Is this a joke?

[Woodruff]

@ timminz, natty, etc.

it's okay to dislike this! you're not obligated to agree with everything obama does and you won't be lumped into the "stupid american conservatives" camp if you can at least admit that this is distasteful at best.
the world ain't black and white, guys.

It's quite moderate and independent of you to lecture the liberals on that point of fact. Well done.

[Woodruff]

There's a saying in northern Krasnoyarsk that basically goes, it's not stupid to ask for a price, it's only stupid to pay it.

Basically, who cares? If someone is dumb enough to give their money to a politician instead of buying a gift to an actual person, let them.

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious coming from you.

You always seems to attack me whenever I blame someone who gets scammed for being an idiot, yet if it's Barack Obama, it's ok to scam people.

f*ck you're such a little troll.

Obama is scamming people with this? What part of it is a scam, in your view?

[john9blue]

@ timminz, natty, etc.

it's okay to dislike this! you're not obligated to agree with everything obama does and you won't be lumped into the "stupid american conservatives" camp if you can at least admit that this is distasteful at best.
the world ain't black and white, guys.[/quite]

It's quite moderate and independent of you to lecture the liberals on that point of fact. Well done.

just because i'm an independent doesn't mean that i can't call out the liberals on this forum for being extremely hypocritical

[Woodruff]

@ timminz, natty, etc.

it's okay to dislike this! you're not obligated to agree with everything obama does and you won't be lumped into the "stupid american conservatives" camp if you can at least admit that this is distasteful at best.
the world ain't black and white, guys.[/quite]

It's quite moderate and independent of you to lecture the liberals on that point of fact. Well done.

just because i'm an independent doesn't mean that i can't call out the liberals on this forum for being extremely hypocritical

Of course not. But you're not an independent, strikingly because it's such a one-way road with you. I really don't understand why you even bother pretending anymore.

[Army of GOD]

There's a saying in northern Krasnoyarsk that basically goes, it's not stupid to ask for a price, it's only stupid to pay it.

Basically, who cares? If someone is dumb enough to give their money to a politician instead of buying a gift to an actual person, let them.

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious coming from you.

You always seems to attack me whenever I blame someone who gets scammed for being an idiot, yet if it's Barack Obama, it's ok to scam people.

f*ck you're such a little troll.

Obama is scamming people with this? What part of it is a scam, in your view?

I see this as an attempt to sort of "brainwash" certain kinds of people into sending him money.

Not only that, but in his first four years Obama has been pretty shitty at keeping his original campaign promises from 2008 (and I consider myself pretty objective), which is lying.


And no, I don't have a problem with this or scamming in general. I, like natty in this one scenario, am more likely to blame the idiot who gives the scam artist his or herself than the scam artist themselves (hint: "more likely", aka not all the damn time).

[patrickaa317]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

If the people are big Barack Obama fans, they may well prefer the donation given to him in their name. People do this sort of thing all the time in the name of other things (admittedly most often charities, but not always).

Then they can take their wedding cash and donate it on their own terms after the wedding.

What's the actual difference between those two scenarios?

The result at the end may be the same but the path to get there is different, one path seems much lower than the other.

If I was looking to spend money I received for my wedding on getting a nice TV & a new sound system, should we include in the invitations that we are registered at a few department store and gift cards to Best Buy are also an option. Same end result just different paths to get there.

[Phatscotty]

It's on Obama's actual site but I can't believe he is so arrogant that he could actually ask people to advertise for him through their wedding, birthday or anniversary party. Is he that worried about November that he is trying to have people forego wedding gifts to give a donation to his campaign?

I haven't seen this type of move in the past, is it a common political move? Or is it a new one?

It's not a joke. The reality is there are people who support Obama so fervently, they will actually participate in this. And many of the people who will do this are very, VERY rich, and pay very, VERY little in taxes. It's the buddy system.

I suppose after ObamaCare is ruled to be officially against the Constitution, things will get even crazier than this.

[Woodruff]

There's a saying in northern Krasnoyarsk that basically goes, it's not stupid to ask for a price, it's only stupid to pay it.

Basically, who cares? If someone is dumb enough to give their money to a politician instead of buying a gift to an actual person, let them.

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious coming from you.

You always seems to attack me whenever I blame someone who gets scammed for being an idiot, yet if it's Barack Obama, it's ok to scam people.

f*ck you're such a little troll.

Obama is scamming people with this? What part of it is a scam, in your view?

I see this as an attempt to sort of "brainwash" certain kinds of people into sending him money.

I'm definitely not seeing that.

Not only that, but in his first four years Obama has been pretty shitty at keeping his original campaign promises from 2008 (and I consider myself pretty objective), which is lying.

I hope you're not looking for an argument from me on that...I've been pretty vocal about exactly that. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the idea that this is scamming.

And no, I don't have a problem with this or scamming in general.

Really? I have a pretty big problem with scamming in general (and in specific, really).

I, like natty in this one scenario, am more likely to blame the idiot who gives the scam artist his or herself than the scam artist themselves (hint: "more likely", aka not all the damn time).

