PDA

View Full Version : Dear leader demands that we induce doublethink!



LWW
02-07-2012, 11:39 AM
Dear leader on "SUPER PACS" ... August, 2010:

"Let's challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us is stopping it. Millions of Americans are struggling to get by and their voices shouldn't be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret special interest advertising," Obama added, their voices should be heard." (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-2010-super-pac-ads-corporate-takeover/362526)

Dear leader on "SUPER PACS" ... February, 2012:

<a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/obama-campaign-to-support-super-pac-fundraising/?hpt=hp_t1" target="_blank">"In a change of position, Barack Obama's reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president.

Obama has been an outspoken critic of current campaign financing laws, in particular a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the creation of super PACs. Until now he has kept his distance from Priorities USA Action.

But in the wake of the group's anemic fundraising, made public last week, the campaign decided to change its position, and announced the new stance to members of its national finance committee Monday evening."</a>

LET THE DENIALS BEGIN!

nAz
02-07-2012, 12:58 PM
I got no problem with him reluctantly embracing super PACs, in fact i would say he was a fool if he didn't.
You know as long as his opponents are using them he will have no choice but to do the same or not even bother running.
If he was smart he should wait till after the Republicans finally get inline and nominate Mitt as their leader at the convention and make an offer that no one uses them during the rest of the election season. i doubt the Reps will go for that.

Soflasnapper
02-07-2012, 01:03 PM
This is similar to how Obama was committing to using the public finance option for his campaign, and then changed his tune, going to unlimited fundraising instead.

And he did it then for the same reason as now. Self defense, from the huge amount of money arrayed against him. (Note, he was not on the ballot himself in 2010.)

eg8r
02-07-2012, 02:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And he did it then for the same reason as now. Self defense, from the huge amount of money arrayed against him.</div></div>So when the going gets tough recklessly abandon everything you have said in the past because there are people like sofla that will look the other way and never hold you accountable. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

To remind you what Obama said back when it was the "morally/ethically/constitutionally right" thing to say...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."</div></div>
Now that time has passed the left has lost its memory, Obama thinks it is safe to pilfer these funds.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Messina</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm."</div></div>So there you have it. Foreign investment money in politics is only bad for America when Obama is NOT running for an election.

eg8r

eg8r
02-07-2012, 02:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I got no problem with him reluctantly embracing super PACs, in fact i would say he was a fool if he didn't.
You know as long as his opponents are using them he will have no choice but to do the same or not even bother running.
</div></div>So it is ok for foreign investors to influence American politics IF AND ONLY IF Obama is running for office. Other than that...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."</div></div>So much for righting the wrong.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-07-2012, 03:22 PM
Approving of super pacs for himself now doesn't mean either that he will take foreign monies or that they'll be allowing anonymous donations from unknown donors.

If either of those happen, it will be a complete reversal.

But if neither do, his taking the monies will not violate the core of his critique of the process (anonymous donors, and/or foreign donors).

eg8r
02-07-2012, 03:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Approving of super pacs for himself now doesn't mean either that he will take foreign monies or that they'll be allowing anonymous donations from unknown donors.

If either of those happen, it will be a complete reversal.
</div></div>So you think he will go against his word only "part" of the way? What if he is still running behind because Romney continues to abide by the law? Will the foreign monies being bad get thrown off the table?

eg8r

LWW
02-07-2012, 04:55 PM
Did I call it when I predicted the left would induce doublethink and begin a denialfest?

Soflasnapper
02-07-2012, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Approving of super pacs for himself now doesn't mean either that he will take foreign monies or that they'll be allowing anonymous donations from unknown donors.

If either of those happen, it will be a complete reversal.
</div></div>So you think he will go against his word only "part" of the way? What if he is still running behind because Romney continues to abide by the law? Will the foreign monies being bad get thrown off the table?

eg8r </div></div>

Here's the campaign explanation:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In an e-mail to supporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said the decision was a reaction to massive fundraising posted by super PACs supporting GOP presidential candidates.

"The campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PACs," Messina wrote.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>
"We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission."</span>

Messina was careful to point out the president's opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that sparked the onset of super PACs, noting the administration was still looking for ways to put limits on campaign spending.

"The President opposed the Citizens United decision," Messina wrote. "He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view.

“He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action - by constitutional amendment, if necessary - to place reasonable limits on all such spending.”

Priorities USA Action posted receipts of $4.4 million through December 31, 2011, compared to the more than $30 million reported by Restore our Future, a super PAC supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. </div></div>

eg8r
02-07-2012, 06:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission."

Messina was careful to point out the president's opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that sparked the onset of super PACs, noting the administration was still looking for ways to put limits on campaign spending.
</div></div>Actually, Messina was careful to hide the fact that Obama can utilize the full support of the superPAC as called out under the law which means foreign monies will be perfectly acceptable.

So having read the campaign explanation how much of it do you believe?

eg8r

Qtec
02-08-2012, 01:07 AM
First of all there is no 'doublethink'.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"<u>The President opposed the Citizens United decision</u>," <span style="color: #000099">[ and he still does!']</span> Messina wrote. "He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view.

“<u>He continues to support a law to force full disclosure</u> <span style="color: #000099">[ which he has always done!]</span> of all funding intended to influence our elections, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate.</span> <u>And the President favors action - by constitutional amendment, if necessary</u> - to place reasonable limits on all such spending.” </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. </div></div>

That would be Herman Cain or Mitt Romney.

Q

Qtec
02-08-2012, 01:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Messina was careful to hide the fact that Obama can utilize the full support of the superPAC </div></div>

No he can't.

Q

Qtec
02-08-2012, 01:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So much for righting the wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

Blame the Republicans.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>a reform that was<u> blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster </u>in the U.S. Senate </span></div></div>

Q

LWW
02-08-2012, 03:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So having read the campaign explanation how much of it do you believe?

eg8r </div></div>

If the regime says it, they will believe it.

eg8r
02-08-2012, 09:34 AM
LOL, actions speak louder than words. He says he opposes it while he turns around and accepts money from it. Just like he opposed Wall St but then allowed them to buy him the White House.

eg8r

eg8r
02-08-2012, 09:35 AM
Sorry qtip but based on your response I need to give you some bad news...in your case we cannot fix stupid.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-08-2012, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission."

Messina was careful to point out the president's opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that sparked the onset of super PACs, noting the administration was still looking for ways to put limits on campaign spending.
</div></div>Actually, Messina was careful to hide the fact that Obama can utilize the full support of the superPAC as called out under the law which means foreign monies will be perfectly acceptable.

So having read the campaign explanation how much of it do you believe?

eg8r </div></div>

I will believe what I see, so I don't have an opinion just yet.

However, any SuperPAC may set up whatever criteria it wishes, including screening out foreign donors or requiring donors identify themselves. That they may legally do some things doesn't mean they have to (it's not mandatory, but optional), and should they honor what they've said, taking the SuperPAC money will take place without the two worse abuses allowed by law.

Soflasnapper
02-08-2012, 11:51 AM
No doublethink, I agree.

More a lack of ability to single think here on the board.

Put any slightly nuanced thinking in play, and they just don't get it (or enjoy pretending they don't get it, hard to tell).

It's like a condominium owner, who strongly advocates for replacing the appliances' electricity energy with natural gas, but until that happens, continues to use his stove and heating using what is there, the electricity.

OMG, HOW CAN ANYONE BE SO DOUBLE-THINKING AS THAT???!?!?! The horrors!

When in actuality, we all get what that would be about, and understand it entirely. Maybe except LWW, I will leave a possible exception to my otherwise totality claim.

eg8r
02-08-2012, 12:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's like a condominium owner, who strongly advocates for replacing the appliances' electricity energy with natural gas, but until that happens, continues to use his stove and heating using what is there, the electricity.

