← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 19389 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2005-08-02
2005-08-02 17:45 | User Profile
Why, the Jews who fund their campaigns, of course:
[url]http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050802/NEWS02/508020378[/url]
You have to read down. Goldman Sachs funds Evan Bayh, white gentile Democrat out of Indiana with presidential aspirations. Whatever for? If the clean-campaign gangs like Public Integrity or whatever its called are so interested in the influence of money over politics, you'd think they'd pick up on this. If Big Corp. is bad, is Big Jew?
[url]http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx[/url]
2005-08-02 23:39 | User Profile
The Jews no longer have any need to "influence" poleticians, all they have to do is to blackmail those in power. :whlch:
2005-08-03 00:56 | User Profile
In America corruption, in the form of campaign contributions, is legal. Politicians in this country are whores. Who owns them? Multinationals, billionaires, Jews.
2005-08-03 03:13 | User Profile
I really think the prohibition of private campaign donations, and their replacement with equal tax-funded campaign spending allowances for each candidate, would go a long way toward fixing such problems with the American political system. For example, let each presidential candidate get 1 million dollars of tax money to spend on campaigning, but NO private donations, private advertising, or any other such private contributions. That might be the only (peaceful) way to wrest American government from the hands of the Jews and the plutocrats. Let each candidate get the same amount of money to use to explain how he's defend the Constitution and be answerable to no special interest.
It's true that such a system would eliminate the influence of favorable lobbying groups, such as the gun rights lobby. But since gun rights can be guaranteed simply by the threat of force (and a little courage), there's really no need for a gun lobby. The same is true of other Constitutional liberties -- they should be defended by the threat of force, not by lobbyists who essentially have to bribe politicans for the privilege of keeping our rights. Screw that. Rights aren't something you beg for or pay for; rights are something you take.