Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: One of the greatest religous ironys in the world, the republicans.

  1. #1 One of the greatest religous ironys in the world, the republicans. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    One of the greatest religious irony's in the world, has to be the fact that, most of Americas Christians vote for republicans. When a republican is the 1,000% opposite of Jesus Christ.

    Jesus gave every thing he owned to the poor, and Jesus was all about helping the poor.

    But republicans (hate) welfare itself. The republicans are against giving money to the poor.



    Huge amounts of Americas people live in poverty,huge numbers of American kids regularly go to bed hungry
    .

    Have you ever heard a republican (politician) speak of helping these people ?
    Have you ever (once) heard a republican (politician) pray for these people ?

    Helping the poor may have been the thing Jesus spoke about most. But the republicans are against helping the poor.




    And then the Bible says Jesus healed sick people with miracles (so I guess Jesus felt curing sick people was a good thing)

    But the republicans fight to stop the democrats laws that would save 18,000 sick Americans from dieing each year, from not having health insurance.

    Jesus healed the sick people around him, but the republicans let them die.





    And all of the above republican acts, also go against Jesus' teachings of "love thy nieghbor" and "the good sarmaratan parable" as well.





    Then theres the republicans relationship with the rich.

    The republicans are (against) tax cuts for the poor and middle class. And they are against helping regular Americans keep their homes in bad times, they are against regular peoples unions and their class action lawsuits, they are against long unenployment benifits. They are against any government program that gives money to the poor and middle class.

    But when it comes to Americas rich, the republicans love and charity begins.

    Republicans fight for "trickle down economics" and "the supply side formula", this is were the rich have a lower tax rate than the poor. The rich can then use this tax cut money to build factories in China. Like Warren Buffet says, he pays 1/2 the tax rate of his secratary, b/c of the republicans.

    Today the republicans want "the fair tax" were the poor pay a (higher) tax rate than the rich. (source: citezens for tax justice.) And they also want to let the rich stop paying taxes on social security and medacare. They also want (no) tax on dividends, so American CEO's have a tax rate of 0%.





    Republicans will only direct government money to the rich, and at the (same) time, they take away tax cuts from the poor and middle class, and try to stop welfare.

    But as I said a republican is 1,000% the opposite of Jesus.



    And If you talk to a avid republican about raising rich Americans tax rates to the same rate as regular people, they will defend the rich, as Jesus defended the poor.

    They will get mad and say " thats income redistrabution" , "thats class warfare" , or "what do you have against the rich."





    I have heard republicans say many times that "the rich made all the right choices".

    But Jesus said "it is eazyer for a camel to pass threw the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to get into heavan."

    The rich made all the right choices? Not in the eyes of Jesus.





    Then there is war, Jesus was against war in (every) way, but the (chicken hawk) republicans (love) to attack countrys like Iraq for nothing.

    And while the republicans were attacking Iraq for no reason, the republicans were also talking about attacking Iran.

    If the republicans would have had their way, they would have attacked Afganistan, Iraq, and then Iran.

    Remember when that soldier cut off that mans ear in Front of Jesus ? Jesus got mad and said "put away your swords." Jesus would never want to attack (3) countrys back to back. But the republicans did.

    Some Christian republicans may be thinking that the democrats spending will destroy America. But this is a lie, think about it, Clinton and Carter had surpluses. And as soon as the Christians? GW Bush's tax cuts for the rich expire, Americas deficits will go way down.




    Currently the Christian? republicans biggest (care) in debates is speaking (bad) about poor South Americans who come to America. Even though these same Christian, hard workers pick (all) of our food crops."

    Do you think Jesus, would stand on street courners like republicans, and yell "go back to Mexico" to the same people who picked his food crops, and cleaned his familys buildings?


    Try picking enough oranges to make a gallon of your orange juice, its the same illegal South Americans, that the republicans hate so much, that pick your oranges, cabages, lettuce ex. ex.




    But there is (one) Christian thing that Republican (politicians) do, and that is to be against abortion.

    But I will show eveidence that this is a political lie. They are only against abortion to get the religous vote.

    Look at the following evidence of republican politicians (not) caring about children,




    Huge numbers of Americas kids goto bed hungry every night, but the republican politicians (never) even speak of them, or pray for them.

    And republicans are against welfare which gets money to Americas poorest kids.

    And republicans fight to loosen business regulations, republicans let out more air/ water polution and make huge numbers of children sick.




    And when the republicans attacked Iraq for no reason, and killed 1,000's of Iraqs kids.

    Did these rep. politicians ever once pray for the dead children of Iraq ?

    Name one group of children the republican politicians have ever wanted to help (besides a fetus?)

    Do you honestly think these republican politicians care about abortion ?


    And people have said that after big time Christians finished talking to GW Bush and left his office, GW Bush and Carl Rove would laugh at them, and call them idiots.



    How do the republican politicians get the Christian vote, when they are 1,000% the opposite of Jesus Christ ? Its very easy.

    It scares me how easy it is for a republican politician to get the religous vote. All a republican (literally) has to do to get the Christian vote is say "I am for prayer."




    Republicans in the presidential debates talk a lot about their faith in God, and how they pray.

    The republican party is for prayer ? Its just (not) the same prayers Jesus would say.

    Jesus would never pray to, end welfare, not feed hungry American children, make the poor have a (higher) tax rate than the rich, and attack Afganistan, Iraq, and Iran.


    Its crazy, scarey, and hard to believe that American Christians consider the republicans to be the party of Jesus Christ.




    The trueth is that the democrat party, is the party that most shares the values of Jesus. The (only) thing republicans do that Jesus would do is, to be against abortion, but the republicans are only against abortion, to get the un-educated (lost) Christian vote.

    I got the following idea from reading the bible, and hearing others speak. I think the bible kinda says that, Satan rules the world untill revalation comes to pass. So that would mean that Satan curently rules the world.

    (sorry for preaching, but I just cant help myself.)




    Christians that vote republican, are not following the examples of Jesus Christ.

    In a way Fox news and Rush radio are a Christian republicans church, and all of the corporate paid Fox/Rush news reporters and republican politicians are their priests.

    These corporate paid republicans teach Christian republicans, all the anti-Christian values of a republican, and at the same time claim to be "for prayer" and followers of Jesus.

    But as the bible says, sometimes when the Devil comes to Earth he comes as Jesus.

    And today Fox news, Rush radio, and republican politicians have Christian republicans (against) helping the poor and middle class, while defending the rich (as Jesus defended the poor.)

    The republicans took these people away from Jesus.



    Take the following test. (note: I dont like abortion.)



    What would Jesus choose, A. or B. ?


    What would Satan choose, A. or B. ?




    A. (Democrat) help the poor, give hungry American children food, give Americas poorest children welfare, not start wars for nothing that kill 1,000's of children and 10,000's of inocent people, give tax cuts to the poor and middle class and not just the rich, help regular Americans keep their homes in bad times, have surpluses and not add money to our debt (like Carter and Clinton), save 18,000 Americans from dieing each year from not having health insuarance, raise rich peoples tax rates to the (same) as everyone else (like W. Buffet wants), love our South American brothers and sisters, provide aid to this worlds sick and needy people, walk into the world with love, caring, and respect as Jesus would, allow women to choose what grows inside them, and a few human fetuses to be killed.

    B. (Republican) Not help the poor, end welfare for poor people, not feed Americas hungry children, start wars for nothing that kill 1,000's of children and 10,000's of inocent people, have tax cuts only for the rich, increase our deficits like GW Bush and Reagan and add money to our debt, let 18,000 American die each year from not having health insurance, kick all the South Americans out of the USA, be against long unenployment benifits, honor the rich more than children or the poor, fight to stop all foriegn aid, not care about regular Americans loosing their homes, stop the poors class action lawsuits and unions, And save a few fetuses, to make uneducated (lost) Christians vote republican.




    May the (spirit) of Jesus grab some of you, and make you do to the republicans, as Jesus would do to them.

    Jesus was outside of a church and he got mad and flipped over a table.

    If Jesus was here today he would "flip the republicans table."

    But as your bible says " Satan rules the world untill revalation."

    (I just wish a few of you, would sneak away and vote democrat.)


    Last edited by chad; March 24th, 2012 at 03:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,320
    This might have been more at home in the Politics section.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    This post is about the teachings and values of Jesus Christ.

    When a post is about the teachings of Jesus, what section does it belong in ?



    This post is also about the behavior of Americas Christians.

    When a post is about the behavior of Christians, what section does it belong in ?



    This post has many quotes from the Bible.

    When a post has many quotes from the bible, what section does it belong in ?



    This post speaks of parables in the Bible.

    When a post speaks about parables in the Bible, what section does it belong in ?



    This post speaks of religous ironys.

    When a post speaks of religous ironys, what section does it belong in ?



    This post speaks of Christians being taken away from the values of Jesus.

    When a post speaks of Christians being taken away from the values of Jesus, what section does it belong in ?



    This post talks about "what would Jesus do ?"

    When a post talks about "what would jesu do ?", what section does it belong in ?



    This post is about the heart and soul of Jesus Christ.

    When a post is about the heart and soul of Jesus Christ, what section does it belong in ?




    AND I COULD LIST MORE STATEMENTS, THAT WOULD SHOW THIS POST BELONGS IN THE RELIGION SECTION.






    PERSONAL FEELINGS OF POLITICS CAUSED THIS POST TO BE MOVED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THIS IS UN - AMERICAN ........... (and un-scientific)



    ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS.....................


    If this is truely a forum of science, ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS.
    Last edited by chad; February 9th, 2012 at 04:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,868
    Moved to politics.

    Chad, it isn't charity if your property is confiscated from you and given to someone else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,320
    Chad,
    if I understand things correctly the religion section isn't for a discussion of religion as a religion, but as a social phenomenon.
    Your post takes a particular view of the US political scene as it relates to religion and as religion relates to it. I felt - and it seems the moderators agree - that it is more relevant to have it in politics. If it remained in the religion section it would very qucikly get shut down, since it comes perilously close to preaching. Its longevity should be greater in politics. Jesus was, after all, a comsumate politician.

    I am mildly offended by your last comment, which seems to imply that I have recommended it be moved to the politics section because I have Republican sympathies. If that was your intent then you are mistaken.



    Harold,
    it isn't Chrisitianity if you condemn and reject coordinated efforts to care for the needy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    I may have mis-understood the meaning of the religous section of this forum.

    And yes, I thought you moved it because you were a republican.

    I am sorry.
    Last edited by chad; February 9th, 2012 at 05:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Harold,
    it isn't Chrisitianity if you condemn and reject coordinated efforts to care for the needy.
    Coordinated efforts to care for the needy. That's what churches used to do. Must everything go through the government?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,227
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I may have mis-understood the meaning of the religous section of this forum.

    And yes, I thought you moved it because you were a republican.

    I am sorry.
    I am a South African and would have moved it as well. The section you posted in is the Scientific Study of Religion. Your post has nothing to do with science and if it did not contain politics, might have been booted to the trash section at that.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,320
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I may have mis-understood the meaning of the religous section of this forum.

    And yes, I thought you moved it because you were a republican.

    I am sorry.
    I've only given you my understanding of it. I have the same status here as you do - just another member. I didn't move it, just reflected on the fact that it might be 'happier' in politics. No need to apologise - my forum name may have implied Republican sympathies. The last Republican I liked was Eisenhower


    Coordinated efforts to care for the needy. That's what churches used to do. Must everything go through the government?
    Not everything, but in a society as complex as ours proper governmental provision of things such as universal health care and economic safety nets are best served by accountable government agencies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    It's also had a lot of problems.

    But the republicans (hate) welfare itself. The republicans are against giving money to the poor.

    More than 20% of Americas children live in poverty, more than 1 million children regularly go to bed hungry in America. 1 out of 6 Americans were unable to buy sufficient food last year to stay healthy.

    Have you ever heard a republican politician speak of helping these people ?
    You mistakingly equate welfare with giving money to the poor, when the fact is conservatives, on average give 30% more than liberals to charity, as a % of their income.
    Who's More Charitable - Liberals or Conservatives?

    Suggest you look up "Who really cares: The surprising truth about compassionate conservatism." by Brooks

    Yes, I've many times heard republicans speak of helping people. Tens of millions of American hear from a republican during weekly sessions at churches across America.

    Have you ever (once) heard a republican politician pray for these people ?
    Yes, though I didn't like it much.

    --
    And you cut to one of my beefs with secularism--charity is a good thing psychologically for the giver and materially for the receiver. This is one of the areas where getting rid of religion, only to hand it over to an impersonal government agencies, is a bad thing for society. It's also where secular application of science of morality could be applied for the good of everyone--but is usually rejected out of hand because it's thought to be "tainted" by religion.

    But getting back to the core of the thread as a Christian, ask yourself:

    Did Jesus suggest giving their charity to the Romans so they could help the people, or giving directly?

    If you can answer that, than perhaps you'll understand why conservatives generally don't like welfare but give more total money to charity--and I hope you stop making baseless and illogical arguments against Republicans when you mistakingly conflate welfare with charity.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 10th, 2012 at 06:47 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    866
    Chad you state,

    " More than 20% of Americas children live in poverty, more than 1 million children regularly go to bed hungry in America. 1 out of 6 Americans were unable to buy sufficient food last year to stay healthy. "

    Then you go onto say,

    " Over 20% of American children goto bed hungry every night, but the republicans (never) even speak of them, (or pray for them.) "

    Will you please tell me how many American children really go to bed hungry ? Is it 20% of American children, or is it more than a million of American children ? Where are you pulling your statistics from ?
    Last edited by Dave Wilson; February 10th, 2012 at 04:15 AM. Reason: spelling
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    You mistakingly equate welfare with giving money to the poor, when the fact is conservatives, on average give 30% more than liberals to charity, as a % of their income.
    Religion and tax dodges explain most of that, certain class-biased irregularities in the calculation of "income" take care of the rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    --
    And you cut to one of my beefs with secularism--charity is a good thing psychologically for the giver and materially for the receiver. This is one of the areas where getting rid of religion, only to hand it over to an impersonal government agencies, is a bad thing for society
    Nobody "got rid of" religious charity. Nothing's stopping the religious from being charitable - they even get big tax breaks, like everyone else.

    It's just that reliance on the charity of the pious rich has a long history of visible consequences for an industrial society, and we don't want to live with them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    You mistakingly equate welfare with giving money to the poor, when the fact is conservatives, on average give 30% more than liberals to charity, as a % of their income.
    Religion and tax dodges explain most of that, certain class-biased irregularities in the calculation of "income" take care of the rest.
    Data? Analysis? Summations or articles refuting the claim based on "something". And actually I checked and need correct something. Conservatives actually give more despite making, on average, 6% less money. The per-capita donations are actually higher than 30% more than liberal donations.

    And you might as well also explain why conservatives also donate more blood, and time to non-profits charity work.
    "- If liberals and moderates donated blood as often as conservatives, the U.S. blood supply would increase by 45 percent"

    https://www.google.com/search?q=goer...ient=firefox-a
    RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
    Religious Conservatives Are More Generous. But That's Only Half the Story - God & Country (usnews.com)

    None of this gets to the point that Jesus wanted people to find it in themselves to give to others, and that message still resonates in Christians and in their communities on many levels. I think you'd find exactly the same thing in the Islamic community (based on knowing and living with them--they are extremely generous). As far as science goes, it's a good thing for people to give because it taps into our altruistic side, which makes us feel better -- also means giving isn't entirely selfless. It also strengthens our communities. You don't get that benefit from given to large government. Secularism could do the same thing based on that science, but thus far just isn't.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    None of this gets to the point that Jesus wanted people to find it in themselves to give to others, and that message still resonates in Christians and in their communities on many levels. I think you'd find exactly the same thing in the Islamic community (based on knowing and living with them--they are extremely generous).
    This should not be confused with "conservative". According to your links and in support of my assertion, the actual influence is religion, and in particular friendships within a religious community.

    The hijacking of the voice of the Christian church by a vicious cadre of amoral fascists, in modern US politics, should not obscure its history of liberal ideology and liberal political influence - the foundation of much of its current generosity, in the US.

    Meanwhile, we note that much of the charity of the religious is in support of their church, its missionary work, etc. So the subtraction is at both ends - liberal ideology institutionalized within the religious community (Jesus was a leftwing ideologue, simple fact), and "charity" that is contained within the religious institutions themselves, and does not count in a discussion like this. Lefties give to their friends, you know - couches to sleep on, taxi service - they just don't make a church out of it.

    And that much of the community involvement of the areligious is not only against opposition rather than with comfortable congretational support, but informal and not officially recorded - most of my wife's (very "liberal") charitable giving, for example, is not deducted from the family income, and not visible to such as author Brooks.

    And there is no "secularism", per se. It's an empty label. That's part of the problem - the areligious are isolated from their communities, and the practical details of charitable giving are much more of a hassle for them as well as far less rewarded.

    So we have the basic facts, but not the interpretation. If the attempt to personally one-up is set aside, the benefits of religious faith and community organization are visible - and so is the hijacking of that faith and organization by ideology and political faction.

    We have a thousand years of religion based charity to look at. We don't have to live like that, in order to be charitable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Chad you state,

    " More than 20% of Americas children live in poverty, more than 1 million children regularly go to bed hungry in America. 1 out of 6 Americans were unable to buy sufficient food last year to stay healthy. "

    Then you go onto say,

    " Over 20% of American children goto bed hungry every night, but the republicans (never) even speak of them, (or pray for them.) "

    Will you please tell me how many American children really go to bed hungry ? Is it 20% of American children, or is it more than a million of American children ? Where are you pulling your statistics from ?


    I do not have the time to research to get the exact figures, I went to a few websites to get these figures.

    As you most likely know figures from source to source, can be very diferent.



    Maybe the following is more accurate, (un-thinkable and un-American, numbers of American children live in poverty, and dont have enough food.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    This post was originally "the republican corporate think tank controled cult"

    It was a un-readable piece of slop.

    I deleted the post, I will post it edited someday.
    Last edited by chad; February 11th, 2012 at 04:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    This post was part of the above post, and was deleted.
    Last edited by chad; February 11th, 2012 at 04:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I really hope I did not upset your brains.
    No worries, such long, unfocused and rambling post don't get read. To save time I searched for the word "Jesus" and noticed there were no hits--so one might conclude you're crawfishing from your position about Jesus to argue against the Republicans.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,072
    I can see how making decency and kindness a matter of personal choice instead of a government mandate would be a good ideal to strive for. The trouble is just when sometimes the concept of "generosity" gets over/under-defined. We blow up a bridge in Baghdad and then "graciously" offer to build a new one to replace it, or some mafia don who spent his whole life robbing from the public decides to "charitably" donate some of that money back in his old age.

    We don't need to let corporate interests walk all over us, giving them subsidies or tax breaks in the hope that they'll build more factories in the USA and then allowing them to take the money we willingly gave them and spend it to build those factories in East Asia. If they want us to just give them free money, then they should allow us to have some say in how it will be spent, so it benefits everyone, instead of just them. This whole "personal choice" thing is just too one-sided right now. They want the privilege to decide not only what to do with the money they've earned, but also the money they have and didn't earn.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    866
    Chad,
    Here is a snippet from " The Washington Free Beacon " about the upcoming Democratic National Convention. The same Democrats, who are decent human beings, compared to the low life Republicans. Please read the article from the link provided if you have the time.

    " The organizers of the upcoming Democratic National Convention are doing everything possible to get around the same financial restrictions they once promoted in a concerted effort to make sure that America’s wealthiest individuals, corporations, and lobbyists contribute their “fair share” to the convention. "

    The ‘People’s’ Convention? | Washington Free Beacon
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    I took a look at the article.

    I think it cost around $650 million dollars to be able to run for president now a days.

    I was watching this documentary about campain money raising in Washinton. Our politicians spend more time raising money, than they spend thinking about us.


    I was at the home of friend of my family, who is very wealthy. He had a picture on wall, with him shaking hands with GW Bush. I asked him "how did you get to shake hands with the president ?"

    He told me, I gave some one $10,000, and I got to talk to him for a few moments.

    He said he could have paid $100,000, and got to sit down with him, and talk with him, for a longer amount of time.

    But he said that during his $10,000 meeting, the president was not really in touch with what he was asking for.


    He decided not to pay the $100,000, because he thought it would be a waste of money, because the president was not really interested in what he was wanting.


    If you want a picture shaking hands with the president, and you have $10,000 extra dollars, all you have to do is find the right lobbyest, and you get yourself a picture shaking hands with the president.

    If you want to get a picture with a congress person, it may be much cheaper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    866
    Ok Chad,
    So I take it the same money would get you a photograph with Obama.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    No, you may need $15,000 to get one with Obama ($5,000 more.)

    But this is mainly b/c of inflation, and his personal style of campaining via tv.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    What inflation? It's been at near historical lows for several years.
    --
    He decided not to pay the $100,000, because he thought it would be a waste of money, because the president was not really interested in what he was wanting.
    that sounds like a good thing that he couldn't be bought off
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    What inflation? It's been at near historical lows for several years.
    The inflation of the cost of campaigning for national office.

    That is at historical highs, and still climbing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Shortfilm- The Greatest Drug in the World
    By dombra in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 16th, 2011, 08:13 AM
  2. Non-religous are more intelligent than religous
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: May 20th, 2009, 01:44 PM
  3. End of the Old World: Beginning of the New World
    By gailem in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2008, 06:57 AM
  4. Religous section
    By organic god in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 6th, 2008, 05:33 PM
  5. Genetic Engineering religous problems
    By chamilton333 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 10th, 2006, 05:57 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •