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.

(Center for Public Integrity)   Funny how two congressmen who railed against the 'Citizens United' decision have nothing to say when called out for benefiting from corporation-funded ads   (publicintegrity.org) divider line 72
    More: Fail, Citizens United, Federal Election Commission, Fe C, funds, Robert Menendez, trade association, campaign advertising, independent expenditures  
•       •       •

1536 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2013 at 2:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-28 01:46:56 PM
I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.
 
2013-06-28 01:52:45 PM
Does subby advocate for unilateral disarmament in other realms too?
 
2013-06-28 01:57:09 PM

nmrsnr: I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.


Came here to say something like this. Seriously, you wouldn't last as a politican at all if you ran your campaign based on how you'd like the rules to be, versus what they actually are.
 
2013-06-28 01:59:46 PM
Leading by example is such an outdated concept anyway.
 
2013-06-28 02:03:21 PM

nmrsnr: I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.


Exactly. Take a stand all you want, but use what's given to you and when called out for doing what you're allowed to do even if you oppose it, stand up and shout at them "YOU SEE! YOU'RE PISSED OFF TOO!" and force change. Use what's given to you to leave such a foul taste in their mouths and explain to them that you're just following the law and if they want to change it, they should change the law back, and you'll see progress. It's no fun when you get to benefit from the same game as they do, right?
 
2013-06-28 02:07:11 PM
play by the rules you're given I say
 
2013-06-28 02:10:20 PM
Not liking the designated hitter rule isn't a reason to field the only pitcher who bats.
 
2013-06-28 02:11:20 PM
Yeah, good luck shaming politicians into hobbling their election chances.
 
2013-06-28 02:11:54 PM
Done in one.
 
2013-06-28 02:13:01 PM

nmrsnr: I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.


Agreed -- this is like the Republicans saying Warren Buffett is a hypocrite for paying the exact amount of taxes he owes instead of what he says he should pay.
 
2013-06-28 02:15:04 PM
As they say on the street "don't hate the player, hate the game".
 
2013-06-28 02:15:08 PM

Aarontology: Leading by example is such an outdated concept anyway.


Leading by example is done in an effort to shame your opponents into doing the right thing. If your opponents are shameless, the tactic really only ensures that you will never be on a level playing field.
 
2013-06-28 02:18:32 PM

somedude210: nmrsnr: I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.

Exactly. Take a stand all you want, but use what's given to you and when called out for doing what you're allowed to do even if you oppose it, stand up and shout at them "YOU SEE! YOU'RE PISSED OFF TOO!" and force change. Use what's given to you to leave such a foul taste in their mouths and explain to them that you're just following the law and if they want to change it, they should change the law back, and you'll see progress. It's no fun when you get to benefit from the same game as they do, right?


Basically, it's the political version of work to rule. If you can't change it by saying how bad it is, prove it by doing it.
 
2013-06-28 02:20:50 PM

Arkanaut: nmrsnr: I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.

Agreed -- this is like the Republicans saying Warren Buffett is a hypocrite for paying the exact amount of taxes he owes instead of what he says he should pay.


It really isn't like it. The stakes are significantly different.
 
2013-06-28 02:22:03 PM
$50,000 between 2 candidates.  $50,000, or as Mitch McConnell calls it, "not even enough for a handy."
 
2013-06-28 02:22:27 PM
This is like saying "I hate the Designated Hitter rule but do you really think I am going to put a pitcher out there when everyone else is putting some fat lazy but powerful former first baseman out there?"

So, nope, no ripping on the R or the D.  Just ripping on the S squared, Scalia of SCOTUS.
 
2013-06-28 02:23:27 PM

Aarontology: Leading by example is such an outdated concept anyway.


You realize that you can't lead if you aren't elected, right?
 
2013-06-28 02:24:08 PM
Subby, you're a moran.
 
2013-06-28 02:24:45 PM

The Numbers: Arkanaut: nmrsnr: I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.

Agreed -- this is like the Republicans saying Warren Buffett is a hypocrite for paying the exact amount of taxes he owes instead of what he says he should pay.

It really isn't like it. The stakes are significantly different.


How so? Do you think either of those candidates would have lost if not for a five-figure donation?
 
2013-06-28 02:25:59 PM

Headso: Subby, you're a moran.


I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."
 
2013-06-28 02:28:23 PM

coeyagi: This is like saying "I hate the Designated Hitter rule but do you really think I am going to put a pitcher out there when everyone else is putting some fat lazy but powerful former first baseman out there?"

So, nope, no ripping on the R or the D.  Just ripping on the S squared, Scalia of SCOTUS.


Read that as "Designated Hitler."

"Dave, it's your turn to wear the little mustache."

"Aw, but I don't wanna!"
 
2013-06-28 02:33:00 PM

coeyagi: Headso: Subby, you're a moran.

I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."


As a frequent submitter to the politics tab, I take offense to this statement (Granted, I do not go hardcore right wing blogs. but still! Harumph!)
 
2013-06-28 02:33:25 PM

coeyagi: Headso: Subby, you're a moran.

I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."


funny. I somehow doubt you guys are the types to NOT make jokes about libertarians driving on public highways to their rallies.
 
2013-06-28 02:35:30 PM

Arkanaut: The Numbers: Arkanaut: nmrsnr: I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.

Agreed -- this is like the Republicans saying Warren Buffett is a hypocrite for paying the exact amount of taxes he owes instead of what he says he should pay.

It really isn't like it. The stakes are significantly different.

How so? Do you think either of those candidates would have lost if not for a five-figure donation?


For these guys, there's an inherent risk that they'd be eliminated from the game entirely if they practised what they preached, significantly reducing the hypocrisy in saying one thing and doing the opposite. Buffet faces no such 'risk' if he were to practise what he preached and pay more taxes. Ergo the situations really aren't comparable.
 
2013-06-28 02:36:01 PM
Judging by the responses here, that means the Republican who campaigned against legalized abortion while paying for his mistresses abortion is no longer a hypocrite. It's the law, so...
 
2013-06-28 02:36:47 PM
i219.photobucket.com

chill out, PS3. you have to work within the system to effect the change you want!
 
2013-06-28 02:37:43 PM

somedude210: coeyagi: Headso: Subby, you're a moran.

I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."

As a frequent submitter to the politics tab, I take offense to this statement (Granted, I do not go hardcore right wing blogs. but still! Harumph!)


I never said all submitters were the vanquished trolls from 11/12.  Just a supposition that all the really trolltastic headlines are from them.
 
2013-06-28 02:38:05 PM

somedude210: coeyagi: Headso: Subby, you're a moran.

I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."

As a frequent submitter to the politics tab, I take offense to this statement (Granted, I do not go hardcore right wing blogs. but still! Harumph!)


Go look at the number of greenlit submissions from some of the most notorious right wing trolls here. It's astonishingly obvious what is going on.
 
2013-06-28 02:38:35 PM
MisterEZ:
Read that as "Designated Hitler."

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-28 02:39:45 PM
So even people who benefit from "Peoples United" agree it is a crappy ruling.  I can live with that.
 
2013-06-28 02:40:04 PM

MisterEZ: coeyagi: This is like saying "I hate the Designated Hitter rule but do you really think I am going to put a pitcher out there when everyone else is putting some fat lazy but powerful former first baseman out there?"

So, nope, no ripping on the R or the D.  Just ripping on the S squared, Scalia of SCOTUS.

Read that as "Designated Hitler."

"Dave, it's your turn to wear the little mustache."

"Aw, but I don't wanna!"



Know who ELSE was designated Hitler?  Yeah that's ri....


...wait, that one doesn't work.  Never mind
 
2013-06-28 02:41:08 PM
Just because a coach doesn't like the designated hitter rule doesn't mean they shouldn't take advantage of it.
 
2013-06-28 02:41:10 PM

skullkrusher: coeyagi: Headso: Subby, you're a moran.

I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."

funny. I somehow doubt you guys are the types to NOT make jokes about libertarians driving on public highways to their rallies.


Um, how many of them actively try to get public money removed from infrastructure projects?  And how many politiciabs who take Ciitzens United money as necessity also decry its effect on politics?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-28 02:46:37 PM
I hate citizens united.  I hate corporate-funded ads... NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE FOR.

So, yeah, the congressmen might not fully be hypocrisy free on this (are they ever?) but I am.

And don't forget that the pro-corporate anarchy folks aren't hypocrisy free either.
 
2013-06-28 02:48:00 PM

coeyagi: Headso: Subby, you're a moran.

I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."


And we have Newmax/floor humper on the sidebar, so that's nice.
 
2013-06-28 02:48:30 PM

coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: Headso: Subby, you're a moran.

I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."

funny. I somehow doubt you guys are the types to NOT make jokes about libertarians driving on public highways to their rallies.

Um, how many of them actively try to get public money removed from infrastructure projects?  And how many politiciabs who take Ciitzens United money as necessity also decry its effect on politics?


criticizing a law and then benefiting from that law is somehow different than criticizing a law and then benefiting from that law. Got it
 
2013-06-28 02:48:32 PM
If corporations are to be treated as people, then they should be held to the same individual contribution limit actual people are.
 
2013-06-28 02:50:11 PM

skullkrusher: funny. I somehow doubt you guys are the types to NOT make jokes about libertarians driving on public highways to their rallies.


 I didn't realize you wrote the headline as a joke.
 
2013-06-28 02:52:54 PM
Not how hypocrisy works. That shouldn't really be a surprising fact.

//I'd still pick a candidate with 0 corporate backers over one with 1.
 
2013-06-28 02:55:19 PM
What choice do they have?
 
2013-06-28 02:58:03 PM

EyeballKid: $50,000 between 2 candidates.  $50,000, or as Mitch McConnell calls it, "not even enough for a handy."


Mitch McConnell has third party groups already running ads against candidates who haven't even announced they're running.  And another third party that I have no idea if it's liberal or conservative has an anti-Mitch ad with him saying "I've been on the public dole for 30 years" over and over again.  The group has "patriot" in their title so I'm guessing tea party, but it's not clear.
 
2013-06-28 03:00:01 PM

skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: Headso: Subby, you're a moran.

I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."

funny. I somehow doubt you guys are the types to NOT make jokes about libertarians driving on public highways to their rallies.

Um, how many of them actively try to get public money removed from infrastructure projects?  And how many politiciabs who take Ciitzens United money as necessity also decry its effect on politics?

criticizing a law and then benefiting from that law is somehow different than criticizing a law and then benefiting from that law. Got it


Sure, if that's what I said, which I didn't.  Jesus, is there nothing you can't strawman?  You are f*cking shameless, dude.  Yes, that is technically correct, but when you omit part of what I said, it's a strawman.

Now, if you were honest, you'd recognize and say without sarcasm:

Criticizing a law and then benefitting from that law while actively campaigning against and decrying the law is somehow different than criticizing a law and then benefitting from it.

But you won't.  We all know that, you know that, the question is will you move on or will you bullshiat and strawman some more?
 
2013-06-28 03:00:06 PM
Reminiscent of the morons who say "Warren Buffett thinks the tax code unfairly favors the rich. Why doesn't he just give the Feds more money, then? Because he's a hypocrite!" It's hopeless to try reason when you're dealing with that level of stupidity.
 
2013-06-28 03:01:14 PM

skullkrusher: coeyagi: Headso: Subby, you're a moran.

I've discovered where all our friends who disappeared went after November 2012 - Drew hired them to be strictly subbies.   It would explain why my face melts every time I see an NRO, American Thinker or Weekly Standard tag show up - "the stupid, it burns."

funny. I somehow doubt you guys are the types to NOT make jokes about libertarians driving on public highways to their rallies.


Not the same. I never said I wouldn't call someone an idiot for their positions. Making fun of them for using publicly funded infrastructure is not to call them hypocrites, it's to point out how foolish their ideology is for thinking that government shouldn't spend money on infrastructure. If somebody wanted to say that these particular democrats are stupid for opposing the Citizens United decision, because without it they never would have gotten elected, that is a different argument.

To go with the DH analogy in the thread, it's like calling a manager an idiot for being against the DH when half of the RBIs on his team come from the DH.
 
2013-06-28 03:01:55 PM

Wally Weaver: What choice do they have?


This.  Menendez needs that cash; he is in serious danger of losing his seat to a Republican every election cycle.  Serious.  Danger.
 
2013-06-28 03:07:46 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Wally Weaver: What choice do they have?

This.  Menendez needs that cash; he is in serious danger of losing his seat to a Republican every election cycle.  Serious.  Danger.


You sound sarcastic, and on that basis, I agree with you.

Seriously. Menendez could probably murder someone and NJ would still be like "Yea, whatever, get back to Congress"
 
2013-06-28 03:13:35 PM

mediablitz: Judging by the responses here, that means the Republican who campaigned against legalized abortion while paying for his mistresses abortion is no longer a hypocrite. It's the law, so...


Now that's interesting, because I would initially like to call that guy a hypocrite. I think the distinguishing factor is that the stance against abortions are moral ones, and that your position on what is moral should not be affected by what is and is not law. The people who are against corporate finance are (for the most part) not arguing it from a moral standpoint, they don't think it's sinful to take campaign contributions, but rather they think it's unfair, undemocratic, and corrupting, and would prefer the system didn't allow it. I think that arguments about what is the best set of rules does not preclude you from using the current set of rules, but arguing morality means that you think that there is something fundamentally right and fundamentally wrong beyond what the law says, so you should be beholden to it even if the law doesn't prohibit it.

Trying to sum up: If you say that something is morally "bad" or "wrong" you can be a hypocrite even if it is legal, but if you don't say that the system is "bad" or "wrong" in the moral sense, but is worse than it could be, then you are not being hypocritical by playing by the rules.
 
2013-06-28 03:19:11 PM

nmrsnr: I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.


Done in one.
 
2013-06-28 03:23:27 PM

nmrsnr: I will never call someone for being a hypocrite by playing by the rules. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in saying "I think the rules are too lax, and will fight to change them, but until they are changed, I won't play with one hand tied behind my back." You can decide to make a principled stand if you wish, but I never find following the rules, even if they are rules you wish you could change, as somehow dishonest.


www.andybaird.com

Good!  Let the justifications flow though you!
 
2013-06-28 03:24:59 PM

mediablitz: Judging by the responses here, that means the Republican who campaigned against legalized abortion while paying for his mistresses abortion is no longer a hypocrite. It's the law, so...


Political office is the result of a competition, and Citizens United meant a drastic change in the rules of that competition. Does anybody really need to have it explained to them why that's not at all like saying abortion is wrong but getting one anyway?

Hint: it's not a competition.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 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 »






Report