On 3/30/2012 3:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.

You're reciting your own bio again.


Just the way you keep making the same claims and allegations you can't
back up.

More than anything else, I show that *you* can't back up your claims.
You make wild, inflammatory statements that you simply can't support at
all - ever.


That happens to be a claim, by the way, which according to your rules
you are supposed to prove is true.

I've done it.

Yes you have. To your satisfaction. Not to anyone else's.

Hawke

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

On 3/31/2012 10:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 5:33 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 1:22 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:
You said that was a lie. You said there was no proof he was a
millionaire when he was in the senate. You wanted the proof. There's
lots of it. Here's some right here.

"Speech fees the only direct cash payoff allowed to politicians --
other
campaign contributions cannot be used for personal expenses, but this
money goes straight into Bob and Liddy's bank account. Bob Dole himself
earned over a million in speech money between 1981 and 1991, even
though
Senators were limited to $2,000 per speech. In 1993 speaking fees for
Senators were banned altogether, and Liddy's speechifying career took
off.
At least four of the groups that hired Bob Dole later hired Liddy and
paid
her 10 times as much money."

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".

Now all you can do is say the reference is no good. But even though I
know you will do that it doesn't change the fact that it has been
reported that Bob Dole made a lot of money on the side when he was in
the senate. He made that from speeches alone that they called
"honoraria" but was really nothing but legalized bribery. That's what I
told you and what you said was a lie.
That is NOT what you were saying. And that is not what he called a
lie.


Look, Dole was taking hundreds of rides on corporate jets for the price
of a first class ticket.

Not established.

He took hundreds of flights on corporate jets for 1,000 per flight when
they cost between 5 and 20 thousand apiece. It is established. Sarah
Palin does the same thing and that's established too. Your ignorance is
also established. You are the only one who doesn't know the facts.



He was having corporations giving all kinds of money
to his foundation, Pacs, and other entities he controlled.

But not to him.

You want to make the argument that giving someone control of funds isn't
giving it to him, go ahead. Everyone knows that is a specious argument.
But lots of the money got to his personal accounts. That's the source of
all the wealth he got in the senate because it didn't come from his salary.

So the truth is as I said, Dole made millions when he was in the
senate.

Not proved.


The proof is there for all to see. It's more than adequate to convince
any reasonable person what Dole was doing. You can find the proof
yourself if you want but you won't because it would prove I am right.
You lost. It's obvious.

Hawke

On 4/2/2012 12:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:59 PM, jk wrote:
following.
==============================
As usual you have taken what I said out of context in an attempt to be
unfair.
NO exactly IN CONTEXT. You (and no one else) said YOU KNEW where I
stand on issues.

But from what I remember here is what it meant when I said I
know where you stand on all the issues. I was talking about your
political ideology and my guess was that you were a
rightwinger/conservative. With that in mind I said I know where you
stand on the issues because I know where conservatives stand on the
issues, and you are one of them. You took a broad generalization and
tried to apply it to the specifics to make it look wrong.


NO I challenged your assertion that you had knowledge. Knowledge you
had no reasonable way of possessing, except in fact by inference from
your ASSUMPTIONS about my political views.

The reality is that as a conservative I do know

You did it again, you slovenly ****. You're not a conservative




Want to take
your views on the issues you listed and tell me how many of them do you
completely disagree with the view of conservatives? I still say your
view will agree with the conservative view on almost all of them. Prove
me wrong. If you do then you're a liberal.


Or in other words, NOT only did you lie when you said you knew, you
lied when you said

Throwing your own falsehoods back in your face was not lying.

You lied.


" What claims have I made about you that I have gone silent on? Be
" specific and I'll address anything I've said.

The above blather is not addressing what you said, it is a mealy
mouthed backtracking.

I call it

We call it bull****.

[snip all the remaining bull**** and lies]

I know where you stand on every conceivable political issue, but you
don't know what my positions are. If someone wrote out a list of 50
contentious political issues, I'd know what your position is on nearly
all of them, but you wouldn't know what my position is on even half of them.

On 4/2/2012 12:18 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:31 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:18 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/28/2012 5:05 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 3/26/2012 12:17 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:

I told you I don't make claims. When I say something it's true.

Except that when challenged, you either go silent [Like your many
claims about me] or it turns out you "mis rembembered", or you
want to
define words in ways special and unique to you.


I said what I say is true. I didn't say I'm never wrong.

Then what does "When I say something it's true." mean then?

It means I'm the same as you are. Sometimes we make mistakes.

He makes mistakes. You **** up. There's a difference.


What do you call it when you haven't the balls to admit when you are
wrong?

I always admit when I'm wrong; you never do. It's called pig-headedness
and arrogance. You are pig-headed and arrogant.

On 4/2/2012 12:20 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.

You're reciting your own bio again.


Just the way you keep making the same claims and allegations you can't
back up.

More than anything else, I show that *you* can't back up your claims.
You make wild, inflammatory statements that you simply can't support at
all - ever.


That happens to be a claim, by the way, which according to your rules
you are supposed to prove is true.

I've done it.

Yes you have.

Yes, I have.

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.

On 4/2/2012 12:38 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 10:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 5:33 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 1:22 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:
You said that was a lie. You said there was no proof he was a
millionaire when he was in the senate. You wanted the proof. There's
lots of it. Here's some right here.

"Speech fees the only direct cash payoff allowed to politicians --
other
campaign contributions cannot be used for personal expenses, but this
money goes straight into Bob and Liddy's bank account. Bob Dole
himself
earned over a million in speech money between 1981 and 1991, even
though
Senators were limited to $2,000 per speech. In 1993 speaking fees for
Senators were banned altogether, and Liddy's speechifying career took
off.
At least four of the groups that hired Bob Dole later hired Liddy and
paid
her 10 times as much money."

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".

