Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

winstars

(4,220 posts)
Sat Oct 20, 2012, 06:41 PM Oct 2012

New WingNut/MSM claim: Obama in big trouble, has to take 15M loan from Bank of America

The part about receiving the loan is entirely true, the FEC reported today that OFA took out a $15,000,000 loan with Bank of America, here is the link:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00431445/821325/sc1/ALL

The MSM and various WingNut websites and others who want to stir the pot are portraying this fact as as you might expect, our Prez needs money, how can he run a country when he can't manage a campaign, the evil Warren Buffet invested in Bank of America last year, Bank of America is laying off 16,000 workers by the end of the year, is it because they loaned OFA the monies meant to pay for the salaries of the laid off workers, blah blah blah... one example:

http://freebeacon.com/obama-campaign-borrows-15m-from-bank-of-america/

However, if you actually read the first link above, it says that the loan was taken out on 9/4/12 and is due on 11/14/12. So what you say, well because this $15,000,000 figure happens to be the same amount the Democratic National Convention was short this year; the same Democratic National Convention that was held on, wait for it, 9/4/12--9/6/12...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-07/democrats-said-to-end-convention-15-million-short

Am I saying that that is why OFA did this loan? Definitely not, please ask this question to Jim Messina or DWS...

What I am saying is it is probably the case (that the dough is for the Convention debt) and we here at DU don't need to get all excited about some WingNut BS or some lazy ass MSM not doing any actual reporting and instead engaging in mere stenography!!! And if it is for the actual campaign then its time to send another $20-$30 to OFA, if a couple of million of us did that, maybe we could maybe even negate one Koch brother... YIKES

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

winstars

(4,220 posts)
4. No not all, but I could use it (Wingnutstars) if I ever go undercover in Freeperville, thanks man!!!
Sat Oct 20, 2012, 07:07 PM
Oct 2012

No, I have been here on DU since the very beginning, I started this thread to counter some other "person" who is getting all something weird on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021589640

But thanks for new undercover brother moniker!!! Although I don't think I could ever shower long enough to wash off the JimRob...

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
6. Why bring Romney into this? Obama's black, remember the rules are different with scary black men.
Sat Oct 20, 2012, 07:30 PM
Oct 2012

That's exactly what's echoing around inside the empty skulls of angry racist Conservatives.

winstars

(4,220 posts)
8. You are so right, why would a bank lend a scary black man money anyway is their thinking...
Sat Oct 20, 2012, 07:41 PM
Oct 2012

Shouldn't he go on the "street" for the "scratch"? They see our President as a Jim Brown-Fred Williamson looking... Yes, they are stuck in the 70's, THE 1870's!!!

Thanks for the smile Zalatix, breaks up the day, can ya dig it! (I personally am stuck in the 1970's musically)

winstars

(4,220 posts)
5. Our President is so good he forced Ken Lewis to buy Countrywide on 1/11/09 BEFORE he was sworn in???
Sat Oct 20, 2012, 07:18 PM
Oct 2012
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bank-of-america-to-buy-countrywide-financial-for-4-billion

And Ken Lewis buying Merrill Lynch was not so good either...

Now making Jamie Dimon buy... thats another story...

winstars

(4,220 posts)
9. I don't think we took out the loan for the campaign, I think it was for the convention is my point
Sat Oct 20, 2012, 07:46 PM
Oct 2012

Whatever Mittens did was for his ads or staff bonus's... The Democratic Convention was in the red because we did not do the corporate sponsorship thing I believe. That the figure we were in the red for and the loan is the same leads me to believe this, although that is conjecture at the moment.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New WingNut/MSM claim: Ob...