quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

By Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy April 15 at 2:11 PM
A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_superpacs-830a_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Because its morally wrong thompson, regardless of how many people do it.

And the fact that you couldn't even imagine that answer pretty much says a lot about you.


So you would be good with being tossed in prison for being on this site because some may find it morallyy wrong.
For someone who is constantly pimping the libratarian model you seem to be backsliding into a desire for a "dictatorship of the moral majority".
Which, by the way, is what I have always suspected of your adolescent perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

I am in a smiting mood tonightLucylastic Understand that many are too far gone with the mange and the fleas and bubonic plague

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
The thing to do is encourage governments to instigate programs to reduce the population to levels they can support.
Butch

That's kinda chilling there, Butch.

I think there would be little argument that birth control is necessary in countries that cannot feed their people...There should be no politically correct over this issue.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Actually, my moral philosophy is based upon Liberation Theology.

quote:


Jesus Christ on a popcycle, search for your own damn links. Are you an idiot!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

By Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy April 15 at 2:11 PM
A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_superpacs-830a_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Nice way to try to resurrect a completely discredited meme.

Given the short attention span of the average voter you will no doubt succeed. However, if you look at pac spending in this election cycle - who were the people with the big donations. Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio. Ben Carson. Hillary Clinton.

Who were people without PACS: Trump, Sanders.

The idea that money buys elections is thus demonstrably, patently false. In the entire election to date, trump has spent less in toto than Hillary and allied pacs have spent in one month. Nor does sanders have a PAC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

You were doing okay up until we are the only nation able or willing to do it.

Resources - you are 16 trillion in debt (aye and the rest), owned by china, effectively china's wee bitch and its coming to get you
The moral obligation - Your nation is morally bankrupt and corrupt to the core and mentally paranoid - spy on its own people - everyone else in the world too

Yes the UK is 1.6 trillion in debt and we Adopt Gawd bless America Codswallop, for the sheople, blame it all on johnny foreigner and those, who our policies, have reduced to ruination or utter poverty with our political (fukemall)acumen and non astute arguments/debates scrounging bastards*

I could talk about food banks usage at an all time high in the UK, EU food mountains - Although farmers in many European Union countries are efficient and produce ... This basic system led to the infamous "butter mountains" and "wine lakes" (me want) of the whether my plums (you women know exactly what I mean) are so large are they are snow capped and is my man jizz the true elixir of life(Ursula Andress in SHE)....which you can buy on muffinbay essenceofmuffinman, a brew of utter wretch, for 4 bars of gold and a titty picture

As for the majority of the American electorate, also the UK electorate, simply lack the capacity and wherewithal - that word reminds of Withnail and I


You would make a good dalek

Timothy Dalton - Spitlord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

By Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy April 15 at 2:11 PM
A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_superpacs-830a_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Nice way to try to resurrect a completely discredited meme.

Given the short attention span of the average voter you will no doubt succeed. However, if you look at pac spending in this election cycle - who were the people with the big donations. Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio. Ben Carson. Hillary Clinton.

Who were people without PACS: Trump, Sanders.

The idea that money buys elections is thus demonstrably, patently false. In the entire election to date, trump has spent less in toto than Hillary and allied pacs have spent in one month. Nor does sanders have a PAC.

Sanders has every single one of them beat for single donations...it says so much for a "commie" candidate.
But money didnt buy the last election either, however sure they were that they had it in the bag.
But a lot of people lost a LOT Of money.... thats the only positive for me, and its going to be the same this year. Both are beyond dangerous. The infighting is gloriously horrendous.
Hils? she may well get it. but her dealings go hard against her in this tide of anti establishment sentiment, Bernie is riding higher, I dont see it helping, the whole systems a nightmare on both sides
The coming implosion is going to be nasty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Because its morally wrong thompson, regardless of how many people do it.

And the fact that you couldn't even imagine that answer pretty much says a lot about you.


So you would be good with being tossed in prison for being on this site because some may find it morallyy wrong.
For someone who is constantly pimping the libratarian model you seem to be backsliding into a desire for a "dictatorship of the moral majority".
Which, by the way, is what I have always suspected of your adolescent perspective.



And your erroneous extrapolation regarding both prison and 'dictatorship' is based solely on your warped perspective, absent any evidence, as usual.

No erroneous extapolation just your own words as proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I feel no child should be born when the parents do not have the resources to properly care for it... what do you think? This is not an abortion issue just common sense.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So you think making birth control drugs and devices available to the poor is elitist... I think it is wise... of course there is nothing wrong with encouraging the religious right to keep their cocks zipped up in their pants... all for it.

Butch