|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 356 of 536:
| 
Nov 14 07:25 UTC 2003 |
maybe shoestring campaigns do better because they are closer to the
people who wear shoestrings ... sted loafers.... ????
|
scott
|
|
response 357 of 536:
|
Nov 14 13:38 UTC 2003 |
TS, your reverse-shoe-elitism is starting to get on my nerves.
|
gull
|
|
response 358 of 536:
|
Nov 14 14:00 UTC 2003 |
Re #354: The Clintons weren't trying to get people morally outraged
about the amount of money other campaigns were raising while raising
more money themselves. That seems to be what the Republicans are doing
at the moment.
|
bru
|
|
response 359 of 536:
|
Nov 14 14:57 UTC 2003 |
Where is that happening? I haven't seen any republicans showing moral outrage
at whet the dems are raising?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 360 of 536:
|
Nov 14 17:19 UTC 2003 |
Then take klg off your twit filter..
|
tod
|
|
response 361 of 536:
|
Nov 14 17:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 362 of 536:
|
Nov 14 18:17 UTC 2003 |
Do you think they are waiting for the right moment in the campaign to do that?
|
tod
|
|
response 363 of 536:
|
Nov 14 18:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
goose
|
|
response 364 of 536:
|
Nov 14 19:19 UTC 2003 |
I believe that GW Bush, Inc. would do *anything*, and I mean *anything*
(murder, treason, lie, cheat, steal, etc.) to get him re-elected.
So I find it easy to believe that they could be holding Sadam or Ossama
until just the right opportunity.
|
gull
|
|
response 365 of 536:
|
Nov 14 20:26 UTC 2003 |
I don't think they could keep something like that quiet. Too many
people would have to know about it.
|
klg
|
|
response 366 of 536:
|
Nov 14 20:55 UTC 2003 |
Outraged????
Who said that we were "outraged," Mr. mcnally?
Even if Mr. Soros succeeds in his campaign to make the Democratic Party
his wholly-owned we, quite frankly, do not care - so long as it is done
in broad daylight.
Among the problems of those who have a myopic concern with campaign
fundraising is that they believe it is possible to solve the "problem"
through legislation. In reality, it is not. First, because U.S.
citizens have a constitutional right to donate their money as they wish.
Second, despite whatever laws may be passed, human ingenuity is such
that they will be circumvented.
Thank you.
|
tod
|
|
response 367 of 536:
|
Nov 14 22:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 368 of 536:
|
Nov 15 06:08 UTC 2003 |
And the U.S. would leave when Saddam is found? I doubt that.
|
klg
|
|
response 369 of 536:
|
Nov 16 01:53 UTC 2003 |
Oh, Mr. rcurl!! You again disappoint us. Where is your liberal
compassion for the people of Iraq????
And on the mega-buck contribution front, the Democrats again score big.
Seems like their passion for fundraising limits only applies to
Republicans.
From The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer
By Stephen Koff
Plain Dealer Bureau Chief
November 12, 2003
WASHINGTON Peter B. Lewis, the Cleveland- based insurance billionaire
and philanthropist, has pledged more than $12 million to try to oust
President Bush from the White House.
|
jep
|
|
response 370 of 536:
|
Nov 16 03:45 UTC 2003 |
re resp:364: I think it's only possible to believe that if you're so
firmly against Bush that, no matter what he does, you're going to
regard it as wrong. A few people really do believe that way (about
the same number who felt the same way about Clinton, I would guess),
but they're not who I would go to if I wanted reasonable opinions
about politics.
It seems to me more of an indication of the divisiveness of modern
American politics than of realism about what a particular politician
might do.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 371 of 536:
|
Nov 16 04:07 UTC 2003 |
A $12E6 donation to the democrats is a drop in the bucket compared to
the $200E6 in Bush's bucket. It is the Republican's passion for fundraising
that requires the opposition's efforts. Why didn't Bush accept the original
fundraising limits? Greed?
|
jep
|
|
response 372 of 536:
|
Nov 16 05:04 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps the notion that he could do better in the election if he
didn't accept those limits?
|
bru
|
|
response 373 of 536:
|
Nov 16 05:59 UTC 2003 |
I doubt that all the republican money came from one source.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 374 of 536:
|
Nov 16 07:00 UTC 2003 |
re #371:
> A $12E6 donation to the democrats is a drop in the bucket compared
> to the $200E6 in Bush's bucket.
$2E8 / $1.2E7 ~= 17
I've never seen a bucket which only held 17 drops..
|
tsty
|
|
response 375 of 536:
|
Nov 16 07:26 UTC 2003 |
... re 371, 374 .. carter arithmetic, of course ...
it is good that two (maybe three later) capitalists donate their
'winnings' to the downtrodden politicians who have no vision nor policy
nor concept of 'new europe', teh 'new world', the better way.
facing abject failure is terrifying. it *seems* taht democrat cantidates,
aside from liberman and kerry, have not moved past 9/12/2001.
of course having kennedy barzenly lable black, female judges as
neanderthal helped the cause. did he burbble anything about hispanic
nominees? probably, but i missed his slur.
|
other
|
|
response 376 of 536:
|
Nov 16 18:15 UTC 2003 |
Casting Kennedy's 'neanderthal' remark as a racial slur is prima
facie evidence of a political agenda, if only because I know you,
TS, are insufficiently ignorant to actually believe that it was one.
|
gull
|
|
response 377 of 536:
|
Nov 17 14:30 UTC 2003 |
Re #371: It's an apples-to-oranges comparison anyway, since the
contribution wasn't to a specific candidate. I bet the Republican party
has raised a lot more money than just the $200 million Bush has.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 378 of 536:
|
Nov 17 17:35 UTC 2003 |
Imagine how indignant we'd all be if a single donor had given $12 million
in "soft money" to the Republican party and earmarked it for the upcoming
presidential campaign.
Call me a fool but I'd like to believe there's still room in politics for
people who believe standards are something you expect your own side to
abide by, not just your opponents.
|
twenex
|
|
response 379 of 536:
|
Nov 17 18:00 UTC 2003 |
You're a fool. "(i'm joking, but I do fear you may be being optimistic.)
|
gull
|
|
response 380 of 536:
|
Nov 17 19:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #378:
> Imagine how indignant we'd all be if a single donor had given $12 million
> in "soft money" to the Republican party and earmarked it for the upcoming
> presidential campaign.
I'm guessing that's already happened, many times.
|
