Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   While we're all distracted by the Republican primary circus, the Koch brothers quietly collect $100 million, $60 million of it from them personally, to defeat Obama in November. Thanks, Citizens United   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 300
    More: Scary, Koch Brothers, Republican Primaries, Citizens United  
•       •       •

3085 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Feb 2012 at 11:01 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



300 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-05 01:10:14 PM  

Weaver95: that's an obscene amount of cash to dump into a political race


Having dumped an obscene amount of cash into the federal government, and having granted it obscene powers especially at the executive level, to complain that an obscene amount of money is being thrown around in an attempt to get at all that money and power is like...I dunno, putting out a giant tray of bacon in front of a dozen ravenous Farkers, complaining that they ate it, then putting out another tray of bacon twice as big and being astounded that 50 Farkers showed up to om nom nom it the second time around.
 
2012-02-05 01:10:24 PM  

Weaver95: if Obama had any balls, he'd have that place closed down tomorrow and every last prisoner on a plane to a neutral country within 48 hours.


Better yet - go on TV and tell the nation- "Nation (channelling Colbert), the continued incarceration of individuals without trial at Guantanamo is an affront to the Constitution and a stain on the countries honor. Therefore in 30 days I am closing it down. I would prefer to transfer those prisoners to civilian prisons in the US and begin the process of trying them in our criminal courts, just as we have done with criminals and terrorists in the past. If the congress will not permit this, then I will release the detainees back to the country they were apprehended in, unless another country has a legitimate criminal/military claim to any individual and wishes to take possession of them. It is now up to the congress, by its action or inaction, to determine the fate of these people. But there is one certianity- in 31 days, there will be no more prisoners at Guantanamo."
 
2012-02-05 01:12:43 PM  
i would farking love obama if he just sat back and said,

"yeah i raised a billion dollars, and i'm going to take it and give it to schools and homeless families. I won't campaign, i won't do any ads, I'll come to the debates and discuss the issues but this money is out of control and wrong and i won't support it. I have a job to do and everyone should vote based on that, not on some stupid ads or rally bs that is shallow anyways."

he would probably lose but damn i would love him for it.
 
2012-02-05 01:13:10 PM  

s2s2s2: How much has Obama raised? He still on track for a billion? He gets more money from big money than the GOP.


i'm sorry, but we've exceeded our Tu quoque limit for this thread. I think you've still got a red herring, 4 ad hominem and a strawman option available though. I'd suggest using one of those.
 
2012-02-05 01:13:46 PM  
At a private three-day retreat in California last weekend, conservative billionaires

www.absinthechamber.com


Yes, we are very aware of what the conservative billionaires did, thank you very much.
 
2012-02-05 01:15:03 PM  

CitizensUnited: You're welcome.


ASSHOLE!


;)
 
2012-02-05 01:15:39 PM  

s2s2s2: How much has Obama raised? He still on track for a billion? He gets more money from big money than the GOP.


I hear he gets more butter from big butter, too.
 
2012-02-05 01:16:36 PM  

Weaver95: DarnoKonrad: I don't understand why *any* organization should be tax exempt. Hell, you could probably cut down on a lot of this super pac nonsense by taxing donations to the super pac as income.

i'm ok with non-profit/tax exempt organizations...I just think that the concept of 'soft money' needs to go away completely. If we got rid of 'soft money', it'd force a change in how donations get made and how money gets spent.



It's like the Komen nonsense, non-profits increasingly just look like legal loop holes for ideologues to force their agenda on society, but in the wake of Citizens United, I don't think any regulation of money is going to be possible. It's even undermining the foundations of the commerce clause itself.
 
2012-02-05 01:17:52 PM  

Weaver95: s2s2s2: How much has Obama raised? He still on track for a billion? He gets more money from big money than the GOP.

i'm sorry, but we've exceeded our Tu quoque limit for this thread. I think you've still got a red herring, 4 ad hominem and a strawman option available though. I'd suggest using one of those.


just what i'd expect from a RINO like you

/one ad hominem down, three to go!
 
2012-02-05 01:18:11 PM  

ArkAngel: Because Soros never did this to try and get Bush out of office


No actually he Didn't partially because pre-Citizens's United the sort of Super-PACS that make this sort of fund-raising possible were illegal. So take your false equivalency, fold it until it is all sharp corners, and cram it up your ass
 
2012-02-05 01:20:34 PM  

GleeUnit: CitizensUnited: You're welcome.

You're an obnoxious piece of shiat.


That's the point. You feed him attention and he continues to be an obnoxious piece of shiat. Or you could put him on ignore, and his next alt, and the one after that, and so on.
 
2012-02-05 01:20:47 PM  

s2s2s2: How much has Obama raised? He still on track for a billion? He gets more money from big money than the GOP.


Not sure if that is true but it wouldn't surprise me. Big money bets on the likely winner. If Romney was the favourite, he'd be getting more donations.
 
2012-02-05 01:22:37 PM  
See, right about now would be the perfect time for Warren Buffett to call up MSNBC and pledge to engage in free speech on a 2-for-1 basis as these assholes.
 
2012-02-05 01:24:16 PM  

Gulper Eel: Weaver95: that's an obscene amount of cash to dump into a political race

Having dumped an obscene amount of cash into the federal government, and having granted it obscene powers especially at the executive level, to complain that an obscene amount of money is being thrown around in an attempt to get at all that money and power is like...I dunno, putting out a giant tray of bacon in front of a dozen ravenous Farkers, complaining that they ate it, then putting out another tray of bacon twice as big and being astounded that 50 Farkers showed up to om nom nom it the second time around.


So obviously the best way to decrease Federal power is to remove any ceiling on political donations. Or something.
 
2012-02-05 01:24:46 PM  

Weaver95: Free_Chilly_Willy: In the event of a crisis, family or churches can step in to help.

so what if you don't have any family? what happens if you don't belong to a church?

The problem is the government had forced people into these entitlements that are now bankrupting us as a country and as a people.

no, the problem is that you're avoiding the discussion. the Koch brothers and their buddies are spending $100 million in a vain and (I believe) futile effort to defeat Obama.. that's an obscene amount of cash to dump into a political race, and I think its worth discussing the corrosive effects it will have on political discourse in this nation.


oh stop the whining already.
Bloomberg spent $100M and that was just for NY.
He spent over $240M in his career.

Even Perot spend about $12M and he had no chance of winning either.

How corrosive was all that money on political discouce in this nation?
 
2012-02-05 01:25:26 PM  

GleeUnit: CitizensUnited: You're welcome.

You're an obnoxious piece of shiat.


cdn3.digitaltrends.com
 
2012-02-05 01:26:05 PM  
Give me a farking break - Obama STILL has more big money donors filling up his warchest then the Kochs are with the Republicans, despite any assertions of some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy.

Boo farking hoo. If you don't like it, turn off the internet and go out meeting people talking about the election; maybe campaign for your favorite candidate or bill.

This is like a fan complaining one team is scoring points against the other team in a game of basketball.
 
2012-02-05 01:26:55 PM  

thamike: s2s2s2: How much has Obama raised? He still on track for a billion? He gets more money from big money than the GOP.

I hear he gets more butter from big butter, too.


Well that is just good fortune.
 
2012-02-05 01:27:32 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: oh stop the whining already.
Bloomberg spent $100M and that was just for NY.
He spent over $240M in his career.

Even Perot spend about $12M and he had no chance of winning either.

How corrosive was all that money on political discouce in this nation?


given the current degeneration of the GOP 'message' and the increasing (and corruptive) influence of corporate money on the GOP legislative agenda, i'd say 'very corrosive' indeed.
 
2012-02-05 01:27:50 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: How corrosive was all that money on political discouce in this nation?


You mean "cous-couce."
 
2012-02-05 01:28:27 PM  
Need I remind anyone the largest campaign in the history of the world was Obama's 2008. He literally bought infomercials.
 
2012-02-05 01:28:27 PM  

elchip: Mrbogey: Edsel: Hey, since we're saying that free speech = free spending on politics

That's not what CU decided.

The majority opinion in CU cited the first amendment as the basis for its ruling, i.e. "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."


shhhhhh....libtards don't like facts....it makes them angry.

they also don't like the First Amendment, or the Second
 
2012-02-05 01:28:43 PM  

Deftoons: Give me a farking break - Obama STILL has more big money donors filling up his warchest then the Kochs are with the Republicans, despite any assertions of some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy.

Boo farking hoo. If you don't like it, turn off the internet and go out meeting people talking about the election; maybe campaign for your favorite candidate or bill.

This is like a fan complaining one team is scoring points against the other team in a game of basketball, when they aren't scoring more..


Finished that for you.
 
2012-02-05 01:30:01 PM  
Well, at least they'll be putting that money back into the economy to some extent, instead of letting it sit in some bank account in, oh, I don't... SWITZERLAND. Right, Mitt?

And by putting that money out into the world, they'll make the economy a little bit better and increase Obama's odds at re-election.
 
2012-02-05 01:30:50 PM  

Tingle007: Need I remind anyone the largest campaign in the history of the world was Obama's 2008. He literally bought infomercials.


Figuratively buying infomercials would have been acceptable?
 
2012-02-05 01:32:03 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: they also don't like the First Amendment, or the Second


Shut your whore mouth, or I'll gun down your family.
 
2012-02-05 01:34:08 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: shhhhhh....libtards don't like facts....it makes them angry.

they also don't like the First Amendment, or the Second


you do realize that movies like 'Red Dawn' and 'Omega Man' were works of fiction, right?
 
2012-02-05 01:34:14 PM  
Does it surprise anybody that the super rich 1% are spending money to increase their influence in order to protect their privileges and power?
img687.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-05 01:37:11 PM  
I see no reason to protect politicians, particularly incumbents, from criticism. Let the Kochs and Soros' of the nation do their damnedest.
 
2012-02-05 01:37:14 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: elchip: Mrbogey: Edsel: Hey, since we're saying that free speech = free spending on politics

That's not what CU decided.

The majority opinion in CU cited the first amendment as the basis for its ruling, i.e. "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

shhhhhh....libtards don't like facts....it makes them angry.

they also don't like the First Amendment, or the Second


So you're fine with money being classified as 'political speech'. And thus, you're fine with a single megacorp CEO (or even a big union boss) having more of a 'voice' than you and everybody you've ever met, put together. Right?
 
2012-02-05 01:37:16 PM  

Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: shhhhhh....libtards don't like facts....it makes them angry.

they also don't like the First Amendment, or the Second

you do realize that movies like 'Red Dawn' and 'Omega Man' were works of fiction, right?


Give him a break. He's working his way up from The Flintstones.
 
2012-02-05 01:41:14 PM  
Farker CitizensUnited isn't a troll. He/She is an entertainer and I damn good one.
 
2012-02-05 01:42:10 PM  
img543.imageshack.us
img543.imageshack.us
What ten pounds of cheese might look like.
 
2012-02-05 01:43:57 PM  

LordJiro: So you're fine with money being classified as 'political speech'. And thus, you're fine with a single megacorp CEO (or even a big union boss) having more of a 'voice' than you and everybody you've ever met, put together. Right?


The ruling doesn't say money is speech. It says that limiting how much money someone can spend to speak is infringing on that person's right to freedom of speech. Don't you worry. Obama will have/spend more.
 
2012-02-05 01:44:17 PM  

LordJiro: So you're fine with money being classified as 'political speech'. And thus, you're fine with a single megacorp CEO (or even a big union boss) having more of a 'voice' than you and everybody you've ever met, put together. Right?


here's the weird bit - I think the republican rank and file are ok with corporations having massive levels of influence...but when union bosses accumulate exactly the same levels of power and influence, then - and ONLY then - is it perceived as a problem.

I've been struggling to understand how that sort of cognitive dissonance can happen in otherwise intelligent people and I haven't managed to understand the effect yet. I've noticed it occuring in more and more of my friends tho - they seem to ignore reality and base their outrage on an artifically constructed reality. when confronted with evidence contrary to their base assumptions (i.e corporations always good/unions always bad) they turn hostile.
 
2012-02-05 01:45:13 PM  
everytime you buy products from the brands Dixie, Brawny, Sparkle, Mardi Gras, Vanity Fair, Quilted Northern, and Angel Soft you are supporting these douchenozzles.

the same goes for Stainmaster and Lycra.
 
2012-02-05 01:45:30 PM  

s2s2s2: LordJiro: So you're fine with money being classified as 'political speech'. And thus, you're fine with a single megacorp CEO (or even a big union boss) having more of a 'voice' than you and everybody you've ever met, put together. Right?

The ruling doesn't say money is speech. It says that limiting how much money someone can spend to speak is infringing on that person's right to freedom of speech. Don't you worry. Obama will have/spend more.


so you're saying that money isn't speech...but that money is speech?
 
2012-02-05 01:45:49 PM  

hugram: So they spend 60 millions to stop Obama's tax raising policies, which if implemented, the new tax amount they would probably spend will be less than 60 millions. Make sense to me...

It is not like they have not made money during the Obama Administration... The DOW is up over 60%, the S&P 500 is up over 65% and the NASDAQ is over 101% since 1/20/2009...

What other possible reason could it be that they want to get rid off Obama?


He's near?
 
2012-02-05 01:46:55 PM  

Weaver95: here's the weird bit - I think the republican rank and file are ok with corporations having massive levels of influence...but when union bosses accumulate exactly the same levels of power and influence, then - and ONLY then - is it perceived as a problem.

I've been struggling to understand how that sort of cognitive dissonance can happen in otherwise intelligent people and I haven't managed to understand the effect yet. I've noticed it occuring in more and more of my friends tho - they seem to ignore reality and base their outrage on an artifically constructed reality. when confronted with evidence contrary to their base assumptions (i.e corporations always good/unions always bad) they turn hostile.


When they couldn't stop unions(especially public unions) they turned to corporate America to help out. This is tat to the union tit.

/hates tit tats
 
2012-02-05 01:47:18 PM  

Fart_Machine: So obviously the best way to decrease Federal power is to remove any ceiling on political donations. Or something.


The best way to decrease Federal power is to quit voting lock step for either Democrats or Republicans. Do not be a chump they can take for granted, even if you fully agree with them. But in the meantime...

Full and prompt disclosure is the solution, not more and more legislation with more and more inevitable loopholes. Prompt as in "the info better be up on the campaign website AND the (incumbent's) legislative website soon as the check clears."

Any foot-dragging on disclosure will be cause for immediate ineligibility to run for office.
 
2012-02-05 01:48:14 PM  

Weaver95: s2s2s2: LordJiro: So you're fine with money being classified as 'political speech'. And thus, you're fine with a single megacorp CEO (or even a big union boss) having more of a 'voice' than you and everybody you've ever met, put together. Right?

The ruling doesn't say money is speech. It says that limiting how much money someone can spend to speak is infringing on that person's right to freedom of speech. Don't you worry. Obama will have/spend more.

so you're saying that money isn't speech...but that money is speech?


So you are saying you can read, but you can't read?
 
2012-02-05 01:49:26 PM  

s2s2s2: Weaver95: s2s2s2: LordJiro: So you're fine with money being classified as 'political speech'. And thus, you're fine with a single megacorp CEO (or even a big union boss) having more of a 'voice' than you and everybody you've ever met, put together. Right?

The ruling doesn't say money is speech. It says that limiting how much money someone can spend to speak is infringing on that person's right to freedom of speech. Don't you worry. Obama will have/spend more.

so you're saying that money isn't speech...but that money is speech?

So you are saying you can read, but you can't read?


hey, these are YOUR words. i'm just asking for clarification on what I see as incoherent ranting.
 
2012-02-05 01:49:58 PM  

Gulper Eel: Full and prompt disclosure is the solution, not more and more legislation with more and more inevitable loopholes.


Or we could instead turn to public financing and close all the loopholes.
 
2012-02-05 01:51:27 PM  

Weaver95: s2s2s2: Weaver95: s2s2s2: LordJiro: So you're fine with money being classified as 'political speech'. And thus, you're fine with a single megacorp CEO (or even a big union boss) having more of a 'voice' than you and everybody you've ever met, put together. Right?

The ruling doesn't say money is speech. It says that limiting how much money someone can spend to speak is infringing on that person's right to freedom of speech. Don't you worry. Obama will have/spend more.

so you're saying that money isn't speech...but that money is speech?

So you are saying you can read, but you can't read?

hey, these are YOUR words. i'm just asking for clarification on what I see as incoherent ranting.


I said Obama will have/spend more money to speak. I am not ranting, and it was not incoherent. I think you must still be hearing the echos of your conservative past bouncing around in your braindome.
 
2012-02-05 01:53:13 PM  

Fart_Machine: Gulper Eel: Full and prompt disclosure is the solution, not more and more legislation with more and more inevitable loopholes.

Or we could instead turn to public financing and close all the loopholes.


Didn't McCain try to go with public funding, and the other guy in that agreement changed his mind?
 
2012-02-05 01:56:28 PM  

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: Gulper Eel: Full and prompt disclosure is the solution, not more and more legislation with more and more inevitable loopholes.

Or we could instead turn to public financing and close all the loopholes.

Didn't McCain try to go with public funding, and the other guy in that agreement changed his mind?


It's like educating a wart.
 
2012-02-05 02:02:03 PM  
As much as I hate the freakonomics dudes, they did a fairly iron-clad bit on this.

If you want to move the popular vote by one percent, be prepared to double your spending.

That doesn't mean that the outrageous sums of money being wasted on campaigns aren't... well, outrageous and indicative of abuse of a system gone wrong. They are, and they have more effect than they should be able to, but they just don't have as much effect as we've been led to believe.

And now, for something completely different: What I'd like to see are laws like the ban on foreign contributions extended to a ban on any contributions from people outside the candidate's district/state/whatever (in the case of corporations, the location in question would be the place of incorporation). So no hard money from individuals or corporations to a senator or governor from outside the state, or a representative from outside the district. And yes, this would extend to contributions from the RNC and DNC.
 
2012-02-05 02:03:22 PM  
Sadly the harsh reality of today's politics is that it has escalated into a spending war. I wonder if there is any proof that candidates who spend the most win? Seems to me I remember a lot of high profile races where the opposite was true. Fark posters notwithstanding, there is no objective reality or truth out there when it comes to politics. It's all about spinning the perceptions to reflect what you want to believe or want someone else to believe.There are no impartial judges or referees to rely on. When anyone tries this it only works as long as they agree with your, side as soon as they criticise your side they are unacceptable. So this leaves the elections in the hands of big money who have convinced the candidates that the loudest megaphone wins. Stop pretending that you hate all the negative ads or the distortions or the influence of mega-rich donors. You only hate it when it's the other side doing it. If we can't agree at least we can be honest about our hypocrisy.
 
2012-02-05 02:03:39 PM  

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: Gulper Eel: Full and prompt disclosure is the solution, not more and more legislation with more and more inevitable loopholes.

Or we could instead turn to public financing and close all the loopholes.

Didn't McCain try to go with public funding, and the other guy in that agreement changed his mind?


Obama was out pacing McCain in donations at the time. Do you honestly think McCain would have proposed that if he would have been ahead in donations? Obama's 2nd term is an obvious time to address campaign finance reform.
 
2012-02-05 02:04:37 PM  
s2s2s2

And this means that Obama will continue do the bidding of his paymasters and we won't have any real change on behalf of the 99%. I have a problem with corporate bribery even when democrats are being bribed.
 
Displayed 50 of 300 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report