bmags Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 I find it to be a bunch of hooey that it gets worse every year. Bush mailers in SC in 2000. The Harold Ford Jr. with a blonde girl hugging ads in Tennesee in 2006. Any chaxby sambliss ad. Any Jesse Helms ad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 07:56 AM) I find it to be a bunch of hooey that it gets worse every year. Bush mailers in SC in 2000. The Harold Ford Jr. with a blonde girl hugging ads in Tennesee in 2006. Any chaxby sambliss ad. Any Jesse Helms ad. How long have you been voting, and watching ads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 07:40 AM) It's not enough for a conviction, but it'd be enough to get a subpoena if it was actually illegal any more. Its all conjecture and hearsay. Honestly it is similar to what the birthers have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 08:05 AM) Its all conjecture and hearsay. Honestly it is similar to what the birthers have. Oh now come on, let's deal in reality. There is overwhelming evidence that some foreign money is coming in, and that some money is going out, but that the connection can't be made. Birthers have no evidence of anything whatsoever, in fact they are continuously asking for burden of proof. I know you are trying to say that the stuff Balta cited is weak, but let's not go to ludicrous speed to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 08:07 AM) Oh now come on, let's deal in reality. There is overwhelming evidence that some foreign money is coming in, and that some money is going out, but that the connection can't be made. Birthers have no evidence of anything whatsoever, in fact they are continuously asking for burden of proof. I know you are trying to say that the stuff Balta cited is weak, but let's not go to ludicrous speed to prove it. And neither does the foreign money crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) Its all conjecture and hearsay. Honestly it is similar to what the birthers have. It's a fun game you get to play. The Supreme Court makes it 100% impossible to come up with definitive evidence of where the COC gets its money. I can point out in a fair amount of detail that the COC is active in fundraising overseas, and that the money goes into the same account. You then say "you have no evidence". Well of course I have no evidence that meets your standard. You've stated that the only evidence that counts is the kind I'm forbidden from getting. To use your standard...it'd be like the Congress and President passed a federal law banning anyone from obtaining birth certificates from Hawaii issued before 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 BTW, even if the Chamber behind the scenes is absolutely 100% on the spot, keeping foreign dollars only used for business promotion overseas...if a Democratic 527 was spending $70 million + on attack ads, you'd be absolutely outraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 08:12 AM) BTW, even if the Chamber behind the scenes is absolutely 100% on the spot, keeping foreign dollars only used for business promotion overseas...if a Democratic 527 was spending $70 million + on attack ads, you'd be absolutely outraged. I lived through the 2008 election, you know the one where election spending was important, and then it wasn't when the Democrats had the edge? This is only important again because the Democrats are getting outspent again. You sure defended when Obama lied about how he was going to raise funds, because it meant he wasn't giving up his advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 08:10 AM) It's a fun game you get to play. The Supreme Court makes it 100% impossible to come up with definitive evidence of where the COC gets its money. I can point out in a fair amount of detail that the COC is active in fundraising overseas, and that the money goes into the same account. You then say "you have no evidence". Well of course I have no evidence that meets your standard. You've stated that the only evidence that counts is the kind I'm forbidden from getting. To use your standard...it'd be like the Congress and President passed a federal law banning anyone from obtaining birth certificates from Hawaii issued before 1970. Or the President refused to release the names of all of his donors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 09:15 AM) Or the President refused to release the names of all of his donors... Actually that's a great comparison of how it's different. And you can use that line you employed previously to pretend that $20 million buys the same amount of influence as $25, feel free, I'll let other people judge the validity of that logic. That's what you're standing behind; $15,000 and $199 contributions are exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 New thread idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 08:20 AM) Actually that's a great comparison of how it's different. And you can use that line you employed previously to pretend that $20 million buys the same amount of influence as $25, feel free, I'll let other people judge the validity of that logic. That's what you're standing behind; $15,000 and $199 contributions are exactly the same. You won't let me have my proof, how will I ever know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 After watching TV from 5-8PM last night, I'm convinced that we are going to get out of this recession due to the extreme amount of $ being spent by politicians and political groups. This election is like a national stimulus project. (buying tv ads, printing buttons/posters/signs, mailing post cards, temporay office space, etc) I wonder what the grand total being spent on this election is, nationwide. Shoot Meg Whitman spent $119 million of her own money in CA alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 10:47 AM) Shoot Meg Whitman spent $119 million of her own money in CA alone. This irritates me when politicians from both sides of the aisle spent ridiculous amounts of personal money for a campaign. Its obviously not for the return on investment with the salary that they are going to get in public office. The usual answer is how they are going to help people. Well 119 million dollars to the right charity will help people a whole hell of a lot more than any politiican will ever accomplish in office. No matter what they claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) This irritates me when politicians from both sides of the aisle spent ridiculous amounts of personal money for a campaign. Its obviously not for the return on investment with the salary that they are going to get in public office. The usual answer is how they are going to help people. Well 119 million dollars to the right charity will help people a whole hell of a lot more than any politiican will ever accomplish in office. No matter what they claim. sorry.. my numbers were wrong. California GOP gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman spent almost $23 million in the first 16 days of October, bringing her total to $163 millionaccording to a campaign finance disclosure filed Thursday. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/...l#ixzz136droq5d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 04:15 PM) How much influence does $199 buy? How many times did $199 donate $199? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 07:56 AM) I find it to be a bunch of hooey that it gets worse every year. Bush mailers in SC in 2000. The Harold Ford Jr. with a blonde girl hugging ads in Tennesee in 2006. Any chaxby sambliss ad. Any Jesse Helms ad. Only R's do it. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 07:56 AM) I find it to be a bunch of hooey that it gets worse every year. Bush mailers in SC in 2000. The Harold Ford Jr. with a blonde girl hugging ads in Tennesee in 2006. Any chaxby sambliss ad. Any Jesse Helms ad. Democratic Byrd ad against Bush was very classy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 04:15 PM) How much influence does $199 buy? How much influence does $87.5 million buy? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1761790288.html he American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending. AFSCME, the public-employees union, has vaulted ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become the largest campaign spender of 2010. Jerry Seib discusses how that could boost the Democrats? Plus, Neil King on the Republican wave sweeping Indiana. The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) How much influence does $87.5 million buy? Way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 06:21 PM) Democratic Byrd ad against Bush was very classy. who was the war paralyzed senator from GA, that was getting nailed with attack ads calling him un-American? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 03:13 PM) who was the war paralyzed senator from GA, that was getting nailed with attack ads calling him un-American? Senator Chambliss ran that ad against Max Cleland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 i also remember the nineties...this isn't new Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 03:10 PM) i also remember the nineties...this isn't new No one said it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 it was the whole point of the thread, that it's nastier than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts