This is a great idea in theory, but what percentage of people are going to watch? Sadly, I doubt many Americans are going to pick a debate between local congress hopefuls over the Kardashians. I absolutely agree with what you are saying, political advertising generally adds nothing of value but I don't trust the American people to tune in for anything other than presidential debates.
Except I'm not "lying" since what I said is true.
See idiot, that election was so "obscure" that the Democrats & unions sunk over $2 million into it in their losing effort.
You can't respond to that so you'll attack things I never said.
While of course pretending you've caught me in some "lie"
By the way, what kind of moron do you have to be to actually believe the government is not corrupt, and would not be if the politicians running it could only take $100 donations?
Again, if idiots like this didn't exist, the right would have to invent them. That's how stupid people like the guesser are. You can't parody them.
Again, if idiots like this didn't exist, the right would have to invent them. That's how stupid people like the guesser are. You can't parody them.
Shame on Acebb for chosing the most recent election available. Are you kidding me. And you call that election obscure when it is just the beginning of what is to come. I don't "guess" you have figured out that some donate both ways. Stopping the campaign money will not stop the corruption either. Lobbying is the bigger problem, always was, always will be.
Dave,
thanks for the reminder that the guesser would be supremely comfortable living under the paradise established by Chairman Mao.
Anyway, here is a good read by noted 1st Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams about what the liberal SCOTUS justices really think about free speech:
What seems to me most surprising and disturbing about the ruling, though, is not to be found in the predictably much assaulted (and I believe sound) majority opinion but in the dissent. For there, for the first time, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan join with Justice Stephen Breyer’s minimization of long-recognized and well-established First Amendment interests by maintaining that, after all, the side seeking to overcome those interests had at least as strong a First Amendment argument on its side. In McCutcheon, that argument is based on the notion that the avoidance of whatever is defined as “corruption” strengthens the First Amendment.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-opposing-more-speech-a-disturbing-recurring-reality/
thanks for the reminder that the guesser would be supremely comfortable living under the paradise established by Chairman Mao.
Anyway, here is a good read by noted 1st Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams about what the liberal SCOTUS justices really think about free speech:
What seems to me most surprising and disturbing about the ruling, though, is not to be found in the predictably much assaulted (and I believe sound) majority opinion but in the dissent. For there, for the first time, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan join with Justice Stephen Breyer’s minimization of long-recognized and well-established First Amendment interests by maintaining that, after all, the side seeking to overcome those interests had at least as strong a First Amendment argument on its side. In McCutcheon, that argument is based on the notion that the avoidance of whatever is defined as “corruption” strengthens the First Amendment.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-opposing-more-speech-a-disturbing-recurring-reality/
Idiot. I decry BOTH ways. I'm not a partisan hack like you. Your prediction record is only slightly better than Wrong Way's so I think I'll wait and see what is to come instead of relying on someone with your track record. Lobbying is another evil, and perhaps the one thing you have some common sense on.
