Hillary, Hillary, Hillary... what you still doin' 'round girl?

[Trinity]

Fucking moron.

That would be you Hazel. And you call people obtuse. There is no distinction between individuals and what Obama is referring to as oil companies, lobbyists and PAC's. That's what makes it false advertising.

Factcheck.org -Our problem comes with this statement:​

Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. ​

It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.​

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. ​

When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.​

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually. ​

In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama – drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser. ​

 

[HazelGod]

There is no distinction between individuals and what Obama is referring to as oil companies, lobbyists and PAC's.

I stand corrected. To call you a fucking moron was an unforgivable insult to fucking morons the world over.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Another pathetic, pointless political topic rears its ugly head on LPSG. And, true to form, the same old names and mindless bullshit about how Candidate X is so much better than Candidate Y commences. It's not as if the majority of arguments are based on anything else but trivial matters and their own self-imposed hatred over one candidate.

Seriously, do any of you secretly work for the government because this game has already been beaten to death?

 

[Trinity]

I stand corrected. To call you a fucking moron was an unforgivable insult to fucking morons the world over.

You just don't like to be wrong and always resort to insulting people when you are. But you have always been talking about yourself.

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

Another pathetic, pointless political topic rears its ugly head on LPSG. And, true to form, the same old names and mindless bullshit about how Candidate X is so much better than Candidate Y commences. It's not as if the majority of arguments are based on anything else but trivial matters and their own self-imposed hatred over one candidate.

Seriously, do any of you secretly work for the government because this game has already been beaten to death?

as much as your repetitve posts don't belong here, rather on your own thread dedicated to all things Apathy.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

as much as your repetitve posts don't belong here, rather on your own thread dedicated to all things Apathy.

Me thinks you've been far more repetitive (and in some instances negative) about the subject matter than myself. And as for political threads on this board not being interesting, they could be if the people debating the topic actually discussed relevant matters instead of taking every trivial, sub-story and elevating it to hysterical levels. As if Bosnia and Rev. Wright is going to be the issues that change our nation.

What could be a healthy discussion about the issues and the candidates has become another one of those Obama/Clinton hate-fests. Neither side can and never will agree. Both sides think that their obsessively, cantankerous babble is always right, and when presented with other info that may contradict what they believe they start calling the other person names. The Et Cetera, Et Cetera threads looked sanitized after the last batch of political forum propaganda found its way off the front page. Alas, some people would just like to keep beating a dead horse.

This Primary battle is only relevant to those who want the drama and the battle to continue. I'm already over it. New York has voted and I could careless what the extremists on both sides think about each other and those who don't view this BS through the same kaleidescope. I'm patiently waiting for November so I can place my vote on the winner. Doesn't matter who wins this Primary, either Obama or Clinton get my vote in November because the other choice is NOT a choice in my mind. I just wish all of the extremists would shut the hell up already.

 

[deleted15807]

After Obama wins the nomination I wonder will Trinity then go vote for McCain?

 

[Trinity]

After Obama wins the nomination I wonder will Trinity then go vote for McCain?

Should Hillary Clinton win the nomination I wonder will sargon20 then go vote for McCain? Because Trinity has already answered that question.

 

[deleted15807]

Should Hillary Clinton win the nomination I wonder will sargon20 then go vote for McCain? Because Trinity has already answered that question.

Unlikely for Hillary to win the nomination.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Even if it's unlikely, weirder things have happened. 2000 taught us that the hard way.

 

[deleted15807]

Even if it's unlikely, weirder things have happened. 2000 taught us that the hard way.

The only hope for the Dems is if McCain's old ass has a heart attack.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The only hope for the Dems is if McCain's old ass has a heart attack.

And even then, that would leave a person in office who would want to "stay the course" and keep in place the majority of same damaging procedures that our current administration is responsible for. Depends who his Vice President would be but I'm certain it wouldn't be anyone who would have the same stance on the issues like Obama or Clinton. No thanks for that.

We usually say four more years when we want a repeat of things. Personally, I don't want that but to each his own I suppose.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

Hypothetically speaking, what could be the outcome of any of these three getting in. This being more fun than the "my-candidates-better-than-yours" drivel.

McCain - Conservative good ole boy. Silver haired, articulate, clean military record, he could be counted on by the establishment to not rock the boat and represent a golden boy for the neo cons. Let's face it, after The Shrub, anyone will look like a Rhodes Scholar.
Likelihood of election - high.

Clinton - Full of tough talk and great ideas but if her husband is anything to go by, it'll be more of the same. Don't hold your breath waiting for a reprieve from the war on terror or any other war for that matter. Might try to restructure health care if there's any money left in the bank.
Likelihood of election - reasonable

Obama - The JFK/Dr King/liberal poster boy of the noughties. He may actually be silly enough to try for real change but will depend on how tightly the senate is controlled by which side. But if he actually tries to practice what he preaches, then it will destroy him one way or another.
Likelihood of election - marginal

That's just from an outsider looking in.

 

[playainda336]

There is no significance in those two charts in relation to the fact that Obama has taken oil money from individuals. You should rather refer to the chart in the Factcheck.org article from the same source as the two charts you posted. Also refer to the LA Times article to fully understand that Obama indeed takes oil money...it's explained in explicit detail how Obama's claim "not to accept money from oil companies or lobbyists" amounts to false advertising.

You do realize that those charts are the ones that "Factcheck.org" utilized as sources, correct?

 

[Trinity]

You do realize that those charts are the ones that "Factcheck.org" utilized as sources, correct?

Factcheck.org actually drilled down to list the actual oil companies listed as employers for the individuals who donated to Obama's campaign because that is the point of what they are fact checking: Obama is actually accepting the same money from oil companies that he claims not to accept and his rejection of Pac and Lobbyist money claim is also misleading.

I know the two charts you posted are from the Center for Responsive Politics and Opensecrets.org...I said that in my post. The chart below is the chart presented by Factcheck.org:

Oil Industry Contributions to Obama

Oil Company Individual Contributions

ExxonMobil $30,850
Hess $5,200
Shell $9,900
Conoco Phillips $4,300
Chevron $9,500
BP $6,396

Total $66,146

 

[Industrialsize]

Factcheck.org actually drilled down to list the actual oil companies listed as employers for the individuals who donated to Obama's campaign because that is the point of what they are fact checking: Obama is actually accepting the same money from oil companies that he claims not to accept and his rejection of Pac and Lobbyist money claim is also misleading.

I know the two charts you posted are from the Center for Responsive Politics and Opensecrets.org...I said that in my post. The chart below is the chart presented by Factcheck.org:

Oil Industry Contributions to Obama

Oil Company Individual Contributions

ExxonMobil $30,850
Hess $5,200
Shell $9,900
Conoco Phillips $4,300
Chevron $9,500
BP $6,396

Total $66,146

What a load........there is a BIG difference in taking money from INDIVIDUAL VOTERS who happen to work for an "oil company and taking money from "LOBBYISTS for OIL COMPANIES"

 

[Trinity]

What a load........there is a BIG difference in taking money from INDIVIDUAL VOTERS who happen to work for an "oil company and taking money from "LOBBYISTS for OIL COMPANIES"

Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. ​

Read the LA Times article and Factcheck.org analysis in their entirety. There is no difference because no candidate can take money from oil companies - it is against the law. Candidates only take individual contributions from employees of these companies and Obama takes their contributions and allows them to fundraise for him.

Washington lobbyists? Obama is splitting hairs and misleading the American people on the whole issue. Obama does take up to $4600 from a lobbyist's spouse and other individuals who work at lobbyist firms. Some of Obama's biggest fundraisers were registered fundraisers before working on the Obama campaign. Completely misleading.

We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol," Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.

 

[playainda336]

I know the two charts you posted are from the Center for Responsive Politics and Opensecrets.org...I said that in my post. The chart below is the chart presented by Factcheck.org:

Oil Industry Contributions to Obama

Oil Company Individual Contributions

ExxonMobil $30,850
Hess $5,200
Shell $9,900
Conoco Phillips $4,300
Chevron $9,500
BP $6,396

Total $66,146

See...you have to have the ability to check the sources of your sources. I looked around on that site and found nothing that sourced where they got those numbers. Factcheck.org sourced the charts that I posted, though...and so I posted them here.

Please. Stop sourcing blogs.

What a load........there is a BIG difference in taking money from INDIVIDUAL VOTERS who happen to work for an "oil company and taking money from "LOBBYISTS for OIL COMPANIES"

Exactly. You can't help what company people work for. That's a load of crap.

 

[Trinity]

See...you have to have the ability to check the sources of your sources. I looked around on that site and found nothing that sourced where they got those numbers. Factcheck.org sourced the charts that I posted, though...and so I posted them here.

Please. Stop sourcing blogs.

As I previously stated...this is not a blog. Please read.


The two charts you posted are clearly sourced at the bottom:

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Sunday, April 20, 2008. ("Help! The numbers don't add up...")​

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.​

Exactly. You can't help what company people work for. That's a load of crap.

lol...nobody is insinuating that money from those who work in the oil industry could be or would be "negatively influencial" to a candidate but Barack Obama. He takes the same contributions that he criticizes. If there is a load of crap...its Obama's.

 

[playainda336]

He's not taking money from companies. He's taking money from people.

Adversely, Hillary is taking money from companies. As shown by the charts that I posted.