Re: The Bloody Bush Family of Perverts

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:37:15 -0700, Foxtrot <foxtrot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>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? 

they can still accept doggie biscuits from their cor****ate masters.
But if they do, they can't accept public financing.  The cor****ate
masters might not be as willing to dump money in with actual
competition and opposing points of view to content with, of course.
They hate democracy.
>
>>>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. 

If you've even heard of Candidate C.  Quick: who's the libertarian
candidate for your congressional candidate?  Did you have to Google?


>
>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. 
>
the problem is that the voters get a limited range of options.  Think
fast: when was the last time you heard a candidate use the term
"plutocrat"?  
>>>>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. 
--
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001       

Not dead, in jail, or a slave?  Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson