Why LUV doesn't shit-hammer you for never posting "Positive" video clips from that area of the world, is astonishing.
I never said you had to post anything. In fact I was referring to the media had you bothered to look. Besides, I don't remember Rich saying quagmire after a few weeks.
I am talking about the lack of coverage of the troops and their courage and bravery. I'm talking about the lack of coverage of the attrocities we've uncovered. I'm talking about the towns and hamlets where life is flourishing. I'm talking about the places that are doing quite well in Iraq. We've seen the video of the Marine in Fallujah, but not aide worker Margaret Hassan. Why is that? I'm not saying every story has to be sunshine and roses because God knows it's not, absolutley not. I don't think the troops are saying that either. They just want the whole picture of what's happening or at least an attempt to do so. They've failed to do that.
We're talking apples and oranges. I'm not saying they want to be there. Nobody in their right mind would want to go to a war zone the same way a fireman doesn't want to run into a burning building. What I'm saying is that they are pissed off about the media coverage and still believe in the mission and see the progress we are making and feel it's worth it. Does it mean they would rather not be stateside ? Of course not.
Â
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 2, 2004 at 07:51am.]
WASHINGTON Â— Federally funded abstinence education programs that are used in 25 states contain false and misleading information about contraception, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases, a Democratic lawmaker said Wednesday.
..................
But a report from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said that 11 of the 13 most widely used programs underestimate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease, exaggerate the prevalence of emotional and physical distress following abortion, blur science and religion or get fundamental scientific facts wrong.
John Kerry has contributed a quarter of a million dollars to Washington State Democrats raising funds for a hand recount in the closely contested governor's race.
A machine recount gave Republican Dino Rossi a 42-vote lead over Democrat Christine Gregoire and Democrats hope a statewide hand count of nearly three million ballots will overturn those results. But the King County elections director, a Democrat, says a machine count is preferable because it is "more accurate than a manual count."
Kerry's $250,000 dollar donation still leaves state Democrats well short of the $1 million dollars they'll need to finance the recount.
Michigan's Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm is scrapping same-sex partner benefits for state employees, after voters passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and same sex civil unions. But a similar ban passed in Ohio hasn't stopped five public universities from continuing to provide health benefits to same sex partners.
Lawyers for the institutions say they're still reviewing the amendment, but they won't change their policy without a judicial ruling, adding that they're prepared to defend their decisions in court.
Hey, it's tough for bodine. Every day he gets up and has to decideif he's going to be a homosexual or not... he really needs the State to help keep him on the straight and narrow.
But then I started researching the magazine and found the cover stories were all about left-wingers. Kevin Spacey, Cybil Shepard, Danny Glover, Billy Crystal, Lauren Hutton, Jack Nicholson, Steven Spielberg.
My parents got more lefty as they got older. By the time they retired they thought Canada looked pretty good. Liberal as they were, they quit AARP because it was too radical for them.
They also said that Congresswould determine Taxation, did they not???
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several Stateswhich may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article I, section 9, Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Censusor Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Doesn't leave much room for an income tax now does it? Thus the need to undermine the original intent with the 16th ammendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
In essence, it is changing the income tax from a direct tax to an indirect tax. I find the following quote to be quite prophetic:
But the acceptance of the rule of apportionment was one of the compromises which made the adoption of the constitution possible, and secured the creation of that dual form of government, so elastic and so strong, which has thus far survived in unabated vigor. If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.
From the verdict in POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
As for the Republicans being in control and getting the blame for the debt, they still do not have enough of a majority to break a filibuster by the dems. For that matter, Robert Byrd (D-W. Va. ranking chairman of the Appropriations Committee) managed to bring home a whopping $298 million in 2003 alone. It is hardly the Republican's fault.
I doubt it, since they will eventually want to use it, themselves.
Why should the dems be the only ones to get to have all the fun? There may be a day when the Reps need it.
Nice choice GDubbya.
So when Clinton committed perjury it was just a personal matter that had nothing to do with his job, but now that it is a Republican president that all changes? Which way should it be Bill?
I didn't realize that you read Drudge Bill. This was a top story for him. By the way, didn't Clinton have a few that didn't make it for similar reasons?
Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."
They're oblivious.
It was they, and those like them (The extremists in the Democratic Party), are the ones that cost the Democrats the Presidential election.
Somewhere Gerorge Soros is having a very large cocktail. Sitting in the dark smoking cigarette after cigarette trying to wipe the grease stains off his t-shirt that says....... I spent 23 million on an election and all I got was this stupid t-shirt :)
Interesting story on Pariser, Rick. The Dems certainly caught on to the power of 527s much sooner than the Repubs did. Then McCain and Bush started yelling about regulating them. It's all so dumb. Money will out in a campaign season. They should be de-regulating it instead.
The only quibble I have is with the old canard about Repub money coming from large organizations. That has been over with for ages. The Repubs get much more money from individual donors than the Dems do.
and what percentage of their total did each get from individuals?
The original question concerned only the amount of money, but since you asked, according to the opensecrets links I posted above - President Bush got 74% from individuals and Kerry got 70%.
and how many actual individuals does that represent?
Unless I am remembering wrong (and correct me if I am), the most an individual can donate by law is $500. So $46,781,941/500=93,563.882. So at least 93,564 individuals gave more to President Bush than to Kerry. Probably more since not everyone gives the max allowed by law.
to say that the Repubs get more money from individuals doesn't mean much unless you consider these other things as well.
Yes, well considering the figures that I have posted, what does it mean to you now?
According to Political Money Line, John Kerry loaned his election committee $6,387,966. According to Opensecrets, he repaid himself $6,887,965. there is also a loan interest repayment of $60,433 paid to him, a loan cost repayment of $16,904 paid to him and a total of $83,332 paid to Mellon Private Mortgage, Pittsburgh, PA (place where he got loan on his house)Â for loan interest payments.
Just how much money did he make off this loan scam?
Unless I am remembering wrong (and correct me if I am), the most an individual can donate by law is $500. So $46,781,941/500=93,563.882. So at least 93,564 individuals gave more to President Bush than to Kerry. Probably more since not everyone gives the max allowed by law.
uh... 100,000 could give $10 each and still give only a tenth as much as 20,000 giving $500 each.
you can't determine how many gave by just how much was given in total.
President Bush did have 315,239 receipts from individuals and Kerry had 290,746 according to Political Money Line. Of course if you gave $10 10 times it would count as 10 receipts, but I really doubt that is much of a factor here. All the evidence points towards President Bush having more individual contributors.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 12, 2004 at 12:52pm.]
It's alright, just asking for a warning next time.
Any idea why they did that?
[Edited by on Nov 24, 2004 at 08:42pm.]
The enemy does shit like this:
Oh My God.
That is so disturbing.
Grandpa Dan Zachary 11/24/04 8:39pm
I have no idea why they did it. The narrative was in Arabic.
Why LUV doesn't shit-hammer you for never posting "Positive" video clips from that area of the world, is astonishing.
I never said you had to post anything. In fact I was referring to the media had you bothered to look. Besides, I don't remember Rich saying quagmire after a few weeks.
I am talking about the lack of coverage of the troops and their courage and bravery. I'm talking about the lack of coverage of the attrocities we've uncovered. I'm talking about the towns and hamlets where life is flourishing. I'm talking about the places that are doing quite well in Iraq. We've seen the video of the Marine in Fallujah, but not aide worker Margaret Hassan. Why is that? I'm not saying every story has to be sunshine and roses because God knows it's not, absolutley not. I don't think the troops are saying that either. They just want the whole picture of what's happening or at least an attempt to do so. They've failed to do that.
So, I respectfully disagree.
As do I. Like I said, ask the boots on the ground if they think the coverage has been fair.
Yeah?, If you've seen so many great reports, why haven't you shared any, Fold?
That's not your style, is it?
Bill,
We're talking apples and oranges. I'm not saying they want to be there. Nobody in their right mind would want to go to a war zone the same way a fireman doesn't want to run into a burning building. What I'm saying is that they are pissed off about the media coverage and still believe in the mission and see the progress we are making and feel it's worth it. Does it mean they would rather not be stateside ? Of course not.
Â
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 2, 2004 at 07:51am.]
WASHINGTON Â— Federally funded abstinence education programs that are used in 25 states contain false and misleading information about contraception, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases, a Democratic lawmaker said Wednesday.
..................
But a report from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said that 11 of the 13 most widely used programs underestimate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease, exaggerate the prevalence of emotional and physical distress following abortion, blur science and religion or get fundamental scientific facts wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140223,00.html
Why should anyone give a rip about anythign Waxman says?
Why should anyone care if the King is actually naked?
Just keep telling him how nice his clothes are.
and the phrase is "give a SHIT", not "give a rip", you prude.
[Edited by molegrass on Dec 2, 2004 at 09:21am.]
John Kerry has contributed a quarter of a million dollars to Washington State Democrats raising funds for a hand recount in the closely contested governor's race.
A machine recount gave Republican Dino Rossi a 42-vote lead over Democrat Christine Gregoire and Democrats hope a statewide hand count of nearly three million ballots will overturn those results. But the King County elections director, a Democrat, says a machine count is preferable because it is "more accurate than a manual count."
Kerry's $250,000 dollar donation still leaves state Democrats well short of the $1 million dollars they'll need to finance the recount.
crooked 'til the bitter end!
Michigan's Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm is scrapping same-sex partner benefits for state employees, after voters passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and same sex civil unions. But a similar ban passed in Ohio hasn't stopped five public universities from continuing to provide health benefits to same sex partners.
Lawyers for the institutions say they're still reviewing the amendment, but they won't change their policy without a judicial ruling, adding that they're prepared to defend their decisions in court.
Hey, it's tough for bodine. Every day he gets up and has to decideif he's going to be a homosexual or not... he really needs the State to help keep him on the straight and narrow.
Kinda like when crabhole gets up every day and has to decide what planet he's on?
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
In short, the AARP has become a liberal organization. Did you know that? I didn't know that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140986,00.html
well, if Bill O'Really said it, it MUST be true.
all about entertainers is more likely.
The AARP sure played lapdog to the current administration and Big Pharma regarding the prescription drug
scamplan. But hey, if O'Reilly says they're liberals, they must be, since, as he keeps reminding us, he lives in the No-Spin Zone©.I think that anyone who won't give Bill the cover story is by default, a liberal publication.
ego, thy name is O'Reilly.
The AARP sure played lapdog to the current administration and Big Pharma regarding the prescription drug
scamplan.And Bill admitted that. It is all the other positions that they take that show what they are.
My parents got more lefty as they got older. By the time they retired they thought Canada looked pretty good. Liberal as they were, they quit AARP because it was too radical for them.
and so what if they are?
being liberal is a good thing.
absolutely, for the times they were downright radical.
LOL
Â
Thom certainly wasn't conservative.
Yea like their stance on taxes.
requiring representation for your taxes isn't conservative.
They also said that Congresswould determine Taxation, did they not???
Doesn't leave much room for an income tax now does it? Thus the need to undermine the original intent with the 16th ammendment:
In essence, it is changing the income tax from a direct tax to an indirect tax. I find the following quote to be quite prophetic:
As for the Republicans being in control and getting the blame for the debt, they still do not have enough of a majority to break a filibuster by the dems. For that matter, Robert Byrd (D-W. Va. ranking chairman of the Appropriations Committee) managed to bring home a whopping
$298 million in 2003 alone. It is hardly the Republican's fault.
[Edited by on Dec 10, 2004 at 10:06pm.]
Grandpa Dan Zachary 12/10/04 10:05pm
But the repubs do have enough of a majority to change the Senate rule on filibusters. All that takes is a simple majority.
Ahh, no it's not, Martha.
I doubt it, since they will eventually want to use it, themselves.
Why should the dems be the only ones to get to have all the fun? There may be a day when the Reps need it.
Nice choice GDubbya.
So when Clinton committed perjury it was just a personal matter that had nothing to do with his job, but now that it is a Republican president that all changes? Which way should it be Bill?
I didn't realize that you read Drudge Bill. This was a top story for him. By the way, didn't Clinton have a few that didn't make it for similar reasons?
Joe
[Edited by on Dec 11, 2004 at 08:02am.]
Moveon to the DNC: ""Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." link
[Edited by on Dec 11, 2004 at 08:19am.]
Dan, you mean Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird (sp's) that Clinton nominated. Funny Fold didn't see fit to bring those 2 up.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/democrats.critics.ap/index.html
Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."
They're oblivious.
It was they, and those like them (The extremists in the Democratic Party), are the ones that cost the Democrats the Presidential election.
"MoveOn to Democratic Party: 'We Own It' "
Howard Dean thought much the same thing. Their arrogance will be their undoing, too.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 11, 2004 at 11:30am.]
Here's a story on moveon.org's Eli Pariser
He's 23 or so. Fancies himself a a force to be reckoned with.
[Edited by on Dec 11, 2004 at 11:48am.]
Somewhere Gerorge Soros is having a very large cocktail. Sitting in the dark smoking cigarette after cigarette trying to wipe the grease stains off his t-shirt that says....... I spent 23 million on an election and all I got was this stupid t-shirt :)
You win some, you lose some. I bet, to him, it was worth the investment.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 11, 2004 at 01:55pm.]
Interesting story on Pariser, Rick. The Dems certainly caught on to the power of 527s much sooner than the Repubs did. Then McCain and Bush started yelling about regulating them. It's all so dumb. Money will out in a campaign season. They should be de-regulating it instead.
The only quibble I have is with the old canard about Repub money coming from large organizations. That has been over with for ages. The Repubs get much more money from individual donors than the Dems do.
Â
"The Repubs get much more money from individual donors than the Dems do."
I didn't know that. Did you read it somewhere?
"The only quibble I have is with the old canard about Repub money coming from large organizations. "
I bet they get a few dollars.
[Edited by on Dec 12, 2004 at 08:13am.]
Did you read it somewhere?
Right here.
You can also compare President Bushand Kerryon the Opensecrets site.
Looks like President Bush got about $46 million more than Kerry did from individuals.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 12, 2004 at 09:39am.]
and what percentage of their total did each get from individuals?
and how many actual individuals does that represent?
to say that the Repubs get more money from individuals doesn't mean much unless you consider these other things as well.
and what percentage of their total did each get from individuals?
The original question concerned only the amount of money, but since you asked, according to the opensecrets links I posted above - President Bush got 74% from individuals and Kerry got 70%.
and how many actual individuals does that represent?
Unless I am remembering wrong (and correct me if I am), the most an individual can donate by law is $500. So $46,781,941/500=93,563.882. So at least 93,564 individuals gave more to President Bush than to Kerry. Probably more since not everyone gives the max allowed by law.
to say that the Repubs get more money from individuals doesn't mean much unless you consider these other things as well.
Yes, well considering the figures that I have posted, what does it mean to you now?
[Edited by on Dec 12, 2004 at 11:26am.]
According to Political Money Line, John Kerry loaned his election committee $6,387,966. According to Opensecrets, he repaid himself $6,887,965. there is also a loan interest repayment of $60,433 paid to him, a loan cost repayment of $16,904 paid to him and a total of $83,332 paid to Mellon Private Mortgage, Pittsburgh, PA (place where he got loan on his house)Â for loan interest payments.
Just how much money did he make off this loan scam?
[Edited by on Dec 12, 2004 at 12:14pm.]
I guess all it means is that more people donated to the Bush campaign than the Kerry campaign.
If it means anything else, I'm not qualified to say.
uh... 100,000 could give $10 each and still give only a tenth as much as 20,000 giving $500 each.
you can't determine how many gave by just how much was given in total.
[Edited by molegrass on Dec 12, 2004 at 12:17pm.]
Fine, then tell me just how many did give to each.
I don't know. That's why I asked. Otherwise the stats don't show how many gave.
President Bush did have 315,239 receipts from individuals and Kerry had 290,746 according to Political Money Line. Of course if you gave $10 10 times it would count as 10 receipts, but I really doubt that is much of a factor here. All the evidence points towards President Bush having more individual contributors.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 12, 2004 at 12:52pm.]