dayman

I would hold off if I was Romney until that point politically. SuperPac included.

Well thing is...Romney is a Mormon republican....

Well here's the thing. What the full faith and credit clause means is a matter of constitutional construction no? It doesn't mean every state law applies equally to all America that would be nonsensical. What it does mean is that states must respect other states rulings, records, etc... So why pass a federal law attempting to interfere with this as a matter of constitutional law? For the record when push comes to shove it will fail (but it has bought a LOT of time and will continue to do so to the point where the political process may ultimately deal with it first)...the point stands though. If 3rdnlng wants to say what he says...then he should be willing to say "I do not support DOMA." B/c remember we aren't talking about a hypothetical law supporting gay marriage...we're talking full faith and credit on that end. On the other end...we are very much talking DOMA. Well now we're getting into if being gay is an immutable trait. If we really want to explode this topic...this is how it's done.

Meh...in other words getting people to vote against their best interest by playing racial politics? This really isn't something that works anymore...Lee Atwater is dead...

What's ironic is think about this for a minute. SuperPacs become known. Transparent/not secret shady things. Then...almost replacing political parties (b/c that's where the money has to go)? Then the party system (gradually rising to the top and running when it's your turn and adhering to party politics as a result) and dynamic if shaken up...I don't know where I'm going with this...all I'm saying is I'm not so sure that SuperPacs have to be bad for political speech but IF IT'S TRANSPARENT. Meh...perhaps from the right that may be true but let's be real here...we're talking the Obama campaign. Manufacturing "upset" is usually a win for them. They are good where that is concerned. It's hard to deny that.

If they would expose themselves and not complain about catching flack if people don't like the adds they paid for I would have little argument. But they do complain about being pressured...Rove's superpac itself literally was donating superpac money toward a movement that was designed to keep superpac money secret...secret superpac money is...eh...I'll have to evolve on this but that doesn't taste right...at the same time I'm not ready to say everything has to be documented we would have to find an amount (then people could give right under the amount in shady ways)....and so on...meh

I would bet you are right certainly in the North (which is not where I live so it's harder to relate).

About 15% far right and 15% far left and 70% in the middle (not necessarily agreeing on everything but able to have discussion and compromise) never getting the country going? Sounds about right to me...

I think his point is the right has bought as much (if not more...but I won't speak for him) than the left even w/ union spending.

From a strict 1st amendment perspective I also am glad they exist. But let's be real here...finding a way for the political process to give off less noise (from both sides) is important. And also I would like to add...it's not like the political process has been unkind to these corporations and big single donors in the past...I would hardly call them a repressed sect... The anonymous nature of it is a huge concern for me btw...

...now that is no good....

This is what I was basically leading toward/getting it w/ my post above. But is this practical? And...the unions...shouldn't be allowed to give under this either... I am generally with you here but I wouldn't go so far as to say the superpacs give us a better opportunity to examine elected officials...

So just to get this straight...public unions could (in the past) donate an incredible amount as one lump on grounds that they represent many...but private corporations/rich individuals (often w/ private business) could not? Correct?

Look...you are an idiot. They aren't canards. I'm not an elitist for pointing out that you angrily spout of things that are just plain wrong.

Also tune out conservative propaganda and learn about the law in 3rdnlngs case.

AHHHH...individual contribution cap gone...brain fart on my part. Thanks. EDIT: Honestly as liberal as I may come off to many of you I'm w/ you here. Still "evolving" on the issue of public sector unions but honestly if we are real about it there's two retirement ages looking toward the future...65 for gov't and 75 for the rest of us. Just today I was browsing some openings at various agencies for lawyers. Those are some damn good jobs....not that I hate or am jelous just saying. There is a political process for public sector employees. It's not the same.

Follow the constitution? Full faith and credit. Answer my question.

So you oppose the defense against marriage act? EDIT: Defense of marriage act. lol

You'll have to stay with me here for a minute I know nothing about political finance. Why is it that the SuperPacs are what changes that?

I could be wrong here...but who is saying Obama will lose the money edge? I know Romney pulled in a nice first month but I was under the impression Obama will out raise him by a good margin.

Look I'm not blind and I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to knowing what politics is. That said, the GOP let all that happen...much to Romney's disgust.

Meh I don't see many of those people anyway and I doubt this will sway him. Obama has been President for 4 years already...to me that makes the Rev. issue sort of moot. Just a waste of money to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case either.

Romney campaign would be retarded to bring up Rev. Wright. If I was Obama and Co. I would welcome them pouring 10M into something as retarded as that.

Well personally I really didn't bash President Bush when he was in office and for the most part I don't now. As for the last little bit you sound like an Adam Carolla podcast listener. EDIT: And I don't plan on bashing Romney if wins.