| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/24/2004 04:12:11 PM · #1 |
Or that all this just get so tiresome and people are out doing something fun....like taking purdy pikturs.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2004 01:58:30 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Based on the facts that 1) over three days have elapsed, and 2) no statement has yet been posted, I must assume that there are none that will withstand honest scrutiny.
Ron |
Well, when you call a bush hater on a "lie" it's usually followed by a blank look or a wild ass conspiracy theory. I think the lack of a response is the online Equivalent of a blank look. Or perhaps they're waiting for the release of Michael Moore's next film. |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 01:09:07 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Each statement is documented, and why it is a deception is documented.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Ron. You are defending the concept that the Moon is made of green cheese.
You are defending a pack of scoundrels, and not in a manner behooving an intellectual. |
OK. Pull out the statement that you feel is documented the best.
Ron |
Based on the facts that 1) over three days have elapsed, and 2) no statement has yet been posted, I must assume that there are none that will withstand honest scrutiny.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 01:04:25 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
silly me.
anyone else think that is called "getting caught in a lie" ? |
Based on the underwhelming number of affirmative responses in the last 4+ days ( zero ), I guess that the answer is. . .
NO, no one else thinks that is called "getting caught in a lie".
Ron |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 12:29:08 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah.......................................... |
good call |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 09:06:47 PM · #6 |
| Blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah.......................................... |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 09:05:09 PM · #7 |
So then where do you get your news?
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then where do you get your news from, or can I assume, that you, like the president, do not read either?
|
If I had access to the greatest intelligence gathering apperatus in the country, if not the world, I don't think I'd get my "news" from the papers. |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2004 04:13:20 PM · #8 |
Speaking of news . . .
Here's a site which lists first person accounts from Iraq - looks pretty cool.
Bloggers 4 Freedom
|
|
|
|
05/21/2004 03:20:31 PM · #9 |
| Sarin filled artillery shell linked to Abu Ghraib prison scandal. |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 03:15:20 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then where do you get your news from, or can I assume, that you, like the president, do not read either?
|
If I had access to the greatest intelligence gathering apperatus in the country, if not the world, I don't think I'd get my "news" from the papers. |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 12:41:07 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I"m not going to chase down the previous post about that issue...I don't have time...
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
RonB has once again been caught not reading posted web sites (either his own, or others) but is quick to comment and denounce them. Instead of providing meaningful and legitimate analysis on what has been brought up, he throws it back in your face and tells you to provide him with the issues. |
Perhaps instead of impugning my character by innuendo, you could enlighten us all with just which posted web sites I have been caught "not reading"?
Ron |
|
Hmmm. You had the time to make the accusation, but you don't have time to substantiate it. Well, I'll wait for a while to see if you find the time to make other accusations before you can find the time to substantiate the accusations you have already made.
Ron
|
|
|
|
05/21/2004 12:16:24 PM · #12 |
And Chalabi was the US govt's man all along. They had put a man with a history of corruption as head of the Iraqi National Congress.
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Let's see what kind of stories will be made against Syria and Iran,I can smell they are next very soon !
Here are some headlines:
Chalabi handed US secrets over to Iran: report
American journalist expelled from Iran 18:16 2004-05-21
US Ambassador refutes reports on possible US attack on Iran
US Expresses Continued Concern about Russia's Nuclear Aid to Iran
Protesters Hurl Petrol Bombs at UK Embassy in Iran
Iran using Gaza tunnels in anti-Israel attacks
Syria -Iran / Agreement
USA started preparations for war with Syria |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2004 12:12:20 PM · #13 |
I"m not going to chase down the previous post about that issue...I don't have time...
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
RonB has once again been caught not reading posted web sites (either his own, or others) but is quick to comment and denounce them. Instead of providing meaningful and legitimate analysis on what has been brought up, he throws it back in your face and tells you to provide him with the issues. |
Perhaps instead of impugning my character by innuendo, you could enlighten us all with just which posted web sites I have been caught "not reading"?
Ron |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2004 12:01:06 PM · #14 |
Let's see what kind of stories will be made against Syria and Iran,I can smell they are next very soon !
Here are some headlines:
Chalabi handed US secrets over to Iran: report
American journalist expelled from Iran 18:16 2004-05-21
US Ambassador refutes reports on possible US attack on Iran
US Expresses Continued Concern about Russia's Nuclear Aid to Iran
Protesters Hurl Petrol Bombs at UK Embassy in Iran
Iran using Gaza tunnels in anti-Israel attacks
Syria -Iran / Agreement
USA started preparations for war with Syria
Message edited by author 2004-05-21 12:10:04. |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 11:57:42 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
RonB has once again been caught not reading posted web sites (either his own, or others) but is quick to comment and denounce them. Instead of providing meaningful and legitimate analysis on what has been brought up, he throws it back in your face and tells you to provide him with the issues. |
Perhaps instead of impugning my character by innuendo, you could enlighten us all with just which posted web sites I have been caught "not reading"?
Ron |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 11:53:30 AM · #16 |
RonB has once again been caught not reading posted web sites (either his own, or others) but is quick to comment and denounce them. Instead of providing meaningful and legitimate analysis on what has been brought up, he throws it back in your face and tells you to provide him with the issues.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
hey Ron, i think you forgot to debunk this website. but good job hosing my other one. tho i still think that is called "getting caught in a lie". i mean shit, did you see his reaction?
"uh huh. uh hu. ahh.. my view of the situation was that.. ahh.. he he had, we we belive the best inteligence..."
comon... |
I think that thatwebsite does a pretty good job of debunking itself. It is one of the most rambling, innuendo laden sites I've seen. It makes all kinds of claims about the number of misleading statements or lies and even offers counts by categories. But does it anywhere provide an actual list of the "lies" with substantiation? Uh, well, NO! The entire site is just another Bush-bashing propoganda piece.
If you can find anything discrete in there and isolate it for me, I'll be glad to consider it.
Ron |
Ron... you just hoisted your own petard.
The site you just glibly described as "full of innuendo" and "a propaganda piece" is:
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform Minority Staff - Special Investigatory Unit Report On the Bush Administration Public statements on the War in Iraq
My God, man, and you try to convince people here that you are NOT a right-winger, that you are objective?
Did you think that no one here would bother to click on the link and actually check out the site?
This is a large (36 page), meticulously documented ( 136 references) official report on the statements of deception of the Bush administration, carefully constructed NOT to include statements which were unintentionally false at the time.
Now, maybe I got it wrong and you weren't referring to this site. Perhaps you missed the pages main purpose - the report?
But if you were then I think it is time you either fessed up about your true political leanings, or you had more intellectual honesty about the contents of others posts. |
Perhaps you didn't notice that the report was prepared by the "Minority Staff" ( that would be the Democratic minority staff, who can hardly be called non-partisan ). Just because it is prepared under the auspices of the House of Representatives doesn't mean that it should be accepted blindly as the "truth". Especially when the statements are unsubstantiated.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2004 11:38:59 AM · #17 |
So then where do you get your news from, or can I assume, that you, like the president, do not read either?
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't read the Washington Post...where did you ever get that idea? |
Well I really ment to be more general with the newspaper name, but failed to continue...
What I was really getting at was that you just bashed the president for not reading newspapers... I would simply be a person that would bash the president for wasting his time reading the dribble they call newspapers (Any of em).
Al Gore is the kind of person that would read all the papers every day, and what he derived from those papers is what would help him make his "big decisions" of the day. We should be afraid of anyone who calls that leadership... |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2004 11:19:18 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Each statement is documented, and why it is a deception is documented.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Ron. You are defending the concept that the Moon is made of green cheese.
You are defending a pack of scoundrels, and not in a manner behooving an intellectual. |
OK. Pull out the statement that you feel is documented the best.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 11:16:45 AM · #19 |
Each statement is documented, and why it is a deception is documented.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Ron. You are defending the concept that the Moon is made of green cheese.
You are defending a pack of scoundrels, and not in a manner behooving an intellectual. |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 10:24:26 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
hey Ron, i think you forgot to debunk this website. but good job hosing my other one. tho i still think that is called "getting caught in a lie". i mean shit, did you see his reaction?
"uh huh. uh hu. ahh.. my view of the situation was that.. ahh.. he he had, we we belive the best inteligence..."
comon... |
I think that thatwebsite does a pretty good job of debunking itself. It is one of the most rambling, innuendo laden sites I've seen. It makes all kinds of claims about the number of misleading statements or lies and even offers counts by categories. But does it anywhere provide an actual list of the "lies" with substantiation? Uh, well, NO! The entire site is just another Bush-bashing propoganda piece.
If you can find anything discrete in there and isolate it for me, I'll be glad to consider it.
Ron |
Ron... you just hoisted your own petard.
The site you just glibly described as "full of innuendo" and "a propaganda piece" is:
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform Minority Staff - Special Investigatory Unit Report On the Bush Administration Public statements on the War in Iraq
My God, man, and you try to convince people here that you are NOT a right-winger, that you are objective?
