When everyone is shouting, the people will tune it out. When everyone is lying, the people won't believe anything being said At that point, it won't matter how much is spent. The sources of altruistic truth will assume more importance and the bought BS less.
Yes I blame Obama for allowing the fed to save our economy. Obama should have declared martial law and shot the federal reserve. And he should have instead declared printing of money is illegal. Furthermore, he should have let Detroit fail like Mitt recommended and allowed our economy to completely collapse. That way, the free markets of the survival of the fittest could have taken over and your gun locker would actually be worth something.
Now you've given up and resorted to the lowest common denominator -- the absurd. SamFisher tries this technique often, and it's very transparent and ineffective. You might get some of the more shallow thinking folks around here like mcmark or QdoublA to pile on and throw you a laugh or some other supporting comment, but don't confuse that with an effective argument.
Saying that someone lacks a valid, effective argument is an insult? An insult is more like Sweet Lou is one step above a chimp that has mastered sign language albeit with a inferior work ethic.
Casey you're a smart guy, you know the insult in the post. anyway Super PAC Mega-Donors Freak Out About Media Attention... It's Like Dark-Ages Punishment! All they wanted was to get involved. But to hear some of the biggest donors of 2012 tell it, their six- and seven-figure contributions have instead bought them nothing but grief. Their personal lives are fodder for news stories. President Barack Obama and his allies have singled out conservative mega-donors as greedy tax cheats, or worse. And a conservative website has launched a counteroffensive targeting big-money liberals. This is definitely not what they had in mind. In their view, cutting a million-dollar check to try to sway the presidential race should be just another way to do their part for democracy, not a fast-track to the front page. And now some are pushing back hard against the attention, asking: Why us? “This idea of giving public beatings has been around for a long time,” said Frank VanderSloot, a wealthy Idaho businessman who donated $1 million in corporate cash to the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney and says he’s raised between $2 million and $5 million for the Romney campaign. VanderSloot, who is also a national finance co-chairman for Romney, was among eight major Romney donors singled out on an Obama campaign website last month as having “less-than-reputable records,” and he thinks the purpose is clear – intimidation. “You go back to the Dark Ages when they put these people in the stocks or whatever they did, or publicly humiliated them as a deterrent to everybody else – watch this – watch what we do to the guy who did this.”
No an insult is getting pawned by a chimp that hasn't even mastered sign language despite a superior work ethic. Which seems to happen to you a lot. Seriously dude - weak sauce. If you are going to try to insult me, at least use some intelligence and class in doing so.
I think this post has a LOT of merit. Especially with population turnover, you just don't have many people who take in media in an unfiltered way. How many people in their 20's and 30's really sit and watch an advertisement without adjusting the volume and looking at their cell phone for text messages (etc, etc.) My parents, in their late 70's, will watch a lot of TV and get fired up about the campaign ads, but none of my students will even notice it. The bigger problem is "the people won't believe anything," because we are basically there. Most people just cling to one or two core beliefs about the candidates, usually ill-founded, and go from there, advertising be damned.
It's like he wakes up in the morning thinking about you. My two cents: ignore it. When both of you engage, it really drags threads down.
Sadly, trillions of advertising money, marketing research and history do not support your naive optimism. Besides there are other means to spend money to influence elections besides than 30 second ads.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf The Supreme Court just doubled down on citizens united. 5-4 ruling reversing the Montana Supreme Court which upheld state restrictions on corporate spending in elections. Well so much for that hope...
Which will be subject to various elections in which unfettered unlimited $$$ cann be spent. Catch 22, we haz it!
Sickening. How the country isn't in an uproar over it I don't really understand. Oh wait, corporate news isn't allowing it to be. Got it.
Well, in fairness, the constitutional amendment process is utterly broken and unwieldy on its own terms.
SCOTUS said black people were property whether they were in a free state or not. Having 9 old mostly white dudes who all went to an ivy league school who probably have been living the good life for 40-50 years deciding the lives of the less fortunate with very little consequences just scares me.
