• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

No holds barred the gloves just came off

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
The Election campaign is about to get so filthy that the US will fast become ashamed.

Campaign donations must not be hitting the Billion dollar mark fast enough for Obama, Rahm and Axlerod., as after months of Obama voicing a dislike for super pacs and bashing the Republicans for them he just embraced one set up by his former White House Aids.

He can not run on his record so he is going to have big Democrat donors AKA Soros destroying the Republican candidate through a "independent" super pac where UNLIMITED amounts of money can be donated.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Leading Democrat Bashes Obama's Hypocrisy on Super-PACs Kevin Derby's blog | Posted: February 7, 2012 10:42 AM

While it is a nonpartisan organization, Common Cause, a group that fights for campaign finance reform, has some connections to leading Democrats -- including its chairman former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, its president Bob Edgar who served as a congressman from Pennsylvania, Pat Schroder who served as a congresswoman from Colorado and made a spectacularly unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination during the 1988 election cycle, and liberal actor Richard Dreyfuss. Despite these ties, Common Cause went on the attack against President Barack Obama on Tuesday after his campaign said they would accept aid from super-PACs.

“If President Obama had fixed presidential public financing, as he pledged to do in 2008, and seriously gone to bat for more transparency in campaign spending, our political system would be healthier and this would be less of an issue,” said Edgar. “A strengthened presidential public financing system would not have abolished super-PACs, but by helping presidential candidates run competitive campaigns from a base of small donors and matching public funds, we could have made it possible for candidates, including the president, to make good on their stated desire to succeed without aid from super-PACs.”

Edgar also took aim at how the White House was dispatching staffers to help super-PACs aligned with their campaign. “The White House’s claim that those officials are not soliciting money is laughable,” Edgar said.

While the Obama team said on Monday they would accept the help of super-PACs, campaign manager Jim Messina promoted Priorities USA, a super-PAC which was formed back in April 2011 by Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney, two former Obama White House staffers. Obama has been a critic of super-PACs and the Citizens United decision.

The results to yet another Obama Campaign Pledge to reform and fix Washington. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight...
The Republicans (including Romney) already have several corporate Super PACS going which can legally take in as much corporate donations as they want - and then put out any information in ads (whether its true or false) and do it all in anonymity.....

I do agree with Obama and all those that believe the 2010 Supreme Court ruling saying corporate entities are people- and opening up these no limit/no stand behind what they say anonymous attack ads is wrong... And that the law needs to be changed...

It just makes very dirty campaigns that exist anymore-- get even dirtier...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Oldtimer said:
For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight...

The results to yet another Obama Campaign Pledge to reform and fix Washington.

Another excuse for the obama regime cultist to not abide by his campaign promise..........excuses escuses. We knew ot was to feeble to come up with anything else
 

OWE MONEY

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
POOR VALLEY
But but,O said he was going to do it with small donations 3 years ago and didn't agree with super pacs.Another broken promise.What say you OT?We told you so.
 

jrdavis

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer said:
For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight...
The Republicans (including Romney) already have several corporate Super PACS going which can legally take in as much corporate donations as they want - and then put out any information in ads (whether its true or false) and do it all in anonymity.....

I do agree with Obama and all those that believe the 2010 Supreme Court ruling saying corporate entities are people- and opening up these no limit/no stand behind what they say anonymous attack ads is wrong... And that the law needs to be changed...

It just makes very dirty campaigns that exist anymore-- get even dirtier...

Your brain cavity wouldn't make a drinkin' cup for a canary.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Oldtimer said:
For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight...
The Republicans (including Romney) already have several corporate Super PACS going which can legally take in as much corporate donations as they want - and then put out any information in ads (whether its true or false) and do it all in anonymity.....

I do agree with Obama and all those that believe the 2010 Supreme Court ruling saying corporate entities are people- and opening up these no limit/no stand behind what they say anonymous attack ads is wrong... And that the law needs to be changed...

It just makes very dirty campaigns that exist anymore-- get even dirtier...

what about unions putting money into elections oldtimer? should that stop too?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Oldtimer said:
For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight...
The Republicans (including Romney) already have several corporate Super PACS going which can legally take in as much corporate donations as they want - and then put out any information in ads (whether its true or false) and do it all in anonymity.....

I do agree with Obama and all those that believe the 2010 Supreme Court ruling saying corporate entities are people- and opening up these no limit/no stand behind what they say anonymous attack ads is wrong... And that the law needs to be changed...

It just makes very dirty campaigns that exist anymore-- get even dirtier...

This makes me chuckle.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
OldCultist said:
With McSame--All I see is a continuation of crooks and big money influence- and no guarantee of which way on which day he will go on social issues...With Obamas refusal to hire lobbyists- accept PAC and Corporate contributions he at least stands a "chance" of being somewhat independent....
And if this country doesn't get out from under the control of the big Corporate Money strangle hold- it is doomed...

That was in June of 2008. Today, sporting his new Obama kneepads, he agrees the Messiah needs PAC money........but we're the cultists.

:lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight...
The Republicans (including Romney) already have several corporate Super PACS going which can legally take in as much corporate donations as they want - and then put out any information in ads (whether its true or false) and do it all in anonymity.....

I do agree with Obama and all those that believe the 2010 Supreme Court ruling saying corporate entities are people- and opening up these no limit/no stand behind what they say anonymous attack ads is wrong... And that the law needs to be changed...

It just makes very dirty campaigns that exist anymore-- get even dirtier...

what about unions putting money into elections oldtimer? should that stop too?


I have no problem with anyone- union- corporate- whatever putting money into elections--- as long as they have to show who they are- and how much they donated-- and that they have to identify these donors as part of the PAC and stand behind the allegations they bring up...

I do have a problem with the way it is now where foreign corporate money can be funneled anonymously into these Super PAC's....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight...
The Republicans (including Romney) already have several corporate Super PACS going which can legally take in as much corporate donations as they want - and then put out any information in ads (whether its true or false) and do it all in anonymity.....

I do agree with Obama and all those that believe the 2010 Supreme Court ruling saying corporate entities are people- and opening up these no limit/no stand behind what they say anonymous attack ads is wrong... And that the law needs to be changed...

It just makes very dirty campaigns that exist anymore-- get even dirtier...

Obama swiftly blasted the court's decision, calling on Congress to devise a "forceful response" as quickly as possible.

"The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

On Capitol Hill, reaction was deeply divided between supporters of the campaign finance rules that were rejected and those who defended the court's ruling.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said lawmakers have to use the decision to help voters understand how broken the system is.

"This has got to be a wakeup call to every citizen that they cannot allow the big corporations to call the shots on these elections," he said.

Is this how the Democrats stand on Principle Oldtimer? :roll: Obama made the Supreme Court sit there while he scolded them during his State of the Union rant then when he has a rotten record to run on and his campaign fund raising doesn't hit his claimed billion dollar target he crumbles like house of cards in a tornato and moves in for the kill. :roll:

If any PAC should be watch for where they are excepting money from it better be Obama's. As he was claiming the Supreme Court ruling opened the door for FOREIGN MONEY to influence US elections. We know the Unions will be pouring money into all Democrat coffers as they always do but where else (IE MUSLIM COUNTRIES) will they be sneaking money in from. If I remember right a FOREIGNOR was rumored to have paid for Obama's education, I hope one doesn't fund the US voter's education on corruption.

FOLLOW THE MONEY
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
OldIBelieveInChange said:
Obama came back and said that he would not hire anyone that was a paid lobbyist- had already ordered his campaign to not take contributions from paid lobbyists or PAC's- ordered the DNC to do the same- and said that he would issue an order that anyone working in his administration could not become a paid lobbyist for 2 years after leaving it- or while he was still in office....

:lol:
 

jrdavis

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
As usual, OT offers a mixture of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately, none of the sound ideas is original, and none of the original ideas is sound.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Example- Wouldn't all you Newt backers like to be able to find out who is putting the money behind all the negative ads against Newt.... :???:

Or even if you aren't a Newt backer-- wouldn't it be nice in making your political decision to know who is the big money putting up all these anonymous ads :???:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Oldtimer said:
Example- Wouldn't all you Newt backers like to be able to find out who is putting the money behind all the negative ads against Newt.... :???:

Or even if you aren't a Newt backer-- wouldn't it be nice in making your political decision to know who is the big money putting up all these anonymous ads :???:

What a whiny crybaby you've become OT. You think political campaigns are dirtier now than they've been in the past? You might want to study the history of US political campaigns a bit more thoroughly.

Now, back to your bottle and nipple.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight...
The Republicans (including Romney) already have several corporate Super PACS going which can legally take in as much corporate donations as they want - and then put out any information in ads (whether its true or false) and do it all in anonymity.....

I do agree with Obama and all those that believe the 2010 Supreme Court ruling saying corporate entities are people- and opening up these no limit/no stand behind what they say anonymous attack ads is wrong... And that the law needs to be changed...

It just makes very dirty campaigns that exist anymore-- get even dirtier...

what about unions putting money into elections oldtimer? should that stop too?


I have no problem with anyone- union- corporate- whatever putting money into elections--- as long as they have to show who they are- and how much they donated-- and that they have to identify these donors as part of the PAC and stand behind the allegations they bring up...

I do have a problem with the way it is now where foreign corporate money can be funneled anonymously into these Super PAC's....

Why Alito shook his head: Obama exaggerates impact of Supreme Court ruling on foreign companies

On Jan. 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling striking down barriers to corporations spending money directly from their own treasuries to influence elections. The 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission has drawn fire from President Barack Obama twice -- first in a weekly radio address and, now, during his State of the Union address.

The president told a joint session of Congress on Jan. 27, 2010, that "it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

That's much the same argument he made in his Jan. 23 radio address, when he argued that "even foreign corporations may now get into the act" of spending "an unlimited amount of special interest money" for political purposes.

----- Snip -----

Based on our reading of the court's opinion and interviews with campaign law experts, we find that Obama has overstated the ruling's immediate impact on foreign companies' ability to spend unlimited money in U.S. political campaigns. While such an outcome may be possible, the majority opinion specifically said it wasn't addressing that point, and only further litigation would settle the matter once and for all. So we find Obama's claim to be Barely True.

Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.

Mostly False is Politifact's nice way of saying HE LIED TO YOU OLDTIMER. :roll:

The sideshow was fueled by President Barack Obama's claim during his State of the Union address that foreign corporations can "spend without limit in our elections." Justice Samuel Alito, sitting in front of the president, mouthed on national television that such a claim was "not true." President Obama or Justice Alito: Who is right? Let's take a look at the law.

The Federal Election Campaign Act provides that foreign nationals shall not directly or indirectly make contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements for electioneering communications. This prohibition, subject to criminal and civil penalties, covers individuals and corporations financing any federal, state, or local election.

During oral argument, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens asked whether foreign interests would be able to funnel money into U.S. elections through their domestic subsidiaries if the court struck down the prohibition on corporate spending, as it did. One of the attorneys for Citizens United equivocated in his response by not ruling it out. Such equivocation during oral argument, in an exchange between the justices and counsel, has no legal effect. The opinion itself is all that carries weight, and the opinion does not upset the longstanding prohibition on foreign money in U.S. elections. In fact, perhaps because of that exchange during oral arguments, the court specifically stated it was not addressing the ban on foreign contributions, recognizing that contributions and expenditures by foreign individuals and associations are banned in a distinct section of the law.

While I disagree with the court's decision because unlimited corporate spending is politically harmful to the system, there is nothing in the Citizens United case that provides a legal channel for foreign corporations or individuals to spend money in U.S. elections.

Specifically, the White House's concern seems to focus on contributions and other political activities by corporations that are foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries. This type of ownership arises in every industry in the United States, from the largest banks, energy companies, pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors, and even alcoholic beverage manufacturers. These domestic subsidiaries have contributed to federal candidates through political action committees (PACs) for decades and have made direct corporate contributions and expenditures in the 28 states that allow corporate funding of elections. However, as a matter of federal law, it has been illegal for any of these entities to funnel foreign corporate funds through domestic entities or to have foreign officers, directors, or employees direct foreign or domestic funds with regards to federal, state, or local elections. Such conduct, if willful, would constitute a felony and potentially carry a lengthy term of incarceration. The Citizens United case did not upset that law
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/02/alito_was_right

Do you get it Oldtimer OBAMA IS A LIAR. Even when it comes to the Supreme court ruling. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Additionally, more than 100 foreign companies sponsor PAC's through their U.S. subsidiaries and have collectively contributed nearly $13M to candidates during the 2010 election cycle, higher than any mid-term election in history. Foreign companies contributed nearly $17M during the 2008 Presidential election.

http://www.politicalmath.com/money/pac.php

And now with being able to put up huge amounts of money without revealing donators until after the election- the Super PAC's could essentially buy an election without/before the voters even knowing who was putting up the negative ads.....

At least I stand with the good guys side in believing that corporations should not be treated as people- as the Montana Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative enacted MT law that does not allow Corporates to support State candidates....


Montana bucks U.S. ruling on corporate contributionsJeff Milchen

San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, January 12, 2012
.
The Montana Supreme Court issued a stunning ruling Dec. 30 that rejected arguments that the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC applied to Montana's century-old ban on corporate election spending. The 5-2 ruling overturned a lower court and reinstated Montana's Corrupt Practices Act, a citizen initiative passed to confront some of the most overt corporate corruption in American history.

While the Montana ruling detailed several ways in which the Corrupt Practices Act differed from the federal statute struck down in Citizens United, the justices clearly rejected much of the U.S. Supreme Court's rationale. Citizens United struck down a federal law that prohibited corporations from directly spending company funds to advocate for or against political candidates.

One key distinction in Montana's case was that the state presented extensive evidence of actual corruption, which the U.S. Supreme Court found lacking in Citizens United. And while Citizens United did not address nonpartisan and judicial elections, Montana's law protects the very justices who decided the case from being intimidated or corrupted.

Of course, money drowning out the voice of citizens can happen in almost any election now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court bestowing Bill of Rights protections upon corporations - entities never mentioned in our Constitution. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Citizens United also asserted that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

That astounding claim promptly birthed super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations to support their favored candidate and attack his or her opponents. Fittingly, an obvious victim of super PACs in the current presidential primaries is Newt Gingrich, who previously hailed Citizens United as a "great victory for free speech."

In November and early December, Gingrich surged to the top of Republican primary polls. Then, in December, he was slammed by about $4 million worth of negative ads by Restore Our Future, an "independent" super PAC controlled by Mitt Romney supporters, including his 2008 campaign director.

The ad blitz drove down Gingrich's poll numbers immediately, and he finished a distant fourth in the Iowa Caucus, won by Romney.

All of the Republican contenders have such PACs working on their behalf. By the time the public knows the people or corporations behind the super PAC attacks, four primaries will be complete and the winner may be apparent. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning, the investments of PAC donors will earn them no influence with Romney.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/11/EDLD1MO3AO.DTL#ixzz1ljbaRytQ
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
U.S. President Barack Obama's re-election campaign says it is returning some $200,000 in donations made by the family of a Mexican casino owner who fled drug and fraud charges in the U.S.

The campaign announced Tuesday that it was refunding all contributions linked to Chicago brothers Carlos and Alberto Rojas Cardona after The New York Times raised questions about them.

The newspaper reported Monday that the two Cardonas are the brothers of casino owner Juan Jose Rojas Cardona, known as Pepe, who disappeared after jumping bail in Iowa in 1994 and has since been linked to violence and corruption in Mexico.

The Cardona brothers began raising money for the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee last year. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign will return the contributions from the Cardonas and any other donors they brought to the campaign

Is this why Obama flip flopped on the Super PAC idea? Was it so the Cardona brothers can donate to him and he won't be held accountable for taking money from MEXICAN FUGITIVES.

FOLLOW THE MONEY OLDTIMER :mad:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Whitewing said:
OldCultist said:
With McSame--All I see is a continuation of crooks and big money influence- and no guarantee of which way on which day he will go on social issues...With Obamas refusal to hire lobbyists- accept PAC and Corporate contributions he at least stands a "chance" of being somewhat independent....
And if this country doesn't get out from under the control of the big Corporate Money strangle hold- it is doomed...

That was in June of 2008. Today, sporting his new Obama kneepads, he agrees the Messiah needs PAC money........but we're the cultists.

:lol:


banghead2.gif
 

Latest posts

Top