If you thought the US Government was being bought before

[SSY]

If that's the case then you should give up on believing in democracy right now.

I already have, the stupidity of the general populace never ceases to amaze me. According to this, only 13 percent of Americans have opinions I would deem worth hearing about.

[Will]

Who did you vote for in 2008? What are your broad political beliefs? I'll bet $5 you voted against not only you own beliefs but your own self-interest because you were caught up in propaganda.

Typically I overlook grammatical errors, but I'm not entirely sure what you meant to say by that statement.  

Try saying it out loud.

[AlP]

Try saying it out loud.

[andrewclunn]

Who did you vote for in 2008? What are your broad political beliefs? I'll bet $5 you voted against not only you own beliefs but your own self-interest because you were caught up in propaganda.

Typically I overlook grammatical errors, but I'm not entirely sure what you meant to say by that statement.  

Try saying it out loud.

Ah, either you must have edited it right before I quoted you, or I misread it at the time.

Either way, I voted for Bob Barr for president in 2008.

[Jolly Sapper]

So you don't think that being able to control the messages of both your own campaign and your opponents through by having a monetary lock on all forms of communication affects the opinions of us unwashed masses?

Having a lock?  You can buy air time, but you can't unbuy opponents' air time.  people have real choices in media now with the internet.  They don't have to go through a controlled media source.

I'm no super genius, but there's no rule that says a politician cannot try to buy up more air time than his or her opponents.

I'm pretty sure there is no law (at least not at the federal level) that requires the arbiters of the public airwaves (TV, Radio, etc) to provide equal time for each politician or political cause.

I'm also pretty sure that there is no law that requires those same arbiters to provide a free platform for each side to display their own propaganda.

So think of it this way.  Who is going to have the money to buy air time?  The scrappy populist nobody from the backwoods who is tired of the way things are being done or the seated incumbent with his/her own well maintained support structure for fund raising and dissemination of messages?  My bet is on the incumbent, at least as far as who has the best access to resources.

Now take this one step further.  If a politician sits on a committee that creates/reviews/removes the laws regulating international trade, and that politician has a track record of not being an isolationist (pro reducing trade barriers to international trade) then would it not be in the best interest of a corporation that wants to get into international markets to dump as much money as possible into that politician's campaign coffers?  

Now its not guaranteed that a wealth or access to resources will instantly mean victory but its definitely a leg up over opponents without the same access to resources.  Just look at all of the "third" party's on the US ballots.  No matter how organized, they never seem to get the same traction or coverage by the media as the Demorepublicratician party.  

Without the resources of the "big two" the little folks aren't even registering on the political radar.

Now as far as the internet is concerned, its really easy to get a message out but at the same time its really easy for your opponent to counter anything you do put out.  With the speed that a video or online editorial or letter-to-the-editor can be sent a rebuttal will be just as fast.  SO who is going to be able to have a staff that does nothing but fill the interwebs with their message?  The little guy with a bunch of volunteers (most of them probably have jobs and other responsibilities that will slow down response time) or the well funded guy with a paid staff (which can be paid for due to the generous contribution of Merk, Exxon, Microsoft, or some shell company owned by a foreign country)?

[Prometheus]

I voted for Turd Sandwhich ya stupid Dueshbags.  

Anyone else see that episode of southpark? It sums up my feeling on the subject. We are only really given two presidential choices each term. The indipendants never really stand a chance. The two leading candidates are always in someones pocket and have their own agendas. As far as I can tell significant positive change rarely occurs in the U.S. I could name of a dozen bold and obvious moves which would benefit our nation right now.

[pinkocommie]

I voted for Turd Sandwhich ya stupid Dueshbags.   :yay: