imontheinternet: Damnaged: As one of the few conservatives on this site I have a few things to say about this election.

1. Romney is a fascist morally bankrupt tool of the wealthy elite, who has apparently lived a life mostly within the bounds of traditional morality, at the minimum showing fidelity to his wife, and commitment to the well being of his children
2. Obama is a communist slightly less morally bankrupt tool of the wealthy elite trying to work within a plutocratic system to produce what positive change he can, which necessarily requires compromise with plutocrats, but which is superior to raging impotently against entrenched wealth for no gain at all.
3. I hate them both neither are especially despicable, and people who "hate" either one evince serious character defect
4. Obama will win.

ftfy

FTFY

bugontherug: imontheinternet: Damnaged: As one of the few conservatives on this site I have a few things to say about this election.

1. Romney is a fascist morally bankrupt tool of the wealthy elite, who has apparently lived a life mostly within the bounds of traditional morality, at the minimum showing fidelity to his wife, and commitment to the well being of his children
2. Obama is a communist slightly less morally bankrupt tool of the wealthy elite trying to work within a plutocratic system to produce what positive change he can, which necessarily requires compromise with plutocrats, but which is superior to raging impotently against entrenched wealth for no gain at all.
3. I hate them both neither are especially despicable, and people who "hate" either one evince serious character defect
4. Obama will win.

ftfy

FTFY

Romney for Dad - in 2012!

Brubold: Where were these people in 2008 when Obama backed out of his promise to run a transparent campaign and ended up raising roughly $250 million more than McCain did?

They were noticing that most of Obama's superior fundraising came from small donors, an admirable, historic achievement that doesn't threaten to turn government into a commodity for the highest bidder.


The money has always been there. The Citizens United decision didn't change much of anything other than the process taken to get the money to the candidates. The SCOTUS made the right decision, IMO. Congress just needs to do a better job of writing campaign finance laws.

Citizens United did not impact the process taken to get money to the candidates at all. Rather, it impacted the ability of corporations to indirectly support candidates though independent political activity. Its full impact remains to be seen, but we already know conservative superpacs, created by Citizens United, and which take large sums of money from corporations, are massively outspending progressive superpacs in battleground states across the country.

LasersHurt: bugontherug: imontheinternet: Damnaged: As one of the few conservatives on this site I have a few things to say about this election.

1. Romney is a fascist morally bankrupt tool of the wealthy elite, who has apparently lived a life mostly within the bounds of traditional morality, at the minimum showing fidelity to his wife, and commitment to the well being of his children
2. Obama is a communist slightly less morally bankrupt tool of the wealthy elite trying to work within a plutocratic system to produce what positive change he can, which necessarily requires compromise with plutocrats, but which is superior to raging impotently against entrenched wealth for no gain at all.
3. I hate them both neither are especially despicable, and people who "hate" either one evince serious character defect
4. Obama will win.

ftfy

FTFY

Romney for Dad - in 2012!

Now that I think about, Romney's profiteering from vulture capitalism might make him morally bankrupt after all. It might be reasonable to hate the man after all.

BullBearMS: hubiestubert: BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Obama is a compassionate, moderate conservative

The last I heard, murdering innocent women and children does not make you "compassionate".

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."

Of course, if you are horrified and learn from the mistake, that would be one thing. Lying to cover up for the mistake is another.

Would you equally lay blame on GW on the mistakes made in Afghanistan and Iraq?

When did liberals ever make excuses for it when Bush did it?

And that has what to do with the level of concern that you have now? THAT is more the point.

We inherited a crappy situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to the splitting of effort, and have dragged them both out because of that division of effort, which not only introduced Al Qaida and others into Iraq--where they had little toe hold thanks to Saddam not wanting to share any glory or set the seeds for any sort of revolution--but likewise allowed warlords to consolidate position. Couple it with the desire for the American public to NOT lose troops, and that is the legacy of the previous 10 years of policy.

Your position ignores these factors, and instead seems to want to obfuscate the origins of the policy, and cast the decision to carry out strikes--strikes that wouldn't be necessary had we gone IN with a clear plan.

Handing a crappy situation to a President, and then faulting him for dealing with it as best we can is not entirely helpful, and it is, again, beneath you.

