Fiddler,
Your hatred of Obama is palpable. You can almost feel it. And your personal attacks are juvenile, at best. I guess I struck a nerve.
Can't wait for the flame war, eh? Think you're pretty clever? Let's go point by point, shall we? Pay attention now.
The unions gave about $300 million. That's all. Obama personally garnered over $745 million from other sources, like WS and Pharma and Big Medicine which promised 2 election cycles worth of donations in return for no single payer. On another note, why would any union give to republicans?
As for WS, they gave over $88 million to dems and over $67 million to reps. with about $42 million going to anyone on a banking committee. Real out of balance, wouldn't you say?
The 1/2 of 1% able to afford to give more than $200 in an election cycle is valid. Prove me wrong. And you'd have to be pretty dense to think that anyone with that kind of money wouldn't donate to keep that money. But I beg the point, don't I? And yes, those people, above all others, are definitely shareholders. Not all are big, granted. But that was never my point. It's painfully obvious that small shareholders would benefit and good for them.
The rest is basically drivel so what's the point of addressing it?
It's one thing to have a belief system. It's necessary to get on in life with.
But you come across as a bit unhinged.
Your hatred of Obama is palpable. You can almost feel it. And your personal attacks are juvenile, at best. I guess I struck a nerve.
Can't wait for the flame war, eh? Think you're pretty clever? Let's go point by point, shall we? Pay attention now.
The unions gave about $300 million. That's all. Obama personally garnered over $745 million from other sources, like WS and Pharma and Big Medicine which promised 2 election cycles worth of donations in return for no single payer. On another note, why would any union give to republicans?
As for WS, they gave over $88 million to dems and over $67 million to reps. with about $42 million going to anyone on a banking committee. Real out of balance, wouldn't you say?
The 1/2 of 1% able to afford to give more than $200 in an election cycle is valid. Prove me wrong. And you'd have to be pretty dense to think that anyone with that kind of money wouldn't donate to keep that money. But I beg the point, don't I? And yes, those people, above all others, are definitely shareholders. Not all are big, granted. But that was never my point. It's painfully obvious that small shareholders would benefit and good for them.
The rest is basically drivel so what's the point of addressing it?
It's one thing to have a belief system. It's necessary to get on in life with.
But you come across as a bit unhinged.