Re: The Bloody Bush Family of Perverts

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

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

There should be NO public financing of campaigns. Fer chrissakes 
is big spending by Big Brother your solution to all of life's problems? 

If somebody wants to run for office, they can get off their ass and 
work for it. As a taxpayer, I don't want to be forced to finance the 
campaigns of assholes like David Duke or Al Sharpton. 

>>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?

Dunno and don't care. I don't waste my votes on Libertarians since 
Harry Browne, their presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, and 
other Libertarians said that America deserved to be hit on 9/11. 

Other parties like Libertarians don't have a chance in national 
elections anyway. If Candidate C wants any chance to be elected, 
he has to get the Dem or the Rep nomination. 

>>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"?  

There's a reason for that limited range of options. Everything 
outside of it are fringe kooks.