Reply With Quote
BOLDED:
SOMEBODY's behind it is the point, and second point is that there's NO WAY TO KNOW WHO.
GFY and you Bible quotes, you fake Bible-thumper.
"Actually, I don't know who's behind this ad because there's no way to know."
My brother. This is the part you should have bolded. Just another rant without merit. God bless
"When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears and delivers them out of all their troubles. The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all. He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken."
BOLDED:
SOMEBODY's behind it is the point, and second point is that there's NO WAY TO KNOW WHO.
GFY and you Bible quotes, you fake Bible-thumper.
My brother, it's just another rant fueled by hate. You don't know who or why. Anyone could be somebody, brother. You should get the facts then in a constructive mature manner give us your opinion. I'm going to do a fun activity, indoor soccer. My kids soccer camps are cancelled due to rain so I will do something constructive, fun plus get a little workout in. I suggest you do the something other than ranting. Get your mind on something other than this hate ranting. I have hope for you. God bless
"You don't know who or why"
Reich listed the Usual Suspects.
There's a reason UCA wants its funding of politics hidden, it would be bad for profits, sharedholders, clients.
Repugs defund efforts to reduce the secrecty of donations
House Republicans Vote to Protect Broadcasters’ Interests, Ignore the Public Interest
So determined are Republican members of Congress to kowtow to the broadcast industry that today members of a House Appropriations subcommittee voted to strip the Federal Communications Commission of its ability to post online information that is already supposed to be public about who is paying for campaign ads.
In April the FCC adopted rules requiring the top four broadcasters in the biggest fifty media markets to put their “political files” online. The political file includes information about individuals and groups that purchase political ads on the station. This ruling was an important step for transparency because it meant that instead of having to dig through a file cabinet in a local broadcaster’s office, anyone interested in learning who was paying for a political ad could access that information by going to the FCC's website.
The National Association of Broadcasters have been fighting this transparency measure from its inception, preferring to keep secret information about where an expected $3 billion in political ad revenue is coming from. The FCC, in adopting the disclosure rules, stood up to the powerful broadcast lobby. Republican Members of the Appropriations subcommittee, not so much.
The appropriations bill will have to be marked up by the full committee before moving on to the House floor. Advocates, including the Sunlight Foundation and Free Press hope efforts by committee Democrats to strip the offending provisions from the bill are successful. House Republicans should not be able to blithely disregard Americans’ right to know who is paying for their elections.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2...blic-interest/
Money talks loudly in many state campaigns
The tobacco industry is on the verge of a significant political victory in California after spending nearly $47 million to fight the $1-a-pack-tax known as Proposition 29.
The measure was losing by just 63,000 votes Wednesday, with an estimated 1 million ballots still to be counted. Yet, only two months ago surveys showed that Prop. 29 supporters had nothing to worry about: The tax was ahead by double digits.
A barrage of negative advertisements, however, helped sap support for the tobacco tax. The close race - which may not be decided for weeks - underscores a long-known fact in politics: Money talks.
"What money buys you is exposure," said David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University who specializes in state politics.
"It's relatively easy for the no campaign to find some flaw in a ballot initiative or something wrong with the idea or the people behind a measure."
That's exactly what opponents of the tobacco tax did with their advertising campaign against Prop. 29, he said. A Public Policy Ins ute poll released two weeks ago found a 14-point drop in support for the tobacco tax between March and May. That kind of swing in support would have been nearly impossible for the yes side to accomplish, even if they'd had the money, Baldassare said.
http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_...l=true#display
$47M to turn a majority of voters from for to against just $1/carton of cancer sticks. It worked.
Wisconsin Club for Growth quashes subpoenas in recall related discovery, prosecutors put Walker at the center of a criminal scheme to skirt state election laws:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...263839791.html
this happened weeks, months?, ago
the Repug judge who killed the case ordered all evidence destroyed. No Law Is Above The Man
JOHN DOE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS ARE NOW WEIGHING IN:
After a day of listening to Scott Walker lying, Francis Schmitz, a REPUBLICAN and the special prosecutor appointed to lead the second John Doe Probe, spoke up:
"Mr. Schmitz spent over forty years serving his nation as an Army officer and as a federal prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice," Schmitz's attorney, Randall Crocker, said in an email to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "As a prosecutor, he represented the United States in both criminal cases and on counterterrorism task forces. He was a finalist for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin during the administration of George W. Bush."
Good resume. He's a Republican.
Walker's campaign on Friday said "the accusation of any wrongdoing written in the complaint by the office of a partisan Democrat District Attorney by me or by my campaign is categorically false. In fact two judges, in both state and federal courts, have ruled that no laws were broken."That "Democrat District Attorney" is John Chisholm, the Milwaukee County DA, whose office initiated the investigation before it expanded to four southern Wisconsin counties. Along with Chisholm, the DAs in those counties — two Republicans and two Democrats — said they sought an independent prosecutor to avoid partisan concerns. Schmitz was appointed by a judge in the John Doe case
"Mr. Schmitz swore an oath when he accepted his appointment to lead the John Doe investigations in accordance with the law and on behalf of the State of Wisconsin. He has kept that oath," Crocker's statement on behalf of Schmitz said.
Another whiz bang that Schmitz, who heads the investigation, is a Republican. And he's not finished:
"Mr. Schmitz also believes in upholding the purpose of Wisconsin's campaign finance laws — as set out in Wisconsin Statute 11.001 — that 'our democratic system of government can be maintained only if the electorate is informed.' Wisconsin has a compelling interest in a campaign finance system that "must make readily available to the voters complete information as to who is supporting or opposing which candidate or cause."
That's right. Laws don't have any political bias.Boom goes the "partisan politics" and "witch hunt" meme.
Schmitz added:
In the statement on behalf of Schmitz, Crocker said: "Because a secrecy order governs the John Doe investigations, Mr. Schmitz had no reason to believe this brief would be released to the public when it was drafted."
This is an important one. When they compiled and submitted what is known as Exhibit C, where they lay out their case so far, prosecutors assumed that do ent would remain secret. They were still investigating and serving subpoenas for do ents and testimony. The multiple lawsuits by previously unnamed parties with secret filings have resulted in the John Doe Probe being halted pending a ruling of the Appeals Court.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...y?detail=email
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
