reply to post by jsobecky
So which side are you routing for?
Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 7-9-2009 by Gemwolf]
In 1886, a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a winter retreat and hunting ground, the USA's most exclusive club. By 1900, the club's roster represented 1/6th of the world's wealth. Names like Astor, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Pulitzer and Gould filled the club's register. Non- members, regardless of stature, were not allowed. Dignitaries like Winston Churchill and President McKinley were refused admission. - John Pounders
The Primary Owners of the Federal Reserve Bank Are:
1. Rothschild's of London and Berlin
2. Lazard Brothers of Paris
3. Israel Moses Seaf of Italy
4. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York
5. Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany
6. Lehman Brothers of New York
7. Goldman, Sachs of New York
8. Rockefeller Brothers of New York
- libertyforlife.com
"The world wars were artificially instigated by bankers. America’s greatest enemy is within it’s borders, the bankers who control the money supply, the politicians and our military, police and judiciary who violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America." - Clive Boustred
Still laughing for the fact that American believe they are free lolOriginally posted by ofhumandescent
While Obama may or may not yet has sold his soul like most of our other politicians remains to be seen.
But Obama sure doesn't even come close to coming from the back ground that GWB came from, no comparison.
Barack never had a rich "sugar daddy" and had to earn every grade he got in school.
have any of you Bush supporters even bothered to read, "Dreams of my Father"?
Bush could not open his mouth without being a world class joke.
He came off as a smug, arrogant dumb jerk.
Obama at least appears intellegent.
Let's see if our current president spends that much time away from The White House at the tax payers expense.
1. ACORN claims it is bi-partisan organization. But endorsed Obama. TRUE and FALSE. True, in the sense that they claim the work they do is a bipartisan effort , and they have worked on both sides of the political aisle, considering John McCain a political ally until the past week or so - remember how he was a keynote speaker at a Florida ACORN rally back in 2006?
False that they never claimed not to endorse a candidate. Even though the work they do is politically neutral, they certainly are free to endorse the candidate who best represents the values of their group.
Here is ACORN's statement on their endorsement of Sen. Obama:
"Because of Obama's record of working for positive change that helps working families, ACORN Votes, a federal PAC made up of ACORN leaders, endorsed Obama's candidacy for President. However, ACORN's successful effort to help 1.3 million people apply to become registered voters was a non-partisan effort to engage underrepresented voters and bring them into our democracy. Our voter registration organizers don't campaign for anyone as we help them complete registration applications."
2. ACORN has received grants from “The Woods Fund” (Obama served on the Board of Directors of).
TRUE. But pretty moot, as this has no reflection on Obama or his campaign.
Let's be clear: First, there's a difference between "voter fraud" and voter REGISTRATION fraud" - the former affects the outcome of elections, the latter is a red tape mess that sways polls and creates headaches, but doesn't affect elections.
Second, please allow me to quote this news article to give you a description of the fraudulent activity being investigated:
"Despite what the McCain campaign and some television reporters are saying, ACORN has not engaged in vote fraud this year, either. Some of its employees seem to have engaged in voter registration fraud, but in this case ACORN is less the villain than the victim, if perhaps a careless victim. In fact, in five states over the last several years, ACORN employees have been found guilty of voter registration fraud. But According to King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg, who prosecuted one of the cases, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of election.”
3. Obama represented ACORN in a suit against Illinois in 1995. TRUE. As ACORN's site describes:
"After law school Obama joined a civil rights law firm in Chicago and was one of the attorneys there who successfully represented a coalition of groups including ACORN in a legal case that won better enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act in Illinois."
4. ACORN has been accused of voter registration fraud...TRUE. By Republicans. Desperate to win an election. Being accused and being guilty are two very different things.
Again, they submitted knowingly false applications for registration (things like Bart Simpson and Harry Potter) because they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so, even in the face of money-grabby employees who tried to scam a quick buck off of ACORN. The problem is, once ACORN realized the employees were taking these names, it would've been fraudulent not to turn them in.
...—registering phony Democrats to undermine this election and currently under investigation. FALSE. Undermine the election? Hardly. They were making an attempt to get more people registered. They were working within the government's guidelines for doing so, and are receiving all this flack because of it. Yes they're under investigation, because Republicans are crying foul. I can also launch an investigation to claim that Sen. McCain took bribes from a "Club a Baby Seal for Jesus" group, and that doesn't mean it's true.
See, here's the problem: Traditionally (and most political analysts on both sides will agree with me here), the more people that vote, the more votes Democrats get. So it's been a regular game every election season: Democrats try to get more voters, Republicans try to suppress voters. The logic, is of course, that a lot of urban lower-income voters (many with lower educations) don't come out to vote. But if they did, they'd vote Democrat. Hence our problem of voter generation vs. suppression.
By the way, Republicans are also under investigation for attempts to suppress voters already this election.
www.freep.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
5. ACORN provides its own oversight and investigations and says it has found itself to be clean. NO ANSWER. Mainly because I don't know what ACORN claims about its own oversight. Did some light digging and didn't find anything. ACORN does provide some oversight for itself, as does the federal government. If anything elicit HAS been going on, then certainly oversight from both ACORN and the government needs to be stepped up.
6. Obama has said once, "I’ve been fighting along side ACORN on issues you care about my entire career…”
TRUE. This quote is accurately attributed to Sen. Obama. As this website (of Obama affiliation) notes:
"In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995."
7. Obama has taught classes for ACORN. TRUE. Although the phrasing here is thick with implications, it's not as nefarious as it sounds. As ACORN's website describes:
"In the early 1990's, Obama accepted two invitations to be an unpaid guest speaker at trainings for volunteer community leaders organized by Chicago ACORN. He never worked for ACORN."
8. Obama campaign funded ACORN with $800K this season. FALSE. Technically, by the letter of the law.
The $800,000 in question was paid to a group called Citizen Services Inc. They are affiliated with ACORN among other groups. As this USA Today article notes:
"Obama's campaign paid Citizens Services Inc., an ACORN affiliate, $832,000 this year for help identifying voters in the Democratic primaries, according to campaign-finance records complied by the non-partisan CQ MoneyLine. ACORN and CSI have gotten more than $375,000 this year from Democratic candidates and liberal political groups, including $200,000 from the Fund for America, founded by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta.
It is not uncommon for campaigns to pay outside groups to help register voters."
9. The 1st Bail-Out bill proposed by Congress and rejected by the Senate included money for ACORN. FALSE. Here's an article everyone should really read describing what happened:
wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...
Don't feel like clicking the link? I'll give you the gist: The money in question was funding for "a provision stating that 20% of the government’s profits from the sale of a troubled asset be deposited, with 65% of the deposit directed to the Housing Trust Fund. The Housing Trust Fund is a federal housing program that provides “funds to state governments for the purpose of building and rehabilitating homes for the very lowest income people in the United States."
As the article above describes:
"...conservatives are completely mischaracterizing this part of the bill. Directing funds to the Housing Trust Fund does not mean that money is being given to ACORN. In fact, state and local governments - not the federal government - choose which organizations receive money from the fund.
Although ACORN could have feasibly received some of those funds, if states had chosen to give it to them, this was not really an ACORN issue. It was a damn shame that this funding was removed. It hurt the lower income people of our country, and we should be ashamed.
10. ACORN claims it has 350K members in 850 neighborhoods, and 100 cities in US and some foreign countries. FALSE. You're off by just a little.
According to its own website: "ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country....Each of the 1,200 local ACORN neighborhood chapters in 110 cities and 40 states brings neighbors together to work for stronger, safer and more just communities."
So to be fair and symmetrical are you gonna talk about differences? Or is there a political agenda to this?
The problem with comparing Bush and Obama at this stage is that we have 8 years of Bush presidency - which is over, so we're looking at it in its entirety - and we're comparing that to 7 MONTHS of Obama's presidency - which has over 3/4 of it remaining, at least. What kind of a fair comparison is that?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can't believe so many people who profess to be critical thinkers are taking this as a reasonable comparison... It's apples to oranges at this point.