This may explain why McCain wants to force Obama into public financing

blackascoal said:
Thus, he's tied to public financing no matter what Obama decides to do.

Obama should refuse to take it.
Click to expand...

I like that attitude black. Candidates should raise money on their own if their message sells. We don't need public financing of elections.
 
cawacko said:
I like that attitude black. Candidates should raise money on their own if their message sells. We don't need public financing of elections.
Click to expand...
Or even equal access to third parties that might have good ideas. We should make sure that everything remains the status quo. (and for BAC, this is sarcasm, I know you can't understand any of it, but that is what it is. It means I am sardonically saying something I don't really mean).
 
cawacko said:
I like that attitude black. Candidates should raise money on their own if their message sells. We don't need public financing of elections.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I think candidates who choose to accept public financing should do so. It gives them at least the opportunity to compete with other candidates who do not choose to accept it.
 
cawacko said:
I like that attitude black. Candidates should raise money on their own if their message sells. We don't need public financing of elections.
Click to expand...

I'm actually all for strictly public financing. The only way we will ever have our democracy, and our country back, is when we the people, finance it ourselves. Money talks, period. So that is important.

But then I got to thinking, in between drooling and twitching, and DUUUUHHHHHing my way through this thread, and I started to wonder, gosh golly, how best to accomplish this goal? Should we do what Cawacko and Damo, honest brokers if ever there were two of them, imply we should do, and after decades of being out fund-raised and out-spent by the republican party, when their well is first starting to run dry and we have our right now likely nominee, just a freaking cash cow who keeps on giving, we decide to even the playing field for the former cash winners, and release a statement saying, gosh we're going to opt for public financing so you can be even with us, and when your 527 swiftboating scummers start eating our candidate, you can tell reporters you are "shocked, shocked and appalled" on one phone , while you are orchestrating the next attack on your other phone...and oh btw, why don't we while we're at it, pass a law in California changing the winner take all electoral system, but don't let's do that in any red states, would that be enough sir?

Or, you know, we can just say, nice try, but hey, go fuck yourself John!

What do you think Cawacko? Damo? Huh? Let me wipe some more drool off of my face, while I consider what the smart choice might be.

I know...in order to make this really fair and square, let's get Superfreak's opinion. We'll do whatever he thinks best.

Jesus Christ. I've come across some hacks in my time, and I've come across some people who think liberals are dumb, but Cawacko, DAmo and SF take the cake.

Wake up boys, there is no Santa, and Obama is going to tell your boy to get fucked, k?
 
Translation: Or we could just throw away a central principal that we have been preaching to everybody for a decade and become what we abhor. Wouldn't that be the best choice?! <pick two people out and attempt an insult, add that here make sure it is sardonic and has a question mark>?
 
Damocles said:
Translation: Or we could just throw away a central principal that we have been preaching to everybody for a decade and become what we abhor. Wouldn't that be the best choice?! <pick two people out and attempt an insult, add that here make sure it is sardonic and has a question mark>?
Click to expand...

You find one liberal who held as "principal" changing the rules for only one party, so that we could enjoy permanent one party rule. Then post their quote here.

The principal is to get money out of politics, not to get money out of the Democratic party, thus turning money into a weapon only one side can employ and completely abolishing the two-party system, turning this into a right wing dictatorship.

...your wet dreams aside, of course.
 
Most of those principals only work if they're practiced by both sides.

Take winner-take-all, for instance. A completely unfair electoral system. It gives the majority the right to cast the vote of the minority. However, should just California take the system on by their lonesome? Giving the minority in California the ability to join with the majorities in other states who cast the votes of their minority doesn't sound very fair to me. In fact, that's the ultimate way to insure that the winner take all system is never abolished.

It would only work if we all did it together. Otherwise, it's even more unfair than everyone using winner take all.
 
Darla said:
You find one liberal who held as "principal" changing the rules for only one party, so that we could enjoy permanent one party rule. Then post their quote here.

The principal is to get money out of politics, not to get money out of the Democratic party, thus turning money into a weapon only one side can employ and completely abolishing the two-party system, turning this into a right wing dictatorship.

...your wet dreams aside, of course.
Click to expand...
Form 1290E in Chapter 7 (Liberal Excuses) from the book "Liberal to Reality Translations and Forms for the Liberal Hack!"

Translation: What I think is wrong with all politics must be okay if it promotes my ideas! <then in an ironic twist here you should say that they are partisan hacks and attempt to equate them to a dictator, avoid using the name Hitler though.>

------------------------

Man I love my copy of "Liberal to Reality Translations and Forms for the Liberal Hack!" that I found at Barnes and Nobles the other day! It's been more than edifying.

:D

BTW Darla, I fully understand what you are saying and don't think poorly of you for it, or anybody for that matter. It is a pragmatic view. If I were Obama I'd tell McCain to take his limitations and do his best but there is no reason to hamstring my own campaign.
 
Watermark said:
Most of those principals only work if they're practiced by both sides.

Take winner-take-all, for instance. A completely unfair electoral system. It gives the majority the right to cast the vote of the minority. However, should just California take the system on by their lonesome? Giving the minority in California the ability to join with the majorities in other states who cast the votes of their minority doesn't sound very fair to me. In fact, that's the ultimate way to insure that the winner take all system is never abolished.

It would only work if we all did it together. Otherwise, it's even more unfair than everyone using winner take all.
Click to expand...

Exactly Water.

Thanks for showing how disengenious Damo is being by pretending not to understand this most obvious of truths, so that he can continue being a Republican hack.

Have a good night DAmo, and remember...things have come to a pretty pass when a bright college student can easily grasp concepts you have shown to be beyond you. Maybe you should read a book tonight Damo. It couldn't hurt.
 
Darla said:
I'm actually all for strictly public financing. The only way we will ever have our democracy, and our country back, is when we the people, finance it ourselves. Money talks, period. So that is important.

But then I got to thinking, in between drooling and twitching, and DUUUUHHHHHing my way through this thread, and I started to wonder, gosh golly, how best to accomplish this goal? Should we do what Cawacko and Damo, honest brokers if ever there were two of them, imply we should do, and after decades of being out fund-raised and out-spent by the republican party, when their well is first starting to run dry and we have our right now likely nominee, just a freaking cash cow who keeps on giving, we decide to even the playing field for the former cash winners, and release a statement saying, gosh we're going to opt for public financing so you can be even with us, and when your 527 swiftboating scummers start eating our candidate, you can tell reporters you are "shocked, shocked and appalled" on one phone , while you are orchestrating the next attack on your other phone...and oh btw, why don't we while we're at it, pass a law in California changing the winner take all electoral system, but don't let's do that in any red states, would that be enough sir?

Or, you know, we can just say, nice try, but hey, go fuck yourself John!

What do you think Cawacko? Damo? Huh? Let me wipe some more drool off of my face, while I consider what the smart choice might be.

I know...in order to make this really fair and square, let's get Superfreak's opinion. We'll do whatever he thinks best.

Jesus Christ. I've come across some hacks in my time, and I've come across some people who think liberals are dumb, but Cawacko, DAmo and SF take the cake.

Wake up boys, there is no Santa, and Obama is going to tell your boy to get fucked, k?
Click to expand...

I guess I'm missing where this seeming anger is coming from. If I were Obama I'd tell McCain tough sh*t I am going to outraise your *ss. If Obama's message sells to the public, which it seemingly has so far, then he will do quite well for himself financially (in terms of campaign cash). If McCain got himself in a bind well that's his fault.

Just my opinion but i guess I'm missing the seemingly larger conspiracy theory behind your post.
 
Darla said:
Exactly Water.

Thanks for showing how disengenious Damo is being by pretending not to understand this most obvious of truths, so that he can continue being a Republican hack.

Have a good night DAmo, and remember...things have come to a pretty pass when a bright college student can easily grasp concepts you have shown to be beyond you. Maybe you should read a book tonight Damo. It couldn't hurt.
Click to expand...
LOL. Thanks for pointing out that you don't read my posts.

At least read this:

BTW Darla, I fully understand what you are saying and don't think poorly of you for it, or anybody for that matter. It is a pragmatic view. If I were Obama I'd tell McCain to take his limitations and do his best but there is no reason to hamstring my own campaign.
Click to expand...


It came from the post directly before yours.

You are bad, but I know you can read even when you don't really want to.

Of course that doesn't mean I can't have more fun with my new book!

---------------------

Form 1321 from Chapter 8 (Deliberate Ignorance)

Translation: I'm assuming what he said because I don't really want to read anything. <at this point enter something that points out that reading isn't what you have done, like directly contradicting what they have said in the post directly above where yours will appear!>
 
Oh, and have a good night of your own. Even if you refuse to comprehend what you are reading. It was again nice seeing you.
 
For the record, it was Obama, who first challenged the Republican front runner to use public funding, now he wants to flop, what else is new...
 
WRL said:
For the record, it was Obama, who first challenged the Republican front runner to use public funding, now he wants to flop, what else is new...
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to that challenge? It would make this one a very fun thread indeed.
 
Obama’s campaign has said it will make no promise to use the public funds for the November election, even though the candidate previously indicated a desire to do so.

“I made the commitment to the American people that if I were the nominee of my party, I would go the route of public financing. I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well,” McCain said in Oshkosh, Wis.

“This is all about a commitment we made to the American people. I am going to keep that commitment. I think the American people have every reason to expect him to keep his commitment.”

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008...challenges-obama-on-general-election-funding/
 
Obama told reporters on Friday that it would be "presumptuous of me to say now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it."


lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top