Very roughly. You and I affect elections, through our wit and perspicacity here. Say we rank about the level of a spit ball. Richard Mellon Scaife, who almost single-handedly invented Paula Jones, is about an armored division. Roughly.
The debate itself is useful, even if no practical plan is possible. It brings the voters eye onto the question and might provoke further questions. Where does the money come from?
And, of course, its not just “the rich”, which are handy metaphor. Who does the pharmacuetical industry back? Howzabout Big Oil? Those dastardly cigar-chomping labor bosses? Those Hollywood librals and their homo agenda? If we don’t allow moneyed interest to determine elections, why should we permit that they choose the candidates?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Good luck.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you. So, I can count on your unstinting support?
[QUOTE=Renob]
The article refers to a study he completed. And, yes, I’m well aware of Lott’s problems. But your attack on the man (and where he works) does nothing to refute the content of the study. Of course, considering your propensity towards name calling, I believe that you probably think that simply questioning the intellligence or motives of someone proves your point.
I have provided evidence, you have merely asserted your unsupported opinion.
Please point to where I ever said that about my former boss. I said that we, as staff, had no knowledge of contributors. I’m sure my boss did. I’m also sure that this knowledge never got to us. Since we did a lot of the day-to-day work, drafted the bill language, met with constituents and lobbyists, etc., I’d think that if the world worked as you claimed that type of knowledge would be posted in everyone’s cubicles. After all, since money drives the system, we all were working for the contributors, right?
They are, indeed, the truth. Not that it really matters. But I know that my knowledge of the system is far superior to yours. That is why I am trying to impart some of that knowledge to you, since your views have little resemblance to reality. Unfortunatley it looks like I’m making little headway.
Oh, I forgot, conservative and libertarian ideas only achieve success because a cabal of rich, evil men have bought off the system.
They are merely buying a forum to express their ideas. They are not buying power. Each person only has one vote.
Since you have asserted that people have some sort of right to an “equitable” expression of political views – a “right” which is made up out of whole cloth – you’ll have to forgive me if I decline to take a lesson from you about “rights.”
I’m glad you agree.
You tell me, since that is clearly what you thrive on here. Or am I being too “dense” again?
I dislike Rand, to be frank.
I don’t think inequity is a bad thing. People are different. People will use their god-given talents and intelligence differently. Equality before the law is a good goal; equality in economic outcomes is a recipe for totalitarianism. My view of freedom is that the government should give people as much of it as possible. As to my logic, I find it highly ironic that you think mine is “distorted” considering your track record here.
[/QUOTE]
Your track record of screw everybody ,no rules ,no regulation is a distortion. It has no basis in reality. I think you should follow something other than the Ferengi “Rules of Acquisition”.