Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Obama Campaign Raised $150 Million in September


AsburySkinsFan

Recommended Posts

What does he needs that much money for considering the media already pushes his message and Bashes McCain, blames everything on the GOP and Bush, and attacks Joe the Plumber,while ignoring the Democrats role in the Housing mess, for free?
How much did it disturb you when the media repeated the Swift Boat falsehoods endlessly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much did it disturb you when the media repeated the Swift Boat falsehoods endlessly?

What falsehoods?

THey offered Kerry a million dollars to disprove any of it.

The media repeating a lie constantly doesn't make it the truth or creating a term like swiftboating to mean a lie when it wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hard to imagine that $600 million is the amount that Obama is willing to spend to try and win POTUS. Is that the cost of the office?

IMO there should be a cap on the amount that can be spent.

I kind of agree. But any attempt to limit campaign spending - see McCain-Feingold (ironically) as an example - are met with furious objections to placing limits on free speech.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am more disturbed about McCain's promise to run a clean campaign. He broke that promise almost as he made it. I can't decide if it's a good thing or a bad thing that he's doing his own dirty work. Usually, politicians try to arrange or backdoor fund secondary groups to spread the kind of manure he's doing himself. Either he's got no organization or even most of the Republican filth groups think his tactics are below the pale.

He couldn't even get a swiftboat organization to play along so he could appear clean. McCain has no plausible denial. He has repeated and played in the mud in a very personal way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this a suprise? Obama has no integrity whatsoever. He's a scumbag politician just like all the rest. Only difference is he has a silver tongue...
Perhaps. Of course, McCain reneged on his decision to accept public funding for the primaries, once it became clear he would be the nominee. That freed him to spend as much as he wanted months before either Obama or Clinton could turn their efforts towards the general election.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps. Of course, McCain reneged on his decision to accept public funding for the primaries, once it became clear he would be the nominee. That freed him to spend as much as he wanted months before either Obama or Clinton could turn their efforts towards the general election.

You agree with me then defend Obama by bringing up McCain.? :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree. But any attempt to limit campaign spending - see McCain-Feingold (ironically) as an example - are met with furious objections to placing limits on free speech.

Yeah i guess i see that.

If there were a cap it would make them try and get more bang for the buck. Instead of like everything else in the government where they do not seem to care about the price because it is somebody elses money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this a suprise? Obama has no integrity whatsoever. He's a scumbag politician just like all the rest. Only difference is he has a silver tongue...
Perhaps. Of course, McCain reneged on his decision to accept public funding for the primaries, once it became clear he would be the nominee. That freed him to spend as much as he wanted months before either Obama or Clinton could turn their efforts towards the general election.
You agree with me then defend Obama by bringing up McCain.? :doh:

You attack Obama by saying he's "just like all the rest" then get offended when somebody says all the rest are like Obama? :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you actually fell for this Asbury. Those donations aren't real. They're merely figments of ACORN's imagination. I hear half of these so-called "donations" came from the deceased and/or the Dallas Cowboys offensive line.

I mean, if those donations were real, Obama would be running three times as many ads as McCain....ruh roh Shaggy. :paranoid:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You attack Obama by saying he's "just like all the rest" then get offended when somebody says all the rest are like Obama? :doh:

I was pointing out the fact to Jimbo that you can't agree that all politicians are hypocrites and then bring up what the other guy did in an attempt to defend the one you like.

I am not offended Larry. That would mean I like/supported McCain which I don't. It's probably more like you like/support Obama and are offended by my comments. So you attacking me in a passive-aggressive manor is your way of defending your candidate for POTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I will. And never use just one poll for basing an election on.

I use www.pollster.com because they simply compile different poll results into one aggregate score. And they also show you the poll results for all 50 states (and give an EV counter as well). It's a good site, I highly recommend you check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for you :cheers:

I put no faith in polls,but you are welcome to.

I don't think polls are the be all end all in politics (because they have obviously been wrong before) but I think they can give you a general idea of what is happening in an election (as long as it is a significant poll).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it up Ax, its clear what you implied, and furthermore if you don't want implications to be made about what you edit and copy then you should probably spell out what you mean.

The only thing clear here, is that you didn't get any smarter while you were away. As for explaining why I posted what I did, why bother? People like you appear to use your Super Duper-Ass Out of U & Me-Decoder Ring anyway.

What's more is that I addressed the "concerns" from the website and since you quoted it and linked to it naturally it falls to a basic assumption that you had a reason for posting those things; i.e. that you agreed with them. So puhhhleeezzee.

Well, unless you get paid to investigate illegal money making it's way into American politics, your wrongly thinking that you "addressed" them, means less than nothing.

So, for the record do you agree with the article that you yourself quoted and linked to? Or is there some other mysterious reason why you tracked down that groundbreaking piece of investigative journalism?

Doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not.

You're just mad because someone dared to question your false prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...