It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Drunk Obama campaign staffer challenges ‘cheap bastard’ billionaires to donate

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   




Meet Obama for America Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter (really!) as she hilariously and depressingly rolls out in a new video by comedian Andy Cobb how #ed the campaign is when it comes to fundraising. “You’ve got me and a green screen against a firehouse of Citizens United money from the richest bastards in the world,” she said

She then called the pro-Obama billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffett (“He even named a rule after you!”) “cheap bastards” and challenged them to donate matching funds to the pro-Obama super PACs or face “whatever our Twitter intern comes up with.”


Obviously, some fairly clever tongue-in-cheek marketing meant to point out the massive difference in spending between the Obama and Romney camps, directed at the 23-35 demographic of Obama supporters.

www.rawstory.com...




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


I don't know how this is worse than a congressman who calls the President a liar except this staffer will probably get let go and the congressman keeps his job. There's a lot of heated rhetoric going back and forth nowadays. The degree of noncooperation is legend.

I don't think cheap is the right word really since many billionaires actually WANT to pay the same rate of tax as everyone else in the country and DO NOT want the special breaks. They are glad to make the country run better and chip in the same percentage of income as the rest of us.

Those who want tax exceptions and breaks the rest of us don't get - They are the few billionaires fighting this along with the GOP. They are bastards - not to mention selfish, greedy and unlawful.
edit on 23-6-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


I don't know how this is worse than a congressman who calls the President a liar except this staffer will probably get let go and the congressman keeps his job. There's a lot of heated rhetoric going back and forth nowadays.
The degree of noncooperation is legend.


Dude. This was satire. She isnt actually drunk.




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
all politics is fake so why bother with any of this tripe



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Numbers33four
all politics is fake so why bother with any of this tripe


That certainly is a perspective.

Conversely, one might ask you why you choose to even click on a thread you feel is 'fake'.

This video is marketing to the madness.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
I don't think cheap is the right word really since many billionaires actually WANT to pay the same rate of tax as everyone else in the country and DO NOT want the special breaks. They are glad to make the country run better and chip in the same percentage of income as the rest of us.


Really? If you have ever filled out a 1040 you should know that there is a line where you are asked to voluntarily contribute to the IRS to"reduce the public debt".

How much more did you donate beyond the required amount? How many billionaires do you think voluntarily paid more taxes than required to chip in "for love of country" of all things lol? These philanthropic billionaires you speak of hide their money off-shore, their businesses are off shore, they hire people to make sure they pay as little as possible and they set up charities to protect their money from uncle sam. Don't be naive.

EDIT:


For fiscal year 2009, all donations totaled just over $3 million.


What were you saying about "those who want tax exceptions and breaks the rest of us don't get - They are the few billionaires fighting this along with the GOP."

Um no.
edit on 23-6-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


I don't know how this is worse than a congressman who calls the President a liar except this staffer will probably get let go and the congressman keeps his job. There's a lot of heated rhetoric going back and forth nowadays. The degree of noncooperation is legend.

I don't think cheap is the right word really since many billionaires actually WANT to pay the same rate of tax as everyone else in the country and DO NOT want the special breaks. They are glad to make the country run better and chip in the same percentage of income as the rest of us.

Those who want tax exceptions and breaks the rest of us don't get - They are the few billionaires fighting this along with the GOP. They are bastards - not to mention selfish, greedy and unlawful.
edit on 23-6-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)


Honest question: How does ANY of your above post relate to the video whatsoever? Did you even watch it? Or did you just post after reading the headline and assuming this video is an attack on Obama?



Obama partisans are as obvious as the GOP ones.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 




Dude. This was satire. She isnt actually drunk.





I thought for sure this was a real commercial !!

But then I realized it was really an ad endorsing Romney.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by stanguilles7
 




Dude. This was satire. She isnt actually drunk.





I thought for sure this was a real commercial !!

But then I realized it was really an ad endorsing Romney.



And how do you come to that conclusion?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Doesn't that mean that Americans are willing to give Romney more money than Obama? It must be a shock for him, considering that he outspent McCain 3-1, and is probably used to having tons of money available.

What positive image is created by the video? Are they saying that their campaign is close to panic? She's not shown as drinking celebratory Champagne. Drinking to forget the campaign's sorrows, perhaps?

Or saying, give us money because we're wild "Frat boy" type partiers? Again, what good comes from this?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Doesn't that mean that Americans are willing to give Romney more money than Obama? It must be a shock for him, considering that he outspent McCain 3-1, and is probably used to having tons of money available.

What positive image is created by the video? Are they saying that their campaign is close to panic? She's not shown as drinking celebratory Champagne. Drinking to forget the campaign's sorrows, perhaps?

Or saying, give us money because we're wild "Frat boy" type partiers? Again, what good comes from this?


I thought it was pretty obvious. It's a way for the Obama campaign to take a negative (their PAC's dont have nearly as much money as Romney) into a positive (by making it seem like they are actually the underdog, by putting so much emphasis on how much Romney has, as if ten million dollars in their camp is a pittance').

To use a baseball analogy they are trying to make Mittens look like the Yankees. The Yankees are too rich and scuessful for their own good. Get it?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by newcovenant
I don't think cheap is the right word really since many billionaires actually WANT to pay the same rate of tax as everyone else in the country and DO NOT want the special breaks. They are glad to make the country run better and chip in the same percentage of income as the rest of us.


Really? If you have ever filled out a 1040 you should know that there is a line where you are asked to voluntarily contribute to the IRS to"reduce the public debt".

How much more did you donate beyond the required amount? How many billionaires do you think voluntarily paid more taxes than required to chip in "for love of country" of all things lol? These philanthropic billionaires you speak of hide their money off-shore, their businesses are off shore, they hire people to make sure they pay as little as possible and they set up charities to protect their money from uncle sam. Don't be naive.

EDIT:


For fiscal year 2009, all donations totaled just over $3 million.


What were you saying about "those who want tax exceptions and breaks the rest of us don't get - They are the few billionaires fighting this along with the GOP."

Um no.
edit on 23-6-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)


Don't tell me how to be. I am not naive but if I wanted to be it's no concern of yours.



"How much more did you donate beyond the required amount?"
Again NOYB.
Not sure what your point is here. I am not talking about voluntary donations. Everyone knows the country runs on tax dollars. I am talking about paying income taxes at (and I am quoting myself here)

the same percentage of income as the rest of us.
Many would not balk at that and admit it is only fair.


edit on 23-6-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Of course I watched it. It was a funny parody. I was addressing your title.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Do people have no clue at the billions of dollars that unions thrown at the left and their versions of PACS?

Why the hell would anyone donate to a group of people whose mantra "is eat the rich" and call them "cheap bastrads"

Not seeing the humor here but I? do see the demagoguery in that ad in other words same crap different day "because Democrats care".

The citizen united ruling was so that unions and corporations could run ads for or against.
edit on 24-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

Dear stanguilles7,

You've always been patient with me, thanks.

So the campaign is trying to say that they're the underdogs and, therefore, the expectation is that Romney will win? We may cheer for the underdogs, but they're underdogs because people don't think they'll win. How does a sitting president running for re-election persuade people that he's the underdog?

The ad is a plea for sympathy? Forgive me, but that almost sounds desperate.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by stanguilles7
 




Dude. This was satire. She isnt actually drunk.





I thought for sure this was a real commercial !!

But then I realized it was really an ad endorsing Romney.



And how do you come to that conclusion?


real easy.

Obama wants O-U-T

He hates the competition.

Michelle has had it with Washington.

There's more money somewhere else.

Listen for a "surprise" announcement any time now



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Very cute!
I don't know if it will appeal to the 20-year-olds, but it appealed to me.
I think it's a clever idea.

And people are taking this seriously!
Oh, dear, the drama!



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Yr analysis is as vapid as the threads you spam this forum with

2



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

Dear stanguilles7,

You've always been patient with me, thanks.

So the campaign is trying to say that they're the underdogs and, therefore, the expectation is that Romney will win? We may cheer for the underdogs, but they're underdogs because people don't think they'll win. How does a sitting president running for re-election persuade people that he's the underdog?

The ad is a plea for sympathy? Forgive me, but that almost sounds desperate.

With respect,
Charles1952


Yeah, I think 'desperation' might be fairly close to accurate. It's a way for Team O to turn a negative (Romney has oodles more money) into a sort of positive (hey, we're the 'underdog').

By 'underdog', though, i only mean their superPACS have less money. I dont think anyone at team O thinks O will lose in November.


edit on 24-6-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Socialists are never satisfied until all rich people gives up one hundred percent of their wealth.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join