Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Like Tree1Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old August 14th, 2012, 04:42 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default Political fund raising

IMO the source is right of center, but it and Fox News are the only ones I've found that mentioned the foreign political contributions.

Foreign Cash Disqualifies Romney from Presidential Bid | Veterans Today

"No other American presidential candidate has ever left the US to garner campaign contributions from foreign citizens.

There is a reason for this, one that Romney and his staff seem oblivious to and the mainstream media had ignored until just recently.

Using foreign contributions in any American election is a felony. Hello Romney campaign…is anybody home, hello?

Below, Fox News identifies illegal fundraising in both Israel and in London, no donor is identified, no records are kept. Gosh, does that look like someone might be trying to circumvent the law?"

Advertisements
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 15th, 2012, 11:54 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,197
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

While I'd certainly love to have Romney booted out, it seems that he was courting American donors that live overseas, which is legal and has been used for decades.

Romney courts donors, raises cash in Israel - Yahoo! News

On foreign trip, Romney makes time for fundraisers - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
__________________
These teeth are razor sharp...
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2012, 06:46 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Karl and the Koch brothers contending to be the Dark Pool masters. Right now, believe Karl is ahead, base on money spent, but too early to call.

Two Dark Money Groups Outspending All Super PACs Combined - ProPublica

"Crossroads GPS, or Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, is the brainchild of GOP strategist Karl Rove, and spent an estimated $41.7 million. Americans for Prosperity, credited with helping launch the Tea Party movement, is backed in part by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, and spent an estimated $18.2 million."

"First of all, it shows how much desire there is for secrecy among huge donors who want to be able to spend money to influence this election without leaving any fingerprints," said Fred Wertheimer, who runs Democracy 21, a watchdog group. "Secondly, it shows that so far, there is an enormous advantage being played in this election by just two groups that are exercising undue influence in the elections."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2012, 07:09 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

So spending lots of money is just as evil as having lots of money? Got it.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2012, 09:16 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,676
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

Quote:
"First of all, it shows how much desire there is for secrecy among huge donors who want to be able to spend money to influence this election without leaving any fingerprints," said Fred Wertheimer, who runs Democracy 21, a watchdog group. "Secondly, it shows that so far, there is an enormous advantage being played in this election by just two groups that are exercising undue influence in the elections."
A.Nonymous, if that is true, you don't agree it is evil how they spend the money to influence the election?

Why do you always twist around what others say?
__________________
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything! - Sly Stone
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2012, 09:37 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
So spending lots of money is just as evil as having lots of money? Got it.
Evil is such a subjective word, I heard a story about this mythical guy saying it's impossible for the rich to get into nirvana, so by implication, the rich are evil. The nerve of this guy questioning the divine right of the rich. Good thing the authorities removed this nut from society. Many claim this story is just a fable, so I suggest we not fret about it.

Anyway, getting back to reality, bribery or extortion are against the law, which I guess one could call evil, but I believe the technical term is unlawful.

Let's use common sense, when a very select group of people, that are very wealthy and well aware of the value of money and how to invest money to obtain high ROI, make hidden expenditures to select or deselect individuals to make and enforce laws are not fools. Now some of these select group's servants were caught repeatedly in illegal actions that financially benefited their business interest, just proves the need for further investments to curtail enforcement or modify the law.

Now as this is a business decision, one needs to hire experts, which is just a business expense to insure those seeking elective office are well aware that these select individuals will spend whatever it takes to promote those candidates that support or denigrate those that do not support their business interest.

Marketing and competitive research are effective tools to promote one's business interest and is much more effective if the competition cannot match one's expenditures, so these tools will be used extensively.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2012, 09:52 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Which mythical guy told that story? I've certainly never heard it though I'm hardly an expert on every religion or myth. Jesus was certainly not against rich people. John 3 is an account of him speaking with a man who was very rich and came to him by night lest his social status be jeapardized. Not once did he condemn this man for being wealthy. In fact, Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb so clearly his followers didn't think they were desecrating his body by doing so. Clearly the founder of Christianity had no issues with wealth. Jews are frequently found running various banks and other financial institutions and historically have done so. Judaism would not appear to have any issues with rich people. Muhammed died penniless of course. We all know that. Islamic teaching generally teaches that all wealth belongs to Allah and we simply manage it and will be required, one day, to give account for what we have done with our wealth. It does not teach against the acquisition of wealth but rather teaches against the obsession with acquiring wealth. This teaching is not unusual in western religions. I can't speak for eastern religions views on them. I'm not particularly knowledgeable in eastern religions. Certainly the three major western religions have no problems with rich people. I'm not familiar at all with the mythical guy you speak of though I'm interested in him as exploring various religions fascinates me.

