Topics created by El Jefe

While those facts are accurate, they don’t really tell the whole story. For example, John Kerry’s wealth mostly comes from his wife, and that money cannot be used for campaign purposes. So, Although he ranks up there with the richest, he doesn’t neccessarily have that money to spend in politics. :(

I believe a variation of DS’s “Oil is the worst thing for a country to have…” forum would go quite well here. The oil allows some of the Middle East governments to prop themselves up. Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Jordan, to name a few(and previously Iraq.) Syria has been using the UN embargo of Iraq to make money off its neighbor.

I do believe some of the leaders of some of these countries want to hold on to their form of government(the few making most of the decisions for the many) and their power as long as they can. The struggle for the leadership(prince v prince) is one example.

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.

As long as FOX News doesn’t get “liberalized” it’s all kosher… :wink:

It amazing that those idiots can be so naive. It’s like they don’t even realize that the majority of their consumers are patriotic Americans, and would rather not have their president or other fellow singers bashed on.

Aren’t you both gone YET?!?!

Three cheers for Yanny!
He’s as sticky as they come…

Funny hahha. Where’s the one for our 51st state, Iraq.

Welcome to Iraq: the Babaganoush State!
Ride the Tigris this summer!!

Man, dz!! That’s worse than playing both sides of Robert E. Lee with no LOS limit, not upgrading, resupplying, or attacking with the Rebs left in marching formation in the open, and kept awake nights!!! A Yankee victory fershur

What in the world are you talking about!?? 8)

Has anyone played Close Combat 4 or 5?

I played Battle of the Bulge before and the Normandy one, which I think were 4 and 5… Never really liked Battle of the Bulge that much and I thought the tanks looked very “cartoony.” Normandy was much better. Enjoyed that game a lot (brings back a lot of the small infantry tactics from CC2) and it had some great detail and steller graphics. My favorite remains CC3 however, due to its ability to purchase units and the great amount of tanks to be found in the game. :)

Panzer General III works on XP … not sure about the earlier versions.

D:S, my most sincere apologies!
You had some good stuff, but I messed up on my confusing, butterfly ballot. You should demand a recount.

Those damn hanging chads! And military votes shouldn’t count! :wink:

I agree with CC on the UN.

Computers, we could easily do without them. Humans did for 99.9% of our race’s life. Computers have helped saved lives, but only after applying a seperate innovation which was previously related to the computer.

Terrorists, ect are not caught by computers. They are caught by people. Computers are simply a little tool they can use to help relay information. Many con men will tell you, sure all this new technology is great, but it doesn’t beat a good head on your soldiers and a smile.

@El:

Here’s a question…If below par is good why do most people mean bad or poorly when they say, “I’m feeling under/below par?”

Par simply means what the standard. If Par for the course is 72 then 72 strokes is the standard # of strokes needed to finnish the course. If you shoot under par you are doing well.

On the contrary if you are feeling under par, you are feeling worse than standard or normal, thus bad. :)

@Imperious:

Really cool!

So many “Ancient” Posts.

lol

Xi, more like 45-50 miles. I’m in Cincinnati every weekend. I’ll be at Taste of Cincinnati on Memorial Day. Maybe we could get together for a beer downtown or in the Northgate area if that is more convenient.

Jeepers :) I think we can all agree that “ctm” is right. Let’s leave it at that

@Raven37312:

Fairly sure it works on 98 huh? Not very well likely!! Dug out my old CD’s and wanted to play…the UNPATCHED A&A works fine…(well, still buggy) but when I apply the patch or try to play IB, I get to the “NETSTAT” screen and my comp locks down requiring a hard boot!! Ah the joys!! Seriously though, if anyone knows how to get it to work on 98 let me know!! Thanks!

i didn’t patch it . . . :)

Nah, lol but if I have a slight excuse to take out the molotov cocktails and create some chaos, then I’ll go for it :wink:

Yes, Reefer Madness was a flick made way back in the 1930s more or less, which is so utterly glob-handed and over the top in its “treatment” of the subject that it became a smash hit in theaters as a parody during the weed-reeking 1970s (trust me, I was there… at least, I think I remember being there…)

“That 70s Show” did a fairly good send up of “Reefer Madness” in one episode; in fact I think they made the two-minute imaginary sequence in black-and-white … it shows the kids as hopeless dope fiends and gangsters. They got the tone, just the right balance of hilariously stilted language and stupidly exaggerated actions – all to assure, as in the original, that every last innocent moron in the audience would get the point.

It is just one more photo/fact as I have seen evidence here and on other websites about Bill and Hillary Clinton, Democrat Senators and previous Democrat US presidents doing the same thing. Every time the Dems complain the news media shows the picture again. The Dems hurt their own cause by continually bringing it up. It needs to be dropped.