On 3/31/2012 9:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Take note that it says that Bob earned over a million from speech money
alone between 1981 and 1991. I'd say that proves he was a millionaire
when he was a senator, wouldn't you?
That fact ALONE, no!
As stated, that would be 100k/year, (or 90.9k/yr if you assume it is
the full1 yrs) and only by the barest fraction, assuming he had no
expenses other than what he earned in pay, could it make him what is
commonly called a millionaire.

If you are foolish enough to suggest that anyone who grossed over
100k/yr over 10 years is a "millionaire", then, yes of course you are
right, but then anyone who grossed $25k/yr for 40 years is also a
"millionaire".


So the truth is as I said, Dole made millions when he was in the
senate. He was a millionaire. That is a fact. Pimpton says that is a
lie. You still think so too?


I never said he didn't, (I am not sure WHAT George thinks, and don't
care that much) I was discussing what you seem to "think" is
sufficient evidence to "prove" it.


I can tell you what he thinks because he told me. He denied emphatically
that Dole was a millionaire when in the senate. But I just showed he
made a million in speaking fees in only ten years. He was in the senate
for 27 years and they only banned the speeches in 1993 so Dole had 24
years to collect extra income not just ten. So I'd say in speeches alone
he made millions.

As for what I consider adequate proof that's simple, what would a
reasonable man think is enough. Bob Dole was in the senate for decades
and he was a master in using everything at his disposal to his benefit.
That's what others have said about him, not me. He was collecting money
every which way from Sunday from all the richest corporations in the
country. He had PACs, foundations, and other entities that only were
there to extract money from rich donors. To deny this is like denying
that the NCAA is having a basketball tournament. All I need is a
reasonable amount of evidence to believe something is true.

Hawke