Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Don't hate the player, hate the game" doesn't even make sense in this case.

He actually hated the game -- now is joining the game -- again. He did this with the public financing issue too. While he tries to say it isn't politics like usual it acutally is politics like usual.

I love how you say Obama wants to make the rules more fair for everyone. Please show me where he has ever proposed campaign finance reform beyond just speaking abou tit. Please show me where he has had either the Democratic controlled Senate or Democratic controlled House (previously) even consider one of the campaign finace reforms he has given lip service to.

I don't falut him for that but rather just realize he is a poitician who flip-flops and his name is not Romney.

In 2010, after criticizing the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling directly to the face of Supreme Court justices in his State of the Union address, Obama supported the DISCLOSE Act which would partially undo Citizens United. The House passed the act:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/disclose-act-house-passes_n_624698.html

However, in the Senate, every Republican joined in a filibuster to prevent a vote on the Act:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704656.html

I believe this directly answers your request to "show me where he has had either the Democratic controlled Senate or Democratic controlled House (previously) even consider one of the campaign finace reforms he has given lip service to. "

You are kidding right? THAT is your example? In 2010 the Dems were in control of the Senate. Don't try to blame a filibuster when Reid couldn't even gurantee that he could bring his OWN people to the table! If he can't get cloture on a bill the leader of his own party would like than it is his problem, not the minorities problem.

From the WaPo piece:

The official tally showed 57 votes in favor of moving the legislation forward, but that did not include Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) -- who voted no in order to preserve the ability to reintroduce the measure -- or Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who was absent but signaled that he would vote yes if given the chance.

"Don't try to blame a filibuster"? Are you able to think with that brain, or are you just starved for attention?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-super-pac-20120208,0,5522351.story

Please explain this away.

It's not hypocritical to conclude that if you can't beat them you'd better join them, especially if not joining them means they'll beat you.

Yes it is. It's called sticking with your principles. Being a man of honor. Standing by your word. Now he's just as "inside Washington" as anyone else.

I'm curious. If an AL baseball manager believes that there shouldn't be a "designated hitter" rule, is he obligated to make his pitcher take a turn at bat? Or should he just play by the rules as they exist? If you think that marginal tax rates should be increased, am I obligated to cut a check for the greater amount?

People who use "hypocrisy" in this sense are--if you'll pardon my language--to fucking stupid to understand what the word means.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Don't hate the player, hate the game" doesn't even make sense in this case.

He actually hated the game -- now is joining the game -- again. He did this with the public financing issue too. While he tries to say it isn't politics like usual it acutally is politics like usual.

I love how you say Obama wants to make the rules more fair for everyone. Please show me where he has ever proposed campaign finance reform beyond just speaking abou tit. Please show me where he has had either the Democratic controlled Senate or Democratic controlled House (previously) even consider one of the campaign finace reforms he has given lip service to.

I don't falut him for that but rather just realize he is a poitician who flip-flops and his name is not Romney.

In 2010, after criticizing the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling directly to the face of Supreme Court justices in his State of the Union address, Obama supported the DISCLOSE Act which would partially undo Citizens United. The House passed the act:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/disclose-act-house-passes_n_624698.html

However, in the Senate, every Republican joined in a filibuster to prevent a vote on the Act:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704656.html

I believe this directly answers your request to "show me where he has had either the Democratic controlled Senate or Democratic controlled House (previously) even consider one of the campaign finace reforms he has given lip service to. "

You are kidding right? THAT is your example? In 2010 the Dems were in control of the Senate. Don't try to blame a filibuster when Reid couldn't even gurantee that he could bring his OWN people to the table! If he can't get cloture on a bill the leader of his own party would like than it is his problem, not the minorities problem.

Anonymous wrote:"Don't hate the player, hate the game" doesn't even make sense in this case.

He actually hated the game -- now is joining the game -- again. He did this with the public financing issue too. While he tries to say it isn't politics like usual it acutally is politics like usual.

I love how you say Obama wants to make the rules more fair for everyone. Please show me where he has ever proposed campaign finance reform beyond just speaking abou tit. Please show me where he has had either the Democratic controlled Senate or Democratic controlled House (previously) even consider one of the campaign finace reforms he has given lip service to.

I don't falut him for that but rather just realize he is a poitician who flip-flops and his name is not Romney.

In 2010, after criticizing the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling directly to the face of Supreme Court justices in his State of the Union address, Obama supported the DISCLOSE Act which would partially undo Citizens United. The House passed the act:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/disclose-act-house-passes_n_624698.html

However, in the Senate, every Republican joined in a filibuster to prevent a vote on the Act:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704656.html

I believe this directly answers your request to "show me where he has had either the Democratic controlled Senate or Democratic controlled House (previously) even consider one of the campaign finace reforms he has given lip service to. "

Anonymous wrote:"Don't hate the player, hate the game" doesn't even make sense in this case.

He actually hated the game -- now is joining the game -- again. He did this with the public financing issue too. While he tries to say it isn't politics like usual it acutally is politics like usual.

I love how you say Obama wants to make the rules more fair for everyone. Please show me where he has ever proposed campaign finance reform beyond just speaking abou tit. Please show me where he has had either the Democratic controlled Senate or Democratic controlled House (previously) even consider one of the campaign finace reforms he has given lip service to.

I don't falut him for that but rather just realize he is a poitician who flip-flops and his name is not Romney.

he wants to change every rules in the book after the fact.

its complete hubris and shows how full of himself he is.

obama basically saying, im so above it all but i have to play by these evil rules only so i can get inside and reform them so trust me, vote for me, and watch me work my magic. i hate to do it and have to take money from big business and the like but its the only way i can get in to then destroy it after it gets ME what i want. he even did this with changing his position on accepting money from lobbyists (or at least dealing with them more)

i cant see how folks dont see the comedy in this thinking

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-super-pac-20120208,0,5522351.story

Please explain this away.

It's not hypocritical to conclude that if you can't beat them you'd better join them, especially if not joining them means they'll beat you.

Yes it is. It's called sticking with your principles. Being a man of honor. Standing by your word. Now he's just as "inside Washington" as anyone else.

We are an Oligarchy. Go back to sleep.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
oh and folks get in a tiffy or cry foul when romney "plays by the rules" and pays his 15% (or 13.9%) tax on $20 million but its ok for obama to play those same rules when it comes to superpacs after he's called them out for being wrong (even though its legal)? theres hypocricy for you...

I'll point out that in the thread about Romney's taxes I used the same exact phrase, "Don't hate the player, hate the game". But, with regard to Romney's taxes, Romney both plays by the rules and supports those rules. In fact, he wants to make the rules even more favorable for himself. Obama wants to make the rules fairer for everyone. Similarly, with regard to super pacs, Romney both plays by the rules and wants to make the rules even more favorable for himself -- allowing direct corporate contributions to candidates. Obama wants to make the rules more fair for everyone.

So, I'l repeat, don't hate the player, hate the game. But, with regard to both super pacs and and taxes, Romney wants to make the game worse while Obama wants to make the game better. There really is no disconnect there.

i see your point. on the other end of the spectrum and as i indicated in the first line of my post, obama jumping on the superpac ride just means nothing will be done about it.

if obama should win and the dem superpacs collects millions of dollars that helped him to victory, what incentive does that give a hopeful dem candidate in the future to want to change the rules back to the old ways? and how is obama really above it all when he wont be running for anything after this so he's basically denouncing a rule he hates, takes advantage of it, and tries to destroy it when it works for him when he doesnt have a care in the world whether anything happens or not, cause the end result was it got him the win. in that sense it is sort of hypocritical.

its the same thing with his decision to not take public money. he said he's doing it for some "good" and will reform the system once inside so he's basically saying, ill take advantage of every wicked rules im against to get me victories but once it works for me, ill destroy it so everyone else will have to play by a new set of rules. you see nothing wrong in that thinking/mindset?

"Don't hate the player, hate the game" doesn't even make sense in this case.

He actually hated the game -- now is joining the game -- again. He did this with the public financing issue too. While he tries to say it isn't politics like usual it acutally is politics like usual.

I love how you say Obama wants to make the rules more fair for everyone. Please show me where he has ever proposed campaign finance reform beyond just speaking abou tit. Please show me where he has had either the Democratic controlled Senate or Democratic controlled House (previously) even consider one of the campaign finace reforms he has given lip service to.

I don't falut him for that but rather just realize he is a poitician who flip-flops and his name is not Romney.

Anonymous wrote:
oh and folks get in a tiffy or cry foul when romney "plays by the rules" and pays his 15% (or 13.9%) tax on $20 million but its ok for obama to play those same rules when it comes to superpacs after he's called them out for being wrong (even though its legal)? theres hypocricy for you...

I'll point out that in the thread about Romney's taxes I used the same exact phrase, "Don't hate the player, hate the game". But, with regard to Romney's taxes, Romney both plays by the rules and supports those rules. In fact, he wants to make the rules even more favorable for himself. Obama wants to make the rules fairer for everyone. Similarly, with regard to super pacs, Romney both plays by the rules and wants to make the rules even more favorable for himself -- allowing direct corporate contributions to candidates. Obama wants to make the rules more fair for everyone.

So, I'l repeat, don't hate the player, hate the game. But, with regard to both super pacs and and taxes, Romney wants to make the game worse while Obama wants to make the game better. There really is no disconnect there.

obama nor anybody will be able to reform the system going forward.

oh and folks get in a tiffy or cry foul when romney "plays by the rules" and pays his 15% (or 13.9%) tax on $20 million but its ok for obama to play those same rules when it comes to superpacs after he's called them out for being wrong (even though its legal)? theres hypocricy for you...


and im not making my comment as a romney backer or republican. just pointing out disconnects

Anonymous wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-super-pac-20120208,0,5522351.story

Please explain this away.

It's not hypocritical to conclude that if you can't beat them you'd better join them, especially if not joining them means they'll beat you.

I don't support any of these corporate whores, but this isn't hypocrisy.

I support higher taxes on my income class, but I don't send the government extra money. You probably want much less government, but I doubt you eschew government services.

Is your candidate so much better for saying "I love PACs - let's have more of them!"

As I've said before, don't hate the player, hate the game. Obama didn't make the rules. He doesn't even like the rules. But, the rules are the rules. Do you really expect him to bring a knife to a gun fight?

Hypocrisy is expecting one set of rules for yourself and another set of rules for others. Sort of like you seem to be doing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-super-pac-20120208,0,5522351.story

Please explain this away.