A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain!

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
John McCain's 2008 list of top contributors.

Merrill Lynch $293,010
Citigroup Inc $251,851
Goldman Sachs $223,995
Morgan Stanley $212,821
AT&T Inc $187,673
Blank Rome LLP $175,326
JPMorgan Chase & Co $169,625
Greenberg Traurig LLP $154,687
Credit Suisse Group $144,525
Bank of America $120,625
Pinnacle West Capital $119,250
Lehman Brothers $115,800
UBS AG $114,315
US Government $112,101
Wachovia Corp $110,462
PricewaterhouseCoopers $109,270
FedEx Corp $108,253
Hess Corp $95,050
US Army $92,007
Blackstone Group $91,500


Barack Obama 2008 top contributors


Goldman Sachs $689,280
University of California $531,070
JPMorgan Chase & Co $449,671
Citigroup Inc $411,504
Harvard University $407,452
University of Chicago $396,339
UBS AG $390,000
Google Inc $379,212
Lehman Brothers $365,922
Skadden, Arps et al $358,121
Sidley Austin LLP $356,345
Kirkland & Ellis $351,714
Moveon.org $347,463
Morgan Stanley $314,638
Exelon Corp $310,911
National Amusements Inc $298,500
Microsoft Corp $280,425
Time Warner $279,859
Jones Day $266,705
Latham & Watkins $255,095

Notice any similarities?

This money was "legally" raised by Political Action Committees - (PAC).

What is a PAC?

Opensecrets.com describes Political Action Committee (PAC) as "A popular term for a political committee organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates. Most PACs represent business, labor or ideological interests."




Barack Obama makes a point of rejecting money from political action committees, condemning them as a symbol of what's wrong with insider politics in Washington. Source


But, as we see, he's acquired nearly $7,500,000 from political action committees since the beginning of his presidential campaign.


Looking at the numbers, they've both taken a considerable amount of money from these loop-hole lobbyists, but what about who and where that money is coming from? If you look at the John's numbers, you'll see that the PAC for Lehman Brothers donated over $115,000 dollars to McCains Campaign. A company who is subsequently destroying lives due to their enabling through investments in faulty lending practices. A company who will now declare bankruptcy, wipe it's hands, and walk away clean.

“Integrity is not a conditional word. It doesn't blow in the wind or change with the weather. It is your inner image of yourself, and if you look in there and see a man who won't cheat, then you know he never will.” Is a famous quote by John Macdonald and in it's own respect, something that I try and live every day by. This thinking is what true men; good men live by.

But after reading the quote, I am even more dissatisfied by the candidates that are looking us in the face every morning, noon, and night, telling us they are going to "change" things.

Will they? Because within minutes of searching on Google, I have found an incredible list of Flip flops.

Obama has flip flopped on:

Troop withdrawal
PAC funding
The DC gun ban
NAFTA (Corporate modern day slave trade/free for all)
Nuclear power
Foreign diplomacy with "hostile countries."
Bush/Cheney energy bill
Welfare reform
Etc...

McCain has flip flopped on:

Torture (being a POW/Voting against it/Then voting for it..:puz

Abortion
Ethanol
Offshore Drilling
Immigration
Guantanamo trials
Housing bailouts
Gay Marriage

You can enter in the Candidates name, "flip flop," and any one of the following issues, and you'll see exactly what they said and where they said it. I've been researching the flip flops since the beginning of the race, and I have been sorrily disappointed with almost all of the candidates with the exception of a few.


Even in the wake of them being notorious liars, what are their policies? Do the issues affecting 99% even debatable between the two? Well, Can you tell them apart? Give it a try, you might be surprised.

Who opposes a new war-time draft proposition, bringing back a Vietnam era styled lottery draft?


Who supports a single parent national health care system giving health care to all?


Who opposes the FISA law, national wire tapping, and once illegal surveillance of American citizens?


Who plans to reorganize our wasteful military budget?


Who opposes NAFTA free trade agreement that enslaves workers on both sides of the "fence."


Who initially opposed the Patriot Act?


Who opposed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act?


I'm sure you had some interesting thoughts about those questions, but the answer to your questions are NEITHER!



And, thank you so much Davis Fleetwood for the eye opener. (I suggest you all give credit where credit is due and lend his youtube a visit)


In this world where everybody is talking about "the lesser of two evils" it is easy to see that there is no "lesser" of evil. It is as it stands and only equal unto itself. You can choose to play the game, or rebel against it. Standing up for what is right, even by holding the liars accountable for their words and actions is sometimes the strongest act of civil disobedience we can undertake. And we can never forget that civil disobedience laid the foundation for the this beautiful country.


"When leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders." - Veterans fast for life



Thank you for reading!





[edit on 16-9-2008 by DeadFlagBlues]




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

McCain has flip flopped on:

Torture (being a POW/Voting against it/Then voting for it..:puz


I've been researching the flip flops since the beginning of the race, and I have been sorrily disappointed with almost all of the candidates with the exception of a few.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by DeadFlagBlues]


You may want to really look into the outlets you are getting your information. McCain has not flip flopped on Torture as outlined by PolitiFact :

www.politifact.com...

While politifact leans far left, they at least have the deceny to honestly cover flip flops.

In the case of offshore drilling, he only partially flipped that one (obama has too) as seen here:

www.politifact.com...


Just goes to show you, people really choose to look beyond "FACTS". I think for this very reason Obama has had such a decent run.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

McCain has flip flopped on:

Torture (being a POW/Voting against it/Then voting for it..:puz


I've been researching the flip flops since the beginning of the race, and I have been sorrily disappointed with almost all of the candidates with the exception of a few.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by DeadFlagBlues]


You may want to really look into the outlets you are getting your information. McCain has not flip flopped on Torture as outlined by PolitiFact :

www.politifact.com...

While politifact leans far left, they at least have the deceny to honestly cover flip flops.

In the case of offshore drilling, he only partially flipped that one (obama has too) as seen here:

www.politifact.com...


Just goes to show you, people really choose to look beyond "FACTS". I think for this very reason Obama has had such a decent run.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewTB
 




I think Olbermann clears up the semantics of this whole issue fairly well.

or...



He cast' a vote that opposed a bill that would make waterboarding and other harsh "information extraction" techniques illegal. I don't see how it could be anything but flip flopping.



But, honestly... If you had taken the time to read my post and that's all you derived from it, than you missed it by a mile. We can run over the semantics all you want, but I was hoping for "more."

At least more than that.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Sorry I dont buy this "im a third party ron paul" voter BS thats been posted around the internet. Too many people are flip flopping over where they stand and when they are accused they simply make the "im a third party supporter" claim, I dont buy it, its this non-partisan claim where these people are partisan in real life.

If you dont want to vote for Democrats or Republicans, thats all fine and dandy, but I dont think we need to hear this constant whining of the two parties every freakin day, Its your choice to vote "other" but there is a vast majority of people who prefer the parties they support right now.


[edit on 16-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by southern_Guardian
 


Nobody has mentioned "I'm a third party voter bs."



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
its this non-partisan claim where these people are partisan in real life.


What?


If you dont want to vote for Democrats or Republicans, thats all fine and dandy, but I dont think we need to hear this constant whining of the two parties every freakin day,


It's not whining. These are numbers. This is corruption, lies, and a 10 foot tall hill of bull#. This has nothing to do with partisan politics, but the validity and the lack of integrity by both men who may one day become the most powerful man in our nation. Kind of a big deal.


Its your choice to vote "other" but there is a vast majority of people who prefer the parties they support right now.


And that is exactly why this country is in such a dire state right now. People, when faced with the facts deny them or say "let it alone." Well, those days need to come to an immediate halt. You may be content with being bent over every single day of your life, but there are a few of us that have had quite enough.

"Because it is, does not make it right."




[edit on 16-9-2008 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by southern_Guardian
 


Very interesting post OP, I too have already looked into Obama and McCain's backers, and i agree with what your stating, and its no suprise at all to see JP Morgan & Chase backing both of them, heavily obama! as 4th on his list


I also found this www.washingtonpost.com... /11/AR2008091102580.html dealing with Lehman, thought it was interesting, and some chief investment strategist says it was "emblematic of a market gripped by fear".

history repeating itself yet again..

To southern_Guardian,

First of all Ron Paul is republican, not a third party. He clearly states, and as many and I agree, the republican stature has fallen off course. And you may think that people are happy with their candidate selections right now, and that may be, but as the Ron Paul even says in the link above, the public must know the truth, and the general public is most certainly deprived from that as we all know..

cheers all!



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Whoops, Sorry, The last post was made by me, Got logged out somehow..



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Do you have a source for your information?

OpenSecrets.org



This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.


Do you have a source that clears this up? In other words do you have a source that supports that this money came from PACS and NOT its individual members or employees or owners, as stated above?

Thanks.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by AndrewTB
 




I think Olbermann clears up the semantics of this whole issue fairly well.

or...



He cast' a vote that opposed a bill that would make waterboarding and other harsh "information extraction" techniques illegal. I don't see how it could be anything but flip flopping.



But, honestly... If you had taken the time to read my post and that's all you derived from it, than you missed it by a mile. We can run over the semantics all you want, but I was hoping for "more."

At least more than that.
While its not the main topic at hand, you still made false statements. I corrected you and its more than fair to do so.

You are comparing a good source with a show created for entertainment? Its common knowledge media outlets dont cover all the facts. They will say anything to keep you glued to the TV.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


I think the saddest thing about all this is that the majority of the citizenry
cannot see through the used-car salesman act of both these clowns.
I DO NOT get that!

They are consummate liars. They will say\do anything to get elected.
They have no integrity. They are hypocrites.

They are BOTH so out of touch with common, working class people that it's scary.
McCain not knowing how many houses he owns.
Obama telling farmers in Iowa that they should plant "specialty crops"
because argula is expensive at Whole Foods Market.

Elitist pricks, both of them. Lying, scheming corporate shills.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Politicians have determined that the flip-flop is the easiest way to determine their stance on issues. Test one stance by a simple statement then watch the reaction by the public....then switch if needed.

That is just part of politics today and it is horrible....i agree like a used car salesmen testing to see what u really want but not coming out right and saying what they know or want.

I think that parties and their people have much more in common than not and perscribe to the same tactics but spin it a different way.

-Thanks
-Aaron


[edit on 16-9-2008 by logan_macio]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

I think the saddest thing about all this is that the majority of the citizenry cannot see through the used-car salesman act of both these clowns.


Without arguing with that, did you see the tax tables according to McCain and Obama? Quite different! Also, the McCains healthcare plan means us paying more for healthcare *duh*

Well, that does it for me.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Hi Deadflagblues...

I'd like to see you address BH's question above concerning the difference between PACs and individual contributors.

This question speaks to an important premise of your thread here.

I have researched this and OBAMA HAS NOT TAKEN PAC money DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION...BUT HE DID take PAC money in his bid for the Senate.

"Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that after seeing the influence of lobbyists firsthand during his two years in Washington, Obama decided before he entered the presidential race that he would take a different approach to fund-raising than he had in the past."

SO...you can argue he has done it in the past, but not during this election.

I am open to correction if I am wrong...otherwise it would be nice to see you edit you initial OP to reflect the facts regarding PACs.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   




While its not the main topic at hand, you still made false statements. I corrected you and its more than fair to do so.

You are comparing a good source with a show created for entertainment? Its common knowledge media outlets dont cover all the facts. They will say anything to keep you glued to the TV.


It isn't the main topic at hand. It's meaningless picking apart. I thought you would say something about the source, that's why I posted the second one for you to clearly see it in his own words.

"Is waterboarding torture?"

JM: "Sure...Yes!"

Now, cut to the next scene with Larry King

"The senate voted 51 to 45 yesterday to prohibit the CIA and waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods. You voted to oppose that. Why?"

JM: "Bumbling, I voted.. I voted..."

"I thought you were against that?"

"Let me make that very clear. I believe waterboarding is torture."

End of clip.

I've been trying to find the full length, without the democratic edit on it.

Regardless, the point still stands. When you're "against" something and you defend it publicly, you cannot enable it by supporting a bill that promotes any kind of torture.

This man professed his opposition to torture and then allowed men to do it!

If that isn't a complete lack of integrity, I don't know what is.

It's a fairly brazen one at that.

"Are you against torture?

"Yes."

"Then why did you choose to vote for a bill allowing it."

"Um.... Um...."


McCain '08? No thanks. How can I put any trust in him, when he doesn't even stand up for what he believes is right?





[edit on 16-9-2008 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Thank you for starting this thread.

It's about time people quite squabbling about ideals and elect a president based on issues that actually matter to the country and and the world.

Does abortion matter to America? No. It might mean a great deal to an individual, but it means nothing to the nation as a whole. Not a reason to base a vote on.

What about off shore drilling? Politicians want to make this an issue. Rather than argue about whether or not to drill for oil, why don't we get bids from groups on alternative fuels ... you know, kinda like Boeing vs. Northrop Grumman.

Health care? Turn it over to government and watch the prices sky rocket - and in turn taxes. Leave it up to the Free market and health providers will be forced to compete.

Rather than focus on real issues, these politicians side step the problems and draw attentions to problems that will bring about no substantial change in our government or it's policies.

Vote Democrat ... Vote Republican - It doesn't really matter.

You're going to get another 4 years of the same old crap that we've had for that last 50. War for profit and breaks for big business. The lowest earning people will continue to foot the bill and pay these lawmakers well for continued implementation of these policies.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I've contacted them, as I couldn't find a direct answer in any one way on their website.

Personally, I found it odd that both McCain and Obama had $10,000,00+ in undisclosed campaign money.

I would like to find out what the correlation is with a private donation and the specific company they're coming from. When I had given my contributions to a candidate this year, I didn't list where I worked or who I worked for. Kind of an add tilt when it comes down to the dollar from company to company. I also found it relatively strange that the top donors were damn near per beta between the two.

It doesn't sit right with me, and I'm not about to ignore it.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The tactical and mathematically sound reason for flip-flopping:

I say "X" and I get 10 votes.

I say "Z" (which contradicts X) and get 10 more votes.

= 20.

3 of the voters notice the contradiction between X and Z. I loose their votes.

= 17 votes.

....that sure beats only 10 votes.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Skyfloating]






top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join