<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3429" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=046120617-31102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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 seen
that.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P dir=ltr><B><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face="Brush Script MT" color=#0000ff
size=5><!-- Converted from text/rtf format --></P>
<P dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=5><FONT face=Script><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
lang=en-us>greenBubble</SPAN> </FONT></FONT></FONT></P></FONT></SPAN></B>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2><B>Subject:</B> Re: [GCFL-discuss] FW: Is America Really Going to To
this?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>I found it interesting that yesterday's cartoon was actually about this:
<<A
href="http://www.comics.com/comics/grandave/archive/images/grandave2008183421030.gif">http://www.comics.com/comics/grandave/archive/images/grandave2008183421030.gif</A>></DIV>
<DIV><<A
href="http://www.comics.com/comics/grandave/archive/grandave-20081030.html">http://www.comics.com/comics/grandave/archive/grandave-20081030.html</A>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>~Lance<BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Discussion of the Good,
Clean Funnies List <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">To
coin a phrase, how come the Lance Media are always digging up
negative<BR>things to say about Obama, and hardly ever have anything negative
to say<BR>about McCain? There is an obvious media bias here.<BR><BR>But I'll
bite anyway. None of the money Obama is spending is taxpayer<BR>dollars, it is
all private voluntary donations. So its not "hurting" any<BR>class of people,
except those who chose to give it.<BR><BR>It would be nice to put elections in
an iron-clad straight jacket, where<BR>each candidate is assigned an equal
amount of money, and a specified<BR>amount of TV, radio, print media, and
internet time/exposure to make<BR>their case, with all other spending by
anyone and everyone prohibited by<BR>law.<BR><BR>For example, to be
even-handed about it, the Planned Parenthood ad which<BR>stops just short of
saying that Sarah Palin supports rape, and the<BR>BornAliveTruth.org ad which
doesn't even stop short of saying that Obama<BR>supports infanticide, would
both be banned.<BR><BR>The near impossibility of banning the "outside
commentary" ads, the<BR>reflex of any campaign to respond to or drown out such
ads, is one reason<BR>we've never accomplished this laudable goal. They always
find a way<BR>around whatever the latest law is. This year, the money is
staying out of<BR>the 527 groups who made headlines in 2004, running through
501(c)(4)<BR>organizations which don't have to disclose their
donors.<BR><BR>Also, while McCain is limited in what he can spend, the
Republican<BR>National Committee, an independent organization not connected to
the<BR>McCain campaign, is putting tens of millions of additional dollars
into<BR>the presidential race. I've gotten two mailings and at least four
taped<BR>phone calls from them, not counting what they spend on TV ads and get
out<BR>the vote operations. (No, the Democratic National Committee is
not<BR>putting equal money into the presidential race, for the simple
reason<BR>that Obama is doing so well with fundraising, the Dems can afford to
put<BR>their money into congressional and senate races. No virtue here,
pure<BR>self-interest, but it does make the net balance more
complicated.)<BR><BR>Another problem is that every minor candidate demands
equal time. Now<BR>with public confidence in both Democrats and Republicans at
an all-time<BR>low, it would be unfair and unwise to limit the public money
and air time<BR>to just these two. But it would be wierd and a real waste to
give the<BR>same 80 million dollars to every egotist who puts their name on
the<BR>ballot.<BR><BR>So far, we've got what we've got, and if a candidate can
tap the support,<BR>naturally they are going to make use of it. That doesn't
say a darn thing<BR>about what kind of policies they will work by if
elected.<BR><BR>I would like to see a much shorter election season, leaving
less room for<BR>all the ads and spending and such. Maybe a nationally
coordinated primary<BR>season starting no earlier than April 1, ending no
later than June 30, a<BR>mandatory two months of media silence over the rest
of the summer, and<BR>two months for each surviving candidate to make their
case in the fall.<BR><BR>The Supreme Court has found free speech issues in
many attempts to<BR>regulate campaigns. Depending on who is writing what law,
either the<BR>Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, or both, go to court
over this<BR>stuff. Republicans have historically had the edge on fundraising,
and<BR>therefore object to limits on campaign spending. So, Obama turned
the<BR>tables this year? The Republicans have no moral high ground to
object.<BR>Sour grapes. Not from you Lance, its your honest opinion, but
the<BR>Republicans really have no ground to complain.<BR><BR>Washington state
has made some interesting efforts to establish primaries<BR>which throw all
the candidates together onto one ballot, let the<BR>candidate list their party
affiliation, if any, and let any voter cast<BR>their ballot for any candidate,
then put the top two on the general<BR>election ballot. I like that. If the
top two are both Dems, or both Reps,<BR>so be it. If its one or the other, vs.
a Green, a Blue, a Purple, and<BR>Independent, or whatever, so be it. Its a
good example for the country.<BR><BR>Siarlys</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>
<table><tr><td bgcolor=#ffffff><font color=#000000>----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
This message and any included attachments are from Siemens Medical Solutions <br>
and are intended only for the addressee(s). <br>
The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or <br>
otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, <br>
copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may <br>
be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe <br>
you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and <br>
notify the sender by e-mail with a copy to Central.SecurityOffice@siemens.com <br>
<br>
Thank you<br>
</font></td></tr></table>