Tidal Fish Forum banner

1 - 20 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,877 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Cost less than Edward's strumpets apartment.

Cost less than one day of Obama pork.

Cost less than Bidens hair plugs.

Cost less than fannie and freds pay offs to Obama.

Cost less than the catering bill at one Obama "event"

Cost less than the roman collums hollywood set built for him to accept the nomination.

Cost less than the make-up necissary to make Hilary look good during her bid for the nomination.

Cost less than the metamucil necissary to keep etoufool and capt commie regular this year.

How come lib media doesn't want to talk about that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
Both sides need to be held accountable for their actions.

But the comedy here is.... it's McCains law that was broken.:yes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,877 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
Only in you slugly little mind is your usual vapid comment even remotely cogent and in you insane state relevant.

SSDD

Please state how "MCCAIN- Fiengold" was violated by the GOP.

The list is however endless for the moonbats.

We can add another to the list:

Cost less than sending sluggo to rehab to dry him out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
SEC. 502. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.

431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and inserting the

following:

`SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

`(a) PERMITTED USES- A contribution accepted by a candidate, and

any other amount received by an individual as support for

activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office, may be

used by the candidate or individual--

`(1) for expenditures in connection with the campaign for

Federal office of the candidate or individual;

`(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in

connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal

office;

`(3) for contributions to an organization described in

section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

`(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local committee

of a political party.

`(b) PROHIBITED USE-

`(1) IN GENERAL- A contribution or amount described in

subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal

use.

`(2) CONVERSION- For the purposes of paragraph (1), a

contribution or amount shall be considered to be converted to

personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill

any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would

exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or

individual's duties as a holder of Federal officeholder,

including--

`(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;

`(B) a clothing purchase;

`(C) a noncampaign-related automobile
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,877 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
You trogladites pulled that **** strait off the caves of the far left blogposphere....


Figures....................


as usual no original thought just subterfuge and inuendo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
I'm really interested in your view on this. You are obviously a McCain/Palin supporter regardless of what they do or what laws they break. I would think that you would be hyper critical of campaign laws that may be broken by Obama, as you have been quick to post them here rather there is evidence or not. How do you feel when it happens on the other side?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Mr. Ratherfish, I would prefer you respond to me with my name. I would do no less for you. If you must call me jim or joe or Allah then that is your right. But I would really like your take on this law which was first introduced by John McCain. You asked for the law that was broken. When it was provided you claimed that it was taken from a left-wing blog. I don't know what is stated in this law except for what was printed on this site. I asked you to show a different, more official version if there is a better source and to give your take on the law. You however stated that I was lying.

I have tried to converse with you civilly several times. Because you believe you know who I am you refuse to enter intelligent dialog. I do not understand why that would be the case even if I were to be who you think I am. I can assure you that BigJim, TH, and I are not all one in the same and whoever has made such a claim has merely demonstrated their ignorance.
 
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Top