• Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


MITT ROMNEY says "corporations are people"

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Reaction score
6
Points
258
Age
68
Location
Capitola CA USA
Website
Visit site
:confused:What more needs to be added from this corporate clone who wants to president? His arrogant defense of corporate tax breaks at the IOWA state fair this week is further proof what HE would do as president. You want a tax break? incorporate yourself and sell as much shit as possible. poor, disabled or retired? youre just shit out of luck.
This is the mindset of the GOP frontrunner. Yes, we must reelect Obama if, for no other reason, then to keep this mentality out of the white house.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Reaction score
6
Points
258
Age
68
Location
Capitola CA USA
Website
Visit site
i am sure as hell not jealous. i am successful and i dont need a corporation to tell me so. Corporations do not serve people, they serve the corporate interest. start with ExxonMobil, Omaha. what interests of the people were served by the massive oil spill in Valdez Alaska? what interests were served by BP during the enormous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? how did the Bwophal disaster in India , brought to you by Union Carbide Corp. serve the people? go read some history and get a clue, and some education. YOU NEED IT !! no, being successful doesnt make you evil. HOW you become "successful", as you put it, DOES MATTER. Ethics matter. Behavior matters. Intent matters. People matter. corporations dont give a rat's ass about People, except how to fuck people over to get their money. this is not success. this is EVIL.
 

lucidbass

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Posts
284
Reaction score
8
Points
53
This is the mindset of the GOP frontrunner. Yes, we must reelect Obama if, for no other reason, then to keep this mentality out of the white house.

Yeah uhh, Obama's got the biggest corporate backing for the whitehouse out of any 2008 presidential candidate and I'm guessing he is this time around as well (in fact, he gets the most donations from News Corps, the corporation that owns Fox News). Whether you're voting for Romney OR Obama, you will get a corporatist in the oval office. Party affiliation hasn't got anything to do with anything.

Out of the candidates running now, only Ron Paul or Gary Johnson have made an issue out of corporatism, but they're ignored by the media at large. Johnson doesn't even get invited to the debates.

Same shit happens in both parties. Hillary and Obama got all the attention, while decent politicians who look at the system itself like Kucinich are ignored.
 

vince

Gold Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,275
Reaction score
1,607
Points
258
Location
Canada
Website
www.XTube.com
Corporations are owned by people, run by people, worked for by people, pay people, give pensions & medical benefits to people.
All that is true, but it doesn't make them people and it doesn't confer on them the same rights as human beings.
 

B_enzia35

Banned
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Posts
866
Reaction score
10
Points
53
Location
Texas
Romney is not my guy.
Such sensationalist news! That's three companies out of thousands.
 

Mensch1351

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,163
Reaction score
187
Points
283
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
This kind of a statement merely reflects the thinking behind the Supreme's ruling on Citizen's United. To treat a corporation (consisting of thousands of individuals) like ONE person is absolutely ludicrous. What "resources" does any ONE person have comparable to an entire corporation? I know I know I KNOW -- Unions get the same treatment. But, Unions were specifically formed to benefit a LARGE number of people with good wages and benefits. A corporation has only ONE goal -- ONE mindset.... profit, profit, PROFIT!! And if PEOPLE especially stand in the way of making profit ----- a corporation is more like a horny teenager with a big dick with ONE thing on his/it's mind........screw anything and anyone you can to GET that ONE thing you want!! Decrease wages, hire 24 Chinese for what you pay ONE American, get OUT of paying "any" taxes if you can. While Unions may cry "Us, Us, Us" Corporations cry "ME, ME, ME!"

Now --- CoOps --- that's another matter!! HyVee, Graybar Electric. NO employee owned corporation would EVER EVER pay their "top" brass the over-inflated salaries that Corporations are getting away with. A CoOp is a Corporation which has ALL the owners in mind when the bottom line is profit.

Finally -- the fatal flaw in a Corporate mindset is that in their "singularly dick focused" enthusiasm for profit, they assume an endless supply of labor willing to work for pittance wages because they are in desperate need of a job! "We'll find somebody to REPLACE you" if you demand too much. And just "where" would their corporation BE without the thousands of hands and hearts that actually MAKE that corporation work?? Never undervalue the people who make your company work (THAT is simply a modern day version of slavery!!) -- never overvalue the top people who are supposed to be making the decisions in the best interests OF the corporation (THAT is the age old mindset of class entitlement)!

By the Way --- GREAT video out there entitled "The Corporation" I'm thinking of buying a copy and sending it to Mitt R!! (it's available for FREE for viewing from your PUBLIC Library!)

And really really finally --- I'd take a careful look at how Mr. Mitt treated the people who worked for him in the Corporations HE ran!!
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Reaction score
36
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Corporations are owned by people, run by people, worked for by people, pay people, give pensions & medical benefits to people. Stop being jealous of others' success. It doesn't make you evil to be successful.

When in the process of becoming "successful" you destroy the lives of others, I would think differently. Wal-Mart may create a lot of job opportunities for themselves, but eliminate lots of smaller businesses and kill other people's jobs in the process. And if you haven't been paying attention, many corporations these days are intentionally doing away with American workers so that they can either outsource the job overseas or hire cheaper workers and offer them fewer benefits.

But whatever, dude... all hail the might corporation and the barely above minimum wage job opportunities they bless our people with. Who knows, after 5 steady years of sweeping the floors and scrubbing toilets for $7.50 an hour, they may upgrade you to a greeter position at $9 and give you a pretty apron. "Welcome to Costco... I love you!"

Thank GOD I created my own company and became my own boss.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Reaction score
16
Points
53
Yeah uhh, Obama's got the biggest corporate backing for the whitehouse out of any 2008 presidential candidate and I'm guessing he is this time around as well (in fact, he gets the most donations from News Corps, the corporation that owns Fox News). Whether you're voting for Romney OR Obama, you will get a corporatist in the oval office. Party affiliation hasn't got anything to do with anything.

Out of the candidates running now, only Ron Paul or Gary Johnson have made an issue out of corporatism, but they're ignored by the media at large. Johnson doesn't even get invited to the debates.

Same shit happens in both parties. Hillary and Obama got all the attention, while decent politicians who look at the system itself like Kucinich are ignored.


I'm sorry, what nonsense is this? Where do these facts come from? Show me anything that says the News Corp is the primary corporate donor for the Campaign to Re-Elect the President and I'll shut up. Also, what you call "ignoring decent politicians" I call the necessary marginalization of the delusional and certifiable. If I weren't in the majority thinking on that, Ron Paul would have garnered double digit numbers at least... or if you combined one of the two times he ran together. His message is out there and no ones touching it for a reason.




JSZ
 

sargon20

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
22,157
Reaction score
31,233
Points
343
Location
Atlantis
By the Way --- GREAT video out there entitled "The Corporation" I'm thinking of buying a copy and sending it to Mitt R!! (it's available for FREE for viewing from your PUBLIC Library!)

And really really finally --- I'd take a careful look at how Mr. Mitt treated the people who worked for him in the Corporations HE ran!!

Great movie but your typical conservative is too busy jerking off :wank::wank: to Ayn Rand or Ronald Reagan memorabilia.

And why bother looking at how Mr. Mitt treats people? It can't be good if he treats his dog like this:

Romney's Cruel Canine Vacation
 

lucidbass

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Posts
284
Reaction score
8
Points
53
I'm sorry, what nonsense is this? Where do these facts come from? Show me anything that says the News Corp is the primary corporate donor for the Campaign to Re-Elect the President and I'll shut up.

Link

Also, what you call "ignoring decent politicians" I call the necessary marginalization of the delusional and certifiable. If I weren't in the majority thinking on that, Ron Paul would have garnered double digit numbers at least... or if you combined one of the two times he ran together. His message is out there and no ones touching it for a reason.




JSZ

A lot of people are touching it, actually. They're mostly just drowned out by the media. Free market economist Peter Schiff predicted the bursting of the housing bubble in 2004. He was ridiculed for it on live tv and then the bubble actually burst and no one is looking at him or other free market economists for the solution but are continuing the profilation of the fiat banking system. Which has been getting criticism by top economists since the Federal Reserve act of 1913.

Also, just because most people believe something doesn't mean it's true. Until recently, most of America still believed evolution was a lie. In fact, 40% still do. That's a hell of a lot of people. People in general just aren't very informed. And if Ron Paul's sources include America's very own CIA or economists that actually predicted the wallstreet crash of 2007, sources I can look up myself, I'm more inclined to agree with him. Nothing he says is crazy at all. At least regarding politics.

But, who cares that Obama bombed more countries than Bush (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and operations in Somalia)? He's not a Republican!
 

lucidbass

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Posts
284
Reaction score
8
Points
53
The problem with corporations is treating them like legal entities and allowing them the measure of influence and control in the government and on the market that they're allowed to have. Not that they're purely profit based institutions. Profit isn't evil. Monopolies aren't evil and big business isn't evil. It only gets evil when the same institution that is profitible, big and a monopoly gets there through (among other things) government coercion.

The Corporation was an ok documentary, but they tackle the problem completely wrong, citing 'deregulation' as the problem, while not touching on fiat banking at all. Central banks regulate the money supply and regulate the market by lending counterfeited money to large corporations. A lack of 'regulation' was never the problem. Because the same people that regulate money supply from the Federal Reserve's side also regulate government policy.

You'd fix things by letting the people, not the central bank, decide what is money (like they have for thousands of years), do away with corporations as a business form, and get rid of laws that restrict business (the anti-monopoly laws in place in America were lobbied by big corporations to phase out possible competition). The large gap between the rich and poor in America isn't due to the free market or the lack of distribution of wealth, but because the government distributes the wealth from the middle class to the top 10%.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Reaction score
16
Points
53
Alright, first of all, that article says "Political donations by News Corp., its employees and their families," which is more than semantically different than the impression your initial post gave (at least gave to me.) I've no doubt most major multinational conglomerates if polled in this fashion, would be split fairly evenly in their percentage of donations to Democratic and Republican candidates. Barack Obama is number one? Well... he is the President.

The other thing I'd like to point out? Not that I don't think a small group of people can be extremely effective but I question exactly how a staff of 34 people from the relatively new Sunlight Foundation composed and conducted such a comprehensive study (which, I can't find anywhere by the way.) Where did they get funding for something like that and how did they execute it? This would be a difficult and expensive thing for Gallup to do so I was curious if you had more on that.

Finally, my problem with these fringe candidates isn't necessarily their policies. End the war on drugs- fine, more transparency with the Federal Reserve? Absolutely. He has some... common sense ideas but so does my nanna. The difference between the two is that the public hasn't been told my nanna wants to eliminate entitlements, mothball half of the Federal government, legalize prostitution and all forms of drugs, return to the gold-backed dollar, and stands against things like the Bin Laden Raid and the Civil Rights Act.

Are some of those these an exaggeration? They are. But unfortunately in politics perception is reality and that's what the country that votes thinks of Ron Paul. Year after year after year he gives bloggers more fodder for the "What a crank" canon and regardless of how many people like you blame the "lame stream media" (seriously, why does anyone think that's clever?) for ignoring him... it wouldn't make any difference if they didn't; nobody with his history of statements get a honeymoon from the media and that's what it would take (24 hours for an entire election cycle) for the American population to even kind of consider him for President.

It's never, ever... ever gonna happen. That Michele Bauchmann has a better chance should really say something.
 

lucidbass

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Posts
284
Reaction score
8
Points
53
Alright, first of all, that article says "Political donations by News Corp., its employees and their families," which is more than semantically different than the impression your initial post gave (at least gave to me.) I've no doubt most major multinational conglomerates if polled in this fashion, would be split fairly evenly in their percentage of donations to Democratic and Republican candidates. Barack Obama is number one? Well... he is the President.

The other thing I'd like to point out? Not that I don't think a small group of people can be extremely effective but I question exactly how a staff of 34 people from the relatively new Sunlight Foundation composed and conducted such a comprehensive study (which, I can't find anywhere by the way.) Where did they get funding for something like that and how did they execute it? This would be a difficult and expensive thing for Gallup to do so I was curious if you had more on that.

I completely fail to see how polling employees of a corporation, admittedly a large one, requires an insane amount of resources and manpower. Depending on how you setup the poll, it could be done rather effectively through the corporation's and its subsidiary's email database... but their funding is available for the public on their website.

Finally, my problem with these fringe candidates isn't necessarily their policies. End the war on drugs- fine, more transparency with the Federal Reserve? Absolutely. He has some... common sense ideas but so does my nanna. The difference between the two is that the public hasn't been told my nanna wants to eliminate entitlements, mothball half of the Federal government, legalize prostitution and all forms of drugs, return to the gold-backed dollar, and stands against things like the Bin Laden Raid and the Civil Rights Act.

Are some of those these an exaggeration? They are.

All of those are exaggerations or false, even. He admitted that the only thing he could effectively do as president is bring the troops home.

But unfortunately in politics perception is reality and that's what the country that votes thinks of Ron Paul. Year after year after year he gives bloggers more fodder for the "What a crank" canon and regardless of how many people like you blame the "lame stream media" (seriously, why does anyone think that's clever?) for ignoring him... it wouldn't make any difference if they didn't; nobody with his history of statements get a honeymoon from the media and that's what it would take (24 hours for an entire election cycle) for the American population to even kind of consider him for President.

You've merely supplied a circular argument and haven't gone to the bottom at all about why his statements are out of touch with reality. Seems kinda pointless to use the same perception created by the media as the basis for why the media puts him in a bad light.

It's never, ever... ever gonna happen. That Michele Bauchmann has a better chance should really say something.

How unneseccary. When did I say he stood a chance to win?
 

houtx48

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,918
Reaction score
206
Points
208
When the corp was formed by Mittens former business pardner and funneled a few million into Rommney's campaign then abruptly dissolved for whatever reason, hide id of giver maybe, does this equate to the same as suicide in people world?
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Reaction score
16
Points
53
I completely fail to see how polling employees of a corporation, admittedly a large one, requires an insane amount of resources and manpower. Depending on how you setup the poll, it could be done rather effectively through the corporation's and its subsidiary's email database... but their funding is available for the public on their website.

Alright, just for logistics sake- take 34 of your closest friends from Facebook, head on down to Best Buy, and see how many of their 100 employees are even willing to tell you that they voted, let alone who they voted for and where, if anywhere, they donated money. I think you'll be surprised at how difficult getting people to relinquish that information actually is- and that's just retail. You're talking about News Corp, a considerably larger and politically charged entity, where no one would be under any obligation to discuss with anyone where they donated money, let alone where their family members donated money. My point in saying this that likely as not this wasn't a study- it was a sampling; out of 25 or 50 News Corp direct contributions, contributions from employees and their family members who voted and donated money to a campaign, that was the number they came up with... not exactly as accurate as calculating gravity. The Sunlight Foundation has 34 employees as of right now and they've only been around since 2006. For what you've quoted to be credible beyond reproach I'd need a little more data than what's been provided insofar as how they pulled it off.

All of those are exaggerations or false, even. He admitted that the only thing he could effectively do as president is bring the troops home.

Again, beside the point I was trying to make- I even went so far as to say they were likely exaggerations in some cases. But you Google his name for a list of quotes and what do you get but commentary from over the years on those topics, regarded in a way by bloggers and the media as "extreme" and out of touch with reality. That is his public perception to the people who are actually going to vote (rather than abstain after years of voting Green and getting nowhere) on election day. Which leads to the final point...

You've merely supplied a circular argument and haven't gone to the bottom at all about why his statements are out of touch with reality. Seems kinda pointless to use the same perception created by the media as the basis for why the media puts him in a bad light.

His own statements, where they have been quoted accurately and in full or not, have given the media all they need to eviscerate his credibility. The damage is done. It would have been the same story for anyone else commenting in the fashion he has commented on the topics he has chosen to engage over the years. If you want to be elected you have to play the game and regardless of whether or not his statements and stances on various governmental topics are sound, they've been presented in such a fashion as make it clear he has no ability to navigate the politics.


How unneseccary. When did I say he stood a chance to win?

You didn't. I'm saying that the damage to these candidates is done. Voting for them now isn't a vote for their issues so as to bright light to obscured and forgotten. It's essentially doing the same thing as writing in any other candidate you happen to think of as measured and reasonable (like my Nana); an effort completely in vain. Get a candidate who carries his common sense approach and hasn't been portrayed as somewhat crazy to the electorate successfully and we'll talk.




JSZ
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
840
Reaction score
3,439
Points
398
Age
43
Location
Pittsburgh
The citizens united ruling basically changed our electoral system from one person one vote to one dollar one vote.
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
840
Reaction score
3,439
Points
398
Age
43
Location
Pittsburgh
If corporations are people too, then they should be subject to the same income tax rates that we all pay and no special "corporate deductions" or loopholes.

Google paid 2% tax last year. If corporations are people too, lets throw google in jail for tax fraud.
 

Domisoldo

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,990
Reaction score
103
Points
193
Location
Pacific Northwest
:confused:What more needs to be added from this corporate clone who wants to president? His arrogant defense of corporate tax breaks at the IOWA state fair this week is further proof what HE would do as president. You want a tax break? incorporate yourself and sell as much shit as possible. poor, disabled or retired? youre just shit out of luck.
This is the mindset of the GOP frontrunner. Yes, we must reelect Obama if, for no other reason, then to keep this mentality out of the white house.

To have lived this long and still hold such a simplistic worldview... :rolleyes:

For one, what a presidential candidate may say to an audience of primary voters is likely to differ from what he/she may say to the general electorate and even more likely to differ from what he/she will do as POTUS.

See Obama. See Bush 2. See...
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Reaction score
36
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Google paid 2% tax last year. If corporations are people too, lets throw google in jail for tax fraud.

LOL! At least this way, private prisons can get their quotas filled much quicker and keep their profits without getting police in certain states randomly stopping people that look like an immigrant.
 

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Reaction score
17
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Website
Visit site
I think to some extent a corporation is a body, with a mind. If you issue one "Vote" to the company, who decides? I think it should be done by external polling third party style. Poll the employees of what they want, average out the numbers, and cast the vote in that set of perspectives.

But of course, that's only if you consider a cooperating entity a person, or vice versa.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Reaction score
6
Points
258
Age
68
Location
Capitola CA USA
Website
Visit site
there are many more than just 3 corporations who destroy our planet and the quality of our lives. if you would bother to check on corporate activities in the huffington post, for example, you would see why CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE. As to Obama, the wall street money is going for ROMNEY. look at the most recent financial reports of the candidates , including the President. Money speaks louder than media reports on charisma or impressions.
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
840
Reaction score
3,439
Points
398
Age
43
Location
Pittsburgh
I think to some extent a corporation is a body, with a mind. If you issue one "Vote" to the company, who decides? I think it should be done by external polling third party style. Poll the employees of what they want, average out the numbers, and cast the vote in that set of perspectives.

But of course, that's only if you consider a cooperating entity a person, or vice versa.

If you poll the employees of ANY large corporation about what they want, the results will be diametrically opposed to what the board of directors wants.

Guess who wins.
 

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Reaction score
17
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Website
Visit site
If you poll the employees of ANY large corporation about what they want, the results will be diametrically opposed to what the board of directors wants.

Guess who wins.

Bound to be the people, because the board would be bound by the third party decision, the board would only get a 1 per person count, just as each employee.

EG, 1000 people employed, 746/1000 want one thing, 254/1000 want another, .746 in favor of A, .254 in favor of B, or however the split goes between.

Final vote is cast officially by the third party after data collection is completed, if the board tries to alter it, all they do is poison their workforce with the bitterness of "You fucked us over, your company is doomed now". That is to say, if the board usurps a democratically based authority, the employees will flip them the bird and start throwing shoes in the gears.

If any board be so STUPID to not realize that it takes an OCEAN of people to achieve the POND of will of the board, they deserve whatever comes of it. Keep the rebellion tied inside the company, and the fat cats reap their just desserts if they try to taint a noble ideal.
 
Last edited:

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
840
Reaction score
3,439
Points
398
Age
43
Location
Pittsburgh
Bound to be the people, because the board would be bound by the third party decision, the board would only get a 1 per person count, just as each employee.

EG, 1000 people employed, 746/1000 want one thing, 254/1000 want another, .746 in favor of A, .254 in favor of B, or however the split goes between.

Final vote is cast officially by the third party after data collection is completed, if the board tries to alter it, all they do is poison their workforce with the bitterness of "You fucked us over, your company is doomed now". That is to say, if the board usurps a democratically based authority, the employees will flip them the bird and start throwing shoes in the gears.

If any board be so STUPID to not realize that it takes an OCEAN of people to achieve the POND of will of the board, they deserve whatever comes of it. Keep the rebellion tied inside the company, and the fat cats reap their just desserts if they try to taint a noble ideal.


LOL!!! How incredibly idealistic!


yeah, wouldn't work that way.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
If corporations are people too, then they should be subject to the same income tax rates that we all pay and no special "corporate deductions" or loopholes.

Google paid 2% tax last year. If corporations are people too, lets throw google in jail for tax fraud.

Google paid 2%? Damn, they got shafted! Most U.S. corporations don't pay ANY tax!

They need to get them some new accountants.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
For one, what a presidential candidate may say to an audience of primary voters is likely to differ from what he/she may say to the general electorate and even more likely to differ from what he/she will do as POTUS.


Obviously. But we have to go on something, don't we? If put to it, I'm likely to vote for the candidate who promises to help me over the one who promises to screw me.
 

B_enzia35

Banned
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Posts
866
Reaction score
10
Points
53
Location
Texas
If corporations are people too, then they should be subject to the same income tax rates that we all pay and no special "corporate deductions" or loopholes.

Google paid 2% tax last year. If corporations are people too, lets throw google in jail for tax fraud.
Can we throw the welfare people in jail too? Oh wait...
 

lucidbass

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Posts
284
Reaction score
8
Points
53
Alright, just for logistics sake- take 34 of your closest friends from Facebook, head on down to Best Buy, and see how many of their 100 employees are even willing to tell you that they voted, let alone who they voted for and where, if anywhere, they donated money. I think you'll be surprised at how difficult getting people to relinquish that information actually is- and that's just retail. You're talking about News Corp, a considerably larger and politically charged entity, where no one would be under any obligation to discuss with anyone where they donated money, let alone where their family members donated money. My point in saying this that likely as not this wasn't a study- it was a sampling; out of 25 or 50 News Corp direct contributions, contributions from employees and their family members who voted and donated money to a campaign, that was the number they came up with... not exactly as accurate as calculating gravity. The Sunlight Foundation has 34 employees as of right now and they've only been around since 2006. For what you've quoted to be credible beyond reproach I'd need a little more data than what's been provided insofar as how they pulled it off.

We don't know how they went about it, we don't know if they hired externally at all, we don't know if they used New Corp's internal datebase to reach the employees. Anything we say on the possibility or impossibility of this is pretty much speculation.

Again, beside the point I was trying to make- I even went so far as to say they were likely exaggerations in some cases. But you Google his name for a list of quotes and what do you get but commentary from over the years on those topics, regarded in a way by bloggers and the media as "extreme" and out of touch with reality. That is his public perception to the people who are actually going to vote (rather than abstain after years of voting Green and getting nowhere) on election day. Which leads to the final point...

I was trying to refute what you said before other people in the thread would go ahead and actually argue that he believes all of that.

His own statements, where they have been quoted accurately and in full or not, have given the media all they need to eviscerate his credibility. The damage is done. It would have been the same story for anyone else commenting in the fashion he has commented on the topics he has chosen to engage over the years. If you want to be elected you have to play the game and regardless of whether or not his statements and stances on various governmental topics are sound, they've been presented in such a fashion as make it clear he has no ability to navigate the politics.

In other words, you're celebrating the status quo. You're arguing what I'm arguing, except you agree with the notion that certain subjects shouldn't be touched simply because people don't like them and therefore, it's fair game for the media to ridicule these views. If you don't believe that reflects poorly on your country's political climate, then that's fine, but I'm very hesitant to agree with that.