He's a lobbyist, a long-time Republican campaign worker.
You realize that lobbyists get money from companies and give it to candidates right? And that they don't really care who they have to hit up, because their job is to get as much money as possible...right?
Candidates of all colors would take money from NAMBLA's political wing if it will help them win. This guy is just an old-hand political dude. "More of the same?" I guess. I don't care how much you want to push change, political campaigns are going to look more like other political campaigns than unlike them.
This looks like a complete non-story, and you look like a spaz for seeing this (of all things) as the next coming of the apocalypse.
Next coming of the apocalypse? Is there a reason why you want to put words in my mouth? Evidently what i'm doing bothers you if it's making you spaz out in regards to what i'm posting. If you want to know, not that i think you do seeing as how you'd rather decide on what i think or intend for me, my intention is to defame McCain because i don't like him; he has now adopted the CHANGE mantra that Obama obnoxiously used to carry, and i'm rolling all over the place at his expense, and if your presumptuous ass needed more info, i don't like Obama very much either, one of his economic advisors, if i'm not mistaken, was implicit during the Clinton administration in deregulation and Glass Eagle.
Was there any other reason for your behaviour aside from telling me the obvious that "that's what politicians do"? Gee whiz! I'm complaining about something politicians do? And it somehow bothers you that i'm complaining about it? Tell me, do you often shit on people for complaining about the way politics works now a days? Or did you just want to be an ass?
Kuya - telling people "A politician has a lobbyist in his campaign! Look, he took money from big companies like oil and financial services and he used to work for other campaigns!" is like saying "Oh my god the sky is blue! And look, over there I see a sun! And it's yellow!"
It makes you look like a spaz, that's all I'm saying. I tried to let it go with the first comment, but hey, here it is.
Vote for the rapture! Obama/Benedict XVI '08
Factually, telling people that a politician running for president who's made his campaign about fighting corporate interests while involving himself with the very same people implicit in it is not something that most people know, maybe in this particular forum, but you'd be wrong in a nation wide sense. In other words, i'm saying he is a hypocrite.
So can i summarize that you're telling me to shut up? Because i'm attacking a politician because he's a hypocrite and i don't agree with his views, you know in a politics thread, and you think it's old news and that i should shut up. So i want to know, what was your point? Really?
Let me rephrase, i do not care that it's obvious. Now we need to find out if you just wanted to know if i knew that, or if you were just being a nuisances.
It says neither. All it says is that less than 68% of "middle class" people own at least one home, and it's one snapshot at a specific point in time. Not uncommon =/= common btw, and it still doesn't say anything about the point that people who own 4-5 houses can still be by no means rich. In fact, rich is a very relative term. Having $1 million in savings/investments is not really rich if you're 60 and getting ready to retire. The point is that # of houses can't be used as a determination of who is "rich."You've read it correctly. My position is that it is UNCOMMON for a middle class family to own several homes that they just 'rent out' to others. I posted those studies to back up that position. The other two posters speak from personal experience but that's hardly indicative of the bigger picture and any sort of consensus.
Kuya, I'm saying that there's plenty of delicious ripe targets pasted all over John McCain's face to be nailing with your spooge of defamation, and you're aiming for the tiny one inside his ear.
Noone wants defamation-spooge in their ear, and shooting defamation-spooge into someone's ear isn't juicy or hot, it's just embarrassing - a telling sign that you're missing the good targets. Everyone leaves unsatisfied.
Now that you're sweetening your discourse, i'll indulge. I guess i ran out of deliciousness to use to defame McCain and imply that he's an even bigger hypocrite than Obama, except for the thing about McCain's manager being paid by Mae and Mac to fight regulatory measures in Washington.
it's fairly significant to bring not only a major lobbyist but a former adviser to administrations you claim to be rebuking as a maverick.
Eh, not everyone can be a completely disconnected governor from Alaska.
Can't wait to hear what she has to say at UN assembly... lol
I honestly can't stand Chuck Baldwin or the Constitution Party whatsoever. They're as close to a Christian Theocracy Party as America has right now. A few points from their platform:
- The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
- The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
- Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country.
- We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States
- Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities.