[quote]The American Future Fund is among dozens of interest groups whose influence on campaigns has surged following a Supreme Court ruling that relaxed ..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Secret spenders sway elections

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 13:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1062
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, October 9, 2010 9:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

The American Future Fund is among dozens of interest groups whose influence on campaigns has surged following a Supreme Court ruling that relaxed restrictions on corporate and union donations. Greiner and representatives for her group did not return several messages this week seeking comment about where the group gets its money and who is involved.

So far this year, at least $5.6 million has been spent in Massachusetts by outside groups, almost all of it during Scott Brown’s special-election win for the US Senate in January, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation.

Also, a Nevada-based political action committee called Western Representative paid $10,000 for an e-mail campaign opposing Representative Barney Frank; the group also took out $1,560 in radio ads supporting Marty Lamb, the Republican nominee challenging Representative James McGovern. Several outside groups also supported Mac D’Alessandro in his unsuccessful Democratic primary campaign against Representative Stephen Lynch.

At least $3.6 million has been spent in New Hampshire, most of it on the US Senate race between Representative Paul Hodes, the Democrat, and former attorney general Kelly Ayotte, the Republican. No outside money has been spent this year in Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, or Rhode Island.

All told, $95.5 million has been spent this year by groups not affiliated with a campaign or national party organizations. In contrast, the top campaign committees for the parties have spent $41.2 million on independent expenditures, which are made to advocate for specific candidates but are not coordinated with their campaigns.

There are various types of outside groups, including organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce or trade unions such as the AFL-CIO. But increasingly, there are also well-funded groups whose donors are harder to trace. This year, for example, GOP strategist Karl Rove helped form a nonprofit organization called Crossroads GPS that has been purchasing ads across the country.

To avoid some of the stricter disclosure requirements of the tax code, groups have been registering as nonprofits under the 501(c) section of the tax code — which applies to social welfare groups, unions, and trade associations — rather than section 527, which is reserved for political organizations and requires disclosure of donors. The nonprofit groups are allowed to engage in political campaigns, but only if that constitutes less than half of their spending.

Two nonpartisan organizations, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, asked the Internal Revenue Service this week to investigate whether Rove’s group is violating its tax status as a nonprofit. The IRS does not comment on specific cases. A spokesman for Rove’s group stood by its activities.

“Our organization carefully and methodically follows the law, as do the center left who play in this space,’’ said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for Crossroads GPS. “There’s nothing new here. It’s a model that was copied by the Democrat and left-wing playbook and now that the right is raising more money, everyone is up in arms.’’

Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter last week to the IRS commissioner asking the agency to examine whether nonprofit organizations are complying with the tax laws. Currently, the IRS is the primary overseer of such nonprofit groups.

The use of undisclosed funds has skyrocketed. During the 2006 midterms, for example, 97 percent of groups taking out a broadcast ad just before an election disclosed the donors funding the ads. This year, fewer than a third have made such disclosures, according to a study by Public Citizen, a voters rights group.

The outside groups are mostly expected to bolster Republicans and offset weak fund-raising from the Republican National Committee.

The American Future Fund was formed in 2007, but did not become a force on the national scene until earlier this year when it took out ads against Coakley. The spot took a comment out of context from Coakley saying, “We need to get taxes up.’’

At the time, Brown disavowed the group, but the ads accomplished the goal of casting Coakley as a tax-raising liberal.

Greiner served for 16 years as a state representative in the Iowa Legislature. She was initially treasurer of the American Future Fund but became the group’s president last year. Its stated mission is “to promote conservative free market principles to the citizens of America.’’ None of the officers are compensated.

A spokesman told the Center for Public Integrity last month that the group planned to spend up to $25 million this year.

“This is the fun part of politics,’’ Greiner told the Sacramento Bee, shortly after the group’s ads ran in the Massachusetts election.

Some of the group’s ads were made by Larry McCarthy, who worked for Governor Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign and produced the 1988 Willie Horton ad that damaged Michael Dukakis’s presidential campaign that year.

The past president, Nicole Schlinger, was Romney’s Iowa straw poll coordinator during his presidential campaign. The young conservative liaison, Cord Overton, was a field consultant for Romney’s presidential campaign. His political director, Jill Latham, also has a role with American Future Fund.

This surprises exactly who?
Quote:

The man most responsible for the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to be more directly involved in politics said that fears of corporate takeovers of campaigns were overblown.

