| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 9:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| So ManIntheMiddle has decided to reappear huh? |
No.
dmbfan |
Who? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
soupsandwich
Joined: 20 May 2011
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly. I guess we could use the search function.
soupsandwich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
The sane money is on Obama.
|
I fixed it for you. You're welcome.
|
Why? What's sane about backing a guy who let Wall Street have everything they wanted after they destroyed the economy? |
Obama did what McCain would have done. Perhaps McCain would have gone further considering Wall Street has a much cozier relationship with Republicans. At least Obama made noises about accountability and did smoe finger wagging. Giving money to Wall Street was what BOTH parties advocated. I wasn't for it but it was the politicy both parties at the time.
Obama is vulnerable. Very vulnerable. However, it is his to lose.
The fact is he leads against EVERY major candidate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Yes, its early days but he leads them. Something will have to happen (and often it does) but its Obama's to lose right now. For the record I like Ron Paul a lot but the Republican powerbrokers would never consider him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soupsandwich
Joined: 20 May 2011
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Obama did what McCain would have done. Perhaps McCain would have gone further considering Wall Street has a much cozier relationship with Republicans. At least Obama made noises about accountability and did smoe finger wagging. Giving money to Wall Street was what BOTH parties advocated. I wasn't for it but it was the politicy both parties at the time. |
He's right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
The sane money is on Obama.
|
I fixed it for you. You're welcome.
|
Why? What's sane about backing a guy who let Wall Street have everything they wanted after they destroyed the economy? |
Obama did what McCain would have done. Perhaps McCain would have gone further considering Wall Street has a much cozier relationship with Republicans. |
Obama and the Democrats in 2008 were far more financially connected to Wall Street than McCain or the Republicans.
(http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/financial-industry-related-politica.html)
| Quote: |
During March 2009, people and PACs associated with this industry directed 70 percent of their federal-level contributions to Democratic candidates, party committees and leadership PACs.
By June, such numbers had practically flipped, with preliminary figures indicating Republican interests had received 68 percent of all federal-level contributions from this industry. |
But good on you for your stout defense of Obama: "He did exactly what the other guy would've done." Nevermind what's good for the country. Its exactly why I won't be voting for Obama in November 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
Obama is vulnerable. Very vulnerable. However, it is his to lose.
|
Man, you really went out on the limb there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
But good on you for your stout defense of Obama: "He did exactly what the other guy would've done." Nevermind what's good for the country. Its exactly why I won't be voting for Obama in November 2012. |
?? How do you view that as a defense? You left out what I said in the next sentence that I was against it. I criticized Obama for doing it.
However, its not balanced to criticize something Obama has done when that same issue would have been done by his opponents as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sector7G wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
Obama is vulnerable. Very vulnerable. However, it is his to lose.
|
Man, you really went out on the limb there! |
LOL...if you're ahead in the polls isn't it yours to lose? The Republican field is weak. I doubt even Obama supporters would suggest he is not vulnerable. If the Republicans fielded someone of substance they'd have a very good shot of unseating Obama.
Not sure how that statement is unclear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Why? What's sane about backing a guy who let Wall Street have everything they wanted after they destroyed the economy? |
Obama did what McCain would have done. Perhaps McCain would have gone further considering Wall Street has a much cozier relationship with Republicans. [/quote]
Obama and the Democrats in 2008 were far more financially connected to Wall Street than McCain or the Republicans.
(http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/financial-industry-related-politica.html)
| Quote: |
During March 2009, people and PACs associated with this industry directed 70 percent of their federal-level contributions to Democratic candidates, party committees and leadership PACs.
By June, such numbers had practically flipped, with preliminary figures indicating Republican interests had received 68 percent of all federal-level contributions from this industry. |
But good on you for your stout defense of Obama: "He did exactly what the other guy would've done." Nevermind what's good for the country. Its exactly why I won't be voting for Obama in November 2012.[/quote]
McCain would have done the exact same thing. Which is the main point. He advocated as much.
Second, your link's title was "Wall Street-Related Political Contributions Shift Toward Republicans" with an August 2010 date. It covers 2009, not 2008. By 2009, Obama was in the White House, euphoria was high so it stands to reason that Wall Street is going to pour money towards him like every one else. "During March 2009, people and PACs associated with this industry directed 70 percent of their federal-level contributions to Democratic candidates, party committees and leadership PACs."
With regards to 2008, the political climate at the time was either Clinton or Obama leading McCain. Big money, including Wall Street money was backing the projected winner. The last sentence in your linke states:
The broad financial sector in June appears to have spent a greater percentage of its cash on federal-level Republicans than at any time since May 2008.