Now all you can do is say the reference is no good. But even though I
know you will do that it doesn't change the fact that it has been
reported that Bob Dole made a lot of money on the side when he was in
the senate. He made that from speeches alone that they called
"honoraria" but was really nothing but legalized bribery. That's
what I
told you and what you said was a lie.
That is NOT what you were saying. And that is not what he called a
lie.


Look, Dole was taking hundreds of rides on corporate jets for the price
of a first class ticket.

Not established.

He took hundreds of flights on corporate jets for 1,000 per flight when
they cost between 5 and 20 thousand apiece.

Not established.


He was having corporations giving all kinds of money
to his foundation, Pacs, and other entities he controlled.

But not to him.

You want to make the argument that giving someone control of funds isn't
giving it to him, go ahead.

It isn't established he had control of money that he converted to any
personal use.


So the truth is as I said, Dole made millions when he was in the
senate.

Not proved.


The proof is there for all to see.

No proof.

Hawke wrote:


That's a fact, Jack. Can't you see that I did just what you do? I made
claims that I have no way of knowing?
So you lied,....And then lied again when you said you would respond to
those questions.
jk

Hawke wrote:


The reality is that as a conservative I do know where you stand on most
issues.
You have no IDEA where I stand on issues. If you had the courage of
your convictions you would have listed where I stand on that list of
issues.
But you don't know, and probably ALSO have no clue about were
"conservatives" stand on those issues.


I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that on the major issues you come
down on the side of average conservatives 90% of the time.
So put up or shut up, or just quit being a chicken****.
You don't like that list of issues, make your own.

You have made all kinds of claims about me
without any proof or only based on a few posts of mine you have read.
The only statement I have made about you were based entirely on your
posts here. You keep claiming that is untrue, and I have challenged
you to show were it is so. I even gave you a venue to do so.

How many times has Pimpton said I have no education?
Every thing I recall from him says you have "a ****ty education from a
****ty school" or some such. Not that you have no education. But I
don't really care what he says.


Throwing your own falsehoods back in your face was not lying.

You found none to throw.
I am sure if you could have you would have.

When you make a statement, calling it a fact, knowing it is untrue,
you lie.

" What claims have I made about you that I have gone silent on? Be
" specific and I'll address anything I've said.
The above blather is not addressing what you said, it is a mealy
mouthed backtracking.
I call it giving a bully some of his own medicine.


If you had half the knowledge you claim, you would be able to state
EXACTLY where I stand on the issues below. But I will be king and say
that if you get even HALF of them right I will call it a "win" for
you, if you get 3/4 of them right, you might even be as smart as you
claim.


Since you know what I know on so many subjects.
Please tell me where I stand on these issues.
Abortion
The environment
Global Warming
Patriot Act
Nuclear Power
Decriminalization of Pot.
The peace corps
Complete Legalization of Pot.
NASA
The first gulf war
Space Travel in General
Nanotechnology
PBS/NPR
The War in Afghanistan
The second gulf war
Foreign Aid
==============================

When you said you knew exactly what training and education I had
received in my life.
On 2/22 under "why do you have a right to your money" I challenged
you to tell me (and the world) exactly what my training was in these
areas.

In this case I was imitating Pimpton.
Bull****, you were being you.

I was not being serious and I was
simply declaring things about you that I did not really know.
Or in other words, you LIED.

And you are still to chicken**** to respond.
Try to justify how you will after the fact, it is obvious you don't
have the knowledge you claimed, admitted you didn't have, and yet
claimed again in the post I am responding to.

No it wasn't, it was in a discussion of your supposed ability to
evaluate evidence. And that was well before you started trying that
one on for size. But even if that were to be true, it still means
you lied.

No, it just means I made a baseless claim about you the same way you
have made many of them about me. And you started it, not me.
Again I ask (since you never responded) what baseless claim did I
make?


That you lied is true, and amply supported by your posts.


So, you know this for a fact how?

Same way you guys know everything about me.

Never said I did, liar.

But If I recall you never said you had any legal training either. Did you?
Never said I didn't either.
Oh well, you are being evasive and dishonest here.
No just correcting your error of omission.
Some would call that a lie. You're lying by omission.
No just giving you the rope you need.

You made a claim, lacking the knowledge to justify that claim.


This is what I mean about you trying to
take the high ground when you are not exactly honest, to say the least.


Last time you claimed to know exactly where I stood on all issues,
based on a single (misunderstood) statement, and I asked you to "put
up or shut up" by telling me where I stood on a laundry list of
today's more "popular" issues, and you shut up.

So pray tell, since you are now also an expert on my education,

What School did I graduate from?
What classes did I take there?
What was my major
Have I done ANY post graduate education?
DO I have an Advanced Degree?
Have I ever been accredited as an instructor for a college?
If so what subject.
================================


It's only fair isn't it? You two lie about me and when I give it back to
you then I'm the liar?
If you lie, you lie. You now admit you lied, again. What about that
claim that you don't lie?

Either you "do not lie" as you claimed, or you lied about us to
"teach us a lesson" [yeah right], but in EITHER case you stand as an
admitted liar.

I had to teach you a lesson. You started lying by
making up things about me that you knew were untrue or you had no proof
of. That means you gave up any right to the truth from me.
OHHHHHH, now you are also Mr. "Situational Ethics" as well. Why WHY
does that not surprise me.

jk

Hawke wrote:



No? I think your standard for yourself isn't nearly as tough as the
standard you use for me.
Tougher.


On 2/19 when you said you knew were I stood on all "Issues"
I challenged you to tell me (and the world) "where I stand" on the
following.
==============================
Since you know what I know on so many subjects.
Please tell me where I stand on these issues.
Abortion
The environment
Global Warming
Patriot Act
Nuclear Power
Decriminalization of Pot.
The peace corps
Complete Legalization of Pot.
NASA
The first gulf war
Space Travel in General
Nanotechnology
PBS/NPR
The War in Afghanistan
The second gulf war
Foreign Aid
==============================

When you said you knew exactly what training and education I had
received in my life.
On 2/22 under "why do you have a right to your money" I challenged
you to tell me (and the world) exactly what my training was in these
areas.

===============================
You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal.
So, you know this for a fact how?
Last time you claimed to know exactly where I stood on all issues,
based on a single (misunderstood) statement, and I asked you to "put
up or shut up" by telling me where I stood on a laundry list of
today's more "popular" issues, and you shut up.

So pray tell, since you are now also an expert on my education,

What School did I graduate from?
What classes did I take there?
What was my major
Have I done ANY post graduate education?
DO I have an Advanced Degree?
Have I ever been accredited as an instructor for a college?
If so what subject.
================================

I addressed the above in another post.
No where that I have seen.


As for defining my own
words everybody else does the same thing. If I threw a hatchet at your
head and it missed by a couple of feet you might say that was close
where I'd say I missed by a mile. We both had our own definition of what
a miss by a couple of feet is. Understand?


Funny you didn't have anything to say about this.
What the trivial blather?
You think I have time to respond to ALL of your nonsense?
My response would be that"I know grandmothers that can throw better
than that" but that likely would of hurt your feelings and sent you
off on another tangent about how good you are.
jk

Hawke wrote:



What do you call it when you haven't the balls to admit when you are
wrong?
Recently I call that "Hawke" or "Smithering"
jk

On 4/2/2012 3:27 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


The reality is that as a conservative I do know where you stand on most
issues.
You have no IDEA where I stand on issues. If you had the courage of
your convictions you would have listed where I stand on that list of
issues.
But you don't know, and probably ALSO have no clue about were
"conservatives" stand on those issues.


I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that on the major issues you come
down on the side of average conservatives 90% of the time.
So put up or shut up, or just quit being a chicken****.
You don't like that list of issues, make your own.

You have made all kinds of claims about me
without any proof or only based on a few posts of mine you have read.
The only statement I have made about you were based entirely on your
posts here. You keep claiming that is untrue, and I have challenged
you to show were it is so. I even gave you a venue to do so.

How many times has Pimpton said I have no education?
Every thing I recall from him says you have "a ****ty education from a
****ty school" or some such. Not that you have no education. But I
don't really care what he says.

I said he had a ****ty degree from a ****ty school. I do maintain he
has no education. Education doesn't mean instruction in academic
subjects. I learned that when I was an exchange student in Europe in
the early 1970s. The mother of the host family was asking me about the
schools in the US, and I made several references to the "education
system" here. She was puzzled. Finally, it emerged that in French,
"education" refers to the inculcation of moral values, while
"instruction" is used to refer to what takes place in schools.
Instruction occurs in the schools; education, if it occurs at all, takes
place in the family, in church and in one's voluntary associations in
the community. Hawwke-Ptooey has no education whatever - his moral
values are 100% situational; he makes them up as he goes along.



Throwing your own falsehoods back in your face was not lying.

You found none to throw.
I am sure if you could have you would have.

When you make a statement, calling it a fact, knowing it is untrue,
you lie.

" What claims have I made about you that I have gone silent on? Be
" specific and I'll address anything I've said.
The above blather is not addressing what you said, it is a mealy
mouthed backtracking.
I call it giving a bully some of his own medicine.


If you had half the knowledge you claim, you would be able to state
EXACTLY where I stand on the issues below. But I will be king and say
that if you get even HALF of them right I will call it a "win" for
you, if you get 3/4 of them right, you might even be as smart as you
claim.


Since you know what I know on so many subjects.
Please tell me where I stand on these issues.
Abortion
The environment
Global Warming
Patriot Act
Nuclear Power
Decriminalization of Pot.
The peace corps
Complete Legalization of Pot.
NASA
The first gulf war
Space Travel in General
Nanotechnology
PBS/NPR
The War in Afghanistan
The second gulf war
Foreign Aid
==============================

When you said you knew exactly what training and education I had
received in my life.
On 2/22 under "why do you have a right to your money" I challenged
you to tell me (and the world) exactly what my training was in these
areas.

In this case I was imitating Pimpton.
Bull****, you were being you.

I was not being serious and I was
simply declaring things about you that I did not really know.
Or in other words, you LIED.

And you are still to chicken**** to respond.
Try to justify how you will after the fact, it is obvious you don't
have the knowledge you claimed, admitted you didn't have, and yet
claimed again in the post I am responding to.

No it wasn't, it was in a discussion of your supposed ability to
evaluate evidence. And that was well before you started trying that
one on for size. But even if that were to be true, it still means
you lied.

No, it just means I made a baseless claim about you the same way you
have made many of them about me. And you started it, not me.
Again I ask (since you never responded) what baseless claim did I
make?


That you lied is true, and amply supported by your posts.


So, you know this for a fact how?

Same way you guys know everything about me.

Never said I did, liar.

But If I recall you never said you had any legal training either. Did you?
Never said I didn't either.
Oh well, you are being evasive and dishonest here.
No just correcting your error of omission.
Some would call that a lie. You're lying by omission.
No just giving you the rope you need.

You made a claim, lacking the knowledge to justify that claim.


This is what I mean about you trying to
take the high ground when you are not exactly honest, to say the least.


Last time you claimed to know exactly where I stood on all issues,
based on a single (misunderstood) statement, and I asked you to "put
up or shut up" by telling me where I stood on a laundry list of
today's more "popular" issues, and you shut up.

So pray tell, since you are now also an expert on my education,

What School did I graduate from?
What classes did I take there?
What was my major
Have I done ANY post graduate education?
DO I have an Advanced Degree?
Have I ever been accredited as an instructor for a college?
If so what subject.
================================


It's only fair isn't it? You two lie about me and when I give it back to
you then I'm the liar?
If you lie, you lie. You now admit you lied, again. What about that
claim that you don't lie?

Either you "do not lie" as you claimed, or you lied about us to
"teach us a lesson" [yeah right], but in EITHER case you stand as an
admitted liar.

I had to teach you a lesson. You started lying by
making up things about me that you knew were untrue or you had no proof
of. That means you gave up any right to the truth from me.
OHHHHHH, now you are also Mr. "Situational Ethics" as well. Why WHY
does that not surprise me.

jk

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. I gave you enough
information for anyone to easily determine that Dole was using all kinds
of tricks to enrich himself while in the senate. He mastered the skill
of extracting money from wealthy interests in exchange for his votes. He
did it for decades. If you can't make yourself a millionaire with that
kind of opportunity you're pretty incompetent and when it comes to
making money Dole is anything but incompetent.

Hawke

Hawke

On 4/2/2012 1:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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".

Now all you can do is say the reference is no good. But even though I
know you will do that it doesn't change the fact that it has been
reported that Bob Dole made a lot of money on the side when he was in
the senate. He made that from speeches alone that they called
"honoraria" but was really nothing but legalized bribery. That's
what I
told you and what you said was a lie.
That is NOT what you were saying. And that is not what he called a
lie.


Look, Dole was taking hundreds of rides on corporate jets for the price
of a first class ticket.

Not established.

Yes it is. You're just too stupid to admit it. Want a cite that proves
it? I guess not, huh? Because that means I'm right again. So check this
out and then I'll be waiting to hear how you try to weasel out.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-...corporate-jets

Try saying this is bull****.



He took hundreds of flights on corporate jets for 1,000 per flight when
they cost between 5 and 20 thousand apiece.

Not established.

It is too.


He was having corporations giving all kinds of money
to his foundation, Pacs, and other entities he controlled.

But not to him.

Giving donations to foundations and PACs is the same as giving it to the
person. Especially when they have the power to decide how it's spent.
It's called giving in kind. It's only a legal fiction that you aren't
giving it to someone when you give it to a legal entity created for that
exact purpose. But I forget that you don't know anything about law.


You want to make the argument that giving someone control of funds isn't
giving it to him, go ahead.

It isn't established he had control of money that he converted to any
personal use.

Some of them he does have the control to decide exactly how the money is
spent and some is not. It depends on what kind of organization it is.
But it's like campaign contributions that are not spent by the
candidate. They keep it.



So the truth is as I said, Dole made millions when he was in the
senate.

Not proved.

It is to any reasonable person. If all Dole did was live on his salary
and saved the speech fees for a decade he'd have a million dollar
investment. But he did far more than that.


The proof is there for all to see.

No proof.

Here's another article telling about how senators like Dole profited
from their office. It was from 1989 so Dole had 20 years to get all
kinds of outside income from business interests. More proof of Dole at
the trough.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6288,2581013

So there you go, ****head. There's two citations that prove Dole was
pulling in all kinds of money outside his normal senate pay while he was
in office. I told you Dole had a reputation for being one of the worst
at making himself rich. So here's two different references that show
exactly what Dole was doing, taking free donations from corporations in
the guise of free jet trips and from twenty year of "honoraria".

The article also notes that Dole kept some of the free money and gave
some to charity. That's the charities of his choice. I wonder if any of
it want to any of his own charitable organizations. Bet they did.

If that isn't proof of Dole pulling in loads of outside money while a
senator then nothing would. As they say in cards, read 'em and weep.

Hawke

On 4/2/2012 11:30 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:08 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 10:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 2:57 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 2:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because you don't think some of those are correct, and you base
that only on what you know from this newsgroup, that doesn't mean
it's
not true. If I've had my IQ tested and it shows above average, if by
having a college degree that means I am better educated than 70% of
Americans,


Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?

The way education is measured is in credentials.

Wrong.

So yes, the day I
graduated I became more educated than the day before I graduated.

You never obtained an education.

I'm still ahead of you in that department because

You aren't. You have *no* education. What you have is some instruction,
but that's different. Your instruction is in a worthless field, by the way.


Actually it's you who isn't educated. I mean, what does a guy with
nothing but an economics degree do with it? It's not enough to teach,
it's not enough to be considered any kind of expert in the field of
economics. It's just barely enough to qualify as having graduated, and
that's all you have. It doesn't get you into any better job than any
other college degree does. You don't know enough with just that degree
to get anywhere in your own field. It's just a starting point and you
never went any farther. So I can't imagine why you would be bragging
about your education. It's nothing really.

When you consider that your degree gets you nothing but an ordinary job
and how incompetent you are in general, you really have the bare minimum
as far as education goes. You sure aren't well rounded with a degree in
economics. You don't know anything but that field and you need way more
than just a BA to get anywhere in economics. So it gets you nowhere. No
wonder you come across as someone with minimal education and minimal
knowledge about the world in general. Not like someone like me who has
been educated in multiple academic disciplines from several different
educational institutions.

No wonder you can't keep up with me.

Hawke

On 3/30/2012 5:32 PM, wrote:
On Mar 30, 6:41 pm, wrote:


I don't know what you are getting at. Maybe you are referring to
something Dan said about a group of engineers he knows where 100% of
them are way above average as far as IQ goes. Otherwise I don't know
what you're talking about. Or are you saying that in a group every one
in the group thinks they are above average? Maybe they are. Whatever it
is you mean I don't get you.

Hawke

I do not think that I ever said anything about a group of engineers.
Much less about saying anything about a group of engineers that are
way above average as far as IQ goes.

Dan



Then your memory is failing. We were talking a while back and you
brought up a story about a bunch of engineers you know and you said
their IQs were quite a bit above average. I don't remember it exactly
but you were talking about a group of engineers you knew. You're lucky I
remember at all. It was your story so you ought to remember it better
than I do. Of course, you could always go back and look it up.

Hawke

On 4/2/2012 11:30 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:11 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 10:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

The laugh would be on you if you met me in person because you would
find
the same thing

You don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about. You're
clueless, including your ****witted belief that people think you're
knowledgeable.


The only people who don't know that are

Everyone knows you're not a smart or clever guy.


The only people who don't know that are

Everyone knows you're not a smart or clever guy.


You aren't a very good listener. I told you that every one who knows me
knows that I am not just a smart guy but I'm also a very knowledgeable
one too. The fact that you and other rightwing goofies either don't know
it or won't admit it isn't my fault, and I don't give a **** about that
either. Like the saying goes, it's like casting pearls before swine. You
and people like you are the swine. So it sucks to be you.

Hawke

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.

On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/2/2012 1:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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".

Now all you can do is say the reference is no good. But even
though I
know you will do that it doesn't change the fact that it has been
reported that Bob Dole made a lot of money on the side when he
was in
the senate. He made that from speeches alone that they called
"honoraria" but was really nothing but legalized bribery. That's
what I
told you and what you said was a lie.
That is NOT what you were saying. And that is not what he called a
lie.


Look, Dole was taking hundreds of rides on corporate jets for the
price
of a first class ticket.

Not established.

Yes it is. You're just too stupid to admit it. Want a cite that proves
it? I guess not, huh? Because that means I'm right again. So check this
out and then I'll be waiting to hear how you try to weasel out.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-...corporate-jets

"The Dole campaign said the practice, in which Dole solicits the use of
a business jet in return for paying first-class air fare for himself and
his entourage, will end when Dole officially announces his candidacy,
probably next month."

Also: "Dole's principal opponent, Vice President George Bush, flies on
Air Force Two, a government-owned plane provided for security reasons.
When it is used for political trips, the vice president and his party
pay first-class fares to the government."

He paid money to fly on the planes. He paid what the vice-president
paid. No one suggested that Bush flying on Air Force 2 while paying for
first class airfare was unethical.

You lose.


He was having corporations giving all kinds of money
to his foundation, Pacs, and other entities he controlled.

But not to him.

Giving donations to foundations and PACs is the same as giving it to the
person.

It's not. The foundation or PAC may only use the money for purposes
specified in the law. Dole didn't acquire any "millions" from it.
That's your charge: that he became a millionaire from unethical
conduct. He didn't get any money into his private accounts from the
foundation or PAC - which, of course, you can't identify anyway.


You want to make the argument that giving someone control of funds isn't
giving it to him, go ahead.

It isn't established he had control of money that he converted to any
personal use.

Some of them he does have the control to decide exactly how the money is
spent and some is not.

None of it is part of the "millions" you claim he made.



So the truth is as I said, Dole made millions when he was in the
senate.

Not proved.

It is to any reasonable person.

It isn't proved at all.


The proof is there for all to see.

No proof.

Here's another article telling about how senators like Dole profited
from their office. It was from 1989 so Dole had 20 years to get all
kinds of outside income from business interests. More proof of Dole at
the trough.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6288,2581013

"Of the total [$173,800 over two years], he kept $62,050 for personal
use and gave $111,750 to charity."

One hardly becomes a millionaire keeping $30,000 a year in honoraria,
you ****wit. ****, you are so stupid - just as we'd expect a poli sci
graduate to be.

You don't know politics, and you sure as **** don't know finance.




So there you go,

There you go, ****flaps. You lost, again.

On 4/3/2012 1:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:30 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:08 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 10:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/31/2012 2:57 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 2:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because you don't think some of those are correct, and you base
that only on what you know from this newsgroup, that doesn't mean
it's
not true. If I've had my IQ tested and it shows above average, if by
having a college degree that means I am better educated than 70% of
Americans,


Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?

The way education is measured is in credentials.

Wrong.

So yes, the day I
graduated I became more educated than the day before I graduated.

You never obtained an education.

I'm still ahead of you in that department because

You aren't. You have *no* education. What you have is some instruction,
but that's different. Your instruction is in a worthless field, by the
way.


Actually it's you who isn't educated.

Actually, it's you.

On 4/3/2012 1:35 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 5:32 PM, wrote:
On Mar 30, 6:41 pm, wrote:


I don't know what you are getting at. Maybe you are referring to
something Dan said about a group of engineers he knows where 100% of
them are way above average as far as IQ goes. Otherwise I don't know
what you're talking about. Or are you saying that in a group every one
in the group thinks they are above average? Maybe they are. Whatever it
is you mean I don't get you.

Hawke

I do not think that I ever said anything about a group of engineers.
Much less about saying anything about a group of engineers that are
way above average as far as IQ goes.

Dan



Then your memory is failing.

Once again, you're in no position to be criticizing anyone's memory.


We were talking a while back and you
brought up a story about a bunch of engineers you know and you said
their IQs were quite a bit above average. I don't remember it exactly
but [...]

Of course you don't.

On 4/3/2012 1:39 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:30 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:11 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/31/2012 10:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

The laugh would be on you if you met me in person because you would
find
the same thing

You don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about. You're
clueless, including your ****witted belief that people think you're
knowledgeable.


The only people who don't know that are

Everyone knows you're not a smart or clever guy.


The only people who don't know that are

Everyone knows you're not a smart or clever guy.


You aren't a very good listener. I told you that every one who knows me
knows that I am not just a smart guy but I'm also a very knowledgeable
one too.

You ****ing idiot: being smart *means* being knowledgeable. And no, no
one believes that people who know you consider you smart. *We* who
suffer through your pedantic bull**** here "know" you, and you're not smart.

Hawke wrote:



Actually it's you who isn't educated. I mean, what does a guy with
nothing but an economics degree do with it? It's not enough to teach,
it's not enough to be considered any kind of expert in the field of
economics.
It's just barely enough to qualify as having graduated, and
that's all you have.
According to YOU that makes him JUST as educated as you are.
Or did you suddenly sprout an advanced degree.

It doesn't get you into any better job than any
other college degree does. You don't know enough with just that degree
to get anywhere in your own field. It's just a starting point and you
never went any farther.
Wow, really a Pot-Kettle situation there

So I can't imagine why you would be bragging
about your education. It's nothing really.
Then by your own definition, so is yours.


jk

Mendacious Dave wrote:



You aren't a very good listener. I told you that every one who knows me
knows that I am not just a smart guy but I'm also a very knowledgeable
one too.
Yes, you SAID that. I even think you believe that. I don't really
think many other people do. Certainly no one here has popped up and
said how smart OR knowledgeable they think you are.

The fact that you and other rightwing goofies either don't know
it or won't admit it isn't my fault,
If that falsehood were to be true, it would be entirely your fault
that people won't admit it.

and I don't give a **** about that
either.

Like the saying goes, it's like casting pearls before swine. You
and people like you are the swine. So it sucks to be you.
Call them "pearls" if you want. They still smell like horse apples
dipped in an outhouse.


Hawke
jk

George Plimpton wrote:




You aren't a very good listener. I told you that every one who knows me
knows that I am not just a smart guy but I'm also a very knowledgeable
one too.

You ****ing idiot: being smart *means* being knowledgeable.
Actually they are separate and distinct George.
You can be extremely smart, and still be uneducated.
And of course the reverse is true, you could be an educated idiot.
jk

On 4/3/2012 3:05 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:




You aren't a very good listener. I told you that every one who knows me
knows that I am not just a smart guy but I'm also a very knowledgeable
one too.

You ****ing idiot: being smart *means* being knowledgeable.
Actually they are separate and distinct George.
You can be extremely smart, and still be uneducated.

You're confusing intelligent and smart. A person is smart if he knows a
lot, i.e. has accumulated knowledge. A person is intelligent if he can
learn things easily and quickly. I've known intelligent people who
aren't very smart (because they don't apply themselves), and I've known
smart people who aren't very intelligent. The people in the former
group usually are strikingly lazy - they have all the mental horsepower
to learn and learn easily, but they just won't apply themselves. In my
personal experience, one guy in the latter group really stands out. He
seemed particularly bright - not dimwitted, just not particularly bright
- but he was extremely focused and hardworking, and became an emergency
room physician. A mutual friend of the ER doc and me is one of the
brightest but laziest guys I've ever known. If he had had the same
focus and work ethic of the ER doc, I think he's probably be
spectacularly successful today.


And of course the reverse is true, you could be an educated idiot.

Hawwke-Ptooey strikes me as closer to that. He has something one might
call a college education, but he really didn't learn anything of value.
The value of a university education, especially if it's only a
bachelor degree, is not in the subject matter itself, but rather in
learning how to think critically. Very clearly, Hawwke-Ptooey never
learned that.

On Apr 3, 4:35*pm, Hawke wrote:

I do not think that I ever said anything about a group of engineers.
Much less about saying anything about a group of engineers that are
way above average as far as IQ goes.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Then your memory is failing. We were talking a while back and you
brought up a story about a bunch of engineers you know and you said
their IQs were quite a bit above average. I don't remember it exactly
but you were talking about a group of engineers you knew. You're lucky I
remember at all. It was your story so you ought to remember it better
than I do. Of course, you could always go back and look it up.

Hawke

What I doubt is that I referred to a bunch of engineers. I have
referred to individual engineers and do know engineers whose IQ was
quite a bit above average, and may have referred to some of them.
But I doubt if I referred to a bunch of engineers. By quite a bit
above average, I probably meant above 145. But those with IQ's above
145 do not come in bunches. I have known engineers whose IQ was
barely above 120.

Dan

George Plimpton wrote:

On 4/3/2012 3:05 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:
You aren't a very good listener. I told you that every one who knows me
knows that I am not just a smart guy but I'm also a very knowledgeable
one too.
You ****ing idiot: being smart *means* being knowledgeable.
Actually they are separate and distinct George.
You can be extremely smart, and still be uneducated.

You're confusing intelligent and smart.
I think we will have to disagree here.
A person is smart if he knows a
lot, i.e. has accumulated knowledge.
To me that is knowledgeable, not smart.
Dictionary.com is equivocal, Merriam Webster does include intellegent
in their definition, but neither seem to use knowledgeable. I think I
will stick with my usage.

A person is intelligent if he can
learn things easily and quickly.
To me that is only part of intelligent, but an important part.
Another significant part is the ability to make connections between
parts of what one has learned.


And of course the reverse is true, you could be an educated idiot.

Hawwke-Ptooey strikes me as closer to that.
In the common vernacular "duh"

The value of a university education, especially if it's only a
bachelor degree, is not in the subject matter itself, but rather in
learning how to think critically.
I don't think that is completely true in all areas, but it is largely
so.

Very clearly, Hawwke-Ptooey never
learned that.
We he does seem to confuse "critical thinking" with being critical.

jk

On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Hawke wrote:

Here's another article telling about how senators like Dole profited
from their office. It was from 1989 so Dole had 20 years to get all
kinds of outside income from business interests. More proof of Dole at
the trough.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6288,2581013

"An aide to Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, a contender for the
Democratic nomination, said Dukakis had traveled on corporation-owned
planes three times in August, but he offered no estimate for earlier
months."

Looks like you showed the Democrat DuKACKis at the trough, butt****.
Nice work.

" wrote:


What I doubt is that I referred to a bunch of engineers. I have
referred to individual engineers and do know engineers whose IQ was
quite a bit above average, and may have referred to some of them.
But I doubt if I referred to a bunch of engineers. By quite a bit
above average, I probably meant above 145. But those with IQ's above
145 do not come in bunches.

What do they come in? [Individual nut shells is certainly a
possibility.]

I have known engineers whose IQ was
barely above 120.
I can only think of one, that I KNEW to be an engineer, that was darn
near stump stupid.



Dan
jk

On 4/2/2012 1:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 12:20 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.

You're reciting your own bio again.


Just the way you keep making the same claims and allegations you
can't
back up.

More than anything else, I show that *you* can't back up your claims.
You make wild, inflammatory statements that you simply can't
support at
all - ever.


That happens to be a claim, by the way, which according to your rules
you are supposed to prove is true.

I've done it.

Yes you have.

Yes, I have.


Here's how it works. If I have to prove it to you then you have to prove
it to me. You have at no point proven you claim about me making wild,
inflammatory statements. You haven't given a single example so that
means you have proved nothing and have made another baseless claim you
can't prove. Pot, kettle, black.

Hawke

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

On 4/4/2012 1:08 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/2/2012 1:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/2/2012 12:20 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Yes you have Davey. You keep saying the same things over and over.

You're reciting your own bio again.


Just the way you keep making the same claims and allegations you
can't
back up.

More than anything else, I show that *you* can't back up your claims.
You make wild, inflammatory statements that you simply can't
support at
all - ever.


That happens to be a claim, by the way, which according to your rules
you are supposed to prove is true.

I've done it.

Yes you have.

Yes, I have.


Here's how it works.

I tell you how it works.

On 4/4/2012 1:14 PM, Hawke wrote:
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,

But I haven't said that, of course. What I've said is that you have no
evidence he did anything unethical. I'm right: you have none.

On 4/3/2012 9:54 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Hawke wrote:

Here's another article telling about how senators like Dole profited
from their office. It was from 1989 so Dole had 20 years to get all
kinds of outside income from business interests. More proof of Dole at
the trough.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6288,2581013


"An aide to Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, a contender for the
Democratic nomination, said Dukakis had traveled on corporation-owned
planes three times in August, but he offered no estimate for earlier
months."

Looks like you showed the Democrat DuKACKis at the trough, butt****.
Nice work.


The allegation was that Dole did this as a regular practice and that is
just what his campaign staff said he did. It's also what I said he did
and you said he didn't or I didn't prove it. Well, I did. You can bring
up as many other politicians doing the same thing as you want. Two
wrongs don't make a right. The point was that Dole did it for years. I
told you he did. You denied it. I was right. You weren't. Quit being a
bitch and just admit it. Not admitting it after I've proved you wrong
just makes you look even worse than you already do.

Hawke

On 4/4/2012 2:03 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/3/2012 1:58 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Look, Dole was taking hundreds of rides on corporate jets for the
price
of a first class ticket.

Not established.

Here's your first **** up. You stated that it was not established that
Dole was taking hundreds of rides on corporate jets for the price of a
first class ticket. My citation shows that is exactly what Dole did. His
own campaign said it was his normal practice and they were going to end
it because it looked "unethical", or in other words it looked like a
gift. So what do you say about that ? It is established, isn't it? So
that makes you WRONG!!!, doesn't it?


Yes it is. You're just too stupid to admit it. Want a cite that proves
it? I guess not, huh? Because that means I'm right again. So check this
out and then I'll be waiting to hear how you try to weasel out.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-...corporate-jets

"The Dole campaign said the practice, in which Dole solicits the use of
a business jet in return for paying first-class air fare for himself and
his entourage, will end when Dole officially announces his candidacy,
probably next month."

Also: "Dole's principal opponent, Vice President George Bush, flies on
Air Force Two, a government-owned plane provided for security reasons.
When it is used for political trips, the vice president and his party
pay first-class fares to the government."

He paid money to fly on the planes. He paid what the vice-president
paid. No one suggested that Bush flying on Air Force 2 while paying for
first class airfare was unethical.

You lose.

No, you did. I proved my point. You then tried to bring in a red
herring, vice-president Bush. He had nothing to do with my allegation
against Dole. I said Dole was taking all kinds of trips on corporate
jets. My citation proved it was true. No one else had anything to do
with my allegation. I proved it.

You now know that what I said about Dole is a fact, so does anyone else
who reads the citation. Now you won't admit it. That tells me one thing
about you. You have no ethics either. Even when shown proof that what I
said about Dole was true you don't have the balls to admit it. What a punk.


He was having corporations giving all kinds of money
to his foundation, Pacs, and other entities he controlled.

But not to him.

Giving donations to foundations and PACs is the same as giving it to the
person.

It's not. The foundation or PAC may only use the money for purposes
specified in the law. Dole didn't acquire any "millions" from it. That's
your charge: that he became a millionaire from unethical conduct. He
didn't get any money into his private accounts from the foundation or
PAC - which, of course, you can't identify anyway.

I didn't say that he got his personal money from his PACs or foundation.
But how those work goes to the unethical activities. Wealthy interests
wanting to buy favors from Dole were guaranteed to get what they wanted
by giving large sums of money not to Dole personally but to the
organizations he controls. Everyone with a brain knows this is just a
way of getting around the rules of giving directly to politicians. You
can't give it to the politician directly so you give it to his pet
projects and his pet organizations that he controls. Your ignorance
prevents you from understanding how this game between politicians and
wealthy interests works.


You want to make the argument that giving someone control of funds
isn't
giving it to him, go ahead.

It isn't established he had control of money that he converted to any
personal use.

Not to the uninformed it probably isn't. But to anyone familiar with how
Washington works it's been established for decades. Foundations are
great examples of how this works. Dole establishes a charitable
foundation and put his friends and family on the board. They solicit
funds from corporations seeking Dole's support for what they want. Dole
and his hand picked board use the money any way they want. They can give
it all to charities and do good work or they can use only a tiny amount
for those kinds of activities. The point is the board is able to use the
money for the benefit of Dole or of those Dole wants to give money to.
It's a racket. But not illegal. Why do you think so many politicians
have them? Because of the goodness of their hearts? In your case you
probably do.



Some of them he does have the control to decide exactly how the money is
spent and some is not.

None of it is part of the "millions" you claim he made.

That's right, money given to those kind of organizations are the kind a
politician can't simply convert to his own personal wealth. They give
him access and the power but he can't put the funds in his name. But he
decides how it is used. So if you have access to and the power to spend
millions of dollars pretty much as you please most folks would call that
your money even if it isn't legally.



So the truth is as I said, Dole made millions when he was in the
senate.

Not proved.

It is to any reasonable person.

It isn't proved at all.


The proof is there for all to see.

No proof.

Here's another article telling about how senators like Dole profited
from their office. It was from 1989 so Dole had 20 years to get all
kinds of outside income from business interests. More proof of Dole at
the trough.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6288,2581013



"Of the total [$173,800 over two years], he kept $62,050 for personal
use and gave $111,750 to charity."

One hardly becomes a millionaire keeping $30,000 a year in honoraria,
you ****wit. ****, you are so stupid - just as we'd expect a poli sci
graduate to be.

You don't know politics, and you sure as **** don't know finance.

Look who's talking. Finance is not economics.

I didn't say it was.



The truth is if Dole put away only 36K a year for twenty years at a 6.5%
interest rate that would be worth more than 1.5 million dollars.

You said he had $16 million, and you suggested he made most of it while
in the Senate.

Anyway, speaking honoraria are not evidence of corruption or any other
form of unethical behavior.




So there you go,

There you go, ****flaps. You lost, again.

You showed yourself

....to be faster, stronger and just better than you.

On 4/3/2012 2:54 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



Actually it's you who isn't educated. I mean, what does a guy with
nothing but an economics degree do with it? It's not enough to teach,
it's not enough to be considered any kind of expert in the field of
economics.
It's just barely enough to qualify as having graduated, and
that's all you have.


According to YOU that makes him JUST as educated as you are.
Or did you suddenly sprout an advanced degree.

I'm just wondering if you ever get the point being made or are you
missing it intentionally. Has Pimpton denigrated me repeatedly for
having nothing but a college degree from a crappy school? You do
remember him saying that don't you? He repeated it many times. How many
times did we hear that I wasn't educated because all I did was get a BA
from Chico St.

So I point out that he's in exactly the same boat as me and even if he
went to a bigger name school it puts him right where I said he was. All
he has is a lowly single degree in economics. The point was it was a pot
calling the kettle black situation. He made it sound like I had nothing
but in reality he had absolutely nothing to brag about. What's so great
about a degree in econ? It sure doesn't put you in any position to say
you're way better than others, does it? Now do you see what I was
getting at? I'll make it even easier. With nothing but a simple
economics degree he didn't have the right to talk trash about anyone
else with a four year degree.



It doesn't get you into any better job than any
other college degree does. You don't know enough with just that degree
to get anywhere in your own field. It's just a starting point and you
never went any farther.

Wow, really a Pot-Kettle situation there

Wow! you noticed that right away but you completely missed that Pimpton
only had a four year degree too. So how come he's so much better? As I
pointed out, it doesn't do any more for him that my degree does for me.
So what kind of bitch says my degree is worthless when that is all he
has. Pot, kettle, black. Can you see him being guilty of it?



So I can't imagine why you would be bragging
about your education. It's nothing really.

Then by your own definition, so is yours.

We're equal, pal. Don't you get it? We're really not, but if we both
have a four year degree then neither one is in a position to bad mouth
the other. Who was it that was doing the bad mouthing? It was him. He
bad mouthed Chico St, and he bad mouthed political science, and he bad
mouthed me. And this is a guy with nothing but a god damned econ degree.
If you can't see how full of **** that makes him then you're a dunce.

Hawke

On 4/4/2012 2:07 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/3/2012 9:54 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/3/2012 1:18 PM, Hawke wrote:

Here's another article telling about how senators like Dole profited
from their office. It was from 1989 so Dole had 20 years to get all
kinds of outside income from business interests. More proof of Dole at
the trough.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6288,2581013



"An aide to Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, a contender for the
Democratic nomination, said Dukakis had traveled on corporation-owned
planes three times in August, but he offered no estimate for earlier
months."

Looks like you showed the Democrat DuKACKis at the trough, butt****.
Nice work.


The allegation was that Dole did this as a regular practice and

DuKACKis did it, too. Your boy.

Hawke wrote:

On 4/3/2012 2:54 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:
Actually it's you who isn't educated. I mean, what does a guy with
nothing but an economics degree do with it? It's not enough to teach,
it's not enough to be considered any kind of expert in the field of
economics.
It's just barely enough to qualify as having graduated, and
that's all you have.
According to YOU that makes him JUST as educated as you are.
Or did you suddenly sprout an advanced degree.
I'm just wondering if you ever get the point being made
Perhaps if you ever made a comprehensible point.........

So I point out that he's in exactly the same boat as me and even if he
went to a bigger name school it puts him right where I said he was.
Only (by your entirely unsupported) assumption that "education" =
"degrees"
All
he has is a lowly single degree in economics. The point was it was a pot
calling the kettle black situation. He made it sound like I had nothing
but in reality he had absolutely nothing to brag about. What's so great
about a degree in econ?
What's so great about a degree in poly pseudo science.

Wow, really a Pot-Kettle situation there

Wow! you noticed that right away but you completely missed that Pimpton
only had a four year degree too.

Not so,I was fully aware of that claim, but it is irrelevant. He has
a degree and presumably an education to go with it.

So how come he's so much better? As I
pointed out, it doesn't do any more for him that my degree does for me.
So what kind of bitch says my degree is worthless
THe kind that thinks you got a piece of paper, but not the education.


We're equal, pal. Don't you get it? We're really not, but if we both
have a four year degree then neither one is in a position to bad mouth
the other.
Only under the false assumption that your degrees = your education.
But garbage concept in, garbage results out.
Who was it that was doing the bad mouthing? It was him.
It was BOTH of you
jk