0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:02 pm
Amigo wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Amigo wrote:
This is like watching Tyson fight a cheerleader.

Well, since you claim that your side has so conclusively proven Bush is a liar I make the following challenge to you. Please list the Bush lies that have been proven in this thread and include a link to a post that proves each one. You can't and won't.
Yes I can. No I won't.

If Bush came on T.V. and yelled

"I Lied! I've been wacked out on coke and Wild Turkey the whole time. I'm loaded right now! I can't even remember half the ****! What the hell is wrong with you people!"

You would stick ice picks into your lying liberal traitor terrorist ears.

Thanks for your prediction of my behavior. As I thought, you wish to make a lot of claims and steadfastly refuse to support any of them. Have a nice life.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:06 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're just mindlessly repeating sayings you are either unable to or unwilling to defend with calm, rational argument.

Oh, the irony!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:08 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
This has got to be the funniest thread running right now.... Rolling Eyes

Brandon, you have yet to address the "16 words" controversy; your silence on this speaks volumes.

Typically, however, you ignore anything which you cannot address, and choose instead to focus myopically on language interpretation....

Mostly it says that I've never heard of the 16 word controversy. I hate to disappoint you, but I actually have a life in the real world, and don't read every post here. Why don't you tell me what it is so that I may address it. And, need I remind you that you rarely answer questions I ask of you, so why should I answer all of yours? But go ahead, tell me what it is and I'll respond.

If you don't read every post then how can you say that we have not proven that Bush is a liar? I say we have proven it. Now prove me wrong.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:12 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
My understanding is that the president was honestly quoting intelligence reports. Can you make a case that it was a lie?

I've shown references to three separate US inquiries that conflicted with the British report. Plus a memo from Tenet to Rice on the subject. Bush repeatedly chose to continue quoting the British report.

Sounds like a deliberate deception to me.

No go and pout for two days, so you can come back and claim you haven't seen this post....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:12 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
This has got to be the funniest thread running right now.... Rolling Eyes

Brandon, you have yet to address the "16 words" controversy; your silence on this speaks volumes.

Typically, however, you ignore anything which you cannot address, and choose instead to focus myopically on language interpretation....

Mostly it says that I've never heard of the 16 word controversy. I hate to disappoint you, but I actually have a life in the real world, and don't read every post here. Why don't you tell me what it is so that I may address it. And, need I remind you that you rarely answer questions I ask of you, so why should I answer all of yours? But go ahead, tell me what it is and I'll respond.

If you don't read every post then how can you say that we have not proven that Bush is a liar? I say we have proven it. Now prove me wrong.

Alright, I will do so gladly. Please tell any single statement of his which you allege to be a proven lie and then give me a link to the post in this thread or any other thread which proves it. I'm certainly not going to read every post based on your general allegation that somewhere in there some lie you decline to mention is proven.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:13 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're just mindlessly repeating sayings you are either unable to or unwilling to defend with calm, rational argument.

Oh, the irony!

Anyone can call names. Please tell me any allegation I have made on a political issue that I refuse to support with argument.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:21 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
This has got to be the funniest thread running right now.... Rolling Eyes

Brandon, you have yet to address the "16 words" controversy; your silence on this speaks volumes.

Typically, however, you ignore anything which you cannot address, and choose instead to focus myopically on language interpretation....

Mostly it says that I've never heard of the 16 word controversy. I hate to disappoint you, but I actually have a life in the real world, and don't read every post here. Why don't you tell me what it is so that I may address it. And, need I remind you that you rarely answer questions I ask of you, so why should I answer all of yours? But go ahead, tell me what it is and I'll respond.

If you don't read every post then how can you say that we have not proven that Bush is a liar? I say we have proven it. Now prove me wrong.

Alright, I will do so gladly. Please tell any single statement of his which you allege to be a proven lie and then give me a link to the post in this thread or any other thread which proves it. I'm certainly not going to read every post based on your general allegation that somewhere in there some lie you decline to mention is proven.

Nope. I've already shown him to be a liar. (See my last post above.)

No go off on your rant about "honest debate."

<snicker>
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:22 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're just mindlessly repeating sayings you are either unable to or unwilling to defend with calm, rational argument.

Oh, the irony!

Anyone can call names. Please tell me any allegation I have made on a political issue that I refuse to support with argument.

Please provide a link to a "calm, rational argument" that you have made.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:40 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're just mindlessly repeating sayings you are either unable to or unwilling to defend with calm, rational argument.

Oh, the irony!

Anyone can call names. Please tell me any allegation I have made on a political issue that I refuse to support with argument.

Please provide a link to a "calm, rational argument" that you have made.

This post:

Example
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 12:42 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're just mindlessly repeating sayings you are either unable to or unwilling to defend with calm, rational argument.

Oh, the irony!

Anyone can call names. Please tell me any allegation I have made on a political issue that I refuse to support with argument.

Please provide a link to a "calm, rational argument" that you have made.

This post:

Example

I would call that "rationalized," not "rational."

Thank you for playing, however. Please accept this GWB bobble-head as your concession prize....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 07:41 am
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're just mindlessly repeating sayings you are either unable to or unwilling to defend with calm, rational argument.

Oh, the irony!

Anyone can call names. Please tell me any allegation I have made on a political issue that I refuse to support with argument.

Please provide a link to a "calm, rational argument" that you have made.

This post:

Example

I would call that "rationalized," not "rational."

Thank you for playing, however. Please accept this GWB bobble-head as your concession prize....

