Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What sources are acceptable, by name please.
j-mac
It did save jobs. Only hyper partisans disagree with that fact.
Just because it didn't save those jobs doesn't make you right and doesn't make this story any less idiotic.
I guess the quoted RECOVERY.ORG spokeswoman in your piece did not sound very credible. Oh well.
Ok, so which jobs did it save? And how do you prove this?
j-mac
Since when is CNSnews.com a primary source of news and not partisan? :roll:
Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley
Actually, republicans have. Go back in the past and look at GM getting money for a jobs program in which they laid off workers. But, let me ask, did Obama do this? Was he the one signing off? How were people picked to get stimulus money. I think a lot more has to be shown before this has legs. Perhaps that is why there is a lack of sound sources on this. You think?
No, the implication is that Obama gave this for favors. How? Did he sign off on GE personally? Was there a procedure? Who made the call? is it possible GE benfitted without being treated special? Agian, it is not unreasonable to ask. Can anyone answer?
Please explain to us why anyone should have to prove those implications, when the current administration said it does not have to prove the implications it made regarding the Chamber of Commerce and it's finances. Same thing.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Doesn't matter... legal vs. logic... it is indeed the same thing... making accusations and failing utterly to back them up.No, not really the same thing. The administration is speaking of a legal point. I'm speaking to a logic point. If you can't answer, just say so.
Doesn't matter... legal vs. logic... it is indeed the same thing... making accusations and failing utterly to back them up.
I guess I should not be surprised you can't grasp the similarities.
Does matter. And I'm not making any accusations, you are. I'm asking questions. Can you answer?
I didn't say you were making accusations.. I said the administration was doing it. Feel free to continue your one man circle-jerk all you like, you've got nothing in this thread.
All the Chamber of Commerce has to do is open their books to show where their donations came from. Why doesn't the American people have a right to know where political donations are coming from?Please explain to us why anyone should have to prove those implications, when the current administration said it does not have to prove the implications it made regarding the Chamber of Commerce and it's finances. Same thing.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
How come regressives never denounce the corruption in the military appropriations and oil industries?
Is that the name you progressives are going by now?
The real question is why are you complaining about this when so far I haven't seen any evidence that the money was spent on anything wasteful?
No, the implication is that Obama gave this for favors.
While many companies hire lobbyists to win earmarks, General Electric’s unmatched lobbying force has secured a tax increase — or its equivalent — in President Barack Obama’s budget.
Labeled “climate revenues” and totaling $646 billion over eight years, this line item in Obama’s budget has inspired confidence in GE Chief Executive Officer Jeff Immelt. As Immelt put it in a letter this week, he believes that the Obama administration will be a profitable “financier” and “key partner.”
On page 115 of Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget is Table S-2, titled “Effect of Budget Proposals on Projected Deficits.” The chart forecasts the costs of Obama’s spending proposals and the added revenue of his proposed tax increases. It also forecasts, beginning in 2012, billions of dollars a year in “climate revenues.”
.....
GE — a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which advocates cap and trade — leads the push for greenhouse gas restrictions.
In the fourth quarter of 2008 as the company’s stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying...
GE has started a joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which invests in — and hopes to manage the trade in — greenhouse gas credits. But these investments and this trading floor are of basically no use and nearly no value without government restrictions on greenhouse gases.
Hence the lobbying, buttressed by generous campaign contributions: Employees and executives gave $1.35 million to politicians in the past election while GE’s political action committee shelled out $1.55 million. About 64 percent of this $2.9 million went to Democrats, with Obama easily the top recipient of GE money.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama
Does anyone here understand that GE is also a military contractor? That it gets far more money from military contracts then the 25 million from the stimulus
If as the insinuation is that Obama gave GE 25 million to influence MSNBC and NBC news, imagine what GE is forcing NBC and MSNBC to report on regarding military issues. Why MSNBC must be one of the most militaristic supporters of the media
If this were a republican doing this the outrage level, and rhetoric from the left would be deafening. Where are the libs on this?
j-mac
All the Chamber of Commerce has to do is open their books to show where their donations came from. Why doesn't the American people have a right to know where political donations are coming from?
The opposite of progressive is regressive
So if one is opposed to progress, one must support regression, and it would not be the progressives
Does anyone here understand that GE is also a military contractor? That it gets far more money from military contracts then the 25 million from the stimulus
If as the insinuation is that Obama gave GE 25 million to influence MSNBC and NBC news, imagine what GE is forcing NBC and MSNBC to report on regarding military issues. Why MSNBC must be one of the most militaristic supporters of the media
Flash this just in: Pigs can soar with eagles, yes you heard it right. And in other news Obama authorized a $25,000,000 stimulus payment to GE so they would force NBC, & MSNBC to report favorably on any and all Military involvement GE has with the Government.
This in spite of Obama being Anti-Military spending, makes no sense at all.
Ge doesn't have to force NBC or MSNBC to not bite the hand that feeds them.
Besides it's not an insinuation, it's a damn accusation straight up.
The top three propagandists in the history of the world since Joseph Goebbels worked for Hitler are on MSNBC working overtime for Obama calling people names because they are all Mentally challenged or they would stick to facts and the truth but Olbermann, Matthews, and Schultz can't deal with anything that is close to either, and make up crap and then they all three then use each others lies as proof theirs were the truth.
It's classic a PROPAGANDA technique.
Take a deep breath... count to ten slowly....Flash this just in: Pigs can soar with eagles, yes you heard it right. And in other news Obama authorized a $25,000,000 stimulus payment to GE so they would force NBC, & MSNBC to report favorably on any and all Military involvement GE has with the Government.
This in spite of Obama being Anti-Military spending, makes no sense at all.
Ge doesn't have to force NBC or MSNBC to not bite the hand that feeds them.
Besides it's not an insinuation, it's a damn accusation straight up.
The top three propagandists in the history of the world since Joseph Goebbels worked for Hitler are on MSNBC working overtime for Obama calling people names because they are all Mentally challenged or they would stick to facts and the truth but Olbermann, Matthews, and Schultz can't deal with anything that is close to either, and make up crap and then they all three then use each others lies as proof theirs were the truth.
It's classic a PROPAGANDA technique.
Is that the name you progressives are going by now?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?