If the Mormons can do it, I don't see why others can't.

kid_icarus: If the Mormons can do it, I don't see why others can't.

done in one.

supporting an issue isn't the same as supporting a candidate.

False equivalent is false, you're a horrible human being and may god have mercy on your soul.

They're obviously just doing it so they can get gay married to each other, thus receiving tax breaks that will make them even richer.

They each donated $100,000... whoooooo. Good for them, that's soooo much. Meanwhile, Chick-Fil-A donated 2 MILLION against gay marriage.

False equivalency is false and stupid.

Yeah, clearly what they need to do is funnel all that money through a church first!

Here's the thing, dumbmitter-You can believe that campaign finance reform is desperately needed in our system, while not having a problem with fighting fire with fire under the current system.

I know that's a complicated thing to understand for a pea-brain, but if you try really hard you might be able to get it. If you get off of the crack pipe, you may even be able to grasp the concept of the false equivalence fallacy someday, too.

Get back to me when "gay marriage" is running for office and can hand out favors to its supporters after it gets elected.

skinnycatullus: Get back to me when "gay marriage" is running for office and can hand out favors to its supporters after it gets elected.

Once gay people can vote and are afforded full citizenship status they'll be allowed to buy things, and what do you think they'll buy? Microsoft stuff. This is rampant communism. Even Stalin agrees.

sweetmelissa31: They're obviously just doing it so they can get gay married to each other, thus receiving tax breaks that will make them even richer.

tax cuts for the gays!

HOW DARE PEOPLE FIGHT BACK? COMMIES ARE SUPPOSED TO ROLL OVER!

Subby also thinks that the liberal problem with the spending is one of merely being outspent.

It's really rather sad that they think that way.

$100,000 each?! Son of a... we need real limits on contributions like these. I know you are going to think it's a slippery slope argument, but mark my words: Eventually, we're going to get to the point where some sleazeball who's made billions pimping whores at his foreign casinos is going to be dropping tens of millions to influence our elections.

Lucky LaRue: $100,000 each?! Son of a... we need real limits on contributions like these. I know you are going to think it's a slippery slope argument, but mark my words: Eventually, we're going to get to the point where some sleazeball who's made billions pimping whores at his foreign casinos is going to be dropping tens of millions to influence our elections.

If he's made literal billions pimping common whores, he deserves his own tag on the business tab. That's a man who knows how to up-sell.

Exactly. Never mind.

I wish more rich guys were into expanding people's rights rather than curtailing them to enrich themselves.

kid_icarus: Lucky LaRue: $100,000 each?! Son of a... we need real limits on contributions like these. I know you are going to think it's a slippery slope argument, but mark my words: Eventually, we're going to get to the point where some sleazeball who's made billions pimping whores at his foreign casinos is going to be dropping tens of millions to influence our elections.

If he's made literal billions pimping common whores, he deserves his own tag on the business tab. That's a man who knows how to up-sell.

Well, maybe not literally: Link

the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: They're obviously just doing it so they can get gay married to each other, thus receiving tax breaks that will make them even richer.

tax cuts for the gays!

tax smut for the grays!

Rincewind53: They each donated $100,000... whoooooo. Good for them, that's soooo much. Meanwhile, Chick-Fil-A donated 2 MILLION against gay marriage.

The Chick-Fil-A donation was for a right wing fringe group who may or may not spend the money on marriage initiatives. Balmer and Gates money is specifically for the Washington marriage campaign. A bit of a difference. And in both Washington and Minnesota - equality campaigns have outraised the wingnuts significantly.

I morally support this, and I can't give a fraction of a crap about any outrage attempting to prove both sides are bad.

/Has friends who would happily marry if they legally could, and that day is coming closer.

Here are a few mitigating factors :

1. They have been residents and citizens of WA for a long long time

2. They're doing it openly.

3. 100k is about the maximum I think that most individuals should be permitted to donate.

I'm not against private funding, but having single donors who can be tapped for a cool million multiple times and in multiple phases of the campaign and who therefore must be pandered to repeatedly and publicly is bad for candidates and bad for citizens. Because there is always the temptation to appeal to a few super-rich repeat supporters (a la Newt Gingrich) to extend one's campaign.

/mandated advertisement limits would be great tho.

Actually I have a problem with undisclosed secret donations that have become common in our system of PACS. These guys are publicly disclosing their donations. I don't have a problem with conservatives doing that same, but they shouldn't be hiding behind a corporate wall when doing so.

If a manager in the AL is opposed to the DH rule he doesn't bat his pitcher in protest, he takes advantage of how the system is designed, if and until it is changed.

Why can't conservatives get it through their thick heads that liberals don't want ANY monies unfairly influencing politics?

Rincewind53: They each donated $100,000... whoooooo. Good for them, that's soooo much. Meanwhile, Chick-Fil-A donated 2 MILLION against gay marriage.

