Leveling the playing field

Sanity would dictate that Citizens United be overturned. But sanity and politics are seldom in the same room.

It's at the top of my wish list.

At the top of my wish list is that people would be honest. Soros has been funneling millions into the Dems for over a decade. Now, it's an issue for the Dems because the GOP have billionaires funneling to them now.

It's the hypocrisy of the issue that makes me laugh.

The Tides Foundation has long tentacles... very long ones indeed.
 
It's at the top of my wish list.

At the top of my wish list is that people would be honest. Soros has been funneling millions into the Dems for over a decade. Now, it's an issue for the Dems because the GOP have billionaires funneling to them now.

It's the hypocrisy of the issue that makes me laugh.

The Tides Foundation has long tentacles... very long ones indeed.

bro, this isn't about CU, its about them losing any ground in the money game....


IF this were such a big issue ( that had resonance with anyone other than the kool aid drinker here in this thread) they would take a principled stand, their buddies in the msm would have all of their spokeswoman on the shows beating the snot out of the gop for taking super pac money, but alas, its a loser and they will take the cash of course..... if you are sentient, read the decision and arguments, check your partisanship and EMOTION at the door, you realize like it or not, the SC had little choice. Be that as it may.........:eusa_whistle:

BUT they are whores and the $$ speaks..... so any principled stand is out of the question. the messiah aint so, messiah...;)
 
Last edited:

So?

Are you deliberately ignoring that Soros found ways to contribute millions of dollars to Obama and to organizations trying to defeat Bush BEFORE Citizens United?

18 million dollars in 2004.

2004.

Are the words "Citizens United" some kind of magic spell that makes liberals blind to facts?
It's yet another version of "Godwin's Law" where referencing it invalidates the argument of their opponent no matter how valid it is. Sort of like to them saying "Halliburton", "BOOOOOOOOSH!" or "Koch Brothers" wins the argument automatically.

I call it the "Booga Booga!" defense. A thought terminating statement. Of course, that assumes thought happened BEFORE it's use.
 
You act as if soros did not contribute millions to obama in 2008:eusa_whistle::cuckoo:

He couldn't. There was a limit.
Do you somehow think his money wasn't funneled to obama by means of many venues?
As for the U.S. 2008 presidential race, Mr. Soros, who gave $18 million to Democratic advocacy groups seeking to defeat President Bush in 2004, said he supported Barack Obama. But he also said he would support Hillary Clinton if she won the Democratic nomination. John McCain, he said, had “compromised far too much with the Bush administration” and was unlikely to win the Republican nomination. And who will win? Mr. Soros said he thinks the leading possibilities are former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

George Soros Backs Obama (But Hedges His Bets) - NYTimes.com
yep george is shorting the dollar...flashback bank of england circa 1992
 

So?

Are you deliberately ignoring that Soros found ways to contribute millions of dollars to Obama and to organizations trying to defeat Bush BEFORE Citizens United?

18 million dollars in 2004.

2004.

Are the words "Citizens United" some kind of magic spell that makes liberals blind to facts?
It's yet another version of "Godwin's Law" where referencing it invalidates the argument of their opponent no matter how valid it is. Sort of like to them saying "Halliburton", "BOOOOOOOOSH!" or "Koch Brothers" wins the argument automatically.

I call it the "Booga Booga!" defense. A thought terminating statement. Of course, that assumes thought happened BEFORE it's use.
What he said
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top