Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 81
  1. #51
    Veteran braeden0613's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Post Count
    981
    And by the way, Mccain's statement that giving those accused at Gitmo an actual trial was one of the "worst decisions in history" should keep anyone that's read the Cons ution from voting Mccain.

  2. #52
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042

    His refusal to accept money from lobbyists and PACs has angered traditional Democratic Party insiders


    Those are just some examples....
    By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | August 9, 2007

    Using campaign appearances, e-mails to supporters, and Iowa TV ads, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly reminded voters that his presidential campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, casting his decision as a noble departure from the ways of Washington.

    He hit the theme hard again in Tuesday's Democratic debate in Chicago as he sought to capitalize on rival Hillary Clinton's remark last weekend that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans."

    "The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."

    But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

    In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

    Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

    In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

    Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that after seeing the influence of lobbyists firsthand during his two years in Washington, Obama decided before he entered the presidential race that he would take a different approach to fund-raising than he had in the past.

    "He's leading by example and taking steps that he feels need to be taken on the national stage to clean up the undue influence of Washington lobbyists on the policies and priorities of Washington," Psaki said. "His leadership on this issue is an evolving process."

    Psaki said Obama believes that healthcare lobbyists have blocked progress toward universal health coverage, and that oil company lobbyists have blocked badly needed changes to America's energy policies.

    Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

    This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.

    "If you're running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean," said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. "While he's getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he's really got to be careful."

    From the day he entered the presidential race, Obama has projected an outside-the-Beltway persona, positioning himself as the Washington change agent that Americans are pining for. Last week, his campaign began running a new TV spot in Iowa, in which the narrator says, "He's leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today."

    In the Democrats' previous debate, on July 23, Obama was unequivocal when challenged by former Alaska senator Mike Gravel about who his donors were.

    "Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money," Obama said, touting his work on an ethics reform bill that just passed Congress. "That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States."

    And on June 25, right before the second quarter ended, Obama sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to contribute to his campaign to make up for the lack of special-interest money.

    "Candidates typically spend a week like this -- right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline -- on the phone day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks," the e-mail said. "Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees."

    Obama's main Democratic target on the issue of lobbyist and PAC contributions has been Clinton, whom Obama has been working to paint as a figurehead for the broken politics of Washington. Through June, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton had collected $413,000 from lobbyists and $533,000 from PACs -- leading all 2008 presidential contenders in both categories. Clinton has also raised about $3 million from PACs and $400,000 from lobbyists for her Senate campaigns, according to the group.

    Clinton's campaign declined to comment.

    Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Iowa, said Obama, given his record of raising special-interest money throughout his political career, was taking a "gamble" in holding himself up as a beacon of purity.

    "He probably will be hurt if he's put in a position where he's trying to draw very fine distinctions between his present campaign and his past behavior," Squire said.

    Obama's campaign is relying almost exclusively on an unprecedented network of grass-roots donors and activists -- nearly 260,000 of them had given him money through June alone.

    And some good-government activists say that, past fund-raising practices aside, Obama has genuinely been a champion for ethics and campaign reform, both in the Illinois Legislature and in Congress.

    "On the one hand, sure, he rose to power as many people do in this town, which is to raise money from the people who have the money," said Gary Kalman, of the advocacy group US PIRG.

    At the same time, he added, Obama has championed public financing for elections and he fought hard to pass the federal ethics reform bill.

    Scott Helman can be reached at [email protected].

    © Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.


    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...d_obamas_rise/

  3. #53
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    And by the way, Mccain's statement that giving those accused at Gitmo an actual trial was one of the "worst decisions in history" should keep anyone that's read the Cons ution from voting Mccain.
    Where does the cons ution allow cons utional protection for foreign fighters.

    No president in the past from Washington to Lincoln and Clinton practiced that.

    RIF.

  4. #54
    Damn The Man Mr. Peabody's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    4,475

    Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

    This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.
    The funny thing is that my donations and my former colleagues' donations count toward that figure. And we weren't solicited by his campaign for donations (I can't say the same for his Republican counterparts), we were just intrigued by his campaign.

    , I also volunteered for his campaign, so he got my money and time.

  5. #55
    Veteran braeden0613's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Post Count
    981
    Where does the cons ution allow cons utional protection for foreign fighters.

    No president in the past from Washington to Lincoln and Clinton practiced that.

    RIF.
    All that stuff about due process and a jury trial just flew over your head i suppose. We cant even give that to american citizens (see jose padilla).

  6. #56
    Truth, justice, and the NBA
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Post Count
    4,752
    Supergirl. Study a little history and come back and talk to me. okay?
    I suspect I've studied more history than most people on this forum. I read history for fun, and my dad is a history teacher who has been teaching me history all my life.

  7. #57
    Can't Start Threads
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    238
    I suspect I've studied more history than most people on this forum. I read history for fun, and my dad is a history teacher who has been teaching me history all my life.
    Are you going to answer my question?

  8. #58
    No More Pink NorCal510's Avatar
    My Team
    Golden State Warriors
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    6,332
    ...I don't understand this politic language...

  9. #59
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    "One's a democrat and the other is a far left liberal."
    I think that sums it up pretty nicely.
    Agreed. I often call McCain a RINO. I once said his idea of working across the isle is working with republicans.

  10. #60
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I suspect I've studied more history than most people on this forum. I read history for fun, and my dad is a history teacher who has been teaching me history all my life.
    He must be one
    of the U of I instructors. (University of Indoctrination)

  11. #61
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    All that stuff about due process and a jury trial just flew over your head i suppose. We cant even give that to american citizens (see jose padilla).
    were does it say it applies to foreigners. If the past presidents saw it your way they would of practiced it as you implied. Taking prisoners of war to court, that's idiotic and even Jefferson would have laughed your ass off.

    Don't act coy.

    You know very damn well in which those cases apply to.

  12. #62
    What's the Word? Don Quixote's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    3,339
    Shoot, we're giving enemy combatants, terrorists who want to vaporize us and destroy our civilization, a Bill of Rights. Brilliant.

    I don't want to hear again how the US is racist, bigoted, or unjust against its people. We are so compassionate -- we are evidently going out of our way to be fair to these terrorists. If anything, we're being too nice to them.

  13. #63
    Marilyn Rae Lover jochhejaam's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    7,614
    Ugh whatever. Thanks for your wonderful contributions to this thread. I say one thing - you come and say NO THATS NOT RIGHT THIS IS when not even denying what I said.

    Nice.
    Uhg/Wut

    Sorry MIG, but you don't get Carte Blanche on this board anymore than anyone else does. You posted that Obama was "no where near leftist", a fallacious statement indeed, and you were taken to task for attempting to foist it off as fact.
    Pay attention to what you post, or bone up on the political leanings of Obama, and quit whining (or continue whining if you wish).

  14. #64
    Veteran AZLouis's Avatar
    My Team
    Phoenix Suns
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    598
    I suspect I've studied more history than most people on this forum. I read history for fun, and my dad is a history teacher who has been teaching me history all my life.
    My dad is a cop and he teaches me investigative techniques, I like Law and Order, and I read lots of true crime.

    Guess that makes an amateur detective!

  15. #65
    Truth, justice, and the NBA
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Post Count
    4,752
    "Just as habeas corpus, or some equivalent procedure, is the cornerstone of virtually every democracy, so a secret prison system without habeas corpus is the cornerstone of every dictatorship...without the real threat of such a secret prison system, citizens speak up, activists are forceful, and democracy is stubborn." (The End of America, pg 46)

    She goes on to elaborate how it is not that Guantanamo is currently at the same level as the Gulag under Stalin or the early prisons for Communists and Social Democrats in Germany - but the precedent is setting the stage. For now, we *THINK* that Guantanamo is holding suspected terrorists. But then why not hold them and prosecute them under our judicial system? Why hold them where no rule of law exists and no accountability exists? It sets a precedent for the possibility that eventually, anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" (a vague term made up by the Bush administration with no real definition) could be held in these prisons, which could mean anyone who expresses dissent.

    Are we there yet? No. But our democracy is slowly being eroded to set the stage for this to occur.

  16. #66
    Can't Start Threads
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    238
    "Just as habeas corpus, or some equivalent procedure, is the cornerstone of virtually every democracy, so a secret prison system without habeas corpus is the cornerstone of every dictatorship...without the real threat of such a secret prison system, citizens speak up, activists are forceful, and democracy is stubborn." (The End of America, pg 46)

    She goes on to elaborate how it is not that Guantanamo is currently at the same level as the Gulag under Stalin or the early prisons for Communists and Social Democrats in Germany - but the precedent is setting the stage. For now, we *THINK* that Guantanamo is holding suspected terrorists. But then why not hold them and prosecute them under our judicial system? Why hold them where no rule of law exists and no accountability exists? It sets a precedent for the possibility that eventually, anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" (a vague term made up by the Bush administration with no real definition) could be held in these prisons, which could mean anyone who expresses dissent.

    Are we there yet? No. But our democracy is slowly being eroded to set the stage for this to occur.
    So you can agree with me that the government has not interfered in your daily life in the past 8 years, and you have been able to express yourself any way you would like?

  17. #67
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    So you can agree with me that the government has not interfered in your daily life in the past 8 years, and you have been able to express yourself any way you would like?
    Have you tried arguing with a TSA employee in an airport? Have you ever tried to tell a bomb joke on an airport?

  18. #68
    Truth, justice, and the NBA
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Post Count
    4,752
    So you can agree with me that the government has not interfered in your daily life in the past 8 years, and you have been able to express yourself any way you would like?
    I think that your question is a little too vague. "Interfered" with my daily life? Well, yes and no.

    But my point about is not really about me - I am deeply concerned about the shift in this country. Bush has expanded the powers of the president in dangerous ways, in ways our founding fathers were concerned about when this country was created. They were much more aware of the potential for an executive to seize power than Americans are today, because we have had 200 years or so of democracy.

    With the expansion of powers Bush has given the office of the president through things like the Patriot Act, our democracy is weakened, and therefore vulnerable to a dictator seizing power in the future. I am not sure Bush fully understands the implications of the things he has done while in office, so I am certainly not saying he had any intentions to become a dictator. But he has weakened our democracy and made it vulnerable.

    As far as how personally I feel affected by this - well, let's just say that there are several reasons why I fear I would be one of the first to be targeted if we had a hostile takeover of our government in the future. I'm Jewish, I support workers' rights, I support women's rights, I can't help but speak my opinions even if they aren't popular. All these things have made people targets in less open societies in the past.

  19. #69
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Shoot, we're giving enemy combatants, terrorists who want to vaporize us and destroy our civilization, a Bill of Rights. Brilliant.

    I don't want to hear again how the US is racist, bigoted, or unjust against its people. We are so compassionate -- we are evidently going out of our way to be fair to these terrorists. If anything, we're being too nice to them.
    While I understand the argument you make, talking out of two sides of your mouth is never an effective strategy.

    We cant invade a country under a (multi-revised) pretense of "bringing freedom" only to subvert such a notion in our own backyard.

  20. #70
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    "Just as habeas corpus, or some equivalent procedure, is the cornerstone of virtually every democracy, so a secret prison system without habeas corpus is the cornerstone of every dictatorship...without the real threat of such a secret prison system, citizens speak up, activists are forceful, and democracy is stubborn." (The End of America, pg 46)

    She goes on to elaborate how it is not that Guantanamo is currently at the same level as the Gulag under Stalin or the early prisons for Communists and Social Democrats in Germany - but the precedent is setting the stage. For now, we *THINK* that Guantanamo is holding suspected terrorists. But then why not hold them and prosecute them under our judicial system? Why hold them where no rule of law exists and no accountability exists? It sets a precedent for the possibility that eventually, anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" (a vague term made up by the Bush administration with no real definition) could be held in these prisons, which could mean anyone who expresses dissent.

    Are we there yet? No. But our democracy is slowly being eroded to set the stage for this to occur.
    Clinton expanded the use of extradition and secret prisons in his administration, i'm not blaming him.

    Guantanamo is holding enemy combatants on the battlefield. THe Cons ution still protects citizens, John walker lind went to court.


    It is clear that the law protects private citizens, no need to create conspiracy theories.

    You want to secure your rights, define the word enemy in the law, don't erase a vital tool in our war.

  21. #71
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    While I understand the argument you make, talking out of two sides of your mouth is never an effective strategy.

    We cant invade a country under a (multi-revised) pretense of "bringing freedom" only to subvert such a notion in our own backyard.
    I guess lincoln, FDR, Jackson, Polk, even Washington all were tyrants with the way they handled POW's.

  22. #72
    Can't Start Threads
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    238
    I think that your question is a little too vague. "Interfered" with my daily life? Well, yes and no.

    But my point about is not really about me - I am deeply concerned about the shift in this country. Bush has expanded the powers of the president in dangerous ways, in ways our founding fathers were concerned about when this country was created. They were much more aware of the potential for an executive to seize power than Americans are today, because we have had 200 years or so of democracy.

    With the expansion of powers Bush has given the office of the president through things like the Patriot Act, our democracy is weakened, and therefore vulnerable to a dictator seizing power in the future. I am not sure Bush fully understands the implications of the things he has done while in office, so I am certainly not saying he had any intentions to become a dictator. But he has weakened our democracy and made it vulnerable.

    As far as how personally I feel affected by this - well, let's just say that there are several reasons why I fear I would be one of the first to be targeted if we had a hostile takeover of our government in the future. I'm Jewish, I support workers' rights, I support women's rights, I can't help but speak my opinions even if they aren't popular. All these things have made people targets in less open societies in the past.
    haha so you really think there is a possible hostile takeover of the government? You are way more wacky than I thought. I am fine with the patriot act. As long as there are no more terrorist attacks, they can have stricter policies at the airport, listen to suspected terrorists phone calls, etc...People are trying to act like the US government is big brother which is ridiculous.

    So once again you can agree with me that you have not personally been affected in the past 8 years of government? I understand that since you are a jewish womens are workers rights supporter that you are scared for a hostile takeover which is pretty funny. But up to know you havent been affected.

  23. #73
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    why go to the trouble of a formal coup when you can just take over both parties and continue having sham elections?

  24. #74
    Need a vowel? bobbybob0's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Post Count
    368
    You don't think he's a far lefty? Maybe not boutons-lefty, but he's pretty far left. He shouldn't run from it, though. He should embrace it. He ought to rock it.
    You've really lost tracks of what a leftist is, even more a "far-leftist".

    There's a world between democrat-socialism and communism.

    Oboma would be centrist leaning to the left in Europe.

  25. #75
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Uhg/Wut

    Sorry MIG, but you don't get Carte Blanche on this board anymore than anyone else does. You posted that Obama was "no where near leftist", a fallacious statement indeed, and you were taken to task for attempting to foist it off as fact.
    Pay attention to what you post, or bone up on the political leanings of Obama, and quit whining (or continue whining if you wish).
    He's not leftist. He's only leftist if you look at politics in a narrow sphere and whether or not the majority of Americans fall into that sphere does not dictate what the entire spectrum of political beliefs in.

    You want to "take me to task" based on a semantics argument when you know exactly what I'm saying and what my point is.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •