PDA

View Full Version : Obama campaign reverses stance, urging donations to super PAC



duane1969
02-07-2012, 08:41 AM
''Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive''

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/06/10335949-obama-campaign-reverses-stance-urging-donations-to-super-pac

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 09:03 AM
Where is the deception? I fail to see what is wrong with this. Are they breaking any laws, or just reluctantly embracing the laws despite their opposition to them?

duane1969
02-07-2012, 09:23 AM
They run on a platform of doing things differetly, criticizing the GOP for their use of PACs, then change their stance and begin supporting donations to PACs when it benefits them.

tsjct
02-07-2012, 10:01 AM
FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP!! I love how Liberals never like getting called out on things. It is so much fun to watch in here.

tsjct
02-07-2012, 10:01 AM
Where is the deception? I fail to see what is wrong with this. Are they breaking any laws, or just reluctantly embracing the laws despite their opposition to them?

Of course you see nothing wrong with it because OBAMA is doing it.

Star_Cards
02-07-2012, 10:06 AM
It is disappointing that he couldn't run without these donations, but when it's how the system works and when the other candidates are using these super pacs it's not really surprising that all candidates are going to use them. Just goes to show you that campaign finance reform needs to happen. Although, from what I hear, these groups are technically not under the direction of a candidate so I'm not sure how they can regulate them.

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 10:07 AM
They run on a platform of doing things differetly, criticizing the GOP for their use of PACs, then change their stance and begin supporting donations to PACs when it benefits them.


Think of it in this way. Two rival gangs decide to have a rumble in the local park. Gang D (the Democrats) say "lets keep this muscle against muscle" (no weapons). Gang R (the Republicans) say "no way, anything goes for us" (weapons). They both show up (2010 elections) and Gang D gets pummeled by Gang R because they brought pipes, bats & bricks (PACs) to a fist fight.

Next rumble comes around. What do you expect Gang D to do now?

AUTaxMan
02-07-2012, 10:09 AM
Where is the deception? I fail to see what is wrong with this. Are they breaking any laws, or just reluctantly embracing the laws despite their opposition to them?

One of Obama's MOs is to vilify the right for doing something and then to do the same thing knowing that the network news media will generally protect him by justifying it or ignoring it. It gets very old.

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 10:09 AM
Of course you see nothing wrong with it because OBAMA is doing it.

Care to elaborate. What exactly is Obama doing wrong?

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 10:12 AM
One of Obama's MOs is to vilify the right for doing something and then to do the same thing knowing that the network news media will generally protect him by justifying it or ignoring it. It gets very old.

One of Obama's MOs is to TRY TO CHANGE things for the BETTER, only to face opposition from his opponents. If the Republicans would have agreed to changing these laws we would have no need for this thread.

duane1969
02-07-2012, 10:12 AM
Think of it in this way. Two rival gangs decide to have a rumble in the local park. Gang D (the Democrats) say "lets keep this muscle against muscle" (no weapons). Gang R (the Republicans) say "no way, anything goes for us" (weapons). They both show up (2010 elections) and Gang D gets pummeled by Gang R because they brought pipes, bats & bricks (PACs) to a fist fight.

Next rumble comes around. What do you expect Gang D to do now?

Think of it this way. If Obama is going to "mop the floor" with whatever GOP candidate he faces (as everyone on here has claimed) then why doesn't he refuse the PAC money and show that he can win without it? That would set the stage for him to reform election funding. Instead he reverts to doing the same thing as everyone else and proves that CHANGE was nothing more than a campaign slogan.

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 10:24 AM
Think of it this way. If Obama is going to "mop the floor" with whatever GOP candidate he faces (as everyone on here has claimed) then why doesn't he refuse the PAC money and show that he can win without it? That would set the stage for him to reform election funding. Instead he reverts to doing the same thing as everyone else and proves that CHANGE was nothing more than a campaign slogan.

In a FAIR fight he will. If the only way to get a FAIR fight is to "do the same thing everyone else is doing", then that's what he has to do. For you guys to criticize him for it, just shows how completely out of touch you all are.

I thought my analogy would clear it up for all the gun-toters on here. Guess I should have used "guns" as the weapon.

ensbergcollector
02-07-2012, 10:27 AM
In a FAIR fight he will. If the only way to get a FAIR fight is to "do the same thing everyone else is doing", then that's what he has to do. For you guys to criticize him for it, just shows how completely out of touch you all are.

I thought my analogy would clear it up for all the gun-toters on here. Guess I should have used "guns" as the weapon.

you routinely call anybody who doesn't support obama a hater or bias and ask things like "when have you ever supported something he has done."

yet, you defend, everything he has done. you supporting him in everything is no different then the people here who oppose him. everything he has done you are quick to defend or offer up an excuse about why it is ok.

so, should I just label you an obama lover and disregard everything you say now?

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 10:31 AM
you routinely call anybody who doesn't support obama a hater or bias and ask things like "when have you ever supported something he has done."

yet, you defend, everything he has done. you supporting him in everything is no different then the people here who oppose him. everything he has done you are quick to defend or offer up an excuse about why it is ok.

so, should I just label you an obama lover and disregard everything you say now?

Do you think for maybe just once you can address the issue at hand? Explain to me what he is doing wrong. Explain what YOU and your campaign would do differently.

ensbergcollector
02-07-2012, 10:51 AM
Do you think for maybe just once you can address the issue at hand? Explain to me what he is doing wrong. Explain what YOU and your campaign would do differently.



are you kidding me? every time someone brings up a valid issue with obama you refuse to address the real issue and instead just label everyone haters. you are the one who refuses to address issues at hand.

if you run on a campaign of change you actually have to show that you mean it. you can't do everything the same and expect people to be ok with that. i know the obama lovers will give him a pass and find some way to blame the republicans but ultimately he is the one who made claims of doing things differently. sorry if we actually expect him to honor that

duane1969
02-07-2012, 10:57 AM
One of Obama's MOs is to TRY TO CHANGE things for the BETTER, only to face opposition from his opponents. If the Republicans would have agreed to changing these laws we would have no need for this thread.

Ah yes, the age old excuse. It isn't Obama's fault for being a failure and a liar, it is everyone else's fault.

At least we know that everything he promises in this coming election will also be a lie and we already know it won't be his fault.

EDIT: Also, we already have a pre-established pattern for any GOP president who gets in office. If he accomplishes nothing and lies about everything then we can just blame it on everyone else since it is obvious that we can not expect a candidate to be responsible for his lies and deception just to get in office.

mrveggieman
02-07-2012, 11:02 AM
are you kidding me? every time someone brings up a valid issue with obama you refuse to address the real issue and instead just label everyone haters. you are the one who refuses to address issues at hand.

if you run on a campaign of change you actually have to show that you mean it. you can't do everything the same and expect people to be ok with that. i know the obama lovers will give him a pass and find some way to blame the republicans but ultimately he is the one who made claims of doing things differently. sorry if we actually expect him to honor that


President Obama is about change. Unfortunately the republicans are not and are only about politics as usual. SMH.

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 11:04 AM
are you kidding me? every time someone brings up a valid issue with obama you refuse to address the real issue and instead just label everyone haters. you are the one who refuses to address issues at hand.

if you run on a campaign of change you actually have to show that you mean it. you can't do everything the same and expect people to be ok with that. i know the obama lovers will give him a pass and find some way to blame the republicans but ultimately he is the one who made claims of doing things differently. sorry if we actually expect him to honor that

Show me where in this thread I called everyone "haters". I have tried to point out the reason for the policy change. It actually mentions it in the article, but everyone ignores it.

What has been your contribution to the thread? Oh right, you jump in to attack me and follow it up to criticizing Obama for not fighting with one hand tied behind his back.

