backup Says:

Okay. Honest answer.

But, I’ll stick by my guns.

46 of 62,800 Bush donors now contribute to democrats.

As I pointed out earlier, you’re reading the numbers wrong.

In fact, over 1400 of Bush’s top donors have contributed to either Obama or to Clinton.

The smaller number you keep referencing, 46, is the number of Bush donors who have met two conditions: they have contributed to BOTH Obama and Clinton, AND they have failed to contribute to McCain.

I see your point, and I agree that even this number (1400) is statistically miniscule, but it dwarfs the one you cite by a factor of 30.

I hope you too have a great night, backup.

But, I’ll stick by my guns.

46 of 62,800 Bush donors now contribute to democrats.

7/100 of 1 percent.

And 1 sites the war as a reason. 1 of 62,800.

I believe that you think it’s significant and relevant. I still don’t, but thanks for an honest response.

The infinite points of truth comment was a conciliatory response to Chocolate Jesus’s admission that the article was misleading (and appropriate) as a tit for tat response to similar republican charges (around post #33). In my mind there is no dispute that both parties engage in it, but it makes this article no less misleading.

Hope you have a great night, ralph.

But after reading the linked article, it’s clear that former Bush donors are reluctant to donate to McCain, and since one of them explicitly stated that the war was the primary reason, it’s reasonable to assume that others felt similarly.

Why they would max out their contributions to Bush and abandon McCain because of his stance on the war is a mystery, but there it is.

And thank you for acknowledging that your stab at relativism was over the top. I recognize that it was probably just a “wrap-up” comment, meant to put a rhetorical flourish on your argument, but still.

Cop out.

ralph. okay. that was a little over the top.

But, as long as you believe in the idea of universal truth, consider my post at about #31 and give me an honest opinion if you think the headline of this post is misleading or not.

backup Says:
… maybe there is no universal truth, but only infinite points of truth based on individual perspective.

Cop out.

The BIG question – will this get any play in our media, or do we still need to rely on overseas media for the real scoop?

If all you heard was the US corporate media, McCain’s life story would be:1.) He spent 5 and1/2 years as a POW. 2.)He has 20+ years as a Senator.3.) he’s a “maverick”
End of story.
There’s probably a reason why they don’t go into any details or cover any other parts of his life.

No mention of the Savings and Loan scandal or his being one of the Keating 5 which is quite amazing considering how his curent campaign is so dependent on lobbyists.
Also no mention of his finishing 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy. Just how did he get to be a pilot with those credentials? Also, we don’t hear from people who knew him in the past, nothing about his “McNasty” nickname in school which sort of validates the reservations that his fellow GOP Senators had about his running for President.
Nothing from his former mates from the aircraft carrier he was on. I don’t know they’re legit, but I’ve seen some less than flattering comments about him attributed to some of the crew who were maintaining his plane.

Anyhow, I appreciate your posts.

Just freakin hilarious :)~

Well your more of an idealist than I…your probably in your late teens or early twenties, am I right?

I’m, unfortunately, more of the “fight fire with fire” type,
I don’t beleive that people who profit from conflict, misery, and war will ever surrender their tools of lies and deceit, so I beleive that some distortions, which dont rise to the level of outright lies, are acceptable. While its a bit of an oversimplification, I believe this is essentially a battle between those who worship and are motivated by money, versus peopel who are motivated by ideals and a desire for the common good. In a non-religious context, I think money has a strong advantage over morality, especially when REAL, GENUINE morality (not the “do as I say, not as i do” type) can be more of an impediment to getting things done than a help.

If republicans actually beleived in the morality most of them claim to hold in such high regard, id repsect them alot more. But they dont. They use it as a tool to condemn us, while ignoring it for themselves. So I’m not going to try and fight people who bring knives to a gunfight unless i bring my own gun, so to speak,.

very true my friend, very true. when your side decides to stop distorting things, let me know, and then we’ll all play nice :)

very true my friend, very true. when your side decides to stop distorting things, let me know, and then we’ll all play nice :)

But, bear with me and have an open mind on this particular article.

First. 8% of 2004 Bush backers contributed to McCain. But there are 7 months left in the election cycle. Do those donations usually come later? I don’t know.

Additionally, the article gives the impression that the reason Bush backers aren’t supporting McCain is frustration with Bush (and the war). Isn’t it possible that those that supported Bush in 2004 are frustrated with McCain and not Bush? This information may strengthen the argument that Bush and McCain aren’t that similar; if they don’t garner the same financial supporters.

Finally, the article points out that 46 of 2004 Bush supporters have now contributed to either Obama or Clinton. 46 out of 62,800. 7/100th of 1 percent. If your honest, that isn’t that significant.

And again, the article only refers to one former republican that sites the Iraq War as his reason for not supporting McCain.

Republicans have significant problems. No doubt about it. But, if your objective, you’ll agree, this particular headline, is misleading.

Do you even need to ask?

You’re correct… my bad. Still sleepy from staying up with Kucinich last night.

PEACE

June 10th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
_______

Do you even need to ask?

And he doesn’t get rave reviews from “friends” who remember what he did:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

The BIG question – will this get any play in our media, or do we still need to rely on overseas media for the real scoop?

PEACE

June 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Oh yes. Because since the CQ article only quoted one person who cited Iraq as one of the reasons for their reluctance to donate to McCain, it logically follows that all 57,775 other non-McCain donors do NOT consider Iraq one of the reasons for their reluctance. It’s obvious that when they talk about “frustration with the country’s direction:”

The political climate also is working against McCain. A number of large Bush donors from 2004, driven both by pragmatism and frustration with the country’s direction, have given to Obama and his former chief rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

They mean the Prescription Drug Act or something and the $4 trillion Iraq quagmire is obviously the furthest thing from their minds.

Thanks for the correction.

Obama To Team Up With Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care Reform

[...]
Obama is smart to enlist Elizabeth Edwards, who backed Hillary Clinton’s health care plan earlier in the primary season. I believe that together, they will come up with a health care plan with mass appeal that is so strong it will put the issue out of McCain’s reach this fall.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/09/obama-to-team-up-with-elizabeth-edwards-on-health-care-reform/