The ..2012.... Political thread
-
Funny how nobody questions the fundraising aspect of this win... Barack Obama?s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain. But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory. And one question is: Did Obama ?buy? the election? Obama?s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign. ?Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,? veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com. Obama?s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month. Almost half of Obama?s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported. Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors. The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: ?Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn?t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn?t mean a thing.? Obama?s fundraising ?revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,? Bloomberg observed. Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama?s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain. Obama?s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain?s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared. On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900. Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort. But an investigation by Newsmax correspondent Kenneth R. Timmerman has uncovered numerous examples of questionable donations, including those originating from foreign sources in apparent violation of laws forbidding candidates from accepting foreign money. On Sept. 29, Timmerman first disclosed that more than half of the $426.9 million Obama had raised at that point came from small donors whose names the Obama campaign would not disclose ? making it impossible to verify that donors were not surpassing the $2,300 an individual can contribute to a candidate for the general election. The Federal Election Commission cited a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as ?Will, Good? from Austin, Tex. A Newsmax analysis of the master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, totaling $17,375. Similarly, a donor identified as ?Pro, Doodad? gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations. The donor listed his employer as ?Loving? and his profession as ?You.? Some of Doodad Pro?s donations were refunded by the campaign, but as of Sept. 20 more than $11,000 had not been returned. Timmerman disclosed that the FEC compiled a database of potentially questionable overseas donations totaling $3.38 million. The funds came from such places as Abu Dhabi, Beijing, and Ethiopia. In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a speech in which he claimed foreign nationals were contributing to Obama?s campaign. Timmerman also reported that donors from the Gaza Strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through the purchase of Obama T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza. Timmerman published a new report on Oct. 8, disclosing that an investigation of Obama?s campaign finance reports turned up more than 2,000 cases in which individuals made donations far above the legal limit of $2,300 per election. For example, in August the campaign filed a report listing a single donation from a Debra Myers in ?Rancho Palos Verde, Calif.,? for $28,500, and a $28,500 contribution from a donor identified as Woodrow Myers Jr. The Obama campaign said it had refunded both donations on Sept. 30, the day after Newsmax published Timmerman?s first report. Timmerman followed up with a new report on Oct. 19, disclosing that more than 37,000 Obama donations appeared to be conversions of foreign currency, totaling as much as $63 million. The red flag was the odd amounts donated by a number of suspected foreign donors. One contributor gave $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, and $118.15. ?They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,? said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. On Oct. 21, Timmerman revealed that the Obama campaign had accepted contributions from donors identifying themselves as King Kong, Daffy Duck, and Bart Simpson ? without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors. An individual using the name ?O.J. Simpson? donated to the campaign on Oct. 14, giving his occupation as ?convict.? The campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note. Other donors with clearly fictitious names include ?Dertey Poiiuy,? ?Mong Kong,? ?Fornari USA,? and ?jkbkj Hbkjb.? Timmerman reported on Oct. 29: ?A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship. ?Some of these ?red flag? donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.? Frederick W. Rustmann Jr., the former CIA operations officer, told Newsmax: ?Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors. Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.? The conservative Heritage Foundation has taken the first step in what could be an in-depth investigation of Obama?s fundraising efforts, demanding that the FEC audit the Obama campaign. The foundation issued a release on Tuesday declaring: ?No doubt there is great ?cause? to be concerned about Obama?s fundraising effort.? The foundation also pointed to a test by the independent National Journal to determine the veracity of allegations that the Democrat?s online fundraising system literally was designed to facilitate fraud.
-
I just had to share these 3 websites: http://www.isobamapresident.com http://www.ismccainpresident.com http://www.isgeorgebushpresident.com
-
this is another example of making a big deal out of something that's not that big a deal, making a mountain out of a molehill, etc. like being ignorant of black preachers' styles, a lot of black preachers are radical, and making a huge deal or trying to of obama living in the same section of Chicago as bill ayers. a lot of people contributed to obama's campaign, so what?
-
Beatlesfan94:
I just had to share these 3 websites: http://www.isobamapresident.com http://www.ismccainpresident.com http://www.isgeorgebushpresident.com
-
Beatlesfan94:
I just had to share these 3 websites: http://www.isobamapresident.com http://www.ismccainpresident.com http://www.isgeorgebushpresident.com
What a lame joke!
-
Matthew_Montoya:
Bill:
Well firstly, it's drawing a bit of a long bow to talk about the "heard" not always being right when I seem to remember that you were one of the ones who spun my criticism of Bush to mean I was being disrespectful to all Americans because the American people (now referred to as "the heard" apparently) had elected him. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. You can't have it both ways. You can't talk of the will of the people when it goes your way and "the heard," when it doesn't.
You're mistaken on the first part. By the time Bush was re-elected in 2004, I was pretty much burned out from political threads after the madness on here going into Iraq, so I made an effort to mostly stay away from the political threads up until this election. But to clarify on that: even though I'm far more supportive of President Bush than about 95% of the members here, I'm certainly not going to say that he or any President is exempt from constructive criticism just on the basis of being elected. By that logic, we could extend it to: "Well, we shouldn't criticize President Nixon over Watergate, because he was elected twice." Or for that matter, any problem regarding any President or world leader. I think we'd both agree that would be ridiculous. So constructive criticism is fine; the problem is when people replace that with vile and horrific ad-hominem attacks on President Bush, which IS disrespectful. Disagreeing with his policies and with the way he has handled his Presidency is one thing and fair game... but throwing incredibly vicious insults at him is an entirely different matter altogether.
Bill:
Most of the goodwill is going to come not from electing a likable guy but from showing a willingness to move away from a discredited ideology that has alienated so much of the world. I said that in my original post.
But there's three problems I find with this. First off, there are legitimate reasons to question how much goodwill there will be over time. You did address this in other posts, so I'll leave that alone. Secondly, there are reasons to doubt whether this new found goodwill is genuine and deep. Lastly, it's a matter of philosophy on whether or not Bush's ideas are a "discredited ideology." Discrediting (or affirming) an ideology can't be determined by the flat "just cause I say so," but that's another subject which I'll leave alone.
Bill:
If it helps, I'll break it down for you: Popularity does not equal goodness, Goodness equals popularity. Beyond that, I refer you to my signature.
So I just want to be clear here. What you are saying is that popularity does not equal goodness, but goodness equals popularity. In other words, just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is good, but if something is good, then it will be popular. In short, popularity is necessary for goodness. Not necessarily sufficient, but necessary. The problem is, Bill, this logic leads to absurd conclusions. Based on this, does that mean that there is nothing that is good that can't be popular? How about the abolitionists? Were they wrong? Wasn't their actions and ideas good? That was very unpopular. Heck, I'll even give you a music example: did the Smiths suck because they weren't able to break in the U.S. and thus weren't all that popular? Or even Macca: does the fact that interest in his new music since the mid-1980's has declined mean that his music is worse now than before, because it's not as popular? I mean, "Wings At The Speed Of Sound" sold far better and was more popular than "Flaming Pie," but which one is more highly regarded in his catalog? And to use a more apt example, theoretically, if President-elect Obama becomes unpopular then, according to this, he ceases to be good. Now I could keep firing off the examples, but I think you get my point: if goodness equals popularity, then you must accept my above examples.
I get your point. Your point is that you want to keep arguing false equivalences to support your case. The point that you're ignoring is that we're talking about democracy, not hit parades. If Obama ceases to be good he will cease to be popular. Bush was good for a few days and his popularity was at a record high. He's had time to screw up since then and now he's the most unpopular president on record. That's how it works. Performance = popularity. You're a smart enough guy to understand that without arguing over what the definition of IS is. -------- I've read a lot here from people complaining that the election was nothing more than a popularity contest. I have one word for them: DUH! This is the country that elected George W Bush because they'd rather have a beer with him than listen to Al Gore talk about fiscal policy. Of COURSE it's a popularity contest! Jeez, have you only just worked that out?
-
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
I guess this is now the 2008 presidential sour grapes thread
Soon to be known as the "Anti-Establishment Thread" if it continues past January. Your guy ran a great campaign. You deserve to gloat
Perhaps some is deserved but I' glad it's been kept to a minimum. Republican gloating over far narrower victories did their cause no good at all and it made a mockery of their rhetorical strive for "purple." It takes two sides for co-operation and only one side to destroy it. The first challenge for the Democrats will be to avoid the hubris of the Bushies.
-
BandontheRun:
Funny how nobody questions the fundraising aspect of this win... Barack Obama?s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain. But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory. And one question is: Did Obama ?buy? the election? Obama?s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign. ?Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,? veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com. Obama?s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month. Almost half of Obama?s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported. Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors. The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: ?Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn?t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn?t mean a thing.? Obama?s fundraising ?revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,? Bloomberg observed. Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama?s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain. Obama?s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain?s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared. On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900. Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort. But an investigation by Newsmax correspondent Kenneth R. Timmerman has uncovered numerous examples of questionable donations, including those originating from foreign sources in apparent violation of laws forbidding candidates from accepting foreign money. On Sept. 29, Timmerman first disclosed that more than half of the $426.9 million Obama had raised at that point came from small donors whose names the Obama campaign would not disclose ? making it impossible to verify that donors were not surpassing the $2,300 an individual can contribute to a candidate for the general election. The Federal Election Commission cited a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as ?Will, Good? from Austin, Tex. A Newsmax analysis of the master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, totaling $17,375. Similarly, a donor identified as ?Pro, Doodad? gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations. The donor listed his employer as ?Loving? and his profession as ?You.? Some of Doodad Pro?s donations were refunded by the campaign, but as of Sept. 20 more than $11,000 had not been returned. Timmerman disclosed that the FEC compiled a database of potentially questionable overseas donations totaling $3.38 million. The funds came from such places as Abu Dhabi, Beijing, and Ethiopia. In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a speech in which he claimed foreign nationals were contributing to Obama?s campaign. Timmerman also reported that donors from the Gaza Strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through the purchase of Obama T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza. Timmerman published a new report on Oct. 8, disclosing that an investigation of Obama?s campaign finance reports turned up more than 2,000 cases in which individuals made donations far above the legal limit of $2,300 per election. For example, in August the campaign filed a report listing a single donation from a Debra Myers in ?Rancho Palos Verde, Calif.,? for $28,500, and a $28,500 contribution from a donor identified as Woodrow Myers Jr. The Obama campaign said it had refunded both donations on Sept. 30, the day after Newsmax published Timmerman?s first report. Timmerman followed up with a new report on Oct. 19, disclosing that more than 37,000 Obama donations appeared to be conversions of foreign currency, totaling as much as $63 million. The red flag was the odd amounts donated by a number of suspected foreign donors. One contributor gave $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, and $118.15. ?They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,? said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. On Oct. 21, Timmerman revealed that the Obama campaign had accepted contributions from donors identifying themselves as King Kong, Daffy Duck, and Bart Simpson ? without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors. An individual using the name ?O.J. Simpson? donated to the campaign on Oct. 14, giving his occupation as ?convict.? The campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note. Other donors with clearly fictitious names include ?Dertey Poiiuy,? ?Mong Kong,? ?Fornari USA,? and ?jkbkj Hbkjb.? Timmerman reported on Oct. 29: ?A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship. ?Some of these ?red flag? donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.? Frederick W. Rustmann Jr., the former CIA operations officer, told Newsmax: ?Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors. Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.? The conservative Heritage Foundation has taken the first step in what could be an in-depth investigation of Obama?s fundraising efforts, demanding that the FEC audit the Obama campaign. The foundation issued a release on Tuesday declaring: ?No doubt there is great ?cause? to be concerned about Obama?s fundraising effort.? The foundation also pointed to a test by the independent National Journal to determine the veracity of allegations that the Democrat?s online fundraising system literally was designed to facilitate fraud.
I don't really want to have a discussion with you because I have better things to do and you obviously do not so this will be all I will say about it. You also obviously have not had any experience donating to political campaigns. I have had lots of experience donating to political campaigns and worked (almost full time) and also donated generously to the Obama campaign. I know that there were so many volunteers who also donated to the campaign that we were able to have over 2000 volunteers most who also donated in just one county (mine). It is easy to see Obama having millions of small donors with the number of people involved. Also many of the small donors donate more than once and the amounts they donate are added together as they donate so they the donor can see how much they have donated and so that the amount does not go over the legal limit and they usually donate different amounts each time. Also many of the donations are from activists from large groups who want the campaign to know where the donations are coming from so they might add a few cents to identify themselves. For instance, at times I donated from a site where we would add .08 cents to identify that we were donating for that group. Even you should be able to see that this will result in irregular totals. I myself have an irregular total for my total contributions to Obama. This was a true people supported campaign and it was a beautiful expression of democracy. You perhaps need to have anger management and get a life.
