On January 16 2012 09:52 Saryph wrote: That picture has been posted before, and as was said in the past, Obama receives a similar percentage of his money from 'concerned citizens' as Paul, only it is several times larger. I suppose a lot more 'concerned citizens' support Obama than Paul.
Also it is quite confusing that the military is listed on that chart, as the military is not allowed to donate money to political campaigns, as their budget comes from the federal budget. Does that mean that the groups listed are in fact not necessarily accurate?
Can you provide evidence to back up your statement?
I'll look it up again, but you know, you could always try reading THIS THREAD before posting in it.
Keep in mind though, that Obama has had 4 years to acquire donations. As well the point that Goldman Sachs gave Obama over 1$ million is extremely unsettling to me. That doesn't bother you?
PS: Thanks if you find the info for me, I do appreciate the info in this thread. Just too many pages to go through for my lazy ass. :D
The names listed on that chart, such as US Army, or Goldman Sachs mean money donated by employees, PACs run by the company or owners acting as citizens, not the company itself.
If you look at the small individual contributions for Obama and Paul, they make up 48% of the total money for each of them, ~$41 million for Obama and ~$6 million for Paul, as of me checking it right now. On another part of their site opensecrets.org define 'Small Individual Contributions' as those that are $200 or less.
These vids are for the people who keep calling slandering him
Oh, so Ron Paul "only" published and profited off of racist newsletters.
cool
Yea he's rolling in the dough he made from them. Ron Paul such a horrible person for the one time he trusted other people to run his newsletter, what a bad person he is!
You'll notice his house and net worth are one of the lowest of all the candidates. Cool.
So it's okay because his company "only" made a few million?
No, it's not the amount that matters, but the act itself. It would neither be worse if he made more money, nor better if he made less.
See the difference now?
Ok, you are apparently oblivious to reason. I have already shown why that picture is pure propaganda and nothing else, the last time you posted it in this very same thread. I even posted some true numbers for you to use. Reposting it does not change the fact that it has no legs to stand on. Please stop spamming propaganda.
Repost: If you look it up, the numbers are 6,000,000 $. Get your facts straight!
Now if you compare to Romney and Obama, the picture is approximately:
Paul, Romney, Obama "Concerned citizens": 6,000,000 $, 3,000,000 $, 41,000,000 $ Of total funds: 48%, 10%, 48%
Perry has only 4% of his contributions from small contributers and same goes for Huntsman with a measle 170,000 $ from small contributers! Gingrich and Santorum has almost no campaign going for them compared to Perry, Romney and Paul. They seem to get a lot of freebees from the media instead.
These vids are for the people who keep calling slandering him
Oh, so Ron Paul "only" published and profited off of racist newsletters.
cool
Yea he's rolling in the dough he made from them. Ron Paul such a horrible person for the one time he trusted other people to run his newsletter, what a bad person he is!
You'll notice his house and net worth are one of the lowest of all the candidates. Cool.
So it's okay because his company "only" made a few million?
No, it's not the amount that matters, but the act itself. It would neither be worse if he made more money, nor better if he made less.
See the difference now?
Yep, everyone's already said it but this poster is full of shit. Read my previous post or the one above me for the actual numbers.
And after looking at the real numbers, keep the following in mind: Obama hasn't started fundraising or campaigning yet, so his percent from individuals is far lower than what it will be in a year. You have to keep in mind candidates start their massive fundraising efforts once they kick off their campaign and as the incumbent, Obama still has some time before that.
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
I agree with gold here. Obama has been proven to be a liar with no hope or change, and I recently found out he cut summer pell grants already. Ridiculous. But off topic as this is the republican nominations thread.
"Some endorsements are made based on perceived pragmatism, others are made based on the potential for personal gain or political self-promotion. My endorsement of Ron Paul is based on his 30-year record of protecting taxpayers and the plans he has put forward in this race to balance our budget within three years". - SC State Senator Tom Davis
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
Anyway, that poster was falsified propaganda meant to make Ron Paul look good in comparison but someone deliberately altered the actual tables to do so.
Sorry to ruin the circlejerk though.
On January 16 2012 10:14 Zalithian wrote: I agree with gold here. Obama has been proven to be a liar with no hope or change, and I recently found out he cut summer pell grants already. Ridiculous. But off topic as this is the republican nominations thread.
You know he didn't want to cut the grants and was actually engaged in a bitter fight with the Republicans over the issue, right? The GOP wanted to cut them for months now in even more severe ways and the cut that went though last months was a compromise so the Republicans would agree to the spending deal. Facts man, they're nice.
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
What? Grasping? What do you think most Americans would say if Obama gave half his MASSIVE amount of re-election campaign money to help pay off the debt (not that it would be a huge dent or anything). If any American was actually mad about that they need to go see a doctor. It would be the biggest show of commitment more than pissing away money of tv ads and flyers and buying endorsements.
EDIT: Also don't forget to see that I thanked you for the info before posting this please.
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
What? Grasping? What do you think most Americans would say if Obama gave half his MASSIVE amount of re-election campaign money to help pay off the debt (not that it would be a huge dent or anything). If any American was actually mad about that they need to go see a doctor. It would be the biggest show of commitment more than pissing away money of tv ads and flyers and buying endorsements.
People like yourself would just be cynical about it and trash him for a pr stunt. I fail to see what he has to gain by doing so. Also most that donates money for a cause actually wants it to go to the, you know, cause.
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
What? Grasping? What do you think most Americans would say if Obama gave half his MASSIVE amount of re-election campaign money to help pay off the debt (not that it would be a huge dent or anything). If any American was actually mad about that they need to go see a doctor. It would be the biggest show of commitment more than pissing away money of tv ads and flyers and buying endorsements.
EDIT: Also don't forget to see that I thanked you for the info before posting this please.
The argument could be made that he believes he could help the government more as president rather than by reducing the debt by a small amount and potentially allowing someone else to become president. Either way, this is silly unless you believe every politician should do the same, which they won't. Hell, even private citizens won't do it. And even if he did donate it, he would just be attacked for trying to manipulate voters into picking him because of the donation.
Yes it's grasping. Come on. I'm an Obama supporter and I can think of dozens of actual things to attack him for rather than him not giving all his money to the government.
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
Anyway, that poster was falsified propaganda meant to make Ron Paul look good in comparison but someone deliberately altered the actual tables to do so.
On January 16 2012 10:14 Zalithian wrote: I agree with gold here. Obama has been proven to be a liar with no hope or change, and I recently found out he cut summer pell grants already. Ridiculous. But off topic as this is the republican nominations thread.
You know he didn't want to cut the grants and was actually engaged in a bitter fight with the Republicans over the issue, right? The GOP wanted to cut them for months now in even more severe ways and the cut that went though last months was a compromise so the Republicans would agree to the spending deal. Facts man, they're nice.
How about the NDAA he promised to veto?
Or bringing the troops home, 4 years ago?
Facts man. They are nice. Obama is a liar who hasn't lived up to his promises at all. I'm sure they could have cut other things besides education. Hey, I bet if Obama brought the troops home like he promised, they wouldn't have had to cut education funding! Fancy that.
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
What? Grasping? What do you think most Americans would say if Obama gave half his MASSIVE amount of re-election campaign money to help pay off the debt (not that it would be a huge dent or anything). If any American was actually mad about that they need to go see a doctor. It would be the biggest show of commitment more than pissing away money of tv ads and flyers and buying endorsements.
People like yourself would just be cynical about it and trash him for a pr stunt. I fail to see what he has to gain by doing so. Also most that donates money for a cause actually wants it to go to the, you know, cause.
What the fuck do you mean I would be cynical about it and trash him? You my friend are fucking nuts. I my self would praise President Obama for doing a extremely selfless act and putting his campaign money to help America. I have no real problem with Obama. What is your problem?
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
What? Grasping? What do you think most Americans would say if Obama gave half his MASSIVE amount of re-election campaign money to help pay off the debt (not that it would be a huge dent or anything). If any American was actually mad about that they need to go see a doctor. It would be the biggest show of commitment more than pissing away money of tv ads and flyers and buying endorsements.
EDIT: Also don't forget to see that I thanked you for the info before posting this please.
The argument could be made that he believes he could help the government more as president rather than by reducing the debt by a small amount and potentially allowing someone else to become president. Either way, this is silly unless you believe every politician should do the same, which they won't. Hell, even private citizens won't do it. And even if he did donate it, he would just be attacked for trying to manipulate voters into picking him because of the donation.
Yes it's grasping. Come on. I'm an Obama supporter and I can think of dozens of actual things to attack him for rather than him not giving all his money to the government.
I am not ATTACKING HIM. Am I reading my messages wrong here? I for one would praise him for helping his countries debt, give it up.
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
Anyway, that poster was falsified propaganda meant to make Ron Paul look good in comparison but someone deliberately altered the actual tables to do so.
Sorry to ruin the circlejerk though.
On January 16 2012 10:14 Zalithian wrote: I agree with gold here. Obama has been proven to be a liar with no hope or change, and I recently found out he cut summer pell grants already. Ridiculous. But off topic as this is the republican nominations thread.
You know he didn't want to cut the grants and was actually engaged in a bitter fight with the Republicans over the issue, right? The GOP wanted to cut them for months now in even more severe ways and the cut that went though last months was a compromise so the Republicans would agree to the spending deal. Facts man, they're nice.
Facts man. They are nice. Obama is a liar who hasn't lived up to his promises at all. I'm sure they could have cut other things besides education. Hey, I bet if Obama brought the troops home like he promised, they wouldn't have had to cut education funding! Fancy that.
?? What are you talking about? I never claimed any of that was true nor did I say it was a fact.
I was just replying to you since you were attacking him for doing something every Republican candidate including (actually, especially) Ron Paul would've done. And to top it off, it was something he didn't even want to do but was forced into.
Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich suggested at a Fox News forum hosted by Mike Huckabee in South Carolina on Saturday that it would be a good idea to fire federal employees for being too liberal. Federal law, on the other hand, says Gingrich’s plan would be illegal.
“I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal employees delivering the right services in a highly efficient way and then wants to get rid of those folks who are in fact wasteful, or those folks who are ideologically so far to the left, or those people who want to frankly dictate to the rest of us,” Gingrich said in response to a question from a federal employee at the forum (emphasis ours).
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
Anyway, that poster was falsified propaganda meant to make Ron Paul look good in comparison but someone deliberately altered the actual tables to do so.
Sorry to ruin the circlejerk though.
On January 16 2012 10:14 Zalithian wrote: I agree with gold here. Obama has been proven to be a liar with no hope or change, and I recently found out he cut summer pell grants already. Ridiculous. But off topic as this is the republican nominations thread.
You know he didn't want to cut the grants and was actually engaged in a bitter fight with the Republicans over the issue, right? The GOP wanted to cut them for months now in even more severe ways and the cut that went though last months was a compromise so the Republicans would agree to the spending deal. Facts man, they're nice.
Facts man. They are nice. Obama is a liar who hasn't lived up to his promises at all. I'm sure they could have cut other things besides education. Hey, I bet if Obama brought the troops home like he promised, they wouldn't have had to cut education funding! Fancy that.
?? What are you talking about? I never claimed any of that was true nor did I say it was a fact.
I was just replying to you since you were attacking him for doing something every Republican candidate including (actually, especially) Ron Paul would've done. And to top it off, it was something he didn't even want to do but was forced into.
My point is the same. Obama is a liar. His hope and change have been a joke. Had he brought the troops home years ago, I'm pretty confident that the money saved would be more than enough to NOT cut educational funding.
...George Stephanopoulos played a new TV ad running in South Carolina, from Colbert’s super-PAC (control of which was officially transferred to Colbert’s close colleague, Daily Show host Jon Stewart). The ad features a voiceover narration from actor John Lithgow, who declares alongside audio of Romney: “If Mitt Romney really believes ‘Corporations are people, my friend,’ then Mitt Romney is a serial killer. He’s — Mitt the Ripper!”...
Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich suggested at a Fox News forum hosted by Mike Huckabee in South Carolina on Saturday that it would be a good idea to fire federal employees for being too liberal. Federal law, on the other hand, says Gingrich’s plan would be illegal.
“I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal employees delivering the right services in a highly efficient way and then wants to get rid of those folks who are in fact wasteful, or those folks who are ideologically so far to the left, or those people who want to frankly dictate to the rest of us,” Gingrich said in response to a question from a federal employee at the forum (emphasis ours).
He has to go for the fringe base now since he lost the mainstream in the last couple of weeks. Gingrich isn't stupid and he's been in government his whole life, so he knows he would never be able to do this. It's just a lame attempt to stay in the campaign.
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
Anyway, that poster was falsified propaganda meant to make Ron Paul look good in comparison but someone deliberately altered the actual tables to do so.
Sorry to ruin the circlejerk though.
On January 16 2012 10:14 Zalithian wrote: I agree with gold here. Obama has been proven to be a liar with no hope or change, and I recently found out he cut summer pell grants already. Ridiculous. But off topic as this is the republican nominations thread.
You know he didn't want to cut the grants and was actually engaged in a bitter fight with the Republicans over the issue, right? The GOP wanted to cut them for months now in even more severe ways and the cut that went though last months was a compromise so the Republicans would agree to the spending deal. Facts man, they're nice.
Facts man. They are nice. Obama is a liar who hasn't lived up to his promises at all. I'm sure they could have cut other things besides education. Hey, I bet if Obama brought the troops home like he promised, they wouldn't have had to cut education funding! Fancy that.
?? What are you talking about? I never claimed any of that was true nor did I say it was a fact.
I was just replying to you since you were attacking him for doing something every Republican candidate including (actually, especially) Ron Paul would've done. And to top it off, it was something he didn't even want to do but was forced into.
My point is the same. Obama is a liar. His hope and change have been a joke. Had he brought the troops home years ago, I'm pretty confident that the money saved would be more than enough to NOT cut educational funding.
You know he wants to and has always wanted to bring them home, right? It's like Obama is sitting in his office happy that the war is still going on.
Here's the thing though: Senate is controlled by the GOP, which does not want the war to end. Additionally, his generals and advisers aren't so keen on ending the war either.
Even if Ron Paul won the presidency he would not be able to immediate bring all the troops home. There are some uncomfortable realities that presidents have to deal with regarding these things. This is why is best to not start a war in the first place, because ending it is extremely dangerous.
All I can say is I'm glad Iraq is over. That said, I do wish Obama had ended the Afghanistan War. The thing is, I know for a fact no Republican would end the war and Ron Paul's position on the war is pretty much the same as Obama's was, and I don't really think Ron Paul will somehow be able to change everyone's minds any more than Obama can.
But yes, Obama did not hold his word and do everything he said he would. It's a shame. But keep in mind no president has really done so, and I have absolutely no reason to believe anyone this time around is any different. I'm sorry, but RP is just as idealistic as Obama was (just with different ideals) and if he ever got the office, he'd be stuck in the same position with gridlock and advisers going against him.
And what did you mean when you said your point was the same? All I was replying to you for was to let you know that you had the facts wrong on the Pell Grants thing. Now I'm confused...
On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote: You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul.
First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion.
If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no?
You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there.
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates
And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now.
Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself.
Anyway, that poster was falsified propaganda meant to make Ron Paul look good in comparison but someone deliberately altered the actual tables to do so.
Sorry to ruin the circlejerk though.
On January 16 2012 10:14 Zalithian wrote: I agree with gold here. Obama has been proven to be a liar with no hope or change, and I recently found out he cut summer pell grants already. Ridiculous. But off topic as this is the republican nominations thread.
You know he didn't want to cut the grants and was actually engaged in a bitter fight with the Republicans over the issue, right? The GOP wanted to cut them for months now in even more severe ways and the cut that went though last months was a compromise so the Republicans would agree to the spending deal. Facts man, they're nice.
Facts man. They are nice. Obama is a liar who hasn't lived up to his promises at all. I'm sure they could have cut other things besides education. Hey, I bet if Obama brought the troops home like he promised, they wouldn't have had to cut education funding! Fancy that.
?? What are you talking about? I never claimed any of that was true nor did I say it was a fact.
I was just replying to you since you were attacking him for doing something every Republican candidate including (actually, especially) Ron Paul would've done. And to top it off, it was something he didn't even want to do but was forced into.
My point is the same. Obama is a liar. His hope and change have been a joke. Had he brought the troops home years ago, I'm pretty confident that the money saved would be more than enough to NOT cut educational funding.
You know he wants to and has always wanted to bring them home, right? It's like Obama is sitting in his office happy that the war is still going on.
Here's the thing though: Senate is controlled by the GOP, which does not the war to end. Additionally, his generals and advisers aren't so keen on ending the war either.
Even if Ron Paul won the presidency he would not be able to immediate bring all the troops home. There are some uncomfortable realities that presidents have to deal with regarding these things. This is why is best to not start a war in the first place, because ending it is extremely dangerous.
All I can say is I'm glad Iraq is over. That said, I do wish Obama had ended the Afghanistan War. The thing is, I know for a fact no Republican would end the war and Ron Paul's position on the war is pretty much the same as Obama's was, and I don't really think Ron Paul will somehow be able to change everyone's minds any more than Obama can.
But yes, Obama did not hold his word and do everything he said he would. It's a shame. But keep in mind no president has really done so, and I have absolutely no reason to believe anyone this time around is any different. I'm sorry, but RP is just as idealistic as Obama was (just with different ideals) and if he ever got the office, he'd be stuck in the same position with gridlock and advisers going against him.
And what did you mean when you said your point was the same? All I was replying to you for was to let you know that you had the facts wrong on the Pell Grants thing. Now I'm confused...
I don't have my facts wrong. Obama did indeed agree to cut Pell Grant funding, yes? It's not really relevant whether or not he claims he wanted to. He also "claimed" he didn't want to sign the NDAA, but he still did. Education should be a priority, and I expected that Obama would have found a way to avoid the cut. Answer me this. How much did Obama cut the Military Budget by during his term?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wmpeN.png)
