PDA

View Full Version : Old White Men Billionaires Buying Elections 4 GOP



Gayle in MD
04-23-2012, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you want to appreciate what Barack Obama is up against in 2012, forget about the front man who is his nominal opponent and look instead at the Republican billionaires buying the ammunition for the battles ahead. A representative example is Harold Simmons, an 80-year-old Texan who dumped some $15 million into the campaign before primary season had ended. Reminiscing about 2008, when he bankrolled an ad blitz to tar the Democrats with the former radical Bill Ayers, Simmons told The Wall Street Journal, “If we had run more ads, we could have killed Obama.” It is not a mistake he intends to make a second time. The $15 million Simmons had spent by late February dwarfs the $2.8 million he allotted to the Ayers takedown and the $3 million he contributed to the Swift Boat Veterans demolition of John Kerry four years before that. Imagine the cash that will flow now that the GOP sideshows are over and the president is firmly in Simmons’s crosshairs.







His use of the verb killed was meant in jest, of course, much as Foster Friess ($1.8 million in known contributions, and counting) was joking when he suggested that “gals” could practice birth control by putting Bayer aspirin between their knees. America’s billionaires are such cards! And we had better get used to their foibles and funny bones. Whatever else happens in 2012, it will go down as the Year of the Sugar Daddy. Inflamed by Obama-hatred, awash in self-pity, and empowered by myriad indulgent court and Federal Election Commission rulings, an outsize posse of superrich white men will spend whatever it takes to have its way with the body politic and, if victorious, with the country itself. Given the advanced age of most of this cohort, 2012 may be seen as the election in which the geezer empire struck back.








This isn’t quite what was supposed to happen. When the Supreme Court handed down its five-to-four Citizens United decision in 2010, pre-vetting Mitt Romney’s credo that “corporations are people,” apocalyptic Democrats, including Obama, predicted that the election would become a wholly owned subsidiary of the likes of Chevron and General Electric. But publicly traded, risk-averse corporations still care more about profits than partisanship. They tend to cover their bets by giving to both parties. And they are fearful of alienating customers and investors. Witness, most recently, the advertisers who fled Rush Limbaugh, or the far bigger brands (*McDonald’s and Wendy’s, Coke and Pepsi) that severed ties with the conservative lobbying mill responsible for pushing state “stand your ground” laws like the one used to justify the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida. While corporations and unions remain serious players in the campaign of 2012, their dollars don’t match those of the sugar daddies, who can and do give as much as they want to the newfangled super-PACs.




Sugar daddies—whom I’ll define here as private donors or their privately held companies writing checks totaling $1 million or more (sometimes much more) in this election cycle—are largely a Republican phenomenon, most of them one degree of separation from Karl Rove and his unofficial partners in erecting a moneyed shadow GOP, David and Charles Koch. At last look, there were 25 known sugar daddies on the right (or more, if you want to count separately the spouses and children who pitch in). You’ve likely heard of Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas tycoon who is Benjamin Netanyahu’s unofficial ambassador to the GOP. But you may be less familiar with Irving Moskowitz, the bingo entrepreneur who funnels his profits into East Jerusalem settlements. Or Robert Mercer, the hedge-fund master of “flash trading” who poured a clandestine $1 million into ads attacking the “ground-zero mosque” and nearly another $3 million into a scale-model railroad in his Long Island mansion. Or Steven Lund, the co-founder of Nu Skin, which became “direct selling” sponsor of the Romney-run 2002 Winter Olympics after having spent much of the nineties settling complaints over false advertising and other unscrupulous practices with the Federal Trade Commission and six different states’ attorneys general.



The list of 25 does not include donors whose names we may never know: those who are legally allowed to remain anonymous when giving to patently political “social welfare” nonprofits like Rove’s Crossroads GPS. That particular Rove money drop reported to the IRS last week that nearly 90 percent of its first $76.8 million haul (from June 2010 through December 2011) had come from two dozen donors giving $1 million or more, including two contributions of $10 million each. While Obama has his own super-PAC–“social welfare” nonprofit combo, the proceeds totaled only a pathetic $6.7 million last year. A paltry $100,000 contribution is all it takes for a Democratic donor to get priority access to the White House, according to the New York Times. George Soros is on the sidelines, and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Obama so far has claimed only two sugar daddies of his own: Bill Maher and DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg. Their products may at times emit noxious fumes—let us briefly *recall Maher’s 1989 big-screen turn in Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death—but even the biggest show-business bombs can’t roil the environment like, say, Harold Simmons’s vast Texas site for dumping radioactive waste</span>. </div></div>

Remaining pages:

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/conservative-donors-2012-4/

pooltchr
04-23-2012, 07:42 AM
But George Soros is alright in your book, because he is trying to buy it for the Dems?

You are as insignificant on this forum as ever. I guess some things never change.

Steve

Soflasnapper
04-23-2012, 10:39 AM
He put about $23 million into the '04 race, and about nothing else since then as to political donations at the national race level. ($10 million to unelect Sheriff Joe the major exception I found). He is and was just one donor.

Here you have one guy who put $15 million into this primary season, and says he's just getting started, plus another dozen that could be named, who will amass some $500 million or more among them (I think that's Karl Rove's org's targeted fundraising number). So IF you think Soros' actions were bad, here's at least a 20-fold increase coming down the pike, minimum.

If you don't find the current situation bad, then surely Soros' barely 5% of that figure cannot be bad either.

Hard to tell which side of the mouth you wish to speak out of on this one.

Gayle in MD
04-23-2012, 12:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He put about $23 million into the '04 race, and about nothing else since then as to political donations at the national race level. ($10 million to unelect Sheriff Joe the major exception I found). He is and was just one donor.

Here you have one guy who put $15 million into this primary season, and says he's just getting started, plus another dozen that could be named, who will amass some $500 million or more among them (I think that's Karl Rove's org's targeted fundraising number). So IF you think Soros' actions were bad, here's at least a 20-fold increase coming down the pike, minimum.

If you don't find the current situation bad, then surely Soros' barely 5% of that figure cannot be bad either.

Hard to tell which side of the mouth you wish to speak out of on this one. </div></div>

The Republicans are doing everything they can think of to throw this election, both in the race for the Presidency, and in the states.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17...html?ref=topbar


And they call themselves patriots?!!! They have an obvious intention of destroying democracy, and particularly in the election process.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
04-23-2012, 06:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you want to appreciate what Barack Obama is up against in 2012, forget about the front man who is his nominal opponent and look instead at the Republican billionaires buying the ammunition for the battles ahead.</div></div>Clinton doesn't have any white billionaires buying him out? LOL, what a crock. Well maybe if Obama takes back that nasty statement about corporate jets Buffett throw him a few bucks. Have no fear, Obama and his superPAC money is here.

eg8r

eg8r
04-23-2012, 06:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He put about $23 million into the '04 race, and about nothing else since then as to political donations at the national race level.</div></div>Other than all the billions he pumps into his lefty leaning media empire.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-23-2012, 08:02 PM
That would be 'millions,' and it's not his media empire, but his philanthropy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> More Priceless Analysis of Soros' "Media Empire"

May 26, 2011 12:07 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

Poor Dan Gainor. He must have drawn the short straw at Brent Bozell's Media Research Center and been assigned the unenviable task of writing a tedious series documenting the supposed evils of left-leaning billionaire philanthropist George Soros and his very scary "media empire."

As we've previously noted, despite the grave warnings about Soros activity, Gainor can't point to a single example of how Soros has tried to influence any of the journalism that he supports through mostly non-profit institutions, such as ProPublica The Center for Public Integrity, and Media Matters. Gainor can't point to anything wrong with the journalism in question. (In fact, he's praised it.) Gainor can't find any examples, or even allegations, of Soros trying to influence reports. Nor does Gainor prove Soros' financial support in any way has an "impact" on the journalism produced.

Also (and this is quite comical), Gainor never explains why the millions Soros' foundations has spent on journalism in America is inherently evil, while the billions that Rupert Murdoch has spent is not.

Nonetheless, Gainor's now back with another attack at Soros, stressing how vast his "media empire" is based on his journalism funding grants and how the "empire" allows him to "influence" events. What Gainor takes great pains to not to say is this: Soros gives away lots of money to media institutions. Or, Soros donates millions. Because, of course, that's what philanthropists do.

When wealthy people donate money, for instance, to the New York Public Library, that doesn't mean that suddenly the venerable institution becomes part of those donors' "empires." That's not how philanthropy works. But Gainor pretends otherwise and builds his entire premise around the idea that once a Soros foundation gives money to a media institution, that institution immediately becomes part of his "empire."

Let's look at Gainor's example of NPR to see how laughable the allegation is.

Gainor excitedly points out that Soros' Open Society Foundation last year gave NPR a grant of $1.8 million in order to hire reporters to cover state capitols. But as NPR’s ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, recently pointed out, the Open Society grant given to NPR actually covers a two-year period, which means the Soros foundation gave NPR $900,000 annually for two years.

Some context, please. NPR’s annual operating budget, paid for mostly by station fees, corporate underwriting, and philanthropic donations, is approximately $160 million. And last year a Soros foundation gave NPR $900,000. But according to the Media Research Center's stellar analysis, because Soros provided NPR with less than 1/160th of its budget last year, or far less than one percent, NPR instantly became part of the Soros “media empire.”</div></div>

eg8r
04-23-2012, 09:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be 'millions,' and it's not his media empire, but his philanthropy.

</div></div>Call it whatever you want but he is spending much more money than you would lead us to believe on his partisan empire.

eg8r

LWW
04-24-2012, 04:09 AM
Gyorgy's own people claim that he owns the demo kook party.

Being that he is convicted felon he fits right in.

Gayle in MD
04-24-2012, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be 'millions,' and it's not his media empire, but his philanthropy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> More Priceless Analysis of Soros' "Media Empire"

May 26, 2011 12:07 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

Poor Dan Gainor. He must have drawn the short straw at Brent Bozell's Media Research Center and been assigned the unenviable task of writing a tedious series documenting the supposed evils of left-leaning billionaire philanthropist George Soros and his very scary "media empire."

As we've previously noted, despite the grave warnings about Soros activity, Gainor can't point to a single example of how Soros has tried to influence any of the journalism that he supports through mostly non-profit institutions, such as ProPublica The Center for Public Integrity, and Media Matters. Gainor can't point to anything wrong with the journalism in question. (In fact, he's praised it.) Gainor can't find any examples, or even allegations, of Soros trying to influence reports. Nor does Gainor prove Soros' financial support in any way has an "impact" on the journalism produced.

Also (and this is quite comical), Gainor never explains why the millions Soros' foundations has spent on journalism in America is inherently evil, while the billions that Rupert Murdoch has spent is not.

Nonetheless, Gainor's now back with another attack at Soros, stressing how vast his "media empire" is based on his journalism funding grants and how the "empire" allows him to "influence" events. What Gainor takes great pains to not to say is this: Soros gives away lots of money to media institutions. Or, Soros donates millions. Because, of course, that's what philanthropists do.

When wealthy people donate money, for instance, to the New York Public Library, that doesn't mean that suddenly the venerable institution becomes part of those donors' "empires." That's not how philanthropy works. But Gainor pretends otherwise and builds his entire premise around the idea that once a Soros foundation gives money to a media institution, that institution immediately becomes part of his "empire."

Let's look at Gainor's example of NPR to see how laughable the allegation is.

Gainor excitedly points out that Soros' Open Society Foundation last year gave NPR a grant of $1.8 million in order to hire reporters to cover state capitols. But as NPR’s ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, recently pointed out, the Open Society grant given to NPR actually covers a two-year period, which means the Soros foundation gave NPR $900,000 annually for two years.

Some context, please. NPR’s annual operating budget, paid for mostly by station fees, corporate underwriting, and philanthropic donations, is approximately $160 million. And last year a Soros foundation gave NPR $900,000. But according to the Media Research Center's stellar analysis, because Soros provided NPR with less than 1/160th of its budget last year, or far less than one percent, NPR instantly became part of the Soros “media empire.”</div></div>

</div></div>

No limit to the bought and paid for ignorance of the right!
Always so evident in their absurd analogies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-FDXFD4Mmo&feature=relmfu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0oB61TfdKE&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ_JacfmcTk&feature=relmfu

sack316
04-24-2012, 10:53 PM
The Harrold Simmons Foundation supports the causes of immigration rights, campaign reform, prison reform, handgun control, and reproductive rights...

Another example for him comes from Oprah, who herself said the Simmons' (her neighbors) donated $5 Million to the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in 2007.

It's actually a pretty long list of what that old white male billionaire does that supports many things you believe in and fight for yourself.

Sack

Qtec
04-25-2012, 05:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But George Soros is alright in your book, because he is trying to buy it for the Dems?

You are as insignificant on this forum as ever. I guess some things never change.

Steve </div></div>

Didn't take long for you to start the personal attacks against G, did it?

Some things never change.


Q

Gayle in MD
04-25-2012, 06:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Harrold Simmons Foundation supports the causes of immigration rights, campaign reform, prison reform, handgun control, and reproductive rights...

Another example for him comes from Oprah, who herself said the Simmons' (her neighbors) donated $5 Million to the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in 2007.

It's actually a pretty long list of what that old white male billionaire does that supports many things you believe in and fight for yourself.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
Are you saying that you approve of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision?

Are you in favor of corporations using their billions of dollars to have their way with putting in representatives who are supposed to represent ALL of the people, but instead will pander to them and pass those laws that the corporations want?

Our votes, and our minimal contributions for representatives, in comparison, against their multi-milti billions of dollars? This is Free Speech? Our contributions, against the multi billions contributed by corporations?

Certainly, we can find some here and there who support our various views, but that isn't my point.

You might be interested in watching the current program being aired on Frontline, "Money, Power and Wall Street" parts one and two, and also watch "Pricele$$" Examining the influence of money on policymaking, for a very full accounting of why our air, water, and food is filthy, and making people ill, causing cancer, brain damage, birth defects, all linked to and including how corporations buy our politicians, which means that SUBSIDUZED payments to farmers, impacts the amount of CHEMICALS currently existing in ALL of our bodies.

Included in the documentary are comments from former Senators Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson; former NY governor Mario Cuomo; Sen. Dick Durban; and Common Cause president Bob Edgar.

Our system of governing is a corrupted disgrace, and the S.U. recent Radical RW Supreme Court decision is absolutely disastrous, and un-American!

We should all be demanding public financed elections. The amount of money we would save in health care alone, not to mention the number of lives we would save, compared to what we have spent over these last decades killing people in thhe Middle East, to protect our access to OIL, and on the health issues caused by these corporate PIGS, would amaze you, I'm sure.

Most corporate CEO's don't care what they do to the environment. Their view is that their multi-billions of dollars will protect them and their kids and grand kids from all of the devastatinng results of pollution.

They are making money off polluting the environment with insecticides, hormones, antibiotics, all of it flowing into our streams and rivers, killing ocean life, polluting spawning waters, polluting our food, and air, and the biggest offenders are hard to pick out, because they are no longer identified according to wswhere their money goes, and how it impacts all of us.... corporations are all polluting the environment, and corporations are buying our politicians, and destroying our opp9ortunities to have the same influence that they have, with out representatives.

Our system of government, of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations, does not represent the best interests of the public, or the world. Is that what we want?

Our Founders are rolling over in their graves, and we can thank the Republicans on the Supreme Court, and the total FAILURE of organized religion, for making it even worse than ever before, and failing to speak out against what amounts to an alol out war against healthy life!

G.

sack316
04-25-2012, 07:20 AM
That's all well and good, and really won't argue with you on any of your points there.

But our current president, both in '08 and even leading up until now has been record setting in his fundraising and donations (although it has slipped off his '08 pace in recent months). Apples to apples, what he has done is amazing and dwarfs that of any GOP candidate anytime. Surely you don't believe he nickeled and dimed his way from John Q Public to each such astronomical figures?

Note: that's not a knock on president Obama or any entities that support his campaign or have done so in the past. Just saying given the spirit of this thread, some equal treatment is warranted

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-25-2012, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's all well and good, and really won't argue with you on any of your points there.

But our current president, both in '08 and even leading up until now has been record setting in his fundraising and donations (although it has slipped off his '08 pace in recent months). Apples to apples, what he has done is amazing and dwarfs that of any GOP candidate anytime. Surely you don't believe he nickeled and dimed his way from John Q Public to each such astronomical figures?

