Did the SEIU buy Obama's election?

this thread is about exposing liberal hypocrisy. i know that bothers you and that you never call them out for it. and i appreciate yet another onceler post that has nothing to do with the thread topic. you're just a hack who likes to derail threads with your personal issues.

if you're not going to talk about the thread topic, kindly stfu because we don't need you to derail yet another thread by expressing your undying love for me.
 
NigelTufnel said:
$60 million buying a presidential election? Hilarious.
Click to expand...

of course its hyperbole, but you have to admit, that isn't exactly chump change....but its good to know you don't agree with Citizens and yet have no problem with unions spending 60 million to elect a president

:rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
of course its hyperbole, but you have to admit, that isn't exactly chump change....but its good to know you don't agree with Citizens and yet have no problem with unions spending 60 million to elect a president

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


The fact that the SEIU spent 60 million on the 2008 presidential election has exactly nothing to do with Citizens United.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The fact that the SEIU spent 60 million on the 2008 presidential election has exactly nothing to do with Citizens United.
Click to expand...

yes it does...you don't like that corps can spend money to influence elections, but you have no problem with unions spending $60 million dollars to influence elections

you rail about corporate influence, but love your union influence
 
Onceler said:
How many threads have you started to expose right-wing hypocrisy?

Approximately?
Click to expand...

i wonder if rana or zappa will call you out for your constant off topic rants....nah, i don't wonder, they won't because you're a lib

how many off topic rants do you post a day? because you rarely debate, about 95% of your posts are attacks, rants, off topic nonsense when it shows dems in a bad light

are you going to address the thread topic or are you just here to talk about me and derail yet another thread with your undying love for me? if you want to start a thread about me, go for it, else sftu
 
Yurt said:
i wonder if rana or zappa will call you out for your constant off topic rants....nah, i don't wonder, they won't because you're a lib

how many off topic rants do you post a day? because you rarely debate, about 95% of your posts are attacks, rants, off topic nonsense when it shows dems in a bad light

are you going to address the thread topic or are you just here to talk about me and derail yet another thread with your undying love for me? if you want to start a thread about me, go for it, else sftu
Click to expand...

Man, you sound annoyed this evening. I just didn't see a reason for another union "gotcha" thread, when you had already started one previously.

But you were embarassed on that one, because you posted about me not calling out the unions, AFTER I posted that union money sucked, as well. I failed to play into your gotcha, so you bailed & started a new one.

So much liberal hypocrisy; so little time. How do you do it all?

:)
 
Onceler said:
Man, you sound annoyed this evening. I just didn't see a reason for another union "gotcha" thread, when you had already started one previously.

But you were embarassed on that one, because you posted about me not calling out the unions, AFTER I posted that union money sucked, as well. I failed to play into your gotcha, so you bailed & started a new one.

So much liberal hypocrisy; so little time. How do you do it all?

:)
Click to expand...

so nothing on the thread topic, just another dishonest attack...figures and the other thread was not a gotcha thread, you're just pissy because i reject your advances

btw....you forgot to add "respectfully"

LOL
 
Yurt said:
yes it does...you don't like that corps can spend money to influence elections, but you have no problem with unions spending $60 million dollars to influence elections
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. In 2008 unions and corporations operated under the same shitty rules, but those rules were better than what we've got now.


Yurt said:
you rail about corporate influence, but love your union influence
Click to expand...

I don't think unions should sit on their hands during elections because I think money in elections is a big fucking problem. That fact of the matter is that in a post-Citizens world, because they have exponentially more assets available to them, corporate influence will dwarf the unions. And that, I think, is a problem.
 
UOTE=NigelTufnel;775826]No, it doesn't. In 2008 unions and corporations operated under the same shitty rules, but those rules were better than what we've got now.
Click to expand...

what? corporations and unions STILL operate under virtually the same laws. Citizens didn't give corps any more power than unions have. nice try bucko. and how are the old rules better? nonsense.


I don't think unions should sit on their hands during elections because I think money in elections is a big fucking problem. That fact of the matter is that in a post-Citizens world, because they have exponentially more assets available to them, corporate influence will dwarf the unions. And that, I think, is a problem.
Click to expand...

LOL....nothing but pure hypocrisy and conjecture. you have no problem with unions spending MILLIONS because they support your causes...and you wrongfully want to claim your stance is not intellectually dishonst because corporations COULD POTENTIALLY dwarf what unions spend to influence elections. but you have no evidence that corporation spending dwarfs union spending. nice try nigel.
 
Yurt said:
what? corporations and unions STILL operate under virtually the same laws. Citizens didn't give corps any more power than unions have. nice try bucko. and how are the old rules better? nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. But the law at present favors corporations.


Yurt said:
LOL....nothing but pure hypocrisy and conjecture. you have no problem with unions spending MILLIONS because they support your causes...and you wrongfully want to claim your stance is not intellectually dishonst because corporations COULD POTENTIALLY dwarf what unions spend to influence elections. but you have no evidence that corporation spending dwarfs union spending. nice try nigel.
Click to expand...

Just look at outside spending in the 2010 elections, Yurt.
 
OTE=NigelTufnel;775860]Yes, they do. But the law at present favors corporations.
Click to expand...

so yes they do, but the laws now favor corps....horseshit. Citizens did no such thing. you're making this up nigel. cite your claims....i don't believe you.

Just look at outside spending in the 2010 elections, Yurt.
Click to expand...

no, link it. the below tells quite a different story than your version of reality. you can do better nigel. just because i have a horrendous cold and feel like shit, doesn't mean you can post shit.


http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
 
Yurt said:
so yes they do, but the laws now favor corps....horseshit. Citizens did no such thing. you're making this up nigel. cite your claims....i don't believe you.
Click to expand...

Where spending is unlimited the person with the most money has the advantage. Corporations have more money than unions. It's not even debateable.



Yurt said:
no, link it. the below tells quite a different story than your version of reality. you can do better nigel. just because i have a horrendous cold and feel like shit, doesn't mean you can post shit.


http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Click to expand...

What the fuck does data about 1989-2010 have to do with the 2010 election?
 
=NigelTufnel;775867]Where spending is unlimited the person with the most money has the advantage. Corporations have more money than unions. It's not even debateable.
Click to expand...

you're completely dodging the issue. as usual, corps = bad, unions = good....regardless. sad nigel, i expected better of you.

What the fuck does data about 1989-2010 have to do with the 2010 election?
Click to expand...

oh, so ignore actual spending.....does my link bother you? it must. else you would address it. and btw.....you have provided no link to support your assertion. is that why my link bothers you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top