But you have no right to complain about who is in office if you don't vote, so you have to pick a side. It's like Captain Jack Aubrey said... Always pick the lesser of two weevils.

I've voted in ever election since I was 18.

Ahhhh...the elist that does't watch TV like all the little people, who thinks speech should be restricted to her particular vision of what is and is not acceptable...Perhaps you would like the New Black Panthers to fill out my ballot at the box for me, too.

Or, you can let the various super PACS put their attack ads out and I will do the research....like when Obama attacks Bain, I will do some research adn find out how many of Bain's investments (about 80%, I think...) were wildly SUCCESSFUL....and I will look at Obama's investments in private industry (Solyndra, for example) and see the abject failure of his choices...You see, rational, thoughtful human beings get information, engage their distrust, and then do research. The other sheople pull a "D" or an "R" lever no matter what the ads say...or they vote how their mod boss...er...I mean Union told them to.

Actually I don't watch tv because I'm never home at the same time every week. Easier to catch it on hulu or netflix.

I, personally, vote after reading and research like you, but we are the exception to the rule. I don't think everyone just pulls a R or a D since not everyone is a R or D there are independents.

The ads do have some effect or people wouldn't be pouring money into them.

Question: How does someone that doesn't watch any TV, is generally disengaged from the system, decide that the entire system is broken and corrupt???? Upon what FACTS is this childish statement made? And yes...I think it's childish, because it is the typical bullshit that people throw out when they are unhappy about a result ("I'm taking my ball and going home...this game sucks!")

Please provide some FACTS-BASED EVIDENCE to support the claim that the entire system is corrupt and that elections are won purely by money? Because...sorry....facts don't support the claim...

By the way, you ARE disengaged from the system, since a *huge*chunk of the political system is engaged in TV broadcasting. It's odd that you hate the TV ads you never claim to see....which is why i call bullshit...

Wait just answer me something first.. if the ads do nothing then why do people spend so much money on them.

I'll look up all the facts you want tonight, but I have things to do this afternoon that limits my research time.

As for ADs havign an affect....minimal at best once you make it to the general election. Obama is going to be thrown out because after 4 years he can't blame Bush any more and everyone knows it, everyone knows the economy SUCKS ASS, and it's his fault. It's the economy, stupid, as the saying goes...NOT the ads. Obama will outspend Romney...and Romney will win in a landslide. Mark my words.

Just because I don't watch tv now doesn't mean I haven't in the past.

Draugnar presented another Opinion Article. I will now present you with more recent news articles that I found here:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/acorn/index.html

In a report of the Congressional Research Service (http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/CRS-ACORN091222.pdf), reported in the New York Times here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/us/24acorn.html?ref=acorn), "You asked CRS to research improper voter registrations that resulted in people being placed on the voting rolls and attempting to vote improperly at the polls. As discussed, a NEXIS search of the ALL NEWS file did not identify any reported instances of individuals who were improperly registered by ACORN attempting to vote at the polls."

And despite your claim that ACORN has been convicted of voter fraud, I found that ACORN actually sued Congress for acting as "judge, jury and executioner" when there had been no "judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt" for ACORN. This was the "first time Congress had ever singled out one group for punishment" was when it denied ACORN funding. The United States District Court in Brooklyn ruled punishing ACORN without trial unconstitutional on 11 December 2009. This was however overturnned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on 13 August 2010 because "only 10 percent of Acorn’s financing was federal." What the twisted reasoning is that supposed to be?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/us/politics/12acorn.html?ref=acorn
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/politics/14acorn.html?_r=1&ref=acorn

09 and 10? Seriously. Try newer articles.

As far as opinion articles go, are you saying the WSJ would allow an opinion from one of it's editors without fact checking? 70 convicted. Opinion around it or not, is still 70 convicted and you can't argue the WSJ is a fringe news agency.

I'm through arguing with you. You look to 3 year old news stories to refurte the much more recent convictions. That is like saying a story "proving" the earth was flat and written in the 144th centure takes precedence over an OpEd piece on the significance of man circumnavigating the globe written in the early 60s.

You are a moron and I'm through responding here. Believe what you will. I'm just thankful you only get one vote.

krellin: I challange you to find one single quality television station in the United States. All of them (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and the propaganda-machine Fox News) would rather talk about the cat stuck up the tree or OJ Simpson's nephew's court case or play dramatic music pretending that they are doing something important than report about the "political system". And when they do report about "political system", they repeat the same four snippets of uncontextualized information four hours on end. And what sorts of political storied do they report? Anything important? Any international news? Any relevant corruption scandals? The answer is almost always no, no and no.

Draugnar: Your opinon article is from "September 16, 2009, 7:52 a.m. ET"!

And your idiotic opinion article claims that ACORN is going to get billions of dollars in stimulus money. WRONG: http://www.unknownnews.org/20096.html

And just look at how your article ends: "Yesterday, Republican Senator Richard Shelby called on Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to investigate Acorn. That's a good start, but the videos and Congressman Issa's July report suggest that a Justice Department criminal investigation is also needed. Meanwhile, the House and the Obama Administration should follow the Senate's lead and bar Acorn from receiving any more taxpayer money." In other words, there had been no substantial investigations at the time the article was wrtitten. Yes, I think the # 70 was taken out of that author's ass.

"But you have no right to complain about who is in office if you don't vote, so you have to pick a side."

On the contrary: it is people who *do* vote who have no right to complain. They have legitimized the system by participating and agreed to accept the results of the election, no matter what they are. Those who do not vote, however, are not participating in The System and as a result have every right to complain when a government they do not participate in does evil to them.

"Always pick the lesser of two weevils."

The lesser of two weevils is still a weevil. I for one do not want to be ruled by a weevil, and I really couldn't care less if it's the greater or lesser weevil.

Tolstoy: Spoken like a true anarchist, sir.

Then Tolstoy, I suggest you find another country. You don't have to vote for one of the main candidates. You don't have to vote for any candidate. But you do have to vote, even if just to abstain, to have a right to complain. Sorry, but those not willing to work within the system to change it, should either leave or STFU.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult issue to solve. As a worker, if you want to join a union, join a union. As a employer, if you don't want to deal with unions, don't hire people in unions.

@emfries - Where are you from? Employers aren't allowed to forbid unions from forming in an established workplace, so you second statement is patently false. And in some states, you can be forced to join a union in order to accept the job, making your first statement invalid.

I'm from the US. I'm just saying, in the hiring environment I would consider most *fair*, those would be the conditions. I'm Libertarian, no surprise lol.

But emfries, what you describe is not a union. If the person belongs before being hired and the employer is allowed to not hire them for that reason, then it isn't a union, just a professional organization - like being a member of a professional society. Not that I'm against that mind you, but your solution will never happen because of the right to assemble which guarantees unions can exist. Thankfully, no amendments that require membership in said unions exist, so right to work states can continue and limit unions capabilities to force membership.

@Draugnar first, my mistake on the terminology. Second, the right to assemble guarantees that these "groups" (which could either be unions or professional organizations, as you say) can not be prohibited by the government. It does not guarantee the right that the employers must deal with these groups; you can be in a group, but the government could discriminate based on your being in the group.

Again, all this is my ideals. Just another plug for a libertarian government :).

@emfries - Do you know what libertarian is (it's definition)? It is a form of anarchy. I'm a Constitutionalist, personally. But I believe in a living Constitution that, unfortunately, has damn near been frozen in time. It's time to revise it for the 21st Century.

"those not willing to work within the system to change it, should either leave or STFU."

Draug, I've wasted literally thousands of hours over the last 15 years trying to change the system from within. I think my sweat and tears (and a few drops of blood) have earned me the right to complain whether I vote or not for the rest of my life (and those of my grandchildren) if the sweat equity of pulling the lever every two or four suffices.

And anyway, the Paulistas are fighting to change the system from within - and you can see the price some of them are paying these days for a doubtful result:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/04/louisiana-gop-spirals-into-chaos-as-ron-paul-delegates-injured-arrested/

@Draugnar it's considered a form of anarchy, but it doesn't mean there is no government. It just means people are free to make almost all of their choices, and government intervention is limited to things like defense, protection of private property, etc. There are a few things the government controls, but no where near what they do today.

It's pretty backwards logic to say that if you don't like the system, you're not allowed to complain about it unless you try to change it from within the system. If you don't like the system, it's pretty lame to complain if you don't try to change it at all, sure. But if if you're trying to change it, whether from within or without, that's all that matters. This is pretty much like saying you're not allowed to complain about robbery being a problem unless you've actually been robbed, as though not directly experiencing robbery suddenly removes your capacity to recognize and critique the wrong that robbery perpetuates.