I don't think that title means what you think it does.

Anyone else see his eyes darting constantly to the side? Kind of takes away from the point of his speech if he doesn't think it's important enough to memorize... Or is something else going on here? And isn't there equipment so the person can still look into the camera while he's reading a prepared text?

You'd rather he devote his limited time to memorizing a speech for video broadcast?

>> ^chtierna:
Anyone else see his eyes darting constantly to the side? Kind of takes away from the point of his speech if he doesn't think it's important enough to memorize... Or is something else going on here? And isn't there equipment so the person can still look into the camera while he's reading a prepared text?


Is that an attempt to deflect the discussion away from the extremely valid point he was making?

Look at it this way, would you like to see him holding a note and reading from it with his head down, occasionally looking up? This should be important enough to do right.

>> ^misterwight:

You'd rather he devote his limited time to memorizing a speech for video broadcast?

No. I agree completely with his point; in fact I think its so important that it should be done right.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^chtierna:
Anyone else see his eyes darting constantly to the side? Kind of takes away from the point of his speech if he doesn't think it's important enough to memorize... Or is something else going on here? And isn't there equipment so the person can still look into the camera while he's reading a prepared text?

Is that an attempt to deflect the discussion away from the extremely valid point he was making?

Hold the phone... how much did you get from Goldman again?

>> ^chtierna:

Look at it this way, would you like to see him holding a note and reading from it with his head down, occasionally looking up? This should be important enough to do right.


Maybe he should've just written it on his hand instead?

How about you do something about the fact that the minority can block the issue from being voted on?

So basically, he's saying there is nothing wrong with special interests and large corporations funding electoral campaigns, as long as they are up-front about it. Not far enough, Mr. Pres. The corporations doing the donating and advertising will simply use their money and vast marketing resources to appear as concerned citizens fighting for the common good. What should be done: propose legislation that completely prevents campaigns from recieving money from any business whatsoever. Including Obama's re-election bid in 2012.

Why do we allow elections to be such a money game in the first place?

Why don't we have some sort of public election website blog of some sort where candidates can post their campaign platforms and have their discussions and debates there for minimal cost?

I want to get rid of these ridiculous TV ads and phone campaigns, mailings and etc. If I want to learn about the election, I can either turn on the news or go to that fore-mentioned website.

I'm astonished anyone still takes this guy seriously. His administration--hands down the most corrupt in American history--has done nothing but build expensive new frameworks for both higher taxes and double-digit unemployment. He's a laughingstock to our very real enemies building nuclear weapons.

His discretion about money in politics is mildly amusing. BOTH sides are choked with cash from 'special interests' which are, in fact, US. The people!

Hurry, November 2nd.

REFORM CAMPAIGN FINANCING. THE END.

Don't they still have to answer to stock holders? I mean, the "books" would have to mention something about donations to "XYZ" foundation right? The idea itself seems kind of silly to me; like asking the CEO of old spice have to pop on the end of every commercial of side brands they own. Or like Ford's CEO having to come on at the end of a Mazda commercial and say, hey look, we own this really. With the internet especially, we have the power investigate things like this to a level unknown to man. I am all for holding large corporate interests at an arms length from manipulation capital hill, but a tap dance at the end of a commercial seems a bit much. And ultimately, it could undermine private donation anonymity which I consider a very dangerous road to travel. I still hold that we need to investigate if we want corporate charters to exist in the way they exist currently, as the seem to offer to much protection of liability from risk, but that is a subject of a different conversation.

O ya, and if anyone thinks that Demos are any less corporate stooges then Rep, then they are pretty fool hearty. You can bet your hindquarters pet sponsors of Dems will have some kind of exemption or get to write the rules, just like Goldman got to sentence their former competitor to bankruptcy and then purchased all their assets.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by VoodooV.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.