Speaking of Billionaires...Manipulation...Crony Capitalism...

[The T]

But Solyndra pisses me off a lot more

Stimulus that went to failed ventures, UNIONS, and Blue States that supported Obama.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The 5 republican Supreme Court Justices have ruled, consistently, that buying advertising is not buying votes.

I'm guessing, that, until this point in time, you have agreed with them.

But that matters not. Those who you elect, and support, do think that unlimited campaign contributions and the incessant ads are just fine. The people you support have made it that way.

Now you chastise the Dems for playing with the same rules.

Again, your comprehension is lacking. It is the hypocrisy, the Dems claimed the GOP was corrupt and was swayed by the rich. The Dems are silent on this rich person swaying laws. You gave up the "principles" and went to justification.

I know you are trying to flip it, and it is a major fail.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

No you misunderstand....EVERYONE is swayed by the rich. The republicans are the only ones who say otherwise

bullshit, not only do we believe republicans are swayed by the rich, we have a perjorative term for it......rino


Democrats just use the rich as a proxy to attack conservatives and republicans, and we know this because you never attack a rich liberal...so we know this hate on the rich from you is a nothing more than a smokescreen for your welfare constiuents

 

[The T]

Again, your comprehension is lacking. It is the hypocrisy, the Dems claimed the GOP was corrupt and was swayed by the rich. The Dems are silent on this rich person swaying laws. You gave up the "principles" and went to justification.

I know you are trying to flip it, and it is a major fail.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

No you misunderstand....EVERYONE is swayed by the rich. The republicans are the only ones who say otherwise

bullshit, not only do we believe republicans are swayed by the rich, we have a perjorative term for it......rino


Democrats just use the rich as a proxy to attack conservatives and republicans, and we know this because you never attack a rich liberal...so we know this hate on the rich from you is a nothing more than a smokescreen for your welfare constiuents

And we call their sorry asses out for it. The Left on the other hand refuses to do so and poit to the 'other side' doing it...so therefore that justifies it. Hate to break it to them but it's wrong when ANYONE does it.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Conservatives, does this bother you, him saying he will help candidates who suffer monetarily for not supporting the pipeline? Does it bother you that he's got money to spend and he's going to do it on "lefty" policies? Do you hate it?

There is a Latin term, "quid pro quo." it means "this for that." A billionaire offering funds in return for Obama killing the Keystone is a quid pro quo situation, a matter of corruption. IF and I mean IF, there is evidence that Obama did exchange this act in return for the contributions, then he needs to be impeached and put in prison.

Did you read the article? Did you see what he actually said? He said he would help candidates who are hurt by their opposition to the pipeline. How would they be hurt? Hmmm...I'm thinking they would be losing big oil donations, yes?

So when Lindsay Graham takes a big bag of cash from Sheldon Addelson and then, for the first time ever, finds something wrong with online gambling and introduces legislation to prohibit it, what's that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you read the article? Did you see what he actually said? He said he would help candidates who are hurt by their opposition to the pipeline. How would they be hurt? Hmmm...I'm thinking they would be losing big oil donations, yes?

More likely hurt by gas at $4.50 a gallon and rising. Again, offering campaign donations in return for actions by Obama is the very definition of corruption.

I realize that you only care about party, that Obama openly selling executive actions is fine with you, the party above all.

But for those of us who would prefer an honest government - which would be the non-democrats, this is beyond the pale.

Obama is a crook, he belongs in prison.

So when Lindsay Graham takes a big bag of cash from Sheldon Addelson and then, for the first time ever, finds something wrong with online gambling and introduces legislation to prohibit it, what's that?

Bribery.

He can share a cell with Obama.

 

[The T]

Did you read the article? Did you see what he actually said? He said he would help candidates who are hurt by their opposition to the pipeline. How would they be hurt? Hmmm...I'm thinking they would be losing big oil donations, yes?

More likely hurt by gas at $4.50 a gallon and rising. Again, offering campaign donations in return for actions by Obama is the very definition of corruption.

I realize that you only care about party, that Obama openly selling executive actions is fine with you, the party above all.

But for those of us who would prefer an honest government - which would be the non-democrats, this is beyond the pale.

Obama is a crook, he belongs in prison.

So when Lindsay Graham takes a big bag of cash from Sheldon Addelson and then, for the first time ever, finds something wrong with online gambling and introduces legislation to prohibit it, what's that?

Bribery.

He can share a cell with Obama.

Agreed. Lindsay Grahamnesty is another shitstain.

 

[Seawytch]

Did you read the article? Did you see what he actually said? He said he would help candidates who are hurt by their opposition to the pipeline. How would they be hurt? Hmmm...I'm thinking they would be losing big oil donations, yes?

More likely hurt by gas at $4.50 a gallon and rising. Again, offering campaign donations in return for actions by Obama is the very definition of corruption.



I realize that you only care about party, that Obama openly selling executive actions is fine with you, the party above all.



But for those of us who would prefer an honest government - which would be the non-democrats, this is beyond the pale.



Obama is a crook, he belongs in prison.

So when Lindsay Graham takes a big bag of cash from Sheldon Addelson and then, for the first time ever, finds something wrong with online gambling and introduces legislation to prohibit it, what's that?

Bribery.



He can share a cell with Obama.

Really? He's going to help candidates hurt by gas prices? Nope. He's going to help candidates losing big oil donations. How terrible.

He's not doing anything illegal. Money is speech. You can BUY more free speech now! Ain't America great?!?!

I know, don't like it...stop it, I dare you. Public outcry!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? He's going to help candidates hurt by gas prices? Nope. He's going to help candidates losing big oil donations. How terrible.

He's not doing anything illegal. Money is speech. You can BUY more free speech now! Ain't America great?!?!

I know, don't like it...stop it, I dare you. Public outcry!!!

Quid pro quo IS ILLEGAL.

You hold that Obama and the democrats are above the law, but this IS illegal, it IS open corruption. That you support corruption doesn't alter what it is.

 

[The T]

Really? He's going to help candidates hurt by gas prices? Nope. He's going to help candidates losing big oil donations. How terrible.

He's not doing anything illegal. Money is speech. You can BUY more free speech now! Ain't America great?!?!

I know, don't like it...stop it, I dare you. Public outcry!!!

Quid pro quo IS ILLEGAL.

You hold that Obama and the democrats are above the law, but this IS illegal, it IS open corruption. That you support corruption doesn't alter what it is.

Dude? These people Don't CARE. ONLY that supposed RIGHTWINGERS are guilty...and makig sure they aren't doing it...but OK for their side...let it slide...for the "Common Good" and all that rock gut crap.
These people are SICK and don't care a wit of the LAW...

 

[Papageorgio]

Hey Conservatives, does this bother you, him saying he will help candidates who suffer monetarily for not supporting the pipeline? Does it bother you that he's got money to spend and he's going to do it on "lefty" policies? Do you hate it?

Talk about missing the whole point. Man, liberals learn to read and comprehend.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Seawytch]

Really? He's going to help candidates hurt by gas prices? Nope. He's going to help candidates losing big oil donations. How terrible.

He's not doing anything illegal. Money is speech. You can BUY more free speech now! Ain't America great?!?!

I know, don't like it...stop it, I dare you. Public outcry!!!

Quid pro quo IS ILLEGAL.

You hold that Obama and the democrats are above the law, but this IS illegal, it IS open corruption. That you support corruption doesn't alter what it is.

According to the SCOTUS there is no Quid Pro Quo. It's a constituent speaking to his or her representative.

So you have a problem with this guy saying "don't worry man, I've got your back when the big oil donations stop", right? Do you also have a problem with him having to say it because big oil won't support the candidate anymore?

How about the candidates/legislators just listen to their constituents that VOTE, not the ones that PAY?

That doesn't happen though does it?

 

[Papageorgio]

The 5 republican Supreme Court Justices have ruled, consistently, that buying advertising is not buying votes.

I'm guessing, that, until this point in time, you have agreed with them.

But that matters not. Those who you elect, and support, do think that unlimited campaign contributions and the incessant ads are just fine. The people you support have made it that way.

Now you chastise the Dems for playing with the same rules.

Again, your comprehension is lacking. It is the hypocrisy, the Dems claimed the GOP was corrupt and was swayed by the rich. The Dems are silent on this rich person swaying laws. You gave up the "principles" and went to justification.

I know you are trying to flip it, and it is a major fail.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

No you misunderstand....EVERYONE is swayed by the rich. The republicans are the only ones who say otherwise

I misunderstand nothing. The left bitches when Republicans do it and then say nothing about how wrong it is when Democrats do it. It is called hypocrisy. In fact, impotent justifies the actions.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Conservatives, does this bother you, him saying he will help candidates who suffer monetarily for not supporting the pipeline? Does it bother you that he's got money to spend and he's going to do it on "lefty" policies? Do you hate it?

Talk about missing the whole point. Man, liberals learn to read and comprehend.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

What is the point? I don't want him to spend gobs of money. I don't want Koch suckers, or unions, or anyfuckingbody else buying legislators with buckets of money.

However...I do not believe in unilaterally disarming either. If the Koch Suckers are going to spend oodles and oodles of money, I want someone on the liberal side doing the same fucking thing. And?

 

[Seawytch]

Again, your comprehension is lacking. It is the hypocrisy, the Dems claimed the GOP was corrupt and was swayed by the rich. The Dems are silent on this rich person swaying laws. You gave up the "principles" and went to justification.

I know you are trying to flip it, and it is a major fail.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

No you misunderstand....EVERYONE is swayed by the rich. The republicans are the only ones who say otherwise

I misunderstand nothing. The left bitches when Republicans do it and then say nothing about how wrong it is when Democrats do it. It is called hypocrisy. In fact, impotent justifies the actions.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Bullshit. What's wrong is that it's not "wrong" in the legal sense...it's fucking speech!

 

[Papageorgio]

No you misunderstand....EVERYONE is swayed by the rich. The republicans are the only ones who say otherwise

I misunderstand nothing. The left bitches when Republicans do it and then say nothing about how wrong it is when Democrats do it. It is called hypocrisy. In fact, impotent justifies the actions.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Bullshit. What's wrong is that it's not "wrong" in the legal sense...it's fucking speech!

And the damn Democrats bitch and moan when the Republicans do it. The whole point of the post is the Republicans don't say a word and the Democrats do nothing but bitch about the rich giving money to the Republicans. The Koch brothers have been demonized and when some billionaire from the left does it, the left say not one fucking word about it. It's called hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Seawytch]

I misunderstand nothing. The left bitches when Republicans do it and then say nothing about how wrong it is when Democrats do it. It is called hypocrisy. In fact, impotent justifies the actions.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Bullshit. What's wrong is that it's not "wrong" in the legal sense...it's fucking speech!

And the damn Democrats bitch and moan when the Republicans do it. The whole point of the post is the Republicans don't say a word and the Democrats do nothing but bitch about the rich giving money to the Republicans. The Koch brothers have been demonized and when some billionaire from the left does it, the left say not one fucking word about it. It's called hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

No, it's called fighting fire with fire. Liberals would stop it, conservatives would not.

 

[Papageorgio]

Bullshit. What's wrong is that it's not "wrong" in the legal sense...it's fucking speech!

And the damn Democrats bitch and moan when the Republicans do it. The whole point of the post is the Republicans don't say a word and the Democrats do nothing but bitch about the rich giving money to the Republicans. The Koch brothers have been demonized and when some billionaire from the left does it, the left say not one fucking word about it. It's called hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

No, it's called fighting fire with fire. Liberals would stop it, conservatives would not.

So Democrats will give up there principles just because...lovely, no different than any other party. Congrats!

PS: nice justifying.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Uncensored2008]

According to the SCOTUS there is no Quid Pro Quo. It's a constituent speaking to his or her representative.

False.

This case has not been before the court. That the court ruled that people may advertise a political message against the ruling democrats has nothing to do with a man who profits by the blocking of the keystone directly trading funding of democrats in exchange for Obama using an executive order to block Keystone.

As a democrat, you care only about your party, not about law or a civil society.

So you have a problem with this guy saying "don't worry man, I've got your back when the big oil donations stop", right? Do you also have a problem with him having to say it because big oil won't support the candidate anymore?

I have a problem with the buying and selling of legislation.

You only care about power for your party.

How about the candidates/legislators just listen to their constituents that VOTE, not the ones that PAY?

Irrelevant. This is about pay to play - open and direct corruption - which you support.

 

[Seawytch]

According to the SCOTUS there is no Quid Pro Quo. It's a constituent speaking to his or her representative.

False.



This case has not been before the court. That the court ruled that people may advertise a political message against the ruling democrats has nothing to do with a man who profits by the blocking of the keystone directly trading funding of democrats in exchange for Obama using an executive order to block Keystone.



As a democrat, you care only about your party, not about law or a civil society.

So you have a problem with this guy saying "don't worry man, I've got your back when the big oil donations stop", right? Do you also have a problem with him having to say it because big oil won't support the candidate anymore?

I have a problem with the buying and selling of legislation.



You only care about power for your party.

How about the candidates/legislators just listen to their constituents that VOTE, not the ones that PAY?

Irrelevant. This is about pay to play - open and direct corruption - which you support.

You've not proven any quid pro quo. It's free speech. Sucks don't it?

 

[Impenitent]

According to the SCOTUS there is no Quid Pro Quo. It's a constituent speaking to his or her representative.

False.

This case has not been before the court. That the court ruled that people may advertise a political message against the ruling democrats has nothing to do with a man who profits by the blocking of the keystone directly trading funding of democrats in exchange for Obama using an executive order to block Keystone.

As a democrat, you care only about your party, not about law or a civil society.

So you have a problem with this guy saying "don't worry man, I've got your back when the big oil donations stop", right? Do you also have a problem with him having to say it because big oil won't support the candidate anymore?

I have a problem with the buying and selling of legislation.

You only care about power for your party.

How about the candidates/legislators just listen to their constituents that VOTE, not the ones that PAY?

Irrelevant. This is about pay to play - open and direct corruption - which you support.

You seem to be ignoring that a judge has keystone blocked in Nebraska.

US Judge Blocks Keystone Pipeline Route in Nebraska

And that, according to papageorgio, this thread is about Democratic hypocrisy, not criminality.