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.

(Washington Post)   Despite promising to release the info, the GOP won't release who is funding their convention. Oh wait, did I say GOP, I meant the Democrats. Never mind then, transparency doesn't matter   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 85
    More: Dumbass, GOP, Democrats, political convention, .info  
•       •       •

478 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2012 at 1:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-22 11:56:26 AM  
Subby, if you are indeed a Republican, you really have no room to talk.
 
2012-08-22 11:56:35 AM  
Whereas the GOP never promised to do any such thing.
 
2012-08-22 12:02:14 PM  
If Democrats truly want donor transparency, they should fight with both hands tied behind their back and willingly give Republicans an advantage.

It's only fair.
 
2012-08-22 12:03:54 PM  
Democratic Party officials say they will not release the names of donors to next month's political convention before the event, despite an earlier pledge that they would regularly disclose the contributors.

In its marketing materials, the party promises that the "people's convention," set to begin Sept. 3 in Charlotte, will be the "most open and accessible ever." But the names of donors, some of whom are giving up to $100,000, will remain secret until federal disclosure documents are filed Oct. 15, six weeks after the festivities have ended, when public attention will have shifted to Election Day.


Why wouldn't a federal disclosure filing be considered "regularly" disclosing the contributors?
 
2012-08-22 12:20:32 PM  

Lumpmoose: Why wouldn't a federal disclosure filing be considered "regularly" disclosing the contributors?


Shhhhh!

This is an outrage. Stay on message.
 
2012-08-22 12:38:41 PM  
So Romney discloses his taxes as required and people get in a stink.

The DNC discloses their donor list as required and people get in a stink.

Everyone is looking for vast conspiracy, secret organizations and illegal activities. Jesus. Life is not as entertaining or as dramatic as you think.
 
2012-08-22 12:43:13 PM  
Aw, poor GOP...people are so mean to them...waaaahh!
 
2012-08-22 12:49:09 PM  
Don't care who's funding the conventions. Do care who's funneling hundreds of millions through SuperPACs and the Chamber of Commerce, do care who's funding voter suppression efforts, do care who's funding union busting efforts, do care who profits from the elimination of the social safety net.
 
2012-08-22 01:00:09 PM  

netizencain: So Romney discloses his taxes as required and people get in a stink.



Did I miss that?
 
wee
2012-08-22 01:01:32 PM  
Hey subby: Quit it with the partisan horseshiat. They both opposite sides of the same same greedy, power-hungry, farked up coin.
 
2012-08-22 01:11:08 PM  
The right wing talking point:
"Despite promising to release the info, the GOP won't release who is funding their convention. Oh wait, did I say GOP, I meant the Democrats. Never mind then, transparency doesn't matter"

The derp of the matter
until after the event
 
2012-08-22 01:12:50 PM  
subby is correct, something is wrong
 
2012-08-22 01:13:41 PM  
oh, with American politics
 
2012-08-22 01:23:09 PM  
Fine, release the donor list earlier than planned on the same day Romney and Ryan's long form tax returns going back to 2002 are released.
 
2012-08-22 01:25:40 PM  
How did you manage to create such a wordy headline while typing through all those tears, Subby?

It must have been incredibly hard for you.
 
2012-08-22 02:01:07 PM  
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the DNC.

Which is funded by GEORGE SOROS.

And Satan.
 
2012-08-22 02:03:19 PM  
So they promised to release it, and will do so when they make the filings. THE OUTRAGE. I am going to vote for the guys who won't release anything, ever.
 
2012-08-22 02:03:22 PM  
ah yes, the "people's convention," will be "most open and accessible ever."

this is what democrats thinks open means.

too funny.
 
2012-08-22 02:04:13 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: ah yes, the "people's convention," will be "most open and accessible ever."

this is what democrats thinks open means.

too funny.


Citation needed.
 
2012-08-22 02:04:40 PM  
Despite promising to release the info, the GOP won't release who is funding their convention. Oh wait, did I say GOP, I meant the Democrats. Never mind then, transparency doesn't matter. Oh wait did I say they AREN'T releasing it? Yeah it's actually in the farking title of the article. Never mind then, they are.
 
2012-08-22 02:05:01 PM  

netizencain: So Romney discloses his taxes as required and people get in a stink.

The DNC discloses their donor list as required and people get in a stink.

Everyone is looking for vast conspiracy, secret organizations and illegal activities. Jesus. Life is not as entertaining or as dramatic as you think.


That's great analysis, except for the part where Romney released his taxes for more than a year.
 
2012-08-22 02:06:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: ah yes, the "people's convention," will be "most open and accessible ever."

this is what democrats thinks open means.

too funny.


What's funny is you have no idea what Democrats think. You can barely think for yourself.
 
2012-08-22 02:09:39 PM  
As long as the GOP refuses to play by open rules, I see no reason the Democrats should not play the same way. There's no reason to cripple yourself while trying to fix the system.
 
2012-08-22 02:09:45 PM  

Infernalist: I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the DNC.

Which is funded by GEORGE SOROS.

And Satan.


i157.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-22 02:11:12 PM  
I'll admit, I used to be convinced Fark.com supported trolls and trolly headlines in the hopes of generating clicks and revenue. I'm starting to wonder now if Fark.com is a secret liberal conspiracy to collect all of the most farking retarded conservatives and their headlines and articles ever and expose them to a large group of people to undermine the conservative view. It's seriously effective.
 
2012-08-22 02:11:20 PM  

Zik-Zak: Infernalist: I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the DNC.

Which is funded by GEORGE SOROS.

And Satan.

[i157.photobucket.com image 288x288]


I heard Al Qaeda and the Arugula Growers Association are funding it.
 
2012-08-22 02:11:27 PM  
llwproductions.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-22 02:13:07 PM  
It could be funded by Ayres and Wright for all I care.


Wouldn't change my mind one farking bit about who I'm going to vote for.
 
2012-08-22 02:14:01 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: The right wing talking point:
"Despite promising to release the info, the GOP won't release who is funding their convention. Oh wait, did I say GOP, I meant the Democrats. Never mind then, transparency doesn't matter"

The derp of the matter
until after the event


The herp of the matter
they're complying with FEC guidelines
 
2012-08-22 02:15:13 PM  

impaler: If Democrats truly want donor transparency, they should fight with both hands tied behind their back and willingly give Republicans an advantage.

It's only fair.


Wait a minute... But liberals attack Ryan and Paul for using stimulus funds while going against implementation... It is almost a double standard on their part!

Once again, play by the rules as set. Change the rules if you want but one is not a hypocrite for following the current rules. Both sides forget this fact.
 
2012-08-22 02:16:44 PM  
This simple fact that this is a WaPo piece means that all opinions therein are automatically null and void.
 
2012-08-22 02:16:45 PM  
The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.
 
2012-08-22 02:20:42 PM  

Leeds: The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.


From your profile:

"-Unions (Since they have not been needed for the 30 or 40 odd years since they achieved all they set out to do)"


Fark off.
 
2012-08-22 02:22:33 PM  

wee: They both opposite sides of the same same greedy, power-hungry, farked up coin.


Yes, but they're still opposite sides.

We're asked to bet our future on one side of the coin, and if we choose wrong we definitely lose.
 
2012-08-22 02:23:18 PM  

Leeds: The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.


In the 50's, Unions covered about 36% of the private workforce, or as the GOP calls it "the good old days".

Now, they have less than 10% of the private workforce covered. I don't think the GOP has thought that argument all the way through.
 
2012-08-22 02:24:25 PM  

FloydA: netizencain: So Romney discloses his taxes as required and people get in a stink.


Did I miss that?


Since you asked, it looks like you did.

You sound tired.
 
2012-08-22 02:25:03 PM  

lennavan: Despite promising to release the info, the GOP won't release who is funding their convention. Oh wait, did I say GOP, I meant the Democrats. Never mind then, transparency doesn't matter. Oh wait did I say they AREN'T releasing it? Yeah it's actually in the farking title of the article. Never mind then, they are.


"Despite promising to release the info after the convention, the Democrats won't release who is funding their convention, until after the convention."

Seems harder to get outraged if the news is presented accurately.

/But that hurts pageviews, which hurts profit, which is unAmerican
 
2012-08-22 02:25:37 PM  

DarwiOdrade: The herp of the matter
they're complying with FEC guidelines


So did Romney on his taxes, and yet people still complain. Go figure.
 
2012-08-22 02:26:17 PM  

Leeds: The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.


Yes, UNIONS. They are so frightening and powerful, they're currently getting their asses kicked all over the country and are at their weakest point in many decades. Which I guess is also Obama's fault somehow, even though he loves them so much?

/read a book
 
2012-08-22 02:28:07 PM  
That transparency joke almost never fails to be valid with this administration or the DNC.


But, but....
 
2012-08-22 02:28:26 PM  

Alphakronik: Leeds: The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.

In the 50's, Unions covered about 36% of the private workforce, or as the GOP calls it "the good old days".

Now, they have less than 10% of the private workforce covered. I don't think the GOP has thought that argument all the way through.


No it just means our work is not yet done. And yes, we ARE still pissed at all the money the Obama administration gave (arguably illegally) to the UAW to stop GM from going through the bankruptcy that it then still went though.

And have you seen the percentages of public sector workers who are in Unions? No one can even pretend that the concept of public sector unions is even ethical.
 
2012-08-22 02:29:17 PM  
this is going to be a long 2+ months till election day
 
2012-08-22 02:29:49 PM  

Tyee: That transparency joke almost never fails to be valid with this administration or the DNC.


But, but....


Yes, releasing documents when they said they would is pretty un-transparent.

Wait...
 
2012-08-22 02:30:12 PM  

Rug Doctor: Leeds: The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.

Yes, UNIONS. They are so frightening and powerful, they're currently getting their asses kicked all over the country and are at their weakest point in many decades. Which I guess is also Obama's fault somehow, even though he loves them so much?

/read a book


Are you even aware of the topic of this thread? Did you put on a blindfold, click on this link and decide to respond to a comment without even reading the topic listed at the top of the page? Your idiocy is boundless.
 
2012-08-22 02:31:57 PM  

Leeds: Rug Doctor: Leeds: The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.

Yes, UNIONS. They are so frightening and powerful, they're currently getting their asses kicked all over the country and are at their weakest point in many decades. Which I guess is also Obama's fault somehow, even though he loves them so much?

/read a book

Are you even aware of the topic of this thread? Did you put on a blindfold, click on this link and decide to respond to a comment without even reading the topic listed at the top of the page? Your idiocy is boundless.


And the award for perfect example of getting called on something and lashing out in response....
 
2012-08-22 02:33:10 PM  

CynicalLA: Leeds: The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.

From your profile:

"-Unions (Since they have not been needed for the 30 or 40 odd years since they achieved all they set out to do)"


Fark off.


Corporations have achieved all they set out to do as well. I guess we should be disbanding them.
 
2012-08-22 02:35:01 PM  
I am disappointed. Like when obama decided to back peddle on public funding of his 2008 campaign.

/I got over it
 
2012-08-22 02:39:55 PM  

Leeds: Rug Doctor: Leeds: The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.

Yes, UNIONS. They are so frightening and powerful, they're currently getting their asses kicked all over the country and are at their weakest point in many decades. Which I guess is also Obama's fault somehow, even though he loves them so much?

/read a book

Are you even aware of the topic of this thread? Did you put on a blindfold, click on this link and decide to respond to a comment without even reading the topic listed at the top of the page? Your idiocy is boundless.


I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about UNIONS. IN ALL CAPS.
 
2012-08-22 02:41:09 PM  

Leeds: And have you seen the percentages of public sector workers who are in Unions?


Well, lets take a look:

"In 2011, 7.6 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with 7.2 million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public-sector workers (37.0 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 43.2 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters."

Yup, looks like you're right. It's local teachers, police officers, and firefighters in a conspiracy to run the UAW to pull fartbongo's puppet strings.
 
2012-08-22 02:42:59 PM  

Leeds: The answer? UNIONS.

My guess is that the UAW is still on the hook to spend a few tens of millions to pay Obama back for the billions in taxpayer money he gave to them.

Because if they don't give Obama and the Dems the reach around they agreed to, Obama will likely not give them so much in handouts during the next term.


I have to say, organizations that represent millions of people donating money in the hopes of legislation favorable to their large groups of members is equally bad as a single rich dude donating the same amount for the same reason. Definitely equal, that's why I'm voting Republican.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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