one hundred and ninety six pages and still no ...... conclusion?
Steve, do you mean that you haven't yet concluded that Bush is a liar?
If so, you are a total idealogue whose mind is calcified.
blatham wrote:"If"!? That is just cowardly, tico.
Truly, what is it with this consistent inability to fess up to (or perhaps face up to) such deceits coming out of this administration's key players?
It appears you feel strongly that I'm under some compulsion to agree with you and Tucker Carlson that Karen Hughes is a liar ... apparently because Clarlson claims she's a liar in an interview he did for Salon.com, which appears to be based an experience he recalls from 1999, when he admits he doesn't like Hughes, and was reacting -- apparently -- to Hughes accusing
him of being a liar. I don't understand why you feel I need to believe Tucker Carlson's account of which, of the two of them, is a liar .... is Carlson the gatekeeper of truth? If Carlson had said John Kerry is a liar, is that the end of the discussion? Or is there, perhaps, the notion of listening to the other side's account, and maintaining an open mind on the subject?
I just want righties to know 1) I did not write this article, and 2) I do not support its content. I just found this by typing "is karen hughes a liar?"
GOP Hypocrite of the Week: Karen Hughes
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Listen to the GOPHOTW HERE.
Welcome back to the BuzzFlash.com GOP Hypocrite of the Week.
She's back. Bush's Dominatrix and world class liar has returned to the pro-Republican mainstream media circuit -- after a self-imposed exile in Texas -- to lay slimeball siege to any Democrat who threatens the Village Idiot of the World.
Forget for the moment that George W. Bush has the courage of a weasel. Also, overlook, if you can, that the dimwitted dauphin prince has such meager ability that you could fit all of his skills in a thimble and still have room left over for two raisins and Dick Cheney's heart.
Karen Hughes comes from a military family and she respects hierarchy and authority. You salute the chief -- and if he is Jim Jones and he offers you a glass of Kool-Aid, you drink it.
And the Kool-Aid of the Bush cartel is gutter politics, so sleazy that it would disgust a snake.
That's why Karen Hughes was back on the pro-Bush mainstream media circuit last week.
Ostensibly, she was pedaling some ridiculously self-indulgent memoir, but she had time to imply that the million women and men who marched for reproductive rights were morally equivalent to terrorists and to deride John Kerry's decorated career in combat and anti-Vietnam war protests.
Excuse us, isn't this the woman who intimidated reporters for years into not covering the truth about Bush's time as a grounded National Guard Pilot who avoided service in Vietnam -- and his mysterious "lost in a haze of drugs and booze" AWOL days?
You would think that the imposing hatchet lady for an administration chock full of cowardly chickenhawks would hold her fire when it comes to Kerry's war record -- and that equating being pro-choice to Osama bin Laden might not be the best way to win over the soccer mom vote -- but Karen Hughes proves that being a hypocritical thug isn't limited to the male Bush loyalists.
Hughes's self-laudatory book is called "Ten Minutes from Normal." Well, in this administration, she's ten million miles from honesty and candor. That probably should have been the title of her tome.
As one reviewer of her book on Amazon.com noted, "Why anyone would believe a word from this amoral sow's pen is beyond me. To equate pro-choice with [a] 9/11 terrorist is beyond the pale. Let's hope she goes from 'Ten Minutes From Normal' to ... deep into oblivion -- and we don't have to ever hear another word of drivel from this shill's mouth ever again."
Ouch!
Karen Hughes, drill sergeant of the Bush Cartel spin squad, we salute you as the 29th BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week. When you are finished running down a war hero like John Kerry, maybe you can write a book about the honorable Vietnam service of Bush and Cheney. It wouldn't take very long to write, it would be blank.
So, until next week, just remember our motto at BuzzFlash.com: So many Republican hypocrites, so little time.
Catch up with you soon.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
cicerone imposter wrote:plainoldme, I've known for many years how our economy has negatively impacted the middle class and the poor while Bush continues to tell Americans our economy is growing and doing well.
What is the greatest mystery for me is simply that even middle class and poor conservatives have been impacted negatively for several years now, but they continue the same rhetoric as Bush.
I'm missing something important, and I'm not sure what it is.
Maybe its tha fact that the middle class has NOT been affected negatively.
You seem to think that they middle class has been,but you dont know.
I am middle class,and since Bush became President my portfolio has more then doubled in value,my income has risen substantially,my taxes have gone down,my property value has gone up,and I am doing substantially better now then I was when Clinton was President.
Every person I know is experiencing the same thing.
You seem to want to find the worst case scenario's and show them to be everybody.
mm must live in la-la land. Most of the articles concerning our economy has been dismal. Here's one by the democratic party just published:
Middle-Class Life Under Bush Republicans: Less Affordable and Less Secure
July 10, 2006
CI,
You just proved my point.
You ignore data and information that shows you are wrong,but you post an obviously partisan piece that was designed to do nothing but attack.
Or,are you saying that I am the exception that is doing well?
Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:"If"!? That is just cowardly, tico.
Truly, what is it with this consistent inability to fess up to (or perhaps face up to) such deceits coming out of this administration's key players?
It appears you feel strongly that I'm under some compulsion to agree with you and Tucker Carlson that Karen Hughes is a liar ... apparently because Clarlson claims she's a liar in an interview he did for Salon.com, which appears to be based an experience he recalls from 1999, when he admits he doesn't like Hughes, and was reacting -- apparently -- to Hughes accusing
him of being a liar. I don't understand why you feel I need to believe Tucker Carlson's account of which, of the two of them, is a liar .... is Carlson the gatekeeper of truth? If Carlson had said John Kerry is a liar, is that the end of the discussion? Or is there, perhaps, the notion of listening to the other side's account, and maintaining an open mind on the subject?
I thought you might be compelled, as a point of character or principle, to demonstrate personal integrity over political partisanship, for goodness sakes.
Carlson wrote in his book of events on a plane trip he took with Bush and Hughes including Bush using swear words. She later accused him of lying about this, including in a phone call to him where she denied it had happened even though they were both present. Carlson recounted all of this in an interview I saw on CNN (I think). The Salon interview recounts the same information.
Carlson has no motive to lie, Hughes does.
One can understand Hughes being dishonest here, even if seems to me a completely silly deceit. Who doesn't swear?
But your behavior on this point demonstrates something you consistently do - you try to weasel out of any honest admission or concession if you think there might be some negative shadow cast on your political heroes, and truth be damned.
From the NYT:
June 7, 2005
The Bush Economy
With all of the debate about taxes, the economy and domestic spending, it is hard to imagine anyone supporting the notion of taking money from programs like Medicaid and college-tuition assistance, increasing the tax burden of the vast majority of working Americans, sending the country into crushing debt - and giving the proceeds to people who are so fantastically rich that they don't know what to do with the money they already have. Yet that is just what is happening under the Bush administration. Forget the middle class and the upper-middle class. Even the merely wealthy are being left behind in the dust by the small slice of super-rich Americans.
In last Sunday's Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.
President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same.
Mr. Johnston's article quotes a prominent economist who argues that people care more about the chance to move from one income class to another (upward, of course) than about income distribution. But during the Bush years, the two main sources of class mobility - a good job and money for higher education - have increasingly failed to materialize for those who most need them. Last week's jobs report from the Labor Department confirmed that a strong labor market recovery has not taken hold. Wages for most working people failed even to outpace inflation in the past year.
That might be more bearable if things were rough all over. But the share of economic growth that is going toward corporate profits, which flow to stockholders and bondholders who are concentrated at the top of the income scale, is at historic highs.
Which brings us back to the super wealthy and the merely rich. The divide between rich and poor is unfortunately an old story, but income-class warfare among the top 20 percent of the scale is a newer phenomenon. One cause is that the further up the scale one goes, the more of one's income comes from investments, which under the Bush tax cuts enjoy about the lowest rates in the tax code. But many families making between $100,000 and $200,000 are not exactly on easy street. They don't face choices anywhere near as stark as those encountered further down the income ladder, but they face serious tradeoffs not experienced by the uppermost crust, particularly when hit with the triple whammy of college for the children, care for aging parents and preparing for their own retirement.
There is something deeply wrong about a system that calls into question a comfortable retirement or a top-notch education for people who have broken into the top 20 percent of income earners. It starts to seem politically explosive when you consider that in a decade, those making between $100,000 and $200,000 will pay about five to nine percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $1 million, assuming the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
This is not about giving wealthy people more money to invest back into the economy. At this level, it's really about giving more money to those who have nothing to do with it except amass enormous estates for their heirs. Fixing the problem will require members of Congress to summon the courage to say no to a president who wants more for the richest of the rich at the expense of everyone else. We're not holding our breath.
mm and all his friends are just doing dandy with Bush's economy. They just don't realize that the big spending Bush government and consumers are going to bite us in the butt when people realize the US dollar is monopoly money.
cicerone imposter wrote:mm and all his friends are just doing dandy with Bush's economy. They just don't realize that the big spending Bush government and consumers are going to bite us in the butt when people realize the US dollar is monopoly money.
I am not a big spender,I have no debts except my house payment,and I dont use credit cardds.
The economy could go south today,and I will be just fine.
You seem to think everyone either is or should be miserable about the economy.
Well,I refuse to share the misery.
If you want to wallow in self pity about how bad you are doing,thats fine.
But,dont try and drag others down with you.
mm is more stupid than I could ever imagine, but he proves himself with almost every post.
mm wrote:
Well,I refuse to share the misery.
If you want to wallow in self pity about how bad you are doing,thats fine.
But,dont try and drag others down with you.
mm, FYI, I am retired (since 1998). I had a short professional career compared to the average worker, and worked in management during most of it. I travel any place on this planet I desire about eight times a year now. We have no mortgage payment nor any other fixed payment. "Wallow in self pity?" What do you smoke? You are about as dumb as they come on a2k, but I think you're at the top of the list.
blatham wrote:Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:"If"!? That is just cowardly, tico.
Truly, what is it with this consistent inability to fess up to (or perhaps face up to) such deceits coming out of this administration's key players?
It appears you feel strongly that I'm under some compulsion to agree with you and Tucker Carlson that Karen Hughes is a liar ... apparently because Clarlson claims she's a liar in an interview he did for Salon.com, which appears to be based an experience he recalls from 1999, when he admits he doesn't like Hughes, and was reacting -- apparently -- to Hughes accusing
him of being a liar. I don't understand why you feel I need to believe Tucker Carlson's account of which, of the two of them, is a liar .... is Carlson the gatekeeper of truth? If Carlson had said John Kerry is a liar, is that the end of the discussion? Or is there, perhaps, the notion of listening to the other side's account, and maintaining an open mind on the subject?
I thought you might be compelled, as a point of character or principle, to demonstrate personal integrity over political partisanship, for goodness sakes.
Carlson wrote in his book of events on a plane trip he took with Bush and Hughes including Bush using swear words. She later accused him of lying about this, including in a phone call to him where she denied it had happened even though they were both present. Carlson recounted all of this in an interview I saw on CNN (I think). The Salon interview recounts the same information.
Carlson has no motive to lie, Hughes does.
One can understand Hughes being dishonest here, even if seems to me a completely silly deceit. Who doesn't swear?
But your behavior on this point demonstrates something you consistently do - you try to weasel out of any honest admission or concession if you think there might be some negative shadow cast on your political heroes, and truth be damned.
You've managed to convince yourself that Hughes is a liar .... congratulations. (And, BTW, I'm not sure if I could care any less about this than I do at the moment -- which I'm sure you will find as another flaw in my character.) But you should not give yourself points in "personal integrity" as a consequence. I do not share your predilection towards assuming someone is a liar based solely on the leveling of a charge, and the presence of a motivation to lie. I did not do it to Clinton, I have not done it to Bush, and I see no reason to do it to Hughes. But the fact that you've cast aspersions on my character for not doing so says more about yours than mine, IMO.
mm and his friends are doing just dandy, but it seems that is a contradiction of most Americans that thinks Bush is a failure.
Just in case mm and his buddies can read the graph, it says this country is headed in the wrong direction by a majority of over 60 percent.
mm and his buddies must be in the 30 percent; it seems some are doing okay, and fxxx the rest.
tico said
Quote:You've managed to convince yourself that Hughes is a liar .... congratulations. (And, BTW, I'm not sure if I could care any less about this than I do at the moment -- which I'm sure you will find as another flaw in my character.) But you should not give yourself points in "personal integrity" as a consequence. I do not share your predilection towards assuming someone is a liar based solely on the leveling of a charge, and the presence of a motivation to lie. I did not do it to Clinton, I have not done it to Bush, and I see no reason to do it to Hughes. But the fact that you've cast aspersions on my character for not doing so says more about yours than mine, IMO.
Of course, it isn't merely the "leveling of a charge". Tucker Carlson's witnessing of the matter puts it in quite another category. And rather obviously, one of them is lying so motive is important.
Considering rules of evidence, the principles and rationale behind the need for them and the civil or justice consequences for ignoring them, it seems rather unbalanced that you'd need a trial by jury in this case to give yourself licence to say she lied (with what real consequence for anyone?) but at the same time you are quite happy to see most of those principles and rationales eviscerated in another sphere where the consequences have reached as far as torture and death.
Yes, that is an integrity, justice, truth and character issue. I like you. To see you go so far off the rails baffles me entirely.
c.i. -- You mentioned the mystery of those who are negatively impacted by bush's policies continuing to support bush. Well, perhaps, I need to refer to my former husband on his late mother, "My mother would have voted for Hitler if he ran as a Republican."
Someone on Greater Boston's Friday edition known as, "Beat the Press," pointed out that Tucker Carlson will do anything to keep his face before the public.
plainoldme, That would make sense, but Bush is anything but a republican. Bush doesn't understand nor supports anything of republican values. Go figure why so many still supports this moron.