You realize that the filthy rich fund both right wing causes and left wing causes right? Democrats have been known to have $150k a plate fundraisers just as much as Republicans do.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Last edited by A.Nonymous; August 15th, 2012 at 09:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2012, 11:06 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Which mythical guy told that story? I've certainly never heard it though I'm hardly an expert on every religion or myth. Jesus was certainly not against rich people. John 3 is an account of him speaking with a man who was very rich and came to him by night lest his social status be jeapardized. Not once did he condemn this man for being wealthy. In fact, Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb so clearly his followers didn't think they were desecrating his body by doing so. Clearly the founder of Christianity had no issues with wealth. Jews are frequently found running various banks and other financial institutions and historically have done so. Judaism would not appear to have any issues with rich people. Muhammed died penniless of course. We all know that. Islamic teaching generally teaches that all wealth belongs to Allah and we simply manage it and will be required, one day, to give account for what we have done with our wealth. It does not teach against the acquisition of wealth but rather teaches against the obsession with acquiring wealth. This teaching is not unusual in western religions. I can't speak for eastern religions views on them. I'm not particularly knowledgeable in eastern religions. Certainly the three major western religions have no problems with rich people. I'm not familiar at all with the mythical guy you speak of though I'm interested in him as exploring various religions fascinates me.

You realize that the filthy rich fund both right wing causes and left wing causes right? Democrats have been known to have $150k a plate fundraisers just as much as Republicans do.
Well $150k is peanuts compared to one individual pledging $100m to defeat Obama.

I guess it's which part one is selecting. There's probably better venues to discuss religious scholarship.

Anyway let's get away from religion and discuss the business case part as previously posted.

"Anyway, getting back to reality, bribery or extortion are against the law, which I guess one could call evil, but I believe the technical term is unlawful.

Let's use common sense, when a very select group of people, that are very wealthy and well aware of the value of money and how to invest money to obtain high ROI, make hidden expenditures to select or deselect individuals to make and enforce laws are not fools. Now some of these select group's servants were caught repeatedly in illegal actions that financially benefited their business interest, just proves the need for further investments to curtail enforcement or modify the law.

Now as this is a business decision, one needs to hire experts, which is just a business expense to insure those seeking elective office are well aware that these select individuals will spend whatever it takes to promote those candidates that support or denigrate those that do not support their business interest.

Marketing and competitive research are effective tools to promote one's business interest and is much more effective if the competition cannot match one's expenditures, so these tools will be used extensively."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2012, 06:10 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I just realized you said nirvana. That's what I get for half reading late at night while trying to set up a new phone. That means it's an eastern religion, not a western one as nirvana is a term used in mainly Eastern religions. Can you at least give me the name of this teacher and a link to the story so I can explore it on my own?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2012, 08:35 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Well $150k is peanuts compared to one individual pledging $100m to defeat Obama.

I guess it's which part one is selecting. There's probably better venues to discuss religious scholarship.

Anyway let's get away from religion and discuss the business case part as previously posted.

"Anyway, getting back to reality, bribery or extortion are against the law, which I guess one could call evil, but I believe the technical term is unlawful.

Let's use common sense, when a very select group of people, that are very wealthy and well aware of the value of money and how to invest money to obtain high ROI, make hidden expenditures to select or deselect individuals to make and enforce laws are not fools. Now some of these select group's servants were caught repeatedly in illegal actions that financially benefited their business interest, just proves the need for further investments to curtail enforcement or modify the law.

Now as this is a business decision, one needs to hire experts, which is just a business expense to insure those seeking elective office are well aware that these select individuals will spend whatever it takes to promote those candidates that support or denigrate those that do not support their business interest.

Marketing and competitive research are effective tools to promote one's business interest and is much more effective if the competition cannot match one's expenditures, so these tools will be used extensively."
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I just realized you said nirvana. That's what I get for half reading late at night while trying to set up a new phone. That means it's an eastern religion, not a western one as nirvana is a term used in mainly Eastern religions. Can you at least give me the name of this teacher and a link to the story so I can explore it on my own?
There's probably better venues to discuss religious scholarship. Do you wish to discuss the business case.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 17th, 2012, 07:16 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Both sides have wealthy backers. You do realize that right? There is no business case. Wealthy people back Romney. Wealthy people back Obama. Nothing new or surprising there. The wealthy are as politically divided as the rest of America. Hardly news.

Wasn't really wanting to discuss the religious questions, just wanted the name of the teacher and, if possible, a link to the story. I'm fascinated by people's beliefs on wealth and how that impacts how wealthy they actually become. I have a theory that people who think it's bad to be rich subconsciously make decisions that lead them away from wealth. Obviously one's views on wealth are going to be influenced by their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). So I'm curious of the name of this teacher who appears to be from some eastern religion and a link to this teaching as well if you've got it. I don't intend to discuss it here, just want to do some research on my own. I know very little about eastern religions and I am curious how one's religious views affect one's views on wealth so this is a chance to do both.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2012, 08:22 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
... I'm fascinated by people's beliefs on wealth ...
By using the terms, "I heard a story ...", "... mythical guy ...", "... this story is just a fable ...", most would conclude this is a fable.

As you are interested in fables, this one concerns a religion which is always evolving to reflect its creators and their various factions. It's like multiple choice with no wrong answers.

Christian views on poverty and wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Wealth as an offense to faith

According to Kahan, there is a strand of Christianity that views the wealthy man as "especially sinful". In this strand of Christianity, Kahan asserts, the day of judgment is viewed as a time when "the social order will be turned upside down and ... the poor will turn out to be the ones truly blessed."[5]

David Miller suggests that this view is similar to that of the third century Manicheans who saw the spiritual world as being good and the material world as evil with the two being in irreconcilable conflict with each other.[4] Thus, this strand of Christianity exhorts Christians to renounce material and worldly pleasures in order to follow Jesus. As an example, Miller cites Jesus' injunction to his disciples to "take nothing for the journey."Mark 6:8-9"

"Wealth as an obstacle to faith

According to David Miller, Martin Luther viewed Mammon (or the desire for wealth) as "the most common idol on earth". Miller cites Jesus' encounter with the rich ruler Mark 10:17-31 {{{3}}} as an example of wealth being an obstacle to faith. According to Miller, it is not the rich man's wealth per se that is the obstacle but rather the man's reluctance to give up that wealth in order to follow Jesus. Miller cites Paul's observation in 1st Timothy that, “people who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction." 1 Timothy 6:9 . Paul continues on with the observation that "the love of money is the root of all evil." 1 Timothy 6:10

Miller emphasizes that "it is the love of money that is the obstacle to faith, not the money itself."[4]"

"Wealth as an outcome of faith

Prosperity theology first came to prominence in the United States during the Healing Revivals in the 1950s. Some commentators have linked the genesis of prosperity theology with the influence of the New Thought movement. It later figured prominently in the Word of Faith movement and 1980s televangelism. In the 1990s and 2000s, it became accepted by many influential leaders in the charismatic movement and has been promoted by Christian missionaries throughout the world. It has been harshly criticized by leaders of mainstream evangelicalism as a non-scriptural doctrine or as an outright heresy."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2012, 10:02 PM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Both sides have wealthy backers. You do realize that right? There is no business case. Wealthy people back Romney. Wealthy people back Obama. Nothing new or surprising there. The wealthy are as politically divided as the rest of America. Hardly news. ...
I respect your lack of knowledge on business. The business case didn't mention either party or candidates.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2012, 11:06 PM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
By using the terms, "I heard a story ...", "... mythical guy ...", "... this story is just a fable ...", most would conclude this is a fable.

As you are interested in fables, this one concerns a religion which is always evolving to reflect its creators and their various factions. It's like multiple choice with no wrong answers.

Christian views on poverty and wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Wealth as an offense to faith

According to Kahan, there is a strand of Christianity that views the wealthy man as "especially sinful". In this strand of Christianity, Kahan asserts, the day of judgment is viewed as a time when "the social order will be turned upside down and ... the poor will turn out to be the ones truly blessed."[5]

David Miller suggests that this view is similar to that of the third century Manicheans who saw the spiritual world as being good and the material world as evil with the two being in irreconcilable conflict with each other.[4] Thus, this strand of Christianity exhorts Christians to renounce material and worldly pleasures in order to follow Jesus. As an example, Miller cites Jesus' injunction to his disciples to "take nothing for the journey."Mark 6:8-9"

"Wealth as an obstacle to faith

According to David Miller, Martin Luther viewed Mammon (or the desire for wealth) as "the most common idol on earth". Miller cites Jesus' encounter with the rich ruler Mark 10:17-31 {{{3}}} as an example of wealth being an obstacle to faith. According to Miller, it is not the rich man's wealth per se that is the obstacle but rather the man's reluctance to give up that wealth in order to follow Jesus. Miller cites Paul's observation in 1st Timothy that, “people who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction." 1 Timothy 6:9 . Paul continues on with the observation that "the love of money is the root of all evil." 1 Timothy 6:10

Miller emphasizes that "it is the love of money that is the obstacle to faith, not the money itself."[4]"

"Wealth as an outcome of faith

Prosperity theology first came to prominence in the United States during the Healing Revivals in the 1950s. Some commentators have linked the genesis of prosperity theology with the influence of the New Thought movement. It later figured prominently in the Word of Faith movement and 1980s televangelism. In the 1990s and 2000s, it became accepted by many influential leaders in the charismatic movement and has been promoted by Christian missionaries throughout the world. It has been harshly criticized by leaders of mainstream evangelicalism as a non-scriptural doctrine or as an outright heresy."
As I said, I'm not going to get into a discussion of the religious theology. I will take a moment to note that everything you posted above is a warning against greed, not against being rich. The two are completely separate. In any case, I was just looking for a source of this fable where apparently it is impossible for the rich to get into nirvana. Apparently there isn't one?

As mentioned earlier, Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb so apparently his disciples desecrated his body? And then they recorded the fact that they desecrated his body for everyone to know? WTF is up with that?

Anyway, the idea that wealth is evil really makes no logical sense. I like to consider myself a good person or at the very least I try to be one. If I get a call tomorrow that a rich relative has died and left me with $100 million dollars am I now an evil person because I'm now rich? And what am I to do? If I run out and give this money to the first homeless guy I see, then I've now made him rich. So I can be good, but I've caused him to be evil. I certainly can't consider myself a good person if I'm running around making other people evil. So maybe I donate it to a charity. Now I can be good again, but now the charity is evil because they're rich. So if I hold on to the money, then I'm evil. If I give it away, then whomever takes it becomes evil. If I tell the court I don't want the money, it just goes to some other heir and I've now caused them to be evil. It's just silly.

Money is nothing more than something that reveals a person's character more than anything. At least that's my opinion. You see someone that is rich and evil, and they would've been just as evil if they were poor. You see someone who is rich and good and they'd have been just as good if they were poor.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2012, 05:03 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
... I will take a moment to note that everything you posted above is a warning against greed, not against being rich. The two are completely separate. In any case, I was just looking for a source of this fable where apparently it is impossible for the rich to get into nirvana. Apparently there isn't one? ...
Which part of "I heard a story" is unclear ?

The section "Wealth as an offense to faith" is a warning about riches.

The main issue of the business case I presented is the very few extremely wealthy entities control government leadership, the making and enforcement of laws.

The recent financial crisis were a result of regulations and laws were changed to gut the prevention of said crisis and/or intimidate LEO from investigating crimes because the perpetuators had too much "juice" .

There are too many that worship the extremely wealthy that blinds them from examination of how obtained. Just because one is extremely wealthy doesn't make one divine or evil.

The premise that the large extremes of wealth is the result of the .5% of the population being superior, smart and hard working as opposed to the inferior, stupid, and lazy 99.5% is pure propaganda.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2012, 08:47 PM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I've never heard this story. I'd like to read the thing. Study the context. See what else this fabled person might've said, etc....... Ugh. Apparently too much to ask.

I agree that the premise that 99.5% of the population is lazy and stupid is wrong. The idea that all rich people is evil is equally stupid as is the idea that these people all became rich by some sort of underhanded dealings.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 19th, 2012, 11:02 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I've never heard this story. I'd like to read the thing. Study the context. See what else this fabled person might've said, etc....... Ugh. Apparently too much to ask. ...
Just make up your own fable, it's the IN thing to do and can be quite profitable.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2012, 12:24 PM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Anonymous Billionaires are Stealing Your Election with Attack Ads | Informed Comment

"The ‘dark money’ PACs are outspending everyone else. Crossroads GPS, founded by Karl Rove and backed by anonymous big-money donors, has bought negative attack ads against President Obama to the tune of $52 million! The Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity spent $20.6 million. The political parties and the Super PACs, which have to identify the source of their funds, are making a much smaller contribution."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2012, 12:30 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

These are "anonymous" billionaires yet you publish their names?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2012, 03:17 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
These are "anonymous" billionaires yet you publish their names?
The author of the article is referring to (c)(4) money, which is anonymous.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Last edited by OutofDate1980; August 21st, 2012 at 12:12 AM. Reason: Corrected (c)(3) to (c)(4)
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 20th, 2012, 04:44 PM   #21 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
The author of the article is referring to (c)(3) money, which is anonymous.
No, the SuperPACs operate under 501(c)(4), which is a whole 'nuther animal. I know from experience running 501(c)(3) organizations that they must be a VERY open book. No anonymity in a 501(c)(3)!
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2012, 06:33 PM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Democrats whining about super PACs always amuses me. It's been pretty well documented that they've started super PACs of their own and had limited success. Wealthy Democrats just won't open their wallets for them. Republicans raise more money than Democrats because their donors are more willing to give.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 12:11 AM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
No, the SuperPACs operate under 501(c)(4), which is a whole 'nuther animal. I know from experience running 501(c)(3) organizations that they must be a VERY open book. No anonymity in a 501(c)(3)!
I stand corrected. I changed in previous post.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 05:08 AM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Democrats whining about super PACs always amuses me. It's been pretty well documented that they've started super PACs of their own and had limited success. Wealthy Democrats just won't open their wallets for them. Republicans raise more money than Democrats because their donors are more willing to give.
Yeh, the serfs got conditioned by the false heresy of, "trust but verify". It's a blessed joy Saint Romney is conditioning the unworthy to obey the divine right of the sociopathic rich, or at least their servants, by not providing tax returns for the unworthy to determine if said Saint is [Fill-In-The-Blank].

