American Parties

@midnight_reaper

This is not bad news … quite the opposite.

You don’t know who the President was before … :)

We will see what the new ones will do … doing worse than the previous one will be difficult.

Coincidentally, here’s a news story on the V-22 Osprey which appeared just today:

1 October 2012

US Osprey military aircraft begin Okinawa base move

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19782283

Craig, a friend of mine and former flatmate, asked me in how far the performance of the american football will depend on the temperatures in winter 2006. My opinion is that the more blue the teams have in their shirts, the better they will perform if it is cool. Less blue means they perform better if it is hot.

your opinions?

@marine36:

I would rather go without the prize then cooperate with the french. :lol:

too easy.

Source:
The Washington Times

Section: EDITORIALS
Page: A18

Title:The richest 1 percent
Dateline:December 18, 2002

So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats.

“Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle,” the report notes, “but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers.” Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats’ $307 million.

But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans’ $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires’ club - those kicking in $1 million or more - the Democrat Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democrat Party by more than 40 percent.

In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into Democrat causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable (but not overwhelming) amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats’ shallow support in the midterm elections, and should give an indication of which party’s agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.

But it also sheds light on the president’s first round of tax cuts - arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections. We can’t help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money doesn’t matter supported the Democrats’ opposition to tax cuts. Meanwhile, the many more who form the backbone of America’s economy supported the Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans prepare a new tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are no hard feelings, we’ll still support tax cuts for the limousine liberals. With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they’ll put it to more productive uses than propping up the rejected policies of the Democrat Party.

[while eatting a mouthful of BLT]: Mmmph Wha-? Mmmph Okay.

I believe that in British Columbia that the Green Party might soon come to power.

Man Xi, no offense, but I think you are the only one laughing at your jokes.