Monday, October 06, 2008

Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum(b)

No mystery why our two contenders for the Oval Office voted Yea on the bailout:

Top 10 Corporate PAC Contributors to OBAMA:

Goldman Sachs $739,521
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers $391,774
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409

Top 10 Corporate PAC Contributors to MCCAIN:

Merrill Lynch $349,170
Citigroup Inc $287,801
Morgan Stanley $249,377
Wachovia Corp $147,456
Goldman Sachs $220,045
Lehman Brothers $115,707
Bear Stearns $108,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
Bank of America $133,975
Credit Suisse Group $175,503


Anonymous said...

Thank you for pointing out the candidates real constituents.

Anonymous said...

So where is your candidate, patriot and spazz? It is a truism that the two party system is not functioning ideally ; tell us something we don't know. I have an inkling of your outlook vis a vis the issues that america faces and the role of govt.
You cannot tell me that these two candidates are two sides of the same coin. Now don't tell me that cadidate A does this/said that - candidate B put forth this or rejected that and that they are identical. What the hell are the issues that you care about? Asshats like you voted for the idiot Nader the last two times and the first time you did that (if you voted in Fla. particularly) you effectively put GWB in the WH and you bear responsibility for the same issues that you decry.
Yes if Gore had been elected he may have been beholden to the same business/money interests that GWB is, but it is certain that he wouldn't have wiped his ass with the constitution which I believe is the primary issue of our time. Certainly social issues are important, but if you value our constitution you know that the oath that all our lawmakers take is to protect the constition of the USA, not create more jobs or provide health care. I am not saying that those issues are not to be addressed but rather I am pointing out how perverted our interests are when we seem to neglect the carpet pulled out from under our feet while regarding the pattern of the wall paper.
So you crybabies quit the game and take home your marbles because the Dem candidate doesn't measure up to your ideals. Well thank you in advance for fucking us up again when the GOP retains the WH.
Who is your candidate, does he or she exist? And lets allow a little reality in and realize that no candidate would be viable if he/she were to coincide with every one of your lofty , well thought of ideals - or mine for that matter.

Mark said...

So your argument is to vote for the lesser of two evils? I don't buy it. I stand by my vote for Nader in 2000. Blaming Nader for Gore's loss is misguided at best, intellectually disingenious at worst. I posted on the issue before and my reasoning is laid out in that prior post.

If you want to stick with the two party system of corporate hacks be my guest.I agree that the Constitution is the defining issue of this election. Guess who gave the telecoms retroactive immunity? Guess who pushed through the so-called compromise on FISA (with Obambi's support). Who failed to fight against the Patriot act? Who supported the elimination of habeus corpus? If you're looking for salvation from the democrats let me just sugegst that your faith is misplaced. Hell, Joe Lieberman is still sitting on his senate committees despite the fact that he is actively campaigning for John McCain. A bunch of silver spoon corporate whores, the lot of them.

Obama gets my vote this time for 2 reasons only:
1. I cannot give the Republicans 2 more Supreme Court picks. Wait, on second thought, the Democratic Congress did nothing to even slow down Alito or Roberts confirmation, so maybe I'm expecting too much.
2. Foreign policy

When it comes to domestic economic issues, I wouldn't leave my wallet on the table in the White House with either one of them living there.

This society is pretty fucking sick my friend and a third party movement is the only way the people can take this country back from the elected corporate jackles that are circling what's left of the meat in the treasury.

You are a brave soul to hide behind your internet anonymity and throw names around. Thanks to the likes of you and your spineless heros in the Democratic Congress its probably the only anonymity you have left.

Buddee Wang said...

Who Anonymous that make bad word against the Patriot? Anonymous say "You cannot tell me that these two candidates are two sides of the same yuan." Wise Patriot show you rist that both candidates whore themserves out to the same Johns. Anonymous the crybaby, not The Patriot. Anonymous stirr crying over 2000 erection!! Anonymous make big rie about Constitution! Free Rerigion, Free Press, Free Speech, Right To Assembry, Right to have Gun and Trial by Tribunal are arr stirr guaranteed. Anonymous noodre reft in boiring water to rong.

- You Buddee Wang

Anonymous said...

As the anonymous author of the previous screed, I accept your rebuttal and criticism; however I must take issue with two points.
Why use that cliched shopworn rhetorical construction : " A is this at best and this at worst. " Wouldn't it have been easier and more succinct just to say that you disagreed with the argument rather then employ that tiresome gratuitious device?
Secondly, what is inherently wrong with the anonymous tag. Consider this: Two strangers argue over an issue in a public park. They are anonymous to eachother. Does the fact that that they don't know eachothers identity make eithers' argument invalid?
So what if you know my name, then what? You come over and toilet paper my front yard or physically intimidate me, perhaps ridicule my funny sounding last name or strange looks. How does that bear on the issue at hand or support your position. I realize that anonymous criticisms/attacks on your content can be upsetting, but thick skin is required, for both the blogger and the commenter.

Mark said...

Shopworn rhetorical devices are easy to employ after working like a rat bastard all day.

My point is that if you were not "anonymous" you would have wasted less time coming up with witticisms like "asshat", which immediately render your argument less compelling, and more time actually engaging the issue. Such is the level of public discourse in America in the 21st century. As a blogger I could easily hide my identity, but find that, well, intellectually disengenous.

Anonymous said...


I agree, I most certainly employed insulting, gratuitious language in my comment. I regret that, and realize that it lessens the credibility of any argument. The ease and haste in which a comment is rattled off may lead one to hyperbole and insult. It isn't my intention to insult the author and it is not fair for me to criticize the tone of the response to my comment when I employed insults and namecalling in my initial comment. Criticizing sentence construction was also a cheap way to take a shot at an argument; it is really no different than the name calling that I used previously.

The importance, vialbility, and role of a third party is something that I accept, yet there are points of contention in regard to this that we probably disagree about, I regret that I did not express that and allowed some mis guided passion to sidetrack what could have been constructive dialogue.

I remain a loyal reader of your blog, your's in positive argument,


PS - I am not expecting the DEMS to be my saviour nor have I ever contended that.
Also, please call off your attack dog Buddee Wang. I cannot walk the streets without looking over my shoulder! (Love ya Buddee, just wanted to rib you.)

Anonymous said...

PPS - Mark have you ever checked out He often replies to some of the more hyperbolic comments and email he receives. He also links the email addresses of those rhetorical bomb throwers. That is one reason why I remain faithfully your reader,


Buddee Wang said...

It is one big rove fest on this board!

You Buddee Wang

crackass said...

more posts, less comments or more of both.

Mark said...

Finally, peace in the middle east (coast).