False equivalency is false and stupid.

And AFAIK, Chick-Fil-A was only allowed to make that donation after Citizens United. Individuals could donate to PACs before that.

Has anyone mentioned yet that this effort is on behalf of expanded rights? They would be correct. Two ultra-rich white patriots, some would say.

Lord_Baull: Why can't conservatives get it through their thick heads that liberals don't want ANY monies unfairly influencing politics?

is the Gates contribution unfairly influencing politics?

Would you have asked Reagan to unilaterally disarm before the Cold War ended?

whatsupchuck: Has anyone mentioned yet that this effort is on behalf of expanded rights? They would be correct. Two ultra-rich white patriots, some would say.

"expanded" rights is loaded phrasing. This is for equal rights.

Tor_Eckman: Here's the thing, dumbmitter-You can believe that campaign finance reform is desperately needed in our system, while not having a problem with fighting fire with fire under the current system.

I know that's a complicated thing to understand for a pea-brain, but if you try really hard you might be able to get it. If you get off of the crack pipe, you may even be able to grasp the concept of the false equivalence fallacy someday, too.

You sound like you need to get laid

Good on Balmer and Gates.

Doing the right thing is an act worthy of kudos.

/Loving that trolltastic false equivalency headline. btw.
//That'll pull the punters in.

Actually it does show the need to keep money out of politics. But as long as people can influence elections for greed I don't see why they can't do it for good.

Sauce for the goose - sauce for the gander.
Suck it, contards.

whatsupchuck: Has anyone mentioned yet that this effort is on behalf of expanded rights? They would be correct. Two ultra-rich white patriots, some would say.

Kind of like how we expanded the rights of straight people by allowing them to get preferential treatment from the government when they got married to each other, right?

skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: Why can't conservatives get it through their thick heads that liberals don't want ANY monies unfairly influencing politics?

is the Gates contribution unfairly influencing politics?


Are they donating to a specific politician? No.
I said "unfairly." Full disclosure is not unfair in my book.

Serious Black: whatsupchuck: Has anyone mentioned yet that this effort is on behalf of expanded rights? They would be correct. Two ultra-rich white patriots, some would say.

Kind of like how we expanded the rights of straight people by allowing them to get preferential treatment from the government when they got married to each other, right?


Or how we expanded the rights of black men to marry white women.

Rincewind53: They each donated $100,000... whoooooo. Good for them, that's soooo much. Meanwhile, Chick-Fil-A donated 2 MILLION against gay marriage.

200k is okay but 2 million isn't?

/facepalm

skullkrusher: whatsupchuck: Has anyone mentioned yet that this effort is on behalf of expanded rights? They would be correct. Two ultra-rich white patriots, some would say.

"expanded" rights is loaded phrasing. This is for equal rights.

Expanded in the sense that equal rights are currently being denied, I guess.

Is it just me, or is Bill Gates becoming a genuinely awesome human being as time goes on? It's an interesting contrast to Steve Jobs, who just turned into a huge soughed toward the end.

xtragrind: Rincewind53: They each donated $100,000... whoooooo. Good for them, that's soooo much. Meanwhile, Chick-Fil-A donated 2 MILLION against gay marriage.

200k is okay but 2 million isn't?

/facepalm

The point - you missed it.

Read first few paragraphs, but came to the conclusion that subby doesn't know what the fark campaign finance reform is. This type of special interest spending has been legal for a long time.

*douche towards the end

I so need a Nexus 7. The Kindle Fire's autocorrect just Brittas too many sentences.

Balmer and Gates are citizens. United.

Um, whose campaign are they supporting? ....

Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: Why can't conservatives get it through their thick heads that liberals don't want ANY monies unfairly influencing politics?

is the Gates contribution unfairly influencing politics?


Are they donating to a specific politician? No.
I said "unfairly." Full disclosure is not unfair in my book.

AFAIK all donations to specific politicians are public record, no?

whatsupchuck: skullkrusher: whatsupchuck: Has anyone mentioned yet that this effort is on behalf of expanded rights? They would be correct. Two ultra-rich white patriots, some would say.

"expanded" rights is loaded phrasing. This is for equal rights.

Expanded in the sense that equal rights are currently being denied, I guess.

that's better :)

ugggh... trollmitter gets a lot of bites quickly....


/just in case not a troll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equ ivalence

We should get money out of politics.

Until that happens, anyone who wants to donate money to support good things instead of evil ones, for once? Go nuts. Don't like it? Then you should stand with those of us who are interested in getting ALL money out of politics.

Slaxl: Once gay people can vote and are afforded full citizenship status they'll be allowed to buy things, and what do you think they'll buy? Microsoft stuff. This is rampant communism. Even Stalin agrees.

Shows what you know, the gays all buy from Apple.