Bush major policy address

[cj001f]

Good article. Do you think the reforms, if proposed, would get widespread support from the progressive base?

I think the market for any reform working against the immediate self interest of Americans is dead before arrival.

Perhaps with widespread discussion and a champion it could receive support from a "progressive" base, but I don't see any politician coming within miles.

[mattp]

By the way, in this thread YOU are doing what I would like the Press to do when our politicians lie to us or make mistakes of fact. Thanks for holding my feet to the fire here, so I can clarify your misconception that I was "lying."

 

Gotta love this! Bush is lying, Matt is not. The press need to go after Bush for lying, but PP needs to give Matt a pass for his "honest mistake".

 

Inconsistency and hypocrisy - the hallmarks of liberalism.

 

What the f*&k are you talking about, KK? I didn't ask Peter for a pass. He corrected my error. I did not complain about his correction. I stated that I was not, as he had implied, lying.

[foraker]

What the f*&k are you talking about, KK?

 

That pretty much sums things up I'd say...

[chucK]

Wouldn't it be simpler to repeal the recently enacted Bush tax cuts (or even just the part Kerry wanted to repeal), instead of an extremely popular provision that's been around nearly 100 years? This would be much more popularly espoused, along with recouping somewhere like 3-4 times more lost revenue.

[cj001f]

Wouldn't it be simpler to repeal the recently enacted Bush tax cuts (or even just the part Kerry wanted to repeal), instead of an extremely popular provision that's been around nearly 100 years? This would be much more popularly espoused, along with recouping somewhere like 3-4 times more lost revenue.

Nonsense! That doesn't allow Shrubya to be a "big thinker" following in the footsteps of his father. Reminds me of another "leader", who also shared a passion for Brandy.

 

[JayB]

Good article. Do you think the reforms, if proposed, would get widespread support from the progressive base?

I think the market for any reform working against the immediate self interest of Americans is dead before arrival.

Perhaps with widespread discussion and a champion it could receive support from a "progressive" base, but I don't see any politician coming within miles.

 

Ditto on the political DOA. The main reason why I think it's a bad policy is that it results in distortions that shift capital away from sectors like infrastructure and production - but I also love watching the "End tax breaks for the Rich!" fervor dissipate in certain quarters when the definition includes anyone with enough cash to swing a $400K plus victorian in Freemont and a new Volvo wagon.....

[JayB]

Wouldn't it be simpler to repeal the recently enacted Bush tax cuts (or even just the part Kerry wanted to repeal), instead of an extremely popular provision that's been around nearly 100 years? This would be much more popularly espoused, along with recouping somewhere like 3-4 times more lost revenue.

 

Might be simpler - but not necessarily better policy from a progressive taxation or economic standpoint. Its longevity probably has more to do with the intensity with which the parties that benefit from it defend it than its intrinsic merit as an instrument of social or economic policy.

[foraker]

Seems some rich people don't think so So I guess maybe not everyone with a house and Volvo in Fremont are so easily pigeonholed.

 

Disclaimer: I neither live in Fremont nor own a Volvo.

[mattp]

I would further add that it was not my contention that you were not telling the truth. I assumed that you were simply thinking wrongly, misinformed or writing in an unclear manner. My hope was that when faced with this truth you might reconsider your contention that Bush was a liar.

 

I guess the subtlety of your point evaded me when I read where you wrote: "Are you tellign a lie? .. If so it is sad that we will see no better..... "

 

So, you and Mr. K continue to ignore my argument, and pretty much anybody else's here, but to seize on minutae and fire back with B.S.

 

...

 

 

Can either of you REALLY say that Bush and Cheney hadn't both been told that

(a) Iraq did not launch 911

(b) the evidence of the Uranium purchase was false

© the aluminum tubes could not have been used for a centrifuge

(d) we had something like 400,000 soldiers surrounding Saddam, and no real proof that he had anything to threaten us with(Please check my number for me so you can show how wrong I am)

 

Are you going to argue that, when they keep saying we have to abolish the death tax to people don't have to sell the family farm, they don't know that their supporters could not come up with a single example of where that tax forced someone to sell the family farm? They haven't had this little "factoid" corrected ever?

 

Are you going to argue that, when virtually every credible scientist in the world agreed about global warming, it was not a "lie" to suggest there is serious doubt?

 

etc.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Nobody has to throw shit. You just have to watch what's going on. Seems to me you guys threw plenty of your own shit anyway. As you say, equal time.

 

Everyone knows whats going on. It's just that they don't all agree on how to characterize it, or react moving forward.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I would further add that it was not my contention that you were not telling the truth. I assumed that you were simply thinking wrongly, misinformed or writing in an unclear manner. My hope was that when faced with this truth you might reconsider your contention that Bush was a liar.

 

I guess the subtlety of your point evaded me when I read where you wrote: "Are you tellign a lie? .. If so it is sad that we will see no better..... "

 

So, you and Mr. K continue to ignore my argument, and pretty much anybody else's here, but to seize on minutae and fire back with B.S.

 

...

 

 

Can either of you REALLY say that Bush and Cheney hadn't both been told that

(a) Iraq did not launch 911

(b) the evidence of the Uranium purchase was false

© the aluminum tubes could not have been used for a centrifuge

(d) we had something like 400,000 soldiers surrounding him, and no real proof that he had anything to threaten us with(Please check my number for me so you can show how wrong I am)

 

Nobody disputed WMDs before the invasion. The dispute was whether their existence posed an imminent threat to the US. If Bush and Co. believed (like everyone else) that WMDs existed then they did not lie about it.

 

You can argue how shitty our intelligence service was, or the judgement of Bush et ali to invade Iraq based on said intelligence, but when you liberals harp on Bush being a "liar", I think you are all

[mattp]

KK, you must have forgotten. The weapons inspectors DID refute the weapons assessments of the U.S. I think the French may have, too. Further, in the European press it WAS published that the Uranium purchase story was false, along with the aluminum tubes. And Bush and his boys HAD received this information from their own experts. It just hadn't much been discussed in American media.

 

Maybe you've forgotten the Downing Street memo, too. And the fact that on September 12, 2001, Bush was asking for a link between Iraq and 911 even though his advisors told him there was none. Any maybe you've forgotten Cheney was then, and continued long afterward to consistently link Iraq and 911.

[JayB]

I think we're a long way from what I consider an optimal tax-policy at the moment, but as things stand I'd have no issue with the inheritance tax reverting to it's previous form.

 

As far as global warming is concerned - I think there are relatively few people who are arguing that it's not occuring, and that carbon emissions aren't playing a role. From what I've seen most of the controversey centers on the extent to which carbon emissions are responsible for the warming - and what the best response is - best being the response that produces the minimal level of environmental damage and human misery.

[mattp]

And I'd have no problem with an increased threshold for the inheritance tax. Keep at this year's $2,000,000. That is $4,000,000 for a married couple.

 

As far as global warming is concerned, your more nuanced description of the dispute is quite a bit more accurate than that promoted by Mr. Bush over the past several years.

[Jim]

 

Nobody disputed WMDs before the invasion. .

 

No one on talk radio anyway. Plenty of others did. Selective amnesia, how convenient.

[cj001f]

Nobody disputed WMDs before the invasion. The dispute was whether their existence posed an imminent threat to the US. If Bush and Co. believed (like everyone else) that WMDs existed then they did not lie about it.

 

The commissar vanishes...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KK, you must have forgotten. The weapons inspectors DID refute the weapons assessments of the U.S.

 

That's not what I recall. The mantra from the left was as follows: "let the weapons inspectors have some more time - they will find and dispose of the weapons. They are doing their job".

 

And by "nobody" I first and foremost mean Americans - Dems and Republicans. Certain European nations like France and Russia had their own agenda and reason to deny the weapons were there. The US should base its policies on what it knows, not on what other nations claim to be true.

 

Further, in the European press it WAS published that the Uranium purchase story was false, along with the aluminum tubes. And Bush and his boys HAD received this information from their own experts. It just hadn't much been discussed in American media.

 

I am referring to chemical and biological weapons. Nobody was disputing that Iraq had had them, had used them, and probably still had them.

 

Evidence concerning a nuclear weapons program was flimsy, and that was obvious to everyone even then. It certainly didn't convince me.

[Peter_Puget]

I would further add that it was not my contention that you were not telling the truth. I assumed that you were simply thinking wrongly, misinformed or writing in an unclear manner. My hope was that when faced with this truth you might reconsider your contention that Bush was a liar.

 

I guess the subtlety of your point evaded me when I read where you wrote: "Are you tellign a lie? .. If so it is sad that we will see no better..... "

 

So, you and Mr. K continue to ignore my argument, and pretty much anybody else's here, but to seize on minutae and fire back with B.S.

 

...

 

 

Can either of you REALLY say that Bush and Cheney hadn't both been told that

(a) Iraq did not launch 911

(b) the evidence of the Uranium purchase was false

© the aluminum tubes could not have been used for a centrifuge

(d) we had something like 400,000 soldiers surrounding Saddam, and no real proof that he had anything to threaten us with(Please check my number for me so you can show how wrong I am)

 

Are you going to argue that, when they keep saying we have to abolish the death tax to people don't have to sell the family farm, they don't know that their supporters could not come up with a single example of where that tax forced someone to sell the family farm? They haven't had this little "factoid" corrected ever?

 

Are you going to argue that, when virtually every credible scientist in the world agreed about global warming, it was not a "lie" to suggest there is serious doubt?

 

etc.

 

 

Oh please Matt I call BS on you misdirections. As far as firing back with "BS" you have got to be joking. Had you simply responded in a direct manner I would not feel the need to correct your obvious BS.

 

You have responded in a manner identical to how you claim Bush acts.

 

The point of your post that inspired my rejoinder was in fact your “Bush lies” claim. I have responded in a direct manner showing that you have acted and continue to act in the same manner. I am responding to your initial point. You keep shifting goalposts in a vain attempt at imitating a substantive defense.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Nobody disputed WMDs before the invasion. .

 

No one on talk radio anyway. Plenty of others did. Selective amnesia, how convenient.

 

Not.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Nobody disputed WMDs before the invasion. The dispute was whether their existence posed an imminent threat to the US. If Bush and Co. believed (like everyone else) that WMDs existed then they did not lie about it.

 

The commissar vanishes...

 

Komisar Vy sam. Vy s nimi s odnogo polya yagody kak i po politichiskom vyglyade tak i tem, kak Vy vzyali b i derzhali b svoyu silu, pusto govorya o ravenstom lyudej.

[mattp]

Peter, what are you talking about? I acknowledged that you corrected my grevious error, and continued the discussion where I left off. I answered your question/assertion/whatever it was directly, and you have failed to answer my argument even tangentially except to say you are insulted to read my suggestion that Bush lied.

 

Besides that, your prior post is so poorly written I may have misunderstood it altogether.

[cj001f]

Komisar Vy sam. Vy s nimi s odnogo polya yagody kak i po politichiskom vyglyade tak i tem, kak Vy vzyali b i derzhali b svoyu silu, pusto govorya o ravenstom lyudej.

Yob tvoyu mat. Chinga tu madre. baisez votre mère

[TREETOAD]

Komisar Vy sam. Vy s nimi s odnogo polya yagody kak i po politichiskom vyglyade tak i tem, kak Vy vzyali b i derzhali b svoyu silu, pusto govorya o ravenstom lyudej.

Yob tvoyu mat. Chinga tu madre. baisez votre mère

 

olyhay uckfay eroylay otway ay uckingfay ickheadday

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Komisar Vy sam. Vy s nimi s odnogo polya yagody kak i po politichiskom vyglyade tak i tem, kak Vy vzyali b i derzhali b svoyu silu, pusto govorya o ravenstom lyudej.

Yob tvoyu mat. Chinga tu madre. baisez votre mère

 

olyhay uckfay eroylay otway ay uckingfay ickheadday

 

ooglegay, enthay anguagelay oolstay

[Peter_Puget]

Ok Forgive my poor writing but help me to understand .....

 

 

I would further add that it was not my contention that you were not telling the truth. I assumed that you were simply thinking wrongly, misinformed or writing in an unclear manner. My hope was that when faced with this truth you might reconsider your contention that Bush was a liar.

 

I guess the subtlety of your point evaded me when I read where you wrote: "Are you tellign a lie? .. If so it is sad that we will see no better..... " I agree you did not get it!

 

So, you and Mr. K continue to ignore my argument, and pretty much anybody else's here, but to seize on minutae and fire back with B.S. What BS did I fire back with? Here are the first and last sentences to the post I was replying to:

 

That's no jive, KK. Bush and his buddies lie as a matter of course whether it is the effect/intent of tax breaks, the war, the need to make it easier for oil and gas development, whatever and somebody in the press occasionally points some of it out in a little blurb here and there but never have their feet been held to the fire.

 

 

As long as these guys have no fear that they will ever be held accountable or even asked tough questions in a press conference, we will see no better.

 

I simply do not see you behaving much differently. I wrote in a way too subtle for you to grasp. I explained myself. (see quote above) It seems as though I have been responding directly to the point of your post and yet you continue to say that I am instead "ignoring your argument." You then throw in the following comments unrelated to anything I have been saying...

 

...

 

 

Can either of you REALLY say that Bush and Cheney hadn't both been told that

(a) Iraq did not launch 911

(b) the evidence of the Uranium purchase was false

© the aluminum tubes could not have been used for a centrifuge

(d) we had something like 400,000 soldiers surrounding Saddam, and no real proof that he had anything to threaten us with(Please check my number for me so you can show how wrong I am)

 

Are you going to argue that, when they keep saying we have to abolish the death tax to people don't have to sell the family farm, they don't know that their supporters could not come up with a single example of where that tax forced someone to sell the family farm? They haven't had this little "factoid" corrected ever?

 

Are you going to argue that, when virtually every credible scientist in the world agreed about global warming, it was not a "lie" to suggest there is serious doubt?

 

etc.

 

 

Oh please Matt I call BS on you misdirections. As far as firing back with "BS" you have got to be joking. Had you simply responded in a direct manner I would not feel the need to correct your obvious BS.

 

You have responded in a manner identical to how you claim Bush acts.

 

The point of your post that inspired my rejoinder was in fact your “Bush lies” claim. I have responded in a direct manner showing that you have acted and continue to act in the same manner. I am responding to your initial point. You keep shifting goalposts in a vain attempt at imitating a substantive defense.

[/color]

 

Edited October 10, 2005 by Peter_Puget