DrD'isInfotainment: There are reasons Mitt out did Obama in money in May. The main one being that it's the first month that MorMoney was the presumptive nominee, and anyone could give him the new maximum contribution, post primary season.

But I would like to suggest the possibility that the GOP might just want to lie about how much money their candidate actually raised. I know the GOP has been a paragon of integrity and trustworthiness since the glory days of Richard Nixon, but does anyone think there may be a bit of exaggeration in the GOP money numbers to whip up a little more froth amongst their constituents, especially since the exit of sorely missed Santorum.

I think the reported numbers come from federally required fundraising disclosures. If so, falsely reporting those numbers could constitute a federal crime.

bugontherug: LasersHurt: bugontherug: imontheinternet: Damnaged: As one of the few conservatives on this site I have a few things to say about this election.

1. Romney is a fascist morally bankrupt tool of the wealthy elite, who has apparently lived a life mostly within the bounds of traditional morality, at the minimum showing fidelity to his wife, and commitment to the well being of his children
2. Obama is a communist slightly less morally bankrupt tool of the wealthy elite trying to work within a plutocratic system to produce what positive change he can, which necessarily requires compromise with plutocrats, but which is superior to raging impotently against entrenched wealth for no gain at all.
3. I hate them both neither are especially despicable, and people who "hate" either one evince serious character defect
4. Obama will win.

ftfy

FTFY

Romney for Dad - in 2012!

Now that I think about, Romney's profiteering from vulture capitalism might make him morally bankrupt after all. It might be reasonable to hate the man after all.

Either way, I don't want him to be the president.

Does anybody know where the fark BBMS crawled out of in the last few days? Was was so quiet for so long, and now is on this "NO LIBERAL IS LIBERAL ENOUGH TO BE LIBERAL, EVER. EVERYONE IS WRONG BUT ME!" kick. It shows no signs of slowing.

bugontherug: Brubold: Where were these people in 2008 when Obama backed out of his promise to run a transparent campaign and ended up raising roughly $250 million more than McCain did?

They were noticing that most of Obama's superior fundraising came from small donors, an admirable, historic achievement that doesn't threaten to turn government into a commodity for the highest bidder.

*cough* bullshiat *cough*

Also this

And this

BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Obama is a compassionate, moderate conservative

The last I heard, murdering innocent women and children does not make you "compassionate".

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."

Of course, if you are horrified and learn from the mistake, that would be one thing. Lying to cover up for the mistake is another.

Civilians die during wars. That's not murder, that's war. Sort of why Liberals like my self don't like wars. We know, as any intelligent person does, that innocent life will be taken during any military action. The term "compassionate conservative" is used to describe conservatives who also support certain social policies domestically but nice smoke and mirrors. The term is not meant to reflect a foreign military/security policy.

Obama ended 1 war, ended torture and resolved one military conflict (without engaging). I would pit his foreign policy record with any modern President.

imontheinternet: bugontherug: Brubold: Where were these people in 2008 when Obama backed out of his promise to run a transparent campaign and ended up raising roughly $250 million more than McCain did?

They were noticing that most of Obama's superior fundraising came from small donors, an admirable, historic achievement that doesn't threaten to turn government into a commodity for the highest bidder.

*cough* bullshiat *cough*

Also this

And this

All those links prove is that he has larger donors at all. They also don't address the more general idea that he gets more small donations than his opponents.

I mean if you really want to make the point that a politician got a lot of money from rich people, go ahead. You're not wrong. But Obama's totals for last month came from 98% donors giving below $250.

BullBearMS: LasersHurt: Does anybody know where the fark BBMS crawled out of in the last few days? Was was so quiet for so long, and now is on this "NO LIBERAL IS LIBERAL ENOUGH TO BE LIBERAL, EVER. EVERYONE IS WRONG BUT ME!" "it's not suddenly OK when Obama does it!" kick. It shows no signs of slowing.

[dl.dropbox.com image 500x415]

I know you're convinced that nobody can ever defend Obama because you're being obtuse - in fact, you're always correct, and therefore any defense is not okay. You also know that nobody can disagree with you without being a hypocrite. You know a lot of things.

