Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
"charlieb" wrote in message
...
Charlie Self wrote:

How about something simple.

1. If you can't vote for the person you're giving money to
for his/her campaign - you can't give him/her ANY money.

You don't believe in freedom much do you?

That eliminates Corporate Donations, PAC donations, Lobbyist
donations, Special Interest Groups donations, etc.

So groups of people with a important view or interest (at least to them)
should not be allowed to communicate or be heard?


2. You cannot donate more than - oh lets say - $5K total to
any single candidate - that you can vote for.

So you wish to raise the current campaign contribution limit of $2300?

Now if we can somehow change the latest Supreme Court Ruling
that says Money = Speech and limiting political contributions
is limiting "free speech" . . . The iron of "free" in "free speech"
being the same as Mo' Money! still astounds me. But that's just
one example of some pretty convoluted legal "reasoning" we've
encountered over the last 8 years.

Since we have very stringent and very specific campaign finance limits with
serious reporting requirements. What issue begs such concern? All we really
need is specific knowledge of where the money comes from, where the money
goes and how our politicians vote.

Since Obama has significantly "changed" his public position of election
funding for his campaign(no limits) and McCain did not and since McCain did
pass significant bipartisan campaign finance reform I assume McCain is
ideologically your kind of guy.

The free speech issue with campaign finance limits is that voices will not
or cannot be heard. National and even local media will have and can have a
huge propaganda advantage to their will. The past weekends unfounded and
largely false attacks on Palin are a ready case in point of possibilities,
as the airwaves were flooded with much vile. How does one respond to such
type of attacks if like minded people are not allowed to pool resources and
communicate? Rod

Don't put my name on one line that I wrote and tack on a lot of lines
from elsewhere. I probably disagree with you anyway, but this is
something on the order of a sneak attack, attributing **** to me that
I didn't write. Check Snopes for info on Palin, by the way. Just
another cheap-assed half-truth loving politico liar.

If I were making the rules, I'd top registered voters' donations out
at a grand or so. Basically, that ****s the groups who have been
overspending and over-influencing for decades. I think that's just
fine, because those groups have been screwing John Q. long enough.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
What I posted was that the average Republican delegate had net assests of
$500K and was a male white person.

A review of the audience showed a lot of shall we say "mature" white
people in attendance.


The Democratic convention delegates were on average, much younger than the
Republican delegates

You can draw your own conclusions, but my comment was pretty obvious to
me.

Lew



OK, the conclusion is obvious. Young people start out as poor Democrats,
then get smart and become rich Republicans.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
What I posted was that the average Republican delegate had net assests of
$500K and was a male white person.

A review of the audience showed a lot of shall we say "mature" white
people in attendance.


The Democratic convention delegates were on average, much younger than
the Republican delegates

You can draw your own conclusions, but my comment was pretty obvious to
me.

Lew



OK, the conclusion is obvious. Young people start out as poor Democrats,
then get smart and become rich Republicans.

:-)

Just out of curiosity, how many million dollar sky boxes were for sale at
the RNC? Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money from
the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people is
a bit different than yours and mine).

BTW, I saw quite a few women and minorities in the audience shots taken
during the Palin speech. Also haven't heard any news about how the
organizers for the RNC were looking for certain "demographics" to sit in
the high-profile audience areas; did hear that about the other guys. But
I'm sure that was just smear by the highly Republican biased main stream
media.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money from
the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people is
a bit different than yours and mine).

I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" before
I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions...

BTW, I saw quite a few women and minorities in the audience shots taken
during the Palin speech. Also haven't heard any news about how the
organizers for the RNC were looking for certain "demographics" to sit in
the high-profile audience areas; did hear that about the other guys. But
I'm sure that was just smear by the highly Republican biased main stream
media.

I doubt that you saw much on camera at either convention that hadn't
been carefully planned/scripted for us to see.

My interpretation was that the Republicans felt a much greater need to
present images of minority involvement than did the Democrats - but
since I don't have access to either party's scripts, I have no way of
knowing for sure.

I'm impressed that you're able to be so certain with so little
first-hand knowledge.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money
from
the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people
is a bit different than yours and mine).

I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" before
I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions...

Morris, that comment was intended to be understated sarcasm. Fact of the
matter is that the sky boxes at Invesco field were reserved for million
dollar donors and the kind of high-rollers that the candidate had initially
stated he was not going to seek out.


BTW, I saw quite a few women and minorities in the audience shots taken
during the Palin speech. Also haven't heard any news about how the
organizers for the RNC were looking for certain "demographics" to sit in
the high-profile audience areas; did hear that about the other guys. But
I'm sure that was just smear by the highly Republican biased main stream
media.

I doubt that you saw much on camera at either convention that hadn't
been carefully planned/scripted for us to see.


Do you believe that the media's cameras would only pan the audience where
they were directed by the Republican campaign committee?

My interpretation was that the Republicans felt a much greater need to
present images of minority involvement than did the Democrats - but
since I don't have access to either party's scripts, I have no way of
knowing for sure.


My comment was in response to the statement by the OP who claimed all he
saw was rich old white guys. My comment was directed to indicate that
there were a number of young and old women as well as minorities in the
crowd -- i.e., it wasn't the "white bread" moment that the OP indicated.

I'm impressed that you're able to be so certain with so little
first-hand knowledge.


Morris, the comments regarding scripting various Obama campaign
appearances have been well-documented. There were comments by staffers
during one appearance where they turned away black people from certain
seating areas because they needed more white people there. There was an
event with some people of arabic appearance who were invited to appear on
stage until the staffers found out that the women who were with them were
wearing muslim head garb at which point they were immediately dis-invited.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

charlieb wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:

We need a change in the financing of compaigns, for su donations
allowed ONLY from registered voters, in amounts of $1,000 or under.
Double donating gets the second check/MO/cash confiscated.


How about something simple.

1. If you can't vote for the person you're giving money to
for his/her campaign - you can't give him/her ANY money.

That eliminates Corporate Donations, PAC donations, Lobbyist
donations, Special Interest Groups donations, etc.

This all sounds nicely democratic. The trouble is that it takes away
several of the most powerful tools available to minorities and "the
little guy" to protect their interests.

2. You cannot donate more than - oh lets say - $5K total to
any single candidate - that you can vote for.

Now if we can somehow change the latest Supreme Court Ruling
that says Money = Speech and limiting political contributions
is limiting "free speech" . . . The iron of "free" in "free
speech" being the same as Mo' Money! still astounds me. But
that's just one example of some pretty convoluted legal
"reasoning" we've encountered over the last 8 years.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

OK, the conclusion is obvious. Young people start out as poor
Democrats, then get smart and become rich Republicans.

That certainly is one conclusion you can make.

Another might be the Republicans are not attracting many new members
from other than the ranks of white guys.

Lew

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money
from
the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people
is a bit different than yours and mine).
I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" before
I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions...

Morris, that comment was intended to be understated sarcasm. Fact of the
matter is that the sky boxes at Invesco field were reserved for million
dollar donors and the kind of high-rollers that the candidate had initially
stated he was not going to seek out.

Ok - you would seem to have info that I do not (I wasn't offered the use
of one of the sky boxes for any price, and didn't see a general offer).
If it had been my shindig and I'd paid for the use of the premises, I
wouldn't have felt a need to refuse a million for the use of one of the
boxes - and neither would I have felt that accepting that million would
obligate me to deliver future favors (consider that a warning if you
were thinking of sending me a million for a week's use of a prime spot
in my shop g)

Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...

BTW, I saw quite a few women and minorities in the audience shots taken
during the Palin speech. Also haven't heard any news about how the
organizers for the RNC were looking for certain "demographics" to sit in
the high-profile audience areas; did hear that about the other guys. But
I'm sure that was just smear by the highly Republican biased main stream
media.
I doubt that you saw much on camera at either convention that hadn't
been carefully planned/scripted for us to see.

Do you believe that the media's cameras would only pan the audience where
they were directed by the Republican campaign committee?

I believe the pros who organize political events are able to seed the
areas where they think cameras are most likely to be pointed however
they choose. I would be astonished if that were not the case at both
conventions.

My interpretation was that the Republicans felt a much greater need to
present images of minority involvement than did the Democrats - but
since I don't have access to either party's scripts, I have no way of
knowing for sure.

My comment was in response to the statement by the OP who claimed all he
saw was rich old white guys. My comment was directed to indicate that
there were a number of young and old women as well as minorities in the
crowd -- i.e., it wasn't the "white bread" moment that the OP indicated.

Ok - that wasn't what I was interested in and so didn't take note. In
fact, a couple of folks I knew reasonably well were on camera (a
political consultant from Iowa and my sister's ex-husband, who was on
stage with a handful of other retired generals) and I managed not to
recognize either. Oops.

I'm impressed that you're able to be so certain with so little
first-hand knowledge.

Morris, the comments regarding scripting various Obama campaign
appearances have been well-documented. There were comments by staffers
during one appearance where they turned away black people from certain
seating areas because they needed more white people there. There was an
event with some people of arabic appearance who were invited to appear on
stage until the staffers found out that the women who were with them were
wearing muslim head garb at which point they were immediately dis-invited.

My apologies for my own sarcasm. Sigh - one of the things I've learned
about this kind of gathering is that staffers become almost totally
focused on appearances and image - to the exclusion of just about
everything else, and that candidates are stuck with the consequences.

The old saying: "When you're up to your ass in Alligators, it's hard to
remember that the original objective was to drain the swamp" would seem
to apply in spades to campaign staffers at convention time.

My big interest was in what the candidates themselves had to say and how
they said it. I didn't watch to be dazzled by spectacle or to judge the
performance of the non-candidates who put the show together.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money
from
the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people
is a bit different than yours and mine).
I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" before
I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions...

Morris, that comment was intended to be understated sarcasm. Fact of
the
matter is that the sky boxes at Invesco field were reserved for million
dollar donors and the kind of high-rollers that the candidate had
initially stated he was not going to seek out.

Ok - you would seem to have info that I do not (I wasn't offered the use
of one of the sky boxes for any price, and didn't see a general offer).
If it had been my shindig and I'd paid for the use of the premises, I
wouldn't have felt a need to refuse a million for the use of one of the
boxes - and neither would I have felt that accepting that million would
obligate me to deliver future favors (consider that a warning if you
were thinking of sending me a million for a week's use of a prime spot
in my shop g)


Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...




http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-demfunds16-2008aug16,0,3706902.story


There were others, but that's the one that I could find in a few minutes
of looking on ask.com


.... snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sep 7, 6:41*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money
from
the common people was speaking. *(Maybe his definition of common people
is a bit different than yours and mine).
I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" before
I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions....

* *Morris, that comment was intended to be understated sarcasm. Fact of
* *the
matter is that the sky boxes at Invesco field were reserved for million
dollar donors and the kind of high-rollers that the candidate had
initially stated he was not going to seek out.

Ok - you would seem to have info that I do not (I wasn't offered the use
of one of the sky boxes for any price, and didn't see a general offer).
If it had been my shindig and I'd paid for the use of the premises, I
wouldn't have felt a need to refuse a million for the use of one of the
boxes - and neither would I have felt that accepting that million would
obligate me to deliver future favors (consider that a warning if you
were thinking of sending me a million for a week's use of a prime spot
in my shop g)

Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-demfunds16-2008aug16,0,370...

* There were others, but that's the one that I could find in a few minutes
of looking on ask.com

ASK.COM??? Now there's an unbiased search engine..LOL
Owned by Barry Diller, it is heavily slanted towards right-wing nut-
jobs.

Barry Diller (born 2 February 1942) is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of IAC/InterActiveCorp and the media executive responsible for the creation of Fox Broadcasting Company and USA Broadcasting.

Gimme a frickin' break!

=o)

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-demfunds16-2008aug16,0,3706902.story

Interesting read. It sounds as if the Denver convention host organizers
were a bit (if $11.6M is a 'bit') over-optimistic about what they could
provide.

I does raise an interesting question: Would you have been equally
offended if the hosting committee (which appears to be a DNC rather than
campaign-specific operation) had used the sky boxes to raise the money
without consulting either Obama or his staff?

It looked to me as if the Obama campaign involved itself to ensure that
all the bills were properly paid, an action with which I have difficulty
finding fault.

Thanks for posting the link - I'd missed the story.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-demfunds16-2008aug16,0,3706902.story

Interesting read. It sounds as if the Denver convention host organizers
were a bit (if $11.6M is a 'bit') over-optimistic about what they could
provide.

I does raise an interesting question: Would you have been equally
offended if the hosting committee (which appears to be a DNC rather than
campaign-specific operation) had used the sky boxes to raise the money
without consulting either Obama or his staff?


I don't know, I guess I'm not so much offended as simply pointing out that
the hype is not matching the reality. This was a campaign that claimed it
was not going to court the big money special interests and made a big show
of that when it turned down federal funds. What is funny to me is that for
some reason the press wasn't all over this, there are ample examples of the
press pushing this kind of thing to the n'th degree when the other side has
changed direction on something.

It looked to me as if the Obama campaign involved itself to ensure that
all the bills were properly paid, an action with which I have difficulty
finding fault.

While that is laudable, the change of venue was a huge cost that could
have been avoided, reducing that 11.6M.


Thanks for posting the link - I'd missed the story.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What is funny to me is that for
some reason the press wasn't all over this, there are ample examples
of the
press pushing this kind of thing to the n'th degree when the other
side has
changed direction on something.

It was reported on KABC, ABC's local outlet that ABC's Investigative
Reporter, Brian Ross, was all over this like stink on crap.

Even had video of a an ABC cameraman being hassled and arrested by
Denver PD when he attempted to gain entry.

Even acknowledged that Disney, owner of ABC was one of the major
entertainment lobbyists was involved.

Maybe you missed it in your area.

Lew

Aratzio wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:22:44 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Brian Mailman got double secret probation for
writing:

Since the oil would have run out YEARS ago the way we use up 25% of
the worlds production.

Search on "Huppert Peak" (sometimes spelled Hubbard and Hubbert). In
short, half the possible supply available was drilled by 1978. After
that, it's more and more expensive to obtain less and less.

The Oil companies have to be laughing their asses off at McCain. They
get PAID not to drill for oil. Why in the **** would they actually
drill. They have leases for an estimated 30billion barrels of oil in
the gulf. Leases for which they already have drilling rights. Leases
that are in relative shallow water. Leases that have already been
proven. Yet they do not drill more wells there. It is called *banking
the resource*. If you punp all the oil the price drops and you make
less money over the long term because you run out of oil.

Well, the price would rise not drop. But your point would seem to be
that the price rises due to "running out of oil elsewhere" would make
those oil "banks" more profitable in the long run.

But I love these idiots that blame *ecoterrorists* for economic
decisions made by oil companies to protect their own long term
profits.

Yeah. You'd think it was a given that businesses make decisions based
on business.

B/

In article ,
lid says...
wrote:

So, as a citizen Sarah Palin and her family could not receive a fair
inquiry into the actions of Trooper Wooten, no real investigation and
with their usual "secret" investigation, makes further complaints up
the chain of command, more time goes by.

Please explain how having people with no direct knowledge of this trooper's
behavior make phone calls asking why he's still on the job qualifies as a
legitimate complaint.

Complaints substantiated by
individuals not even related to the Palin's is completely ignored as
unsubstantiated, in the meantime, witness say they are never
interviewed.

So how did the trooper get a suspension, did the dept. draw his name out of
a hat?

With the political system prior to Palin the truth about
this alcoholic, child abusing, family violence kind of guy gets a free
pass.
Might be the system police and state troopers like - but not we
Alaskan's. The cops in Alaska have been out of control for years
now. Get the facts before you comment please.

I listened to a recording of one of Palin's associates (I don't recall
offhand if he was a staffer or another politician) on the phone expressing
the view that the Governor and her husband were "scratching their heads"
trying to figure out how this cop was still not fired. That might be a lot
of things, but it sure doesn't sound like a carefully documented formal
complaint, does it.

Tell me you're NOT serious.

My reading is this trooper is a jerk, but even jerks are entitled to due
process. If nothing else this case is shining a light on the situation, if
the state police in Alaska need to clean house then maybe this will help
bring that about.

Tazering a kid is not "being a jerk". Threatening *anyone* with
death is not "being a jerk". It is called "assault". The cop
shoudn't be fired, rather bubba meat.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

That's not much at all, especially for a mature person that has accumulated
a house, 401k or pension fund, a few stocks and the like.


Right!

If you take a typical homeowner living in one of the more expensive
housing areas of the country, like California, the Northeast,
Chicagoland, etc... it's not hard at all.

Not hard even outside the hot spots. It does usually involve
graduating from high school though.

An average home that hasn't had the equity raided and has been owned for
10-15 years might easily have 250k in equity, maybe 500k in certain
areas of California. If the same homeowner saved just a few bucks when
they started working in their early 20's, they could have a similar
amount in a 401(k) or 403(b) in their 40's. Add the two together, and
500k as a net worth is not uncommon.

Not (hard) at all. It sort of sneaks up on you, like the kids
getting married and having their own family. As you point out, it
does take a small bit of self control though. Raiding the equity in
a home is about the dumbest thing one can do (next to raiding the
401K, though I have done that a couple of times too).

The 500k number might be much more difficult in an area with much lower
real estate values, but those folks can take comfort in their much lower
home payment and associated taxes.

...and income. $500K still isn't all that high of a hurdle anymore.

Contrary to TV news reports, everyone isn't living beyond their means,
nor have they used the ol' hacienda as an ATM.

No! NBC News lies? Say it isn't so!

It's known as "Get Rich Slowly", and some folks still subscribe.
Unfortunately, there's no infomercial for it, so it doesn't get much
press! G

It's called making money the old fashioned way, *earn* it.

--
Keith