These criticisms of Obama are PATHETIC at best. smh

ensbergcollector
02-07-2012, 11:04 AM
President Obama is about change. Unfortunately the republicans are not and are only about politics as usual. SMH.

did you even bother to read the article for this thread before you started shaking your head? this entire thread is because obama has decided to go about politics as usual. smh

duane1969
02-07-2012, 11:09 AM
President Obama is about change. Unfortunately the republicans are not and are only about politics as usual. SMH.

So what is he changing? What "politics as usual" is he not adhering to?

Cronyism? Check
Backdoor deals with campaign finaciers? Check
Funding thru PACs? Check
Frivolous spending on special interest? Check
Using taxpayer dollars to support big business? Check
Using White House access as a fund-raising tactic? Check

If all of these things are "what the GOP does" then I guess that makes Obama a Republican that tricked a bunch of naive Democrats into voting for him...

mrveggieman
02-07-2012, 11:12 AM
did you even bother to read the article for this thread before you started shaking your head? this entire thread is because obama has decided to go about politics as usual. smh


Where have you been for the past 3+ years? President Obama has been all about change however the republicans have stonewalled everything that he has tried to do. No matter what he tries to do yo people have a problem with it. If he accepts contributions you have a problem with it. If he dosen't I'm sure that you will have a problem with it. He is only playing the game by your rules.

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 11:13 AM
Ah yes, the age old excuse. It isn't Obama's fault for being a failure and a liar, it is everyone else's fault.

At least we know that everything he promises in this coming election will also be a lie and we already know it won't be his fault.

EDIT: Also, we already have a pre-established pattern for any GOP president who gets in office. If he accomplishes nothing and lies about everything then we can just blame it on everyone else since it is obvious that we can not expect a candidate to be responsible for his lies and deception just to get in office.

What does this post have to do with the thread?

Plain and simple, what is the administration doing WRONG by embracing the current system of campaign financing when they could not get it changed? Don't bother answering that. You are all failing miserably as it is. It really isn't worth discussing anymore.

There's a well-known quip for doing what I am doing right now. I am not going to state it because I do not want to violate the site's TOS. :rolleyes:

shrewsbury
02-07-2012, 11:14 AM
It's weird that the republicans in charge share the blame or are fully blamed for all the junk going on while a Democrat is in office. <br />
<br />
but all we here is about bush's failures, everything is his...

duane1969
02-07-2012, 11:24 AM
It's called double-standard.

duane1969
02-07-2012, 11:25 AM
What does this post have to do with the thread?

Plain and simple, what is the administration doing WRONG by embracing the current system of campaign financing when they could not get it changed? Don't bother answering that. You are all failing miserably as it is. It really isn't worth discussing anymore.

There's a well-known quip for doing what I am doing right now. I am not going to state it because I do not want to violate the site's TOS. :rolleyes:

You excused Obama going back on his word by blaming the GOP. If you can't see the relation between your making excuses and my post then I agree, it is pointless.

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 11:43 AM
You excused Obama going back on his word by blaming the GOP. If you can't see the relation between your making excuses and my post then I agree, it is pointless.

I excused Obama? I did no such thing.

He went back on his word? How did he do this?

You can frame the argument in any manner you like. That still does not make your point valid.

duane1969
02-07-2012, 11:45 AM
Think of it in this way. Two rival gangs decide to have a rumble in the local park. Gang D (the Democrats) say "lets keep this muscle against muscle" (no weapons). Gang R (the Republicans) say "no way, anything goes for us" (weapons). They both show up (2010 elections) and Gang D gets pummeled by Gang R because they brought pipes, bats & bricks (PACs) to a fist fight.

Next rumble comes around. What do you expect Gang D to do now?

This entire scenario is making an excuse for "Gang D"

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 11:53 AM
This entire scenario is making an excuse for "Gang D"

That analogy was an attempt to EXPLAIN the situation in terms some of you can understand better than others. It was not an excuse. What part of that analogy is not a fair representation of the situation?

duane1969
02-07-2012, 12:10 PM
It is pretty cut and dry for me. Obama ran on a platform of doing things differently than they have been done before. He was elected based on that platform. Now he is reverting to doing it the way it has always been done.

He either:

A) Lied about his intentions just to get elected with full knowledge that he would revert back to the way it has always been done after elected so that he could get re-elected.

or

B) Ran on a platform that was unachievable (whether he knew it or not) and thus has failed to fulfil his campaign promises.

Either way, he does not get a free pass for reverting back to the way it has always been done. Blaming someone else, excusing it because it is the only way to fight the "evil GOP empire" or any other excuse does not cut it.

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 12:17 PM
It is pretty cut and dry for me. Obama ran on a platform of doing things differently than they have been done before. He was elected based on that platform. Now he is reverting to doing it the way it has always been done.

He either:

A) Lied about his intentions just to get elected with full knowledge that he would revert back to the way it has always been done after elected so that he could get re-elected.

or

B) Ran on a platform that was unachievable (whether he knew it or not) and thus has failed to fulfil his campaign promises.

Either way, he does not get a free pass for reverting back to the way it has always been done. Blaming someone else, excusing it because it is the only way to fight the "evil GOP empire" or any other excuse does not cut it.

No, heaven forbid if we accept the reality of the political landscape and give Obama a free pass on anything. How ridiculous of him to start playing by the rules his OPPONENTS did not want to change.

duane1969
02-07-2012, 12:30 PM
His party was in charge of every branch of the government for 2 years and did NOTHING to change the political landscape. I will not give him a free pass now.

AUTaxMan
02-07-2012, 12:32 PM
The changes proposed by Obama usually fall into one or both of two categories, irrespective of his stated motive: (a) financially irresponsible/impossible, and (b) unconstitutional. Republicans are justified in blocking his ability to achieve these goals, although they are labeled by you and others on the left as being "obstructionists." Regardless of what his intentions are, if his objectives are not (a) financially responsible, and (b) Constitutional, then they are not in the best interest of the nation.

He also ran on being the most transparent administration in history, and he has possibly been the LEAST transparent in history.

He had both houses of congress for 2 years and did practically nothing with them.

He hasn't even presented Congress with a budget in over 3 years, but he also criticizes Congress for failing to act.

He REFUSES to address entitlement reform.

He has practically DOUBLED the national debt in THREE years, yet he failed to even mention it in his state of the union address.

REAL unemployment is in double digits.

I could go on...

These are all LEGITIMATE criticisms of Obama, but you would rather paint us as haters than address these points.

Star_Cards
02-07-2012, 01:22 PM
I see where some posters have issue with Obama not agreeing with the super PAC and then using them himself. However, I'm not sure why people are that upset about it. I don't have an issue with him using the super pac that is a perfectly legal means of campaign finance and also not agreeing with it. In an election he should take any legal means of winning that all of the other candidates are going to use.

An analogy if you will. If an NFL team voted against instant replay and opposed instant replay, they are still going to use it when it's passed. Do you expect them to not use the advantage just because they don't like it?

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 02:02 PM
I see where some posters have issue with Obama not agreeing with the super PAC and then using them himself. However, I'm not sure why people are that upset about it. I don't have an issue with him using the super pac that is a perfectly legal means of campaign finance and also not agreeing with it. In an election he should take any legal means of winning that all of the other candidates are going to use.

An analogy if you will. If an NFL team voted against instant replay and opposed instant replay, they are still going to use it when it's passed. Do you expect them to not use the advantage just because they don't like it?

Of course that is what they expect. It is Obama they are talking about afterall.

duane1969
02-07-2012, 06:23 PM
I see where some posters have issue with Obama not agreeing with the super PAC and then using them himself. However, I'm not sure why people are that upset about it. I don't have an issue with him using the super pac that is a perfectly legal means of campaign finance and also not agreeing with it. In an election he should take any legal means of winning that all of the other candidates are going to use.

An analogy if you will. If an NFL team voted against instant replay and opposed instant replay, they are still going to use it when it's passed. Do you expect them to not use the advantage just because they don't like it?

I think that if he does not practice what he preaches then he should get off of the pulpit. If he is going to use every means necessary, even those that his constituents and fellow Democrats are against, then he needs to not use being against it as a platform to get elected.

As of right now I am going with the theory that everything Obama says is either A) a blatant lie, or B) only what he believes/stands for until beleiving/standing for something else fits his need.

His campaign slogan should have been "CHANGE...BUT ONLY IF EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT FIRST"

duane1969
02-07-2012, 06:25 PM
Of course that is what they expect. It is Obama they are talking about afterall.

So when a Republican is in office you will have no problem with him saying one thing and doing something else? Or does your level of double-standard acceptability only apply to liberals?

habsheaven
02-07-2012, 07:09 PM
So when a Republican is in office you will have no problem with him saying one thing and doing something else? Or does your level of double-standard acceptability only apply to liberals?

Your characterization of what Obama is doing in this case is completely bogus and you know it is.

This would apply if he proposed campaign reform and then vetoed it when it crossed his desk. Him playing by the rules he was not able to change is far from "saying one thing and doing another".

The Republicans must be in a sorry state if these are the best criticisms you guys can keep coming up with. Why do I bother responding to these ridiculous threads??:bored:

Star_Cards
02-08-2012, 08:47 AM
I think that if he does not practice what he preaches then he should get off of the pulpit. If he is going to use every means necessary, even those that his constituents and fellow Democrats are against, then he needs to not use being against it as a platform to get elected.

As of right now I am going with the theory that everything Obama says is either A) a blatant lie, or B) only what he believes/stands for until beleiving/standing for something else fits his need.

His campaign slogan should have been "CHANGE...BUT ONLY IF EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT FIRST"

This post just reminds me a lot of the 2008 election. McCain spoke in debates about campaign finance reform at least from the debates that I watched. He thought that it should be changed, but to my knowledge he still played under the same rules even though he thought they should be changed. This isn't to pull a "the other side did it" card, but rather just stating that I didn't have a problem with that back then either. Obama is playing under the current rules. If he thinks they should be changed that's great because the super pac things, from what I know about it, sounds like a giant loophole. I'll be honest though that it's really hard to understand exactly. Bottom line it's a current rule so I don't see it as a huge problem. It's obviously a pretty large advantage or politicians wouldn't use it.

duane1969
02-08-2012, 12:05 PM
Your characterization of what Obama is doing in this case is completely bogus and you know it is.

This would apply if he proposed campaign reform and then vetoed it when it crossed his desk. Him playing by the rules he was not able to change is far from "saying one thing and doing another".

The Republicans must be in a sorry state if these are the best criticisms you guys can keep coming up with. Why do I bother responding to these ridiculous threads??:bored:

So you only take issue with saying one thing and doing something else if it reaches the extreme of vetoing it? Glad to see you place such little value on integrity and truthfulness in our world leaders.

I don't know why you respond either. If Obama walked down the street executing small children with a bazooka you would find some way to justify it or validate it.

I get it. Obama did it so it is OK with you. No need to pursue it any further.


This post just reminds me a lot of the 2008 election. McCain spoke in debates about campaign finance reform at least from the debates that I watched. He thought that it should be changed, but to my knowledge he still played under the same rules even though he thought they should be changed. This isn't to pull a "the other side did it" card, but rather just stating that I didn't have a problem with that back then either. Obama is playing under the current rules. If he thinks they should be changed that's great because the super pac things, from what I know about it, sounds like a giant loophole. I'll be honest though that it's really hard to understand exactly. Bottom line it's a current rule so I don't see it as a huge problem. It's obviously a pretty large advantage or politicians wouldn't use it.

I agree it is an advantage, I would just like to finally see a politician have some integrity and be worth his word. That is all.

What I need to realize is that in spite of what blinded liberals preach and Obama tries to portray himself as, at the end of the day he is just another slimy, deceitful, lying politician who will do whatever it takes to be in office.

mrveggieman
02-08-2012, 12:22 PM
What I need to realize is that in spite of what blinded liberals preach and Obama tries to portray himself as, at the end of the day he is just another slimy, deceitful, lying politician who will do whatever it takes to be in office.


Yes President Obama is a politician and yes he faces a lot of the temptations that any other politician faces and I'm sure that he has made his fair amount of mistakes that can be seen as well as behind the scenes. That being said I will take President Obama over the jerk that we had before him or any of the garbage that is running against him.

habsheaven
02-08-2012, 12:22 PM
So you only take issue with saying one thing and doing something else if it reaches the extreme of vetoing it? Glad to see you place such little value on integrity and truthfulness in our world leaders.

I don't know why you respond either. If Obama walked down the street executing small children with a bazooka you would find some way to justify it or validate it.

I get it. Obama did it so it is OK with you. No need to pursue it any further.

I get it ALSO. If Obama does it, it is wrong by you. Hmmmm.... that sounds familiar? Oh yeah, that's how the House and Congress have worked for the last 3 years. What a wonderful system you have down there!

duane1969
02-08-2012, 12:28 PM
I get it ALSO. If Obama does it, it is wrong by you. Hmmmm.... that sounds familiar? Oh yeah, that's how the House and Congress have worked for the last 3 years. What a wonderful system you have down there!

Not sure what you mean. Until this past election cycle the Dems controlled both the House and Senate and they still control the Senate.

duane1969
02-08-2012, 12:29 PM
Yes President Obama is a politician and yes he faces a lot of the temptations that any other politician faces and I'm sure that he has made his fair amount of mistakes that can be seen as well as behind the scenes. That being said I will take President Obama over the jerk that we had before him or any of the garbage that is running against him.

I didn't figure you would do anything other than that.

habsheaven
02-08-2012, 12:51 PM
Not sure what you mean. Until this past election cycle the Dems controlled both the House and Senate and they still control the Senate.

Oh, my mistake. You and the Republicans agreed with Obama until they lost control of the House. How silly of me. I never noticed.

duane1969
02-08-2012, 12:54 PM
Oh, my mistake. You and the Republicans agreed with Obama until they lost control of the House. How silly of me. I never noticed.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Literally. I am lost.

habsheaven
02-08-2012, 01:04 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. Literally. I am lost.

Whether there has been Democratic control of the House or Senate is irrelevant to the fact that YOU and the Republicans have OPPOSED his EVERY move since he came into office. You have criticized him since Day 1.

So as much as I have no problem with him executing small children with a bazooka, you equally have a major problem with him donating his kidneys to a one-armed parapalegic with terminal cancer.

duane1969
02-08-2012, 01:12 PM
Whether there has been Democratic control of the House or Senate is irrelevant to the fact that YOU and the Republicans have OPPOSED his EVERY move since he came into office. You have criticized him since Day 1.

So as much as I have no problem with him executing small children with a bazooka, you equally have a major problem with him donating his kidneys to a one-armed parapalegic with terminal cancer.

Actually I have not opposed him since day 1. I am just tired of him supporting everything now that he was opposed to before.

If you want to know what Obama's current position is on a subject all you have to do is find out what his position on it used to be and his current position will be the exact opposite...and libs will defend it.

shrewsbury
02-08-2012, 03:15 PM
I'm just tired of hearing about what a looser bush was, it's done, he's gone, been 3 years.

the economy sucks, job loss is rampant, unemployment is so bad they have to fix the numbers and it is still too high!!!!

more taxes, more people wanting free stuff, more people not wanting to pay for what they agreed to pay for, more excuses.

at this point i am unsure who will win the election, but whoever it is, is screwed. you think obama is having a hard time fixing bush's mess, what till next term, not sure it can be fixed.

take some of that super pac money and put it back into the economy, and not in the form of entitlements.

have some pride, work for what you got, take help when needed, say what you mean, and don't put the blame elsewhere.