E46Fanatics

E46Fanatics (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/index.php)
-   Political Talk (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   Obama: Citizens United sucks, except when it doesn't (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=976738)

Act of God 03-18-2013 02:05 AM

Obama: Citizens United sucks, except when it doesn't
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-the-poor.html
Quote:

Once, only nobles were granted an audience with the King.

In America, we've prided ourselves on abandoning those privileges of class some 237 years ago, following that little uprising in the 13 colonies.

And we again congratulated ourselves at 12:01 pm Eastern Time on January 20, 2009, just moments after Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States and as he committed to making his administration the most transparent and open in history.

But more than four years later it is time to ask questions. The most transparent administration ever? The most transparently political, yes. The most open government? If you have the money to buy access, yes.

Since last weekend, Mr and Mrs Regular Citizen have been denied the access people used to be granted to tour the White House, purportedly because of the clampdown on federal spending since the "sequester" that imposed cuts across the board.

These tours, most recently guided by volunteers though monitored by paid Secret Service staff, have been an American tradition since John and Abigail Adams, the first White House residents, personally hosted receptions for the public.

And their cancellation is an austerity measure that saves a pittance, while more frivolous taxpayer funding for items like the White House dog walker continues.

Meanwhile, noble Americans can buy time with the president for a suggested donation of $500,000 to his new campaign group, Organising for Action.

Yes, the announcement offering access to the president for cold, hard cash was made openly and with total transparency. But it was also made without shame.

It's the third version of Obama's original monster campaign machine, Obama for America, which then morphed into a re-election campaign machine, Organising for America, on the third day of his first term.

It has now re-launched again as Organising for Action (OFA) - a non-profit, tax-exempt group headed by his former campaign advisers. Apparently no longer "for America", the group might just as well be called Organising for Obama's Agenda.

Its mission: to support the president in his attempt to achieve enactment of gun control, environmental policies and immigration reform.

At the two-day kick-off event last week for the new OFA's founding summit, attended by 75 folks for the "bargain" rate of just $50,000, Obama at least acknowledged the concerns raised by others about the funding, purpose and influence of the organisation.

However, he brushed them aside. With greater humility than new Pope Francis, Obama said he prided himself on feeling no obligation in the past to the interests of the generous donors who made his election and re-election possible. Though paradoxically he also said he wanted "to make sure the voices of the people are actually heard in the debates that are going to be taking place". So, he'll take money to listen to the voices of the privileged, but not do their bidding?

May I humbly suggest he could hear more voices, more clearly if he mingled with the public he serves? Perhaps the White House could hold open tours for the public! Why has no one in his administration thought of that? And volunteers could manage those tours, to keep costs down!

But, of course, those are what have just been cancelled. Meanwhile, three calligraphers reportedly remain on staff. I suppose their services are needed for the special hand-lettered, gold-foiled invitations sent to the nobles who are willing to pay for an audience with the King.

OFA is a legal, tax-exempt advocacy organization, established as a social welfare group under the rules of both the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Elections Commission. It can accept unlimited contributions, so long as it promotes the common good and does not primarily engage in electoral politics.

As it is not required to publicly disclose donors, OFA is actually one of those "shadowy" organisations Obama railed against as a candidate when he supported campaign finance reform.

In 2010 the Supreme Court made a controversial ruling known as Citizens United that allowed unlimited corporate and individual donations to so-called "super political action committees", which at least have to disclose their donors, and to social welfare organisations, which do not.

At the time, Obama loudly criticised the decision, saying: "That's one of the reasons I ran for president: because I believe so strongly that the voices of ordinary Americans were being drowned out by the clamour of a privileged few in Washington."


But then he reversed course, giving his blessing to a super PAC supporting his 2012 re-election, and now to OFA. What has changed?

Obama is looking to his legacy. And his eye is on the 2014 Congressional elections. If he can maintain his appeal among the masses and help Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives, while maintaining control of the Senate, there will be no stopping his agenda.

He explained the "grassroots" purpose of OFA like this: "If you have a senator or a congressman in a swing district who is prepared to take a tough vote... I want to make sure they feel supported and they know there are constituencies of theirs that agree with them, even if they may be getting a lot of pushback in that district."

Engaging voters is always a good thing. But the president should not charge for the privilege. If he will look out the Oval Office window beyond his own reflection, King Barack I will see the public he is meant to serve. He ought to invite them in.
Shocker, more bs from the top

Lair 03-18-2013 07:34 AM

Take the rich party's douchebaggery, capitalize on it, piss off republicans.

I like it.

While we're on the subject, please stop whining about White House tours. You wanted to cut unnecessary spending and you got it.

Shut the fvck up.

Act of God 03-18-2013 09:14 AM

Stop whining? When did I ever bring it up?

Love your rationalization, too, classic.

casino is no lie 03-18-2013 09:40 AM

The OFA has my support. :thumbsup:

Fergo 03-18-2013 09:55 AM

The rich party?? Lol that's all I need to know how skewed your views are :lmao:

bimmerfan08 03-18-2013 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lair (Post 15260134)
Take the rich party's douchebaggery, capitalize on it, piss off republicans.

I like it.

While we're on the subject, please stop whining about White House tours. You wanted to cut unnecessary spending and you got it.

Shut the fvck up.

Little hostile this morning eh?

Zell 03-18-2013 11:01 AM

Quote:

These tours, most recently guided by volunteers though monitored by paid Secret Service staff, have been an American tradition since John and Abigail Adams, the first White House residents, personally hosted receptions for the public.
You can't tour the White House.

BUT OH NOES GUYZ, IT BREAKZ TRADISHUN!!11ONE

Boo. ****ing. Hoo. You'll have a whiner for everything.

Lair 03-18-2013 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 15260330)
Stop whining? When did I ever bring it up?

Love your rationalization, too, classic.


You = whiney dipshit republicans who got what they asked for and now can't stop crying about it.

White House tours? Really? THAT's what they're all moaning about?

Lair 03-18-2013 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 (Post 15260443)
Little hostile this morning eh?

Not at all. It's another beautiful day in AlObama. :)

Lair 03-18-2013 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fergo_the_mule (Post 15260423)
The rich party?? Lol that's all I need to know how skewed your views are :lmao:


If you don't recognize that the GOP is the party of the rich, for the rich, then you're the one with the skew. ;)

Carskibum 03-18-2013 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lair (Post 15260970)
If you don't recognize that the GOP is the party of the rich, for the rich, then you're the one with the skew. ;)

Isn't it you who constantly reminds us that the blue states carry the red states? Thus we are the party of the poor.

Fergo 03-18-2013 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lair (Post 15260970)
If you don't recognize that the GOP is the party of the rich, for the rich, then you're the one with the skew. ;)

Liar, you are too narrow minded to even respond to. So what you're saying republicans=rich and democrats=poor? So you're poor? Oh I get it maybe that's why you're so testy. Your logic is infallible.

Lair 03-18-2013 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carskibum (Post 15261048)
isn't it you who constantly reminds us that the blue states carry the red states? Thus we are the party of the poor.

:rofl:

Well played, sir.

Lair 03-18-2013 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fergo_the_mule (Post 15261969)
Liar, you are too narrow minded to even respond to. So what you're saying republicans=rich and democrats=poor? So you're poor? Oh I get it maybe that's why you're so testy. Your logic is infallible.

Testy?

I have everything I want - except for a shot of Boehner's orange ass on the way out the door. I'll get that soon.

Oh look! A republican is giving out food stamps to broke people!










Psych.

bimmerfan08 03-18-2013 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lair (Post 15262605)
Testy?

I have everything I want - except for a shot of Boehner's orange ass on the way out the door. I'll get that soon.

Oh look! A republican is giving out food stamps to broke people!










Psych.

They give their mucho dollars to charity...even better.

Fergo 03-18-2013 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lair (Post 15262605)
Testy?

I have everything I want - except for a shot of Boehner's orange ass on the way out the door. I'll get that soon.

Oh look! A republican is giving out food stamps to broke people!










Psych.

I know rich democrats, I also know rich republicans. Saying that the GOP is the rich party is borderline retarded. Actually it's just full on retard.



Oh, gee will you look at this.
Democrat Nancy Pelosi has a networth of 58 million
Democrat Hillary Clinton has a networth of 34 million
Democrat Bill Clinton has a networth of 80 million
Democrat Senator Herb Kohn has a networth of 231 million
Democrat Congressman Jarel Polis has a networth of 161 million
Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller has a networth of 82 million
Democrat Senator Mark Warner has a networth 70 million
Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal has a networth of 64 million
Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg has a networth of 50 million
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein has a networth of 46 million
Democrat Congressman Harry Teague has a networth of 40 million
Democrat Congress woman Jane Harman has a networth of 112 million
Sen. John Kerry (D, Mass)-$193.07 Million
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)$31.12 million
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)$16.02 million
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)$15.74 million (dead now)
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)$14.38 million
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)$14 million
Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.)$7.97 million
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)$7.14 million
Rep. Steven Kagen (D-Wis.)$7.10 million
Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.)$6.98 million
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)$6.95 million
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)$6.67 million
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.)$6.64 million
Rep. Parker Griffith (D-Ala.)$6.03 million
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)$5.97 millio
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)$5.82 million
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)$5.78 million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)$5.56 million
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)$5.38 million


:lmao: Once again Liar, your logic is infallible.

Lair 03-18-2013 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fergo_the_mule (Post 15262935)

:lmao: Once again Liar, your logic is infallible.

Once again, you completely missed the point.

Bravo. :thumbup:

Lair 03-18-2013 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 (Post 15262895)
They give their mucho dollars to charity...even better.

Yes, like the "charity" that Barbara Bush exhibited when she gave money to the Texas school system with the stipulation that it be used only to purchase her son's educational materials.

A heart of gold, that one.

Rhumb 03-19-2013 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fergo_the_mule (Post 15262935)
I know rich democrats, I also know rich republicans. Saying that the GOP is the rich party is borderline retarded. Actually it's just full on retard.



Oh, gee will you look at this.
Democrat Nancy Pelosi has a networth of 58 million
Democrat Hillary Clinton has a networth of 34 million
Democrat Bill Clinton has a networth of 80 million
Democrat Senator Herb Kohn has a networth of 231 million
Democrat Congressman Jarel Polis has a networth of 161 million
Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller has a networth of 82 million
Democrat Senator Mark Warner has a networth 70 million
Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal has a networth of 64 million
Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg has a networth of 50 million
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein has a networth of 46 million
Democrat Congressman Harry Teague has a networth of 40 million
Democrat Congress woman Jane Harman has a networth of 112 million
Sen. John Kerry (D, Mass)-$193.07 Million
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)$31.12 million
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)$16.02 million
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)$15.74 million (dead now)
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)$14.38 million
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)$14 million
Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.)$7.97 million
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)$7.14 million
Rep. Steven Kagen (D-Wis.)$7.10 million
Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.)$6.98 million
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)$6.95 million
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)$6.67 million
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.)$6.64 million
Rep. Parker Griffith (D-Ala.)$6.03 million
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)$5.97 millio
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)$5.82 million
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)$5.78 million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)$5.56 million
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)$5.38 million


:lmao: Once again Liar, your logic is infallible.

So it would seem that by a standard very highly, umm, treasured amongst the GOP--wealth, the Dems are doing pretty well. Perhaps then, given the above list, they might want to give Democratic economic ideas more consideration. That and, if anything, Democratic administration's have on average lead to greater and more equitable economic growth. This probably is more an indication of the oppressive need for and role of big money in politics in general, regardless of party.

Kind of a revealing line from the article:
"Obama is looking to his legacy. And his eye is on the 2014 Congressional elections. If he can maintain his appeal among the masses and help Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives, while maintaining control of the Senate, there will be no stopping his agenda."

So I guess the writer is concerned that Obama and his policies might appeal to, gasp, "the masses," i.e., the majority of Americans ala 2012, rather than, what, some more elite cadre, that his appealing agenda might prevail, as that mass of the great unwashed presumably voted for him to do just that. This sounds suspiciously like how American democracy was designed to work. Perhaps the GOP, to counter this insidious plot, might, too, want to come up with an agenda that actually appeals to these strange "masses" the author speaks darkly of.

As for the original topic, given the reality of Citizens United, I think it would be disingenuous to expect Obama to unilaterally disarm, even if he thinks the country would be better off without that ruling.

I do agree that stopping WH tours seems a bit petty, though the rigid strictures of the sequester may in fact necessitate that.

Act of God 03-19-2013 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhumb (Post 15263739)

As for the original topic, given the reality of Citizens United, I think it would be disingenuous to expect Obama to unilaterally disarm, even if he thinks the country would be better off without that ruling.

Ah, so if Ron Paul is against earmarks but ends up taking them since they haven't been outlawed he is a total scumbag devoid of principles...but if Obama does the same thing it's no big deal. Gotcha.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use