Sources?
There are multiple sources for the story, including the Washington Post. Just try following the links in the post. This Internet thing is all the rage these days. You should give it try.
You've obviuosly got your own agenda, but your factoids are very misleading.
Almost all of the amount donated to Obama was from individual employees at those companies. They are lumped together for reporting purposes.
Secondly, these were not "bribes."
What a bunch of bull.
Bribes? Interesting that you call them that. I didn't.
Obama's donations were "bundles", a very common technique.
The heart of the current financial crisis is the failures and probably criminal actions of the management at Freddie & Fannie. Some of which are no Obama advisors.
If Freddie & Fannie were subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley act, there probably would have been criminal investigations made under the provisions of that act.
Team Obama and the democrats will be "more of the same" financial mismanagement that brought the US to our current problems.
What's wrong with having an agenda? Barak Obama has his own agenda. Keith Olbermann certainly has his own agenda. So does NPR and CBS "News", as well as Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.
Lori comes across as if having an agenda is a bad thing.
Well, if the agenda is that of Obama, Olberman, Pelosi & Frank, then I would have to agree with her. They have an agenda of railroading America into Socialism.
That is a really, really bad agenda.
Having an agenda in itself isn't bad. Having a bad agenda, like Barak Hussein Obama does, is very bad.
Funny how you don't mention Rick Davis, McCain's campaign advisor who founded the lobbying firm for Freddie Mac.
How about the fact that McCain has also received campaign contributions from Freddie Mac?
How about McCain senior adviser Charles Black lobbied for Freddie Mac, from 1999 to 2004. Reports filed by his firm, BKSH & Associates, show Freddie spent $820,000 for that work.
When it comes to the money pit, both parties had their hands in there.
But the problem is not who is more involved, since the both clearly are. The problem stems from how this mess was created. Look at Phil Gramm, who most consider McCain's economic advisor. It was two bills he was lobbied for and wrote back in 91, one under his own name that caused the deregulation of banks, investment firms and insurance companies. His "Pal" is the center focus of the Enron crisis, banking crisis and the subprime mortgage. His second bill, modernization of commodities act is what allowed the swapping of unsecured securities. His deregulation stance and ignorant stance on the economy with the bonus of a Palin VP choice is what is losing him the election.
This is why people are looking for change, even if it's from a less qualified individual such as Obama.
Socialist you say? Look at what administration has decided to socialize capitalism by bailing out the markets. It's certainly not Obama, he's not even in the white house yet! Though him and McCain both voted for the bailout plan so at this point they are both equal on the socialist scale.
So please, before you rant your one sided story get your shit together and realize this is the fault of both parties that was originally created by republicans!
Nuff said!
McCain's faults get plenty of press in MSM outlets such as the NY Times & MSNBC. I mostly cover what isn't getting coverage from those very bias sites.
I'm not saying I'm not bias. Hell, I admit it up front, which the NY Times/MSNBC/etc. won't do.
There is plenty of blame to go around on this mess, but it primarily has been the congressional democrats blocking regulation of Freddie/Fannie.
Even Bill Clinton has come out and stated that simple fact.
Bill Clinton Should admit it. He did after all sign Phil Gramm's Bills into law.
It wasn't until the democrats took over both house and senate in 07 that Freddie and Fannie got reregulated.
Before that it was blockage brought on by both parties. 9 bills to reregulate freddie and fannie were brought to the house and senate during the republican controlled congress and blockage efforts were made by both parties. These idiots couldn't compromise. The bill McCain sponsored asked for monetary control of these companies, which is why it failed.
I myself try not to read biased mainstream media and focus more on facts and figures. TakeThe American Economist association (the oldest organization of respected economist) who support Obama's economic plan by 66% over McCain's 28% with 6% undecided.
Or Tax Policy center who says that while neither candidate will reduce the deficit, Obama's tax plan will reduce it by over a trillion dollars more than McCain.
Now none of the mainstream media left or right are mentioning this. Yet it is important.
As Biden said, "Past is Prologue." Obama has no history of cutting taxes and a record of increasing government spending. There is no reason to believe he will do otherwise.
Bide is also a creature of big government. They will grow the federal government, increase regulation into people's everyday's lives and jack taxes through the the roof. That is their recorded history of behavior.
Here is an important difference I've seen. Right wing blogs are typically more than willing to place some blame on the Republicans. Even if it's limited not having the balls to shove through regulation when they controlled congress (ya, ya...it would have been near impossible in the Senate, but it would have made a good campaign issue at the least). Most are willing to call Paulson nasty names as well.
The left, on the other hand, parrots Nancy Pelosi's line that the Democrats had nothing to do with the crisis, which is a complete load of crap.
The intellectual honesty award on this has to go to the Right. It's a win by default though. The left just wasn't interested in dealing with anything close to reality on this subject.
Commenting by HaloScan