OMG, HOW CAN ANYONE BE SO DOUBLE-THINKING AS THAT???!?!?! The horrors!
</div></div>You know your analogy doesn't work at all. Obama gave in because of competition not necessity. If your condo owner quite using the electricity then his tenents would be suing him and moving out. Obama is not doing this out of necessity he is doing it because he is weak. He has never been able to stand up for what he says. As you have called it in the past, this is merely a "sly misdirection". Obama has never been against foreign monies or undisclosed sources, just like he was never against Wall St. He says those things because he knows you guys will not hold him to it so he jumps in bed with them as quickly as possible.

Obama: Foreign monies are horrible and should never play a part in American politics.

Obama administration: But Obama, don't you see, Romney is stock-piling this money to win an election.

Obama: Who said "don't use foreign money?" I just said it was bad but it is legal so who cares what I said.

eg8r

eg8r
02-08-2012, 12:20 PM
You are defending them so how can you not have an opinion? Do you believe they would never use the foreing or undisclosed money?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, any SuperPAC may set up whatever criteria it wishes, including screening out foreign donors or requiring donors identify themselves. That they may legally do some things doesn't mean they have to (it's not mandatory, but optional), and should they honor what they've said, taking the SuperPAC money will take place without the two worse abuses allowed by law. </div></div>As you know, but are trying hard to avoid, this is not really about the superPAC but rather Obama going back on what he has said in the past only because he is not raising as much money as he thought he could do.

Now that Romney appears to be raising quite a bit Obama is showing his cards a bit early by deciding to go against his previous position so quickly.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-08-2012, 05:17 PM
It isn't the money Romney and his very own SuperPac are raising, but the couple hundred million dollars EACH that very unrelated SuperPacs have said they will raise-- about a half dozen of them, at least.

And exactly the reason Obama did his earlier somewhat of a 180 on whether he'd stay in the capped system where he'd take the public matching funds.

He tried to get McCain to agree to some kind of reining in of outside large campaign money, but couldn't, so decided not to be grossly outraised and outspent by his opposition.

Same here. And until there is some showing that the SINGLE such SuperPac he's going to use has taken anonymous or foreign money, then to date they have not.

eg8r
02-08-2012, 05:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He tried to get McCain to agree to some kind of reining in of outside large campaign money, but couldn't, so decided not to be grossly outraised and outspent by his opposition.
</div></div>So basically what you are doing is digging yet an even bigger hole for Obama to crawl out of. You are now showing precedence. Obama has never been true to his word and since he could not get someone to agree to his own rules he tossed his own moral/ethical ideologies to the side in the interest of competition.

We have always known he was not a man of his word and you keep proving us correct. You call it sly misdirections, I go for the simpler more direct route and just call it what it is...lying.

eg8r

Qtec
02-09-2012, 04:19 AM
What you don't understand is that Super-PACs are not under the control of the politicians they may support.

Steven Colbert showed the absurdity that has arisen since the RW SC disastrous decision on Citizens United.

NEWS for you (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/379369/march-30-2011/colbert-pac---trevor-potter)

Q

Qtec
02-09-2012, 04:33 AM
still stanger...but true.... (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-16-2012/colbert-super-pac---strict-separation)

Q

LWW
02-09-2012, 05:10 AM
They put your doublethink cap on extra tight I see.

eg8r
02-09-2012, 09:02 AM
Blame the Republicans for Obama not being able to stand by his own word? How stupid do you intend to get? I mean seriously, how low are you willing to set the bar for Obama?

eg8r

eg8r
02-09-2012, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you don't understand is that Super-PACs are not under the control of the politicians they may support.
</div></div>What you don't understand is that Obama gave authorization to use their money. Wake up dillhole. It is his choice and it is lying which has defined him.

eg8r

LWW
02-09-2012, 03:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean seriously, how low are you willing to set the bar for Obama?

eg8r </div></div>

As low as dear leader demands.

Soflasnapper
02-09-2012, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Blame the Republicans for Obama not being able to stand by his own word? How stupid do you intend to get? I mean seriously, how low are you willing to set the bar for Obama?

eg8r </div></div>

Obama never gave his word. To the degree that he expressed his strong preference and tried to lead by his own example, that was prior to the Citizens United decision, and before Rove's organization committed to raise and spend $300 million, and Dick Armey's group another $200 million, and any odd billionaire may now add tens of millions at will to any campaign.

This kind of arch treatment, raised eyebrows, and howls of phony outrage are, I suppose, intended to sway voters. It will not do that.

Those outraged by this will be the GOP, and voters who wouldn't vote for Obama in any case. And they are the pot calling the kettle black, hoping nobody notices the color of the kitchen accessories over on their side.

eg8r
02-09-2012, 10:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama never gave his word. </div></div>Semantics? He said it is "wrong", we must "right this wrong". In righting the wrong he chooses not to "right" anything but rather join the wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To the degree that he expressed his strong preference and tried to lead by his own example, that was prior to the Citizens United decision, and before Rove's organization committed to raise and spend $300 million, and Dick Armey's group another $200 million, and any odd billionaire may now add tens of millions at will to any campaign.
</div></div>All you are doing is showing how shallow Obama really is. You are not defining some great man that stood by what he believed. What you are showing us is a weak individual that has no backbone. Do you disagree?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Those outraged by this will be the GOP</div></div>Why is it considered outrage when a Rep points out the lies of a Dem?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And they are the pot calling the kettle black</div></div>So now we see you aspire to qtips view on life that two wrongs do make right if they benefit you.

Quit telling us "why" he is doing this. We get it...he is weak and noticed that playing by his own rules was going to get him crushed so he joined the enemy. Why not tell us what you think about him, as an individual NOT a competitor, doing so.

eg8r

Qtec
02-10-2012, 01:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you don't understand is that Super-PACs are not under the control of the politicians they may support.
</div></div>What you don't understand is that Obama gave authorization to use their money. Wake up dillhole. It is his choice and it is lying which has defined him.

eg8r </div></div>

No he didn't. You obviously know nothing about super PACS.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a change of position, Barack Obama's reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides <span style='font-size: 14pt'>to <u>fundraise</u> for Priorities USA Action,</span> a super PAC backing the president. </div></div>

Q

LWW
02-10-2012, 03:57 AM
Are you aware that you are proving Eg's point?

Qtec
02-10-2012, 06:32 AM
Another question= nothing to say.

Q

Qtec
02-10-2012, 06:38 AM
I will spell it out for you ONE MORE TIME DILLHOLE.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Are you aware that you are proving Eg's point? </div></div>


Am I?

What point?

Like how?




Get my drift?




Answering a Q with a Q is avoidance, what are you afraid of?

Q

eg8r
02-10-2012, 10:16 AM
Thank you for proving me right. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-10-2012, 10:16 AM
LOL, that idiot has a comprehension problem that is out of this world.

eg8r

LWW
02-10-2012, 06:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, that idiot has a comprehension problem that is out of this world.

eg8r </div></div>

No, it's doublethink.

Snoop believes that it is both <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span></u> to use a SUPERPAC and OK to use one at the same time.

It is a debilitating mental disease however.

Qtec
02-11-2012, 05:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The full-length video, 30-second TV versions based on it, and two-minute versions available on the Internet, were roundly criticized by Romney and his campaign as inaccurate. Independent observers including the Washington Post have confirmed inaccuracies.

"It's important why my campaign is different than some other people's campaigns," he told a crowd of about 150 supporters packed in his new office.

"I've said all along that these super PACs ought to have some sense of responsibility. The ad for example that Gov. Romney is running in Florida right now about me was given four ‘Pinocchios' by the Washington Post, which means it was wrong at least four times in 30 seconds, which is not easy. I challenged the governor to speak up. He frankly has been timid and irresponsible.

"This morning we found out this new 30-minute film on Gov. Romney and Bain has some factual errors in it, from the same Washington Post fact-checkers. I want to say I am true to what I say.

"<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I am <u>calling</u> on this super PAC – <span style='font-size: 26pt'>I cannot coordinate with them and I cannot communicate directly, but I can speak out as a citizen</span> as I'm talking to you -- I call on them to either edit out every single mistake or to pull the entire film," he said.</span>
</div></div> link (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-newt-gingrich-pac-bain-ads-20120113,0,3413654.story)

These are probably the only true words spoken by newt during his whole campaign!

Obama , by law, has no authority over the super PAC that supports him. He cannot communicate or coordinate with them on what they do.

And BTW, all super PACs are required by law to report where the money came from, just not BEFORE the election!

Q

LWW
02-11-2012, 06:37 AM
What does any of that have to do with the regime's hypocrisy?

eg8r
02-11-2012, 10:38 AM
LOL, he doesn't even know what he is talking about anymore.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-11-2012, 05:59 PM
It has everything to do with why it is not hypocrisy at all.

Obama CANNOT prevent the SuperPac's creation. He is NOT the one creating it.

In the previous cycles, '08 and '10, he DISCOURAGED his supporters from contributing to outside PACs of this nature, so while it still happened, those outside PACs were not flush with cash to do what they were doing and basically had little to no impact.

Now he signals he's ok with those activities, in the case of one SuperPac or maybe a regular PAC, and will permit administration members to lend their attendance to fundraising activities for this one.

I've seen any number of analogies to explain this, but I'll go with this one: Imagine a person who has a long-held view that he doesn't care for guns, and for all of his life to this point never had one. But the neighborhood got rougher, and coming out of his business, he's been robbed at gunpoint, and so reluctantly decides to get a gun against his previous judgment.

You really cannot call out such a person for hypocrisy, and rather, as Emerson once wrote, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Qtec
02-12-2012, 01:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama CANNOT prevent the SuperPac's creation. He is NOT the one creating it. </div></div>


Blast from the past.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) "registered their group under Section 527 of the U.S. tax code

The "527" committees, also known as the "527" political groups or just the "527" groups, are products of a loophole carved in Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code which covers political organizations. Under federal election law, members of Congress may raise only limited amounts of 'hard money' for their own campaign committees or 'leadership PACs' which aid other candidates. They may accept no contributions of more than $1,000 per election from an individual and $5,000 per election from a political action committee (PAC). But if they set up a politician 527, members of Congress can raise unlimited soft money from individuals, <u>corporations and unions.</u>" <span style="color: #000099">Since Citizens United</span> [1] </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">5. The Swift-boat affair. In the current campaign, we have the attack ads on Kerry regarding his performance in Vietnam. Republican John McCain has denounced the ads and called on Bush to condemn them (click here);<u> Bush has not done so.</u>

The Bush campaign <u>denies that there is any connection</u> between his campaign and the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", which pay for the smear, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>and it would be illegal for there to be any connection.</span> </div></div>

Laurel and Hardy above just don't get it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The SBVT propaganda smear campaign was financed by Sam Fox, a billionaire and hardline rightwinger.[5] The fact that Fox financed this project was revealed during his Senate confirmation hearings to become US ambassador to Belgium. <span style="color: #3333FF">PAY OFF? As clear a case of Quid pro quo as I have ever seen. No? </span> Although the Senate blocked his confirmation pointing out Fox's pernicious activities, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>George Bush appointed Fox over the authority of the Senate during a "Senate recess"</span>. Furthermore, the PR company responsible for the SBVT (and whose bill Fox paid) was Arthur J. Finkelstein and Associates run by Arthur J. Finkelstein, the "dirty-tricks guy for the Republicans". [6] Finkelstein is best know for his black-propaganda campaigns that are primarily character assassinations or smearing -- as the SBVT campaign demonstrates. </div></div>


The SB campaign was one of the most disgusting episodes of American politics. Now that corporations can use their big money, and they will, to swing elections it can only get worse.

What is supposed to keep these lies in check is the press. When a candidate makes an outrageous lie on tv the interviewer should say, "that's FKN Godm lie you lying BSTD', they don't. It drives me crazy when I see it.

Sorry for my French.


Q

LWW
02-12-2012, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What is supposed to keep these lies in check is the press. When a candidate makes an outrageous lie on tv the interviewer should say, "that's FKN Godm lie you lying BSTD', they don't. It drives me crazy when I see it.

Sorry for my French.


Q </div></div>

I agree with that part ... and that's, with cleaned up language, pretty much what FOX and Limbaugh and Beck do ... and yet you hate them?

eg8r
02-13-2012, 09:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama CANNOT prevent the SuperPac's creation. He is NOT the one creating it.
</div></div>Strawman. Who here has actually said Obama was creating a superPac or even implied as such? All we have said is that he has approved of his campaign supporting a pro-Obama superPAC. When it was morally/ethically/constitutionally the right thing to say superPAC are "wrong" and are a "threat to democracy" then that is what he said. Now fast forward, Messina tells him they are losing ground to Romney with respect to fundraising what should we do??? Obama says bring on the super PAC money baby. I don't care what I said before about them being "wrong" or a "threat to democracy", right now the foreign money, corporate money, wall st money is all good when it comes down to me winning a re-election.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've seen any number of analogies to explain this, but I'll go with this one: Imagine a person who has a long-held view that he doesn't care for guns, and for all of his life to this point never had one. But the neighborhood got rougher, and coming out of his business, he's been robbed at gunpoint, and so reluctantly decides to get a gun against his previous judgment.
</div></div>So in defense of re-election you are OK with any lie Obama is willing to say? Do you think "doesn't care for guns" is on par with calling super PACs "wrong" and a "threat to democracy". No where even close. When Obama was blasting the Supreme Court for this decision his opinion was much stronger then "I don't care for the decision". You are a smart person, if you are going to use an analogy at least put forth the effort to choose one that actually compared.

eg8r

eg8r
02-13-2012, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The SB campaign was one of the most disgusting episodes of American politics. Now that corporations can use their big money, and they will, to swing elections it can only get worse.
</div></div>Which is exactly why idiots like you supporting Obama's support of super PAC money is laughable. You are too stupid to realize your hypocrisy.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-13-2012, 12:23 PM
So in defense of re-election you are OK with any lie Obama is willing to say? Do you think "doesn't care for guns" is on par with calling super PACs "wrong" and a "threat to democracy". No where even close. When Obama was blasting the Supreme Court for this decision his opinion was much stronger then "I don't care for the decision". You are a smart person, if you are going to use an analogy at least put forth the effort to choose one that actually compared.

Easily done. Simply amend the analogy to include that the person doesn't believe that gun ownership is a personal right, and strongly disagrees with the more recent SCOTUS decisions saying it is, arguing that the prior precedents that gun rights relate to a state's militia are correct.

AND THEN GETS THAT GUN, using the personal right that he denounces (as a general matter).

Or make that person a philosophical pacifist, who advocates non-violence at all times, but ends up getting a gun because his family is endangered.

Any slight hypocrisy one may note there cannot get you to say such an action is wrong, or that we cannot understand it. We totally understand it, and in general, it is a justified change of plans.

eg8r
02-13-2012, 12:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Easily done. Simply amend the analogy to include that the person doesn't believe that gun ownership is a personal right, and strongly disagrees with the more recent SCOTUS decisions saying it is, arguing that the prior precedents that gun rights relate to a state's militia are correct.

AND THEN GETS THAT GUN, using the personal right that he denounces (as a general matter).
</div></div>Did this guy go on National TV and announce this letting the world know he would fight to change it? Does this individual have his job depend on whether or not he is truthful in times like this?

eg8r