VABills Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 None other than the evil oil price controlling Goldman Sachs. From this message http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...85entry793785 to reality: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17286 So does this mean The Hillary is sleeping with the pil companies and controlling the price of gasoline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 None other than the evil oil price controlling Goldman Sachs. From this message http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...85entry793785 to reality: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17286 So does this mean The Hillary is sleeping with the pil companies and controlling the price of gasoline? 802170[/snapback] This is the website that they are referencing. They're actually in second place, and are giving a good sum of money to a politician who is going to be in the senate from the very state that they are based out of. The site also says: This chart lists the top donors to this member of Congress during the 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. If we do a little bit of digging, we find out that individuals that claim Goldman Sachs as an employer's donations to all political candidates from New York is overwhelming. From their profile of Goldman Sachs, $2,229,733 this year is from individuals who claimed Goldman Sachs as their employer, and $362,500 that actually came from the company's PAC. Now, lets look at previous donations from Goldman Sachs & Co: - Between 93-99, they were the 3rd biggest contributor to Republican D'Amato's campaign. - Also between 93-99, they were the 3rd largest contributor to Democrat Moynihan's campaign. - Between 97-02, they were the 3rd largest contributor to Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign - Between 97-02, they were Schumer's largest contributor. Wait, so you mean that mostly individuals for this company are donating money to candidates in the state that the company is based out of, and the company is trying to gain influence with politicians from their home state? Oh, my! It's quite the corruption! Call the NY Times! Wait a second... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 None other than the evil oil price controlling Goldman Sachs. From this message http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...85entry793785 to reality: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17286 So does this mean The Hillary is sleeping with the pil companies and controlling the price of gasoline? 802170[/snapback] She's a fuggin' politician man. It's not about us with them, either side. It's all about power and money. Nothing more nothing less. They all make me ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 She's a fuggin' politician man. It's not about us with them, either side. It's all about power and money. Nothing more nothing less. They all make me ill. 802234[/snapback] This is what I'm talking about. I share Jim's feelings, and I'm sure millions of other Americans do as well. It can only lead to a bad situation, one that involves mass apathy to the point where the government usurps each and every last freedom we have OR it leads toa populart uprising. At least in my feeble mind it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 This is the website that they are referencing. They're actually in second place, and are giving a good sum of money to a politician who is going to be in the senate from the very state that they are based out of. The site also says: If we do a little bit of digging, we find out that individuals that claim Goldman Sachs as an employer's donations to all political candidates from New York is overwhelming. From their profile of Goldman Sachs, $2,229,733 this year is from individuals who claimed Goldman Sachs as their employer, and $362,500 that actually came from the company's PAC. Now, lets look at previous donations from Goldman Sachs & Co: - Between 93-99, they were the 3rd biggest contributor to Republican D'Amato's campaign. - Also between 93-99, they were the 3rd largest contributor to Democrat Moynihan's campaign. - Between 97-02, they were the 3rd largest contributor to Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign - Between 97-02, they were Schumer's largest contributor. Wait, so you mean that mostly individuals for this company are donating money to candidates in the state that the company is based out of, and the company is trying to gain influence with politicians from their home state? Oh, my! It's quite the corruption! Call the NY Times! Wait a second... 802217[/snapback] Very slim at best. The point was and I know you can write lots of words and say a lot of BS, but basically you sit there on one hand , accuse GS of dumping gas futures to lower the price of gas to help the republicans and then when it turns out they are one of the most liberal democrats biggest contributors you try to spin it as business as normal. Why is one okay (giving lots of cash to Hillary)? Yet somehow dumping futures is not (regardless of market conditions), because it supports the repubs, and that's EVIL? Pretty damn hypocritical, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Very slim at best. The point was and I know you can write lots of words and say a lot of BS, but basically you sit there on one hand , accuse GS of dumping gas futures to lower the price of gas to help the republicans and then when it turns out they are one of the most liberal democrats biggest contributors you try to spin it as business as normal. Why is one okay (giving lots of cash to Hillary)? Yet somehow dumping futures is not (regardless of market conditions), because it supports the repubs, and that's EVIL? Pretty damn hypocritical, if you ask me. 802549[/snapback] What a dope. First, you should be referring to me, not BlueFire. Second, I gave a possible scenario for how someone or an organization could have influenced gas prices; or, in fact, as the articles stated, did influence gas prices (not the only influence, but added "fuel" to the downward pressure). I stated it was either serendipity or consipiracy, and that I leaned toward the former (however, I said the latter wouldn't surprise me either). Who said that one was ok and the other wasn't? It is politics as usual. Many corporations make "bets" on which party (person) they believe will win the White House. They give to both sides, but tend to give more to the side they think will win. I don't think they should be giving at all, and I've constantly ranted that "both sides are bought and paid for." I've stated time and again, that I DO NOT VOTE FOR EITHER MAJOR PARTY ANYMORE (10 years now). I have voted for independents, greens, and believe it or not libertarians. The hypocrits around here are people who constantly defend (and believe) one party to no end. And from what I've read, you are one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 ...I know you can write lots of words and say a lot of BS.. ... Pretty damn hypocritical, if you ask me. 802549[/snapback] Right. As if you have lots of room to talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I think, for better or worse (probably worse), Hillary's chances of running for Prez took a giant leap today. Mark Warner apparently decided not to run, and he would have been a very tough opponent for her. http://www.tampabays10.com/news/national/a...x?storyid=41539 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I share Jim's feelings 802546[/snapback] Thanks for ruining my day Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Very slim at best. The point was and I know you can write lots of words and say a lot of BS, but basically you sit there on one hand , accuse GS of dumping gas futures to lower the price of gas to help the republicans and then when it turns out they are one of the most liberal democrats biggest contributors you try to spin it as business as normal. Why is one okay (giving lots of cash to Hillary)? Yet somehow dumping futures is not (regardless of market conditions), because it supports the repubs, and that's EVIL? Pretty damn hypocritical, if you ask me. 802549[/snapback] When did I comment on GS and dumping gas futures? My main point was that GS supports both party's candidates, the candidates from where they are based out of, and that its typical of politics. (And, to note here, whether its actually a moral or "okay" thing it do is completely seperate from my point that its not just a "Hillary thing") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 God i hate kankles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 When did I comment on GS and dumping gas futures? My main point was that GS supports both party's candidates, the candidates from where they are based out of, and that its typical of politics. (And, to note here, whether its actually a moral or "okay" thing it do is completely seperate from my point that its not just a "Hillary thing") 802798[/snapback] O'common, you single out Hillary on this deal and the say your point was only that she is a politician, right, doesn't pass the smell test...just fess up you are part of the Bash Clinton crowd like I am part of the Bash Bush crowd, nothing wrong with that, but don't try and cloak in something other than what it really is. As far as Hillary goes, in person I am a fan, politically the jury is still out. Of course any politician can be linked to someone that may have a link to something unpopular and the oil thing, while I still smell a GOP rat, am told by my broker that there was a guy holding .5 Billion in oil options and the exchange boys just wanted to take him out. He says there was 25% speculation in the market and it only dropped to 15% with latest price drop. Already, it has regained some with companies threatening refinery cuts. We shall see, but I still think there is a political component to this all, call me cynical. Also, after the Foley thing, expect another terrorist alert, there have been hints of something brewing in recent Drudge Reports. However, the tactic may be switching to NK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 O'common, you single out Hillary on this deal and the say your point was only that she is a politician, right, doesn't pass the smell test...just fess up you are part of the Bash Clinton crowd like I am part of the Bash Bush crowd, nothing wrong with that, but don't try and cloak in something other than what it really is. As far as Hillary goes, in person I am a fan, politically the jury is still out. Where the hell did I do that? Now I've been accused of Bashing Hillary and sleeping with Hillary in one week. Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true_blue_bill Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 None other than the evil oil price controlling Goldman Sachs. From this message http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...85entry793785 to reality: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17286 So does this mean The Hillary is sleeping with the pil companies and controlling the price of gasoline? 802170[/snapback] I see your point! Democrats shouldn't take money so they can't run campaigns, therefore the far right can simply plaster the air waves with message and win elections leading America to the promised land! What a sweet idea. How long would it take for America to look like Iraq as the super rich hide away in their gated communities? Answer: Who cares, as long as Hillary can't win. She wants to end Christmas as a holliday, you know! Bill 'Dildo' O'Reilly said so, so it must be true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 She's a fuggin' politician man. It's not about us with them, either side. It's all about power and money. Nothing more nothing less. They all make me ill. 802234[/snapback] There's too much truth to this. Elections are costly, so you almost have to sell your soul to have a chance at winnning. Maybe some politicians are able to hold onto a larger portion of their souls than others, but it's still an inherently corrupt system. It's a system which often fails to either follow the will of the American people, or to promote the long-term interests of the American nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts