Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
posty

Obama singles out private citizens for donating to Romney and "betting against America"...

Recommended Posts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577368280604524916.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle

 

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

 

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

 

Are you worried?

 

Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

 

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

 

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

 

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

 

"We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things," says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices." Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He's been ignored.

 

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

 

He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.

 

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

 

It's getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House's new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

 

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to "hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable," but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it. Anyone dumb enough to support a guy like Etch-a-Sketch should be publically scorned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it. Anyone dumb enough to support a guy like Etch-a-Sketch should be publically scorned.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very disappointed in Obummer for criticizing his rival's campaign contributors. I sincerely hope that other politicians don't adopt this underhanded strategy, now that Obummer has invented it. I liked it better back when politicians never ever criticized other candidates' friends, associates, or supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577368280604524916.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle

 

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

 

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

 

Are you worried?

 

Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

 

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

 

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

 

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

 

"We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things," says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices." Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He's been ignored.

 

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

 

He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.

 

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

 

It's getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House's new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

 

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to "hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable," but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one.

 

Well of course, isn't that how Romney made his money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very disappointed in Obummer for criticizing his rival's campaign contributors. I sincerely hope that other politicians don't adopt this underhanded strategy, now that Obummer has invented it. I liked it better back when politicians never ever criticized other candidates' friends, associates, or supporters.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The serial bully:

 

*is a convincing, practiced liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment

*has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as "charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel, management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act

*excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their capacity to deceive

*uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)

*is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words and lots of form - but there's no substance

*is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially at times of conflict

*is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating, fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic

*relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon

*is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people want to hear and then saying it plausibly

*cannot be trusted or relied upon

*fails to fulfill commitments

*is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old

*is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy

*exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse

*in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy

*holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs, foreigners, etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but goes to great lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their personality secret

*is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability

*has a deep-seated contempt of clients in contrast to his or her professed compassion

*is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic personality or antisocial personality disorder in their presence - but aggressively maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose; serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity

*displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence

*shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn't flow and arguments that don't hold water

*flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you've never had a proper conversation

*refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer

*is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability

*undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully's mask

*is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise collate incriminating information about them

*is quick to discredit and neutralise anyone who can talk knowledgeably about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors

*may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them accountable, perhaps using others' resources and contemptuous of the damage caused to other people and organisations in pursuance of the vendetta

*is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account

*gains gratification from denying people what they are entitled to

*is highly manipulative, especially of people's perceptions and emotions (eg guilt)

*poisons peoples' minds by manipulating their perceptions

*when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression

*is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all

(often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others; the bully sees nothing wrong with their behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen and how they are seen by others

*is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief or affiliation

*is mean-spirited, officious, and often unbelievably petty

*is mean, stingy, and financially untrustworthy

*is greedy, selfish, a parasite and an emotional vampire

*is always a taker and never a giver

*is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation, trust, integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness)

*often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus

*often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic or general negative nature apply to him or herself

*knows the words but not the song

*is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication

*sometimes displays a seemingly limitless demonic energy especially when engaged in attention-seeking activities or evasion of accountability and is often a committeeaholic or apparent workaholic

 

 

The DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder are:

 

A. A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, as indicated by at least five of:

 

1. a grandiose sense of self-importance

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. requires excessive admiration

5. has a sense of entitlement, ie unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

6. is interpersonally exploitative, ie takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7. lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters here see the seriousness of this. I have little doubt that his administration will target these people beyond inflammatory statements. Quite Machiavellian. And scary. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am nearly sure that that article is 100% full of sh!t.

 

On edit: it's not even an article at all, but an "opinion" piece. As in, I don't have to back any of this up because its just, like, my opinion, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters here see the seriousness of this. I have little doubt that his administration will target these people beyond inflammatory statements. Quite Machiavellian. And scary. :(

Let's do some math:

 

They targeted Boeing because they had the audacity to try to open a plant and employ thousands of people in a state where those workers were not required to join a union.

 

 

They targeted Arizona because Arizona tried to enforce a law that was the same as a federal law the feds refuse to enforce.

 

They have target Gibson guitar for buying wood legally because their eco-whackjob base told them to.

 

I think you are wrong, Jerry. No way would they go after someone just because they want to make Obama a one termer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am nearly sure that that article is 100% full of sh!t.

 

Here is the link to the site mentioned in the article, paid for by Obama for America:

 

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am nearly sure that that article is 100% full of sh!t.

 

On edit: it's not even an article at all, but an "opinion" piece. As in, I don't have to back any of this up because its just, like, my opinion, man.

I'm nearly sure, no make that 100% sure, you are an idiot that just got your ass handed to you by Jerry.

 

:banana:

:doublethumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the link to the site mentioned in the article, paid for by Obama for America:

 

My link

 

Oh I know that part is true (and hardly anything new among political campaigns), I was questioning the inference that Obama would use the DOJ and SEC to go after any private citizen who donates to the Romney campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I know that part is true (and hardly anything new among political campaigns), I was questioning the inference that Obama would use the DOJ and SEC to go after any private citizen who donates to the Romney campaign.

It's not like he doesn't have a long track record of using the DOJ for political reasons. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters here see the seriousness of this. I have little doubt that his administration will target these people beyond inflammatory statements. Quite Machiavellian. And scary. :(

 

Agreed. To criticize the campaign contributor of a politician is frightening and unprecedented. Next thing you know, Obummer will be taking issue with Romney's record or even saying he wouldn't make a good president! What will Darth Obummer think if next? :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. To criticize the campaign contributor of a politician is frightening and unprecedented. Next thing you know, Obummer will be taking issue with Romney's record or even saying he wouldn't make a good president! What will Darth Obummer think if next? :mad:

 

I'll take that as a "no." :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take that as a "no." :(

our only hope is that tards like mdc are limited to philthy and other libtard populaces in the country.

They become more desperate and pathetic by the minute all because their moms had to play both parenting roles while they were growing up :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our only hope is that tards like mdc are limited to philthy and other libtard populaces in the country.

They become more desperate and pathetic by the minute all because their moms had to play both parenting roles while they were growing up :(

 

I've got both parents - you're projecting again Orphan Pilot. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our only hope is that tards like mdc are limited to philthy and other libtard populaces in the country.

They become more desperate and pathetic by the minute all because their moms had to play both parenting roles while they were growing up :(

This explains the mascara.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very disappointed in Obummer for criticizing his rival's campaign contributors. I sincerely hope that other politicians don't adopt this underhanded strategy, now that Obummer has invented it. I liked it better back when politicians never ever criticized other candidates' friends, associates, or supporters.

:first:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. To criticize the campaign contributor of a politician is frightening and unprecedented. Next thing you know, Obummer will be taking issue with Romney's record or even saying he wouldn't make a good president! What will Darth Obummer think if next? :mad:

Feel free to link us up to the last time a sitting POTUS called out individual donors to his opponent as "betting against America".

 

I'll hand up and listen.

 

 

tic....toc........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to link us up to the last time a sitting POTUS called out individual donors to his opponent as "betting against America".

 

I'll hand up and listen.

 

 

tic....toc........

 

I'm agreeing with you: This has never ever been done before in the history of ever. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters here see the seriousness of this. I have little doubt that his administration will target these people beyond inflammatory statements. Quite Machiavellian. And scary. :(

 

See below.

 

 

 

I am nearly sure that that article is 100% full of sh!t.

 

On edit: it's not even an article at all, but an "opinion" piece. As in, I don't have to back any of this up because its just, like, my opinion, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters here see the seriousness of this. I have little doubt that his administration will target these people beyond inflammatory statements. Quite Machiavellian. And scary. :(

I am often blown away with how some here give Obama a pass on damn near anything. They think that even though he came from Chicago where politicians and politics are about as dirty as they come, somehow, he is different than all of them, even with countless examples to the contrary. I bet Obama could be caught on video slaughtering puppies and the same folks would find a way to ignore/excuse it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am often blown away with how some here give Obama a pass on damn near anything. They think that even though he came from Chicago where politicians and politics are about as dirty as they come, somehow, he is different than all of them, even with countless examples to the contrary. I bet Obama could be caught on video slaughtering puppies and the same folks would find a way to ignore/excuse it.

 

It's a "boy that cried wolf" kinda thing.

 

You see, since you nuts are constantly screaming about drones, and murders, and all kind of other wacky sh!t, it destroys your credibility for the rare occasions when you aren't full of sh!t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a "boy that cried wolf" kinda thing.

 

You see, since you nuts are constantly screaming about drones, and murders, and all kind of other wacky sh!t, it destroys your credibility for the rare occasions when you aren't full of sh!t.

Drones? Like the one used to kill a U.S. citizen? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a "boy that cried wolf" kinda thing.

 

You see, since you nuts are constantly screaming about drones, and murders, and all kind of other wacky sh!t, it destroys your credibility for the rare occasions when you aren't full of sh!t.

lil Rusty is the only one who comes with the conspiracy stuff, and I think that's just his schtick.

 

The rest just point out the latest clusterfukk by this administration. It only seems like it's a "boy who cried wolf" situation because there are so many clusterfukks by this bunch. The bored libturds get all butthurt over this cuz they think Obama is infallible.

 

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drones? Like the one used to kill a U.S. citizen without due process? :dunno:

 

FYP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most corrupt POTUS ever, and it isn't even close. :thumbsdown:

Warren Harding appreciates the support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's OK to heap tons of scorn, derision and hate onto George Soros and Warren Buffet but it's not OK to mention these people that agree with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren Harding's worm filled corpse would do a better job as POTUS today than the clusterfukk Obama.

 

HTH

I agree, sadly. But when it comes to Major League corruption in US politics, the all time champ is Warren Harding. Other than some of Eric Holder's fock ups -I'm on record that he should be fired for the gums to Mexican drug dealers scandal- Obama's administration has been mostly clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren Harding appreciates the support.

I'm actually related to him. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually related to him. :(

Sux's brother is Jeff Gillooly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren Harding's worm filled corpse would do a better job as POTUS today than the clusterfukk Obama.

 

HTH

They should hold some sort of election to see if the American people agree with you. :music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should hold some sort of election to see if the American people agree with you. :music_guitarred:

Do you know how Harding it is to get a candidate's name on the ballot if he doesn't have a pulse? Only Mel Carnahan could pull off that trick (and still go on to win).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×