They said what?

[Mr Mike]

"Enlighten people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of mind and body will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day"
--Thomas Jefferson--

 

[Mr Mike]

"Bush took a year round campaigning approach to governing at the expense of candor and competence"
--Scott McClellan--

And that's one guy who would know.
Welcome to the first step in your redemption, Scott. Do tell us more stuff that we already knew.

 

[Andy]

Your ad is exactly the kind of thing that is paid for by legalized bribes, otherwise known as campaign contributions, to mislead the voters. It is, as most ads are, a great example of using half truths and emotional advertising to sway voters who don't think for themselves. Voting against the death penalty makes him weak on terrorism? There is no connect there, as the maker of the ad well knows. The best question to be asked is not, did Obama vote against the death penalty, or even why did he do so, but who paid for the ad, and what do they expect in return?

So you side step all the information about has lax stance on murders, and instead want to know who paid for the ad... as if it matters to the facts presented... I suppose in your view, facts are determined by who paid for the ad?

Tell me, if someone gave me $10 bucks to say Obama voted against a bill for a tougher crime law, does that change how he voted on the tougher crime law?

As for the connection between lax stance on crime and a lax stance on terrorism... quite frankly, that's opinion. Sorry if you can't see that, but many people do see a connection there, as I do. Clinton for example, was in my opinion pretty lax on crime, especially given he was a felon himself. Shockingly, to others I suppose, he was pretty lax on terrorism, even allowing Osama Bin Laden to escape even though the Suadis offered him to us twice.

You and I don't have a voice based on contributions, as we, well I at least, don't have enough money for even one advertising campaign.

I donated about $30 a while ago to a group. That $30 is my voice, that joined with others who donated, the culmination of which is enough to purchase an ad campaign that speaks with our voice. If they eliminated that, how would I be heard at all?

Wouldn't it be much more informative to the voters for the politicians in question to have a debate on the subject of the death penalty? Such a debate wouldn't sway people who are adamantly for or against, but those in the middle would at least have a reason for their stance, and everyone would know the reasons why one pol or the other voted for or against.

Debates cost a lot of money. Who's going to pay for it? Can we trust who's going to pay for the debate, anymore than we can an ad? Moreover, given the divisive answers given in debates by politicians, do you think a debate would even cover the opposing views fairly? Can we trust the answers given? Al Gore completely fabricated a visit to Texas during the wild fires, as an answer during his presidential debate.

I'm not saying debates are bad, but at the same time, they are not an end all be all. What if my view on a topic isn't brought up in a debate? What do I do to let my voice be heard then?

And, of course, the sheeple who depend on worthless sound bytes to form their political opinions wouldn't listen to a debate, anyway. Their reaction, no doubt would be this.

How anyone could inform such people is an open question, but misinforming them via sound bytes is not helping the democratic process.

Well, like I said, I don't think that all are misinforming. That ad I listed was 100% correct. There is not one false claim made.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

For Bush-Style Oligarchs:​

"Gates insists he is not anti-rich, but that the competitive system that creates riches shouldn't start with an entire class of people way out front. The way to make the system fairer, he argues, is to prevent people from inheriting large sums of money (though, even with an estate tax, people will still be able to do that).

Gates decries the idea that the very rich are "heroes," who do it all on their own. "I know one of these guys," he says, "and the fact is, there is a lot of luck involved." The line gets a laugh. But Gates then moves to his favored point: Neither Bill Gates III, nor anyone else, "could possibly have achieved what he did, if he lived in West Africa."

He says that the wealthy in America are the product not just of brains and hard work, but beneficiarie$ of a stable government, a strong educational system, and often of government-funded research and technology. As the rich grow richer, they should expect to give something back."​

 

[Dr.Who]

2/3 of our nation's problems could be eased if lobbying was made illegal.

That would be a violation of the constitution.

BigOil, BigInsurance, BigPharmaceuticals...the three bastard children of capitalism coupling with amorality. The three that are killing our nation, literally..

And they have like a hundred other little cousins aspiring to be like them some day..

Someone's been drinking the koolaid.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Someone's been drinking the koolaid.

No DOUBT!!!!​

"I mean quite honestly I think people learn more from listening to Rush Limbaugh's show than they do in high school and college."​

​