 |
Welcome to thebackpacker.com create account login |
 |
Another Bush LieView MessagesViewing posts 51 to 100 of 400 messages posted.
Jump to Page << prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next >> “Everyone knows what the result of their decision was. Why be so paranoid about the media? Do you have such an aversion to bad news about your party that you must attack the messenger? This cracked me up.... by their investigative and oppositionist nature... (it's free, but you Will have to register)” 1:25:45 PM 7/28/03 “LOL... Believe what you want. You have the tools in front of you to know the truth should you wish to educate yourself. Paranoid about the media? Hardly. Cognizant of the inherent biases of different media outlets? Sure -- all are biased in one directory or the other. And they are all biased towards increasing their ratings or circulation. Media outlets, regardless of slant, exist for and by ratings. The higher the ratings/circulation, the more money they can charge for advertising space/time, and thus ratings/circulation directly affects the amount of money entering the pockets of the owners or shareholders. Good news doesn't sell newspapers or lock people in front of the television. Only a moron would not take such biases and motives into account and weigh carefully what any given outlet reports. As for the Safire article, it is amusing and pretty much on point. Hussein's best allies are the reporters and their ability to build mountains out of molehills in their quest for ratings. Putting something in context doesn't generate the interest that sensationalizing it does. As for party affiliation, I have none. I choose to think for myself instead of kow-towing to some "party".” 1:55:05 PM 7/28/03 “Supreme court rules on how a state interprets election law, and they're out of line. Same court rules on how a state interprets a sodomy law, and they're brilliant. Hmm...” 2:00:26 PM 7/28/03 “hmmm, a court interpreting law vs a court deciding who would be President. That's exactly the same huh Stickman.” 2:04:30 PM 7/28/03 “The Republicans aren't far right enough for you yet, it would seem. If there are no WMD, the fact that the reasons given for war were all a sham, then that's another 'molehill', LOL” 2:06:18 PM 7/28/03 “Tilt, I think the Supreme Court decided the Hayes vs Tilden election in the 19th Century (also.)” 2:11:32 PM 7/28/03 “ynami, the Supreme Court didn't decide who was president, read the decision. This matter didn't start in the Supreme Court. In fact, it wouldn't have been in the courts at all had not a sore loser brought a lawsuit.” 2:11:32 PM 7/28/03 “A court Stickman... A court. And it's not a case of sore loser. Though that is a catchy phrase to try and avoid dealing with any of the real issues involved, like why the Florida election was such a mess - how the courts did end up deciding who was President.” 2:20:28 PM 7/28/03 “The Republicans aren't far right enough for you yet, it would seem Ah yes, personal insults. The typical refuge for those who can't think of any valid arguments. WMD are another bit of fun that shows how deluded some folks allow themselves to get. Let's say the cops announce to a crack house that they're going to raid them in two weeks. How much crack do you think is going to be there? None. Does that mean there wasn't any there? Nope. Does it mean there WAS some there? Nope. The WMD claims are the same. Not finding any does not mean there were none. Any simpleton can figure that one out. Simple basic logic. Anyway, enough of this tired tripe. I've made the point I wished to make.” 2:20:28 PM 7/28/03 “.....a crack house the size of Texas! I can see it now....movie title, "The Best Little Crack House In Texas"” 2:25:59 PM 7/28/03 “Deeddawg, your analagy is fatally flawed and contains no "basic logic". The whole issue is not whether an honest mistake was made, but whether the President knowingly took the country to war on the back of "evidence" he knew to be false. It's not the actual raid on the crackhouse that is the problem. It's knowing there's no crack in the house and still going ahead with the raid that would be the problem.” 2:26:34 PM 7/28/03 “Oh, and lying to everyone by telling them there was crack in the house because you have a different agenda.” 2:29:10 PM 7/28/03 “It seems to me that Saddam's little boys by themselves qualify as WMD. End of discussion.” 2:29:29 PM 7/28/03 “Deeddawg, your analagy is fatally flawed and contains no "basic logic Uh, no, the trouble is you're trying to apply it to the wrong reality. The analogy speaks to the allusions that not finding WMD's means there were none in the first place. Given that context, I think you'll find it hold together. As for what Bush did or did not know, I honestly haven't spent sufficient time looking at the various claims to make up my mind.” 2:32:42 PM 7/28/03 “So 'far right' would be an insult in your eyes? How counterintuitive. I suppose 'moron', 'simpleton', 'tripe' and other bon mots were from a Hallmark card you were meaning to send? LOL I suppose we should have found a way to prosecute Saddam under some form of the RICO statute? One doesn't need 'the goods' to prove a conspiracy, does one? I'm sure his regime could qualify as an ongoing criminal enterprise... but there might be a problem establishing jurisdiction.” 2:33:20 PM 7/28/03 “of course VC2, A president lying to the American people when he takes them to war is not important. As long as there are some benefits in the end. Maybe he could make some lies up about N Korea, Syria, Iran and we could go to war there, how about France?. That would be ok too huh? Maybe he should lie about the Economy too? About everything else?” 2:34:16 PM 7/28/03 “I'm not saying he did lie, but it appears he could well have. I think only time will make it clear.” 2:36:47 PM 7/28/03 “Until then we'll assume the worst about our president.” 2:42:28 PM 7/28/03 “The only lies in this whole thing are the ones that the liberals are always making up to justify the extreme hatred of Bush and Republicans.” 2:43:17 PM 7/28/03 “” 2:44:35 PM 7/28/03 “Bottom line is..We've eliminate two evil regimes, sent a message to nations harboring terrorists, put a major dent in a couple terrorist organizations, freed a people who who being raped, tortured and murdered (in MASS numbers...oh..and made this nation a much safer place because we have a leader with the balls to do what he says and what is correct. Damn...we should impeach him because we haven't found ENOUGH WMD's to satisfy the fence sitting demo's” 2:46:51 PM 7/28/03 “No Stickman, you just ask questions about it rather than blindly following. I think Bush is following a brave policy. I supported the war, but always doubted the reasons behind it. If the President did lie about this then he should be kicked out. This will probably never be known for sure. But taking a country to war on the back of lies would to me, be the worst thing a president could do. He's not trusted the American people with the truth and let them decide. He's not deemed them worthy of that. What lies VC2? Please try to actually include some substance in the the things you say.” 2:46:56 PM 7/28/03 “Caddis. That is not the bottom line at all. If that was the bottom line then the American people should have been told this from the start and not been told the Iraqi WMDs posed an immenent threat to the nation. The have been benefits to the war for the Iraqi people and I think that's great. But you can't suddenly try and highlight these benefits as being a reason for going to war post event. I think they call that "revisionist history".” 2:49:23 PM 7/28/03 “Eliminated two evil regimes? Would the other be Afganistan? Stay tuned on that, Afganistan is smoldering and may get worse.” 2:51:38 PM 7/28/03 “So 'far right' would be an insult in your eyes? How counterintuitive. Making a disdainful comment towards someone is insulting. Don't worry, I won't lose any sleep over it. I suppose 'moron', 'simpleton', 'tripe' and other bon mots were from a Hallmark card you were meaning to send? LOL I shouldn't have to explain elementary grammar to anyone who is smart enough to operate a computer. The first two words were very clearly used to emphasize a point. The latter was used to emphasize my opinion of the direction of discussion. None were directed in a personal manner. Your attempt to pull them out of context is telling. I'm really not seeing any point in further discussion. Happy trails.” 2:53:06 PM 7/28/03 “Tsk. Tsk.” 3:16:36 PM 7/28/03 “yes it IS the bottom line. It's the outcome. Yet you guys are fixated on the belief that he lied about WMD's because we didn't find a smoking gun just labs and paperwork and anything else they didn't have time to destroy or ship to Syria. And Tom..I know you rooting for a loss on our part in Afghanistan to justify your deep seated anger for Bush or the military..but sorry pal.” 8:47:51 PM 7/28/03 “"To justify the high cost of maintaining rule over foreign territories and peoples, leaders are left with no choice but to deceive the people." - The Committee for the Republic” 9:21:50 PM 7/28/03 “YAWN” 10:09:38 PM 7/28/03 “i think you should all run for office.....” 10:22:05 PM 7/28/03 “Strat, they're not civil enough. Despite politicians differences, they can get along and be adult about things. Most of the politcos on this site are hateful, mean and close minded. They would have to step up a few notches in the area of class to be a politician.” 