- #981
Jimmy Snyder
- 1,127
- 20
I understand the desire to say negative things about McCain, but I don't consider it to be sufficient cause for this unfortunate comparison.lisab said:Shi'ite from Shinola.
I understand the desire to say negative things about McCain, but I don't consider it to be sufficient cause for this unfortunate comparison.lisab said:Shi'ite from Shinola.
jimmysnyder said:I understand the desire to say negative things about McCain, but I don't consider it to be sufficient cause for this unfortunate comparison.
And the difference between Iran and Iraq, on which Sen. Obama slipped up in this year's Crocker/Petraeus hearings.lisab said:I don't know if his slip-ups are 'senior moments,' but the president needs to know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite, and Shi'ite from Shinola.
mathwonk said:sorry to drop out. when senator mccain went to liberty university to court jerry falwell, he pretty much started a downward trend that to me is very sad.
which sounds like a zero tolerance policy. If so, then how do you square that with Obama and Wright?...Obama to me is the only one who has shown integrity from first to last in this regard.
Sen. Web has also not done any total denunciation of the current administration, as you define it, either.[/QUOTE]Ivan Seeking said:McCain lost me when he failed to reject Bush and his policies. If he treated Bush like Senator Webb does, I would still be open to considering McCain - the only way that I would vote for a Rep this fall would be if he completely rejected the Bush administration, all that they have done, and many of those who supported him, esp on the radical religious right.
Obama didn't go courting Wright.mheslep said:which sounds like a zero tolerance policy. If so, then how do you square that with Obama and Wright?
'Courting' is a bit ambiguous. McCain gave a speech on Falwell's turf. Exactly what is it that Obama did not do w/ Wright in the same sense that McCain did do w/ Falwell? McCain certainly never wrote a biography which he claimed was 'inspired' by Falwell as Obama did with Wright.Astronuc said:Obama didn't go courting Wright.
Strawman. That is not the comparison put forward at all. This has nothing to do with whatever to do with what Obama did post video.mathwonk said:anybody who compares the visit of mccain to liberty university and the reversal of his denunciation of that rascal, with obama's bold attempt to open a cross racial dialogue after wright's incendiary videos, obviously does not want to really discuss anything reasonably.
Astronuc said:Or not. Apparently none of those 14 is currently a registered lobbyist. Last Lobby Report indicates the last year registered as a lobbyist.
Compare those 14 with those for Clinton (22) and McCain (69).Code:Name State Employer Last Lobby Report Timothy M. Broas MD Winston & Strawn 2000 Frank Clark IL Commonwealth Edison 2000 Howard W. Gutman MD Williams & Connolly 1999 Scott Harris DC Harris Wiltshire and Grannis 2006 Allan J. Katz FL Akerman Senterfitt 2004 William T. Lake DC Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr 2001 Robert S. Litt MD Arnold & Porter 2002 Kenneth G. Lore DC Bingham McCutchen 2001 Thomas J. Perrelli VA Jenner and Block 2002 Thomas A. Reed VA Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP 2006 Paul N. Roth NY Schulte Roth & Zabel 2005 Alan Solomont MA Solomont Bailis Ventures 2006 Robert M. Sussman DC Latham & Watkins 2006 Tom E. Wheeler DC Core Capital Partners 2003
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.phpSignificantly, the Center’s lobbyist sector excludes in-house lobbyists who work solely for one company, union, trade association, or other group. These people may lobby, but their contributions are grouped in the totals for the various industries they represent, along with contributions from other employees in the sector, their relatives, whatever PAC money has been raised, and donations from trade and professional associations which, of course, carry lots of weight in the horse trading that occurs when legislation is drafted. (Corporations cannot contribute directly to candidates.)
Contributions made by the various industry sectors tell the real story in a presidential race. And Opensecrets.org shows that Obama is picking up gobs of money put on the table by these special interests—including those involved in health care, which will surely have a lot riding on the outcome of the election and will expect to be heard after the election is over.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120433642148104761-uMpNDvKEAFnulL5UqrgCcKfZRIY_20090301.html?mod=rss_freeDaniel Shapiro, who advises Sen. Obama on foreign policy issues, is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute and other corporate clients. Broderick Johnson, a friend and informal political adviser, heads up the lobbying arm in Washington of the Bryan Cave LLP law firm, where he represents Verizon and Shell Oil, among other clients.
Mr. Johnson sees no conflict in Sen. Obama seeking lobbyists' advice while declining their donations. "Sen. Obama's overriding objective is to break the link between lobbyists, their money and their petitioning of the government," Mr. Johnson said. "It doesn't matter to him if you're contributing through your personal efforts."
Art said:Hamas are a Sunni group, Iran is Shi'ite. You seem to be confusing Hamas with Hezbollah.
They have been made since 2005, which includes this election.Ivan Seeking said:The donations cited appear to have been made before Obama even agreed to run. One was for the 2006 election, and the rest were only cited as:
What's more, when I tried to check the link for the list [at the bottom of the page that you linked], it was dead. So either provide evidence that this is a bribe or retract your statement. Intentionally posting misinformation merits 3 of the 10 points needed for a member to be banned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902229.htmlObama's Hopefund Inc. distributed more than $180,000 in donations to political groups and candidates in the early presidential voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and more than $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February. The donations accounted for nearly three-quarters of the money the PAC has given out since this summer.
An Obama campaign spokesman last week said that "there is no connection" between the PAC donations and the presidential campaign.
But Bob Bauer, the private counsel for both Obama's campaign and Hopefund, said yesterday that campaign workers were involved over the summer in identifying and recommending possible recipients when Hopefund was deciding how to spend its remaining money. In particular, Bauer said, senior campaign strategist Steve Hildebrand was consulted "multiple times" on potential donations.
We have a three pig race. Which pig has the least amount of lipstick? :rofl:chemisttree said:This is what I meant. You can't see the effect of lobbists nowadays due to the changing nature of the way money is collected by so-called 'bundlers' and former lobbists.
Comparing numbers to McCain and Clinton isn't my point either, but it is a good point especially in McCain's case. Obama says that he doesn't get money from lobbists but they do work on his behalf. Since they don't hand the check over personally, they don't have to register as lobbyists. But their efforts are noted in his disclosure information.
He does employ lobbyists in his campaign but he didn't say that he is taking money from them. Obama's goal is to break the link between lobbyists, their money and their petitioning of the government but he employs them in his campaign as advisors - not contributors per se. McCain's campaign is practically run by lobbyists as well, so the straight talk express can't really claim the high ground on this issue. That said, this isn't really change at all. Just more lipstick on the pig.
chemisttree said:Do you have any information that the government of Saudia Arabia is funding Hamas?
The Financial Sources of the Hamas Terror Organization - July 20033. The Financial Assistance Infrastructure
The Hamas has an extensive network of financial sources, operating within the framework of Dawa activity, with a total value of tens of millions of dollars a year.
Gulf States - A considerable proportion of the aforementioned funds originate from various sources in the Gulf States (The Gulf Cooperation Council States). Most of the funding is from Saudi Arabian sources, with a total value of $12 million a year.
Iran - Its contribution is estimated at $3 million a year.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=194942The majority of Hamas funding and logistical support is provided by a number of states, including Iran and Syria. Neighboring Arab states, including Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, also contain well-established charitable groups that fund Hamas activities.
I wonder if that is direct from the SA government or individuals in SA. At that level one person in SA could be responsible for the funding. I'm more interested in who's supplies weapons to Hamas, as one could argue (weakly, I think) that Hamas has legitimate political operations in Lebanon - that is they win fair elections.Astronuc said:
chemisttree said:I'll admit that it was published in the Washington Post, so it could all be a pack of lies.
Ivan Seeking said:First you accused Obama of bribing superdelegates, and now you cite his donations to campaigns as evidence. Since when is it a crime to support people of like mind? There appears to be a point of distinction to be made in the rules, but no one is claiming bribery, except you.
Not to mention the fact that $150,000 is chump change; and over how many candidates?.
How much money has Obama raised?
http://www.capitaleye.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=338For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time.
Oh yes, yes. Vote for Obama and he will bring down the price of gas and milk.Ivan Seeking said:Yes, I have met many converts over the last couple of years. Even my relatives in Orange County [notoriously conservative and Republican] are considering a vote for Obama.
In the end, the price of milk and gas speak louder than Limbaugh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7395773.stmMcCain aides quit over Burma ties
Two aides to Republican presidential nominee John McCain have stood down over ties to a lobbying firm that has represented Burma's military leaders.
Douglas Goodyear, who had been chosen to run the 2008 Republican convention, said he was resigning "so as not to become a distraction in this campaign".
snip
Newsweek magazine revealed on Saturday that DCI was paid more than $300,000 (£150,000) by Burma's military leadership for lobbying work to improve its image in the US.
snip
The BBC's Jamie Coomarasamy in Washington says the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr McCain's campaign was already controversial, given Mr McCain's frequent pledges to fight against the influence of special interests in Washington.
That two of those lobbyists were linked to a special interest currently facing worldwide condemnation should give cause for reflection within Mr McCain's inner circle, our correspondent adds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7397377.stmEx-Republican aims for presidency
A former Republican congressman, Bob Barr, has announced he hopes to run for president of the United States - for the Libertarian Party.
lol Classic strawman argument. Where did I claim the Saudi Arabian gov't was directly funding Hamas? Perhaps you should read the link I supplied for the US gov'ts take on the details of the funding and how the Saudi Arabian gov't turns a blind eye to it. Personally I don't see a problem with it as Hamas are the legitimate governing power of the Palestinian Authority after their landslide win in the last election.chemisttree said:No, I'm not. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm
Do you have any information that the government of Saudia Arabia is funding Hamas?
