cleared to receive more highly-classified information regarding military ops and intel. The press secretary added that McCain has requested one separate briefing in about the last six months. According to Morrell, once both senators are the official presidential candidates of their party, they will be briefed on an equal basis.
 
cogzinofa is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
138 - 07-04-2008, 03:41 PM
Reply With Quote
what exactly are you arguing? That obama didn't know the full story on iraq prior to this week, and now that he is informed, hes taking on a more conservative approach?

I don't think you'll like where that logical conclusion brings us. But, be my guest.
 
triple is offline
 
cogzinofa
VeteranX
Old
139 - 07-04-2008, 03:43 PM
Reply With Quote


it's apPEARant that obama is taking a nuanced position regarding the war in iraq, may have just started receiving more privileged information which may have colored his view on things, and that you're a giant pear-shaped douche.
 
cogzinofa is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
140 - 07-04-2008, 03:51 PM
Reply With Quote
colored his view? you're such a racist.
 
triple is offline
 
Page 7 of 9
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page LOLbama - Obama changes tune on Iraq

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
badmofo is faggot , fagmotron , free gon , illiterate republicans , not right now you don't , obama lies , partisan hackery , republicans like boys , tw coverup

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (http://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.