Re: The Bloody Bush Family of Perverts

2738 Dead <zepp22112738@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Foxtrot <foxtrot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>2738 Dead <zepp22112738@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>Then you would favor getting rid of lobbyist favors and campaign
>>>contributions, right?
>>
>>No. Then only the extremely wealthy would ever get elected. And 
>>you libs' solution of publicly financing the campaigns sucks even 
>>worse. 
>
>No, I favor Clean Campaign laws, which make it possible for people of
>limited means to run for office.  

How are they going to get any exposure without public financing? 

>>The solution is to allow the contributions but with full disclosure. 
>
>Sorry, that doesn't work.  All that tells us is that candidate "A" is
>owned by the insurance companies, and candidate "B" by the real estate
>people.  There might be a candidate "C" who isn't a bought man, but he
>can't afford to mount an effective campaign.  

Then voters can reject candidates who take contributions from 
sources they don't like. For example I believe that most trial lawyers 
are ambulance chasing shysters, so I don't like candidates who are 
in bed with them. And I'm perfectly free to vote for candidate "C" if 
I like. 

The problem with your solution is that it ASSumes that voters are 
too stupid to research candidates on their merits and bases all of 
their voting on expensive TV ads. This is typical of liberalism--the 
belief that the public is too stupid and helpless to do what's best 
for itself and must be told what to do at all times. 

>>>Ah, but you want to KEEP it for the GOP, don't you?
>>
>>I don't believe in laws that only apply to one side. 
>
>No, you just want to keep corruption that heavily favors your side.

Bull. I don't seek to silence libs' sugar-daddy George Soreass.