Guest Wide Eyed in Wonder Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 In the continuing revelation that Democrats are the part of the rich...not the poor, we have this new news... Oprah, after claiming to be nonpolitical so often, is now doing fundraising for Obama for President. So, Oprah (one of the richest women in the world) is doing a fundraising dinner for Obama. How much does it cost to sit down at the meal? $50,000. Yeah...these politicians, after getting such donations from the rich, are sooo going to be out to help the poor by taxing their donors. Ken Clifton christiansuperhero.com Quote
Guest Balanced View Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote: > In the continuing revelation that Democrats are the part of the > rich...not the poor, we have this new news... > > Oprah, after claiming to be nonpolitical so often, is now doing > fundraising for Obama for President. So, Oprah (one of the richest > women in the world) is doing a fundraising dinner for Obama. How much > does it cost to sit down at the meal? $50,000. Yeah...these > politicians, after getting such donations from the rich, are sooo > going to be out to help the poor by taxing their donors. > > Ken Clifton > christiansuperhero.com > > We are still waiting for your apology regarding "dems are trying to kill the economy" Fess Up. Quote
Guest Wide Eyed in Wonder Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 On Jul 18, 8:01 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote: > In the continuing revelation that Democrats are the part of the > rich...not the poor, we have this new news... > > Oprah, after claiming to be nonpolitical so often, is now doing > fundraising for Obama for President. So, Oprah (one of the richest > women in the world) is doing a fundraising dinner for Obama. How much > does it cost to sit down at the meal? $50,000. Yeah...these > politicians, after getting such donations from the rich, are sooo > going to be out to help the poor by taxing their donors. > > Ken Clifton > christiansuperhero.com No comment? Why would the Democrat politicians care about the poor, when the rich financed their campaign? Trust me. They will pay for their budgets with taxes on the poor and tax-breaks for their contributers. Ken Clifton christiansuperhero.com Quote
Guest Tim Crowley Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 On Jul 18, 6:01 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote: > In the continuing revelation that Democrats are the part of the > rich...not the poor, we have this new news... > > Oprah, after claiming to be nonpolitical so often, is now doing > fundraising for Obama for President. So, Oprah (one of the richest > women in the world) is doing a fundraising dinner for Obama. How much > does it cost to sit down at the meal? $50,000. Yeah...these > politicians, after getting such donations from the rich, are sooo > going to be out to help the poor by taxing their donors. When, exactly did Oprah claim to be non-political? Do other partys have these kind of fund raisers? Or do you think just Democrats do? Maybe you should study politcs a little bit and get back to us. Quote
Guest Bob LeChevalier Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 18, 8:01 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> In the continuing revelation that Democrats are the part of the >> rich...not the poor, we have this new news... >> >> Oprah, after claiming to be nonpolitical so often, is now doing >> fundraising for Obama for President. So, Oprah (one of the richest >> women in the world) is doing a fundraising dinner for Obama. How much >> does it cost to sit down at the meal? $50,000. Yeah...these >> politicians, after getting such donations from the rich, are sooo >> going to be out to help the poor by taxing their donors. > >No comment? Maybe YOU care what Oprah does. Most of the rest of us don't watch her and don't care. Meanwhile: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008 22% of Obama's donations were from people who gave $200 or less. 15,195 gave more than $200. He has something like a quarter of a million total donors. That means some 235,000 donors gave less than $200. It may cost more for a seat at Oprah's dinner table, but that is more about Oprah than it is about Obama. I myself wouldn't pay $25, regardless of the candidate. >Why would the Democrat politicians care about the poor, >when the rich financed their campaign? Because they have more integrity than you. As to how we know this: Past performance. That is the only reason to trust any sort of politician you don't know. You have NO integrity, based on past performance. But of course you couldn't be elected dog catcher. >Trust me. The only thing we can trust you to do is lie through your teet in support of your agenda. >They will pay for their budgets with taxes on the poor and tax-breaks for their >contributers. Sounds like the Republicans. Except for those Republicans who will give tax-breaks and simply WON'T pay for their budgets, instead accruing deficits for the next generation to pay for - most of whom will be poor. lojbab Quote
Guest Wide Eyed in Wonder Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 On Jul 19, 12:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote: > Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >On Jul 18, 8:01 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> In the continuing revelation that Democrats are the part of the > >> rich...not the poor, we have this new news... > > >> Oprah, after claiming to be nonpolitical so often, is now doing > >> fundraising for Obama for President. So, Oprah (one of the richest > >> women in the world) is doing a fundraising dinner for Obama. How much > >> does it cost to sit down at the meal? $50,000. Yeah...these > >> politicians, after getting such donations from the rich, are sooo > >> going to be out to help the poor by taxing their donors. > > >No comment? > > Maybe YOU care what Oprah does. Most of the rest of us don't watch > her and don't care. > > Meanwhile:http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008 > 22% of Obama's donations were from people who gave $200 or less. > 15,195 gave more than $200. He has something like a quarter of a > million total donors. That means some 235,000 donors gave less than > $200. > > It may cost more for a seat at Oprah's dinner table, but that is more > about Oprah than it is about Obama. I myself wouldn't pay $25, > regardless of the candidate. > > >Why would the Democrat politicians care about the poor, > >when the rich financed their campaign? > > Because they have more integrity than you. > > As to how we know this: Past performance. That is the only reason to > trust any sort of politician you don't know. You have NO integrity, > based on past performance. But of course you couldn't be elected dog > catcher. > > >Trust me. > > The only thing we can trust you to do is lie through your teet in > support of your agenda. > > >They will pay for their budgets with taxes on the poor and tax-breaks for their > >contributers. > > Sounds like the Republicans. Except for those Republicans who will > give tax-breaks and simply WON'T pay for their budgets, instead > accruing deficits for the next generation to pay for - most of whom > will be poor. > > lojbab Your figures don't even add up. So, now, you have math problems, too? That being said, you ignored my question of if the candidates would feel more indebted to the poor than the rich come tax time. Kenneth Clifton christiansuperhero.com Quote
Guest Bob LeChevalier Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 19, 12:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote: >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 18, 8:01 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> In the continuing revelation that Democrats are the part of the >> >> rich...not the poor, we have this new news... >> >> >> Oprah, after claiming to be nonpolitical so often, is now doing >> >> fundraising for Obama for President. So, Oprah (one of the richest >> >> women in the world) is doing a fundraising dinner for Obama. How much >> >> does it cost to sit down at the meal? $50,000. Yeah...these >> >> politicians, after getting such donations from the rich, are sooo >> >> going to be out to help the poor by taxing their donors. >> >> >No comment? >> >> Maybe YOU care what Oprah does. Most of the rest of us don't watch >> her and don't care. >> >> Meanwhile:http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008 >> 22% of Obama's donations were from people who gave $200 or less. >> 15,195 gave more than $200. He has something like a quarter of a >> million total donors. That means some 235,000 donors gave less than >> $200. >> >> It may cost more for a seat at Oprah's dinner table, but that is more >> about Oprah than it is about Obama. I myself wouldn't pay $25, >> regardless of the candidate. >> >> >Why would the Democrat politicians care about the poor, >> >when the rich financed their campaign? >> >> Because they have more integrity than you. >> >> As to how we know this: Past performance. That is the only reason to >> trust any sort of politician you don't know. You have NO integrity, >> based on past performance. But of course you couldn't be elected dog >> catcher. >> >> >Trust me. >> >> The only thing we can trust you to do is lie through your teet in >> support of your agenda. >> >> >They will pay for their budgets with taxes on the poor and tax-breaks for their >> >contributers. >> >> Sounds like the Republicans. Except for those Republicans who will >> give tax-breaks and simply WON'T pay for their budgets, instead >> accruing deficits for the next generation to pay for - most of whom >> will be poor. > >Your figures don't even add up. >So, now, you have math problems, too? I can't wait to see you put your foot in your mouth on this one. If you think I made a math error, please be specific. Then be prepared to eat your words like a good dodo. (I suspect I know what "error" you 'think' you caught me in (not that you ever actually think). The error is in your reading comprehension. To be specific, if you think that there is some problem with 22% of donations being from people who gave under $200, while more than 90% of the donors gave under $200, I suggest you consider what happens if 100,000 people were to give $1 to a candidate while someone else gave $100,000. In this example 50% of the donations are from people who gave under $2, but 99.999% of the donors gave under $2. >That being said, you ignored my question of if the candidates >would feel more indebted to the poor than the rich come tax time. There was no such question. Indeed, you asked 2 questions, and answered one of them yourself: <How much does it cost to sit down at the meal? $50,000 and <No comment? which I did not take as a real question, but as a temper tantrum because the world happened to ignore poor Kennie just once as he made his insightful pronouncements on the lint in his navel. In answer to your non-question, I suspect that the candidates will feel indebted to the government at tax time. They don't pay taxes either to the poor or to the rich, so they would not feel indebted to either. Why should they? lojbab Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.