According to a listing provided by John Kerry's own site, Kerry has been endorsed by 200 of the richest CEOs in America. So much for the Republican Party being the party of the filthy rich, and so much for the phony, age-old, never-had-a-shred-of-truth stereotype of the Democrats being for the little guy.
Liberals prefer equality - all people should be equally poor, unsafe and badly-educated.
wow, that's the most stereotypical thing i've seen in a while on thie website(except for that one ant-feminist guy...) Just because Kerry is for the rich doesnt mean everyone else is...that's like saying that just because one person in ohio is dumb that everyone else is(sorry i had to come up with SOMETHING!)see my point..?
quote: Which is precisely what you did. So, you described yourself.
And yet again you try to manipulate. Again as I have said before please show me where in any of my statements I ever said democrats don't take money from lawyers, please show me. Also notice how I quote your entire statement so I get the whole entire context of the statement unlike you who take parts of statements in order to take them completely out context in order to manipulate.
quote: Sure, they do. But Democrats take far more, to the point where they are their NUMBER ONE CONTRIBUTOR. Which says a lot.
Why is it not surprising you would try to change this into a simple number 1 number 2 issue? Again both sides take a substantial amount of money. Is it really that hard for you to admit that without having to immediately comeback and pointing a finger else where.
quote: I will respond to your lies and dishonesty anytime I want. Honesty and facts are liberalisms' greatest enemy, which is why I enjoy pointing out the flaws and falsehoods so much.
And that is why you fail so much because you continue to put your own words into my statements and then exploit that. Again in my previous posts where did I ever lie?
quote: Okay, I know most liberals aren't nearly as intelligent as they want to belive they are, but I guess I REALLY have dumb things down so you can understand.
Percent is a way of measuring one or more amounts compared to others. It should usually add up to 100. For example, if you have a box full of 100 red and blue crayons, and 60 are red, then you can figure out that 40 are blue by subtracting 60 from 100. Said as a percentage, that means that 60% of the crayons in the box are red and 40% blue.
60% is more than 40%. You can count them to be sure. So, as far as our discussion is concerned, of 60% of campaign contributions by the legal industry goes to Democrats and 40% goes to Republicans, that means the legal industry favors - heavily favors - Democrats, because that 20% difference between them is alot.
I will keep this at an adult level rather then engaging in childish ad hominem and personal attacks. If you have ever taken a statistics class you will know certain words indicate different spreads. Your second statement "the ratio of cash coming from the legal industry favors Democrats" is extremely general term that most pollsters/ statisticians will use because it is logically and linguistically correct in every spread just like the term majority; it is applicable in a 51-49 spread to a 99-1 spread. Now your first statement "lean very heavily toward Democrats" used a very specific term in statistics that only applies to certain situations. First and foremost it is not based on the simple percentage difference between the two different parties on the spread but rather it is based on the whole big picture. In statistics before one can use terms such as "heavy" "dominating" etc certain criteria must be meet. At the very least the item that has the "heavy favoring" must have 67 points (a tad over 2/3); which in turn would mean they have 2 times plus the points the smaller item has. This is where my beef lies. You used two different terms that represent two very different situations; your first term was very specific your second was very general.
quote: Maybe there are some who are middle-class and some who eat out of garbage cans, but I haven't heard of any and I'm betting there aren't too many.
All that aside, how many trial lawyers (specifically, liability lawyers) do you know of who are Republican or who lean that way? All the ones I can name are Democrats: John Edwards, Wendell H. Gauthier, and Arthur Wolk, are some of the "ultra-wealthy" liberal predators I spoke about, and those are but a small few.
Also, it's worth pointing out what the legal industry's money is buying: In the case of the Democrats, it has bought absolute opposition to tort reform and control over junk lawsuits. On the other hand, all the legal money received by the GOP hasn't kept the Republicans from pushing legal reforms. I do not know of what else the legal industry's contributions to either side may have bought, but that's pretty significant.
You’re missing my point, I was simply pointing out in humor how you are changing your terms and in effect "back-peddling" and yet you earlier accused me of such.
Now it is very clear at this point neither of us is going to concede on this and I really don't have the time to continue and debate this, so I will try and end this so both parties will be happy. Democrats take a large amount of money from lawyers and they take the majority. Now simply all I want from you is a simple statement that admits that Republicans take a large amount of money from lawyers as well, without trying to minimize it by coming back and pointing to another party. Again the entire purpose of my original post was that Republicans do take money from lawyers as well and that was my only purpose. As far as I see it both sides are guilty of giving into special interest, quantativly(sp) it doesn't matter to me, they are both guilty.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Teddy Roosevelt
This is getting so off-topic it's ridiculous. The original point you were trying to make, NuShoes, is that the ultra-wealthy favor the Democrats. As I've pointed out, this is true, but it is also meaningless, as the vast majority of those who make over $100,000 a year favor Republicans. Liberals happen to have the backing of the majority of lawyers. So what? As I said below and you failed to address, combine Bush's top 20 industries and you see he's getting $89,561,630 from them. Add up Kerry's, and you see he's getting only $59,728,196 from his. This speaks for itself.
As for the rampant anti-liberalism you are spreading, I hope you realize how you sound when you make such statements as
quote: Honesty and facts are liberalisms' greatest enemy, which is why I enjoy pointing out the flaws and falsehoods so much.
You don't come across as a great portrayer of truth; rather, you come across as a sickening right-wing pundit who lost the ability to even attempt to view things from a non-partisan point of view some years ago. Ask any reasonable person, and they'll tell you: The Left lies. The Right lies. Libertarians lie. Everybody lies!
Now, let's go back to the title of this thread: "Democrats are the ones for the Rich". Throughout your posts, you don't even attempt to prove this. A better title would have been "Democrats are the ones endorsed by the rich" or "The rich favor Democrats" (both of which, by the way, are for the most part lies). The title implies that Democrats are the one passing legislation that favors the rich, and even the implication of such is a laughing matter. It is a known political truth that Democrats tend to be in favor of legislation that benefits the poor, and Republicans tend to be in favor of legislation that benefits the rich.
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
quote:Anybody who understands common political phrases in America knows selective vision means one who points out “negative” traits in the oppositions camp while failing to recognize similar traits in there own camp
Which is precisely what you did. So, you described yourself.
quote:And that changes the fact that Republicans take a substantial amount of money from lawyers, a fact that you were trying to imply wasn't real.
Sure, they do. But Democrats take far more, to the point where they are their NUMBER ONE CONTRIBUTOR. Which says a lot.
quote:f you don't know what I was implying (hypothetically), here’s an idea, be quiet instead of trying to figure it out on your own and taking the chance at failing; which you did so effectively.
I will respond to your lies and dishonesty anytime I want. Honesty and facts are liberalisms' greatest enemy, which is why I enjoy pointing out the flaws and falsehoods so much.
quote:Again I was simply pointing out that Republicans take a substantial amount of money from lawyers, which is extremely obvious from the words “selective vision.”
And I was pointing out that the Democrats' NUMBER ONE CONTRIBUTORS are lawyers/legal firms, a fact which you conveniently neglected to mention or even address.
quote:Back-peddling I see, first it was " lean very heavily toward Democrats and even further left. Now it’s "the ratio of cash coming from the legal industry favors Democrats." So which is it?
Okay, I know most liberals aren't nearly as intelligent as they want to belive they are, but I guess I REALLY have dumb things down so you can understand.
Percent is a way of measuring one or more amounts compared to others. It should usually add up to 100. For example, if you have a box full of 100 red and blue crayons, and 60 are red, then you can figure out that 40 are blue by subtracting 60 from 100. Said as a percentage, that means that 60% of the crayons in the box are red and 40% blue.
60% is more than 40%. You can count them to be sure. So, as far as our discussion is concerned, of 60% of campaign contributions by the legal industry goes to Democrats and 40% goes to Republicans, that means the legal industry favors - heavily favors - Democrats, because that 20% difference between them is alot.
quote:"ultra-wealthy trial lawyers."
Maybe there are some who are middle-class and some who eat out of garbage cans, but I haven't heard of any and I'm betting there aren't too many.
All that aside, how many trial lawyers (specifically, liability lawyers) do you know of who are Republican or who lean that way? All the ones I can name are Democrats: John Edwards, Wendell H. Gauthier, and Arthur Wolk, are some of the "ultra-wealthy" liberal predators I spoke about, and those are but a small few.
Also, it's worth pointing out what the legal industry's money is buying: In the case of the Democrats, it has bought absolute opposition to tort reform and control over junk lawsuits. On the other hand, all the legal money received by the GOP hasn't kept the Republicans from pushing legal reforms. I do not know of what else the legal industry's contributions to either side may have bought, but that's pretty significant.
Liberals prefer equality - all people should be equally poor, unsafe and badly-educated.
quote:Nice try at backpedaling, DJMagnusa, but here's what you wrote in the post below, "Enough is said from this link. Oh what’s that in the number two spot?"
So were going to try one of the old silence tactics. You must be extremely desperate to pull the same tactic as somebody saying "go ahead and have the last word." Furthermore back-pedaling my ***, read my initial statement in its ENTIRITY. Hmmm, let’s look at my first statement, "Enough is said from this link. Oh what’s that in the number two spot?" And second part was “yet again another case of nushoes selective vision.” Anybody who understands common political phrases in America knows selective vision means one who points out “negative” traits in the oppositions camp while failing to recognize similar traits in there own camp. Combine that with the first statement and that means you fail to recognize a similar situation with the Republicans. Oh, I forgot I blatantly said Democrats don't take money from Lawyers in that statement. Or perhaps I implied that Democrats don’t take money. Oh wait, there wasn't a single statement that said anything about the democrats not taking money from Lawyers nor was their anything that indicated as such. Another post by nushoes that is so utterly predictable, trying yet again to put words into my mouth.
quote: Well, what's in the Democrats' NUMBER ONE SPOT?!
And that changes the fact that Republicans take a substantial amount of money from lawyers, a fact that you were trying to imply wasn't real.
quote: If you were trying to illustrate a point, you failed miserably.
Because your opinion of what I say is so absolutely important and I take your word as the complete truth. Oh wait, I’m sorry that is you who thinks your opinion is the absolute truth.
quote: I realize most liberals would like to think we're all brainwashed to the degree you are, but, believe me, not everybody else thinks like you and therefore knows what you're implying from such as short statement.
There wasn't anything implied in my statement, it was extremely straight forward which I showed earlier in this post. Furthermore If you don't know what I was implying (hypothetically), here’s an idea, be quiet instead of trying to figure it out on your own and taking the chance at failing; which you did so effectively. Or here’s an idea, ask what I was implying instead of taking the liberty of putting the words there for me. Again I was simply pointing out that Republicans take a substantial amount of money from lawyers, which is extremely obvious from the words “selective vision.” Very frankly if you don't get something as simple as that, that is your own problem not mine.
quote: Bottom line is, the ratio of cash coming from the legal industry favors Democrats decidedly, 60% to 40%.
Back-peddling I see, first it was " lean very heavily toward Democrats and even further left. Now it’s "the ratio of cash coming from the legal industry favors Democrats." So which is it?
quote: but this should give you an idea which way untra-wealthy trial lawyers (like John Edwards) lean
Now it’s changing your words from general to specific to suit your argument better. First it was "I'm referring to lawyers" now its "ultra-wealthy trial lawyers."
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Teddy Roosevelt
Instead of such heavy focus on what has happened, we should be paying more attention to the reform of this system. The system is slowly changing. As more and more people are using the internet, individuals are finding it easier to donate to their choice candicate's campaigns.
So currently while these big corps may make up the majority of donations for BOTH parties, we should continue to encourage the change instead of focusing on the flaws of the system.
"I let my brother go to the devil in his own way" -Robert Louis Stevenson
Nice try at backpedaling, DJMagnusa, but here's what you wrote in the post below, "Enough is said from this link. Oh what’s that in the number two spot?"
Well, what's in the Democrats' NUMBER ONE SPOT?!
If you were trying to illustrate a point, you failed miserably. I realize most liberals would like to think we're all brainwashed to the degree you are, but, believe me, not everybody else thinks like you and therefore knows what you're implying from such as short statement.
Bottom line is, the ratio of cash coming from the legal industry favors Democrats decidedly, 60% to 40%.
quote: DjMagnusa, like all liberals, lies yet again! According to the website that DJMagnusa gave in his previous post, the liberal Opensecrets, John Kerry received $15,000,000 from the legal industry, versus $10,000,000 for George W. Bush. Here is the link once again: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?id=N00000245&cycle=2004
As always, here is an example of the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black". DJMagnusa claims I have "selective vision", yet he clearly neglects to check out John Kerry's record. In fact, the legal industry is Kerry's top industrial donor!
And once again you miss the point and purposely exploit that fact, which I'm sure you do on purpose. I never made the statement democrats don't take money from lawyers, I was simply addressing the fact that you were implying that Democrats are the only ones who receive a substantial amount of money from lawyers. There is no point in posting John Kerry’s campaign contributions from lawyers because I never disagreed with the fact that Democrats receive a lot money from lawyers; a political fact is both sides receive a substantial amount from lawyers, again so you don't misconstrue, BOTH SIDES. This isn't a proverbial case of the pot-calling the kettle black because again I NEVER SAID THE DEMOCRATS DON'T TAKE MONEY FROM LAWYERS(posted again so you don't misconstrue what I say).Quit trying to twist peoples words around for your own obvious chopping-block nushoes. Its just simply sad that one who claims too be for objectivity continues to so blatantly misconstrue, misrepresent in a manner that would lead many to think that these actions were intentional. Now please do comeback with another accusation of "the pot calling the kettle black" because it is clear that it so much easier for you to shift blame on others rather than look into your own problems. Its also important to note which persons statements were intiating and which were reacting, which is important in a claim of hypocricy; in this case yours were.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: djmagnusa,
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Teddy Roosevelt
Yes, the ultra-rich ($200,000+ a year) do tend to favor the Democrats, but the point you're missing here is that it doesn't matter. Laws are in place to protect the lower-and-middle-class from the ultra-rich; these laws strictly prohibit anyone from donating more than $2000 to a presidential campaign. So the question is not who the ultra-rich are for, but who the majority of the rich are for. And, as I've shown, those who make over $100,000 clearly favor Bush. Let's take another look at those stastics you gave dj an admittedly good burn with, shall we? When you add up Bush's top 20 industries, you see that he's getting $89,561,630 from them. And Kerry? Why, $59,728,196. Wait a minute! It appears that Bush is actually getting roughly $30,000,000 more than Kerry from his top 20 industries! And look at this! By Bush's 20th strongest industry (Hospitals/Nursing Homes), he's still pulling in a strong $1,341,247. And how is Kerry's 20th strongest industry (Non-Profit Institutions) making out for him? Why, it seems like by Kerry's 20th industry, the money he's pulling in is down to a measley $544,898. I have to say I'm a bit confused here. These stastics really don't seem to support your theory. Could it be because it's only more B.S. right-wing rhetoric?
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
I cannot find my source, so I'll take your word for it, Aguagon, but you haven't disproven the fact that the ultra-rich still seem to lean heavily towards supporting liberalism. I'm not talking about doctors here; I'm talking people who make tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars a year. George Soros alone can outspend George Bush's campaign 50-1, and he claims he would be willing to spend his entire fortune to unseat Bush.
Bottom line is, the filthy rich can and have become the heart of the Democratic Party.
Liberals prefer equality - all people should be equally poor, unsafe and badly-educated.
DjMagnusa, like all liberals, lies yet again! According to the website that DJMagnusa gave in his previous post, the liberal Opensecrets, John Kerry received $15,000,000 from the legal industry, versus $10,000,000 for George W. Bush. Here is the link once again: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?id=N00000245&cycle=2004
As always, here is an example of the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black". DJMagnusa claims I have "selective vision", yet he clearly neglects to check out John Kerry's record. In fact, the legal industry is Kerry's top industrial donor!
Liberals prefer equality - all people should be equally poor, unsafe and badly-educated.
quote: It's worth noting that a particularly large professional group known for being wealthier-than average -- I'm referring to lawyers -- lean very heavily toward Democrats and even further left.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Teddy Roosevelt
Yep, we got lawyers and entertainers. You got CEOs, car dealership owners, bankers, doctors, etc., etc. Anyway, let me post some stats on the 2000 election for you: Income: Less than $15,000 per year.......Votes for Gore: 57%.......Votes for Bush: 36% Income: $15,000-$30,000 per year.......Votes for Gore: 54%.......Votes for Bush: 40% Income: $30,000-$50,000 per year.......Votes for Gore: 50%.......Votes for Bush: 46% Income: $50,000-$75,000 per year.......Votes for Gore: 47%.......Votes for Bush: 50% Income: $75,000-$100,000 per year.......Votes for Gore: 46%.......Votes for Bush: 51% Income: Over $100,000 per year.......Votes for Gore: 43%.......Votes for Bush: 53% Courtesy: MSNBC
Detecting a pattern? Now, as this was conducted by MSNBC, I'm sure you'll be willing to discredit it, as it certainly has a "liberal bias".
Anyway, my point about the maximum amount that you can contribute to a campaign being $2000 still stands. Also, about those making over $200,000 voting for Gore, I'm willing to believe it, because those probably are the Hollywood celebrities. However, what percent of the population makes over $200,000 a year? Yes, there are some rich Democrats; there are also some Jewish people supporting the Christian Coalition. Overall, though, the richer you are, the more likely you are to be Republican. Find me reliable stats that say otherwise.
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
Nope, Aguagon. I remember one poll released following the 2000 elections showed that almost 60% of people making over $200,000 voted for Gore. I don't know for sure if that was a national exit poll or a general public opinion poll, but I believe it was a national one.
It's worth noting that a particularly large professional group known for being wealthier-than average -- I'm referring to lawyers -- lean very heavily toward Democrats and even further left.
At any rate, the fact that all but two of U.S. billionaire's leaning liberal/Democrat, as well as most of the entertainment and news industry, not to mention those business leaders I mentioned in the original post - that's an extraordinary amount of financial firepower. Moreover, most of those folks tend to be far more willing and able to shell out vast sums of money to support Democratic candidates and liberal causes than those folks who are not mega-millionaires.
Liberals prefer equality - all people should be equally poor, unsafe and badly-educated.
why do dems use a donkey as a symbol? and just to say Kerry has no good war records he shot himself in the foot for his purple heart and a ride home look at what his platoon mates say about him also any one who wants to revolt if kerry wins e-mail me!
"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done"."
Sure, NuShoes, we have plenty of support from big rich celebrities and companies. However, ask your typical rich person his party alignment, and I estimate 80% of the time you'll get back Republican. Ask the same question to someone who's living from paycheck to paycheck, and the odds are you'll get an enthusiastic "Democrat!" 80% of the time.
What really screws our party over is that even though we have extremely wealthy allies, there is a $2000 limit that any one person can donate to a presidential campaign. So it's not really measured in how wealthy the supporters are...it's measured in how many supporters you have that are overall wealthy. And, believe me, the Republicans still have the Democrats beat on that front.
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
Topics 
