Obama flip-flops on campaign money again!!

Hmmmm......

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10340118-first-thoughts-a-super-reversal

 

Nonsense once again but what else is new. Obama has called for a Constitutional amendment to end Citizens United but since that has no chance of passing a Republican House of Reps, you would prefer to see him run without the help of a PAC while the Cons use them freely. Don't bother chastising the side that is willing to end the use of PACs while your side isn't. You just sound like a big old hypocrite again.

 

I would prefer him to say what he means and do what he says. You know (well maybe not), it is kind of like your actions speak louder than your words.

 

This is a case where a cliché doesn't trump the reality of the situation. Are you against Citizen's United or are you against Obama using the same law that your side is using? You guys really don't have a leg to stand on in this case?

 

HUH? I am against him promising not to and then using it. What on earth does my picking one of your sides have to do with his lying?

 

Really? Promising? When was that?

 

Trying to change the topic again? http://www.thestar.com/news/world/u...--obama-campaign-reverses-stance-on-pac-money

 

Don't see anywhere in that article where Obama is promising anything. Are you unaware of the meaning of the word "promise"? Because it really seems like you have very little understanding of the meaning of the word. Nothing personal but there are a lot of words in the English language and maybe this one got by you. Maybe you can show me again where you think Obama promised any such thing or you can reword your original statement or perhaps this one wasn't meant to be factual.

 

Let's be honest here, shall we? For BO to blast the process (and publically dress down the SC) then turn around & jump in with both feet is the height of hypocrisy.

 

"Let's start from the very beginning--a very fine place to start. When you read you begin with A, B, C! When you sing you begin with do, rei, mi . . ."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-to-break/

 

No, he should just let the other side raise all the money they want using the same method you are criticizing him for and lose the election because you think he is being a hypocrite. How stupid would that be? I know that would give you the result you want, president Romney, but why should he or anyone on the Left care what you think anyway?

 

In November 2007, Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

Thanks HM!

 

My pleasure. I agree that he's flip-flopped on the money thing, but what some people remember as an unconditional promise was not one. I think the question itself was not an honest one and was designed to create a door through which he could back out with impunity. However, people expressing outrage today have to remember two things: 1) as Moen said, he's a politician and as such will do everything he needs to do to win and 2) he's not only a politician but also a Chicago politician--and there are few places that have politics as corrupt as Chicago (I live in one such area!). How we expected a man steeped in Chicago politics to lead to greater transparency and positive change is beyond me--and how we are expressing outrage in terms of how any politician gathers and spends money is beyond me.

 

I'm criticizing him for being a hyocritical weasel. We should be able to count on our president to be a bit more credible. It's not like he made a comment in passing regarding campaign money, he took the SC to task in front of the entire country! Now he turns around & not only participates but makes a personal plea for the money? Geesh.
...and it's not like he or the libs were hurting for money. Lib PAC's rasie plenty of money & always have. Isn't the SEIU the #1 source of PAC money?

 

You apparently have found yet another issue that you can't bring yourself to to shut up about and at the same time seem to know next to nothing about. And you say that you don't watch Fox. Getting harder and harder to believe.

 

Heck, now even some of the admin insiders are starting to call him out!!http://www.businessinsider.com/the-sad-spectacle-of-obamas-super-pac-2012-2

moen, it's cute that you try so hard to defend BO's actions but you are obviously on the wrong side of this issue.
By the way, I have provided 2 links involving this story & neither one is from FOX. Your continued insistance that I get my news from FOX is beginning to get a little pathetic.

 

Moen, you need to stop spouting off about Fox. Seriously. I can't believe you've ever watched it. I've had the channel on for about two hours right now (I'm finishing my paper this morning, so I have it on as background noise) and they have spent more time talking about the Republican primaries/caucuses, Josh Powell, the kids in upstate New York, the birth control issues (Catholics and the vending machine thing), and the Arizona immigration law than they have about Barack Obama (although discussion about him has not been absent).

Totally off-topic: does anyone want a little white and black dog? He wants to play Kong and I need to write my paper.

 

That's all he has.
See, moen lives in a vacuum. All he knows is what he's told by the uber-liberal folks who run the student loan mill where he works and the far left media. He spews it back at the naive young co-eds who are too intimidated to disagree with him. He isn't prepared to handle it when we disagree with his ideology, blow holes in his "stories" with facts (or real world examples) or Heaven forbid, his own words are repeated back to him!
I imagine moen as the little boy who gets so mad when he doesn't get his way that he holds his breath until he turns blue.

 

Thanks, David! I laughed out loud at that one!

 

This whole situation reminds me of a boxing match. For the longest time, two guys would show up and punch at each other until one was left standing. Then, one boxing promoter decided that his guy would show up to the next boxing match with a gun to make things more interesting pleasing the gun manufacturers to no end. The other boxing promoter rails against using guns during a boxing match but in the end the Boxing Federation decides that guns are permitted during the boxing match. Now, because the second guy didn't want the guns allowed in the first place, he supposed to show up at the next boxing match unarmed. When he decide to bring a gun to even the playing field, the first guy cries foul because now he has to compete in a fair fight.

Now you can see how stupid your logic actually is.