I don't disagree with where the "blame" generally falls, but that doesn't mean I don't have a problem with someone doing it.

[Woodruff]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

If the people are big Barack Obama fans, they may well prefer the donation given to him in their name. People do this sort of thing all the time in the name of other things (admittedly most often charities, but not always).

Then they can take their wedding cash and donate it on their own terms after the wedding.

What's the actual difference between those two scenarios?

The result at the end may be the same but the path to get there is different, one path seems much lower than the other.

If I was looking to spend money I received for my wedding on getting a nice TV & a new sound system, should we include in the invitations that we are registered at a few department store and gift cards to Best Buy are also an option.

That's not unusual at all, in my experience. As someone attending a wedding, I personally prefer the couple to do this, so at least I know I'm getting them something they want.

[natty dread]

There's a saying in northern Krasnoyarsk that basically goes, it's not stupid to ask for a price, it's only stupid to pay it.

Basically, who cares? If someone is dumb enough to give their money to a politician instead of buying a gift to an actual person, let them.

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious coming from you.

You always seems to attack me whenever I blame someone who gets scammed for being an idiot, yet if it's Barack Obama, it's ok to scam people.

f*ck you're such a little troll.

f*ck you're such a little troll.

little troll.

little

Are we projecting, perhaps?

Anywhoo, it's not a scam to basically say "give me money". Obama is not promising anything in return. It's kind of like panhandling - you know what you're paying for, which in this case is nothing.

[Timminz]

I'll admit, I had a little bit of fun, posting here while waiting for a Euro match to start (capitalistic freedom vs Obamer the socialist, and all that jazz), but you guys should have let it die yesterday. This is stupid.

My main point still stands though; who cares? You don't like it, don't take part. If there are people who think this is a good idea, let them be morons. I repeat: ain't freedom grand!

[daddy1gringo]

While I strongly disagree with Obama politically, I see no problem with this. If two people who are about to tie the knot share such a strong commitment to this or any other cause that they invite their guests to give to the cause instead of giving them a wedding gift, I think that's commendable.

Way on the other end of the political spectrum, it kind of reminds me of when Curtis Sliwa, who created the "Guardian Angels", and his bride-to-be, asked people to give them roach spray, because they planned to spend their honeymoon in some inner city bad neighborhood setting up a troop there. Once again, whether or not you agree with the person, you gotta respect the commitment.

[Woodruff]

While I strongly disagree with Obama politically, I see no problem with this. If two people who are about to tie the knot share such a strong commitment to this or any other cause that they invite their guests to give to the cause instead of giving them a wedding gift, I think that's commendable.

Way on the other end of the political spectrum, it kind of reminds me of when Curtis Sliwa, who created the "Guardian Angels", and his bride-to-be, asked people to give them roach spray, because they planned to spend their honeymoon in some inner city bad neighborhood setting up a troop there. Once again, whether or not you agree with the person, you gotta respect the commitment.

You had me seriously concerned about where the story was headed about halfway through there. <chuckle>

[Gillipig]

Life's a laugh and deaths a joke. *whistle whistle*

[patrickaa317]

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

If the people are big Barack Obama fans, they may well prefer the donation given to him in their name. People do this sort of thing all the time in the name of other things (admittedly most often charities, but not always).

Then they can take their wedding cash and donate it on their own terms after the wedding.

What's the actual difference between those two scenarios?

The result at the end may be the same but the path to get there is different, one path seems much lower than the other.

If I was looking to spend money I received for my wedding on getting a nice TV & a new sound system, should we include in the invitations that we are registered at a few department store and gift cards to Best Buy are also an option.

That's not unusual at all, in my experience. As someone attending a wedding, I personally prefer the couple to do this, so at least I know I'm getting them something they want.

Cash is universal and always comes in the right color. Either way we are splitting hairs on an off topic so while you have no issues with this approach, I think it is very tacky and from what I've seen around the web, the majority of people see it the same way I do. It doesn't matter as I know noone getting married, and if I did, I don't know anyone that would be this easily convinced to want 4 more years of power grabbing and overspending for their wedding gift.

[Woodruff]

Cash is universal and always comes in the right color. Either way we are splitting hairs on an off topic so while you have no issues with this approach, I think it is very tacky and from what I've seen around the web, the majority of people see it the same way I do.

Perhaps you missed what I actually said about it?

[The Voice]

Anyone wanna get married?

[BigBallinStalin]

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

Yet, for now, people in the USA are free to do so if they want. Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

So you mean whenever someone criticizes what someone says, where they worship, what they do with their money; are those critics also "against freedom"?

If you said that just to be funny, then disregard the above comment.

You seem to be keen on stretching what I've said into totally unrelated topics.

Enjoy the journey. I'm going to stay right here. Let me know if/when you come back around this way. Maybe then, we can play some more.

You claimed anyone who opposed this campaign is against freedom. I oppose it as I think it is probably one of the lowest moments in political fundraising, especially for the highest office. I am not opposing the ability to do it but I do not think it is a cutting edge, ok fundraising technique.

