Gingrich SuperPAC Anti-Romney Ad

[AdamT]

Again, this is not a Gingrich ad, this is from a pro-Gingrich superPAC, which means that at least in theory Gingrich has zero say in the content of the ad.

Yep ... in theory....

 

[Redress]

Yep ... in theory....

And you have a total of zero evidence that he has violated the law in this case.

 

[AdamT]

And you have a total of zero evidence that he has violated the law in this case.

Which is exactly the same amount of evidence you have that he hasn't violated the law in this case. Unfortunately the Citizens United decision creates this appearance of impropriety and there is no adequate mechanism to resolve it.

 

[American]

I think Gingrich is a catty and mean, vengeful asshole and really doesn't give a rat's patootie what happens to Romney in the general election. I think this is all about revenge for getting his ass handed to him in Iowa.

Did you say the same when Romney ran his ads on Newt? If so, please link me to where you said the same thing. I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.

 

[American]

This surprises y'all? This is the guy who tried to shut down the government because he didn't like his seat on Air Force One.

When we get to the real campaign, I hope you bring up all the royal vacations and the other **** that the Obamas are doing. If a seat on AF 1 shouldn't be a big deal, then million dollar vacations during a recession ought to be out too. They are also unnecessary. Let's talk about people starving while fatass Michelle goes to Hawaii. You want to talk about pomp and arrogance, let's do it.

 

[poweRob]

Did you say the same when Romney ran his ads on Newt? If so, please link me to where you said the same thing. I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.

So if Romney is a catty and mean, vengeful asshole as well, how would that mitigate my point that Gingrich is a catty and mean, vengeful asshole? Either way, Gingrich is a catty and mean, vengeful asshole and having said or not said Romney was one wouldn't change that at all.

sooooo..... Here is Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online so that you can find out what hypocrisy actually means.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Again, this is not a Gingrich ad, this is from a pro-Gingrich superPAC, which means that at least in theory Gingrich has zero say in the content of the ad.

Then by the same logic Newt is an even bigger doofus for slamming Romney for all the negative ads in Iowa

 

[AdamT]

"Last month, Politico reported that Adelson told people he planned to write a $20 million check to the [Gingrich super PAC]. Adelson and his spokesman denied the report. A longtime Republican donor, Adelson is limited by campaign laws on how much he can give directly to a candidate’s campaign. He and his wife have already given the maximum allowed, $2,500 each.

The couple met Gingrich in the mid-1990s and were introduced by George Harris, who was working for Adelson at the time as he was battling labor unions and government regulation in the construction and opening of the massive Venetian casino and hotel complex. The two hit it off immediately, Harris said."

Yep, I'm sure the multi-million dollar gift would make no difference with respect to Adelson's battles with unions or regulators. :roll:

 

[AdamT]

Then by the same logic Newt is an even bigger doofus for slamming Romney for all the negative ads in Iowa

Well, Newt intimately knows how independent these super PACs really are....

 

[American]

So if Romney is a catty and mean, vengeful asshole as well, how would that mitigate my point that Gingrich is a catty and mean, vengeful asshole? Either way, Gingrich is a catty and mean, vengeful asshole and having said or not said Romney was one wouldn't change that at all.

sooooo..... Here is Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online so that you can find out what hypocrisy actually means.

Romney is an asshole, what are you talking about. He may "look" polished, but he's an asshole. He don't nothing but run negative.

So basically you're admitting to being hypocritical because you didn't say the same thing. No link means you didn't say it.

 

[poweRob]

Romney is an asshole, what are you talking about. He may "look" polished, but he's an asshole. He don't nothing but run negative.

So basically you're admitting to being hypocritical because you didn't say the same thing. No link means you didn't say it.

Hypocrite again huh? lol

Ya see, this is a thread called "Gingrich SuperPAC Anti-Romney Ad". It's kinda about Gingrich. Sorry I didn't do an off-topic post about Romney in here to assuage your desires to see him slammed. All that being said, Gingrich is still a catty and mean, vengeful asshole.

 

[Redress]

Which is exactly the same amount of evidence you have that he hasn't violated the law in this case. Unfortunately the Citizens United decision creates this appearance of impropriety and there is no adequate mechanism to resolve it.

Do you have any idea how stupid that is. We have no evidence that telepathis squids did not come to earth and biengineer humans. But we have no evidence it iddin't either, so we should consider it...

 

[Redress]

Then by the same logic Newt is an even bigger doofus for slamming Romney for all the negative ads in Iowa

It's the nature of SuperPACs. I would not charge any one with breaking the law unless I had actual evidence, and I think doofus is a much politer term than I would use for people like Romney who will charge people with breaking the law with no evidence.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

It's the nature of SuperPACs. I would not charge any one with breaking the law unless I had actual evidence, and I think doofus is a much politer term than I would use for people like Romney who will charge people with breaking the law with no evidence.

Link? Gingrich accused Romney of breaking the law in Iowa. I haven't read that Romney did the same.

 

[AdamT]

Do you have any idea how stupid that is. We have no evidence that telepathis squids did not come to earth and biengineer humans. But we have no evidence it iddin't either, so we should consider it...

Yeah, that's a great analogy, dude. Telepathic squids are just as likely as complicity between Gingrich and a super PAC organized by Gingrich supporters and staffed by his close associates and former employees and funded by his long-time associates and supporters. That's not an idiotic analogy at all! :lol:

 

[Redress]

Link? Gingrich accused Romney of breaking the law in Iowa. I haven't read that Romney did the same.

If he claimed Romney was responsible for a SuperPAC ad, then yes, he has accused him of a crime.

 

[Redress]

Yeah, that's a great analogy, dude. Telepathic squids are just as likely as complicity between Gingrich and a super PAC organized by Gingrich supporters and staffed by his close associates and former employees and funded by his long-time associates and supporters. That's not an idiotic analogy at all! :lol:

One of us is claiming that some one did something, despite having zero evidence, just because they want it to be true. Guess who that is.

 

[AdamT]

If he claimed Romney was responsible for a SuperPAC ad, then yes, he has accused him of a crime.

Yes, it's hard to believe that there could be any coordination there.

"The leading example, in terms of financial firepower and ferocity of assault, is “Restore Our Future,” the Mitt Romney-supporting super PAC that has unleashed a $4 million barrage against Newt Gingrich. (It worked. Gingrich complained of being “Romney-boated,” a reference to the Swift boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004.)

The committee is run by Carl Forti, political director of Romney’s 2008 campaign. Its treasurer is Charles Spies, the Romney 2008 general counsel. Its fundraiser, Steve Roche, headed the Romney 2012 finance team until jumping to the super PAC last summer. And to underscore the flimsiness of the PAC’s supposed independence, Romney himself has spoken at “Restore Our Future” events."

 

[AdamT]

One of us is claiming that some one did something, despite having zero evidence, just because they want it to be true. Guess who that is.

And someone else is claiming that someone didn't do something, despite having zero evidence, just because they want ti to be ture. Guess who THAT is?

 

[Rhapsody1447]

If he claimed Romney was responsible for a SuperPAC ad, then yes, he has accused him of a crime.

Link or no? I haven't read anything. I haven't heard him explicitly calling Newt a liar and a criminal like Newt did to him in Iowa.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Yes, it's hard to believe that there could be any coordination there.

"The leading example, in terms of financial firepower and ferocity of assault, is “Restore Our Future,” the Mitt Romney-supporting super PAC that has unleashed a $4 million barrage against Newt Gingrich. (It worked. Gingrich complained of being “Romney-boated,” a reference to the Swift boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004.)

The committee is run by Carl Forti, political director of Romney’s 2008 campaign. Its treasurer is Charles Spies, the Romney 2008 general counsel. Its fundraiser, Steve Roche, headed the Romney 2012 finance team until jumping to the super PAC last summer. And to underscore the flimsiness of the PAC’s supposed independence, Romney himself has spoken at “Restore Our Future” events."

Yes, the whole SuperPAC thing is retarded. I associate PAC ads with the candidate who runs them even if legally there can be no collusion between the two entities. If there was clear evidence of collusion than one could claim that a candidate was breaking the law; a fact I'm sure Democrats would be quick to point out and prosecute. Ultimately, I think it's irrelevant to the argument

 

[Redress]

And someone else is claiming that someone didn't do something, despite having zero evidence, just because they want ti to be ture. Guess who THAT is?

Wrong. You are entirely wrong again. I am claiming there is no evidence, and without evidence, I am not going to accuse some one. I am not being swayed by what I want to believe.

 

[AdamT]

Yes, the whole SuperPAC thing is retarded. I associate PAC ads with the candidate who runs them even if legally there can be no collusion between the two entities. If there was clear evidence of collusion than one could claim that a candidate was breaking the law; a fact I'm sure Democrats would be quick to point out and prosecute. Ultimately, I think it's irrelevant to the argument

I agree -- it's largely irrelevant. Basically you get a group of your closest advisors and set them out to campaign for you, with the benefit of unlimited corporate and individual donations, and it's a bit beside the point if you tell them *specifically* what you want them to do. They know you and they know what you want them to do. Hell, Huntsman's super PAC is funded almost entirely, if not entirely, by his father.

 

[AdamT]

Wrong. You are entirely wrong again. I am claiming there is no evidence, and without evidence, I am not going to accuse some one. I am not being swayed by what I want to believe.

You miss the point, which is that it doesn't matter if there is specific direction by the candidate. The super PAC is in effect a parallel campaign being run by the candidate's people.

 

[GPS_Flex]

A couple questions about this ad.

1) Am I the only one who thinks this ad is strange coming from a republican?

I would say you are naïve if you are surprised by it. The isn’t might light between Republicans and Democrats on the issues or the depths of depravity they’ll stoop to for political gain, and I think most people are aware of this fact.

2) Isn't this essentially showing Obama the route to go after Romney?

I’m pretty sure Obama’s fuming right now because he probably already spent a cool $5 mil on an add just like it and now, it’s already old news.

3) Republicans and moderates, do you see this ad as effective?

Of course it’s effective. Will adds like this be enough to save Obama’s job? Not likely.