The blatant truth about Republicans and the word "that"

[Stephanie]

What's dishonest is ignoring what was said immediately before and immediately after the statement in order to make one believe that when Obama said "that" he was referring to the actual business and not the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc. which is obviously what he is referring to when what he said is put in full context.

spin however you want, won't help...the people took it the way they KNOW he meant it...tsk tsk for him...
maybe he should just shut up until the elections..

When I tell Si that the only people who will believe the right wing spin after seeing the full quote are hyper-partisans and people who don't have two brain cells to rub together, I am referring to people like you....on both accounts.

we know, we can't all be brilliant as you and your dear leader..

 

[healthmyths]

As I've often written here... my comments ARE more pointed to those people that voted for Obama and are not Obamatrons, i.e. kool-aid drinkers but those that are NOW questioning their vote for Obama.

The hardcore Obamatrons.. WILL never admit Obama's penchant to knock businesses,capitalism,etc. because THEY believe the same way! They like Obama would prefer the destruction of capitalism.

Now any child and simpleton can say as Obama did:
"I prefer a single payer health care system".. and EVERYONE can agree that is Utopian. YES!
BUT reality especially with health care system is that less then 6 million people want insurance but can't afford it. The rest are either covered or pay for their health care out of pocket.
But Obama being the simpleton he is rather then admitting there were NOT 47 million uninsured because 10 million counted as "uninsured" are not citizens, or 14 million that said they were "uninsured" qualified for Medicaid or 18 million that pay their own way but are bogusly counted as "uninsured".. went for the BIG hit.. the bomb... Obamacare and what will happen is when he is not re-elected
WE can address how to solve health insurance for the truly 6 million uninsured!

AND there is a very simple solution that has a model in Obamacare!
Instead of taxing the tanning salons..
1)TAX lawyers! 10% of their $100 billion generates $10 billion.
2) Tax hospitals that "pad and pass" sometimes 6,000% claims to the payers!

Combined tax revenue would then be used to "buy " a premium for each QUALIFIED uninsured!
Not for non-citizens. Not for those covered by Medicaid.. and NOT for those that don't want it!

AND then FORCE require,audit hospitals that see those "uncompensated" patients to send as claims
to the company that pays them.. NOT padded and passed claims but real costs plus a modest markup!

WATCH then the combined $600 billion in defensive medicine costs and the dramatic decline of "padded and passed" payer claims!
Health care claim costs will drop by $100 billion a year minimum and these cost savings will be competitively passed on in the form of LOWER insurance premiums!

AND problem solved!

 

[Si modo]

What's dishonest is ignoring what was said immediately before and immediately after the statement in order to make one believe that when Obama said "that" he was referring to the actual business and not the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc. which is obviously what he is referring to when what he said is put in full context.

Hmmm. As my post DOESN'T ignore any of that, you're talking out your ass.

Simple grammar. TWO sentences, not one. One's a gaffe; two is crystal clear.

Just how it works for me.

I'm not talking out of my ass. You are just unwilling to own up to the game you are playing.

What Obama said is basically like telling a baseball team owner that there are coaches, after school programs, little leagues, colleges, parents, etc that created an environment for which your team can thrive. You own a baseball team - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. Yada yada...

Am I saying that the owner didn't build their baseball team?

Art, I know what the rest of the surrounding rhetoric was and I know what he wanted to say for minimization of political damage in those two sentences. And, I agree with that: If one has a business, they didn't do that on their own. Someone or several someones helped them along the way. Few accomplishments of any human being are done in a vacuum.

I agree.

Again, as I said above, he DIDN'T say that, even though it is simple enough to say. Also as I said, hanging a hat on a gaffe, IMO, is just lame.

If he had just said the one sentence, in my book, it's a gaffe. Two sentences? Nah. As my cop friends like to say, they are not big believers in coincidences.

Based on what I have seen in this POTUS and from his actions, I have little doubt that individualism is bad and collectivism is good in his mind. And, that sort of attitude is a big red flag for me.

Just a difference of opinion about him.


Now, what IS dishonest is this bullshit that grammar isn't grammar - in fact, I cannot believe the WaPo printed that. ****, they make a living on grammar. Give me a ******* break.

 

[The Rabbi]

What's dishonest is ignoring what was said immediately before and immediately after the statement in order to make one believe that when Obama said "that" he was referring to the actual business and not the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc. which is obviously what he is referring to when what he said is put in full context.

Hmmm. As my post DOESN'T ignore any of that, you're talking out your ass.

Simple grammar. TWO sentences, not one. One's a gaffe; two is crystal clear.

Just how it works for me.

I'm not talking out of my ass. You are just unwilling to own up to the game you are playing.

What Obama said is basically like telling a baseball team owner that there are coaches, after school programs, little leagues, colleges, parents, etc that created an environment for which your team can thrive. You own a baseball team - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. Yada yada...

Am I saying that the owner didn't build their baseball team?

That's right! Baseball team owners didnt build their teams! They didnt make investments, they didnt make decisions. They just woke up one morning with a baseball team in their backyard, just like Ed Fugging McMahon showed up with a check. It was totally random. Could have happened to the guy next door just as easily.
So now that baseball team doesnt belong to the owner. It belongs to "all of us". And we want free tickets.

You totally have it. For once in your miserable career as a poster here you've actually had a break through and posted something that not only made sense, but indicates you are telling the truth, even knoww what you are talking about.
Thank you, sir.

 

[mudwhistle]

I explained them. You just didn't read them.

Banks are buying partial mortgages. For example I have 3 properties on one loan. Bank of America bought 2 of the properties and took over servicing the loans. Another bank holds the other property. They offered a mortgage loan program to reduce the interests on those loans, but the only way I can get it done is if I pay several thousand to have the properties surveyed as separate. Plus I have to have 6 months worth of payments in cash on hand.

To take advantage of the program the banks have us in a bind. In a nut-shell.....in order to make money you have to have money.

Name the regulations and provide a link to them and where/when they originated.

So you had a non conforming loan tying three properties to one note and mortgage.
But you say BoA took over servicing of the "loans" plural.

Which is it? You got one loan being serviced or three? And why would you have been stupid enough to tie three properties together into one note and mortgage. That was stupid from the start. You should have known that would be a problem down the road. What did you do, believe the non conforming loan officer when he took your money? Like so many others did.

And 6 months of cash reserves has been the lending standard for investors for many years

Evidentally, you either don't know wtf you are talking about or doing. And you sure as hell are not a good credit risk. Can't show 6 months reserves. You are denied.

What you got a credit score of 590 or something.

But blaming your poor financial sense on Obama is total bull shit.

btw, for people that invest in RE, the loan mod programs were never intended for us. They were always intended to help those who lived in their homes. why don't you know that?

I knew it. Still Bank of America said they could do it under Obama's loan modification program. Now ether the loan-originator doesn't know what she's doing or the regulations are so confusing they don't even know. Ether way, they misrepresented the facts.

My credit score is usually around 700. The only reason it's not higher is because the number of loans I have. I pay my bills

A few years ago I purchased these properties. One of the conditions was that they were attached. 3 properties, 3 mortgages yet attached. It was a condition of the loan. Bank of America somehow purchased 2 of the mortgages. I'm trying to refinance them but the rejection the was because I have to pay to have the properties re-survayed and have them severed from the other mortgage. Who gave them the right to buy it in the first place?

Basically they were allowed to do this and it's my tough luck. The point is nothing has changed. Banks are still playing by one set of rules and the rest of us by another. Obviously the rules preventing predatory lending haven't changed.

 

[Shelzin]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Hey... I offered it once to someone, I'll offer again... Want to throw a bet at it? Like I get to put whatever I want as your sig for a month when Romney loses? Mine is yours for a month if he wins.

Edit: I'll quote myself in this post... Because quite frankly Zombies seem to believe if you say it over and over enough, then it's obviously true. Unfortunately Zombies, being what they are, do outnumber the people who actually give a shit about the country. That sucks... But... I'll try.

And that's why Mitt is going to lose. You see... Independents already think that both parties are fucked up. But then you got zombies running around actively TRYING to be stupid.

Why would I want to follow stupid? If you want to help your party out... Start actually addressing something worth something in an intelligent manner. Otherwise those of us who aren't party affiliated have no real choice but to assume you don't mind Obama in another four years.

Sorry, but regardless how Obama tries to spin it everyone knows now what he thinks of small business.

I've been finding out personally. I've been trying to refinance some of my properties and the banks keep telling me about all of the new regulations that have been imposed that make it impossible for me to refinance. They advertize that they have all of these wonderful programs to help you out but once you get into it you discover that it's all bull shit.

The refinance programs are designed to give those who don't have property the impression that Obama is actually trying to help people. It shows he's concerned about people. Unfortunately the only people that can take advantage of these programs are the rich. The rules make it impossible for someone who isn't rich to refinance. One of the rules is that I have at least 6 months of mortgage payments for all of my properties in the bank in cash to be qualified to refinance. That means I would have to have $100,000.00 in cash on hand to refinance two of my properties. To top that off, banks are allowed to purchase partial properties through inside transactions that we investors can't. Bank of America bought some of the mortgages on my properties but they were part of other loans. They never should have been allowed to do this. The only way I can refinance these properties is if I pay to have them legally severed from the other properties. This would cost me thousands.

Dodd/Frank was supposed to prevent this. It was supposed to streamline lending. It was supposed to prevent banks from ripping off the consumer. It definitely doesn't do what it was advertized to do. Instead it has complicated everything and made is more expensive. Because banks play by one set of rules and homeowners and small investors have to play by another my finances are in a mess and there is little I can do about it. I am basically at the mercy of banks and the economy. As long as I keep making my payments I'm in good shape, but a dip in the economy could mean I lose everything.

NOW that is a reasonable argument. It doesn't change what Obama meant in his speech... But at least it's intelligent.

I agree that Obama is shit for the economy... However you do realize that damn near all of Mitt's money to run is from banks?

 

[mudwhistle]

Hey... I offered it once to someone, I'll offer again... Want to throw a bet at it? Like I get to put whatever I want as your sig for a month when Romney loses? Mine is yours for a month if he wins.

Edit: I'll quote myself in this post... Because quite frankly Zombies seem to believe if you say it over and over enough, then it's obviously true. Unfortunately Zombies, being what they are, do outnumber the people who actually give a shit about the country. That sucks... But... I'll try.

And that's why Mitt is going to lose. You see... Independents already think that both parties are fucked up. But then you got zombies running around actively TRYING to be stupid.

Why would I want to follow stupid? If you want to help your party out... Start actually addressing something worth something in an intelligent manner. Otherwise those of us who aren't party affiliated have no real choice but to assume you don't mind Obama in another four years.

Sorry, but regardless how Obama tries to spin it everyone knows now what he thinks of small business.

I've been finding out personally. I've been trying to refinance some of my properties and the banks keep telling me about all of the new regulations that have been imposed that make it impossible for me to refinance. They advertize that they have all of these wonderful programs to help you out but once you get into it you discover that it's all bull shit.

The refinance programs are designed to give those who don't have property the impression that Obama is actually trying to help people. It shows he's concerned about people. Unfortunately the only people that can take advantage of these programs are the rich. The rules make it impossible for someone who isn't rich to refinance. One of the rules is that I have at least 6 months of mortgage payments for all of my properties in the bank in cash to be qualified to refinance. That means I would have to have $100,000.00 in cash on hand to refinance two of my properties. To top that off, banks are allowed to purchase partial properties through inside transactions that we investors can't. Bank of America bought some of the mortgages on my properties but they were part of other loans. They never should have been allowed to do this. The only way I can refinance these properties is if I pay to have them legally severed from the other properties. This would cost me thousands.

Dodd/Frank was supposed to prevent this. It was supposed to streamline lending. It was supposed to prevent banks from ripping off the consumer. It definitely doesn't do what it was advertized to do. Instead it has complicated everything and made is more expensive. Because banks play by one set of rules and homeowners and small investors have to play by another my finances are in a mess and there is little I can do about it. I am basically at the mercy of banks and the economy. As long as I keep making my payments I'm in good shape, but a dip in the economy could mean I lose everything.

NOW that is a reasonable argument. It doesn't change what Obama meant in his speech... But at least it's intelligent.

I agree that Obama is shit for the economy... However you do realize that damn near all of Mitt's money to run is from banks?

You can't assume that.

Just like I can't assume that most of Obama's money comes from Hollywood.

 

[Article 15]

Hmmm. As my post DOESN'T ignore any of that, you're talking out your ass.

Simple grammar. TWO sentences, not one. One's a gaffe; two is crystal clear.

Just how it works for me.

I'm not talking out of my ass. You are just unwilling to own up to the game you are playing.

What Obama said is basically like telling a baseball team owner that there are coaches, after school programs, little leagues, colleges, parents, etc that created an environment for which your team can thrive. You own a baseball team - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. Yada yada...

Am I saying that the owner didn't build their baseball team?

Art, I know what the rest of the surrounding rhetoric was and I know what he wanted to say for minimization of political damage in those two sentences. And, I agree with that: If one has a business, they didn't do that on their own. Someone or several someones helped them along the way. Few accomplishments of any human being are done in a vacuum.

I agree.

Again, as I said above, he DIDN'T say that, even though it is simple enough to say. Also as I said, hanging a hat on a gaffe, IMO, is just lame.

If he had just said the one sentence, in my book, it's a gaffe. Two sentences? Nah. As my cop friends like to say, they are not big believers in coincidences.

Based on what I have seen in this POTUS and from his actions, I have little doubt that individualism is bad and collectivism is good in his mind. And, that sort of attitude is a big red flag for me.

Just a difference of opinion about him.


Now, what IS dishonest is this bullshit that grammar isn't grammar - in fact, I cannot believe the WaPo printed that. ****, they make a living on grammar. Give me a ******* break.

One sentence, two sentences .... meh ... no matter. Both statements are referring to the one prior and he meant what he said. Could he have articulated it better? Sure but this is still a manufactured gaffe.

 

[Article 15]

Hmmm. As my post DOESN'T ignore any of that, you're talking out your ass.

Simple grammar. TWO sentences, not one. One's a gaffe; two is crystal clear.

Just how it works for me.

I'm not talking out of my ass. You are just unwilling to own up to the game you are playing.

What Obama said is basically like telling a baseball team owner that there are coaches, after school programs, little leagues, colleges, parents, etc that created an environment for which your team can thrive. You own a baseball team - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. Yada yada...

Am I saying that the owner didn't build their baseball team?

That's right! Baseball team owners didnt build their teams! They didnt make investments, they didnt make decisions. They just woke up one morning with a baseball team in their backyard, just like Ed Fugging McMahon showed up with a check. It was totally random. Could have happened to the guy next door just as easily.
So now that baseball team doesnt belong to the owner. It belongs to "all of us". And we want free tickets.

You totally have it. For once in your miserable career as a poster here you've actually had a break through and posted something that not only made sense, but indicates you are telling the truth, even knoww what you are talking about.
Thank you, sir.

-------------------------the point----------------------------

-------------------------your head--------------------------

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not talking out of my ass. You are just unwilling to own up to the game you are playing.

What Obama said is basically like telling a baseball team owner that there are coaches, after school programs, little leagues, colleges, parents, etc that created an environment for which your team can thrive. You own a baseball team - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. Yada yada...

Am I saying that the owner didn't build their baseball team?

Art, I know what the rest of the surrounding rhetoric was and I know what he wanted to say for minimization of political damage in those two sentences. And, I agree with that: If one has a business, they didn't do that on their own. Someone or several someones helped them along the way. Few accomplishments of any human being are done in a vacuum.

I agree.

Again, as I said above, he DIDN'T say that, even though it is simple enough to say. Also as I said, hanging a hat on a gaffe, IMO, is just lame.

If he had just said the one sentence, in my book, it's a gaffe. Two sentences? Nah. As my cop friends like to say, they are not big believers in coincidences.

Based on what I have seen in this POTUS and from his actions, I have little doubt that individualism is bad and collectivism is good in his mind. And, that sort of attitude is a big red flag for me.

Just a difference of opinion about him.


Now, what IS dishonest is this bullshit that grammar isn't grammar - in fact, I cannot believe the WaPo printed that. ****, they make a living on grammar. Give me a ******* break.

One sentence, two sentences .... meh ... no matter. Both statements are referring to the one prior and he meant what he said. Could he have articulated it better? Sure but this is still a manufactured gaffe.

It's not a gaffe at all. He said exactly what he meant. We all understood it. The problem is that what he meant is so atrocious and so anti-american and anti-capitalist that all of us who work hard every day are up in arms over it.

 

[Shelzin]

NOW that is a reasonable argument. It doesn't change what Obama meant in his speech... But at least it's intelligent.

I agree that Obama is shit for the economy... However you do realize that damn near all of Mitt's money to run is from banks?

You can't assume that.

I don't assume that.

Just like I can't assume that most of Obama's money comes from Hollywood.

o.0

This will be the third time I post this: Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

Mitt:
Goldman Sachs $593,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co $467,089
Bank of America $425,100
Morgan Stanley $399,850
Credit Suisse Group $390,360
Citigroup Inc $312,800
Kirkland & Ellis $264,302
Wells Fargo $237,550
Barclays $234,650
PricewaterhouseCoopers $227,250
Deloitte LLP $222,250
HIG Capital $216,995
UBS AG $207,750
Blackstone Group $198,800
Bain Capital $156,500
Elliott Management $146,275
Marriott International $137,827
General Electric $135,450
Bain & Co $130,550
EMC Corp $129,450

Obama:
Microsoft Corp $387,395
University of California $330,258
DLA Piper $306,727
Google Inc $271,300
Sidley Austin LLP $257,296
Harvard University $232,158
Comcast Corp $201,606
Stanford University $188,290
Time Warner $183,614
Skadden, Arps et al $169,753
US Government $149,458
US Dept of State $147,917
Kaiser Permanente $139,507
National Amusements Inc $138,955
Morgan & Morgan $135,145
Columbia University $134,497
Wells Fargo $127,807
University of Chicago $127,507
Wilmerhale Llp $117,661
Kirkland & Ellis $113,770

Ron Paul:
US Army $113,703
US Navy $89,993
US Air Force $89,009
Google Inc $42,478
US Dept of Defense $38,350
Microsoft Corp $30,259
US Marine Corps $29,703
Boeing Co $27,367
IBM Corp $27,006
Lockheed Martin $22,000
Northrop Grumman $21,813
US Government $21,482
Intel Corp $21,445
Ragingwire Enterprise Solutions $20,000
Corriente Advisors $20,000
Oracle Corp $17,405
Verizon Communications $17,243
AT&T Inc $16,652
US Postal Service $16,203
FedEx Corp $16,115

 

[Stephanie]

I'm not talking out of my ass. You are just unwilling to own up to the game you are playing.

What Obama said is basically like telling a baseball team owner that there are coaches, after school programs, little leagues, colleges, parents, etc that created an environment for which your team can thrive. You own a baseball team - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. Yada yada...

Am I saying that the owner didn't build their baseball team?

Art, I know what the rest of the surrounding rhetoric was and I know what he wanted to say for minimization of political damage in those two sentences. And, I agree with that: If one has a business, they didn't do that on their own. Someone or several someones helped them along the way. Few accomplishments of any human being are done in a vacuum.

I agree.

Again, as I said above, he DIDN'T say that, even though it is simple enough to say. Also as I said, hanging a hat on a gaffe, IMO, is just lame.

If he had just said the one sentence, in my book, it's a gaffe. Two sentences? Nah. As my cop friends like to say, they are not big believers in coincidences.

Based on what I have seen in this POTUS and from his actions, I have little doubt that individualism is bad and collectivism is good in his mind. And, that sort of attitude is a big red flag for me.

Just a difference of opinion about him.


Now, what IS dishonest is this bullshit that grammar isn't grammar - in fact, I cannot believe the WaPo printed that. ****, they make a living on grammar. Give me a ******* break.

One sentence, two sentences .... meh ... no matter. Both statements are referring to the one prior and he meant what he said. Could he have articulated it better? Sure but this is still a manufactured gaffe.

well, manufactured gaffe from the manufactured President...how fitting
and how DARE all you people didn't understand this was just a gaffe
my gawd, you ObamaBots are going to need Obama pooper scoopers..

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not talking out of my ass. You are just unwilling to own up to the game you are playing.

What Obama said is basically like telling a baseball team owner that there are coaches, after school programs, little leagues, colleges, parents, etc that created an environment for which your team can thrive. You own a baseball team - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. Yada yada...

Am I saying that the owner didn't build their baseball team?

Art, I know what the rest of the surrounding rhetoric was and I know what he wanted to say for minimization of political damage in those two sentences. And, I agree with that: If one has a business, they didn't do that on their own. Someone or several someones helped them along the way. Few accomplishments of any human being are done in a vacuum.

I agree.

Again, as I said above, he DIDN'T say that, even though it is simple enough to say. Also as I said, hanging a hat on a gaffe, IMO, is just lame.

If he had just said the one sentence, in my book, it's a gaffe. Two sentences? Nah. As my cop friends like to say, they are not big believers in coincidences.

Based on what I have seen in this POTUS and from his actions, I have little doubt that individualism is bad and collectivism is good in his mind. And, that sort of attitude is a big red flag for me.

Just a difference of opinion about him.


Now, what IS dishonest is this bullshit that grammar isn't grammar - in fact, I cannot believe the WaPo printed that. ****, they make a living on grammar. Give me a ******* break.

One sentence, two sentences .... meh ... no matter. Both statements are referring to the one prior and he meant what he said. Could he have articulated it better? Sure but this is still a manufactured gaffe.

Let's just say it's a gaffe he had help with. He said it and you expect us to take it in a positive way. I see nothing positive about it.


The point is Obama doesn't believe in individuality. He dances around the issue all day long.

That alone is an insult.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's hilarious how these people on the right profess to revere individualism and hate collectivism,

and yet they also profess to revere the military, where your individualism is the first thing to go, and collectivism is paramount.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The word "that" - in red below - refers to the words in bold below.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

The underlined words reinforce this obvious fact.


Quite frankly, anyone who thinks "that" refers to "business" is a ******* retard, I mean, just really, really stupid. Its amazing you have the mental capacity to even breathe.. Seriously, words cannot express how dumb you are.

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

If you've got a what?....business...
You didn't build what?...business

Seems pretty clear to me.
You guys can try all you want to clean his mess up as always...
But the President really let his true feelings show this time..
I don't know how you guys can spin this differently.

I have no doubt it seems clear to you. That is why you're easily fooled by propaganda (I'd bet Fox News is your primary source of information). As a concrete thinker the ability to understand even the mildly abstract is beyond your comprehension.

Sad, but endemic to the whole set infamously known as the callous conservatives.

 

[Stephanie]

It's hilarious how these people on the right profess to revere individualism and hate collectivism,

and yet they also profess to revere the military, where your individualism is the first thing to go, and collectivism is paramount.

wow, that was pathetic

you fail

 

[mudwhistle]

NOW that is a reasonable argument. It doesn't change what Obama meant in his speech... But at least it's intelligent.

I agree that Obama is shit for the economy... However you do realize that damn near all of Mitt's money to run is from banks?

You can't assume that.

I don't assume that.

Just like I can't assume that most of Obama's money comes from Hollywood.

o.0

This will be the third time I post this: Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

Mitt:
Goldman Sachs $593,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co $467,089
Bank of America $425,100
Morgan Stanley $399,850
Credit Suisse Group $390,360
Citigroup Inc $312,800
Kirkland & Ellis $264,302
Wells Fargo $237,550
Barclays $234,650
PricewaterhouseCoopers $227,250
Deloitte LLP $222,250
HIG Capital $216,995
UBS AG $207,750
Blackstone Group $198,800
Bain Capital $156,500
Elliott Management $146,275
Marriott International $137,827
General Electric $135,450
Bain & Co $130,550
EMC Corp $129,450

Obama:
Microsoft Corp $387,395
University of California $330,258
DLA Piper $306,727
Google Inc $271,300
Sidley Austin LLP $257,296
Harvard University $232,158
Comcast Corp $201,606
Stanford University $188,290
Time Warner $183,614
Skadden, Arps et al $169,753
US Government $149,458
US Dept of State $147,917
Kaiser Permanente $139,507
National Amusements Inc $138,955
Morgan & Morgan $135,145
Columbia University $134,497
Wells Fargo $127,807
University of Chicago $127,507
Wilmerhale Llp $117,661
Kirkland & Ellis $113,770

Ron Paul:
US Army $113,703
US Navy $89,993
US Air Force $89,009
Google Inc $42,478
US Dept of Defense $38,350
Microsoft Corp $30,259
US Marine Corps $29,703
Boeing Co $27,367
IBM Corp $27,006
Lockheed Martin $22,000
Northrop Grumman $21,813
US Government $21,482
Intel Corp $21,445
Ragingwire Enterprise Solutions $20,000
Corriente Advisors $20,000
Oracle Corp $17,405
Verizon Communications $17,243
AT&T Inc $16,652
US Postal Service $16,203
FedEx Corp $16,115

I don't know what you're trying to prove.

It says in bright red letters that the organizations themselves do not donate. It comes from individual donors.

And why is the US Government and the State Department listed in Obama's donor list?

 

[Oddball]

Art, I know what the rest of the surrounding rhetoric was and I know what he wanted to say for minimization of political damage in those two sentences. And, I agree with that: If one has a business, they didn't do that on their own. Someone or several someones helped them along the way. Few accomplishments of any human being are done in a vacuum.

I agree.

Again, as I said above, he DIDN'T say that, even though it is simple enough to say. Also as I said, hanging a hat on a gaffe, IMO, is just lame.

If he had just said the one sentence, in my book, it's a gaffe. Two sentences? Nah. As my cop friends like to say, they are not big believers in coincidences.

Based on what I have seen in this POTUS and from his actions, I have little doubt that individualism is bad and collectivism is good in his mind. And, that sort of attitude is a big red flag for me.

Just a difference of opinion about him.


Now, what IS dishonest is this bullshit that grammar isn't grammar - in fact, I cannot believe the WaPo printed that. ****, they make a living on grammar. Give me a ******* break.

 

[Stephanie]

The word "that" - in red below - refers to the words in bold below.


The underlined words reinforce this obvious fact.


Quite frankly, anyone who thinks "that" refers to "business" is a ******* retard, I mean, just really, really stupid. Its amazing you have the mental capacity to even breathe.. Seriously, words cannot express how dumb you are.

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

If you've got a what?....business...
You didn't build what?...business

Seems pretty clear to me.
You guys can try all you want to clean his mess up as always...
But the President really let his true feelings show this time..
I don't know how you guys can spin this differently.

I have no doubt it seems clear to you. That is why you're easily fooled by propaganda (I'd bet Fox News is your primary source of information). As a concrete thinker the ability to understand even the mildly abstract is beyond your comprehension.

Sad, but endemic to the whole set infamously known as the callous conservatives.

omg, drips with condescension and nothing else..
and you call others callous

 

[Shelzin]

I don't know what you're trying to prove.

It says in bright red letters that the organizations themselves do not donate. It comes from individual donors.

From... People within those organizations. Yeah... Why would bankers be so gungho for Mitt???

And it says:
This table lists the top donors to this candidate 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 why is the US Government and the State Department listed in Obama's donor list?

They obviously are employed by the government.