posted on May 24, 2007 06:18:49 AM newRead the article again, those that attended did not pay to attend. The tax payers of California paid his fee of $55K, which divided by those in attendance equals $31.00 each.
Bear you are wrong. Perhaps if you would read other sources besides your right winged biased sights you would have learned tickets were sold to the event.
Several media figures have attacked Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for receiving a $55,000 fee for a January 2006 speech at the University of California-Davis -- as first reported in a May 21 entry to the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog. In several cases, they have not also mentioned reports that Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani charged Oklahoma State University $100,000 for a speech he delivered in 2006 and an additional $47,000 for the use of a private jet, as Media Matters for America has noted. Moreover, several left out the response by the Edwards campaign, which asserted that UC-Davis offset the cost through sponsorship and ticket sales to the event.
As Media Matters noted, on the May 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley reported that the Edwards campaign claimed "it was a paid speech, but there were tickets for it -- somewhere between $17.50 for students; about $40 for adults. So it paid for itself." According to UC-Davis' Robert & Margrit Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, tickets for the speech ranged from $17.50 to $45. The entry on the Chronicle's Politics Blog noted that he spoke to "a crowd of 1,787," meaning that if everyone paid admission, ticket sales would have brought in somewhere between $31,272 and $80,415.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 24, 2007 06:28:47 AM new
In November 2006, Senator Dole appeared at the same place and tickets were sold to hear him speak.
Senator Robert Dole
An Evening with Senator Robert Dole
Mondavi Center Presenting Program
One of our nation’s most admired political figures, Senator Bob Dole has given a lifetime of service to America. Prior to his retirement from the Senate in 1996, he was the longest-serving Republican Senate leader in the history of the United States. His effectiveness as a consensus-builder and his commitment to deficit reduction and economic growth earned him the admiration of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike. One of only 16 people ever to serve as Senate Majority Leader, Dole also served as the Republican candidate for president of the United States, the Republican vice presidential nominee, the Republican Party chairman, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, a member of the House of Representatives, a state legislator, and a county attorney during his remarkable political career. As part of his last speaking tour, this veteran leader appears at Mondavi Center to discuss today’s most pressing issues and his insights into the world of tomorrow.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 24, 2007 06:35:09 AM new
If you are going to say my sources are biased. Here is one from Faux News. So you see Bear tickets were sold to the event. If people did not want to see him speak, they could have stayed home.
John Edwards has an example to teach University of California at Davis students how to avoid poverty — charge $55,000 for a speech.
That's how much the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate negotiated for his fee to speak to 1,787 people at the taxpayer-funded school in January 2006, according to financial disclosures.
According to Joe Martin, the public relations officer for UC Davis' Mondavi Center, the fee for a speech entitled, "Poverty, the Great Moral issue Facing America," was worth it to school officials.
Martin told The San Francisco Chronicle that the center paid Edwards because at the time "he wasn't a (presidential) candidate and from our point of view, he was a speaker of interest that people in the community were clearly interested in ... we feel it's our mission to present those speakers."
Click here to read The San Francisco Chronicle report on Edwards' speaking fees.
The speaking fee, which amounts to about $31 per audience member, was the highest Edwards earned in nine appearances last year at colleges and universities. In all, he earned $285,000 for the nine speeches.
Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz told FOX News that the speech at UC Davis, "was funded by sponsors and ticket sales," and the school has said ticket prices for the event ranged from $17.50 to $45.
Incidentally, students at all of California's public universities will pay a 7 percent increase in tuition next year.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 24, 2007 06:36:15 AM new
"being rich does not mean one cannot help those less fortunate."
Exactly. No one denies that Edwards is rich. But in addition to enjoying the fruits of his labor, he donates large amounts of money and is active in issues affecting those in our country who are not rich. It is not what you have, it is what you do with what you have.
posted on May 24, 2007 09:14:47 AM new
Do you feel the same way about the millions and millions of dollars the Cheney's have donated to charities, CC?
LOL
When personal contributions of the political leaders or wanna bees have been compared....the liberal/dems fall extremely short of donations given by the conservatives.
It clearly appears that the liberals reach into taxpayers pockets to spend money for their 'special' programs....while the conservatives give from their OWN funds.
Those tax and spend dems didn't earn their reputation for no reason.
They LOVE income redistribution as opposed to letting people keep their OWN funds and give them as they wish to and to whom they wish to give it to. So unlike the 'liberal' robin hoods.
posted on May 24, 2007 09:17:58 AM new
Oh no, linDUH, the OP was NOT about comparing what Democrats give compared to what repugs give....quit squirming
Dear ignorant dolt, being rich does not mean one cannot help those less fortunate.
To say that because a person is wealthy they cannot help others is
just another display of your total lack of logic and reasoning ability.
Being dirt poor will assure that a person will NOT get elected or be able to help others. It takes money to get elected...come out of your cave someday and you may see that.
It's a whole lot easier to be rich and help the poor than be poor and help the poor.
Edwards did NOT steal the money he has.... It's to his credit that with his vast wealth he does think of those less fortunate.
...it is not a crime to be a Democrat and rich and to imply that Repugs are better because they're poor is ridiculous.....they're not poor either.
posted on May 24, 2007 10:14:27 AM new
"Do you feel the same way about the millions and millions of dollars the Cheney's have donated to charities, CC?"
posted on May 24, 2007 10:28:22 AM new
CC - I do too.
But I'd rather American's be allowed to give from their own pockets....to the charities they want to support. Kind of like we did following 9-11 and katrina....and the tsunami.
What I don't support is gov. taking from me and giving to whatever program/group THEY believe it should go to.
I'd like to see that stopped. People allowed to give freely from their own hearts...and not via gov. redistribution.
posted on May 24, 2007 10:30:55 AM new
"""But I'd rather American's be allowed to give from their own pockets....to the charities they want to support. Kind of like we did following 9-11 and katrina....and the tsunami.
What I don't support is gov. taking from me and giving to whatever program/group THEY believe it should go to.
I'd like to see that stopped. People allowed to give freely from their own hearts...and not via gov. redistribution."""
posted on May 25, 2007 07:39:39 AM new
Linda_K
posted on May 24, 2007 09:14:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you feel the same way about the millions and millions of dollars the Cheney's have donated to charities, CC?
LOL
When personal contributions of the political leaders or wanna bees have been compared....the liberal/dems fall extremely short of donations given by the conservatives.
It clearly appears that the liberals reach into taxpayers pockets to spend money for their 'special' programs....while the conservatives give from their OWN funds.""""
"""People allowed to give freely from their own hearts"""
While that has NOTHING to do with the OP I will point out that those heartfelt charitable contributions are TAX WRITE OFFS!!!!!!!
posted on May 25, 2007 10:04:34 AM new "While that has NOTHING to do with the OP I will point out that those heartfelt charitable contributions are TAX WRITE OFFS!!!!!!!
Exactly right, Mingo. Having a heart and sharing without personal benefit is not a Republican characteristic.
And, if the wealthy didn't have such a disproportionate amount of money in this country there would be no need for so much charity. People would make a living wage and such basic needs as health care, food, housing and education would be affordable to everyone.
posted on May 25, 2007 11:17:32 AM new
I see Bear has taken Linda's M.O. when they are proven wrong.
O bear O bear where are you? Did you go into hibernation because you were proven wrong once again.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 25, 2007 11:41:54 AM new
Is this helen calling for our system to function more like the communist ones do?????
"And, if the wealthy didn't have such a disproportionate amount of money in this country there would be no need for so much charity"
Imo, that's ONE of the best things about living in America. All have the same opportunity to achieve the American dream.
But a lot of socialists and communists believe all should be distributed EQUALLY, no matter their own personal contribution, their own person achievements.
That's NOT the American way helen. Never has been and I pray we NEVER live in a Nation that YOU would like to see.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 25, 2007 11:51:11 AM new
It's the liberals that are ALWAYS wanting [ AND passing] to TAX TAX TAX the American citizens.
The more taxes they can put on our shoulders the happier they are.
The republicans have LONG been the ones DECREASING taxes of the taxpayers.
GET REAL....wake up and become informed.
The liberals in our CURRENT congress are letting the tax DECREASES EXPIRE....that will be a TAX INCREASE to those Americans who were enjoying the decreases under this admin.
Since JFK's day....and his tax DECREASES, most all dem leaders can't WAIT to tax us more.
TAX AND SPEND....they EARNED that reputation because of their ACTIONS
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 25, 2007 11:53:07 AM new
AND since this thread IS about rich edwards and the 'poor' he supposedly represents.....LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL
Just WHAT tax DECREASES is HE proposing????
You, know that will make life easier for the middle class?????
Is HE talking tax INCREASES????? OH YES!!!!
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
The wealthiest 1%, in 2003, earned 14% of the income and paid 35% of all individual income taxes.
By comparison, the bottom 60% of all taxpayers earn 28% of all income and pay just 1% of all individual income taxes.
====
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 25, 2007 12:03 PM ]
posted on May 25, 2007 12:03:58 PM new
Edwards: Tax hikes on rich possible
Says leveling with voters more important than the political consequences
Denis Poroy / AP
In his own words
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., touches upon the primary themes of his presidential campaign -- labor unions, Iraq and health care.
Updated: 2:13 p.m. CT April 30, 2007
SAN DIEGO - Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund programs such as universal health care.
Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes on "excess profits," including those made by oil companies.
Edwards said it was more important to level with voters than to worry about the political consequences of advocating higher taxes."""
posted on May 25, 2007 12:08:51 PM new
There are those that lie, cheat and steal and do harm to others and then 'give' to charities and organizations to appease their guilt, hoping their god will overlook their sinful ways next time they go to church and pray.
posted on May 25, 2007 12:12:27 PM new
On NewsHour, WSJ's Moore misled on wealthy Americans' tax burden
Summary: Stephen Moore asserted that "a lot of the new [tax] revenue is coming from rich people," and then asked rhetorically, "if [Bush's tax cut] was a big tax cut for the rich, why are the rich paying more taxes than ever?" In fact, filers earning at least $200,000 paid less federal income tax in 2004 on average than they did in 2002.
During a discussion of the new estimated U.S. budget deficit on the July 11 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore asserted that "a lot of the new [tax] revenue is coming from rich people," and then asked rhetorically, "if [Bush's tax cut] was a big tax cut for the rich, why are the rich paying more taxes than ever?" In fact, filers earning at least $200,000 paid less federal income tax in 2004 on average than they did in 2002. It is true that the total share of income tax paid by those making more than $200,000 increased between 2002 and 2004, but that is not because wealthy taxpayers individually paid more. While taxes as a percentage of income went down in that bracket, the number of taxpayers in the bracket increased during that time period, as did the average income of those within that bracket. Those making more than $200,000 saw their incomes increase 7 percent between 2002 and 2004, while average decreases in their income tax ranged from nearly 9 percent for those making between $200,000 and $500,000 to more than 19 percent for those with incomes of more than $10 million.
Media Matters has previously debunked a similar claim made by Moore in a May 4 Journal op-ed. Moore had selectively cited Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statistics in order to buttress his assertion that "[i]n the aftermath of the Bush investment tax cuts, the federal income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the backs of the wealthy."
The Bush tax cuts lowered the top two tax brackets from 35 percent and 38.6 percent in 2002 to 33 and 35 percent, respectively, in 2004. And according to the most recent IRS data, the number of those taxpayers earning more than $200,000 increased by nearly 600,000 from tax years 2002 to 2004. The same data also show that the combined adjusted gross income of those who filed tax returns making more than $200,000 a year rose by more than $420 billion throughout the same time period with the average income of those with incomes more than $200,000 rising from about $518,000 per filer in 2002 to about $559,000 in 2004, a 7 percent increase. Simultaneously, the average tax paid by those making more $200,000 a year declined significantly, as the table below illustrates:
Average tax (whole dollars)
Adjusted gross income
2002
2003
2004 [p]
% Decrease
$200,000 under $500,000
$ 65,452
$ 60,453
$ 59,801
-8.63%
$500,000 under $1,000,000
$ 188,463
$ 169,166
$ 166,196
-11.81%
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000
$ 352,318
$ 313,177
$ 303,304
-13.91%
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000
$ 508,213
$ 450,683
$ 437,490
-13.92%
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000
$ 876,541
$ 765,117
$ 753,371
-14.05%
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000
$ 2,003,435
$ 1,730,613
$ 1,696,738
-15.31%
$10,000,000 or more
$ 6,370,481
$ 5,792,690
$ 5,129,136
-19.49%
[p] = preliminary
An April 5 New York Times analysis noted that IRS data through 2003, the first year with complete IRS data following Bush's tax cuts, taxes on incomes of $10 million or more decreased by an average of approximately $500,000. In addition, in a June 5, 2005, article titled "Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind," the Times presented its analysis of the tax burden in the United States and found that:
Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes -- a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data -- now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.
From the July 11 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, during a panel discussion also featuring senior
posted on May 25, 2007 12:17:47 PM new
Guess it boils down to what the liberal vs the conservative definition of 'rich' is.
The numbers that have been mentioned WILL affect most all small businesses....and couples where they are both professionals and earn a DECENT income. NOT making them 'rich' but comfortable.
READ the history of the IRS and and you will see TAX INCREASE, the dem way to deal with EVERYTHING, has hit the MIDDLE CLASS the hardest.
This BS about the liberals ONLY 'hitting' the rich...is JUST that.
posted on May 25, 2007 12:29:26 PM newThe liberals in our CURRENT congress are letting the tax DECREASES EXPIRE....that will be a TAX INCREASE to those Americans who were enjoying the decreases under this admin.
It was Bush's fault for putting a timetable on his tax decrease.
And now how do you suggest paying for th Iraq War?
Big deal we have low federal taxes, mean while during the Bush administration everything else has gone up. We have higher gay prices, higher utility prices, higher insurance rates. Any reduction I received from Bush's tax cuts has been completely wiped away from the above.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 25, 2007 12:37:56 PM new
His fault again? LOL LOL LOL
We'll see how taxpayers feel about the TAX INCREASES they'll NOW enjoy under the dem congress.
They'll let you know come Nov. '08
With everyone complaining about how expensive it is to live.....I'm just SURE they'll be thrilled with paying MORE taxes - a gift from the dems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 25, 2007 12:48 PM ]
posted on May 25, 2007 12:46:48 PM new John Edwards' big ideas costly
Boston.com
By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press Writer | May 11, 2007
WASHINGTON --Presidential candidate John Edwards is offering more policy proposals than any other candidate in the primary and his ideas are winning loud applause from Democratic audiences.
The question is whether other voters will cheer when they see the price tag -- more than $125 billion a year.
Edwards is quick to acknowledge his spending on health care, energy and poverty reduction comes at a cost, with more plans to come. On Friday, he proposed an $8 billion college scholarship program, an outgrowth of his "College for Everyone" idea in 2005.
All told, Edwards' proposals would equal more than $1 trillion if he could get them enacted into law and operational during two White House terms.
To put the number in perspective, President Bush has dedicated more than $1.8 trillion to tax cuts. The cost of the Iraq war is nearing $450 billion. And this year's federal budget is about $2.8 trillion.
Edwards says fixing the country's problems takes precedence over eliminating the deficit or offering middle-class tax relief like he proposed when running for president in the last election.
"I think for me, as opposed to the additional tax relief for the middle class, what's more important is to give them relief from the extraordinary cost of health care, from gasoline prices, the things that they spend money on every single day that are escalating dramatically," Edwards said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
To pay for some of his priorities, Edwards would roll back Bush's tax cuts on Americans making more than $200,000 a year. He also said he would consider raising capital gains taxes to help fund his plans and raise or eliminate the $90,000 cap on individual earnings subject to Social Security taxes to help cover the projected shortfall in the system.
Edwards also has proposed spending cuts such as cutting subsidies for the banks that make student loans for a savings of $6 billion a year. He would also save money by trimming the number of Department of Housing and Urban Development employees, negotiating Medicare prescription drug prices and cutting agricultural subsidies for corporate farms, although the campaign did not yet have estimates of how much that would bring in.
Edwards' ideas have already opened him to accusations of being just another tax-and-spend liberal, a label put on Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee who said he would raise taxes and then lost 49 states to President Reagan.
The Republican National Committee accused Edwards of making his first campaign promise to raise taxes. "Edwards' America Will Pay More Taxes," said a news release from the conservative Club for Growth on the day Edwards announced a plan for universal health care that would cost $90 billion to $120 billion.
The cost estimate came from Ken Thorpe, an Emory University researcher who provides outside analysis on health care plans for presidential candidates. The estimate he gave the Edwards campaign was $105 billion to $145 billion in 2010 dollars -- the year Edwards' plan would go into full effect. However, the campaign changed it to 2007 dollars.
His plan would require employers to provide insurance or contribute to the coverage of every worker -- and it would require every citizen to get coverage. The government would pay for insurance for lower income Americans and tax credits to help subsidize what other families would have to pay for coverage, funded by abolishing Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year and by having the government collect more back taxes.
Among other annual spending:
--$15 billion-$20 billion to help achieve his goal of ending poverty in the U.S. within 30 years. That includes $4.2 billion to increase the earned income tax credit, which refunds payroll and income taxes to low-income people; $4 billion to create 1 million short-term jobs to help the unemployed climb out of poverty; and $3 billion for $500 work bonds to help low-income workers save.
--$13 billion energy fund to develop and encourage more efficiency and renewable energy use. That includes $3 billion in tax credits for the production of renewable energy and $1 billion to help the U.S. auto industry modernize with the latest fuel-efficient technology. He said the fund would be paid for by selling $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits and by ending $3 billion in subsidies for big oil companies.
--$1 billion rural recovery plan with initiatives like increased investment in rural small businesses, education, health care and resources to fight methamphetamine abuse.
--$5 billion in foreign aid to combat international poverty, including $3 billion to help pay for primary education for every child in the world.
Edwards also has promoted other ideas he has in the works, such as an education plan that includes his goal of eliminating financial barriers to college, a border security plan and federal spending on stem cells. But he's yet to announce details or costs.
Still, Edwards has been the most forthcoming Democratic candidate when it comes to describing the details of how he would like to run the country. His chief rivals -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama -- have offered few hints about their policy proposals.
The ideas are the centerpiece of Edwards' plan to position himself as the party's true progressive in the primary. He hopes the big ideas will attract the liberal Iowa caucus goers, online energy and labor endorsements that he's counting on to propel him to the nomination, said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane.
"If the costs become a real issue, it will be a good problem to have for him because the only folks likely to make a real argument against it would be the Republicans, which means his strategy succeeded and he was the nominee," said Lehane, who worked in the Clinton White House and for Al Gore's candidacy in 2000.
Edwards said his spending proposals also would take precedence over eliminating the more than $200 billion deficit. He said he would work to lower the deficit and would not let it grow.
"Those things cost money, and there's a balance between that and the need to reduce the deficit," said the former North Carolina senator. "And so the threshold question is where is the priority? ... If we're going to do those things, I think it's very difficult to eliminate the deficit -- in the short term, impossible."
He said he supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's requirement that legislation to cut taxes or boost federal benefit programs must be paid for with tax increases or other benefit cuts.
But Edwards has yet to explain how he would pay for all his proposals. That will come later this year when he offers his tax plan, the campaign said.
"There's definitely a lack of numbers in some of his proposals," said Paul Weinstein Jr., chief operating officer at the centrist Progressive Policy Institute. "I think you should be commended for wanting to provide universal health care and to eliminate poverty. I think it would be more legitimate if he would identify some of the ways in which he would pay for these things."
-----
Sure reminds me of all the promises kerry way making also. NEVER did tell taxpayers how he planned to actually PAY for them.
Now...edwards is copying kerry....promise everyone the world....and then RAISE THEIR TAXES to pay for it all.
posted on May 25, 2007 12:49:31 PM newBut Edwards has yet to explain how he would pay for all his proposals.
Bush doesn't even care how HIS WAR will be paid for by all the future generations. He just keeps asking for money to continue his conquest.
I know Linda would rather spends billions and billions of dollars in Iraq instead of using that money to help the people in this country. How pathetic.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
[ edited by logansdad on May 25, 2007 12:52 PM ]
posted on May 25, 2007 12:52:48 PM new
linduh, you have proved to be very uneducated so the truth of the tax structure in this country would be wayyyy over your head....you probably believe "death Taxes" will affect you....they won't.
It's very anti-American to not want to pay taxes.....but I knew you hated Americans for a long time.
If you think Edwards is a tax and spend Democrat you are wrong but so seeped in repug/Fascist/neocon rhetoric you won't, can NOT, see the truth....
posted on May 25, 2007 12:59:35 PM new
sybil....I am not going to give you MY attention today if you continue making all those absurd, FALSE accusations.
You and kiara could talk together with one another since you both like twisting everything all around.
Seek your extremely pathetic, desperately sought out, attention from someone else. I'm sure they'd love spending their days correcting all the false garbage you'd post about them too. IF you were as obsessed as much with them, as you are with me. tsk tsk tsk
posted on May 25, 2007 01:03:14 PM new
logansdad
posted on May 25, 2007 12:49:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Edwards has yet to explain how he would pay for all his proposals.
Bush doesn't even care how HIS WAR will be paid for by all the future generations. He just keeps asking for money to continue his conquest.
I know Linda would rather spends billions and billions of dollars in Iraq instead of using that money to help the people in this country. How pathetic.
===========================
And YOUR party, gutless that they are, KEEP GIVING IT TO HIM. Oh....sure....after much 'game playing' ....but they STILL won't stop funding the war.
They're NOT on your side, ld. They don't see the importance of what we're doing in Iraq the same way you do. LOL Thank God for small favors.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 25, 2007 04:28:41 PM newYou and kiara could talk together with one another since you both like twisting everything all around.
Yes, a differing opinion with our own ideas and thoughts is always considered 'twisting around' by you, Linda_K. You whimper and wring your hands constantly over the way others choose to post.
How it must suck that you can't control anyone after all these years so they fall in line, c & p'ing the party chant of the day and hanging tight to an incompetent leader through thick and thin, never questioning but always in agreement.
How dare we believe in free speech or democracy - how terrible!