My point is that its an example of debating the underlying topic in a dignified manner, without finding it necessary to use childish insults as a central part of my strategy.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:08 am
Here is a lie that Bush repeated numerous times. He said that, in so many years, there would be no money to pay social security recipients. This is a flat-out lie inasmuch just the current contributions to SS would fund 72% of paid-out benefits.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:20 am
Bush: bragged that in Texas he was signing up children for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as "fast as any other state."

Fact: "As governor he fought to unsuccessfully to limit access to the program. He would have limited its coverage to children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, though federal law permitted up to 200 percent. The practical effect of Bush's efforts would have been to exclude 200,000 of the 500,000 possible enrollees." Washington Post, 10/12/00
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:21 am
Advocate wrote:
Here is a lie that Bush repeated numerous times. He said that, in so many years, there would be no money to pay social security recipients. This is a flat-out lie inasmuch just the current contributions to SS would fund 72% of paid-out benefits.


Where is the other 28% going to come from?
How long would it remain at 72% before it went down even further?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:25 am
Where is the other 28% going to come from? FROM NOWHERE!
How long would it remain at 72% before it went down even further? IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:29 am
Advocate wrote:
Where is the other 28% going to come from? FROM NOWHERE!
How long would it remain at 72% before it went down even further? IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!


So,that means that people wont get 100% of what they put in,or it would mean going into debt even further,right?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:52 am
First, SS recipients get back much more than they put in.

Second, you would have to ask Bush for the answers to your latest questions. I was only responding to his false premise.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:59 am
Advocate wrote:
First, SS recipients get back much more than they put in.

Second, you would have to ask Bush for the answers to your latest questions. I was only responding to his false premise.


I dont know if its a lie or not.
Did he say exactly how many years?

If all he said was "in so many years",then he couldnt have been lying.
He would have been trying to predict the future,and nobody can do that.
Will there be money in 100 years,200,500?

Nobody knows,so if you quoted him correctly,there is no way you can say he lied.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 09:07 am
On the Social Security issue. So who's lying? The President? Or those who accuse him of lying?

January 14, 2005, 8:07 a.m.
"Save Social Security First"?
Just a few years ago, Democrats talked about a crisis they now deny exists.

The latest line of attack against President Bush's still-unformed plan to reform the Social Security system is the charge that the White House is manufacturing a phony Social Security "crisis" to sell its proposal. "The fabricated crisis is the hallmark of the Bush presidency," Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson wrote this week. "To attain goals that he had set for himself before he took office ?- the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the privatization of Social Security ?- he concocted crises where there were none." A number of other commentators, and also some news reporters, have joined in the same theme in recent weeks.

A key document in the controversy, a strategy memo written in early January by White House aide Peter Wehner ?- a top assistant to political chief Karl Rove ?- does not use the word "crisis," but it does say clearly that Social Security is headed for trouble. "Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg," Wehner writes. "We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform."

To some commentators, Wehner's analysis suggested that the White House planned to stir up a phony "crisis." But in fact it appears that President Bush is not only relying on accepted economic wisdom about Social Security's future financial viability but also, in his campaign for reform, borrowing a page from the public-relations playbook of his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

In 1998, the major policy question in Washington was what to do with enormous anticipated federal budget surpluses. Republicans, arguing that a surplus meant the government was taking in too much money, wanted to cut taxes. Clinton wanted to kill any tax-cut proposal before it had a chance to gather support. So in his 1998 State of the Union speech, he came up with a famous slogan.

"What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

Soon Clinton was going around the country, touting a coming Social Security "crisis." All of his administration's economic achievements, he said in February 1998, "are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." There should be no new spending ?- or, more importantly, no tax cuts ?- "before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

A number of Clinton's arguments back then sound uncannily like Bush's today, if one makes a few adjustments for newly revised figures on Social Security's finances. "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system," Clinton said, again in February 1998. "By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

Clinton's Social Security-crisis campaign, while a response to Republican plans for the surplus, was also a way for him to go on the political offensive during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As the scandal grew, he became more interested in fighting off impeachment than forestalling tax cuts. But Social Security remained a potent rhetorical weapon. In September, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years ?- by 2032 ?- "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire.

"Save Social Security first," said Gore.

"Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.

"Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.

"Save Social Security first," said Boxer.

Today, some of those same lawmakers are leading the opposition to President Bush's initiative and no longer fear a crisis in Social Security. And indeed, by 1999, after GOP tax-cut proposals had been defeated and he escaped conviction in his Senate impeachment trial, Social Security's future became a less urgent issue to Clinton. In his 957-page autobiography, My Life, Clinton included no extended discussion of Social Security at all.

Back in 1998, Democrats realized it was politically safe to rally around Clinton's statements about a Social Security crisis because they knew he did not really intend to take any action that matched his rhetoric. They also knew that Clinton's words were correct; Social Security was then, as it is now, facing a "looming fiscal crisis." He just didn't plan to do much about it.

Now, things are different. George W. Bush, by all accounts, intends to take substantial action. And as he prepares the way for that action, he has decided to use elements of the old Clinton campaign to make his case. Last week, under questioning by reporters, White House spokesman Scott McClellan read an extended passage from Clinton's February 1998 "looming fiscal crisis" statement without first revealing the source of the quote. That wasn't President Bush, McClellan then explained. "That was February 9, 1998, in remarks given by President Clinton. This has been a problem that has been looming for quite some time."
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 10:03 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're just mindlessly repeating sayings you are either unable to or unwilling to defend with calm, rational argument.

Oh, the irony!

Anyone can call names. Please tell me any allegation I have made on a political issue that I refuse to support with argument.

It is true that anyone can call names. I, however, limit my name-calling to a few truely ridiculous personalities.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/14/2026 at 08:56:36