Dude, can't you see that the only standard the Dems have is that they have no standards? I been sayin' that for years. They do whatever it takes to win and advance their cause, which they've been trying to do since at least the 60s, if not back during the New Deal era, and they're vicious about it, to boot. See, they convince themselves that it's all for "the greater good," and that such extremism in service to the greater good is actually to be lauded, not condemned. The Right needs to wake up to that fact or it'll always find itself on the defensive against these mooks.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Of course you are still a private citizen. However the CEO of a public company is by definition in the public eye. The article is talking about how those organizations are actively outsourcing etc and painting that as not being pro-American.

Every single day the media and groups associated with politicians name all kinds of people. Is it different than McCain/Palin outing Obama's Reverend Angry or any other controversial person associate with him (and vilifying them, right or wrong)? It's part of the political system we have created. (To note.. I'm not for negative campaigns; I hate the concept. I'm more just discussing this out loud.)

---

----
Don't hold back

I don't think a reasonable person would consider any of these people public figures. So this might border on slander or libel. And if donating to a candidate makes you by definition a public figure subject to such labels under the guise of opinion, satire, etc. then we have bigger problems.

Comparing this to Reverend Wright is not the same thing. Nor did the President of the United States at the time, GWB, call out his behavior when GWB was the subject of most of Reverend Wrights vile rants. This is just another sad attempt by you, an Obama Butt Boy, to defend what is clearly indefensible. This shit will be what we in the accounting biz call controllables that will have the biggest impact on Obama losing in November. This is an irresponsible use of power and unpresidential.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

This is just another sad attempt by you, an Obama Butt Boy, to defend what is clearly indefensible.

Come on man everything Obama does is indefensible in your eyes. I know you have been very very angry lately and truly believe in a black and white demarcation where democrats are vile and evil anti-americans and republicans are pure and righteous in every way. If that is not the case let's have a serious discussion about what the other party is doing right and see who is a party line "butt boy". Should you be willing to have a conversation along those lines, you might find that it is you my friend.

---

----
Don't hold back

I've never called Republicans pure. In fact, I'll probably be on the same side as you when Romney has been in office for a year. I don't think democrats are inherently evil. I think they just don't know what they don't know. They fail to realize that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and their liberal followers are paving the way. Obama though, is evil. I don't like anything about him. I thought Bush was bad, and nobody could fuck things up worse than him. Boy was I wrong. The sad part is, I think Bush just failed. I think Obama by doing things we know will fail is doing so on purpose. He is paving the way for a massive top to bottom command and control welfare state (corporate and social). Where the political and power elite accumulate even more power by throwing scraps to bought and paid for eaters and moochers. Those of us who value freedom, self reliance, and prosperity will be vilified until we must go into hiding figuratively.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Can't believe you're serious about their "less-than-reputable records," when Obama has Immelt outsourcing, Geithner evading, and Corzine stealing from thousands of investors while being a top bundler for Obama, the same Obama who received record support from the financial sector he publicly derides. This is rich. Likely to backfire though, because any POTUS, candidate or sitting, will be receiving huge sums from 1%ers. The hypocrisy of this man and his admin continues to be outsized, but now there is a campaign on the other side that will be doing the leg-work to prove and get the word out, in a way the the MSM has largely refused to do with this POTUS.

Then Mitt should call those citizens out. "Obama says my guys outsource jobs, look at his cronies!"

---

----
Don't hold back

I think in that case it is much more important to you that the Republicans control congress (budget) than worrying about the Presidency. If Romney gets in there and sucks (I can't imagine a situation where he wouldn't because just cutting taxes on the wealthy is not going to get us out of this economic mess) the Dems are certainly going to take back the House which will be worse off for the issues you listed. You guys should elect Obama in there which will certainly keep that from happening, especially when we see the global economic downturn in 2013.

---

----
Don't hold back

    I'm doubting that the downturn will wait till 2013, and DC will just use horrible economic times to justify more Draconian Control of the economy, our day to day lives (taxation), and our futures(retirement accts, etc). Romney is the better choice by far, because his top role will not be the "redistributor in chief", as Obama sees himself (remember he has even said he'll opt for "fairness" even at the expense of the economy), but as job creator and economic leader of and for all America. That's what my expectation is anyway. ;)


edited to point out the real meaning of Washington DC.

It's all academic because they are looking at the wrong guy. My man Paul is still pulling this one out. He is going stealth on Obama's ass.

I agree! he is WAY out of line as the POTUS! Time for change, haha!

>More proof Obama doesn't respect the rules, traditions and all around common decency. He is the Thug in Chief and a bully.

Meh, on the Nixon 1-10 scale, this qualifies as maybe a 3. While I disagree with it, we've actually improved quite a bit, I think. What Hoover did with the FBI with probably implicit approval of the White House was unbelievable.

Donor disclosure is normal practice in a democracy. It keeps everyone honest.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

What about donor harassment?

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

In every election, the donor list becomes public. This whole topic is much about nothing.

If you donate to Romney, then you are probably proud and publishing your name means nothing since you know that in a democracy that information is public. If you donate, and are a convicted felon, then there are some issues since you can't even vote. I wonder how many felons have donated to Romney's campaign?

Thats just a bonus. Abuses of power need to be dealt with seperatly.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

I have been waiting to see if anyone would post anything about what the WH and Dems in Congress have already tried and found a pattern.

Its sad how short some peoples memories can be.



This was the bill introduced last year by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The bill had onerous requirements that were duplicative of existing law and burdensome to political speech. It never passed Congress because of principled opposition to its unfair, one-side requirements that benefited labor unions at the expense of corporations. Democratic commissioners at the Federal Election Commission then tried to implement portions of the bill in new regulations. Fortunately, those regulations were not adopted because of the united opposition of the Republican commissioners.


As my source says:
Advertisement

It really is amazing — they lost in the Supreme Court, they lost in Congress, they lost at the FEC, so now the president is just going to do it by edict.
The draft Executive Order says it is intended to “increase transparency and accountability,” an interesting claim given the fact that federal contractors are already completely barred by 2 U.S.C. § 441c from making:

Any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use.

Yet this proposed Executive Order would require government contractors to disclose:

(a) All contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control.
(b) Any contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.

The problem is that this will require companies to delve into the personal political activities of their officers and directors — and require them to report political contributions those employees have made, not out of corporate funds (which is illegal), but out of their personal funds.
And note that these disclosure requirements will only apply to companies that make bids on government contracts. Federal employee unions that negotiate contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are not affected by this order. Neither are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants.
Clearly, this administration is not interested in increasing “transparency and accountability” when it comes to forcing union leaders or the heads of liberal advocacy organizations such as Planned Parenthood from disclosing the personal political contributions they make to candidates running for federal office.




No pattern here.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

Exercising Executive branch presidential powers granted in the Constitution is outrageous? For some reason I thought conservatives were pro-Constitution, or is it only when it benefits them?

Worth a repeat.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson