My only problem with Poker

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you're right, but that it's really irrelevant to the point of the arguement. If we're gonna argue semantics, he said Buffett is in California. However, in Buffett's case I believe his goal was truly to lend Arnold some guidance...And I have no problem admitting I had to look up "imprimatur"... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ] Doh. I didn't even realize. I hate being the one who tries to sound snooty and highbrow.

To everyone else: I apologize for the politics thread. I just get personally offended when my party is slandered by false accusations.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
To everyone else: I apologize for the politics thread. I just get personally offended when my party is slandered by false accusations.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's o.k. Very nice! It's not easy to sound snooty in a thread entitled Dumba**. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
he's from alabama.

[/ QUOTE ]

So am I. Is there a point you'd like to make?

[West]

Billionaires for Bush - 116

August 07, 2004

By: Jonathan Salant
Bloomberg News

Material by:
Jonathan Salant

Material from:
Bloomberg News

Material about:
Election 2004

Material about:
Campaign Financing and Lobbying


President George W. Bush received donations from 79 percent of the U.S. billionaires who contributed to a presidential campaign this year, while Democrat John Kerry was backed by 21 percent, a study says.

Bush received contributions from 116 billionaires, including Bill Gates, chairman of Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft Corp., who was listed by Forbes magazine as the world's richest person, and Frederick Smith, chief executive of FedEx Corp., according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign donations.

Kerry got donations from 31 billionaires, including Warren Buffett, chairman of Omaha- based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and the world's second- richest person; Eli Broad, chairman of AIG SunAmerica Inc., a subsidiary of New York-based American International Group Inc.; and David Geffen, co-founder of Glendale, Calif.-based DreamWorks SKG, a movie studio.

Republicans often outscore Democrats in fund raising among corporate executives.

The 58-year-old Bush has 280 CEOs from Russell 1000 index companies, to 52 for the 60-year-old Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan group based in Washington.

Kerry, who accepted the Democratic presidential nomination last week, released a list of 204 executives who endorse his economic policies.

Of the 277 U.S. billionaires identified by Forbes magazine, 153 gave to a candidate, including six who gave to both Bush and Kerry.

Those giving to both candidates included Charles Dolan, chairman of Bethpage, N.Y.- based Cablevision Systems Corp.; and Donald Trump, chief executive officer of Atlantic City, N.J.-based Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts.

Another 124 billionaires, or 45 percent of the total, gave to neither candidate, including Ted Turner, the founder of Cable News Network and a former vice chairman of New York-based Time Warner Inc.; Roy Disney, chairman of Shamrock Holdings Inc. and a former director of the Walt Disney Co., founded by his uncle; and Forrest Mars Jr., chairman of Mars Inc.

"I'm always surprised at the separation of the business world from politics in a number of wealthy people," said Kent Cooper, co- founder of PoliticalMoneyLine. "To them, politics is a different world, and the business mind has a hard time understanding how politics works."

Kerry has the support of two billionaires who did not give to either presidential campaign: Steve Jobs, chief executive officer of Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Computer Inc., and Barry Diller, chairman of New York-based IAC/InterActiveCorp, an Internet commerce and television shopping company.

A Kerry campaign spokesman declined to comment.

Calls to the Bush campaign were not returned.

Wealthy donors

116 Number of billionaires who made donations this year to President Bush.

31 Number of billionaires who made donations this year to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

6 Number of billionaires who made donations this year to both Bush and Kerry.


http://billionairesforbush.com/index.php

[West]

Top Contributors

This chart lists the top donors to the candidates during the 2004 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Bush

1. Merrill Lynch $458,204
2. PriceWaterhouseCoopers $431,800
3. UBS Americas $358,850
4. MBNA Corp $337,750
5. Lehman Brothers $288,559
6. Goldman Sachs $282,725
7. Credit Suisse First Boston $257,750
8. Bear Stearns $240,250
9. Ernst & Young $234,655
10. Blank Rome LLP $207,400
11. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $207,050
12. Citigroup Inc $196,000
13. Southern Co $182,247
14. Morgan Stanley $177,075
15. Microsoft Corp $160,850
16. Union Pacific Corp $160,000
17. Haynes & Boone $157,650
18. Winston & Strawn $156,450
19. Ameriquest Capital $152,800
20. SBC Communications $150,350

Kerry

1. Skadden, Arps et al $105,650
2. Robins, Kaplan et al $91,750
3. Citigroup Inc $82,900
4. Piper Rudnick LLP $77,050
5. Mintz, Levin et al $72,050
6. Goldman Sachs $68,750
7. CHarvard University $55,600
8. Hill, Holliday et al $53,750
9. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $50,250
10. Akin, Gump et al $45,550
11. International Profit Assoc $44,250
12. Time Warner $41,950
13. Clifford Law Offices $41,850
14. Morgan Stanley $40,000
15. Bain Capital $38,500
16. Hale & Dorr $37,750
17. UBS Americas $36,800
18. Holland & Knight $36,200
19. Latham & Watkins $32,500
20. FleetBoston Financial $32,500

All the numbers on this page are for the 2004 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 01, 2004. Data comes courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics.

[glengarry]

I've had similar feelings and have additional personal concerns. Taking money from fish: is that fun? something to be proud of? socially destructive?

Background: I began playing alot during my spare time, mostly online, about 14 months ago. I enjoyed the game, especially learning and improving. I won a good amount ($14-15K) over the first 8 months, lost 60% back over the next 2, then made a slight recovery.

As I studied more and read this an other forums, I started to question what I was doing. To win, I'm supposed to find easy games with lots of fish. Don't get me wrong, they're adults (hopefully) and responsible for themselves. But what about me? Basically it comes down to this:

weak players = bored, somewhat ashamed and maybe a little socially destructive

equal opponents = more fun, but we exchange chips while the house rake chips away at us

better players = I usually lose but have the most fun (but only at high limits = costs $$)

I think I've reached a level where I'd have to commit a lot more time to get significantly better. Don't have that much time or interest. Don't get me wrong, like most, I'm no Albert Schweitzer, but I can't think dedicating that much time to poker helps society or makes me a better person.

[patrick dicaprio]

George Soros a philanthropist??!! he did everything he could to ruin national currencies to make a buck and donates to political causes. hell even ted turner donated a billion to charity.

Pat

[patrick dicaprio]

you are 100% right. well maybe 99%. I think that if you raise children who are a credit to society and not a drain then that is a worthy accomplishment. i was a lawyer in NYC and recently quit my job and went to a company that allows me to work 8-4 and i have 300 more hours a year with my one year old daughter. i felt pity for the saps who stayed there for money when they see there kids on weekends only. for what? to make more money for the partners? that is hardly a worthy accomplishment, but if you ask them they think making partner is teh goal of your life. it is really sad.

Pat

[blackaces13]

Why would discovering a cure for cancer alter ones relative significance/insignificance in the "greater picture"?

[Lazymeatball]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would discovering a cure for cancer alter ones relative significance/insignificance in the "greater picture"?

[/ QUOTE ]

This one's easy. Because it would save millions of lives!!!
Next.