I beg my, [Fill-In-The-Blank], who is of full so of [Fill-In-The-Blank], due to his forgiveness of his Masters forgiveness of his hopeful servitude to the blessed Koch brothers, who's lawsuit against his Mother, would have resulted in death by stoning, by accepted [Fill-In-The-Blank] doctrine.

Yeh, who is so anointed by the sociopathic rich, who need not provide proof of "It's been pretty well documented that [Democrats] started super PACs of their own and had limited success."

This heresy must be punished "As noted, Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. "First, in January 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditure for political purposes. Two months later, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited in the size and source of contributions to the group.[7]"

Political action committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeh, it is gospel that the sociopathic rich are divine, blessed be the Saints. Crime boss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 05:48 AM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Havent Western governments been funding the Russian opposition for years? I think the bigger issue here is that Romney is surrounded by Zionists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Republicans raise more money than Democrats because their donors are more willing to give.
LOL Koch brothers. Heres an idea. Ban corporate donations and state fund parties.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 07:37 AM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Yeh, the serfs got conditioned by the false heresy of, "trust but verify". It's a blessed joy Saint Romney is conditioning the unworthy to obey the divine right of the sociopathic rich, or at least their servants, by not providing tax returns for the unworthy to determine if said Saint is [Fill-In-The-Blank].

I beg my, [Fill-In-The-Blank], who is of full so of [Fill-In-The-Blank], due to his forgiveness of his Masters forgiveness of his hopeful servitude to the blessed Koch brothers, who's lawsuit against his Mother, would have resulted in death by stoning, by accepted [Fill-In-The-Blank] doctrine.

Yeh, who is so anointed by the sociopathic rich, who need not provide proof of "It's been pretty well documented that [Democrats] started super PACs of their own and had limited success."

This heresy must be punished "As noted, Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. "First, in January 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditure for political purposes. Two months later, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited in the size and source of contributions to the group.[7]"

Political action committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeh, it is gospel that the sociopathic rich are divine, blessed be the Saints. Crime boss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Didn't think it needed proof. I thought it was common knowledge. Both parties utilize super PACs. The Democrats just aren't any good at using them. Their donors are reluctant to donate for whatever reason. But if you want proof of the obvious.

Wealthy Democrats Still Ignoring Super PACs : Roll Call Politics

Priorities USA Action, Obama Super PAC, Says July Fundraising Dropped

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/magazine/can-the-democrats-catch-up-in-the-super-pac-game.html?pagewanted=all

Democrats are apparently reluctant to put their money where their mouth is. Wealthy Democrats are out there, they're jut not giving it up.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 09:37 AM   #27 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Does Money Really Buy Elections?

Quote:
RYSSDAL: O.K., so this is the hidden side of everything part, is that where we’re going here?

DUBNER: This is the hidden side of everything. Here’s what I want to tell you today, Kai: Money does not buy elections. At least nowhere near what we’ve always been told. Here’s Steve Levitt, my Freakonomics co-author. He once conducted a study of congressional elections, where he tried to isolate the effect of campaign spending from all the other factors:

Steve LEVITT: When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really, really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote.

RYSSDAL: All right, here’s the thing: Steve Levitt, very nice guy, knowledgeable economist…sadly though, I don’t believe him. Cause if you look, it’s always the guy with the most money who wins.

DUBNER: You’re right; it is almost always the guy with the most money who wins. That is what we know as correlation without cause. So let me explain: When it’s raining out, everybody’s got an umbrella, we know that. Those things are correlated. But you know what, the umbrellas don’t cause the rain, we know that too. Here’s the thing: Winning an election and raising money do go together, but it doesn’t seem as though money actually causes the winning either. It’s just that the kind of candidate who’s attractive to voters also ends up, along the way, attracting a lot of money and the losing candidate, nobody wants to give money to that guy.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 03:42 PM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Didn't think it needed proof. I thought it was common knowledge. Both parties utilize super PACs. The Democrats just aren't any good at using them.
This seems like a good thing. Super PACs are wrong on so many levels.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 03:45 PM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
This seems like a good thing. Super PACs are wrong on so many levels.
That may be, but when you see one party using them successfully and the other party is trying to use them and failing epically and then complaining and whining about the other parties success it is extremely amusing to me.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 04:20 PM   #30 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

All Obama needs to do according to The New Yorker is pose for a few pictures with needy well-heeled Democrats:

Quote:
Creating a sense of intimacy with the President is especially important with Democratic donors, a frustrated Obama fund-raiser argues: “Unlike Republicans, they have no business interest being furthered by the donation—they just like to be involved. So it makes them more needy. It’s like, ‘If you’re not going to deregulate my industry, or lower my taxes, can’t I at least get a picture?’ ”
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 21st, 2012, 04:31 PM   #31 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
That may be, but when you see one party using them successfully and the other party is trying to use them and failing epically and then complaining and whining about the other parties success it is extremely amusing to me.
One must question the integrity of Romney/Ryan by those they choose to associate with. Drawing attention to this issue is not whining, but a call to question why these individuals should be elected into public office.

Public disclosure: I have serious doubts the gambling & prostitution industry can be a model for sustainable economic growth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/opinion/in-thrall-to-sheldon-adelson.html

The issues swirling about Mr. Adelson’s business practices are not new and can hardly come as a surprise to the Romney campaign. Last year, his company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, announced that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — specifically, that it bribed Chinese officials for help in expanding its casino empire in Macau. Later, the F.B.I. became involved, and even Chinese regulators looked askance at the company’s conduct, fining it $1.6 million for violating foreign exchange rules, The Times reported on Monday.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 04:40 PM   #32 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Public disclosure: I have serious doubts the gambling & prostitution industry can be a model for sustainable economic growth.
Prostitution?
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 05:37 PM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
Prostitution?
Prostitution and gambling are highly correlated industries in a cluster economic zone.

When Mommy Gambles… - CWF

Obviously, the bigger the case, the more publicity gained. Less obvious but more likely, however, are the smaller, day-to-day prostitution deals carried on illicitly in casinos. The organized crime-casino connection, which cannot be reasonably denied, further validates the "coincidental" proximity of gambling and prostitution. Prostitution has long been a moneymaker for organized crime rings, usually ranking just below drug trafficking and money laundering.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 05:53 PM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
One must question the integrity of Romney/Ryan by those they choose to associate with. Drawing attention to this issue is not whining, but a call to question why these individuals should be elected into public office.

Public disclosure: I have serious doubts the gambling & prostitution industry can be a model for sustainable economic growth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/opinion/in-thrall-to-sheldon-adelson.html

The issues swirling about Mr. Adelson’s business practices are not new and can hardly come as a surprise to the Romney campaign. Last year, his company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, announced that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — specifically, that it bribed Chinese officials for help in expanding its casino empire in Macau. Later, the F.B.I. became involved, and even Chinese regulators looked askance at the company’s conduct, fining it $1.6 million for violating foreign exchange rules, The Times reported on Monday.
First of all, it is whining when you're doing the exact same thing as the other guy, but he kicks your butt at it. Failing to keep up with him you stand up and complain at the top of your lungs about how unfair it is that he's doing it in the first place. You can bet if the situation was reversed and the Democratic super PACS were out fundraising the Republicans, the Democrats would not be saying a single word.

Second of all, yeah Adelson owns several casinos so I get the gambling inference, but have no clue where you get the prostitution thing from. I skimmed the article and saw no accusations of prostitution in it at all so I really have no clue where you got that. Adelson supporting the Republican party is nothing new. He has always supported right wing causes. Again, if he was tossing his money at the Democrats, they wouldn't say a word so to me it comes across as just more whining. The bribe stuff? So what. It's how business is done in China. The government there is corrupt. This is shocking?

Honestly, I think it's frustration on the Democrats part. You can disagree with Republicans and their agenda all day long and you may well be right. The fact is they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and they're willing to back the guy they want to win. The Democrats are willing to talk and yell and complain, but when it comes down to actually backing their candidate(s) financially, they refuse to open their wallets. I have to question their commitment to their candidate when they refuse to fund him.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 06:41 PM   #35 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
First of all, it is whining when you're doing the exact same thing as the other guy, but he kicks your butt at it. Failing to keep up with him you stand up and complain at the top of your lungs about how unfair it is that he's doing it in the first place. You can bet if the situation was reversed and the Democratic super PACS were out fundraising the Republicans, the Democrats would not be saying a single word.

Second of all, yeah Adelson owns several casinos so I get the gambling inference, but have no clue where you get the prostitution thing from. I skimmed the article and saw no accusations of prostitution in it at all so I really have no clue where you got that. Adelson supporting the Republican party is nothing new. He has always supported right wing causes. Again, if he was tossing his money at the Democrats, they wouldn't say a word so to me it comes across as just more whining. The bribe stuff? So what. It's how business is done in China. The government there is corrupt. This is shocking?

Honestly, I think it's frustration on the Democrats part. You can disagree with Republicans and their agenda all day long and you may well be right. The fact is they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and they're willing to back the guy they want to win. The Democrats are willing to talk and yell and complain, but when it comes down to actually backing their candidate(s) financially, they refuse to open their wallets. I have to question their commitment to their candidate when they refuse to fund him.
Republican donators are more motivated than others, especially if ones livelihood is threatened by law enforcement or regulation. It appears the Democratic contributors aren't as motivated.

You may wish to deny casino gambling and prostitution have no relation, others living in the real world or those with knowledge or proximity of these industries have no doubt.

Prostitution allegations have been made, see Sands Suit Alleges 'Prostitution Strategy' - WSJ.com

I fail to see how gangster capitalism leads to sustainable economic growth, even though it has some success in Putin Russia.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 07:26 PM   #36 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

So apparently last election, when the Democrats out fundraised the Republican it was them that was threatened by law enforcement or regulation? Last year Obama raised like twice as much as McCain. This year Romney is winning that battle. Clearly something changed. Obama's ability to motivate the base maybe? Nah. Has to be that the Republicans are evil this year while they were saints last year.

Sheldon Adelson is involved in prostitution? You'd better have more proof than one employee making a wrongful termination claim.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2012, 09:15 PM   #37 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

In 2008 unlimited anonymous bribes were not allowed. Candidates had to appeal to a larger more diverse group for funding. Mr. Adelson is highly motivated due to the criminal investigations and now has the means via unlimited bribes he can now make.

The Democrats tried to at least have the unlimited anonymous bribers made public, but Republicans defeated the bill.

You asked for allegations of prostitution, so I gave it to you, stop complaining, you could be accused of whining. We'll have to wait for the lawsuit and criminal investigation of Mr. Adelson to determine the merits.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 06:01 AM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
So apparently last election, when the Democrats out fundraised the Republican it was them that was threatened by law enforcement or regulation? Last year Obama raised like twice as much as McCain. This year Romney is winning that battle. Clearly something changed. Obama's ability to motivate the base maybe? Nah. Has to be that the Republicans are evil this year while they were saints last year.
Perhaps Im wrong, but I dont think it was possible for say, the Koch bros to contribute so much funding last election.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 07:10 AM   #39 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
In 2008 unlimited anonymous bribes were not allowed. Candidates had to appeal to a larger more diverse group for funding. Mr. Adelson is highly motivated due to the criminal investigations and now has the means via unlimited bribes he can now make.

The Democrats tried to at least have the unlimited anonymous bribers made public, but Republicans defeated the bill.

You asked for allegations of prostitution, so I gave it to you, stop complaining, you could be accused of whining. We'll have to wait for the lawsuit and criminal investigation of Mr. Adelson to determine the merits.
It's one allegation from one jilted employee. The fact that you think it is credible at all is ridiculous. If you fire someone and he claims you are a child molester does that make it true?

The fact remains the Democrats are trying to do the exact same thing the Republicans are doing. The Democrats are failing at it. The same people who opened their wallets in 2008 are no longer doing so. Your explanation for the Democrats unwillingness to back their candidate is what? When you fail at something and then demonize those who succeed at it, what do you call it besides whining?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Perhaps Im wrong, but I dont think it was possible for say, the Koch bros to contribute so much funding last election.
That may well be true. Nevertheless the problem with Democrat fundraising isn't that Republicans are giving more than in 2008. Democrats are giving less. Donors who gave in 2008 just aren't giving this year at all or are giving much less than before. I linked the articles above. There are donors who gave over a million dollars last year and so far have given nothing at all. Democrats, for whatever reason, just aren't motivating their base.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 01:23 PM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
It's one allegation from one jilted employee. The fact that you think it is credible at all is ridiculous. ...
That "jilted employee" was the top China executive at Las Vegas Sands Corp. The SEC and Justice Department doesn't think it's ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
... The fact remains the Democrats are trying to do the exact same thing the Republicans are doing. The Democrats are failing at it. The same people who opened their wallets in 2008 are no longer doing so. Your explanation for the Democrats unwillingness to back their candidate is what? When you fail at something and then demonize those who succeed at it, what do you call it besides whining? ...
A select few extremely wealthy some under criminal investigation Republican donors are highly motivated because they don't want to go to jail, so they are supporting the Party that believes in "You get the best justice money can buy".

The Democrats are raising more money from smaller donors (<$200) than Republicans, the difference in this election is Republicans have an advantage in unlimited anonymous bribes from those who are scared of going to jail, the Democrats are reluctant to except money from soon to be prisoners.

Why do Republicans whine when it is pointed out that their candidates are the serfs of criminals ?
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 22nd, 2012, 04:28 PM   #41 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
A select few extremely wealthy some under criminal investigation Republican donors are highly motivated because they don't want to go to jail, so they are supporting the Party that believes in "You get the best justice money can buy".

The Democrats are raising more money from smaller donors (<$200) than Republicans, the difference in this election is Republicans have an advantage in unlimited anonymous bribes from those who are scared of going to jail, the Democrats are reluctant to except money from soon to be prisoners.

Why do Republicans whine when it is pointed out that their candidates are the serfs of criminals ?
hmmm... this may ring a bell for ya....

