Here, I did your work for you. Look at the data yourself.

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

Top 100 individual donors to both parties - only 32 donated more to Democrats. Of the top 50, only 14. Of the top 10, only 2.

Apology accepted.

So are you actually claiming that the Democratic Party has more super-wealthy funders than the Republican party?
Do you really believe that?
You say look at the data. OK, show me the data. Show me how the Democratic party has more funding coming from the top 1% incomes.

The Westboro Baptist Church have a right to be complete assholes and say and do completely assholish things. That's really where it starts and ends.

No matter how good it feels that someone might make them possibly feel even a little bit as shitty as they love to make other *victims* feel. Goddammit. What a bunch of sick fucks. Never protest people when they're up. Never go and spew their shit at an ROTC center, or during a parade. No, it's got to be some funeral, where a bunch of people who are already facing the worst day of their fucking lives and trying to move on now have to deal with the Westboro shit too.

But that's their right, and that's how it has to work.

But I must admit I wouldn't be unhappy, if it turned out that Anonymous were prosecuted for this only after every lost library book in America was tracked down and returned.

Do you have a quote or a source for that? I'm happy to revise my opinion of Jefferson, but my understanding is that he was at least for the vote for males without respect to their owning property. He was still stuck in his time in not freeing his own slaves or wanting women to vote, but that's the nature of imperfection and hypocrisy...

I think if that's the case, much fewer rich would give to conservative causes and specifically the current GOP. The wealthy do give to both parties of course, but the funding of the GOP in particular seems overwhelmingly super-wealthy. A top 1% of the top `1%, even...

I followed electoral-vote.com , which I found to be great and to have done a great job for previous elections. Nate Silver gets a good rep with some justification, as he's also a good writer and speaker. I do find myself a bit annoyed, however, as it seems he's being given the credit for statistical approaches to the electoral college that others have been providing for years. He's probably performed some useful tweaks of his own, though, I'm sure.

I'm not exactly clear on what you consider contradictory about my statement?
Perhaps the context is missing.
1. The rich and powerful have power *in addition to* government representation - such as the huge corporations and private institutions that they run. The poor almost always have Democratic representation as their *only* power.
2. The rich and powerful have far more power *within* government than the poor. This should be no surprise, but to point out the obvious - how many paid lobbyists are there for the poor? Are they even a tenth of the number of lobbyists that exist for Exxon alone?
3. Therefore, to blame the poor people for the actions of government, when the government is actually run by quite wealthy people in ways that rarely contradict the interests of wealthy people, is just silly.

As a final note, Jefferson considered the poor and middle class to be the best watchers of the public good, in part because they make up the greatest proportion of it - and also in part because of the basic principle that people should have some influence on the decisions that affect them. The fact that our current government gives more weight to the wealthy than the poor, does not contradict this principle motivation of Jefferson's.

That's the overall context that my statement is coming from.

Yep. You'd think those surprised by the election's results would would come to question the quality of the information sources that led them to those conclusions- and from there, the ideology that made them so easily misled. But, nope - this is all in the blind spot, so the closest it can come to visibility is through projection.

Disagree completely. Jefferson et all were absolutely correct when they considered the public to be the best watchers of the public good - because when things affect people directly, they pay attention.
The problems we face now have much more to do with corporations being able to pay enough to soak the airwaves with propaganda. The phrase "nanny state" is often a good indicator of the success of this propaganda - it means that people are blaming the poor for what the government's doing rather than the rich and powerful who are most often ignoring the best interests of the poor and middle class as much as possible.

Didn't you just use the word silo in a business context? : )

It might be that Sinofsky was actually causing friction by trying to get different divisions to work together - and that this was viewed internally by some people as a 'power grab' - i.e., something that would loosen the reins of their own power.
Big companies can get very silo'd off, and the different silos can then become little empires. So then when someone comes along whose work and position touches a few different silos and tries to get some actual inter-silo planning and less duplication of effort, territoriality, etc. then pushback can happen.

So, to review your response, it's:
1) completely skipping over the Arizona point
2) completely skipping over that Romney refused to retract his endorsement of Murdouck, after Murdouck stated "pregnancy from rape is something God intended'
3) bringing up Democratic party ads that have nothing to do with the current question of Democrats being 'the party of hate',
4a) bringing up Democratic party past history of Jim Crow as if that is relevant to this recent election, which it's not, 4b) accusing Democrats of being racist because Democratic-voting *minorities* tend not to trust minority conservatives for being *conservatives*, 4c) and also accusing Democrats of being racist for trying to defeat Republicans ,
5) pretending that the Republican party has only pursued this nonsense of Obama being foreign-born because it was something once said by one of his publishers - as if that was enough reason to ignore every single shred of evidence ot the contrary, including the birth certificate he released while he was compaigning in 2008. Even though, as you state yourself, it wouldn't matter if Obama was born on the moon since his mother is a US citizen.
I mean, come on man.

Lolwut???
The Democrats as the party of hate and racism. Ok....
Yeah, the Democrats sure showed their true colors when they demanded cops have the right to inspect the papers of anyone who looks Spanish. Oh, and let's not forget how they kept saying Romney must have been born in another country against all evidence to the contrary. And their hate sure was in fine form when several of their candidates stated rape babies come from God so women just have to live with it, and the Democratic Party candidate refused to even retract their endorsements.
What's that, that was all the GOP and Romney? Why, that's crazy talk.

The Obama campaign probably had that many people in Ohio just getting the coffee.

Above is why Paul Krugman is one of the few people near the pundit class who is actually worth listening to.