10-18-2011, 06:04 PM
I believe that the statement you're really looking for is:
"The difference between politicians and whores is that a whore will always give value for money."
My point was that, as usual, commentary about who gives money is often missing the fact that money is given to all of 'em. If you're attempting to point out that Romney is in 'the pockets of those Wall Street Monied Elite Bastards", then it's also important to read 'the rest of the story' and note that President Obama's campaign is supping at the same trough.
Oh, less slop, to be sure. And the 'well, he's accepted less money !' argument begs the question of 'so, he's just being rented, not bought ? '
Campaign funding, as a whole, is an ugly, ugly thing in this country. Especially after the SCOTUS saw fit to engender personhood to every .inc around, without applying the same campaign funding limits it applies to persons. Most politicians are corrupted by this process.
"The difference between politicians and whores is that a whore will always give value for money."
My point was that, as usual, commentary about who gives money is often missing the fact that money is given to all of 'em. If you're attempting to point out that Romney is in 'the pockets of those Wall Street Monied Elite Bastards", then it's also important to read 'the rest of the story' and note that President Obama's campaign is supping at the same trough.
Oh, less slop, to be sure. And the 'well, he's accepted less money !' argument begs the question of 'so, he's just being rented, not bought ? '
Campaign funding, as a whole, is an ugly, ugly thing in this country. Especially after the SCOTUS saw fit to engender personhood to every .inc around, without applying the same campaign funding limits it applies to persons. Most politicians are corrupted by this process.