Reply With Quote
Bush hasn't lied?
Did someone seriously say that?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
Yep that what they be. dimm-o-craps. Enjoy."dimm-o-craps"
Bush hasn't lied?
Did someone seriously say that?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
RandomGuy, what is wrong with you? How dare u call our President a liar at a time of war? U must be against the troops. Oh, and btw, how dare u prove Bush is a liar by using facts. That's not fair. Can't u just realize what is really important; Clinton got a blowjob.
I would if I took this seriously enough to bother with it. The whole thing is ridiculous and flimsy. I have better things to do.THis is stupid to even give credit to. Random Guy just proved that he believes any bad generalization of the military.
Guess what, the military has killed innocents. Does that mean that they purposely engage in the slaughter of innocents? That's utter idiocy. John kerry has no facts to prove that soldiers and the military have been terrorizing innocent Iraqi's. Unless you count Abu Graib, you already lost the argument. Abu Graib was a terrorist detainee center and if you're easily led to believe that the detainees there are innocent as easliy as you believe the military terrorizes citizens, then you are just that. a moonbat.
Random Guy, you seemed to have sided with Kerry's statement that the military terrorizes innocents. You bring all of these stupid Tom TOmmorow cartoons to illustrate your point of how conservatives are shallow in your beliefs.
let me get this straight.
Cause:You blame the conservatives for using strawmen tactics.
Effect: You take the moral high ground by using Tom Tomorrow comics to boost your point.
Question.
Do you really think you're any better?
Let me see if you can actually have a take on this forum worth debating.
You sympathize with Kerry saying troops use terror tactics. Do you then by the same token call them terrorist?
I'd like to see you awnser that.
Bush's Great Debate -- With Himself
Borrowing from George W. Bush’s favorite new joke about the Democratic debates, one could say that the Republican Party’s presidential choice is featuring a wide variety of opinions – favoring action on global warming and doing nothing; calling for a balanced federal budget and charting a future of endless deficits; advocating a “humble” foreign policy that decries “nation-building” and running a foreign policy that is arrogant and deeply involved in devising how other countries govern themselves.
The punch-line of that joke would go: And the Republican debate covers the opinions of just one candidate, George W. Bush.
Of course, Bush has used his version of this knee-slapper to mock Democratic Sen. John Kerry for supposedly flip-flopping on issues. But the joke could play as well against Bush, who sold himself to the voters as one thing in 2000 and performed quite differently in office.
----------------
FLIP
Greenhouse Effect
Global warming represented Bush’s first major flip-flop. In a clear campaign promise on September 29, 2000, Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide as one of "four main pollutants" released into the environment by the burning of fossil fuels at power plants.
FLOP
But two months after taking office, Bush suddenly jettisoned the carbon-dioxide pledge. Bending to the wishes of the energy industry and its lobbyists, Bush pulled the rug out from under his Environmental Protection Agency director, Christie Whitman. She had believed that Bush meant what he said during the campaign and was stunned to learn in March 2001 that the initiative had been scrapped. [For an insider account of Bush’s maneuver from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, see Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty.]
---------------
FLIP
Bush made an unequivocal pledge not to raid the Social Security trust fund to pay for deficits in other parts of the federal budget. “We’re going to set aside all the payroll taxes for one thing, Social Security,” Bush said in a stump speech four days before the presidential election.
FLOP
Over a little more than three years, however, the balanced-budget promises have gone by the boards. Bush has pulled more than $350 billion out of Social Security surpluses to pay for discretionary government spending. Overall prospects for the future look even bleaker. With record deficits replacing record surpluses and the Baby Boom generation nearing retirement age, the current Social Security surpluses are expected to join the rest of the federal government in a bath of red ink.
-----------
FLIP
Humble No More
Possibly Bush’s most striking departure from his rhetoric as a candidate has been in the area of foreign policy. During the campaign, he called for a “humble” foreign policy and disparaged President Clinton’s interventions to bring stability to international hot spots as fuzzy-headed “nation-building.”
FLOP
Far from a “humble” foreign policy that treated other nations with respect, Bush chose to browbeat and bully even close U.S. allies, such as France and Germany. Rather than avoiding “nation-building,” Bush’s occupation of Iraq amounts to a wholesale restructuring of the country, including plans to sell off Iraqi national assets to outside businesses.
-------------
FLIP
Shortchanging Veterans
Critics have noted other reversals from Bush’s campaign positions. During the campaign, one of Bush’s favorite lines was that under Clinton, the “military is over-deployed, under-trained and underpaid.”
FLOP
Under Bush, however, the military has been stretched even thinner and has faced administration efforts to trim expected pay raises. The Army Times, an independent newspaper that covers military affairs, reported that Bush tried “to significantly cut the 2004 military pay raise” from 3.7 percent to 2 percent. The Bush administration also got into trouble last year when it tried to cut combat pay and family separation pay for the men and women serving overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"A vigorous debate could be arranged by splicing together clips of Bush-2000 with Bush-2004."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/030204.html
^^^
Greenhouse effect:
Myths and Envirotruth Regarding Climate Change
Some of the Experts Who Contest Kyoto's Scientific Foundation and Alternative Energy
"There are many myths and misunderstandings related to the topic of climate change. To help inform the public debate, Envirotruth has amassed a list of the "Top Climate Change Myths" that we often hear cited by supporters of the Kyoto Accord and other greenhouse gas reduction treaties. Click on a myth below to read the "Envirotruth"."
NOTE: It is important for citizens in countries that are outside of Kyoto to understand that Canada's recent ratification was driven largely by the mistaken belief that climate science is sufficiently mature to warrant a severe greenhouse gas reduction treaty. Since many environmentalists now claim that the United States and Australia should follow Canada's lead, it is useful to see the extent to which the science debate was skewed in Canada. Consequently, Envirotruth has now included, immediately following each Myth, a link to "What was said in Canada" - a listing of quotes from some of Canada's leading politicians and environmentalists. Such pseudo-science must be opposed at every possible opportunity.
More resources on climate change
Myth #1: Humanity is the primary cause of global climate change. Myth #1a: Computer models show catastrophic warming in the future. Myth #1b: The consensus of world scientists, as revealed by the un’s ipcc, agree - humanity is causing significant climate change.
MYTH #1C: Climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rate. Myth #2: Recent global temperature rise has been dramatic. Myth #3: The buildup of human induced greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide (CO2) in particular, will cause a catastrophic planetary warming.
Myth #3a: Historical records confirm that global warming has resulted from increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. Myth #4: If the earth warms, it will be disastrous for the environment and human society. Myth #5: Extreme weather events are expected to be more common if the world warms. This has already started - drought, floods, forest fires, etc. are on the rise as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions.
Myth #6: Sea level is rising quickly and it will get worse if the polar ice caps melt due to global warming. Coastal settlements and low-lying islands will be submergeda. Myth #7: Humanity is causing earth's polar regions to warm quickly resulting in unusual rates of ice melting. Myth #8: Kyoto will save thousands of lives by cutting air pollution.
Myth #8a: Scientists are able to make meaningful climate predictions based on observed, and anticipated, changes in CO2 levels. Myth #9: Associated Energy Myth: Solar and Wind Power Can Soon Be Significant Contributors to the Base Load Energy Needs of Load Energy Needs of Canada and the United States. Myth#10: The Kyoto Accord, and Other Climate Change Initiatives, are Focused Solely on Solving Environmental Problems.
Myth#11: Those Who Question Whether Human Activity Contributes in Any Significant Fashion to Climate Change are Secretly Funded by Coal, Oil, Gas and Other "Smokestack" Industries.
Sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research
777 N. Capitol St. NE #803 Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 371-1400 * Fax (202) 408-7773 [email protected]
Social Security:
The Trust Fund, the Surplus, and the Real Social Security Problem
by June O'Neill
June O'Neill is Wollman Professor of Economics at the Zicklin School of Business and director of the Center for the Study of Business and Government at Baruch College, City University of New York. She was director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1995 to 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary
Recent discussions of Social Security's future solvency have been dominated by misleading and inaccurate portrayals of the Social Security Trust Fund and the impact of budget surpluses on the program's finances.