<span style="color: #CC0000">I think you might just want to compare McCain's contributors, to President Obama's contributors, since President Obama's contributors were far more likely to be contributions from average Americans, of small amounts of money, than McCain's. And, in fact, this president has been touted in being the first to use the internet to gain small contributions, from average people. </span>

Note: that's not a knock on president Obama or any entities that support his campaign or have done so in the past. Just saying given the spirit of this thread, some equal treatment is warranted

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Equal Treatment?

Name one sitting Republican who has spoken out against the Supreme Courts decision on Citizen's United! Believe me, I can name many Dems who have. Now why would you think that would be so?

I cannnot say that there are no Dems who use the current system to their advantages, but then, I have never said that Dems are without fault, but I am probably the only person you know who actually watches their behavior, live, and I go by how they vote.

I can honestly say, that when it comes to the environment, and protecting it, and which party is most negligent in protecting it, the Republicans by far, do the most damage with their votes, annd particularly the last Republican President.

Much of the problem lies with rural people, who want and need jobs, which I can surely understand, but Republican government policies have blocked policies which could be making clean energy as profitable as dirty energy, blocking subsidies for anything but the unconscionable, filthy, greedy, corporate polluters.

As for where they get their money, this president was honorable enough to speak out against what has become a corporate takeover of our election process, by the very corporate interests which are destroying our air, water, and food safety, and devastating the process of Democracy, all thanks to the radical right-wing, activist Supreme Court, several of which should recuse themselves, due to their own involvement with corporate interests, and their own links to the Tea Party fiasco, not to mention outright lies on Federal questionaires, (Clarence Thomas) which they are supposed to truthfully answer under penalty of law, but don't.

Then the Chief Justice, lets the Repubs off for lying, and breaking with traditional limitations on their socializing with private interests!

While Kagan, for example, appropriately recuses herself from the cases where she has had involvement, Scalia and Thomas have been rubbing shoulders with corporate interests which pushed for this undemocratic election process all along.

Additionally, George W. Bush was one of the worst presidents in history, on protecting the environment, if not THE worst, and where did most of his contributions come from? Check out what Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, made off their no-bid contracts!

So I end up right back where I always end up, supporting the party whhich does the least damage, and is the least corrupt.

Not saying that President Obama won an election solely on small, individual contributions, but far more so than McCain.

Additionally, to trash him for advancing his campaign with money from these new super pacs, as apparently all politicians will have to do in the future, although he is against the current radical RW Activist SC decisions does not undo the fact that he spoke out against what is a destructive decision to our democracy!

What are Democrats supposed to do, tie their own hands and refuse to play by the new rules? Destroy their own possibilities?

Absurd!

The stated Democratic interests lie in taking back the majority, so that they can push through Congressional legislation which would reverse this incredibly anti-democracy decision, by a radical, activist Republican Supreme Court, which plays right into creating FASCISM. Of course, Corporate pigs have far more money to spend, than organizasstions in the public interests for fairness.

Again, name one sitting Republican who spoke out against it.

Additionally, Simmons social views do not reverse his disgraceful acts as a corporate CEO, IMO.



G.</span>

sack316
04-25-2012, 08:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think you might just want to compare McCain's contributors, to President Obama's contributors, since President Obama's contributors were far more likely to be contributions from average Americans, of small amounts of money, than McCain's. And, in fact, this president has been touted in being the first to use the internet to gain small contributions, from average people. </div></div>

Oh I do fully agree, Obama has been absolutely outstanding at raising money from small contributors. Nobody can deny him that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much of the problem lies with rural people, who want and need jobs, which I can surely understand, but Republican government policies have blocked policies which could be making clean energy as profitable as dirty energy, <u>blocking subsidies</u> for anything but the unconscionable, filthy, greedy, corporate polluters.</div></div>

If it is a truly profitable enterprise, what subsidy is needed? Note that comment I just made does cut both ways, as I also believe too many entities that are profitable (many that you often mention) should not receive subsidies that they currently do within the system.

But point being, if many of these "clean" alternatives were viable and profitable... AND certain people care about nothing more than money as you say, then those said people would also most certainly be implementing those solutions as well (ie subsidies wouldn't be a necessity). JMHO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for where they get their money, this president was honorable enough to speak out against what has become a corporate takeover of our election process...</div></div>

Speak out... yes. Turn them down personally... no. Some of those same "fat cats" on Wall Street he has often spoken out against were also some of his biggest contributors. What you call honorable here, I call pandering... actions speak louder than words.

Of course he did nothing wrong as far as process goes. In fact I think he can and should take advantage of the rule. But we cannot in the same breath refer to his words as being honorable when his own actions don't back those words.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I end up right back where I always end up, supporting the party whhich does the least damage, and is the least corrupt.</div></div>

I wish I could accept that, but I can't support either party. Obviously in any group there will be a few bad apples. But both sides are far too similar, far too corrupt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, to trash him for advancing his campaign with money from these new super pacs, as apparently all politicians will have to do in the future, although he is against the current radical RW Activist SC decisions does not undo the fact that he spoke out against what is a destructive decision to our democracy!

What are Democrats supposed to do, tie their own hands and refuse to play by the new rules? Destroy their own possibilities?

Absurd! </div></div>

I more or less addressed this a bit ago. Certainly they are welcome to take and use them. It's within the rules/laws, and all fair play right now whether we agree with it or not.

But they also can't talk out of both sides of their mouth! Personally I believe the FREE press that would come along with a politician turning down these same contributions they claim to be against would probably offset whatever advertising cash they'd lose from declining the contribution. Could you imagine how baffling it would seem if someone did? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The stated Democratic interests lie in taking back the majority, so that they can push through Congressional legislation...</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>So the plan is the receive contributions in a way they are against, so they can later strike down the same methodology they used to be elected and retaking the majority again. And all the while none of them will have any "payback" in gaming the system by these entities they choose to take large donations from, and these entities will have no influencing power over the persons they got elected?</span>

I call that the beat just going on... no different than it has ever been.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, name one sitting Republican who spoke out against it. </div></div>

I don't see the need to. They are taking them, and not speaking out against them. The actions are consistent with the rhetoric, whether we agree with the practice or not.

What you said the Democrats are doing is like if you bought some big nasty polluting factory. Ran it as a big nasty polluting factory. And all the while stating the purpose of the factory was so you could raise enough money, power, and clout to go clean up the environment.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-25-2012, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think you might just want to compare McCain's contributors, to President Obama's contributors, since President Obama's contributors were far more likely to be contributions from average Americans, of small amounts of money, than McCain's. And, in fact, this president has been touted in being the first to use the internet to gain small contributions, from average people. </div></div>

Oh I do fully agree, Obama has been absolutely outstanding at raising money from small contributors. Nobody can deny him that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much of the problem lies with rural people, who want and need jobs, which I can surely understand, but Republican government policies have blocked policies which could be making clean energy as profitable as dirty energy, <u>blocking subsidies</u> for anything but the unconscionable, filthy, greedy, corporate polluters.</div></div>

If it is a truly profitable enterprise, what subsidy is needed?

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I could ask you the same question about the oil industry, record profits, but Repubs block removing their subsidies, corporate welfare? Repubs set thing up so that farmers have to use dangerous chemicals, in order to get subsidies for farming, for example </span> .

Note that comment I just made does cut both ways, as I also believe too many entities that are profitable (many that you often mention) should not receive subsidies that they currently do within the system.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>And which party maintains those subsidies? Should we subsidize what is bad for our health, for example, or subsidize what purifies our air, water and food?</span>

But point being, if many of these "clean" alternatives were viable and profitable... AND certain people care about nothing more than money as you say, then those said people would also most certainly be implementing those solutions as well (ie subsidies wouldn't be a necessity). JMHO

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Were the railroads profitable, before they had been invested in? Do you think the Chineses are stupid? Why are THEY investing in solar panels? Why are other countries, the British, for example, Germany, Austrailia, and others, investing in renewable, clean energy? The future belongs to the countries who invest in clean energy. That's a fact, not an opinion, and that is exactly why I wouldn't vote for a Republican if they put me in front of a firing squad!

Unfortunately, the polluting industries already have a hold on our Representatives, Sack, and hence, anything that is emerging, such as wind and solar, are up against a already entrenched and corrupted corporate influence which has existed for decades. The Grand Oil Party?

