Page 42 of 43 FirstFirst ... 3237383940414243 LastLast
Results 821 to 840 of 845
  1. #821  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    lol
    indeed.

    its sooo unfair.

    The most honest junta we'll ever have.

    Please Jeb, pleeeezzze !!!!

    (what about Neil -- is he available ?? -- are Jenna and Barbie old enough yet ??? what will we dooo ?????)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #822  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    It amazes me that people still spew this 'Bush lied' garbage.
    Heck, I still recall when Bush claimed he didn't have interest in a Lumber Mill when Kerry referred to it in the debates. Sure enough, it turns out that he'd claimed the Lumber Mill on his taxes. lol
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #823  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Heck, I still recall when Bush claimed he didn't have interest in a Lumber Mill when Kerry referred to it in the debates. Sure enough, it turns out that he'd claimed the Lumber Mill on his taxes. lol
    I have a sneaky suspicion that the only point in which he even touched his tax papers was when he signed it. He's still liable, agree, but odds are someone else filled it out for him.
  4. #824  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I have a sneaky suspicion that the only point in which he even touched his tax papers was when he signed it. He's still liable, agree, but odds are someone else filled it out for him.
    lol again
  5. #825  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I have a sneaky suspicion that the only point in which he even touched his tax papers was when he signed it. He's still liable, agree, but odds are someone else filled it out for him.
    ya right.

    that's how it is when you're a bushie.

    Someone probably did his turn in Vietnam for him too....
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #826  
    hey! ex enron accountants need jobs too!
  7. #827  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Heck, I still recall when Bush claimed he didn't have interest in a Lumber Mill when Kerry referred to it in the debates. Sure enough, it turns out that he'd claimed the Lumber Mill on his taxes. lol
    Not exactly. Bush's comment was much more accurate than yours.


    Here's the quote from the debate:
    Kerry: The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. **** Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

    Bush: I own a timber company? That's news to me.
    1. Bush has partial ownership in Lone Star Trust, an oil and gas company. In 2003, Lone Star Trust took a 50% stake in Lone Star Trust Fund, a timber business which won't begin selling timber until 2007.
    2. Bush never got $84 from a timber company. Kerry got his bad info from factcheck.org, which admitted its error.
    3. The $84 on his taxes were for Lone Star Trust (the oil and gas company) in 2001, two years before it invested in timber. So, no, he never claimed a "lumber mill" on his taxes.
    4. Kerry claimed that Bush owned a timber company. And Bush's comment was about owning a timber business, not having interest in one, as you say. Nor about having interest in a company that has interest in one. (I'd also be surprised if someone claimed that I own corporate office space in Sunnyvale, CA.)
    5. He didn't actually claim anything other than surprise.


    So Bush was wrong, but he didn't lie. But you did. Three times in two sentences. (I'm not counting your reference to the "lumber mill" since I don't know whether the timber business actually owns a mill, though I doubt it since it doesn't make anything yet.)
  8. #828  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Not exactly. Bush's comment was much more accurate than yours.


    Here's the quote from the debate:

    1. Bush has partial ownership in Lone Star Trust, an oil and gas company. In 2003, Lone Star Trust took a 50% stake in Lone Star Trust Fund, a timber business which won't begin selling timber until 2007.
    2. Bush never got $84 from a timber company. Kerry got his bad info from factcheck.org, which admitted its error.
    3. The $84 on his taxes were for Lone Star Trust (the oil and gas company) in 2001, two years before it invested in timber. So, no, he never claimed a "lumber mill" on his taxes.
    4. Kerry claimed that Bush owned a timber company. And Bush's comment was about owning a timber business, not having interest in one, as you say. Nor about having interest in a company that has interest in one. (I'd also be surprised if someone claimed that I own corporate office space in Sunnyvale, CA.)
    5. He didn't actually claim anything other than surprise.


    So Bush was wrong, but he didn't lie. But you did. Three times in two sentences. (I'm not counting your reference to the "lumber mill" since I don't know whether the timber business actually owns a mill, though I doubt it since it doesn't make anything yet.)
    did anyone actually read all the way through this?
  9. #829  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Not exactly. Bush's comment was much more accurate than yours.


    Here's the quote from the debate:

    1. Bush has partial ownership in Lone Star Trust, an oil and gas company. In 2003, Lone Star Trust took a 50% stake in Lone Star Trust Fund, a timber business which won't begin selling timber until 2007.
    2. Bush never got $84 from a timber company. Kerry got his bad info from factcheck.org, which admitted its error.
    3. The $84 on his taxes were for Lone Star Trust (the oil and gas company) in 2001, two years before it invested in timber. So, no, he never claimed a "lumber mill" on his taxes.
    4. Kerry claimed that Bush owned a timber company. And Bush's comment was about owning a timber business, not having interest in one, as you say. Nor about having interest in a company that has interest in one. (I'd also be surprised if someone claimed that I own corporate office space in Sunnyvale, CA.)
    5. He didn't actually claim anything other than surprise.


    So Bush was wrong, but he didn't lie. But you did. Three times in two sentences. (I'm not counting your reference to the "lumber mill" since I don't know whether the timber business actually owns a mill, though I doubt it since it doesn't make anything yet.)
    Following your logic. Clinton never lied about having sex in testimony.
    And also following your logic, I was wrong, but I didn't lie. I love this method, I don't think I've ever lied, I've just been wrong! The point Kerry was making had to do with Bush qualifying as a small business. It's one example, but admitedly not a very good example. Now my question is, with every example, will Bush simply have been mistaken?

    My tolerance is low on using technicalities and ignorance as an excuse. I live in Ohio. Ohio, the place where the Chief Executive of Diebold voting machines wrote in a letter about his committment to helping deliver electoral votes for Bush. And yes, the same state where our Secretary of State had an investment in Diebold. He claimed that he accidentally invested in Diebold. Coincidentally at a time he was being sued by other manufacturers over contracts that Diebold was up for.

    This isn't a partisan thing. My expectations are the same of all representatives. I just wish more voters were the same. But we seem to live in a time where everyone says, "Well they all lie." And I guess they're okay with that?
    Last edited by gaffa; 06/13/2006 at 08:06 AM.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #830  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    This isn't a partisan thing. My expectations are the same of all representatives.
    So you were calling for Clinton to be impeached over the Monica thing?
  11. #831  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    So you were calling for Clinton to be impeached over the Monica thing?
    Knowing that the senate would acquit, I felt that censure would have been more appropriate.
    Last edited by gaffa; 06/13/2006 at 10:17 AM.
  12. #832  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Following your logic. Clinton never lied about having sex in testimony.
    And also following your logic, I was wrong, but I didn't lie.
    You're actually not following my logic at all.

    The difference between you and Bush is that he didn't say anything untrue. You did.

    If you really didn't know that what you said about Bush was false, then you didn't lie, and I was wrong. But still, you haven't admitted your false statements yet. Why is that?


    You're raising a different point, which is unrelated to my post and unrelated to Bush's timber business comment - the difference between saying something untrue and lying. There's a real difference - which I admittedly blurred in my own post when I accused you of lying.

    Clinton wasn't just wrong when he said, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." He lied.
    1. He made a false statement.
    2. He knew it.


    Now my question is, with every example, will Bush simply have been mistaken?
    If he knowingly makes a false statement, then that's a lie. If you really want to talk about Bush lying, then the timber company comment is a bad example.
  13. #833  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    If he knowingly makes a false statement, then that's a lie. If you really want to talk about Bush lying, then the timber company comment is a bad example.
    If you don't know what he knows, it would appear that he or anyone could get away with a lot. I choose to believe that he is more intelligent than people give him credit for. You are right, the timber company was not a good example. Would a better one be when he said that the government would never tap your phone without a court order from FISA?
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #834  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    If you don't know what he knows, it would appear that he or anyone could get away with a lot. I choose to believe that he is more intelligent than people give him credit for. You are right, the timber company was not a good example. Would a better one be when he said that the government would never tap your phone without a court order from FISA?
    If you're not getting a call from a known terrorist, they won't.
  15. #835  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    If you don't know what he knows, it would appear that he or anyone could get away with a lot.
    It's tough that we expect that you base your accusations on actual facts on not just on distrust.