Dave Bossie is president of Citizens United, the conservative group that sued the Federal Election Commission and won a 5-4 decision in January. In an interview, he said he believes there is not "an ounce of evidence" that the ruling itself will drastically increase overall campaign spending, although it appears to be affecting who is raising and spending it. The Washington Post reported Monday that "outside groups" have spent about $80 million in congressional races this year, roughly five times the amount spent in 2006, and that only about half of the donations are public. Republican-leaning groups have outspent groups supporting Democrats by about 7-1, according to the Post. Bossie and others say that is a reflection of opposition to the Obama administration's policies as much as the Supreme Court decision.

The split court ruled that the Constitution's free-speech guarantee meant the government could not ban corporate participation in political campaigns, although direct corporate donations to politicians are still banned.

Not everyone agrees with Bossie, most notably President Barack Obama, who argues that the decision allows corporations and wealthy donors to give anonymously, and in unlimited amounts, to groups that can try to influence elections by organizing through parts of the federal tax code governing educational and lobbying nonprofits. These sections, called C3 and C4, have less stringent disclosure requirements than those put on candidates and other political committees organized under different parts of the federal election or Internal Revenue Service codes.

"We've got great candidates who are taking their case directly to the American people, but they are being drowned out by groups like Americans for Prosperity," Obama said at a Philadelphia rally last week, pointing out one of the conservative organizations he said is exploiting the decision. "We know who they are — but nobody knows where the money is coming from."

Americans for Prosperity was started by oil-industry billionaire David Koch, a longtime contributor to Republican candidates. The group is running issue ads favorable to Republican candidates in about 10 congressional districts.

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips said his organization represents 1.5 million activists who believe "reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans."

Ed Gillespie, the former Republican National Committee chairman and adviser for former President George W. Bush, helped found American Crossroads, another group that has drawn criticism from the left. The group hopes to raise $50 million to help Republicans win congressional elections this fall. On Friday, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that over the previous seven days, American Crossroads had spent $3.4 million on advertisements, mailings and other activity helping Senate candidates in Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Florida and Kentucky — all pivotal states in the GOP's attempt to take control of the Senate.

Last week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., asked the IRS to investigate if groups like American Crossroads were staying within the law's tax-exempt requirements, including restrictions that they not be primarily involved in political activity.

"Is the tax code being used to eliminate transparency in the funding of our elections?" Baucus asked in a letter to the IRS.

Critics say the problem is not the amount, but the fact that so much of the money comes from anonymous donors with axes to grind that hide behind benign-sounding names.

"Groups don't always produce ads that are straightforward," said Bill Allison, investigative editor at the Sunlight Foundation. "They don't say, 'We are the tobacco industry and we are against (a candidate) because he wants to crack down on our product.' Instead, they talk about his family values."

Another surprise to anyone? Isn't this exactly what we knew the Supreme Court decision would bring about?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 9, 2010 9:59 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


bump

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 10, 2010 2:44 AM

DREAMTROVE


Of course, these people are buying policy, not votes. The election results are already decided before the stage show begins.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 10, 2010 8:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Agreed to the first part, DT, but I don't believe the election results are foreordained. If they were, all the big spenders behind the Republican party would have made Obama lose. I think it's more the money behind getting the emotional issues to overtake good sense can have an enormous impact, and the HIDDEN backing of such things under names that sound good can sway an election. If people were really aware of who is financially backing the Tea Party, I think it would make a big difference. But they're not, and they won't be, because Fox will do everything it can to keep those backers hidden.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:05 AM

QUESTIONABLEQUESTIONALITY


If it is SO secret, how are their names pasted all over that biased hit piece? Just wondering. Sounds very frightening. Watch out people may use it while voting instead of intellect.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:47 AM

DREAMTROVE


Niki

Consider this possibility

It's all a dog and pony show. The goal here is perception. If we believe that a candidate can win, or that they do have the support of the people, than we will not object when they are appointed to a position of power.

This isn't news. Nielsen just admitted they've doing this for decades with TV shows: They told us what we liked, and we believed them, even though we sometimes disagreed, we believed that more people liked what they were pushing. But really, they were just setting the schedule and pretending we had a say in it.

Democracy is no different. Not sure it ever has been.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:57 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


DT, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Question: It's been put out in numerous ways, from the internet to cable TV. That doesn't mean it's not "secret" to people who aren't well informed--if using duplicitive names and nonprofits to contribute to candidates didn't need to be kept from the general voting public, they wouldn't be used. The general public doesn't know about this, nor will they become informed for the most part because they neither choose to inquire nor are informed by TMM or Fox.

Does that answer your question? You're a prime example, actually, in that what you call a "biased hit piece" are two attempts to inform the public of the problem and you're cheerfully rejecting them on a rationalization. That's how it works, see?

Here's another "hit piece" for you to rationalize away:
Quote:

Sandy Greiner is a 64-year-old grandmother of six, farming corn and soybeans in Iowa while running for the state Senate. She’s also steering one of the biggest efforts to inject unrestricted and anonymous funding into the midterm elections, financing ads around the country in an attempt to win Republican majorities.

Greiner is president of the American Future Fund, which has poured money into at least 20 congressional races this year, spending $7.5 million — and which reportedly has plans to spend three times more. Outside of the traditional political parties and campaign committees, it is among the most active groups trying to influence the elections.

But because it is registered as a nonprofit, it does not have to reveal its contributors. That exemption from traditional bounds of reporting requirements makes it virtually impossible to determine who is funding the group, and why. Yet groups such as Greiner’s — launched onto the national scene earlier this year, with $650,000 in attack ads against Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley during her unsuccessful bid for US Senate — could determine the balance of power in the House and Senate.

“It’s a bit of a free-for-all this election cycle, made all the more complicated by the plain fact that many of the groups engaging in political messaging or advertising don’t have to disclose who’s funding those ads,’’ said Dave Levinthal, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that studies money in politics. “You have these nonprofit groups that are not supposed to have a primary purpose of engaging in politics, yet many of them are engaging in politics with great regularity.’’

The American Future Fund is among dozens of interest groups whose influence on campaigns has surged following a Supreme Court ruling that relaxed restrictions on corporate and union donations. Greiner and representatives for her group did not return several messages this week seeking comment about where the group gets its money and who is involved.

So far this year, at least $5.6 million has been spent in Massachusetts by outside groups, almost all of it during Scott Brown’s special-election win for the US Senate in January, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation.

Also, a Nevada-based political action committee called Western Representative paid $10,000 for an e-mail campaign opposing Representative Barney Frank; the group also took out $1,560 in radio ads supporting Marty Lamb, the Republican nominee challenging Representative James McGovern. Several outside groups also supported Mac D’Alessandro in his unsuccessful Democratic primary campaign against Representative Stephen Lynch.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/10/07/donor_names_st
ay_secret_as_nonprofits_politick
/


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 10, 2010 11:58 AM

FREMDFIRMA



DT actually has a point about it - between Gerrymandering and Electronic Advantage (notice how QUICK any investigation of that dropped once the Dems got in, just like I said it would ?) most of these contests really are pre-ordained, and it's all a show for the masses.

You could also ask Bev Harris about that, fighting an all but futile battle against an overwhelming opponent, she's a hell of a lady.

But in the end - if voting could ever change anything, they'd outlaw it.

Think, they decide who gets on that ballot, they count those votes, and in the few, rare cases where it's gone against their whims, they simply ignore that and go on like it didn't happen that way, and be damned to the rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_L._Berger
Quote:

In spite of his being under indictment at the time, the voters of Milwaukee elected Berger to the House of Representatives in 1918. When he arrived in Washington to claim his seat, Congress formed a special committee to determine whether a convicted felon and war opponent should be seated as a member of Congress. On November 10, 1919 they concluded that he should not, and declared the seat vacant. Wisconsin promptly held a special election to fill the vacant seat, and on December 19, 1919, elected Berger a second time. On January 10, 1920, the House again refused to seat him, and the seat remained vacant until 1921, when Republican William H. Stafford claimed the seat after defeating Berger in the 1920 general election.

Cause, don't ya know, the rules only apply to us peons, and then only when those rules work in their favor.

Having a little fun over that kinda thing locally, since I am apparently supposed to be on the ballot, and they're outright refusing to do this, despite being smacked with a contempt charge by the judge who decided this is so...

