another hypocrite runs for senate

[G.T.]

Exactly, and saying so is just hyperbolic rhetoric meant to smear someone as opposed to listening to and considering what they're actually saying. It's not honest.

It's like saying someone who wants campaign finance reform is against having elections.

not exactly

if she's serious about reforming wall st, she shouldn't take their money, imo.

the only people on wall st who might want reform are selling newspapers and hot dogs.

I disagree.

That'd be like NBA players not playing any more because a couple Refs throw games here and there. Still playing doesn't mean they believe in throwing games.

 

[del]

It's like saying someone who wants campaign finance reform is against having elections.

not exactly

if she's serious about reforming wall st, she shouldn't take their money, imo.

the only people on wall st who might want reform are selling newspapers and hot dogs.

Granted, I'm not some big wig in the industry but I'm definitely not selling hot dogs either.

I'd be pretty insulted if she rejected my money because of who my employer is.

fair point, but that's not the kind of money we're talking about, either, unless you're planning on going to a $$$$$$ fundraiser

 

[Valerie]

Exactly, and saying so is just hyperbolic rhetoric meant to smear someone as opposed to listening to and considering what they're actually saying. It's not honest.

It's like saying someone who wants campaign finance reform is against having elections.

not exactly

if she's serious about reforming wall st, she shouldn't take their money, imo.

the only people on wall st who might want reform are selling newspapers and hot dogs.

Or at the very least, if she's going to take donations from Wall Street, her supporters should stop pretending that her opponents are necessarily corrupt for doing the very same thing...

 

[Article 15]

not exactly

if she's serious about reforming wall st, she shouldn't take their money, imo.

the only people on wall st who might want reform are selling newspapers and hot dogs.

Granted, I'm not some big wig in the industry but I'm definitely not selling hot dogs either.

I'd be pretty insulted if she rejected my money because of who my employer is.

fair point, but that's not the kind of money we're talking about, either, unless you're planning on going to a $$$$$$ fundraiser

I'm definitely not planning on going to one of those big ticket price per plate events.

It sounds to me like she is refusing to allow herself to be painted into a corner.

 

[Article 15]

It's like saying someone who wants campaign finance reform is against having elections.

not exactly

if she's serious about reforming wall st, she shouldn't take their money, imo.

the only people on wall st who might want reform are selling newspapers and hot dogs.

Or at the very least, if she's going to take donations from Wall Street, her supporters should stop pretending that her opponents are necessarily corrupt for doing the very same thing...

Corrupt? No, but when they are literally falling all over themselves to give him money it gives me plenty reason to question who's best interests he is more concerned it.

 

[kiwiman127]

Exactly, and saying so is just hyperbolic rhetoric meant to smear someone as opposed to listening to and considering what they're actually saying. It's not honest.

It's like saying someone who wants campaign finance reform is against having elections.

not exactly

if she's serious about reforming wall st, she shouldn't take their money, imo.

the only people on wall st who might want reform are selling newspapers and hot dogs.

In my my mind and I'd guess that most non-partisans would agree,,,,,,Warren just lost creditability and her right to claim that she'll stand up to Wall Street. Isn't that her Number 1 issue?

 

[G.T.]

It's like saying someone who wants campaign finance reform is against having elections.

not exactly

if she's serious about reforming wall st, she shouldn't take their money, imo.

the only people on wall st who might want reform are selling newspapers and hot dogs.

In my my mind and I'd guess that most non-partisans would agree,,,,,,Warren just lost creditability and her right to claim that she'll stand up to Wall Street. Isn't that her Number 1 issue?

I don't know how that logic washes.

I think some dogs are evil = / = I dislike all dogs.
I dislike some hats, does not equal I dislike hats.
I dont like (xrule) in Football = / = does notr equal I dont like football.


etcetcetcetcetc

 

[AquaAthena]

Elizabeth Warren — who hauled in an eye-popping $5.7 million the last three months of 2011 — refused to swear off Wall Street money yesterday, instead claiming that any money she gets from deep-pocketed financiers is coming from those who “want reform.”

“There are people on Wall Street who actually believe we need better rules, fairer rules,” Warren said last night as she toured small businesses in Davis Square in Somerville

did she say that with a straight face?

Elizabeth Warren out-raises Scott Brown, defends $$ - BostonHerald.com

"The following is a quote from Elizabeth Warren, current favorite of progressive activists and a candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, which I found via MoveOn:"

SNIP:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you!

SNIP:

Elizabeth Warren seems to think that the factory owner who wants to keep a bigger chunk of whatever she earned is the bad guy who needs a stern-talking-to. What if what we really need is to get in there and fix the machine — for the next kid to come along, and also for ourselves?

Elizabeth Warren’s Quote - By Reihan Salam - The Agenda - National Review Online

 

[whitehall]

The freaking Supreme court said it was OK. There is nothing wrong, I repeat, nothing wrong with accepting regulated campaign funds from corporate donors. Wall Street ain't the enemy, government corruption is. Generally they are full of it but I doubt if the OWS rabble are all fools. They accept government corruption as long as a democrat is in office because corruption ain't the thing they are fighting. They are fighting against capitalism.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Except the "bring down Wallstreet" thing is something you disengenuously applied to her, it's doubtfully something she's actually said.

Like I said - you can rail against corruption in any sector and still support said sector - it's not really hypocritical if you're not broad brushing.

Well personally i can't really do that. If i were against banks or wall street I wouldn't give them my money.

Good thing I'm not.

To me it sounds like she's using propaganda to get votes, it'll also be neat to see what kind of "donations" she gets and doesn't reject from Wall Street.

^ you just did it again.

You ascribed to her that she's "against banks or wallstreet."

And I'm telling you, being against bad practices isn't being against THE practice as a whole. But that's what you're trying to make it seem - which is disengenuous.

No i was giving an example if i were against those things or thought they needed radical reform i wouldn't give them my money.

Imagine the level of faith it takes for this scenario.

1.) Person you don't know says they want major reform in an entity and often voice downright disgust in said entity.
2.) They give their money to said entity, make money off said entity, and said entity makes money off of them giving them even more power.
3.) That person takes "donations" from said entity.

How could ANYONE have faith that this person is going to work hard to change an entity, change that will hurt their profit margins, that they make so much money off of?

Wouldn't common sense to say that he or she is most likely lying, because he or she would benefit from that lie? (the benefit being getting to hold office)

 

[The Rabbi]

“There are people on Wall Street who actually believe we need better rules, fairer rules,” Warren said last night as she toured small businesses in Davis Square in Somerville.

“That’s what I stand for."

While's she's sucking Wall St's collective dick.
Are Democrats really this stupid and gullible? Democrats are the party of Wall St. Obama, Dodd, Frank, Warren--all of them demagoging the wall st issue while they are really in their pockets.

 

[California Girl]

not exactly

if she's serious about reforming wall st, she shouldn't take their money, imo.

the only people on wall st who might want reform are selling newspapers and hot dogs.

Or at the very least, if she's going to take donations from Wall Street, her supporters should stop pretending that her opponents are necessarily corrupt for doing the very same thing...

Corrupt? No, but when they are literally falling all over themselves to give him money it gives me plenty reason to question who's best interests he is more concerned it.

So it's acceptable support for 'reform' when donating to the Democrats, and corruption when donating to a Republican.

Got it.

 

[G.T.]

Well personally i can't really do that. If i were against banks or wall street I wouldn't give them my money.

Good thing I'm not.

To me it sounds like she's using propaganda to get votes, it'll also be neat to see what kind of "donations" she gets and doesn't reject from Wall Street.

^ you just did it again.

You ascribed to her that she's "against banks or wallstreet."

And I'm telling you, being against bad practices isn't being against THE practice as a whole. But that's what you're trying to make it seem - which is disengenuous.

No i was giving an example if i were against those things or thought they needed radical reform i wouldn't give them my money.

Imagine the level of faith it takes for this scenario.

1.) Person you don't know says they want major reform in an entity and often voice downright disgust in said entity.
2.) They give their money to said entity, make money off said entity, and said entity makes money off of them giving them even more power.
3.) That person takes "donations" from said entity.

How could ANYONE have faith that this person is going to work hard to change an entity, change that will hurt their profit margins, that they make so much money off of?

Wouldn't common sense to say that he or she is most likely lying, because he or she would benefit from that lie? (the benefit being getting to hold office)

^ no, because wallstreet is not some big conglomerate "it," it's a whole fuck ton of individuals and groups, and not everyone banking off of it is using unethical means. It's not all black and white like you're obviously seeing it as, there's so many shades of gray there.

 

[Trajan]

I work for a very connected investment firm and have sent Warren a few bucks.

hummm, R U a corporation or a person?

 

[Claudette]

Yup. They all take money from Wall St.

They bitch about how corrupt Wall St is but have no problem taking their money.

 

[Trajan]

Elizabeth Warren — who hauled in an eye-popping $5.7 million the last three months of 2011 — refused to swear off Wall Street money yesterday, instead claiming that any money she gets from deep-pocketed financiers is coming from those who “want reform.”

“There are people on Wall Street who actually believe we need better rules, fairer rules,” Warren said last night as she toured small businesses in Davis Square in Somerville

did she say that with a straight face?

Elizabeth Warren out-raises Scott Brown, defends $$ - BostonHerald.com

*sigh*..predictability= depressing...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I work for a very connected investment firm and have sent Warren a few bucks.

I hope that didn't cut into the stipend you send Hugo Chavez each month....

 

[Dr.Drock]

^ you just did it again.

You ascribed to her that she's "against banks or wallstreet."

And I'm telling you, being against bad practices isn't being against THE practice as a whole. But that's what you're trying to make it seem - which is disengenuous.

No i was giving an example if i were against those things or thought they needed radical reform i wouldn't give them my money.

Imagine the level of faith it takes for this scenario.

1.) Person you don't know says they want major reform in an entity and often voice downright disgust in said entity.
2.) They give their money to said entity, make money off said entity, and said entity makes money off of them giving them even more power.
3.) That person takes "donations" from said entity.

How could ANYONE have faith that this person is going to work hard to change an entity, change that will hurt their profit margins, that they make so much money off of?

Wouldn't common sense to say that he or she is most likely lying, because he or she would benefit from that lie? (the benefit being getting to hold office)

^ no, because wallstreet is not some big conglomerate "it," it's a whole fuck ton of individuals and groups, and not everyone banking off of it is using unethical means. It's not all black and white like you're obviously seeing it as, there's so many shades of gray there.

Funny, the people i hear bitching about wall street never give specific companies.

And they certainly never inform us of which ones they're unwilling to invest in or receive donations from.

Just more blind faith in politicians you don't know in order to believe that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Or at the very least, if she's going to take donations from Wall Street, her supporters should stop pretending that her opponents are necessarily corrupt for doing the very same thing...

Corrupt? No, but when they are literally falling all over themselves to give him money it gives me plenty reason to question who's best interests he is more concerned it.

So it's acceptable support for 'reform' when donating to the Democrats, and corruption when donating to a Republican.

Got it.

That's what partisan politics does to the human brain

 

[G.T.]

No i was giving an example if i were against those things or thought they needed radical reform i wouldn't give them my money.

Imagine the level of faith it takes for this scenario.

1.) Person you don't know says they want major reform in an entity and often voice downright disgust in said entity.
2.) They give their money to said entity, make money off said entity, and said entity makes money off of them giving them even more power.
3.) That person takes "donations" from said entity.

How could ANYONE have faith that this person is going to work hard to change an entity, change that will hurt their profit margins, that they make so much money off of?

Wouldn't common sense to say that he or she is most likely lying, because he or she would benefit from that lie? (the benefit being getting to hold office)

^ no, because wallstreet is not some big conglomerate "it," it's a whole fuck ton of individuals and groups, and not everyone banking off of it is using unethical means. It's not all black and white like you're obviously seeing it as, there's so many shades of gray there.

Funny, the people i hear bitching about wall street never give specific companies.

And they certainly never inform us of which ones they're unwilling to invest in or receive donations from.

Just more blind faith in politicians you don't know in order to believe that.

^ now you're disengenuously ascribing blind faith in politicians to me,

but anyways - it's the rules that are the problem with Wallstreet.