Sharron Angle raised $14 million in 3rd quarter

Poll Date Sample Angle (R) Reid (D) Spread
RCP Average 10/1 - 10/9 -- 45.3 44.7 Angle +0.6
FOX News/POR-Rasmussen 10/9 - 10/9 1000 LV 49 47 Angle +2
PPP (D) 10/7 - 10/9 504 LV 45 47 Reid +2
CNN/Time 10/1 - 10/5 789 LV 42 40 Angle +2
See All Nevada Senate - Angle vs. Reid Polling Data
 
This is absolutely astounding. I have never heard of a candidate not running for president raise this kind of money in that time span.

The queston is: Who provided the $14 million?
[well, I suspect Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia facilitated the donation. We'll never know if elected who bought the seat for her]
Citizens United v. FEC was a coup by five reactionary conservative activist members of the USSC.

you're as bad as Obama, worse actually, as he has something to lose.........nice.

And its interesting to see, even deeply blue org.s like the Baltimore Sun and NY Times think that this shtick is way over the top too, but leave it to some of you here to get to the left of them.....you should be ashamed of yourself. Alas.... one needs the requisite shame first of course, which it appears, you have none.

And I think differently. Maybe my thought process is deeper and less partisan than your examples. The editorial content of papers is not always to suggest the best policy, given that the paper is in business and has a vested interest in securing as much advertising revenue as possible.
Did you ever think of that?
 
The queston is: Who provided the $14 million?
[well, I suspect Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia facilitated the donation. We'll never know if elected who bought the seat for her]
Citizens United v. FEC was a coup by five reactionary conservative activist members of the USSC.

you're as bad as Obama, worse actually, as he has something to lose.........nice.

And its interesting to see, even deeply blue org.s like the Baltimore Sun and NY Times think that this shtick is way over the top too, but leave it to some of you here to get to the left of them.....you should be ashamed of yourself. Alas.... one needs the requisite shame first of course, which it appears, you have none.

And I think differently. Maybe my thought process is deeper and less partisan than your examples. The editorial content of papers is not always to suggest the best policy, given that the paper is in business and has a vested interest in securing as much advertising revenue as possible.
Did you ever think of that?

Papers are losing money.
 
White House adviser David Axelrod took heat from Bob Schieffer of CBS News Sunday when he did not provide any specific evidence of what was leading the White House to draw such conclusions about the Chamber's collection of funds overseas, saying only: "Do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?"

Axelrod's response prompted Schieffer to ask the key confidant of President Barack Obama's: "Is that the best you can do?"


Read more: Chamber of Commerce to Joe Biden: 'Not a single cent' - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

Sleazy.

Try to prove a negative :cuckoo:


Axelrod is a tool
 
White House adviser David Axelrod took heat from Bob Schieffer of CBS News Sunday when he did not provide any specific evidence of what was leading the White House to draw such conclusions about the Chamber's collection of funds overseas, saying only: "Do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?"

Axelrod's response prompted Schieffer to ask the key confidant of President Barack Obama's: "Is that the best you can do?"


Read more: Chamber of Commerce to Joe Biden: 'Not a single cent' - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

Sleazy.

Try to prove a negative :cuckoo:


Axelrod is a tool

They don't care what the truth really is, they just want to create a negative image of their political opponents in the last few weeks before an election not likely to go their way, and they are using their loyal sycophants to spread these same sleazy rumors. If they really cared about whether foreign donations were being used to fund political campaigns, why aren't they asking the same questions of labor unions and organizations that support democrats?
 
you're as bad as Obama, worse actually, as he has something to lose.........nice.

And its interesting to see, even deeply blue org.s like the Baltimore Sun and NY Times think that this shtick is way over the top too, but leave it to some of you here to get to the left of them.....you should be ashamed of yourself. Alas.... one needs the requisite shame first of course, which it appears, you have none.

And I think differently. Maybe my thought process is deeper and less partisan than your examples. The editorial content of papers is not always to suggest the best policy, given that the paper is in business and has a vested interest in securing as much advertising revenue as possible.
Did you ever think of that?

Papers are losing money.

"Papers are losing money"? Let me type slowly.
Papers are in business. Papers need revenue. Politicians take out ads. Ads provide revenue. Wealthy special interests give money to candidates, it is a bribe. Citizens United v. FEC allows special interests to spend as much as they want to bribe a candidate or support an issue. Papers who need revenue publish such ads. Are the ads in the public interest? No. Should they be censored? No. BUT campaign limits do not limit free speech. The premise of CU v. FEC is bogus, partisan and a threat to democratic institutions.
 

Try to prove a negative :cuckoo:


Axelrod is a tool

They don't care what the truth really is, they just want to create a negative image of their political opponents in the last few weeks before an election not likely to go their way, and they are using their loyal sycophants to spread these same sleazy rumors. If they really cared about whether foreign donations were being used to fund political campaigns, why aren't they asking the same questions of labor unions and organizations that support democrats?

Soros pimp slapped em :tongue:
 
Look, the Chamber confirmed this so maybe you believe the Chamber is engaging in rumors also. It's a fact, sorry you dont like it but reality doesnt change because you dont like it.

Confirmed what?

Link please..... :doubt:

Don't waste your time with that one.

Go find some paint to watch dry or something.

That the money goes into the same general fund..I mean it's right there in the previous quote. I'll post it again

The US Chamber of Commerce has responded to this post in a statement to the Politico's Ben Smith. The Chamber's Tita Freeman did not dispute that the Chamber's 501(c)(6) organization running attack ads receives foreign funds, and simply claimed, "We have a system in place" to prevent foreign funding for the Chamber's "political activities

Now if this is a rumor, why not say in your response..."What the fuck, we dont do that!" They just say we separate it dont worry. Is it still a rumor?
 
And I think differently. Maybe my thought process is deeper and less partisan than your examples. The editorial content of papers is not always to suggest the best policy, given that the paper is in business and has a vested interest in securing as much advertising revenue as possible.
Did you ever think of that?

Papers are losing money.

"Papers are losing money"? Let me type slowly.
Papers are in business. Papers need revenue. Politicians take out ads. Ads provide revenue. Wealthy special interests give money to candidates, it is a bribe. Citizens United v. FEC allows special interests to spend as much as they want to bribe a candidate or support an issue. Papers who need revenue publish such ads. Are the ads in the public interest? No. Should they be censored? No. BUT campaign limits do not limit free speech. The premise of CU v. FEC is bogus, partisan and a threat to democratic institutions.

Yes, they are losing money.

If they are trying to mollify their lost readers with alternative views, it's a little late.
 
Confirmed what?

Link please..... :doubt:

Don't waste your time with that one.

Go find some paint to watch dry or something.

That the money goes into the same general fund..I mean it's right there in the previous quote. I'll post it again

The US Chamber of Commerce has responded to this post in a statement to the Politico's Ben Smith. The Chamber's Tita Freeman did not dispute that the Chamber's 501(c)(6) organization running attack ads receives foreign funds, and simply claimed, "We have a system in place" to prevent foreign funding for the Chamber's "political activities

Now if this is a rumor, why not say in your response..."What the fuck, we dont do that!" They just say we separate it dont worry. Is it still a rumor?

You mean like this?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce responded emphatically Monday night to a direct challenge from Vice President Joe Biden to reveal how much of their funds donated to candidates comes from foreign sources.

The answer, according to an evening press release? None.
"Zero. As in, 'Not a single cent,'" wrote Tom Collamore, senior vice president of Communications and Strategy from the Chamber of Commerce in an e-mail with "And the Answer Is ..." as its subject line.

"We accept the vice president's challenge here and now, and are happy to provide our answer," Collamore added, in response to Biden's harsh indictments of the Chamber rendered at a fundraiser earlier Monday in his hometown of Scranton, Pa.


Read more: Chamber of Commerce to Joe Biden: 'Not a single cent' - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

So yes, you are spreading rumors at the behest of this sleazy administration. Congrats.
 
This is absolutely astounding. I have never heard of a candidate not running for president raise this kind of money in that time span.

Former Nevada state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle (R) raised an eye-popping $14 million between July 1 and Sept. 30 for her challenge to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), a stunning number that far eclipses the cash-collection totals of other prominent candidates seeking Senate seats next month.

"Sharron Angle produced one of the most successful single quarters of fundraising in the nation's history for a U.S. Senate campaign," said Angle communications director Jarrod Agen. "This is a testament to the hatred of Harry Reid, the nation's disapproval of President Obama, and the unprecedented grassroots support for Sharron Angle."

The Fix - Sharron Angle raised $14 million in 3rd quarter

And she is beating him in the polls!!!
Looks Pretty Close.
Poll Date Angle (R) Reid (D) Spread
RCP Average 10/1 - 10/9 45.3 44.7 Angle +0.6
FOX News/POR- 10/9 - 10/9 49 47 Angle +2
PPP (D) 10/7 - 10/9 45 47 Reid +2

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Nevada Senate - Angle vs. Reid

Is this the one that keeps denying that she's a witch or the one that keeps denying that she wants to get rid of Social Security?
 
@ moon

I said they comingle the money. If that is untrue please provide proof. They admit that they do it. You can't say that it doesn't go to campaigns then your proof is "because they said so". Why don't you need proof?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #98
Well, at least we're starting to drag out the admissions that hate is at the core of the Tea Party movement.

Amazing how quickly you've forgotten about all the endless hatred dished out towards the former president and his Congress for the better part of the last decade. I guess it's ok when the party you support is engaging in it. :blahblah:

I, btw, hate hysterical chicken littles who think the sky is falling because they lost a couple elections.

Which you'll certainly be one of come November 3rd.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #99
Listen, my issue isnt overseas donors its that the overseas donors money is going into the same account that they are using to make campaign contributions. it's impossible to say only American money is going to campaigns when all the money is in the same pot. That's a fair assesment am I right?

Yes, but that's a far different cry from the accusations being made by the president and other members of his party.
 
@ moon

I said they comingle the money. If that is untrue please provide proof. They admit that they do it. You can't say that it doesn't go to campaigns then your proof is "because they said so". Why don't you need proof?

So you were lying when you said "Now if this is a rumor, why not say in your response..."What the fuck, we dont do that!" They just say we separate it dont worry. Is it still a rumor?" I showed you where they did exactly that, and you still want them (or me :lol:) to prove a negative? If they are complying with the law (which they appear to be based on your earlier link), then what exactly are they doing wrong? Hint: nothing.

It's not up to them to prove their innocence. It's up to the government to provide evidence of wrongdoing and process that evidence through the legal justice system. To this point, all the White House is doing is spreading rumors about a political opponent based on nothing, and relying on their sycophants to continue spreading the rumor. Why would you support this kind of smear campaign? Are you as concerned about union dues from foreign sources being used for political purposes? How about organizations that support Democrats? You have as much reason to suspect them as you do the US Chamber of Commerce.

Prove they are engaged in wrongdoing. Baseless accusations aren't proof, by the way.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top