Did you think that no one here would bother to click on the link and actually check out the site?
This is a large (36 page), meticulously documented ( 136 references) official report on the statements of deception of the Bush administration, carefully constructed NOT to include statements which were unintentionally false at the time.
Now, maybe I got it wrong and you weren't referring to this site. Perhaps you missed the pages main purpose - the report?
But if you were then I think it is time you either fessed up about your true political leanings, or you had more intellectual honesty about the contents of others posts. |
Perhaps you didn't notice that the report was prepared by the "Minority Staff" ( that would be the Democratic minority staff, who can hardly be called non-partisan ). Just because it is prepared under the auspices of the House of Representatives doesn't mean that it should be accepted blindly as the "truth". Especially when the statements are unsubstantiated.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 09:30:45 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Gosh a jim dandy! It looks like George W taking photo ops to boast about programs he actually tries to cut is not relegated to those involving wounded veterans.
Here is an article outlining more scrupiously honest behavior from the administration that never lies :D
... |
So, you have proven beyond doubt that you know how to cut & paste. Well done.
Perhaps now you can go one step further and point out just one of the "LIES" you claim are there.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 09:29:34 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
hey Ron, i think you forgot to debunk this website. but good job hosing my other one. tho i still think that is called "getting caught in a lie". i mean shit, did you see his reaction?
"uh huh. uh hu. ahh.. my view of the situation was that.. ahh.. he he had, we we belive the best inteligence..."
comon... |
I think that thatwebsite does a pretty good job of debunking itself. It is one of the most rambling, innuendo laden sites I've seen. It makes all kinds of claims about the number of misleading statements or lies and even offers counts by categories. But does it anywhere provide an actual list of the "lies" with substantiation? Uh, well, NO! The entire site is just another Bush-bashing propoganda piece.
If you can find anything discrete in there and isolate it for me, I'll be glad to consider it.
Ron |
Ron... you just hoisted your own petard.
The site you just glibly described as "full of innuendo" and "a propaganda piece" is:
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform Minority Staff - Special Investigatory Unit Report On the Bush Administration Public statements on the War in Iraq
My God, man, and you try to convince people here that you are NOT a right-winger, that you are objective?
Did you think that no one here would bother to click on the link and actually check out the site?
This is a large (36 page), meticulously documented ( 136 references) official report on the statements of deception of the Bush administration, carefully constructed NOT to include statements which were unintentionally false at the time.
Now, maybe I got it wrong and you weren't referring to this site. Perhaps you missed the pages main purpose - the report?
But if you were then I think it is time you either fessed up about your true political leanings, or you had more intellectual honesty about the contents of others posts. |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 09:05:41 AM · #23 |
Gosh a jim dandy! It looks like George W taking photo ops to boast about programs he actually tries to cut is not relegated to those involving wounded veterans.
Here is an article outlining more scrupiously honest behavior from the administration that never lies :D
White House Is Trumpeting Programs It Tried to Cut
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: May 19, 2004
ASHINGTON, May 18 — Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply.
For example, Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers. Mr. Bush had just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million.
The administration has been particularly energetic in publicizing health programs, even ones that had been scheduled for cuts or elimination.
Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years.
The administration also announced recently that it was providing $11.6 million to the states so they could buy defibrillators to save the lives of heart attack victims. But Mr. Bush had proposed cutting the budget for such devices by 82 percent, to $2 million from $10.9 million.
Whether they involve programs Mr. Bush supported or not, the grant announcements illustrate how the administration blends politics and policy, blurring the distinction between official business and campaign-related activities.
In recent weeks, administration officials have fanned out around the country. Within a 48-hour period this month, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow was in Wisconsin and Illinois, doling out federal aid to poor neighborhoods. Anthony J. Principi, the secretary of veterans affairs, was in Las Vegas to announce plans for a new veterans hospital. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was in South Carolina to announce a new national research laboratory. And a top transportation official was in Portland, Me., awarding a $13 million grant to the city's airport.
In some cases, overtly political appearances are piggybacked onto such trips. Earlier this month, Mr. Principi was in Florida announcing plans for another veterans hospital, in Orlando, with a side trip to Tampa to kick off a national coalition of veterans supporting the re-election of Mr. Bush.
A few days earlier, while traveling to Marco Island, Fla., on official business, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans stopped in Daytona Beach to attend a large prayer meeting, where he praised Mr. Bush as "a leader you can trust 100 percent of the time."
