[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by sicksubie

He didn't need any siblings, he had something better... The criminals that run ACORN.

OK, I shouldn't have taken that pot shot at the 2000 elections. Done is done, and you won't hear me claim that any election since has been any less corrupt than that one. The fact is the presidency is something that is sold to the highest bidder. Whoever spends the most, wins the race. Here's your evidence:

Originally posted by Motorsports-SVX
does her really still have supporters ?
or people just not ready to say they F"ed up...

From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ttee_list.html


So far the Democrat majority orgs have spent $19,144,762.


The Republicans majority orgs have spent $15,657,187.


(These are PACS)


Since the democrats generally have more registered voters, conservative liberty loving people need to try and even the odds. At least get the msg out.


If you are getting this msg and have not donated in a big way to one of the orgs on this group (like http://www.americansfornewleadership.com/ and http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/tv-ads/) I encourage you to do so. There is no limit to what you can donate to PACS.

I firmly believe we need to outlaw these PACS (including the financially insignificant MoveOn.org) and all private or corporate campaign contributions. That's over $34,000,000 spent to ensure that the political system is protected from any outsiders that challenge the status quo. Give each candidate a stipend to get their message across, and let the election be based on the persuasiveness of their argument, not the pervasiveness of it. Here's a link to all of the PAC contributions during the 2008 election Opensecrets.org. There's a scary amount of money being spent here in a political arms race (if they're running 15 commercials during the nightly news then we need to run 20).

As for my last paragraph, let me expand my argument. I'm no Obama apologist, in fact I have trouble seeing any fundamental change in economic policy since Reganomics began this horrible disparity in income (it still hasn't trickled down). Eisenhower, a Republican for those who don't remember, had some pretty good ideas about how to maintain economic mobility (moving up) and prevent stratification (rich getting richer, poor getting poorer). The Eisenhower Tax Plan placed a %91 income and capital gains tax on the wealthiest %1 of the population and used that to feed the hungry and heal the sick. Find me a Republican or Democrat who would back this type of plan. Oh, wait you can't, because as long as their next election is dependent on contributions from the 1 percenters they are just as beholden to the aristocracy as the rest of us.

I've said it before on here. These two parties are exactly the same. They have us focus on the minutiae of matters, that they honestly shouldn't even be involved in, to keep the people from noticing that they're all the same. Let's stop considering candidates as "the lesser of two evils" and start giving those who'll actually buck the system a chance to make things right.