Right Wing Chamber of Commerce Funnels Foreign Money Into Attack Ads

[Rohirrim]

Previously, it has been reported that foreign firms like BP, Shell Oil, and Siemens are active members of the Chamber. But on a larger scale, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce appears to rely heavily on fundraising from firms all over the world, including China, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, and many other places. Of course, because the Chamber successfully lobbied to kill campaign finance reforms aimed at establishing transparency, the Chamber does not have to reveal any of the funding for its ad campaigns. Dues-paying members of the Chamber could potentially be sending additional funds this year to help air more attack ads against Democrats.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/foreign-chamber-commerce/

[Rohirrim]

Here’s how it works. Regular dues from American firms to the Chamber can range from $500 to $300,000 or more, depending on their size and industry, and can be used for any purpose deemed necessary by the Chamber leadership. For example, the health insurance giant Aetna has reported that it paid $100,000 in annual dues to the Chamber in the past. But for specific advocacy or advertising campaigns, corporations can hide behind the label of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and give additional money. Last year, alongside their regular dues, health insurance companies like Aetna secretly funneled up to $20 million to the Chamber for attack ads aimed at killing health reform (publicly, health insurance executives claimed they supported reform). Last week, Politico reported that News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, gave an extra $1 million to the Chamber for its election season attack campaign.

[Rohirrim]

There are many reasons foreign corporations are seeking to defeat Democratic candidates this November. The Chamber has repeatedly sent out issue alerts attacking Democratic efforts to encourage businesses to hire locally rather than outsource to foreign countries.

Basically what this means is that foreign countries and companies are encouraged to donate and become members of the Chamber with the implicit threat that if they don't, Democrats might win elections and try to keep jobs in America. Of course, it's illegal for foreigners to spend money in our elections, but it's not illegal for them to be members of the Chamber and then for the Chamber to buy up attack ads using membership funds. Right now, as the article states, "The Chamber’s spending has dwarfed every other issue group and most political party candidate committee spending."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There are many reasons foreign corporations are seeking to defeat Democratic candidates this November. The Chamber has repeatedly sent out issue alerts attacking Democratic efforts to encourage businesses to hire locally rather than outsource to foreign counties.



Just further confirmation that the GOP has but one job: Further enrich the top 1%.

[Rohirrim]

China is buying our elections and none of the Righties want to come in and defend their chosen Supreme Courts' decision? Why, I'm flabbergasted! :rofl:

[TonyR]

On a related note, saw this today:

The Republican grab for Congress is being funded by a pack of wolves masquerading as a herd of sheep.

How sweet and innocent they seem, these mysterious organizations with names like Americans for Job Security. Who could argue with that? Who wants job insecurity?

It turns out, according to The Post, that an entity called Americans for Job Security has made nearly $7.5 million in "independent" campaign expenditures this year, with 88 percent going to support Republican candidates. Who's putting up all that money? You'll never know, because Americans for Job Security -- which calls itself a "business association" -- doesn't have to disclose the source of its funding.

Likewise, the American Future Fund has spent $6.8 million on campaigns this year, with every penny of that money benefiting Republicans. The patriotically named group -- and, really, who doesn't want America to have a future? -- is based in Iowa and has never before been a big player in the Great Game of campaign finance. Now, suddenly, it has a king's ransom to throw around.

Whose money is it? The American Future Fund won't tell you.

And then there's American Crossroads, which at least is being "advised" by some people you've heard of -- Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie. This group has spent $5.6 million so far but is just getting started: American Crossroads says it will spend an astounding $50 million in this election cycle.

You will not be surprised to hear that all of this money is being used to try to oust Democrats and replace them with Republicans. And where is the money coming from? Silly of you to ask. There is no limit to the amount that an individual, corporation or trade association can give to American Crossroads -- but the group is not required to tell you who those deep-pockets donors might be.

...

The Supreme Court made all this possible with its ruling early this year, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which legalized unlimited campaign spending by corporations, unions, trade associations and other such entities. And the independent-expenditure groups with the patriotic names are often structured as nonprofits, which means they are not required to disclose their donors publicly.

The result is a system in which oil companies opposed to an energy bill that would begin to steer the country away from fossil fuels, or Wall Street firms that want to undo financial regulatory reform and return to the days of the Big Casino, or gazillionaires who want to keep George W. Bush's tax breaks, can all spend as much as they like to try to buy Congress for the Republican Party.

And they can do it secretly, in the dark, without anyone knowing. It's bad enough that public offices can be purchased. It's unconscionable that we can't even know who the buyers are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/04/AR2010100404052.html?sub=AR

[Rohirrim]

The amazing thing about watching this happen is that we are seeing the end of the Republic and idiots and dupes are marching in the streets carrying the signs of the enemy, proclaiming that they want to tear down and destroy government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and replace it with corporate feudalism.

There is a simple axiom at work here: When you attack our government, you attack our people, because our people are our government.

The Right has completely lost sight of that.

[Garcia Bronco]

Previously, it has been reported that foreign firms like BP, Shell Oil, and Siemens are active members of the Chamber. But on a larger scale, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce appears to rely heavily on fundraising from firms all over the world, including China, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, and many other places. Of course, because the Chamber successfully lobbied to kill campaign finance reforms aimed at establishing transparency, the Chamber does not have to reveal any of the funding for its ad campaigns. Dues-paying members of the Chamber could potentially be sending additional funds this year to help air more attack ads against Democrats.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/foreign-chamber-commerce/

Great opinion piece. It would be nice if they could prove any of it. And 100 G's...wow...what's that...10 seconds of airtime.

It was still the right ruling. You will not be allowed to inhibit free expression or speech that does not infringe on the rights of others.

[Rohirrim]

Great opinion piece. It would be nice if they could prove any of it. And 100 G's...wow...what's that...10 seconds of airtime.

It was still the right ruling. You will not be allowed to inhibit free expression or speech that does not infringe on the rights of others.

Why post when you don't bother to read the piece? In the first place, it's not opinion, it's an investigative piece. In the second place, the Chamber has stated they intend to spend $75 million to defeat Democrats, more than any other single entity. And where does that money come from? Fortunately, your adherence to your ideology protects you from embarrassment.

[Rohirrim]

Just further confirmation that the GOP has but one job: Further enrich the top 1%.

Yes, but it's not just the top American 1%. It's the top global 1%.

What would the average tea bagger think if they realized they were marching in the interests of globalists? Wave your sign for the Saudis, chump. Ha!

[Smiling Assassin27]

Why post when you don't bother to read the piece? In the first place, it's not opinion, it's an investigative piece. In the second place, the Chamber has stated they intend to spend $75 million to defeat Democrats, more than any other single entity. And where does that money come from? Fortunately, your adherence to your ideology protects you from embarrassment.

Typical. The article says they're preparing a response, but you chose to run with this and not even wait for a response. Tried, convicted, and hanged with nary a response. This is why your rants are so farcical. Though, to your credit, your tag line of 'Partisan' is true and accurate. Fail...again.

[Rohirrim]

Typical. The article says they're preparing a response, but you chose to run with this and not even wait for a response. Tried, convicted, and hanged with nary a response. This is why your rants are so farcical. Though, to your credit, your tag line of 'Partisan' is true and accurate. Fail...again.

Another day is almost done and still no response. I guess they're having a hard time coming up with one. Either that, or they're so damn powerful they really just don't give a **** because nobody can do anything about it anyway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/chamber-of-commerce-foreign-money_n_752617.html

Fortunately, there are some Senators calling for an investigation. Maybe they just need to be under oath in order to respond?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, but it's not just the top American 1%. It's the top global 1%.

What would the average tea bagger think if they realized they were marching in the interests of globalists? Wave your sign for the Saudis, chump. Ha!

They wouldn't 'think' - they would, as always, simply close their eyes to the facts and continue to trumpet their supply-side ideology.

Or, failing that, they would opt for the "look over there" (at what some Democrat or other is doing) deflection.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wave your sign for the Saudis, chump. Ha!

These denialists have shown that they can ignore almost anything in the service of their ideology...

http://images.0xtc.com/images/saud_bush.jpg

http://www.shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bow_bush_saudi.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/red-chamber-money.jpg

[Rohirrim]

http://www.bartcop.com/red-chamber-money.jpg

Ha!

[Rigs11]

The righties when cornered cower and cry like little puppies. Too funny.they're always speak of upholding the law, then tuck tail and run.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Typical. The article says they're preparing a response, but you chose to run with this and not even wait for a response. Tried, convicted, and hanged with nary a response. This is why your rants are so farcical. Though, to your credit, your tag line of 'Partisan' is true and accurate. Fail...again.

Blah, blah, blah...

Yeah, we know whose side you're on...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/classes-1-1.jpg

[cutthemdown]

Did you mind when they gave 500 million to Obama from unknown sources? They say none of it is foreign and there is no proof otherwise I have seen.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Did you mind when they gave 500 million to Obama from unknown sources? They say none of it is foreign and there is no proof otherwise I have seen.

I know you're doing your utmost to steer this thread away from the topic, but try to focus here.

This is about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce funneling foreign money into attack ads.

[Smiling Assassin27]

This should really be its own thread but you dorks can start walking this thread back any time you want. When the NYT shreds your argument and calls you stupid at the same time, you really ought to take it to heart. Read it all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print

This is my fave part:

The issue of the chamber’s funding first gained notice this week when ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline “Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads.”

The piece detailed the chamber’s overseas memberships, but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United States campaigns. Still, liberal groups like MoveOn.org pounced on the allegations, resulting in protests at the chamber’s offices, a demand for a federal investigation by Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and ultimately the remarks by Mr. Obama himself.

White House officials acknowledged Friday that they had no specific evidence to indicate that the chamber had used money from foreign entities to finance political attack ads.



Hey look, the italicized part is talking about Rohirrim and his hackery! But wait:

But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.



So not only are you irresponsible, according to the NYT, you're kinda dull and easily manipulated by bad media that most 5 year olds could discern. Got y'all pegged, for sure.

[Rohirrim]

From the NYTimes article you posted:

“The president was not suggesting any illegality,” Bob Bauer, the White House counsel, said. Instead, he said Mr. Obama’s reference to the chamber was meant to draw attention to the inadequacies of campaign disclosure laws in allowing groups to spend large amounts of money on politics without disclosing their donors.

White House officials called on the chamber to go beyond current disclosure laws and establish that no foreign money has been used in its political campaigns. “They can put this to rest,” said Joshua Earnest, a White House spokesman. “They have the keys to the file cabinet.”

In other words, the Chamber is basing their entire argument on two words, "Trust us." Given that they are the prime mover in killing "...campaign finance reforms aimed at establishing transparency" perhaps we shouldn't take them at their word? In the Times article it says they have a war chest of $200 million. That's $200 million worth of campaign attack ads being provided by... who? Nobody knows, and the Chamber isn't talking.

The OP is very clear on what it is saying: Enormous amounts of money are coming into our elections and we are simply supposed to take the word of the Chamber that the money they are using is somehow "separate" from the rest of their monies. Of course, they're not going to tell us how they separate it.

I notice the Chamber, and their toadies at the NY Times didn't comment on this statement:
The Chamber has repeatedly sent out issue alerts attacking Democratic efforts to encourage businesses to hire locally rather than outsource to foreign countries.

Once again, the Smiling Ass's reading skills fail him.

[cutthemdown]

I know you're doing your utmost to steer this thread away from the topic, but try to focus here.

This is about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce funneling foreign money into attack ads.

No it's about them funneling money rom undisclosed sources into the election campaign. You have no proof that it is foreign. Also you failed to mention the dems had no problem with the Chamber when they gave a ton of undisclosed funds, totaling anywhere from 300 million up to Obama in his election.

Let me guess it was ok then?

[cutthemdown]

Like I asked before if Obama and the dems had a problem with this then why did they take 300 million or more in undisclosed donations from the Chamber of Commerce during the last presidential election?

They just didn't realize Obama would be anti-biz so now they are turning on him. Now he is upset and wants to make it seem like the Chamber is some dirty organization when in fact he had no problem with the Chamber of Commerce 2 short yrs ago.

[Jay3]

The Chamber is neither right wing nor exclusively Republican. It will gladly connive with either party.

The only thing where the people win is to reduce the power of government.

[Dukes]

From the NYTimes article you posted:

“The president was not suggesting any illegality,” Bob Bauer, the White House counsel, said. Instead, he said Mr. Obama’s reference to the chamber was meant to draw attention to the inadequacies of campaign disclosure laws in allowing groups to spend large amounts of money on politics without disclosing their donors.

White House officials called on the chamber to go beyond current disclosure laws and establish that no foreign money has been used in its political campaigns. “They can put this to rest,” said Joshua Earnest, a White House spokesman. “They have the keys to the file cabinet.”

In other words, the Chamber is basing their entire argument on two words, "Trust us." Given that they are the prime mover in killing "...campaign finance reforms aimed at establishing transparency" perhaps we shouldn't take them at their word? In the Times article it says they have a war chest of $200 million. That's $200 million worth of campaign attack ads being provided by... who? Nobody knows, and the Chamber isn't talking.

The OP is very clear on what it is saying: Enormous amounts of money are coming into our elections and we are simply supposed to take the word of the Chamber that the money they are using is somehow "separate" from the rest of their monies. Of course, they're not going to tell us how they separate it.

I notice the Chamber, and their toadies at the NY Times didn't comment on this statement:
The Chamber has repeatedly sent out issue alerts attacking Democratic efforts to encourage businesses to hire locally rather than outsource to foreign countries.

Once again, the Smiling Ass's reading skills fail him.

So where's the proof it's foreign money?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The only thing where the people win is to reduce the power of government.

Um, no - that's what created the economic mess we're in today, i.e., a 'reduction' of the power of government to regulate the crooks who brought you the Bush Great Recession.

[Rohirrim]

A Democratic operative active in Senate races sends over this summary, from public sources, of outside television and radio spending on the races from August through last night:

Republican Third Party Groups — $43,664,661
Democratic Third Party Groups — $6,658,236

Colorado — Dems: $1.1 million / GOP: $7.6 million
Washington — Dems: $1.5 million / GOP: $4.2 million
Missouri — Dems: $794k / GOP: $7.2 million
Kentucky — Dems: $47k / GOP: $1.7 million

7 to 1.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/Tally_Outside_GOP_groups_outspending_Dems_71.html? showall

[Dukes]

A Democratic operative active in Senate races sends over this summary, from public sources, of outside television and radio spending on the races from August through last night:

Republican Third Party Groups — $43,664,661
Democratic Third Party Groups — $6,658,236

Colorado — Dems: $1.1 million / GOP: $7.6 million
Washington — Dems: $1.5 million / GOP: $4.2 million
Missouri — Dems: $794k / GOP: $7.2 million
Kentucky — Dems: $47k / GOP: $1.7 million

7 to 1.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/Tally_Outside_GOP_groups_outspending_Dems_71.html? showall


There's some pretty entertaining responses below the article.

[BroncoLifer]

A Democratic operative active in Senate races sends over this summary, from public sources, of outside television and radio spending on the races from August through last night:

Republican Third Party Groups — $43,664,661
Democratic Third Party Groups — $6,658,236

Colorado — Dems: $1.1 million / GOP: $7.6 million
Washington — Dems: $1.5 million / GOP: $4.2 million
Missouri — Dems: $794k / GOP: $7.2 million
Kentucky — Dems: $47k / GOP: $1.7 million

7 to 1.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/Tally_Outside_GOP_groups_outspending_Dems_71.html? showall

Yeah, an active "Democratic operative." Consider the source, people.


"Since the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.........

Unions and liberal groups are hardly cash poor this year in any case. The Campaign Media Analysis Group looked at the combined spending of candidates, their parties and outside groups and found that Democrats outspent Republicans $47.3 million to $40.8 million in a recent 60-day period."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536370151720874.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion#articleTabs%3Dcomments

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, an active "Democratic operative." Consider the source, people.


"Since the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.........

Unions and liberal groups are hardly cash poor this year in any case. The Campaign Media Analysis Group looked at the combined spending of candidates, their parties and outside groups and found that Democrats outspent Republicans $47.3 million to $40.8 million in a recent 60-day period."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536370151720874.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion#articleTabs%3Dcomments

Ha ha ha! :rofl:

Talk about considering the source:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536370151720874.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion#articleTabs%3Dcomments

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-wolf-1010.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mudgates-1010.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/CoC-bagman.jpg

[BroncoLifer]

I wasn't persuaded before, but now that there are cartoons.........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wasn't persuaded before, but now that there are cartoons.........

Maybe you can find one that does a better job of making your case for you.

First, you dismiss Roh's evidence on the grounds of "bias," and then you post a link to the WSJ to make your case. :giggle:

At any rate, if the Chamber of Commerce has nothing to hide, then why not just be transparent about these funding sources?

[Rohirrim]

Yeah, an active "Democratic operative." Consider the source, people.


"Since the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.........

Unions and liberal groups are hardly cash poor this year in any case. The Campaign Media Analysis Group looked at the combined spending of candidates, their parties and outside groups and found that Democrats outspent Republicans $47.3 million to $40.8 million in a recent 60-day period."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536370151720874.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion#articleTabs%3Dcomments

The WSJ is the newspaper of the Chamber of Commerce. Give me a break.

I'd like to see the "recent 60 day period" they're talking about. Of course, they're making a bunch of claims, but not substantiating any of them.

[cutthemdown]

No one wants to talk about how the Chamber supported Obama and has now turned on him because of his anti-business policies. He lied to everyone and now they are going repub with money.

Like I said over 300 million to Obama in his election but you didn't have any slick cartoons for that.

this is just a sign that businesses all over the world hate Obama.

[Taco John]

I don't understand this story. Foriegn money wants Republicans to win?

[cutthemdown]

I don't understand this story. Foriegn money wants Republicans to win?

No the Chamber of Commerce claim that although they do solicit foreign money they don't donate that directly to any politicians. But a bunch of the money they get is not disclosed.

So since more going to repubs dems pouncing and saying anything undisclosed has to be forieng. Even though they have no proof. Axelrod went as far to say well prove that it isn't from foreign sources when asked to prove it was. So he wants them to prove a negative...or something like that.

Funniest thing is in the last election over 300 million that was not disclosed went to Obama. Back then though they didn't care.

So the issue is whether or not money that has a source not disclosed is foreign. One argument is that many domestic compainies don't want to disclose who they gave money to. For instance wal mart may not want minorities to know they gave a ton of money to the repubs, or maybe even some unions.

There is a lot of backlash in contributions so Im not surprised people want to keep it a secret.

[cutthemdown]

At least that's how I see it. TACO to tell you the truth I don't think either side any better then the other when it comes to making money by shipping our jobs overseas. They know want to point fingers at eachother when both parties have supported policies that led to jobs leaving the country.

My computer operations job left to India under Clinton but I'm not stupid enough to blame him.

[cutthemdown]

Also Obama was very liberal with letting USA defense firms sell weapons overseas so I doubt there is much backlash in that segment.

This has more to do with American companies not wanting minorities and unions to know they supported the tea party and the repubs.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

TACO to tell you the truth I don't think either side any better then the other when it comes to making money by shipping our jobs overseas.

:rofl:

Are you kidding me?

You'd have to have been living in a cave for the last 20+ years to seriously believe that.

The rate of outsourcing was almost insignificant on both Bush 41's and Clinton's watches by comparison to GeeDubya's eight years.

Dumbya stepped up and fast-tracked outsourcing on a scale that was unprecedented.

[BroncoLifer]

I'd like to see the "recent 60 day period" they're talking about. Of course, they're making a bunch of claims, but not substantiating any of them.

Which is different from the unsubstantiated claim in the Politico piece in what way?

Hypocritical much?

[Jay3]

Um, no - that's what created the economic mess we're in today, i.e., a 'reduction' of the power of government to regulate the crooks who brought you the Bush Great Recession.

Um, sorry the Fed's fingerprints are all over the liquidity crisis, as are Fannie and Freddie's.

Less government entanglement ---->> Banks: "Um, we're falling down a rathole." Us: "Bu-bye. There will be other banks."

Entire system tangled up in a mess ------>> We're all going down together!

[sirhcyennek81]

AFL-CIO gets foriegn contributions too, yes?

And dont they donate to democrats?

Or is this more a matter of its only bad when the donator supports the other side?

:Broncos:

[barryr]

Democrats can't find any evidence of this claim, but I'm all for a full investigation because I think the democrats gets foreign money, including Obama. So let's look at them all and just see who is involved in this type of behavior.

[sirhcyennek81]

Democrats can't find any evidence of this claim, but I'm all for a full investigation because I think the democrats gets foreign money, including Obama. So let's look at them all and just see who is involved in this type of behavior.


Considering the source of this story being a left leaning blog, it should be taken with a mountain of salt.

Shocking this comes up 4 weeks before an election the democrats are going to get cockslapped in.


:Broncos:

[Pony Boy]

" Right Wing Chamber of Commerce Funnels Foreign Money Into Attack Ads "

Well at least that's what the thread title says ........so what does the Democrats do.......they roll out attack ads.....what a bunch of hypocrites

Then the Democratic National Committee rolled out an attack ad accusing Rove, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and the Chamber of Commerce of "stealing our democracy."

The attack ad accuses them of "spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress," adding: "It appears they've even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections."
Have these people no shame? Does the president of the United States have such little regard for the office that he holds that he goes out there and makes these kind of baseless charges against his political enemies?"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/10/rove-gillespie-slam-obama-spreading-baseless-lie-foreign-contributions/

[barryr]

" Right Wing Chamber of Commerce Funnels Foreign Money Into Attack Ads "

Well at least that's what the thread title says ........so what does the Democrats do.......they roll out attack ads.....what a bunch of hypocrites

Then the Democratic National Committee rolled out an attack ad accusing Rove, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and the Chamber of Commerce of "stealing our democracy."

The attack ad accuses them of "spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress," adding: "It appears they've even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections."
Have these people no shame? Does the president of the United States have such little regard for the office that he holds that he goes out there and makes these kind of baseless charges against his political enemies?"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/10/rove-gillespie-slam-obama-spreading-baseless-lie-foreign-contributions/

True, but desperate times call for desperate measures. The democrats have little to run on, so this is all they have to do. Anything they think they have accomplished most people do not agree with or wanted, so best to label republicans criminals and cheats. But of course, what they accuse the republicans of doing can easily be accused of them too, so if they want to go that road, they better look out that it doesn't bite them in the own asses.

[sirhcyennek81]

stealing our democracy


We are a Constitutional Republic.

Not a democracy.

This drives me crazier than anything else the left ever says. There is a difference between democratic principles and being an actual democracy.


:Broncos:

[Pony Boy]

We are a Constitutional Republic.

Not a democracy.

This drives me crazier than anything else the left ever says. There is a difference between democratic principles and being an actual democracy.


:Broncos:

That quote "stealing our democracy" came from the the Democratic National Committee.

[sirhcyennek81]

That quote "stealing our democracy" came from the the Democratic National Committee.


Its almost like they are afraid to say the word republic...it might remind people of what our government actually is.

I wasnt calling you out. Just had to vent.

:Broncos:

[Pony Boy]

Its almost like they are afraid to say the word republic...it might remind people of what our government actually is.

I wasnt calling you out. Just had to vent.

:Broncos:

I think you're on to something there, a republic would be a government run by the people. I think they would prefer to have Obama the supreme monarch in total control. ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think you're on to something there, a republic would be a government run by the people. I think they would prefer to have Obama the supreme monarch in total control. ;D

:rofl:

This from a cheerleader for a president who did his utmost to establish a unitary executive while in office?

That's a knee slapper. :giggle:

[Taco John]

FactCheck pretty well anhillates this story:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

FactCheck pretty well anhillates this story:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/

From your article:

The chamber says it does receive money from foreign sources, but that it amounts to only a small fraction of the chamber’s $200 million budget. The chamber says none of the foreign money is used in its ads, and no evidence has been produced to show otherwise. Federal Election Commission opinions state that organizations taking in foreign money may make political donations legally, so long as they have "a reasonable accounting method" to keep foreign money separate and have enough money from U.S. sources to cover the donations.

So, in other words, the chamber acknowledges that it receives money from foreign sources, but refuses to disclose the exact amount - and you want us to simply take it on faith that what's being said here is truthful, i.e., to accept the chamber's statements without any independent corroboration.

Interesting that you have no problem with this sort of policy but rail against entities like the federal reserve (and rightfully so) for being opaque.

[epicSocialism4tw]

LABF gets pwned yet again.

Its like a never ending cycle: post Bush cartoon to derail the thread, follow that up with unsubstantiated lies, then get those lies thrown back in his face, then he lies some more, and then he posts some link to a far-left propaganda website article and claims that that lie is true.

[Rohirrim]

FactCheck pretty well anhillates this story:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/

They didn't "annihilate" anything. They said there is no proof. That's what the tobacco companies said for forty years.

[barryr]

Will Obama disclose all the money he has gotten and from where? He hasn't yet, but he also hasn't disclosed his college transcripts either which is odd since the left was so hot and bothered for Bush to do it. But maybe they have decided that isn't worth pursuing anymore when we found out that Bush had better grades than their so intelligent John Kerry at the same school LOL

[Rohirrim]

From your article:



So, in other words, the chamber acknowledges that it receives money from foreign sources, but refuses to disclose the exact amount - and you want us to simply take it on faith that what's being said here is truthful, i.e., to accept the chamber's statements without any independent corroboration.

Interesting that you have no problem with this sort of policy but rail against entities like the federal reserve (and rightfully so) for being opaque.

Not only that, the Chamber also wrote an amicus brief in support of Citizens United and were then the prime movers to smack down any and all legislation that aimed to block the effects of Citizens and create transparency in campaign contributions.

So, add it all up:

First, you have a mega millions corporate clearing house and political weapon, funded by corporations, that supports the finding of citizenship rights for corporations.

Second, they spend millions to block any effort of the legislature to make campaigns transparent.

Third, they send out alerts to foreign corporations warning that if Democrats get into office in the U.S. those Lefties will block the outsourcing of jobs to their countries.

Fourth, they admit to taking money from foreign corporations.

Fifth, they won't say how much.

Sixth, they say they that they have ways of keeping the foreign money separate.

Seventh, they won't say how.

Eighth, they have a $200 million dollar warchest they intend to use against the Democrats to forward the interests of global corporations.

Hell, I believe 'em. Ha!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Will Obama disclose all the money he has gotten and from where? He hasn't yet, but he also hasn't disclosed his college transcripts either which is odd since the left was so hot and bothered for Bush to do it. But maybe they have decided that isn't worth pursuing anymore when we found out that Bush had better grades than their so intelligent John Kerry at the same school LOL

Did Bush seriously get better grades than Kerry?

I wouldnt be surprised because Kerry came off as an airhead, but the dems made such a huge deal out of it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF gets pwned yet again...


...and then McSpammer woke up. :wave:

[epicSocialism4tw]

...and then McSpammer woke up. :wave:

I'm hard-pressed to find a thread that you have not been pwned in.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not only that, the Chamber also wrote an amicus brief in support of Citizens United and were then the prime movers to smack down any and all legislation that aimed to block the effects of Citizens and create transparency in campaign contributions.

So, add it all up:

First, you have a mega millions corporate clearing house and political weapon, funded by corporations, that supports the finding of citizenship rights for corporations.

Second, they spend millions to block any effort of the legislature to make campaigns transparent.

Third, they send out alerts to foreign corporations warning that if Democrats get into office in the U.S. those Lefties will block the outsourcing of jobs to their countries.

Fourth, they admit to taking money from foreign corporations.

Fifth, they won't say how much.

Sixth, they say they that they have ways of keeping the foreign money separate.

Seventh, they won't say how.

Eighth, they have a $200 million dollar warchest they intend to use against the Democrats to forward the interests of global corporations.

Hell, I believe 'em. Ha!

There you go overtaxing the brainpower of the right-wing brain trust again.

Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm hard-pressed to find a thread that you have not been pwned in.

You'd be hard pressed to find your ass with both hands most days, I'd wager.

[TonyR]

Not only that...

Interesting how the righties conveniently avoided this post. Funny how that works.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Interesting how the righties conveniently avoided this post. Funny how that works.

People have become so numbed to his posts because of their militant partisanship that they dont even read them?

Really? You dont say.

Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

People have become so numbed to his posts because of their militant partisanship that they dont even read them?



Ha ha ha! Ha!

Well, at least you came up with a new label for the file where you tuck inconvenient truths away.

"Propaganda" was getting really tired.

[TonyR]

People have become so numbed to his posts because of their militant partisanship that they dont even read them?


Translation: I'm still avoiding a post to which I cannot offer a coherent response.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Translation: I'm still avoiding a post to which I cannot offer a coherent response.

Still following me around, eh?

Ah well. I guess its good to have followers, right? Heck some people listen to Rush Limbaugh because he ticks them off and they like a good villain. Maybe you follow me around for the same reason.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Heck some people listen to Rush Limbaugh because he ticks them off and they like a good villain. Maybe you follow me around for the same reason.

You and Rush....at last you offer a valid comparison. Ha!

http://www.bartcop.com/coc-foreign-funds.jpg

[cutthemdown]

So LABF where is the proof? Not one legitimate news outlet willing to say what you are saying. Also what about unions that give money to dems but also solicit overseas funds. Why not be enraged saying they have to disclose?

More then likely this money is from domestic corporations scared of Obama policies, but smart enough to know that its not good for all your customers to know what side you are on.

That makes more sense then China wants repubs to win. Hell Obama just gave the Saudis more weapons then ever, they love him right now.

[cutthemdown]

This whole story is BS and blowing up in Obamas face. All its doing is turning more and more businessmen and industry big wigs against him. Small biz, big biz, middle class, upper class, they all hate Obama now. All you have left is the super liberals.

It's over for the dems they are going to get crushed. Then they will have a chance to stand up to Obama last 2 yrs and maybe make a comeback like repubs have done.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Fyi

chamber to biden: 'not a single cent'
by: Meredith shiner
october 11, 2010 10:27 pm edt

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.

The white house has been hitting republicans and the traditionally gop-supportive chamber on their fundraising activities heavily in recent days, accusing the opposition of taking money from foreign interests and funneling it into domestic races.

“i challenge the chamber of commerce to tell us how much of the money they’re investing is from foreign sources,” biden said monday. “i challenge them. If i’m wrong, i will stand corrected."

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?"

the chamber of commerce's release monday was targeted specifically at the vice president, with a dismissive tone that seemed to issue a challenge right back at biden.

"we hope this clears it up, and hope the vice president keeps his word and stands corrected," collamore wrote.

[Rohirrim]

And I'm sure they would have no argument with legislation intended to make sure campaign funding in the U.S. is totally transparent?

[Taco John]

And I'm sure they would have no argument with legislation intended to make sure campaign funding in the U.S. is totally transparent?

I would. Especially the way the law they had was written, protecting unions, the NRA, other established organizations, but exposing the up-and-comers. If they want to expose everybody, then expose everybody. They shouldn't protect certain organizations and expose others. It was weak and inherently unfair legislation and it deserved to be struck down.

Further, it violates privacy. I donate to the campaign for liberty. I don't care for that donation to be public record. That donation is between me and the organization. I don't want potential employers looking up my political donation history and using that as a determination on whether they should hire me or not.

I would absolutely have argument with legislation that violated my privacy like this.

[TonyR]

This whole story is BS and blowing up in Obamas face. All its doing is turning more and more businessmen and industry big wigs against him. Small biz, big biz, middle class, upper class, they all hate Obama now. All you have left is the super liberals.

This is what the supposedly liberal media is selling. I can see that you're one of many who are buying. As I keep pointing out, it's almost all about the economy. Reagan's numbers were worse at the same point of his first term because of economic problems. The economy later improved and Reagan easily won a second term. This isn't that complicated, folks.

[cutthemdown]

This is what the supposedly liberal media is selling. I can see that you're one of many who are buying. As I keep pointing out, it's almost all about the economy. Reagan's numbers were worse at the same point of his first term because of economic problems. The economy later improved and Reagan easily won a second term. This isn't that complicated, folks.

Yeah but look at what the last 2 yrs will be. It will be a huge fight over healthcare repleal most likely. Especially if repubs say that, then get numbers in Congress. They will see that, and call that a mandate.

Now if somehow dems don't lose the house we will see.

Like you said though even Reagan got killed in the midterms after his election. So Obama has a bad economy, bad approval rating, and history against him in this coming nov election.

With Obama's 2nd half looking like cap and trade fight, immigration BS, trying to end war in Afghanistan without turning country over to Taliban are some big issues.

Hell Reagan had it easy. Dealing with Soviets was actually a great thing. They were easy to predict. It's harder today then it was for Reagan.

[cutthemdown]

I would. Especially the way the law they had was written, protecting unions, the NRA, other established organizations, but exposing the up-and-comers. If they want to expose everybody, then expose everybody. They shouldn't protect certain organizations and expose others. It was weak and inherently unfair legislation and it deserved to be struck down.

Further, it violates privacy. I donate to the campaign for liberty. I don't care for that donation to be public record. That donation is between me and the organization. I don't want potential employers looking up my political donation history and using that as a determination on whether they should hire me or not.

I would absolutely have argument with legislation that violated my privacy like this.

This is more about companies just wanting to donate, but not wanting to deal with political activism that could hurt business. I doubt to many foreign people want to waste money on us policy when it varies little from president to president as far as they are concerned.

Do dems cut off the weapons? nope. That's the main thing other countries care about. Do we get f-15's or not.

[Rohirrim]

I would. Especially the way the law they had was written, protecting unions, the NRA, other established organizations, but exposing the up-and-comers. If they want to expose everybody, then expose everybody. They shouldn't protect certain organizations and expose others. It was weak and inherently unfair legislation and it deserved to be struck down.

Further, it violates privacy. I donate to the campaign for liberty. I don't care for that donation to be public record. That donation is between me and the organization. I don't want potential employers looking up my political donation history and using that as a determination on whether they should hire me or not.

I would absolutely have argument with legislation that violated my privacy like this.

That's Karl Rove's argument: The twos and fews are just the same thing as $200 million.

The Right always has the same argument: A mouse is the same thing as an elephant - they both have four legs and are gray.

[Rohirrim]

This is more about companies just wanting to donate, but not wanting to deal with political activism that could hurt business. I doubt to many foreign people want to waste money on us policy when it varies little from president to president as far as they are concerned.

Do dems cut off the weapons? nope. That's the main thing other countries care about. Do we get f-15's or not.

What China and India care most about is jobs, I guarantee you.

[cutthemdown]

What China and India care most about is jobs, I guarantee you.

Since when have dems until just now ever talked about stopping jobs from going overseas? Thats a talking point now but really a joke. If anything India and China should be scared to death of the Tea Party's nationalism. They won't be giving a ton to get tea party elected. It's possible India not happy over us giving Pakistan a free ride because they are important now, but seriously they have bigger problems then who wins between Boxer and Fiorrana etc etc.

Besides there is no proof that any of this money is foreign. The point stands its from american companies who don't want political activism to hurt business.

Oil companies, Health Industry, Insurance industry most likely.

[Rohirrim]

Since when have dems until just now ever talked about stopping jobs from going overseas? Thats a talking point now but really a joke. If anything India and China should be scared to death of the Tea Party's nationalism. They won't be giving a ton to get tea party elected. It's possible India not happy over us giving Pakistan a free ride because they are important now, but seriously they have bigger problems then who wins between Boxer and Fiorrana etc etc.

Besides there is no proof that any of this money is foreign. The point stands its from american companies who don't want political activism to hurt business.

Oil companies, Health Industry, Insurance industry most likely.

Political activism? They don't give a **** about political activism. They want to end regulations and get more tax breaks. All they care about is money.

[chadta]

am i the only one who would really rather see an ad telling me why one person is the right person for the job, rather than abunch telling me why the other guy is the wrong guy for the job.

what ever happened to standing for something, im talking about both sides here, they truely are all the same, meet the new rat bag administration, its the same as the old rat bag administration.

[cutthemdown]

Political activism? They don't give a **** about political activism. They want to end regulations and get more tax breaks. All they care about is money.

Nonesense the only reason to keep something a secret is to avoid backlash from customers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's Karl Rove's argument: The twos and fews are just the same thing as $200 million.

The Right always has the same argument: A mouse is the same thing as an elephant - they both have four legs and are gray.

My personal favorite is "a shoplifter is just as bad as a bank robber (if he's not one of ours.")

[cutthemdown]

My personal favorite is "a shoplifter is just as bad as a bank robber (if he's not one of ours.")

no but 1 million of them are worst.

[cutthemdown]

Dems are desperate. Man they are going to be livid in here after the midterms. LABF will be saying country doomed. You watch.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

no but 1 million of them are worst.

WTF does that even mean? ???

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dems are desperate. Man they are going to be livid in here after the midterms.

"Desperate" is knowing that your only hope for a return to power is to hoodwink an angry, disillusioned electorate into believing that the Dems are responsible for the Great Recession your party caused.

Your only shot is to take advantage of the attendant anti-incumbent sentiment.

If you win some seats, it sure as hell won't be because you've done anything to earn them.



LABF will be saying country doomed. You watch.

No need to wait until the elections to say that.

[sirhcyennek81]

"Desperate" is knowing that your only hope for a to return to power is to hoodwink an angry, disillusioned electorate into believing that the Dems are responsible for the Great Recession your party caused.


In 2006, the unemployment rate was 4.6%. (GOP controlled congress)

http://www.contactomagazine.com/biznews/unemployment2006.htm

In 2007, it was 4.6%. (Dems took control in January, 2007).

http://www.contactomagazine.com/biznews/unemployment2006.htm

In 2008, it rose to 7.2%. (Dems in control of congress for a year)

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/

In 2009, it rose to 9.5%. (Dems control congress and WH)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/unemployment-rate-hits-95_n_224640.html

You can go ahead and spin this as GOP failed policies and a republican president is a buffoon. You seem to forget the same anti-establishment sentiment is what elected Obama and gave the dems a supermajority in 2009. Republicans were elected OUT in 2006 and 2008 because they spent money like water. They were looked at as being deaf to the concerns of the people. That is why a TEA party came into existance. Not because of Barack Obama but because of wreckless spending policies by the party in power. And rather than learn from these republican mistakes; and trust me, bailing out automakers, airlines and banks is a mistake, the dems not only duplicated it, but accelerated it to ridiculous levels that is historic in nature and dangerous to the survival of the country.

You would think if the democrats believed the healthcare monstrosity and the stimulus were loved by the people they would tout these as examples of the dems "getting things done". The simple fact they are not is shrieking proof that the congress as it is currently structured is a monumental failure. The policies of both this congress and the White House are failures. Keeping taxcuts for the middle class is awesome. So what if most small-business owners are not technically middle class. So what if their taxes go up. We can always tax "the rich" to make up for the shortfalls. If that fails, Beijing will be glad to lend us another trillion. Hope and Change baby.

You act shocked that the American people would be sick of spending our children's and grandchildrens money to finance these socialist ideals of what society should be. The great model is europe. Look how well they are doing! So well that entire segments of the EU are undergoing austerity cuts and considering privatizing healthcare and pensions...the exact opposite of what we are doing. So much so that Obama's European counterparts were advising him to reduce spending and make cuts to the budget...except this congress deemed it too important to actually PASS a budget...convenient.

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

Political activism? They don't give a **** about political activism. They want to end regulations and get more tax breaks. All they care about is money.


Gasp! A business is in business to MAKE MONEY! Those selfish bastards...dont they know at some point you "have made enough money?"...Dont they know that government knows how to spend your money better than you do? Dont they know that these corporations actually HIRE people to work for them, but if they pay all this money in taxes because of what they earn that doesnt happen, shrinking government unemployment rolls? The fiends!

Silly bastards wanting to keep what they make.

So what if overregulation is why a shallow water rig was in deep water in the gulf, exploded and took 80 days to get under control. We should thank government for having the foresight to push offshore drilling to deep water, where it is far more dangerous and then not having the tools on hand to actually 1. stop it or 2. clean it up when something inevitably goes wrong.

:Broncos:

[Rohirrim]

Gasp! A business is in business to MAKE MONEY! Those selfish bastards...dont they know at some point you "have made enough money?"...Dont they know that government knows how to spend your money better than you do? Dont they know that these corporations actually HIRE people to work for them, but if they pay all this money in taxes because of what they earn that doesnt happen, shrinking government unemployment rolls? The fiends!

Silly bastards wanting to keep what they make.

So what if overregulation is why a shallow water rig was in deep water in the gulf, exploded and took 80 days to get under control. We should thank government for having the foresight to push offshore drilling to deep water, where it is far more dangerous and then not having the tools on hand to actually 1. stop it or 2. clean it up when something inevitably goes wrong.

:Broncos:


I'm surprised you take the idiot road. I'm getting tired of doing the remedial reading thing on here. See the word "All?"

You rightards are building the scaffolding you will be hung on. You keep agitating for policies that do nothing more than strengthen and expand a global corporate oligarchy in America. Citizens United, mark my words, is the death knell of this democratic republic. Read about the transition between the Republic and the rule of Augustus in Rome. Once Caesar lost the battle with the oligarchs, the party was over. Augustus continued to use the language and trappings of the Republic, but in reality, it was long dead. That's where we are right now. Corporate oligarchs are pouring money into our elections (Bachmann has raked in $5.4 million - an unprecedented sum for her district. Angles - $14 million). Right now, we are holding a U.S. Government yard sale. Everything must go.

The global corporatists, banksters, Wall Street, the military/industrial complex, energy giants, big pharma, health insurance and big ag, are conducting the last march into the halls of our government, and all you little teabaggers are standing along the parade route, cheering and throwing flowers. Remember the scene in Godfather II when all the mafia dons were sitting on the balcony in Cuba, cutting up the cake? That's where we are now.

And what is their battle cry? We want more tax breaks! We're not rich enough! We want it all! Kill the government and give us all your money! One simply needs to track the progress of wages over the last thirty years of Republican supply-side dominance to see where we are headed. Follow the money.

Every day our mortgages go up. Every day our food goes up, our health care goes up, the cost of credit goes up, the cost of fuel goes up. And every day our wages stay stagnant while Wall Street announces they have a whole new $14 billion they need to spread out amongst themselves.

Suckers get turned into serfs.

BTW, JP Morgan just announced a third quarter profit of 23%. Recession? What recession?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39648101/ns/business-earnings/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In 2006, the unemployment rate was 4.6%. (GOP controlled congress)

http://www.contactomagazine.com/bizn...oyment2006.htm

In 2007, it was 4.6%. (Dems took control in January, 2007).

http://www.contactomagazine.com/bizn...oyment2006.htm

In 2008, it rose to 7.2%. (Dems in control of congress for a year)


Ha ha ha! ROFL!

Aren't you the consummate bullsh*t artist?

You left out the fact that the jobs added to the economy during the latter years of the Bush Junta (I noticed how you conveniently avoided any mention of the years between 2001-2005) were simply low-paying service sector jobs that took the place of all the good-paying jobs that were shipped overseas on the Smirking Sociopath's watch. (The creation of those service sector jobs, BTW, was driven, in large part, by the credit/housing/equity bubble for which Bush and the repigs were responsible.)

The fact still remains that Bush (a) presided over the first net job loss since Hoover and (b) there was zero net job growth between 2000-2009.

Now you're trying to blame the Dems for the fact that all those jobs that were hemorrhaged under BushCo haven't magically come home from China and Mexico and for the fact that the service sector can only employ so many people (especially after Bush and the rethugs crashed the economy?)

Unreal. :oyvey:

[Obushma]

I'm surprised you take the idiot road. I'm getting tired of doing the remedial reading thing on here. See the word "All?"

You rightards are building the scaffolding you will be hung on. You keep agitating for policies that do nothing more than strengthen and expand a global corporate oligarchy in America. Citizens United, mark my words, is the death knell of this democratic republic. Read about the transition between the Republic and the rule of Augustus in Rome. Once Caesar lost the battle with the oligarchs, the party was over. Augustus continued to use the language and trappings of the Republic, but in reality, it was long dead. That's where we are right now. Corporate oligarchs are pouring money into our elections (Bachmann has raked in $5.4 million - an unprecedented sum for her district. Angles - $14 million). Right now, we are holding a U.S. Government yard sale. Everything must go.

The global corporatists, banksters, Wall Street, the military/industrial complex, energy giants, big pharma, health insurance and big ag, are conducting the last march into the halls of our government, and all you little teabaggers are standing along the parade route, cheering and throwing flowers. Remember the scene in Godfather II when all the mafia dons were sitting on the balcony in Cuba, cutting up the cake? That's where we are now.

And what is their battle cry? We want more tax breaks! We're not rich enough! We want it all! Kill the government and give us all your money! One simply needs to track the progress of wages over the last thirty years of Republican supply-side dominance to see where we are headed. Follow the money.

Every day our mortgages go up. Every day our food goes up, our health care goes up, the cost of credit goes up, the cost of fuel goes up. And every day our wages stay stagnant while Wall Street announces they have a whole new $14 billion they need to spread out amongst themselves.

Suckers get turned into serfs.

BTW, JP Morgan just announced a third quarter profit of 23%. Recession? What recession?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39648101/ns/business-earnings/

I agree with most of what you are saying, but fail to see how you are missing Democrat involvement, it's both sides.

You think the answer is Government take over of the private sector, to save us from these "Corporate oligarchs"? You don't think these people will still control most of the wealth once it is all redistributed?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You think the answer is Government take over of the private sector, to save us from these "Corporate oligarchs"?

Oh noes - not another "socialism" straw man. :oyvey:

No "take over" required - just better rules and regulations to protect the majority from the Wall St. crooks who got us all into this mess.

[TonyR]

...bailing out...banks is a mistake...

Lots of problems with your post but since I don't have all day I'll focus on this part. If you understood anything about banking and the economy you wouldn't be saying this. You can make an argument that banks should be split up so they're not "too big to fail", or that regulation should be increased, or whatever, but the notion that it was a "mistake" to bail out the big banks is both naive and stupid. Letting Lehman fail turned out to be a huge mistake. Allowing the likes of AIG and Citibank to fail would have been disasterous. There would have been a run on banks, there would have been no liquidity, and there would have been a global financial meltdown. The fact is the big bank bailouts and TARP have been a success. I'd suggest not making such definitive statements about things you clearly don't understand.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lots of problems with your post but since I don't have all day I'll focus on this part. If you understood anything about banking and the economy you wouldn't be saying this. You can make an argument that banks should be split up so they're not "too big to fail", or that regulation should be increased, or whatever, but the notion that it was a "mistake" to bail out the big banks is both naive and stupid. Letting Lehman fail turned out to be a huge mistake. Allowing the likes of AIG and Citibank to fail would have been disasterous. There would have been a run on banks, there would have been no liquidity, and there would have been a global financial meltdown. The fact is the big bank bailouts and TARP have been a success. I'd suggest not making such definitive statements about things you clearly don't understand.

But then we'd never hear from him again. Ha!

[Obushma]

Lots of problems with your post but since I don't have all day I'll focus on this part. If you understood anything about banking and the economy you wouldn't be saying this. You can make an argument that banks should be split up so they're not "too big to fail", or that regulation should be increased, or whatever, but the notion that it was a "mistake" to bail out the big banks is both naive and stupid. Letting Lehman fail turned out to be a huge mistake. Allowing the likes of AIG and Citibank to fail would have been disasterous. There would have been a run on banks, there would have been no liquidity, and there would have been a global financial meltdown. The fact is the big bank bailouts and TARP have been a success. I'd suggest not making such definitive statements about things you clearly don't understand.

So the right way to handle it is to keep running the press at the FED, inflating a fiat paper currency, which is used to bail out failed banks who now wont lend? No thanks, your belief, just like Keynesian economics, is flawed.

[sirhcyennek81]

Lots of problems with your post but since I don't have all day I'll focus on this part. If you understood anything about banking and the economy you wouldn't be saying this. You can make an argument that banks should be split up so they're not "too big to fail", or that regulation should be increased, or whatever, but the notion that it was a "mistake" to bail out the big banks is both naive and stupid. Letting Lehman fail turned out to be a huge mistake. Allowing the likes of AIG and Citibank to fail would have been disasterous. There would have been a run on banks, there would have been no liquidity, and there would have been a global financial meltdown. The fact is the big bank bailouts and TARP have been a success. I'd suggest not making such definitive statements about things you clearly don't understand.


It sets a precedent.

A big bank gets in trouble for making risky and stupid loans and it can come running to the federal government to request funds to make up the shortfall. Why should more money go to these banks if they are displaying a lack of common sense or sound business sense?

How can you label something successful when the core issues of why the banks required the infllux of federal funds in the first place has not been resolved? You can trivialize my viewpoints and try to act like me asking questions or pointing out obviously bad things (like TARP, Stimulus, auto/airline bailouts) is somehow displaying a lack of knowledge on the topic, but you did nothing to actually refute anything I said.

"It could have been worse" is bull****. That is unproveable. Simply because the system did not completely meltdown = success? And you wonder why the democrats are in trouble.

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

Ha ha ha! ROFL!

Aren't you the consummate bullsh*t artist?

You left out the fact that the jobs added to the economy during the latter years of the Bush Junta (I noticed how you conveniently avoided any mention of the years between 2001-2005) were simply low-paying service sector jobs that took the place of all the good-paying jobs that were shipped overseas on the Smirking Sociopath's watch. (The creation of those service sector jobs, BTW, was driven, in large part, by the credit/housing/equity bubble for which Bush and the repigs were responsible.)

The fact still remains that Bush (a) presided over the first net job loss since Hoover and (b) there was zero net job growth between 2000-2009.

Now you're trying to blame the Dems for the fact that all those jobs that were hemorrhaged under BushCo haven't magically come home from China and Mexico and for the fact that the service sector can only employ so many people (especially after Bush and the rethugs crashed the economy?)

Unreal. :oyvey:


Aww. Look at you trying to spin. Its kind of cute in a way.

:Broncos:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How can you label something successful when the core issues of why the banks required the infllux of federal funds in the first place has not been resolved?

Good point. Does that mean you're in favor of bringing back the financial regulations the right has worked so long and hard to overturn?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Aww. Look at you trying to spin. Its kind of cute in a way.

:Broncos:

What part is spin (as opposed to fact?)

Never mind - I shouldn't expect a guy who can defend the Bush presidency to know the difference.

[Rohirrim]

So the right way to handle it is to keep running the press at the FED, inflating a fiat paper currency, which is used to bail out failed banks who now wont lend? No thanks, your belief, just like Keynesian economics, is flawed.

You know, Keynes did not advocate constant government involvement in the economy. What he advocated was that in times of recession or depression, there would be no liquidity in the economy. The government, which can print the money, would be the only force available to prime the pump and get the economy moving again, otherwise there would be long term stagnation, like Japan found out. Once the economy was up and running, the government would get out. This has proven to be effective a number of times.

Had Bush and Obama not stepped in and saved the banks, this economy would have collapsed and then stagnated, with no new capital. For how long? Nobody knows. Japan's took ten years. Unfortunately, the banks and Wall Street have chosen to repay Obama, and the American people, by shoving knives in our backs.

[Obushma]

Had Bush and Obama not stepped in and saved the banks, this economy would have collapsed and then stagnated, with no new capital. For how long? Nobody knows. Japan's took ten years. Unfortunately, the banks and Wall Street have chosen to repay Obama, and the American people, by shoving knives in our backs.

So your personal greed for the past 30 years, is greater then the need to make the economy liquid, because you don't want to pay for the ****-hole you left for generations to come. Obama, the long legged mack daddy, is in Wall Streets back pocket Ro and you're a greedy bastard.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Unfortunately, the banks and Wall Street have chosen to repay Obama, and the American people, by shoving knives in our backs.

Just like the last republican-engineered bubble economy/great depression - the banksters and insiders skimmed the cream off the top just before the roof caved in on the rest of us.

[Requiem]

Aww. Look at you trying to spin. Its kind of cute in a way.

:Broncos:

I'm just curious.

The claims by LABF are:

The fact still remains that Bush (a) presided over the first net job loss since Hoover and (b) there was zero net job growth between 2000-2009.

What do you have to offer against this that refutes it?

I'm not seeing the spin.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So your personal greed for the past 30 years, is greater then the need to make the economy liquid, because you don't want to pay for the ****-hole you left for generations to come. Obama, the long legged mack daddy, is in Wall Streets back pocket Ro and you're a greedy bastard.

That's some incoherent, barely-literate sh_t right there - but your hood is showing quite clearly nonetheless.

No wonder you've found a home with the teabaggers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm just curious.

The claims by LABF are:


What do you have to offer against this that refutes it?

I'm not seeing the spin.

He has absolutely nothing.

In a broader sense, the right has absolutely nothing to fall back on when it comes to their record, or any real solutions when it comes to digging out of the quagmire they created.

That's why these jackals' only recourse is to lie, smear, attack, repeat...

[Rohirrim]

So your personal greed for the past 30 years, is greater then the need to make the economy liquid, because you don't want to pay for the ****-hole you left for generations to come. Obama, the long legged mack daddy, is in Wall Streets back pocket Ro and you're a greedy bastard.

I hope you're posting from an institution.

[TonyR]

It sets a precedent.
We agree here. But it was a necessary evil.

A big bank gets in trouble for making risky and stupid loans and it can come running to the federal government to request funds to make up the shortfall. Why should more money go to these banks if they are displaying a lack of common sense or sound business sense?
It shouldn't, which is why in my previous post I mentioned that the bailouts were not the problems. The real problem is allowing these organizations to be too big to fail. That's a different issue and discussion.

How can you label something successful when the core issues of why the banks required the infllux of federal funds in the first place has not been resolved? You can trivialize my viewpoints and try to act like me asking questions or pointing out obviously bad things (like TARP, Stimulus, auto/airline bailouts) is somehow displaying a lack of knowledge on the topic, but you did nothing to actually refute anything I said.
It was "successful" because it kept the financial markets from imploding which would have been catastrophic. That was the intention of the bailouts, to keep things from getting considerably worse. The goal of the bailouts wasn't fixing the banks.

"It could have been worse" is bull****. That is unproveable. Simply because the system did not completely meltdown = success? And you wonder why the democrats are in trouble.
As I said above, avoiding a world wide financial meltdown was the goal. The goal was met. Again, you're trying to argue something different. I'm not sure what Democrats have to do with this. The GOP agreed with helping the banks, particularly before Obama was elected. There was no other choice. To suggest otherwise proves nothing more than a lack of understanding.


See bolded above.

[Rohirrim]

I agree that Obama made the right choice (actually, the only choice) by bailing out the banks and Wall Street. The new wrinkle that we seem to have now is that the expected recapitalization of the American economy has not manifested. The banks are not lending. Capital is not flowing. But, at the same time, Wall Street is continuing to rake in giant profits. So how are they, and the market, doing so well, while the American people are still losing ground?

IMO, it's because Wall Street has become like the UN. They are located on our shores, but their business is being conducted globally. Before, what benefitted our markets benefitted us, our companies, and our workers, but that's no longer the case. If new factories open in India and new goods are shipping to China from Brazil, the money changers on Wall Street still make their vig and the shareholders still get their cut, but it does nothing for the American business down the street. They are not necessarily investing in America. The investment is going elsewhere. This is why we see money being made but no jobs being created. Unless we change our tax laws and regulations in such a way that it benefits us, things will continue to get worse. Of course, the global corporations that are raking in this money own our politicians, and with Citizens United, they will soon have a monopoly. I don't look for any of our laws to be changed to benefit us.

We have a government dedicated to the "general welfare" but an economy dedicated to global trade, regardless of its impact on the general welfare.

[cutthemdown]

I agree that Obama made the right choice (actually, the only choice) by bailing out the banks and Wall Street. The new wrinkle that we seem to have now is that the expected recapitalization of the American economy has not manifested. The banks are not lending. Capital is not flowing. But, at the same time, Wall Street is continuing to rake in giant profits. So how are they, and the market, doing so well, while the American people are still losing ground?

IMO, it's because Wall Street has become like the UN. They are located on our shores, but their business is being conducted globally. Before, what benefitted our markets benefitted us, our companies, and our workers, but that's no longer the case. If new factories open in India and new goods are shipping to China from Brazil, the money changers on Wall Street still make their vig and the shareholders still get their cut, but it does nothing for the American business down the street. They are not necessarily investing in America. The investment is going elsewhere. This is why we see money being made but no jobs being created. Unless we change our tax laws and regulations in such a way that it benefits us, things will continue to get worse. Of course, the global corporations that are raking in this money own our politicians, and with Citizens United, they will soon have a monopoly. I don't look for any of our laws to be changed to benefit us.

We have a government dedicated to the "general welfare" but an economy dedicated to global trade, regardless of its impact on the general welfare.

Wasn't it more Bush who did TARP and bailed out many of the banks?

Obama is more the auto companies and then the 1 trillion stimulus right?

[Rohirrim]

Wasn't it more Bush who did TARP and bailed out many of the banks?

Obama is more the auto companies and then the 1 trillion stimulus right?

TARP also went to GM and AIG. Both presidents created stimulus bills. But that's not the point of my post.

[cutthemdown]

TARP also went to GM and AIG. Both presidents created stimulus bills. But that's not the point of my post.

The point is Bush designed TARP to be paid back, the stimulus is spent and gone. Well except part they haven't spent.

Refresh my memory of what Bush's stimulus was? Was that the checks he mailed to people? I can't remember exactly what we got.

[cutthemdown]

You said Obama was right bailing out the banks, so I only asked wasn't it more bush that bailed the banks out?

[Rohirrim]

NPR had an interesting piece this morning. They sent a couple of their reporters in Pittsburgh down to the local TV station to look through the public files on campaign contributions that each broadcaster must keep. Of course, the contributors are all listed under the names of their PACS so it's hard to tell who's doing what, but the Chamber was the biggest spender, $100,000 in that small market - all Republican, of course.

Extrapolate that to the 15 media markets in Pennsylvania and the Chamber, by itself, is probably spending somewhere around $1.5 million - all Republican. That's the other thing they discovered. In this election, the spending is 10 to 1 Republican in that media market. Now that Citizens United has passed, corporations can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as they do it through some shell, or PAC. Nobody has to know anything. No more of that "give some to the Dems for appearances sake" bull****. They can pipe it all straight into the coffers of the people who will repay them with tax breaks, loopholes and deregulation. And the unions? As much as the Right loves to whine about the unions, they are about 8% of what they were when Reagan came into office. Their spending is about a penny for every dollar of corporate bucks going to Republicans.

We may be privileged to watch the very first election that was out-and-out bought for a political party by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations.

[TailgateNut]

We may be privileged to watch the very first election that was out-and-out bought for a political party by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations.


Yep, that ruling a few months back is rearing its' ugly head.

[epicSocialism4tw]

We may be privileged to watch the very first election that was out-and-out bought for a political party by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations.

Fear mongering with the boogeyman 'big corporations' now, eh?

[cutthemdown]

There is a reason corporation coming out this strong against Obama. He is anti-business.

[epicSocialism4tw]

There is a reason corporation coming out this strong against Obama. He is anti-business.

Yeah, they were pretty naive if they didnt see this one coming.

They saw it too late, hence the attack on the Chamber of Commerce instead of pro-economic policies that could have brought them along with the Obama admin in the first place.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Would ya look at that? Democrats are getting Chamber ads as well. But, but, it can't really be about the issues, can it? I'm shocked...SHOCKED to hear that the Chamber has spent $2M on Democrat candidates given all the outrageous outrage about it being a wing of the GOP. What are you hacks gonna moan about now? Let me do it for you:

$2M is a drop in the bucket compared to what they've spent on Republicans. We want MORE money, WAAAA!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uWKqTWYgcgw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uWKqTWYgcgw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[epicSocialism4tw]

Would ya look at that? Democrats are getting Chamber ads as well. But, but, it can't really be about the issues, can it? I'm shocked...SHOCKED to hear that the Chamber has spent $2M on Democrat candidates given all the outrageous outrage about it being a wing of the GOP. What are you hacks gonna moan about now? Let me do it for you:

$2M is a drop in the bucket compared to what they've spent on Republicans. We want MORE money, WAAAA!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uWKqTWYgcgw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uWKqTWYgcgw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Wow, what an embarrasment for the left.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There is a reason corporation coming out this strong against Obama. He is anti-business.

Ha ha ha! Ha!

Right up there with "socialist," "Muslim," "not a U.S. citizen," etc. etc.

You fools just make it up as you go along.

[barryr]

Very funny stuff. Will the democrats distance themselves from the chamber because of that supposed foreign money? Yeah, right LOL Ok for us, but not for you. Same old democrats LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fear mongering with the boogeyman 'big corporations' now, eh?

If we listen to people like you, corporations are always inherently trustworthy, always act in the best interests of their communities, can police themselves just fine, etc.

You're like the boy in the ideological bubble - just like your hero the Toxic Texan.

[epicSocialism4tw]

If we listen to people like you, corporations are always inherently trustworthy, always act in the best interests of their communities, can police themselves just fine, etc.
You're like the boy in the ideological bubble - just like your hero the Toxic Texan.

Yeah, because thats exactly what I said! Hilarious!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Very funny stuff. Will the democrats distance themselves from the chamber because of that supposed foreign money? Yeah, right LOL Ok for us, but not for you. Same old democrats LOL

The whole Alinsky doctrine has come back to bite them in the butt.

With it, they have made hypocrisy a part of their party identity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, because thats exactly what I said! Hilarious!

If the position you take in any given discussion on this board is any indication, then yes - it is.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, because thats exactly what I said! Hilarious!

Show me one post where you have supported any sort of government regulation of corporations.

[barryr]

The whole Alinsky doctrine has come back to bite them in the butt.

With it, they have made hypocrisy a part of their party identity.

Yes, they believe you can bully people into thinking what they want. If that doesn't work, defame, demean, attack personally, and some do much worse. But their whole identity is of hypocrisy or basically just one-sided. They only credit America whenever they can tie it politically to their "side." Otherwise, there is no good happening, it has to be credit they somehow get or it doesn't exist.

[Rohirrim]

I notice the rightards have gone into full deflection mode to get away from what they seeing going on right in front of them. If there's one thing you can always count on from the Right, ideology always trumps facts.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yes, they believe you can bully people into thinking what they want. If that doesn't work, defame, demean, attack personally, and some do much worse. But their whole identity is of hypocrisy or basically just one-sided. They only credit America whenever they can tie it politically to their "side." Otherwise, there is no good happening, it has to be credit they somehow get or it doesn't exist.

You are right, and that's a dangerous way to think. They are driving a wedge between themselves and their fellow countrymen.

[Rohirrim]

You are right, and that's a dangerous way to think. They are driving a wedge between themselves and their fellow countrymen.

You should know. It's all you do here.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You should know. It's all you do here.

Oh, its terrible when the other side pushes back. Ha!

[Rohirrim]

Oh, its terrible when the other side pushes back. Ha!

Pushes back? You've been doing nothing on this board, I repeat, nothing, but issuing extremist, false, partisan diatribes against Obama and the Dems since Obama was elected, and prior to his inauguration - a daily spew of partisan extremist spam. It's all you do here.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/sc-special-thanks.jpg

[epicSocialism4tw]

Pushes back? You've been doing nothing on this board, I repeat, nothing, but issuing extremist, false, partisan diatribes against Obama and the Dems since Obama was elected, and prior to his inauguration - a daily spew of partisan extremist spam. It's all you do here.

The Obama administration and your partisans are the extremists, and the American people are sick of you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Obama administration and your partisans are the extremists, and the American people are sick of you.

Ha ha ha!

That's why those "extremists" crushed your party in a landslide two years ago.

Keep slurping the Kool-Aid. :crazy: :mullet2:

[Rohirrim]

The Obama administration and your partisans are the extremists, and the American people are sick of you.

Just shows how blind you are to your own failings. I have yet to hear a single utterance from the Obama administration, or action, that I would classify as extremist. And yet, you, and the people on your side, have done pretty much nothing else but spew extremist, hyperbolic, rabidly partisan, and totally unsubstantiated propaganda and hate speech since Obama was elected overwhelmingly by the America people to the WH. In fact, I've never seen such an attack on a president in my lifetime. Hell, your party announced before Obama was even inaugurated that they would vote no on every single bill or resolution that came before them and they have lived up to that pledge. Talk about extremist. That's never been done before, even during the Civil War. Even those people were willing to debate.

[TonyR]

Just shows how blind you are to your own failings...

Yup, it's impressive how the righty extremists have successfully convinced themselves that it's Obama who's the extremist. And yet they can't come up with anything he's done that's extremist. They start babbling about Wright and Ayers but don't have anything concrete to back up their nonsensical ramblings.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yup, it's impressive how the righty extremists have successfully convinced themselves that it's Obama who's the extremist. And yet they can't come up with anything he's done that's extremist. They start babbling about Wright and Ayers but don't have anything concrete to back up their nonsensical ramblings.

Um...the stimulus and Obamacare dont ring a bell?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Just shows how blind you are to your own failings. I have yet to hear a single utterance from the Obama administration, or action, that I would classify as extremist. And yet, you, and the people on your side, have done pretty much nothing else but spew extremist, hyperbolic, rabidly partisan, and totally unsubstantiated propaganda and hate speech since Obama was elected overwhelmingly by the America people to the WH. In fact, I've never seen such an attack on a president in my lifetime. Hell, your party announced before Obama was even inaugurated that they would vote no on every single bill or resolution that came before them and they have lived up to that pledge. Talk about extremist. That's never been done before, even during the Civil War. Even those people were willing to debate.

The ability to lie in real time right-wing chimps like McSpammer possess is mind boggling.

Just a few days ago, I was arguing with McSpammer about who caused the financial crisis, and I posted an article from McClatchy Newspapers in support of my position.

McSpammer immediately shot back with "all you provided was a link to some leftist information clearing house" or words to that effect.

Unreal! :crazy:

[TonyR]

Um...the stimulus and Obamacare dont ring a bell?

Nothing radical or extremist about either, particularly the stimulus. Just because Rush and Hannity say it doesn't make it so. Don't be so simple headed. Many economists think the stimulus wasn't large enough! As for "Obamacare", it's not a whole lot different than legislation the GOP backed not long ago, and not much different than the legislation the potential GOP '12 presidential candidate passed in his state while governor.

[BroncoInferno]

Um...the stimulus

Even conservative economists agreed that stimulus was necessary to prevent catostrophic job losses and the complete collapse of the economy. In fact, it was your boy Bush who enacted the first round of stimulus. Guess he's a liberal extremist, too?

and Obamacare dont ring a bell?

There's nothing "extremist" about the bill he passed. In fact, it did not go nearly far enough. It's just a watered down version of Romneycare in Mass. I guess you'll next tell us that Mitt Romney is a left-wing extremist Ha!

You're 0-2 so far. Try again.

[TonyR]

McSpammer immediately shot back with "all you provided was a link to some leftist information clearing house" or words to that effect.

If people like McStupid ruled the world we'd still believe the world is flat, there would be no theory of evolution, they'd still be burning witches at the stake and throwing them in the river, America never would have freed itself from Britain, women and African Americans wouldn't have the right to vote. All of these types of concepts and movements are far too radical for closed minded people like him. He claims to be a Christian and yet people like him would have been in the mob calling for Jesus to be executed. The irony is completely lost on him. Willfully and hopelessly ignorant.

[Requiem]

Biology man is a political farce.

[Rohirrim]

Nothing radical or extremist about either, particularly the stimulus. Just because Rush and Hannity say it doesn't make it so. Don't be so simple headed. Many economists think the stimulus wasn't large enough! As for "Obamacare", it's not a whole lot different than legislation the GOP backed not long ago, and not much different than the legislation the potential GOP '12 presidential candidate passed in his state while governor.

Not only that, some of the same Republicans who voted for TARP when Bush proposed the legislation then voted against the distribution of $350 billion, which was part of the original bill, once Obama was in office.

In fact, Boehner voted for TARP under Bush, and then led the charge to close it down once Obama was in office. So, I guess you could say he was for TARP, until he was against it.

[Phantom]

Pushes back? You've been doing nothing on this board, I repeat, nothing, but issuing extremist, false, partisan diatribes against Obama and the Dems since Obama was elected, and prior to his inauguration - a daily spew of partisan extremist spam. It's all you do here.

LOL
Please, for every Skillet there are 10 of you fuggers spewing and spamming in the opposite direction. A little MORE balance would be nice.

[Requiem]

I guess Thursday is the day to use hyperbole. Well done, Phantom.

[Rohirrim]

Phantom just likes to drop by every once in a long while, throw a couple of turds around, and then leave.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Phantom just likes to drop by every once in a long while, throw a couple of turds around, and then leave.

He's representative of the right-wing baboons who stopped coming around here after BushCo jumped the shark, changed their screen names, etc..

[Rohirrim]

In the Tea Party fantasy world everyday Americans are oppressed by bureaucrats with eyeshades who go to work on the Washington Metro. They are abetted by crunchy academics who spend their days dreaming up "social engineering" schemes in their offices at Yale or Harvard. And their oppressive regime is supported by liberal news anchors and the nihilistic denizens of Hollywood who spend their nights in hot tubs surrounded by Playboy Bunnies. That is the Tea Party version of class warfare; everyday Americans versus these "elites."

This is a very convenient mythology for Wall Street. It ignores the existence of the real "elites" in America. They aren't the bureaucrats who go to work on the Metro but rather the men and women who go to work in chauffeur-driven limousines, jet around the country in Gulfstream G-Vs, and make more on the first day of the year, before lunch, than a minimum wage worker makes all year long.

The gang on Wall Street wants normal Americans to forget that they -- and the top one percent of the population -- control 34.6% of net assets, compared to only 15% for the bottom 80%.

They want you to ignore that 42% of the financial wealth is controlled by the top 1% of the population, compared to only 7% controlled by the bottom 80% -- or that 62% of the business equity that controls corporations is in the hands of the top 1% compared to only 7% for the bottom 80%.

Remember all of the reckless speculation in financial securities that sunk the economy? Well 61% of financial securities are owned by the top 1% -- and just 2% by the bottom 80%.

And when it comes to income, the share going to the top 1% had grown from 12.8% in 1982 to 21.3% in 2006 while the percent going to the bottom 80% shrunk from 48.1% to 38.6%.

When you look at numbers like that, in broad strokes it's pretty obvious why the economy sunk into recession. The greed of the top 1% sucked the buying power out of the rest of the population who were needed as customers to keep levels of demand high enough so that investors found it profitable to expand employment, create jobs and generate more consumers to demand more goods and services. Their greed killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/wall-street-hopes-to-use_b_763916.html

[Smiling Assassin27]

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/10/11/GR2010101105789.gif

I wonder why none of you hacks have whined about, say, the NEA or AFSCME and their outside money being used SOLELY for Democrats. If you look at the chart, the ONLY entity that's remotely bipartisan is, you guessed it, the Chamber of Commerce.

Face it, the facts have made your argument from teh original post a non-entity and utter joke. Sadly, you never know when to give up and you're too ignorant to consider anything more than your fantasy land in which Democratic unicorns and actual Lefties who care dot the landscape.

It was checkmate long ago, ladies.

[Rohirrim]

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/10/11/GR2010101105789.gif

I wonder why none of you hacks have whined about, say, the NEA or AFSCME and their outside money being used SOLELY for Democrats. If you look at the chart, the ONLY entity that's remotely bipartisan is, you guessed it, the Chamber of Commerce.

Face it, the facts have made your argument from teh original post a non-entity and utter joke. Sadly, you never know when to give up and you're too ignorant to consider anything more than your fantasy land in which Democratic unicorns and actual Lefties who care dot the landscape.

It was checkmate long ago, ladies.

Your own graph obliterates your argument, idiot.

[TonyR]

This is a very convenient mythology for Wall Street. It ignores the existence of the real "elites" in America...

...And when it comes to income, the share going to the top 1% had grown from 12.8% in 1982 to 21.3% in 2006 while the percent going to the bottom 80% shrunk from 48.1% to 38.6%.

Astounding numbers. Those quoted above in particular just floor me. And the fact that so many are convinced that it would somehow be bad thing to increase the tax rate (by way of allowing a temporary decrease to expire, by the way) a few percentage points on income earned above a certain level just absolutely boggles the mind. How some people, including educated and bright people, get so caught up in rhetoric and propaganda and fail to employ logic and reason never ceases to amaze me.

[TonyR]

Your own graph obliterates your argument, idiot.

LOL Yup, it appears that simple math isn't in his bag of tricks.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Your own graph obliterates your argument, idiot.

Once again, you're incapable of understanding the argument. Not that this has stopped you from posting your gas around here anyway.

[Rohirrim]

I guarantee you, that 15% is going to Blue Dogs.

[Smiling Assassin27]

I guarantee you, that 15% is going to Blue Dogs.

Dude, 15% is going to DEMOCRATS. Now you're gonna whine that they're not going to liberal enough Democrats? Gimme a break. The fact remains that a substantial amount is going to Democrats and your original argument decried the 'RIGHT WING' Chamber. Blue Dogs are not right wing and never have been. The data turns your 'right wing' argument to mush.

Furthermore, you have the liberal honk NYT calling your argument without evidence and unfounded. You picked a whipping boy because your precious and biased progressive blog held up a red flag but was unwilling/unable to connect the dots that would make the argument legitimate. You're smarter than that, dude.

With regard to foreign money, it's the DEMS who are getting more of it from PAC's. I shouldn't have to tell you what this means to your argument, should I?

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUVrkU2G" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUVrkU2G" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

This Chamber argument is much ado about nothing, and that's not just from level-headed people but from the New York Times and scores of mainstream media hacks. Cut your losses here, the argument's over.

[Smiling Assassin27]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html?_r=2
"[T]here is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents. In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance."


http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/
Democrats, from President Barack Obama on down, are trying to turn an evidence-free allegation into a major campaign theme, claiming that foreign corporations are "stealing our democracy" with secret, illegal contributions funneled through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It’s a claim with little basis in fact.

It’s certainly true that millions are being spent without public disclosure, and that much of the money is coming from corporations taking advantage of a Supreme Court ruling easing restrictions on political spending. But using foreign funds to finance political ads is still a legal violation. Accusing anybody of violating the law is a serious matter requiring serious evidence to back it up. So far Democrats have produced none.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Democrats-campaign-on-distraction-and-deception-1181196-104720794.html

The president and speaker can rail all they want about the "corporate takeover of our elections," but the reality is that 11 of the top 20 biggest political contributors are labor unions. In August, the nation's two biggest unions, the AFL-CIO and SEIU, announced that they would coordinate spending of at least $88 million to elect Democrats. (Imagine the outcry if Goldman Sachs and Bank of America coordinated their campaign spending!). Last week, the National Education Association said it would spend $15 million to help Democrats, and the public sector union AFSCME spent $1.4 million buying ads to help just two congressional Democrats. These are only a few examples of union spending. The Daily Caller's Jon Ward reports that all together, unions and left-wing groups have pledged to spend "more than $250 million now." Given labor unions' longstanding history of corruption, we wonder what a thorough IRS investigation into their campaign spending might unearth. Don't expect that to happen as long as Obama is president.

Note, too, that when Democrats tried and failed to jam new campaign finance restrictions through Congress earlier this year, they exempted unions from the DISCLOSE Act's major reporting requirements.


http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/10/democrats_foriegn_money_scare.html
It didn't take long for the liberal East Coast media to start shooting holes in the claim. On October 8, the Times found "little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual," as many "[o]rganizations from both ends of the political spectrum ... have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States."

A telling exchange about the precariousness of the Democrats' claims took place on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday between dubious moderator Bob Schieiffer and Obama adviser David Axelrod:

Schieffer: But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?

Axelrod: Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?


According to the Daily Caller, the Schieffer conversation was a signal to Democrats that it was "time for them to try another line of attack,” according to a "senior Democratic Senate leadership aide." Accordingly, Obama dropped any mention of "foreign money" during his fund-raising appearance in Miami last night.


Hardly the bastions of Conservative thought. New York and Fact Check are historically coddlers of all things Democrat and I don't have to tell you about the New York Times.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Wow, thats some serious pwnage. Why are the liberals even responding with anything other than "oops, my bad"?

[TonyR]

This Chamber argument is much ado about nothing, and that's not just from level-headed people but from the New York Times and scores of mainstream media hacks. Cut your losses here, the argument's over.

Well, 85% is significantly larger than 15% no matter how you slice it, and I don't know that there are any "losses" to cut, but agree it's time to move on from this argument because the right will successfully label it as "whining". The better argument remains the fact that the GOP failed miserably from 2000-2006 and that they have little substance to back up the claims of how they'll fix things starting after their upcoming congressional wins.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Well, 85% is significantly larger than 15% no matter how you slice it, and I don't know that there are any "losses" to cut, but agree it's time to move on from this argument because the right will successfully label it as "whining". The better argument remains the fact that the GOP failed miserably from 2000-2006 and that they have little substance to back up the claims of how they'll fix things starting after their upcoming congressional wins.

15% to Dems is MORE than either the NEA or SEIU or AFSCME give Republicans--by 15%, dude. Why are you not crying about this discrepancy? Personally, I don't give a rip as both parties have TONS to spend but I do care about the incessant whining and unfair arguments made against entities without evidence, without foundation, and without a shred of research simply because they do not agree with you politically. It's sleazy. Be consistent or be silent.

[DBruleU]

Assassin completely pwns the local circle jerkers and they don't even realize it.

What was LABF's claim the other day? The Liberals are the more fact based and reasoned arguments around here? HA! Doesn't look like it. You guys don't even take the time to read what he posts...which destroys your messiahs claims...

!Booya!:thumbsup:!Booya!:thumbsup:!Booya!

[Rohirrim]

Well, 85% is significantly larger than 15% no matter how you slice it, and I don't know that there are any "losses" to cut, but agree it's time to move on from this argument because the right will successfully label it as "whining". The better argument remains the fact that the GOP failed miserably from 2000-2006 and that they have little substance to back up the claims of how they'll fix things starting after their upcoming congressional wins.

Interesting to note that when the Right comes up with some absurd bull**** attack on Obama, the "liberal media" goes quiet. Suddenly, when somebody calls out the Chamber of Commerce, it's all hands on deck.

These clowns just can't seem to understand the simple concept that there are two stacks of money. One stack is ten times higher than the other. Not only that, the money pouring into these midterms is unprecedented in some of these districts. Like the Creamer article I posted above, Wall Street is buying its way out of regulation. The NYTimes never disputed the facts. They simply stated there is no proof. Well, there wouldn't be would there? Not when the Chamber says we don't have to say, and we're not going to.

Pretend like things are the way they've always been. Wrong. What this little exposure shows is the effect of Citizens United. Why the "liberal media" doesn't wish to focus on this is not surprising. Hell, the NY Times was almost single handedly responsible for taking down Gore (with its constant barrage of ridicule) and selling the Iraq War to the American people (which it later apologized for). Now we should be shocked that they take up the banner of the Chamber? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

I love the little Washington Examiner statement, "...but the reality is that 11 of the top 20 biggest political contributors are labor unions." Yeah. If you stack them up, the unions are in the bottom eleven. Now add the numbers. The Chamber of Commerce's 85% blows them out of the water by an enormous margin. And that's only a six week picture. The Chamber can keep this **** up week after week until the last day. Nobody else has that kind of money.

A whole new thing is happening, and Citizens United is behind it. But what the "liberal media" wants to talk about is whether or not O'Donnell is a witch.

[Requiem]

I wonder why none of you hacks have whined about, say, the NEA or AFSCME and their outside money being used SOLELY for Democrats.

Perhaps it could be that NEA's donations (as a Super PAC, and let me tell you there is a difference between a PAC and Super PAC) pale in comparison to the top two Super PAC's who happen to support conservative causes (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2010). Keep in mind the difference between Super PAC's and PAC's is that PAC's can directly contribute to individual candidates while the Super's cannot.

Or maybe it is because why I can understand why the NEA would support who they do with campaign financing and am not surprised by it. There is plenty of this going on for both sides. I think you attempted to point that out. . .

If you look at the chart, the ONLY entity that's remotely bipartisan is, you guessed it, the Chamber of Commerce.

It isn't even remotely bi-partisan in supporting candidates. If you are going to look at groups that make donations and try and discern that an 85/15 split is even remotely close, you are full of sh*t. Republicans, from the CoC, are getting over 10.5 million. The rest, puts the Dems at a little less than 2 million from the same source. Not even close to "bi-partisan" or "fair."

Plus, you might want to take an expanded look at the donors list. Could help your analysis. You did a real quality job of cherry-picking to make your argument seem a lot stronger than it was, but good thing OpenSecrets and other sources were available online!

Face it, the facts have made your argument from teh original post a non-entity and utter joke. Sadly, you never know when to give up and you're too ignorant to consider anything more than your fantasy land in which Democratic unicorns and actual Lefties who care dot the landscape.

As far as foreign-based PAC's and where the money is going, the Democrats have received more money in 2010 than the Republicans (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/foreign.php?cycle=2010). However, I'd just like to point out historically (with statistics) that the Republicans have outgained the Democrats in foreign-based PAC every election cycle since 1998. (As far back as OpenSecrets goes for sources.)

The current total stands out at less than a million dollars difference, and by the time the election actually comes around -- I expect that number to be much closer, if not with an opposite leader.

More great stuff on PAC's and their history in election cycles can be found here. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/index.php)

Not sure what "checkmate" you are claiming. A lot of words with no real point.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Right wing?

Would a right wing outfit support amnesty for illegals? The Chamber does.

Would a right wing outfit support a bailout of the auto industry? The Chamber did.

Would a right wing outfit support card check? The Chamber does.

Would a right wing outfit support the stimulus bill? The Chamber did.

So you see, this is a dead and gone argument. The problem is that the Dems have done enough to convince a traditionally bipartisan (translated: mixed up and inconsistent) Chamber to turn their backs on Dems because of their horrible policies. You know when you have the liberal media and the Chamber aiming for your head, you've screwed things up badly, liberals.

[TonyR]

15% to Dems is MORE than either the NEA or SEIU or AFSCME give Republicans--by 15%, dude. Why are you not crying about this discrepancy?

Allow me to assist you with some more relevant math:
85% of the Chamber of Commerce $ is ~$10.9 million.
The NEA and AFSCME $ combined is ~$3.1 million.
Do you not see the difference?

[TonyR]

Hell, the NY Times was almost single handedly responsible for taking down Gore (with its constant barrage of ridicule) and selling the Iraq War to the American people (which it later apologized for).

Yup, the so-called "liberal media" helped bring down John Kerry as well. And yet these dopes want to keep arguing that Fox News is no different that the other MSM outlets. Outrageous.

[Taco John]

I guarantee you, that 15% is going to Blue Dogs.

That would make sense.

[Taco John]

There was a story on Morning Joe this morning that these attacks on the Chamber of Commerce has turned into a fundraising goldmine for them, and that it apparently is translating into more money flooding into borderline campaigns that were going to be otherwise left unfunded.

Obama seems to have the Mierdas Touch.

[cutthemdown]

Supposedly there are almost 100 battlegrounds up for grabs now. This is going to be a crazy election. Probably one of the most entertaining to watch unfold.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your own graph obliterates your argument, idiot.

Ha!

I noticed that too - funny stuff.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not sure what "checkmate" you are claiming. A lot of words with no real point.

That's SA27 in a nutshell: a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Assassin completely pwns the local circle jerkers and they don't even realize it.


You probably thought GeeDubya "completely pwned" John Kerry in all three presidential debates in '04 as well. :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/child-labor-1010.jpg

[epicSocialism4tw]

That's SA27 in a nutshell: a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You're a moron.

SmilinAssassin27 has pwned you so thoroughly that you would be better served just avoiding him and hoping that he doesnt destroy you in another thread.

[epicSocialism4tw]

http://www.bartcop.com/child-labor-1010.jpg

:spit:

Wow!

The race card, the 'theyre all nutjobs' lines, and the 'their women arent really women' garbage didnt work, so now its 'republicans want to make your kids sweatshop slaves', eh?

Which one of your party bosses told you to try that idea out.

You guys make yourselves look worse with every unsubstantiated attack. So by now, you have to understand that you are a boy crying wolf. Nobody believes you.

Whats next? "Republicans kill innocent babies and sell their body parts for profit"?

Wait! That's the dems! Its called 'abortion', and the fetal stem cells are sold!

Who's the monster here? YOU.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^ Another 'toon right on target.

McSpammer with the knee-jerk confirmation.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/cartoon-gop-ads-who-paid.gif

[epicSocialism4tw]

^ Another 'toon right on target.

McSpammer with the knee-jerk confirmation.

You have completely bottomed out.

[Dukes]

You have completely bottomed out.

Or in the famous words of Richard from Tommy Boy "You have derailed!"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You have completely bottomed out.

You're pathetic.

When confronted with the shameful truth about your party, you simply point the finger at the accuser and pretend you're standing on some sort of high ground.

Beats having to actually try to deny anything that cartoon says, I guess.

[Rohirrim]

:spit:

Wow!

The race card, the 'theyre all nutjobs' lines, and the 'their women arent really women' garbage didnt work, so now its 'republicans want to make your kids sweatshop slaves', eh?

Which one of your party bosses told you to try that idea out.

You guys make yourselves look worse with every unsubstantiated attack. So by now, you have to understand that you are a boy crying wolf. Nobody believes you.

Whats next? "Republicans kill innocent babies and sell their body parts for profit"?

Wait! That's the dems! Its called 'abortion', and the fetal stem cells are sold!

Who's the monster here? YOU.

So, you are trying to argue that the Right Wing, and their corporate masters, haven't been trying to unravel every one of those protections that have been written into law since TR and FDR served in the WH? Do you think anybody buys that? William F. Buckley (the son of an oil baron) made his name, and launched the conservative movement, attacking that stuff. When the guy from Home Depot, and other corporate heads, talk about all the regulations that drag them down and cause them to take their jobs overseas, what do you think are the regulations they are talking about? Minimum wage? Safety in the workplace? Regulation of hours? Anti-pollution? Worker's compensation? Child labor laws? Or is it their odious taxes that pay for social programs for those workers that they themselves don't need, and don't want to pay for?

And you know that's a fact. Why? Because they won't mention which regulations they find so odious. They know that if they did, the American people would kick them in the ass for being such greedy bastards. The problem is that we threw out the paradigms of the so-called "Greatest Generation." Back in those times you could still be richer than everybody else, but there was also a much stronger sense of societal responsibility. We were in it together, fighting a war. Truman traveled around the country busting greedy war profiteers. That's how he made his name in politics. He actually drove across the country in his own car, confronting the greedy bastards and taking them down. Publicizing their war profiteering and greed. He became a hero and FDR chose him to be his VP. Back then, the American people thought it was shameful to be a greedy bastard.

But in the Reagan era, we threw that paradigm out. We adopted "Greed is Good." We adopted a new slogan for our CEOS, "The only thing I owe to anybody is our shareholders." In other words, it was no more just making money and working to make all of our country strong. It was **** the country and **** everybody else. I'm only in it for myself. I come first. My company comes first. My shareholders come first. My short term profit is my Gold Medal. I stand on the podium and show everybody else that I'm richer than they are, and if I'm not, I'll move jobs overseas, cut my factories, liquidate assets and buy back my own stocks until I am richer than everybody else. Because that's all that counts. Hell, look at our sports heroes. That's the zeitgeist of our times. It's all for me, baby.

Why is that cartoon so right on the point? Because that is the world where American corporations are taking the jobs - where there are none of those nasty regulations that might lower their profit margins by a few percentage points by forcing them to care about what kind of factories they run. Because we all know, if left to their own devices and allowed to dictate policy here in America, their greed would always win. We would go right back to the level we were at in 1890 - where some of those other countries are right now. Where there are no regulations and no protections of labor.

Why do you think these greedy bastards are now so happy with Citizens United and trying to buy up all the political races? Because they finally see a chance to get back to where they want to be. To get rid of minimum wage. Get rid of labor laws. **** global warming. We'll pollute this planet to total destruction if it drives up our profit margins. Get rid of business regulations. Privatize everything, so not only do they no longer have to pay taxes for **** that only benefits the workers, but they can run those new privatization schemes and make even more money from them. Look at what the insurance industry has done with health care? They're building themselves mansions on the backs of human suffering. Imagine if they could only get their hands on all those pensions? Hell, billionaires don't need health care. They can buy ****ing hospitals. Why should they give a **** about education? They can buy their kids the best education on Earth. Why should they care about pensions for the elderly? They're set for life. Hey, I don't use mass transit! Why the **** should I pay for it?

Why have a Department of Education, and free education for all? **** that. We'll make 'em pay for it. No more post office. No more social security. No more Medicare. Hell, we don't even want to pay for libraries and museums. **** that. We can buy any book we want and own all the art we can stand. If we want a symphony orchestra, we'll buy one. ****ing workers shouldn't be wasting our time with that **** anyway. They should be working and making us more money. And then we won't make 400% more than the average workers like the CEOS did in the 50s and 60s, or even 4,000% more, like they do now, but why not 10,000%, or even more? There's no limit to how rich we could be, if only we could figure a way to squeeze out every last drop of wealth this planet can produce.

Oh, and don't forget. The interests of the working man are just the same as the billionaires. Don't ever forget that.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You're pathetic.

When confronted with the shameful truth about your party, you simply point the finger at the accuser and pretend you're standing on some sort of high ground.

Beats having to actually try to deny anything that cartoon says, I guess.

Shameful truth about my party?

First, which is my party? You obviously have no clue in your little drive-by slander posts. You have been proven over and over to be one of the biggest shyster spin mongers I have ever seen. You literally are a shill for the dems. Its your party who is doing shameful things in this country. Killing babies and selling their body parts is just one of them.

And what 'truth' are you talking about? You are lying. Just like your beloved president Obama, you are a liar. You tried to insinuate that republicans want to enslave American children in labor camps. That's an absolute falsehood that only a liar extremist who has run out of bullets would come up with.

What a joke.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Shameful truth about my party?



Yep

Roh just did a great job of elaborating on this in his last post.

[frerottenextelway]

I don't understand this story. Foriegn money wants Republicans to win?

Obviously.