Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2013, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,074,302 times
Reputation: 3954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11 View Post
Well, if you want to put a "fine point...(on an) intellectual vacuum",...then try addressing the content of the link instead of trying to get everyone to chase your "bunny trails" that lead nowhere?
What's to address? The Inaugural Committee is being funded primarily by private donations. There is nothing wrong with that.

Content of the link addressed.

Now... have you figured out what transparency means yet? Because it does not mean turning down private donations for the Inaugural Committee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
Now why do you suppose Obama chose to accept corporate and union donations when he refused to do so in 2008?
Because the usual small Democratic donors are tapped out after the election campaign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
Why do you suppose Obama chose to accept UNLIMITED donations this year when he limited the donations to $50,000 in 2008?
Same reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
Why do you suppose Obama allowed a searchable list of donors with the amount they donated in 2008, but only has a massive list of donors (with not amount donated) in 2013?
Reporting is not required for 90 days. And the FEC requires the detail which will be completely avaiable to you.

In the meantime, Obama 2013 Inauguration: Donors | OpenSecrets

So... you looked up "transparency" yet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2013, 10:34 AM
 
Location: 77441
3,160 posts, read 4,366,059 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico View Post
Did you whine like this during the recent Presidential campaign, when Bush-backers hid he names of people who had contributed hundreds of millions of dollars? Or did you whine like this regarding the two W. Bush Inaugeration solicitations? I suspect, as someone has already suggested, that you don't understand the meaning of the term "transparency" and that you really don't care ... except, of course, that this particular President is holding office. For your sake, I only wish President Obama could be elected to a third term.

thats a great idea, lets see,
I bet we could hit $50 trillion in debt w/another four years of that bumbling idiot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 04:18 PM
 
2,930 posts, read 2,224,024 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriver View Post
How about because in 2008 there was no Citizens United decision by the SCOTUS which removed the limits of corporate donations?
The limit is set by the President and the Inaugural Committee.

Here's a link for you:
Obama leaves transparency on sidelines of this inauguration - Los Angeles Times

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 04:22 PM
 
2,930 posts, read 2,224,024 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
What's to address? The Inaugural Committee is being funded primarily by private donations. There is nothing wrong with that.

Content of the link addressed.

Now... have you figured out what transparency means yet? Because it does not mean turning down private donations for the Inaugural Committee.


Because the usual small Democratic donors are tapped out after the election campaign.


Same reason.


Reporting is not required for 90 days. And the FEC requires the detail which will be completely avaiable to you.

In the meantime, Obama 2013 Inauguration: Donors | OpenSecrets

So... you looked up "transparency" yet?
About what I expected from a liberal,...."factoids" with no basis.

Gee,...during the first inauguration Obama limited donations to $50,000 and raised almost $50 million for the spectacle.

Your soft shoe is sounding more like a chicken dancing on a hot stovetop.

One thing for certain,...you don't impress anyone with your intellectual prowess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 04:24 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,406,487 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
I don't understand what there is that needs to be funded. All the inauguration consists of is him giving the oath of office, and we taxpayers pay for that.

I really do not like turning our inauguration of a president into a glitzy Hollywood like event, complete with a master of ceremonies announcing each performance act.
It's celebrating that we still have a peaceful transition of power in this country. Mitt lost. We didn't have a war over that. That's what inaugurals celebrate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,074,302 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11 View Post
About what I expected from a liberal,...."factoids" with no basis.
And yet... you fail to actually challenge a single one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
Gee,...during the first inauguration Obama limited donations to $50,000 and raised almost $50 million for the spectacle.
And threw a much larger party to boot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
Your soft shoe is sounding more like a chicken dancing on a hot stovetop.
That's it? That's all you've got?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
One thing for certain,...you don't impress anyone with your intellectual prowess.
Are you kidding? Just showing up and not forgetting to breath makes me look like Albert Einstein in your threads.

Have you looked up "transparency" yet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 05:05 PM
 
2,930 posts, read 2,224,024 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
And yet... you fail to actually challenge a single one.


And threw a much larger party to boot.


That's it? That's all you've got?


Are you kidding? Just showing up and not forgetting to breath makes me look like Albert Einstein in your threads.

Have you looked up "transparency" yet?
It's quite easy to debunk your "little people are out of money" rhetoric. Fact is,...the true Obama is showing his ugly face,..the face that indicates he will do as he pleases this term, and to hell with transparency.

You keep asking for a a definition. How many people have to give you the definition of "transparency" before it sinks into your thick skull?

There's a free online dictionary. Feel free to use it, since it's quite apparent you don't have a clue about the meaning of "transparency".

Dictionary, Thesaurus, and Translations

If you have trouble with the site, get some four year old to guide you through the process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,074,302 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11 View Post
It's quite easy to debunk your "little people are out of money" rhetoric.
And yet... we wait with bated breath for your first pretense at even trying.

So... have you looked up that definition of transparency yet? You keep avoiding the question.


Last edited by HistorianDude; 01-22-2013 at 05:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 05:20 PM
 
2,930 posts, read 2,224,024 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
And yet... we wait with baited breath for your first pretense at even trying.

So... have you looked up that definition of transparency yet? You keep avoiding the question.

"Baited breath"?

What did you "bait" with??

Use the free dictionary link, brainiac......

Liberals are such ignorant little people.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 05:22 PM
 
24,401 posts, read 23,056,554 times
Reputation: 15006
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11 View Post
Apparently Obama doesn't know the definition of "transparency" either.

Please tell him.
>>> Sure he does. Obama thinks "Transparency" is the right of transsexuals to adopt children and he's all for it. What do YOU think it means?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:22 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top