No, that would be McCain and Hillary that have promised a nonsensical reduction in gas prices.mheslep said:Oh yes, yes. Vote for Obama and he will bring down the price of gas and milk.
:rofl:jimmysnyder said:Now that the primary season is well underway, I am ready to make my predictions. McCain will be the Republican nominee. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Bush will switch party allegiance one week before the election. McCain will be swept into office on voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic incumbent.
Art said:lol Classic strawman argument. Where did I claim the Saudi Arabian gov't was directly funding Hamas?
Art said:Most of Hamas' funding comes from Saudi Arabia who western leaders meet with regularly
Perhaps you should read the link I supplied for the US gov'ts take on the details of the funding and how the Saudi Arabian gov't turns a blind eye to it. Personally I don't see a problem with it as Hamas are the legitimate governing power of the Palestinian Authority after their landslide win in the last election.
I'm trying to understand your position here. I was under the impression you thought Obama should not meet with Iran because you thought they were the main backers of Hamas. According to the article I referenced Saudi Arabians are the main backers of Hamas which the Saudi gov't allows to happen openly (and according to some Jewish sources actually contribute to directly themselves) and yet it is okay to meet with the Saudi gov't but not Iran?? Why?? One could also point out that Iranian aid only went to Hamas when they were the legitimate gov't of the PA whereas Saudi backing began when they were in opposition. So if meeting with Iran is supposed to show some kind of support for Hamas why isn't the same true of meeting with Saudi Arabia??chemisttree said:Here:
The original comment referred to Obama meeting with governments (Iran and Hamas). Did you intend to take the discussion off topic and refer to western leaders meeting with individuals? That's a bit of tortuous logic... might even say 'strawman'.
But Obama does... if it will help him win Jewish votes.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htmSaudi Arabia's past involvement in international terrorism is indisputable. While the Bush administration decided to redact 28 sensitive pages of the Joint Intelligence Report of the U.S. Congress, nonetheless, Saudi involvement in terrorist financing can be documented through materials captured by Israel in Palestinian headquarters in 2002-3. In light of this evidence, Saudi denials about terrorist funding don't hold water.
*
Israel retrieved a document of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) which detailed the allocation of $280,000 to 14 Hamas charities. IIRO and other suspected global Saudi charities are not NGOs, since their boards of directors are headed by Saudi cabinet members. Prince Salman, a full brother of King Fahd, controls IIRO distributions "with an iron hand," according to former CIA operative Robert Baer. Mahmoud Abbas, in fact, complained, in a handwritten December 2000 letter to Salman, about Saudi funding of Hamas. Defense Minister Prince Sultan has been cited as a major IIRO contributor.
*
It was hoped, after the May 12 triple bombing attack in Riyadh, that Saudi Arabia might halt its support for terrorism. Internally, the Saudi security forces moved against al-Qaeda cells all over the kingdom. But externally, the Saudis were still engaged in terrorist financing, underwriting 60-70 percent of the Hamas budget, in violation of their "roadmap" commitments to President Bush.
*
Additionally, the Saudis back the civilian infrastructure of Hamas with extremist textbooks glorifying jihad and martyrdom that are used by schools and Islamic societies throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ideological infiltration of Palestinian society by the Saudis in this way is reminiscent of their involvement in the madrassa system of Pakistan during the 1980s, that gave birth to the Taliban and other pro bin-Laden groups.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668Well into the war on terror, Saudi Arabia continues to serve as the capital of international terrorist financing. Through groups such as the Muslim World League, the International Islamic Relief Organization, and the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, as well as through Islamic affairs bureaus at Saudi embassies and consulates worldwide, Saudis continue to fund radical Islamic groups that support or engage in international terrorism.
Some cases are both clear cut and extreme. For example, after his arrest in Indonesia on June 5, 2002, Omar al-Farouq, al-Qaeda's operational point man in Southeast Asia, told his interrogators that al-Qaeda activities in the region were funded through a branch of al-Haramain. According to al-Farouq, "money was laundered through the foundation by donors from the Middle East." In another case, Italian wiretaps monitoring members of a European al-Qaeda cell overheard a senior operative reassuring his subordinate about funding: "Don't ever worry about money, because Saudi Arabia's money is your money."
Astronuc said:Well Clinton won WV with a handy (significant) margin, so she is still in the race, and she claims to be the more qualified candidate for the Democratic party.
Next week is the Kentucky and Oregon primaries. Apparently Clinton is expected to win Ky, and perhaps Obama will win Oregon.
Art said:Anyone who thinks the Saudi gov't isn't up to their necks in financing Islamic extremists is deluding themselves.
jimmysnyder said:Also, there has been some talk about Obama sharing his campaign funds. Can he really give money to Barr without legal ramifications?