Obama Risks `Pristine' Image in Question of Public Financing

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
He did mention back in November 2007 the opposite


I don't understand how the "mention" of the promise to meet with McCain and come to an agreement makes Obama a "flip-flopper". He made no promise to unconditionally use public funding. If you read through the thread and deny ignorance, you'll see.



I too wonder just who these entities are now that disclosure of presidential financing will no longer be in public domain.


I'm one of them!



I mean, what does he really have to hide from the voters?


What makes you think he's hiding anything? Here is his disclosure:



How complete are this candidate's campaign finance reports?






posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


You know, I don't know what Obama said about taking money from lobbyists, PACs, or corporations. But after what I've been through in this thread, hearing of this big "broken promise" and doing research on it ONLY to find out that a promise was never made, I'm not inclined to just believe that he's done something wrong without specific information. That being his promise to never take ANY lobbyists money, PAC money or corporate money for his entire campaign.

I'm sorry if it appears that I don't care, but I've got other things to do. And unless he specifically promised and went back on his word, I'm not too sure I care where his money is coming from.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not too sure I care where his money is coming from.


So .. before it was 'just my opinion' and now that I've provided proof all you have to say is that you don't care where the money is coming from? Wanna' admit that it wasn't 'just my opinion'?



For those who care - (and if you don't care ... whatever)
ON TOPIC - 'Obama risks pristine image in question of public financing'

Screen shot from his site a few days ago. The Campaign Finance Reform paragraph has now been scrubbed from his site.

THIS is what it said – Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Etc etc

It's now gone from his site.

I don't have another site that has a screen shot of what Obama's site had. I'm NOT going to trust that one site for information. However, it does raise the question of why was that on Obama's site and then he took it off.

I'll look for another screen shot of the site from a few days ago.
That'll take some digging and I don't have the time tonight.
(I have to take my 12 year old to a birthday party).
And I dont' have time tomorrow. (real life events)
Perhaps Sunday ...




[edit on 6/20/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
a promise was never made,

Video 1
AP says that Obama made no effort to negotiate with McCain.
Obama in his own words



[edit on 6/20/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
So .. before it was 'just my opinion'


I said it was your opinion that corporate "bag men" as you call them are the same as lobbyists. You have edited your post since then and the meaning is unclear. But that's what I meant was your opinion.



and now that I've provided proof all you have to say is that you don't care where the money is coming from? Wanna' admit that it wasn't 'just my opinion'?


What you haven't provided proof of is his original promise about who he would or wouldn't take financing from. How do I know he has broken his word if I don't know what his word was?



Screen shot from his site a few days ago. The Campaign Finance Reform paragraph has now been scrubbed from his site.

THIS is what it said – Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Etc etc

It's now gone from his site.


He does support public financing. But only if the parties and independent groups (527s) have restrictions on them. Which is only fair, in my opinion. And I think taking that off his website means nothing. There are millions of places that continue to express his support for publicly-funded elections, if they're done a certain way.

(Boy, No Quarter sure is a popular place for Anti-Obama run and games, isn't it?)


Originally posted by FlyersFan
AP says that Obama made no effort to negotiate with McCain.


I don't care what AP says. I care what actually happened. And their lawyers met. It was not fruitful. There was no reason for the actual candidates to meet and discuss this if there wasn't any way to make an agreement. In fact, if McCain's lawyers had agreed to reign in 527s and Republican (smear campaign) funds, I'm absolutely certain Obama would have met with him. He does, after all support public funding (done right).


Obama in his own words


If people want to make a big deal because their lawyers met instead of them actually meeting, they can. It doesn't matter to me. Their lawyers apparently determined that an agreement was not going to be reached.



Obama counsel Bob Bauer said Thursday he had met with Trevor Potter, his counterpart on the McCain team, on June 6 to discuss a possible joint townhall appearance later in the month, and that the two discussed the public funding issue for 45 minutes.

“I asked him to address a [series] of issues of concern to the Obama campaign–the McCain campaign's active raising and spending of private money since February for a general election campaign, including for media, while we were still in the middle of a primary contest,” said Bauer in a statement. “He gave me his perspectives–the best arguments he could offer for an agreement on both sides to accept public financing–and it was clear to me that these offered no basis for any further exchange.”

Source

Of course, McCain's lawyer tells a completely different story and accuses Obama's lawyer of lying... Which one's telling the truth? I'll give you a hint, They're BOTH lawyers.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You have edited your post since then and the meaning is unclear.

Actually, I edited it right after posting it ... a spelling error.
Nice try. The meaning was clear.


What you haven't provided proof of is his original promise about who he would or wouldn't take financing from. How do I know he has broken his word if I don't know what his word was?

I DID provide it. It was in the links. HERE is another link. Look directly at the second question. I-B. He says 'YES'.

NOTE - I IMMEDIATELY edited this to add the number 'I-B'.


[edit on 6/21/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I'm not going to argue with you about what I meant or your edit. I'm not "trying" anything.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Look directly at the second question. I-B. He says 'YES'.


We're talking about 2 different things. We've been all through the private/public funding thing in the previous pages. If you want my view, look there.

What I'm talking with you about is whether Obama takes money from lobbyists, or corporate "bag men" etc. I haven't see where Obama promises to never take money for lobbyists or whatever else he's being accused of.

But I'm not going to re-write everything I've written over the past few pages about his "promise" to use public funding. Basically he said he would pursue an agreement with the McCain to use public funding, but an agreement was never reached.

And as I've said, I'm not really interested in arguing this further. I know you can't stand the man and want him to be lying with every word out of his mouth. I don't want to convince you to vote for him, like him, believe him or anything. Feel free to think he's the scum of the earth.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
FlyersFan....once again, you are right on the money with regards to Obama.

I forgot to sign in but in my opinion, Obama the flim-flam man, the oops flip-flopped on another issue kind of guy will say anything at a moment in time to satisfy those hungry for his "so-called change."

He flip-flopped on public financing because the BOTTOM LINE for him is that he would only get around $85,000,000 and he wants more than that. So, all his big corporations who have been financing him will be able to keep contributing to his campaign....hey, I never said he was stupid! Are there still voters out their that think all his millions are coming from the little people of the U.S.!?!?

Obama is a con-artist not a strategist. He will promise so much and in the long run won't give a thing to the hard working, poor, and disabled Americans. He is an opportunist, narcisstic, and a racist to say the very least.

Another example of his "change," defaming the Presidential Seal:

§ 713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress

(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Rubyteacup



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Another example of his "change," defaming the Presidential Seal:


Yep. Arrest Obama Now discusses the new Obama seal and how it's ILLEGAL. It sites page and paragraph.

Somebody please start a thread on this ...



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What I'm talking with you about is whether Obama takes money from lobbyists, or corporate "bag men" etc.


Uh .. no. What you said to me was this -


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What you haven't provided proof of is his original promise about who he would or wouldn't take financing from. How do I know he has broken his word if I don't know what his word was?


And you said this -


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He made no promise to unconditionally use public funding. If you read through the thread and deny ignorance, you'll see.

All of which was in the discussion of public financing. I provided proof - THAT HE SIGNED and that he ADMITTED ON TV - about his intentions toward public financing.

And when I talked about corporate bagmen and provided a long list of corporate monies that he has received, you blew me off with this -


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't know what Obama said about taking money from lobbyists, PACs, or corporations.......




Feel free to think he's the scum of the earth.

Thank you for your permission.
I KNOW that he is the scum of the earth.

I have provided ample proof of his corporate 'donations' via bagmen.
I have provided ample proof of his promise in regards to public financing.
I have provided ample proof of his breaking that promise.

To quote you, BH, - If you read through the thread and deny ignorance, you'll see.

Edited IMMEDIATELY to fix a quote.



[edit on 6/21/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obama takes money from hundreds of corporate bag men.
As far as I'm concerned .. it's the same thing.
I just wondered if you considered it the same or not.

Hundreds of bag men?

I hope none of them look like this poor fellow.



I know it is hard to accept, but I don't see a problem over buying 10 feet of land. This is starting to sound like one of those National Enquirer type threads that has invaded our space.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I think this is the screen shot from Obama's web site that is in question:




Notice Obama says he supports public financing of campaigns.... unless he can raise more money another way I guess.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Hundreds of bag men?

Hundreds of bag men.
Atlanta Journal

Obama Bagman sent to jail

The Times of London

Common Dreams article that was printed by the Los Angeles times.

Data from Opensecrets.com


I don't see a problem over buying 10 feet of land.

There's more to Rezko then 10 feet of land.

edited IMMEDIATELY to fix URL link.


[edit on 6/22/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Just wanted to mention that Farrhakan (sp?) calls Obama, "a good man," but then I'm sure he would call himself a good man too!

Obama just keeps wheeling and dealing but acts like it's for the benefit of the American people.....ex: public financing. However, he will accept donations to his campaign by the American people. At least with public financing each candidate is restricted from the millions spent for the general election. Obama has spent phenomenal amounts over the past few months. I don't like to compare other candidates because I believe it takes away from the original intention of the thread, but since others have I will mention that they should research and see what McCain has spent as opposed to Obama......real eye opener.

Listing some articles about Public Financing:

americanthinker.com...

americanthinker.com...


Next, Obama Run as a Man and Leader

americanthinker.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Hundreds of bag men.
Atlanta Journal

I looked at that article before when you posted it, but I don't get it. Are you calling the bankers in article bag men? Or just anyone that works for a corporation? Here is the real definition of a bag man.


A bag man (or bagman), also known as a delivery boy or running man, is a person designated to collect money in a protection racket. Originally the term applied only to Mafia members collecting for mob bosses, but the term later spread to use in corrupt police precincts where a foot patrolman was the designated "bagman" to pick up and deliver bribes from the local mob(s) to the precinct captain.

Wikipedia article: Bagman

That article only shows that some corporations are making donations, but they are not lobbyists, nor are they bag men.



Obama Bagman sent to jail

I also read this one, but again how is Rezko a bag man by this definition? I would agree that the money from Auchi is questionable and Mrs. Rezko should explain where she got the $125,000 down payment, but the article is clearly making the allegation that the money went to pay for Obama's house, which he would have no problem affording. This article is clearly a hit piece.



The Times of London

Another article showing corporate donations, who are not lobbyists nor bag men.



Common Dreams article that was printed by the Los Angeles times.

This article shows how money was returned to lobbyists, and how he was only accepting individual contributions at the limit of $2,300. Just because some donors are partners with lobbyists or related to them does not make them lobbyists nor bag men.



Data from Opensecrets.com

This one shows how Obama is accepting money from special interests, which is another vague term, and I will say that he should also consider returning that money, but again, they are not lobbyists nor bag men.

I went to the open secrets site and it shows how Obama has only accepted individual donations. It looks like he is keeping his word to me.


legend Individual contributions $264,493,051 100%
legend PAC contributions $-750 -0%
legend Candidate self-financing $0 0%
legend Federal Funds $0 0%
legend Other $946,977 0%

Open Secrets: Summary Data Barack Obama



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
So here are my arguments on the document that BH posted. There is no mistake, based on the text of this article, Obama has clearly gone back on some of the principals he says he believed in.

www.commoncause.org...


Question: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?



OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.


However this half hour of TV ad time aired 2 nights ago was not free and the Satellite channel he recently bought was not free. Furthermore, neither were paid for with PUBLIC FINANCING.


My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.


I believe this was written in Barack Obama's own handwriting, was it not? How is he keeping to this plan by returning to private funds?


My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.


Okay, so in the LAST paragraph he says he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee.

But you're also conveniently dismissing the two other parts of his statement that has gone back on - his "plan" to stay within the public financing system. Also, he says he has been a "long-time" advocate of public financing of campaigns. So does his accepting private funds now mean after being a long-time advocate of public funding he is no longer such an advocate? What about "free" TV and Radio air time?

Also, what about that part to return excessive money from donors? We haven't seen anything about any sorts of money being returned to any one donor to my knowledge though I may certainly be wrong about that. It seems he used excessive amounts of money to fund air time on TV networks.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


You know this is funny, because I don't know any Obama Supporters that take issue with this. Only the Anti-Obamas.

Anyhow... it makes sense to me as an Obama Supporter because on Oct 15, the McCain campaign and the RNC together had $20 Million more than the Obama Campaing and the DNC together.

You can't claim you are free market on one side, and then cry foul when that consumers in that same market vote with their dollars to support a candidate they believe in.

There is a reason why this candidate has raised more than any other in the past, and with an average donation of $86 dollars.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Just another example of Obama blowing smoke up the public's keister,what irks me all these people try making excuses for him,he didn't get all that money from well wishers people who bankrolled him are going to be waiting for payback time,want to tell whe he is lying? just watch his lips move





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join