• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama to support SuperPACS

One of the first big bucks donor for Obama's PAC is David Geffen (reportedly $2M with more coming).
 
what happens if a SuperPAC donates to another SuperPAC? best money laundering scheme ever?
 
Captian, Stephen Colbert showed the perfectly legal weay to launder the money. You create a 501 (c) (4). Donate as much as you want with no disclosure whatsoever and then have the c4 give the money to the SuperPac in bulk.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
what happens if a SuperPAC donates to another SuperPAC? best money laundering scheme ever?
Click to expand...

I can't wait for the "Columbians For Freedom" SuperPAC to pick a candidate!
 
Barack has a $260 million warchest.

I know our currency is not real strong right now but that seems like enough to make a run for the Presidency when you are the sitting CIC.
 
It's not enough if his opposition puts up 3-4 times that amount.
 
The Koch Brothers and Rove have each said they will put up $200M+.
 
ManhattanClam said:
Liberals using military metaphors. It's like Mexicans quoting Proust.
Click to expand...

Just curious, why do you think liberals are weak on defense? Roosevelt? Truman? Obama?

I know that since Carter was president it has been in the conservative playbook to make fun of "liberal defense"... but it was one man, who was a christian, honest, decent man. In the mean time we have W. who started, but was unable to conclude a war, his father (who I voted for twice) starting a war but not finishing the job. Reagan, who talked big, but was castigated by his own side for appeasi... err... negotiating with Gorbachov.

Seriously, where do you get these ideas?

* edited for typing too fast
 
Last edited:
The Republicans and their corporate owners created this monster. But guess what, oprah and spike lee got jack too. I agree that when obama kicks the shit out of them there may be bipartisan support for action to eliminate superpscs
 
legacyfan said:
Just curious, why do you think liberals are weak on defense? Roosevelt? Truman? Obama?

I know that since Carter was president it has been in the conservative playbook to make fun of "liberal defense"... but it was one man, who was a christian, honest, decent man. In the mean time we have W. who started, but was unable to conclude a war, his father (who I voted for twice) starting a war but not finishing the job. Reagan, who talked big, but was castigated by his own side for appeasi... err... negotiating with Gorbachov.

Seriously, where do you get these ideas?

* edited for typing too fast
Click to expand...

Carter is/was an enormous pussy. That's his problem.
 
It was Carter who started changing old fashioned weaponry into "smart weapons". His not going to the Olympics helped defeat the USSR as did his arming of the Mujahadeen by funneling aid to Pakistan.

Reagan armed the Ayatollah. He ran away when we were attacked in Lebanon rather than hitting back when our Marines were murdered(of course Regan's Arm's for Hostages helped arm and train them) .
 
legacyfan said:
Just curious, why do you think liberals are weak on defense? Roosevelt? Truman? Obama?

I know that since Carter was president it has been in the conservative playbook to make fun of "liberal defense"... but it was one man, who was a christian, honest, decent man. In the mean time we have W. who started, but was unable to conclude a war, his father (who I voted for twice) starting a war but not finishing the job. Reagan, who talked big, but was castigated by his own side for appeasi... err... negotiating with Gorbachov.

Seriously, where do you get these ideas?

* edited for typing too fast
Click to expand...

Just a few things. First, what does not finishing a war have to do with anything? Neither Johnson nor Kennedy were able to finish the war they started. Roosevelt and Truman weren't able to either. What's your point here?

You are correct that a lot of this comes from Carter. That probably has something to do with the fact that Carter was/is a huge vagina. Go back and watch the 1980 Carter/Reagan debate. It was comical. All you heard from Carter was how there was nothing we could do about inflation, Americans just had to suck it up and get used to the fact that this was the new normal. Nothing we could do about OPEC, nothing we could do about Iran. Why do you think Reagan won by 9,000,000 votes?

The best part about your post is when you say that Bush Sr. didn't finish the job. The Gulf War was about as textbook as a war gets. It would have been really difficult to execute it any better. Before you go to war, you delineate what your objectives are, and how you plan to achieve them. If you want to be successful, you don't deviate from this plan. Replacing Hussein was not one of the objectives. The really ironic part is that the two guys who really half-assed it were Carter and Clinton. Carter gave up on the Iran situation and just waited so he could pass it on to Reagan. Clinton committed troops to Somalia (we never should have been there in the first place), but then got squeamish and pulled them out after we started taking casualties. The genocide continued, and we never got Aidid. Then there was Bosnia. Having learned his lesson from Somalia, Clinton never committed troops. Result: Srebrenica. When it comes to foreign policy, since Truman, Democrats have been the masters of equivocation. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and they inevitably fail.

So yeah, that's why we think liberals are weak on defense.
 
RJKarl said:
It was Carter who started changing old fashioned weaponry into "smart weapons". His not going to the Olympics helped defeat the USSR as did his arming of the Mujahadeen by funneling aid to Pakistan.

Reagan armed the Ayatollah and ran away when we weer attacked in Lebanon rather than hitting back when our Marines were murdered those Reagan had armed.
Click to expand...

Right. Carter not going to the Olympics brought down the Soviet Union.

Also, Carter didn't come up with smart weapons. Researchers at DOD did. And the support of the Mujahideen was really only accelerated under Reagan.
 
Romero was murdered during Carter's presidency. Let's take it easy on the "Carter was a good Christian man" bit. Dude sold weapons to the worst of 'em.

Don't hide Carter behind the cross. He just sucked on defense.
 
Last edited:
TR1982 said:
Right. Carter not going to the Olympics brought down the Soviet Union.

Also, Carter didn't come up with smart weapons. Researchers at DOD did. And the support of the Mujahideen was really only accelerated under Reagan.
Click to expand...

Carter was Rickover's hand picked guy in the Navy. It was Carter's direction to make the smart weaposns program a priority.

As to the Olympics, You're right you know more than I do. like you do about all subjects.

Remind me again how many groups of Russians you hosted in the US after the fall? You're right people from the political science department Moscow State University know less than you.

People directly involved with Soviet Olympic teams and the Bolshoi know less than you as well. I guess Derbenev knew less than you did. How many contracts did you have with him?

Actually REagan and the State Department opposed expanding Carter's program with the Mujahadeen. It was Joe Wilson who tricked the DOD and State Department.
 
Did you guys know that RJ held Gil McGregor's hand as the walked along the quad of racially charged campus?

Carter is an enormous pussy. He's like the preacher at your grandparents country church. He's old, small and probably a swell guy. But he doesn't have balls. He's never had them. He's a puss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top