Re: The Bloody Bush Family of Perverts

Foxtrot 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 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

They do. It's called a "primary"...

> 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.