It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Campaign Bought the Google Search for Goldman Sachs SEC!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The sponsor ad has definitely been pulled..

I did come across a tech blog that has fairly unbiased reporting and a screenshot of what is being discussed in this thread:

www.cite-technologian.com...




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
The sponsor ad has definitely been pulled..

I did come across a tech blog that has fairly unbiased reporting and a screenshot of what is being discussed in this thread:

www.cite-technologian.com...


Any Blog that directs you to a Rush Limbaugh video to explain things is anything BUT "unbiased reporting"...Seriously...

[edit on 20-4-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Didn't catch the video because I have Flash blocked. But everything preceding it seemed pretty even handed. .

At least someone finally produced a screenshot. That should have been done from the get go. . I personally don't see what's wrong with buying ad space. I am sure Goldman Sachs' PR machine is throwing unbelievable amounts of money into this issue.

Welcome to modern politics..

[edit on 4/20/2010 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
For fun, I just Googled "financial reform" and guess what? The main sponsored page is: www.stopthecfpa.com... At the bottom of the website the sponsor is listed. . The US Chamber of Commerce of Which Goldman Sachs is a member. .
www.uschamber.com...

Who just flew in a bunch of bank executives to Washington?
www.uschamber.com...

This will be a big fight. It looks like Obama will be playing on their terms.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
I just looked again at the website that is mentioned in the OP. On the first page at the bottom, it states:

PAID FOR BY ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA. A PROJECT OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE - 430 S. CAPITOL STREET SE. WASHINGTON DC 20003. THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE.


Funny, some of us attempt our due diligence BEFORE we make a thread, not just because we get all Barney Fifed from a neocon website.

THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE You just pwnd yourself.






[edit on 20-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 




At least someone finally produced a screenshot. That should have been done from the get go. .


You're absolutely right. I need to brush up on my skills in that area. That's why in the OP, I presented what was on the screen thusly:

Help Change Wall Street
www.BarackObama.com It's Time for Financial Reform that Protects Main Street. Act Now!


..which you will notice are exactly the wordage in the screen shot you cited.

Luckily, there are many copies of the screenshot floating around. And the website you are directed to is OFA.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


I intentionally let this slide earlier, from you:


Someone is lying!


when you presented a screenshot that was way after OFA had pulled their ad...

But if you believe a standard disclaimer absolves Obama et al from all prior knowledge or complicity, then you are more naive than I thought.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
But if you believe a standard disclaimer absolves Obama et al from all prior knowledge or complicity, then you are more naive than I thought.


Naive is when you wake up one morning and realize that you were so committed to everything Anti-Obama and so invested in the team you chose in an orchestrated "culture war" that you actually are defending the rights of folks like Goldman Sachs to repeat the criminal practices that contributed to our near economic collapse.

This is "No REFORM!"..."Hell no!"...this is "micro-chips" and "death panels" with a Wall Street flavor.

Ask yourself this...assume everything in the Op is true? Who cares?

Organizing For America (President Obamas former campaign org) uses the internet to promote causes? This is new? Unusual?

What it is is just another GOP bullet point...a distraction without any substance to discuss....fodder for Rush's ratings...it is empty air..

Personally I am happy to see the GOP and it's machinery wed itself to blockading reform of the financial institutions that contributed to our near economic collapse.

Believeing they will be able to BS the public into defending those banks and wall street...now that is "naive"

Lets see how that works out for them and thier predicted landslide in November.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Am I completely missing something here? What's the big deal??

This is some supposed scandal over a Google adwords campaign? Do we all understand what a Google adwords campaign is, or what basic internet marketing is?

The sponsored links are courtesy of Google's adwords system, which is set up very much like an auction house where entities can "bid" on preferred placement by setting a pay-per-click cost and defining specific keywords (like goldman sachs sec).

It takes literally 15 minutes to do this, and then about another 10 minutes for the ads to begin appearing in Google, the SEC has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Once again, another right-wing, anonymous blog that plays off of people's complete ignorance of how a system works to perpetuate a complete falsehood. Obama, Republicans, Sarah Palin, martians, anybody can bid on sponsored link spots as long as they are willing to pay the pay-per-click cost of the spot.

BTW, the ad reappears in search results now. It probably wasn't "taken off" by OFA, the search probably became so popular it bumped up the auction price and exceeded the daily budget OFA set.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 



Originally posted by mishigas
But if you believe a standard disclaimer absolves Obama et al from all prior knowledge or complicity, then you are more naive than I thought.



Naive is when you wake up one morning and realize that you were so committed to everything Anti-Obama and so invested in the team you chose in an orchestrated "culture war" that you actually are defending the rights of folks like Goldman Sachs to repeat the criminal practices that contributed to our near economic collapse.


Oh my dear. You are so misguided that I don't know where to begin.

Back away from your partisanship, put down your Obama pom poms, and try to see the big picture.

The suit against G-S by the SEC, if true, (and I wouldn't be surprised if it were), is only one little deal that cost investors about $1billion in a market collapse that cost the world tens of $trillions.

The bigger picture that you fail to see was that it was over-regulation, i.e., telling banks that they had to loan money to unqualified borrowers, all in the name of "social justice and equallity", that caused all this misery. And that fart in the elevator was pushed and supported by Clinton, Frank, Dodd, Raines, Gorelick and others.

Where was the SEC during all of that?

And why G-S? Because a major financial crap-storm is about to hit, and Obama is positioning himself to be a winner. Not only a winner, a CHAMPION! The man who came to our rescue!

In the end, you'll be conned into paying for it all and the gubmint will have greater control of our economy and society. Much as they have been able to do with the auto industry and health care.

The point of the OP was to illustrate that there is collusion between the SEC and the current administration to politicize the lawsuit so that Obama looks good.

See, there is too much 'coincidence' here. The White House and the NYT knew of the suit before G-S was even served. It happened to be served at the opportune time that G-S dished out it's latest round of bonuses. And Obama et al (OFA) was able to pull a trick in respect to Google. All designed to manipulate public perspective.

So please, look at the bigger picture before you jump.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Back away from your partisanship, put down your Obama pom poms, and try to see the big picture.


Off to a very nice start. A plea for non partisanship. Nice.
Steady as she goes.



The bigger picture that you fail to see was that it was over-regulation, i.e., telling banks that they had to loan money to unqualified borrowers, all in the name of "social justice and equallity", that caused all this misery.
Careful now, easy, easy.



And that fart in the elevator was pushed and supported by Clinton, Frank, Dodd, Raines, Gorelick and others.


LOOK OUTTTT!!!! BOOOOOM!
Oooopppppsss, looks like you crashed into a big honking partisanship tree.


I would say there was plenty of culpability on the part of the Bush Administration seeing how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were part of HIS agenda.


The Bush Administration's 2003 housing budget proposal will fuel the strong and steadily growing housing market, and advance President George W. Bush's priority of economic security, Fannie Mae's Chairman and CEO, Franklin

SOURCE

Fannie Mae Pledges Continued Support for President Bush's Nationwide Effort to Increase Minority Homeownership



SOURCE

Bush signs housing bill as Fannie Mae grows


SOURCE

You were saying something about an odor in an elevator? Going down?



[edit on 20-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 







You were saying something about an odor in an elevator?


There is a huge difference between providing a


$300 billion government initiative to refinance troubled mortgages


budget item,
and creating a structure that forces banks to loan to unqualified borrowers ( subprime mortgage fiasco ).

Two different birds, which you fail to see in your zeal to tie Bush into this somehow....

And btw, did you know who Raines is/was? I mean his personal involvement in this, not his role at FNMA?

And did you realize he walked away with $90 million from his time with FNMA?

Perhaps you learn better with visual aids...



[edit on 20-4-2010 by mishigas]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Look, it is obvious you have it in for the Democratic party and think they alone were solely responsible for the ensuing housing crisis. There is PLENTY of blame to go around, but I can't stand idly by while you attempt to rewrite history.

I'll stick with FACTS rather than edited, juxtaposed YouTube clips if thats all right by youski.

Study: Bush administration blocked efforts to prevent housing crisis

SOURCE

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


SOURCE






[edit on 20-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



You don't even fully read these "sources" you're putting out there, do you? Otherwise you'd see that you're making a fool out of your case.

The crisis didn't happen overnight. It took the seeds planted by Clinton et al to blossom into the nightmare that occurred. Bush was quoted as saying this in 2002. Notice I said 2002. Bush couldn't possibly have done it - he had spent all his time since being elected preparing to knock down the Twin Towers, right?


(That last was sarcasm, btw... )


Mr. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.

“How,” he wondered aloud, “did we get here?”


It's from your own source...I'll let you figure out which one.

I'd rather not discuss it with you, anyway. Most people accept the fact that the 1990's came *before* the year 2000. You're among the few holdouts that believe otherwise. I'll give you credit - you're set in your beliefs, but I can't waste any more time on this.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Yeah right, you are backing down because you have no further valid argument.
I'll leave you with another quote from your hero:


Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of homeownership, Mr. Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, “faced with the prospect of a global meltdown” with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.


P.S. I read each source before posting and I try to choose diversity. They ALL back my claims. Cut and run.........figures.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

GOOGLE DOESN'T SELL THOSE "SPONSORED LINKS" OR THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO APPEAR ON SEARCH RESULTS.




....actually I just watched a documentary on Google (really) and they do indeed sell their advertising. (just google adwords, pay per click advertisements, or placement (site) targeted advertisements and read how it works)

Not taking sides on this one, just saying. Carry on......



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by glad_to_be_His

Originally posted by maybereal11

GOOGLE DOESN'T SELL THOSE "SPONSORED LINKS" OR THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO APPEAR ON SEARCH RESULTS.




....actually I just watched a documentary on Google (really) and they do indeed sell their advertising. (just google adwords, pay per click advertisements, or placement (site) targeted advertisements and read how it works)

Not taking sides on this one, just saying. Carry on......




Got any? Just sayin........



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


It was about darn time . . ..

Or, some people forgot that the reason for the market collapse was due to the fact that the SEC was whoring themselves to private interest pimps forgetting their reason for their existence to protect the markets and the consumer.

Well is time that they start working for the ones that pays their salaries the tax payer.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


I didn't realize I needed "proof" when I suggested the actual terms so they could be looked up by anyone if desired. I didn't know adwords was in dispute. Thanks for the kind reminder though.

Is a link enough or do I have to post a screenshot?

www.google.com...

www.google.com... ogle.com%2Fum%2Fgaiaauth%3Fapt%3DNone%26ugl%3Dtrue&sourceid=awo&subid=ww-en-et-ads-MD-tabs_title&gsessionid=Rud8M7eitwVedBXPEn7-Lg



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas

The bigger picture that you fail to see was that it was over-regulation...

In the end, you'll be conned into paying for it all and the gubmint will have greater control of our economy and society.


And here we have it concisely summerized. The BS the GOP is trying to sell.

Over regulation was as much responsible fro the housing crisis as speed limits are responsible for speeding.

There are many parties to blame for the crisis Dem and Rep. alike...but Over-Regulation was nowhere to be found, just the opposite.

Was G-S responsible for the crisis? No, but they contributed to it and did so in a criminal fashion. They weren't the only one and there are more investment banks that should expect charges.

Paulson & Co. (Not Henry Paulson) came to G-S and said I think that the market is going to collapse, these CDOs (Mortgage backed securities) are collateralized by folks who can't pay thier mortgage.

G-S said OK...lets bet on a collapse...and lets do our part to make it happen. They ask Paulson and Co. to rake over all the CDOs and gather the ones most likely to go bad...and G-S makes a "Synthetic" security from those soon to collapse mortgages...and then sells them to other banks and investors without ever telling them that the securities were assembled with the expectation and intent to fail. Spread the disease...then bet on failure. It was disgusting.

the bad mortgages were driven in a large part by investment banks thirst for the bundled mortgages (CDOs)...the brokers giving the bad loans made gobs of money issuing bad loans because the big investment banks buying them didn't seem to care the loans weren't vetted...why didn't those big banks care? See above. Many of the biggest players were betting on failure and doing there part to make it happen.




Fabrice Pierre Tourre, the 31-year-old French trader accused by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday of misleading investors in selling securities linked to mortgages, saw the wreckage coming early on.

“The whole building is about to collapse anytime now,” Tourre, an executive director at Goldman Sachs in London, wrote to a friend in a January 2007 e-mail, according to the SEC’s complaint. “Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab... standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstruosities!!!”

www.businessweek.com...



Originally posted by mishigas

In the end, you'll be conned into paying for it all and the gubmint will have greater control of our economy and society.


The bill currently in consideration OUTLAWS, FORBIDS, BANS future tax-payer funded bailouts. It requires banks that engage in risky practices to pay into a fund out of thier own pockets and that fund will be used to close those banks in a structured fashion rather than outright collapse if they fail.

Keep on keepin on with the BS though...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join