Wisconsin, time to put your face down in same for more liberal "thought"
I would LOVE for the DNC to publically take this position, since it's what all their rich donors think.
This seems to be the only way for the Right to win now...have the Left actually talk and say what they think...
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Instructor who doubts 9/11 compares Bush to Hitler
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Excuse you, but you've used the exact same buzz words in your post that the libs/Dems have been using all along, in particular the "rich" statement.
This is what I was talking about. Each one of you accuses the other of the exact same thing, but you guys don't do it until the libs have already been saying it.
I guess you're both proof positive of the one thing I've been saying the whole time; that being that the Dems & Cons really are one & the same. I thought so at the 2004 election. I'm sure of it now.
No wonder no one wants to vote. They're all voting for the same thing.
I don't know what you are talking about, but it is a fact that Democrats get more big donations than republians...they get more of the 500 dollar donations
Please prove a source for your fact!
I'll step up to the plate.
Small Donations: $351.4 million
"Whether making donations to candidates, political action committees (PACs) or parties, millions of Americans voice their political preferences through their pocketbook. No one knows exactly how many do give, however, since federal election law only requires contributions above $200 to be itemized. What is known is that small contributions — though they outnumber the big ones — accounted for only 17 percent of the total contributions for winning U.S. House and Senate candidates in 1998. Small donors are far more important to the political parties — particularly the Republicans, who have long used direct mail lists as potent fundraising tools among their members nationwide.
In the ’98 elections, small contributions made up 48 percent of the parties’ total hard money. Republicans drew 60 percent from small donors; Democrats drew just a third of their money from low-dollar donors.
Overall, two-thirds of the small donations went to the GOP, including both candidates and party committees."
Here's a graphical breakdown
Republicans get a bigger percentage of the donations under $1000, while the Democrats clean up easily under the $10,000, $100,000, and $1,000,000 categories.
well done jason...its another one of those things that people who understand facts just know...but thanks for the link...
have fun in fantasy land Jim
Anyway, as to the thread,
I heard this clown on Medved. It's incredible to me that any university worth it's salt would hire a boob like this dude to teach anything at all, much less this course, where he can lambast the country that gave him his opportunities with any lie he can conjure up. After hearing his stupid suspicions and points of view on Medved, I truly expected to see him with a tin foil hat in the first picture of him I came across. Remember the name of that school if you have kids. No telling what other buffoons they've hired.
UW-Madison...in probably the second or third most liberal city in the country
Interesting stats. Thank you. Check out 2004 and the $95,000 + group.
Here's a realistic breakdown:
While the fall from grace happened on the Republicans' watch, the institution in general has seen a massive influx of campaign money and a radical change in the way its members do business since the beginning of the Gingrich years, with lobbyists actually writing the legislation in some cases and members of both parties routinely cramming bills chock full of earmarks and other favors. On the '04 election cycle, the Republican party and its politicians collected an obscene $782 million in hard money contributions, but the Democrats weren't far behind, at $679 million. Those numbers dwarf the amounts seen the last time the Democrats controlled congress - the '93-'94 totals were $244 million and $133 million, respectively.
Post a Comment