And no one told ME about this till friday!
I could care less, I ain't running, someone put me on there just to tilt the results, is what it is - they put me on as a Democrat, which I ain't, as an act of sabotage against the Dem incumbents, which prettymuch tells EVERYONE IN TOWN who did it, and yet I cannot withdraw the nomination thanks to local rules not providing for it, and a judge who seems to want me on the fekkin ballot whether I wanna be or not.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 10, 2010 6:08 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nik,

I don't know what a "biased hit piece" is but I can guess, it's not what I was talking about. I don't really have a position on issues. I mean, personally I do, I'm RTL, for example, but I'm not voting for candidates because they're RTL. I'm not sure there's a point in voting, it might lend legitimacy to an illegitimate system. I try to support the candidates who will do the least damage to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes not starting wars. I might actually encourage the growth of the debt if I thought it would cause the system to collapse, but I'm afraid it just gives the FED more power to start wars and crush liberty. But individual candidates, I don't get so worked up.


Frem

On the election front, the Dems here were the ones who pushed for the voting machines, but I know the reality is that the two major parties got together and agreed to use these machines together to shut out all other parties, and all other primary contenders. We had the lowest error rate in the country before they installed these things, now we have the highest. Error my ass.

They've got tons of ways to manipulate it that they came up with before they had this much control. Right now, a divisive GOP primary followed by the party fave running third party? Everyone knows the party loyalists will vote red, but the primary voters will for the old candidate. That's a nice split.

Also, pulling all opposition, these so called "investigations"? I mean, has no one else noticed that being black in our govt. now seems to prompt an instant ethics investigation? I mean WTF. White people seems to steal billions while committing rape and murder, but if a black guy uses a buck from his primary campaign on his general campaign he gets nailed to the wall. Just couldn't help but notice this pattern showing up.

Bev Harris is a bit of a nut, but she's not wrong.

I think every once in a while, TPTB actually lose their elections, but here's how I'd put it down:

1) The illusion of victory of their guy could not be upheld, so they had to lose, to hold the credibility of their system. People really wanted something, and were sure that they got it, you have to give it to them.

2) Letting their opponents win actually makes them look better, because now they have actual opponents. It makes it look like there's an actual debate in washington between opposing ideological camps: Ron Paul or Russ Feingold on one side, and TPTB on the other, and this way, they can make us look like a minority, and them a majority.

3) It's like a casino machine. It's gotta give out cash sometimes, or no one would play.


But even so, yes, sometimes they ignore the results. Ron Paul clearly kicked ass in the 2008 GOP primary. His number of contributors outnumbered was it every other republican combines, or every other candidate, I don't recall. Clearly, in a fair count, he would have placed higher than fourth.

I think that every once in a while, letting the underdog win is just too dangerous for them. If we could increase the frequency of this situation. If we did that, they would have to institute totalitarian rule by some mechanism, and if they did that, they'd lose the illusion of legitimacy, and then the people might be rallied in opposition.

Berger, yes, they just basically did the same thing to Burris.

Again, it all comes down to perception. So the way to defeat them comes down to where: The place where they care about the results the least. Once in, of course, you have to institute radical change in one move, and it has to look like you're some dumb patsy of the system when you do it. And your puppet assembly too.

ETA:

1912, Wilson.
The artificial Panic of 1907, to make the GOP banking bill of 1909 failed, and had to be flipped, re-invent it as a democrat "reform" bill, the Fed Res Act of 1913.
This meant they needed a democrat, and a corrupt one, in a very republican time. So they made a third party, and then bait and switched TR onto the ticket. This made for two popular republicans and a democrat, giving a 33-33-33 split, and they could then call almost any state any way they wanted, called the electoral majority for Wilson, and then got their banking bill passed. And, of course, their war.

This nonsense became our official process in 1928 when the idea that a losing third party candidate could throw his support behind another candidate (as happens in most countries, after all, that's how Cameron became PM of GB) After Clay supported Adams, Jackson ran a huge campaign to outlaw this "corrupt bargain" thus ensuring more manipulation.

Anyway, this is my second time writing this because it got deleted the first time, I think what I said was:
It's all about perception.
What we really need is a better illusion

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 11, 2010 1:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Again, it all comes down to perception. So the way to defeat them comes down to where: The place where they care about the results the least. Once in, of course, you have to institute radical change in one move, and it has to look like you're some dumb patsy of the system when you do it. And your puppet assembly too.


Well, I pulled off the combo by accident, numbers they couldn't skew AND looking like the cats-paw of the local just-as-corrupt "opposition".

Only they didn't quite realize that an Anarchist was not quite the hollywood media perception of lunacy they were expecting, and only too late found that they had tossed the fox INTO the henhouse!

At which point I did the all in one stroke trick...

And GOT THE HELL OUTTA DODGE all quick like - cause yanno, I ain't stupid, and when the general populace, many of whom were benefitting in some way from various minor acts of corruption realized that gravy train was thrown off the tracks, and that I was a potential Huey Long, they were only too happy to run me outta town on a rail.... till they started reaping the benefits of the more long term, sustainable policies - hell, they even got the main drag fixed, at the bid I set for it, neh ?

They kinda miss me, but they sure don't want me back - given the political carnage I tend to leave in my wake on a local level, I have this particular district of the county sewn up in my pocket six ways to sunday already, and that's where the "kingfish" comments come from.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 11, 2010 5:37 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


The quote "biased hit piece" was directed at Question, not at you.

I kinda figured Frem would agree with you; again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Call me a dupe, but I see little evidence that any group is organized enough to pull off the size of the conspiracy you believe in without anyone finding out about it. I certainly agree there is election fraud, I learned all about that from my friend in Illinois in the Bush/Gore election...if it were as fixed as you think it is, why would they bother with all the tactics used then and in every other election to keep people from voting? That's rhetorical; I realize neither of us will change our minds.

As to the Dems stopping the election-fraud investigations, from what I saw, it's the Repubs who make a huge fuss over ANY "registration fraud" or anything else they can get their hands on. If the Dems were really the ones involved in fraud, why all the fuss about the attorneys fired under Bush? I think both parties know there is gaming of the system, the Repubs are just more willing to making a public fuss about it, or else the Dems don't care enough, knowing it goes on on both sides.

IF the Dems were the major cause of fraud, why wouldn't they still go after the Repubs just like the Bush people went hard after them? It's not logical--the inference in your statement is that the Repubs went after the Dems for election fraud because the Dems were guilty of it, but the Dems haven't gone after anyone for election fraud because the Repubs didn't do any. That's illogical.

It's just another effective tactic, in my opinion, especially as nothing on any big scale was ever discovered and in many cases it was something small made into a mountain, not to mention there is a HUGE difference between registration fraud and election fraud..."fraud" just sounds good so it's used.

Either way, we'll each keep our own opinions until something proves us wrong (which will probably never happen), so it's a moot point.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 2:59 AM

QUESTIONABLEQUESTIONALITY


"The president is being hypocritical about this. He had no problem at all with this when groups were spending money on his behalf in 2008 and not disclosing donors. He had no problem at all not disclosing his own donors, tens of millions of dollars of contributions to his campaign,” Karl Rove said on “GMA.”

“And now he turns around because Republicans have taken up and started doing the same things Democrats have been doing for years,” he said.


Karl Rove

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:15 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by QuestionableQuestionality:
"The president is being hypocritical about this. He had no problem at all with this when groups were spending money on his behalf in 2008 and not disclosing donors. He had no problem at all not disclosing his own donors, tens of millions of dollars of contributions to his campaign,” Karl Rove said on “GMA.”

“And now he turns around because Republicans have taken up and started doing the same things Democrats have been doing for years,” he said.


Karl Rove




Isn't he the same guy who pushed the Patriot Act by claiming that nobody would have a problem with it unless they were trying to hide something, and to do so would be "un-American"?

So what's HE got to hide? And why is it okay for Karl to be "un-American"?

By the way, these are the same folks who INSIST that we have to know where every penny for the non-mosque not at ground zero is coming from. Again, what has Rove got to hide? Why is the Chamber of Commerce hiding?


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:56 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


That IS a joke, isn't it? This sort of shit has always gone on...the difference is the hugeness of it now, the fact that the Tea Party wants to keep saying they are "grass roots", and the fact that it's a right-wing Supreme Court that opened a door which has never been opened before because everyone knew it was a totally stupid thing to do.

To take someone like ROVE seriously about this is to invite ridicule; even Bush had to get rid of him in the end, he has precisely nil validity.

And I think I'd need specifics on exactly what HIDDEN donors, or donors contributing to nonprofits whose names indicate other than what they are, contributed to Obama before it could be a discussion. It would be interesting to see how much "hiding" is done on the left as opposed to the right...if it were possible to find out.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:38 - 43 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Wed, November 27, 2024 14:38 - 45 posts
NATO
Wed, November 27, 2024 14:24 - 16 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL