magekillr Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 2007-2008 vs. 2003-2008. Disingenuous. Yes, it goes back a few years. I don't see what is wrong with that. The point still stands that Obama and McCain get [cabbage] loads of money from rich bankers while Paul doesn't. Perhaps because they don't support the way that he votes to begin with (and I'm not implying the "buying" of votes). If he had his way, I couldn't afford to go to college to begin with because he believes in dismantling government loans for school, and graduate program subsidization. The man is bat[cabbage] insane, and the picture is disingenuous on purpose (which was my point from the start). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I don't know why the picture goes back to 2003, but it barely makes any difference at all. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr ... cycle=2008 This is Obama's campaign contributions for the 2008 election, it's still proves the point. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr ... cycle=2008 Here's Paul's for this election, which is exactly what was in the picture. Oh and this POS picture as you stated came from the same website you referenced earlier (opensecrets.org) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 That's fine and dandy that you want to keep bringing them up as top contributors because Paul had virtually no support/no chance of winning, but nonetheless, if you seriously think that 0.631693% of his campaign contributions from 2003 to 2008 are going to change where he is voting (when I'm just including the money he's raised for his Presidential race, so the percentage is even lower), especially when they could have just been given by employees at that company with NO position in being at the top level of the bank.... then :wall: If anything, a lot of people voting against this bill are doing so because it's the popular thing to do and need to get re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloriagod Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 If anything, a lot of people voting against this bill are doing so because it's the popular thing to do and need to get re-elected. You're an idiot. A majority of our leaders are in favor of this bill and a majority of our citizens are against this bill. At this point it's looking to me like it's going to pass. Tell me how voting against this bill is the popular thing to do when it looks like it's going to pass. Internet Marketing For Newbies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 If anything, a lot of people voting against this bill are doing so because it's the popular thing to do and need to get re-elected. You're an idiot. A majority of our leaders are in favor of this bill and a majority of our citizens are against this bill. At this point it's looking to me like it's going to pass. Tell me how voting against this bill is the popular thing to do when it looks like it's going to pass. Because in case you hadn't noticed, it's not the leaders that are electing them, it's the citizens who pay the tax for it... | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloriagod Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 If anything, a lot of people voting against this bill are doing so because it's the popular thing to do and need to get re-elected. You're an idiot. A majority of our leaders are in favor of this bill and a majority of our citizens are against this bill. At this point it's looking to me like it's going to pass. Tell me how voting against this bill is the popular thing to do when it looks like it's going to pass. Because in case you hadn't noticed, it's not the leaders that are electing them, it's the citizens who pay the tax for it... They're in power right now. We can't just nix them and find someone who's on our side in the middle of their term because they're not running things the way we want it done. Internet Marketing For Newbies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunokiller Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Good morning America. My blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 There are a number of elections next month deloriagod, hardly near the middle of a term. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloriagod Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 There are a number of elections next month deloriagod, hardly near the middle of a term. Either way, you know they have their hands tied in the money somewhere. If they don't pass the bill and let the banks fail, then they'll need to be re-elected if they want a chance at making their money back. If they weren't tied in these companies, then they could vote down the bill, let the banks go under and still have their money. On top of that, the public would be more willing to re-elect them because they're working for the people instead of themselves. Internet Marketing For Newbies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 There are a number of elections next month deloriagod, hardly near the middle of a term. Either way, you know they have their hands tied in the money somewhere. If they don't pass the bill and let the banks fail, then they'll need to be re-elected if they want a chance at making their money back. If they weren't tied in these companies, then they could vote down the bill, let the banks go under and still have their money. On top of that, the public would be more willing to re-elect them because they're working for the people instead of themselves. *sigh* Yes, because we're supposed to elect people who are on our pay-grade thinking level. Jesus christ, I think I'd like people smarter than me in office, that's why we elect them. They make decisions for the good of the country the way they see fit. The people aren't making the next leap here, and are simply saying "It's my money dammit!" Look, I'm not happy about this anymore than you are, but the costs of letting them fail are too detrimental. I'd also like an apology for calling me an idiot, when you clearly had no idea what YOU were talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch_Tyrant Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Edit :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stingman Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Yup, we're screwed... I wanna pass a law where the US pays me $700bn, now THAT would be awesome... :pray: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Do you think maybe there is a connection here? No, not really...considering Paul doesn't want a Federal government to exist whatsoever. Oh, by the way, how can branches of the military give to politicians? Methinks your picture is a POS :roll: No company can donate directly to a candidate. Obama has already tried to smear McCain with that lie. When you see things like that it is the total contributions of all the employees. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangeresque Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 The bill passed amirite? Probably uber late -.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 The bill passed amirite? Probably uber late -.- It did. It never really looked like failing second time round. The DOW still closed down last night, though. EDIT: For those totally confused about this bailout, Wikipedia have made a page explaining it. Nice to have something explain it from an impartial view. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenrir321 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Well my personal opinion is this: I find that the $700 billion may just be a temporary fix. Not only does it leave the people (us) out of that much money, but prevents the government from paying its I believe $10 trillion debt. Besides, what plan do the banks have? What will they do with the money? If they were going to to have enough money to give 100% of all people's money to them at one time, then why do it have to be labeled as a "bail-out"? If that's not what they're going to do with the money, then what are they going to do? We could actually be using this opportunity to give the money to all of the people and then stop producing money in the mint. Everyone has money and the value of the dollar goes up because the source is cut off and the drain is still going. Inflation goes down. Killing two birds with one stone. But that's just my opinion based on intermittently watching the news between writing fiction and playing runescape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryztalwing Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Time to get gold, silver, and stock up on food,water and other stuff that you might think that you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nenga Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Time to get gold, silver, and stock up on food,water and other stuff that you might think that you need. Why would you bump this topic which was made before the bill was voted (yes) on? Not that the $700B helped because they only tackled half of the problem, and not the half that was the cause. Ponies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shooterbob7 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 so far, it isnt helping, but the thing that caused this nonsense are stupid people buying a home for $100,000 if its $300,000. and then it goes downhill because of the forclosure, and then it affects AIG and all the other companies, and then other countries. You know what? Obama and McCain will not fix this, there just saying a whole bunch of bs, especially Obama, who has many supporters just because of his skin color. :wall: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now