Gore gives Democrats $6 million

[ShapeShifter]

In the year 1999, Gore gave only $250 in charity, but he can afford to give $6 million to Kerry!?!?  Why isn't anyone else shocked about this?  I know that it is left over campaign finds, but come on, seriously.

Umm ... maybe because the funds were the leftover from his 2000 Presidential campaign and there are restrictions to how these funds can be handled, donated, or transferred.

Nevermind.  Clearly you didn't read me agknowledge that fact.  I just think that it is rather ironic that he gives so much money to Kerry (even if he couldn't pass the money onto anyone else) and so little to worthy causes.

I disagree. I think donating money to Kerry is worthy cause because Gore is lending energy into something he believes in. I don't see why he has to donate money to charity. Charity is something you give because you want to not because you have to or it's a "good" thing. Why aren't you upset over the many many millions of dollar Bush's supporters has given him? I mean, come on.

Cheney gave $9 million in charity in 1999.  Bush gave $500,000.  That's why I'm not upset.  Isn't it interesting how Republican states tend to give far more money per capita to charitable causes than do the Dem. states?

Open up John Kerry's charity file and compare it to Cheney's.  I would like to see that.

What about, who cares? This is a non-issue to me. Just because a person give out more hand-outs does not mean they will make a better president.

So wait charity is a handout?  So then what do you consider government programs?  SO you don't vote for Dems because they want more social programs.  Why do you vote for them then?

Government programs are investments and also to keep things civil. Also, on social issues, I don't agree much with conservatism.

How are government programs more of an investment than charities especially when the government tends to invest more money in itself than in the people the money is supposed to help.  There are charity abuses, but the government abuses and wastes every single day.

You have to keep the people in check by giving them a glimmer of hope. You wouldn't want the people of your nation to feel desperate. In other word, government hand outs are more an investment to keep things peaceful. As the economy goes up, the crime level goes down. Simple. Either way, my origional point was ... who cares if Kerry doesn't give money to charity? Maybe some but not most.

And charity differs from that how?  I certainly care.  It says a hell of a lot about a persons charecter and values.  Which of course most liberals don't care about in the least.

How mature, over generalization of a group of people. I commend you. By the way, I said, some people care - including you - not most. I don't see charity being a campaign issue on the news. That was my main point but if you want to continue to play character assassination, by all means go ahead.

It's not an over generalization.  It's true.  Poll after poll shows that liberals at least don't name charecter as a factor in why they vote the way they do, and other polls show that liberals say that charecter doesn't matter to them.

It should be hugely important, but I think that how much a person gives and to whom is an important indication of their charecter and values.

Look this isn't American Idol, these are politicans. Also, just because "liberals" or do you mean Democrats, don't find character their first choice doesn't mean a lot really.

It's not the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th choice on a lot of polls either.  And no, I don't mean Dems, becuase I have met plenty of centrist Dems who do believe that charecter counts.  But, hey, Joe Liebermann is a man of great charecter and look how far he got in the liberal dominated Democratic primaries.

What polls are you talking about? Would like to inform myself before I can continue commenting on this. Someone who has all these nice fuzzy characters and value and all this American Idol stuff, does not make them a good person to run the country. But that is my personal opinion, not fact.

Check out the 2000 exit polls on CNN.com .  How is giving to charity "American Idol stuff"?

By the way, nice pyramid we ahve here.  

Well, I don't know aboutt those exit polls. According to Vorlon those are a big joke because it was done by VNS. But, I would guess liberals - I don't even know what you mean by this term - don't vote based on character and value just practical stuff. When I say, American Idol stuff, I mean people vote by looks and how good you can sing. Just like voting, character and how good you can run the government. Not sure if I am explaining that well.

Nice indeed.

[12th Doctor]

In the year 1999, Gore gave only $250 in charity, but he can afford to give $6 million to Kerry!?!?  Why isn't anyone else shocked about this?  I know that it is left over campaign finds, but come on, seriously.

Umm ... maybe because the funds were the leftover from his 2000 Presidential campaign and there are restrictions to how these funds can be handled, donated, or transferred.

Nevermind.  Clearly you didn't read me agknowledge that fact.  I just think that it is rather ironic that he gives so much money to Kerry (even if he couldn't pass the money onto anyone else) and so little to worthy causes.

I disagree. I think donating money to Kerry is worthy cause because Gore is lending energy into something he believes in. I don't see why he has to donate money to charity. Charity is something you give because you want to not because you have to or it's a "good" thing. Why aren't you upset over the many many millions of dollar Bush's supporters has given him? I mean, come on.

Cheney gave $9 million in charity in 1999.  Bush gave $500,000.  That's why I'm not upset.  Isn't it interesting how Republican states tend to give far more money per capita to charitable causes than do the Dem. states?

Open up John Kerry's charity file and compare it to Cheney's.  I would like to see that.

What about, who cares? This is a non-issue to me. Just because a person give out more hand-outs does not mean they will make a better president.

So wait charity is a handout?  So then what do you consider government programs?  SO you don't vote for Dems because they want more social programs.  Why do you vote for them then?

Government programs are investments and also to keep things civil. Also, on social issues, I don't agree much with conservatism.

How are government programs more of an investment than charities especially when the government tends to invest more money in itself than in the people the money is supposed to help.  There are charity abuses, but the government abuses and wastes every single day.

You have to keep the people in check by giving them a glimmer of hope. You wouldn't want the people of your nation to feel desperate. In other word, government hand outs are more an investment to keep things peaceful. As the economy goes up, the crime level goes down. Simple. Either way, my origional point was ... who cares if Kerry doesn't give money to charity? Maybe some but not most.

And charity differs from that how?  I certainly care.  It says a hell of a lot about a persons charecter and values.  Which of course most liberals don't care about in the least.

How mature, over generalization of a group of people. I commend you. By the way, I said, some people care - including you - not most. I don't see charity being a campaign issue on the news. That was my main point but if you want to continue to play character assassination, by all means go ahead.

It's not an over generalization.  It's true.  Poll after poll shows that liberals at least don't name charecter as a factor in why they vote the way they do, and other polls show that liberals say that charecter doesn't matter to them.

It should be hugely important, but I think that how much a person gives and to whom is an important indication of their charecter and values.

Look this isn't American Idol, these are politicans. Also, just because "liberals" or do you mean Democrats, don't find character their first choice doesn't mean a lot really.

It's not the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th choice on a lot of polls either.  And no, I don't mean Dems, becuase I have met plenty of centrist Dems who do believe that charecter counts.  But, hey, Joe Liebermann is a man of great charecter and look how far he got in the liberal dominated Democratic primaries.

What polls are you talking about? Would like to inform myself before I can continue commenting on this. Someone who has all these nice fuzzy characters and value and all this American Idol stuff, does not make them a good person to run the country. But that is my personal opinion, not fact.

Check out the 2000 exit polls on CNN.com .  How is giving to charity "American Idol stuff"?

By the way, nice pyramid we ahve here.  

Well, I don't know aboutt those exit polls. According to Vorlon those are a big joke because it was done by VNS. But, I would guess liberals - I don't even know what you mean by this term - don't vote based on character and value just practical stuff. When I say, American Idol stuff, I mean people vote by looks and how good you can sing. Just like voting, character and how good you can run the government. Not sure if I am explaining that well.

Nice indeed.

Yeah, but the people who win those American idol thiings have no charecter.    

Liberal as in Left of center.

Although, I must say that I think Nader is a man of charecter.  But he is acctually less liberal than John Kerry.

[KEmperor]

Both of you need to STOP QUOTING!!!!  Just respond with posts.

[12th Doctor]

Both of you need to STOP QUOTING!!!!  Just respond with posts.

Okay.  LOL  

[dunn]

Both of you need to STOP QUOTING!!!!  Just respond with posts.

Okay.  LOL  

lol

[classical liberal]

Conservatives want charity to come out of individual incomes, Liberals want charity to come from the nation's collective income.

Both sides are stupid; those in unfortunate circumstances are their own responsibility, not other individuals' or the nation's as a whole.

The bit about using it to keep the peace sounds a bit too much like appeasing criminals with "protection money" for my tastes, but it is an interesting strategy.

Liberals don't want elected officials to exercise judgement based on personal values or morals, they just want people to advocate whatever their consituents favor.  Conservatives want people who bring morals and values to the table to deliberate what they think that their constituents might think to be right and therefore possibly favor.  Liberals are more democratic(not the party but rather pro-democracy) and Conservatives are more republican(not the party, but rather pro-republic) in this regard.