Obama, Romney and Goldman Sachs - 2012

[Neo Nibu]

Over the past few years, I've lost all faith in the system. Everyone in the US government is basically bought. Corporations basically own them all, so Democrat or Republican, twos side of the same coin. I don't like any of the candidates running at all. Obama and Mitt Romney are funded by Goldman Sachs..

Obama has been a total let down, between approving the infinite detention thing and continuing the bank bailouts, and basically being "Bush lite". Only thing I remotely approve of is the heath care thing, assuming it works out. I expect he will get re-elected though, and I also expect his next term to be worse. >_<
But then again the Republicans are even worse...

Topping this all of both Obama and Mitt Romney are funded by Goldman Sachs, is there anyone here who an ounce of faith in our *cough* "democratic" *cough* system?

Now some links for further info on what i'm rambling on about!

Obama, Romney and Goldman Sachs
Obama, Romney and Goldman Sachs - 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWBzUuo9_eo
Romney’s & Obama’s Bankster Donors: Goldman, Morgan, Chase, etc. - http://gulagbound.com/25094/romneys-and ... chase-etc/

Obama
Obama insists on indefinite detention ~ NDAA bill to strip Americans of rights - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ysdsxF3eo
BARACK OBAMA Top Contributors - http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr ... =N00009638

Mitt Rommey
MITT ROMNEY Top Contributors - http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr ... =N00000286
Mitt Romney: Goldman Sachs Guy - http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01 ... nvestments
Will The Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

[Tubbsalot]

Interesting that you're willing to condemn Obama as a corporate shill for the bailouts, which were the only reasonable thing to do and without which America would be in deep shit at the moment, and yet the healthcare plan - which mandates buying insurance from private companies - is somehow totally cool and great.

I mean it is better, but that doesn't seem to be a concern for you, so I'm not sure by what metric you've gathered these opinions.

Topping this all of both Obama and Mitt Romney are funded by Goldman Sachs, is there anyone here who an ounce of faith in our *cough* "democratic" *cough* system?

Yeah Obama was also funded by Joe F. Nobody from Nevada, and yet Obama hasn't done his bidding as ordered, the bastard. It's almost like he has a mind of his own because simply accepting money doesn't mean you're selling your soul.

[Ynys Golau]

I facepalm this thread so much.

We are not living in a socialist dream world or something. It's just fair that people with money have more power since they are the ones who actually work for our wealth instead of wasting 10 years at university and knowing everything in theory. For the question, I would vote Ron Paul.

And anyways, it's still democratic. Even if all candidates are sponsored by a company, if everyone votes the one who's not (Ron Paul;)), he will win.

[Radiatia]

It's just fair that people with money have more power since they are the ones who actually work for our wealth instead of wasting 10 years at university and knowing everything in theory.

Are you trolling or what?

Firstly - most people with the mega money haven't worked for it. They were either born with it, or born with advantages that enabled them to get it.

Of course your second comment exposes a lot about you. You're an anti-intellectual. And it shows.

How about you go to university, learn some facts and then come back and we'll discuss all the things that are wrong with your statement.

[West Vandengaarde]

Obama isn't as much of a corporate shill as Romney probably would be.
Many banks have been ordered to hand over money due to unfair practices under Obama, and Sachs was just ordered to hand over some money, too.

[Herskerstad]

Obama isn't as much of a corporate shill as Romney probably would be.
Many banks have been ordered to hand over money due to unfair practices under Obama, and Sachs was just ordered to hand over some money, too.

If you looked at the contributions, Obama leads by 380+ mil to Rowney's 50+ mil. Why would not corporations that receive constant bailouts not vote for Obama?

In reality, Obama's contributions are probably much higher than a mere 380 million.

[West Vandengaarde]

Obama isn't as much of a corporate shill as Romney probably would be.
Many banks have been ordered to hand over money due to unfair practices under Obama, and Sachs was just ordered to hand over some money, too.

If you looked at the contributions, Obama leads by 380+ mil to Rowney's 50+ mil. Why would not corporations that receive constant bailouts not vote for Obama?

In reality, Obama's contributions are probably much higher than a mere 380 million.

Except he probably gets more small donations than Romney, and Romney's donations were a fraction of the "Republican" donations, whereas Obama is the only Democrat running.

[New Chalcedon]

I facepalm this thread so much.

We are not living in a socialist dream world or something. It's just fair that people with money have more power since they are the ones who actually work for our wealth instead of wasting 10 years at university and knowing everything in theory. For the question, I would vote Ron Paul.

And anyways, it's still democratic. Even if all candidates are sponsored by a company, if everyone votes the one who's not (Ron Paul;)), he will win.

Because Romney - who is most certainly of the 0.01% - has worked so hard for all his wealth. Between inheriting tens of millions from daddy, his long days shuffling papers and his career ending other peoples' jobs to increase his own profits, he's really, really worked for all that money. Really. Until it suits him not to have done so.

It's also nice to see that you think that a degree takes 10 years (which tells me all I need to know about your understanding of universities), as well as your opinion that education doesn't mean you know anything worthwhile.

Ignorant, uninformed, anti-education, fawning over the rich and desiring to remain all of the above: yup, you're a Ron Paul vote alright.

[Sovereignlandia]

Just because every few years you "vote" for a new master.... it doesn't make you free.

[Vetalia]

Obama isn't as much of a corporate shill as Romney probably would be.
Many banks have been ordered to hand over money due to unfair practices under Obama, and Sachs was just ordered to hand over some money, too.

Eh, I'd be surprised if many big banks really find Dodd-Frank or other regulations an issue...those regulations are great for them because they squeeze their smaller competitors while they can just shrug it off.

[Desperate Measures]

Maybe we should write in Goldman Sachs. Cut out the middle men.

[Arkinesia]

To wit, Romney has the most lobbyist connections to Microsoft of all the corporations that could be named.

But I'll bet Romney's detractors won't be so willing to toss their PCs out the window in a boycott.

[The Black Forrest]

Maybe we should write in Goldman Sachs. Cut out the middle men.

Well they did give personhood to corporations in such matters so it should be legal......

[The Black Forrest]

To wit, Romney has the most lobbyist connections to Microsoft of all the corporations that could be named.

But I'll bet Romney's detractors won't be so willing to toss their PCs out the window in a boycott.

I can't. The company would get pissed if I did that to their equipment.

[Desperate Measures]

Maybe we should write in Goldman Sachs. Cut out the middle men.

Well they did give personhood to corporations in such matters so it should be legal......

What good is personhood if you can't lead the free world?

[The Steel Magnolia]

I facepalm this thread so much.

We are not living in a socialist dream world or something. It's just fair that people with money have more power since they are the ones who actually work for our wealth instead of wasting 10 years at university and knowing everything in theory. For the question, I would vote Ron Paul.

And anyways, it's still democratic. Even if all candidates are sponsored by a company, if everyone votes the one who's not (Ron Paul;)), he will win.

Because Romney - who is most certainly of the 0.01% - has worked so hard for all his wealth. Between inheriting tens of millions from daddy, his long days shuffling papers and his career ending other peoples' jobs to increase his own profits, he's really, really worked for all that money. Really. Until it suits him not to have done so.

It's also nice to see that you think that a degree takes 10 years (which tells me all I need to know about your understanding of universities), as well as your opinion that education doesn't mean you know anything worthwhile.

Ignorant, uninformed, anti-education, fawning over the rich and desiring to remain all of the above: yup, you're a Ron Paul vote alright.

You realize, of course, that Ron Paul is for corporate authoritarianism, right?

[Tatenkraken]

we have a problem when people find out about who the candidates are when they go to vote in the primaries. who's gary johnson? who's ron paul? might as well vote for romney or obama. i mean, hell, people wouldn't support them if they were corporate sellouts, would they? psh, of course not!

[Ravineworld]

The liberals all insist that Obama is great and that all of the bad things (locking up AIDs patients, drone warfare, keeping us in iraq for 2 years, keeping us in afghanistan, making sure that GITMO stayed open, keeping torture legal, legalizing indefinite detention, keeping the PATRIOT act, not intervening in the death of Troy Davis) are entirely congresses fault. The republicans insist that he didn't do enough of that. The republicans pass off a paleo-conservative white nationalist as libertarian (ron paul) and get all of the truly libertarians to vote republican.
The Republicans and the Democrats have created a monopoly on war, civil liberties destruction, and big taxation. The media refuses to even recognize that other parties exist, and they exclude legit candidates from the debates.
I encourage my fellow Americans to vote for either the libertarians or the greens. The greens are the only ones devoted to protecting to what's left of the environment, and the libertarians are the only one's who are interested in protecting our civil liberties (the greens are too, but not as intensly).

[Desperate Measures]

The liberals all insist that Obama is great and that all of the bad things (locking up AIDs patients, drone warfare, keeping us in iraq for 2 years, keeping us in afghanistan, making sure that GITMO stayed open, keeping torture legal, legalizing indefinite detention, keeping the PATRIOT act, not intervening in the death of Troy Davis) are entirely congresses fault. The republicans insist that he didn't do enough of that. The republicans pass off a paleo-conservative white nationalist as libertarian (ron paul) and get all of the truly libertarians to vote republican.
The Republicans and the Democrats have created a monopoly on war, civil liberties destruction, and big taxation. The media refuses to even recognize that other parties exist, and they exclude legit candidates from the debates.
I encourage my fellow Americans to vote for either the libertarians or the greens. The greens are the only ones devoted to protecting to what's left of the environment, and the libertarians are the only one's who are interested in protecting our civil liberties (the greens are too, but not as intensly).

Locking up AIDs patients?

[Mike the Progressive]

But Obama didn't get as much/isn't as bad as Romney, therefore it's okay to support him!