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.

 

President Obama Insults Americans for Prosperity’s 1.2 Million Activists in Fund Raising Speech

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates all across the country. And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don't know if it’s a big oil company, or a big bank. You don't know if it’s a insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it’s good for their bottom line, even if it’s not good for the American people.




How funny. Everything he just said right there applies to our politicians too. We dont know if they work for the oil companies, the big banks, insurance companies, or all of the above. But we can be pretty sure if politicians of either party want it, its not good for the American people.

What weird double talk. Kinda creepy really. He is turning around who our government caters too and trying to make us suspicious of our fellow Americans trying to win our country back from these groups.

Even this part totally applies to our "leaders,"



They don't want you to know who the Americans for Prosperity are, because they're thinking about the next election. But we’ve got to think about future generations. We’ve got to make sure that we’re fighting for reform. We’ve got to make sure that we don't have a corporate takeover of our democracy.

www.whitehouse.gov...

What he is really DOING is making sure we DO have a corporate takeover of our democracy. But not just him. If you are a Republican, sorry, but they are just the same. Both parties are pushing for a corporate takeover, even if they do use different language and tactics to achieve it.

Really, really freaky speech. It gives me the chills for some reason. Its the closest thing to honesty I have heard from a politician in a long time, even though he is accusing others of doing what the two parties are in fact doing.

Good post. Very enlightening.


Edit to add;

I wish I could put my finger on it, but there is something really odd about this. I wonder if he is trying to clue us in in a sneaky way?

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
they only thing i can say about the political process is

ITS like two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner

obama is the front man
hes not the one making decitions he is the distraction to keep you looking at skin colour

im in new zealand and i can say that the fact that he is black is deviding the people between black and white

what he says is deviding people into black and white

i can say what i like because i have a black dad and white mother
just like obama

XPLodER

but you cant if your black or white because then it would be racist

lol



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Democrats were funded massively by Wall Street for the November 2008 election.

Now the tide has just turned recently...

It was in the news a few days ago.

Two Thirds Of Wall Street Donations Now Go To Republicans As Democrats Get Least Contributions Since May 2008


According to the most recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street has completely given up on Democrats, even as contributions to Republicans have surged to a near multi-year record, or 68% of total. After donations hit parity in December 2009, following a gradual decline from a record Democrat preference in March of 2009,

Democrats were funded way more than republicans for that election.

So we could say that Obama was elected by Wall Street. Now the republicans are again being more funded by Wall Street.

Bottom line both parties are sold out and don't work for the american people.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
And just who was it that said "we'll have to pass healthcare reform so you can see what's in the bill"? Pelosi.

And you don't think that's rushing it through?


The reason she said that was because right wing nutcases were making s#t up about what was in the bill that was never actually in the bill. Once it's passed, you can't 'add' anything that's not in the bill.

It took so long to get that bill through that everyone and their grandmother was speculating on what was or wasn't in the bill. Pelosi was right, it wasn't a 'gotcha' moment or some gaffe. They needed to pass the bill so the BS speculation on the right could stop.

reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I've often wondered if these Wall St. corporations and oil companies dumped so much money into the democratic party thinking they could just buy them off...only to have them propose and enact legislation that castrates them.

That's why all their money is going to the other side, because when you buy off a republican, they STAY bought off!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


You mean like the death panels?
Or the cost?
Or the financial components?
Or what Dingel stated about, it is all about CONTROL?

No, nothing bad in that unConstitutional behemoth whatsoever?!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   


The reason she said that was because right wing nutcases were making s#t up about what was in the bill that was never actually in the bill. Once it's passed, you can't 'add' anything that's not in the bill.

It took so long to get that bill through that everyone and their grandmother was speculating on what was or wasn't in the bill. Pelosi was right, it wasn't a 'gotcha' moment or some gaffe. They needed to pass the bill so the BS speculation on the right could stop.



The main problem with this statement is that speculation was all that was getting out at the time. At no time was the bill made available to the public for scrutiny or to the media who were begging for something other than vague assurances that what the political opposition was saying wasn't true. The fact that this bill went through so fast was the problem with this bill. It didn't take very long at all to get passed from the time it was written.

Most bills take years to actually get passed. There is a long process of scrutiny, revision, more scrutiny, debate, more revisions, etc. This bill was pass with little or no scrutiny and very little debate. It was debated in the public forum of the media but not on the floor of congress. It was passed by a majority of one party with no help from their opposition at all.


Part of this whole process was the attacks by political personalities against corporate interests that would be effected by this bill. In some cases, outright lies were told and, if it were done in any other forum, lawsuits would have been filed. The restriction on corporate advertising (not direct funding) concerning political candidates gives those corporations a means to fight back against the slander that was perpetrated on them over the past years.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tyrannyispeace
reply to post by links234
 


You mean like the death panels?


Good place to start.

Yes, the right wing had to make up crap like death panels. Good examples.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by soontide
 


You could always try govtrack.us, opencongress.org or thomas.loc.gov to read a bill. The idea that the bill 'was never available' is complete BS.

Various bills were introduced throughout 2009, only one was signed into law in 2010. In essence, the healthcare debate started in July of last year and ended in March of this year. Eight months of debate is plenty more than was needed.

Can you tell me which bills 'take years' to get through? I understand the concept of a failed bill in one congress only to have to be reintroduced in the next congress...if you want to make that argument I could say the healthcare bill was 50 years in the making, once again, plenty of time.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 




The reason she said that was because right wing nutcases were making s#t up about what was in the bill that was never actually in the bill. Once it's passed, you can't 'add' anything that's not in the bill.

It took so long to get that bill through that everyone and their grandmother was speculating on what was or wasn't in the bill. Pelosi was right, it wasn't a 'gotcha' moment or some gaffe. They needed to pass the bill so the BS speculation on the right could stop.


Nice revisionist reporting. People have forgotten how the Republicans were locked out of meetings on the bill. Pelosi and Reid refused to allow them to see what was in the bill. The Republicans had no other alternative but to stall the process whenever possible. The Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves, and the voters will remember that in November.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


I feel that what he say's makes sense. These groups should be transparent, and shouldn't be allowed to use their buying power to influence elections.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
just more double speak from Obama. Once again, his words don't align with his own actions or the actions of those around him. He is very good at assuming that the majority of us have a short memory capacity.

just look deeply into all of the organizations that got him elected and into those that currently support him. We all know about his deep seeded affinity for ACORN and SEIU and their undying support for him.

Obama needs to be mindful of the old adage regarding finger pointing. A President and a Leader should rise above the games that Obama is constantly playing. The amateur once again indicates that he is not ready for prime time.

Big money is backing all of these groups regardless of what side of aisle you sit on. Obama should quit with naivete



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
He's just asking that people disclose their true background...doesn't sound unreasonable at all. Just look at the donors of a few of those "groups" and you'll find a lot of "questionable" sources. A lot of those movements are sponsored by the oil/pharma/tobacco industry. Why??? Simple really, they don't want anyone control and regulate them because that won't allow them to take advantage of citizens anymore.

The sad part is, a lot of people who want a "smaller government" join those groups hoping to make government smaller where it counts. However, the people who truly control those groups are often only in it to push for things that benefit their companies. Yet people continue to follow like little sheep just because of a few wanna-be patriotic "they are raping the constitution", "our founding fathers would disagree", "socialism and communism...run for your liiiiives" slogans.

To the people who think he offended anyone: ARE YOU REALLY FOR LESS TRANSPARENCY?? Because that's all Obama's asking for. Makes me wonder how partisan you guys are if you spit on transparency...something that should be dear to all us ATS guys.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




He's just asking that people disclose their true background...doesn't sound unreasonable at all.


Ok. Sounds reasonable.

Hey Obama, can you please show us your birth certificate? No? Well then, how about your academic records from your post-high school years?

No again?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Ok. Sounds reasonable.

Hey Obama, can you please show us your birth certificate? No?


His birth certificate is all over the web and ATS alike. Need a link?


Well then, how about your academic records from your post-high school years?

No again?


What do you feel you can learn from his school records that would be relevant to anything at all? Would they explain who funds what?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




He's just asking that people disclose their true background...doesn't sound unreasonable at all.


Ok. Sounds reasonable.

Hey Obama, can you please show us your birth certificate? No? Well then, how about your academic records from your post-high school years?

No again?


That info's available...do you really need a link to the certificate? You birthers are always making me laugh


There's a lot of things you can criticize Obama for...him asking for MORE TRANSPARENCY certainly isn't one of them. Try better next time


Btw, Americans for Prosperity are heavily supported by energy companies such as Koch, the largest privately owned energy company in the US. I wonder why they push against climate and environmental legislation so hard under the disguise of "freedom". That's just one donor company, most others aren't even disclosed!! Sure, they'll act in the "best interest of the people".


[edit on 12-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
thats just the pot calling the kettle black.


wait, was that racist because its about Obama?/



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Sounds like he was making a pretty damn good point to me. Corporations like this can spend unlimited amounts of money now to flood the airwaves. The average American doesn't have a chance at being heard.


Funny, I think the same things when I see politicians campaigning.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas

Once again, Obama's paranoia and insecurity are publicly exposed. He has often attacked and insulted private citizens and organizations that do not agree with his pov. This time, he openly attacks and insults the grassroots organization Americans For Prosperity, during a fundraiser in Texas.



Grassroots, huh?

Not really.

www.desmogblog.com...


AFP, and its former incarnation the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, are the third largest recipient of funding from the Koch Family of Foundations, which is run by the ultra-conservative oil baron Charles G. Koch. The Koch Family of Foundations has been a major funding source for many of the think tanks that are in the business of delaying action on climate change issues.


I'd say "Nice try," but it only took a few seconds on Google and your central premise is debunked.


AFP is a non-profit organization who does not to disclose its donors. However, the Media Transparency project shows from 2003-2006, Americans for Prosperity received $1,181,000 from conservative foundations. $1 million of that funding was given by the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation--one of the Koch Family Foundations.

The AFP is the third largest recipient of funding from the Koch Family Foundations, behind the Cato Institute and the George Mason University Foundation.

Before 2003, when the AFP was still named the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, it received $18,460,912 in funding. 84% of that funding came from the Koch Family Foundations ($12,906,712) and the Scaife Family Foundations ($2,510,000).


When the vast majority of funding comes from one source - and a source that has a vested interest in opposing certain legislation - it's not "grassroots" by any stretch.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by links234


The reason she said that was because right wing nutcases were making s#t up about what was in the bill that was never actually in the bill. Once it's passed, you can't 'add' anything that's not in the bill.

It took so long to get that bill through that everyone and their grandmother was speculating on what was or wasn't in the bill. Pelosi was right, it wasn't a 'gotcha' moment or some gaffe. They needed to pass the bill so the BS speculation on the right could stop.


Nice revisionist reporting. People have forgotten how the Republicans were locked out of meetings on the bill. Pelosi and Reid refused to allow them to see what was in the bill.


So, you're admitting that the GOP was just making up what was in the bill, then? If they were "locked out' and not "allowed to see" the bill, then how could they keep telling us what was in it?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae
What do you feel you can learn from his school records that would be relevant to anything at all? Would they explain who funds what?


What could you learn from his school records? Alot, you could whats going on with his thinking/ his mind set. Don't you find it odd that he would order his collage transcripts sealed? Why?




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join