The combination of official business and politics is neither illegal nor unusual in an election year, though Bush administration officials were reluctant to provide details. In fact, the Bush administration is using techniques refined by President Bill Clinton. The difference is that in the Clinton years the White House was often trying to add and expand domestic programs, not cut them.
The government has byzantine rules for documenting mixed official and political travel. The goal is to ensure that the campaign or some other political group pays for parts of a trip that are purely political.
But as the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, has said, "it is often impossible to neatly categorize travel as either purely business or purely political."
Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Mr. Evans, said the Republican National Committee paid for the commerce secretary's stop in Daytona Beach on May 6. A local newspaper, The News-Journal, said the prayer meeting there "evolved into a rousing Republican political rally."
The contrast between politics and policy is particularly striking when the administration takes credit for spending money appropriated by Congress against the president's wishes.
In April, Secretary Thompson announced that the administration was awarding $3.1 million in grants to improve health care in rural areas of Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico and New York. He did not mention that the administration was trying to cut the same rural health program by 72 percent, to $11.1 million next year, from $39.6 million.
Mr. Thompson likewise recently boasted that the administration was awarding $16 million to 11 universities to train blacks and Hispanic Americans as doctors, dentists and pharmacists. But at the same time, the administration was urging Congress to abolish the program, on the ground that "private and corporate entities" could pay for training.
Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, has sent a memorandum to Cabinet officers saying they must carefully allocate travel costs between the government and the campaign.
"There is considerable room for discretion in determining whether an event giving rise to an expense is political or official," Mr. Gonzales wrote. Ultimately, he said, the decision depends on the facts of each case.
Interior Department lawyers said that Secretary Gale A. Norton had made eight entirely political trips and 17 trips combining official business with political activity, for which the government was reimbursed. The political sponsor typically pays a share of the costs, based on the amount of time spent on political activity, said Timothy S. Elliott, a lawyer at the department.
Last month, on a trip to Alaska, Ms. Norton attended two fund-raisers, in Juneau and Anchorage. "It's always beneficial to have members of the cabinet at these events," said Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Republican Party of Alaska.
A trip to Minneapolis by Education Secretary Rod Paige shows a similar mix. John M. Gibbons, a spokesman for the secretary, said Mr. Paige went to a Republican fund-raiser there on Feb. 17, then visited schools the next day.
On March 13, Mr. Paige made a political trip to Orlando for a Republican dinner. He was back in Florida for a Bush-Cheney fund-raiser in Fort Lauderdale on March 26 and for the annual conference of the National School Boards Association, in Orlando, on March 28-29.
Likewise, Anthony T. Jewell, a spokesman for Mr. Thompson, said the health secretary attended a Republican fund-raiser on April 22 while visiting Detroit to promote organ donation.
The precedents for such activity run deep. Phillip M. Caplan, who was a special assistant to President Clinton, said the Clinton White House had a weekly conference call with chiefs of staff at Cabinet departments.
"We would tell officials, for example, that the president will be in Ohio on the 27th of this month, so you should scour the agency, and if you have something coming up in Ohio, let us know," Mr. Caplan recalled. "The announcement of grants was timed to coincide with the president's visit. The goal was to maximize the credit and visibility for the president."
Scott M. Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said: "The law sets forth clear guidelines as to how costs should be allocated. We adhere to the guidelines. We pay travel and other costs for government officials participating in political events."
|
|
|
|
05/21/2004 08:44:33 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
hey Ron, i think you forgot to debunk this website. but good job hosing my other one. tho i still think that is called "getting caught in a lie". i mean shit, did you see his reaction?
"uh huh. uh hu. ahh.. my view of the situation was that.. ahh.. he he had, we we belive the best inteligence..."
comon... |
I think that thatwebsite does a pretty good job of debunking itself. It is one of the most rambling, innuendo laden sites I've seen. It makes all kinds of claims about the number of misleading statements or lies and even offers counts by categories. But does it anywhere provide an actual list of the "lies" with substantiation? Uh, well, NO! The entire site is just another Bush-bashing propoganda piece.
If you can find anything discrete in there and isolate it for me, I'll be glad to consider it.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 06:48:36 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't read the Washington Post...where did you ever get that idea? |
Well I really ment to be more general with the newspaper name, but failed to continue...
What I was really getting at was that you just bashed the president for not reading newspapers... I would simply be a person that would bash the president for wasting his time reading the dribble they call newspapers (Any of em).
Al Gore is the kind of person that would read all the papers every day, and what he derived from those papers is what would help him make his "big decisions" of the day. We should be afraid of anyone who calls that leadership...
|
|
