George Bush is a liar & will lose

[OCA]

Boss if you like old style tax and spend liberal with a hint of treason and want to have America run by the United Nations go right ahead and cast your vote for JFK, just one piece of advice though, don't lay the house on JFK unless you like camping in November.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by jimnyc
64 replies in here and NOT ONE LIE by Bush has been posted. Now wasn't that the point of this thread?

Not only that but Boss hypothesied that Bush would lose.
How is it that Bush is going to lose?

Once again a case is being made against Bush but not for Kerry. In order for Kerry to win he will need people to vote for him, not just people voting against Bush.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by boss
maybe yourself when you realize it's moderates like me who W has alienated and will strip him of office

 

[shergald]

This review of David Johnston's Perfectly Legal may help you find those LIES.

....book on a subject matter that must be understood more broadly to keep our golden goose from being driven off the edge of a cliff by the greediest members of our society. Since I agree with most of the complements written about this book by others, I will focus my remarks on some important deficits.
The generally missing part of any discussion of taxes, and missing from this book, is the clarification of the equitable basis for taxation. Often, someone will propose some scheme of taxation and simply claim that it is equitable. Many, like Steve Forbes, think that it is equitable for someone else to pay more of their taxes. In an equitable tax scheme each taxable entity should pay taxes in a share that is proportionate to the benefits that entity derives, directly and indirectly, from the tax supported infrastructure. It is similar to paying a proportionate share of the rent of a building based upon the value of one's beneficial occupancy. Neither gross income, taxable income nor any form of consumption based taxes comes close to being equitable. Many among the wealthiest citizens could be taxed at 100% of gross income and they still wouldn't come close to paying a share proportionate to the benefits that they derive. They are amused to see how easily the public is taken in by comparisons based upon income. They know that they can manipulate income to any level they wish. Most of their annual increase in wealth does not show up as income. In addition, their unrealized capital gains are readily made accessible to them by their ability to borrow and by other means not available to those less fortunate.

The author mentions "supply-side economics," but fails to explain how the simple, and reasonably correct, supply-side theory has been transmogrified into a tax theft scheme. The theory states that if a supply is introduced into the market, the market will eventually recognize it and, at some price, remove it from the market. The theory does not at all suggest that this is good business practice. Under conditions of a lack of demand, an increase in supply is not a stimulant. The best price at which to buy it is sufficiently below scrap value such that a subsequent sale as low as scrap value will provide a profit. The highest price that should be paid is sufficiently below the cost of production of any current producers such that they will be unable to compete with a profitable sale.

The supply-siders suggest that they can stimulate the market by using the tax system to take money from consumers and transfer it to producers in the hope that they will increase supply and the presence of supply will stimulate demand. They would have you believe that, under conditions of a current lack of demand, producers will be so foolish that they will increase the dead load in the supply chain in the hope of selling more goods to those who will have even less money with which to purchase it. I don't think that I have to explain why it has never worked.
Neither is there the slightest evidence that there is any lack of capital available to producers when there is even a faint hope of money in the marketplace. Certainly, the recent Internet bubble amply illustrated that there is a flood of capital even when that hope is just an illusion. That has been the case at least since the Tulip Mania of 1635. There is always more capital available than there good applications. No one need use taxation to stuff the pockets of the rich at the expense of consumers.

In addition to tax code tricks, the author might have mentioned how your taxes are bloated with contract games. How about building a Maginot Line in space? It is called an anti-missile defense system. Like the Maginot Line, it might work if you can find an enemy dumb enough to attack it in precisely the manner in which it was designed to defend. There are dozens of ways to get around it and every one of them works better and costs less than an anti-missile defense system. Even advancing technologies make the means of skirting it work better than their enhancement of the system. Of course, the administration knows it is a losing strategy, but it is a great means of pouring hundreds of billions of your tax dollars into their patrons pockets.
Taxation cannot be considered without consideration of the economic productivity of our political parties. As all studies have shown, one of our political parties produces all of the wealth for our society. The other party destroys national wealth faster than communism stripped away the wealth of the old Soviet Union. You can easily look up two of the best studies.

The Republican Party claims that it is good for business, but every study shows that it has been a dismal failure for more than seventy years. Have the courage to look up as many studies as you like and then see if you can deal with what is real. Then, if you can tolerate another nasty bit of truth, see if, by real metrics, you can prove that the Republican Party is more conservative than the Democratic Party. Although both parties steal our money to pay off the special interests that finance their campaigns, one party is nothing more than a tax scam."

And we know which one that is: the Rich man's party.

Somes lies are just to big to see like not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by shergald
This review of David Johnston's Perfectly Legal may help you find those LIES.

Nice review, don't see a damn thing in there that would show anyone came remotely close to lying though. Did you forget to write the part that covered the lies?

 

[jon_forward]

off topic but...Did you know jim, that if your avator had bigger ears he would look like BULLWINKLE........

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jon_forward
off topic but...Did you know jim, that if your avator had bigger ears he would look like BULLWINKLE........

I happen to like Bullwinkle and would appreciate it if you don't compare him to that wrinkled mess known as John Kerry. Thanks!

 

[jon_forward]

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by jimnyc
64 replies in here and NOT ONE LIE by Bush has been posted. Now wasn't that the point of this thread?

What's wrong, Boss? You can't even find ONE?

How can he be a liar when he never lied?

I don't believe Boss is going to give us an answer. I thought he might give it a try though.

 

[boss]

i can't believe you idiots kept going on & on convincing yourselves you're right...

the facists in the white house must laugh themselves silly knowing you're their base....you're like sleep being led to the slaughter


P.S. jon: keep using the smilies, icons, etc....they're good for you folks who ain't so good with them big words

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by boss
i can't believe you idiots kept going on & on convincing yourselves you're right...

the facists in the white house must laugh themselves silly knowing you're their base....you're like sleep being led to the slaughter


P.S. jon: keep using the smilies, icons, etc....they're good for you folks who ain't so good with them big words

yahoo let you get away again??

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by boss
i can't believe you idiots kept going on & on convincing yourselves you're right...

Read your private messages.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Originally posted by boss
i can't believe you idiots kept going on & on convincing yourselves you're right...

the facists in the white house must laugh themselves silly knowing you're their base....you're like sleep being led to the slaughter


P.S. jon: keep using the smilies, icons, etc....they're good for you folks who ain't so good with them big words

Hey boss if you're still around when this message comes at you, I got a couple things for you. One how come after your ludacris point was not made you left and came back bashing, you remind me of this troll i know, mabey you met him in Yahoo! Dart, sound familiar, any way after wasting my time reading you're laughable at best posts I can say one thing for certain

you are a TROLL

 

[shergald]

Frlm the author of the Lies of GWB....

After I finished writing a 300-page book detailing a wide assortment of George W. Bush lies—scores of deceptions, if not many more (I haven’t counted)—my publisher requested that I produce a top-ten list of Bush lies. It would be good for marketing, I was told. In my mind, the "top" lies numbered far more than ten. And after all, the book has fourteen chapters. A list of ten would have to leave out entire swaths of this work, including sections on such important subjects as global warming, missile defense, environmental standards, Bush’s failed energy plan, and Afghanistan reconstruction. It also would have to rely upon a false equivalency in order to provide a full flavor of the book. One could easily argue that the ten most significant lies of the Bush presidency all related to his campaign for war in Iraq. But such a list would not be much good from a sales perspective, for the point of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception is to show that Bush has lied his way through most serious policy matters (as well as through his bid for the presidency). Thus, I’m forced, as I brutally boil down 120,000 words to ten bullet items, to rely upon lies that represent larger body of lies. So here is a painfully constructed list—arranged in quasi-chronological order--that demonstrates the severity and range of Bush’s serial lying but that only skims the surface. For the complete picture—as well as for all the details that support the below accusations—please read the book.

10. "I have been very candid about my past." Bush said this during a press conference a few days before Election Day 2000. He was then in the middle of media firestorm that followed the revelation that he had once been arrested for drunken driving. Of course, this statement was untrue. He uttered it while he was trying to explain why he had not been "candid" about his arrest record. And during the campaign, he had not been "candid" about other significant matters, including what seemed to be a missing year in his National Guard service (which did not jibe with what he wrote about his service in his autobiography) and his apparent (though unacknowledged) shift from supporting abortion rights in the late-1970s to opposing them in the 1990s. He also was not "candid" about the tax plans he had pushed while governor of Texas. He always referred to them as "tax cuts" and did not mention that his major tax proposal included both tax cuts for property owners and an increase in the sales tax and the creation of a new business tax.

9. "I’m a uniter not a divider." This was a Bush catchphrase, a mantra. It was shorthand for his claim that he engaged in positive, not negative, politics and could heal a political culture ripped apart by the bitter ideological and partisan combat of the Clinton years. Yet during the 2000 presidential campaign and the Florida fracas, Bush and his lieutenants engaged in down-and-dirty and divisive political maneuvers. Just ask Senator John McCain, Bush’s main Republican opponent, whose record on veterans affairs was falsely attacked by a Bush surrogate and who was accused falsely by the Bush campaign of opposing research for breast cancer. As president-elect, Bush nominated one of the most divisive ideologues in Washington, former Senator John Ashcroft, to be attorney general. During a pre-inauguration interview, Bush acknowledged that he expected Ashcroft to be a lightning rod. But would-be uniters-not-dividers do not shove lightning rods up the backsides of their opponents. Another example: during the 2002 congressional campaign, Bush accused Democrats—who differed with him on employment rules for the new Department of Homeland Security—of sacrificing national security for their own petty purposes. He did this to help elect Republicans to office. Such a move was well within his rights as a political player, but not the action of a fellow who cares more about uniting than dividing.

8. "My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans." All the available slots of this top-ten list could be filled by statements Bush made to sell his tax cuts at various points—on the campaign trail, in 2001 (for the first major tax-cuts battle), and in 2003 (for the second major tax-cuts battle). But I chose an assertion from 2001 that echoed statements from the campaign trail, that would be reprised in 2003, and that represented the best-sounding argument for his tax cuts. Bush frequently claimed his tax cuts would help low- and middle-income Americans, and in 2000 and 2001 he often spoke of a mythical single-mom waitress, making $22,000 or so, who would be guided into the middle-class by his tax cuts. The point was to make it seem as if he truly cared for hard-pressed Americans and that his tax cuts did indeed embody his promise of "compassionate conservatism." (By the way, I am not placing on this list Bush’s claim that he is a "compassionate conservative." That’s a rather relative term more suitable for judgment than truth-based evaluation.) But when the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche reviewed his tax plan for Time magazine during the 2000 campaign, it found that his beloved waitress would receive no reduction in her taxes. Zippo. In 2001, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that this waitress might gain $200 from Bush’s tax cuts if she managed to pull in $25,000 a year. But such a sum would not place her on the highway to the middle class. In fact, about 12 million low- and moderate-income families received no tax relief from Bush’s 2001 tax cuts (and millions of families were left out of his 2003 package). His plan unlocked few doors. Instead, about 45 percent of the 2001 package was slated to go to the top 1 percent of income earners. In 2003, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated that individuals earning between $16,000 and $29,000 would net about $99 from Bush’s proposed tax cuts. Again, not an amount that would cover the entrance fee for a middle-class life.

7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research." That was what Bush said during an August 9, 2001, speech, announcing his decision to permit the federal funding of stem cell research that only used stem cells lines that existed before his speech. Bush was presenting his policy as a Solomon-like compromise. Religious right leaders and the Catholic Church were opposed to all stem cell research because it uses cells extracted from five-day old blastocysts (or embryos) in a process that destroys the embryos. (These embryos usually are leftovers created by in vitro fertilization at fertility clinics and no longer needed by the couples for which they were produced). But many prominent Republican donors and patient advocacy groups supported stem cell research, noting that scientists believed that studying stem cells (which have the potential to grow into any one of the more than 200 different types of human cells) could lead to treatments for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other terrible diseases. In his speech, Bush said that 60 stem cell lines already existed—"where the life and death decision has already been made"--and that these lines could support a vital and vibrant research effort. Consequently, he said, federally funding could be limited to underwriting research that employed only these lines. Bush was trying to have it both ways. He could appease his social conservative supporters by saying no to any federal support for new stem cell lines, and he could claim to support research that might potentially help millions of people. There was one problem. The 60 pre-existing lines did not exist. The number was closer to a dozen—if that—an amount that experts in the field did not consider sufficient for research purposes. And when scientists and media reports convincingly discredited Bush’s count—which Bush might have initially assumed to be correct—the Bush administration kept repeating its untruthful position. Sticking to the 60-lines fantasy (or lie) permitted Bush to avoid making an explicit decision to curtail stem cell research. But in effect that was what he had done without admitting it.

6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." Bush said this in November 2002, as he appointed Henry Kissinger to be chairman of an independent 9/11 commission that Bush had orignially opposed. (Kissinger lasted two weeks in the job.) But Bush has not encouraged the uncovering of every detail. His administration did not turn over information to the congressional 9/11 inquiry about intelligence warnings the White House reviewed before 9/11. The administration also refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings—including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"—were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them. Moreover, the administration claimed that Bush’s awareness of these warnings (not the warnings themselves) was classified information—an argument unprecedented in the modern history of national security secrets. Bush also refused to let the congressional inquiry release the portion of its final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi citizens or officials. By resorting to such secrecy—which happened to keep hidden information that might be embarrassing or inconvenient for the Bush administration--Bush made it impossible for investigators to "uncover every detail" and for the nation to "learn every lesson."

5. "[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger." Bush said that a month after 9/11, and he has repeated that vow several times since then, including at the start of his recent month-long vacation at his Texas ranch. Every possible step? A reassuring line, but it is not true. Two years after the attacks, there still is no plan for enhanced security at the nation’s thousands of chemical plants. (Over a hundred of them handle chemicals that if released could threaten a million or so Americans.) According to the General Accounting Office, the Bush administration has not even "comprehensively assessed the chemical industry’s vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks." In October 2002, Tom Ridge, Bush’s chief homeland security official, said that voluntary regulations for the chemical industry would not suffice, but that is the policy the administration has been slowly pursuing. And less-than-everything has been the approach in other critical areas. A recent report from a Council on Foreign Relations task force—headed up by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman—says that not enough has been done to improve the abilities of first responders and that their basic needs will be underfunded by $100 billion over the next five years. The nation’s ports have asked for $1 billion to beef up security; the Bush administration has announced grants of $300 million. Various reports note that the federal government has not done all that is necessary to improve its biodefense capabilities. The administration has opposed efforts to mandate the screening of commercial cargo carried by passenger aircraft. (Most of this sort of cargo is not currently screened—creating one large security loophole.) So "every possible step" has not been taken.

4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]." As the Enron scandal reached the White House in early 2002, Bush uttered this remark, claiming he had nothing to do with Lay until after winning the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. It was an apparent and clumsy effort to diminish his relationship with the now-disgraced Enron chief. But in1994, Lay and Enron had been leading contributors to Bush’s campaign. And Lay—long a patron of Bush’s father—had worked with Bush in political settings prior to 1994. In a pre-scandal interview, Lay noted he had been "very close to George W." for years before1994. (In the mid-1980s, Bush’s oil venture was in a partnership with Enron.) Bush also claimed that his administration had been of absolutely no help to Enron. That might have been true during the scam-based company’s final days. But in the months preceding that, the Bush administration had assisted Enron in a variety of ways. This included appointing individuals recommended by Lay as top energy regulators and opposing wholesale price caps on electricity during the California energy crisis, a move that came after Lay (whose electricity-selling company was using manipulative tactics to gouge California) urged the White House to block price caps.

