[GCFL-discuss] FW: Is America Really Going to To this?
Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List
gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net
Fri Oct 31 12:08:32 CDT 2008
i think both questions are absurd. Siarlys does not have to show
anything bad about obama, since we've no doubt seen it already. We have
no reason to show anything negative about mccain, since he's no doubt
Subject: Re: [GCFL-discuss] FW: Is America Really Going to To this?
Yes, I'm quite excited about how Washington has made them all fight to
the bitter end to get on the ballet and nothing says both parties will
make it. Quite fun.
A quick note; I like how you dodged the fact Obama said he would limit
his spending (which would have made the first presidential campaign to
ever stay within limits, instead we're breaking records of the rich
spending their freedom of speech) but he never followed through with
that promise. McCain was given no choice but to not sign it because it's
a statistical fact that whomever spends the most wins.
I found it interesting that yesterday's cartoon was actually about this:
Why does the Siarlys Media only have negative things to say about
McCain? Why is it Siarlys, who said his goal was to get me to vote
Obama, hasn't kept up his end of the bargain and presented pro's and
con's for both sides?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> wrote:
To coin a phrase, how come the Lance Media are always digging up
things to say about Obama, and hardly ever have anything
negative to say
about McCain? There is an obvious media bias here.
But I'll bite anyway. None of the money Obama is spending is
dollars, it is all private voluntary donations. So its not
class of people, except those who chose to give it.
It would be nice to put elections in an iron-clad straight
each candidate is assigned an equal amount of money, and a
amount of TV, radio, print media, and internet time/exposure to
their case, with all other spending by anyone and everyone
For example, to be even-handed about it, the Planned Parenthood
stops just short of saying that Sarah Palin supports rape, and
BornAliveTruth.org ad which doesn't even stop short of saying
supports infanticide, would both be banned.
The near impossibility of banning the "outside commentary" ads,
reflex of any campaign to respond to or drown out such ads, is
we've never accomplished this laudable goal. They always find a
around whatever the latest law is. This year, the money is
staying out of
the 527 groups who made headlines in 2004, running through
organizations which don't have to disclose their donors.
Also, while McCain is limited in what he can spend, the
National Committee, an independent organization not connected to
McCain campaign, is putting tens of millions of additional
the presidential race. I've gotten two mailings and at least
phone calls from them, not counting what they spend on TV ads
and get out
the vote operations. (No, the Democratic National Committee is
putting equal money into the presidential race, for the simple
that Obama is doing so well with fundraising, the Dems can
afford to put
their money into congressional and senate races. No virtue here,
self-interest, but it does make the net balance more
Another problem is that every minor candidate demands equal
with public confidence in both Democrats and Republicans at an
low, it would be unfair and unwise to limit the public money and
to just these two. But it would be wierd and a real waste to
same 80 million dollars to every egotist who puts their name on
So far, we've got what we've got, and if a candidate can tap the
naturally they are going to make use of it. That doesn't say a
about what kind of policies they will work by if elected.
I would like to see a much shorter election season, leaving less
all the ads and spending and such. Maybe a nationally
season starting no earlier than April 1, ending no later than
June 30, a
mandatory two months of media silence over the rest of the
two months for each surviving candidate to make their case in
The Supreme Court has found free speech issues in many attempts
regulate campaigns. Depending on who is writing what law, either
Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, or both, go to court
stuff. Republicans have historically had the edge on
therefore object to limits on campaign spending. So, Obama
tables this year? The Republicans have no moral high ground to
Sour grapes. Not from you Lance, its your honest opinion, but
Republicans really have no ground to complain.
Washington state has made some interesting efforts to establish
which throw all the candidates together onto one ballot, let the
candidate list their party affiliation, if any, and let any
their ballot for any candidate, then put the top two on the
election ballot. I like that. If the top two are both Dems, or
so be it. If its one or the other, vs. a Green, a Blue, a
Independent, or whatever, so be it. Its a good example for the
This message and any included attachments are from Siemens Medical Solutions
and are intended only for the addressee(s).
The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or
otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing,
copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may
be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe
you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and
notify the sender by e-mail with a copy to Central.SecurityOffice at siemens.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the GCFL-discuss