As far as money spent, and advantages gained, by the time we figure the huge loss of life and treasure, wasted protecting filthy oil, like the ridiculous pipeline, which is about the filthiest oil there is, the question should be, where are our tax dollars best spent, and if you add up all of the loss of life and treasure we have wasted protecting oil interests in the Middle East, not to mention the health costs from pollution right here, how can anyone build a case for continuing to subsidize oil, chemicals in farming, F-ing Fracking, and overall pollution, which has causing not only huge losses in life, in wars, misery in our health, in so many ways, and even for the unborn, which are now born full of toxins, and all of the threats to our national safety and security?

My point, is that corporations pay off our representatives, to block legislation which would be best for our COLLECTIVE future, best to promote peace in the world, and best for our collective health, the beauty and formally pristine state of our planet, possibly its very existence, is under attack, and Republiocans, by and llarge, prevent moving forward on doing that is in the best interests of all Americans, and the world. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for where they get their money, this president was honorable enough to speak out against what has become a corporate takeover of our election process...</div></div>

Speak out... yes. Turn them down personally... no. Some of those same "fat cats" on Wall Street he has often spoken out against were also some of his biggest contributors. What you call honorable here, I call pandering... actions speak louder than words.

Of course he did nothing wrong as far as process goes. In fact I think he can and should take advantage of the rule. But we cannot in the same breath refer to his words as being honorable when his own actions don't back those words.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'> I can, because I know what he would do about it, if he weren't dealing with the Republican Propaganda machine.

LOL, if only we held Republicans to that same expectation! I don't agree with you at all. But then, I know and talk with many Democratic representatives, and I know what they want to accomplish in turning over this insane Supreme Court Decision, nd what the Liberals I associate with, want to accomplish in protecting our environment.

Virtually ALL of the organizations which are fighting to protect our environment, are Progressive Liberals.

And on that issue, this President is far less guilty than ROMNEY! BUSH! MCCAIN! He has tried to be responsible about protecting the environment, wile being obstructed by the Republicans, from day one.

But if you would demand that he not advantage the current conditions prevailing, in the SC election rulings, then you would also have to be against the Republican Party which created the Activist Radical Supreme Court which created the corrupted election problem in the first place.

So which party will install justices who would rule to protect the environment?
Protect Democracy?
Protect Civil rights?
Protect women's and gay rights?
Which one? Not hard for me to determine, at all</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>I don't think for example that a guy on a basketball court, who is slammeed by a thug who breaks the rules, has to stand there and let him beat the hell out of him. Pretty high standard, for anyone, in fact, not fair at all, IMO. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I end up right back where I always end up, supporting the party which does the least damage, and is the least corrupt</span></div></div>

I wish I could accept that, but I can't support either party. Obviously in any group there will be a few bad apples. But both sides are far too similar, far too corrupt.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Are you saying you are not going to vote? Quitters never get anywhere my firend. Those who care, must research the options, and work for change. We live in the best country in the world. We take our freedom for granted. Democracy is a messy porposition, but it is by far the best option, and allowing the radical right to convolute the meaning of what is right and best for our country, would be a mistake of negligence. Treasure the right to vote. So many in this world do not have that right. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, to trash him for advancing his campaign with money from these new super pacs, as apparently all politicians will have to do in the future, although he is against the current radical RW Activist SC decisions does not undo the fact that he spoke out against what is a destructive decision to our democracy!

What are Democrats supposed to do, tie their own hands and refuse to play by the new rules? Destroy their own possibilities?

Absurd! </div></div>

I more or less addressed this a bit ago. Certainly they are welcome to take and use them. It's within the rules/laws, and all fair play right now whether we agree with it or not.

But they also can't talk out of both sides of their mouth!

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I think the Democratic Party has a very good history for speaking out for civil rights, women's rights, Gay rights, consistantly. The both sides of the mouth routine, is thhat of people like Romney, Boehner, Palin, Bachman, McCain, IOW, the Republicans. </span>


Personally I believe the FREE press that would come along with a politician turning down these same contributions they claim to be against would probably offset whatever advertising cash they'd lose from declining the contribution. Could you imagine how baffling it would seem if someone did? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif


<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Unrealistic expectations. If we can't set the rules, we don't refuse to play the game. That becomes choosing to lose. Who wants to do that?

We have to play the game under the conditions prevailing, regardless of whether we agree with the rules, or not.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The stated Democratic interests lie in taking back the majority, so that they can push through Congressional legislation...</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>So the plan is the receive contributions in a way they are against, so they can later strike down the same methodology they used to be elected and retaking the majority again.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Again, it wasn't Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court who made these idiotic rules. If you are going to be in the game, you play by the rules of the game. </span>


And all the while none of them will have any "payback" in gaming the system by these entities they choose to take large donations from, and these entities will have no influencing power over the persons they got elected?</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>No! That isnt what I think. I do not believe that representatives do not EVER consider where their contributions come from, and how they will vote as a result.

What I do think is that while they all take money from corrupt corporations, and what I consider corrupt industries, I also see that by far, Democratic Representatives, vote far more often than REpublicans, for the common good, and against discrimination, against pollution, and against un-
American policies. </span>

I call that the beat just going on... no different than it has ever been.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>And when things are not going the way we think they should, it is our obligation, as Americans, to work to make it right, regardless of how disappointing the current system actually is, ad in fact, that is when we just work the hardest for what is right! </span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, name one sitting Republican who spoke out against it. </div></div>

I don't see the need to. They are taking them, and not speaking out against them. The actions are consistent with the rhetoric, whether we agree with the practice or not.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>So although it is damaging, and un-American, they do it, don't speak out against it, and they like it the way it is, and that makes them more honorable? OMG! Not at all the way I view the situation, particularly since it is their party, which corrupted the voting process in the first place. That's like saying we should approve of the fact that the corrupt party, is more honest because they like the corruption they created!</span> </span>

What you said the Democrats are doing is like if you bought some big nasty polluting factory. Ran it as a big nasty polluting factory. And all the while stating the purpose of the factory was so you could raise enough money, power, and clout to go clean up the environment.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'> No, not at all. What I'm saying is there is only one party which is against big polluting factories, and it is the only party which ever tries to legislate to crack down on them to reduce the pollution, and it's pretty clear to me, which party that is.

G.</span>

Sack </div></div>

eg8r
04-25-2012, 11:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Note: that's not a knock on president Obama </div></div>Well except for the fact that he told his past to step out of the way and let the superPac money flow in.

eg8r

eg8r
04-25-2012, 11:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speak out... yes. Turn them down personally... no. Some of those same "fat cats" on Wall Street he has often spoken out against were also some of his biggest contributors. What you call honorable here, I call pandering... actions speak louder than words.

Of course he did nothing wrong as far as process goes. In fact I think he can and should take advantage of the rule. But we cannot in the same breath refer to his words as being honorable when his own actions don't back those words.
</div></div>Hope and change baby, hope and change. Well, that or eh, nevermind. Bring on the superPac money!!!!!!!!

eg8r

Qtec
04-26-2012, 05:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surely you don't believe he nickeled and dimed his way from John Q Public to each such astronomical figures? </div></div>

Guess you missed this!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney continues to lag behind his rivals in raising money from so-called small-dollar donors, supporters who donate <u>less than $200.</u><span style="color: #3333FF">[ Nickel and Dime.]</span> Donations from people who contributed less than $200 — often viewed as a gauge of popular appeal — are filed as “unitemized” donations with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

FEC filings on Tuesday showed <span style="color: #3333FF">Romney’s campaign has so far raised $7.5 million from small donors, which comprises only <span style='font-size: 14pt'>10 percent</span> of his fundraising. </span>That proportion has roughly remained the same throughout the campaign. [...]

While the Republican candidates battle through the primary season, the re-election campaign of <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">President Barack Obama has brought in about $71.1 million in unitemized contributions, 59 percent of the money the campaign has raised so far.</span></span>

These numbers tell you everything you need to know about Mitt Romney’s campaign and the president’s campaign.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>One is essentially an astroturf organization and the other is the genuine article.</span> </div></div>

These numbers reflect how far Romney is disconnected from the man in the street.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“I get speakers fees from time to time, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but not very much.”</span> – Mitt Romney describing earning<span style='font-size: 26pt'> $374,327 for nine speaking gigs.</span> </div></div>

Q

sack316
04-26-2012, 07:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surely you don't believe he nickeled and dimed his way from John Q Public to each such astronomical figures? </div></div>

Guess you missed this!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney continues to lag behind his rivals in raising money from so-called small-dollar donors, supporters who donate <u>less than $200.</u><span style="color: #3333FF">[ Nickel and Dime.]</span> Donations from people who contributed less than $200 — often viewed as a gauge of popular appeal — are filed as “unitemized” donations with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

FEC filings on Tuesday showed <span style="color: #3333FF">Romney’s campaign has so far raised $7.5 million from small donors, which comprises only <span style='font-size: 14pt'>10 percent</span> of his fundraising. </span>That proportion has roughly remained the same throughout the campaign. [...]

While the Republican candidates battle through the primary season, the re-election campaign of <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">President Barack Obama has brought in about $71.1 million in unitemized contributions, 59 percent of the money the campaign has raised so far.</span></span>

These numbers tell you everything you need to know about Mitt Romney’s campaign and the president’s campaign.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>One is essentially an astroturf organization and the other is the genuine article.</span> </div></div>

These numbers reflect how far Romney is disconnected from the man in the street.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“I get speakers fees from time to time, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but not very much.”</span> – Mitt Romney describing earning<span style='font-size: 26pt'> $374,327 for nine speaking gigs.</span> </div></div>

Q </div></div>

Q, read my posts if you are going to attempt to correct them please.

I did say what President Obama has done in small donations is amazing! He has harnessed the power of social media and connected with people in a way that is "unprecedented" (he he, couldn't resist that).

But what was being discussed at that point was about taking donations from corporations all the while speaking out against doing just that. Romney could out raise Obama a million to one in this regard... by taking that one while speaking against it is hypocritical. Whereas Romney, if I'm not mistaken, has not talked out of both sides of his mouth on that issue (although that may be the ONLY one he hasn't on lol).

That's not me saying I agree with the practice. That's not me taking anything away from Obama's great job on raising small donations. That's not me supporting Romney's corporate backers. That's just me simply saying that if you're going to say things should be a certain way, your actions should reflect what your words say.

That's JMHO.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-26-2012, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surely you don't believe he nickeled and dimed his way from John Q Public to each such astronomical figures? </div></div>

Guess you missed this!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney continues to lag behind his rivals in raising money from so-called small-dollar donors, supporters who donate <u>less than $200.</u><span style="color: #3333FF">[ Nickel and Dime.]</span> Donations from people who contributed less than $200 — often viewed as a gauge of popular appeal — are filed as “unitemized” donations with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

FEC filings on Tuesday showed <span style="color: #3333FF">Romney’s campaign has so far raised $7.5 million from small donors, which comprises only <span style='font-size: 14pt'>10 percent</span> of his fundraising. </span>That proportion has roughly remained the same throughout the campaign. [...]

While the Republican candidates battle through the primary season, the re-election campaign of <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">President Barack Obama has brought in about $71.1 million in unitemized contributions, 59 percent of the money the campaign has raised so far.</span></span>

These numbers tell you everything you need to know about Mitt Romney’s campaign and the president’s campaign.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>One is essentially an astroturf organization and the other is the genuine article.</span> </div></div>

These numbers reflect how far Romney is disconnected from the man in the street.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“I get speakers fees from time to time, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but not very much.”</span> – Mitt Romney describing earning<span style='font-size: 26pt'> $374,327 for nine speaking gigs.</span> </div></div>

Q </div></div>

Q, read my posts if you are going to attempt to correct them please.

I did say what President Obama has done in small donations is amazing! He has harnessed the power of social media and connected with people in a way that is "unprecedented" (he he, couldn't resist that).

But what was being discussed at that point was about taking donations from corporations all the while speaking out against doing just that. Romney could out raise Obama a million to one in this regard... by taking that one while speaking against it is hypocritical. Whereas Romney, if I'm not mistaken, has not talked out of both sides of his mouth on that issue (although that may be the ONLY one he hasn't on lol).

That's not me saying I agree with the practice. That's not me taking anything away from Obama's great job on raising small donations. That's not me supporting Romney's corporate backers. That's just me simply saying that if you're going to say things should be a certain way, your actions should reflect what your words say.

That's JMHO.

Sack </div></div>

The big difference I see is that the President has already vowed to overturn the SC decision, through the propper channels of check and balances, while Mitt is perfectly comfortable with the the RW slide into fascism, or oligarchy.

It is, after all, a Republican policy, which is totally wrong headed, and which we need to remove.

And additionally, I don't think that a man who is determined to help those others in our society whose votes have been obscured by the power of secret, hidden money, even possibly foreign money, due to the S.C.C.U. ruling, and whose policies prove his intention and commitment to restore the principles of democracy, for all of the people, would cripple his own chances to save this country from radical RW un-American activities, just because a group of fascist leaning, RW Radical Supreme Court judges decided to change the rules of the game, at halftime.

To me it reflects the depth of his commitment to save this country from even more un-american rulings by this irrational bunch of Republicans on the Supreme Court. If he loves this country, he will do what he has to do to save it, but he will not say that he approves of this very bad turn against democracy.

IMO, he should not be condemned for it, particularly since he is by and large, courting the votes of the common men and women in this country.

While Mitt, is outright lying about where his money is coming from.

http://nowwithalex.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/26/11353456-small-donor-spin?lite

G.

eg8r
04-26-2012, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, read my posts if you are going to attempt to correct them please.

</div></div>Asking qtip to read and comprehend is like speaking to a wall. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Obama has definitely set the bar for getting small donations and he can thank Al Gore for making that possible. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

What I find funny is when we are talking reducing debt we like to refer to all areas including small projects that might be $50-100k and the lefties on this board tell us to leave those alone since they are so miniscule in response to the size of the debt. Then they turn around and want to brag about less than $200 donations helping fuel $500+ million raised for a Presidential race. They cannot decide when little increments are effective and when they are not.

eg8r

eg8r
04-26-2012, 10:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The big difference I see is that the President has already vowed to overturn the SC decision</div></div>LOL, I am sure that was before he decided to go against all his morals and use this very money to go after Romney. The real difference is that we see Obama for the liar that he is and you just see the (D) after his name.

eg8r

sack316
04-26-2012, 05:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The big difference I see is that the President has already vowed to overturn the SC decision, through the propper channels of check and balances </div></div>

Conveniently won't affect any of his campaign needs. IF (BIG IF) he does, what will it matter to him anyway?

It is, after all, a Republican policy, which is totally wrong headed, and which we need to remove.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, he should not be condemned for it, particularly since he is by and large, courting the votes of the common men and women in this country.</div></div>

I didn't condemn him for it anywhere in any of my posts. In fact, I said he can and should take advantage of it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While Mitt, is outright lying about where his money is coming from.</div></div>

Is there anything he has done that is against the same set of rules you praise Obama for utilizing as well? I honestly don't know if he has or hasn't, I am asking if you are aware of anything.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-26-2012, 05:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The big difference I see is that the President has already vowed to overturn the SC decision, through the propper channels of check and balances </div></div>

Conveniently won't affect any of his campaign needs. IF (BIG IF) he does, what will it matter to him anyway?

It is, after all, a Republican policy, which is totally wrong headed, and which we need to remove.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, he should not be condemned for it, particularly since he is by and large, courting the votes of the common men and women in this country.</div></div>

I didn't condemn him for it anywhere in any of my posts. In fact, I said he can and should take advantage of it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While Mitt, is outright lying about where his money is coming from.</div></div>

Is there anything he has done that is against the same set of rules you praise Obama for utilizing as well? I honestly don't know if he has or hasn't, I am asking if you are aware of anything.

Sack </div></div>


I'm simply saying that President Obama should not be condemned for playing the game under the conditions prevailing, just as Romney is doing..

Additionally, the president is vvery angry about the ruling, and he speaks out against this SC ruling nearly every day.

Additionally, it's Romney, not President Obama, who is lying about where most of his money is coming from, not the president.

I guess you missed this above, my friend...

http://nowwithalex.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/26/11353456-small-donor-spin?lite

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Small donor spin
By Joshua Chaffee
-
Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:05 AM EDT
A Mitt Romney campaign announcement declaring its latest fundraising figures raised a few eyebrows on our team -- not because of the amount of money that was raised, but rather because of how the campaign characterized its contributors. The press release highlighted that "84% Of All Donations Received Through The End Of March Were $250 Or Less," which seems to suggest a groundswell of grassroots support for the former governor. While the percentage the campaign cites is correct, it doesn't illustrate the role small donors play in the campaign's overall fundraising. A closer look at the numbers reveals that in fact, a majority of Romney's money has come from people who donated the maximum amount of $2,500 -- 64 percent through March, according to the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI).


What the "84 percent" figure really means is that roughly 8 out of 10 checks received by the Romney campaign were $250 or less, not that 84% of the campaign's total fundraising came from checks of that size. The press release says these donations have totaled $11.6, or 13 percent of the nearly $87 million the campaign has raised so far. But even that doesn't tell the whole story, since it can include donors who have cumulatively given more than $250 in smaller increments -- for instance, 2,500 checks in the amount of $1. The CFI weeds out these repeat contributors once they cross certain donation thresholds. We had the CFI crunch the numbers for $250 and they found just 11 percent of Romney's cash has come from contributions of $250 or less. When you compare this to his rival, the CFI found 49 percent of the president's fundraising has come from donors who gave $250 or less.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's important to note that $250 is a somewhat arbitrary figure. Reports typically refer to "small donors" as those who have given $200 or less, as those contributions are filed as "unitemized" with the FEC. The Romney campaign's April FEC file shows his campaign pulled in $9.1 million from small donations through March 31, which is 10.5 percent of its total fundraising (according to the CFI, that falls to just under 9 percent if you exclude repeat donors who have cumulatively have given more than $200). On the other hand, Obama for America's latest filing shows $85 million, or 57.9% of his total haul so far, has come from small donor contributions (44 percent by the CFI calculation).

Team Romney appears eager to tout its small donor support, but looking inside their books shows his campaign is overwhelmingly funded by large checks. The campaign is certainly looking to appeal to more small donors. Currently $5 buys you a chance to "Grab a Bite with Ann," and in March a $3 donation gave you a chance to watch a baseball game with the Romney family.

Added pressure for Team Romney is that nearly two-thirds of his money is from supporters who have maxed out their contributions. Not only does the president hold a tremendous advantage in tapping small donors, but just 16 percent of his cash has come from those who have given the full $2,500.



</div></div>

G.

eg8r
04-26-2012, 05:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm simply saying that President Obama should not be condemned for playing the game under the conditions prevailing, just as Romney is doing..

</div></div>LOL, so the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing. He says one thing and does another and the lefties just dive headfirst into the sand and ignore the blatant hypocrisy.

eg8r

Qtec
04-26-2012, 09:15 PM
I'm not correcting you, I'm just asking for a little common sense.

1. 1f you get 59% of your money from donations under $200, then yes, IMO that could be classed as 'Nickel and Dimed' it.

2. When short jump cues with super hard tips were introduced into the pool game, a lot of players were against it. It made it too easy to jump balls. Now everyone uses one because not to do so puts you at a disadvantage.
That's not hypocrisy, that's just survival.



Q

sack316
04-27-2012, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not correcting you, I'm just asking for a little common sense.

1. 1f you get 59% of your money from donations under $200, then yes, IMO that could be classed as 'Nickel and Dimed' it.</div></div>

That also means 41% of donations were over $200. I don't think we differ in theory here, but perhaps differ on where we'd draw the line (?)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2. When short jump cues with super hard tips were introduced into the pool game, a lot of players were against it. It made it too easy to jump balls. Now everyone uses one because not to do so puts you at a disadvantage.
That's not hypocrisy, that's just survival.
Q </div></div>

And I'm not knocking survival. As I said, he can and SHOULD accept them. But it can be both hypocrisy as well as survival.

"A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings."

If I'm speaking out against the use of jump cues and phenolic tips, it's hypocritical of me to at the same time be using it. The reasons for my hypocrisy may well be perfectly justified, but still hypocritical nonetheless.

Sack

Sack

cushioncrawler
04-27-2012, 04:30 PM
...........If I'm speaking out against the use of jump cues and phenolic tips, it's hypocritical of me to at the same time be using it. The reasons for my hypocrisy may well be perfectly justified, but still hypocritical nonetheless.......

I reckon that if u are gainst jump cues koz u reckon that jump shots damage the bed then u might be a hypokrit if u uze one.
But then agin no, u wouldnt be.
Koz to be a hypokrit there must be an element of deceit.
mac.

sack316
04-27-2012, 06:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...........If I'm speaking out against the use of jump cues and phenolic tips, it's hypocritical of me to at the same time be using it. The reasons for my hypocrisy may well be perfectly justified, but still hypocritical nonetheless.......

I reckon that if u are gainst jump cues koz u reckon that jump shots damage the bed then u might be a hypokrit if u uze one.
But then agin no, u wouldnt be.
Koz to be a hypokrit there must be an element of deceit.
mac. </div></div>

Element of deceit: people actually believe he is going to change the rule /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Qtec
04-27-2012, 07:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Element of deceit: people actually believe he is going to change the rule ;\)

Sack </div></div>

Pretty low Sack.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Barack Obama <span style='font-size: 20pt'>supports changing the U.S. Constitution to keep private sector dollars from buying elections,</span> campaign officials told Raw Story on background during a conference call with reporters Tuesday. </div></div>

How about the Republicans?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“In recent months, we’ve seen super PACs affiliated with Republican presidential candidates spend more than $40 million on TV and radio, almost all of it on negative ads, not just against opponents but against the president,” a top Obama campaign adviser said.

“Last week’s filings showed that super PACs affiliated with Mitt Romney’s campaign raised $30 million last year from fewer than 200 contributors, mostly from the financial sector. Governor Romney personally helped raise money from this group, which is run by some of his allies.”

The campaign added: “Meanwhile, Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and others have joined together to raise almost a half billion dollars, again for one singular purpose: to defeat the president in November. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>So, with so much at stake, we’re not going to allow a repeat of the 2010 election, where the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of Karl Rove-Koch brothers unlimited spending and the Democrats are unilaterally starving. There’s too much at stake.”</span> </div></div>

Too right mate!

To come to a just opinion, you have to look at BOTH sides and compare the two.

Mitt Romney,

"Corporations are people my friend!

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A)


Q

sack316
04-27-2012, 08:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money," Obama said, touting his work on an ethics reform bill that just passed Congress. "That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll <u>show</u> as president of the United States." </div></div>

July 23, 2007. He says show, not talk about. He bragged on his credibility back then based on not taking such money... but yet he did and still does.

Again, it's fair play. But hypocritical.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show. </div></div>

He's only taken corporate and lobbyist money for 16 years while speaking against it. But I'm sure y'all are right and his words will far outweigh his actions.

He won't need it anymore after this election, so yeah probably at about the 20 year mark he may really get it done.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-28-2012, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The big difference I see is that the President has already vowed to overturn the SC decision, through the propper channels of check and balances </div></div>

Conveniently won't affect any of his campaign needs. IF (BIG IF) he does, what will it matter to him anyway?

<span style="color: #CC0000">That isn't the point. The point is, he is against this Supreme Court Decision, along with seventy plus percent of the American People. </span>

It is, after all, a Republican policy, which is totally wrong headed, and which we need to remove.

<span style="color: #CC0000">Yes, and he has promised to do just that, unlike Romney.

If I were you I'd be thinking about which man most suits your own thoughts on the S.C.decision, instead of looking at it from a partisan perspective.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, he should not be condemned for it, particularly since he is by and large, courting the votes of the common men and women in this country.</div></div>

I didn't condemn him for it anywhere in any of my posts. In fact, I said he can and should take advantage of it.


<span style="color: #CC0000">So, calling him a hypocrite isn't condemnation? </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While Mitt, is outright lying about where his money is coming from.</div></div>

Is there anything he has done that is against the same set of rules you praise Obama for utilizing as well? I honestly don't know if he has or hasn't, I am asking if you are aware of anything.

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000">Well, I do't think this conversation began with my praising the president, because he is using the same rules, as apply lawfully at this time, I was defending him from being called a hypocrite, by you, for campaigning Under The Conditions Prevailing.

Buts, as a matter of fact, one thing does pop right into my mind, Romney thinks he's above the law, apparently, since he broke the election campaign laws, by feeding people he was courting for votes, at one of his campaign stops.

That is against the law, but we all know, nothing will happen to him. When it comes to Republicans breaking the law, IOIIAR!</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

eg8r
04-28-2012, 07:54 PM
Pretty ignorant qtip<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Barack Obama supports changing the U.S. Constitution to keep private sector dollars from buying elections, campaign officials told Raw Story on background during a conference call with reporters Tuesday. </div></div>He is against superPAC money by accepting this money.

eg8r

sack316
04-28-2012, 09:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... I was defending him from being called a hypocrite, by you, for campaigning Under The Conditions Prevailing.
</div></div>

What word besides hypocrite would you like me to use?

Under actions prevailing, from 1996 through present day he has used the same system he claims to be opposed to. Using PAC money, corporate contributions, and even (gasp) oil companies.

I'm very sorry if hypocrite is the wrong term to use, but I don't know what else to call it. It doesn't mean I think he's a bad person. And maybe I shouldn't even say he is a hypocrite, because by and large he has at least attempted most everything he said he would try to do. But I don't feel it unfair to say that in this one instance on this particular topic, that the actions are hypocritical.

Sack

sack316
04-28-2012, 09:15 PM
And just for the record, another post in which you referred to as an "excellent post" included in it "A person who <u>acts</u> in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" as a definition for hypocrite.

Sack

Qtec
04-29-2012, 03:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under actions prevailing, from 1996 through present day he has used the same system <u>he claims to be opposed to</u>. Using PAC money, corporate contributions, and even (gasp) oil companies. </div></div>

What he is opposed to is "a world of super PACs and phony corporations set up for the sole purpose of disguising a donor’s identity",ie the Citizens United ruling. The only way to nullify this new law is to have a majority in the the house and the senate and Obama to be POTUS because the Republicans LOVE IT!

Obama said he would do everything he could to have this disastrous decision by a RW Supreme court reversed, and he is doing it. That's not hypocrisy, that's the total opposite.

Q

Gayle in MD
04-29-2012, 07:23 AM
Tap, Tap, Tap!

Gayle in MD
04-29-2012, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And just for the record, another post in which you referred to as an "excellent post" included in it "A person who <u>acts</u> in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" as a definition for hypocrite.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
When you read anything I write, please include in your judgement of it two basic principles of critical thinking skills.

"Under the conditions prevailing."

AND:


"To what degree"

Don't even try to compare President Obama's M.O. to ANY Republican on the issue of hypocrisy when it comes the president to being faithful to his beliefs and policies!

The Robber Barrons of today, are destroying this country, and they are ALL Republicans, who are actively trying to remove our rights on every level.

The fact that we have enough psychotic religiosity in this country to conceal what they are actually doing to the country at large, does not impact the reality which one can easily see, if one simply looks at what the Republican Governors, the Republicans on the Supreme Court, and the Republicans on The Hill, are trying to do to all of us.

Yes, it is class warfare, but the war has been created by Republican policies, where only the very wealthy, can flourish, and this president has consistantly stood against those policies, in every way that is feasible and possibloe, under the conditions prevailing, IOW, gross obstructionism of American rights, to unionize, to use birth control, to access the Constitutional RIGHT to abortion, and ever the right TO VOTE, all of which are under attack by the Republican Party, and all of which negatively impact our economy.

Now if you want to call him a hypocrite for doing everything he can do to win the election, "Under the conditions prevailing" without breaking any laws, that's your perrogative. I don't agree.

Additionally, taking my statement out of context, doesn't cut it. Another of my Principles of critical thinking, is to always include:

"It is a matter of degree," into my thought process.

IMO, if you apply those two principles, to your attempt to create an analogy, perhaps you will understand why I see the two statements as totally incomparable.

Ignoring the intentions, and the continuously stated policy preferences, of the President, as regards this unconstitutional RW Radical Fascist, UNAMERICAN Supreme Court decision, and the set of circumstances in which he finds himself, due to their corrupt views and decisions, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>UNDER THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING, </span> isn't rational at all, IMO.

G.

eg8r
04-29-2012, 02:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What word besides hypocrite would you like me to use?
</div></div>She likes this "under conditions prevailing" garbage so let's put it in context...US Supreme Court says superPAC money is constitutionally acceptable. Obama declares this is the spawn of satan and should be stricken from US politics from here to eternity (not that I disagree with this position taken by Obama). Then Romney starts lawfully accepting this money. Under the conditions prevailing, meaning Romney is building a sizable war chest, Obama ignores his previous stance and starts accepting this satan money with open arms.

So, to further clarify...gaylio defines "under conditions prevailing" as going against any previous stated stance if it benefits you.

eg8r

eg8r
04-29-2012, 02:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What he is opposed to is "a world of super PACs and phony corporations set up for the sole purpose of disguising a donor’s identity",ie the Citizens United ruling. </div></div>LOL, his mouth said, "I am against superPAC money". He wallet said, "Please send your superPAC money to me in as big denominations as possible".

eg8r

DiabloViejo
04-29-2012, 04:08 PM
It was the conservative right that pushed for bringing the Citizen's United gun to what had always traditionally been a knife fight.

Citizens United was not just a bad Supreme Court ruling. It's the name of the conservative organization that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of in 2008. The main goal of Citizens United is to defeat all campaign finance laws. Since the ruling the Koch brothers,conservative think tanks, and mega rich republicans began flooding the right wing SuperPACs with money.

Now, I'm sure you've heard the old advice about not bringing a knife into a gun fight, so in light of that, and from a pragmatic point of view Obama could not sit idly by without responding in kind. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter. What does matter to me and to Democrats, is that Obama use every means currently available to ensure a resounding defeat of the GOP candidate. Once that's done and once the Democrats reclaim the house and senate they can get busy on repealing the Citizens United ruling. But until then, remember that it was your team that brought the gun into the fight and no amount of bitching, wailing, crying, and shouts of hypocrisy will erase that fact.

BTW, I just sent $500 to the Obama campaign! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

eg8r
04-29-2012, 07:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was the conservative right that pushed for bringing the Citizen's United gun to what had always traditionally been a knife fight.
</div></div>Obama is an adult. He certainly does not need your defense of his hypocritical actions in which he completely went against everything he said. His true colors are on display.

eg8r

DiabloViejo
04-29-2012, 08:20 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">It was the conservative right that pushed for bringing the Citizen's United gun to what had always traditionally been a knife fight.
</div></div>Obama is an adult. He certainly does not need your defense of his hypocritical actions in which he completely went against everything he said. His true colors are on display.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL! He gets my defense "pro-bono". You attack, I defend. You don't like it..who cares? I know I sure don't!

eg8r
04-30-2012, 08:17 AM
LOL, what is even more funny is that you are defending an action which cannot be defended. We even have idiot qtip who tells us Obama is against superPAC money while using superPAC money to get back in the race.

eg8r

sack316
04-30-2012, 10:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And just for the record, another post in which you referred to as an "excellent post" included in it "A person who <u>acts</u> in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" as a definition for hypocrite.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
When you read anything I write, please include in your judgement of it two basic principles of critical thinking skills.

"Under the conditions prevailing."

AND:


"To what degree"

Don't even try to compare President Obama's M.O. to ANY Republican on the issue of hypocrisy when it comes the president to being faithful to his beliefs and policies!</div></div>

Nowhere did I compare Obama's M.O. to a republican.

And I did not realize "to what degree" mattered.

I am against stealing. You are against stealing. We both steal, yet you steal less than I do. So yes I am worse than you, because I steal more. But yet we have both practiced hypocritical actions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Robber Barrons of today, are destroying this country, and they are ALL Republicans, who are actively trying to remove our rights on every level. </div></div>

I agree with the first part entirely. Even agree with a portion of the rest of it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that we have enough psychotic religiosity in this country to conceal what they are actually doing to the country at large, does not impact the reality which one can easily see, if one simply looks at what the Republican Governors, the Republicans on the Supreme Court, and the Republicans on The Hill, are trying to do to all of us.</div></div>

Again, I'll even agree with much of that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, it is class warfare, but the war has been created by Republican policies, where only the very wealthy, can flourish, and this president has consistantly stood against those policies, in every way that is feasible and possibloe, under the conditions prevailing, IOW, gross obstructionism of American rights, to unionize, to use birth control, to access the Constitutional RIGHT to abortion, and ever the right TO VOTE, all of which are under attack by the Republican Party, and all of which negatively impact our economy.</div></div>

I can even agree with portions of this. However, I also include many actions of Democrats in the general thought process of this as well

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now if you want to call him a hypocrite for doing everything he can do to win the election, "Under the conditions prevailing" without breaking any laws, that's your perrogative. I don't agree. </div></div>

I don't refer to him as such for those reasons. As I have said NUMEROUS times... he can and should do all he can to win. He can and should accept donations in any way, shape, or form legally permitted. I don't knock him one bit for doing so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, taking my statement out of context, doesn't cut it. Another of my Principles of critical thinking, is to always include:

"It is a matter of degree," into my thought process.

IMO, if you apply those two principles, to your attempt to create an analogy, perhaps you will understand why I see the two statements as totally incomparable.</div></div>

Well if you don't mind me interjecting one simple principle into reading my posts... it would be to simply read my posts. I have had to repeat numerous times, yet your responses seem to imply that you believe I have said things I have not said.

Simply put, doing one thing while saying another is hypocritical. It doesn't mean one is a bad person. It doesn't mean anyone is doing anything wrong. But saying one thing and doing another is what it is. If you disagree with my interpretation of what a hypocritical action is, then that is fine. To me, a hypocritical action is a hypocritical action... regardless of what degree. One can be MORE hypocritical than another certainly, though.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ignoring the intentions, and the continuously stated policy preferences, of the President, as regards this unconstitutional RW Radical Fascist, UNAMERICAN Supreme Court decision, and the set of circumstances in which he finds himself, due to their corrupt views and decisions, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>UNDER THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING, </span> isn't rational at all, IMO.

G.

</div></div>

That's your opinion and I respect that. And although I have a differing one I'm sure you respect that as well.

Sack

sack316
04-30-2012, 10:47 PM
And FWIW, I also believe Romney is a huge hypocrite. I'm not a fan of his. I believe he'll say and do anything to win... change stances to pander to the right audience at the right time. I don't think he is "real" or honest. JMHO there.

I'm sure you'll agree with that assessment. It's honestly how I feel about him thus far.

With that said, if I just added "he will say or do anything to win (blah blah blah) under conditions prevailing"... well that wouldn't change your mind about him nor make him any better.

Sack

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 04:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And just for the record, another post in which you referred to as an "excellent post" included in it "A person who <u>acts</u> in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" as a definition for hypocrite.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
When you read anything I write, please include in your judgement of it two basic principles of critical thinking skills.

"Under the conditions prevailing."

AND:


"To what degree"

Don't even try to compare President Obama's M.O. to ANY Republican on the issue of hypocrisy when it comes the president to being faithful to his beliefs and policies!</div></div>

Nowhere did I compare Obama's M.O. to a republican.

And I did not realize "to what degree" mattered.

I am against stealing. You are against stealing. We both steal, yet you steal less than I do. So yes I am worse than you, because I steal more. But yet we have both practiced hypocritical actions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Robber Barrons of today, are destroying this country, and they are ALL Republicans, who are actively trying to remove our rights on every level. </div></div>

I agree with the first part entirely. Even agree with a portion of the rest of it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that we have enough psychotic religiosity in this country to conceal what they are actually doing to the country at large, does not impact the reality which one can easily see, if one simply looks at what the Republican Governors, the Republicans on the Supreme Court, and the Republicans on The Hill, are trying to do to all of us.</div></div>

Again, I'll even agree with much of that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, it is class warfare, but the war has been created by Republican policies, where only the very wealthy, can flourish, and this president has consistantly stood against those policies, in every way that is feasible and possibloe, under the conditions prevailing, IOW, gross obstructionism of American rights, to unionize, to use birth control, to access the Constitutional RIGHT to abortion, and ever the right TO VOTE, all of which are under attack by the Republican Party, and all of which negatively impact our economy.</div></div>

I can even agree with portions of this. However, I also include many actions of Democrats in the general thought process of this as well

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now if you want to call him a hypocrite for doing everything he can do to win the election, "Under the conditions prevailing" without breaking any laws, that's your perrogative. I don't agree. </div></div>

I don't refer to him as such for those reasons. As I have said NUMEROUS times... he can and should do all he can to win. He can and should accept donations in any way, shape, or form legally permitted. I don't knock him one bit for doing so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, taking my statement out of context, doesn't cut it. Another of my Principles of critical thinking, is to always include:

"It is a matter of degree," into my thought process.

IMO, if you apply those two principles, to your attempt to create an analogy, perhaps you will understand why I see the two statements as totally incomparable.</div></div>

Well if you don't mind me interjecting one simple principle into reading my posts... it would be to simply read my posts. I have had to repeat numerous times, yet your responses seem to imply that you believe I have said things I have not said.

Simply put, doing one thing while saying another is hypocritical. It doesn't mean one is a bad person. It doesn't mean anyone is doing anything wrong. But saying one thing and doing another is what it is. If you disagree with my interpretation of what a hypocritical action is, then that is fine. To me, a hypocritical action is a hypocritical action... regardless of what degree. One can be MORE hypocritical than another certainly, though.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ignoring the intentions, and the continuously stated policy preferences, of the President, as regards this unconstitutional RW Radical Fascist, UNAMERICAN Supreme Court decision, and the set of circumstances in which he finds himself, due to their corrupt views and decisions, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>UNDER THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING, </span> isn't rational at all, IMO.

G.

</div></div>

That's your opinion and I respect that. And although I have a differing one I'm sure you respect that as well.

Sack </div></div>

I always respect your opinions, and you always present them respectfully.

I don't recall the President ever promising that if this truly dangerous decision by the Supreme Court, came to fruition, he would refuse to take any PAC money.

Additionally, his campaigns do target small contributions from a lot of Americans, the general public, and he is known for that.

G.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 05:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And FWIW, I also believe Romney is a huge hypocrite. I'm not a fan of his. I believe he'll say and do anything to win... change stances to pander to the right audience at the right time. I don't think he is "real" or honest. JMHO there.

I'm sure you'll agree with that assessment. It's honestly how I feel about him thus far.

With that said, if I just added "he will say or do anything to win (blah blah blah) under conditions prevailing"... well that wouldn't change your mind about him nor make him any better.

Sack </div></div>

My dear friend, nothing Romney could ever say or do, would ever tell me as much about him, and his wife, as watching them laugh about having put their sick family dog on the roof of their car, and driving six hours in the bitter cold.

That one thing, to me, makes Romney totally unacceptable to ever be president of this country, IMPO.

IMO, that one action is proof of severe psychotic narcissistic disorder. IOW, I think they are both psychotic, and from the same sort of indicators, I think that Sara Palin suffers from the very same disorder.

Just my opinion.

G.

Qtec
05-01-2012, 06:09 AM
You almost got it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> US Supreme Court says superPAC money is constitutionally acceptable. Obama declares this is the spawn of satan and should be stricken from US politics from here to eternity (not that I disagree with this position taken by Obama).</div></div>

Has he changed his opinion? Does he still want to see the CU ruling overturned?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Then Romney starts lawfully accepting this money. Under the conditions prevailing, meaning Romney is building a sizable war chest, Obama ignores his previous stance and starts accepting this satan money with open arms.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 90-page dissent. He took the unusual step of reading a summary of his opinion from the bench.

President Barack Obama said in a statement that the ruling “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.” He said he would work with congressional leaders to “develop a forceful response to this decision.”

Boost for Republicans

The decision may boost Republicans as they aim to recapture congressional seats in the November election. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who was in the courtroom as the justices announced their ruling, said the court “struck a blow for the First Amendment.” </span> </div></div>

If Obama's super PAC would outspend the Republican's and he would then say, 'I think SPs are a good idea', then, and only then can you say he is a hypocrite on this subject.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama declares this is the spawn of satan and should be stricken from US politics from here to eternity (<u>not that I disagree with this position taken by Obama</u>) </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The GOP LOVES this ruling.</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">[ its all part of the master plan] </span>You only have this ruling because a group of wealthy Cons brought it to the SCOTUS and a group of RW activist judges turned 100 years of election law on its head.
The only chance of this outrage on Democracy EVER being scrapped is if Obama gets re-elected and he has 60 Dems in the senate.

Under these circumstances, ie accepting reality, O has no choice.

Q

eg8r
05-01-2012, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well if you don't mind me interjecting one simple principle into reading my posts... it would be to simply read my posts. I have had to repeat numerous times, yet your responses seem to imply that you believe I have said things I have not said.
</div></div>LOL, that is the type of friend she is. I have seen it many times. You are on the wrong side of the fence.

eg8r