Patrick.net

Congratulations to Republicans for Citizens United

By iwog   Follow   Sat, 9 Jun 2012, 11:22am   6,790 views   61 comments
In Lafayette CA 94549   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

With money like this brainwashing Americans, it's only a matter of time until the government is 100% Republican again.

It's going to hurt every single blue collar (and most white collar) Republican voters more than you could possibly imagine. You'll blame it on the Democrats, but you'll deserve every last second of the horror that is coming. You are totally and completely fucked.

Enjoy it. You voted for it. You got it.

I await my tax cuts. The majority of my rental income is written off against depreciation on my homes so it will become tax free once the Ryan bill passes and capital gains taxes are cut to zero. Thank you.

GOP groups top Democrats in TV spending by far

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-groups-top-democrats-tv-spending-far-130628921.html

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 22-61 of 61     Last »     See most liked comments

1. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,576 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   22   8:39pm Sat 9 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   wthrfrk80 says Not sure I agree with you there...how does increasing the money supply NOT decrease the value of money? I explained it. Send everyone $1000 and you've got 300,000 million Americans creating demand for a $1000 product each. If production doesn't increase in response to demand, such as during stagflation in the 1970s, you get inflation. If however there's plenty of labor available, (like now) and plenty of capital available, (like now) you get a corresponding increase in production. $1000 x 300,000 million Americans + 300,000 shiny new widgets x $1000 each.......is a wash. There will be no inflation. I didn't understand this 5 years ago but my views have changed radically after watching Europe.

2. CaptainShuddup Follow Befriend (1) 250 threads 4,758 comments

   23   8:41pm Sat 9 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says It's going to hurt every single blue collar You mean because it's been a gravy train under Obama?

3. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   24   8:43pm Sat 9 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I guess if the banksters tell us we have to print money and give it to them in order to "save" the economy, I don't see why we can't print money and give it to everyone.

4. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,576 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   25   8:53pm Sat 9 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   CaptainShuddup says You mean because it's been a gravy train under Obama? Yes. Obama is FDR compared to what is coming under Romney. wthrfrk80 says I guess if the banksters tell us we have to print money and give it to them in order to "save" the economy, I don't see why we can't print money and give it to everyone. Giving money to everyone would actually work. Corporations would hire, unemployment would crash, the standard of living would rise, debt would be paid down, and we'd see a boom. Handled correctly, there would be no ill effects from this OTHER than a devaluation of dollars in foreign hands and interest rates going up a bit. Bonds would fall.......OH NOES!!! BONDS HAVE BEEN RISING FOR 30 YEARS DON'T LET THEM FALL!!!! That's a rich robber baron speaking. Republicans want to cut his taxes to 0%. Literally. No bullshit.

5. monkframe Follow Befriend 7 threads 187 comments Pacifica, CA

   26   10:21pm Sat 9 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Obama is not FDR. That's a major problem. FDR gave speeches in which he called bankers "banksters." That's accurate. What has Mr.Obama done? Given the banksters pretty much what they have wanted. Would I ever vote for a Republican such as Romney? Hell, no. But get out of the fantasy that one side is so much fucking different than the other, it ain't so.

6. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,576 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   27   11:18pm Sat 9 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   monkframe says What has Mr.Obama done? Given the banksters pretty much what they have wanted. Would I ever vote for a Republican such as Romney? Hell, no. But get out of the fantasy that one side is so much fucking different than the other, it ain't so. You didn't support your assertion in the least. I've given EXTENSIVE reasons why Obama is better than Romney in absolute terms that have never been challenged. Romeny's Supreme Court nominees would be radical right wing nuts while Obama's picks will be moderate. Instead of a laundry list this time, why don't you field this one? How many 5-4 decisions do you need?

7. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,498 comments

   28   11:27pm Sat 9 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Vicente says bob2356 says Capital controls, travel restrictions, and a huge wealth tax. It's always right before the end that this troika shows up. Obviously the USA ended by 1950 then. We had all 3 of those in spades. “Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt You are really going to have to explain that to me. A wealth tax is when the government taxes the value of everything you own, not just the increase in value. I am not aware of the US ever having a wealth tax. Property taxes could be considered a partial wealth tax, but that's local, not federal. You realize I'm talking about capital controls on dollars going out? The controls that existed in the 1950's were to restrict foreign currencies coming in. The entire Bretton Woods System could be considered a type of currency control, but the biggest problem in the 1950's was trying to get dollars out into the rest of the world because of the huge imbalance of trade, not restricting them. No one had their passport taken away that I know of in the 1950's, except perhaps accused criminals at risk of flight. Explain what overseas travel restrictions you are talking about. A wealth tax as a revenue measure of last resort, capital controls to avoid capital flight in advance of a financial collapse, and travel restrictions to avoid physical flight to avoid taxation certainly weren't in place in 1950 that I can think of. I am always willing to learn if they were.

8. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

   29   12:01am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   You worry too much. If the Ryan plan passes, it will just cause failure, which means that in the next election somebody with a more rational idea will be allowed in. It takes more than a few years (or decades) of shitty government to ruin everything. At least we aren't electing neo-nazis like greece.

9. futuresmc Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 387 comments Buffalo, NY

   30   2:42am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   inflection point says I think most of the blame belongs to the democrats. If your boy Barrack was not so busy trying to be "fair" while giving handouts to his handlers and redistributing weath in unsustainable ways then people would not be racing to vote republican. People are racing to vote Republican because they're frustrated that Obama can't get anything 'fair' passed. They elected Obama to do something, but he's unable to do it, and now they feel that anything is better than nothing, not realizing that there is far worse than nothing out there.

10. AverageBear Follow Befriend (1) 13 threads 345 comments Boston, MA

    31   6:04am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   iwog says With money like this brainwashing Americans, it's only a matter of time until the government is 100% Republican again. It's going to hurt every single blue collar (and most white collar) Republican voters more than you could possibly imagine. You'll blame it on the Democrats, but you'll deserve every last second of the horror that is coming. You are totally and completely fucked. Enjoy it. You voted for it. You got it. I await my tax cuts. The majority of my rental income is written off against depreciation on my homes so it will become tax free once the Ryan bill passes and capital gains taxes are cut to zero. Thank you. GOP groups top Democrats in TV spending by far ------------------------------------------------------- IWOG, so you get all we-wee'd up when your team can't raise more money that the opposition. What were you saying when Obama's Big Money machine was winning the game and was in full tilt back in 07-08? It's OK when your team is winning the 'big money game', but not OK when it's losing? Your team has been playing on a tilted field (to its advantage in the forms of ACORN and unions) for soooo long. What are you bitchin' about? Listen, for every Soros, there's a Koch brothers. For every Rove, there's a Michael Moore. I get that; I guess you don't. You act like the sky is falling now. Relax. It's OK that half or more of the population doesn't share your opinions. I've figured this out for myself in 2000, and live a much more relaxed life.... I think Charles Krauthammer nailed it on the head in his weekly column... ..."Why did the unions lose? Because Norma Rae nostalgia is not enough, and it hardly applied to government workers living better than the average taxpayer who supports them. And because of the rise of a new constitutional conservatism — committed to limited government and a more robust civil society — of the kind that swept away Democrats in the 2010 midterm shellacking. Most important, however, because in the end reality prevails. As economist Herb Stein once put it: Something that can’t go on, won’t. These public-sector unions, acting, as FDR had feared, with an inherent conflict of interest regarding their own duties, were devouring the institution they were supposed to serve, rendering state government as economically unsustainable as the collapsing entitlement states of southern Europe." Don't blame the messenger. Blame your team's message....

11. AverageBear Follow Befriend (1) 13 threads 345 comments Boston, MA

    32   6:19am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   iwog says Giving money to everyone would actually work. Corporations would hire, unemployment would crash, the standard of living would rise, debt would be paid down, and we'd see a boom. Handled correctly, there would be no ill effects from this OTHER than a devaluation of dollars in foreign hands and interest rates going up a bit. Bonds would fall.......OH NOES!!! BONDS HAVE BEEN RISING FOR 30 YEARS DON'T LET THEM FALL!!!! That's a rich robber baron speaking. Republicans want to cut his taxes to 0%. Literally. No bullshit. --------------------------------- IWOG, Aren't we already giving money to everyone already (except those that that are unfortunate enough to fall into the 50% of the population that actually has private-sector jobs and pays taxes)? By this I mean welfare, food stamps, EBT, assisted living, assisted heating, assisted cell phones. We were ALREADY giving people free shit during Bush, and way more during Obama, and guess what? IT AIN'T WORKING! Couple this w/ a country that makes less things that the planet wants, and you find us where we are today. It's that simple.

12. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,652 comments

    33   6:21am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   AverageBear says IWOG, so you get all we-wee'd up when your team can't raise more money that the opposition Give it up. Democrats want campaign finance reform, Replubicans want as much money in the game as possible. That's the bottom line. Romney says coporations are people. Obama says that Citizens United was a horrible decision. AverageBear says Relax. It's OK that half or more of the population doesn't share your opinions. That's the problem. We'll never know because all that money distorts the truth so people don't know what they are really voting for...

13. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    34   7:32am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Wealthy landlord Iwog comes here to pretend to be a populist to justify to himself that living off of unearned rentier income is ok and the world can be fixed by cheap political parties.

14. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    35   7:34am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says That's the problem. We'll never know because all that money distorts the truth so people don't know what they are really voting for... Either way, you lose.

15. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    36   7:35am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Yes. Obama is FDR compared to what is coming under Romney. R-money is bad. But your goldman sachs loving Obama is better? Lol. Illusion. Enjoy the unearned income we pay a much higher tax rate on so you can pay a lower rate on the same money.

16. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,576 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    37   9:17am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Mick Russom says Wealthy landlord Iwog comes here to pretend to be a populist to justify to himself that living off of unearned rentier income is ok and the world can be fixed by cheap political parties. My unearned income might be tax free if Romney wins. Instead of 15%, I'll pay 0%. Sound good? Vote Republican if that's what you want.

17. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,652 comments

    38   9:55am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Mick Russom says Either way, you lose. Actually, we'll all lose. It's too bad you don't realize it....

18. AverageBear Follow Befriend (1) 13 threads 345 comments Boston, MA

    39   10:26am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says AverageBear says IWOG, so you get all we-wee'd up when your team can't raise more money that the opposition Give it up. Democrats want campaign finance reform, Replubicans want as much money in the game as possible. That's the bottom line. Romney says coporations are people. Obama says that Citizens United was a horrible decision. AverageBear says Relax. It's OK that half or more of the population doesn't share your opinions. That's the problem. We'll never know because all that money distorts the truth so people don't know what they are really voting for... ------------------------------------- it sure as hell didn't distort Walker's recall election win. Walker had enough time to prove that the promises that he made good on (lowered taxes, and elimination of Wisco's 2+ Billion debt), would work. People saw that, and voted accordingly.... Again, I point to the book Freakonomics, by Levitt and Dubner, which proves w/ stats and history that $$, although important in elections, can't carry a lame ass candidate or referendum on it's own.

19. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,100 comments

    40   11:16am Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   AverageBear says $$, although important in elections, can't carry a lame ass candidate or referendum on it's own Yes, but your assertion here is worthless. All I hear you saying is that the 1000% more money behind Walker is not why he won. That's your opinion. I'll deal in facts if it's okay with you, and the fact is that we just don't know. But one thing any half way honest and objective person will admit is that unlimited corporate and billionaire money behind politicians is a problem (citizens united). I know I'm just an old conservative, but I long for the days when we could have long in depth anaylisis of facts and when critical thinking about issues was encouraged rather than our current trend toward distraction and corruption. By the way, isn't it fascinating that "citizen's united" has the name it does? It seems like the perfect name for a nonpartisan peoples movement against current trends, if and when the people ever wake up. Coincidence ? or is it just an indication of how much more on top of things the political right is than the non right.

20. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,652 comments

    41   12:23pm Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   AverageBear says it sure as hell didn't distort Walker's recall election win Come on now. Of course it did. Why else did the Reps spend so much then? AverageBear says Again, I point to the book Freakonomics, by Levitt and Dubner, which proves w/ stats and history that $$, although important in elections, can't carry a lame ass candidate or referendum on it's own. Walker is not a lame ass candidate. I don't think anyone would say that. Money definitely won this election.

21. AverageBear Follow Befriend (1) 13 threads 345 comments Boston, MA

    42   2:09pm Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   marcus says Yes, but your assertion here is worthless. All I hear you saying is that the 1000% more money behind Walker is not why he won. That's your opinion. I'll deal in facts if it's okay with you, and the fact is that we just don't know. But one thing any half way honest and objective person will admit is that unlimited corporate and billionaire money behind politicians is a problem (citizens united). ---------------------------------------------------------- Soooo, my opinion is worthless, but you'll stick to the facts (of those where.....you just don't know...(your words, not mine))....hmmm. OK. The 3 facts that I submit are these: - In April, Dems ran a chief Justice to the Wisco State supreme Court (with the hopes of striking down the law). She lost. STRIKE ONE! - In July/August, recall elections for state senators to overtake the Wisco state senate. They gained all of 1 seat - FAIL! STRIKE TWO! - Finally, last week, Scott Walker won (again). STRIKE THREE! So, how many times will it take to convince you that no amount of $$ that the Dems/Unions would have spent mattered? Or republicans spent? 3 chances, and the same results. Speaking of results, the voters/tax payers saw Walker's results: lower taxes, no layoff of teachers/firemen, and a 2+ billion dollar deficit turned surplus. I agree that $$ spent on campaigns have SOME influence, but not all of the influence. Again, I defer to a book called FREAKONOMICS, but Levitt and Dubner. Non-partisan statistician working w/ REAL data, and REAL campaign outcomes. I'm getting tired of this argument, kids.

22. AverageBear Follow Befriend (1) 13 threads 345 comments Boston, MA

    43   2:16pm Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says AverageBear says it sure as hell didn't distort Walker's recall election win Come on now. Of course it did. Why else did the Reps spend so much then? AverageBear says Again, I point to the book Freakonomics, by Levitt and Dubner, which proves w/ stats and history that $$, although important in elections, can't carry a lame ass candidate or referendum on it's own. Walker is not a lame ass candidate. I don't think anyone would say that. Money definitely won this election. ------------------------------------------------------ I wasn't referring to Walker as lame-ass. $$ will have some, but not all influence. Read Freakonomics. I have no financial gain by suggesting this book, but having a BS in Econ, having worked for the Center for Labor Market Studies(maaany moons ago), this book got my attention, and stats can't be refuted. You can paint your opinion w/ the broad brush in claiming $$ makes all of the difference in elections. You'd be half-right, at best. Read that book.

23. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,652 comments

    44   4:01pm Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   AverageBear says Read Freakonomics I have read it (more than once actually) and agree wholeheartedly that it is must reading for everyone. I don't claim that $$ wins every election, but I believe it made the difference in this one.

24. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 204 threads 4,416 comments Davis, CA

    45   8:19pm Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   marcus says By the way, isn't it fascinating that "citizen's united" has the name it does? A long time ago, a bunch of guys took the Greek word "kyklos" and put it together with the word "clan". The circle clan. Then in a rough fashion they called it "kuklux clan". However this didn't flow so well, so they started calling it the "Ku Klux Klan" which abbreviates as KKK. A name that wouldn't mean very much, except for the actions it's members took. Now it's a terrorist organization in many minds, as much as PLO. People who name SuperPACs go OUT OF THEIR WAY to obfuscate what their group is about. You can't call it "Lawyers Working for Legal Complexity" or "PR Flacks & Liars" that wouldn't sell on the street.

25. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,100 comments

    46   9:11pm Sun 10 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   AverageBear says Soooo, my opinion is worthless, but you'll stick to the facts (of those where.....you just don't know...(your words, not mine))....hmmm. OK. I didn't mean that your opinion is any more worthless than mine. But newsflash, opinions and facts are not the same thing, and the fact is we really just don't know whether he could have won without outspending the other side by such a huge amount. I didn't realize that this was that difficult to understand. All we know for sure is that walkers side spent tens of millions more. tatupu70 says I don't claim that $$ wins every election, but I believe it made the difference in this one. I agree that it may very well have. "Did Our Public Airwaves 'Win' it for Walker?" http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9336

26. zzyzzx Follow Befriend (9) 416 threads 4,138 comments Baltimore, MD

    47   9:37am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   iwog says Obama's picks will be moderate Not likely!

27. mdovell Follow Befriend (4) 28 threads 776 comments

    48   10:06am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   iwog says The trade deficit matters, however Republicans violently revolt against any attempt to reduce the trade deficit with tariffs and quotas. The trade deficit represents a flow of wealth away from our shores and an increase in foreigners having say in our domestic affairs. Um..and how exactly can we have tarrifs and duties fully knowing it would kick us out of the WTO? To argue that a trade deficit would matter is to suggest that somehow that the government takes a role or a command as to where products are made. The fact of the matter is much of what we consume is made here but one time buys aren't.. example Your car might be made in another country..but much of the gas is domestic Your fridge might be made in another country...but your food is mostly domestic Your computer might be made in another country...but much of the content and people you deal with in using it are domestic. We already tried a tariffs under bush when he did that with steel. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bush-relents-scraps-steel-tariffs We tried tariffs and then other countries did to follow us. Trade wars led us into world war two I don't think it is ethically right to suggest that tens of millions of people should die to improve the economy again. As for blue collar..what exactly is that these days? What is "middle class"? How does one sink into lower or get into high class? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/04/mitt-romney-s-advantage-square-frugal-identity.html

28. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,652 comments

    49   10:24am Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   mdovell says Trade wars led us into world war two I don't think it is ethically right to suggest that tens of millions of people should die to improve the economy again. Uh--I think you mean one, right? Because I think Pearl Harbor and Hitler had something to do with us getting into two. mdovell says To argue that a trade deficit would matter is to suggest that somehow that the government takes a role or a command as to where products are made. To think otherwise is a bit naive. The biggest problem with tariffs is not what you mentioned, but the fact that it would lead to a jump in inflation. Things would suddenly become more expensive here. I think it's probably worth it to get folks working again, though.

29. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,100 comments

    50   9:07pm Mon 11 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   CaptainShuddup says this is the first president where he is referred to as POTUS ??

30. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,576 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    51   2:30pm Tue 12 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   CaptainShuddup says The Liberals are so ashamed of Obama this is the first president where he is referred to as POTUS. But pronounced Poh-tuss, I remember right after the election, the Liberals were chastising everyone that called him Obama, and not President Obama, and labeled those folks as prejudice. Here the libs have a hard time calling him anything meaningful. The problem is, we need a new POTUS, this one is broken, it's got spit all over it, and nobody wants to play with him anymore. Whatever you do, don't give any reasons WHY. You'll destroy your perfect record.

31. CaptainShuddup Follow Befriend (1) 250 threads 4,758 comments

    52   5:24am Thu 25 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says With money like this brainwashing Americans, it's only a matter of time until the government is 100% Republican again. You've got comedy writers, writing speeches for Obama, he retorts not with a one line zinger but with a whole monologue. How dare you, talk about brainwashing. 80% of Obama supporters act more like they are voting for Richard Pryor than Richard Nixon.

32. American in Japan Follow Befriend (28) 149 threads 1,398 comments

    53   6:32am Thu 25 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   How bad would it get under Romney's austerity? Would there be widespread riots...?

33. JodyChunder Follow Befriend (3) 16 threads 1,379 comments Victorville, CA Premium

    54   7:18am Thu 25 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   American in Japan says Would there be widespread riots...? I don't see it. I think the kind of fervor necessary for widespread riot -- or better yet, meaningful, effective revolt -- hinges on unique generational dynamics and social trends that I just don't sense as being present. Occupy may have had its heart in the right place, but it was too little (far) too late, and has all but since fizzled. Besides, most Americans I encounter are nice lobotomized clones, readily credulous and thinking only about their next meal or which model BMW will impress the people they claim to hate; they are truly not terribly focused on matters of dominion or domestic policy.

34. gbenson Follow Befriend 16 threads 391 comments

    55   10:13am Thu 25 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   JodyChunder says I don't see it. I agree, most American's have blinders on and are simply too involved in their own lives, or that of their favorite reality TV star. Until they can no longer 'put food on their family', nothing will change.

35. Call it Crazy Follow Befriend 229 threads 2,786 comments

    56   10:20am Thu 25 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   gbenson says Until they can no longer 'put food on their family', nothing will change. "Put food on their family"?? How horrible... Is that like a Lady GaGa meat dress?? Maybe that's the problem... they should be "eating" their food..

36. dublin hillz Follow Befriend 12 threads 783 comments Dublin, CA

    57   10:21am Thu 25 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   gbenson says JodyChunder says I don't see it. I agree, most American's have blinders on and are simply too involved in their own lives, or that of their favorite reality TV star. Until they can no longer 'put food on their family', nothing will change. True, the "Victory Gin" is alive and kicking.

37. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,576 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    58   10:31am Thu 25 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   CaptainShuddup says You've got comedy writers, writing speeches for Obama, he retorts not with a one line zinger but with a whole monologue. How dare you, talk about brainwashing. 80% of Obama supporters act more like they are voting for Richard Pryor than Richard Nixon. Null post. No examples, no argument, just blind assertions. "Obama bad m'kay."

38. gbenson Follow Befriend 16 threads 391 comments

    59   4:25pm Thu 25 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   *meh* but I always thought we should give politicians an equal (and relatively small) amount of money. Whichever one can make more effective use of their very limited campaign resources and win would be the one I'd want with their paws in our treasury. Guess I am just one of those crazy liberals... When you have to spend a Billion just to get the job, spending another few billion of someone else's money along the way ain't gonna seem like a big deal.

39. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,191 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

    60   4:31pm Thu 25 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I agree. Publicly financed campaigns solve many (but not all) problems. Never heard the argument that the public campaign finance amount should be relatively small to see how they do with it. Good idea, and you'd think conservatives would also like the idea of someone who can demonstrate good financial management.

40. Goatkick Follow Befriend 6 threads 101 comments Clarendon Hills, IL

    61   1:33pm Fri 26 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Whoa !!!!! Iwog Are you thinking Romney is going to win this election ?

« First     « Previous comments