posted
Back when the selection of Obama was made clear, McCain refused to arrange to talk with Obama to discuss the acceptance of taking federal money for the campaigns and refused for weeks to say that he would or wouldn't do so (because he wouldn't talk with any enemy without setting preconditions?).
In truth, which cow and the rest of the republican liars ignore, OBAMA NEVER SAID HE WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE FEDERAL PROGRAM FOR FINANCING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, only that he would discuss that with the republican nominee.
McCain refused to either agree to such a discussion or to accept the Federal financing, so Obama decided not to. The lying was from McCain, not Obama.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama Campaign Spending $293,000 An Hour In October. AN HOUR PEOPLE...
Oh yes I do remember Obama flip-flopping on the campaign funding issue. Saying one thing, and then doing the other. He has done this on off shore drilling as well, oh yeah ayers flip flop on info on his "fight the smears" section on the website. Obama sure does change the story.
The whole issue of a candidate Flip Flopping, IMO, is crazy. Think about it. We are in a war in Iraq because Leadership wouldn't "Flip Flop, in spite of evidence that should have been considered.
I believe changing a position due to new information is a sign of maturity. I don't believe everything I once believed as a young man. Why? Because new information and experience has changed my mind. It's called growing up. If you look at McCain he is a much different candidate today than he was 1 yr ago. People, especially leaders need to adapt to situations. The failure to adapt and in a sense have blinders on, is usually what gets us into trouble.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place, and that is one of the few things I DO agree with Obama on. It is time for that countrys government to step up and take control of their own damn country and work things out.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Hey I never said I supported Bush lets get that clear. I am talking about the CURRENT Presidential campaign.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the GOP who helped Bush get and spend that $12 billion per month?... Bush couldn't do it alone... by the way what party does McCain belong to?
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought this was an individual thing not a party grouping. Anyone who blames one party for everything, and can not understand that this is a two way street is not worth debating. Its like arguing with an idiot.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Sarah Palin undress clothes critics as GOP VP candidate dumps fancy wardrobe
By MICHAEL SAUL DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Sunday, October 26th 2008, 10:07 PM
Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Sarah Palin undress clothes critics as GOP VP candidate dumps fancy wardrobe
By MICHAEL SAUL DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Sunday, October 26th 2008, 10:07 PM Stroshane/Getty
TAMPA - Case clothed? Not yet.
Sarah Palin and guest campaigner Elisabeth Hasselbeck from "The View" denounced chatter about Palin's $150,000 wardrobe Sunday as a sexist diversion from the nation's problems.
But just nine days before Election Day, the GOP vice presidential nominee took a detour from her stump speech to argue at length that she's more at home in the bargain bins. She even itemized her accessories. RELATED: DEFIANT McCAIN VOWS VICTORY
Hasselbeck, the conservative co-host on the ABC daytime talk show, introduced Palin yesterday and kicked off the garment gab-fest by calling the clothes carping "deliberately sexist."
Then it was Palin's turn. "I'm glad now that Elisabeth brought it up, because it gives me an opportunity without the filter of the media to get to tell you the whole clothes thing," Palin said.
"Those clothes, they are not my property, just like the lighting and the staging and everything else that the RNC [Republican National Committee] purchased," Palin told the crowd of 5,000. "I'm not taking 'em with me. I'm back to wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska."
She complained about having to even discuss the issue, suggesting there's a "double standard" for women. LUPICA: HEY, THERE ARE AMERICAN HEROES IN NYC, TOO
But then, one by one, Palin pointed to her unheralded fashion accessories, suggesting they better reflected her true identity, including:
* Beaded earrings from her mother-in-law, who she noted was a Yupik Eskimo. * A $35 wedding ring that she bought herself. Palin said she's happy to wear the inexpensive band from Hawaii because, "It's not what it's made of, it's what it represents." * A blue-star pin in honor of her son Track, a soldier deployed in Iraq.
It was the second day in a row that Palin pointed to clothes that were her own, not those the RNC provided for her early last month after John McCain put her on the ticket. GOODWIN: OBAMA IS WAY TOO LIBERAL
When news of the $150,000 spree first broke, campaign officials went into stonewall mode, refusing to discuss a "strategic decision" on RNC spending.
But Palin has complained loud-ly as of late that her side of the story did not get out. Her increasing outspokenness comes amid reports she believes campaign officials have mishandled her, hurting her image as a "hockey mom" who can relate to everyday Americans.
On NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday, McCain said Palin "lives a frugal life." He and several campaign aides said a third of the clothes have already been returned and the rest will be donated to charity."
Edwards $400 haircut was not considered sexist but $150K spent on cleaning up a Pit Bull is sexist. Hmm, Some say that she can do no right because of personal bias but in reality she does so much wrong, no one needs a bias.
To think this is the same woman that said Hillary shouldn't "whine" about tough media coverage.
posted
Sexist my, hind end. It's just the normal media concern with what is a relatively unknown.
Imagine the uproar if either Bill or Hillary had been given $150K worth of clothes. The democrats wouldn't be saying it's off limits because it's sexist and the GOP would be thrilled to call it graft.
More importantly, buying clothes, whether $1.50 used tie or a $150K allotment of high fashion duds is strictly, by specific statement, prohibited, by law:
From The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, McCain–Feingold Act :
"SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES (b) PROHIBITED USE
(1) IN GENERAL.-A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
(2) CONVERSION.-For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including- ... (B) a clothing purchase; ..."
And don't try to get me to believe they didn't know it was illegal or that it was a mistake, because it is the one most bragged about voluntary effort of John McCain, by him and by the republican party, ever as a public servant!
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, McCain–Feingold Act :
"SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES (b) PROHIBITED USE
(1) IN GENERAL.-A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
(2) CONVERSION.-For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including- ... (B) a clothing purchase; ..."
If you would do even a LITTLE research into any issue, you might learn the truth. Buying clothes for Sarah Palin to wear was NOT illegal or a violation of the McCain-Feingold Act because the clothes do not belong to her. The RNC purchased the clothes and will be donating the proceeds of the sale/auction of the clothes to charity after the campaign.
More reading, less gibberish is the recipe for being accurate.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:can't donate or auction used underwear... OMG... i guess there's a few people that would actually pay more (for a "good conservative cause" i'm sure)
She probably had her own underwear.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:From The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, McCain–Feingold Act :
"SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES (b) PROHIBITED USE
(1) IN GENERAL.-A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
(2) CONVERSION.-For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including- ... (B) a clothing purchase; ..."
If you would do even a LITTLE research into any issue, you might learn the truth. Buying clothes for Sarah Palin to wear was NOT illegal or a violation of the McCain-Feingold Act because the clothes do not belong to her. The RNC purchased the clothes and will be donating the proceeds of the sale/auction of the clothes to charity after the campaign.
More reading, less gibberish is the recipe for being accurate.
I don't need to "do even a LITTLE research into [the] issue", as I have done so.
You need to bother to read the law rather than quote Fat Rush, the Doper, on the issue.
As stated in the law:
"a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign".
Wearing clothes is not something that comes about because you are a candidate in a campaign. It is a legal responsibility (in most states, provided there is a reasonable expectation that some minor may see the person, which, of course, is a given if yoiu are going to make speeches in public) in or not in a political campaign and wearing clothes paid for by the RNC amounts to accepting the value of them while she was wearing them for personal use. So doing so "fullfill[s] [a] commitment, obligation, or expense of [Sarah Palin] that exists irrespective of [her] election campaign".
Thus, it amounts to a "contribution" as defined by the law in question, and is illegal.
Indeed, you need to do "More reading" and spout "less gibberish" for any hope of "being accurate".
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