3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." These two Bush remarks go hand in hand, even though the first was said on March 17, 2003, two days before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, and the other came during a November 7, 2002, press conference. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. There has been much media debate over all this. But the postwar statements of Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of the CIA, provide the most compelling proof. He has been conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, and he has told reporters that the intelligence on Hussein’s WMDs was full of caveats and qualifiers and based mostly on inferential or circumstantial evidence. In other words, it was not no-doubt material. He also has said that prewar intelligence reports did not contain evidence of links between Hussein and al Qaeda. The best information to date indicates that the prewar intelligence did not leave "no doubt" about WMDs and did not support Bush’s claim that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. Bush’s primary reason for war was founded on falsehoods

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush issued this triumphant remark in late May 2003, while being interviewed by a Polish television reporter. He was referring to two tractor-trailers obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded these vehicles were mobile bio-weapons plants. Yet they had found not a trace of biological agents on either. (And no bio-weapon facility could be scrubbed completely clean.) In subsequent weeks, it turned out that State Department analysts and even DIA engineering experts—as well as outside experts—did not accept the CIA and DIA conclusion, and some of these doubters believed the explanation of Iraqis who claimed the trucks were built to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Whichever side might be ultimately right about the trailers, this all-important piece of evidence was hotly contested. It was hardly solid enough to support Bush’s we-found-them declaration or to justify a war.

1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House." Bush said that many a time during the 2000 presidential campaign, and in at least one ad pledged to "return honor and integrity" to the Oval Office. See above--and read the book.

So let's hear it: 'Still haven't heard anyone show me that Bush ever lied.'

 

[jimnyc]

All that and not one lie! LOL

I'm starting to think the problem here is that some of you just don't know what a lie is.

 

[Avatar4321]

But Bush has not encouraged the uncovering of every detail.

What exactly don't we know about 911? Terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Towers and the Pentegon. These Terrorists were Saudi members of a group known as Al Queda which uses terror to push their radical agenda. What dont we know? Seriously.

Hey jimmy. I dont think they know what any word means. lie, marriage, is. They all seem to think it means something that it doesnt mean. They keep seeing that word. I dont think it means what they think it means.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Hey jimmy. I dont think they know what any word means. lie, marriage, is. They all seem to think it means something that it doesnt mean. They keep seeing that word. I dont think it means what they think it means.

Lots of thinking in there. Maybe we give them too much credit, maybe they just don't think?

 

[kcmcdonald]

"I have been very candid about my past."

He was very candid, he told the reporters everything, nice try next!

"I’m a uniter not a divider."

This is true in the first 100 days Bush worked well with the rank and file Dems. However it became apparent that the Dems could no longer afford to work with Bush because it would cause them to losse seats, affend thier base, and look like republicans. If anyone divided this country it was the Dems, not Bush, nice try NEXT.


"My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans."

It does, If you pay you're share in taxes, I'm sick and tired of people assuming if you pay no taxes you should get money back from Bush's tax break. You pay no taxes you getr no money back. It was intended to fill the market with cash, wich it did, The people in the example are not on the bubble for middle class, they are in the heart of the lower class, I'm sure a family that made 45,000 dollars in 1999 payed thousands less in taxes in 2003 than 99. That helps them to get into the middle class now they have more descretionary income, the deffintion of middle and upper class. Nice try NEXT.

"This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research."

He changed policy that is not a lie, he didn't say I will use stem cell research. nice try Next

"We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."

we are what is so hard to understand about that, you people i swear to god man, nice try NEXT

"[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger."

has there been an attack since 9-11 no, so there again, nice try NEXT

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."

It did it looked like there was a threat, the man didn't make this shit up, get over it. Look at what happened in Spain, AQ and Iraq are tied together. What goes in Iraq goes for AQ. nice try NEXT

"We found the weapons of mass destruction."

I'ld like to see the whole intervue on this, because at the time it looked like we had found the mobile labs, even the news media reported it, nice try NEXT

"It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House."

My God NICE TRY NEXT!!
Oh wait thats it oh thanks for playing though, but jsut for trying you get the take home version of the Game. don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

 

[5stringJeff]

Somewhat off topic, but the thread did say that Bush will lose...

Tradesports.com allows people to bet on such things. Right now Bush has 59.8-61.7% odds to win.

 

[phadras]

You are a liberal and your statements demonstrate it.. You prolly hate America, capitalism, Chritianity, all morality, and love homosexual marriage... PLEASE PLEASE emigrate to France where you will find friends... NESPA??? Dingbat!!!