Anybody remember this?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzcupUpxL5U[/youtube]
And as the lazy, whining, and confused OWS nimrods march we get this news.
At least ten members of President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign finance committee, plus more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers, benefited from sweetheart loans through the Department of Energy (DOE) that collectively dwarfed those given to Solyndra and Fisker.
Around 80% of all the money loaned out by the Department of Energy’s 1705 Loan Guarantee Program, over 16 BILLION dollars went to companies run by, or owned by, Obama cronies.
Shocked?
I think not.
After living with Obama for 3 years the details of the cronyism isn’t shocking either:
Instead of appointing a team of scientists or engineers to direct the DOE’s loan program office, Schweizer contends, the Obama administration placed some of the president’s biggest fundraisers in control. For example, Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee and was himself a top bundler, was tapped as the “chief strategic operations officer” for the DOE’s loan programs. Spinner was joined at DOE by another Obama fundraiser, Sanjay Wagle, and by Democrat donor Jonathan Silver, who would serve as executive director of the program.
With the scientists and engineers effectively out of the way, and the President’s top backers at the levers of the DOE’s loan program, the Obama administration was able to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars back to green energy companies associated with the President’s political and financial patrons.
For members of Obama’s national finance committee, the returns on investing in Obama’s 2008 campaign were incredibly lucrative, according to Schweizer. For every dollar committee members raised, they received $24,783 in return in the form of DOE sweetheart loans, on average.
…The Government Accountability Office red-flagged this apparent–and historic–pattern of crony capitalism in its March 2011 report, which found that the DOE’s loan and grant programs had doled out federal monies through a process that appeared “arbitrary,” lacked proper documentation, and that “had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others.”
Oh, btw….SEIU endorsed Obama, saying, among other things, that he is for the 99%!
So I’m guessing that 99% wants cronyism government managed rather than privately eh?
See author page
that’s enough evidence for Impeachment but the scum sucking Dems in the Senate would refuse to try him, as they did with Clinton…
Wherever Clinton appears he should be introduced as:
“Impeached, disbarred, and convicted liar, disgraced perverted President William Jefferson Clinton, …”
…and Obama should be introduced as “Prisoner number 09475821…”
It’s a real shocker that democratic contributors were given such preferential treatment under the DOE’s 1705 Loan Guarantee Program. I can only imagine how many republican applicants must have been turned away. After all, we all know how heavily republicans are into alternative energy development.
The thought of progs not being altruistic is almost too much to bear.
Next up in the parade of corruption appears to be the Siga contract scandal, were (D) donor Ron Perelman looks to be securing quite a return on his donations. See http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/siga-contract-process-raises-questions/article_98bcce20-10ff-11e1-afb2-001cc4c002e0.html
When I think about how much of police and fire union money goes to dues which goes to re-elect Obama I have to wonder if this entire OWS phenomenon is just a way for cops and fire/rescue to get overtime as a reward.
I mean, there haven’t been really HOT riots, like during Rodney King or the original Watts riots.
These simply simmer.
They do cause each of the 400 places where they are happening to put on EXTRA cops.
Obama and his have done nearly everything they have done at all with their supporters in mind.
Why should the OWS happenings be any different?
We are paying for the corruption of Obama. Our grandchildren won’t live long enough to see the final debt paid to make Obama’s cronies their hundreds of millions.
Pass Legislation to make them pay it back or go to prison! How much corruption are we supposed to overlook?
Make them pay it back! Obama is a blight upon this country.
I bet there are more Republicans into alternative energy than there are honest people in the Obama administration, Greggie.
@Greg: My, my, my! Greg, you need more Windex. Must be getting very hard to see out the window in your stomach or is BOHICA a more appropriate observation?
@bbartlog: Thanks for the 1st $433 M SIGA corruption installment. The real money comes 38 months from the first production run for the 1st doses. Shelf life = 38 months for a drug not known to work for a threat not expected to happen. The shelf replacement process will ultimately cost $2.3B and more. BOHICA is the only position that Americans will see for the foreseeable future.
And which members of Congress profited by buying and selling this stock with their legal insider trading information? The whole town stinks. Obama has got to go and so does Congress. This is sickening!
Shouldn’t we be focusing on the Herman Cain sexual whatever allegations? They are far more important than the billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars that have gone to support the cronyism and corruption of this administration. Come to think of it, they are also more important than the adminstration putting a few thousand illegal firearms into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels that are terrorizing American and Mexican citizens.
” 8They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily.
9They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.
10Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them.
11And they say, How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High?
12Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.
13Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.
14For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning.
15If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children.
16When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me;
17Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.” Psalm 73
@Marine72, #9:
I need more Windex?
Let’s see . . . It turns out that this week’s GOP front runner earned around $1.6 million in recent years working as a “contract consultant” for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. (In other words, he was selling influence.) During the last of those years, 2008, he publicly attacked Barack Obama for simply accepting campaign contributions from those sources.
Politics would almost be funny, if the voters didn’t generally wind up being the butt of every joke.
@Greg:
You are aware that George W has a geothermal powered heat pump on his ranch aren’t you? (According to scopes this is true.) I have some investments in alternative energy. I certainly didn’t receive any kickbacks or dividends. Republicans are not against sensible and smart investments and research into alternative energy. But they are against simply throwing money at companies without doing due diligence examinations of the companies and the soundness of their research theories and projects. The first real groundbreaking alternative energy project was N.A.S.A. and their projects have greatly influenced the field of alternative energy at relative “bargain basement” costs.
@Greg: $1.6 million over 8 years is a whopping two hundred grand a year.
He was a private citizen and was paid for his writing services.
Wow, what a scandal!
This would be a good reason to have a Political Crimes Tribunal that goes after crimes like this.
Can anyone remember any time Obama told the truth?
My own opinion is that Obama and his court know he won’t be running for a second term. With Sheriff Joe and others investigating him using someone else’s Social Security number and the proven fake birth certificate, he won’t be allowed to run in many of the states, so they are getting all they can while the getting is good.
@Smorgasbord: You asked:
I can think of one time when he told the truth – when he said this:
dangerous people in power, will be thrown out of all their power and hunted for having cause so much hurt to AMERICA, for having cause the death of so many military, for having been put in power
by fraud.
What a surprise! I’d think after shuttling so many family owned Chevy and Chrysler dealerships away from their rightful owners and toward donors that the “watchdog” media would have been keeping an eye on this POS!
Then there was the case of minimizing press coverage and financial exposure of BP, another big donor. Where is all of that money supposedly set aside for those hurt by the spill? Who’s watching it? How much is already in the hands of the POSITOO and the DNC?
@ anticsrock
And written in the contract that he would not lobby. Yeppers, what a slime!
I knew greg the propagandist would be on this thread excusing blatant corruption on the part of his dems. I also knew he’d try to point out alleged scandals involving Republicans to distract from what the dems did. It’s his SOP.
Like I’ve said before, greg doesn’t care about the truth. He is a committed marxist dedicated to forcing socialism onto this country.
When it comes to greg you always count on this basic response pattern:
When a dem commits a crime= ok
When a Republican is even accused of anything = Bad/Guilty as sin
More evidence of how this administration does business?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/18/contractors-claim-administration-pressed-to-soften-job-loss-estimates-from/
Crony socialism is a disaster. Stephen Chu should be fired! 20 billion wasted on pixie dust, popcorn farts, and unicorn activity.
The major tax benefits allowed are for medium to small oil companies that stimulate old wells. That 4 billion has a huge job multiplier effect. Depletion allowances for old and new oil are complete garbage and are a scam for the federalis.
Here’s some oil spill info that I like to throw at enviro wackos. The worst spill that TCP had on the first Keystone leg was 21 k gallons shut down in 10 minutes in a containment area. The Wabamun Lake derailment spilled 300k gallons of heavy navy crude in a matter of minutes with no recourse. The Gulf spill was billions of gallons with no recourse. The Exxon Valdiz was a tragedy with no recourse. Oil is needed and pick your conveyance. N Dakota oil needs a pipeline and they got stupidity from the White House. Its no fun watching you folks destroy your country.
Now that oil will go to “Asia”. In other words it will make a Communist Chinese regime richer while at the same time they create far more pollution than if it had gone to the U.S.
@Greg:
Why don’t you do the research and tell us, Greg, instead of making clearly partisan excuses for what smells like corruption?
People in a position to make money tend to take advantage of that position. It’s not a partisan thing; it’s just human nature to take advantage of opportunities which come one’s way. I’m not excusing anything; I’m simply making an observation.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1118/Being-a-Washington-insider-has-made-Newt-Gingrich-a-wealthy-man
By the way, I think that Newt Gingrich is — far and away — the most capable and qualified of the GOP candidates for President. I’d prefer Romney, because I’m sure that he’d run toward the center at each and every opportunity — but Newt blows Romney away, with regard to someone who has core convictions, relevant experience, command of the issues, and intelligence.
It would be very interesting, though, to have the Democrat in the race be the better “family values” candidate.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Oh, how sweet… instead of doing the research to verify whether there really weren’t any possible contenders for that “green energy” money other than Obama’s donors (we KNOW that wasn’t the case for the Chrysler dealerships he closed, by the way), you posit completely legal and acceptable contracts that one of the Republican contenders performed. Nothing like a little guilt-by-association, eh? And you guys wonder why I call Democrats “evil.”
If you reply, make sure you explain what “it’s human nature to take advantage of opportunity” has to do with 80% of the recipients of DOE “green energy” loans being, not just Democrats, but contributors to Obama’s campaign. ‘Cause from where I sit, that doesn’t look like “taking advantage of an opportunity,” that looks like “paying off one’s supporters.”
Or are you thinking that a bunch of very wealthy energy magnates just happened to start up half-billion-dollar energy companies because their home boy won the 2008 election? Seriously? You really do think half-billion-dollar projects can start on a dime, don’t you? That’s not even a LITTLE plausible, son…
Hi Phil, Why do lobbyists contribute to campaigns? They are all trying to buy something with their contributions. In many cases, they are buying something. Let’s look at the fossil energy companies who’ve made contributions. Let’s look at the corn growers. They are all trying to buy something with their contributions and are, in many cases, succeeding. I totally agree that a direct quid pro quo agreement to accept cash in return for awarding of contracts would be illegal corruption, but it’s not at all clear that this is what happened. Green energy companies owe their viability to government subsidies. Stands to reason that most will contribute to the politicians who would support such subsidies. Those would be Democrats. So now there is stimulus money available for green energy and it’s going to flow to the companies which work in the green energy field and it so happens that those companies have contributed to Democrats.
In order to support a corruption charge, you’d have to show that there were equally or better qualified companies which were not donors which applied for loans or competed for contracts and which were beaten out by contributors and that this happened in a greater than random pattern. I am quite confident that this will be investigated, as it should be.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
‘Newt blows Romney away, with regard to someone who has core convictions…’
What convictions are those? As far as I can tell, Newt’s core conviction is that he is really awesome. Everything else is negotiable. He certainly is capable, but to the extent he has an ideology it seems to be that even big government could work really well if only the right people (him) were in charge.
openid.aol.com/runnswim
you said DEMOCRATS AND FAMILY VALUES COULD CLOSE THE ARGUMENT?
HELL NO, WHATCH THEIR RHETORIC ON FAMILYS GATHERING TO EXPOSE THEIR WEAKNESS TO SERVE THE PEOPLE.THE DEMORATS CALL THEM TERRORIST AND TELL THEM TO GO TO HELL,
IS THAT THE WAY TO TREAT THE FAMILYS OF AMERICA? THOSE SAME FAMILYS WHO GATHERD IN A RESPECTFULL WAY TO APPLY THEIR RIGHT TO SHOW PUBLICLY WHAT MISTAKE THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING SPENDING THE MONEY OF THE PEOPLE,
SO DON’T BET ON DEMOCRATS SHOWING ANY VALUES OF FAMILYS,
THEY HAVE SHOWN THEY DON’T CARE FOR AMERICANS AT ALL.
@bbartlog: Not really bart, Mr. Gingrich has the experience of leading the House to successful balanced budgets in the ’90s and some wisdom which comes from age. I know that I look at things a lot differently now than I did in my 20s.
Newt is on record saying that while he at one time thought man might have caused global warming, he now understands that the situation does not warrant a top-down, heavy handed governmental response. He also says that it shouldn’t even be a priority of the Federal Government.
Gingrich was the only Speaker of the House in U.S. history to have been disciplined by Congress for ethics violations. The reprimand passed by a vote of 395 to 28. Not exactly a partisan decision . . .
@Greg: …and your point is?
Under oath DOE Secretary Steven Chu made some bold claims about the overall effectiveness of the department’s clean-energy loan programs.
He made the case that the collapse in solar panel prices — which helped sink Solyndra — was “totally unexpected” by most financial analysts at the time when the department went forward with the loan in 2009.
FACT CHECK on aisle four!!!
The OMB e-mail shows that at least one arm of the government was aware that Wall Street was quickly souring on solar energy and that the tsunami that swept the industry should not have been such a surprise.
When asked:
E
FACT CHECK!!!!
Was Chu simply clueless?
This hints in that direction:
GREG was it when the DEMOCRATS HAD A ROUND UP MAJORITY, AND WHERE SQEEZING THEIR BILL UNDER THE BILLS OF THE PRESIDENT BUSH TO BE VOTED ON?
No Bees… Gingrich was indirectly run out of the House by a GOP dominated Congress (both House and Senate) in 1997-98 on a coup. By the time of his resignation, Gingrich had been the recipient of 84 “ethics charges”.
All but one were dropped. Ironically, considering that Geithner, the US Treasury Sec’y, has tax credibility problems, Newt’s sole remaining ethics charge as House Speaker was involving tax “improprieties”. Instead of going thru the hearing, Gingrich agreed to “settle” (much as done in the private litigation world, like Herman Cain) in exchange for sanctions.
Dems accused him of violating the sanctions, and the House… wanting to ultimately rid themselves of someone they considered a liability …. voted to reprimand Newt, along with charging him $300Kplus for the costs of the investigation.
By the time the GOP lost so many seats in the ’98 midterm with Gingrich as Speaker, he resigned not only the Speaker ship, but also left the House completely.
Like Herman Cain, the charges never included a guilty verdict on Gingrich’s activities. Two years later (1999), however, the IRS did exonerate (find not guilty) the Gingrich corporations involved with the charges of the only remaining ethics charge.
Oddly enough, Gingrich is a lot like the precursor to Sarah Palin and her Alaskan ethics charges. It doesn’t matter to the public whether the charges are true. Just that the sheer volume of the onslaught was enough to be a “guilty” verdict in the disinterested and misinformed public’s eyes. Therefore, they (Newt and Palin) become a liability, a distraction and a political burden to their constituents.
Of course, as Larry W so aptly demonstrated, he’s vulnerable to pop shots from both left and right because he is not the bastion of “Christian family values” for his past marital/affairs woes. Another weak point that Dems will be *most* happy to exploit in order to divide the conservatives and the “Christian right, and weaken any general election support.
Needless to say, tho Newt is so finely qualified, he is packed to the gills with “baggage”, as they say… from both the left and the right. Then again, so is Palin. The difference is, the conservatives are willing to back Palin. Tough to say if they would Newt.
I really like Newt. He’s unbeatable in debates, except for perhaps Pat Buchanan… another fabulous historian (despite what one’s personal opinion is of him). Newt’s a strong leader, and is able to withstand a ton of crap thrown his way. Definitely knows how to get things done. We know his history so there’s no surprises, and as he even openly admits today, he’s an open book on his activities. I hardly say you can call Newt’s lobby activities into question when you look at Obama’s “community organizing” activities.
My two problems with Newt is this.. He is hated by both the Dems and the establishment GOP because they want someone to “play” the perfect candidate. Therefore even his own peers will try to sink him in a POTUS general election. The support would be half hearted at best. But frankly, I think Newt is light years better than Romney, for all his “squeaky clean” persona.
The second problem with Newt is odd since, despite all the hatred thrown at him from establishment GOP, he remains somewhat an establishment GOPer. On the other hand, I don’t think he feels a ton of loyalty at the moment, and would throw the establishment RINOs off the cliff to get the job done. I’m good with that.
Technically, I consider Newt the most qualified and promising of all the current candidates on a well rounded intellectual and experience level. However the ballot levers are never pulled for candidates based on their intellect, and we sure as heck know that experience means nothing considering what’s in the WH today. Instead, elections are mostly based on emotions over knowledge. Newt brings out emotions, and they usually aren’t positive. Pity. Good man for the times. But unlikely to happen.
But if he got the nomination, I’d be happy to cast the ballot for him. Even with the differences I have… like, for example, his global warming position. I’d just want a genuinely conservative GOP Congress to temper him on the hair-up-the-butt AGW issues. In fact, I’d be so politically incorrect as to say I wouldn’t mind a Newt/Palin ticket. Would really piss off the opposition, but they’d definitely follow a conservative agenda, and none of the political BS could faze them. Both of them have already been dragged thru the mud, and politically lynched.
@anticsrocks: #18
I guess the only time he tells the truth is when he refers to changing the USA into something other than a free country, like when he said he wants a civilian security force as strong and equally funded as the military. I am guessing he wants to use it like Hitler did.
@MataHarley: I heard Newt on the Mark Levin show and it was pretty informative. Levin, being no wilting flower to put it mildly, pressed Newt on three issues: AGW, individual mandate and his consultation work for the GSEs.
Newt admitted that he had basically changed his mind on the AGW debate. He thought that if anything, the only action warranted on it was more investigative research, that he could in no way be in favor of a top-down, authoritarian government response.
On the individual mandate, he said that it was a topic explored by conservatives, which has been discussed here at FA. Conservatives looked at it from the personal responsibility perspective and that he acknowledges that it is unconstitutional on the federal level and that states have to make their own choices.
On the consultation, or so-called lobbying work, he admitted to working for Fannie (or Freddie, I forget which one) and that they utilized his writing and historian skills.
The answers he gave were evidently good enough for Mark Levin and they are good enough for me. I am a pretty staunch conservative and I can easily see myself supporting him in the general election.
anticsrocks, I’m so sorry I missed Levin grilling Newt. If you can remember the day, I can look it up on the Levin archives. Must have been a day when I was away from the computer, and couldn’t get the online broadcast. The radio channel he’s on in my area rarely gets a good enough signal, so I’ve taken to listening via live streaming when I can.
Newt’s pretty matter of fact about what he’s done. Doesn’t attempt to gloss it over or hide it. That’s a good thing. And considering lobbyists are a fact of life in today’s political culture, I am not bothered by his profit from lobby activities. As usually, “lobbyist” is only an expletive when it’s a conservative cause. You don’t find the Dems demeaning union or trial lawyers lobbyists.
I think if Newt could actually live thru the primaries and win the nomination, he could win the POTUS election. There would be a lot less nose holding for Newt than Romney, and the results of his term would be far superior to Romney’s presidency.
Does anyone notice the left isn’t even mentioning how bad this looks? Some of the very people who accused Bush of corruption for removing US Attorneys because it “looked bad”, look the other way when it’s the dems doing it. BTW, some of those people I’m talking about are on this site.
SMORGASBORD
I bet OBAMA IS training the OWLS already, for becoming his own civil army,
you remind us of that what he said before, and you know also when he said he will change AMERICA IN 5 DAYS FOREVER?
well it reminded me the fact that GOD CREATED the EARTH in 6 days, and the DEVIL said he would do better than GOD ,
is OBAMA trying to tempt GOD? BY USING AMERICA’S CHRISTIANITY? WHICH HE’S TRYING TO OBLITERATE IN THE
PUBLIC, AND IN SCHOOLS FOR OUR CHILDREN TO FORGET AS THEY DO FOR THE FLAG?
i CAN UNDERSTAND WHY SO MANY WANT TO GATHERED IN PRAYERS NOW,
THE CHRISTIAN LEADERS SEE SOMETHING THEY DON’T LIKE IN OBAMA AND It’s bigger and even more dangerous than
we know already.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Uh… no.
First of all, lobbyists do not contribute to political campaigns, except as private citizens.
Secondly, contributions from corporations, PACs, trade organizations, and unions — which I imagine is what you really meant — are like contributions from anywhere else; they hope to help a candidate get elected, and they tend to support the candidate who is most likely to benefit their political positions. Frequently that includes financial benefit, but only indirectly. Only the most cynical among us imagine that all contributions are to “buy something,” and they do so without evidence.
Thirdly, to the extent that contributors really are expecting something, what they are expecting is access. They hope that they will have a voice in forming whatever policy will affect their business or their union, or, in the case of PACs, they hope to influence thinking on the topic that energizes them.
What does NOT normally happen is that the contributor gets paid directly for their contribution, either in cash or in policies that specifically and directly benefit the contributor. That’s what we’re pointing to here. Here and elsewhere, the Obama administration appears to have picked the winners and bent the system to direct funds to those who helped their campaign. It is NOT, repeat NOT, the same as all contributions. It stinks of corruption.
Keep in mind: (1) not all energy companies are run by Democrats; (2) not all Democrats supported Obama (remember Hillary?); (3) not all Obama supporters bundled funds for him. It’s that last group — the bundlers — that seems to have attracted the big bucks.
That I should have to explain this to you is an indication that you, like all Democrats, are rationalizing away the clear criminality of your party. The Democratic party has adopted quid pro quo as its standard operating procedure. It’s how the Clintons worked, it’s how Gore works, and it’s how Obama works. It is morally evil. It’s wrong. Stop pretending that it isn’t.
By the way, THIS:
…is the best reason imaginable to avoid giving subsidies. In fact, it’s the reason that the founders of our nation argued to keep the government small and relatively powerless. Nobody wants to buy government — not even access and certainly not direct payment — when the government isn’t picking the winners.
Don’t want corruption? Shrink the government.
Finally,
The way the uneven closing of Chrysler dealerships was investigated (by the victims of the closings who were put out of business?) The way the voter intimidation in Philadelphia was investigated? Or the way Fast and Furious was investigated?
Your confidence reeks of naivete’, which, in the case of Democrats, is actually not naivete’ at all, it’s deliberate ignorance of the routine corruption in their own party.
@Hard Right:
This surprises you? You’re just now noticing this?
Democrats do not have moral principles. When a Democrat objects to something on moral grounds, he or she is using morals the way a drunk in a bar fight uses a beer bottle; he’ll pick it up and swing it if it’s handy and he can do damage with it, but as soon as it’s of no more immediate use, he’ll throw it away.
This has been routine behavior for Democrats for as long as I can remember, and I’m approaching 60. Judging from Ann Coulter’s description of the McCarthy hearings in “Treason,” it was routine behavior before I was born.
philwink
hi,
STRANGE, I just came back from FOX AND GRETA with MICHEL BACKMAN’S VIEWS ON MANY ISSUE,
and I WAS VERY IMPRESS BY HER GIFT OF TONGUE, AND LOGIC, AND SHE CAME OUT TO SAY HOW BAD THE GAMES OF DEMOCRATS ARE, SHE SAID IT SHOULD BE ANALYZE IF IT’S CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AS IT HAPPENED SO MANY TIME,
AND I come back to read your comment almost similar in evaluating the conduct of the OBAMA AND FRIENDS.
AND I was telling myself what it is the ones who decide to put the CANDIDATES in ranks, what is their
problems at this time, to get those RICK PERRY AND MICHEL BACMAN IN THE RANK THEY DON’T BELONG,
THE PEOPLE MUST CHECK VERY CAREFULLY FROM THIS TIME TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, AND DISREGARD THE RANKS OF THE CANDIDATES, AND START FROM THE LAST ONE VALUES TOWARD THE FRONT, BECAUSE THERE IS A DEFINITE DISCREPANCY IN JUDGING AT THIS POINT AND SAME WAY FOR THE MEDIA’ THAT CLAIM TO PUT DOWN A CANDIDATES FOR THINGS UN-PROVEN
AND UNCHECKED FROM THE CANDIDATES SELF.
BYE
MATA, THEY are playIng the ROULETTE GAME with the candidates, that’s what I’m coming to realize right this second,
the BACKMAN AND PERRYS CAME FIRST IN FRONT, AND WHERE SMEARS BOTH IN THEIR DIFFERENT TIME AND SPACES,
NOW THE CAIN FOLLOWED WITH THE WORSE SMEARS AS HE WAS IN FRONT AND RUNNING
AND THIS WITH GINGRICH, SMEARS ON HIM, AS HE SAID HE WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN BUSYNESS MAN
ADVISING THOSE CLIENTS, AND HE SAID IT IS 2 THINGS AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN AS OPPOSE TO A MEMBER OF GOVERNMENT TO DO, AND HE REPEAT THAT he never LOBBIED EVER
BYE
@Skookum: Whatever happened to the term “clawback”? This is something we need to do to everyone of these scumbags- make ’em a REAL part of the 99%- I bet not a one of them would know how to do real work- it’s just not in their nature.
@ Greg
Yep, you’re correct as always Greg. I think it has been shown here time and again how libs are much more environmentally aware than conservatives. If the pictures taken after Obama’s inaugural compared to the pictures taken after the TEA Party rally aren’t enough evidence for everyone, I don’t know what is. /sarc
MATA,
MR GINGRICH SAID he never lobbyed.
he was interviewed by GRETA, yesterday I saw it
bye
@MataHarley: He is on literally between campaign stops and it is the last 8 minutes of the show on 11/16.
anticsrocks, HI, I was reading more about the algorithms on BBC, CHECK IT UP, VERY INTERESTING PART TO READ from KEVIN SLAVIN AN EXPERT, AND THE LAST PART IS WHAT WAS THE ONE I ask you to check previously,
BYE