1. #8121
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I really have no idea where you come up with this shit.
    As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama became the first major-party nominee since Watergate to opt out of federal funding in the general election. His opponent, John McCain, did not, thereby agreeing to forego private funds (except for some legal and accounting costs) and limiting his campaign to the $84.1 million the government provided. McCain was significantly outspent, and Toner said he believes he’ll be the last nominee to accept federal funding.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  2. #8122
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama became the first major-party nominee since Watergate to opt out of federal funding in the general election. His opponent, John McCain, did not, thereby agreeing to forego private funds (except for some legal and accounting costs) and limiting his campaign to the $84.1 million the government provided. McCain was significantly outspent, and Toner said he believes he’ll be the last nominee to accept federal funding.
    I was, of course, referring to your claim of a negative campaign. You'd be hard pressed to find a less negative Presidential campaign than Obama's '08.

  3. #8123
    negative by proxy is still negative.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  4. #8124
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    negative by proxy is still negative.
    I'm going to remember this whole thing next time you bring out the whole "hows the hope and change" thing again.

    negative by proxy is still negative.
    Who was the proxy?

  5. #8125
    Scarab Lord Naxere's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Can you find someone implying that millions of dollars flowing from billionaires to Republicans is a bad thing, but the same is a good thing for Democrats? If not, you're not pointing out hypocrisy, you're just complaining about perceived slights.

    If you think it's bad for both sides, say so. Don't point out the fact that Republicans have loads of money behind them and ignore the fact that Democrats do too. Both sides are bought and paid for is all I'm saying.


    [edit] spelling.

  6. #8126
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    That's misleading and false. McCain opted out of the government funding after the primaries. He raised over 300 million, not 84 million.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/su...&cid=N00006424
    From your 2nd link.

    Because McCain opted into the public financing system during the general election, he faced an $84 million limit on what he could spend, putting him at a huge disadvantage compared to Obama, who raised $66 million more than that in September alone. Although McCain lost the race, he came a long way from the early days of the campaign, when he appeared to be nearly broke.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  7. #8127
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Which he opted out of. Otherwise, how was he allowed to raise and spend over 300 million dollars?

    You'd figure the two pretty charts would show your error.

    Yes, Obama outraised McCain. But McCain did not raise $84 million. Patently false and totally misleading.
    I don't think you can "opt out" once you opted in.

    Isn't the 300 million because he didn't opt in for the primary process?
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  8. #8128
    Isn't "the general election" the presidential election?
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  9. #8129
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    http://www.cafepress.com/wastedinc/8346339

    Haha pretty close to my wishes.

    I'm a big Lovecraft fan, probably my favorite author of all time.
    Guess we have one thing in common then.

  10. #8130
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Correct. See my edit.

    Apparently you have the option to opt in/out for both primaries and generals. That's the part I was unaware of when I first saw your post.
    I know I just didn't want to get into a big argument about it.

    But I was more replying to concept of the controlled election portion (as per funding) and how Obama basically made it so it likely won't ever happen again... which is very counter to what people think happened and argue for.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  11. #8131
    Citizens united doesn't allow for direct contributions at all though.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  12. #8132
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    Citizens united doesn't allow for direct contributions at all though.
    Don't need them. In fact its better this way because if an add goes south its not tied to your campaign.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:07 AM ----------

    I'm not sure what the 2008 election has to do with Citizen's United

  13. #8133
    I was more commenting on how there seems to be a misconception to many that citizens united allows for unlimited funds for a campaign.

    I don't think the 3rd party rabid attack ads they usually fund are very effective, or are at least close to as effective as actual campaign ads.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  14. #8134
    Hearsay tends to be plenty effective, those rabid attack ads and general misinformation have garnered quite a bit of hate for Obama. Sadly, plenty of people seem to think he is a radical Muslim communist who hates America and wants to turn it into a welfare state, regardless of facts. To be fair, those who are generally believing this crap tend to have a predisposition against Obama for other reasons, but the fact remains some believe it.

  15. #8135
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This right here is why I don't care much. Fuck up? Sure. But its not like someone got hurt. She said a single thing she wasn't supposed to. Hardly worth firing her over.
    So it is okay to go in afterwards and change everything about an appearance so that she doesn't break rules. Why even have the rules?

    So if you break rules, you are okay with it as long as you go back and change everything to make it seem not against the rules, but optional tax releases make you scream bloody murder....nice set of standards you have.

  16. #8136
    I don't think the 3rd party rabid attack ads they usually fund are very effective, or are at least close to as effective as actual campaign ads.
    And they spend billions on them why then?

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:41 AM ----------

    So it is okay to go in afterwards and change everything about an appearance so that she doesn't break rules. Why even have the rules?
    They didn't go back and try to change history. They designated the meeting political afterwards because it turned into a political meeting and reimbursed the government. They acknowledged that what she did was out of line and took measures to correct. Done and done.

    Her case is being brought before the correct authorities and if they see fit she'll probably receive a short term suspension as is standard for these sorts of things. Firing people, especially very important people, because of a minor campaign infraction is dumb.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:47 AM ----------

    Eric Shultz today: "This error was immediately acknowledged by the Secretary, promptly corrected and no taxpayer dollars were misused."

    Oh the horror.

    OSC spokeswoman Ann O'Hanlon said there is no formal rule for dealing with an appointed official in violation of the act. However, the agency investigates at least 100 cases such cases annually with "a great majority" of them being resolved internally and violators getting a suspension.
    Last edited by Wells; 2012-09-14 at 03:45 AM.

  17. #8137
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    And they spend billions on them why then?

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:41 AM ----------


    They didn't go back and try to change history. They designated the meeting political afterwards because it turned into a political meeting and reimbursed the government. They acknowledged that what she did was out of line and took measures to correct. Done and done.

    Her case is being brought before the correct authorities and if they see fit she'll probably receive a short term suspension as is standard for these sorts of things. Firing people, especially very important people, because of a minor campaign infraction is dumb.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:47 AM ----------

    Eric Shultz today: "This error was immediately acknowledged by the Secretary, promptly corrected and no taxpayer dollars were misused."

    Oh the horror.
    So after learning they broke the rules, they went back and changed everything so that she did not break the rules....I ask again, why even have rules if you are just going to go back and change things to make her not guilty? And the President is the only one who could fire her, so no chance of that happening.

  18. #8138
    Who made it so she didn't break the rules? They changed the designation of the meeting because it no longer matches the given one. No one changed it so she wasn't guilty. They refunded the government and Sibelius met with the relevant officials regarding the incident. You're just trying to make political hay.

  19. #8139
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Who made it so she didn't break the rules? They changed the designation of the meeting because it no longer matches the given one. No one changed it so she wasn't guilty. They refunded the government and Sibelius met with the relevant officials regarding the incident. You're just trying to make political hay.
    So they changed the designation of the meeting and paid the government money so that she was not breaking the hatch act. So she publicly endorsed President Barack Obama’s re-election during a taxpayer-funded public event and afterwards we go back and change it so she did not violate the law and she paid back the government.

    So even though she broke the law and everyone at the event got to have a government official endorse obama at a government event -- and we can't change that fact, that the government official endorsed him, we'll just give her special treatment and change everything after the fact, because, heaven forbid, we should live by laws.

  20. #8140
    She still broke the act Bobdoletoo, I'm not sure where you're getting otherwise. The White House spokesman acknowledged as much quite clearly. They changed the designation so they would be responsible for the expenses.

    How is she getting special treatment?

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 04:03 AM ----------

    "As the Office of Special Counsel has noted, these were extemporaneous remarks, the Health and Human Services Department has since reclassified the event to meet the correct standard, the U.S. Treasury has been reimbursed and Secretary Sebelius has met with ethics experts to ensure this never happens again," Schultz said.
    Clearly the democrats are trying to act like she didn't violate the Hatch Act.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •