On 4/3/2012 1:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/3/2012 12:57 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/2/2012 1:24 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 12:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

I didn't.

What I denied is that you had any evidence he made his money
unethically.


At this point nothing you say is believable.

You have no evidence whatever that Dole made any money unethically.

If you simply say nothing Dole did was unethical as far as you are
concerned then it would be impossible for anyone to prove otherwise,
which is what you do. You declare that nothing Dole ever did was
unethical so that's the end of it. The problem is many other people have
said that Dole acted unethically. Most people think taking money from
rich donors and doing their bidding or voting for their interests is
unethical. Dole did this for decades. But to you taking money and voting
for that interest group is not unethical unless a Democrat does it.
That's really handy. But it's also a crock too. You don't set the
standard for what is ethical. If you did nothing would be unethical
because libertarians don't believe in things like rules and regulations
like normal people do.

Hawke