On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:39:07 -0700, Foxtrot <foxtrot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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 the people aren't responsible for selecting their own candidates,
what are they responsible for? Just shutting up and buying stuff?
>
>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.
>
In other words, you want the system rigged so nobody you disapprove of
can have a fair shot at getting elected.
>>>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.
So you have a mediocrity who has been in office for 20 years and will
probably die there. Gosh, I remember when you were in favor of term
limits, too.
>
>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.
--
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
|