Before 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/27/us-campaign-finance-corporate-idUSN2750381820071127
It shows money flowing to Democrats. Bush's popularity were in the toilet at the time hence the shift. The link states though that Dems were getting 43% of the big money in 2006 and 2004.
In both presidential and congressional contests, Democrats are benefiting more than Republicans from the surge in business donations, with 57 percent of giving from typical big donors going to Democrats versus 43 percent in 2006 and 2004.
However, my points are that McCain would have done the same and that traditionally Wall Street likes Republicans because they favor loose financial laws. However, I wouldn't argue with anyone who would say that Dems don't get money as well. Ranking Dems on financial committees get a lot of money. Which is logical as they have the power to regulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
But good on you for your stout defense of Obama: "He did exactly what the other guy would've done." Nevermind what's good for the country. Its exactly why I won't be voting for Obama in November 2012. |
?? How do you view that as a defense? You left out what I said in the next sentence that I was against it. I criticized Obama for doing it.
However, its not balanced to criticize something Obama has done when that same issue would have been done by his opponents as well. |
The fact that his so-called opponents would have done the same does not exonerate him. It just shows that the controlled left/right wing paradigm is a sham. It shows that Obama is just as bad as even the worst that the GOP has to offer, and no excuses are necessary. The proof is in the pudding, not the campaign rhetoric and scripted speeches from teleprompters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Gerous
Joined: 27 May 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| For the record I like Ron Paul a lot but the Republican powerbrokers would never consider him. |
That's no attitude.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Obama and the Democrats in 2008 were far more financially connected to Wall Street than McCain or the Republicans. |
Indeed, but what a ridiculous point to even be arguing. Wall St. banksters are so far up the backsides of BOTH parties, it is ludicrous to even debate "Who's worse?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
But good on you for your stout defense of Obama: "He did exactly what the other guy would've done." Nevermind what's good for the country. Its exactly why I won't be voting for Obama in November 2012. |
?? How do you view that as a defense? You left out what I said in the next sentence that I was against it. I criticized Obama for doing it.
However, its not balanced to criticize something Obama has done when that same issue would have been done by his opponents as well. |
The fact that his so-called opponents would have done the same does not exonerate him. It just shows that the controlled left/right wing paradigm is a sham. It shows that Obama is just as bad as even the worst that the GOP has to offer, and no excuses are necessary. The proof is in the pudding, not the campaign rhetoric and scripted speeches from teleprompters. |
I wasn't trying to exonerate him. I have stated I was against the bailout. How is disagreeing with someone's handling of an issue exonerating them?
However, I've often seen Conservatives/Republicans criticize him for things that they would or did do. That's being hypocritical. That's all I was stating. The fair thing is to point out that its something that BOTH parties would have done. It leaves a reader with the impression that the other party would have acted differently.
I have a distrust of BOTH major parties. I was being balanced by stating it would have been by both candidates for President. Its called being fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Gerous wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| For the record I like Ron Paul a lot but the Republican powerbrokers would never consider him. |
That's no attitude.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Obama and the Democrats in 2008 were far more financially connected to Wall Street than McCain or the Republicans. |
Indeed, but what a ridiculous point to even be arguing. Wall St. banksters are so far up the backsides of BOTH parties, it is ludicrous to even debate "Who's worse?" |
Regarding Ron Paul. Its the truth. Republican power brokers would never back him. Not a bad attitude just stating a fact. It is what is. I can only hope he gets more air time and is involved in the debate and that some of what he says (I don't agree with all of it) resonates with the voters.
Regarding Obama, the Republicans and Wall Street money. True both sides have gotten a lot of money from Wall Street. The overall gist of my post was that BOTH would have bailed out the banks. Kuros debating the side issue about Republicans being moreso was besides the point. Maybe for the same of accuracy to his credit but I think over the years, I'd be surprised if Republicans didn't take more. If in fact they didn't, it doesn't matter as you say. Both parties are in bed with Wall Street. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wall Street, despite their track record, usually tries to back winning horses. Ergo Obama support in 2008 (2:1) and increased GOP support in 2010 (almost 50%, not a majority but still a major shift).
It's not like all of the sudden their ideologies shifted, esp. after the Dems bailed them out with billions in free cash. Really if it were the case that the Dems were in bed, the money ratio would have stayed the same from Jan 2009, but that's not the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Gerous
Joined: 27 May 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ They leave nothing to chance. In 2004, the largest contributor to Bush was the president of Citibank; to Kerry, the vice president. It's all a BS sham/scam/thank you, ma'am. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
