suzy, you may find it discomfitting the Current Administration doesn't do things in the manner you would find most convenient to your particular agenda. Others see complaints such as those just enumerated by you as unsubstantive, irrelevant, misconstrued, non-issues, contrived, and/or even patently false. As I said, you folks are doing a great job ... the polls are certainly tracking the success of your efforts in such regard.
Just for the record, I'll say again I do not so much "Support Bush", his administration, or its agenda as do I categorically reject and oppose the leadership and the bulk of the agenda of The Left. There are aspects of The Current Administration and its policies with which I am quite dissatisfied, yet I see no viable alternative offered from any quarter, and there is much of The Left's platform to which I am incontravertibly opposed. I'd rather there were something better than Bush and The Current Administration. Unfortunately, as it seems to me, for all its flaws and shortcomings, its the best we've got.
Convenient to my agenda?
Now come on!
We're supposed to be represented.
Although you may be willing to settle for less than fair representation, many of us are not.
The whole thing is quite outrageous.
If you think otherwise, I'd like to know your rationale.
blatham, that Hodgson and Corn are in agreement with one another and yourself and your ideologic compatriots in no way validates the argument of either ... again we come back to conviction by allegation and inuendo. Some, such as the afore mentioned opinion mongers, and apparently, yourself, seem given to the acceptance of conjecture and opinion congruent with personal preference as opposed to the more rigorous practice of requiring verifiable substantiation of fact. So far, the allegations and indictments presented by The Left in the matter of The Current Administration and its leadership are devoid of corroborative legal finding. The Left vigorously presses a case, but fails to make the case.
[edited to cover up a couple boneheaded spelling/typing errors
)
Inconvenient as it may be to your preconceptions, suzy, there is no guarantee of "Fairness", only of just and legal process, and of equal opportunity to succeed or fail as one's abilitities and fortunes permit. Utopia is "Fair". Utopia also is fantasy. The real world is pragmatic. That may not be "Fair", but then, in the real world, nothing is.
blatham wrote:Start here...you have a lot of reading ahead
Quote:FROM THE WASHINGTON POST
December 18, 2003; Page C03
"Trust Buster"
By Godfrey Hodgson
George Washington, at least according to Parson Weems, never told a lie. Subsequent presidents, as David Corn admits, have not always lived up to his standard. In a rich gallery of examples, we remember Lyndon Johnson (the Gulf of Tonkin), Richard Nixon ("I am not a crook"), Ronald Reagan ("I did not trade arms for hostages"), George H.W. Bush ("Read my lips: no new taxes") and, of course, Bill Clinton ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman").
It is Corn's contention, however, that George W. Bush not only knows how to lie but has done it on a grander scale, deliberately, systematically and to good effect, ever since he entered politics, and before that, too. "George Bush is a liar," he begins. "He has lied large and small. He has lied directly and by omission. He has misstated facts, knowingly or not. He has misled. He has broken promises, been unfaithful to political vows. Through his campaign for the presidency and his first years in the White House, he has mugged the truth -- not merely in honest error, but deliberately, consistently, and repeatedly to advance his career and his agenda."
Corn alleges that between his (unsuccessful) campaign for Congress in 1978 and his campaign for governor of Texas in 1994, Bush changed his position on abortion from "pro-choice" to "pro-life"; that he claimed to have been in the Air Force when he was in the Texas Air National Guard; and that he lied about an arrest for drunken driving. Corn also contends that in the 2000 South Carolina primary, Bush allowed his staff, if he did not order them, to put about the crudest calumnies about his dangerous rival, Sen. John McCain. He maintains, too, that the president did not speak the truth when he said he did not meet Kenneth Lay (of Enron) until after 1994, when records (so Corn says) show that Bush's oil venture company, Spectrum 7, was a partner with an Enron subsidiary in Texas in 1986.
Corn, the Washington editor of The Nation, makes no pretense of political impartiality. This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research. In my judgment it does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer in relation to both domestic and foreign policy, a case that ought to be in voters' minds when they cast their ballots in the 2004 presidential election.
On the home front, the president has systematically advocated tax cuts as if they would make a real difference to broad swaths of the American people. In reality, as Corn and many others have shown, their benefits will go overwhelmingly to a small percentage at the top of the economic tree. For example, the proposed tax cuts would give more than $93,000 to a family with a million-dollar income, while half of all taxpayers would receive $100 or less. According to the Financial Times, the stimulus the cuts can be expected to give to the economy would be "negligible." When this is pointed out, the president and his men mutter reflexively about "class war."
