 | |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
martiandrifter01
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Mar 28, 2008
Posts: 706
Location: Xanthe Terra, Sol IV/Mars
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| |
Hmm. I was kind of leaning in favor of Nesaie going for the lingerie.
 |
|
_________________
Just for fun, and maybe a chance to learn a little solar system astronomy...
martiandrifter.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10154
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Here ya go.
 |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10154
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Here ya go.
|
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10154
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Ah hell, a double post. Just pretend they're twins. |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
screamzero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Feb 08, 2008
Posts: 2178
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Nesaie wrote: |
Well etraveler, I know I can always count on you for partisanship and the blame game.
Your first post is from an editorial by Anne Coulter, whom I don't care for. In fact, I don't like any corporate media whore, no matter what side they claim. Anyway, here is that link:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28714
The next one is from a guy named Sowell who is an economist.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307059043232094
Shall we play partisanship?  Here is who funded McCain:
Merrill Lynch $298,413
Citigroup Inc $269,251
Morgan Stanley $233,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
AT&T Inc $174,487
Blank Rome LLP $150,426
Credit Suisse Group $150,025
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787
UBS AG $140,165
PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120
US Government $137,617
Bank of America $129,475
Wachovia Corp $122,846
Lehman Brothers $117,500
FedEx Corp $113,453
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250
US Army $103,613
Bear Stearns $99,300
Pinnacle West Capital $97,700
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00006424&cycle=2008
How many of those companies had to be bailed out?
Oh hell, I'm not about partisanship crap anyway. Let's compare it to Obama.
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Sidley Austin LLP $350,302
Moveon.org $347,463
Skadden, Arps et al $340,264
Time Warner $338,527
Wilmerhale Llp $335,398
Morgan Stanley $318,070
Latham & Watkins $297,400
Jones Day $289,476
University of Chicago $278,885
Stanford University $276,038
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 |
World's Biggest Dope Bank Funded ACORN, Obama's Campaign Apparatus -- Obama's Law Firm Did The Deal
August 26, 2008 (LPAC)--Barack Obama's own law firm ran a 2002-2003 law suit resulting in the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank (HSBC) paying ACORN huge sums, on the pretext that the group would counsel predatory lending victims.
The British bank, owner of Household Finance and Beneficial Finance, was historically the main financial agency for the world's criminal opium trafficking.
ACORN (for Association of Community Organizations for Reform) now conduits uncountable millions of dollars for George Soros-directed political operations and the Obama for President Campaign.
Barack Obama was an attorney with the Chicago firm, Miner, Barnhill & Galland before he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. His partner, Sarah Siskind, was lead counsel in ACORN et al. v. Household International, a class-action.
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/08/26/worlds-biggest-dope-bank-funded-acorn-obamas-campaign-appara.html
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.
But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.
But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.
“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.
But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.
Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.
But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.
“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.
Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.
FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro
When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.
Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.
In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.
In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
Foreign Donations
And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.
But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.
The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.
Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.
“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.
One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.
In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.
Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.
A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.
Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.
The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.
The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.
According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.
Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.
The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.
A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.
But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.
Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.
The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.
“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”
FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.
This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.
Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”
Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html
There is a lot more.... criminal. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
maelstrom
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: May 21, 2008
Posts: 9258
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Those are the little fish.
Who is running the show? |
|
_________________
What has been won by the brave at great cost can be lost cheaply by fools and once gone can rarely be regained and only then at great cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10154
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
It is only a show to those who watch.
It is much more of a game. As a female, I've always known that to win a game, all I have to do is change the rules. 
screamer, who cares about Obama?
There are a couple of people who are like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". He isn't one of them. |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
screamzero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Feb 08, 2008
Posts: 2178
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
screamzero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Feb 08, 2008
Posts: 2178
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| maelstrom wrote: |
Those are the little fish.
Who is running the show? |
Rhetorical redundancy suites you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
maelstrom
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: May 21, 2008
Posts: 9258
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| screamzero wrote: |
| maelstrom wrote: |
Those are the little fish.
Who is running the show? |
Rhetorical redundancy suites you. |
Silence suits you Mr. J. Knows. |
|
_________________
What has been won by the brave at great cost can be lost cheaply by fools and once gone can rarely be regained and only then at great cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
rob61872
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 13669
Location: With JRZGRL
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| etraveler13 wrote: |
“Much of that mess [in the financial markets] is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions—members of Congress. Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions. Such institutions—exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers’ money—are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers. Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: ‘The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn’t when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late.’ The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to ‘privatizing profit and socializing risk,’ since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don’t work out... Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians’ political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them. This is certainly part of ‘the mess in Washington’ that Barack Obama talks about. But don’t expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama’s advisers.” —Thomas Sowell
Just for you Nesaie, these are both from Free Republic... |
Mark Buse - McCain Chief of Staff, and Freddie Mac lobbyist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203812.html
| Quote: |
Mark Buse, a longtime McCain adviser who had been staff director of the Senate commerce committee, signed on as a Freddie Mac lobbyist, and his firm, ML Strategies, earned $460,000 in lobbying fees in late 2003 and 2004, according to lobbying disclosures. Buse is now chief of staff at McCain's Senate office.
Buse was one of many strategic hires made by Freddie Mac in its efforts to sew up support and manage opponents on Capitol Hill, a push that peaked in 2004 with the retention of 34 outside lobbying firms. Over the past decade, Freddie spent more than $95 million on lobbying, while its sister company, Fannie Mae, spent more than $79 million. |
In total, some 19, NINETEEN, McCain adviser's and/or fundraiser's have been employed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as lobbyist's.
Six from Freddie Mac:
Chief of Staff Mark Buse,
Charles Black,
Carlos Bonilla,
Al D’Amato,
Juleanna Glover Weiss
Susan Molinari.
Thirteen from Fannie Mae including:
McCain’s Congressional Liaison John Green,
Head of VP Search Team A.B. Culvahouse, (An interesting one, seeing how a few months ago several people here were making a big deal about Obama having Caroline Kennedy head up his VP search... And I distinctly recall telling these fools they should worry about the people they don't know heading up McCain's VP search!)
Wayne Berman,
Kirk Blalock,
Alberto Cardenas,
Kirsten Chadwick,
Richard Holht,
Kate Hull,
Aleix Jarvis,
Tom Loeffler,
Peter Madigan,
Allison McSlarrow
Aquiles Suarez.
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-alleged-mccain-ties-to-fannie-freddie/
Wanna check the names for yourself, chief? Just check Client Name, and Lobbyist Name, click submit, then type in Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae as the Client, and the names above as the Lobbyist...
http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=chooseFields
Hey, it's all liberal media bullshit, right?
Mark Buse:
http://soprweb.senate.gov/lobby_public/2005/01/000/130/000130198.gif
A.B. Culvahouse:
http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=1f05e6a6-60b4-4501-9fc1-4334fbea582b
Alison McSlarrow:
http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=cf3549c6-6e69-435d-aca3-05802ab96021
Carlos Bonilla:
http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=4b7d052b-e42e-40de-b1d1-b8520cc08880
(Republican Senator Thad Cochran's Name Is Attached To This One On Page 2!!!)
John Green and Wayne Berman:
http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=2d43e242-3d36-4083-831b-7e5da7cfd86a
(And That One Has Republican Senator Kit Bond's Name Attached To It On Page 2!!!)
Just for you ETraveler, and they are from Senate.Gov... Do you want me to list them all? Susan Molinari, being I was born and raised in NYC, that name rings a REPUBLICAN bell, I believe she was a House Rep. from 1990 to 1997, and her father was Staten Island borough president Guy Molinari. And of course Alfonse D'Amato, ANOTHER Republican, a former U.S. Senator from NY.
Yep, it's only the Democrats. Keep thinking that way, putz, maybe this congress can pass another 3 quarter of a trillion dollar bailout bill for these companies, while drones like yourself get sucked into their childish finger pointing, and pick a side like they want you to.  |
|
_________________
"You can't trust freedom when it's not in your hands, and everybody's fighting for their promised land" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10154
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Its democrats and republicans.
One potential step in the right direction...
Get rid of lobbyists! |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
rob61872
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 13669
Location: With JRZGRL
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Nesaie wrote: |
Its democrats and republicans.
One potential step in the right direction...
Get rid of lobbyists! |
Well, McCain, once upon a time, tried to , but apparently he's been bought.
Lobbyist's will be around forever. |
|
_________________
"You can't trust freedom when it's not in your hands, and everybody's fighting for their promised land" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10154
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| rob61872 wrote: |
Lobbyist's will be around forever. |
Will they?
They weren't around forever in the past. They are relatively new. Yah nevah know.
Getting rid of lobbyists would solve soooo many problems. It is only a start, but its a good start. |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
rob61872
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 13669
Location: With JRZGRL
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
It would solve a lot, but it won't happen.
I believe lobbying was a way around politicians getting blatant kickbacks for supporting certain things. I was watching a show the other night about the NYC subway, and how the mayor of the city a hundred years ago killed a project to create the subway because he was getting huge kickbacks from trollie operations.
The cat's out of the bag, too many people make too much money as a result of it, unless we get rid of the entire congress at once. |
|
_________________
"You can't trust freedom when it's not in your hands, and everybody's fighting for their promised land" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| | | | | | | |
| |
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
|
