The Best Government Money Can Buy

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

Methinks someone bought themselves a presidency.....congrats to China, UAE, Russia, and Saudi Arabia on the election of your new American President.

Quote:

The Obama campaign received a substantial amount of money from countries that have an interest in seeing a weak American President: $366,708.22 from China; $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates; $7,062.60 from Russia; and $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia. Obama also took in $6,350.00 from Indonesia; $5,000.00 from Kenya; and $1,750.00 from Egypt.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... z0e11qNfb0

sparks · **Joined:** Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm **Posts:** 3800

sparks wrote:

Moby Grape wrote:

sparks wrote:

You cower behind your screen names like frightened little girls and post pictures of guns to try to intimidate others. You're both a couple of tools!

hey sparks!....since you seem to be an expert in this area,...and I say expert because you seem to address the issue each and every time you post here that maybe you can help me to figure out remembering the SCREEN NAME of a poster on the old Times board who got upset as hell about his name being posted on that forum.

you must have certainly locked horns with this guy seeing how emotional you are about the matter...

Perhaps a little background will jog your memory and you might remember him...a big whining loser who, during some stupid argument had his personal info let out of the bag for everyone else to see...as I recall, he was a big know it all blowhard who threatened everyone who disagreed with him with legal action all the time. It was during the course of an argument that someone posted his name without his consent...and boy was he pissed off big time about it...

Anyways...right after it happened, this big whining loser popped up all over that board trying to out everyone else...didn't matter who... He whined to the administrator of that board, he whined to the Times, he whined to anyone that would bother to listen...since his name was divulged he started demanding NEW rules be established stating if anyone broke the rules their personal information would automatically be made public....even for the smallest of infractions...he basically felt he was no longer on an even playing field with the rest of the board and it seemed he was going to get even with everyone else.

the administrator there pretty much told him to take a hike....that the confidentiality of personal information of the members was sacred.

Do you recall the SCREEN NAME of that guy?

Hey I have an idea!....maybe you can teach losers like that a lesson and post a link to the thread and the historic moment where you proudly stood up and provided your personal information for the whole world to see for the very first time!

I know you've been asked for it before but now is maybe the time...perhaps seeing that post will encourage others to do the same...

People are waiting....

I mean you don't want people to think you're just like that guy at the Times board do ya?...and that you're just pretending that you posted your name for all to see?

Say it ain't so sparks...say it ain't so!

Hey loser, none of your post is accurate at all. No one ever revealed my name on the Times board. One disgruntled member of Team Slumlord went to the Times and whined about a post I made and "Sparks" was banned. BFD. I then started posting under my own name.One thing has remained constant over the years and that is the fact that you act like a whiny little girl who cowers in fear behind a screen name.

Moby did the smart thing by and STFU after being confronted with the truth.

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

I'm sure hatemonger540 doesn't appreciate fatboy trolling his thread.

But you have to admit, it's typical.

Hey splorks, you seemed to have missed the FACT that your false Messiah is bought and paid for by FOREIGN interests......how do you like being confronted with THAT truth? :smt006

USMarine wrote:

Methinks someone bought themselves a presidency.....congrats to China, UAE, Russia, and Saudi Arabia on the election of your new American President.

Quote:

The Obama campaign received a substantial amount of money from countries that have an interest in seeing a weak American President: $366,708.22 from China; $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates; $7,062.60 from Russia; and $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia. Obama also took in $6,350.00 from Indonesia; $5,000.00 from Kenya; and $1,750.00 from Egypt.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... z0e11qNfb0

Freedom Fighter · **Joined:** Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:13 am **Posts:** 475

Marine, may I add that this is also a flagrant violation of law to accept contributions from foreign entities for a campaign.

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

sparks wrote:

Hey loser, none of your post is accurate at all. No one ever revealed my name on the Times board. One disgruntled member of Team Slumlord went to the Times and whined about a post I made and "Sparks" was banned. BFD. I then started posting under my own name.One thing has remained constant over the years and that is the fact that you act like a whiny little girl who cowers in fear behind a screen name.

Moby did the smart thing by and STFU after being confronted with the truth.[/quote]

I did?

You need to reread my post....who said I was talking about you?

I asked if you rememebred someone...

get a grip pal....you're paranoid or something

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Freedom Fighter wrote:

Marine, may I add that this is also a flagrant violation of law to accept contributions from foreign entities for a campaign.

You may & should also add that the the nonsense in "Newsbusters is all bullshit.
It's really a shame & no surprise conservative gullible morons can't factcheck anything.

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

It's really too bad that hatemonger540 has no clue what the Supreme Court ruling was about but it's pretty clear that mattlap the democrat must have done some research and found out because he dropped his nonsensical bullshit about foreign companies deciding our elections.

Now if he would just send a love note to hatemonger540 explaining the FACTS about the ruling we can lay this thread to rest.... :smt007

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

edge540 wrote:

The Roberts court just legalized political corruption

Quote:

January 22, 2010
The Courtâ€™s Blow to Democracy

As a result of Thursdayâ€™s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: Weâ€™ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8166&p=103582&hilit=lobbyists#p103582

[color=#000000]and guess who took advantage of it edge?....

didn't this idiot campaign on a promise of NO LOBBYISTS?

Quote:

White House officials caught out with lobbyists
Telegraph, by Raf Sanchez

The White House was accused of breaking its own transparency rules after it emerged that senior officials went to elaborate lengths to conceal back-channel discussions with lobbyists.

Aides to President Barack Obama used personal email accounts to contact pharmaceutical companies and deliberately scheduled meetings in coffee shops away from the White House in order to skirt disclosure rules, according to a Congressional report on Wednesday.

Among the most damaging findings are emails from Jim Messina â€“ the former White House deputy chief of staff who now manages the president's re-election campaign â€“ to a drugs lobbyist in the days before Mr Obama's health care reforms passed Congress in 2010.

In an email from his personal account, Mr Messina promised "I will roll [Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi] for the 4 billion" needed to fund expansion of health care coverage. Mr Messina also promised the lobbyist he would deal with a reporter who had been questioning the White House's links with the pharmaceutical industry.

The report by the Republican-controlled oversight and investigations sub-committee also contained details of a proposed meeting between Jeffrey Smith, one of the president's science advisers, and an executive from a technology company. [/color]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... yists.html

Obama's 'No Lobbyists' Campaign Promise Completely Broken

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... E-IN-CHIEF

chuckmo48 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:31 am

The U.S. Government Is One of the Best Bargains Around

Quote:

Few consumers have noticed, but the federal government has essentially been on sale, with taxpayers paying about 20 percent less than they used to for what Washington does.

Quote:

A new report published by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the average household paid 17.4 percent of its income to the federal government in the form of taxes.
That's the lowest tax burden on record. It's about 20 percent lower than the federal tax burden in 1979, when the CBO's data series began. It's lower than the tax burden all throughout the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-government-one-best-bargains-151007984.html

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

chuckmo48 wrote:

The U.S. Government Is One of the Best Bargains Around

Quote:

Few consumers have noticed, but the federal government has essentially been on sale, with taxpayers paying about 20 percent less than they used to for what Washington does.

Quote:

A new report published by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the average household paid 17.4 percent of its income to the federal government in the form of taxes.
That's the lowest tax burden on record. It's about 20 percent lower than the federal tax burden in 1979, when the CBO's data series began. It's lower than the tax burden all throughout the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-government-one-best-bargains-151007984.html

How will all these freebies, entitlements and other gub'mint goodies be paid for chuckie?

I suppose economic illiterates like you and the author of that article never gave it any thought...

DUMBO really DOES think you parasites ARE that stupid....

he ''bought'' YOUR vote with MY money and you're too fuc*ing ignorant to see what's coming.

chuckmo48 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:16 pm

Moby Grape wrote:

chuckmo48 wrote:

The U.S. Government Is One of the Best Bargains Around

Quote:

Few consumers have noticed, but the federal government has essentially been on sale, with taxpayers paying about 20 percent less than they used to for what Washington does.

Quote:

A new report published by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the average household paid 17.4 percent of its income to the federal government in the form of taxes.
That's the lowest tax burden on record. It's about 20 percent lower than the federal tax burden in 1979, when the CBO's data series began. It's lower than the tax burden all throughout the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-government-one-best-bargains-151007984.html

How will all these freebies, entitlements and other gub'mint goodies be paid for chuckie?
Are you saying we need a tax increase?

I suppose economic illiterates like you and the author of that article never gave it any thought...
The CBO illiterate? The same CBO that you quote when you agree with their assessments?

DUMBO really DOES think you parasites ARE that stupid....
No...but the rethuglicons KNOW you are!

he ''bought'' YOUR vote with MY money and you're too fuc*ing ignorant to see what's coming.
...and the rethuglicons want to tax MY money to let the richest keep all their loopholes...and all of the rethuglicons are too blind to see it!

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

chuckmo48 wrote:

The issue about abortion ... was not really about fetuses and babies, but really men's terror of women's sexuality and power...Eve Ensler

The only alleged 'man' who would agree with this sentiment is one who has an abject fear of vaginas.

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

Quote:

Report: Cronyism, political
donations likely behind Obama,
Holder failure to charge any
bankers after 2008 financial meltdown
Daily Caller, by Matthew Boyle

A new report from the conservative Government Accountability Institute (GAI) finds that President Barack Obamaâ€™s and Attorney General Eric Holderâ€™s failure to criminally charge any top Wall Street bankers is likely a result of cronyism inside the Department of Justice and political donations made to Obamaâ€™s campaign.

Despite Obamaâ€™s and Holderâ€™s â€œheated rhetoricâ€ against Wall Street (in 2009, Obama blamed the 2008 financial collapse on â€œreckless speculation of bankersâ€ while Holder charged that â€œunscrupulous executives, Ponzi scheme operators and common criminals alike have targeted the pocketbooks and retirement accounts of middle class Americansâ€), they havenâ€™t â€œfiled a single criminal charge against any top executive of an elite financial institution,â€ GAI wrote in its report, exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller.

GAI argues that the Obama administrationâ€™s decision to not go after Big Finance is due to senior DOJ leadership â€” Holder, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General Tony West, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, Deputy Attorney General James Cole and Deputy Associate Attorney General Karol Mason â€” who â€œall came to the DOJ from prestigious white-collar defense firms where they represented the very financial institutions the DOJ is supposed to investigate.â€

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/repor ... -meltdown/

-={ARCLIGHT}=- · **Posted:** Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:40 pm

Obama Campaign: â€œWeâ€™re In Troubleâ€

Quote:

President Barack Obamaâ€™s re-election campaign warned supporters in an email plea for cash on Monday that Mitt Romneyâ€™s vast fundraising edge means â€œweâ€™re in troubleâ€ with scarcely three months to go before Election Day.

â€œWe got beat three months in a row,â€ the campaign said in the unsigned message. â€œIf we donâ€™t step it up, weâ€™re in trouble.â€

The appeal came hours after the two sides released their July fundraising totals, revealing that Romney and the Republican Party scooped up $101 million against the $75 million hauled in by Obama and the Democrats.

Northwest Indiana Discussion

The Best Government Money Can Buy

Who is online