Obama lied about public money

[Parkbandit]

McCain criticizes Obama's position on public funding: matter of trust
Email
Share June 19, 2008 5:06 PM


ABC News’s Bret Hovell reports: Senator John McCain severely criticized Sen. Barack Obama’s decision not to take part in the federal public financing system for his campaign, characterizing the Illinois Democrat's decision as a matter of trust.

"This is a big deal, a big deal," McCain said. "He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people."

McCain was speaking to a small group of reporters in flood-ravaged eastern Iowa, where he had gone to tour the damaged town of Columbus Junction.

McCain said he was especially concerned by Obama’s decision to opt out of the federal financing system because he – or someone with his campaign – had filled out a questionnaire during the primaries that promised to take federal matching funds if his Republican opponent did as well. McCain has said he would do the same.

"Sen. Obama's reversal on public financing is one of a number of reversals that he has taken," he said. "I'm especially disturbed by this decision of Sen. Obama's because he signed his name on a piece of paper, signed his name."

McCain said he had not made a decision about what his own campaign would do in light of Obama’s decision.

The public financing system would provide approximately $84 million for the presidential nominee to use from the conclusion of the nominating convention until election day. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has already raised record amounts of money, and could potentially top that number through private donations to his campaign.

McCain tried to tie Obama’s decision to his character.

"This election is about a lot of things but it's also about trust. It's also about whether you can take people's word."


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/mccain-critic-1.html


Wait.. wasn't it Obama that said that by only accepting private money, you are going to be beholden to those donors? Wish I could find the quote, but the isp I'm stealing sucks ass right now.

Change... it's all that's going to be left after Obama is done with your paycheck.

[Sean of the Thread]

This election year is really fucking with me.

[Fallen]

It was the smart thing for Obama to do, I guess, as so long as he doesn't take TOO much of a hit in credibility for it. This maneuver just seems to go against exactly what the guy has been arguing, that a new type of politics is needed. Will all that extra money help him overcome this incident? He must think so. I dont think that McCain will stop harping on it until everything is said and done, and with good reason.

I understand WHY he did it, I just think it completely undermined the whole basis of his campaign.

[crb]

Obama just is a typical politician.

He doesn't look like a typical politician, he name is different, and those things have let him skate by on the issues. He can claim to be new and different, but in the end it is only in superficial ways.

I even read in Newsweek, which is as "in-the-tank" for Obama as a magazine can be, how his excuse was bullshit.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142399

[Parkbandit]

Oh, I understand why he did it.. I just love how HE said if you don't take public money you are now beholden to those donors...

I guess he believes himself to be above such scrutiny though.. it's not like the liberal media is going to run this much. Now had this been McCain... holy hell, think of the bumper stickers.

"McCain lied and people defied!"
"McCain hates public money!"
"McCain hates public green, he's a racist!"

[BigWorm]

McCain did the exact same thing during the primary race.

Isn't this going to save the taxpayers the money that public financing would have provided?

[crb]

no, he didn't do the exact same thing.

And yes, technically, it saves the tax payers a little bit of money. Of course it also means that one candidate will spend hundreds of millions more than the other, possibly buying the election, and will be able to do so with less regulation and transparency. Those aren't good things.

[Kembal]

Wait.. wasn't it Obama that said that by only accepting private money, you are going to be beholden to those donors? Wish I could find the quote, but the isp I'm stealing sucks ass right now.


Considering Obama's Internet fundraising operation that mainly consists of small donor contributions and that being a majority of his funds, I fail to see how being beholden to those donors is a bad thing. I've kicked in $200 myself, just last week.

It's not like McCain isn't shitting all over the public financing law too, by opting into the funds for the primary election, taking a loan based on the fact that he would get the funds in March, and then trying to opt out so that way he wouldn't be held back by the primary election spending limit ($50 million) once he realized he could raise more than that and needed to spend more than that.

And of course, the spending limit is absurdly low for the general election ($85 million? That limits it to a few battleground states.)

[Kembal]

no, he didn't do the exact same thing.

And yes, technically, it saves the tax payers a little bit of money. Of course it also means that one candidate will spend hundreds of millions more than the other, possibly buying the election, and will be able to do so with less regulation and transparency. Those aren't good things.

The RNC's got a $50 million cash advantage against the DNC, and it'll probably get bigger as the election gets closer. It won't be as lopsided as it sounds.

[Parkbandit]

Considering Obama's Internet fundraising operation that mainly consists of small donor contributions and that being a majority of his funds, I fail to see how being beholden to those donors is a bad thing. I've kicked in $200 myself, just last week.

It's not like McCain isn't shitting all over the public financing law too, by opting into the funds for the primary election, taking a loan based on the fact that he would get the funds in March, and then trying to opt out so that way he wouldn't be held back by the primary election spending limit ($50 million) once he realized he could raise more than that and needed to spend more than that.

And of course, the spending limit is absurdly low for the general election ($85 million? That limits it to a few battleground states.)


I don't have the exact quote right now but I'll post it later on.. but essentially Obama stated that ANYONE who didn't accept public money was going to be beholden to the donors. It's not like McCain stated this and Obama simply didn't agree to it.. Obama made this claim.

So now I guess Obama should restate his position that anyone EXCEPT HIM who doesn't use public money is beholden to the donors.

[Gan]

I guess my issue would be who those 'donor's are.

[crb]

The RNC's got a $50 million cash advantage against the DNC, and it'll probably get bigger as the election gets closer. It won't be as lopsided as it sounds.
And the AFL/CIO has pledged $50 to fight McCain and that is just 1 liberal group. Lots of other ones out there too.


hooray for money buying the presidency.

[Parkbandit]

I guess my issue would be who those 'donor's are.


http://www.bloggernews.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/soros2.jpg

:yes:

[Gan]

LOL

[Warriorbird]

Neither of these two are particularly thrilling as far as funding goes. McCain's had his own little dance on this issue. Of course Republican projection only goes one way.

[Kembal]

I don't have the exact quote right now but I'll post it later on.. but essentially Obama stated that ANYONE who didn't accept public money was going to be beholden to the donors. It's not like McCain stated this and Obama simply didn't agree to it.. Obama made this claim.

So now I guess Obama should restate his position that anyone EXCEPT HIM who doesn't use public money is beholden to the donors.

Failure of comprehension there, PB.

The majority of Obama's donations are coming from normal citizens donating less than $1000. These are called small donors. If he's beholden to these donors (in essence, the grass roots movement powering his campaign), that is not a bad thing. They're the public in the first place.

[Parkbandit]

Neither of these two are particularly thrilling as far as funding goes. McCain's had his own little dance on this issue. Of course Republican projection only goes one way.

And the liberal "Yea, but SO DID MCCAIN KINDA" playbook is used once again.

Address the issue. We're not talking about McCain in this regard.. we're talking about Obama going back on a pledge.

Focus.

PS - And yes WB.. WE KNOW THAT WE'VE SPENT TRILLIONS IN IRAQ.. so feel free to leave this out of your next response as well.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not obligated to do anything for Joe McCarthy wannabes.

Maybe when you stop warning us about the "socialist menace."

[Kembal]

And the AFL/CIO has pledged $50 to fight McCain and that is just 1 liberal group. Lots of other ones out there too.


hooray for money buying the presidency.

$50? Man, that's a lot of support there!

Assuming you meant $50 million from AFL-CIO, I suspect there's gonna be a bunch of corporate PACs that will match dollar for dollar on the Republican side.

And in any case, all that money will have to be spent uncoordinated with the campaign. The only campaign finance regulation that goes away with the refusal to take public funds is the campaign's spending limit. Everything else stays in place, including the restrictions on coordinated spending by outside groups with the campaign. (the parties can do $19 million of coordinated spending, outside groups can do none)

[Kembal]

And the liberal "Yea, but SO DID MCCAIN KINDA" playbook is used once again.

Address the issue. We're not talking about McCain in this regard.. we're talking about Obama going back on a pledge.

Focus.

PS - And yes WB.. WE KNOW THAT WE'VE SPENT TRILLIONS IN IRAQ.. so feel free to leave this out of your next response as well.

Wait so if McCain goes back on a pledge, it's ok. But if Obama goes back on a pledge, we must get all riled up?

[crb]

Actually, not so far Kembal.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html

Sourced for your reading pleasure.

[Parkbandit]

Failure of comprehension there, PB.

The majority of Obama's donations are coming from normal citizens donating less than $1000. These are called small donors. If he's beholden to these donors (in essence, the grass roots movement powering his campaign), that is not a bad thing. They're the public in the first place.


Failure of comprehension there K.

It was Obama that stated that if you do not accept public money (ie government issued money) then you would be beholden to the people who donated funds. These were his words, not anyone elses. Now, when he realizes it's going to cost him millions for his campaign, that he decides it was a mistake.

He signed a pledge that he would accept public money... now he's going against that pledge. Either he was too ignorant to know what the pledge could mean at the time he signed it.. or he had no intention of really abiding by his own pledge... is anyone's guess.


But hey.. as long as he continues to say he's all about Change and Hope, there will be blind little sheep like you who follows him thinking he really is change and hope.

[Warriorbird]

McCain's just using a workaround, crb. Look at other places flush with funds.

