Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His name translates into English several ways. As a result, some authors pick "average man", "common man", "reasonable man".
In a more PC world it is reasonable person.
If this reasonable person concludes all these super PACs are running around supporting one candidate or one party..then it doesn't matter boo what they claim.
They can claim till they are blue in the face that they are "unconnected" however, if the reasonable person says...
It is pretty obviously if I gave to your super PAC you would support candidate Bob Jones. Then your donation was legally as if given to Bob Jones directly.
Don't believe me?
Try reading some court cases that already have rules exactly this. A good start is National Organization for Marriage on January 31, 2012.
Facebook page to court case based upon reasonable person is at:
Barack Obama recently unleashed a SuperPAC.....or rather gave permission for his campaign to be bolstered by a SuperPAC.
This is the same President who found it conscionable to rail against Citizens United in a State of the Union Address. That makes the President a hypocrite.
If you're railing against SuperPACs....ok...i'm with you. If you're concerned that Mitt Romney will raise mega-millions and depose Barack Obama.......it falls on deaf ears.
You don't get out often, do you? The Supreme Court decision changed the rules and Super PACs are legal. Why should the President be required to play by rules different than the extremists on the other side? You fight by the rules of the game. That's what he's doing. He hasn't really needed the secret money though, not like the sheets-over-their-heads crowd contributing so much of the money on the GOP side.
The Supreme Court decision changed the rules and Super PACs are legal. Why should the President be required to play by rules different than the extremists on the other side?
President Obama is not a hypocrite. He is a pragmatic politician that is just using the same methods as his detractors. Only a fool sets himself up to loose because accepting money from a superpac is ok for the Repubs but not ok for the Democrats. IMHO Money is green. Take it where you can get it but forget who gave it to you.
You don't get out often, do you? The Supreme Court decision changed the rules and Super PACs are legal. Why should the President be required to play by rules different than the extremists on the other side? You fight by the rules of the game. That's what he's doing. He hasn't really needed the secret money though, not like the sheets-over-their-heads crowd contributing so much of the money on the GOP side.
No **** Sherlock. You don't think I know that SuperPACs are legal?
By your theory, if the President is "playing by the rules" then shouldn't he have known that he too would resort to SuperPACs in order to be on an even playing field? Did he not know he'd engage in hypocrisy before being a royal dick head during the State of the Union?
Of course he knew he would. But he found it reasonable to be an ******* because he knew people like you would latch onto it. And as you've displayed here, it worked. That makes you a PAWN.
You can't fathom that your King is a hypocrite. Thus we get posts like yours.
Embarrassing.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 03-19-2012 at 09:28 AM..
Reason: spelling
Barack Obama recently unleashed a SuperPAC.....or rather gave permission for his campaign to be bolstered by a SuperPAC.
This is the same President who found it conscionable to rail against Citizens United in a State of the Union Address. That makes the President a hypocrite.
If you're railing against SuperPACs....ok...i'm with you. If you're concerned that Mitt Romney will raise mega-millions and depose Barack Obama.......it falls on deaf ears.
A Super Pac needs no permission from a candidate to form. A Super Pac does not need an endorsement from their candidate, either. They are only responsible to themselves for what they create in behalf of their candidate, and have no restrictions on what they can spend or how they choose to spend it.
They can be financed by one person. Without Super Pacs, Gingrich and Santorum would be long gone now.
Both Romney and Obama have widespread citizen's financial support already. The Super Pacs are just going to pile on ad money during the general campaign and inundate us all with ads galore, but that does not mean the guy with the most ads will win.
They are the worst thing to ever happen to our political process. Super Pacs are nothing but influence machines for the ultra-wealthy, who are so rich they want nothing but influence. That's the only thing they don't have already.
No **** Sherlock. You don't think I know that SuperPACs are legal?
By your theory, if the President is "playing by the rules" then shouldn't he have known that he too would resort to SuperPACs in order to be on an even playing field? Did he not know he'd engage in hypocrisy before being a royal dick head during the State of the Union?
Of course he knew he would. But he found it reasonable to be an ******* because he knew people like you would latch onto it. And as you've displayed here, it worked. That makes you a PAWN.
You can't fathom that your King is a hypocrite. Thus we get posts like yours.
Embarrassing.
Uh- America has never had a King. President Obama was elected fair and square by a good majority of us, and we intend to see him get the second term he deserves.
And he'll get his re-election. Live with it. Sanity still rules in this country, no matter what you think.
You don't get out often, do you? The Supreme Court decision changed the rules and Super PACs are legal. Why should the President be required to play by rules different than the extremists on the other side? You fight by the rules of the game. That's what he's doing. He hasn't really needed the secret money though, not like the sheets-over-their-heads crowd contributing so much of the money on the GOP side.
Your right he wouldn't because it would require him to have a code of honor.. Strike Three!!!!!
What's the old saying in politics:
you stand to principle; you stand to lose?
No one ever said the president wasn't a politician.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
