I find it interesting that we have a thread titled....DOES IT BOTHER ANYONE, that specifically mentions Romney as if he were the ultimate bad guy.

Yet this will get no criticism whatsoever...no poster will find any problems with this as they did, obviously, with Romney.....and the thread was NOT ABOUT just the Super Pacs but specifically aimed at FOREIGN DONORS.

"The all-consuming hunt for donors has led President Barack Obama’s campaign to England. And France. And China.

Obama is tapping the network of American citizens living outside the 50 states more than any other presidential campaign has before, with more than a dozen bundlers who have pledged to raise as much as $4.5 million."

Read more: Obama taps overseas donor pool - Anna Palmer and Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com

No problem with this guy doing it....somewhat more aggressivley

"It’s all legal - the donors are American citizens who pay U.S. taxes - and the net income to the campaigns is paltry compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars raised stateside. But while presidential campaigns have long taken in campaign donations from expats and people living in U.S. territories, Obama’s campaign is focusing on it more than ever before"

What no outrage ????

Originally Posted by Bucco

I find it interesting that we have a thread titled....DOES IT BOTHER ANYONE, that specifically mentions Romney as if he were the ultimate bad guy...

I'm really sick and tired of your twisting or misreading anything I post here as support of Obama and criticism of Romney.

If you'll go back and read my original post, Bucco, I think you'll see that the entire point of my post was to note that huge amounts of money were flowing into the Super PAC's from foreign sources. There had been no report of any such donations to the Obama Super PAC until the one you posted today, which was dated today. Such donations don't surprise me, but they had not been reported when I wrote the original post. My original post was in response to a report on Politico.com that the Romney PAC had recieved over $10 million from sources in China. That Politico report was published about three days ago on MSNBC.

But tell me anyway, how did you somehow twist that report and question into making my intent some backhanded criticism of Mitt Romney? My criticism was of the new political process that permits elections to be manipulated with advertising purchased with foreign money. But somehow you read my posts with a pre-conceived notion of my intent.

I certainly wish that you'd somehow withhold your deep hatred and mistrust for Barack Obama in your interpretation of what I write here. I'd suggest that you read, and then maybe re-read my posts. Then, only if it is clear that I am criticizing one candidate in favor of another, feel free to be critical of my position or message. In the meantime, please stop parsing my words and twisting the message I try to convey.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm really sick and tired of your twisting or misreading anything I post here as support of Obama and criticism of Romney.

If you'll go back and read my original post, Bucco, I think you'll see that the entire point of my post was to note that huge amounts of money were flowing into the Super PAC's from foreign sources. There had been no report of any such donations to the Obama Super PAC until the one you posted today, which was dated today. Such donations don't surprise me, but they had not been reported when I wrote the original post. My original post was in response to a report on Politico.com that the Romney PAC had recieved over $10 million from sources in China. That Politico report was published about three days ago on MSNBC.

But tell me anyway, how did you somehow twist that report and question into making my intent some backhanded criticism of Mitt Romney? My criticism was of the new political process that permits elections to be manipulated with advertising purchased with foreign money. But somehow you read my posts with a pre-conceived notion of my intent.

I certainly wish that you'd somehow withhold your deep hatred and mistrust for Barack Obama in your interpretation of what I write here. I'd suggest that you read, and then maybe re-read my posts. Then, only if it is clear that I am criticizing one candidate in favor of another, feel free to be critical of my position or message. In the meantime, please stop parsing my words and twisting the message I try to convey.

OK, I reread your OP. You do single out Romney PACs.

Are you saying in this post that you had no idea Obama PACs were collecting large sums of money?

Maybe you need to explain yourself more clearly if my observations are incorrect.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm really sick and tired of your twisting or misreading anything I post here as support of Obama and criticism of Romney.

If you'll go back and read my original post, Bucco, I think you'll see that the entire point of my post was to note that huge amounts of money were flowing into the Super PAC's from foreign sources. There had been no report of any such donations to the Obama Super PAC until the one you posted today, which was dated today. Such donations don't surprise me, but they had not been reported when I wrote the original post. My original post was in response to a report on Politico.com that the Romney PAC had recieved over $10 million from sources in China. That Politico report was published about three days ago on MSNBC.

But tell me anyway, how did you somehow twist that report and question into making my intent some backhanded criticism of Mitt Romney? My criticism was of the new political process that permits elections to be manipulated with advertising purchased with foreign money. But somehow you read my posts with a pre-conceived notion of my intent.

I certainly wish that you'd somehow withhold your deep hatred and mistrust for Barack Obama in your interpretation of what I write here. I'd suggest that you read, and then maybe re-read my posts. Then, only if it is clear that I am criticizing one candidate in favor of another, feel free to be critical of my position or message. In the meantime, please stop parsing my words and twisting the message I try to convey.

Your comments are fair, HOWEVER, if you revisit your posts that crticize the system, without checking, I would say that in your thread opener you mention ONLY ONE CANDIDATE....very seldom is Obama held up as your example...PLEASE CHECK BACK.

That was the basis for this although I would have posted it anyway although I have doubts if anyone would have.

Hey, I do not like or respect this President, and the only combacks that contain sarcasm are those that use Romney as the example and never use Obama and I hope you are honest enough to recognize that.

I have posted retorts to some of your congressional posts where you ONLY use the house as an example...NEVER the senate. WE AGREE on the inept government, but I try (maybe not always successful, but I try) to include BOTH PARTIES which was the first phrase of your note, and then (and I didnt check by count) but then 3/4 of the post was a specific by name and group of a Romney donation.

I might also add that am sure you are "sick and tired" of me mentioning that....I can say that your lectures on not criticizing Obama because I will not change votes rings hollow since those on here who simply jump in and out with the condescending name calling of anything right (candidates, networks, etc) are never called to task by you. By implication to me, that is because you condone their posts that are normally without any credibility or link to even try to make the statments credible. Mine are based on what I have read and see and are linked to validate. THAT fact does not make them wrong in anyway, but my problem is they do not ever receive your condemnations, and in fact, many times get the "applause".

I agree totally our government is screwed up, and will support anyone who says it, but to be frank, I feell forced to defend Republicans because when the congress is discussed it appears they are the only bad guys, yet when I read of the actions of the Senate that seems to go by with no comment.

I am truely sorry if this made you angry, but your called me out on this forum in a very very public manner simply because you felt I was criticizing Obama too much and would never change a mind....I suggest you could say the same thing to others who adore him, but you will not.

If I misread you I am sorry...I DO apologize when necessary but ask that you check on the accuracy of what I say at the same time.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Your comments are fair, HOWEVER, if you revisit your posts that crticize the system, without checking, I would say that in your thread opener you mention ONLY ONE CANDIDATE....very seldom is Obama held up as your example...PLEASE CHECK BACK.

That was the basis for this although I would have posted it anyway although I have doubts if anyone would have.

Hey, I do not like or respect this President, and the only combacks that contain sarcasm are those that use Romney as the example and never use Obama and I hope you are honest enough to recognize that.

I have posted retorts to some of your congressional posts where you ONLY use the house as an example...NEVER the senate. WE AGREE on the inept government, but I try (maybe not always successful, but I try) to include BOTH PARTIES which was the first phrase of your note, and then (and I didnt check by count) but then 3/4 of the post was a specific by name and group of a Romney donation.

I might also add that am sure you are "sick and tired" of me mentioning that....I can say that your lectures on not criticizing Obama because I will not change votes rings hollow since those on here who simply jump in and out with the condescending name calling of anything right (candidates, networks, etc) are never called to task by you. By implication to me, that is because you condone their posts that are normally without any credibility or link to even try to make the statments credible. Mine are based on what I have read and see and are linked to validate. THAT fact does not make them wrong in anyway, but my problem is they do not ever receive your condemnations, and in fact, many times get the "applause".

I agree totally our government is screwed up, and will support anyone who says it, but to be frank, I feell forced to defend Republicans because when the congress is discussed it appears they are the only bad guys, yet when I read of the actions of the Senate that seems to go by with no comment.

I am truely sorry if this made you angry, but your called me out on this forum in a very very public manner simply because you felt I was criticizing Obama too much and would never change a mind....I suggest you could say the same thing to others who adore him, but you will not.

If I misread you I am sorry...I DO apologize when necessary but ask that you check on the accuracy of what I say at the same time.

Apology accepted.

I seldom...maybe never...criticize the Senate because it is beyond being broken. It has set rules for itself that essentially removes it as a productive element in the legislative process and in the governance if this country. And because of the way it operates and because of it's inept leadership on both sides of the Senate aisle, it can essentially neuter any legislative efforts begun in the House.

Having said that, what the House does is a pretty pure measure of what the party in control stands for. The GOP has overwhelming control of the House. They can vote for whatever they wish. Forget the fact that the Senate is likely to block almost anything the Senate leadership deems to be politically desirable to the GOP. Just continue to focus on what the House actually does, even though it never makes it into law because of Senate obstructionism.

If you look closely at what the House spends their time on, what legislation they actually pass....and refuse to listen to the soundbites they plant on how responsible they are or trying to convince the public that what they say are important issues really are...I'm pretty sure you'll find that they are no better, no more fiscally conservative, no more willing to really do the "people's work" than the Nancy Pelosi-lead Democratic House that preceded them.

That's why my criticism is concentrated on the House. I've completely given up on the Senate!

The Democrat controlled Senate we're to ignore because they're so broken under the leadership of Harry Reid that bills and proposals become dead on arrival.

But the Republican Congress we're to castigate because they can actually have discussions and votes as they're not hampered by situations like the inept leadership of the Democrat controlled Senate?

yeah......OK