-
mustangsally10:
BandontheRun:
Funny how nobody questions the fundraising aspect of this win... Barack Obama?s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain. But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory. And one question is: Did Obama ?buy? the election? Obama?s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign. ?Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,? veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com. Obama?s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month. Almost half of Obama?s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported. Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors. The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: ?Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn?t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn?t mean a thing.? Obama?s fundraising ?revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,? Bloomberg observed. Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama?s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain. Obama?s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain?s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared. On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900. Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort. But an investigation by Newsmax correspondent Kenneth R. Timmerman has uncovered numerous examples of questionable donations, including those originating from foreign sources in apparent violation of laws forbidding candidates from accepting foreign money. On Sept. 29, Timmerman first disclosed that more than half of the $426.9 million Obama had raised at that point came from small donors whose names the Obama campaign would not disclose ? making it impossible to verify that donors were not surpassing the $2,300 an individual can contribute to a candidate for the general election. The Federal Election Commission cited a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as ?Will, Good? from Austin, Tex. A Newsmax analysis of the master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, totaling $17,375. Similarly, a donor identified as ?Pro, Doodad? gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations. The donor listed his employer as ?Loving? and his profession as ?You.? Some of Doodad Pro?s donations were refunded by the campaign, but as of Sept. 20 more than $11,000 had not been returned. Timmerman disclosed that the FEC compiled a database of potentially questionable overseas donations totaling $3.38 million. The funds came from such places as Abu Dhabi, Beijing, and Ethiopia. In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a speech in which he claimed foreign nationals were contributing to Obama?s campaign. Timmerman also reported that donors from the Gaza Strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through the purchase of Obama T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza. Timmerman published a new report on Oct. 8, disclosing that an investigation of Obama?s campaign finance reports turned up more than 2,000 cases in which individuals made donations far above the legal limit of $2,300 per election. For example, in August the campaign filed a report listing a single donation from a Debra Myers in ?Rancho Palos Verde, Calif.,? for $28,500, and a $28,500 contribution from a donor identified as Woodrow Myers Jr. The Obama campaign said it had refunded both donations on Sept. 30, the day after Newsmax published Timmerman?s first report. Timmerman followed up with a new report on Oct. 19, disclosing that more than 37,000 Obama donations appeared to be conversions of foreign currency, totaling as much as $63 million. The red flag was the odd amounts donated by a number of suspected foreign donors. One contributor gave $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, and $118.15. ?They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,? said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. On Oct. 21, Timmerman revealed that the Obama campaign had accepted contributions from donors identifying themselves as King Kong, Daffy Duck, and Bart Simpson ? without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors. An individual using the name ?O.J. Simpson? donated to the campaign on Oct. 14, giving his occupation as ?convict.? The campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note. Other donors with clearly fictitious names include ?Dertey Poiiuy,? ?Mong Kong,? ?Fornari USA,? and ?jkbkj Hbkjb.? Timmerman reported on Oct. 29: ?A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship. ?Some of these ?red flag? donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.? Frederick W. Rustmann Jr., the former CIA operations officer, told Newsmax: ?Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors. Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.? The conservative Heritage Foundation has taken the first step in what could be an in-depth investigation of Obama?s fundraising efforts, demanding that the FEC audit the Obama campaign. The foundation issued a release on Tuesday declaring: ?No doubt there is great ?cause? to be concerned about Obama?s fundraising effort.? The foundation also pointed to a test by the independent National Journal to determine the veracity of allegations that the Democrat?s online fundraising system literally was designed to facilitate fraud.
I don't really want to have a discussion with you because I have better things to do and you obviously do not so this will be all I will say about it. You also obviously have not had any experience donating to political campaigns. I have had lots of experience donating to political campaigns and worked (almost full time) and also donated generously to the Obama campaign. I know that there were so many volunteers who also donated to the campaign that we were able to have over 2000 volunteers most who also donated in just one county (mine). It is easy to see Obama having millions of small donors with the number of people involved. Also many of the small donors donate more than once and the amounts they donate are added together as they donate so they the donor can see how much they have donated and so that the amount does not go over the legal limit and they usually donate different amounts each time. Also many of the donations are from activists from large groups who want the campaign to know where the donations are coming from so they might add a few cents to identify themselves. For instance, at times I donated from a site where we would add .08 cents to identify that we were donating for that group. Even you should be able to see that this will result in irregular totals. I myself have an irregular total for my total contributions to Obama. This was a true people supported campaign and it was a beautiful expression of democracy. You perhaps need to have anger management and get a life.
Sure enough - but please don't be ignorant to our President-elect's foreign and terrorist ties and the idea that he is NOT WILLING to foreclose the sources of significant donations to the campaign. Insult me all you will but please don't ignore the facts. If you think me wrong, ask Obama to reveal his donor's. He will not if he doesn't have to because he knows he is guiltly, guilty, guilty. Ignore Rezco, Ayers, Wright.. sure they had no influence in his life or campaign... you've already had your candidate win, now be honest about who is in office an what he is being honest/dishonest about. Stop being mesmerized by this man and question his associations. Our country is at stake and he is silencing you. A pattern which will continue.
-
Funny how Republicans suddenly have a problem with the free market. Hey, I'm all for giving them the same amount of money and seeing how best they can spend it. But wouldn't that be (gasp) SOCIALISM?
-
-
The worst part is that EVIL RACIST WITCH, MICHELLE OBAMA. Could the first lady be any more disrespected?
-
We have some sickos on this board....poor Paul. I feel sorry for him to have these expressions of hate on his board. I would bet that being the open minded intelligent person he is and knowing his environmental and liberal interests that he would be a Obama supporter. It's very sad to see demonstrations of mental imbalance on this board.
-
mustangsally10:
We have some sickos on this board....poor Paul. I feel sorry for him to have these expressions of hate on his board. I would bet that being the open minded intelligent person he is and knowing his environmental and liberal interests that he would be a Obama supporter. It's very sad to see demonstrations of mental imbalance on this board.
Yes, it is sad that although folks support Obama that those that do support him see no negatives at all. I can reference a negative in every US Presidential candidate back to Washington, but Obama supporters can't name one. I call that brainwashed to HOPE. OR - prove me wrong - does Obama have ANY negatives?
-
His shit still stinks (presumably). Beyond that, I will begin judging his presidency once he has one.
-
I'll add another thought here.. Obama said relative to marijuanna.. "I hinaled frequently, that was the point." What will you say when your children ask, "The President said he smoked pot, what is wrong if I do?" Those of you (majority) that voted for Obama may not mind but I am curious for those of you who have children... how do you now have this conversation that doing drugs are bad when the President of the US openly and casually admits to using drugs? Not experimenting, openling using marijuanna and cocaine? Hmm... exactly where are we directing the youth of America in right and wrong and subsequent consequences?
-
BandontheRun:
I'll add another thought here.. Obama said relative to marijuanna.. "I hinaled frequently, that was the point." What will you say when your children ask, "The President said he smoked pot, what is wrong if I do?" Those of you (majority) that voted for Obama may not mind but I am curious for those of you who have children... how do you now have this conversation that doing drugs are bad when the President of the US openly and casually admits to using drugs? Not experimenting, openling using marijuanna and cocaine? Hmm... exactly where are we directing the youth of America in right and wrong and subsequent consequences?
He does coke too and heroin!
-
nellie apple:
BandontheRun:
I'll add another thought here.. Obama said relative to marijuanna.. "I hinaled frequently, that was the point." What will you say when your children ask, "The President said he smoked pot, what is wrong if I do?" Those of you (majority) that voted for Obama may not mind but I am curious for those of you who have children... how do you now have this conversation that doing drugs are bad when the President of the US openly and casually admits to using drugs? Not experimenting, openling using marijuanna and cocaine? Hmm... exactly where are we directing the youth of America in right and wrong and subsequent consequences?
He does coke too and heroin!
Point being, we, as parents can no longer say that by doing drugs, you limit yourself and ability to be successful... Thank you Obama.
-
BandontheRun:
I'll add another thought here.. Obama said relative to marijuanna.. "I hinaled frequently, that was the point." What will you say when your children ask, "The President said he smoked pot, what is wrong if I do?" Those of you (majority) that voted for Obama may not mind but I am curious for those of you who have children... how do you now have this conversation that doing drugs are bad when the President of the US openly and casually admits to using drugs? Not experimenting, openling using marijuanna and cocaine? Hmm... exactly where are we directing the youth of America in right and wrong and subsequent consequences?
Arnold Schwarzenegger is on video smoking a joint and loving it. Bush used cocaine, everyone knows it. Maybe you should tell kids not to listen to Paul McCartney because he has done both. The election is over and the people have spoken. Get over it. This desperate scaremongering is even more useless this week than it was last week.
-
Bill:
BandontheRun:
I'll add another thought here.. Obama said relative to marijuanna.. "I hinaled frequently, that was the point." What will you say when your children ask, "The President said he smoked pot, what is wrong if I do?" Those of you (majority) that voted for Obama may not mind but I am curious for those of you who have children... how do you now have this conversation that doing drugs are bad when the President of the US openly and casually admits to using drugs? Not experimenting, openling using marijuanna and cocaine? Hmm... exactly where are we directing the youth of America in right and wrong and subsequent consequences?
Arnold Schwarzenegger is on video smoking a joint and loving it. Bush used cocaine, everyone knows it. Maybe you should tell kids not to listen to Paul McCartney because he has done both. The election is over and the people have spoken. Get over it. This desperate scaremongering is even more useless this week than it was last week.
Arnold Shwarzenegger etc... do not openly admit to rampid drug use and are not in the higest office in the land. You bash Bush for whatever, but are you now conding drug use by US Presidents that hold the highest office in the land? You condemn Bush for drug use which was not advertised or condoned... can you do the same for Obama? Is his drug history just "OK" and you suck it up as an Obamafile?