In the last week, Bush has given the finger to ... [Archive]

Boom

07-16-2004, 11:33 AM

The ACLU is a tough issue for me. I think they go too far quite often, and some of their clients absolutely disgust me. But I do agree with them on the basic principle that even people I disagree with do have the same rights as I do. For example, if the ACLU were to represent Nazi's trying to get a parade permit I would understand that. I would show up at the parade with a baseball bat and probably get arrested, but I agree that they have the same rights to march and have a parade as anyone else. Getting caselaw on the books that shows the Nazi's have these rights is a strong way to guarantee those rights for all of us.

When the ACLU defends some sicko murderer who was illegally coerced into confessing, and they get him off, sure it pisses me off that some crazy murderer is on the streets thanks to the ACLU, but I guess the way they see it is that they aren't defending the murderer, they are defending all of our rights to due process. By defending this jerkface murderer, the ACLU is actually ensuring that I will have my due process rights if I am ever wrongfully arrested. I guess its worth helping one scumbag to ensure that the rights of the rest of us are protected. But still, it makes me uncomfortable to help get some murderer off, even if his due process rights were violated. That is why (as liberal as I am) when I was in law school I never even considered working for the ACLU. I just wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

I can't see defending NAMBLA though. Not under any circumstances. NAMBLA isn't just a group that I disagree with. They are rapists. They are criminals. Sex with a minor is rape. Period. There is no defense of it. If any NAMBLA member goes beyond talking about it and actually attempts to hook up with a minor he should be put in jail. If the ACLU wants to make sure he gets a fair trial before being put in jail, I guess that is ok, but if they try to get him off the hook just to "win" then that is not ok.

If I was ever forced to be a criminal defense attorney, the way I would view my job would be to make sure my client's civil rights weren't violated as he was convicted. I wouldn't see my goal as keeping him out of jail, I would see my goal as making sure the prosecution followed the law (evidence rules, etc) as they put him in jail. So I guess I would be a really crappy criminal defense attorney. But at least I would be an honest one.

Swifty_Johnson

07-16-2004, 11:50 AM

For example, if the ACLU were to represent Nazi's trying to get a parade permit I would understand that.

Except does the group of Nazis have the right to march though a jewish neighborhood? What about the rights of the concentration camp survivors in that neighborhood?

Swifty

Boom

07-16-2004, 12:02 PM

Well that was the whole issue in Skokie (sp?)

Swifty_Johnson

07-16-2004, 12:13 PM

I was living in Chicago during the time, Skokie is heavily Jewish with many concentration camp survivors (or so I am told) so that was the primary issue. Not that they were marching, it was they were marching through a Jewish neighborhood.

Swifty

Aelfwine

07-16-2004, 12:22 PM

The ACLU seems to work off the premise that they are defending our civil rights, but alot of the cases they take have nothing to do with civil rights. My rights are not in jeopardy if a town has a cross in their flag or are named after a Saint. I'm not even religous(far from it), but I do not see how that endangers my civil rights in anyway. If someone is offended by just the site of a cross then they have issues that are best discussed with a shrink, not with a lawyer. I'm all for seperation of church and state, but lets be rational about it.

By taking every case they can, it undermines any good the ACLU may ever do. Its not about civil rights anymore, its about finding loopholes and changing the country through the courts, which is not what this country is about.

As far as NAMBLA goes, since they support and talk about how to pickup little boys, I think at the time someone joins they are a criminal. It signifies intent.

Allison

07-16-2004, 01:07 PM

Most people look at the details of the case when the ACLU gets involved. I think you meant to say, "Most people don't look at the details ..." :)

I agree with Boom here. The ACLU may do some seemingly absurd things, or represent seemingly unsavory characters, but they also do a great deal of good.

This is a non-profit organization made of people who ferverntly believe in the principles of law and of The Constitution of the United States. They don't defend those principles because they hate religion, or because they love Nazis. They do it because they are deeply committed to the notion that the law should be applied equally to all citizens, that The Constitution is something to be taken very seriously in all things, not just those things that some people feel are deserving.

Are they a tad overzealous at times? Perhaps. But if they don't get involved in the small things, or if they refuse to represent undesirables, then they, themselves, will be taking liberties with your freedoms. For who will decide which man is deserving of the freedoms guaranteed to him? "We will honor the rights of this man, because he's a good guy, but we will stomp on the rights of this other man because he's a bad guy." Or, who will draw the line on religious freedom? "We will allow this violation of Church and State because it's minor, but we will not allow this bigger violation." Who will decide these things?

No, either our laws apply to everyone, all the time, or they apply to no one. Either you believe in freedom, or you don't. And one of the biggest tests of freedom is defending someone else's rights when the reality of the application of those rights makes your stomach turn. It isn't always pretty, but the alternative is worse.

Aelfwine

07-16-2004, 01:32 PM

But if they don't get involved in the small things, or if they refuse to represent undesirables, then they, themselves, will be taking liberties with your freedoms.

Personally I dont care about the rights of NAMBLA members beside their maranda rights(after convicted, they should never be allowed out of prison). I dont see how lawyers and judges can live with themselves after getting some of these people off over technicalities. And again, I must say, these little extreme cases against little spanish towns, which probably were founded before they were part of the US, over names and flags, helps nothing. Going after teachers who wear crosses helps nothing.

If they want to help patients get access to medical marijuana that legally in their states is accepted(the feds are wrong on so many levels here), or bring a end to the disaster we call the War on Drugs(we should call this a War on the Poverty Stricken), or help terminally ill patients die in a dignified manner, I'm all for it. Like I said, choosing your battles wisely can only help your cause. Taking on everyone and everything is not wise. It's being subversive for the sake of being subversive. Like Bill Clinton, they do it because they can.

Allison

07-16-2004, 02:11 PM

That's easy to say, Aelfwine. But like I said, who decides what's worthy? How does the ACLU determine who they are going to turn away? Who is wise enough, and trustworthy enough, to determine, to your satsifaction, whose rights will be protected and whose won't?

As for NAMBLA, yeah, I and most people agree those people are weirdos. But their preference for young boys wasn't what was being defended. In that case, a young boy was murdered. One of the men who murdered him had viewed the NAMBLA website prior to the killing. The victim's family sued NAMBLA for contributing to their son's death.

The easy thing to say is that those NAMBLA guys are sickos, and they deserve whatever they get. But consider this. If NAMBLA had lost that suit, (actually, I don't know the outcome of that suit, but ...) wouldn't that open the door for an onslaught of other, similiar suits? "My son killed himself after listening to a rock song about death, therefore, the artist is to blame." "My son killed a man after watching a violent movie, therefore, the film producers are to blame." There are larger issues at stake here than just our personal distaste of NAMBLA.

You mentioned Miranda Rights. There was a time when prisoners didn't have those and other rights. Police frequently beat confessions out of prisoners. And hey, who cares, right? Criminals deserve a little ass-kicking. But, what about all the innocent men who were beaten into confessing? The police probably thought they were doing the right thing, getting a criminal to confess. But, they weren't. They were abusing their authority. That's what happens when authority goes unchecked. It becomes abusive. And the ACLU, and others, are there to insure that doesn't happen.

As for some of the more deserving issues you mentioned, the ACLU takes those on as well. And I'll say it again: Either you believe in freedoms for everyone, or you don't believe in freedoms at all. And if you allow exceptions to the law, then the law is meaningless. That's how I feel, anyway.

Aelfwine

07-16-2004, 02:30 PM

Defending freedom does not mean taking on every case you can. I see you never mention the towns who have religious imagery in their names and flags that I mentioned. How is this defending my freedom?

As for NAMBLA, From what I understand(I have never gone to their site and dont plan on it) NAMBLA provides information on how to seduce young boys. I don't think they should be sued for this, I think they should be brought up on criminal charges for aiding pedophiles. If your going to aid in the destruction of young children, which NAMBLA does(and I have never heard anyone say otherwise), then you are subhuman to me. Lock em up. Freedom is more then anything goes. This is anarchy.

I have read these forums alot, and ussually stay out of the fray. And I must say I respect your debating skills over all who I have seen posting here. But I firmly disagree with your take on the ACLU. You can defend freedom in a responsible manner. Everyone must choose which battles to wage in their lives. If we take on everything thrown at us then we are doomed to fail.

Allison

07-16-2004, 03:53 PM

Defending freedom does not mean taking on every case you can. I see you never mention the towns who have religious imagery in their names and flags that I mentioned. How is this defending my freedom?
These are examples of issues I would consider to be petty. Personally, I wouldn't take them on. But, I can understand, relying on the principle that no infraction is too small, why the ACLU would.

As for NAMBLA, From what I understand(I have never gone to their site and dont plan on it) NAMBLA provides information on how to seduce young boys. I don't think they should be sued for this, I think they should be brought up on criminal charges for aiding pedophiles.
I totally agree with you here. If it's true that the NAMBLA website advocates, encourages, or assists in the seduction of underage boys, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But, if they only advocate the revocation of minor-consent laws, then, as much as it sickens me, I have to admit that they have the right to lobby for a change in laws as much as anyone else does.

It seems our disagreement here is one of degress. I think you'd agree that the ACLU does some good, and that it's important to have people out there defending our rights, when necessary. It's just the "when necessary" bit that we differ on. If I understand you correctly, while I believe, in theory, that no issue is too petty and no person too evil to be deserving of equal protection, you believe that these battles should be chosen in a more discriminating fashion. I can understand and respect your position that there are lines to be drawn. And in fact, if it were me making these decisions, I'd probably have to draw some lines myself because in the real world, my commitment to the principles I've talked about would surely be tested to the point that I'd say, "No, I just can't do it." Which is why I'm glad there are people out there more committed than I who are willing to do what is sometimes a very ugly job.

But, agree to disagree here, I guess. I just don't like to see people throwing out the baby with the bathwater. People may think the ACLU does some silly or disgusting things. But there is a lot of good there, too.

Roscoes_C&W

07-16-2004, 04:21 PM

The ACLU is worthless.

Hammer

07-18-2004, 10:17 PM

Your right NL he did meet with them in 2000. And as thanks for his effort they ran one of the sickest ads in TV history. They used the daughter of man who was drug to death in Texas. She compares Bush to those men because he didn't back the hate crimes legislation. There are already laws against murder and both of those men received the death penalty. I guess they should be killed twice since it was a race crime. The NAACP is basically the far left wing of the democratic party now. They have zero credibility. This is no different than Kerry refusing the invitation to speak at that "Veterans who think Kerry sucks" rally.

Allison

07-18-2004, 10:56 PM

That's a good point, Hammer. But, Bush holding a grudge for dirty campaining is like the Pope hating people who wear pointy hats. ;) :laugh:

Swifty_Johnson

07-19-2004, 09:16 AM

Bush holding a grudge for dirty campaining is like the Pope hating people who wear pointy hats.

That is totally disgusting. That went beyond dirty campaining to downright immoral behavior. I guess it's okay for you liberals to smear conseratives this way, but heaven forbid the truth gets told about a liberal.

Swifty

Allison

07-19-2004, 11:28 AM

I guess it's okay for you liberals to smear conseratives this way, but heaven forbid the truth gets told about a liberal.

SwiftyYou think it's okay for liberals to smear conservatives? ;)

Lol, who are you arguing with? No one has said anything remotely like that.

But, I do think it's telling that you characterize negative campaigns against conservatives as "smears," and negative campaigns against liberals as "the truth."

Boom

07-19-2004, 11:53 AM

Yeah, like it was the truth when Bush said that Kerry tried to cut the CIA budget in the 90s and that fellow congressmen were so sickened and disgusted by his idea that he couldn't even find a co-sponsor of the bill (I think he even actually used the term "disgusted").

The truth was, that the CIA had 100 million dollars unspent from the previous year's budget. Since they weren't spending it, it makes sense to take it back. The reason that Kerry didn't get a co-sponsor for his bill was that a leading REPUBLICAN introduced an identical bill at the same time. Rather than get into petty bickering over whose bill to support and who should get the credit, Kerry dropped his bill and supported the Republican bill. The Republican congress not only took away the 100 million that Kerry had originally suggested but then cut the CIA budget by an additional 350 million.

So was Bush lying and smearing mud, or was he "telling the truth" when he said that congress was so disgusted by Kerry's idea of cutting 100 million from the CIA? If the republicans in congress were so disgusted, why did they (with Kerry's support) push through their own bill cutting that 100 million and then some?

Swifty_Johnson

07-19-2004, 01:03 PM

But, I do think it's telling that you characterize negative campaigns against conservatives as "smears," and negative campaigns against liberals as "the truth."

I'm sorry comparing Bush to the men who killed James Byrd went way over the line and past anything either offical campaign did to each other. One expects distoritions of records for political gain, both sides do it. Trying to link Bush to the killers of James Byrd was disgusting, esp as both were convicted and sentenced to death for thier crimes. The 100 mil CIA attack ad pales in comparison.

Swifty

Boom

07-19-2004, 01:07 PM

How about the campaign ad where the GOP took images of a Vietnam war veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam and had his face blend into the face of Osama Bin Laden? Linking an American war vet who gave three limbs for our country to Osama Bin Laden is kinda disgusting huh?

Boom

07-19-2004, 01:11 PM

Trying to link Bush to the killers of James Byrd was disgusting, esp as both were convicted and sentenced to death for thier crimes. The 100 mil CIA attack ad pales in comparison.

I agree that the attack on Bush was nastier, but it was truthful. It may have been unfair or malicous or disgusting (I personally think its dirty politics and would never have approved that ad). But the Bush attack on Kerry was a flat out lie. Dirty politics and malicious mudslinging is wrong, but lying is taking it to another level.

Boom

07-19-2004, 01:16 PM

And comparing Bush to a few racist hicks is certainly disgusting. But if your own party is comparing Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden you have no right to complain. And it wasn't a vague kind of comparison. They had a picture of Cleland and it morphed into a picture of Osama while the voiceover told you how Cleland is a traitor and stuff.

This is where we see the difference between me and Swifty. I will condemn both ads as being dirty politics and unconscionable. Swifty will condemn the anti-bush ad and defend the Cleland ad. I could be wrong. Swifty might say the Cleland ad was just as disgusting as the anti-bush ad, but based on previous postings here there is a good chance he will defend it and just say it was "the truth". If he doesn't I will be pleasantly suprised and give Swifty credit for being consistent in condemning dirty ads from both sides.

Swifty_Johnson

07-19-2004, 01:25 PM

I could be wrong. Swifty might say the Cleland ad was just as disgusting as the anti-bush ad, but based on previous postings here there is a good chance he will defend it and just say it was "the truth".

Go to hell. I have never seen this alleged Cleland ad, nor would I ever defend if it did happen. I don't have a double standard like you do.

Swifty

Allison

07-19-2004, 01:29 PM

I'm sorry comparing Bush to the men who killed James Byrd went way over the line and past anything either offical campaign did to each other. One expects distoritions of records for political gain, both sides do it. Trying to link Bush to the killers of James Byrd was disgusting, esp as both were convicted and sentenced to death for thier crimes. The 100 mil CIA attack ad pales in comparison.

Swifty
Again, who are you arguing with? No one has said it didn't go over the line.

But, don't pretend that Bush and his supporters aren't guilty of the same. My original point was that it's a bit disingenuous to cry foul over the NAACP's ad campaign when Bush and his supporters play just as dirty. Take a look at some of the stories from the 2000 primary in SC. I'm surprised McCain can even look at Bush without punching him in the nose.

Boom

07-19-2004, 01:30 PM

Where is my double standard? I condemned both ads. I have always been very consistent on this forum of condemning something bad no matter what side does it. Like when I condemned the use of images from 9/11 for political gain when Bush supporters and Kerry supporters did it. You are the one who condemned it when it was used against Bush and said it was ok when Bush did it.

If you are going to say I have a double standard, please support that statement. Yes, I have stated that in this forum you have defended things when done by the GoP and condemned them when done by liberals, and you have, and I can support that, and I just did with the 9/11 example. Do you want more examples?

Please find one example of me condemning a GoP for something and defending a dem for doing the same thing. If you can't then your claim that I have a double standard is worthless.

You can't just keep doing your classic "No you are" argument unless you can support it.

Ziggin

07-19-2004, 01:34 PM

Hehe, this whole topic is why I dont like to debate politics. DRINK, HAVE LOTS OF SEX, AND BE MARRY I say! :hump:

I'm a rambler, I'm a gambler, I'm a long way from home:
If you don't like me, Just leave me alone.
I eat when I'm hungry I drink when I'm dry,
If moonshine don't kill me, I'll live till I die.

Allison

07-19-2004, 01:36 PM

The Ziggin is wise. :yes:

Swifty_Johnson

07-19-2004, 01:44 PM

I agree that the attack on Bush was nastier, but it was truthful.

Linking an American war vet who gave three limbs for our country to Osama Bin Laden is kinda disgusting huh?

Well I guess I can pull a Booms here and say "Well the Cleland as was nastier, but it was truthful."

And it wasn't a vague kind of comparison.

Oh, a chain draggin down the road is vague? I wasn't aware of that.

They had a picture of Cleland and it morphed into a picture of Osama while the voiceover told you how Cleland is a traitor and stuff.

And what was the text of the voiceover?

Swifty

Boom

07-19-2004, 02:53 PM

Look, you can't make a blanket statement that Democrat ads are disgusting mudslinging and that Republican ads are just telling the truth, then get all pissed at me when I assume you will defend the Cleland ad. You said that republican ads are ok, that was a repub ad, so I assumed you would find it ok. I'm sorry if I offended you.

I do find it amusing that you can actually claim that Democrats are lying mudslingers and Repubs just tell the truth and the accuse someone else of having a double standard.

And even when you are given an example of a Repub lying (like Bush's attack on Kerry regarding the CIA $100 million) you excuse it. That's a double standard. You have no problem with that lie, but Mrs. Kerry makes a comment about being pissed at Republicans for comparing Cleland to Osama and you scream LIAR in capitol letters at her.

Swifty_Johnson

07-19-2004, 03:01 PM

Look, you can't make a blanket statement that Democrat ads are disgusting mudslinging and that Republican ads are just telling the truth, then get all pissed at me when I assume you will defend the Cleland ad.

I didn't, I only mentioned the NAACP ad, nowhere did I say anything about any democratic ad.

I do find it amusing that you can actually claim that Democrats are lying mudslingers and Repubs just tell the truth and the accuse someone else of having a double standard

Again you are wrong. I said "One expects distoritions of records for political gain, both sides do it."

but Mrs. Kerry makes a comment about being pissed at Republicans for comparing Cleland to Osama and you scream LIAR in capitol letters at her.

Again, you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with her getting pissed becasue of the treatment of Max Cleland. There is something wrong when she LIES and says she left the Republican party over it, esp when she switched her party affilation only AFTER he husband ran for president. If she was so upset over Max Cleland's treatment, why did it take a year for her to act on it?

Swifty

Boom

07-19-2004, 03:26 PM

I guess it's okay for you liberals to smear conseratives this way, but heaven forbid the truth gets told about a liberal.

Ok, if I read too much into that, I apologize. It certainly sounds like you are saying that liberals smear conservatives and conservatives just tell the truth about liberals. That is why I wanted your opinion on the Cleland ad. I haven't found the exact text, but basically it was saying that Cleland was weak on terrorism by misrepresenting his voting record. For example, the Department of Homeland Security took a lot of workers from other departments and took away their workers rights. That Department is now the largest department in the government. It has a ton of workers whose jobs have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. When they worked in other departments they were protected by civil servant laws and unionized. This was taken away from them when they were moved to the Department of Homeland Security. Cleland was against this. He wanted to protect those workers' rights. The ad makes it sound like he was against creating the Dept. of Homeland Security. This is misleading at best and a complete lie at worst. He wanted to create the Dept. of Homeland Security, but he just didn't want to screw over thousands of government employees while doing so. So the ad says he voted against Bush's antiterrorism initiatives, without explaining the details, while it morphs Cleland's face into Osama's. Even a ton of Republicans came out of the woodwork saying that this was the most disgusting, unfair, misleading, ad in the history of American politics.

As far as Mrs. Kerry is concerned, yes what a big huge terrible lie. :rolleyes: I know the article claims that she says this is the only reason she left the repubs and it had nothing to do with her husband running for president, but I have yet to see her directly quoted saying that. My guess is that her husband running is the main reason and the Cleland thing was also a factor.

Again, how do you feel Bush's lie regarding Kerry's bill on the CIA $100 million compares? You are so outraged by Mrs. Kerry saying she left the repubs because of Cleland and not because of her husband that you can't even help but capitalize the word LIES! Omg! She LIES LIES LIES! It totally disgusts you doesn't it? But Bush flat out lies about Kerry to make him look weak on terrorism and it doesn't seem to bother you at all. Isn't that a double standard? Which is a more serious lie? The wife of a candidate saying she switched parties for one reason instead of another, or the President of the United States saying that Kerry initiated a bill that so disgusted his fellow congressmen then he couldn't get a co-sponsor, when, in fact, the real reason he didn't get a co-sponsor was because a Republican initiated the same exact bill?

Rooster

07-19-2004, 03:28 PM

workers rights in gov't positions?

You mean the ones everyone makes fun of because it's IMPOSSIBLE to get fired, even if you're the biggest f*ckup around?

Yeah, those people need protecting - I don't think so!

You keep your job if you do well. End of statement. Job protection is for people that want to slack off and still have a job. No responsibility on their part.

Swifty_Johnson

07-19-2004, 03:53 PM

The wife of a candidate saying she switched parties for one reason instead of another, or the President of the United States saying that Kerry initiated a bill

Really, I wasn't aware the Presidnet said this himself, do you have a quote.

As I have already said, BOTH sides will distort the records of the other side. While I am not happy that this happens, they both do it so you cannot point the finger at one of them.

Swifty

Boom

07-19-2004, 05:10 PM

Yeah, the president said it himself. Might take me a little while to find the exact quote. Only an hour left at work and I got some stuff left to do. But anyway, I see where this is going. Once I find the quote and prove that Bush lied it will be all "Well both sides do this, so you can't point the finger." But when you talk about democrats lying you point fingers all over the place and act all disgusted. There is your double standard right there. You won't condemn Bush for it, but you trip all over yourself rushing to condemn democrats when they do it.

Rooster, I agree that civil servant protections can be abused, but some worker protection is necessary. Sure, we can all point to examples of corrupt unions, but what was this country like before there were any unions? I agree that worker protections definitely could use some revisions and oversight, but taking them away from thousands of workers for no reason isn't right.

Anyway, this is a completely tangential argument. The fact is, Cleland supported forming a Dept. of Homeland Security, he just didn't want thousands (literally thousands) of government employees to be stripped of their rights in the process. Now, maybe he was wrong about this, and it was a good thing to take away those rights. But that is irrelevant. Putting a picture of his face up on the tv and having it morph into Osama while a voice over says he fought against creating Dept of Homeland Security and making him sound like a traitor who is trying to help the terrorists was a terrible way to treat a guy like Cleland who lost 3 limbs while serving our country in Vietnam. Even Repubs were disgusted by this ad. They literally were coming out of the woodwork to condemn it. If he was wrong about worker protections, fine, put out an ad saying he fought for stupid worker protections. Don't put out an ad making it sound like he was against creating a Dept of Homeland Security when he was clearly for it.

Boom

07-19-2004, 05:34 PM

Another note on double standards.

I thought the Cleland ad was horrible and offensive. So what do I have to say when the Bush/Hitler contest submission is brought to my attention? I said it was offensive and idiotic, without even seeing it. It doesn't matter to me what context it was in, or what the voiceover said. Images of Bush alongside of images of Hitler is offensive and disgusting and moronic. So where is this famous Boom double standard?

Swifty went on and on about how disgusting the Bush/Hitler thing was. So what does he have to say when the ad where Cleland's face is morphed into Osama is brought to his attention? He says "And what was the text of the voiceover?" Like it matters. He needs more info before he can decide if its wrong or not. Is there any possible voiceover that would make it acceptable?

Swifty_Johnson

07-19-2004, 09:02 PM

Swifty went on and on about how disgusting the Bush/Hitler thing was. So what does he have to say when the ad where Cleland's face is morphed into Osama is brought to his attention? He says "And what was the text of the voiceover?" Like it matters.

Well I have never seen it, never heard about it until now, and you are the one always asking for proof. I guess here is another Boom's double standard. Boom can say anything he wants, and we have to take it as the truth and he doesn't have show proof. Everyone else has to show proof. I wanted the text of the ad or the ad itself and to form an honest opinion.

Nother Boom's double standard. You said to form an opinion of F 9/11 we should have gone to see it, yet now, I am supposed to form an opinion of this ad I have never seen?

So Booms, do you have anything that either shows this ad or the text of the ad? I have NEVER seen anything on it, either in the media, nor online.

You also might want to distance yourself from Cleland alittle, he's becomming a rabid attack weasel from the democrats now and spouting out trash talk vs the president.

But when you talk about democrats lying you point fingers all over the place and act all disgusted. There is your double standard right there. You won't condemn Bush for it, but you trip all over yourself rushing to condemn democrats when they do it.

Depends on what is being said. Again, I haven't seen the presidnet say it, so how am I to condemn what I didn't see. Again, as I have said before, BOTH sides will distort the records of the other side. So you want to get into a pissing contest where we keep throwing up distortions of the other side? There is plenty of ammo on both sides.

I'm shocked that you'd think this is somehow worse than the attack ad compaing Bush to the murders of James Byrd.

Swifty

Rooster

07-19-2004, 09:35 PM

/me is gonna by Swifty a dictionary.

"Nother Boom's double standard. You said to form an opinion of F 9/11 we should have gone to see it, yet now, I am supposed to form an opinion of this ad I have never seen?"

That is not a DOUBLE standard. *sigh*

Boom

07-20-2004, 02:38 PM

Please reread my posts in this thread. I went to such lengths to make it clear that you don't have to see the movie to form any opinion of it that it was almost silly. I can't believe you can actually say that I claimed you have to see the movie to form any opinion of it. In fact, I myself criticized F 9/11 and I didn't see it. I did say that in general it helps to see a movie if you want to criticize it. However, you can make points regarding specifics in the movie that you have read about. Like when I said it was juvenile of Moore to chase around congressmen asking them to send their children to Iraq.

One of the most frustrating things about this forum is when I make great pains to be clear on something and I am still misrepresented. I said over and over and over in this thread that you don't have to see the movie to have any opinion on it and Swifty says that I said you have to see the movie to have any opinion on it.

Anyway, we are talking about two issues here. First, the Bush lie. Here is the quote that I posted in the wrong thread.

His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war.

Again, Bush was talking at a March 8th fundraiser and referring to a 1995 Kerry proposal. So what does Swifty say about this? It's not a lie, its just a little distortion and both sides do it and its no big deal. In other words, he excuses it. First of all, when has Swifty EVER said that a liberal lie was just a little distortion and no big deal. Never. When a liberal makes any mistatement it is a LIE in capital letters. Second of all, it is not a little distortion it is a lie. Actually, it is two lies. The first lie is when Bush says that the bill didn't get a co-sponsor because it was so irresponsible. That is not a distortion, that is a LIE (yes in capital letters). The bill didn't get a co-sponsor because the same day it was proposed a Republican proposed an identical bill which was passed on a freakin voice vote. Bush made it sound like Kerry was booed off the Senate floor for proposing such a terrible idea, when in fact the Republicans had the same exact idea, and it was so well accepted that it got passed by a voice vote. Its a lie. Lie number 2 is when he says it would have gutted the CIA. A 1% budget cut is NOT gutting the CIA. That is a lie. If a democrat lied like this I doubt very highly that Swifty would be so quick to excuse it.

And you say that both sides distort? Well, go ahead show me some examples of democrats distorting Bush's record. The only difference will be, when you show me those examples (assuming they are valid examples), I will say, "that guy lied about Bush, that is disgusting. He shouldn't do that." Which is the same thing I say about Bush lying about Kerry. See, good old "double standard Boom" says the same thing when both sides do it. But good old "single standard Swifty" says that the liberals are disgusting LIARS when they do it but excuses the conservatives when they do it.

Ok, now the second issue is the Cleland ad.

I wanted the text of the ad or the ad itself and to form an honest opinion.

Did you see the Bush/Byrd ad when you formed your opinion of that? Of course not. It was anti-Bush so you don't need to see it, you are sickened by it. Did you see the Bush/Hitler contest submission before you formed your opinion of that? Of course not. It was anti-Bush so you don't need to see it, you are sickened by it. But you need to see this. Double standard? I didn't need to see the Byrd ad or the Hitler ad to say they were wrong. Again, big difference. You tell me about a contest submission that puts Bush's face next to Hitler's face and I say, "that is moronic and offensive, the guy who made that is an idiot." I tell you about an ad that actually morphs Cleland's face into Osama's and you need more information before you decide whether or not it is offensive and wrong.

If you really need to know more about the Cleland ad, go to www.google.com There are only like a few thousand articles on it. It's only the most famous example of dirty politics in history. I can't believe you hadn't heard about it till I brought it up. I don't mind doing your research for you on obscure topics, but this is common knowledge. This is beyond common knowledge, anyone who even casually follows politics knows all about this.

I'm shocked that you'd think this is somehow worse than the attack ad compaing[sic] Bush to the murders of James Byrd.

Well, first of all, at least I have the integrity to admit they are both dirty politics and totally wrong. Instead of condemning the other side for doing it and excusing my side for doing it. If you really want to get into which is worse, well lets see. Osama Bin Laden slammed a plane into the Pentagon and two into the WTC, had another one aimed at the White House and killed about 6000 Americans. The Repubs morphed Cleland's face into Osama's face while lying about him by claiming he was against Homeland Security. Nice way to treat a triple amputee Vietnam vet. Democrats and Republicans all across the country almost universally agree it was the most disgusting, slimy, campaign ad in history. On the other hand, the Dems put out an ad where they interviewed a family member of Byrd and she talked about how she was pissed at Bush because he failed to enact legislation which would have made it easier to prosecute Byrd's killers. Dirty politics? Yes. Offensive? Yes. Wrong? Yes. Stupid ad? Yes, the killers were executed anyway. Worse then morphing his face into Osama? Not even close. Not by a long shot. I don't see how you could possibly think the Byrd ad is worse than the Osama ad. They are both way over the line, both sides should be ashamed of themselves for making those ads. But the Osama ad is the gold medal winner for offensive slimy politics.

Swifty_Johnson

07-20-2004, 02:54 PM

Did you see the Bush/Byrd ad when you formed your opinion of that? Of course not. It was anti-Bush so you don't need to see it, you are sickened by it. Did you see the Bush/Hitler contest submission before you formed your opinion of that? Of course not. It was anti-Bush so you don't need to see it, you are sickened by it. But you need to see this. Double standard?

Yes, I saw both ads. So nice of you to know what I have and have not seen.

If you really want to get into which is worse,

I was referering to your attempt to try and equate the Ad critizing Kerry's 100 million cut vs the Byrd ad.

On the other hand, the Dems put out an ad where they interviewed a family member of Byrd and she talked about how she was pissed at Bush because he failed to enact legislation which would have made it easier to prosecute Byrd's killers.

Intresting you left out what was shown at the end of the ad.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

07-20-2004, 03:02 PM

First of all, when has Swifty EVER said that a liberal lie was just a little distortion and no big deal.

Yadda Yadda Yadda. Well if you want to I can go ahead and post the distortions from the dems over Bush's record, as well as the downright lies. Like I said, both sides do it so what would the point be? I don't bother posting the liberal distortions becasue I know what they are, and they ain't worth the time as both sides do it. Like when Kerry claimed we went into Iraq alone, it's a distorion as there were many other allies who joined us. Every time Kerry say we went into Iraq alone you don't see me posting about it.

While you claimed Bush lied, you are wrong. Leaving out informaiton isn't lying, it's distortion. BUT, are you now prepared to call Kerry a liar for saying we went into Iraq alone?

Swifty

Allison

07-20-2004, 03:41 PM

BUT, are you now prepared to call Kerry a liar for saying we went into Iraq alone?

First of all, where did that come from?

Second, link please. I've heard him say things like, "go-it-alone attitude," or "virtually alone," which I'm sure you consider to be exaggerations, but lies? I don't recall him ever saying just "alone." But if you have a link, I'd like to see it. I'm sure Boom would too.

Boom

07-20-2004, 03:42 PM

I was referering[sic] to your attempt to try and equate the Ad critizing Kerry's 100 million cut vs the Byrd ad.

I never ever implied that the Bush lie was worse then the Byrd ad. Ever. Its easy to make me look bad if you make stuff up. Just like it was easy for the GoP to make Gore look bad in 2000 by making stuff up and now Bush is making Kerry look bad by making stuff up.

Intresting[sic] you left out what was shown at the end of the ad.

Does it matter? I said the ad was wrong and offensive and dirty politics and that the people who made it should be ashamed of themselves. What more do you want? Can you say the Osama ad was wrong? No, because it was a GoP ad and you have a double standard and will never ever criticize your side for doing anything, even if its 10 times worse then stuff you condemn the dems for doing.

While you claimed Bush lied, you are wrong. Leaving out informaiton[sic] isn't lying, it's distortion.

He didn't leave out information. He LIED. He said the bill failed for a specific reason when that was not the case. That is a lie. He flat out said the bill didn't get support because it was viewed as being irresponsible. That isn't leaving out information. That is a complete lie. The bill did not fail because it seen as irresponsible. Bush said it failed because it was seen as irresponsible. How is that not a lie? And again, that is only lie number one. Bush also said that Kerry was trying to gut the CIA. His proposal was a 1% cut. Calling a 1% cut "gutting" isn't a distortion, its a lie. Anyway, keep going, you are just proving my point. The more you bend over backwards to excuse Bush for lying, the more you prove my point about your double standard.

BUT, are you now prepared to call Kerry a liar for saying we went into Iraq alone?

Absolutely. Show me where he said this and I will stand right up and call him a big fat liar. We had at least England and a few more people go into Iraq with us. If Kerry says we went in alone he is a big fat liar and he should know better and it pisses me off. When are you going to learn Swifty? I don't have a double standard. Every time you give me an example of a democrat doing something wrong I have no problem saying that they should be ashamed of themselves and saying that I am pissed at them and that they should know better. How many times on this forum have you presented me with stuff like this, expecting me to do what you do and defend my side even when its wrong? The first time was with the firemen using the 9/11 images for political purposes. You expected me to defend them, I said they should be ashamed of themselves and they were every bit as wrong as Bush was for using those images in a campaign ad. I would think you would have figured it out then. Keep giving me opportunities to criticize democrats. I will trash them for being bad just as harshly as I trash Repubs every time and prove I have no double standard. Just like I have already done countless times on this forum. I may criticize Repubs more then I criticize Dems, but I do criticize Dems alot. How many times have you come down on the Repubs on these forums?

I can't believe that you still can't admit that the Osama ad was the most shameful ad ever. You still haven't even admitted that there was anything wrong with it. Incredible.

Swifty_Johnson

07-20-2004, 04:16 PM

Can you say the Osama ad was wrong? No, because it was a GoP ad and you have a double standard and will never ever criticize your side for doing anything, even if its 10 times worse then stuff you condemn the dems for doing.

Sorry, but I have critized the GOP when nessary, and if what you say is true, than it would be wrong, if what you say is true. I have seen the Byrd ad and the Hitler ad, and the Kerry 100 mil CIA ad, I have never seen the Cleland ad.

He flat out said the bill didn't get support because it was viewed as being irresponsible.

This is someone's point of view, how can it be a lie. It's like Kerry saying we went into Iraq alone, just becasue to him to have an alliance we needed France and Germany's support. Welcome to the political world Booms, there is going to be a ton more of this going on. Hell, before the war with Iraq Edwards was interviewed and he said that we had sufficant allies and force to go into Iraq, now he's parroting Kerry's stance. Wrong? Well it's politics. When Edwards flip-flopped on Iraq, did you see me post it here?

I may criticize Repubs more then I criticize Dems, but I do criticize Dems alot.

You are more willing to critize repub, and your standards of proof are much lower than with dems.

I can't believe that you still can't admit that the Osama ad was the most shameful ad ever. You still haven't even admitted that there was anything wrong with it. Incredible.

Unlike the Hitler ad and the Byrd ad, I haven't seen it, and while it might be shameful, the Byrd ad is worse.

Swifty

Boom

07-20-2004, 05:46 PM

This is someone's point of view, how can it be a lie.

Its a lie because it wasn't anyone's point of view. The lie isn't that his proposal was irresponsible. The lie was that congressmen didn't support it because they thought it was irresponsible. Congressmen did support it and they did not think it was irresponsible. They thought it was a great idea and that very same day passed that same exact proposal in a voice vote. If you know congressional proceedure you know that a voice vote is only used in the most uncontroversial measures where they all agree and just want to pass it quick. I think you are playing games here and pretending to not understand or something. How can you say this isn't a lie?

Here is what happened. Kerry said, "Hey, I have this proposal to cut some money out of the CIA budget that they weren't spending anyway." Arlen Spector says, "Oh, that's cool, but I already have the same exact proposal written up here." Kerry says, "Ok, I will just support yours then and let mine die." And then Congress passed it with a voice vote that same day.

That is what really happened. Now here is what Bush said happened. Bush said that Kerry proposed it and his fellow congressmen all were like, "OMG that is so irresponsible!! I can't support that!! You suck!" And Kerry is like, "Someone pleeease cosponsor my proposal!" And all the congressmen were like, "NO, you will never get anyone to cosponsor that because we all think its irresponsible! Shame on you!"

Do you see the difference? Do you see how it is a lie to say that Kerry's fellow congressmen thought his proposal was irresponsible when they passed an identical bill that very same day?

If Bush just says that he personally thinks it was irresponsible, then yes, that is his point of view and it can't possibly be a lie. But that is not what Bush said. Bush said it wasn't supported. This is a LIE. Not only was it supported, it passed that very day. How can it not be a lie? I think you are playing games. A looooong time ago you said on this forum that sometimes you just like to play devils advocate and get amusement out of just arguing for the hell of it (or words to that effect). Are you doing that now?

Bush: It wasn't supported.
Truth: It passed that day with a voice vote.
Swifty: How is that a lie?
Boom: You gotta be kidding me!

Bush said that Kerry's proposal wasn't supported, when in fact it was passed that very same day, it is a lie. Not a distortion, a lie. You have to understand this. You have to see this. At this point I can't help but believe that you are just continuing to argue because you get some enjoyment out of it.

And again, you only addressed part one of the lie. How about saying that Kerry wanted to "gut" the CIA when his proposal was a 1% cut. I guess you excuse that as being a distortion. But if a Dem called a 1% cut a "gutting" I highly doubt you would excuse it so quickly. Saying Kerry tried to gut the CIA when he proposed a 1% cut is lying. It is not "distorting," it is lying.

Unlike the Hitler ad and the Byrd ad, I haven't seen it, and while it might be shameful, the Byrd ad is worse.

You can't truly believe this. Please explain your reasoning. I explained why I feel that the Osama ad was the worst in history. Tons and tons of Republicans agree with me about that by the way. I would love to hear your reasoning behind feeling that the Byrd ad is worse then the Osama ad.

Yes, I saw both ads. So nice of you to know what I have and have not seen.

You saw the Hitler ad? Amazing since it was taken off the Moveon site so quickly. I didn't realize you had Moveon on your favorites and checked it every day. By the time I heard about the ad, it had been taken down and repudiated by moveon. I've never seen it. How did you see it?

And, as an aside, the fact that Moveon repudiated it and apologized and promised to be more careful in screening contest submissions didn't stop the GoP from claiming that Moveon was sponsoring it and going on to claim that it came from Kerry's coalition, even though Kerry supporters had nothing to do with it (Moveon was supporting Dean at the time of the contest). But since its the GoP lying I guess you will just excuse that as another "distortion."

Swifty_Johnson

07-20-2004, 07:55 PM

Bush said that Kerry's proposal wasn't supported, when in fact it was passed that very same day, it is a lie. Not a distortion, a lie.

Kerry's proposal never hit the floor, how could it have passed?

You can't truly believe this. Please explain your reasoning. I explained why I feel that the Osama ad was the worst in history.

The whole ad was a voice over of a truck pulling a chain from Byrd's point of view, which is why I asked you about how it ended, it's appearent you never even saw the footage of the ad as it was run. You glossed over it's contents. I've seen the ad, and it was totally repulsive. I have not seen the Cleland ad, and maybe it will be more repulsive, but I doubt it.

And, as an aside, the fact that Moveon repudiated it and apologized and promised to be more careful in screening contest submissions didn't stop the GoP from claiming that Moveon was sponsoring it and going on to claim that it came from Kerry's coalition, even though Kerry supporters had nothing to do with it (Moveon was supporting Dean at the time of the contest). But since its the GoP lying I guess you will just excuse that as another "distortion."

Sigh, it's not a lie, it's the truth. I see you have another double standard here.

The Hitler ad was hosted on the moveon.org site until a week and a half ago. Drudge reposted the link to it, and within two hours it was pulled. I saw the Hitler ad becasue I got a news alert about it with a link, I saw it before it was moved from that link.

The GOP said the Hitler ad was sponsored by moveon.org (truth) and that moveon.org supports Kerry (truth). Are you now claiming that moveon.org does not support Kerry? Both statements that they made are factual, so I cannot see how you can call it a lie.

Swifty

Boom

07-20-2004, 09:25 PM

Kerry's proposal never hit the floor, how could it have passed?

Omg, please stop pretending not to understand. The IDENTICAL proposal made by Spector passed. For crying out loud... Just admit it was a lie already.

Back to the Byrd ad, Yes, for the 4th time it was horrible and offensive. Showing what the last few seconds of his life were like is horrible. But I can't believe you think its worse to make a point about Bush not supporting the hate crimes law (which is true, he didn't support it) then comparing Cleland to the worst enemy to America ever while saying he didn't support the Homeland Security (which is a lie). I'm sorry but comparing someone to Osama is the worst possible attack you can make on him at this time. I am not defending the Byrd ad, its sick and shameful (for the fifth time), but its not like they said Bush is just as bad as Osama and lied about him.

The GOP said the Hitler ad was sponsored by moveon.org (truth)

It was repudiated by moveon. They denounced it. They said it was wrong, they apologized for ever having it on their site, and they promised to screen stuff more carefully in the future. How is that sponsoring it? Doesn't sponsoring something mean that you support it? Saying they sponsor it is lying. Saying they stupidly put it on their site and should have known better is true. Saying they support it is a lie. They don't support it, they are embarrassed by it, they say it was wrong. Do you see the difference between sponsoring something and saying it was wrong?

and that moveon.org supports Kerry (truth).

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here... At the time the ad was submitted, moveon was supporting Dean. If a website that supports Dean has a contest, and some nut submits something to that contest and the GoP says that submission was made by Kerry's Coalition, its a lie.

Was the ad made by some Kerry Coalition? No. Did the GoP say it was made by some Kerry Coalition? Yes.

Who was the ad made by? Some nut who submitted it to an anti-Bush site that was supporting Dean. Who did the GoP say it was made by? Some Kerry Coalition. Do you see the difference?

What does moveon say about the ad? That it is wrong and they never should have put it on their site. What does the GoP say about the ad? That it is sponsored by some Kerry Coalition. Do you see the difference?

Swifty_Johnson

07-20-2004, 10:47 PM

If a website that supports Dean has a contest, and some nut submits something to that contest and the GoP says that submission was made by Kerry's Coalition, its a lie.

Stop lieing Booms. The GOP says the ad was used by people who support Kerry.

Again, who does moveon.org support, Kerry. If they ran that ad months ago while Dean was in the race, than you'd be right. Moveon.org supports Kerry, Moveon.org hosted that ad until a week and a half ago, so yes the GOP ad is 100% factual. It doesn't matter who they supported in the past, they support Kerry now, and they are the same people who supported Dean.

But I can't believe you think its worse to make a point about Bush not supporting the hate crimes law

The ad had zero to do with Bush support of the hate crime law, and had everything to do with smearing Bush as someone who'd commit a crime like was committed. They tried to make Bush into a racist with that ad. Yes it was worse than the Cleland ad, it's visable imagry was much more graphic.

Swifty

Allison

07-20-2004, 10:54 PM

If they ran that ad months ago while Dean was in the race, than you'd be right.
They did. I believe Boom mentioned that several posts ago.

Swifty_Johnson

07-21-2004, 07:02 AM

They did. I believe Boom mentioned that several posts ago.

I meant if the Republicans ran the ad several months ago while Dean was in the race.

Swifty

Boom

07-21-2004, 11:13 AM

Stop lieing Booms. The GOP says the ad was used by people who support Kerry.

First of all, was it produced, sponsored, and supported by people who support Kerry (like the GoP said), or repudiated by people who support Kerry? There is a difference.

Second of all, I don't know what is up with it still being on their website last week. I looked for it a month ago and couldn't find it there. They certainly had no links to it on their homepage. Was it still up in some sort of archive on their website? Maybe they took the links to it down but neglected to actually remove the ad itself? Anyway, its kind of misleading to say they were still sponsoring it if they took the links down and apologized for it and repudiated it. They are stupid for not being more careful and eliminating all traces of it, but just because Drudge was able to search through their entire webspace and find a copy of it somewhere doesn't mean it was still promoting it.

Who was Moveon supporting when it put up that stupid ad? Dean. Who did the GoP directly imply the ad was put up by? Kerry coalition. Come on, its totally misleading.

And I see you still think that implying that Bush is a racist is worse than saying Cleland is an Osama. Amazing.

And I see you have dropped the issue of Bush lying about Kerry. It would kill you to admit he lied, so just drop it I guess.

Swifty_Johnson

07-21-2004, 11:35 AM

And I see you have dropped the issue of Bush lying about Kerry. It would kill you to admit he lied, so just drop it I guess.

I'll point you to the statement I said before "Both sides will distort the record of the other side for political gain."

I don't see you running around slamming Kerry or Edwards when they say we went into Iraq alone, and I don't either. It's part of their political game. Kerry proposal never hit the floor, therefore it never passed.

First of all, was it produced, sponsored, and supported by people who support Kerry

Yes, it was.

Second of all, I don't know what is up with it still being on their website last week. I looked for it a month ago and couldn't find it there.

The just simply removed the link from the page, and changed the link, but they left it on their website. It still was accessable if you looked for it.

Dean. Who did the GoP directly imply the ad was put up by? Kerry coalition. Come on, its totally misleading.

Again, you are incorrect. They said the ad was put up by people who support Kerry. Last time I checked, moveon.org supports Kerry, therefore the statement is 100% correct.

And I see you still think that implying that Bush is a racist is worse than saying Cleland is an Osama. Amazing.

I still see that you think that implying Cleland was weak on homeland defence is worse than saying Bush is a racist murder. Amazing.

Swifty

Ziggin

07-21-2004, 11:40 AM

:rcarry:

:insta:

:enforcer:

:ripper:

:whining: :goo:

SOMEONE PLEASE LET THIS DIE!!!!!!! :rolly:

Boom

07-21-2004, 05:37 PM

I'll point you to the statement I said before "Both sides will distort the record of the other side for political gain."

I don't see you running around slamming Kerry or Edwards when they say we went into Iraq alone, and I don't either. It's part of their political game. Kerry proposal never hit the floor, therefore it never passed.

Just about every part of that is wrong. I don't even know where to start here...

Ok lets start with "I don't see you running around slamming Kerry or Edwards when they say we went into Iraq alone"

How can you not see it? I did it IN THIS VERY THREAD. I said that if Kerry said that he is a liar and should be ashamed of himself and that I would be furious at him for lying. However you have failed to show that Kerry ever said this and Ailia says that he didn't say this. But if he did, I will go off on Kerry even harder than I go off on Bush for lying. I have already said that. I am prepared to do it. I found a quote where Bush lied and slammed him for it. Show me the quote where Kerry lied and I will slam him even harder. It pisses me off when the other side lies, it pisses me off MORE when my side lies because it weakens us. It pisses you off when the other side lies, but you excuse it when your side lies.

Ok, now the next part.

Kerry proposal never hit the floor, therefore it never passed.

Please answer these three questions. Consider it a birthday present for me.

1. Why didn't the Kerry proposal hit the floor?
2. What reason did Bush give for the proposal not hitting the floor?
3. Is the reason Bush gave for the proposal not hitting the floor the truth (are the answers to questions 1 and 2 the same) or is it a lie?

I'll answer these questions for you, but I am still curious to hear your answers.

1. The Kerry proposal didn't hit the floor because Arlen Spector had an identical proposal. Kerry let his die and supported Arlen's version.
2. The reason Bush gave for Kerry's proposal not hitting the floor was because it was so irresponsible that he couldn't even get a co-sponsor.
3. The reason Bush gave for Kerry's proposal not hitting the floor is not the truth, it is a lie. If Kerry's fellow congressmen truly thought the proposal was irresponsible they wouldn't have passed Arlen Spector's identical proposal. Bush lied.

I honestly think that you secretly agree with me, but just somehow enjoy continuing the argument regardless of what you really feel. I mean, for crying out loud, how could you not see this? I don't think you honestly think that Bush wasn't lying. I think that this is some kind of game for you and you feel that if you admit that Bush lied you lose. This isn't a game. If I want to play a game I play CoH or something. I have been wrong on this forum and admitted it and never felt like I lost anything. This is a political discussion forum, not a debating contest where there is a winner and a loser.

Both sides will distort the record of the other side for political gain

Yes, I do agree with that in general. For example the Bush campaign is going around saying that Kerry voted to raise taxes over 300 times. This is not true. They are counting every time he voted to ever spend any money as a tax increase. I am willing to let this slide as a "distortion" and not call it a hard core lie. Technically, its a lie, but I see your point and will allow you to call it a mere distortion.

However, the example we are talking about, with Kerry's proposal to cut the CIA budget by 1% is different. It is not a mere distortion. Its not just playing with numbers. It is a baldfaced lie. Bush isn't distorting Kerry's record in general, he made a flat statement that something happened, when in fact it never happened. He flat out claimed that Kerry's proposal died because none of his fellow congressmen would support it, when it in fact died because it was so well accepted that another (republican) congressmen was proposing an identical bill which passed that very day by a voice vote. If you can't admit this, its hard for me to believe you are being sincere.

And finally, one last question.

If you proposed cutting a program by 1%, and I went around saying you were proposing to gut the program, would you say I was lying or distorting?

Swifty_Johnson

07-21-2004, 07:47 PM

It pisses you off when the other side lies, but you excuse it when your side lies.

Again, where have I ever called Kerry or Edwards a liar for saying that we went it alone into Iraq? Never, as I consider it a distortion they are using for political gain. Just like the Bush comment on Kerry's bill, it too was a distortion for political gain. While you consider both to be lies, I don't.

You also have been taken. When you claim Bush has taken more vacations than every other president, you swallowed the claim made by someone who counted everytime Bush meet a forign VP at Camp David a vacation. Are you now prepared to call yourself a liar? Perfect example of another political distortion.

Swifty

Hammer

07-21-2004, 10:44 PM

The only part about Bush snubbing the NAACP that bothered me was that he didn't just take a hint from Cheney and tell Mfume to fuck off. Instead of using the scheduling conflict BS.

Boom

07-21-2004, 11:44 PM

So you won't answer my questions? Come on, its my birthday! And the vacation thing isn't some random guy making it up. The White House announces when the president is on vacation. Basically Bush says when he is on vacation. And it was more days then any other president. You gonna call Bush a liar? Of course not, that would make your head explode.

Maybe you can clarify something for me. What is your definition of a distortion and what is your definition of a lie? Maybe if I understood your meaning behind those two terms I could make some sense out of this.

Swifty_Johnson

07-22-2004, 09:25 AM

1. Why didn't the Kerry proposal hit the floor?

It didn't get a co-sponsor becasue it was deeply irresponsible.

2. What reason did Bush give for the proposal not hitting the floor?

Same as the above.

3. Is the reason Bush gave for the proposal not hitting the floor the truth (are the answers to questions 1 and 2 the same) or is it a lie?

Yup.

Now that I have raised Boom's blood pressure. You are making a lot of assumptions Booms that are incorrect when you call the president a liar. For him to be a liar, you have to know that the presidnet knew that there was another reason. Did you call Mrs. Cleo and find out all the Presidnet knew before he made the statement?

Your looking at the results of someone going through and finding all of Kerry's failed bills than using it aginst him. It's appearent the person didn't do all the checking, and when all the facts were found out, the ad was pulled and it's not being used anymore.

The White House announces when the president is on vacation. Basically Bush says when he is on vacation. And it was more days then any other president.

Again, the charge of the President taking more vacation than any other president is FALSE. It's not only based on his offically announced vacations, but EVERYTIME he went to Camp David. That's not accurate, and seeing even the democrats aren't using it in a campaign year shows you that it's not true.

There again is the Boom's double standard. extrealy low burden of proof for any charge aginst a Republican, yet maintains extrealy high standards of proof aginst any democrat.

Swifty

Boom

07-22-2004, 11:45 AM

It didn't get a co-sponsor becasue[sic] it was deeply irresponsible.

Now you are lying too. Unless you are joking. Why do you have to play these games. Can't you just give me a serious answer?

Your[sic] looking at the results of someone going through and finding all of Kerry's failed bills than using it aginst him. It's appearent[sic] the person didn't do all the checking, and when all the facts were found out, the ad was pulled and it's not being used anymore.

You made up every part of that. Prove any of that. Man, I can't believe you say I have a double standard. Look how far you are bending over backwards to excuse Bush here. When a democrat lies, you are all disgusted. When Bush lies, you twist it anyway you can to say it isn't incorrect, then when I prove to you that the statement was false, you say that it wasn't a lie, it was just an innocent mistake. And you have the audacity to say I have a double standard?

Anyway, at least now you seem to be willing to admit that Bush's statement was not true. You are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an honest mistake, but you are making progress. Before you were saying that Bush's statement wasn't false, it was just a misleading distortion, now you seem to be admitting it is incorrect. A few more pages of worthless stupid argument on this thread and you might be able to admit he lied. I really wish you hadn't wasted all of our time for the last three days pretending to believe that Bush's statement wasn't really incorrect, but was just a "distortion." Why do you play these games? Its kind of silly don't you think?

And you still haven't addressed the "gutting" comment. My guess is that you are having trouble finding a way to excuse this one. And of course your brain will explode if you admit that Bush was lying, so you are going to think about it for awhile and when you come up with some way to twist it around, you will address it again. I'm dying to see what you come up with on this one. I personally can't see how claiming that Kerry wanted to "gut" the CIA when he proposed a 1% budget cut (cutting money they weren't spending anyway) is anything other than a lie. Why don't you shock me and just admit that Bush was lying?

Again, the charge of the President taking more vacation than any other president is FALSE. It's not only based on his offically announced vacations, but EVERYTIME he went to Camp David. That's not accurate, and seeing even the democrats aren't using it in a campaign year shows you that it's not true.

Weren't you embarrassed in that other thread when I called you on making up stuff to make your point look better? Why are you doing it here now too? Prove any part of what you said here. If you can show me the number of officially announced vacations in Bush's first 18 months in office, and show me any other president in the history of the country that had more officially announced vacations in their first 18 months in office, I will gladly admit I was mistaken.

There again is the Boom's double standard. extrealy[sic] low burden of proof for any charge aginst[sic] a Republican, yet maintains extrealy[sic] high standards of proof aginst[sic] any democrat.

That sounds nice I guess. Too bad it isn't true. There have been tons of times that I have ripped on democrats in this forum. And I didn't have any extremely high standards of proof. You brought something to my attention and I just said that if you are right, the dems should be ashamed of themselves. How many times have you ripped on republicans on this forum? I can recall one or two occasions where you disagreed with republicans, or said that they shouldn't have done something but it wasn't a big deal to you, but that's about it.

Look, we know that both sides lie, right? So lets look back at our posts on this forum. I have ripped on republicans for lying lots of times and I have ripped on democrats for lying lots of times. I don't see a double standard there. You say I use a different standard of proof, but you are just saying that because it sounds nice. Its not true at all.

You, on the other hand have ripped on democrats for lying tons of times, but have never (or extremely rarely) ripped on republicans for lying. Either democrats lie and republicans don't, or you have a double standard. Now we know that both democrats and republicans lie. So how can you possibly explain the fact that you have torn democrats apart countless times on this forum and never (or extremely rarely, I shouldn't say never because I might have missed something) ripped apart a republican for lying. Every single time I have presented you with a republican lie you have said it was an honest mistake or misunderstanding or a mere distortion. Every single time (that I can think of) you have excused the republican lie.

So which is it? Do democrats lie, and republicans only make mistakes? Or do you have a double standard?

Swifty_Johnson

07-22-2004, 12:06 PM

You made up every part of that. Prove any of that.

Just as you made up the part about Bush lying. To lie you have to make a statement that you know not to be correct. You have totally failed to prove that Bush knew the statement was incorrect when he said it. Like I said, you have a double standard.

If you can show me the number of officially announced vacations in Bush's first 18 months in office, and show me any other president in the history of the country that had more officially announced vacations in their first 18 months in office, I will gladly admit I was mistaken.

Unlike you I do not make stuff up. You are the one who is making the claim, so it's your job to back it up. There was a flawed Washington Post article that claimed during the first eighteen months in office, Bush was on “vacation” 42% of the time. Most of this "vacation" time was spent in Camp David, and it was meeting other world leaders there. You throw this claim around all the time, are you a liar now Booms?

That sounds nice I guess. Too bad it isn't true

It is true, the Bush vacation claim is a perfect example of your double standard.

So which is it? Do democrats lie, and republicans only make mistakes?

Do you see me running around here calling Kerry and Edwards liars becasue they said we went into Iraq alone? No, you don't. When Kerry's wife lied about leaving the Republican party did I call her on it, yes. As I read the reports when she switched her registration and what was said than, was totally diffeant than what she said after. That's cold flat busted.

You call the President a liar, and you have totally failed to prove that he knew anything other than what he said. If someone calls a democrat a liar you demand proof, yet when you make false claims about Republicans, proof is optional.

Swifty

Boom

07-22-2004, 12:45 PM

As of August 2003, Bush had spent 166 days at his Crawford ranch or en-route. That's 5 and 1/2 months of time. If you add in his time at Camp David and at Kennebunkport, Maine you get 250 days, which is 27% of his presidency. But I know that the Camp David vacations are probably mostly working vacations so I admit it is unfair to flat out say he is on vacation 27% of his presidency. But that is still a hell of a lot of time on vacation. 5 1/2 months out of the first 2.5 years of his presidency were on his ranch.

A more recent count (I believe this is the Washington Post article you referred to) had him spending all or part of 233 days at his ranch, and if you include the other locations including Kennebunkport, Maine and Camp David it came up with over 500 vacation days which would be over 40% of his presidency. Again, I agree its unfair to include all of the Camp David days, but spending 233 days at his ranch is still alot.

Badger

07-22-2004, 12:57 PM

Yea because they are protecting your civil rights... You use the word communist a lot and I am starting to wonder if you are just trying to recruit.

I have yet to see the ACLU represent anything I stand for, or any rights I have.

I see them trying their best to take AWAY my civil rights in favor of a godless secularist society.

Every once in a while they do something right, like defending Rush Limbaugh. But 99.9% of the time is bad stuff they do.

The ACLU is largely leftist and yes I think they have an agenda.

Allison

07-22-2004, 01:09 PM

The Constitution of the United States is leftist too, huh, Badger? :rolly:

ArdryMcArdry

07-22-2004, 01:31 PM

Roscoes_C&W

07-22-2004, 01:39 PM

The ACLU does nothing for the people. They do what they want, whatever is in there agenda. The ACLU will take things to court and have things decided by judges instead of by the people of the country. There will be things voted for that are won by a landslide but the ACLU will take those things to court and have a couple judges overturn it all. Why should a couple judges decide what's right instead of the people who just voted for it? Screw the ACLU, they do nothing for this country but harm.

Noleader

07-22-2004, 01:52 PM

Because people are stupid. Rule by mass only ensures the people that are not part of the mass get left in the cold.

Judges ensure that everyone is protected under law and no one is left behind.

Many times in this countries history the majority has wanted things that are less then acceptable, Example would be the mistreatment of black people after they were freed.

Figtoria

07-22-2004, 02:00 PM

I think the ACLU shoots itself in the head when it supports NAMBLA type stuff.

Roscoes_C&W

07-22-2004, 02:04 PM

Noleader

07-22-2004, 02:39 PM

So what's worse? Major decisions decided by a judge who has his own agenda and spin on things or the entire country who decides whats best for them and their country. This country is run by the people and ONE person deciding what's best for all is not the way things should be done. Why do we even vote on issues if the ACLU is just gonna pick a judge to overthrow them according to what they want for themselves?

Saying people are stupid is not correct. Most people in this country understand what they want. It has nothing to do with education or intelligence level, it has to do with what the people want. It doesn't take intelligence to know what you want, it takes common sense. A judge may be smarter, education wise, than the people but that doesn't mean they know what the people want. That just means they have expanded their knowledge of the law through a medium that may be biased one way or the other.The founding fathers designed our government with the thought in mind that people are fickle. The general public reacts fast and most of the time over does things. I still think the senate seats should be appointed and not voted because of this issue (As it was until the 1900's). Judges are the last part of our government that is one removed from the current wants of the general public, and I think that this should remain and be supported.

Allison

07-22-2004, 05:45 PM

Roscoes, judges are not the end-all be-all deciding factor on anything. Their rulings are made in accordance with the law, their state constitutions, and The Constitution of the United States. If the people don't like it, or if they don't think the law has been applied correctly, then they have the power of appeal and/or the power to change the law.

I tell ya, the worst thing that's happened to undermine the process of law in this country is GWB coining the phrase, "activist judges." Now that's all I hear are people parroting, "activist judges blah blah blah." Well guess what? There are activist senators and activist presidents and activist citizens, too. They are ALL part of the process. But the good thing is, the process is designed so that none of them have too much power (checks and balances ring a bell?), and so that all of them have recourse when they don't like the decisions of another. Quit crying "activist judges whaaa whaaaa" everytime you don't get your way and write your congressman or something.

spyder913

07-22-2004, 09:47 PM

A good example is in Washington state, an initiative was passed that capped car tabs at $20 (stupid in and of itself) but had a rider on it that required EVERY tax increase to be voted on by the public.

The rider got thrown out as unconstitutional, even though the majority approved it.

P.S. Riders are extremely dumb.

Boom

07-24-2004, 11:13 AM

Your looking at the results of someone going through and finding all of Kerry's failed bills than using it aginst him. It's appearent[sic] the person didn't do all the checking, and when all the facts were found out, the ad was pulled and it's not being used anymore.

You will just make up anything to support your side. This is totally made up from the head of Swifty. The ad was pulled huh? You make it sound like you checked this out and really know what you are talking about. Like you did the research and found a statement somewhere by the GoP that they realize this information was untrue and are pulling the ad. Too bad you are totally just making this up and presenting it to us as if it was the truth and not a theory you have. How do I know you are making it up? Because there was no ad. Bush said it at a fundraiser.

You know, sometimes I present theories here too, but I am always very careful to say that I may be wrong because I haven't done the research. You just say any crazy thing you think of as if it were fact. And then you get all indignant when I ask you to support what you say. I think I would like to see a quote of Kerry saying we went into Iraq alone now please. Just to make sure you aren't making that up too. He might have said it, I don't know. But I haven't seen it and I clearly can't just accept it as truth just because you made the claim, since you like to make stuff up.

And if you want to make up out of thin air that Bush didn't have his facts right and learned the truth later, then why hasn't he made any sort of statement correcting himself? Why hasn't he apologized for publicly telling people information about Kerry that wasn't true and made him look horrible? He publicly made statements about Kerry that made Kerry look like a jackass, and YOU have admitted those statements were untrue (not distortions, but completely wrong statements). So why isn't Bush correcting it?

And for the 10th time. If someone calls a 1% cut "gutting" a department, aren't they lying? If you call that a "distortion" and not a "lie" you are using a very very loose standard for what a "distortion" is.

Swifty_Johnson

07-26-2004, 07:59 AM

Because there was no ad.

Shows you what you know, there was an ad, ran on the same day as the fundraiser, than was quickly pulled. Kerry claimed that he'd be the canidate that would stand up to special intrests, than someone pointed out that his campaign took more special intrest money than any other one. Opps, needless to say, he stopped saying that.
Newsflash Booms, neither Kerry nor the President runs around reviewing the voting records of the other one. They have their people do it for them, and mistakes are made. You call Bush a liar, yet you have failed to show that he knew what the truth is.

So why isn't Bush correcting it?

Why doesn't Kerry correct himself when he does the same thing? Easy, you don't mention it and it goes away.

Kerry is now running a T.V. ad that claims we are fighting the war on terrorism, ALONE.

How come he isn't correcting his mistakes?

Swifty

Boom

07-26-2004, 10:46 AM

Shows you what you know, there was an ad, ran on the same day as the fundraiser, than was quickly pulled.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that Bush spoke at a fundraiser and his comment was videotaped and made into a political ad that ran that same day? I think it takes longer than that to make an ad and get it on the air. I'm talking about something he said on March 8th at a fundraiser. I have no idea what ad you are talking about.

Kerry claimed that he'd be the canidate[sic] that would stand up to special intrests,[sic] than someone pointed out that his campaign took more special intrest[sic] money than any other one. Opps, needless to say, he stopped saying that.

Hmmm, care to prove that Kerry gets more special interest money then Bush? The way I recall this, someone from the Bush camp tried to attack Kerry for taking special interest money. When it was shown how much Bush gets compared to how much Kerry gets, the Bush camp shut the hell up.

Kerry is now running a T.V. ad that claims we are fighting the war on terrorism, ALONE.

I've never seen Kerry say this in any ad. You keep claiming that Kerry says this, Ailia says you are mistaken, please show me where Kerry says this. If Kerry is saying this, he should stop it because its wrong and he should correct his mistakes.

You call Bush a liar, yet you have failed to show that he knew what the truth is.

He certainly knows now that it was a lie and hasn't done anything to correct it. And do you really think that his researchers found this Kerry proposal to cut the CIA budget and didn't find out how much money Kerry was proposing to cut? Bush had to have known that it was a 1% cut and he said Kerry wanted to gut our intelligence services. That is lying.

And again, this shows your double standard. When Gore read a newspaper article that said characters in a movie were based on him and Tipper and repeated it to a journalist (asking that it be kept off the record), you called him a liar. For days and days you argued with me, insisting that Gore is a liar because of this, even when I showed you where he got his bad information from.

When Gore repeats bad information he is a liar according to Swifty. When Bush repeats bad information he is not a liar according to Swifty. I say that if Bush or Gore (or anyone) repeats bad information they are NOT liars. But its been proven that Gore had bad information. It has not been proven that Bush had bad information and there is no reason to think that he had bad information.

Gore says something that was wrong. I show you where his bad information came from. When he got the right information he corrected it. You call him a liar.

Bush says something that was wrong. You can't show that he got any bad information. There is no reason to think he got bad information since the truth is so readily available. He has never corrected it. You say it was an honest mistake. Why do you go so easy on Bush compared to Gore? I am holding them both to the same standard. You are not.

Swifty_Johnson

07-26-2004, 12:05 PM

What are you talking about? Are you saying that Bush spoke at a fundraiser and his comment was videotaped and made into a political ad that ran that same day?

There was an ad that ran on the air attacking Kerry as weak on security and it mentioned his bill to cut CIA funding.

Hmmm, care to prove that Kerry gets more special interest money then Bush? The way I recall this, someone from the Bush camp tried to attack Kerry for taking special interest money. When it was shown how much Bush gets compared to how much Kerry gets, the Bush camp shut the hell up.

Um, no. This was in the primary and Kerry shut the hell up when he was outed as getting the most special intrest money in the Senate. Notice how he no longer claims to be the canidate that will stand up aginst special intrests.

That is lying.

Only if you can prove he knew otherwise, which you have failed to do.

And again, this shows your double standard.

Nope, but it shows yours.

When Gore repeats bad information he is a liar according to Swifty.

I read on a website that called Gore a liar, and I repeated that information. You know what, that websight is still there, and still calling Al Gore a liar.

And here is your double standard, you critize people for calling someone a liar without sound information, yet you yourself are doing it like it's perfectly fine.

Swifty

Ziggin

07-26-2004, 12:10 PM

word!

Rooster

07-26-2004, 12:20 PM

Boom, just walk away man. Just walk away.

Boom

07-26-2004, 02:20 PM

And here is your double standard, you critize[sic] people for calling someone a liar without sound information, yet you yourself are doing it like it's perfectly fine.

No, I criticized you for continuing to call Gore a liar AFTER I had shown you that he wasn't lying. It took pages and pages of argument for you to admit he wasn't lying AFTER I showed you that he had bad information. If you can show me that Bush had bad information I will admit he wasn't lying without playing games for several pages of worthless argument. Also, Gore came out and corrected the facts, Bush hasn't.

I didn't say that Gore wasn't lying till I had proof that he had bad information and corrected the facts when he got the right information. I won't say that Bush isn't lying till I get proof that he had bad information and till I see him correct his false statements. No double standard.

You continued to claim that Gore was a liar even after you knew where he got his information, and even after you knew he corrected it. Your logic was that he stated something that wasn't true, therefore he is a liar. It took a ridiculous amount of argument to get you to admit he wasn't lying. You refuse to accept even a possibility that Bush might have lied, you even waste days trying to argue that his statement wasn't incorrect, when its plainly incorrect. Now that you admit it was incorrect, you just assume out of thin air that he had bad information and it was an honest mistake and he isn't a liar. But even when you had proof that Gore had bad information and made an honest mistake you called him a liar.

Swifty_Johnson

07-26-2004, 02:25 PM

If you can show me that Bush had bad information I will admit he wasn't lying without playing games for several pages of worthless argument.

You claim Bush is lying the burden of proof is on YOU.

You refuse to accept even a possibility that Bush might have lied,

What's funny, you whine that Bush takes too many vacations. Now, you claim Bush poured over Kerry's voting records, found the senate bill, discovered the other bill, and choose to lie about it. Really, do you honestly think that Bush himself discovered all this information?

Swifty

Boom

07-26-2004, 02:39 PM

So when you claimed Gore lied, the burden was on me to show you that he had bad information (and even after I found it, you still called him a liar).

Now that I claim Bush lied the burden is on me to show that he didn't have bad information.

Seems like the burden is always on me.

I'm not saying that Bush went into the congressional records himself. I highly doubt he could figure it out. But he has people working for him who are highly trained at getting that information. Its pretty convenient to all of a sudden assume they are totally incompetant and gave him crappy information. Makes more sense to assume he was given the correct facts and decided to twist them in his speech to make Kerry look soft on terrorism.

Anyway, at least I am consistent, if you show me that someone made a misstatement based on faulty information, I don't think they are a liar. You called Gore a liar when he made a misstatement based on faulty information, but you say Bush isn't a liar because he made a misstatement that might possibly have been based on bad information.

Swifty_Johnson

07-26-2004, 02:47 PM

So when you claimed Gore lied, the burden was on me to show you that he had bad information (and even after I found it, you still called him a liar).

No, I showed flawed evidance that he lied, you showed the corrected information. You have failed to show any evidance that Bush lied.

Its pretty convenient to all of a sudden assume they are totally incompetant and gave him crappy information. Makes more sense to assume he was given the correct facts and decided to twist them in his speech to make Kerry look soft on terrorism.

And I supposed he produced and sent out the T.V. commerical too. Like I said, someone gave him bad info. The attack looked good, and was pulled when proven incorrect. You still have failed to prove he knew otherwise.

You called Gore a liar when he made a misstatement based on faulty information,

I called Gore a liar based on mis-information that was given to me. While he didn't lie about that, there is still plenty of stuff he did lie about.

Oh, and take a look here,

http://www.johnkerry.com/tv/

Under war on Terror,

John Kerry says: "To win the war on terror we have to be tough and smart. We have to rebuild our alliances because that's the best way to find and get the terrorists before they get us. America shouldn't have to carry the burden alone."

Swifty

Boom

07-26-2004, 04:00 PM

That's not the same as saying we went into Iraq alone. Ailia was right I guess. And Kerry's statement is true. We shouldn't have to fight the war on terrorism alone and if Bush keeps pissing off all of our allies we will wind up alone. Rebuilding our alliances is a good idea.

Roscoes_C&W

07-26-2004, 04:10 PM

We shouldn't have to fight the war on terrorism alone and if Bush keeps pissing off all of our allies we will wind up alone. Rebuilding our alliances is a good idea.
That's such a load of crap. Everytime someone says that I can't help but think, WHAT ALLIES? You mean France and Germany? That's 2 allies that had interest in a Saddam run Iraq. It is impossible to do any action in this world without pissing someone off in the process.

Boom

07-26-2004, 05:48 PM

That's cool Roscoe. I can respect that opinion. Perhaps you are right and we don't need any help to fight terrorism, expecially from France and Germany. I tend to think the more help the better, but its a debateable point.

But whether Kerry's statement was stupid or smart was not my main point here. My main point was that all Kerry said was that we should rebuild our alliances so we don't have to fight terrorism alone, its incorrect to accuse Kerry of saying that we went into Iraq alone. Which is what Swifty has been doing for several days now.

Swifty_Johnson

07-26-2004, 06:59 PM

He's also said we went into Iraq alone too. This is just the first thing handy with this line of attack.

Are we fighting the war on terrorism alone? Last time I checked, even the French were assisting vs Al Quida, so that statment is totally false. How come you are not slamming Kerry for lying Booms?

Swifty

Roscoes_C&W

07-26-2004, 07:48 PM

Seriously, you guys are arguing about a politician saying a lie? That's pretty funny. A politician lieing is a natural everyday occurance, like sundown or masterbation. There will be more material to argue about on this subject every single day. If you guys plan on arguing for the rest of your lives this is a great topic to pick.

Swifty_Johnson

07-26-2004, 08:24 PM

You know Roscoes, I'm getting kinda upset with Booms, we do all this argueing and he has yet to pop the question to me. :(

Swifty

Allison

07-26-2004, 08:42 PM

oops ... nm

Boom

07-27-2004, 01:24 AM

He didn't say we are doing anything alone. He said we shouldn't have to do it alone and that strengthening our alliances will ensure that. I still haven't seen where he said we went into Iraq alone. You have claimed numerous times that he said it but you can't seem to find it. If you do find it, I will slam him every bit as hard as I slam Bush for lying.

So Bush calls a 1% cut "gutting" the CIA and you think its not a lie, but Kerry says we shouldn't have to fight terrorism alone and you interpret that to mean that we are fighting terrorism alone and he is lying. Talk about double standards, look how far you are twisting things. Do you really think Kerry is trying to trick anyone into thinking that we are alone in Iraq? Doesn't everyone know that at the very least England is there with us? Do you really honestly believe he is trying to lie and make people think we have zero allies working with us? Come on. I do believe that Bush was trying to make people believe that Kerry tried to gut the CIA. That is clearly what he was saying.

Roscoe, I agree, they all lie at some point or another. Its just strange that when Swifty showed me Gore lies (the real Gore lies, not the stories started by the GoP), I said, "Yes, that is a lie, Gore should be ashamed, I'm pissed that he said that because stuff like that put Bush in office." But Swifty has yet to admit that Bush ever lied about anything, no matter how many examples I give. Bush has a sit down meeting with Chalabi in his office where high level policy is discussed and later Bush claims that he just shook his hand in a rope line. What does Swifty say? "Prove that Chalabi took part in the discussions in the Oval Office." As if that matters. Did Bush claim he only shook his hand in a rope line? Yes. Is that the truth? No. Is it a lie? Yes. Bush calls a 1% cut, "gutting" a department, Swifty has no problem with it. Bush claims that Kerry's proposal died because his fellow senators thought it was irresponsible, the truth is the proposal died because an identical proposal passed that same day. Swifty assumes that Bush made an honest mistake. Bush said that he would have volunteered to go to Vietnam if his unit was called, but on the official papers when he enlisted he specifically checked the box that said he would not volunteer if his unit was called. Bush claimed he was never arrested, it later turned out he was arrested for drunk driving. Bush claimed to first met Ken Lay when Lay was a supporter of Bush's rival for Texas Governor. Lay gave 5 times as much money to Bush's campaign then to his rival's campaign that year. Bush claimed a majority of his tax cuts went to the middle class, but a majority (whether you go by percentages or by flat dollar amounts) went to the ultra rich. None of these qualify as lies to Swifty, because Bush said them. Sure, both sides lie, but Bush lies don't count for some reason.

Swifty agrees in theory that both sides lie, but whenever a republican lie is brought up, he makes excuses for it. I agree that both sides lie, and numerous times when democrat lies were brought up I admitted it and slammed the democrat for lying. Hell, he couldn't even admit that the GoP lied by starting the "I invented the internet" lie and the "I was the one who started it all" Love Canal lie. He tried to claim that other people started those stories and the GoP innocently spread them (and he even suggested that its possible that democrats started the lies to make the GoP look bad), even though I clearly showed him where the GoP started the lies.

According to Swifty, anytime a democrat says anything that could possibly be interpreted as being incorrect, they are a LIAR, but he can't admit that any republican has ever lied about anything ever. He will say that republicans lie in general terms, but if you give him any example he will fight it. I, on the other hand, have admitted to democrat lies numerous times on this forum, but according to Swifty I have the double standard.

Swifty_Johnson

07-27-2004, 06:44 AM

I show Booms Kerry lying, and what does he do, he makes excuses for it. While he has zero proof or extreamly loose evidance, he accuses Bush of lying. Blatent double standard on the part of Booms.

According to Booms, all you have to do is make the slightest alligation vs a republian, and it's the truth. If you make an alligation vs a democrat, you need well documented evidance, and that sometimes isn't good enough.

Bush claimed a majority of his tax cuts went to the middle class, but a majority (whether you go by percentages or by flat dollar amounts) went to the ultra rich.

What dollar amount do you use to term someome ultra rich? Is it the typical democrat defination of anyone who's not on wellfare? Seeing that the top 50% of the wage earners pay over 90% of the income taxes collected, where do you expect any ax vut money to go?

None of these qualify as lies to Swifty, because Bush said them. Sure, both sides lie, but Bush lies don't count for some reason.

Seeing I have never commeted on 90% of your examples,how do you know where I stand? Oh wait, it's another Boom lie.

He tried to claim that other people started those stories and the GoP innocently spread them (and he even suggested that its possible that democrats started the lies to make the GoP look bad), even though I clearly showed him where the GoP started the lies.

Spreading more lies now Booms. I showed you a website that fingered who was responsible for the love canal misquote, and you still continue to lie and claim it was the GOP that did it. You are wrong, but I see that never stops you from slamming a Republican. I also stated that the website that took Dan Quyale quotes and attribuated to Al Gore was prob run by a democrat, and you now claim that I said all the lies were started by democrats. More lies by Booms.

Kerry is clearly saying we are fighting the war on terrorism alone, Well, are we fighting it alone?

Swifty

Rooster

07-27-2004, 10:12 AM

OMG, THERE IS NO S IN BOOM. There.

:bang:

Boom

07-27-2004, 12:02 PM

I show Booms Kerry lying, and what does he do, he makes excuses for it. While he has zero proof or extreamly[sic] loose evidance,[sic] he accuses Bush of lying. Blatent[sic] double standard on the part of Booms.

Kerry said that we shouldn't have to fight terrorism alone. That is a true statement. We shouldn't have to do it alone. You have failed to show me Kerry lying. For something to be a lie, it has to be a false statement. If Kerry actually said that we did go into Iraq alone (like you claimed) then he lied and I will call him on it. If he didn't say it, then I guess you are a liar because you have been claiming he said it for days now.

According to Booms, all you have to do is make the slightest alligation[sic] vs a republian,[sic] and it's the truth.

Slightest allegation? I had the exact direct quote and proof that the statement was false. You yourself admitted that the statement was not true. What more do I need? Oh I need to call Ms. Cleo to find out if Bush actually knew his facts or if it was an innocent mistake. The fact that he is the president and its safe to assume he has a competant team of researchers isn't enough.

If you make an alligation[sic] vs a democrat, you need well documented evidance,[sic] and that sometimes isn't good enough.

No, when you said you had seen a clip of Gore saying "I invented the internet" it wasn't enough for me. I wanted more proof. I guess that means I have a double standard, I should have just accepted your word for it even though you were wrong. :rolleyes:

You keep repeating the same untrue allegation about me. Sorry but you are wrong. I have the same exact standards for calling anyone a liar. I need 2 things. 1. A quote of the statement. 2. Proof that the statement is not true. And if someone can prove to me that it was an innocent mistake (like I did with Love Story deal) then I admit it wasn't a lie. I used this same exact formula every single time. Show me an example of me using a harsher standard for a republican, and show me an example of me using a weaker standard for a democrat. You can't because I don't have two standards. And since you can't show me using anything but the same standard for everyone, you can stop accusing me of using a double standard.

What dollar amount do you use to term someome ultra rich? Is it the typical democrat defination[sic] of anyone who's not on wellfare? Seeing that the top 50% of the wage earners pay over 90% of the income taxes collected, where do you expect any ax vut[sic???] money to go?

We went over this in another thread. The top 10% of Americans got a larger tax cut as measured by a percentage of what they paid then anyone else. I know, if the top 10% pays 50% of the taxes they should get 50% of the tax cut. But not only did they get most of the money as a dollar amount, they got a larger percentage tax break because of the way the tax cuts were structured and because of tax cuts that only aid the rich like the dividend and estate tax cut. I don't want to get into a trickle down argument here. I'm not saying trickle down is bad or whatever. I'm just saying it was a lie when Bush said his cuts were mostly going to the middle class. The top 10% of Americans is not the middle class.

Seeing I have never commeted[sic] on 90% of your examples,how do you know where I stand? Oh wait, it's another Boom lie.

So you agree that something on the list is a lie? Which one? If you don't agree that any of them is lie then I was not wrong. If you do, then I was mistaken. And by my count you have commented on 5 of the 7 examples in my post. So when you say you never commented on 90% you are lying (or your math just really sucks). You haven't commented on 29% of my examples and you said you haven't commented on 90%. I guess if democrat said 90% when the truth was 29% you would call him a liar, but if a republican did it you would say it was a distortion. Hey, Bush called 1% "gutting" and you won't admit that was a lie. I will list the 7 examples here for clarity.

1. Chalabi. You refused to admit it was a lie.
2. 1% tax cut = gutting. I keep asking you if its a lie, you refuse to admit it.
3. Kerry proposal dies because Spector's passed instead. Bush said it died because it was irresponsible. You admit Bush was wrong but say it was an innocent mistake.
4. Bush said he would volunteer to go to Vietnam but checked off that he wouldn't. We discussed this a long time ago. You said he wasn't lying.
5. Bush said he was never arrested. I don't recall if you ever commented on that. But based on your posts isn't it safe to assume you won't see this as a lie?
6. Bush says he knew Lay as a supporter of his rival, Lay supported Bush 5 times as much. I don't recall if you ever commented on that. But based on your posts here isn't it safe to assume you won't see this as a lie?
7. Bush says his tax cuts went to the middle class. We had a huge thread on this. You refused to admit it was a lie even when I showed you the numbers.

Anyway, if it makes you feel better, I agree that I mispoke. I should have been more clear. I should have said that none of these lies that Swifty has commented on thus far have qualified as lies to him, and no lie made by a republican that has been discussed on this forum ever has qualified as a lie to him.

Spreading more lies now Booms. I showed you a website that fingered who was responsible for the love canal misquote, and you still continue to lie and claim it was the GOP that did it. You are wrong, but I see that never stops you from slamming a Republican.

A newspaper misquoted Gore, then the GoP took that misquote and CHANGED IT AGAIN to make it even worse and spread the story. And even when they had the correct quote they continued to spread the lie. The quote that is commonly used to trash Gore isn't the version put out by the newspaper, it is the version made up by the GoP liars. They made that up. I am not lying when I say they made it up.

I also stated that the website that took Dan Quyale[sic] quotes and attribuated[sic] to Al Gore was prob run by a democrat, and you now claim that I said all the lies were started by democrats. More lies by Booms.

We have discussed this before. You can't put the word "all" into my statements then say I was wrong because I said "all." You aren't even being sincere now.

Kerry is clearly saying we are fighting the war on terrorism alone, Well, are we fighting it alone?

You cannot seriously interpret his statement to mean that we are fighting terrorism alone. Give me a break.

Swifty_Johnson

07-27-2004, 12:20 PM

Kerry said that we shouldn't have to fight terrorism alone.

Kerry claims we ARE fihgting terrorism alone. Are we?

I had the exact direct quote and proof that the statement was false.

Now you need to show that Bush new it was false ( to prove he was lying) or show where he used it after it was made common knowledge that it was false. Seeing that his statement and the commerical only ran for one day, it's kinda hard for you to prove he was lying.

Bush said that he would have volunteered to go to Vietnam if his unit was called, but on the official papers when he enlisted he specifically checked the box that said he would not volunteer if his unit was called. Bush claimed he was never arrested, it later turned out he was arrested for drunk driving. Bush claimed to first met Ken Lay when Lay was a supporter of Bush's rival for Texas Governor. Lay gave 5 times as much money to Bush's campaign then to his rival's campaign that year. Bush claimed a majority of his tax cuts went to the middle class, but a majority (whether you go by percentages or by flat dollar amounts) went to the ultra rich.

Never commented on any of these, so how can I have commented on 5 of your 7 points?

A newspaper misquoted Gore, then the GoP took that misquote and CHANGED IT AGAIN to make it even worse and spread the story.

Again, more lies. They changed the grammer on the quote to make it correct, not to make it look bad. A newpaper misquotes Gore, and it's the fault of the evil GOP.

(and he even suggested that its possible that democrats started the lies to make the GoP look bad),
We have discussed this before. You can't put the word "all" into my statements then say I was wrong because I said "all." You aren't even being sincere now

You weren't being sincere with your first statement, so why should I?

You cannot seriously interpret his statement to mean that we are fighting terrorism alone. Give me a break.

Enter the Boom double standard. You can interpret that Bush knew everything about a bill with ZERO evidence, and yet when Kerry says,

"We have to rebuild our alliances because that's the best way to find and get the terrorists before they get us. America shouldn't have to carry the burden alone."

His last sentance says it all, he's claiming we are fighting the terrorists alone.

Swifty

Noleader

07-27-2004, 01:22 PM

Boom I found that Swifty just keeps typing so he does not have to admit defeat. Let it go man you will only drive yourself insane.

Boom

07-27-2004, 02:27 PM

Well, he just admitted he isn't being sincere. I see no reason to continue debating with someone who isn't sincerely stating his views and is just saying whatever to keep the argument going.

Swifty_Johnson

07-27-2004, 02:34 PM

Well Boom, you weren't being sincere at all, and instead resorted to posting lies and distortions about me. How didyou expect me to treat you? You failed to post any proof that the president was lying, so it's up to you to backup your statement.

You made a statement, now back it up.

Swifty

Eiru

07-27-2004, 02:48 PM

Well, he just admitted he isn't being sincere. I see no reason to continue debating with someone who isn't sincerely stating his views and is just saying whatever to keep the argument going.

It took you this long to figure that out, Boom? You shoulda just PMd me.

:D :rolly: :rolly: :rolly:

Boom

07-27-2004, 02:50 PM

I was being 100% sincere and have not posted any lies.

Ok, I will try one more time.

This is the standard I applied to the Gore lies. It is the same standard I am applying to Bush here.

1. Get the exact quote.
2. Determine if the statement is true.

At that point, I would admit it was a lie. If I then found evidence that it was an honest mistake, I would excuse it and say it wasn't a lie. The burden was on me to prove it was an honest mistake. NOT ONCE did I ever ask you to prove that Gore knew something was false in order to accuse him of lying, it was always MY burden to prove it was an innocent mistake. In the few examples where Gore made an incorrect statement and there was no evidence either way as to whether Gore knew it was wrong or not, I admitted it was a lie. That is the standard I used for Gore, that is the standard I use for Bush. If he says something that isn't true, its a lie. If there is evidence that it was an honest mistake, then its excused. Bush called a 1% cut "gutting" the CIA. There is zero evidence that it was an honest mistake. He lied.

You just assume that anything Bush says wrong is an honest mistake and anything Gore says wrong is a lie. How is that not a double standard? I assumed they are all lies unless I found evidence that it was an honest mistake.

Now you need to show that Bush new[sic] it was false ( to prove he was lying)

Did you need to show that Gore knew his statements were false when you accused him of lying? No. You didn't. But you require that for Bush. Double standard. Hell, even when I proved to you that Gore had bad information it still took you several days of debate to admit he wasn't lying. You kept saying, "What he said wasn't true, so he was lying." Only after a long time of debate did you admit he wasn't lying and was just relying on bad information. I guess you weren't being sincere there either.

Swifty_Johnson

07-27-2004, 03:05 PM

Did you need to show that Gore knew his statements were false when you accused him of lying? No. You didn't.

Sorry, I wasn't the one making the charge like you are here. I reposted information from the web stating that he was lying. Here, YOU are the one making the charge, YOU are acting as the primary source, YOU are the one that needs to back it up.

Swifty

Boom

07-27-2004, 03:37 PM

No, in that thread you made many many charges that Gore was a liar. I asked you to back it up by providing quotes. Sometimes you were able to, sometimes you weren't. I never asked you to prove that Gore knew his statement was incorrect like you are asking me to do here. You had one standard to call Gore a liar, and you have another standard to call Bush liar. In order to call Bush a liar I must prove that Bush knew his statement was wrong. With Gore you assumed he was a liar unless I could prove that he was honestly mistaken. You are using two different standards. With Gore you assume its a lie and I have to prove it was a mistake, with Bush you assume it was a mistake and I have to prove what he knew.

You say that in the other thread you merely reposted information from the web stating that Gore was lying. That is exactly what I have done here. I got a quote from the web showing that Bush was lying. I backed it up by proving that what Bush said was wrong. I did exactly what I required of you in the Gore thread, no more, no less.

In the Gore thread if you had an Gore quote where he said something wrong, you were convinced he lied. You did NOT give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was mistaken. I had to prove that he was honestly mistaken. And even when I proved he was mistaken you would continue to argue that he was lying for many pages of ridiculous debate. In this thread you have a Bush quote where is wrong and you DO give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was mistaken. Why is that?

And even if we take that enormous leap of faith and assume that Bush's researchers didn't get the details of Spector's bill, they certainly got the details of Kerry's bill. Bush knew it was a $100 million cut of an agency with a budget of over 20 billion. Yet he said Kerry was trying to gut it. How is that not lying?

Swifty_Johnson

07-27-2004, 04:02 PM

No, in that thread you made many many charges that Gore was a liar.

And all of them were pulled off of webpages. Some of which was wrong. In all cases I had something from a webpage that claimed Gore was lying.

That is exactly what I have done here. I got a quote from the web showing that Bush was lying. I backed it up by proving that what Bush said was wrong. I did exactly what I required of you in the Gore thread, no more, no less.

Incorrect. You showed that Bush was wrong, that is a far cry from him lying. Did the webpage say he was lying? You never posted the address as proof, so how can we tell? When I said Gore was lying, I posted the websites that gave the info.

In the Gore thread if you had an Gore quote where he said something wrong, you were convinced he lied.

That would becase it was taken from a webpage that claimed he was lying, and offered evidance of it. Some of them were incorrect, some were right.

You do the same thing, you gloss over Kerry's comments and give him the benifate of the doubt, yet hammer Bush without any evidance.

Bush knew it was a $100 million cut of an agency with a budget of over 20 billion. Yet he said Kerry was trying to gut it. How is that not lying?

Just like when Kerry says we are fighting the war on terrorism alone, or we went into Iraq alone.

Swifty

Boom

07-27-2004, 04:54 PM

I would really like a link to Kerry saying we went into Iraq alone. You have accused him of saying it like a dozen times. Its about time you support it.

Saying we shouldn't have to do something isn't the same as saying we are currently doing it. If I say, "I shouldn't have to wear a suit to work every day." That doesn't necessarily mean that I do wear a suit to work every day. It could that I wouldn't like it if my office put in a policy requiring me to do so. Anyway, I'm convinced you aren't being sincere when you say that was a lie. He said we shouldn't have to fight it alone. He didn't say we are fighting it alone. You see the difference. You are just doing what you do here. Do you really think Kerry was trying to make people think that we are in Iraq alone? Of course not. Was Bush trying to make people think that Kerry tried to gut the CIA? Of course he was.

When I said Gore was lying, I posted the websites that gave the info.

Not true. At first you just flat out stated that he was a liar and gave examples from your memory. When I challenged you to support it, you then went and did some research.

Btw, you said its not lying because they pulled it after they found out the truth. So why is it still on his official website?

http://www.georgebush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2305

From the same website here is a statement by Speaker Dennis Hastert saying that Kerry "led the charge" to cut intelligence spending. Since when is supporting republican bills "leading the charge?"

http://www.georgebush.com/News/read.aspx?ID=2308

This following website documents 200 billion in spending increases for intelligence that Kerry voted for. Yes, he tried to cut 1 billion from a slush fund, but voted to increase the intelligence budget by 200 billion for legitimate spending. Overall, it doesn't sound like he is gutting intelligence to me.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0308a.html

And yes, since that site is run by Kerry supporters, of course I expect you will find that article to be biased. You don't have to believe anything the writer is saying if you don't want to, I am just using it to document the particular intelligence spending increases that Kerry voted for.

And if you need me to find something on the web that calls Bush a liar over this. Here is a Fred Kaplan article titled "Bush Insults Kerry's Intelligence
The president's latest attack is even more dishonest than the last."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096874/

Boom

07-27-2004, 05:02 PM

And here is an article complaining about a bunch of GoP lies regarding Kerry's military voting record.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

The article mentions the GoP attack on Kerry's "gutting" of intelligence and explains how the Kerry 1% cut (1.5 billion over 5 years) wasn't gutting intelligence but was about getting unspent money back. The article specifies that the proposal was voted for by a majority of Kerry's fellow senators. This article was written on Feb 25th. Two weeks later Bush makes a speech and restated this GoP attack even after it had been disproved. Of course, Bush doesn't read, but shouldn't someone in his staff have told him to take that out of his speech since it was a lie?

Boom

07-27-2004, 05:08 PM

Washington Post article on it. Of course they take it easy on him, they say he "exaggerated." But they do quote him then directly say that what Bush said was not true. And if you say something that isn't true you are lying (if you are a democrat) or mistaken (if you are a republican). Right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51538-2004Mar11%20&notFound=true

Boom

07-27-2004, 05:26 PM

Its still up on the official whitehouse website too.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040308-21.html

Boom

07-27-2004, 05:30 PM

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031904.shtml

Another site complaining about Bush's lie on this issue, and quoting John McCain (a Bush supporter) defending Kerry's voting record and saying that Bush is wrong when he says Kerry is weak on defense.

Boom

07-27-2004, 05:33 PM

http://www.negativespin.com/blog/archives/000454.html

Another one.

Swifty_Johnson

07-27-2004, 08:51 PM

I would really like a link to Kerry saying we went into Iraq alone. You have accused him of saying it like a dozen times. Its about time you support it.

It's from news snippets of him speaking, they are almost impossible to find on the net.

Looks like you missed this part

White House spokesman Trent Duffy referred questions about Monday's speech to the Bush-Cheney campaign because "it was a campaign speech." Terry Holt, spokesman for the campaign, said he will look into the origins of the speech because he did not know about the situation in 1995. But, he said, "The president was using one very appropriate example of Kerry's lack of commitment to the intelligence community."

And this part

Kerry campaign officials said yesterday that the $1.5 billion in cuts he proposed were meant to take back the $1 billion to $1.7 billion the NRO had salted away -- but the legislation and Kerry's floor statement, inserted in the Congressional Record that day, did not specify the reason for the proposed cuts. The campaign has no proof that the cuts were for this purpose, but officials point to his joining Specter and others in proposing legislation that resulted in reducing the NRO's fund reserves over the next five years.

Things aren't as cut and dried as you make it. Also, where was this 100 million you talked about? They are talking 1.5 billion, a far cry from 100 million. You evidence is getting stronger, but not as strong as the lies that Kerry and his wife said.

I'll admit that Bush is lying just as soon as you admit that Mr. or Mrs Kerry lied also.

Swifty

Boom

07-28-2004, 12:40 AM

It's from news snippets of him speaking, they are almost impossible to find on the net.
ROFL!!!! You gotta be kidding me. Ok, I am going to start claiming that Bush said he likes to eat fried human babies. I can't prove it because its from news snippets of him speaking which are almost impossible to find on the net. Gimme a break.

I don't see what the point of your first quote is. Are you implying that because Terry Holt didn't know the situation in 95 that Bush didn't know the situation in 95? That isn't logical. Terry Holt does not have access to all the information that Bush does. What are you implying? If anything that quote supports my side. Terry Holt is still saying that the Bush quote is a good example of Kerry being bad for intelligence. Cutting unused money that is 1% of the budget, when he also voted for 200 billion in increases does not make him bad for intelligence.

It was 1.5 billion over 5 years. 300 million a year. 1.5 billion over 5 years is 1% of the budget. I was mistaken when I said 100 million, it was a 300 million for that year. But my mistake changes nothing. Whether it was 100 million or 300 million doesn't change the fact that it was 1% of the budget and Bush said Kerry was trying to gut it. Now I assume you are going to accuse me of lying because when a liberal makes a mistake he is lying and when a republican lies it is a mistake. Before you do that, keep in mind I didn't call you a liar when you said you had seen a clip of Gore saying, "I invented the internet." And that mistake made a huge difference to your point. My mistake makes no difference.

Of course, now that you have corrected me I won't continue to say 100 million. I have acknowledged my mistake and will use the correct 300 million figure in the future. Because when you make a mistake, you don't continue to say it after you are shown the facts. When you are lying, you know the facts beforehand and keep saying your lie no matter what you are shown. Two of Bush's official websites still post Bush's comment that Kerry's bill wasn't supported because his opponents thought it was irresponsible and that he was gutting the CIA. Shouldn't he acknowledge his "mistake" and put up the correct information instead. If he continues to publish that comment in two places on the web isn't he lying?

I'll admit that Bush is lying just as soon as you admit that Mr. or Mrs Kerry lied also.

This proves how disingenuous you are. You should admit Bush lied if you think Bush lied. You think this is some kind of game and you lose if you admit Bush lied. That is so silly and childish. If you think Bush lied, you should say he lied, you shouldn't continue to argue just because you don't want to "lose."

What difference does it make what I say about Kerry? How does what I say about Kerry effect your opinion about Bush? What I say about Kerry has absolutely nothing to do with what you think about the Bush lie. If you think he lied (which I am starting to think you do) then say so, don't use it to get something out of me. If you think he lied, but won't admit it until you get something out of me you are being ridiculous. If you don't think he lied, but are willing to admit he lied if you get something out of me your are even more ridiculous.

Noleader

07-28-2004, 02:02 AM

Boom let it go man.

There is no proving him wrong. He will repeat himself over and over just so he does not have to accept he may be a bit bias on the issue.

Everyone else on this board knows Swifty has one ruler to measure Demo's to and a much shorter one for Repub's.

Some people are so caught up in the parties they do not even remember what it means to think for themselves.

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 06:23 AM

What difference does it make what I say about Kerry?

Becasue what the Kerry's said crosses the line of what you consider a lie, why teh double standard Boom? Your ready to call the president a liar, yet with more solid evidence you refuse to call Kerry or his wife a liar. Bias.

I can't prove it because its from news snippets of him speaking which are almost impossible to find on the net. Gimme a break.

Really? You tell me that when you watch T.V. and they show Kerry speaking at an engagement and he says something how to find it on the internet. Also, he has said it at several engagements and it has been covered by the news, so I can't understand how you didn't see it, maybe you did and you are just lying about it.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 10:42 AM

Boom

07-28-2004, 11:59 AM

Ok, he lied. I guess you could say he didn't specifically say we fought in Iraq alone and was talking about Bush policy in general. In that case it wouldn't be a lie. Bush does have a "go at it alone, who cares what the world thinks" kind of attitude. But fuck it, if it makes you happy, Kerry lied. If he wasn't talking about Iraq specifically he should have been more clear. Also, he said "they" went at it alone. "They" could mean Bush and Blair (and the other countries that sent like 10 soldiers to hang out with our 150,000). But whatever, he wasn't clear, it isn't true, so its a lie. He should apologize and clarify it.

Its kind of a stupid example though. A lie has to have the intent to deceive. When Bush says that Kerry tried to gut the CIA, he really wants people to believe it even though it isn't true. I don't think Kerry was trying to trick anyone into thinking that we are the only ones in Iraq, everyone knows there are a few British and Japanese guys there too. I think Kerry was making a point about Bush's cowboy diplomacy. But whatever. It wasn't true, and he knows it isn't true so its a lie.

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 12:06 PM

A lie has to have the intent to deceive.

No, a lie is stating something that is false as being true, and knowing that it is false.

I don't know why you hate Bush so much. You posted plenty of evidance that the Bush CAMPAIGN lied about Kerry's record to discredit the man. It was extreamly sloppy and inexcusable smear campaign and I hope a few heads rolled over it. The fact the pressed on with it dispite being proven wrong is disheartning.

Swifty

Boom

07-28-2004, 12:06 PM

I still would like an explanation of this, "I'll admit that Bush is lying just as soon as you admit that Mr. or Mrs Kerry lied also."

Does that mean that you think Bush lied but don't want to admit it unless I make you happy first? That is kind of childish isn't it? Or does it mean that you don't think Bush lied but will say it anyway if I make you happy first? That would just be absurd. Either way, it seems to mean that whether you admit Bush lied doesn't depend on what you really think, it depends on what it can get you strategically in the argument. So silly. Its not a game. There is no winner or loser. Its a discussion to share information.

Boom

07-28-2004, 12:08 PM

You posted plenty of evidance[sic] that the Bush CAMPAIGN lied about Kerry's record to discredit the man.

The words came out of Bush's mouth.

At least you are admitting they were lies now and not "distortions." Only took 6 pages of worthless argument.

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 12:09 PM

It's only worthless because you refused to post your soucres until the last page. Your sources also discredited what you said, so I understand why you would be hesitant.

Swifty

Eiru

07-28-2004, 12:19 PM

Kerry on the war in Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3755705.stm

"They looked to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied when they should have persuaded. They have gone it alone whey they should have assembled a team."

There it is. He's repeated it several times.

Swifty

Swifty, why did it take 141 posts for you to back up your statement? If this was done FAR earlier in the game, you wouldn't have spent the entire thread look like a little kid stamping his foot saying "It IS true!"

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again. Please Please PLEASE don't let your own rhetorical style be your own worst enemy.

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 12:22 PM

Swifty, why did it take 141 posts for you to back up your statement?

If you paided any attention to what I said eariler, they were from clips I saw of Kerry on the campaign trial. These sort of clips are not on the internet, unless the campaign posts them. I checked Kerry's website and they were not there, but the terrorism one was. This morning I stumbled onto the BBC article.

Swifty

Boom

07-28-2004, 12:23 PM

How did my sources discredit what I said? Because I said 100 mil instead of 300 mil? Its still a 1% cut, not a gutting.

Boom

07-28-2004, 12:24 PM

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 12:33 PM

How did my sources discredit what I said?

You said 100 million, it was 1.5 billion. You said it was in a speech by Bush, turned out to be part of a campaign vs Kerry by the Bush campaign. You denied there were commericals, there were. You claimed Bush was given all the facts by the campaign, and he choose to "lie" about it.

It pretty much disputes all your claims.

And I would also like you to explain how you can say that a statement that came right out of Bush's mouth is a lie made by his campaign and not by him

The speech was given at a CAMPAIGN rally and wasn't hosted by the Whitehouse. He read the speech the CAMPAIGN prepared for him at the event the CAMPAIGN hosted for him. It was part of an attack vs Kerry that the CAMPAIGN had been running for a few days.

You made it sound like he just gave this speech out of the blue and made the accusation, turns out you were wrong.

Swifty

Boom

07-28-2004, 01:11 PM

You have got to be kidding me.

Eiru

07-28-2004, 01:12 PM

If you paided any attention to what I said eariler, they were from clips I saw of Kerry on the campaign trial. These sort of clips are not on the internet, unless the campaign posts them. I checked Kerry's website and they were not there, but the terrorism one was. This morning I stumbled onto the BBC article.

Swifty

Please don't insult my intelligence or my reading ability. I went to google, plugged in "kerry iraq going it alone" and 2 seconds later came up with this link, http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/, and there it is, in black and white:

Throughout our history, we have forged powerful alliances to defend, encourage, and promote that idea around the world. Through two World Wars, the Cold War, the Gulf War and Kosovo, America led instead of going it alone. We respected the world - and the world respected us.

Today, our leadership has walked away from more than a century of American leadership in the world to embrace a new - and dangerously ineffective - American disregard for the world. They bully instead of persuade. They act alone when they could assemble a team. They confuse leadership with going it alone. They fail to understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you.

Is the official website for the Kerry/Edwards ticket not a credible source? Are you telling me you couldn't take two minutes to google yesterday or the day before? Are you telling me that, while googling, you don't have the personal filters to tell credible from uncredible sources?

Or are you just being lazy? Or are you just being a troll?

Boom

07-28-2004, 01:14 PM

I can't believe you are seriously claiming that when Bush makes a speech and tells a lie, its not him lying its his campaign.

Do you think he is just a puppet or something?

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 02:30 PM

Or are you just being lazy? Or are you just being a troll?

I didn't get that hit, you think if I did I wouldn't have posted it.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 02:32 PM

I can't believe you are seriously claiming that when Bush makes a speech and tells a lie, its not him lying its his campaign.

In order for him to lie, he has to know the truth. It's appearent that the campagin knew what the truth was, and instead pushed onward, that is lying. The President reading a prepared campaign speech isn't lying, he reading what was presented to him.
Those who prepared it that knew better are the ones that are lying.

Do you think the president lied about WMD?

Swifty

Eiru

07-28-2004, 03:20 PM

I didn't get that hit, you think if I did I wouldn't have posted it.

Swifty

There were dozens of others I could have posted. When did you go searching? Was it yesterday? The day before? Did you frantically start digging this morning? Does your version of google only give you one link at a time? Do you wear glasses that block out all but one link at a time? Is it just a matter of timing? Could you NOT search yesterday? If so, why didn't you say anything? Doesn't a little knowledge go a long way, especially in political debates?

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 03:22 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was supposed to drop everything and go off searching for stuff 24x7. Also, google was down the other day when I tried, so I tried again this morning.

Swifty

Cavan

07-28-2004, 03:48 PM

Throughout our history, we have forged powerful alliances to defend, encourage, and promote that idea around the world. Through two World Wars, the Cold War, the Gulf War and Kosovo, America led instead of going it alone. We respected the world - and the world respected us.

Today, our leadership has walked away from more than a century of American leadership in the world to embrace a new - and dangerously ineffective - American disregard for the world. They bully instead of persuade. They act alone when they could assemble a team. They confuse leadership with going it alone. They fail to understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you.

Thats the little blurb that Eiru argues about a few post's up.. and it's from the John Kerry website.... everyone.. read it again... slowly... notice anything... notice a war (military action) that was left out... actually a couple.... in which America did go in alone... Hmm.. I find it hard to believe John Kerry would forget one of these.. ESPECIALLY SINCE HE WAS IN ONE....

He simply forgets to mention the Vietnam and Korean War's.... or should I call those "Military Engagements"....

Boom

07-28-2004, 04:02 PM

The President reading a prepared campaign speech isn't lying, he reading what was presented to him.

So you think he is a puppet? Like a local news reporter who just reads whatever he is given. Shouldn't our president be more than that? Shouldn't he know what he is saying? I know all presidents have speechwriters but don't some of them work on the speeches with the speechwriters instead of just being a talking puppethead? You don't think he has any responsibility for the words that come out of his mouth? Its all the responsibility of his handlers and he is just a face they chose to put in front of the camera?

I don't think Bush lied about WMDs. I think he honestly believed they were there. Except for a very few specific instances when he was told not to rely on information and went ahead anyway like that yellowcake deal in his SOTU address.

Eiru

07-28-2004, 04:52 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was supposed to drop everything and go off searching for stuff 24x7. Also, google was down the other day when I tried, so I tried again this morning.

Swifty

Hyperbole doesn't become you, Swifty.

Quoted 7-20-04, 6 days before the mydoom attack.

Every time Kerry say we went into Iraq alone you don't see me posting about it.

Quoted same day.

First of all, where did that come from?

Second, link please.

Quoted 7-21-04, 5 days before the mydoom attack and still no link.

I don't see you running around slamming Kerry or Edwards when they say we went into Iraq alone, and I don't either.

Quoted same day.

I said that if Kerry said that he is a liar and should be ashamed of himself and that I would be furious at him for lying. However you have failed to show that Kerry ever said this and Ailia says that he didn't say this.

Quoted same day, still no links.

Again, where have I ever called Kerry or Edwards a liar for saying that we went it alone into Iraq?

Now, several days before the myDoom virus attack against Google. You have been asked by both Boom and Aillison to provide some type of backup to your statement that Kerry and Edwards lied about going in to Iraq alone, but you won't call them liars. On two different days, you provide nothing.

I didn't realize you were so over worked that you couldn't go to Google a week or so before they went down to find the policy statement on the Kerry/Edwards site at least.

Quoted 7-26-04, the day of the attack.

Kerry is now running a T.V. ad that claims we are fighting the war on terrorism, ALONE.

Then, finally, on the same day of the myDoom attack, you somehow miraculously found the following information (obviously without the help of Google; your powers to navigate the web must be unmatched).

Oh, and take a look here,

http://www.johnkerry.com/tv/

Under war on Terror,

John Kerry says: "To win the war on terror we have to be tough and smart. We have to rebuild our alliances because that's the best way to find and get the terrorists before they get us. America shouldn't have to carry the burden alone."

I'm not going to ask about the interpretation of that statement. I found the same thing on the Kerry/Edwards site. Whether it can back up your position or not, I won't comment on.

What I will question is: why did you let this go for almost a week before trying to back up your claims? Wouldn't it have saved a lot of effort if you googled when Google was up on the 21st? Or were you concerned that your rhetoric would be thrown out when we all find that the actual statement is much more metaphorical than your posts seem to indicate you are?

Roscoes_C&W

07-28-2004, 05:19 PM

Eiru,

That's the lamest post I ever seen.

Eiru

07-28-2004, 05:40 PM

Maybe so. Maybe so.

Cavan

07-28-2004, 05:52 PM

I concur... LAME POST... :rolly:

Swifty_Johnson

07-28-2004, 10:20 PM

Or were you concerned that your rhetoric would be thrown out when we all find that the actual statement is much more metaphorical than your posts seem to indicate you are?

Like I stated before, I saw his statements on clips I saw on T.V. You can't google T.V. stations. It wasn't until a few days ago that I tried to see if there was anything no the net and found google down, than I tired again this morning, and stumbeled across the BBC article.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

07-29-2004, 08:45 AM

So you think he is a puppet?

Does your hatered of Bush know no end? This was a CAMPAIGN fundraiser, and done to rally the troops. This wasn't a policy speech, this was a campaign speech. Bush cannot win with you. If he writes is own RAH-RAH campagin speechs, than you'll claim he's spending too much time on his campaign and not enough running the country. Bush will make several campaign stops every day when he campaigns, do you honestly expect him to write every speech for these stops? Do you honestly expect him to poll the area, find out the hot button issues for that area, than write a speech tailored for that area. Do that for ever stop that day?

No one man is an island, that's why the president has a campaign staff to do this for them. Someone screwed up, and you'll bet some heads rolled over it.

I don't think Bush lied about WMDs. I think he honestly believed they were there. Except for a very few specific instances when he was told not to rely on information and went ahead anyway like that yellowcake deal in his SOTU address.

You missed it as the liberal media didn't cover it, but the Senate report on the CIA's intelligence gathering concluded that Wilson's findings had bolstered rather than undermined the case that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. Wilson lied when he said his report disputed that case.

Swifty

Noleader

07-29-2004, 11:47 AM

Dictator Bush can never win with me. I voted with him in 2000 and will never vote for him again. The guy is running our country into the ground and if we do not change something we will pay for it.

Cavan

07-29-2004, 11:59 AM

Noleader

07-29-2004, 12:05 PM

Don't worry NoLeader... you'll only be able to vote for him one more time...

I'm pretty confident he'll be re-elected... maybe the Democrats will have a shot in 2008... two totally new candidates.... because I don't see Dick Cheney running for President....
He won't win... I think it will be a extremely close race but all the current polls show Kerry leading Bush even with the 3rd party people as options.

Swifty_Johnson

07-29-2004, 12:22 PM

You can't go by what the polls are saying now, a better guage is after the convention, AND right now he is leading in the electorial college, you know ,the one that matters.

Swifty

Noleader

07-29-2004, 12:28 PM

You can't go by what the polls are saying now, a better guage is after the convention, AND right now he is leading in the electorial college, you know ,the one that matters.

Swifty
The tend has been Kerry gaining points and Bush losing points...

Matter of time...

Grundy

07-29-2004, 12:34 PM

I have been watching the prime-time convention coverage all week and I have yet to hear an original thought or some notion of how Kerry/Edwards can get out of this ditch.

This convention was supposed to be a 'get-to-know-Kerry' event but so far no one wants to talk about Kerry, only themselves. Tonight Kerry gets to speak but my prediction is that he doesn't talk about himself either. Overall 2004 Dems have a very un-inspiring ticket (at least Gore's head was jam packed with ideas and Clinton was Elvis).

I think Kerry/Edwards would be much better off shutting their mouth and simply changing names to John Not and John Bush respectively so the ticket reads Not/Bush.

Boom

07-29-2004, 12:37 PM

If I had to bet, I would bet on Bush at this point. I'm just glad it is still close enough that there is a decent chance we might get him out of the Whitehouse.

Boom

07-29-2004, 12:40 PM

LoL! Clinton was so Elvis!

I'm still pissed at him for the Monica thing. But man, he has more charisma in his left earlobe then Kerry has in his entire body (including his huge chin).

Swifty_Johnson

07-29-2004, 12:41 PM

The Bush - Kerry debates will put people to sleep.

Swifty

Boom

07-29-2004, 12:44 PM

No way. Bush debates entertain the hell out of me. I can't wait to hear what word he will mangle next. Honestly, I don't hate the guy, but he is kind of a goober.

Swifty_Johnson

07-29-2004, 12:46 PM

Hopefully Kerry's people don't use more makeup than Tammy Fae on him like Gore's did on poor ol Al.

Swifty

Roscoes_C&W

07-29-2004, 12:59 PM

No way. Bush debates entertain the hell out of me. I can't wait to hear what word he will mangle next. Honestly, I don't hate the guy, but he is kind of a goober.
Hey you would mangle words too if you just smoked a bongload before speaking in front of millions of people.

Allison

07-29-2004, 01:20 PM

You missed it as the liberal media didn't cover it, but the Senate report on the CIA's intelligence gathering concluded that Wilson's findings had bolstered rather than undermined the case that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. Wilson lied when he said his report disputed that case.

Oh please. The "liberal media" covered the release of the report. They just didn't make as many assumptions in favor of the administration as the "conservative media" has.

That report did not conclude that Wilson lied about his Niger/Iraq/uranium conclusion. It said that "most analysts" believed Wilson's report "lent more credibility" to the idea that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger. (Which is curious, since also in the Senate's report are numerous mentions of various intelligence agency reports stating that they were not even close to confident about that connection.) The snippet of Wilson's report that supposedly swayed "most analysts" is that Wilson reported the PM of Niger had met with Iraqi officials who had said they wanted to open up trade negotiations with Niger. Because of U.N. sactions, the PM didn't want to discuss trade with Iraq, and the subject of uranium never came up, even though the PM suspected the Iraqis may have wanted this.

However, Wilson was not the only source who was disputing the Iraq/Niger/uranium theory. And in fact, the Senate Committee concluded that although it would have been reasonable to assume that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger prior to 10-02, when we received copies of the forged documents for review, that it would not have been so after that time. President Bush made his speech in 2003. Honestly, I'm not sure what Bush knew for sure, outside of Wilson's report, when he made that speech and I don't have the time to research it at this moment. But if he didn't know that the intel was faulty, he should have known. Buck stops here and all that.

Also, I think it's important to note that the "bi-partisan" Senate committe investigating all this has a Republican majority, and that many Democrats on the committee are less than pleased with all of the report's conclusions. Also, the committe hasn't yet published all its findings as to the admistration's culpability in all this. Those findings aren't due out until after the election. :rolleyes:

Sources:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5548506/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-07-08-intelreport-usat_x.htm

Swifty_Johnson

07-29-2004, 01:53 PM

That report did not conclude that Wilson lied about his Niger/Iraq/uranium conclusion.

No, but Wilson did lie when he claimed his report disputed the information, when in fact it did the exact oppisite, and he also lied when he claimed his wife had nothing to do with the assigment, when in fact a memo was found from his wife suggesting he get it.

Swifty

Boom

07-29-2004, 02:13 PM

But isn't all this stuff after the fact?

I mean, the way I understood it (and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken) the CIA told Bush that the yellowcake information was fake and not to include it in his SOTU. Bush put it in his SOTU anyway. The fact that it was a great soundbite and supported his position was way more important then the fact that it wasn't true.

If it was later proven to be true (which it wasn't) that is fine and dandy. But at the time Bush said it, he was told it was NOT true, yet he said it anyway. And it wasn't some off the record comment, it was in his SOTU. Of all possible speeches, the SOTU is where the president is supposed to directly address the American people and be honest with us. He was told this yellowcake story was bad information and yet he looked us straight in the eye (or straight in the tv camera) and told us the story as if it were a fact.

I guess this isn't as serious as Clinton lying about a blow job, since Bush wasn't under oath. But just because a president isn't under oath when he gives the SOTU doesn't mean its ok to lie. It may not be illegal to lie in the SOTU, but its really crappy. And lying about reasons for going to war and sending 900+ Americans to die is certainly more serious then lying about a blow job, even if the blow job lie was illegal and the yellowcake lie wasn't.

I'm not defending Clinton, yall know how pissed I am at him for the whole Monica thing, he totally let me down and I take it personally. But Jesus Christ, lying to the entire country and making it sound like Saddam has nukes, so that we will all support his war, when he was specifically told to take that out of his SOTU because it wasn't good intelligence... its reprehensible, isn't it? If you want to say Clinton was worse, ok, I won't argue with you. But this was bad, right? Or is this yet another Bush lie that is somehow easily excusable?

Allison

07-29-2004, 02:27 PM

No, but Wilson did lie when he claimed his report disputed the information, when in fact it did the exact oppisite
Swifty
So, we should believe your analysis of his report when people who get paid to analyze these things can't agree on it? Okay. Tell me this then: His report said that there was a meeting with the PM of NIger and Iraqi officials, but that uranium was not discussed. "Some analysts" have said that this bolstered the theory that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Even Wilson himself has said that it's a fair assumption that the Iraqis wanted to talk about uranium. But, what President Bush said was that Sadaam Hussein had tried to purchase "significant quantities" or uranium from Niger. Wilson has said, and "most analysts" agree, that this is not true. So where, pretell, is Wilson's big lie?

, and he also lied when he claimed his wife had nothing to do with the assigment, when in fact a memo was found from his wife suggesting he get it.
He didn't say that his wife had nothing to do with the assignment, he said she didn't have anything to do with the trip, other than acting as a conduit for the CIA. He also said that she did not initiate the idea that he go. That memo was not the first mention of him going, and it did not suggest he go. It said he had a good relationship with the PM and had other contacts in Niger. Of course, you're right, the commission did conclude that she first initiated the idea, based primarily on that memo. But that's not the position of the CIA, Wilson, or his wife.

Allison

07-29-2004, 02:31 PM

Swifty_Johnson

07-29-2004, 02:50 PM

Bush put it in his SOTU anyway. The fact that it was a great soundbite and supported his position was way more important then the fact that it wasn't true.

British intelligence to this day, insists that it's true. So you have one guy who goes over there and writes a report that some say bolstered, others say it disputes, vs a whole intelligence agency, who's side do you take?

b.t.w. The French assisted the British on the report stating that he tried to buy the yellowcake. It's intresting that they owned one of the mines isn't in.

Swifty

Allison

07-29-2004, 05:18 PM

British intelligence to this day, insists that it's true.
I think we need to be clear about what "it" is. Yes, everyone agrees that Iraqi officials made a trip to Niger. But there is no evidence that the topic of uranium ever came up. And the only evidence that Iraq tried to purchase "significant quantities," the words used in Bush's 1993 SOTU, was based on forged documents that the CIA was suspicious of when they were received from Britian in 10-02 ... an opinion that was passed on to both Congress and the President that very same month. British intelligence may very well still believe that Iraq wanted to buy uranium, (a reasonable assumption) but they certainly don't still hold to their previous conclusion, based on forgeries, that Iraq actively tried to purchase it.

So, take the fact that the CIA informed the President 3-4 months prior to his speech that they doubted the British intelligence ... add that to the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency was able to determine that the "smoking gun" documents were forgeries in a matter of hours, saying, These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency, and that anyone could have determined they were fakes simply by using Google ... consider all of that, and I think it's not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that those famous 16 words in the SOTU were a bit of a stretch, at best.

Swifty_Johnson

07-29-2004, 08:16 PM

add that to the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency was able to determine that the "smoking gun" documents were forgeries in a matter of hours, saying,

Except British intelligence said their claim wasn't based on those docs, but information provided by French intelligence.

Swifty

Allison

07-29-2004, 08:57 PM

Good grief.

Grundy

07-29-2004, 09:19 PM

Except British intelligence said their claim wasn't based on those docs, but information provided by French intelligence.

I did some work in Paris and my host kept saying stuff like: "what is tis sheet, what it is?"

Boom

07-30-2004, 12:13 AM

British intelligence just said Saddam was looking into uranium. But Bush didn't just say that Saddam was looking into uranium. Bush said that Saddam had actually tried to purchase significant quantities. That information came from the forged documents. Nowhere else. Not British intelligence, not anywhere but the forged documents that the CIA told Bush not to rely on.

He knew it wasn't true. He knew it was information from forged documents. But it really really supported his position incredibly well so he used it anyway. I mean, didn't the CIA actually tell him "Take that out of your SOTU, its not good information." Or am I remembering that part wrong? At least couldn't Bush have been honest with us and said "Well, the CIA says this is bad information from forged documents, but who knows, maybe it will turn out to be true."

Do you not mind being lied to, or are you playing your games again? If I admit something bad about Kerry that makes you happy will admit this was a lie? Is it one of those deals again?

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 09:02 AM

Not British intelligence, not anywhere but the forged documents that the CIA told Bush not to rely on.

That goes aginst statements by British intelligence that stood by, and still stand by the statement.

I mean, didn't the CIA actually tell him "Take that out of your SOTU, its not good information."

Don't know, I do remember Tennet did sign off on it. How did he miss that?

Swifty

Boom

07-30-2004, 11:59 AM

Ok, you are pretending not to understand again. This is step 3 of the Swifty plan to deny any Bush lies. I'll explain it again, you will pretend to not understand again, and after a few pages you will admit it was a lie then go to step 4 which is saying, "Well Kerry lies too!!" Then when we get past that step you find some other excuse, like saying he didn't write the speech so even if the words come out of his mouth he bears no responsibility for it.

So lets get started. Explanation take 2.

British intelligence never said that Saddam actually attempted to aquire large quantities of uranium. That information only came from the forged documents. Bush knew they were forged documents and was told to take it out of his SOTU. He kept it in anyway. He presented the theory to us as if it were truth instead of being honest and saying that the information supporting it was discredited, and that other intelligence (British intelligence) doesn't state the case nearly as strongly.

Can we skip the part where you continue to pretend not to understand for two days, and go right to the part where you make me admit something bad about Kerry?

Also, I don't recall whether Tennet signed off on it or not. I'll have to check that. You might be right about it, but I'm not sure. I do know he was told it was bad information and to take it out of the SOTU. That is enough to make it bad faith on his part to present it to us as if it were the truth.

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 01:42 PM

British intelligence never said that Saddam actually attempted to aquire large quantities of uranium.

I supposed you have a source for this?

Swifty

p.s. why the hatred for Bush?

Boom

07-30-2004, 01:47 PM

I don't hate him. I just don't like being lied to and I don't like government being handed over wholesale to industry cronies. Government policy should be a compromise between the best interests of industry and consumers.

Why the hatred for Clinton? Because he lied to us, right?

Cavan

07-30-2004, 01:50 PM

Boooms.... President Bush has never lied while under oath.. :D

...or re-defined the definition of "sex"... or openly lied to the American Public on a National Address to the Nation...

Boom

07-30-2004, 01:51 PM

Boom

07-30-2004, 01:52 PM

Boooms.... President Bush has never lied while under oath..

So you don't mind being lied to as long as it isn't under oath? Can you bend farther over backwards to excuse Bush's lies?

Who's head is up who's ass again?

Cavan

07-30-2004, 01:55 PM

No Boooms.. you simply brought up Clinton... who LIED UNDER OATH... you being a lawyer should know how bad this is.. and to be found to have lied under oath as President of the United States.. and bascially have the Judicial System look the other way... that's just grand...

Just because President Bush doesn't admit that he's wrong.. or that he made a mistake... that doesn't automatically mean he lied...

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 02:00 PM

Why the hatred for Clinton? Because he lied to us, right?

Becasue he disgraced the country. Becasue he got good men killed in Somilla because of his ignorance.

Swifty

Boom

07-30-2004, 02:01 PM

openly lied to the American Public on a National Address to the Nation...

Since when is the State of The Union address not speaking to the American Public on a National Address to the Nation?

The SOTU address is the quintessential National Address to the American Public. Bush was told by the CIA to take something out of his SOTU because it was based on forged documents. Bush kept it in anyway because it was a great soundbite and supported his position well and that is more important to him then being honest with us.

I've said countless times that I will never forgive Clinton for lying to me. But yall have no problem whatsoever with Bush lying to you over and over and over again. I have a double standard and I have my head up someone's ass because I am mad at everyone who lies to me. Yall only get mad when democrats lie and make all kinds of excuses when Bush lies, but I am the one with double standards and I am the one with my head up someone's ass. That's absurd.

Yall think its ok for Bush to lie to us as long as it isn't under oath? Gimme a break. It doesn't count as a lie if its a campaign speech? You have to be kidding. Lying about your private sex life is worse then lying about details you are using to convince us to go to war and send American children to die? Maybe if you have your head up someone's ass. Yes, Clinton was a dick for lying to us, but at least he wasn't lying about important policy matters.

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 02:05 PM

It doesn't count as a lie if its a campaign speech? You have to be kidding.

You still hven't proven he knew the information he said was a lie, hence you are lying now. Why all the Bush hatered?

Swifty

Allison

07-30-2004, 02:09 PM

Becasue he disgraced the country. Becasue he got good men killed in Somilla because of his ignorance.

Swifty
Hahahaha! OMG, yeah ... right. Got that from one of those "books," did ya?

Boom

07-30-2004, 02:11 PM

Just because President Bush doesn't admit that he's wrong.. or that he made a mistake... that doesn't automatically mean he lied...

Have you read this thread? Its not about Bush refusing to admit he was wrong about WMD. I agreed he is not a liar about that. Its about the CIA going to Bush and saying "take the statement about the yellowcake out of your State of The Union, it isn't true, if you say it you are lying to Cavan and Boom and the rest of America." And Bush saying, "Fuck you, I like the way it sounds, I'm keeping it in."

Its about Bush saying Kerry tried to gut the CIA when Kerry proposed a 1% cut to take back unspent money. Its about Bush saying that the rest of the senate thought Kerry's bill was so irresponsible that they wouldn't support it, when in fact they passed an identical bill that same day on a voice vote. Its about the fact that Bush spoke these very words out of his own mouth after the real facts had been made public.

Its about the fact that Swifty excuses this lie because it was made in a campaign speech. Bush is allowed to lie if its not under oath? Bush is allowed to lie if its a campaign speech?

Its about Bush saying the majority of his tax cuts will go to the middle class, when after all his tax cuts come into effect the middle class will wind up with an approximate 10% tax cut and the top 1% of Americans will wind up with an approximate 25% tax cut.

Its about the fact that instead of saying "Yeah, he lied about the tax cuts, he shouldn't do that." Yall try to change the subject and accuse me of hating the rich. My point (at first) wasn't that its bad to give tax cuts to the rich. My point was that if you give tax cuts to the rich, be honest about it like Reagan was. Reagan said, "I'm giving tax cuts to the rich because I think it will be good for the economy." Whether that was right or wrong, at least it was honest. Bush says, "the majority of my tax cuts will go to the middle class." Bullshit. But you don't admit it was a lie, you start a discussion over whether tax cuts for the rich are fair. Bush lied about where his tax cuts where going. But yall have no problem with this because it wasn't under oath?

Why do you not mind this guy lying to you? I have a problem with Clinton lying to me, with Kerry lying to me and with Bush lying to me. You have a problem with Clinton lying to you or Kerry lying to you and think its fine and dandy when Bush lies to you. What is up with that?

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 02:12 PM

Hahahaha! OMG, yeah ... right. Got that from one of those "books," did ya?

Try getting Blackhawk Down the book and reading a little and just see how badly Clinton screwed things up, and how his poor decisions got good men killed. Than, if you get a chance, ask Jimmy Carter on Clinton's handeling of it, he has a few choice words on the subject.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 02:15 PM

And Bush saying, "Fuck you, I like the way it sounds, I'm keeping it in."

You got a source for this?

Its about the fact that Swifty excuses this lie because it was made in a campaign speech.

You have failed to prove he lied. The only thing you did prove is the campaign lied. Guess you can't hate the campaign like you hate the man.

Its about Bush saying the majority of his tax cuts will go to the middle class, when after all his tax cuts come into effect the middle class will wind up with an approximate 10% tax cut and the top 1% of Americans will wind up with an approximate 25% tax cut.

Source for this?

Swifty

Boom

07-30-2004, 02:23 PM

You still hven't[sic] proven he knew the information he said was a lie, hence you are lying now. Why all the Bush hatered?[sic]

You never proved that Gore knew any of the things he said were incorrect when you accused him of lying. Why the double standard? And I agreed Gore was lying unless I was able to prove he was honestly mistaken. Shouldn't you agree Bush is lying unless you can prove he was honestly mistaken? That would be the same exact standard.

And I did prove that the correct information was published, and the GoP criticism of Kerry's 1995 cut was shown to be wrong before Bush made the speech. And I also showed that two of Bush's official websites are still publishing the lie. Even if he somehow didn't know at the time he made the speech, he certainly knows now. I can understand if they want to have the speech on those websites verbatum for historical purposes, but shouldn't they have a footnote correcting the mistake?

And you are changing your story again. First, it wasn't a lie because you are willing to take a HUGE leap of faith and assume that Bush's professional research team are a bunch of retarded monkeys and couldn't get the facts from Kerry's 95 proposal right. Then when I showed you that the correct information was available, you changed your story and said it wasn't a lie because it was a campaign speech. Incredibly you claim that Bush has absolutely no responsibility for the words that come out of his mouth as long as its a campaign speech. Now you are back to assuming it was an honest mistake, despite the fact that if anyone should be able to correctly research this kind of stuff it would be the Whitehouse.

Its not hatred. I don't like being lied to. I should ask you why all this Bush love? Excusing someone's lies over and over again and refusing to be upset with them is weird. Its like a co-dependant relationship. You sound like a battered wife saying, "He didn't mean to get drunk and beat me, he is really a good person, I'm not going to divorce him. I'm giving him four more years!!!!"

Cavan

07-30-2004, 02:25 PM

Boooms.. while he was checking Kerry's Colon came back with this little tid bit...

Its about Bush saying the majority of his tax cuts will go to the middle class, when after all his tax cuts come into effect the middle class will wind up with an approximate 10% tax cut and the top 1% of Americans will wind up with an approximate 25% tax cut.

Sources are nice when you spew numbers... especially when those numbers deal with taxes....

Boom

07-30-2004, 02:25 PM

You want a source for my claims that the majority of the Bush tax cuts don't go to the middle class? You have to be kidding me. This is common knowledge. I bet I can find one in under 30 seconds.

Done.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Tax_page/UnenlightenedEstateTaxRpl.html

Many of the specific provisions of these multitrillion-dollar tax cuts-including cuts in the top rate, reductions in taxes on dividends and capital gains, and a gradual elimination of the estate tax-disproportionately benefited wealthy taxpayers. As a result, according to projections by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the total federal tax burden in 2010 will decline by 25 percent for the richest 1 percent of taxpayers and by 21 percent for the next richest 4 percent, but by only 10 percent for taxpayers in the bottom 95 percent of the income-distribution pool.

Boom

07-30-2004, 02:28 PM

Cavan, seriously. The Kerry colon thing is bullshit. I have to at least say a few nice things about the guy for you to claim my head is up his ass. I don't even like him. The nicest thing I have had to say about him is that its pathetic to attack his military record. That is hardly having my head up his ass.

Saying that you don't mind someone lying to you as long as it isn't under oath is a different story.

Unless you can show me strongly supporting Kerry or at least saying a few nice things about him, you look ridiculous claiming my head is up his ass.

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 02:32 PM

You never proved that Gore knew any of the things he said were incorrect when you accused him of lying.

I wasn't the primary source, I pulled the info off of webpages that said he lied and posted some bogus information.

and the GoP criticism of Kerry's 1995 cut was shown to be wrong before Bush made the speech. And I also showed that two of Bush's official websites are still publishing the lie. Even if he somehow didn't know at the time he made the speech, he certainly knows now. I can understand if they want to have the speech on those websites verbatum for historical purposes, but shouldn't they have a footnote correcting the mistake?

Which points to the CAMPAIGN lying (which I already said they did) and not the President himself.

And you are changing your story again.

Nope, not at all, but you have.

First, it wasn't a lie because you are willing to take a HUGE leap of faith and assume that Bush's professional research team are a bunch of retarded monkeys and couldn't get the facts from Kerry's 95 proposal right. Then when I showed you that the correct information was available, you changed your story and said it wasn't a lie because it was a campaign speech.

I said Bush was presented with only one side of the story and he was not aware of the other bill. (truth.) YOU claimed he was presented with both sides and choose to tell the lie. (unsupported claim you have never backed up.)

Now you are back to assuming it was an honest mistake, despite the fact that if anyone should be able to correctly research this kind of stuff it would be the Whitehouse.

Except the Whitehouse denied all involvement with the speech and said it was a campaign fundraiser and not part of the whitehouse staff's doing. Hence it's the campaign's fault. You have totally failed to prove otherwise.

For someone who always demands sources, you are lacking here.

Swifty

Allison

07-30-2004, 02:35 PM

Ailia stated that only the forged documents claimed that Saddam actually tried to aquire significant quantities of uranium, and that the british intelligence may have thought that Saddam was interested in uranium but they didn't hold to their previous conclusion, based on forgeries, that Iraq actively tried to purchase it.

I have never known Ailia's research to be faulty.
I appreciate your confidence, Boom.

But, keep in mind, I'm no expert. My previous statements were made based on the little bit of reading that I had done on this topic; If someone has some information to correct me on certain points, I'd be glad to be corrected. And while I'm very comfortable making those statements for myself, I haven't done enough research to be at ease with the responsibility of being used as a "reliable source." :)

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 02:39 PM

Yes, but wasn't the president talking about income tax cuts, and not the death tax cuts that you posted the information from?

Swifty

Grundy

07-30-2004, 02:39 PM

Ailia stated that only the forged documents claimed that Saddam actually tried to aquire significant quantities of uranium Is this the alleged ass-document?

Cavan

07-30-2004, 02:46 PM

... but if the TOP 5% pay over 50% of the total Tax Burden of the United States of America... shouldn't they maybe see more of this tax break...

@ 2.0 Trillion Dollars Collected in FY 2003....

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html

Top 5% Pay 1.00 Trillion Dollars...

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

293,871,314 people in the United States...

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock

So.. 2,938,713 people Pay 1 Trillion Dollars in taxes... or $340,285 per person in FY 2003 (granted these are screwed a little because of age.. blah blah blah.. but with the numbers.. it's in the "BALLPARK")

So.. 290,932,601 people pay the other 1 Trillion Dollars in Taxes... or $3,437.22 per person in FY 2003...

So.. if the Top 5% get a 25% break in taxes... and the rest of us get 10% break.. that means our tax base will go from 2 Trillion to 1.65 Trillion or a loss of 265 billion dollars... that's funny.. I haven't heard of a 265 Billion Dollar tax break...

I think your source.. which is probably screwed... is a little off...

Boom

07-30-2004, 02:46 PM

No, he was talking about his tax cuts. His total tax cut program. Bush said his tax cuts would mostly benefit the middle class. Jeez, again, look how hard you are working to avoid admitting he might have lied about anything.

I said Bush was presented with only one side of the story and he was not aware of the other bill. (truth.) YOU claimed he was presented with both sides and choose to tell the lie. (unsupported claim you have never backed up.)

Before Bush made his speech it was published that the story was false. He said it anyway. How can you say that Bush only knew one side of the story? Do you have any proof of that? You even say "(truth)" after that claim as if it were an undeniable proven fact. Isn't it just an assumption? And a pretty unreasonable assumption since the real facts were made public before the speech, and since it also assumes that his staff is a bunch of retarded monkeys. You are just willing to assume that to avoid thinking he might have lied to you.

The lie is still on his websites and you don't think he bears any responsibility at all for that? Its all his campaign's fault? Doesn't he have any kind of say over what his campaign does? Or is he just a puppethead?

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 02:52 PM

No, he was talking about his tax cuts. His total tax cut program. Bush said his tax cuts would mostly benefit the middle class. Jeez, again, look how hard you are working to avoid admitting he might have lied about anything.

Oh, so you are allowed to pull a quote out of context and say "See, he lied."?

And a pretty unreasonable assumption since the real facts were made public before the speech, and since it also assumes that his staff is a bunch of retarded monkeys.

Did he write that speech?

Someone on his staff screwed the pooch, but you hate Bush so much that you are willing to smear him over someone elses mistake. You fail to mention that attack was waged by his CAMPAIGN for DAYS before that speech was given. It's also a pretty shure bet that someone's head rolled over it 'cause they made the President look bad.

The lie is still on his websites and you don't think he bears any responsibility at all for that? Its all his campaign's fault?

So, the President has to be crusing the web now looking for problems? Doesn't he have a country to run? Like I said before, it is his campaign's fault.

Swifty

Boom

07-30-2004, 03:02 PM

Oh, so you are allowed to pull a quote out of context and say "See, he lied."?

Huh? How is it out of context? He said his tax cut package would mostly go to the middle class when it doesn't.

I highly doubt that someone's head rolled over that lie, since the campaign is continuing to spread it.

Cavan, reread post #202. You did exactly what I said Bush supporters do when faced with Bush's lie about the taxes. Rather than admit he lied, you launch into a discussion over whether tax cuts for the rich are good or not. Who are you arguing with in post #213? Was I making a point here that his tax cuts are unfair or bad? No. My point was that he lied about them. I said it was fine when Reagan gave tax cuts to the rich because he came out and said, "I'm giving tax cuts to the rich, I think it will be good for the country." Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and said, "The majority of my tax cut package will go to the middle class." And what do Bush supporters do when faced with this lie? They say...

... but if the TOP 5% pay over 50% of the total Tax Burden of the United States of America... shouldn't they maybe see more of this tax break...

You know what? Maybe you are right. Maybe the rich should even get a bigger tax break. But what does that have to do with the fact that Bush lied and said the tax cuts were mostly going to the middle class?

But I have my head up Kerry's ass because when I see a Bush lie, I say, "hey, he lied, that's not cool." Just like I do when Clinton or Kerry lies. I can list lie after lie after lie to Bush supporters and I get excuse after excuse after excuse.

Boom

07-30-2004, 03:05 PM

I haven't heard of a 265 Billion Dollar tax break...

That's about the numbers I have been reading. What numbers have you been reading?

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 03:13 PM

Huh? How is it out of context? He said his tax cut package would mostly go to the middle class when it doesn't.

Again, source for his exact statement and context.

Swifty

Cavan

07-30-2004, 03:14 PM

As a trial lawyer you should know that 2,938,713 tax cuts of 25% isn't nearly as much as 290,932,601 tax cuts of 10%....

Not to mention I don't know the "Base Line" for the "Middle Class".. so I can't play with the numbers more...

Boom

07-30-2004, 03:21 PM

Oh, you want to talk about dollar amounts instead of percentage cuts. Ok, that even makes it look worse for Bush.

By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest 1 percent. Their tax cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go to just 1.4 million taxpayers.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Class_War/Bush_Favored_Taxpayers.html

Anyway you look at it, the tax cuts favor the rich. Bush said they would mostly go to the middle class. Argue all you want about them being fair or wise or whatever, I don't care, he lied.

Now I got to find a quote of Bush saying it, even though we all have heard it a hundred times, to satisfy Swifty. Step one of Swifty plan to deny Bush lies, make Boom find the quote (which I always have been able to do). Step 2 is he will deny that it is a lie and try to find some interpretation where it might be true. Step 3 is he will spend 3 days pretending to not understand how it is clearly a lie. Step 4 will be "Kerry lies!! What about that huh!? Kerry lies!! Kerry lies!! Step 5 will be that Bush didn't know it was a lie, it was an honest mistake, which he repeated after being shown it was a lie and never bothered to correct. Step 6 will be that he is just a puppet and has no responsibility for the words that come out of his mouth, its his campaign's fault.

A lot of work to deny a blatant lie. You must really have a burning love for Bush.

Boom

07-30-2004, 03:48 PM

One of Bush's biggest tax-cut whoppers came when he stated, during the presidential campaign, "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." That estimate was wildly at odds with analyses of where the money would really go. A report by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal outfit that specializes in distribution analysis, figured that 42.6 percent of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, ABC News and NBC News all reported that Bush's package produced the results CTJ calculated.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031013&s=corn

To deal with the criticism that his plan was a boon for millionaires, Bush devised an imaginary friend--a mythical single waitress who was supporting two children on an income of $22,000, and he talked about her often. He said he wanted to remove the tax-code barriers that kept this waitress from reaching the middle class, and he insisted that if his tax cuts were passed, "she will pay no income taxes at all." But when Time asked the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche to analyze precisely how Bush's waitress-mom would be affected by his tax package, the firm reported that she would not see any benefit because she already had no income-tax liability.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031013&s=corn

He also has said that the vast majority of his tax cuts go to the "bottom end of the spectrum" and would help those most in need.

But Citizens for Tax Justice figured that 42.6 percent of Bush's 2001 $1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the wallets of the top 1 percent of earners, hardly the ones who need any extra cash. The lowest 60 percent would receive only 12.6 percent. And individuals earning between $16,000 and $29,000 would net about $99 from Bush's proposed tax cuts, hardly a ticket into middle-class life.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2004/02/16/Opinion/Time-To.Hold.Bush.Accountable-608331.shtml

Bush claims the goals of his tax cut proposals are to "increase access to the middle class for hard working families," "treat all middle class families more fairly," "encourage entrepreneurship and growth," and "promote charitable giving and education."

http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-2000/Pity%20the%20rich.htm

See? He says again and again that the goals of his tax cuts are to help the middle class. If the goals are to help the middle class, then why does the top 1% get the biggest cuts? And don't start on the argument about how its a good idea to give the top 1% the biggest cuts, its irrelevant to whether or not Bush lied.

And here is a bonus quote for yall.

Bush also claimed his tax plan--by eliminating the estate tax, at a cost of $300 billion--would "keep family farms in the family." But, as the New York Times reported, farm-industry experts could not point to a single case of a family losing a farm because of estate taxes. Asked about this, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, "If you abolish the death tax, people won't have to hire all those planners to help them keep the land that's rightfully theirs." Caught in a $300 billion lie, the White House was now saying the reason to abolish the tax--a move that would be a blessing to the richest 2 percent of Americans--was to spare farmers the pain in the ass of estate planning. Bush's lies did not hinder him. They helped him win the first tax-cut fight--and, then, the tax-cut battle of 2003. When his second set of supersized tax cuts was assailed for being tilted toward the rich, he claimed, "Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money." The Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute found that, contrary to Bush's assertion, nearly 80 percent of tax filers would receive less than $1,083, and almost half would pocket less than $100. The truly average taxpayers--those in the middle of the income range--would receive $265. Bush was using the word "average" in a flimflam fashion. To concoct the misleading $1,083 figure, the Administration took the large dollar amounts high-income taxpayers would receive and added that to the modest, small or nonexistent reductions other taxpayers would get--and then used this total to calculate an average gain. His claim was akin to saying that if a street had nine households led by unemployed individuals but one with an earner making a million dollars, the average income of the families on the block would be $100,000. The radical Wall Street Journal reported, "Overall, the gains from the taxes are weighted toward upper-income taxpayers."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031013&s=corn

Ok, now step 2. In about three days we will be on step 4 where I have to admit Kerry did something wrong before we can continue, then we are ready for step 5 where even though this is a lie, its excused for some reason.

Tammarion

07-30-2004, 04:34 PM

To deal with the criticism that his plan was a boon for millionaires, Bush devised an imaginary friend--a mythical single waitress who was supporting two children on an income of $22,000, and he talked about her often. He said he wanted to remove the tax-code barriers that kept this waitress from reaching the middle class, and he insisted that if his tax cuts were passed, "she will pay no income taxes at all." But when Time asked the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche to analyze precisely how Bush's waitress-mom would be affected by his tax package, the firm reported that she would not see any benefit because she already had no income-tax liability.

I really like this one. It unscores the network of assumptions and lies that is the tax system. Bush makes this one work because by saying how the waitress would pay no taxes - even the poor think they pay too many taxes :)

Also I kinda find it funny "reaching the middle class" is an odd statement - doesn't that mean that she'll start to pay taxes? I mean, isn't that the point of a middle class designation. We got people who don't need help, people who do need help, and them rich bastard hombres... :D

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 07:44 PM

Arizona's Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, a courageous foe of the federal tax code and one of the American taxpayer's greatest champions, had this to say in his "The Truth About Taxes" written last February.

Noting that "President Bush's 2001 tax cut was geared to help the middle class [saving an average family of four making $50,000 a year nearly 50 percent in taxes]," Kyl asked, "Are the Democrats right in arguing that tax cutting has favored the wealthy while leaving a disproportionate tax burden on everyone else?"

Kyl cites "information given to Congress' Joint Economic Committee by the IRS" as proving that the answer to that question is "no."

The wealthier the American, the greater the proportion of taxes he or she pays. In 1999, for example, the top 1 percent of all wage earners earned 19.5 percent of all adjusted gross income reported to the IRS, yet they paid 36.2 percent – or more than one-third – of all federal income taxes. Put another way, the top 1 percent of taxpayers on average pay double their proportion of taxes compared to what they actually earn.

Similarly, the top 5 percent of wage earners made just a third of all income reported to the IRS, but paid more than half of all federal taxes collected by Uncle Sam. Overall, the top 25 percent of wage earners in this country pay more than 83 percent of all federal income taxes, while earning 66 percent of all income.

Did Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 give the rich a free ride? Not according to the IRS. The top 1 percent are paying a higher share of income taxes now than they did then – 36 percent today versus 19 percent in 1981. The top 5 percent of taxpayers similarly saw their share of taxes rise from 43 percent in 1981 to more than 55 percent as of 1999.
"If there is good news from these statistics, it's that wealthy Americans aren't benefiting unfairly while the middle class is hit by taxes," says Kyl. "The bad news is that all Americans are getting squeezed by a tax system that drains too many dollars from family budgets."

Swifty

Rooster

07-30-2004, 09:47 PM

"See? He says again and again that the goals of his tax cuts are to help the middle class. If the goals are to help the middle class, then why does the top 1% get the biggest cuts?"

Because those top 1%ers are going to put money BACK into the economy which will help fuel jobs. And it's worked beautifully. It's just like a diet - democrats want a get-thin-quick plan and not change the way you eat - EATING LIKE A FREAKING PIG. Conservatives, those for smaller budgets & limited gov't, know it's much smarter to CHANGE your diet - adjust your eating habits that will lead to a much more stable and longer lasting positive results.

"But Citizens for Tax Justice figured that 42.6 percent of Bush's 2001 $1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the wallets of the top 1 percent of earners, hardly the ones who need any extra cash."

And who the hell do they think they are to decide "hardly need any extra cash" - kiss my ass you jealous dick heads.

If you want to punish the successful, fine, at least come out and say it. But don't expect normal people to understand where you're coming from.
If you want to be a lazy, uneducated lay-about and collect welfare, say it. But don't bitch about those that make it possible for you to survive.
If you want to make the successful, wealthy people take their money OUT of the country, fine, tax them MORE - but don't bitch when jobs go overseas and offshore tax shelters crop up (thanks Boom!)
If you want everyone to be equal regardless of drive & effort - Found your own communist country and get out of mine.

Rooster

07-30-2004, 09:53 PM

Democrats version of taxes = Wealth Redistribution

Prove me wrong.

Allison

07-30-2004, 10:14 PM

President Bush wears a dress.

Prove me wrong.

Bwuahahahahaa ..... sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 11:04 PM

Ahh yes, Liberal class warfare.

Did President Bush's tax cuts help the middle class like he said.

Yes they did, anyone who says differant is a liar.

The middle class got the greatest assistance because their PERCENTAGE of taxes paid vs their income was greatly reduced, much more than the mega wealthy. Some middle class families got 100% refunds, they ended up paying zero in tax.

So how did the liberals twist and distort this to a break for the mega wealthy.

Easy, they focused on the actual dollar amouts vs percentage of tax income returned. While the mega wealthy only got a paulty few percent returned to them, becasue of their wealth, this was much higher in dollar terms than someone who was taken off the tax rolls and got 100% of what they paid back.

In order to make it more "fair" the liberals wanted to turn this into a goverment entitlement program. You see, many people didn't get $300.00 dollar returns when they were given out. These people paid less than $300.00 in tax, so they got back what they paid in taxes, not a penny more. This upset many democrats, but as this was a tax REFUND and not another goverment entitlement program, they just sat around and whinned.

See Booms, you are wrong again.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

07-30-2004, 11:05 PM

President Bush wears a dress.

You saw some of his college day pictures.

Swifty

Rooster

07-30-2004, 11:42 PM

Swifty, I swear to God, if you put another S on Boom, I'm going to threaten something with bodily injury.

Boom

07-31-2004, 02:49 AM

Rooster you did it again. :( I even made fun of Cavan for doing it and you still did it. My point is that Bush lied. That's it. My point is NOT that giving money to the rich is bad. I don't know how I can possibly make this more clear. I have stated it over and over and over and over.

Bush said the majority of his taxes go to the people at the bottom of the spectrum. The top 1% of Americans are getting the largest percentage tax reduction by far. That is my only problem. Going into a huge argument about why its good to give money to the rich is totally irrelevant. If anything it proves my point because you are acknowledging that his tax cuts favor the rich. Otherwise why would you be defending tax cuts that favor the rich?

It's exactly what I (almost jokingly) said that yall would do. I believe it was in post #202. I said that rather than address the fact that Bush lied, you will change the subject and launch into a discussion about the benefits of tax cuts for the rich.

Why is it so hard for yall to see this? My problem is that he said his tax cut package was designed to benefit us regular folk and most of it would go to the people at the bottom of the spectrum. This wasn't true. I want to know why none of yall are bothered by the fact that he lied. No amount of discussion regarding the benefits of trickle down, or the fairness of tax cuts for the rich justifies the lie.

For the third time. When Reagan had this kind of a tax plan, he said, "I am giving money to the rich because it will help the economy." I personally am cool with that. He was straight up with us. See, I am not complaining here about tax cuts for the rich. If Reagan had said, "My tax cuts will mostly go to the people at the bottom of the spectrum." He would have been lying and I would have had a problem.

No, Swifty. Sigh. Please, if you won't accept my research then do some research of your own. Those statements by that republican are mostly generalizations and don't give the numbers to support it. It doesn't say what percentage tax cut the top 1% get and what percentage tax cut us regular folk get. And its claim that Bush's tax cuts would cut the tax burden of a family making $50k in half is patently false. It cut a few hundred dollars off their tax burden, it did not cut it in half. I'm sure someone on this forum makes approximately that amount and can verify that their tax burden did not get cut in half by Bush's tax cut. If that was true, a family making $50k would have got a break of about $7k.

Even Bush himself didn't make this kind of a claim. He stated that the average american got a break of about $1000. And this was somewhat misleading. He was averaging in the rich people who were getting tens of thousands of dollars. The average american (the guy right in the middle) got a break of about $300. Now I am not saying that Bush lied, it was technically correct that the average of all the tax break was about $1000, but it is somewhat of a misstatement to say the average american got $1000. Lots of Americans got about $300, only a few got $1000 or more. He made it sound like lots of Americans got $1000. But I'm cool with that. I'm not a Bush hater who will slam him anytime he does normal politician spin. But anyway, saying that a family making $50k had their tax burden cut in half is flat out wrong. Your source is mistaken.

Anyway, I have stated numerous times, that if the ultra rich got more actual dollars back then the rest of us, that would make sense because they pay more. If everyone across the board got a 10% cut, of course the rich would get more actual dollars back. If this is what happened, and the democrats complained that the tax cuts favored the rich, I would agree with you completely. That would be a misrepresentation by the democrats.

If I make $30k a year and got a $300 refund and someone who made $3 mil a year got a $30k refund I would NOT say that the tax cut favored the rich. I would say it was an evenly split tax cut. And if the democrats tried to play it off as favoring the rich they would be wrong. That is what you are claiming is happening, but it is NOT what is happening.

The rich are getting a larger PERCENTAGE back. When all of Bush's tax cuts come into fruition the top 1% will wind up getting a 25% tax reduction. Us normal people will get about a 10% tax reduction. Those are the facts. The quote you posted by that republican did not contradict this. Sure he shows that the tax cuts help the middle class, and yes, a 10% tax cut is nice. But he doesn't show that the ultra rich aren't getting a greater percentage tax cut, which they are. He talks alot about Reagan's tax cuts which have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

If the top 1% gets a 25% tax cut, and the regular folk get a 10% tax cut, how is it not a lie for Bush to say the majority of his tax cuts go to the people at the bottom of the spectrum. I would like your take on this Rooster. Please, don't loose sight of the issue. Its not a discussion of whether tax cuts for the rich are bad or good. Its a discussion of whether Bush was honest with us.

You know, anytime I mention the Bush tax cuts I get this diatribe about how its fair to give all the money to the rich and how I am a rich person hater. So yall are admitting that the Bush tax cuts favor the rich. I have brought up the Bush tax cuts numerous times on this forum, and every time I have gotten a lecture about how tax cuts for the rich is a good and fair thing. Yall know that his tax cuts favor the rich, that's why you talk about why tax cuts for the rich are such a good thing every time the issue comes up. So now I have shown you these quotes of Bush saying that the majority of his tax cuts will go to the bottom of the spectrum, and that the goal of his tax cuts is to help the middle class. Don't yall have a problem with that?

Its ok, you can still like Bush. You can still vote for him. You don't have to hate him if you let yourself admit that he isn't perfect and has done some things wrong. If you see him lying to you, you don't have to close your eyes and cover your ears and scream "This isn't happening!! I don't want to hear this!!!" You can say, "Yeah, he lied, that sucks, it pisses me off, but I still like him and want him to be my president because I still think he has my best interest at heart and will do a good job. He is human and he lied and I don't like it, but I still support him."

Swifty_Johnson

07-31-2004, 07:37 AM

See, only a liberal will think it's a bad thing when someone goes from paying taxes to off the tax rolls (100% refund) and than some rich guy gets a higher dollar return and scream UNFAIR!!!!!!!!

That's why they focused on the pure dollar amounts.

Oh, and for a rich person to get a 25% reduction in his taxes, he has to die, so that is a pretty steep price to pay for a 25% reduction in taxes.

Swifty

Rooster

07-31-2004, 10:12 AM

Boom, I know we had that discussion a while ago.. We got $1500 back as I recall - and I don't make that much! (very poor last year)

Swifty_Johnson

07-31-2004, 11:35 AM

Roo, according to liberals, you are filthy rich. Shame on you for making so much.

His statements are based on projections 10 years down the road, hence they are totally inaccurate. Before the massive tax cuts in the 80s, (which b.t.w. the libeals said than favored the wealthy) the top 5% paid 43% of the tax burden in the U.S.A. after the tax cuts that "heavily" favored the wealthy, the top 5% now pay 55% of the tax burden in the U.S.A. That must cause liberal's heads to spin, cutting taxes and getting more revenue!

Swifty

Hammer

07-31-2004, 11:47 AM

I like using "mean" myself but you can't avoid the fact that some people pay more in taxes so if there is a fair break they will get more dollars back. Only fair, they paid more to start with. It's impossible for me to understand how it is "fair" for some Americans to pay a higher percentage in taxes.

Boom

07-31-2004, 06:07 PM

See, only a liberal will think it's a bad thing when someone goes from paying taxes to off the tax rolls (100% refund) and than some rich guy gets a higher dollar return and scream UNFAIR!!!!!!!!

That's why they focused on the pure dollar amounts.

I very specifically said this is not what I am complaining about. Who are you arguing with? I don't know how I could possibly be more clear. I guess I will just keep repeating myself till you get it.

I don't have a problem with richer people getting a higher dollar amount.

I don't have a problem with richer people getting a higher percentage tax cut.

I do have a problem with Bush saying the majority of his tax breaks will go to the people at the bottom of the spectrum when it is not true. Whether you go by percentage cuts or by dollar amounts, his tax cuts favor the rich. You all can stop attacking me for saying that tax cuts favoring the rich are bad, because I am not saying that. You look silly attacking me for something I am not saying.

Roo, according to liberals, you are filthy rich. Shame on you for making so much.

Absurd. You are making yourself look ridiculous. Rooster you got back $1500, but was that all because of Bush's tax cuts? We all generally get some sort of rebate every year because we overpay when our bosses take out too much. Generally, people at your income level got a $300 advantage from Bush's tax cut. Perhaps without Bush's tax cuts you would have gotten $1200 back.

Roo, you know his tax cuts favor the rich. Otherwise why would you have defended tax cuts for the rich so many times on this forum? So do you have a problem with the fact that Bush wasn't honest about his tax cuts favoring the rich? I know you think tax cuts for the rich are good, that isn't my question, that isn't the issue here. The question is do you mind Bush being dishonest about it.

Rooster

07-31-2004, 06:39 PM

Per your words: majority of his tax breaks will go to the people at the bottom of the spectrum

Actually, if he were Bill Clinton, he'd silver tongue his way out of that one this way:

Numerically, more "bottom spectrum" people were assisted than the uber rich. So, it's true that the majority of the tax breaks would go to the middle class. Numerically. :p

As well, if you combine the total amount of tax cut money going out to the vast majority of the population, would that total exceed the total of the small # of rich people's returns?

ie, if there's 10 million middle class getting back $300 each.. 3 billion dollars

But there's 500,000 people getting back $5000 each... 2.5 billion dollars

It would still be true, even though the rich folk got a LOT more back, perhaps even % wise (of their taxes due).

Swifty_Johnson

07-31-2004, 10:47 PM

I do have a problem with Bush saying the majority of his tax breaks will go to the people at the bottom of the spectrum when it is not true.

Yet to be proven, after the 81 tan cuts, the Rich ended up paying more in taxes than the middle class. Your basing the statement on a 10 year projection which will turn out to be false.

Swifty

Boom

08-02-2004, 11:54 AM

Actually, if he were Bill Clinton, he'd silver tongue his way out of that one this way:

Numerically, more "bottom spectrum" people were assisted than the uber rich. So, it's true that the majority of the tax breaks would go to the middle class. Numerically.

And you would think that its bullshit and be pissed at him for it. Because it would be Clinton saying it. But when Bush does it you have no problem. And didn't I predict that you would respond to being presented with a direct Bush lie by saying, "Well Clinton blah blah."

As well, if you combine the total amount of tax cut money going out to the vast majority of the population, would that total exceed the total of the small # of rich people's returns?

ie, if there's 10 million middle class getting back $300 each.. 3 billion dollars

But there's 500,000 people getting back $5000 each... 2.5 billion dollars

It would still be true, even though the rich folk got a LOT more back, perhaps even % wise (of their taxes due).

Nope, look at the numbers I posted and the links I provided. The top 1% are getting about 50% of the money, if you go by dollar amounts and not by percentages. If the top 1% are getting about 50% of the cash(by dollar amounts), and getting over twice the percentage of their taxes cut, there is no way in hell to say that the majority of the tax cut is going to the people at the bottom of the spectrum. Its a lie. If it wasn't Bush saying it, you would have a problem with it. That is the part I don't understand. I don't like lies. That is why I have slammed Clinton, Gore, and Kerry when I have been presented with their lies. Yall don't like lies, I have seen you slam TONS of democrats for their lies. But when Bush lies, its all fun and games. Making up a funny story about what Clinton might have said to silver tongue his way out of it in your imaginary universe is cute and funny, but its avoiding the issue. Why doesn't it bother you that Bush lied about it.

Your basing the statement on a 10 year projection which will turn out to be false.

You have said numerous times that you don't know accounting. You were so bad at it that you couldn't understand a simple chart that Congress put out for the public use. Yet somehow you are discrediting the numbers put together by these tax and accounting experts. Lets see, should I believe the guys who work at these tax institutes who have mulitiple degrees in this kind of stuff, or should I believe Swifty who admits he doesn't understand accounting.

If you are going to claim that these numbers will turn out to be false, at least find a few experts who say that. Don't expect me to take your word for it against the tons of experts who support these numbers.

And the 10 year projections I posted do make it the most obvious that Bush was extremely and obscenely lying about his tax cuts going to those on the bottom, but even if you look at the where his tax cuts went the first year, the majority of the money (or percentage tax cut, either way) did not go to the people on the bottom.

Ziggin

08-02-2004, 12:00 PM

:bang:

Allison

08-02-2004, 12:28 PM

Lol, nice one, Ziggin. :)

Swifty_Johnson

08-02-2004, 12:50 PM

You have said numerous times that you don't know accounting. You were so bad at it that you couldn't understand a simple chart that Congress put out for the public use.

Simple, please give me a break. What was the address of that chat again, I think you made a major error on it too.

Lets see, should I believe the guys who work at these tax institutes who have mulitiple degrees in this kind of stuff, or should I believe Swifty who admits he doesn't understand accounting.

If those bozos are so good at projecting what is going to happen 10 years down the road, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing now. Why don't you look at what happened the last time the taxes were cut on the "rich". That's right, the predicitons were the middle class were going to get screwed, the rich were going to make out like bandits, bla, bla, bla.

What really happened? The tax burden shifted to the rich, and THEY PAID MORE IN TAXES, not only in raw dollar amounts, but as a precentage of all taxes collected. The burden shifted FROM the middle class TO the upper class.

So Boom, you are actually asking us to turn a blind eye to the past, and take as the truth these 10 year projections with nothing based on reality? Give me a break. You'll say anything just to make Bush look bad.

Swifty

Boom

08-02-2004, 01:32 PM

Yes, that cartoon is funny. But reread this thread. The mudslinging is mostly going in one direction.

I have noted that Bush lied and I supported my claims and stated that I don't like it. That's it. I didn't call him names or attack him or insult him. I just thought it should be noted.

Now lets look at what the conservatives in this thread have said.

That is totally disgusting. That went beyond dirty campaining to downright immoral behavior. I guess it's okay for you liberals to smear conseratives this way, but heaven forbid the truth gets told about a liberal.
Not even sure what he was refering to here. He quoted Ailia making some joke about the Pope's pointy hat.
Go to hell. I have never seen this alleged Cleland ad, nor would I ever defend if it did happen. I don't have a double standard like you do.
Of course he did defend it by talking about a anti-Bush ad which was apparently worse.
You also might want to distance yourself from Cleland alittle, he's becomming a rabid attack weasel from the democrats now and spouting out trash talk vs the president.
Nice.
Seeing I have never commeted on 90% of your examples,how do you know where I stand? Oh wait, it's another Boom lie.
Of course he had commented on most of them and its totally fair for me to say he never admits that bush lies.
Spreading more lies now Booms.
I also stated that the website that took Dan Quyale quotes and attribuated to Al Gore was prob run by a democrat, and you now claim that I said all the lies were started by democrats. More lies by Booms.
Absurd. I never ever ever ever ever said that Swifty said that "all" anything, and I clearly wasn't implying it.
You weren't being sincere with your first statement, so why should I?
This is where I should have quit posting in this forum. When Swifty admitted he isn't sincere and just says anything to continue the argument.
Well Boom, you weren't being sincere at all, and instead resorted to posting lies and distortions about me. How didyou expect me to treat you? You failed to post any proof that the president was lying, so it's up to you to backup your statement.
Right. I am a liar. :rolleyes: I post a Bush lie, for 4 pages Swifty pretends to think its not a lie, then he admits a lie but its not Bush's fault. Even though the words came out of Bush's mouth, its the fault of his campaign guy that was playing ventriloquist. I'm just so unfair for calling Bush a liar just because a lie came out of his mouth when it was clearly his campaign lying. And Swifty pretending to not think it was a lie at all for 4 pages then admitting it is just normal.
Boooms.. while he was checking Kerry's Colon came back with this little tid bit...
This is my favorite bit. How unfair is it to say my head is up Kerry's ass when I have said WAY more stuff criticizing him then supporting him? Don't I have to like the guy or at least say some nice stuff about him to have my head up his ass? Most of Cavan's comments like this were in another thread where he actually said I have my head up Kerry's ass and actually said I have shit on my face. Mudslinging isn't enough, we have actual shitslinging here. Now if I refused to ever say anything bad about Kerry, and refused to admit he was lying even when I admit that something that he said was a lie (its his campaign ventriloquist's fault!) then maybe I would have my head up his ass. At least pick someone I like, if you are going to attack me this way. I like Colin Powel and I have never said anything bad about him, say I have my head up his ass, that would be fairer. Yes, liberals on this forum have slung some mud too, but not like this.
It's just like a diet - democrats want a get-thin-quick plan and not change the way you eat - EATING LIKE A FREAKING PIG.
Calling an entire party pigs is kinda mudslinging huh? Of course the irony is that the size of government has increased more during republican presidencies then under democrat presidencies, but that doesn't stop conservatives from calling democrats irresponsible spenders. Clinton balanced the budget and the last three republican presidents all had record deficits, but republicans are the fiscally responsible ones.
And who the hell do they think they are to decide "hardly need any extra cash" - kiss my ass you jealous dick heads.
That sounds kinda hostile huh? Whether Roo is right or wrong, saying "kiss my ass you jealous dick heads." is mudslinging at its finest. Do I say stuff like that to Bush when I disagree with his policies? For the most part I tend to be respectful and say stuff like "Hey, I like the guy, but I don't think these policies are in our best interest and I don't think he has been honest with us." The worst that I have said about Bush is that he might be kinda dumb. And besides, is it really a dickhead statement to say that people like me and you and Rooster and Swifty and Ailia could use some extra cast more than Paris Hilton and Bill Gates? Is that really such an outlandish statement that the person who said it should be cursed at and called a dickhead? I understand the theory behind trickle down, and maybe there is something to it. But if you give Paris Hilton an extra five grand, she won't notice it. If you give me an extra five grand, it would make a huge difference in my life. Call me a dickhead, but I do need the money more than her. I'm not saying its good for the economy or its fair or its right to give me the money. I'm not asking for the money. But I certainly agree that I need it more than her and I am not a dickhead for thinking so. Also, it does kinda make sense that it won't change her spending habits. She already buys whatever she wants. If you give me an extra five grand it is going right back into the economy. But despite the fact that I have been attacked as a rich hater several times on this thread, I have NOT attacked Bush's tax cuts once. Not once. My only comment was that he lied by saying they went to the poorest people when they really went to the richest. But I got a ton of mud slung at me by people defending tax cuts to the rich. They were arguing against noone, but couldn't resist the opportunity to fling mud since the tax cut issue was mentioned.

If you want to be a lazy, uneducated lay-about and collect welfare, say it. But don't bitch about those that make it possible for you to survive.

Who are you arguing with? Who attacked the tax cuts to the rich?

If you want to make the successful, wealthy people take their money OUT of the country, fine, tax them MORE - but don't bitch when jobs go overseas and offshore tax shelters crop up (thanks Boom!)
Thanks Boom? Where did I say to tax the rich more in this thread? I was just making a point that Bush lied about where the tax cuts were going.
If you want everyone to be equal regardless of drive & effort - Found your own communist country and get out of mine.
Hey, save the hostility for someone who is actually arguing for taxing the rich. :p Maybe you should be yelling at Bush, he said he wanted to give a tax cut to the poor! Thank god he was lying or you would be mad at him. :p
The middle class got the greatest assistance because their PERCENTAGE of taxes paid vs their income was greatly reduced, much more than the mega wealthy. Some middle class families got 100% refunds, they ended up paying zero in tax.

So how did the liberals twist and distort this to a break for the mega wealthy.
Actually this is the best example of mudslinging ever. State a baldfaced lie then accuse the other side of twisting and distorting. The top 1% are getting the largest percentage tax break.

In order to make it more "fair" the liberals wanted to turn this into a goverment entitlement program. You see, many people didn't get $300.00 dollar returns when they were given out. These people paid less than $300.00 in tax, so they got back what they paid in taxes, not a penny more. This upset many democrats, but as this was a tax REFUND and not another goverment entitlement program, they just sat around and whinned[sic].

See Booms, you are wrong again.
Again, totally mistate the facts, then say I am wrong. My only point was that Bush said his tax cuts were going to the people at the bottom and they didn't. I was not wrong.
See, only a liberal will think it's a bad thing when someone goes from paying taxes to off the tax rolls (100% refund) and than some rich guy gets a higher dollar return and scream UNFAIR!!!!!!!!
Same thing again. My problem was not that the rich got a higher dollar amount (which they did) or that they got a higher percentage cut then the average american (which they did) my problem was that Bush lied about where the money is going. That is the only part that is UNFAIR, to me.

Now don't get me wrong. I will straight up admit that everyone here has been flinging mud. Noleader called Bush "Dictator Bush." And I am just as guilty as him because I didn't call him on it. And I was out of line a few times to Swifty, but it was pretty frustrating when for 4 pages he refused to admit the Bush statement about the 1% "gutting" of intelligence was a lie. He admits it was a lie now (just not a Bush lie even though the words came out of his mouth), but for 4 pages he totally refused to admit it was a lie, even though it couldn't be more blatant. That doesn't excuse me for flinging mud at Swifty, but I think it explains it.

Boom

08-02-2004, 01:38 PM

What really happened? The tax burden shifted to the rich, and THEY PAID MORE IN TAXES, not only in raw dollar amounts, but as a precentage of all taxes collected. The burden shifted FROM the middle class TO the upper class.

Look at your source a little more closely. It shows what the rich were paying in 1999 compared to what they were paying in 1980 then claims that they were paying more after Reagan's tax cuts then before. Why doesn't it show the numbers in 1988? Of course the rich were paying more after the Clinton years. He taxed the hell out of the rich.

That source is very misleading. Its like if I took a picture of my apartment, then shit on the floor, then had the apartment professionally cleaned and took a second picture. I could show you the first picture and the second picture and say, "See, the first picture was before I shit on the floor and the second picture is after. The apartment is actually CLEANER in the second picture!!! People who say shitting on the floor makes an apartment dirtier are liars."

Swifty_Johnson

08-02-2004, 01:51 PM

I have noted that Bush lied and I supported my claims and stated that I don't like it. That's it. I didn't call him names or attack him or insult him. I just thought it should be noted.

Calling him a liar when you've failed to prove he's lied is namecalling. Again, you've failed to prove he's lied.

Quote:
Go to hell. I have never seen this alleged Cleland ad, nor would I ever defend if it did happen. I don't have a double standard like you do.

Of course he did defend it by talking about a anti-Bush ad which was apparently worse.

There you go again Boom, you are not being sincere again, and blatently lying. When someone complained about Bush not going to speak to the NAACP I pointed out they ran a totally disgusting ad aginst Bush. YOU than started whinning about this alleged ad than was run vs Max Cleland (how that factored in I don't know) and how it unfairly smeared him. I have NEVER defended this alleged ad if what you say is true, so stop trying to smear me.

This is where I should have quit posting in this forum. When Swifty admitted he isn't sincere and just says anything to continue the argument.

bbbzzzztttt. Wrong. I asked when you aren't being sincere, why should I? When you lie about me, am I just supposed to shut up and let it ride? Sorry wrong.

Actually this is the best example of mudslinging ever. State a baldfaced lie then accuse the other side of twisting and distorting. The top 1% are getting the largest percentage tax break.

Wrong, a bold face lie by Boom. When someone gets a 100% refund they have gotten the largest % break. The rich aren't getting 100% refunds.

but for 4 pages he totally refused to admit it was a lie, even though it couldn't be more blatant.

For 4 pagers you REFUSED to post your sources, when you did it showed that you were wrong. (should I take a page from you book and call you a liar?) ON the topic of Bush, you are not a credible person.

Swifty