Rex Kickass

I wouldn't call the man who tried to kill Che a criminal. Che was the criminal. He tried to foment a bloody Communist revolution in a country that didn't have any popular support for one. Given that Che Guevera had singlehandedly caused the genesis of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and had almost fatally damaged the Cuban relations with the USSR while doing the same with the US, my guess is Castro wasn't too sad to see him go either.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2007 -> 09:24 AM) You mean Poppy Bush who didn't care enough to head up a group with the man who took his job to try to save lives after the Indian Ocean tsunami? I have a hard time saying that any of our recent ex-Presidents don't give a damn. The last few at least have gone out of their way to try to do a lot of good in the world. I don't really remember anything about Ford or Nixon's lives after the White House, but I know Carter, Bush41, and Clinton have all thrown themselves into beneveloent projects. You're right. Elder George Bush has done some wonderful things since leaving the Presidency as well. I guess what I meant to say was that no other former President seems willing to stick their neck so far out on the line to do the right thing as Carter has been. George Bush and Bill Clinton raise money. Carter has gone a step further in his actions since leaving the White House. That's all I meant there.

IIRC, the floor was set at the state level, though. And when you look at some states like NJ, NY, CA. 80K for a family of four or five is not really that much. BTW: Every major GOP Presidential candidate has come out supporting the veto on SCHIP.

My guess is none.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 3, 2007 -> 10:15 PM) An 83 year old man goes walking off in a foreign country by himself with an attitude that he can no way back up by himself, gets rescued by a local security cheif and in the end, backs down anyway, after his false bravado wears off. if this would have been Bush Serion, you all would have been claiming that senility has set in. Your hero Carter doesn't wear a cape, but he probably wears Depends. While his trip may have had some noble intentions, this pathetic attempt to prop him up as a brave man, or a hero, is just weak. Had this been coming from Poppy Bush, he would have gotten the same props from me actually. But the reason that it wouldn't is that Jimmy Carter actually gives a damn - at least now that he's no longer in office. Carter gets no free pass from me, especially since he suspended wheat shipments to famine devastated Ethiopia over its' government's relationship with the USSR during the beginning of the Afghanistan war. But here's a man who at age 83 is willing to put his life on the line - which is what he did - because he won't stand to see what's happening in Darfur continue. I think what you see here is Carter acting as a man of faith, not as a man of power. It's my opinion that as a man of power, Carter was sorely lacking and without the gravitas needed to lead our country. As a man of faith, Carter often shows the leadership I wish he could have brought to Washington with him.

I'm sure this thread will go like four posts before people jump all over him for something unrelated to this... but Carter stood up for the refugees in Darfur this week. Literally. And this is a pretty badass story. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_...hoYC01JO98V6w8F Eventually, he had to be soothed by Richard Branson, the Secret Service and Nelson Mandela's wife to go back into the security detail he left to meet with refugees that were too scared to show up for a meeting. That's pretty cool.

Yeah, but if you're going to reform the campaign system, why reform it so the less wealthy mean even less than before?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) I'm not even saying it is a bad idea, but it just gives the numbers some perspective. It is equating the guy who gives $2300 to the guy who spends $5 on a bumpersticker. You're right. In my opinion, the person who donates $5 is really more important.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2007 -> 07:55 AM) I have been thinking long and hard about this one... I almost would rather see a candidate spending his own money, versus other people's money, and here is why. Influence. People expect things for their money. If I go out and bundle a million dollars for a candidate, I am going to expect some favor. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, because we all know it does. If a person goes out and spends $20 million of his own money, who does he owe influence to? No one. I have mixed feelings on it, but I hate the current system we have, so that is no surprise. Except by doing this you are creating a "ruling class." Only the people who can afford to be in government, run the government and we're stuck choosing which money gets protected by voting for the rich guy we like best.

Len - Steal My Sunshine

Ads don't win elections, boots on the ground do. So much of that money is needed for staffing the crew needed to get you elected. That's where the difference would come in.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 2, 2007 -> 08:01 AM) Dodd, Kucinich, Clinton Me too.

The maximum amount that any one person can donate to a campaign should be the maximum amount the candidate can donate to a campaign. Romney hasn't raised that much more than McCain for example. Yet he leads the money race, because he's sinking 100 million dollars of his money into the race.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 05:17 PM) ok, so Bill Richardson is in an "ok" position, but Johnny Girly Man is not? I'm confused. Bill Richardson isn't a top tier candidate. He is the second tier, although that's quickly becoming a two person field with Edwards trending down quickly. Richardson hasn't spent a lot of money which makes him able to manage on a smaller budget. It all comes down to Iowa, and how good his ground game is there.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 07:55 PM) but wouldn't the massive discount have cut into his commission? I don't know what his numbers were like - maybe its one ad of a promised series for all we know. I can tell you, that people that buy a full page ad RARELY pay the list price.

This puts him in a good spot. He may only be scoring three to five percent in the national polls, but 10-12% in Iowa. He's in a similar position to Kerry in 2003, but not broke.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) Are all campaigns supposed to report today? This week, not necessarily today.

I have a problem with allowing self financing with campaigns.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 02:12 AM) Oh yes, of course. my bad. They will admit that moveon.org got a price break that it shouldn't have, but they are using the standard excuse of "laziness and a simple billing error". I should have known better to credit them with any type of transparency. I sold ads for a living. My bet is the sales guy just wanted to make the deal happen.

My point was all of this outrage is stupid. Your seemed to insinuate that there was some merit in Congress taking four days of time to argue about an ad in a newspaper, as opposed to Rush Limbaugh insulting people who have served in the military, or Bill O'Reilly making stupid conversation about how African-Americans behave in restaurants. It's all stupid and none of it is worth our time.

You're right, that outrage isn't nearly as justifiable as something about AN AD. In a NEWSPAPER! Oh, who will think of the children?

Sometime in Jan 2009 I think.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 11:59 PM) His dedication to poverty reduction on the government dime, you mean. How much has he donated to charity himself? That would be true dedication to poverty reduction. Maybe a sizable donation to help feed and shelter the homeless (that he helped to make with the subprime loans). It's easy to be compassionate with other people's money. A little harder to do so with you own. In the year 2006, he donated roughly $700,000 to charity. http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index...cookieattempt=1

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) That's fine, but you can't deny what he did for a living, or his open track record. It amazes me what a pedistal these people get put on and how much they get defended when they have a (D) behind their name. He "cares" about the poor and underpriveledged, yea. TWO AMERICAS! Uh huh. Only if it benefits him. And before anyone starts, I'm just as critical of the Re-pube-licans. All I'm saying is the things I've heard from people who worked for the guy in 04. I'm not saying that they still work for him, or would today. I don't even think that they're supporters of Edwards this time around. But they did say, that his dedication to poverty reduction is genuine, whatever you might think.

OMG Kap, you're totally right. The outrage isn't justifiable. Because what Limbaugh said wasn't AN AD. In a NEWSPAPER! Quelle horror!