WILL OBAMA RETURN $994,795 IN GOLDMAN SACHS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?
-
WILL OBAMA RETURN $994,795 IN GOLDMAN SACHS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?
Along with others
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
http://news.uk.msn.com/forum/thread.aspx?b...ba-623839abd295
It would make a safe bet that after he helped out with all of the bank bailouts he should expect more out of Wall St. When he gets ready to run again.
-
No, why should he? Not every employee of Goldman Sachs was involved in illegal behavior. Not even a lot of them.
Give me a break.
-
No, why should he? Not every employee of Goldman Sachs was involved in illegal behavior. Not even a lot of them.
Give me a break.
No, why should he? Not every employee of Goldman Sachs was involved in illegal behavior. Not even a lot of them.
Give me a break.
Heh
Welcome aboard.
WSS
-
No, why should he? Not every employee of Goldman Sachs was involved in illegal behavior. Not even a lot of them.
Give me a break.
No, why should he? Not every employee of Goldman Sachs was involved in illegal behavior. Not even a lot of them.
Give me a break.
This is off topic, Heck, but what is your feeling about - let's say - Blackwater. Do you believe every employee is/was a criminal? A lot of them?
-
No, why should he? Not every employee of Goldman Sachs was involved in illegal behavior. Not even a lot of them.
Give me a break.
This is off topic, Heck, but what is your feeling about - let's say - Blackwater. Do you believe every employee is/was a criminal? A lot of them?
This is off topic, Heck, but what is your feeling about - let's say - Blackwater. Do you believe every employee is/was a criminal? A lot of them?
Or (God forbid) HALIBURTON???????

wss
-
No, why should he? Not every employee of Goldman Sachs was involved in illegal behavior. Not even a lot of them.
Give me a break.
This is off topic, Heck, but what is your feeling about - let's say - Blackwater. Do you believe every employee is/was a criminal? A lot of them?
This is off topic, Heck, but what is your feeling about - let's say - Blackwater. Do you believe every employee is/was a criminal? A lot of them?
No. Who thinks every employee of Blackwater is/was a criminal? That's not really where the debate about Blackwater/military contractors is, is it? Or the Halliburton debate, for that matter.
Someone in our family was a former Marine and Blackwater employee who was killed in Iraq protecting a government official. (The official lived.)
Again, have the debate with the cartoon Cindy Sheehan version in your head if you must, but at some point you have to take that head out of your ass.
-
Sorry for your loss, Heck.
-
I'm not trying to pull that card on you, John. I'm just saying - these discussions aren't very enlightening. I spend 75% of the time correcting misinformation and the other 25% in some mostly irrelevant fringe discussion that is a long way from being important.
-
I'm not trying to pull that card on you, John. I'm just saying - these discussions aren't very enlightening. I spend 75% of the time correcting misinformation and the other 25% in some mostly irrelevant fringe discussion that is a long way from being important.
I'm not trying to pull that card on you, John. I'm just saying - these discussions aren't very enlightening. I spend 75% of the time correcting misinformation and the other 25% in some mostly irrelevant fringe discussion that is a long way from being important.
Of course that's limited to nitpicking the opposition.
We don't often see you calling out your own bedfellows.

WSS
-
I'm not trying to pull that card on you, John. I'm just saying - these discussions aren't very enlightening. I spend 75% of the time correcting misinformation and the other 25% in some mostly irrelevant fringe discussion that is a long way from being important.
I'm not trying to pull that card on you, John. I'm just saying - these discussions aren't very enlightening. I spend 75% of the time correcting misinformation and the other 25% in some mostly irrelevant fringe discussion that is a long way from being important.
You didn't play any card, Heck. Not even a whiff of that perceived by me, any way.
PS After going to Barnes Nobel and just happening to be in Raven Bookstore in Northampton, MA Sunday night, I finally found a copy of 'Common Ground' in no other place than our public library. Hefty book. Looks like a hefty content, too.
-
I'm not trying to pull that card on you, John. I'm just saying - these discussions aren't very enlightening. I spend 75% of the time correcting misinformation and the other 25% in some mostly irrelevant fringe discussion that is a long way from being important.
I'm not trying to pull that card on you, John. I'm just saying - these discussions aren't very enlightening. I spend 75% of the time correcting misinformation and the other 25% in some mostly irrelevant fringe discussion that is a long way from being important.
And 99% of the time we are correcting your talking points. with facts and not opinion.
-
Heck's bogus 75% corrections is 75% trying to diminish any differing viewpoint or fact that doesn't
fit with his bigoted politicism.
Of course, part of that is accusing others of bigoted politicism.
Kinda Soviet Unionish in the old days, to me.
-
I'm not trying to pull that card on you, John. I'm just saying - these discussions aren't very enlightening. I spend 75% of the time correcting misinformation and the other 25% in some mostly irrelevant fringe discussion that is a long way from being important.
You didn't play any card, Heck. Not even a whiff of that perceived by me, any way.
PS After going to Barnes Nobel and just happening to be in Raven Bookstore in Northampton, MA Sunday night, I finally found a copy of 'Common Ground' in no other place than our public library. Hefty book. Looks like a hefty content, too.
You didn't play any card, Heck. Not even a whiff of that perceived by me, any way.
PS After going to Barnes Nobel and just happening to be in Raven Bookstore in Northampton, MA Sunday night, I finally found a copy of 'Common Ground' in no other place than our public library. Hefty book. Looks like a hefty content, too.
I know. But personal experience shouldn't be the only barometer here. If you can't imagine or don't think about what other people go through without having someone you know personally involved, you're always going to have your head up your ass.
The book is great. You'll blow through it, don't worry.
-
I don't know if I asked this before.
Where do say for instance, Ron Paul's money go when he doesn't win? I mean that dude made a shit load of money and didn't spend much at all.
-
He'll keep it. Kept it last time.
-
He'll keep it. Kept it last time.
He'll keep it. Kept it last time.
Sort of bullshit if you ask me. At the least he should throw a huge bash at Cleveland Stadium.
-
The flip side is that people get upset when they give you money, then you turn around and give it to someone else, someone who they potentially don't support.
This way, Ron Paul uses it for Ron Paul's campaign, and then the ones after that as well.
-
I'm not trying to pull that card on you, John. I'm just saying - these discussions aren't very enlightening. I spend 75% of the time correcting misinformation and the other 25% in some mostly irrelevant fringe discussion that is a long way from being important.
You didn't play any card, Heck. Not even a whiff of that perceived by me, any way.
PS After going to Barnes Nobel and just happening to be in Raven Bookstore in Northampton, MA Sunday night, I finally found a copy of 'Common Ground' in no other place than our public library. Hefty book. Looks like a hefty content, too.
PS After going to Barnes Nobel and just happening to be in Raven Bookstore in Northampton, MA Sunday night, I finally found a copy of 'Common Ground' in no other place than our public library. Hefty book. Looks like a hefty content, too.
It's available at Audible.com.
I just bought it.
It had better not suck.

WSS
-
PS After going to Barnes Nobel and just happening to be in Raven Bookstore in Northampton, MA Sunday night, I finally found a copy of 'Common Ground' in no other place than our public library. Hefty book. Looks like a hefty content, too.
It's available at Audible.com.
I just bought it.
It had better not suck.

WSS
It's available at Audible.com.
I just bought it.
It had better not suck.

WSS
I will try to crack it open tonight.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login