In individual cases, Bush's misrepresentation of the impact of legislation verges on the absurd. For example, he boasted that he would "eliminate the death tax" (the Republican phrase for estate tax) "to keep family farms in the family." The picture is of weeping towheaded kids evicted by agents of an unfeeling bureaucracy from crimson-painted homesteads amid the cottonwoods. But under current laws a farm couple can pass on a farm worth more than $4 million untaxed if their heirs continue to work it for 10 years. The IRS states that "almost no working farmers" owe any estate tax. Even such a farmer-friendly outfit as the American Farm Bureau cannot cite a single example of a farm sold because of estate tax. Politics, not agrarian distress, lay behind this myth.
The cynicism with which foreign policy has been sold to the American public, Corn shows, is even more barefaced. Understandably, perhaps, the Bush administration underestimated civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Less forgivably, its spokesmen, from Vice President Cheney down, persistently hinted that the 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta met Iraqi agents in Prague, thus justifying an attack on Iraq, though there appears to be no evidence that this is true, and reason to believe that Atta traveled to Prague to buy a cheap air ticket to the United States.
More generally, the president and key officials in his administration have shuffled and equivocated in almost all they have said about the decision to invade Iraq. It is clear that decision was taken long before Sept. 11, 2001. It seems to have been taken not because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (as it now appears he did not, at least when the war began) or because he might pass them to al Qaeda (with whom he was on the worst of terms), or even because he was a vicious tyrant -- that, after all, had not stopped the United States from tilting toward him in 1983 -- but to fit in with what looks like a naive neoconservative dream that war in Iraq would produce a peaceful, democratic Middle East.
Readers can hardly avoid drawing three troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment. The first is that the Bush administration has been even more willing than its predecessors to spin, prevaricate and, if necessary, coldly lie for its own advantage. The second is that, with honorable exceptions, the American news media have not lived up to their reputation for hard-nosed skepticism when it comes to challenging the administration's claims. The third is more troubling still. It used to be unacceptable to accuse presidents and Cabinet secretaries of wholesale lying. But now Corn is by no means alone in throwing that word around. Indeed a whole literary genre has come into existence: political-lie porn. Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" is a bestseller, while from the other side of the fence Ann Coulter screams back "liberal lies" like a conservative fishwife in the same billingsgate. A political culture in which lies and charges of lying are thought normal is a dangerous one. Weimar was one such, and it was Adolf Hitler who learned how to exploit it. The currency, not only of lying but also of charges of lying, suggests just how viciously polarized American politics has become, and 2004 is not yet here.
Hodgson is an associate fellow of the Rothermere American Institute at Oxford University and author of "The Gentleman from New York."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
********************************
Foxfyre asked for "how about enlightening us with some verifiable facts rather than with innuendo and supposition?" and you came back with
this? A tirade of poppycock.
I don't think that was an answer, Timber!
So what was just about it?
Is this OUR country, or does it belong to our leaders and their businessmen cronies?
I guess I'll have to re-read the constitution to find the part where cronies are mentioned.
tmber
I suspect you have bumped into various people in your long and colorful life who have not stood before a judge but whom you know by huge accumulation of evidence are big fat liars.
Now, georgie ain't gonna go to trial for saying "my tax cuts go mainly to the folks at the bottom", and he ain't gonna go to jail for saying "We've found them WOMD", and he ain't gonna get drawn and quartered for having all those folks pushed out of their properties (ar cheapshit prices) so he could make dollars on the stadium...but that ain't to say he shouldn't be.
Certainly, blatham ... but georgie never said any of those things. The stadium thing is a bit different, but by and large those displaced were non-owner, non-or-very-low-rate taxpaying occupants, the neighborhood was crime-ridden and in decline, and the tax revenue derived through the realignment of land use greatly benefitted the overall community as a whole ... the greater benefit for the greater number thing, you know. It may not be "Fair", but it is "Just".
Blatham, Hodgson's article proves my point. It is chock full of innuendo, supposition, and the author's opinion and states a few 'facts' that are entirely mitigated if the whole picture is considered.
For instance, yes, the very rich got far larger tax cuts than those who paid very little in taxes because the very rich paid far more in taxes to begin with than those who paid very little in taxes. Hodgson is disingenuous in not mentioning the millions who were dropped from the tax rolls altogether or the many more millions like me who are far from rich but who have benefitted from the tax initiative.
In the matter of the death tax, Hodgson is again disingenuous in stating that it was bogus because some farm families were not at risk to begin with. He fails to mention the many thousands if not millions of farm families who cannot or don't want to work the land and/or non farmers who would have to take out mortgages or sell inherited property due to the estate tax. Not long ago in my own family, the heirs were required to sell a property that had been in the family for six generations because they could not afford to pay the estate taxes. That is just wrong.
In the issue of abortion, Bush has been consistent. He believes abortion is wrong but has been consistently pro choice so far as his policies are concerned. He, like me, thinks it is wrong to send U.S. dollars for the purpose of advancing abortion--that was a campaign promise and he kept it. While he opposes partial birth abortion, which anybody of conscience opposes, he is on record that he has no intention of overturning Roe v Wade. In a fair and balanced piece, Hodgson would have mentioned that.
Your Hodgson is guilty of picking and choosing partial 'truths' to support lies he supposes about George Bush. He has failed to show that GWB lies.
Like Timber, there are many things I wish GWB would do differently or better. I stomp and rant and throw teddy bears at the TV or radio many times when I think the administration screws up.
But we know what we have with GWB and I continue to maintain he is as he represents himself. He hasn't lied to us so far.
I don't know how any thinking person can be confident that Kerry would not be worse given his documented frequent misrepresentations of the truth.
it's really just a POV thing isn't it?
I guess it is Dys. Perception colored by POV.
No, it isn't merely point of view.
timber
George did say those things. WOMD "We found them". His words. He said that. And on tax cuts as well, though I've paraphrased. And of course, there's the fib on the drunk driving charge, etc.
fox
Like I said, that's where you ought to start reading. But you won't.
How many times now have I invited you to a disciplined analysis of any two publications, sites, or questions? I do it again. Take any point raised in the above review.
Blatham, how about starting with those issues in the article you cited; i.e. the 'tax cuts for the rich' and/or 'the death tax'? Or any other issue raised by the author that involves facts that can be verified and not just the writer's opinion?
How about you admitting that Hodgson in fact lied about GWB by distorting the facts in a fog of supposition and innuendo instead of just blowing that off and saying I did not rise to the challenge?
I met the challenge head on right here. It's your turn to dispute my rebuttal of the article if you can.
I maintain that the record regularly shows GWB to be an honest man. The record is regularly showing that John Kerry isn't. Does this matter to anybody?
Transcript of John Kerry's session with Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America today. This was received in an e-mail from a friend and I have not received a response on its source. Therefore content and source are unconfirmed.
JOHN KERRY RESPONDS ON 'GMA'
Mon Apr 26 2004 09:04:52 ET
ABC NEWS GOOD MORNING AMERICA'S CHARLIE GIBSON: Now joining us from West Virginia is himself senator John Kerry. He's in the town of Glen Easton, West Virginia, today. Good to have you with us.
SEN. JOHN KERRY: i'm glad to be with you. i really am.
GIBSON: 1984, senator, to the present. you have said a number of times, as brian pointed out as recently as friday with the ""los angeles times,"" have you said a number of times that you did not throw away the vietnam medals themselves. but now this interview from 1971 shows up the in which you say that was the medals themselves that were thrown away.
KERRY: no, i don't.
GIBSON: can you explain?
KERRY: absolutely. that's absolutely incorrect. charlie, i stood up in front of the nation. there were dozens of cameras there, television cameras, there were -- i don't know. 20, 30 still photographers. thousands of people and i stood up in front of the country, reached into my shirt, visibly for the nation to see, and took the ribbons off my chest, said a few words and threw them over the fence. the file footage, the reporter there from the ""boston globe,"" everybody got it correctly. and i never asserted otherwise. what i said was and back then, you know, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable . senator simmington asking me questions in the committee hearing, look ad at the ribbons and said what are those medals? the u.s. navy pam let calls the medals, we referred to them it is a symbols, representing medals, ribbons, countless veterans through the ribbon -- threw the ribbons back. everybody did. veterans threw back dog tags. they threw back photographs, they th rew back their 14's. there are photographs of a pile of all of those things collected on the steps of the capitol. so the fact is that i have -- i have been accurate precisely about what took place. and i am the one who later made clear exactly what happened. i mean, this is a controversy that the republicans are pushing , the republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me. and this comes from a president and a republican party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the national guard. i'm not going to stand for it.
GIBSON: senator, i was there 33 years ago and i saw you throw medals over the fence and we didn't find out until later -
KERRY: no, you didn't see me throw th. charlie, charlie, you are wrong. that's not what happened. i threw my ribbons across. all you have to do -
GIBSON: someone else's medals, correct in?
KERRY: after -- excuse me. excuse me, charlie. after the ceremony was over, i had a bronze star and a purple heart given to me, one purple heart by a veteran in the v.a. in new york and the bronze star by an older veteran of world war ii in massachusetts. i threw them over because they asked me to. i never --
GIBSON: let me come back to the thing just said which is the military --
KERRY: this is a phony -- charlie, this is a phony controversy.
GIBSON: the military makes no distinction between ribbons and medals but you are the one who made the distinction. in 1984 --
KERRY: no . we made no distinction back then, charlie. we made no distinction.
GIBSON: senator, i don't want -- i just want to ask the question. in 1984 when you were running for the senate, that was the first time that you called someone in from labor because they were upset that you had thrown ribbons away.
KERRY: no.
GIBSON: you called them and you made the distinction and said i didn't throw my medals away. i just threw the ribbons away. you made the distinction.
KERRY: i was asked specifically in greater detail about what took place. i answered the question truthfully. which is consistent with what happened in 1971. i mean, charlie, go back and get the file footage. there are were millions of people watching. i took my ribbons off my chest just as other veterans did. this is a phony controversy. this is being pushed yesterday by karen hughes of the white house on fox. it shows up at a several different stations at the same time. the republicans are running $10 million this week to attack my credentials on defense. this comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the national guard.
GIBSON: senator --
KERRY: i'm not going to stand for it. i'm in the going to stand for it.
GIBSON: i-understand you are feeling politics is behind this. but i ask you, is it not --
KERRY: i know politics is behind this.
GIBSON: when trying to appeal to the anti-war people in 1971, you said as in that interview, it was the medals and then when the people who supported the war were giving you political problems, you then said i didn't throw the medals away 13 years later.
KERRY: that's the most -- with all due respect, that's the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. because i stood up in front of the country, in front of cameras, a reporter of the ""boston globe"" got it correct . he wrote about the medals but knew they were my ribbons. everybody understood what we were doing. i even said in that interview we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through. and if i was -- you know, back then, trying to appeal to somebody, i stood up against richard nixon, stood up against the withar, took a position, and it wasn't popular, and it was polarizing. i didn't have to do it. if i was trying to hide something, i would have never stood there in floment of everybody and thrown them over the fence. i threw my ribbons over. i threw the medals of two veterans who asked me to throw them over, after the ceremony, completely separate, and i'm the one -- if hi something to hide, i'm the one who made it known exactly what happened. to me, it is one in the same. and i'm proud of it.
GIBSON: let me ask you, too, about two other things that you have said. subsequent to that. 1985, you said to ""the washington post,"" it is such a personal thing i did no want to throw my medals away. then 1996, you said to the ""boston globe,"" i didn't bring my own medals to throw because i didn't have time to go home and get them. which one was it?
KERRY: i expressed there was great sense of wrench being the whole thing. many of us -- we had a long argument the night before, charlie. it is a matter of record. as to how we were going to do it. and the vote was taken. i was not in favor of throwing them over the fence. i thought we ought to lay them on a table and put them in front of people in a way that, you know, wouldn't be as challenging to many americans. other veterans felt otherwise. they took a vote. the vote was made, they voted to throw. i threw my ribbons. i didn't have my medals. it is very simple . what the republicans are trying to do is make this into an issue because they have no record to run on and they can't go out and talk about jobs or health care or environment. they are going to attack 35 years ago. last week in an unprecedented attack, they sent congressmen to the floor of the senate of the house to attack me on the anniversary of my speech. george bush has yet to explain to america whether or no t to tell the truth about whether he showed up for duty. i'm not going to get attack order something i did that's a matter of record that the press saw, that i did in front of the entire nation and everyone then understood there was no distinction. we threw away the symbols of the war. i'm proud i stood up and fought stood up and fought against it. proud i took on richard nixon. and i think to this day, there's no distinction between the two.
GIBSON: all right. senator, i appreciate your being with us this morning. i'm glad to have you here. thank you. all the best. diane?
Unreal.
Here's something verifiable. I paid more in federal taxes this year, with the same # of dependants and very close to the same income, than I did the year before the "tax cuts". That's a fact. I'm not one of the very wealthy. hmm. I sent them a fat check, for the first time. And I never received the so-called refund last year, only in the prior year. I paid that back, and then some. What a joke!
Here's another joke:
http://www.jordansplace.net/politics/html/bushkerry_nam.html
The problem there is 50% of Americans pay no taxes at all, that needs to be fixed, pronto.
They wasted no time cashing my check, either.
Apparently, we need it really badly. Hopefully he will send it to Afganistan, to make up for the money he took from that project to begin his new one in Iraq.
Brand X wrote:The problem there is 50% of Americans pay no taxes at all, that needs to be fixed, pronto.
Bingo.
25% of the US taxpayers contribute 51.3% of total tax revenue. 50% of the US taxpayers contribute a total of 4.25% of total tax revenue. They of course are the ones most convinced the tax breaks benefit "The Rich".
timberlandko wrote:Brand X wrote:The problem there is 50% of Americans pay no taxes at all, that needs to be fixed, pronto.
Bingo.
25% of the US taxpayers contribute 51.3% of total tax revenue. 50% of the US taxpayers contribute a total of 4.25% of total tax revenue. They of course are the ones most convinced the tax breaks benefit "The Rich".
With the text on the image unreadable and no source, the graph does not tell me much. Statements like "25% of the US taxpayers contribute 51.3% of the total tax revenue" do not mean much without qualifications as to what constitutes "total tax revenue". Are payroll and other federal taxes included, or just income taxes? I would also like to see a comparison of that same 25% as a percentage of total US income.
