Full Article


None of the people that are listed are criminals. They are all private citizens that have donated to the Romney campaign. There is a line that sitting presidents do not cross, threatening law abiding citizens for participating in politics that the president does not agree with is one of those lines. This is a dirty union thug tactic that should not be tolerated. When I worked for the Huckabee for Lt. Gov. campaign we were offered a listing of democrat party donators. The campaign refused it because that is not what campaigns are supposed to do. By the Obama campaign having this list - of private citizen doners - suggests to me that the administration is using the policing power of the office (IRS, Federal Election Commission, etc) to "monitor" the opposition. That is an awful lot like the Whitewater break in to me...

Part of this makes me uneasy to be sure. But your language and the language of the article takes everything much further than what seems reasonable. The original website isn't making"threats". I went and found it and its pretty obvious that the point is to demean Romney not scare people from donating. The "union thug" reference is especially ridiculous. As for where the names come from....isn't it publicly disclosed? Again the references to Nixon seem silly.

It's only really egregious if you take past statements he's made about campaign integrity and transparency seriously. But after 4 years, you'd be a fool to do that.

Like so:

What a huge reach that is, sir!

Yes, because what was said on that article is the same as calling someone else a slut and a prostitute.

This is another example of you seeing what you want to see.

GO READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE, not the link krby posted. The list of people is simply a list of facts. No one is called any names even close to "slut" or "prostitute." Anyone that doesn't have an axe to grind would immediately see the difference between that and calling Sandra a slut.

Here's the link, if you are too lazy to go find it. It took me all of 30 seconds.

http://www.keepinggophonest.com/behind- ... eys-donors

It's pointless arguing with you. You embody everything about partisan politics that I hate. Your standards change depending on who is in power.

It will be entertaining watching you deal with how dirty this campaign will be. Either you will focus on how bad the other side is exclusively, or find some way to rationalize that the end justifies the means.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Please feel free to quote where my standards have ever changed.

I still believe that "slut" and "prostitute" are not in any way the same as "Paul Schorr has given $112,500 to Romney’s presidential ambitions through Super PAC and direct campaign donations." If the only response you can come up with is "you suck and you are partisan" then I guess my point stands. It is, in fact, the clearly partisan way in which krby's editorial article makes its case and your willingness to swallow it whole that influenced me to post in the first place.

I really can't believe you think that campaign website and Rush's comments can really be equivocated.

I'm going to try again. I read krby's article. I went and found the campaign website on which the article comments. I found that the campaign website wasn't nearly the "proclamation of criminals" or the "thuggery" that krby stated. Instead I found things that were generally just statements of fact (aside from perhaps the last one) that were publicly disclosed as was required by law. The article and krby, however, tried to make it sound like Obama used secret access to create an enemy list. Krby even tried to compare it to Watergate.

And you really, really think these were not hyperbolic statements? You really think I am being partisan simply because I point the inconsistencies out? You really think my standards change? There are years of history on these boards. Feel free to show me those changing standards. I think you will find me quite consistent aside from the topic of religion where I really did change over the last decade.

When you take that and you add the executive order that has not yet been finalized to make political contributions required to be listed to be considered when submitting government bids and it is going too far.

So Frib you would be comfortable with your contributions to a campaign plastered all over a campaign website? Then that website takes everything that they deem as a negative to describe you. How would you react to your name on a public list calling you a "former investment broker and Godless statist who supports the government controlling all your healthcare decisions"? It would probably mean nothing to you if it were a generic Republican website, but if that was the campaign of the sitting President would that listing mean anything more to you? I guess your Pollyannaism towards this administration is not letting you see past the website. Every action is a political campaign has a direct and an indirect message. The direct message of this is to the loyalist "look at who they have" and the indirect is to the contributors "we know who you are"

This has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh and it is laughable that you try to combine the two. (Besides that incident was a staged, all Democrat Congressional hearing meant to bait people like Limbaugh into talking about it so the Democrats can claim the Republicans "hate women". I was surprised that Limbaugh fell for the trap) This is THE CAMPAIGN OF THE PRESIDENT CALLING OUT CONTRIBUTORS OF HIS OPPONENT. It is bully tactics. The title of the list is people "betting against America". It is telling all other potential contributors "look out, I will post your name out there too". It is union thuggish. That is how they operate. They threaten others by taking actions on people, trying to strong arm weaker people into acting in ways they don't want to.

The president has the power of the IRS, FBI, FEC, SEC, and a host of other agencies that can make people's lives miserable. This is the tip of the iceberg. That ANY campaign would stand for this is one thing, that a SITTING PRESIDENT'S campaign is doing it should scare the hell out of you.

I didn't try to connect it to Rush krby... Joxur did. Look at the subject of his Obama quote. It was his attempt too try to make Obama appear hypocritical by equivocating
those two events that I was responding to.

As for the rest.... Random comments from my phone so I won't be long.

1. No I wouldn't care. Both parties post Shit like this all the time and I guess I have a thicker skin than you.
2. Again the point was to make Romney look bad not threaten donors. That seems obvious to me.
3. I am in a union and w have never done this thuggery you keep labeling with the name union. The term itself betrays your bias.

In other times, perhaps this wouldn't be such a big issue. Today, when we have crazies and hyperpartisans considered the norm, it is disturbing that the President would post a list of Romney supporters on a website aimed at hyperpartisans. I hope nobody takes it (intended or not and I think it's probably not but just another Chicago tactic) as a hit list.

Krby & Joxur were both hyperbolic, Fribur. But, you also were displaying a blind spot. Why not post everything from the website about Schorr? It's a little more damning than the part you cherrypicked, especially when you consider the class warfare rhetoric President Obama has been using and the animosity against the 1% that rhetoric has spawned:

Actually, I did put it all there at first, then decided that it was really long and would make my already long paragraphs even more unwieldy :p.

But, again, when I put that quote up, I was pointing out the silliness of Joxur's comparison to Rush's comments. Even with the full quote, it makes no difference. Every single sentence there is a verifyable fact. They are not personal attacks. Schorr did give 112k. Schorr did close that deal. Schorr did boost those profits by $220 million. Schorr did arrange a buyout that resulted in layoffs. Blackstone did recoup billions of dollars.

How is that anywhere near the same as Sandra being called a slut? And then by extension, how is Joxur's "proof" of Obama's double standard considered proof in anyone's world except by those that already hate the President any anything he says or does?

Are any of them criminals?

Fribur, it was not as personal an attack as the Limbaugh one on Fluke, but in many ways more serious and insidious.

First, Limbaugh is not POTUS; in my opinion he's a bad joke that has gone on much too long. Obama should aim for a higher standard.
Second, truth does not mean something is not a personal attack. If I call someone obese who is obese it is both truth and attack.

I honestly don't really have a problem with it. It isn't made up things like the "death panels," for example. I suppose it would be the equivalent of Republicans pointing out that some liberal candidate is pro-choice, or received money from George Soros.

I have no problem with it at all really, either way.

The idea of a president's staff saying it... that's definitely more problematic, if it really was the "thuggery" that krby pretends. But again, those are not false statements, and they are not threats. They didn't say, "how dare you support Romney. You will pay for your sins!" or anything that even implies that. Everything said, in fact, is publicly known information, not any invasion of privacy, as well. The implication that the president "went into some secret IRS files" to get it as krby implied is false.

Just not the big deal people are trying to make it.

When the president and his supporters have a history of trying to silence those that oppose him it is a logical step from the "oh it is just a list of who gave money" to a veiled threat to those that may be thinking about contributing. If a single possible contributor pauses or decides not to donate because they may appear on a list like this then did the list do it's job?

look at this article where the president has floated a draft executive order stating where all political contributions must be disclosed in bids for government contracts.

On the surface it may seem like a good idea but like all legislation there are the unintended consequences of the action. It could get to a point were contracts are awarded only to those that contribute to the party/politicians in power. If you are a supporter of the current administration would you want that rule on the books when your party is out of power?

I'll put one more attempt since Fribs ignored my previous comment.

The problem isn't the facts. The problem is:

1) Who is making these statements. It happens to be the person who controls every arm of government that could cause a private citizen problems, such as the IRS, FBI, etc.

2) The editorializing surrounding those facts, such as "Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law". What's the purpose of that statement, Fribur, other than to intimidate? If any of those people are doing anything illegal, they should be prosecuted.. do we agree on that?

Last, it should be examined in context with the person making the claim. Jon Corzine is still a bundler for Barack Obama's campaign, for fucks sake. http://www.barackobama.com/2012-first-q ... undraisers

It's also the guy whose history of transparency in the campaign process is terrible. He set a precedent to eliminate public funding forever after pledging to receive it. His reversal on super PAC fundraising. He's given plush ambassador spots to campaign donors.

And yes, it's worse when the president makes intimidating, thuggish remarks than a radio personality that half of the country doesn't take seriously.

Half? I think you can aim a little higher than that.

Information that is public record gets made public.

Conspiracy theorists don tin foil hats.

Just another day in politics.

- The president is held to higher standards than everyone else.
- Public records aren't off-limits, whether you like the guy quoting them or not.
- Obama's not an exception to either rule.
- We are completely incapable of being impartial anymore.

Maybe they should have put up pictures of each of these guys with crosshairs over them then it would be acceptable to the republicans?

As a non-american its painful to read the obvious partisan bias you all exhibit. It is so deeply ingrained in your beliefs that you can't see the forest for the trees.

*cough*

not all of us are partisan. some of us think both sides are equally full of shit and need to be replaced wholesale.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I try to be impartial, but this is just another one of those things that seems like it's being blown vastly out of proportion just for media sensationalization.

And what's with all the "union" thuggery comments? Jeez.

I agree

I ignored it Joxur because I didn't really have a response. That particular phrase I think is the worst offense of anything on that article, but that said it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Someone wanting to argue semantics would point out that it wasn't necessarily talking about those specific people listed below, but it certainly still makes me uncomfortable.

Of course, it still is no where near calling someone a slut or a prostitute with no evidence to back it up. It is verifiable, and again a part of public record.