Conquer Club

DangerBoy wrote:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/big-evil-industries-fundedwhich-party-106891623.html

I think I'll have to finally agree with Player that corporations are evil

Yes, but, Obama has so much conviction in his beliefs that certainly he turned down the fat-cat polluters money...

Yeah, I'm sure Obama turned the money down. That one time Obama said he would ban lobbyist or something.....yeah....

No way Obama took the money! Those guys are just right wing Jerks. JERKS!

Phatscotty wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/big-evil-industries-fundedwhich-party-106891623.html

I think I'll have to finally agree with Player that corporations are evil

Yes, but, Obama has so much conviction in his beliefs that certainly he turned down the fat-cat polluters money...

Yeah, I'm sure Obama turned the money down. That one time Obama said he would ban lobbyist or something.....yeah....

No way Obama took the money! Those guys are just right wing Jerks. JERKS!

john9blue wrote:I don't think anyone here wants corporate control of our government. It's just that not all of us were informed enough to understand that both parties are roughly the same when it comes down to it.

DangerBoy wrote:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/big-evil-industries-fundedwhich-party-106891623.html

I think I'll have to finally agree with Player that corporations are evil

PLAYER57832 wrote:I will have to dig up some real data on the percentages. Roughly, the amount contributed to the candidates directly was fairly even. The amounts given to the new groups was very much weighted toward the right wing.

saxitoxin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I will have to dig up some real data on the percentages. Roughly, the amount contributed to the candidates directly was fairly even. The amounts given to the new groups was very much weighted toward the right wing.

Incorrect.

It's necessary you believe that for your worldview - that is, your frantic assertions that the Republican-branch of the One Party will herald a special interests dictatorship - to remain stable. Ergo, you view an assertion like that as simple common sense that doesn't require any verification or investigation and can be flippantly tossed out, just like the statements in my signature.

The Democrat-branch of The One Party benefited from uncoordinated expenditures (527-group funding) versus the Republican-branch of The One Party at a rate of roughly $80M versus $60M. Meanwhile, the three non-whorish parties (Green, Libertarian and Constitution) got a paltry $500K in 527 benefits.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php?filter=F

None of this is some great secret. It's all quite public information. It's just easier for people to feel good about themselves by pulling a Democrat lever and dreaming that the syphilis-ridden prostitutes behind that lever are actually puritanical angels standing-up for workers and gays and kittens.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I will have to dig up some real data on the percentages. Roughly, the amount contributed to the candidates directly was fairly even. The amounts given to the new groups was very much weighted toward the right wing.

Incorrect.

It's necessary you believe that for your worldview - that is, your frantic assertions that the Republican-branch of the One Party will herald a special interests dictatorship - to remain stable. Ergo, you view an assertion like that as simple common sense that doesn't require any verification or investigation and can be flippantly tossed out, just like the statements in my signature.

The Democrat-branch of The One Party benefited from uncoordinated expenditures (527-group funding) versus the Republican-branch of The One Party at a rate of roughly $80M versus $60M. Meanwhile, the three non-whorish parties (Green, Libertarian and Constitution) got a paltry $500K in 527 benefits.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php?filter=F

None of this is some great secret. It's all quite public information. It's just easier for people to feel good about themselves by pulling a Democrat lever and dreaming that the syphilis-ridden prostitutes behind that lever are actually puritanical angels standing-up for workers and gays and kittens.

Reread what I said. Direct donations were equal. Indirect advertising was not.

PLAYER57832 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:I will have to dig up some real data on the percentages. Roughly, the amount contributed to the candidates directly was fairly even. The amounts given to the new groups was very much weighted toward the right wing.

PLAYER57832 wrote:In 2010 it changed significantly, thanks to the new Supreme Court ruling. Before that they were fairly even.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In 2010 it changed significantly, thanks to the new Supreme Court ruling. Before that they were fairly even.

All it did was bring companies to the same levels as unions. And what's worse is that unions are spending money that they forced from their members, while companies are using their profits to push their political opinions. And you still think companies are the problem in this scenario?

Night Strike wrote:And you still think companies are the problem in this scenario?

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In 2010 it changed significantly, thanks to the new Supreme Court ruling. Before that they were fairly even.

All it did was bring companies to the same levels as unions. And what's worse is that unions are spending money that they forced from their members, while companies are using their profits to push their political opinions. And you still think companies are the problem in this scenario?

Juan_Bottom wrote:Secondly, could the large donations to Democrats be to stop NeoCon's economic plans? For example Bush's brilliant plan to de-value the dollar to somehow increase sales of American goods. Perhaps businesses didn't like that? Who's got the reasons for this? So far only player has offered anything.

BigBallinStalin wrote:To be more specific, I think that they engaged in such a policy to increase the sales for American exports, since a lower value for the USD would drive down the price of American goods for other countries.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Newseek is carrying an article this week about how the Insurance companies used the Democrats to vote-in a health care bill that they (the insurance companies) wrote themselves, and now are using the Republicans to repeal just the parts that Democrats added that they (the insurance companies) don't like. What an interesting cycle of manipulation.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Newseek is carrying an article this week about how the Insurance companies used the Democrats to vote-in a health care bill that they (the insurance companies) wrote themselves, and now are using the Republicans to repeal just the parts that Democrats added that they (the insurance companies) don't like. What an interesting cycle of manipulation.

Ralph Nader wrote:Never much of a fighter against abusive corporate power, Barack Obama is making it increasingly clear that right from his start as President, he wanted health insurance reform that received the approval of the giant drug and health insurance industries. Earlier this year he started inviting top bosses of these companies for intimate confabs in the White House. Business Week magazine, which proclaimed recently that “The Health Insurers Have Already Won” reported that the CEO of UnitedHealth, Stephen J. Hemsley, met with the President half a dozen times.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182009.html