Here, here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Printable View
Here, here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
They are caught up in their great "debate" and forgot the substance of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
First intelligent thing said in this thread. :thumbs:
Good question. One of the reasons for this was that any candidate who refused to accept the money so he could outspend his oppenent would be ostracized. Voters would conclude that the candidate was trying to buy the election. What they didn't count on was the publics apathy. Instead of a popular outrage against Bush, people just ignored it. This has changed the whole electoral landscape. In fact public financing of campaigns is probably over now. Since Bush got away with it everyone will do it.Quote:
Why is there even an option to pick one or the other, and why does one get screwed by his decision, leaving the other the opportunity to take full advantage?
fyi the reason you can decline public funds was to allow for independent candidates and those with little name recognition to overcome this disadvantage.
The reason you have to choose one or the other should be pretty clear. If the purpose is to get the influence of money out of politics than giving a candidate public funds and letting him also raise his own defeats the purpose.
Clearly Bush is in real re-election trouble. He has already broken the tradition of both Dem and Repub accepting the public financing and its limits. Is it any wonder that he might do so again?
How do we know anything you ever say is the truth? You said anything is fair to say to get your candidate elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaxSon
I am remided of the quote:
Ones a born liar, the others convicted.
You are at least up front enought to have told us you lie.
And of course just last week you posted a link that you said "proves" Kerry has raised almost as much money as Bush
Which is it? Whats the lie and whats the truth?
You sir, are an 1d10t! I never said it was alright to lie...that's what you learned from your Clintonesque teachings.Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
I originally posted this thread to show people how petty and immature that the Demos are. I didn't start out calling names...I try to let people discover things out for themselves. Again, if he postpones his acceptance, then the convention will be a sham! And you're trying your best to make Bush look bad when in fact, Kerry is the one that looks bad...at least from this story's viewpoint.
I have posted links to back up my assertion that the Kerry camp (supported by such groups as the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org and the New Democratic Network) has actually outspent the Bush camp (supported by such groups as Citizens United and Club for Growth). See the link from CNN. I'm not making this stuff up. I'm just repeating stuff that anybody can find online from a reputable site...not from some highly partisan website...except for that John Kerry History Page which I think is a hoot. You however, continue to make up wild accusations and state them as if they are facts.
JaxSon, you can't even make one post that is supported by an unbiased source.
Here is the first line of a Yahoo search for the Club for Growth which you cite:
The Club for Growth
national membership organization supporting candidates who are advocates of the Reagan vision of limited government and lower taxes.
Category: Political Action Committees (PACs)
You said in reponse to the question of whether or not you support fair elections with the reply, and I quote:
"alls fair in loave and war"
and the link to cnn which you quote is actually this:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry continues to attack President Bush on gas and oil prices Wednesday
And it has some numbers that completely contradict your previous "facts" in your post.
And your link is not to CNN news. But to a politcal columnist.
No one else anywhere on Windrivers is attempting to quote biased politcal action groups as fact. No one else is intentionally lying. No one is providing links that have nothing to do with what they say they are.
You are unique.
Alright, back in your corners, both of you. Both of these guys are lieing slime, Bush and Kerry both combined are no better then the snot that just came out of my nose.
Can you prove that? Do you have a link?Quote:
Both of these guys are lieing slime, Bush and Kerry both combined are no better then the snot that just came out of my nose.
Yes, I doQuote:
Originally Posted by techs
Link is broken. But i like the url mysnotisbetterthanbushandkerrycombined.orgQuote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
How Dare you question the undisputed ruler and leader of the lounge?
All Hail the cleetus!!!! :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:
Another guy who's ready to drink the Kool-Aid for you Cleetus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camaro80z
LOL...good one! :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Hmm, after a little bit of research, Dubya did not accept public financing at the primaries level in the 2000 election either. He did accept it for the general election though. Declining public financing for primaries is rare, but has been done by several Libertarian and Republican candidates. No candidate has declined public financing for the general election. Now if Bush declines for the general election, then there is a very legit beef, but right now its all speculation. Right now it looks like Kerry is planning on being the first presidential candidate to ever decline public financing because he thinks that Bush might do it in a few weeks. Either that or he will push back his nomination several weeks and instead dismiss a tradition. Techs, I thought you didn't like this sort of reasoning from President's. Kerry is using the exact same reasoning for his current behaviour that Bush used to invade Iraq, except without all that past supporting precedents stuff.