In reality, the Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting measure, not an ac ulation of real assets that can be used to pay future benefits. That means current discussions of Social Security "lock boxes," or whether the Social Security "surplus" is being "raided," are essentially irrelevant to the program's future. The federal government lacks a mechanism that would allow it to save today against the future demographic and financial pressures that will make Social Security's current structure unsustainable over the long term.
Congress should stop playing verbal games over what are essentially accounting gimmicks and begin the serious project of Social Security reform. Ultimately, that reform will have to involve allowing workers to privately invest a portion of their Social Security taxes through individual accounts.
I could go on and on with this, but what you posted is BS. A President
has to make decisions on many matters. Some please some and not
others.
You are just going to have to do better than you have. I will take Bush
over anyone you have on your side, any day.
Three more years, live with it.
^^^ Seeing as how you find humor in W's lies and his screwups by repeatedly saying
This is not about what is right or wrong for u. It's humorous to u that W is wrong and he's got 3 more years.
Maybe he'll get impeached. And it won't be for oral sex.
^^^ Seeing as how you find humor in W's lies and his screwups by repeatedly saying
This is not about what is right or wrong for u. It's humorous to u that W is wrong and he's got 3 more years.
Maybe he'll get impeached. And it won't be for oral sex.
No what is incredible is that the fact of you and others on this board
think you are doing no harm to your country through not supporting your
President. Like I have told you before, you live in a wonderland if you
think he is going to be impeached. To you and others like you, your only
thought is to bring this country to it's knees in defeat so Bush and his
administration can be blamed, never thinking of the country as a whole.
And compare me to anyone who supports their country. Just don't ever
compare me to someone like the filthy mouthed boutons, who you
so wholeheartly support.
^^^^ and it keeps on spinnin'
Keep up the lies about "we don't support our country because we are against the Bush lies". And the 'your harming your country" bs. It's nonsense and u know it. Your really trying your best to get away from the real issue.
Bush is a liar.
Can't the same be said about people who bashed Clinton at every turn and wanted to see him removed from office?
^^^ Oh, Gee, don't u know, in that case, it's not time to be playing the blame game?
Traitors that blindly support their leader no matter how failed his policies are, no matter how much he has been proven to be dishonest, give hope to the communists and totalitarian terrorists out there.
Your support of this president gives hope to our enemies. The most informed and free nation on the planet can be blinded and led around like sheep to the slaughter makes the terrorists job easier.
You say that people who oppose the president are in line with "the communists" et al, but your point of view is directly in line with some basic tenets of maoism.
"Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people ...
They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, democratic centralism.
(5) They should help to strengthen, and not discard or weaken, the leadership of the Communist Party."
http://art-bin.com/art/omao4.html
Subs ute the word "communist" with "Republican" and you have the essence of what the GOP is trying to achieve.
Your "support the president at all costs" is an anathema to democracy.
If you don't love our country, please find a totalitarian government somewhere that you would be more happy in.
Oh, Gee!, so young and naive. Of course it wasn't wrong to bash Clinton. He was a dimm-o-crap.
Unpatriotic can go both ways. (snorts)
::crickets::
I get tired of the "support your president or you're unpatriotic" crap, so turning it around to let those who spew that particular venom has a certain poetic justice.
:p
^^^^ they know it's a bogus claim. they just follow the best spinners of them all, this administration and Gov. Bush.
SPIn Spin Spin., SPin the black circle... ah.. Pearl Jam just doesn't come out with the hits anymore.
[QUOTE]Thanks for summarizing what John Kerry did when he thoughtlessly ran his yapper (par for the course of John) about our troops "terrorizing" people in Iraq.
-Treasonous statement, betraying our troops in time of war
-Assisting an objective of the enemy by attacking his Country's troops
-A divisive, undermining statement
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions