ADN

Hey, both cantidates made their choices in how they were gonna get campaign funds. McCain aint got the kinda fundage Barack has cos a nice chunk of his party don't support him. That's all on him. The reason I think Obama having mad loot for his campaign is there are a fuckload on donators who want a Change. Most of em may be donating what little they can afford, but it all adds up.

Jig-A-Meister wrote:Hey, both cantidates made their choices in how they were gonna get campaign funds. McCain aint got the kinda fundage Barack has cos a nice chunk of his party don't support him. That's all on him. The reason I think Obama having mad loot for his campaign is there are a fuckload on donators who want a Change. Most of em may be donating what little they can afford, but it all adds up.

No credit card fraud and internationally corrupt financing. Of course not.

Oh wait -

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... road_N.htm

The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas. About half of Obama's $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors.

Hmm, maybe it was a bunch of foreigners asking for him for change, and something was lost in translation.

raum wrote:

Jig-A-Meister wrote:Hey, both cantidates made their choices in how they were gonna get campaign funds. McCain aint got the kinda fundage Barack has cos a nice chunk of his party don't support him. That's all on him. The reason I think Obama having mad loot for his campaign is there are a fuckload on donators who want a Change. Most of em may be donating what little they can afford, but it all adds up.

"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." --Barack Obama, answer to Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, September 2007.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-che ... inanc.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/po ... ref=slogin

The goal of public financing is to eliminate the financial advantage of any candidate. Both Obama and McCain voted in favor of strictly public financing being allowed. McCain is not getting any more or any less than any other candidate would have. His support for the party candidate was 98% electoral support.

McCain in a private financed campaign could pay to own Comcast, if Cindy wanted. It was honorable for him to fight this one with public finances, and Obama on several occasions said he would. OBAMA LIED.

And he is waging the most expensive campaign ever and the only private campaign since Watergate, and still only carrying a maybe 5% pt lead, and that is before before 12% undecided weigh in.

...articles that make it look like palin is a frivilous and extravagant woman, when every pre-election or current election picture speaks against it.

The woman had a tanning bed installed in the gov. mansion...she's fucked in the head. And if she paid for it herself that only makes her even MORE of a narcissistic idiot.

raum wrote:

The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas. About half of Obama's $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors.

Hmm, maybe it was a bunch of foreigners asking for him for change, and something was lost in translation.

If you donate less than $200 it doesn't have to be itemized, so what's the problem? It wasn't Obama who wrote that rule, was it? The fact that half his funding came from people who donated less than $200 ought to be commended. Has anyone ever been able to successfully engage that may people in the democratic process to this level? Traditionally the GOP has always been the party outspend their rivals, but only through patronage to the corporate sector. What Obama has done is outstanding.

badpowers wrote:

...articles that make it look like palin is a frivilous and extravagant woman, when every pre-election or current election picture speaks against it.

The woman had a tanning bed installed in the gov. mansion...she's fucked in the head. And if she paid for it herself that only makes her even MORE of a narcissistic idiot.

Oh, how she spends her money is up for criticism, really? Lemme guess, just her, huh?

Not like anyone else could be spending their money on stuff that doesn't meet your approval, I'm sure. The great thing about my life is i am not even concerned what you do with your money you earn.

badpowers wrote:If you donate less than $200 it doesn't have to be itemized, so what's the problem? It wasn't Obama who wrote that rule, was it? The fact that half his funding came from people who donated less than $200 ought to be commended. Has anyone ever been able to successfully engage that may people in the democratic process to this level? Traditionally the GOP has always been the party outspend their rivals, but only through patronage to the corporate sector. What Obama has done is outstanding.

When you read the fact that some of these are coming from overseas, not requiring passports or validation, or at the least not including REQUIRED and accepted postal code State Abbreviations, get back to me. Oh, and dont forget to read that you can enter more than the legal amount, which is something you have to set the software to accept. This is not hard to find.

Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

And none of this has to do with the fact that Obama LIED and didn't restrict himself to the financing he agreed to with McCain. Do you really not get that?

What Obama has done is outstanding

Ok then, can you tell us what he has done in his brief career that warrants becoming President of the United States? The only thing I've seen so far is he's not Bush, there's got to be more than just that.

raum wrote:Fact of the matter, Obama's property value increase in Rezko scandals profited him more than Palin's wardrobe.

The fact that we are even comparing wardrobe costs to home values should be alarming on so many levels...

Buffmaster wrote:Ok then, can you tell us what he has done in his brief career that warrants becoming President of the United States? The only thing I've seen so far is he's not Bush, there's got to be more than just that.

Shit, isn't that enough..? LoL...I didn't realize there was a list of requirments or accomplishments that one must have before they assume public office...I more or less figured that it would be based on traits, and well...We could go on and on there...

Kumicho wrote:The fact that we are even comparing wardrobe costs to home values should be alarming on so many levels...

You mean embezzlement and political gain on capital investment compared to clothing expenses? Yeah pretty sad.

Kumicho wrote:Shit, isn't that enough..? LoL...I didn't realize there was a list of requirments or accomplishments that one must have before they assume public office...I more or less figured that it would be based on traits, and well...We could go on and on there...

Hmm, what traits of Obama's do you admire?

Sheeee-it!, AF Worldwide is turning into an adoption agency :laff:

raum wrote:Hmm, what traits of Obama's do you admire?

He's extremely intelligent...He's sharp, articulate, cool...Young...Comes from a single parent background like myself...Well educated...A father...His command, presence, resolve, ideas...

Why do you ask..?