Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4525156n Yeah really hounded him on Ayers I must have counted 40 times that he mentioned Ayres name. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Yes. About ONE of the alleged events. Not all of them. I thouht thier was only one incident. Ok maybe McCain should have said something I will agree with you on that but overall his campaign has been pretty clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Personally, I'm more mad at McCain who promised to run an honorable campaign and then ran one of the dirtiest campaigns in recent memory, and for clarification I was angry with McCain about this before I chose to support Obama. And what makes me even angrier is that McCain's excuse for the negative ads is that Obama didn't meet with him for the town hall meetings. What in the world does that have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 It was in the AP when a secret service agent said he had heard nothing and that they has investigated and found nothing. A reporter covering Pallin heard someone in the croud yell "kill him" in refference to Obama, and reported it in his paper.... The secret service investigates any threat against the candidates and investigated this report. They had three men working the crowd of more than 10,000 people near Pallin not near the reporter. Those secret service agents did not hear the threat. The Reporter did not see who shouted the threat... The secret service could not coroberate the threat.. They never said they had conclusive evidence it didn't occur, they just couldn't find anybody else who heard it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 A reporter covering Pallin heard someone in the croud yell "kill him" in refference to Obama, and reported it in his paper.... The secret service investigates any threat against the candidates and investigated this report. They had three men working the crowd of more than 10,000 people near Pallin not near the reporter. Those secret service agents did not hear the threat. The Reporter did not see who shouted the threat... The secret service could not coroberate the threat.. They never said they had conclusive evidence it didn't occur, they just couldn't find anybody else who heard it.. Exactly . There is a difference between something being unfounded and something being an outright lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Sorry I can not access youtube at work. Others can tell me if I have been unfaithful to the McCain's reaction when "terrorist" is shouted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Yeah really hounded him on Ayers I must have counted 40 times that he mentioned Ayres name. :doh: That was just showing the "washed up terrorist" quote in the debate, I don't think you'll be watching the entire debate if I posted it...since you're at work and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 duplicate post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 but overall "John McCain's" campaign has been pretty clean. I disagree. I think the overwhelming attacks against Obama are personal attacks which also happen to be false. He is a Racist He is a Muslim He attended a radical Madrasus. He's not a "real" American He's an elitest He's a terrorist. He's a Socialist He's a Communist He's a Marxist He's a black insurgent who will transfer wealth from the white community to the black community. He secretely hates Israel. Most of these attacks are coming directly from the McCain Campaign.. many of them right from the mouth of Pallin or McCain, who then back away from it after they are called on it..... There isn't anything clean about his campaign.... McCain's entire justification for his campaign can be sumerized as "Fear Obama!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 That was just showing the "washed up terrorist" quote in the debate, I don't think you'll be watching the entire debate if I posted it...since you're at work and all. But wasn't the question that the mediator asked about shadies ties or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I disagree. I think the overwhelming attacks against Obama are personal attacks which also happen to be false. He is a Racist He is a Muslim He attended a radical Madrasus. He's not a "real" American He's an elitest He's a terrorist. He's a Socialist He's a Communist He's a Marxist He's a black insurgent who will transfer wealth from the white community to the black community. He secretely hates Israel. Most of these attacks are coming directly from the McCain Campaign.. many of them right from the mouth of Pallin or McCain, who then back away from it after they are called on it..... There isn't anything clean about his campaign.... McCain's entire justification for his campaign can be sumerized as "Fear Obama!". Marxist and Socialist are the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Marxist and Socialist are the same thing? Actually they aren't remotely the same thing... Socialist is a moderate liberal position... Israel is a socialist country, along with France, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Germany Japan, Korea and most of our other allies. Even Great Britain at times... Marxist is a form of communism and is the extreme left philosophy.... It's like calling Hitler a conservative.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Actually they aren't remotely the same thing... Socialist is a moderate liberal position... Israel is a socialist country, along with France, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Germany Japan, Korea and most of our other allies. Even Great Britain at times... Marxist is a form of communism and is the extreme left philosophy.... It's like calling Hitler a conservative.. But didn't Richard Marx create Socialism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Well, since Obama SAID he was going to use public financing I would EXPECT him to keep his word. Whatever, just a sign of things to come IMO. P.S. I didn't vote based on "my" candidate's financial standing whatsoever. I voted on the principle of keeping one's word, which is worth a hell of a lot more than money can ever buy as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Well, since Obama SAID he was going to use public financing I would EXPECT him to keep his word. Whatever, just a sign of things to come IMO. P.S. I didn't vote based on "my" candidate's financial standing whatsoever. I voted on the principle of keeping one's word, which is worth a hell of a lot more than money can ever buy as far as I'm concerned. As an Obama suppoter I am not going to vote on the financial standing either. Neither candidate has kept their word on everything. So I just based mine on who is the better candidate. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Well, since Obama SAID he was going to use public financing I would EXPECT him to keep his word. Whatever, just a sign of things to come IMO. P.S. I didn't vote based on "my" candidate's financial standing whatsoever. I voted on the principle of keeping one's word, which is worth a hell of a lot more than money can ever buy as far as I'm concerned. Was voting early pretty painless for you? I voted three weeks ago. Took about 5 minutes, no line. I think the new early voting option is a very good thing..... As for "keeping one's word", Keeastman... you do realize that John McCain also publically stated that he would use FEC's matching funds.. You do realize McCain actually signed a binding commitment to do so after he publically stated he was going to. Six month after signing the binding commitment; McCain renegged.. McCain said that his campaign has decided that it will accept public financing for the general election. “We will take public financing,” Asked what his thinking was, he said, “Because we decided to take public financing.” That will enable McCain to spend $84 million after the GOP convention. Obama, who today rejected the public financing system, could possibly raise more than three times that amount for the general election. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/19/1156366.aspx McCain Will Accept Public Financing by Shushannah Walshe MINNEAPOLIS– After visiting flood-ravaged Iowa today, John McCain told reporters that his campaign will take public financing. On his Straight Talk Express to a Minneapolis fundraiser he confirmed that he will accept the financing even though today Barack Obama announced he will not. http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/19/mccain-will-accept-public-financing/ Fact is Bush opted out of public financing in 2000, and 2004 and the Republicans didn't have any big moral outrage over that decision when it was in their candidates advantage. McCain's only grip is Obama's decision puts him at a disadvantage... After all McCain's flip flop is worse than Obama's. McCain actually signed the papers, then reneged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Was voting early pretty painless for you? I voted three weeks ago. Took about 5 minutes, no line. I think the new early voting option is a very good thing.....As for "keeping one's word", Keeastman... you do realize that John McCain also publically stated that he would use FEC's matching funds.. You do realize McCain actually signed a binding commitment to do so after he publically stated he was going to. Six month after signing the binding commitment; McCain renegged.. Fact is Bush opted out of public financing in 2000, and 2004 and the Republicans didn't have any big moral outrage over that decision when it was in their candidates advantage. McCain's only grip is Obama's decision puts him at a disadvantage... After all McCain's flip flop is worse than Obama's. McCain actually signed the papers, then reneged. JMS your mixing and matching. Those comments I believe are respect to the general election. McCain is taking funds for the general election. He just didn't for the primaries. You've also are being misleading about Bush. Bush didn't take public funds for the primaries, but did so w/ respect to both general elections. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5032010/ Bush ended up w/ an advantage because the spending amounts are tied to when you are nominated. The earlier nomination mean that Kerry was limited to the same amount of money over a longer period of time. Obama is the first person ever to opt out for the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I wonder if McCain had accepted Millions in "anonymous" contributions giving him an obscene financial advantage if you would be so happy about it. What if McCain had told Obama that he would accept public funding only to change his mind giving him said advantage, would you then be so giddy? Because next election the shoe might change to the other foot and I would hate to see you contradict yourself. There needs to be a way to give the candidates a fair and equal chance to make their cases to the American public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 JMS your mixing and matching. Those comments I believe are respect to the general election. McCain is taking funds for the general election. He just didn't for the primaries. I don't think that's accurate. The way it works is you declare your intent to participate before the primaries, and that limits your spending throughout the race; but garantees you funds throughout the race... You recieve matching payments in the primaries and recieve another payment in the general election; but your spending is capped. McCain declaired he would participate in August 2007, But renigged on that binding contract in Feb of 2008. The FEC cryed foul and filed a formal complaint because McCain had broken his pledge on spending limits.. http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files//2008/03/hamsher-complaint-with-fec-vs-mccain-1.pdf McCain ended up opting out of the entire program. Obama never applied for public funds for the 2008 Presidencial election.. During the primaries, eligible candidates receive matching payments for the first $250 of each individual contribution the raise, but their total receipts of public funds cannot exceed half of the national spending limit for the primary campaign. http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_public_funding.shtml Bush opted out of the public financing in 2000, and 2004. He didn't recieve public money from the FEC program in either year. Gore used the public financing system in 2000, Kerry and Dean both opted out in 2004 like bush did. You've also are being misleading about Bush. Bush didn't take public funds for the primaries, but did so w/ respect to both general elections. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5032010/ I think you are being misleading, or you misunderstand what's going on... The spending limits and restrictions are tied to the money which Bush turned down. That money was traditionally how nominees pay for thier campaigns. Those public funds would have yeilded him roughly 70 million dollars in total throughout both the primaries and general election. Bush declined that money. The money he accepted was the 4 million for the major parties conventions, money with no strings attached. Bush ended up w/ an advantage because the spending amounts are tied to when you are nominated. The earlier nomination mean that Kerry was limited to the same amount of money over a longer period of time. Bush didn't adhere to any spending limits, and didn't recieve matching funds in either of his two elections. He had an advantage because he was benifited from raising a record amount of cash both years. Obama is the first person ever to opt out for the general election. Wrong.. Neither McCain nor Obama are getting matching funds in 2008. Neither Kerry nor Bush got matching funds in 2004. And Bush was the first candidate to opt out in 2000, when Gore took matching funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma 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. Am I missing something but didn't he use puplic funding for that 30 minute infomercial??? honestly I lost a little respect for him for that, to me it sounded like a salesman, and something he did not need to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I don't think that's accurate. The way it works is you declare your intent to participate before the primaries, and that limits your spending throughout the race; but garantees you funds throughout the race... You recieve matching payments in the primaries and recieve another payment in the general election; but your spending is capped. You are wrong (your whole post is wrong). There are two different sets. The primaries and the general election. You can opt out for the primary, but not the general election as Kerry and Bush did for 2004. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/148417_camp15.html http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1389223 McCain is taking matching funds for the general election. http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BAC81D4FF-0476-4E28-B9B1-7619D271A334%7D&DE=%7B92972FF1-2E73-4CB5-916C-7F601CE9AA1F%7D "McCain's campaign couldn't legally accept donations after Sept. 5, when the Republican got $84 million of taxpayer money to cover general-election costs. By funneling Internet donors to the party and exploiting other legal loopholes, however, McCain continues to raise millions of dollars. On the other side, Democrat Barack Obama is the first major- party nominee to refuse public campaign funding, with its attendant spending and fundraising limits. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States "No major party has turned down government funds for the general election since the program was launched in 1976, until Democratic nominee Barack Obama did so in 2008." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 JMS your mixing and matching. Those comments I believe are respect to the general election. McCain is taking funds for the general election. He just didn't for the primaries. I wondered when someone was going to point out how wrong JMS was about this whole deal. McCain got a loan during the primaries to keep his campaign afloat, but whether or not he used the promise of federal financing as collateral is debatable. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_john_mccain_borrow_money_using_public.html [L]ate last year McCain's campaign took out loans totaling $4 million (an initial $3 million loan and then another for $1 million) from the Maryland-based Fidelity & Trust Bank. The Washington Post reported that in order to secure the additional loan, McCain pledged "incoming but unprocessed contributions as collateral." According to the Post, when the bank asked what would happen if the campaign didn't go well, Trevor Potter, McCain's attorney, said McCain could "reapply in the future for federal matching funds, and would agree to use the FEC certifications for those funds as collateral." And The Associated Press reported that the loan agreement "did not include McCain's right to the public funds," but that it did require him to reapply for public financing if he withdrew and lost in early primary contests.Matthew S. Bergman and Scott E. Thomas, outside counsel for Fidelity & Trust, wrote a letter to Potter in late February, saying that public financing hadn't been considered as collateral His campaign did well enough in the primaries that he didn't need federal funds and so he withdrew from federal funding in the primaries. The FEC agreed that he could exit the public financing system, for the PRIMARY elections: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/fec-frees-mccain-from-primary.html FEC Frees McCain from Primary Public Financing Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on August 21, 2008 John McCain caught a break today after the Federal Election Commission voted unanimously to let his campaign out of the public financing system for the primary contest. Months ago the Democratic National Committee accused McCain of using the possibility of the funds to secure a bank loan and then illegally withdrawing from the system after his campaign's finances improved. At that time the FEC didn't have a full quorum to take any official action on the issue, but the commission has been back to full capacity since the end of June (and taking up this issue was at the top of its to-do list). The DNC had asked the FEC not to vote on the matter this week without an investigation, according to Politico. McCain has opted into the public financing system for the general election and stands to collect $84 million in taxpayer money once he is formally nominated as the Republicans' presidential candidate. I couldn't find a more recognizable source on this, I don't know why that is. Anyway, McCain's general election campaign has been run on federal funds. http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/20080908cert.shtml Here's where Obama promised to use public finance: http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.org/templates/media/MDNPresidentialQuestionnaire.pdf OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election. He should have left himself some wiggle room there, but he definitely didn't. Also, JMS, do you have a source on who has or has not used public financing in presidential elections? You've made several claims, I'd like to see your sources. Everything I've seen matches this: Obama is the first major-party presidential candidate to reject public financing for the fall campaign since the system was enacted in 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95902015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Obama is the first person ever to opt out for the general election.Well there is Ross Perot ... he was the first person to actually buy a half-hour TV spot like Obama did.Anyhow, it was a dumb promise by Obama in the first place, since every candidate since 1976 has done the same thing, so it's not like he was making some big pronouncement. He should have kept his promise, but he really shouldn't have made it in the first place. As far as winning the election, it's pretty clear right now that breaking his promise was the best strategic thing to do. The flip-flop isn't hurting him at all. The Republicans seem to be targeting their attacks based on Bill Ayers or Obama's inexperience and don't seem to be hitting the campaign finance angle at all, which is odd, because it has been one of McCain's biggest issues. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 As far as winning the election, it's pretty clear right now that breaking his promise was the best strategic thing to do. The flip-flop isn't hurting him at all. The Republicans seem to be targeting their attacks based on Bill Ayers or Obama's inexperience and don't seem to be hitting the campaign finance angle at all, which is odd, because it has been one of McCain's biggest issues. :whoknows: This is true. I'd imagine they think that it's an issue people can't get energized about (and maybe they're right), but I think the R's would have been a lot better off with a message of "Obama promises tax cuts, affordable health care and a lot of other wonderful things, but he promised to take public financing then backed out when it was no longer in his interest. How do you know he's going to keep his word about any other promises he makes?" That's an honest question to ask. Instead they went negative. Obama's charisma and energy have carried him in this election. Watching McCain stumble through the debates was painful. You'd think both parties would be well aware of this by now and would nominate good looking people that speak well and have a clean history. Actually, the last part isn't that important. People are willing to forgive anything for their own candidate, and a lot for someone they are undecided about. It seems like the D's were definitely ahead of the curve this election cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Well there is Ross Perot ... he was the first person to actually buy a half-hour TV spot like Obama did. Ross Perot wasn't in to opt out. There's the 10% of the vote by your party the election before thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.