General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ron Paul: The Only Presidential Candidate Telling Important Truths [View all]mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)And what gives you the right to speak for "the military?"
Why is it so important to obscure valid data, by constant
repetition of the same meaningless, irrelevant questions?
You're coming back with "sampling size" quibbling, again,
like it's something fresh and conclusive and horribly
damning. Without any evidence, at all, to the contrary.
This originally started with a comparison of campaign
contributions. The Robotic One's biggest donor list:
1 Goldman Sachs $367,200
2 Credit Suisse Group $203,750
3 Morgan Stanley $199,800
4 HIG Capital $186,500
5 Barclays $157,750
vs
the Little Guy in the Too-Big-Suit's List:
1 US Army $24,503
2 US Air Force $23,335
3 US Navy $17,432
4 Mason Capital Management $14,000
5 Microsoft Corp $13,398
From:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/head2head.php?cand1=N00005906&cand2=N00000286&x=20&y=26
It still seems more than a little unfair to me that military industrialists, and all the Blackwater's and
Halliburton's have their lobbyists, and make their high-dollar contributions to politicians from both
political parties.
But the grunts and air men and sailors and marines that perform the actual "Warfare on Terrorism"
have to content themselves with making small donations to Looney Unka Ron.
Does that seem like a satisfactory state of affairs to you? Isn't that worth pointing out? Doesn't it
deserve some honest discussion?