|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,081
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,081 |
My point was hes willing to spend 170 million fundraised or government money on a campaign with no actual running opponent announced but asking him to spend money on preventing child abuse as opposed to a ban on gay marriage is too much to ask??
Or to look into legislation about making punishment more severe for crimes against children.
tired of the bs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by linabby:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/cap.grape.bush/index.html
AND YOUR TALKING ABOUT TAX HIKES?????
Hey lets spend 170 million with no second thought and then lets put a ban on gay marriages into legislation which takes more time and money. LoL ya and im the silly one for thinking preventing parents from killing their children is more important. SILLY ME
What does political fund-raising on Bush's part have to do with this? 
I'm lost.
I dunno but I've been waiting to unload this little tidbit.
Who do you think gets more LARGE donations, the DNC or the GOP?
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemographics.asp?cycle=2002
Seems it is the DNC getting the large donations by roughly 2 to 1
Kinda throws a wrench in the GOP is a party for the rich line of thinking.
However, I'm sure many of those ~$200 donors are probably not in favor of Gay Marriage. (Changing lanes back into the topic  )
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Ah!
Got it. My mind's working like it's 6AM Monday...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,094
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,094 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Morals change significantly over time, as does the Pope. Even the Catholic Church will allow them to marry in even the foreseeable future once it's made fully legal in the US.
In the Bible, it is stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay people should not be allowed to marry MORALLY speaking--because MORALLY it is wrong. Whether or not it is made legal is a civil/government issue. But the Catholic Church will never sanction gay marriages.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Question is how everyone feels about diluting the definition of marriage. Marriage did have a central focus..children.
I think it is important to always be committed to one another and yeah, there are many many homosexuals who are shafted because they don't get medical and insurance benefits. That being said, for Catholics it is against the teaching of the church for people of the same sex to enter into the sacrament of marriage. It undermines the traditional notion/church's teaching of family.
I agree with linabby, who am I say what other people can do. But I can express my opinion without judgement. What people do is between them and the diety they believe in.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Oh..and GWB..Bout' time he told the friggin' liberal media to stuff it.
W3RD!!!!!! 
'95 GL White
I've got mods.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by linabby:
My point was hes willing to spend 170 million fundraised or government money on a campaign with no actual running opponent
Final comment - new day, can't let this comment slide.
You need to think this through..Given that the Dems have (as a DNC strategy that has been publically discussed) agreed that ALL candidates will attack Bush and not attack each other (we will see). You KNOW all Dem primary hopefuls will spend whatever they can beg, borrow, or steal on an anti-Bush media blitz. The 170 mil is mearly to counter this as needed...and it will probably be less that what the combined Dems anti-Bush campaign will cost.
If the Dems would just admit that they have no plan, no clue, and no chance in hell to win in 04, they could save all their money + Bush's. (I am kidding..sort of)
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,081
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,081 |
I never said he wouldn't have a running opponent I just said one hasn't been announced yet. Bush has about 18 months more or less still in office. Instead of talking about how your gonna raise money to beat out the next guy why not do something positive and show the american people that you want our vote. If I was bush I would be talking about enforcing stricter penalties for child molesters and rapists. Give me a reason to keep you in office. p.s. If the dems had no chance in hell then why would bush be so concerned about fundraising almost 2 years before re-election? 
tired of the bs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667 |
Originally posted by linabby:
I never said he wouldn't have a running opponent I just said one hasn't been announced yet. Bush has about 18 months more or less still in office.
He won't have a running opponent. Its an unwritten rule that you don't run against an incumbent president. Plus, the RNC would NEVER lend ANY type of support to someone else... Bush is a cash cow for them. Originally posted by linabby:
Instead of talking about how your gonna raise money to beat out the next guy why not do something positive and show the american people that you want our vote. If I was bush I would be talking about enforcing stricter penalties for child molesters and rapists. Give me a reason to keep you in office.
He was asked a question, and he responded to it. Its not like he called a press conference simply to talk about how much money he raised for his campaign. Originally posted by linabby:
p.s. If the dems had no chance in hell then why would bush be so concerned about fundraising almost 2 years before re-election?
You said it right there... politics is based on money. It takes money to win, it takes money to run, hell... it even takes money to THINK about running-- look at the prevalence of exploratory committees. Its not like Bush is spending tax dollars to get himself reelected- he's spending dollars donated by people- like me- that believe in what he is doing and want to see him remain in office. (or in some cases, want to see the dems remain OUT of office). They don't donate money to his campaign to have it spent on buying gifts for the democrats so they vote for legislation. You're talking about two separate sources of funds here.
Diesel owns you
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
People like you and me. Again, I implore you all to visit http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemographics.asp?cycle=2002 and see of all those willing to drop 100K+ which party they gave to. These are individual donors. Heck, go see where big money goes as well: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.asp?cycle=2002Seems the top nine here are pretty solidly DNC To be fair, this next group seems to be tilted a bit more to the GOP with more leaning or strongly GOP, but the GOP doesn't have a single "solidly GOP" (90% of contributions or better seem to categorize a group as solidly one party or another) http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/industries.asp?cycle=2002I've not done all the math, but I'm pretty sure the GOP gets it's fundraising advantage from the individual donors and not large corporate or wealthy patrons. TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by linabby:
1) I never said he wouldn't have a running opponent I just said one hasn't been announced yet.
2) Instead of talking about how your gonna raise money to beat out the next guy why not do something positive and show the american people that you want our vote. If I was bush I would be talking about enforcing stricter penalties for child molesters and rapists. Give me a reason to keep you in office.
3)p.s. If the dems had no chance in hell then why would bush be so concerned about fundraising almost 2 years before re-election?
1) Yes you did..see YOU quoted above
2) As was stated...the liberal reporter brought it up and Bush answered the Q..that's it. If he ignored the Q you/they would have attacked him for that..
3) Reality check...the Dems have no chance in hell..
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
Originally posted by linabby:
I never said he wouldn't have a running opponent I just said one hasn't been announced yet. Bush has about 18 months more or less still in office. Instead of talking about how your gonna raise money to beat out the next guy why not do something positive and show the american people that you want our vote. If I was bush I would be talking about enforcing stricter penalties for child molesters and rapists. Give me a reason to keep you in office.
p.s. If the dems had no chance in hell then why would bush be so concerned about fundraising almost 2 years before re-election?
This must be your first election. The fact is that fundraising never stops though it is more frequent as an election approaches. Your theory is nice for utopia but here in the real political world actual accomplishments matter little--how you spin it matters more; and spin requires money.
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