As far as I know, this ad campaign is derived only from voluntary donations (e.g. not from taxation), and the means of promoting this campaign were voluntary means (i.e. the government/executive did not abuse his political position in order to force others to promote this ad).

If the above is true, then in a free market society, this form of campaign is legitimate. It might not be morally acceptable to some, but it's still legitimate from a libertarian perspective.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll admit, I had a little bit of fun, posting here while waiting for a Euro match to start (capitalistic freedom vs Obamer the socialist, and all that jazz), but you guys should have let it die yesterday. This is stupid.

My main point still stands though; who cares? You don't like it, don't take part. If there are people who think this is a good idea, let them be morons. I repeat: ain't freedom grand!

It's only grand if there's no fraud, and if the money raised was purely voluntary, and the means of advertising this campaign were based on voluntary contracts (i.e. no contracts under duress, or implemented through state-owned enterprises, or through executive privilege/order). I want to add "state-controlled enterprises" but the degree of regulation and how that relates to state control is very vague... For the sake of argument, I'm against using any means via state-controlled enterprises too.

If the ad campaign meets the above conditions, then I'm not opposed to it.

"Freedom" itself isn't a good way to describe this, if the above conditions aren't met. A dictator is very free to do what he pleases, so there's that problem with using the word "freedom" as well.

[patrickaa317]

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

Yet, for now, people in the USA are free to do so if they want. Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

So you mean whenever someone criticizes what someone says, where they worship, what they do with their money; are those critics also "against freedom"?

If you said that just to be funny, then disregard the above comment.

You seem to be keen on stretching what I've said into totally unrelated topics.

Enjoy the journey. I'm going to stay right here. Let me know if/when you come back around this way. Maybe then, we can play some more.

You claimed anyone who opposed this campaign is against freedom. I oppose it as I think it is probably one of the lowest moments in political fundraising, especially for the highest office. I am not opposing the ability to do it but I do not think it is a cutting edge, ok fundraising technique.

As far as I know, this ad campaign is derived only from voluntary donations (e.g. not from taxation), and the means of promoting this campaign were voluntary means (i.e. the government/executive did not abuse his political position in order to force others to promote this ad).

If the above is true, then in a free market society, this form of campaign is legitimate. It might not be morally acceptable to some, but it's still legitimate from a libertarian perspective.

You are right but doesn't remove the arrogance or the tackiness of such a fundraising technique. Would you also agree that my right to oppose it and call it such things, is also part of a free society not as Timminz said "against freedom"?

[BigBallinStalin]

Um... hmm, I don't want to get into rights.

In a free society, you definitely can exercise your right to free speech, provided that it's not fraudulent. If that's what you mean by "oppose it," then go ahead.

In a free society, could you "oppose it" by appealing to some court which would prohibit the distribution of Obama ads within their jurisdiction? Most likely not, it would depend on the constitution of the political union--assuming there would even be a political union.

But anyway, you would certainly have the right to condemn it verbally and encourage others to not donate to Obama, as long as you aren't coercing people (i.e. using violence or initiating harm against others, in that sense).

[patrickaa317]

Um... hmm, I don't want to get into rights.

In a free society, you definitely can exercise your right to free speech, provided that it's not fraudulent. If that's what you mean by "oppose it," then go ahead.

In a free society, could you "oppose it" by appealing to some court which would prohibit the distribution of Obama ads within their jurisdiction? Most likely not, it would depend on the constitution of the political union--assuming there would even be a political union.

But anyway, you would certainly have the right to condemn it verbally and encourage others to not donate to Obama, as long as you aren't coercing people (i.e. using violence or initiating harm against others, in that sense).

Right. And verbally is the way I oppose it as you can tell with my posts throughout this thread, I have no intention to look for any kind of legal recourse on this. With that said, you would obviously agree with me that Timminz was wrong in his quote, correct?

....Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

[Army of GOD]

anyone who opposes Jesus is against freedom and boobs

[BigBallinStalin]

Um... hmm, I don't want to get into rights.

In a free society, you definitely can exercise your right to free speech, provided that it's not fraudulent. If that's what you mean by "oppose it," then go ahead.

In a free society, could you "oppose it" by appealing to some court which would prohibit the distribution of Obama ads within their jurisdiction? Most likely not, it would depend on the constitution of the political union--assuming there would even be a political union.

But anyway, you would certainly have the right to condemn it verbally and encourage others to not donate to Obama, as long as you aren't coercing people (i.e. using violence or initiating harm against others, in that sense).

Right. And verbally is the way I oppose it as you can tell with my posts throughout this thread, I have no intention to look for any kind of legal recourse on this. With that said, you would obviously agree with me that Timminz was wrong in his quote, correct?

....Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

I thought he was being facetious. Is it wrong to be funny? I don't think so!

[Timminz]

ITT Patrick opposes the freedom to solicit voluntary donations to a political fund-raising campaign (I assume he's just mad that his team didn't think of it first), as well as the freedom to make those voluntary donations. That sounds like taking a position against freedom, to me.

Ain't cognitive dissonance grand!