Barack Obama's Super PAC Comments At Jay-Z Fundraiser Sidle Up To Red Line

Barack Obama's Super PAC Comments At Jay-Z Fundraiser Sidle Up To Red Line

"We don't need to match these folks dollar for dollar. We can't. I mean, if somebody here has a $10 million check -- I can’t solicit it from you, but feel free to use it wisely," Obama said to the room full of guests. The transcript of the event notes that guests laughed both after he mentioned the $10 million check and at the conclusion of his sentence.

The comments are notable because candidates and government officials are prohibited from soliciting checks for super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions, in excess of the $2,500 or $5,000 federal limit that candidates are allowed to accept.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1897010.html






This biggity bozo needs to go!

That reminds me of Obama's speech to La Raza, approximately one year ago. He told them, he was tempted to implement the Dream Act on his own, but he couldn't, because it would be illegal. That was his way of giving them a heads up. One year, after making the speech, he implemented the Dream Act with an executive order, ILLEGALLY.

So now, he say's he's not allowed to solicit money for a super PAC, wink wink.

That reminds me of Obama's speech to La Raza, approximately one year ago. He told them he was tempted to implement the Dream Act on his own, but he couldn't because it would be illegal. Then a year later, he did just that.

So now he say's he's not allowed to solicit money for a super PAC; wink, wink. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Odumbo is one smug SOB.

Odumbo is one smug SOB. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The ancient Greeks called it hubris. It's a kind of intoxication that comes from wielding power. The Greeks believed it was a precursor to losing power. They believed the gods would not allow anyone to keep power if they lost humility.

Hubris ( /ˈhjuːbrɪs/), also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις, means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.

The System is a joke. Romney attends Super-PAC meetings, and Obama is intimately tied to them too, Corporations and Rich fuck-alls are what makes Presidents these days.

The attempt to lay this all on Obama is beyond retarded, even for you guys.

The System is a joke. Romney attends Super-PAC meetings, and Obama is intimately tied to them too, Corporations and Rich fuck-alls are what makes Presidents these days.

The attempt to lay this all on Obama is beyond retarded, even for you guys. Originally Posted by budman33

Odumbo said what what he said -- *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*.

Odumbo is one smug SOB. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

it does take a certain level of aplomb and self-confidence to run for president but obama has a surfeit of pomposity and self-admiration and it's not necessairly pretension for he most likely is deluded enough to believe in his superiority.

Odumbo said what what he said -- *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I Originally Posted by joe bloe

+1 A classic!

Actually Rove's PAC is the one playing closest to the edge. But I agree that we need to take the money out of politics. How many here would be in favor of no private contributions or expenditures of any kind -- corporate, individual, inion, etc. -- and 100% public financing of elections. I think it would be liberating for the candidates and great for the country.

Actually Rove's PAC is the one playing closest to the edge. But I agree that we need to take the money out of politics. How many here would be in favor of no private contributions or expenditures of any kind -- corporate, individual, inion, etc. -- and 100% public financing of elections. I think it would be liberating for the candidates and great for the country. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If such were the case, who would be entitled to public money if 10 million or so announced they were running for public office; then multiply that by the number of elected offices at state, local and federal level. It seems fiscally impossible.

Public financing of elections would further eliminate alternate voices. A better plan would be instant full disclosure of where the donations are coming from would be much better, and wouldn't help promote the monopoly of the "two" party system.

Actually Rove's PAC is the one playing closest to the edge. But I agree that we need to take the money out of politics. How many here would be in favor of no private contributions or expenditures of any kind -- corporate, individual, inion, etc. -- and 100% public financing of elections. I think it would be liberating for the candidates and great for the country. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

not me

Actually Rove's PAC is the one playing closest to the edge. But I agree that we need to take the money out of politics. How many here would be in favor of no private contributions or expenditures of any kind -- corporate, individual, inion, etc. -- and 100% public financing of elections. I think it would be liberating for the candidates and great for the country. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Obama said he would agree to take matching funds in 2008. This would have severely limited his ability to spend. Obama went back his word, and opted out of the matching funds agreement; consequently, he was able to outspend McCain, who abided by his pledge to accept matching funds, by more than three to one.

Trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to the Democrats. That's the reason we can't get meaningful tort reform that we desparately need.

you can thank the SCOUS for this...