Presidents Say the Darndest Things
- Thread starter We4ster
- Start date
Given the choice, the american people would rather have somebody that flubs speeches once is an while vs. someone who debates what the definition of is is.
Keep them coming! The more Bush Bashing, the better. Maybe we can get more foreigners in on the act. Any Canadians got any good Bush bashing posts? Does anyone know anyone is France, they could get registered here and do some Bashing. If he owned a Honda, too, that would be super.
Keep them coming! The more Bush Bashing, the better. Maybe we can get more foreigners in on the act. Any Canadians got any good Bush bashing posts? Does anyone know anyone is France, they could get registered here and do some Bashing. If he owned a Honda, too, that would be super.
TurboJunky
Fire the Federal Gov't
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2002
We4ster your bias is disgusting in the face you deny being a D and "CLAIM" to be an independent. If all independents were like you then a Republican wouldn't be in office or control the Congress.
I see you'd prefer a smooth talking politican instead of a human being that makes mistakes. I'm sure NO Democrat ever made an error in speech. Would like me to point out the many GRAMMATICAL errors in your own posts?
Do yourself a favor and vote for the socialist candidate this election. I'm sure he/she will conform to your idealistic version of the "perfect president". One who takes from the rich ($200,000 a year earning according to Kerry) and gives to the lazy, and can speak perfectly.
You are a boor...
I see you'd prefer a smooth talking politican instead of a human being that makes mistakes. I'm sure NO Democrat ever made an error in speech. Would like me to point out the many GRAMMATICAL errors in your own posts?
Do yourself a favor and vote for the socialist candidate this election. I'm sure he/she will conform to your idealistic version of the "perfect president". One who takes from the rich ($200,000 a year earning according to Kerry) and gives to the lazy, and can speak perfectly.
You are a boor...
Well, I'm a registered Republican, and I thought the quotes were kind of funny. Now, show me a list of W's lies and flip-flops. And show us how the smooth-talking Kerry is going to save us. Come on, I'm just waiting to be converted to a Democrat.
oh and speaking of Presidents saying the Darndest things. Bob Kerrey (the guy who had his @ss handed to him by Condi Rice at the 9/11 hearings) said in a Radio interview today that in Bill Clinton's 3 hour interview yesterday Bill denied ever having Bin Ladin offered to him.
Too bad he said This in 2002.
Presidents Do say the darndest things.
Too bad he said This in 2002.
Presidents Do say the darndest things.
suprbuick7
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
Bush had Bin Laden too. Had him( Osama) and his brother as investors in his Arbusto Drilling Co. that GWB started in the 80's before the Harken Energy scandal
A Friend of Bush's invested $50,000 in Arbusto and the money reportedly came from 4 Saudi's, one of them being Osama's brother who was then and still is a legimate businessman and who disowned Osama in 1991, 2 years BEFORE the first World trade Center bombing. Osama has 53 brothers and sisters, by the way.
Clinton was offered Bin Laden 3 Year AFTER the first World trade Center Bombing.
If that is the same to you, you have a screw loose in there somewhere.
suprbuick7
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
Hey UNGN,
I like how you state "reportedly"in anything that might disparage your guy GWB the sheepherder. but anything anti-democratic is "fact". Here is one for you, see I can be objective: Clinton did F- up, he should have killed the b@stard. His administration took him as a law enforcement problem not a military one. They were tracking OBL but they were trying to get him alive ( mistake). The deal with the Sudanese was not so cut and dry, the Saudi's were involved and wouldn't take him. Before the USS Cole, The U.S. had no hard evidence, just strong suspicions. He missed him. Now try to read Paul O'Neill's book : your guy was more concerned w/ Saddam from day one of his administration. If they had continued to be more vigilant of this B@stard he might not have" fallen from the radar" and future attacks might have been avoided.
On the other thing I was just stating the truth about Arbusto
I like how you state "reportedly"in anything that might disparage your guy GWB the sheepherder. but anything anti-democratic is "fact". Here is one for you, see I can be objective: Clinton did F- up, he should have killed the b@stard. His administration took him as a law enforcement problem not a military one. They were tracking OBL but they were trying to get him alive ( mistake). The deal with the Sudanese was not so cut and dry, the Saudi's were involved and wouldn't take him. Before the USS Cole, The U.S. had no hard evidence, just strong suspicions. He missed him. Now try to read Paul O'Neill's book : your guy was more concerned w/ Saddam from day one of his administration. If they had continued to be more vigilant of this B@stard he might not have" fallen from the radar" and future attacks might have been avoided.
On the other thing I was just stating the truth about Arbusto
suprbuick7
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
Also OBL's brother is no longer a legitimate business man. He is dead under mysterious circumstances. He died in Texas a couple of years ago.
suprbuick7
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
Also, I would have liked to have him(OBL) killed but it was, and still is under certain circumstances, illegal. A law signed by Reagan I believe that outlawed the possible assassiniation of that dirty towelhead (OBL). The same Goerge Tenet who is head of the CIA now was in charge then. thet had many plans to capture him by using Kurdish guerilla forces that were never fully implemented because of the fear of civilian casualties mostly meaning (OBL's wives and kids) go figure! Condi apparently was correct in her description of the bureacracy that is inherent throughout Govt. I guess my point is Cinton failed to get him but Bush apparently felt Saddam was a greater threat. Now we know Bush was wrong
I said "reportedly" because I wasn't there, you weren't there and ONLY 1 PERSON WHO WAS THERE SAID IT HAPPENED.
In 1977, WHEN it happened OSAMA was 20 years old, and THERE IS ABOSLUTELY NO EVIDENCE HE HAD ANY IDEA ANTHING OF THE SORT EVER TOOK PLACE.
The above is a COMPLETE FABRICATION BY YOU. No where except in your mind was Osama Bin Ladin an investor in Arbusto Drilling Co.
If this is your idea of "truth" I'd hate to be there when you are lying.
Salem Bin Ladin died in 1988 a legitimate businessman (since when is an "experimental" plane crash "mysterious circumstances"), Yahya bin ladin also still is a legitimate businessman. The Binladin construction company is a respected, legitimate business.
The no assination rule ONLY applies to Foreign leaders, though Democrats think that means leaders of terrorist groups, too. If Reagan signed it, its because they made him after he tried to Kill Quadafi with a cruise missile . I'd have to check that.
Reagan had nothing to do with Osama. We were funding Osama and others in their fight with the Russians. During the Reagan years the Russians had 14,000 Nuclear warheads pointed at us. That would do a little more damage than 19 guys in 4 airliners.
Actually at the Time Bush felt North Korea was a bigger threat than either of them. His administration had found they had been cheating on the treaty they had signed with Bill Clinton, Maddy Albright and I think Jimmy Carter had a hand in their somewhere and were building nuclear weapons in secret.
If you don't think that's a bigger threat than 19 guys in in 4 airliners, read yesterday's paper:
North Korea says they are on Brink of Nuclear war.
In 1977, WHEN it happened OSAMA was 20 years old, and THERE IS ABOSLUTELY NO EVIDENCE HE HAD ANY IDEA ANTHING OF THE SORT EVER TOOK PLACE.
The above is a COMPLETE FABRICATION BY YOU. No where except in your mind was Osama Bin Ladin an investor in Arbusto Drilling Co.
If this is your idea of "truth" I'd hate to be there when you are lying.
Salem Bin Ladin died in 1988 a legitimate businessman (since when is an "experimental" plane crash "mysterious circumstances"), Yahya bin ladin also still is a legitimate businessman. The Binladin construction company is a respected, legitimate business.
The no assination rule ONLY applies to Foreign leaders, though Democrats think that means leaders of terrorist groups, too. If Reagan signed it, its because they made him after he tried to Kill Quadafi with a cruise missile
. I'd have to check that.Reagan had nothing to do with Osama. We were funding Osama and others in their fight with the Russians. During the Reagan years the Russians had 14,000 Nuclear warheads pointed at us. That would do a little more damage than 19 guys in 4 airliners.
Actually at the Time Bush felt North Korea was a bigger threat than either of them. His administration had found they had been cheating on the treaty they had signed with Bill Clinton, Maddy Albright and I think Jimmy Carter had a hand in their somewhere and were building nuclear weapons in secret.
If you don't think that's a bigger threat than 19 guys in in 4 airliners, read yesterday's paper:
North Korea says they are on Brink of Nuclear war.
suprbuick7
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
We could not legally kill OSB, by the letter of the law. ok i have no proof that osb wrote a check to GWB that was not what I said. I said Bush did business with them period and he did it was his family he had a financial interest in that Co. therfore indirectly he was involved. No mention on yourr part about Paul O' Neill I see. I guess you GOP shee will try to drag him through the Mud because he tell it like it is in GWB's White House. It was and is about Saddam, Binladen was religated to the back burner that is the truth. Deal with it. Just because you share the same state w/ GWB doesn't make you a bad guy. You people defend him like he was your little brother who got punched in the nose. Deal with the Facts not as you interpret them
suprbuick7
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
What does N.Korea have to do w/ OSB?/ 9/11? nothing! Great you read the newspaper, so do I. We all know their are problems over there. Gee maybe if the GWB wasn't so myopic about his daddy's enemy we would be in a better position to deal w/ N. Korea and not stretched so thin miitarily
suprbuick7
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
that is militarily. I apologize for the typos
Paul O'neil is an Egotistical idiot who was upset nobody listen's to him. The link you posted went to nowhere that had anything remotely related to Paul O'neil so I didn't bother.
Paul O'neill, when asked who he would vote for in in 2004 said George Bush. If he's good enough for Paul O'neill, he's good enough for me
Bin Laden was relegated to the Back Burner by Clinton and NOTHING clinton gave to the Bush administration indicated he would attack america. Was Al Queda mentioned in any of the transition documents?
Even the "Smoking Gun" PDB from August 6, 2001 LISTS NOTHING THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED on Sept 11, 2001. If we would have acted upon EVERYTHING in the memo, Sept 11 STILL WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
suprbuick7
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
Gee, If only the PDB had said word for word what happened on 9/11? Fact : Clnton failed to get him your guy failed to realize as I mentioned earlier.
Here is GWB's facts about Kerry's tax increases
Counting tax increases is an absurd way to measure a candidate's general propensity about taxes. George the elder's list about Clinton tax increases included things like an extension of dog-racing season, on the logic that a longer season meant more tax revenue. George the younger's first item asserts that "In 1995, Kerry Voted For [a] Resolution That Said Middle Class Tax Cuts Were Not Wise." This turns out to be a vote in the midst of that nearly forgotten frenzy, the Gingrich revolution. It was a vote against a particular tax cut of $700 billion, on a resolution declaring with almost tautological justice that subtracting $700 billion from revenue would make it harder to balance the budget. The resolution passed the Republican-controlled House and Senate, but a decade later the Republican president uses it to tar his Democratic opponent.
The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes actually lists only 67 votes "for higher taxes." Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. The logic seems to be that if a bill contains more than one item (as almost all bills do), it counts as separate votes for or against each item. The Bush list also includes several series of sequentially numbered votes, which are procedural twists on the same bill. And there are votes on the identical issue in different years. The only actual tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey … ) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off.
The best way to see the absurdity of saying that John Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times is to apply Bush's madcap logic to Bush himself. Every year, in the president's budget, there is a table called "Effect of Proposals on Receipts." It lists the president's proposed changes in the tax rules and how they will affect government revenues for various periods up to 15 years. Most of Bush's proposals will cost revenues, obviously. But in the four fiscal years 2002-2005, Bush has proposed 63 actual "revenue enhancers," as his father used to call them. This doesn't include, as Bush includes for Kerry, his opposition to any tax cuts (and there have been some, such as Democratic proposals to reduce the payroll tax). Nor does the list seem to include any "supply-side" revenue enhancement by magic or growth. These are actual proposals to take more money out of people's pockets and give it to the government.
At Bush's current rate of 16 "tax increases" a year, he'd have 320 under his belt if he could stay in the White House for 20 years.
You really think O'Neill would admit to voting democratic after a lifetime of being on the right????
Here is GWB's facts about Kerry's tax increases
Counting tax increases is an absurd way to measure a candidate's general propensity about taxes. George the elder's list about Clinton tax increases included things like an extension of dog-racing season, on the logic that a longer season meant more tax revenue. George the younger's first item asserts that "In 1995, Kerry Voted For [a] Resolution That Said Middle Class Tax Cuts Were Not Wise." This turns out to be a vote in the midst of that nearly forgotten frenzy, the Gingrich revolution. It was a vote against a particular tax cut of $700 billion, on a resolution declaring with almost tautological justice that subtracting $700 billion from revenue would make it harder to balance the budget. The resolution passed the Republican-controlled House and Senate, but a decade later the Republican president uses it to tar his Democratic opponent.
The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes actually lists only 67 votes "for higher taxes." Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. The logic seems to be that if a bill contains more than one item (as almost all bills do), it counts as separate votes for or against each item. The Bush list also includes several series of sequentially numbered votes, which are procedural twists on the same bill. And there are votes on the identical issue in different years. The only actual tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey … ) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off.
The best way to see the absurdity of saying that John Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times is to apply Bush's madcap logic to Bush himself. Every year, in the president's budget, there is a table called "Effect of Proposals on Receipts." It lists the president's proposed changes in the tax rules and how they will affect government revenues for various periods up to 15 years. Most of Bush's proposals will cost revenues, obviously. But in the four fiscal years 2002-2005, Bush has proposed 63 actual "revenue enhancers," as his father used to call them. This doesn't include, as Bush includes for Kerry, his opposition to any tax cuts (and there have been some, such as Democratic proposals to reduce the payroll tax). Nor does the list seem to include any "supply-side" revenue enhancement by magic or growth. These are actual proposals to take more money out of people's pockets and give it to the government.
At Bush's current rate of 16 "tax increases" a year, he'd have 320 under his belt if he could stay in the White House for 20 years.
You really think O'Neill would admit to voting democratic after a lifetime of being on the right????
suprbuick7
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
Do you have this PDB in your possession? that you are so certain about it's content??? If so there are some people in DC who might want a word with you. You GOP will hang your hat that it didn't precisely mention Date, time, place person, age, gender, shoe size....... I thought our govt. might be able to connect some dots afterall we did put a man on the moon
