OT: “Obama Orders Pakistan Drone Attacks”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: When you look at the sums of money necessary to buy (and, let’s be honest, that’s exactly what’s happening) the Presidency, it becomes patently obvious who and what are behind the scenes.

arraya: Talk to anyone in SOF and they’ll tell you that bin Laden was killed sometime in 2002 in a cave in caused by an airstrike. This was never confirmed, because they couldn’t recover the bodies, but rumor has it that an airstrike caused a cave in somewhere in the Tora Bora region that killed 100 – 200 al Qaeda and Taliban members.

Breeze: You can fulminate against the Republicans all you want, but read your history. From the beginning, and I mean the absolute beginning, it’s been about the money. The original draft of the Constitution contained the phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property” (it was subsequently amended). Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark (who were searching for trade routes as part of their mandate), Manifest Destiny, “Gunboat Diplomacy”, all of it. The United States has always been a going concern.

Ask arraya about USMC Major Smedley Butler.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]afx: When you look at the sums of money necessary to buy (and, let’s be honest, that’s exactly what’s happening) the Presidency, it becomes patently obvious who and what are behind the scenes.[/quote]

It begs the question, who does Obama answer to then? Barbara Streisand? Maybe Jay-Z? Does he then get to ignore everyone who backed and donated to McCain? Are you claiming that the power-brokers who once backed Bush changed their donations to Obama as soon as it was clear that he was going to win, so that they might get something in exchange?

Of course some of this takes place, but I still don’t buy the whole “vast money-wing conspiracy.” Who exactly “installed” Obama with their fat wads of cash? Israel? China? Bill Gates?

He obviously got a lot of big donations. “Small-donors” were a myth, via The Campaign Finance Institute: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216:

REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors

…

These totals force a reality check. In McCain’s case, a $100 million figure from bundlers would represent almost all of the money he raised from large donors ($122 million). In Obama’s case, one should combine the estimated $90 million or so he received with the help of bundlers through August with the remaining $120 million or so from other large donors, and then compare it to the $119 million he raised from small donors through August. The comparison should make one think twice before describing small donors as the financial engine of the Obama campaign.

None of these findings denies the importance of either Obama’s appeal to repeat donors or his innovative use of online social networking tools to interweave appeals for contributions and critically important campaign volunteers. In particular, Obama did attract repeaters who have not been part of the traditional large-dollar, reception-attending fundraising crowd. The fact is that Obama’s financial juggernaut broke records at all contribution levels. The reality does not match the myth, but the reality itself was impressive.

I’m not naive enough to believe that money doesn’t talk, but when there is a lot of money coming from everywhere, who does he answer to? If he chooses to answer to the highest bidder, there are going to be a lot of pissed off lower-bidders.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]afx: When you look at the sums of money necessary to buy (and, let’s be honest, that’s exactly what’s happening) the Presidency, it becomes patently obvious who and what are behind the scenes.[/quote]

It begs the question, who does Obama answer to then? Barbara Streisand? Maybe Jay-Z? Does he then get to ignore everyone who backed and donated to McCain? Are you claiming that the power-brokers who once backed Bush changed their donations to Obama as soon as it was clear that he was going to win, so that they might get something in exchange?

Of course some of this takes place, but I still don’t buy the whole “vast money-wing conspiracy.” Who exactly “installed” Obama with their fat wads of cash? Israel? China? Bill Gates?

He obviously got a lot of big donations. “Small-donors” were a myth, via The Campaign Finance Institute: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216:

REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors

…

These totals force a reality check. In McCain’s case, a $100 million figure from bundlers would represent almost all of the money he raised from large donors ($122 million). In Obama’s case, one should combine the estimated $90 million or so he received with the help of bundlers through August with the remaining $120 million or so from other large donors, and then compare it to the $119 million he raised from small donors through August. The comparison should make one think twice before describing small donors as the financial engine of the Obama campaign.

None of these findings denies the importance of either Obama’s appeal to repeat donors or his innovative use of online social networking tools to interweave appeals for contributions and critically important campaign volunteers. In particular, Obama did attract repeaters who have not been part of the traditional large-dollar, reception-attending fundraising crowd. The fact is that Obama’s financial juggernaut broke records at all contribution levels. The reality does not match the myth, but the reality itself was impressive.

I’m not naive enough to believe that money doesn’t talk, but when there is a lot of money coming from everywhere, who does he answer to? If he chooses to answer to the highest bidder, there are going to be a lot of pissed off lower-bidders.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]afx: When you look at the sums of money necessary to buy (and, let’s be honest, that’s exactly what’s happening) the Presidency, it becomes patently obvious who and what are behind the scenes.[/quote]

It begs the question, who does Obama answer to then? Barbara Streisand? Maybe Jay-Z? Does he then get to ignore everyone who backed and donated to McCain? Are you claiming that the power-brokers who once backed Bush changed their donations to Obama as soon as it was clear that he was going to win, so that they might get something in exchange?

Of course some of this takes place, but I still don’t buy the whole “vast money-wing conspiracy.” Who exactly “installed” Obama with their fat wads of cash? Israel? China? Bill Gates?

He obviously got a lot of big donations. “Small-donors” were a myth, via The Campaign Finance Institute: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216:

REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors

…

These totals force a reality check. In McCain’s case, a $100 million figure from bundlers would represent almost all of the money he raised from large donors ($122 million). In Obama’s case, one should combine the estimated $90 million or so he received with the help of bundlers through August with the remaining $120 million or so from other large donors, and then compare it to the $119 million he raised from small donors through August. The comparison should make one think twice before describing small donors as the financial engine of the Obama campaign.

None of these findings denies the importance of either Obama’s appeal to repeat donors or his innovative use of online social networking tools to interweave appeals for contributions and critically important campaign volunteers. In particular, Obama did attract repeaters who have not been part of the traditional large-dollar, reception-attending fundraising crowd. The fact is that Obama’s financial juggernaut broke records at all contribution levels. The reality does not match the myth, but the reality itself was impressive.

I’m not naive enough to believe that money doesn’t talk, but when there is a lot of money coming from everywhere, who does he answer to? If he chooses to answer to the highest bidder, there are going to be a lot of pissed off lower-bidders.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]afx: When you look at the sums of money necessary to buy (and, let’s be honest, that’s exactly what’s happening) the Presidency, it becomes patently obvious who and what are behind the scenes.[/quote]

It begs the question, who does Obama answer to then? Barbara Streisand? Maybe Jay-Z? Does he then get to ignore everyone who backed and donated to McCain? Are you claiming that the power-brokers who once backed Bush changed their donations to Obama as soon as it was clear that he was going to win, so that they might get something in exchange?

Of course some of this takes place, but I still don’t buy the whole “vast money-wing conspiracy.” Who exactly “installed” Obama with their fat wads of cash? Israel? China? Bill Gates?

He obviously got a lot of big donations. “Small-donors” were a myth, via The Campaign Finance Institute: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216:

REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors

…

These totals force a reality check. In McCain’s case, a $100 million figure from bundlers would represent almost all of the money he raised from large donors ($122 million). In Obama’s case, one should combine the estimated $90 million or so he received with the help of bundlers through August with the remaining $120 million or so from other large donors, and then compare it to the $119 million he raised from small donors through August. The comparison should make one think twice before describing small donors as the financial engine of the Obama campaign.

None of these findings denies the importance of either Obama’s appeal to repeat donors or his innovative use of online social networking tools to interweave appeals for contributions and critically important campaign volunteers. In particular, Obama did attract repeaters who have not been part of the traditional large-dollar, reception-attending fundraising crowd. The fact is that Obama’s financial juggernaut broke records at all contribution levels. The reality does not match the myth, but the reality itself was impressive.

I’m not naive enough to believe that money doesn’t talk, but when there is a lot of money coming from everywhere, who does he answer to? If he chooses to answer to the highest bidder, there are going to be a lot of pissed off lower-bidders.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]afx: When you look at the sums of money necessary to buy (and, let’s be honest, that’s exactly what’s happening) the Presidency, it becomes patently obvious who and what are behind the scenes.[/quote]

It begs the question, who does Obama answer to then? Barbara Streisand? Maybe Jay-Z? Does he then get to ignore everyone who backed and donated to McCain? Are you claiming that the power-brokers who once backed Bush changed their donations to Obama as soon as it was clear that he was going to win, so that they might get something in exchange?

Of course some of this takes place, but I still don’t buy the whole “vast money-wing conspiracy.” Who exactly “installed” Obama with their fat wads of cash? Israel? China? Bill Gates?

