Should Obama seek donations to his Super PAC?

[CrusaderFrank]

Some speech is freer than others

 

[Article 15]

Super PAC's are apparently no longer a threat to democracy.

Now there is 'change we can believe in', right?

What law is he breaking?

(Am I doing it right?)

Did I stutter?

I claimed no law breaking. I claimed he called Super PAC's 'a threat to our Democracy', and is now actively seeking donations for them.

He's being hypocritical, not breaking the law.

And your reaction to news that Romney pays a 13% tax rate and has offshore accounts in the Caymen Islands while at the same time calling to "broaden the tax base" and lower the Capital gains tax rate was "is it illegal" and "what law is he breaking"

 

[Conservative]

What law is he breaking?

(Am I doing it right?)

Did I stutter?

I claimed no law breaking. I claimed he called Super PAC's 'a threat to our Democracy', and is now actively seeking donations for them.

He's being hypocritical, not breaking the law.

And your reaction to news that Romney pays a 13% tax rate and has offshore accounts in the Caymen Islands while at the same time calling to "broaden the tax base" and lower the Capital gains tax rate was "is it illegal" and "what law is he breaking"

you show me where he ever said he should pay more than 13%, or that having offshore accounts is a threat to our democracy, and you'll have a point.

 

[Article 15]

Did I stutter?

I claimed no law breaking. I claimed he called Super PAC's 'a threat to our Democracy', and is now actively seeking donations for them.

He's being hypocritical, not breaking the law.

And your reaction to news that Romney pays a 13% tax rate and has offshore accounts in the Caymen Islands while at the same time calling to "broaden the tax base" and lower the Capital gains tax rate was "is it illegal" and "what law is he breaking"

you show me where he ever said he should pay more than 13%, or that having offshore accounts is a threat to our democracy, and you'll have a point.

You set the tone that if it isn't illegal, it doesn't matter.

 

[Article 15]

He's being hypocritical, not breaking the law.

And by looking to lower the capital gains rate and "broaden the tax base" Romney is looking out for his and the wealthy's interest, not breaking the law.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Or, Obama can keep laundering money through his failed Green Energy companies

Gee.....

....that almost makes sense.​

 

[Conservative]

And your reaction to news that Romney pays a 13% tax rate and has offshore accounts in the Caymen Islands while at the same time calling to "broaden the tax base" and lower the Capital gains tax rate was "is it illegal" and "what law is he breaking"

you show me where he ever said he should pay more than 13%, or that having offshore accounts is a threat to our democracy, and you'll have a point.

You set the tone that if it isn't illegal, it doesn't matter.

you're comparing apples and oranges.

claiming something is a threat to democracy, and then doing it, is vastly different than having an offshore account.


you're smarter than this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What law is he breaking?

(Am I doing it right?)

Did I stutter?

I claimed no law breaking. I claimed he called Super PAC's 'a threat to our Democracy', and is now actively seeking donations for them.

He's being hypocritical, not breaking the law.

And your reaction to news that Romney pays a 13% tax rate and has offshore accounts in the Caymen Islands while at the same time calling to "broaden the tax base" and lower the Capital gains tax rate was "is it illegal" and "what law is he breaking"

Topic: Here
You: Lalaland

See the problem?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It appears the President and Gov. Romney will face off in November. There is no doubt big money is behind Romney and is donating anonymously enormous funds to Super PAC's which have engaged in negative campaigning during the GOP nomination circus.

he's already got the dnc to do his dirty work (like taking wall st money hand over fist) but sure, why not?

as the idiot said above, it's within the rules, and at least he won't be pretending any more that he's some hardscrabble grassroots candidate.

Hey.....a Win is a Win!

I'm sure Lil' Dumbya said the same, after the Florida "recount".

Not to worry. You "conservatives'" chances of a Win are looking much-improved....around 2024.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It appears the President and Gov. Romney will face off in November. There is no doubt big money is behind Romney and is donating anonymously enormous funds to Super PAC's which have engaged in negative campaigning during the GOP nomination circus.

And Obama has yet reversed another previously held position on Supre Pacs. He is really reaching into those newly beloved 1%ers...

"President Obama once called 'super' political action committees — which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections — a 'threat to our democracy.' Now, his re-election campaign is asking its wealthiest fund-raisers to start helping him cash in.

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

The decision by Obama to encourage donors to give to a Super PAC was rather hypocritical in my book.

​

 

[Article 15]

you show me where he ever said he should pay more than 13%, or that having offshore accounts is a threat to our democracy, and you'll have a point.

You set the tone that if it isn't illegal, it doesn't matter.

you're comparing apples and oranges.

claiming something is a threat to democracy, and then doing it, is vastly different than having an offshore account.


you're smarter than this.

The point is that both Romney and Obama are open to legit criticism given their actions/decisions/policy positions but in both cases what they did was "legal" yet you responded in entirely different ways.

I agree that Obama is hypocrite for flipping on this. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.....

has a law been broken?

So legality is your basis on whether or not a criticism of a candidate can be valid?

if he broke the law, he should be tried and if guilty, punished. It's a waste of time to criticize anyone for doing something like put money in an offshore account if they did nothing illegal. I'm sure the dems can find something better to be all up in arms about with Romney than this.

Then again, maybe not.

 

[Conservative]

You set the tone that if it isn't illegal, it doesn't matter.

you're comparing apples and oranges.

claiming something is a threat to democracy, and then doing it, is vastly different than having an offshore account.


you're smarter than this.

The point is that both Romney and Obama are open to legit criticism given their actions/decisions/policy positions but in both cases what they did was "legal" yet you responded in entirely different ways.

I agree that Obama is hypocrite for flipping on this. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.....

So legality is your basis on whether or not a criticism of a candidate can be valid?

if he broke the law, he should be tried and if guilty, punished. It's a waste of time to criticize anyone for doing something like put money in an offshore account if they did nothing illegal. I'm sure the dems can find something better to be all up in arms about with Romney than this.

Then again, maybe not.

No, the point is that Obama claimed Super PAC's were a threat to Democracy... until he decided they weren't... making him a hypocrite.

Romney never made a claim that offshore accounts were bad, or that he should pay lower taxes than he already was.... making him NOT a hypocrite.

Both men followed the law, but only one... Obama, was a hypocrite.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Or, Obama can keep laundering money through his failed Green Energy companies

You're either a liar and an asshole frank or know something (which would surprise just about everyone).

If you know something make the allegation specific as to who, what, when, where and how, under penalty perjury, to an agent with the FBI and to the readership of the USMB.

Otherwise live with my assessment of you as a liar and an asshole. Evidenced by this thread in terms of who, what, where, when and how.

Too late. Solyandra and Light Squared are already the subject of several investigations.

​

 

[Article 15]

you're comparing apples and oranges.

claiming something is a threat to democracy, and then doing it, is vastly different than having an offshore account.


you're smarter than this.

The point is that both Romney and Obama are open to legit criticism given their actions/decisions/policy positions but in both cases what they did was "legal" yet you responded in entirely different ways.

I agree that Obama is hypocrite for flipping on this. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.....

if he broke the law, he should be tried and if guilty, punished. It's a waste of time to criticize anyone for doing something like put money in an offshore account if they did nothing illegal. I'm sure the dems can find something better to be all up in arms about with Romney than this.

Then again, maybe not.

No, the point is that Obama claimed Super PAC's were a threat to Democracy... until he decided they weren't... making him a hypocrite.

Romney never made a claim that offshore accounts were bad, or that he should pay lower taxes than he already was.... making him NOT a hypocrite.

Both men followed the law, but only one... Obama, was a hypocrite.

You are trying narrow the point by trying to make it about being "hypocritical" but I am saying it's about whether or not it's a legit criticism of a candidate and not specifically about "hypocrisy"

I agree that Obama is a hypocrite for this move. I also think that Romney's position on taxes considering his own tax status shows that his positions are for his own self interests and others like him.

Both legit criticisms. Both legal, and you reacted differently.

 

[Conservative]

The point is that both Romney and Obama are open to legit criticism given their actions/decisions/policy positions but in both cases what they did was "legal" yet you responded in entirely different ways.

I agree that Obama is hypocrite for flipping on this. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.....

No, the point is that Obama claimed Super PAC's were a threat to Democracy... until he decided they weren't... making him a hypocrite.

Romney never made a claim that offshore accounts were bad, or that he should pay lower taxes than he already was.... making him NOT a hypocrite.

Both men followed the law, but only one... Obama, was a hypocrite.

You are trying narrow the point by trying to make it about being "hypocritical" but I am saying it's about whether or not it's a legit criticism of a candidate and not specifically about "hypocrisy"

I agree that Obama is a hypocrite for this move. I also think that Romney's position on taxes considering his own tax status shows that his positions are for his own self interests and others like him.

Both legit criticisms. Both legal, and you reacted differently.

you can make it about whatever you want to make it about... for you. For me, they are two vastly different areas, and my complaint in this one is the hypocrisy.

Obama has done nothing illegal, but it is hypocritical, so I voice my objection.
Romney did nothing illegal, nor hypocritical, so I voiced no objection.

 

[Article 15]

No, the point is that Obama claimed Super PAC's were a threat to Democracy... until he decided they weren't... making him a hypocrite.

Romney never made a claim that offshore accounts were bad, or that he should pay lower taxes than he already was.... making him NOT a hypocrite.

Both men followed the law, but only one... Obama, was a hypocrite.

You are trying narrow the point by trying to make it about being "hypocritical" but I am saying it's about whether or not it's a legit criticism of a candidate and not specifically about "hypocrisy"

I agree that Obama is a hypocrite for this move. I also think that Romney's position on taxes considering his own tax status shows that his positions are for his own self interests and others like him.

Both legit criticisms. Both legal, and you reacted differently.

you can make it about whatever you want to make it about... for you. For me, they are two vastly different areas, and my complaint in this one is the hypocrisy.

Obama has done nothing illegal, but it is hypocritical, so I voice my objection.
Romney did nothing illegal, nor hypocritical, so I voiced no objection.

And I submit that's just your partisanship getting in the way. It's all good, happens to most all of us from time to time.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Or, Obama can keep laundering money through his failed Green Energy companies

​

 

[Conservative]

You are trying narrow the point by trying to make it about being "hypocritical" but I am saying it's about whether or not it's a legit criticism of a candidate and not specifically about "hypocrisy"

I agree that Obama is a hypocrite for this move. I also think that Romney's position on taxes considering his own tax status shows that his positions are for his own self interests and others like him.

Both legit criticisms. Both legal, and you reacted differently.

you can make it about whatever you want to make it about... for you. For me, they are two vastly different areas, and my complaint in this one is the hypocrisy.

Obama has done nothing illegal, but it is hypocritical, so I voice my objection.
Romney did nothing illegal, nor hypocritical, so I voiced no objection.

And I submit that's just your partisanship getting in the way. It's all good, happens to most all of us from time to time.

has nothing to do with partisanship. But if that helps you sleep at night...

BTW, in case I had not made it clear at this point, I do not think I will be voting for Romney, should he win the GOP nomination.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Or, Obama can keep laundering money through his failed Green Energy companies

​

You know I'm the only person on all of USMB that doesn't have you on ignore, right?

 

[jillian]

It appears the President and Gov. Romney will face off in November. There is no doubt big money is behind Romney and is donating anonymously enormous funds to Super PAC's which have engaged in negative campaigning during the GOP nomination circus.

well, you certainly don't unilaterally disarm. you have to be prepared to go up against your opponents mon a equal footing. losing because you stand on ceremony is naive.

it's the fatal mistake al gore did when he didn't attach himself to bill clinton's hip b/c of his "moral objections" to clinton's behavior.

i'm thinking that didn't work out so well for him.