Let me google that for you
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 04:59 PM   #42 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

1. Republicans use Super PACs to get donations from wealthy backers and succeed wildly.

2. Democrats use Super PACs to get donations from wealthy backers and fail miserably.

3. Democrats complain about how unfair it is that Republicans are raising tons of money using Super PACs.
nefcpainter119 likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Last edited by A.Nonymous; August 22nd, 2012 at 05:02 PM. Reason: I can't spell.
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 05:30 PM   #43 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
1. Republicans use Super PACs to get donations from wealthy backers and succeed wildly.

2. Democrats use Super PACs to get donations from wealthy backers and fail miserably.

3. Democrats complain about how unfair it is that Republicans are raising tons of money using Super PACs.
Well Republican policies tailor to these immoral donors far more than Democrat policies. Should Democrats deny global warming or a need to raise taxes instead of moaning?
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 06:04 PM   #44 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
1. Republicans use Super PACs to get donations from wealthy backers and succeed wildly.

2. Democrats use Super PACs to get donations from wealthy backers and fail miserably.

3. Democrats complain about how unfair it is that Republicans are raising tons of money using Super PACs.
1. Republicans use 501(c)(4) organizations to illegally launder anonymous humongous bribes from those with good reason to hide their involvement from the public to Super PACs and now face IRS scrutiny, fines, criminal investigation and wildly need the Republicans to win to avoid jail time.

2. Democrats use Super PACs to get donations legally from publicly known backers and need not worry about jail time.

3. Democrats have notified LEO about the illegal activity of Republicans and Republicans are following their usual practice of stonewalling. The public has become aware of the Republicans are using the impeached and disgraced "Tricky Dick Nixon" tactics, thus forcing the Republicans use of voter suppression, voting machine tampering to "steal" an election.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 06:14 PM   #45 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
A select few extremely wealthy some under criminal investigation Republican donors are highly motivated because they don't want to go to jail, so they are supporting the Party that believes in "You get the best justice money can buy".
Yeah I don't know... I think Adelson may be backing the wrong horse here. After all Eric Holder, who recommended Clinton's pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, now serves Obama.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 06:30 PM   #46 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
3. Democrats have notified LEO about the illegal activity of Republicans and Republicans are following their usual practice of stonewalling. The public has become aware of the Republicans are using the impeached and disgraced "Tricky Dick Nixon" tactics, thus forcing the Republicans use of voter suppression, voting machine tampering to "steal" an election.
Funny you should bring up Nixon tactics:
Strassel: The President Has a List
Strassel: Obama's Enemies List—Part II
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 09:51 PM   #47 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Honestly, this thread amuses me the most because of how everything has come full circle. Just four years ago Obama raised twice as much money as McCain did. The Republicans pitched a huge fit and raised holy hell claiming that they should be able to use as much of their money as they wanted to back their candidate. After all, it was their money right? Democrats said nothing and painted the Republicans as whiny losers while Obama raked in the dough.

Now, it's four years later. The law has changed and wealthy Republicans are doing what they griped about not being able to do and giving liberally to their man. This time around it's the Democrats who can't fundraise. The donors who gave so much to Obama last time around are no longer interested. So now it's the Democrats complaining about how the Republicans raise money. Last time around it was vice versa. You can bet that four years from now, some party will be complaining about how "unfair" it is that the other party can raise more money than they can.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 09:54 PM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
Yeah I don't know... I think Adelson may be backing the wrong horse here. After all Eric Holder, who recommended Clinton's pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, now serves Obama.
From your cited source "noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of the Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center, concluded that no crime was committed, and that Rich's companies' tax-reporting position was reasonable.[9] In the same essay Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported a pardon for Marc Rich."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 11:56 PM   #49 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
Michael Tomasky: Stop the Obama

"There is no enemies list. There is only, as usual, a lie, and a vast propaganda machine pushing it."

Calling out this threat to America is a public service. Thank you for your post.

Billionaire Romney donor uses threats to silence critics - Salon.com

"Frank VanderSloot is an Idaho billionaire and the CEO of Melaleuca, Inc., a controversial billion-dollar-a-year company which peddles dietary supplements and cleaning products; back in 2004, Forbes, echoing complaints to government agencies, described the company as “a pyramid selling organization, built along the lines of Herbalife and Amway.” VanderSloot has long used his wealth to advance numerous right-wing political causes. Currently, he is the national finance co-chair of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, and his company has become one of the largest donors ($1 million) to the ostensibly “independent” pro-Romney SuperPAC, Restore Our Future. Melaleuca’s get-rich pitches have in the past caused Michigan regulators to take action, resulting in the company’s entering into a voluntary agreement to “not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid”‘; it entered into a separate voluntary agreement with the Idaho attorney general’s office, which found that “certain independent marketing executives of Melaleuca” had violated Idaho law; and the Food and Drug Administration previously accused Melaleuca of deceiving consumers about some of its supplements."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2012, 07:37 AM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

And where were you 4 years ago when Obama was raising twice as much money as McCain and the Republicans were complaining about how unfair the system was?

And where are those wealthy Democratic donors from 4 years ago?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.