Nicole is the daughter of a former daughter-in-law of his who was married to his son for only about 10 years. When she {Nicole) was quite young, her mother married Warren Buffettâs son Peter, and Peter formally adopted her. Dad should provide for adopted daughter from his portion of inheritence. Why should Warren provide for Nicole, because he has money?
How can I even take that seriously? It's so riddled with errors I don't know where to begin. Warren Buffet is NOT jewish (not that it matters, but you'd think they'd get at least that right). And he's voted for more Republicans than Democrats in the past.
Yes he is Jewish and no he hasn't. He is 1/4 th jewish from his mother's side. He does not practice and doesn't consider himself jewish. He himself says he is agnostic which many reformed jews are. You really should read what Nicole had to say about him before you worship this guy.
You're the guy with bad info blsh. "More Republicans"? Hardly. http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Warren_Buffett.php
If being 1/4 Jewish makes him a Jew, then what do we do with the remaining 75%? Does that not account for anything? Why did you specifically and singularly define him as Jewish in your earlier post if that reportedly accounts for only a fraction of his heritage? Not that I care one way or the other, because I think all religion is nonsense. However, I'm just curious regarding your rationale. Perhaps it just suits your purpose in this argument? (If so, do you see now why I hate religion?)
One-drop rule From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of African ancestry (however small or invisible) cannot be considered white[1] and so, unless the person has an alternative non-white ancestry that he or she can claim, such as Native American, Asian, Arab, Australian aboriginal, the person must be considered black. Now I know why you so despise blacks. Or at least you did "historically".
Okay, he has supported a lot of Dems according to that. But most of them have been Nebraskan Congressmen/women. It only goes back 20 years, too, while I'm sure Buffet has been active longer than that. But yes, recently, he has even supported Kerry, and then both Clinton and now Obama in this years primary and general election. He has also supported Republicans, including Bob Dole. One more thing; I wouldn't exactly call Nebraskan Democrats 'liberal.' Here's a question for you Pabst (and others critical of Buffet) - try to be honest, if you can: Had Buffet endorsed McCain, would you have brought up any of the points about him that you have? I would have mentioned his endorsement of McCain the same way I did his endorsement of Obama.
Buffett has angered people long before this election with his opposition to such things as eliminating the estate tax. He supports numerous liberal groups, as does Gates. That's their privilege of course, but at least Gates is not lecturing working people about how we need to pay higher taxes and how wanting to leave what we saved to our families is wrong. Buffett is annoying as well because of what Pabst pointed out. He has this carefully constructed image of humble Grandfather Buffett of Omaha, driving an old car and living in a modest house, when in reality he has private jets, california beach houses, a long time mistress, etc. Just like poeple resent it when politicians start telling them how to live their private lives, people resent sanctimonious billionaires telling them they are greedy for favoring lower taxes.
This "one-drop rule" is a thinly veiled excuse for racism. And please don't goad me with stupid remarks.
perhaps it's because jew is only 25% of noncommittal, but easier for the more simple-minded to spell.