    You are right, the timber company was not a good example.
    Good. Now will you acknowledge your false statements?


    Would a better one be when he said that the government would never tap your phone without a court order from FISA?
    That was a lie. But since wiretaps without court orders for overseas phone calls from terrorists were part of a confidential counter-terrorist program, I'd expect him and every government official who knew about it to deny its existence.
  16. #836  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You're raising a different point, which is unrelated to my post and unrelated to Bush's timber business comment - the difference between saying something untrue and lying. There's a real difference - which I admittedly blurred in my own post when I accused you of lying.
    lol

    Thanks, that clears it up.
  17. #837  
    Here is a follow up to the documents released that I noted above. Again, I note that this is not currently conclusive, but just one newly release doc from Saddam's Regime from several hundred thousand of documents yet to be translated, but very noteworthy none the less.
    :

    Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection
    Friday, June 16, 2006

    Tahir Jalil Habbush al Tikriti came to public attention in December, 2003 when the Telegraph UK reported Terrorist Behind September 11th Strike was Trained by Saddam ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...14/wterr14.xml ).

    Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in U.S. history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

    The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.

    In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".

    Atta, of course, led the 9/11 attacks. It is interesting to note in this new context of an intelligence based relationship between the Taliban and Saddam regime, orchestrated by Pakistani contacts, specifically Maulana Rahman, that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a Pakistani passport holder arrested in Pakistan in 2003. It also is worth noting that Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi, who officials say sent cash to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, also was arrested in Pakistan with Khalid. Both of these men were arrested in the home of or a member of Pakistan's largest religious political party, Jamaat Islami, of which Maulana Fazlur Rahman is a leader. A further translation from this notebook indicates that in another meeting, again believed to be with the Maulana, joint military training between the Taliban and the Iraqi military is proposed.

    Due to the information provided in this notebook, we see a possible secret, intelligence based, operational relationship between the Taliban and the Saddam regime via Maulana Fazlur Rahman. We can discern that the Maulana most likely is meeting with Habbush al Tikriti, implicated in documents published by the Telegraph newspaper in reference to the training of Atta in Iraq. We also have an annotation that indicates Pakistani Fazlur Rahman Khalil, a known bin Laden associate, Al Qaeda terrorist and a 1998 fatwa co-signatory, also was traveling to Iraq in 1999. A further translation from this notebook indicates that in another meeting, again with the Maulana, the Taliban proposes joint military training with the Iraqi military.

    FULL STORY HERE
  18. #838  
    While I am not dissmissing your post, I think you run the risk of misleading some of our less read board members.

    Especially since you left out the part that prefaces the entire story ... "Iraq's coalition government claims..."

    If we had seen similar claims coming from middle east Shea sources posted in Al Jezeera and not Fox News, I don't have to tell you how quickly they would be dismissed.

    I would also point out, that unless you believe that Bush knew God wanted him to invade Iraq that invading first, then digging through the rubble for justification might not be the best foreign policy.
  19. #839  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    While I am not dissmissing your post, I think you run the risk of misleading some of our less read board members.
    Uhm.....how is stating the following misleading?
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again, I note that this is not currently conclusive, but just one newly release doc from Saddam's Regime from several hundred thousand of documents yet to be translated, but very noteworthy none the less.
    I have been VERY clear that so far nothing conclusive has been translated and released yet, only points of interests. Even stated several times over that when all is said and done it may prove Iraq had nothing to do with any of the accusations leveled against it or may prove they were all correct or anywhere in the middle. I also include full source links to each point to give everyone a chance to read the quotes in their full context. These reports are often so long there is no other way.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/16/2006 at 12:45 PM.
  20. #840  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Uhm.....how is stating the following misleading?I have been VERY clear that so far nothing conclusive has been translated and released yet, only points of interests. I also include full source links to each point to give everyone a chance to read the quotes in their full context. These reports are often so long there is no other way.
    I didn't say I dissmissed it, but I guarantee cardio for example will skim what you posted and conclude Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

    And as I said, the portion you left out about the entire story hinging on the word of the Iraqi Shea regime was significant.

Posting Permissions