MAYDAY.US: Reclaim Democracy

Sharing on my FB page and website. Thanks, ScienceChic, for sharing this with us.

More nonsense, deception and outright distortion from the statists. SuperPacs do not fund campaigns. Regardless of how many times the left repeats this fundamental lie it will never become the truth. SuperPacs are independent expenditures. They are individuals and groups who have a common vision pooling and spending their own money to disseminate their political speech. That is the fundamental truth that the left refuses to accept.

The other fundamental truth that they refuse to accept is that this Union was never intended to be a democracy. It is instead a republic and all this talk about reclaiming a democracy that has never existed, which in fact was intentionally and purposefully avoided by the framers, is further expression of the disingenuous nature of the ideology they are espousing.

I know this one has been around the block a few times already, but also thought it appropriate in the present context.

Warning: salty language!

See how much the Democrat Senate Committee spent this election? Much more than the Koch brothers.

ZHawke wrote: I know this one has been around the block a few times already, but also thought it appropriate in the present context.

Warning: salty language!

Given the thread header that seems completely appropriate to me.

FredHayek wrote: See how much the Democrat Senate Committee spent this election? Much more than the Koch brothers.

Deleted.

Here's what I meant to say:

Campaign spending in the 2014 mid-terms by graph:

www.opensecrets.org/overview/

Here's a direct link to the above page's "Business-Labor-Ideology" split/breakdown:

www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php

Which proves what Z? That people donate to campaigns in order to receive a return on their investment? Every dollar that is represented in those graphs was subject to federal law maximums, every single dollar of it. If such isn't the case, then the graph is a lie because it includes individual expenditures and lumps them into the overall total spent by campaigns, which would be a disingenuous and deceptive tactic employed to create an illusion of that which doesn't exist, just as the lecturer did in the presentation SC provided the link to at the start of the thread.

PrintSmith wrote: Which proves what Z? That people donate to campaigns in order to receive a return on their investment? Every dollar that is represented in those graphs was subject to federal law maximums, every single dollar of it. If such isn't the case, then the graph is a lie because it includes individual expenditures and lumps them into the overall total spent by campaigns, which would be a disingenuous and deceptive tactic employed to create an illusion of that which doesn't exist, just as the lecturer did in the presentation SC provided the link to at the start of the thread.

The original response was to what Fred posted regarding Democratic Senate Committee spending vis a vis the Koch Brothers (or their PAC - not sure which really did the spending). A comparison like that, really, is disingenuous and misleading on its face - a false equivalency, if you will.

The link I provided was to a site I believe spells things out from an expenditure/money received perspective pretty well overall. Once again, I believe you are nit-picking something that you consider to be rational, when, in fact, it is anything but. I believe your "logic" is flawed. You believe mine is flawed. So be it.