Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Straight from "Idiocy: -Obama Considering Corporate Sponsorship of 2nd Inauguration

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Or outright ban it like Obama ?


Did he?

He didn't use the option during his first inauguration, but did he say he was against the use of corporate sponsorship for inaugurations in general and that he would never use them?

I honestly want to know, because I am not understanding how this 'allegation' of him 'considering' using this option is some sort of big deal.

He wouldn't be the first and won't be the last.

This just seems like a blind attempt to attack Obama over nothing, and it comes across pretty transparent.

There isn't even any proof that he will do this...just an 'allegation of consideration'?

What?

- Lee




posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


goggle this "obama bans corporate donations 2008"

plenty of articles new and old.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by lee anoma
 


goggle this "obama bans corporate donations 2008"
plenty of articles new and old.


Yes I already did, but those articles don't say what is being claimed.

From what I've read he didn't ban corporate donations permanently.
That's why I am asking for something saying that he did.

From what I've found:


...Obama vowed during his 2008 campaign that if he won the White House, the next convention would be, if not an all-volunteer effort, at least less of a corporate show. HuffPost



WASHINGTON — As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama vowed to squelch the role of special interests in financing the party conventions — so he barred corporations and lobbyists from contributing money to this year's national convention in Charlotte, N.C. LA TIMES



For the first time, the Democratic National Convention will not accept donations from corporations, PACs or federal lobbyists in 2012.

Democrats say the policy is in keeping with the fundraising focus that powered President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.

“From the very beginning, President Obama has placed a high priority on increasing the influence of grass-roots and individual donors, and this convention will go further in that direction than any convention ever,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse said.

“We will finance this convention differently than it’s been done in the past, and we will make sure everyone feels closely tied in to what is happening in Charlotte,” Obama wrote in announcing the site of the convention Tuesday. Politico


That was regarding the democratic national convention only, not anything else. This was done to include and focus on the grass roots and individual donor influence.

When and where did he say that he would never accept any sort of corporate sponsorship ever again? As in a permanent ban? I am asking for specific information related to this topic and the claims being made that he banned all corporate sponsorship all together.

Honestly that seems a bit unusual and very unrealistic.
I don't believe he did that.

- Lee



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
All caps ? it's not such a big deal, either you will as a taxpayer foot the bill or either a private individual sponsor, now tacking on corporate sponsors officially, I bet that truly in the background this has really happened before in most inaugurations this should be no huge surprise.

How do you think corporate lobbying, corporate influence plays in the world of elections and politics already?

Pomp and circumstance is what I call it, and everyone wants a piece of it, nothing more nothing less, capitalism coupled with good ol patriotism at it's best.




posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
You know...in this time of national struggle and financial challenge ...to put it kindly... He could seize the moment as a leadership example and either skip the party entirely or have an austere one.


Ditto that! I agree. It's a second term. It's not like it's the first one with a big party. Just continue on and skip the expense. Put his hand on 'the book' and say the words and be done. But of course .. he's Hollywood-DC ... and they'll want their self indulgent parties .... (I'm sure a republican would do the same thing in his shoes).

But I agree with Wrabbit2000 ... skip the parties and just get to work.
The country is in a mess ...



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Gotta love Breitbarts - it's such a gossip rag.


"Report suggest"....Obama is "considering"... sounds just like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie may be having domestic disputes, confides a "source close to the couple"



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Gotta love the reaction from FOXites and ##snipped## Please re-read history from different sources, compare and contrast bills he sponsored as a Senator, policy he has signed off on or suggested... look at the trade deals he's going after, then ask yourself how anyone could ever have thought the man was a Socialist or Communist. He's a 'Capitalist' wet dream.
edit on Sun Nov 25 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Hell the wealthy and the big corporations bought and paid for the election, why not the inauguration?

It's their Broadway show now, let them foot the bill.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by phinubian
All caps ? it's not such a big deal...


Copied and pasted directly from the headline. Realized later it was all caps.
Somebody fix it, though.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I have officially seen the worst whining, and subsequent epitome of mental illness in this thread; and the award goes to Neo.

In a thread which links a right wing article, stating that Obama has considered using a corporate sponsor for his innauguration, Neo has decided to explain to us that a low turnout for the innauguration will directly implicate Obama for having stole the elction.

I have really seen it all now.
Some people cannot accept that the country doesn't think like they do. In some people's minds, the only way Obama won is due to cheating. It couldn't possibly be that most Americans do not pledge their loyalty to un unelected official in Grover whateverhisname is. It couldn't possibly be that Americans are tired of thousands dying in wars, wealthy tax breaks which do nothing for the economy, and outsourcing to a ludicrous degree.

It must be cheating and Obamaphones.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


I only have a couple of serious problems with this article. Everyone knows it comes from breitbart.com, right?
I had to stop and laugh at the first sentance.
Reports suggest Barack Obama is considering...
I have yet to see any articles that didn't slant at least the headlines to make derogatory put downs of the left:
Black Leaders to Obama: You Owe Us
Rahm Emanuel to America: Do It the Chicago Way
Report: O Uses 'Green Energy' Loans to Kick Money to Donors
Does Susan Rice Lack Important Leadership Skills?
Then there is the headers suggesting left wing accusations under them:
Big Hollywood
Big Government
Obama in 2008 was the first President that drew more money from single contributions from voters than corporations. That should stand for something right there.
After the last two elections I love to remind my conservative friends of their "predictions" of what Obama "is/was" going to do and how absurd they were. Guns, anyone on the right???
All you conservatives here posting about this Breit Bart article, I suggest you consider breitbart.com might be weaving a reality that isn't there. Kind of like the reality bubble proven wrong by the election.
Possibly the first step to the world of 'Idiocracy" is beleiving a reality that can't be substained by these kind of websites/"news shows"/magazines/Karl Rove??



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
What was that about corporations are evil, but not if they give him money!!!

Obama has never said anything about corporations are evil.....
that was us on this website who think that, and we said it not out of support of Obama(because it is obvious he's bought out by the corporations too), but opposition to Romney.
Republicans also said it to smear Obama's name, but he never said anything indicating corporations are evil....
you really shouldn't fall for the narrative Fox News tells you.....



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
You know...in this time of national struggle and financial challenge ...to put it kindly... He could seize the moment as a leadership example and either skip the party entirely or have an austere one. He earned a big one in 2008. Some firsts were made and hope was high for major changes. This is a mid term 8 year President now though. Perhaps it's a great time to tone down the lavish spending on grand displays. It would set an example to be followed and one to lead from. Just my thoughts.



Never gonna happen, he and michael love being the center of attention to cut back now.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
He's a 'Capitalist' wet dream.


Fascist, not Capitalist. Capitalists hate him. And you know it, because you've said as much before.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did use the funds of his Corporatist buddies for his coronation...er...sorry...inauguration. He doesn't have anything to lose since this is his final term.

/TOA



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
It couldn't possibly be that Americans are tired of thousands dying in wars,


You really didn't just leave us that opening, did you?

Tired of thousands dying in wars? Really? More have died in Obama's wars than ever died in Bush's, genius. And Obama has four more years left to murder people.

/TOA



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


I used 'Capitalist' for a reason. The current American Right has no clue on isms. Capitalism creeps toward Fascism more and more every day, that includes Obama and the rest of the Democrats, the only thing that makes them the lesser evil are social issues. 'Capitalism' will continue to have it's way with DC, with little exception.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   


Corporations are people, my friend.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I miss the good ol' days when the corrupt people in charge used to hide the fact that they're making bank by being "public servants". Now it seems to be in plain sight with zero effort put in to hide it. The Bush Jr administration all being board members of various corporations that got rich from war. Obama having the CEO of GE on a White House committee, while GE gets away with paying no taxes on multi-billion dollar American profits, then being handed billions of tax-payer dollars on top of it. Obama buying a new 8 figure home on the beaches of Hawaii, while the salary for president is 6 figures (don't tell me the rest of this money came from his book lol).

The next logical step is to accept sponsors publicly. They don't hide what they're doing anymore, the public is hung up on minor push-button issues, and it's big business all around.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Really want to see just how many people show up to his inauguration cause if the numbers are low that would be a tell tale sign of election stealing considering "his low" rally attendance.,

And

What was that about corporations are evil, but not if they give him money!!!

hypocrites.


Yah but they are notorious for paying people to attend stuff.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by lee anoma
 


goggle this "obama bans corporate donations 2008"

plenty of articles new and old.



Hey I'm wondering if the old Communist Pete Seeger's attendance at the 08 inauguration was a "donation". It certainly was "Classless"






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join