[crb]

Wait so if McCain goes back on a pledge, it's ok. But if Obama goes back on a pledge, we must get all riled up?
again, he didn't go back on the pledge.

He never made a primary pledge, and in the end didn't do anything wrong.

He needed a loan, the bank said "You ain't go no cash." McCain said "if I end up broke I can always take public funds as my option as a presidential candidate." Bank says "okay, you're not such a credit risk afterall."

Reminding a bank he has the option to take public funds if the need arises is not the same thing as taking or not taking those funds. Democrats, desperate for anythign to discredit him (lets not forget, 2 years ago, McCain was known as a democrat's favorite republican, and now they had the job of trashing him), they hollered for an investigation, and nothing was found to be wrong or against the rules, and why should it have been?

Now, compare this to obama, who said "If my opponent takes matching funds I will, I think public funds are very important to elections, and I worry about the ethics of someone who does not take public offends." and then said "Uh... changed my mind, gimme the private moola."

Big difference.

[Parkbandit]

Wait so if McCain goes back on a pledge, it's ok. But if Obama goes back on a pledge, we must get all riled up?

Obama has already broken the pledge.. so it would be foolish for McCain to follow it as it puts Obama in an unfair money advantage.

[Warriorbird]

Rationalization is our friend.

[Mabus]

But hey.. as long as he continues to say he's all about Change and Hope,
He changed his mind and hoped no one noticed. He will do anything to get elected. Chicago-style politics in the national arena.

[Parkbandit]

Rationalization is our friend.

And obviously stupid posts is yours.

PS - Did you know that we have spent 3 TRILLION dollars in Iraq!?

[Parkbandit]

He changed his mind and hoped no one noticed. He will do anything to get elected. Chicago-style politics in the national arena.

To be fair.. I think anyone running for President will do anything to get elected.

[Kembal]

Actually, not so far Kembal.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html

Sourced for your reading pleasure.

Right, in regards to 527s. Corporate PACs are not 527s. Unions can't operate 527s, they can only operate PACs.

On the Democratic side, MoveOn shut down its 527 this week and Progressive Media USA (a 527) shut down last month. Those were the two big 527 efforts on the Dem side.

In terms of total spending by all groups (campaigns, national parties, PACs), there will be parity.

[Kembal]

Failure of comprehension there K.

It was Obama that stated that if you do not accept public money (ie government issued money) then you would be beholden to the people who donated funds. These were his words, not anyone elses. Now, when he realizes it's going to cost him millions for his campaign, that he decides it was a mistake.

He signed a pledge that he would accept public money... now he's going against that pledge. Either he was too ignorant to know what the pledge could mean at the time he signed it.. or he had no intention of really abiding by his own pledge... is anyone's guess.

But hey.. as long as he continues to say he's all about Change and Hope, there will be blind little sheep like you who follows him thinking he really is change and hope.

Actually, I'm pretty pissed at him right now over the FISA compromise bill. Obviously, I'm going to vote for him, but I don't think he'll be a radical change at all.

What I was arguing is that by his statement about being beholden to donors(which I haven't seen him go back on), is that he'll be beholden to the small donors who have made up the majority of the contributions to his campaign. Small donors are more likely to be normal citizens who don't have millions of dollars. I see nothing wrong with him being beholden to them.

[Kembal]

again, he didn't go back on the pledge.

He never made a primary pledge, and in the end didn't do anything wrong.

He needed a loan, the bank said "You ain't go no cash." McCain said "if I end up broke I can always take public funds as my option as a presidential candidate." Bank says "okay, you're not such a credit risk afterall."

Reminding a bank he has the option to take public funds if the need arises is not the same thing as taking or not taking those funds. Democrats, desperate for anythign to discredit him (lets not forget, 2 years ago, McCain was known as a democrat's favorite republican, and now they had the job of trashing him), they hollered for an investigation, and nothing was found to be wrong or against the rules, and why should it have been?

Now, compare this to obama, who said "If my opponent takes matching funds I will, I think public funds are very important to elections, and I worry about the ethics of someone who does not take public offends." and then said "Uh... changed my mind, gimme the private moola."

Big difference.


Erm, there hasn't been an investigation regarding McCain. The FEC hasn't been able to operate until today, because it didn't have a quorum of 4 commissioners. The nominees were just confirmed yesterday.

[Mabus]

Right, in regards to 527s. Corporate PACs are not 527s. Unions can't operate 527s, they can only operate PACs.

On the Democratic side, MoveOn shut down its 527 this week and Progressive Media USA (a 527) shut down last month. Those were the two big 527 efforts on the Dem side.

In terms of total spending by all groups (campaigns, national parties, PACs), there will be parity.
Eh? "Parity" like the spending of the 527's in the last couple federal elections?

Wiki on 527 Groups. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group)

Must be why a certain lying candidate called the system "broken", because most of the money goes to his side.

[Kembal]

Eh? "Parity" like the spending of the 527's in the last couple federal elections?

Wiki on 527 Groups. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group)

Must be why a certain lying candidate called the system "broken", because most of the money goes to his side.

If you read crb's article, you'd see that it mentions that the 527s are pretty much non-existent so far, on both sides.

Although, the wiki shows that the AFL-CIO had a 527 4 years ago. So apparently I was wrong that unions can't do 527s.

[Mabus]

If you read crb's article, you'd see that it mentions that the 527s are pretty much non-existent so far, on both sides.

Although, the wiki shows that the AFL-CIO had a 527 4 years ago. So apparently I was wrong that unions can't do 527s.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and MoveOn have already been running ads nationally against McCain ( "Not Alex" ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq30lapbC9c)), so yes, unions can (and do) run 527 groups.

[Kembal]

MoveOn isn't a union, and it has shut down its 527 as of this week. It only has a PAC now.

Is AFSCME running that ad via its PAC or its 527 group? Both types of organizations can run ads.

[Daniel]

Failure of comprehension there K.

It was Obama that stated that if you do not accept public money (ie government issued money) then you would be beholden to the people who donated funds. These were his words, not anyone elses. Now, when he realizes it's going to cost him millions for his campaign, that he decides it was a mistake.

He signed a pledge that he would accept public money... now he's going against that pledge. Either he was too ignorant to know what the pledge could mean at the time he signed it.. or he had no intention of really abiding by his own pledge... is anyone's guess.


But hey.. as long as he continues to say he's all about Change and Hope, there will be blind little sheep like you who follows him thinking he really is change and hope.

Lol. Is this like the time you said anyone who ignores a poster is a pathetic little nerd, then you claimed that it was okay for you to ignore Keller because he really hurt your feelings?

This whole issue is silly. Why exactly *should* he stay with public funding if A) he can do it without compromising his own principles and B) is better able to run his campaign in the process?

If he went with public funding you all would be saying that he was stupid for not using the system to his advantage.

[waywardgs]

Wait.. wasn't it Obama that said that by only accepting private money, you are going to be beholden to those donors? Wish I could find the quote, but the isp I'm stealing sucks ass right now.


*groan*

[Mabus]

MoveOn isn't a union, and it has shut down its 527 as of this week. It only has a PAC now.

Is AFSCME running that ad via its PAC or its 527 group? Both types of organizations can run ads.
I know MoveOn isn't a union. It still had its 527 when the ad was written, produced and first aired.

The two groups together spent over $500,000 on running the ad. Since I am in one of the states of the buy I get to watch it every time I have commercial TV on.

Since it does not specifically call for the election of a candidate it could well be the last gasp of the MoveOn 527. I really do not know.

Truth is I have not been able to find whether it was the PAC or 527 group of either organization. That was after a few calls to some folks and a lot of googling and reading links (even the main websites of the organizations). Good point you brought up.

[Parkbandit]

Lol. Is this like the time you said anyone who ignores a poster is a pathetic little nerd, then you claimed that it was okay for you to ignore Keller because he really hurt your feelings?

This whole issue is silly. Why exactly *should* he stay with public funding if A) he can do it without compromising his own principles and B) is better able to run his campaign in the process?

If he went with public funding you all would be saying that he was stupid for not using the system to his advantage.

Awe.. and I thought only the adults were going to be debating today. Isn't it time for bed, boy?

[TheEschaton]

I think the question here, Daniel, is whether or not he's going against those (stated) principles.

And if he's really making the claim that people should trust him not to be 'beholden,' then that's pretty...arrogant. It's simply playing on the Do-No-Wrong Messianic quality people like Back attribute to him.

[Daniel]

Awe.. and I thought only the adults were going to be debating today. Isn't it time for bed, boy?


Great response there PB. I'm so happy that your blatant hypocrisy doesn't stop you from being a raging douche.


:rofl:

[Daniel]

I think the question here, Daniel, is whether or not he's going against those (stated) principles.

And if he's really making the claim that people should trust him not to be 'beholden,' then that's pretty...arrogant. It's simply playing on the Do-No-Wrong Messianic quality people like Back attribute to him.


Well, I guess that is the question. He's risen record amounts of money on donations of $200 or less. I think that buys him a little bit of leeway. Your mileage may vary, but I'd be curious to hear why you think he is beholden.

[Parkbandit]

Great response there PB. I'm so happy that your blatant hypocrisy doesn't stop you from being a raging douche.


:rofl:


Hey Backlash Jr.... we're banning you from the use of that word until you actually stop being the definition of it on every post.

Thanks.

[TheEschaton]

Because he has shown himself to be like other politicians in areas where many HOPED he'd bring CHANGE?

[Daniel]

Hey Backlash Jr.... we're banning you from the use of that word until you actually stop being the definition of it on every post.

Thanks.

Lol @ your pathetic excuses to deflect attacks. Is this going one of those cases where you were "mistaken" about what was said, and thus not a hypocrite?

Oh. Please point out how I'm being one. This is always good for a laugh.

Thanks.

[Daniel]

Because he has shown himself to be like other politicians in areas where many HOPED he'd bring CHANGE?

That's interesting. I don't see many of his supporters crying foul about this. Just the ones who don't support him.

[Mabus]

That's interesting. I don't see many of his supporters crying foul about this. Just the ones who don't support him.

What have you seen his supporters "crying foul" about?

Every one of his supporters I have met is fanatical. In their eyes he can do no wrong. It is like "mirror world", and the GW supporters flipped to him.

[Daniel]

What have you seen his supporters "crying foul" about?

Every one of his supporters I have met is fanatical. In their eyes he can do no wrong. It is like "mirror world", and the GW supporters flipped to him.

It's all a conspiracy.

[Warriorbird]

http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/tinfoil1.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Lol @ your pathetic excuses to deflect attacks. Is this going one of those cases where you were "mistaken" about what was said, and thus not a hypocrite?

Oh. Please point out how I'm being one. This is always good for a laugh.

Thanks.

This will be my last response to you in this regard.. because to be honest, your entertainment value has reached zero... which coincidentally is about the same as your valid points in any post.

Here's where you are being your typical hypocrite:


Great response there PB. I'm so happy that your blatant hypocrisy doesn't stop you from being a raging douche.


:rofl:

Notice how you are sarcastically claiming my response isn't measuring up.. and then you do the same exact thing with the rest of the post. That, and you, are the pure definition of hypocrisy (glad you finally learned how to spell it correctly btw.. grats you).

Seriously.. our bickering is getting old even to me. We do it in every single political thread. So let's just say we will never agree with each other and try to be semi-mature about it. Obviously, the burden will lie with me... since I believe you incapable of such restraint.

Prove me wrong.

[Mabus]

It's all a conspiracy.
Maybe to you, to me I see it as ignorance.

I have asked his supporters why they are supporting him. Some say "To bring the troops home!", when even he now claims it may take longer then 16 months, and that he will listen to the strategy of the generals. Some say "Jobs, and economy!" when his tax policies will sink business and steal money from a good portion of the working classes (not to mention his tax on all carbon-based fuels will raise all prices).

You cannot talk facts to Obamaniacs. No matter how you present items they say "She did it too!", or "He did it too!", or "That doesn't matter!".

So tell me what his supporters do not like about him, or tell me why they support him, but if it is only a cult of personality then call it the ignorance that supporting him truly is.

[Mabus]

http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/tinfoil1.jpg
A picture of an Obama supporter!

[Warriorbird]

I love it whenever PB suggests restraint. I find it much more entertaining than a Mabus post about Obama.

[Daniel]

Notice how you are sarcastically claiming my response isn't measuring up.. and then you do the same exact thing with the rest of the post. That, and you, are the pure definition of hypocrisy (glad you finally learned how to spell it correctly btw.. grats you).


Lol. Exactly. I'm going to respond to your "I only thought adults were discussing things in this thread" with a well thoughout and sourced post detailing the absurdity of your statement.

You really are fucking retarded.



Seriously.. our bickering is getting old even to me. We do it in every single political thread. So let's just say we will never agree with each other and try to be semi-mature about it. Obviously, the burden will lie with me... since I believe you incapable of such restraint.

Prove me wrong.

And miss you making a complete jackass out of yourself on a daily basis?

No thanks. Feel free to ignore me though. At least you won't have to listen to me calling you a pathetic nerd.

[Parkbandit]

Wow, 3 minutes to prove me right.

Thanks.

[Daniel]

:rofl:

I guess the worse thing is that you have kids. I shudder to think of how petty and childish they are.

[Mabus]

I love it whenever PB suggests restraint. I find it much more entertaining than a Mabus post about Obama.
Then give me a good post about Obama.

Talk about his policies that you find will be good for the country. Be specific.

[Parkbandit]

Then give me a good post about Obama.

Talk about his policies that you find will be good for the country. Be specific.

Oops.. you just used the term "specific" when discussing Obama and policy.

For shame.

[Parkbandit]

:rofl:

I guess the worse thing is that you have kids. I shudder to think of how petty and childish they are.

Thankfully, you don't. Oh wait... according to the latest stats, you probably do have at least one kid.

[Warriorbird]

1. Leaving Iraq.
2. Not invading Iran.
3. Not appointing members of the court solely based on whether they feel abortion should be banned, torture should be okay, and gay people should never get hitched.
4. Net neutrality

Most of the rest is a wash. I'd rather waste money on programs that benefit Americans than the Middle East or Dubai though.

[Parkbandit]

1 - I'll give you
2 - Source of where McCain said he's invading Iran please.
3 - Did you honestly post that with a straight face? Do you honestly believe that Obama will appoint anyone but the most liberal of judges?
4 - Impossible, unless he's breaking all the campaign promises.

[Daniel]

This will be my last response to you in this regard..So let's just say we will never agree with each other and try to be semi-mature about it. Obviously, the burden will lie with me... since I believe you incapable of such restraint.





Wow, 3 minutes to prove me right.

Thanks.



Thankfully, you don't. Oh wait... according to the latest stats, you probably do have at least one kid.




And miss you making a complete jackass out of yourself on a daily basis?

No thanks. Feel free to ignore me though. At least you won't have to listen to me calling you a pathetic nerd.


See what I mean??

:rofl:

[Warriorbird]

The problem is... those things don't really correlate to "liberal judge" but merely "not being a member of the religious right and or a crazed nationalist."

I'm not sure you know what net neutrality is, Parkbandit. You ought to Google it.

[Parkbandit]

The problem is... those things don't really correlate to "liberal judge" but merely "not being a member of the religious right and or a crazed nationalist."

I'm not sure you know what net neutrality is, Parkbandit. You ought to Google it.


No, but Obama will nominate the most legislative justices he can find to push his socialist agenda. And I know what net neutrality is.. I read it wrong. I thought you were talking about his campaign promise about not paying for programs via national debt.

[Warriorbird]

You seemed rational for a bit there.

Ah well.

Back to...

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/JosephMcCarthyCBSSeeitNow.jpg

[Parkbandit]

And you should go back to snorkling with Obama's dick. Just make sure Daniel and Backlash can take a nut each.

[Warriorbird]

Mature.

[Parkbandit]

Mature.

Oh.. would it have been better if I just posted a picture of it like you did?

That's what I thought.

[crb]

1. Leaving Iraq.
2. Not invading Iran.
3. Not appointing members of the court solely based on whether they feel abortion should be banned, torture should be okay, and gay people should never get hitched.
4. Net neutrality

Most of the rest is a wash. I'd rather waste money on programs that benefit Americans than the Middle East or Dubai though.
I'll just point out that McCain has been vocally against torture from the getgo.

[Warriorbird]

Waterboarding, of course, "not being torture?" If that's what works for you, crb.

I'd much rather see a picture than you bring up gay sex again, Parkbandit. The McCarthy picture is on topic with your little "socialist scare" nonsense too.

[Parkbandit]

Waterboarding, of course, "not being torture?" If that's what works for you, crb.

I'd much rather see a picture than you bring up gay sex again, Parkbandit. The McCarthy picture is on topic with your little "socialist scare" nonsense too.


You sucking on Obama's dick is more of a metaphor.. and far more on topic and accurate than anything you've presented so far.

[Warriorbird]

Is this how you raise your daughters to engage in political discourse?

Or is this some late in life fantasy you should discuss with your wife?

[Parkbandit]

Is this how you raise your daughters to engage in political discourse?

Or is this some late in life fantasy you should discuss with your wife?

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/dumbass_award.jpg

[Keller]

PB Troll Alert Level RED. Beward of GIFS.

[Warriorbird]

And here I was hoping for an Ignore.

Ah well.

[Daniel]

PB Troll Alert Level RED. Beward of GIFS.

Rofl

[Mabus]

1. Leaving Iraq.
"Well, you know, I never say there's nothing or never or no way in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq." - Obama (6/5/08)

His once firm commitment to declare defeat and surrender has changed to a "maybe".


2. Not invading Iran.
"Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."

Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons."
-Chicago Sun Times

3. Not appointing members of the court solely based on whether they feel abortion should be banned, torture should be okay, and gay people should never get hitched.
"When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.

Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.

I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.

I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation." -Obama

I disagree with him on this. The way the founders, and Madison, created the document already allows it to be "living". It is called "amendments". If you want to modernize the Constitution you amend it, not just reinterpret it to suit your needs.

4. Net neutrality
Obama states support for laws guaranteeing net neutrality, but has not come out with full support for keeping the internet tax free.

McCain does not believe in government regulation of how a business operates its service, but instead believes that an open market and competition will keep the net neutral. He does support making the internet a "world-wide tax-free zone", with a full moratorium on all internet taxation.

I don't know that I want our congress passing any laws dealing with net neutrality. It is likely that some of the items that are put in any bill will be anything but neutral. I say let it ride the way it is without new laws (with their corporate friendly provisions well-hidden) and let consumers leave any company that tries to hijack their internet into non-neutral territory.

Most of the rest is a wash. I'd rather waste money on programs that benefit Americans than the Middle East or Dubai though.
I'd rather not waste any money.

Of the stated reasons only the stance on net neutrality seems set in stone as different, and that can (and likely will) change.

Thank you for your post. I was sincerely interested in why a person would vote for Obama.

[Mabus]

Waterboarding, of course, "not being torture?" If that's what works for you, crb.

"All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today," -McCain (on water boarding)

"They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." -McCain (on water boarding)

McCain is against water boarding, no matter how many left websites try to spin it differently.

The ban he voted against was not specifically about water boarding. It was a bill that would have limited all intelligence services to the techniques in the U.S. Army field manual on interrogations.

Obama did not vote to ban water boarding either, he skipped the vote.

[Back]

Obama is the anti-Christ. He will bring the blood moon, the crowns of kings, and trumpets.

[Warriorbird]

I'd expect no less from you, Mabus. You're sort of like Latrin except you only argue one side.

[Parkbandit]

Obama is the anti-Christ. He will bring the blood moon, the crowns of kings, and trumpets.

You logged into the wrong account ClydeR

[Gan]

Obama did not vote to ban water boarding either, he skipped the vote.

I've been hearing that he's either skipped or voted "present" on a lot of crucial bills in his tenure as Senator.

Thats concerning.

[Warriorbird]

Curious how only Republicans seem to care.

[Kefka]

2 - Source of where McCain said he's invading Iran please.

Bomb Iran? I think his intentions are pretty clear.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/19/bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-iran/

[Kefka]

Curious how only Republicans seem to care.

And strong Hillary supporters

[Parkbandit]

Bomb Iran? I think his intentions are pretty clear.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/19/bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-iran/

I was actually expecting WB to make this retarded claim.. but you will do.

Man, your life must really suck if you have such a low sense of humor.

[Kefka]

I was actually expecting WB to make this retarded claim.. but you will do.

Man, your life must really suck if you have such a low sense of humor.

Let's nuke Israel. LOL! I'm only joking! :lol:

[Parkbandit]

Let's nuke Israel. LOL! I'm only joking! :lol:

Put it to words, then sing it to a known melody. Then right after, maybe actually talk about the issue and what your stance is on it.

Oh wait.. that would be what McCain did. But instead of actually taking the entire thing in, you focus on the joke and then are done with it.

[Mabus]

I'd expect no less from you, Mabus. You're sort of like Latrin except you only argue one side.
This is a discussion board. You could discuss why you disagree with the substance of my post, or you could make "snappy" one-liners and skip any reasoning.

[Warriorbird]

Your "proof" contradicts a number of traditional Republican charges about him. My willingness to believe anything you say is also reduced by the sheer amount and vehemence of what you've posted... as well as my observations of you dodging or avoiding anything you're confronted with in response.

We both should get back to recruiting supporters for third party candidates. ClydeR needs some leveling up, too.

[crb]

Put it to words, then sing it to a known melody. Then right after, maybe actually talk about the issue and what your stance is on it.

Oh wait.. that would be what McCain did. But instead of actually taking the entire thing in, you focus on the joke and then are done with it.
One of McCain's problems is his candor and his openness with the press. There is hardly a minute when a reporter isn't around him. He gives the media more access than any other candidate in history.

So, inevitably things get taken out of context and people assume he was talking all serious when he said them.

Now, contrast that with Obama, he keeps the media at a distance and tends to only interact with them in choreographed ways. There have been articles in leading newspapers about how the media has been restricted from accessing him (and they're none too happya bout it).

[Warriorbird]

I don't think there's been much of a serious media critique of McCain at all. Obama's had a bunch of stuff leveled at him... much of it intensely spurious. The only intensely spurious thing that has been thrown at McCain was his "affair."

[Gan]

Curious how only Republicans seem to care.

So its not important that a senator would vote 'present' or not even attend rathern than vote according to the mandate of his constituency?

[Mabus]

Your "proof" contradicts a number of traditional Republican charges about him.
I am not a "traditional Republican". I could care less about spin, hype or talking points. Valid criticism is valid criticism.

Refute or respond to what was posted, that is how discussions go.

My willingness to believe anything you say is also reduced by the sheer amount and vehemence of what you've posted...
I have posted nothing but facts that are easily found by anyone that looks for them and my opinions surrounding these facts.

That people cannot respond in a mature, adult way to them shows that there is likely no defense of the candidate on the issues I have brought forward other then "he did it too!", "She did it too!", "They did it too!" or personal attacks.


as well as my observations of you dodging or avoiding anything you're confronted with in response.
I have dodged nothing. The only person that believed so was Daniel (on the TUCC anti-Semite issue) and the issue was him not wanting to accept that the Hamas charter was anti-Semitic. Please point to any other posts where you believe I have done so. Be happy to go respond.


We both should get back to recruiting supporters for third party candidates. ClydeR needs some leveling up, too.
I have obtained over 500 signatures from registered voters this previous week. I will get between 2,000-5,000 valid signatures this week at a large outdoor music festival. 15,000 valid before August 21st are needed to place Nader on the ballot in Ohio.

So I am doing my part. How about you?

[Parkbandit]

So its not important that a senator would vote 'present' or not even attend rathern than vote according to the mandate of his constituency?

Not if he's the Messiah.

[Warriorbird]

Ah Mabus...

1. "A Man's Word." "Obama Family Liberated Auschwitz" "Obama Expresses His Opinion On Small Towns"

You say discussions go a specific way and don't here. This might tell you something... despite you using the tactics you bemoan.

Attempted character assassination through sound bytes is exactly standard Republican. Reference "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"

2. When 90% percent of your posts are about your "I'm an immigrant! I had it tough! Black people should suck it up!" hate for Obama... I think your posted content is a valid part of the argument.

3. Not even worth my time. Maybe if you seemed like you'd even respond to any argument.

4. You're ahead of me by a couple hundred signature wise. With that said, however, I'm out of town for three weeks. I've gotten three hundred dollars donated to Barr by a pair of relatives who voted for Bush twice though.

[Mabus]

1. "A Man's Word." "Obama Family Liberated Auschwitz" "Obama Expresses His Opinion On Small Towns"

All were valid posts. That you (or others) do not agree with the facts or positions, does not make them less so.

Take the "small towns" post, it did point to a flaw in the campaign (and the candidate) that many voters have stated caused them to vote for his opponent. That you did not find it a valid criticism says more about your blind support then about the post.


You say discussions go a specific way and don't here. This might tell you something... despite you using the tactics you bemoan.
I do often respond in the manner I have been attacked. I have been really, really attempting to not be dragged down by the overly negative responses lately.

But when I post a story, links to outside sources and an opinion and get "You suck!" as a response (or multiple responses) it does show that there is a lack of ability to discuss on the part of some other posters.

Take the derailing of this thread.

Obama has spent his career calling for public financing of elections. His whole 10 years of politics doing so. He has even during this campaign pledged to do so, and called on any GOP opponent to do so.

He looks at his fund raising chances and throws his word, and years of calling for public funding, away. He will be the first presidential candidate to not take public financing since Nixon.

How do his supporters respond to his not keeping to his stated position? Attack the poster, say "McCain has problems with financing too!", and state that "whatever it takes to win is fine!".

Even the liberal media called him out on this "change".

Attempted character assassination through sound bytes is exactly standard Republican. Reference "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"
I was publicly against the "Swift Boat" ads, and stand against the "Not Alex" ads and ageism used currently, but I am positive many here see those as valid.

If a candidate, or any of their spokespeople, actually says or does something then it is open for discussion. If they do self "character assassination" there is, and should be, no quarter.


2. When 90% percent of your posts are about your "I'm an immigrant! I had it tough! Black people should suck it up!" hate for Obama... I think your posted content is a valid part of the argument.
Immigrant? "Black people should suck it up!"?

You sure you have the right person? Can you tell me where you would find posts that would associate those comments with me?

Hate for Obama?

I do not hate Obama. I feel he is inexperienced, lacks decent judgement, is wrong for our country and has stated some policies goals (what little specifics he has given) that may wreck the economy.

He is charismatic and gives a good speech. Those are not what I look for in a president, but I wouldn't call that hate.


3. Not even worth my time. Maybe if you seemed like you'd even respond to any argument.
Not sure what you are responding to. perhaps if you quoted the section this is supposed to address I could respond.


4. You're ahead of me by a couple hundred signature wise. With that said, however, I'm out of town for three weeks. I've gotten three hundred dollars donated to Barr by a pair of relatives who voted for Bush twice though.
It is good that you are active. I applaud a citizen doing what they can (within the law) to get their candidate elected.

[Back]

Prove Obama “lied” or bury this fucking thread yesterday.

[TheEschaton]

He said he would accept public money, promised it even, and now he's eschewing what he said, for what is most politically convenient.

Some would say promising to do one thing, then doing another, is lying.

[Parkbandit]

He said he would accept public money, promised it even, and now he's eschewing what he said, for what is most politically convenient.

Some would say promising to do one thing, then doing another, is lying.


Some would. Others would just excuse it away.