Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#Campaign Cash Is the Gift That Keeps on Giving
6 views
Skip to first unread message
3026 Dead
Jun 16, 2012, 12:08:20 AM6/16/12
to
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11938-campaign-cash-is-the-
gift-that-keeps-on-giving
Campaign Cash Is the Gift That Keeps on Giving
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Bill Moyers & Company
15 June 12
f you’re visiting a candidate this summer and looking for a thoughtful
house gift, might we suggest a nice Super PAC? Super PAC donors have
money to spare, but it's democracy they're burning to the ground. Thanks
to the Supreme Court and Citizens United, they’re all the rage among the
mega-wealthy. All it takes is a little paperwork and a wad of cash and
presto, you can have, as The Washington Post describes it, a “highly
customized, highly personalized” political action committee.
It’s easy -- Super PACs come in all amounts and party affiliations. You
don’t have to spend millions, although a gift that size certainly won’t
be turned aside. Cable TV tycoon Marc Nathanson got a Super PAC for his
friend, longtime Democratic Congressman Howard Berman from California,
and all it cost was $100,000. Down in North Carolina, Republican
congressional candidate George Holding received a handsome Super PAC that
includes $100,000 each from an aunt and uncle and a quarter of a million
from a bunch of his cousins. Yes, nothing says family like a great big,
homemade batch of campaign contributions.
You can start a Super PAC on your own or contribute to one that already
exists. Super PACs are available for every kind of race - presidential,
congressional or statewide. But there are other ways you can help buy an
election. Look at the Wisconsin recall campaign of Republican Governor
Scott Walker. At least fourteen billionaires rushed to the support of the
corporate right’s favorite union basher. He outraised his Democratic
opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by nearly eight to one. Most of
his money came from out of state. More than sixty million dollars were
spent, $45 million of it for Walker alone.
Here are just a few of the satisfied buyers:
Wisconsin billionaire Diane Hendricks contributed more than half a
million dollars on Scott Walker’s behalf. Her late husband built ABC
Supply, America’s largest wholesale distributor of roofing, windows and
siding. Fearful the United States might become “a socialistic
ideological nation,” she’s an ardent foe of unions and, in her words,
“taxing job creators.” True to her aversion to taxes, she paid none in
2010, despite being worth, according to Forbes magazine, about $2.8
billion dollars.
Before he launched his crusade against the collective bargaining rights
of working people, Governor Walker had a conversation with Diane
Hendricks, in which she asked, “Any chance we’ll ever get to be a
completely red state and work on these unions… and become a right to work
[state]? What can we do to help you?”
Walker replied, “We`re going to start in a couple weeks with our budget
adjustment bill. The first step is, we`re going to deal with collective
bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and
conquer.”
And so he did.
Walker also hauled in checks for nearly half a million from the Texas
oligarch Bob Perry. He made his fortune in the home building business and
is best known nationally for contributing four and a half million to the
Swift Boat campaign that smeared the Vietnam War record of Democratic
presidential candidate John Kerry back in 2004.
In Texas, Bob Perry is known for his cozy relationship with the state’s
Supreme Court. He once gave money to every one of its nine elected
judges. And guess what? Those same nine judges later overturned an
$800,000 judgment against his building company for faulty construction.
Bob the Builder, who’s naturally eager for help in the cause of tort
reform -- that is, making it hard for everyday people to sue corporations
like his for malfeasance -- has so far given four million to the pro-
Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, and millions to Karl Rove’s
American Crossroads Super PAC.
Then there’s casino king Sheldon Adelson, who gave Scott Walker’s cause
$250,000. That’s a drop in the old champagne bucket compared to the $21
million Adelson’s family gave to the Super PAC that kept Newt Gingrich in
the race long after the formaldehyde had been ordered. According to The
Wall Street Journal, Adelson did not long mourn Gingrich’s passing, and
has now given at least $10 million to the Restore Our Future Super PAC
supporting Romney. By all accounts, what he expects in return is that his
candidate hold unions at bay and swear that Israel can do no wrong.
Next up on Scott Walker’s list of beneficent plutocrats: Rich DeVos,
owner of the Orlando Magic basketball team and co-founder of the home
products giant Amway, which, thanks to Republican leaders in Congress,
once shared in a $19 million tax break after a million-dollar DeVos
contribution to the Republican Party. He’s a long-time member of the
secretive Council for National Policy, a who’s who of right-wing
luminaries.
Let’s not forget cowboy billionaire and born again Christian, Foster
Friess, Rick Santorum’s moneyman, who told us about the good ol’ days
when womenwould “use Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it
between their knees and it wasn't that costly.”And Louis Moore Bacon, the
billionaire founder of the hedge fund Moore Capital - which in 2010 was
fined $25 million for attempted commodities manipulation. A big backer of
Romney, he, too came to Walker’s aid in Wisconsin.
So did Dallas oil and gas wildcatter Trevor Rees-Jones, who’s given
millions to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, in anticipation of another
administration as friendly to taxpayer subsidies for big oil as the Rove-
Bush White House. Last year, Rees-Jones’ company, Chief Oil, and a
partner sold to Chevron nearly a quarter million acres in northeast
America’s Marcellus Shale - the epicenter of the raging controversy over
fracking. Estimated price: one billion dollars.
We could go on and name more, but you get the picture. These are the
people who are helping to fund what the journalist Joe Hagan describes as
a “tsunami of slime.” Even as they and their chosen candidates are
afforded respectability in the value-free world of plutocracy, they can
hide the fingerprints they leave on the bleeding corpse of democracy in
part because each Super PAC comes with that extra special something every
politician craves: plausible deniability. When one of their ads says
something nasty and deceitful about an opponent - when it slanders and
lies - the pol can shrug and say: “Not my doing. It’s the Super Pac
that’s slinging the mud, not me.”
And that’s how the wealthy one percent does its dirty business. They are,
by the way, as we were reminded by CNN’s Charles Riley in his report,
“Can 46 Rich Dudes Buy an Election?” almost all men, mostly white, “and
so far, the vast majority of their contributions have been made to
conservative groups.” They want to own this election. So if there are
any of you left out there with millions to burn, better buy your
candidate now, while supplies last.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
gift-that-keeps-on-giving
Campaign Cash Is the Gift That Keeps on Giving
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Bill Moyers & Company
15 June 12
f you’re visiting a candidate this summer and looking for a thoughtful
house gift, might we suggest a nice Super PAC? Super PAC donors have
money to spare, but it's democracy they're burning to the ground. Thanks
to the Supreme Court and Citizens United, they’re all the rage among the
mega-wealthy. All it takes is a little paperwork and a wad of cash and
presto, you can have, as The Washington Post describes it, a “highly
customized, highly personalized” political action committee.
It’s easy -- Super PACs come in all amounts and party affiliations. You
don’t have to spend millions, although a gift that size certainly won’t
be turned aside. Cable TV tycoon Marc Nathanson got a Super PAC for his
friend, longtime Democratic Congressman Howard Berman from California,
and all it cost was $100,000. Down in North Carolina, Republican
congressional candidate George Holding received a handsome Super PAC that
includes $100,000 each from an aunt and uncle and a quarter of a million
from a bunch of his cousins. Yes, nothing says family like a great big,
homemade batch of campaign contributions.
You can start a Super PAC on your own or contribute to one that already
exists. Super PACs are available for every kind of race - presidential,
congressional or statewide. But there are other ways you can help buy an
election. Look at the Wisconsin recall campaign of Republican Governor
Scott Walker. At least fourteen billionaires rushed to the support of the
corporate right’s favorite union basher. He outraised his Democratic
opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by nearly eight to one. Most of
his money came from out of state. More than sixty million dollars were
spent, $45 million of it for Walker alone.
Here are just a few of the satisfied buyers:
Wisconsin billionaire Diane Hendricks contributed more than half a
million dollars on Scott Walker’s behalf. Her late husband built ABC
Supply, America’s largest wholesale distributor of roofing, windows and
siding. Fearful the United States might become “a socialistic
ideological nation,” she’s an ardent foe of unions and, in her words,
“taxing job creators.” True to her aversion to taxes, she paid none in
2010, despite being worth, according to Forbes magazine, about $2.8
billion dollars.
Before he launched his crusade against the collective bargaining rights
of working people, Governor Walker had a conversation with Diane
Hendricks, in which she asked, “Any chance we’ll ever get to be a
completely red state and work on these unions… and become a right to work
[state]? What can we do to help you?”
Walker replied, “We`re going to start in a couple weeks with our budget
adjustment bill. The first step is, we`re going to deal with collective
bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and
conquer.”
And so he did.
Walker also hauled in checks for nearly half a million from the Texas
oligarch Bob Perry. He made his fortune in the home building business and
is best known nationally for contributing four and a half million to the
Swift Boat campaign that smeared the Vietnam War record of Democratic
presidential candidate John Kerry back in 2004.
In Texas, Bob Perry is known for his cozy relationship with the state’s
Supreme Court. He once gave money to every one of its nine elected
judges. And guess what? Those same nine judges later overturned an
$800,000 judgment against his building company for faulty construction.
Bob the Builder, who’s naturally eager for help in the cause of tort
reform -- that is, making it hard for everyday people to sue corporations
like his for malfeasance -- has so far given four million to the pro-
Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, and millions to Karl Rove’s
American Crossroads Super PAC.
Then there’s casino king Sheldon Adelson, who gave Scott Walker’s cause
$250,000. That’s a drop in the old champagne bucket compared to the $21
million Adelson’s family gave to the Super PAC that kept Newt Gingrich in
the race long after the formaldehyde had been ordered. According to The
Wall Street Journal, Adelson did not long mourn Gingrich’s passing, and
has now given at least $10 million to the Restore Our Future Super PAC
supporting Romney. By all accounts, what he expects in return is that his
candidate hold unions at bay and swear that Israel can do no wrong.
Next up on Scott Walker’s list of beneficent plutocrats: Rich DeVos,
owner of the Orlando Magic basketball team and co-founder of the home
products giant Amway, which, thanks to Republican leaders in Congress,
once shared in a $19 million tax break after a million-dollar DeVos
contribution to the Republican Party. He’s a long-time member of the
secretive Council for National Policy, a who’s who of right-wing
luminaries.
Let’s not forget cowboy billionaire and born again Christian, Foster
Friess, Rick Santorum’s moneyman, who told us about the good ol’ days
when womenwould “use Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it
between their knees and it wasn't that costly.”And Louis Moore Bacon, the
billionaire founder of the hedge fund Moore Capital - which in 2010 was
fined $25 million for attempted commodities manipulation. A big backer of
Romney, he, too came to Walker’s aid in Wisconsin.
So did Dallas oil and gas wildcatter Trevor Rees-Jones, who’s given
millions to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, in anticipation of another
administration as friendly to taxpayer subsidies for big oil as the Rove-
Bush White House. Last year, Rees-Jones’ company, Chief Oil, and a
partner sold to Chevron nearly a quarter million acres in northeast
America’s Marcellus Shale - the epicenter of the raging controversy over
fracking. Estimated price: one billion dollars.
We could go on and name more, but you get the picture. These are the
people who are helping to fund what the journalist Joe Hagan describes as
a “tsunami of slime.” Even as they and their chosen candidates are
afforded respectability in the value-free world of plutocracy, they can
hide the fingerprints they leave on the bleeding corpse of democracy in
part because each Super PAC comes with that extra special something every
politician craves: plausible deniability. When one of their ads says
something nasty and deceitful about an opponent - when it slanders and
lies - the pol can shrug and say: “Not my doing. It’s the Super Pac
that’s slinging the mud, not me.”
And that’s how the wealthy one percent does its dirty business. They are,
by the way, as we were reminded by CNN’s Charles Riley in his report,
“Can 46 Rich Dudes Buy an Election?” almost all men, mostly white, “and
so far, the vast majority of their contributions have been made to
conservative groups.” They want to own this election. So if there are
any of you left out there with millions to burn, better buy your
candidate now, while supplies last.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
mr_antone
Jun 16, 2012, 6:47:07 AM6/16/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:08:20 +0000 (UTC), 3026 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
"Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh
Some things never change.
mr_antone
wrote:
Some things never change.
mr_antone
Fred E Brown
Jun 16, 2012, 12:10:01 PM6/16/12
to
"3026 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jrh0rk$aj6$1...@dont-email.me...
> http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11938-campaign-cash-is-the-
> gift-that-keeps-on-giving
>
> Campaign Cash Is the Gift That Keeps on Giving
>
> By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Bill Moyers & Company
>
> 15 June 12
BooHoooBoooHoooooo those horrible Super Pacs
> gift-that-keeps-on-giving
>
> Campaign Cash Is the Gift That Keeps on Giving
>
> By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Bill Moyers & Company
>
> 15 June 12
Setting the Record Straight on "Super PACs"
by Paul Sherman
August 19, 2011
As campaign season heats up, we are seeing the inevitable uptick in news
stories about campaign finance. The hottest topic this election seems to be
the increasing number of "Super PACs" that are forming to support or oppose
federal candidates.
"Super PAC" is the term that the media has adopted to describe what the
Federal Election Commission calls "independent-expenditure-only committees."
As the FEC’s label suggests, these are groups that raise money for the sole
purpose of making "independent expenditures," with is FEC-speak for ads that
support or oppose candidates but are not coordinated or prearranged with
those candidates in any way. As of this posting, there are more than 100
active Super PACs registered with the FEC.
Super PACs are a natural outgrowth of the U.S. Supreme Court’s campaign
finance decisions. The Supreme Court has held for over 35 years that
individuals are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of their own money on
political speech, and last year recognized in Citizens United v. FEC that
this right also extended to corporations and unions. Shortly thereafter, the
Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics won
SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which held that individuals could pool their money to
make independent expenditures. Together, Citizens United and SpeechNow.org
mean that groups of people—both individuals and associations—have a
constitutional right to pool their money to make recommendations directly to
the public about who they should vote for.
Unfortunately, given the complexity of campaign finance law, reporters often
make mistakes when describing what Super PACs are and what they can do. Here’s
a perfect example, from U.S. News & World Report:
[S]uper PACs can . . . pay unlimited amounts for "independent expenditures,"
and collect unlimited cash from corporations, nonprofit groups, and labor
unions, which would not otherwise be allowed, under the law, to make direct
contributions to a campaign.
This description is accurate up until the end, when it says that Super PACs
can use "unlimited" corporate and union money to make "direct contributions
to a campaign." In fact, Super PACs can’t make any contributions to
campaigns of any money, regardless of the source of that money. That’s why
the FEC calls them "independent-expenditure-only committees"—they’re only
allowed to make independent expenditures.
"Super PAC" is a convenient shorthand; "independent-expenditure-only
committee" is a mouthful. But that shorthand can be misleading. Super PACs
are not permitted to do anything that the individuals and groups that give
money to them would not be permitted to do if acting alone. Individuals can’t
give unlimited amounts of money to candidates, and Super PACs can’t accept
unlimited amounts of money to give to candidates. Corporations and unions
can’t give money to candidates, and neither can Super PACs.
Super PACs are a super-great thing for free speech and political debate, but
they don’t have super powers. They’re just groups that freely raise and
spend money on independent political speech—nothing more, nothing less.
http://www.makenolaw.com/psherman/220-setting-the-record-straight-on-super-pacs
Sid9
Jun 16, 2012, 12:14:47 PM6/16/12
to
"Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4fdcaf94$0$31290$bb4e...@newscene.com...
.
Yes, super PACs have the myth of non-cooperation with the candidate's
campaign....all it is is a MYTH.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3026 Dead
Jun 16, 2012, 12:21:45 PM6/16/12
to
America from those worthless Americans!
holle...@gmx.com
Jun 16, 2012, 12:25:52 PM6/16/12
to
Message has been deleted
Fred E Brown
Jun 16, 2012, 1:46:02 PM6/16/12
to
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jribdr$2bb$1...@dont-email.me...
Provide documents, e-mails, witness testimony, whatever else you have
to substantiate your claims. Try not to perjure yourself.
Dänk 42Ø
Jun 16, 2012, 1:47:01 PM6/16/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:47:07 -0500, mr_antone wrote:
> "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh
>
> Some things never change.
Not as long as people continue to allow their opinions to be influenced
> "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh
>
> Some things never change.
by advertising. Contrary to popular belief, television and billboards
can't FORCE you to buy anything.
Human beings have free will. If some people refuse to exercise their
free will and let the television think for them, then they have no
business complaining that our democracy is corrupt.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/MaxHeadroom?
from=Main.MaxHeadroom
"The world presented by the show was strange and unwieldy, full of
corporate greed, corrupt politics (elections to all political offices
were done via TV: each network hired a candidate, and the highest rated
network at the close of polling got their man installed), and a legal
system that could not possibly have worked (it was illegal to turn a
television off, books were banned in order to disenfranchise those who
couldn't afford pay-per-view educational TV, bloodsports were mainstream,
and trials for all but the rich and powerful were carried out in game
show format)."
Fred E Brown
Jun 16, 2012, 1:48:02 PM6/16/12
to
news:jribqh$dq3$6...@dont-email.me...
Lay off the beer and booze before posting, you might make more sense.
If you're going to flap your gums at least have something intelligent to
say.
If you're going to flap your gums at least have something intelligent to
say.
Fred E Brown
Jun 16, 2012, 2:03:01 PM6/16/12
to
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:u4ept7dnnspsj71rv...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jun 2012 11:10:01 -0500, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>BooHoooBoooHoooooo those horrible Super Pacs
>>Setting the Record Straight on "Super PACs"
>
> 43 individual have given 80% of the collected Superpac money
>
>>
>>BooHoooBoooHoooooo those horrible Super Pacs
>>Setting the Record Straight on "Super PACs"
>
>
> Think your vote means anything?
SuperPacs, FECspeak for groups that make independent expenditures for
advertising
that supports or opposes political candidates.
Now how does that steal my vote?
You overlook one major and critical factor, it's the voter who decides
elections.
A SuperPac can praise or condemn a candidate but it's the voters who
ultimately
decide the winner.
Now how about all those Hollywood notables pouring money into Obama's purse?
Sid9
Jun 16, 2012, 2:14:31 PM6/16/12
to
news:4fdcc604$0$31322$bb4e...@newscene.com...
The first incident was Romney asking a super pac to change their message.
The super pac complied.
It was front page stuff about two weeks ago
I predict there will never be a case charging collusion between a candidates
campaign and a super pac.
NEVER!
It's all a charade. Money talks. Money makes your vote count more if you are
wealthy.
The super pac complied.
It was front page stuff about two weeks ago
I predict there will never be a case charging collusion between a candidates
campaign and a super pac.
NEVER!
It's all a charade. Money talks. Money makes your vote count more if you are
wealthy.
Sid9
Jun 16, 2012, 2:16:54 PM6/16/12
to
"Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4fdcc9ea$0$31321$bb4e...@newscene.com...
In the real world the power of advertising in campaigns reigns supreme.
Christopher Helms
Jun 16, 2012, 2:17:57 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 5:47 am, mr_antone <mr_ant...@not.here> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:08:20 +0000 (UTC), 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11938-campaign-cash-is...
Actually, money is the unfiltered, raw bourbon of politics, and it is
turning our politicians into a bunch of inept, slobbering, staggering,
blinded idiots with holes in their brains and hatred in their hearts.
It has populated our Congress and Executive Branch with drooling sots
who cannot get their minds around anything beyond their next fix. It
has turned our elections into auctions and our servants into whores
who blather about birth certificates and madrassas while the country
decays. It has essentially legalized kickbacks, payoffs and bribery
and made voting a meaningless gesture. And the Supreme Court
apparently thinks there shouldn't be any limits on it.
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:08:20 +0000 (UTC), 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11938-campaign-cash-is...
turning our politicians into a bunch of inept, slobbering, staggering,
blinded idiots with holes in their brains and hatred in their hearts.
It has populated our Congress and Executive Branch with drooling sots
who cannot get their minds around anything beyond their next fix. It
has turned our elections into auctions and our servants into whores
who blather about birth certificates and madrassas while the country
decays. It has essentially legalized kickbacks, payoffs and bribery
and made voting a meaningless gesture. And the Supreme Court
apparently thinks there shouldn't be any limits on it.
Christopher Helms
Jun 16, 2012, 2:23:06 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 11:48 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2012 11:10:01 -0500, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
on" and persecuted by, well, pretty much everybody, have decided that
using unlimited money to swamp non Republican voices out of existence
is okay. They've been doing it on the radio for years while acting
like a persecuted minority. Stomping out dissent is kinda like the
"free market," just as long as they can rig the game so only they can
win.
> On 16 Jun 2012 11:10:01 -0500, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >BooHoooBoooHoooooo those horrible Super Pacs
> >Setting the Record Straight on "Super PACs"
>
>
>
>
> >BooHoooBoooHoooooo those horrible Super Pacs
> >Setting the Record Straight on "Super PACs"
>
> 43 individual have given 80% of the collected Superpac money
>
> Think your vote means anything?
The same Republicans who are constantly whining about being "picked
>
> Think your vote means anything?
on" and persecuted by, well, pretty much everybody, have decided that
using unlimited money to swamp non Republican voices out of existence
is okay. They've been doing it on the radio for years while acting
like a persecuted minority. Stomping out dissent is kinda like the
"free market," just as long as they can rig the game so only they can
win.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
mr_antone
Jun 16, 2012, 4:25:31 PM6/16/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:47:01 -0500, Dänk 42Ř <da...@kgb.su> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:47:07 -0500, mr_antone wrote:
>> "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh
>>
>> Some things never change.
>
>... Contrary to popular belief, television and billboards
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:47:07 -0500, mr_antone wrote:
>> "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh
>>
>> Some things never change.
>
>can't FORCE you to buy anything.
You just made that up, didn't you.
>
>Human beings have free will. If some people refuse to exercise their
>free will and let the television think for them, then they have no
>business complaining that our democracy is corrupt.
>
mr_antone
mr_antone
Jun 16, 2012, 4:29:00 PM6/16/12
to
The more money, the more free speech.
mr_antone
Phlip
Jun 16, 2012, 4:34:50 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 1:25 pm, mr_antone <mr_ant...@not.here> wrote:
for the economy!", one more round of propaganda before an election can
be enough to tip the scales.
Now let's hear all about how the same people buying politicians want
strong public schools, with comprehensive civics lessons!
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:47:01 -0500, D nk 42 <d...@kgb.su> wrote:
> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:47:07 -0500, mr_antone wrote:
> >> "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh
>
> >> Some things never change.
>
> >... Contrary to popular belief, television and billboards
> >can't FORCE you to buy anything.
>
> You just made that up, didn't you.
In a country saturated with disinformation, such as "unions are bad
> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:47:07 -0500, mr_antone wrote:
> >> "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh
>
> >> Some things never change.
>
> >... Contrary to popular belief, television and billboards
> >can't FORCE you to buy anything.
>
> You just made that up, didn't you.
for the economy!", one more round of propaganda before an election can
be enough to tip the scales.
Now let's hear all about how the same people buying politicians want
strong public schools, with comprehensive civics lessons!
Dänk 42Ø
Jun 17, 2012, 12:42:24 AM6/17/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:34:50 -0700, Phlip wrote:
> On Jun 16, 1:25 pm, mr_antone <mr_ant...@not.here> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:47:01 -0500, D nk 42 <d...@kgb.su> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:47:07 -0500, mr_antone wrote:
>> >> "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh
>>
>> >> Some things never change.
>>
>> >... Contrary to popular belief, television and billboards can't FORCE
>> >you to buy anything.
>>
>> You just made that up, didn't you.
>
> In a country saturated with disinformation, such as "unions are bad for
> the economy!", one more round of propaganda before an election can be
> enough to tip the scales.
Why are Obama-bleating leftards like you the only ones not susceptible to
> On Jun 16, 1:25 pm, mr_antone <mr_ant...@not.here> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:47:01 -0500, D nk 42 <d...@kgb.su> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:47:07 -0500, mr_antone wrote:
>> >> "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh
>>
>> >> Some things never change.
>>
>> >... Contrary to popular belief, television and billboards can't FORCE
>> >you to buy anything.
>>
>> You just made that up, didn't you.
>
> In a country saturated with disinformation, such as "unions are bad for
> the economy!", one more round of propaganda before an election can be
> enough to tip the scales.
propaganda?
3026 Dead
Jun 17, 2012, 12:58:10 AM6/17/12
to
comes armed with data and history, and who just simply babbles the latest
talking points from Drudge or Faux.
0 new messages