He obviously got a lot of big donations. “Small-donors” were a myth, via The Campaign Finance Institute: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216:

REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors

…

These totals force a reality check. In McCain’s case, a $100 million figure from bundlers would represent almost all of the money he raised from large donors ($122 million). In Obama’s case, one should combine the estimated $90 million or so he received with the help of bundlers through August with the remaining $120 million or so from other large donors, and then compare it to the $119 million he raised from small donors through August. The comparison should make one think twice before describing small donors as the financial engine of the Obama campaign.

None of these findings denies the importance of either Obama’s appeal to repeat donors or his innovative use of online social networking tools to interweave appeals for contributions and critically important campaign volunteers. In particular, Obama did attract repeaters who have not been part of the traditional large-dollar, reception-attending fundraising crowd. The fact is that Obama’s financial juggernaut broke records at all contribution levels. The reality does not match the myth, but the reality itself was impressive.

I’m not naive enough to believe that money doesn’t talk, but when there is a lot of money coming from everywhere, who does he answer to? If he chooses to answer to the highest bidder, there are going to be a lot of pissed off lower-bidders.

[peterb]

Pakistan is the “it” country now. Taliban making headway, known nuke arsenal. What else ya need?!
I guess it’s about time we had a full blown conflict that all countries can enjoy.

[peterb]

Pakistan is the “it” country now. Taliban making headway, known nuke arsenal. What else ya need?!
I guess it’s about time we had a full blown conflict that all countries can enjoy.

[peterb]

Pakistan is the “it” country now. Taliban making headway, known nuke arsenal. What else ya need?!
I guess it’s about time we had a full blown conflict that all countries can enjoy.

[peterb]

Pakistan is the “it” country now. Taliban making headway, known nuke arsenal. What else ya need?!
I guess it’s about time we had a full blown conflict that all countries can enjoy.

[peterb]

Pakistan is the “it” country now. Taliban making headway, known nuke arsenal. What else ya need?!
I guess it’s about time we had a full blown conflict that all countries can enjoy.

[blahblahblah]

Now that we have Democrats in power we will engage in kinder, gentler war.

I would like to see a graph showing the number of Paveway and JDAM munitions used in war by the US each year. I would bet that it doesn’t vary much between Democratic and Republican administrations. Under Clinton, we bombed Iraq nearly every day for eight years. Hey at least we don’t leave ’em sitting on the shelf to go bad! Plus it keeps a lot of people working putting ’em together.

And as for suggesting that Emmanuel Goldstein, er umm I mean Osama Bin Laden is dead, how dare you! Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to watch the Two Minutes Hate…

[blahblahblah]

Now that we have Democrats in power we will engage in kinder, gentler war.

I would like to see a graph showing the number of Paveway and JDAM munitions used in war by the US each year. I would bet that it doesn’t vary much between Democratic and Republican administrations. Under Clinton, we bombed Iraq nearly every day for eight years. Hey at least we don’t leave ’em sitting on the shelf to go bad! Plus it keeps a lot of people working putting ’em together.

And as for suggesting that Emmanuel Goldstein, er umm I mean Osama Bin Laden is dead, how dare you! Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to watch the Two Minutes Hate…

[blahblahblah]

Now that we have Democrats in power we will engage in kinder, gentler war.

I would like to see a graph showing the number of Paveway and JDAM munitions used in war by the US each year. I would bet that it doesn’t vary much between Democratic and Republican administrations. Under Clinton, we bombed Iraq nearly every day for eight years. Hey at least we don’t leave ’em sitting on the shelf to go bad! Plus it keeps a lot of people working putting ’em together.

And as for suggesting that Emmanuel Goldstein, er umm I mean Osama Bin Laden is dead, how dare you! Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to watch the Two Minutes Hate…

[blahblahblah]

Now that we have Democrats in power we will engage in kinder, gentler war.

I would like to see a graph showing the number of Paveway and JDAM munitions used in war by the US each year. I would bet that it doesn’t vary much between Democratic and Republican administrations. Under Clinton, we bombed Iraq nearly every day for eight years. Hey at least we don’t leave ’em sitting on the shelf to go bad! Plus it keeps a lot of people working putting ’em together.

And as for suggesting that Emmanuel Goldstein, er umm I mean Osama Bin Laden is dead, how dare you! Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to watch the Two Minutes Hate…

[Author]

Posts