The $150 Million Dollar Man

[BeAChooser]

I'm going to say that BAC is displaying healthy doses of jealousy, panic, and delusion at this point.

Max, it's established fact that Clinton democrats took millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions from foreign entities that was linked to the Chinese communist military. It was literally brought into the Whitehouse in brown paper sacks at times. It's established fact that over a hundred people fled the country to avoid questioning (and that's with the Clinton DOJ obstructing the investigation) in this scandal.

It's also an established fact that the Clinton administration gave the Chinese access to what had formerly been restricted technology of all types ... in areas such as computers, submarines, missiles, nuclear weapons, and encryption. As well as access to secret information in those areas.

Surely you aren't going to try and deny this. Did you just miss the Cox Report and the years long Chinagate Scandal investigation? Did you miss the fact that John Huang, a friend of the Clintons AND (according to the FBI) a Chinese communist agent, was given a Top Secret clearance WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK and then after he was found out left the Whitehouse and went to work for the DNC? Where were you Max?

Or are you as clueless as Obama seems to be about his associations with people (like Wright, Ayers, Rezko)? Are you going to claim, you just didn't know what sort of persons the leaders in your party were, Max?

 

[ProbeX]

Of course, if that is all there is to it then Republicans should be able to do the same thing. Have wealthy contributors send in large amounts of money to the GOP in tiny portions to get around reporting laws.

Yet somehow, the Democratic praty is making a lot more money than the GOP this time around. I don’t think it is simply accounting tactics.

Hmmm ... another good point.

 

[BeAChooser]

Not in the slightest. Because that has about as much reality to it as "9/11 was an inside job."

Ben, don't you think that the Obama campaign, with the slightest of effort, could have caught the illegal contributions mentioned in the Newsweek article? Or the Gaza illegal contributions? But didn't. What's that say?

More important, we know that foreigners in the past have tried to influence our elections with millions of dollars in illegal contributions. This is not in doubt. Why wouldn't they do that now, with such an gaping hole in our campaign funding system?

You have to agree that the entities that in the past have tried to illegally influence our elections are for the most part interested in seeing Obama elected ... perhaps because they agree with his socialist (communist) agenda, perhaps because they view him as weak in maintaining our presence overseas, or perhaps because they think he, being a democrat, will be weak in defending our secrets and technology. Or they see him has someone who will undermine the economy with serious consequences for years to come. That would be good in the eyes of our enemies too.

We know there are phone banks in Palestine supporting Obama. We know that Dutch socialists have come to this country to support Obama. We know that hundreds of thousands of German socialists and communists gathered to support Obama. We know that Iran would prefer to see Obama in the Whitehouse. Is it a stretch to think they wouldn't take advantage of the internet funding to influence our election that way too?

 

[ProbeX]

We know there are phone banks in Palestine supporting Obama. We know that Dutch socialists have come to this country to support Obama. We know that hundreds of thousands of German socialists and communists gathered to support Obama.

Could you provide stats on these claims? What percentage of each population do you know to be "socialists who have come to this country to support Obama", and how do you know their stances? Are you an international pollster? More importantly, who cares either way?

 

[SezMe]

Ben, aren't you the least concerned that foreign entities who do not have our interests at heart might be influencing the election in the US through massive, essentially untraceable internet donations?

Think about that a minute, BAC. If the donations are "untraceable" how will the donors influence subsequent policy?

We should all remember that the biggest scandals during Clinton years had to do with the DNC and Clintons violating campaign funding laws.

Silly me. Here, all along I thought Clinton was impeached for lying about his BJ.

Say the next election ... when Obama, like Clinton, might control the FBI, IRS and DOJ? Will it be Michelle who masterminds the next Filegate?

Or when Bush controlled the same agencies? Didn't seem to worry you then, eh?

But you're right; Michelle masterminding some obscure controversy is surely the greatest threat to our nation. Thanks for reminding me of that peril. I've changed my vote.

And, not to forget the obligatory:

 

[chipmunk stew]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13981

Wow! But what do you expect of democrats after what we saw the Clintons do?

I knew it! It's Clinton's fault!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Think about that a minute, BAC. If the donations are "untraceable" how will the donors influence subsequent policy?

Simple, if some of those donations are from foreign entities then they must have an interest in an Obama administration of some kind that they may benefit from. Whether they have direct influence or not over actual policy is irrelevant really, I don't see any reason to justify or rationalize such donations for the matter that they're untraceable.

Silly me. Here, all along I thought Clinton was impeached for lying about his BJ.

Have you forgotten about Whitewater already have you? I guess it's not scandal unless you get impeached for it?

Or when Bush controlled the same agencies? Didn't seem to worry you then, eh?

I'm unfortunately not aware of this... could you kindly point me in the right direction where I can read into this further? Of course I am worried about other policies he's enacted, the least of which among them is the patriot act and eiretapping policies.

But you're right; Michelle masterminding some obscure controversy is surely the greatest threat to our nation. Thanks for reminding me of that peril. I've changed my vote.

Most of that behavior says more about character than policy, of course Obama's a flip flopper not only in his positions on Iraq, but every bit as much on campaign financing. He say's he's not going to take public funds and then he changes his mind on the fly. McCain isn't exactly an angel when it comes to flip flopping, but at least campaign financing is one of the issues he remained consistent in

And, not to forget the obligatory: [/QUOTE]

 

[Pookster]

Just curious, Pookster. Can you tell us how much of that came from Americans? Because there really isn't tracking for much of it.

I don't know. Why don't you look into that for us. Thanks.

Because unlike Obama, McCain didn't LIE when he initially pledged to accept public funding limits.

Whining is soooo not sexy.

Well, Obama is about change. He was the FIRST candidate to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals. Somehow, I can't really think this is a good change, though. There was a reason all the other candidates agreed to such restrictions over so many years.

For some reason, I don't think Obama cares what you believe is a "good" change. He changed his mind and decided not to use taxpayer money knowing he could raise a whole lot more to match the dollars the RNC could raise over the DNC. He didn't follow the crowd (previous candidates). He was ... wait for it ... the maverick in this case. Heh. Get over it. Or whine some more. Doesn't matter to me. I'll just skim over the biggest majority of it like I have been.

 

[BenBurch]

So, not one shred of evidence supporting a grand conspiracy?

TRUTHERS.

 

[Peephole]

We know that dutch socialists have come to this country to support obama.

SOCIALISM OOGA BOOGA

How dare those Dutch SOCIALISTS with their affordable health care and cheap education visit ARE country.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Nice word salad, BAC. Get back to us when you actually have some evidence...

... until then, rant away

 

[gdnp]

In February of 2007 Obama declared "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." He didn't say "may". He said "will". And it appears McCain agreed to his proposal. Obama's lawyers then met ONCE with McCain's. And then backed away from his "will". Giving up after one meeting certainly isn't "aggressive" pursuit.

As I remember it, McCain announced that he was going to accept public funding (after announcing that he would accept, then that he was going to reject public funding for the primary campaign) before any agreement was reached with Obama. Kinda like his unilateral announcement that he was going to "suspend" his campaign due to the financial crisis. Once you make a public announcement of your decision, as far as I am concerned negotiations are over. It would have been idiotic for Obama to simply accept public financing without negotiating the terms given the Republican advantages in soft money.

Well, Obama is about change. He was the FIRST candidate to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals. Somehow, I can't really think this is a good change, though. There was a reason all the other candidates agreed to such restrictions over so many years.

Yeah, that they could get more money through public financing than they could raise on their own.

I used to be a supporter of public financing, and I still am to some degree. I think it is absurd the advantage that self-financed billionaires have in Senate races, for example. That being said, I think that a campaign financed by over 3 million contributions averaging under $86 is a remarkable thing. Certainly people might get around donation limits by giving under multiple false names, but it is hard to believe that they are buying influence by doing so.

A billion dollars is a lot of money to spend on a presidential campaign. Then again, a trillion dollars is a lot of money to spend on a wall street bailout plan, and the next president is going to be making decisions that affect many trillions of dollars. So a billion is not all that unreasonable an investment.

 

[Malerin]

Mccain didn't seem to have any problem taking donations during the primaries. Wonder why his attitude changed for the general election?

 

[gdnp]

I'm unfortunately not aware of this... could you kindly point me in the right direction where I can read into this further? Of course I am worried about other policies he's enacted, the least of which among them is the patriot act and wiretapping policies.

You could start by looking at the State Attorney firings, if you'd like.

Most of that behavior says more about character than policy, of course Obama's a flip flopper not only in his positions on Iraq, but every bit as much on campaign financing.

Flip-flopper on Iraq? you might want to discuss this with BAC. Last I heard, he was still claiming Obama was Stuck On Stupid^tm

He say's he's not going to take public funds and then he changes his mind on the fly. McCain isn't exactly an angel when it comes to flip flopping, but at least campaign financing is one of the issues he remained consistent in

Oh really? Remember the primary, when he said he was going to accept public financing and used the expected federal dollars as collateral for a loan when his campaign was broke? Then, after he had all but secured the nomination, and thus had no real need for campaigning in the primary battle but now had more cash coming in, he changed his mind and declined public financing. Is that what you call "consistent?"

 

[BeAChooser]

More importantly, who cares either way?

There you have it, folks. Here's an Obama supporter who doesn't even care if foreigners are actively influencing our election. He doesn't care if they've illegally given millions of dollars to Obama via the internet. He probably was a Clinton supporter, too, despite the fact that Clinton and the DNC took millions in illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese Communist military and gave them restricted technology in return.

Given the above, why would anyone think Obama and his supporters will care about right and wrong or the law when they start taking your money from you (via the IRS) and handing it over to their friends? What they tried to do recently when they proposed that leftist radical organizations like ACORN be given tens of millions of dollars as part of the bailout should serve as a warning. Fortunately that didn't happen but do you think Obama and his supporters are done trying? Afterall, ACORN alone has spent over $16 million this year registering democrats to vote ... legally AND illegally. Their bill for doing that will come due the moment Obama takes office. Mark my words.

 

[BeAChooser]

If the donations are "untraceable" how will the donors influence subsequent policy?

Think about that a minute, SezMe.

Just because the donations are untraceable doesn't mean that the Obama campaign wouldn't know source of the donations. It could just be a convenient way to launder the money anonymously into the campaign.

Consider the case of "Good Will" and "Doodad". Do you honestly expect us to believe that someone gave the Obama Campaign over $30,000 with NO expectations in return? Are you really that gullible?

Silly me. Here, all along I thought Clinton was impeached for lying about his BJ.

Silly you, for not seeing that was just a distraction to keep the American Public from focusing on the real and far more serious crimes of the Clinton administration.

Or when Bush controlled the same agencies?

Go ahead. Present your evidence that the Bush Administration used the IRS, FBI and DOJ against Bush's and RNC's political opponents the way we know the Clinton administration did. I bet you don't even try because you know full well that I will win that argument hands down. You may not like Bush's policies, but you will not find him sending the IRS against his political opponents or using the FBI to literally tamper with evidence in criminal investigations involving the Whitehouse.

 

[BeAChooser]

I knew it! It's Clinton's fault!

No, CS. It's YOUR fault.

You democrats let Clinton get away with it ... just as you now seem prepared to let Obama get away with anything he does or has ever done.

 

[BeAChooser]

Simple, if some of those donations are from foreign entities then they must have an interest in an Obama administration of some kind that they may benefit from.

Obama has already indicated some of his planned policy ... from pulling out in Iraq and not aggressively waging the war on terror (because most democrats don't believe there is a war on terror) to massive redistribution of wealth (not only within this country but to other countries in the form of greatly increased foreign aid). Socialists abroad would love to see America become socialist. Communists abroad would love to see us become communist. And there are elements of both in Obama's platform. And countries like Iran would love to see an Obama presidency. Why wouldn't they think of sending some cash Obama's way in that case ... given Obama's refusal to disclose the names of donors under $200?

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't know. Why don't you look into that for us. Thanks.

You see folks? Here's another Obama supporter who doesn't care where the money comes from ... as long as Obama wins. She doesn't care if millions of dollars in illegal contributions from foreign entities are corrupting our election process ... as long as Obama wins.

Whining is soooo not sexy.

I wasn't whining or trying to be sexy. I was pointing out the fact that Obama LIED. You see folks? Here's another Obama supporter who doesn't care if Obama lies ... as long as Obama wins. You didn't know this thread was going to reveal so much about you, did you, Pookster?

 

[BenBurch]

Do you ever get tired of hearing yourself?