LasersHurt: All those links prove is that he has larger donors at all. They also don't address the more general idea that he gets more small donations than his opponents.

I mean if you really want to make the point that a politician got a lot of money from rich people, go ahead. You're not wrong. But Obama's totals for last month came from 98% donors giving below $250.

Read the NYT article again.

FTA: The institute found that while nearly 50 percent of Mr. Obama's donations came in individual contributions of $200 or less, in reality, only 26 percent of the money he collected through Aug. 31 during the primary and 24 percent of his money through Oct. 15 came from contributors whose total donations added up to $200 or less. The data is the most recent available.

Those figures are actually in the same range as the 25 percent President Bush raised in 2004 from donors whose contributions aggregated to $200 or less

He had his big contributors give donations in small chunks to create the appearance of a campaign running on small donations. The real numbers for donations of less than $200 was the same as Bush in 04.

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: All those links prove is that he has larger donors at all. They also don't address the more general idea that he gets more small donations than his opponents.

I mean if you really want to make the point that a politician got a lot of money from rich people, go ahead. You're not wrong. But Obama's totals for last month came from 98% donors giving below $250.

Read the NYT article again.

FTA: The institute found that while nearly 50 percent of Mr. Obama's donations came in individual contributions of $200 or less, in reality, only 26 percent of the money he collected through Aug. 31 during the primary and 24 percent of his money through Oct. 15 came from contributors whose total donations added up to $200 or less. The data is the most recent available.

Those figures are actually in the same range as the 25 percent President Bush raised in 2004 from donors whose contributions aggregated to $200 or less

He had his big contributors give donations in small chunks to create the appearance of a campaign running on small donations. The real numbers for donations of less than $200 was the same as Bush in 04.

Adjusted according to math designed to create exactly that view, yes. And maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I don't care.

LasersHurt: Adjusted according to math designed to create exactly that view, yes. And maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I don't care.

If I give a candidate the $4,600 maximum in $200 installments, I'm not 23 small donors, I'm one large one.

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Adjusted according to math designed to create exactly that view, yes. And maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I don't care.

If I give a candidate the $4,600 maximum in $200 installments, I'm not 23 small donors, I'm one large one.

I don't fail to understand the concept.

BullBearMS: hubiestubert: When did liberals ever make excuses for it when Bush did it?

And that has what to do with the level of concern that you have now? THAT is more the point.

I'm a liberal. I, unlike you, have never made excuses for this behavior no matter who does it.

Odd, but you seem in synch with the same line of questioning that the DERP brigade has picked up with frightening alacrity...

BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Civilians die during wars. That's not murder, that's war

Because if the police have a feeling that a criminal is in a given area, that totally would absolve them from prosecution for just indiscriminately murdering everyone in that area.

This is not how the laws or the international treaties ratified by Congress actually work.

I see you don't know the difference between the Police and the Military.

mainstreet62: Damnaged: As one of the few conservatives on this site I have a few things to say about this election.

1. Romney is a fascist.
2. Obama is a communist.
3. I hate them both.
4. Obama will win.

You're not one of the few. You're one of the sane.

"The sane" think that Obama's a Communist and Romney's a Fascist?

LasersHurt: BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Civilians die during wars. That's not murder, that's war

Because if the police have a feeling that a criminal is in a given area, that totally would absolve them from prosecution for just indiscriminately murdering everyone in that area.

This is not how the laws or the international treaties ratified by Congress actually work.

I see you don't know the difference between the Police and the Military.

Oddly enough, if we'd handled the 9/11 attack AS a law enforcement matter, we might not be in the mess we are today. We have tried folks, we have prosecuted folks, on charges of terrorism, but the evidence chain was kept intact, as well the chain of custody.

But we didn't. We turned it into a military solution, and we cannot simply back out and get a do over.

If you want someone to blame BullBearMS, perhaps you should lay it on the folks who got us INTO this mess in the first place, as opposed to ignoring what got us to this place...

Bush v Gore > Plessy v Ferguson > Dredd Scott v Sanford > Citizens United

It all comes back to that horrible, terrible, ruling. Activist judges, indeed!

Dog Welder: hubiestubert: Damnaged: As one of the few conservatives on this site I have a few things to say about this election.

1. Romney is a fascist.
2. Obama is a communist.
3. I hate them both.
4. Obama will win.

*ahem*

*taps foot*

*looks at watch*

What does a fella have to do to be called Conservative anymore?

If you ask the current GOP core of what my political leanings are, I'd be labeled a RINO at this point. Does that count as conservative any more?

To be fair, I registered Independant now, because the party has lost its damn mind. I still consider myself Conservative, but the GOP has now wandered into radical territory...

beta_plus: BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Civilians die during wars. That's not murder, that's war

Because if the police have a feeling that a criminal is in a given area, that totally would absolve them from prosecution for just indiscriminately murdering everyone in that area.

This is not how the laws or the international treaties ratified by Congress actually work.

Those treaties only count when the President is a conservative who American leftists and their North West European allies don't like. This was made very clear when those treaties were passed.

Do I hear the sound of a Butt being hurt? The tender refrain of "why does the world persecute conservatives so?"

imontheinternet: bugontherug: Brubold: Where were these people in 2008 when Obama backed out of his promise to run a transparent campaign and ended up raising roughly $250 million more than McCain did?

They were noticing that most of Obama's superior fundraising came from small donors, an admirable, historic achievement that doesn't threaten to turn government into a commodity for the highest bidder.

*cough* bullshiat *cough*

Also this

And this

Objective reality: it would like a word with you. From your own link:

"Nevertheless, when it comes to large donors who gave $1,000 or more in aggregate to Mr. Obama, they still accounted for a smaller proportion of his total money haul than others. Contributions from such large donors accounted for 47 percent of his money through August 31, compared to 56 percent for Mr. Kerry, 60 percent for President Bush and 59 percent for Senator John McCain."

As I said, and as your own article verifies, most of Obama's funds came from small donors.
An admirable, historic achievement that doesn't threaten to sell government to the highest bidder.

LasersHurt: All those links prove is that he has larger donors at all. They also don't address the more general idea that he gets more small donations than his opponents.

But they do. See above post.

Ned Stark: But Obama is the one who's killing people right now.

Does nobody ever stop to think "Maybe this sounds stupid and wildly inaccurate?"

He's the CiC, sure. He's setting the direction of the conflicts, maybe. But Barack Obama is not personally shooting motherfarkers, and as such statements like that are just ridiculous. The English language has given you so many ways to accurately describe your distress at modern geopolitics - please use them.

BullBearMS: LasersHurt: BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Civilians die during wars. That's not murder, that's war

Because if the police have a feeling that a criminal is in a given area, that totally would absolve them from prosecution for just indiscriminately murdering everyone in that area.

This is not how the laws or the international treaties ratified by Congress actually work.

I see you don't know the difference between the Police and the Military.

I see you don't realize that international treaties ratified by the US require the military to avoid murdering innocent people even during a real war and not just the phony "war on terror".

This is why it was murder and a war crime when Bush did it. It's also why it doesn't suddenly stop being murder and a war crime when Obama does it.

Get caught being an idiot? Pretend the other guy supports killing innocents.

bugontherug: Contributions from such large donors accounted for 47 percent of his money through August 31, compared to 56 percent for Mr. Kerry, 60 percent for President Bush and 59 percent for Senator John McCain.

Yeah, about 10 percentage points off the average. What a revolution. Obama completely changed the game and is not beholding to special interests at all, as his three years in office have clearly shown.

I dislike Romney as much as the next guy, but seeing people still drink the Obama kool-aid is just sad.

imontheinternet: bugontherug: Contributions from such large donors accounted for 47 percent of his money through August 31, compared to 56 percent for Mr. Kerry, 60 percent for President Bush and 59 percent for Senator John McCain.

Yeah, about 10 percentage points off the average. What a revolution. Obama completely changed the game and is not beholding to special interests at all, as his three years in office have clearly shown.

I dislike Romney as much as the next guy, but seeing people still drink the Obama kool-aid is just sad.

Seeing people dismiss other people they disagree with with a tired, bullshiat kool-aid joke is just sad. You can disagree with him without insinuating he's a brainwashed cultist.