Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Exxon/Exxon '08

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
How come nobody talked about this?


kind of...doesnt really fit the conservative mold....maybe thats why fox news never covered it.


Which could explain why our conservative users never heard about it


( I kid...I Kid....)

bolded for ease of reference.



Talk about unfortunate timing. Just as conservatives in Congress shamelessly announced their latest "drill everywhere" energy plan on the steps of the Capitol yesterday, a major oil spill closed down part of the Mississippi River. The dissonance was probably easier because they weren't present in a packed hearing room just a few hours earlier, where a victim of the worst oil spill in U.S. history delivered emotional testimony about the damage that oil companies' bottom-line-driven recklessness has done to the livelihood of 32,000 Americans -- and by extension of some legal sleight-of-hand, to the Constitution.......(truncated)


Full Story



Companies like Exxon run this country.

Electing john mccain will only help solidify that.


Exxon/Exxon '08 because McCain is just John's maiden name.




Exxon 08!



[edit on 8/8/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]




posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Barack Obama has received more campaign contributions from Exxon employees than has McCain (though McCain has received more overall from the industry).

Article


Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500.


But those facts don't fit the agenda, so go ahead...carry on.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Hmm.

Thats funny - because what you say doesnt equate to This

Heres a tip for ya.

Just because Rush Limbaugh tells you something - doesnt make it true.

What YOUR post does is cover ONE MONTH worth of coverage.

What The above linked post does is show you the big picture.

But that really doesnt fit your agenda....so yeah
Carry on


[edit on 8/8/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I guess you didn't bother actually reading it. Then again, I'm not surprised. As I said, McCain has received more from the industry as a whole. But for much of this campaign, Obama has been doing quite well with certain members of the oil industry himself.

You might also want to consider that everything that comes from the DNC and Barack Obama isn't the gospel, either. I guess the Democrats.org site in that other thread is unbiased in your opinion.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by vor78]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 

bias is trumped by facts.

Its a fact that



McCain Has Raised More Than $2.1 Million From The Oil And Gas Industry, Including More Than $1.1 Million In The Month Of June. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, John McCain received $1,039,768 in contributions from the oil and gas industry between January 2007 and May 2008—a figure which dwarfs any other presidential candidates’ oil industry money. In addition, the Washington Post reported that “campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.”



refer to above link in previous post for source.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Its like arguing with a brick wall. I have stated repeatedly that John McCain received more money from the industry as a whole.

And while I'm sure they're facts are correct in this instance, I'd hardly call the Huffington Post an unbiased source of political news in the vast majority of cases. But again, as I've said, McCain has received more from the industry as a whole.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by vor78]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


A good find Andrew - here is another link about the story.

Perhaps Exxon will be able to pay for the clean up out of their 11.5 Billion dollar record quarterly profit they just announced??



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Yeah, and in the month of June as well.

So....who's the brick wall?

John McCain has received more - so....tell me again how your argument has any basis?



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
What the hell are you arguing? I've acknowledged that McCain has received more from the industry as a whole in my initial post. In fact, I've never argued against the *fact* that McCain has received more from the industry as a whole.

Still, you've presented absolutely nothing that indicates that McCain has received more specifically from Exxon Mobil than has Obama. He may have, but then again, perhaps not. The link on the previous thread no longer contains that article, not that I really care what democrats.org has to say, anyway. I guess you'd also consider GOPUSA to be a fair, unbalanced site for information on Obama.

Whatever, though. Even though we're in agreement on the point you seem to be arguing, the hell with it. I'm through with this thread.



[edit on 8-8-2008 by vor78]

[edit on 8-8-2008 by vor78]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



What the hell are you arguing? I've acknowledged that McCain has received more from the industry as a whole in my initial post. In fact, I've never argued against the *fact* that McCain has received more from the industry as a whole.


So then why are we arguing? If im right - why are you trying to say im wrong?





I'm through with this thread.




But things were just starting to get fun.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Its because I think you're only half right. On the point concerning the industry as a whole, yes, McCain has received more as a whole. I'm simply not convinced about Exxon Mobil specifically. I think I'm just in an argumentative mood this morning. At this point, I'd rather just drop it.

Truth be told, I don't know why I'm even bothering with the subject. I honestly don't care which of them receives more. They're both backed by major industries of one type or another, so its a case of picking your poison.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Its because I think you're only half right.


I would be 1/2 right if there were only 2 oil companies in all of big oil. You give me numbers that show Obama recieved ... what... 1200 dollars more than mccain from Exxon? I give you #'s that show mccain has recieved millions more from big oil?....hmm. You'd have to identify how many different entitites there are in big oil - and divide that by exxon to get a % of how wrong i am




On the point concerning the industry as a whole, yes, McCain has received more as a whole.


Glad you agree


I'm simply not convinced about Exxon Mobil specifically. I think I'm just in an argumentative mood this morning. At this point, I'd rather just drop it.
Why does one entity make a difference? Its big oil, not exxon. Exxon has record profits, true. But big oil as a whole? If they can donate a few million to one man (mccain) why do they need those government subsidies?



Truth be told, I don't know why I'm even bothering with the subject.
i've been asking that for 3 posts now

I honestly don't care which of them receives more. They're both backed by major industries of one type or another, so its a case of picking your poison.

Pick your posion is right. And im gona go with the guy who doesnt back big oil and their illegal practices. Im gona go with the guy who promises me another incentive check at the expense of big oil's corruption, and im gona go with the guy who will stand up for ME, like a true representative of the people should.


[edit on 8/8/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join