SkinsHokieFan Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 It would have been political stupidity if he did I would have liked to have seen him take it because I think there is too much corrpution based on money But with the fundraising advantage he has, he has to take it. He just never should have staked out such a position from the start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I'd rather have my money going directly to a candidate I support.Are you raising a stink that McCain broke his promise to run an honorable campaign and all the other issues he's flopped on? Has McCain brought up the whole Rev Wright issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Nice slanted poll. But with a username like that, what can we expect.Additionally, ANYONE claiming that tax payer money shouldn't be used has ZERO knowledge of how it actually appears. The TAXPAYER has to select the option that says "Use $3 of my taxes to fund the next Presidential Election". No every taxpayer funds the election. Only those that choose to do so fund the election. Just like those who CHOSE to donate money to Obama's campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 Has McCain brought up the whole Rev Wright issue? I'll give him props for that but not bringing up one issue doesn't mean it was honorable. When you have your crowds yelling death threats at your opponent, chances are you aren't running a honorable campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 If John McCain hadn't actually signed an agreement to accept public funds, recieved his check, and then renigged; again I might take you seriously. Again, the word is "reneged". I've tried to cut down on grammar policing, but I'm having trouble letting this one go. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Question: Did Obama give his word to the American people to agree with the Rep nominee to only use public funding?Answer: Yes When he realized he could have an easy 2:1 funding advantage by backing out of his promise, he did. And he tried to sell the whole "election fund raising is broken" bill of goods. Translation: He broke his word. THAT, and that ALONE, is the issue. Excellent Post..... IF McCain did this - I would love to see those attack threads: McCAin LIES AGAIN!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I'll give him props for that but not bringing up one issue doesn't mean it was honorable. When you have your crowds yelling death threats at your opponent, chances are you aren't running a honorable campaign. Those accusations were false. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/10/palin_rally_kil.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2107225/posts http://beltwayblips.com/story/nobody_yelled_kill_him_about_obama_at_a_mccain_or/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 No, and I would respect him less if he had. I expect the President to use every tool at his disposal to solve problems. If circumstances change and there is a much better system should he avoid it? Using corn for ethanol is dumb, but that's the way it was decided to be done. Now that we realize it was dumb should we continue or change? If you realize you have a huge advantage should you toss it out the window? What a foolish thing to do? If nothing else, this allows people to vote, pre-election with their money If the Redskins are facing teams with a really poor run defense should Zorn bench Portis just so the game is fair? It's ridiculous and I think most people recognize that this "lie" is not the kind of lie that one should be concerned with. It's a sign of understanding the times and taking advantage of the situation... or a mark of intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 No, and I would respect him less if he had. I expect the President to use every tool at his disposal to solve problems. If circumstances change and there is a much better system should he avoid it? Using corn for ethanol is dumb, but that's the way it was decided to be done. Now that we realize it was dumb should we continue or change? If you realize you have a huge advantage should you toss it out the window? What a foolish thing to do? If nothing else, this allows people to vote, pre-election with their money And hence we see where the problem in politics comes from.Used to be all a man had was his good name, now we toss it out for cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 If Mr. Obama said yes then changed his mind he should, it is a matter of keeping your word. Which is the reason that I voted in this poll the way that I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 WRONG!!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/21/mccain-loan-raises-fec-qu_n_87756.html Here is a copy of the Federal Election Commissions Complaint against John McCain.... http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files//2008/03/hamsher-complaint-with-fec-vs-mccain-1.pdf John McCain did in fact agree with the FEC to accept public funds, signed a binding contract to that effect, and then after he signed that agreement; reneged on the spending limits, and unilaterally opted out of the program. He subsequently had to go to court to resolve the issue with the Federal Election Commission.... But Obama is the bad guy, because he mentions during a Democratic primary debate he would take public funds, and then a year latter, when it comes time to actually make the decicion to sign an agreement; changes his mind. Gotcha.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 Those accusations were false. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/10/palin_rally_kil.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2107225/posts http://beltwayblips.com/story/nobody_yelled_kill_him_about_obama_at_a_mccain_or/ As seen at recent McCain events, this afternoon's crowd was vocal in their support for McCain and their anger with Senator Obama. At one point one man could be heard yelling, "Off with his head," when McCain spoke about Obama's tax plan. That enthusiasm was even more present during Palin's remarks, and as other observers have reported in the past, today there was a sizeable number of people making their way towards the exit after McCain's running mate left the podium. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/08/1517943.aspx Do you really believe McCain has ran an honorable campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Excellent Post.....IF McCain did this - I would love to see those attack threads: McCAin LIES AGAIN!!!! :doh:, McCain did worse!!! McCain actually signed a binding contract with the FEC to accept public funds. Then overspent on his spending limits in violation of his agreement and had to go to court with the FEC over it... Man alive... http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files//2008/03/hamsher-complaint-with-fec-vs-mccain-1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 And hence we see where the problem in politics comes from.Used to be all a man had was his good name, now we toss it out for cash. That's simply a result of the explosion of the availability of information to the masses, plus the increase in media costs, not to mention the explosion of channels where ad buys are necessary. TV campaigning used to be 3 channels now its exploded to 100 times that amount (bearing in mind that many channels don't get political ad buys). People used to think it was scandalous that D. Eisenhower used marketing executives to craft his campaign, but guess what? It worked and he beat Adlai Stevenson who insisted on airing several 30 minute speeches, Eisenhower instead turned his election into an ad campaign. Politics haven't been the same since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Here is a copy of the Federal Election Commissions Complaint against John McCain....http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files//2008/03/hamsher-complaint-with-fec-vs-mccain-1.pdf John McCain did in fact agree with the FEC to accept public funds, signed a binding contract to that effect, and then after he signed that agreement; reneged on the spending limits, and unilaterally opted out of the program. He subsequently had to go to court to resolve the issue with the Federal Election Commission.... But Obama is the bad guy, because he mentions during a Democratic primary debate he would take public funds, and then a year latter, when it comes time to actually make the decicion to sign an agreement; changes his mind. Gotcha.. Hey, I just said you were wrong. Glad to see that you agree that you were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 And hence we see where the problem in politics comes from.Used to be all a man had was his good name, now we toss it out for cash. Where was your moral outrage when Bush opted out of campaign financing because he was raising record funds in 2000 and 2004? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Used to be all a man had was his good name, now we toss it out for cash. Was that ever really true? Connections and cash have always mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Hey, I just said you were wrong. Glad to see that you agree that you were wrong. I was wrong that between August 13, 2007 when John McCain applied for public financing and signed a binding contract with the FEC to that effect and Feb 6th 2008 when he reneged on that binding contract; that he actually had recieved a check... I can't document that. The complaint does allege that McCain used the promise of pubilc funds after August and before February to secure a private loan to keep his campaign afloat when he was broke and thus did benifit from the public funds... before reneging on the spending limits. http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files//2008/03/hamsher-complaint-with-fec-vs-mccain-1.pdf Either way McCain actually signed a contract. Obama never even applied for federal funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 As seen at recent McCain events, this afternoon's crowd was vocal in their support for McCain and their anger with Senator Obama. At one point one man could be heard yelling, "Off with his head," when McCain spoke about Obama's tax plan. That enthusiasm was even more present during Palin's remarks, and as other observers have reported in the past, today there was a sizeable number of people making their way towards the exit after McCain's running mate left the podium. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/08/1517943.aspx Do you really believe McCain has ran an honorable campaign? Yes because McCain can not control what people say at his rallies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Where was your moral outrage when Bush opted out of campaign financing because he was raising record funds in 2000 and 2004?Unknown. First I heard of it.But I openly admit I was neo-con disciple in 2000 and 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Where was your moral outrage when Bush opted out of campaign financing because he was raising record funds in 2000 and 2004? Because Bush did not say that he would take Public Financing Mr. Obama did that is the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 Yes because McCain can not control what people say at his rallies. Someone in his crowd calls Obama a terrorist and he hears it and does nothing. Didn't seem like he was trying hard there. So running an ad that says your opponent wants to teach kids about sex before they can read is honorable? When his campaign tries to push a story about that white girl getting attacked and mutilated by a big scary black man that's an honorable campaign? McCain has been talking about Barack Obama in his commercials more than himself. I can't remember seeing any recent commericals that McCain talks about himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Someone in his crowd calls Obama a terrorist and he hears it and does nothing. Didn't seem like he was trying hard there. So running an ad that says your opponent wants to teach kids about sex before they can read is honorable? When his campaign tries to push a story about that white girl getting attacked and mutilated by a big scary black man that's an honorable campaign?McCain has been talking about Barack Obama in his commercials more than himself. I can't remember seeing any recent commericals that McCain talks about himself. Obama hasn't been talking about McCain? To be honest I have not seen that ad with sex thing. But was it wrong calling out someone who is not cleary ready to deal with Forgien Policy, and wanting to spread the wealth around to people who do not work. Yeah but that storyof that crazy girl was quashed in a day or two when she came forward. What about the Palin hanging from a house? What about the people defacing other peoples property with F*** McCain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Unknown. First I heard of it.But I openly admit I was neo-con disciple in 2000 and 2004. the use of public funds in the primaries by the top-tier candidates – has been dead for some time. In 2000, George W. Bush started the trend by opting out of public primary money. In 2004, neither eventual nominee took the grant. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/23/a-new-era-for-campaign-finance/ Knowing that Bush opted out twice (2000, 2004), Kerry opted out (2004) and McCain actually applied and signed a contract to recieve matching funds and then opted out in 2008. Don't you, " a neocon disciple from 2000-2004" think it's stupid to try to condemn Obama for opting out in 2008? Obama who never even applied for matching funds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Knowing that Bush opted out twice (2000, 2004), Kerry opted out (2004) and McCain actually applied and signed a contract to recieve matching funds and then opted out in 2008. Don't you, " a neocon disciple from 2000-2004" think it's stupid to try to condemn Obama for opting out in 2008?Obama who never even applied for matching funds? The reason why people are mad about it is because that he said he would then changed his mind and didn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.