10:57:33 PM 7/28/03 “hmmm....perhaps you are correct dunk. it just seems to me that "they" ao alot of complaining....i was just thinking...let's see you do better.... sorry, i'm not s'posed to be posting on alaska threads anyhow....” 11:11:18 PM 7/28/03 “Strat. Tell me honestly that you did not bash our former president every chance you could. Was that "jihad Clinton"? I think there is real reason to investigate the current president.” 11:14:08 PM 7/28/03 Speaking of lies... “No lie: 'Baghdad Bob' gets own paper Iraqi editor says he wanted title 'that would attract readers' Posted: July 29, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern A new weekly newspaper in Iraq has been named Al-Sahhaf, after the former Iraqi information minister who became known worldwide as "Baghdad Bob" and "Comical Ali." Muhammed al-Sahhaf the man gained infamy for his outrageous statements to the media during the war to topple Saddam Hussein. 'Baghdad Bob' According to a report by Agence France-Presse, the editor of Al-Sahhaf – one of 161 new titles to appear in Iraq since the fall of Saddam – says he wanted to choose a name that would be recognizable. "I wanted a name that would attract readers. The name Al-Sahhaf has had an impact in the press," AFP quotes Moayed Neemat Abdel Razzak as saying. Al-Sahhaf became an international star in the final days of fighting, making hard-to-believe claims about Iraqi successes and U.S. failures, including: "Let the American infidels bask in their illusion"; "My feelings – as usual – we will slaughter them all"; "We have placed them in a quagmire from which they can never emerge except dead"; "God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis"; "I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad." According to the AFP report, the former minister now lives in the United Arab Emirates with his family.” 12:30:11 AM 7/29/03 “Strat, I can't do better. I try to be non-confrontational in life (temper issue in my younger days) and respect the differences that make us all unique. I live in Northern Calif where the political climate is stiffling. There's absolutely no tolerance for a descenting opinion. Isn't the freedom to be different what this country was founded on? So why the intolerance and name calling? Why does it have to get personal? If some of these trolls had the same personality in person, I might regress to my younger days because of their personal attacks. That being said, I've met one of the aggressors (Phaedrus) in person and he was pleasant company. Maybe the rest are too, but why not let each of us be who we are?” 1:11:51 AM 7/29/03 “I'm the only one who is already running from office.” 8:01:19 AM 7/29/03 Ca joke “Once upon a time in the kingdom of Heaven, > > > > God was missing for six days. > > Eventually, Michael the archangel found him, resting on the seventh > > day. He inquired of God. "Where have you been?" God sighed a deep sigh > > of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look, > > Michael. Look what I've made." > > > > Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?" > > > > "It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put Life on it. I'm going to > > call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance." "Balance?" > > inquired Michael, still confused. God explained, pointing to different > > parts of earth. > > > > "For example, there are vast open deserts, balanced by rough craggy > > mountains." > > > > "This area will be extremely hot and dry, while this area will be very > > cold and covered in ice." > > > > "And these great masses of land are balanced by deep beautiful > > oceans." > > > > The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a land mass and > > said, "What's that one?" > > > > "Ah," said God. "That's California, the most glorious place on earth. > > There are beautiful beaches, deserts, streams,hills, and forests. The > > people from California are going to behandsome, modest, intelligent and > > humorous and they are going to be found traveling the world. They will > > be extremely sociable, hardworking and high achieving, and they will be > > known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace." > > > > Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed, > > > > "What about balance, God? You said there would be balance!" > > > > God replied wisely, "Wait until you see the idiots I put in > > Sacramento."” 2:08:45 PM 7/29/03 “Sorry, Dunk, I just can't get the tears to flow for you. I lived in NoCal for nine years and heard a lot of name calling from the right. In fact, they have whole radio programs dedicated to liberal bashing. So, look for sympathy elsewhere.” 2:22:57 PM 7/29/03 “I'm not asking for sympathy, I'm asking for civility.” 2:49:10 PM 7/29/03 Yet another lie: “By DAFNA LINZER and JOHN J. LUMPKIN Associated Press Writers Huddled over a fleet of abandoned Iraqi drones, U.S. weapons experts in Baghdad came to one conclusion: Despite the Bush administration's public assertions, these unmanned aerial vehicles weren't designed to dispense biological or chemical weapons. The evidence gathered this summer matched the dissenting views of Air Force intelligence analysts who argued in a national intelligence assessment of Iraq before the war that the remotely piloted planes were unarmed reconnaissance drones. In building its case for war, senior Bush administration officials had said Iraq's drones were intended to deliver unconventional weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell even raised the alarming prospect that the pilotless aircraft could sneak into the United States to carry out poisonous attacks on American cities.” 2:29:14 PM 8/24/03 “ By Laurie Garrett Staff Writer <snip> On the morning of Sept. 12, according to the report, the office of then-Administrator of the EPA Christie Whitman issued a memo: "All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC [National Security Council in the White House] before they are released." The 165-page report compares excerpts from EPA draft statements to the final versions, including these: <snip> Discovery of asbestos higher than safe levels in dust samples from lower Manhattan was changed to state that "samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern." Language in an EPA draft stating that asbestos levels in some areas were three times higher than national standards was changed to "slightly above the 1 percent trigger for defining asbestos material." This sentence was added to a Sept. 16 press release: "Our tests show that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district." It replaced a statement that initial monitors failed to turn up dangerous samples. A warning on the importance of safely handling Ground Zero cleanup, due to lead and asbestos exposure, was changed to say that some contaminants had been noted downtown but "the general public should be very reassured by initial sampling." <snip> The White House did not respond to requests for comment. <snip>” 2:18:03 PM 8/25/03 dang! “Report: White House Misled City on Post-9/11 Health Issues By Laurie Garrett Staff Writer Newsday August 22, 2003, 8:21 PM EDT In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available. That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA, "EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes and Areas for Improvement." <snip> On the morning of Sept. 12, according to the report, the office of then-Administrator of the EPA Christie Whitman issued a memo: "All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC [National Security Council in the White House] before they are released." The 165-page report compares excerpts from EPA draft statements to the final versions, including these: <snip> Discovery of asbestos higher than safe levels in dust samples from lower Manhattan was changed to state that "samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern." Language in an EPA draft stating that asbestos levels in some areas were three times higher than national standards was changed to "slightly above the 1 percent trigger for defining asbestos material." This sentence was added to a Sept. 16 press release: "Our tests show that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district." It replaced a statement that initial monitors failed to turn up dangerous samples. A warning on the importance of safely handling Ground Zero cleanup, due to lead and asbestos exposure, was changed to say that some contaminants had been noted downtown but "the general public should be very reassured by initial sampling." <snip> The White House did not respond to requests for comment. <snip>” 2:18:56 PM 8/25/03 double dang! “unbold” 2:19:50 PM 8/25/03 “Typical Bush Regime deception.” 2:20:04 PM 8/25/03 “Yeah, but GW is just a simple, down-to-earth kind of guy, so it doesn't matter if a few white lies get told. He's country and that's all right with me. He's a self-made man, who had to work his way up from the bottom.” 5:41:53 PM 8/25/03 “LMAO Dun” 5:46:25 PM 8/25/03 “According to a CBS nationwide poll, 80% of Americans think Bush lies at least some of the time. - 19 percenter” 11:51:52 AM 9/04/03 “Politicians Lying? I’m shocked.” 11:54:58 AM 9/04/03 “Lying for cash!” 12:04:40 PM 9/04/03 “yeah, clinton never lied! sheesh wake up man, democrats and republicans both LIE! They all LIE!” 12:05:51 PM 9/04/03
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
|
SearchReady to Buy Gear?Sponsored Links
Great Outdoor SitesLinks |
