|
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
If he told the truth, which is that he voted for the bill, then how was
he 'caught in a lie?' Has it all gotten this Orwellian? NOYB wrote: He didn't tell the truth because he *DID NOT* vote for the bill. You obviously missed this sentence: "There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it (Helms-Burton legislation)" Kerry's people tried to spin it by saying he "supported the legislation in its purer form--and voted for it months earlier"...but when the actual legislation came to the Senate floor, Kerry voted against it. Uh huh... telling the truth is "trying to spin it"? He did not say that he suppoerted the bill in it's final form AND all riders attached to it (a clever legislative by-pass that should be outlawed). He said he voted for it. You said he voted for it... then you turn around and say he lied. You (and the originating source of this propaganda) are the one(s) lying, not Kerry. It is laughable. It would be closer to the WHOLE truth to say "Kerry voted both for and against this bill, proving that he is unreliable and flip-flops" but that apparently isn't bad enough. After all, when you've called him a traitor who obtained high military honors under false pretenses, it's rather mild to back up and call him a waffler. Bigger and better slanders need to be hollered from rooftops! DSK |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
|
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:UYH7c.3514
Well, I didn't really agree 'cause the first time I saw it I disagreed (I think...). Oh, I get it. You're doing a parody of Kerry now, aren't you? ;-) No, it's a parody of Bush. NOYB, you asked for some examples of Bush's flip-flopping, and I gave them to you. You didn't comment, so I suppose you didn't see them, here they are again: In fairness to all of the goose-stepping republicans, who think that Kerry flip-flops on the issues, I did a few minutes of research, to take a look at what Bush has flip-flopped on, and Kerry doesn't hold a candle to Bush, when it comes to hemming and hawing: Here, he flip-flops on his stance on chemical weapons bans: Last October, shortly after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein renewed his threats to use poison gas if attacked, George Bush took to the podium of the U.N. General Assembly to restate support for what he often says is one of his top arms control priorities: a global ban on the use, possession, and production of chemical weapons. "The Gulf crisis proves how important it is . . . to act now to conclude an absolute worldwide ban on these weapons," Bush said. The speech marked the second time that the president drew on the prestige of the General Assembly to call attention to his stated commitment to chemical disarmament, a plea that echoes candidate Bush's campaign pledge to rid the world of the "scourge" of poison gas. But the high priority Bush routinely gives to chemical weapons in speeches has yet to be matched by actions at the 40-nation talks on chemical weapons at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, which are slated to reopen in February. The negotiations, said Cong. Martin Lancaster, a North Carolina Democrat who is a member of the congressional arms control observer group, are "in trouble." And according to most accounts, the major source of the problems is a joint U.S.-Soviet proposed revision to the current working text of the chemical treaty which could postpone or even prevent complete chemical weapons disarmament. The controversial revision--offered by Washington and Moscow during the last round of talks which concluded in August--consists of four paragraphs that would make two key changes to the current draft. First, complete chemical disarmament over a ten-year period would no longer be automatic. Instead, countries with chemical arsenals would be allowed under certain conditions to retain up to 500 tons of nerve gas, which is two percent of the current U.S. level Here, Bush flip-flops on his stance on global warming, and air pollution: Wednesday, Mar. 14, 2001 President Bush may be reneging on his campaign promises on air pollution, but in doing so he may also be presenting the American people with a more honest depiction of its environmental dilemma. Following intensive lobbying by the energy industry and a policy review by Vice President Cheney, the White House on Tuesday backed away from a Bush campaign pledge to regulate power plants' output of carbon dioxide — the gas whose massive buildup inside the Earth's atmosphere is believed by most scientists to create the "greenhouse effect" that causes global warming. Bush's flip-flop on abortion: Published on Friday, June 16, 2000 in The Nation Bush's Abortion Flip-Flop? by David Corn Which current candidate for President reversed the abortion stand he espoused as a Congressional candidate in the seventies and adopted a position more acceptable to the mainstream of his party? If you said Al Gore, you may be only half right. George W. Bush appears to have done the same. In 1978, Bush, a 31-year-old oilman, was seeking the Republican nomination in Texas' 19th Congressional District, which included Midland, Odessa and Lubbock. He was locked in a fierce battle with Jim Reese, a veteran campaigner and Reagan Republican. Days before the June 3 primary runoff, Bush was interviewed by a reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Reese had attacked Bush for being cozy with liberal Rockefeller Republicans. In response, Bush listed conservative positions he held. "I'm not for the extension of the time to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment," he told the paper. "I feel the ERA is unnecessary. I'm not for the federal funding of abortions. I've done nothing to promote homosexuality in our society." But he went on to explain his view on abortion. The Avalanche-Journal reported: "Bush said he opposes the pro-life amendment favored by Reese and favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question. 'That does not mean I'm for abortion,' he said." Here, he flipped and flopped on the business fraud bill: New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com Bush does flip-flop, hails biz fraud bill he ripped By TIMOTHY J. BURGER and THOMAS M. DeFRANK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Wednesday, July 24th, 2002 WASHINGTON - President Bush, battered by Wall Street scandals and a wildly gyrating stock market, hailed the completion yesterday of a tough corporate reform bill that only weeks ago he complained went too far. Imposing harsh penalties for corporate fraud and coverups, the agreement between the Democrat-controlled Senate and the GOP House enabled both parties to claim credit for cleaning up the aura of corporate wrongdoing that has shaken investors and threatened Bush's leadership ratings. The cleanup deal came a few hours before another corporate stunner - a Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry into financial gamesmanship at media giant AOL Time Warner. Bush moved quickly to embrace the final product after having warned Congress that he felt such legislation was too tough on Wall Street. After meeting with congressional leaders to discuss the remaining legislative agenda before the August recess, Bush hailed what he called "a day of action and a day of accomplishment in Washington, D.C." "This government ... will investigate, will arrest and will prosecute corporate executives who break the law. And the Justice Department took action today," the President said, referring to the arrest of Adelphia Communications execs. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush "looks forward to signing this into law." House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), meanwhile, claimed credit for his party, eager to use the corporate fraud issue to help seize House control in November. "The [Democrat] bill, which passed the Senate 97 to 0, was finally accepted by House Republicans after dragging their feet for weeks and weeks, months and months," he said. The Senate and House quickly hammered out differences in competing bills once the stock market began to plummet and unveiled their deal yesterday. The compromise bill creates an independent board overseeing corporate management and the outside auditors who review the balance sheets companies file with regulators. It also would block auditing firms from selling other lucrative consulting services to their auditing clients - a major change previously beaten back by members of Congress in both parties before auditors were blamed for helping Enron and WorldCom brass dupe investors. The bill includes an amendment by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to ban corporate officers from borrowing money from their companies. It also imposes prison time and financial penalties on company officers convicted of fraud and allows authorities to seize ill-gotten gains. But the new law covers only future abuses and would not apply to allegations of sleazy conduct by ex-CEOs Ken Lay of Enron and Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom. Their are other items he's flipped on, such as letting, or not letting non-coalition countries bid on Iraq contracts. Or his flip flop on whether he would, or would not negotiate with Korea. Or, when he claimed the United Nations "irrelevent", but is now begging them to take over in Iraq. He flip-flopped on Steel Tariffs. And the ultimate, where he's flip-flopped more than an alligator doing a death roll, the reason why we went to war with Iraq!!! |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:06:13 +0000, NOYB wrote: He didn't tell the truth because he *DID NOT* vote for the bill. You obviously missed this sentence: "There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it (Helms-Burton legislation)" Kerry's people tried to spin it by saying he "supported the legislation in its purer form--and voted for it months earlier"...but when the actual legislation came to the Senate floor, Kerry voted against it. You are spinning. Kerry voted for the original Senate Helms-Burton Act. He voted against the final version after Title III was tacked on. The "final version" is all that matters. Today, we have no legislation known as the "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Version I". There is just just one "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity"...and Kerry voted against it. To say otherwise is pure spin. Apparently, GWB doesn't care for Title III either, as he has suspended enforcement of it. Title III deals with enforcement of the Act. Without Title III, the legislation has no teeth. It matters not that Clinton and GWB haven't enforced Title III. The fact of the matter is Kerry said he voted for the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity ...and he didn't. Ergo, he lied. |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
The bill passed in one form...not two...and Kerry voted against the bill
that passed. Don't take my word for it. Here's the Congressional Record the day the bill was passed. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J109261D7 "DSK" wrote in message . .. If he told the truth, which is that he voted for the bill, then how was he 'caught in a lie?' Has it all gotten this Orwellian? NOYB wrote: He didn't tell the truth because he *DID NOT* vote for the bill. You obviously missed this sentence: "There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it (Helms-Burton legislation)" Kerry's people tried to spin it by saying he "supported the legislation in its purer form--and voted for it months earlier"...but when the actual legislation came to the Senate floor, Kerry voted against it. Uh huh... telling the truth is "trying to spin it"? He did not say that he suppoerted the bill in it's final form AND all riders attached to it (a clever legislative by-pass that should be outlawed). He said he voted for it. You said he voted for it... then you turn around and say he lied. You (and the originating source of this propaganda) are the one(s) lying, not Kerry. It is laughable. It would be closer to the WHOLE truth to say "Kerry voted both for and against this bill, proving that he is unreliable and flip-flops" but that apparently isn't bad enough. After all, when you've called him a traitor who obtained high military honors under false pretenses, it's rather mild to back up and call him a waffler. Bigger and better slanders need to be hollered from rooftops! DSK |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
NOYB wrote:
The bill passed in one form...not two...and Kerry voted against the bill that passed. Ah, *now* you're almost willing to come clean... but still not willing to abandon your cherished lie. Don't take my word for it. Don't worry, I wouldn't. ... Here's the Congressional Record the day the bill was passed. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J109261D7 And how exactly does this affect the fact that you yourself said, and your source also, say that he voted FOR the earlier bill? You must be really really desperate to stretch this far to discredit Kerry. And you haven't said how much you're being paid to parrot this Bush & Cheney Inc propaganda. DSK |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
|
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:54:01 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:
The reporters of the 60 minutes Kerry re-election team forgot to mention during the book review that their parent company (Viacom) also ownes the publisher of Clark's book. And why did the sales date change to fit the testimony on Capital hill. Talk about biased and hiding it, geeze, stop at nothing... Frankly, for years, I have thought of 60 Minutes as lousy entertainment, not news and I don't watch it. It doesn't change what Clarke said, but if it upsets you, why not boycott Viacom. You can start by not watching: MTV MTV2 Nickelodeon BET VH1 CMT Comedy Central Showtime Movie Channel Avoid: Paramount Pictures Simon & Schuster Blockbuster Video And let's not forget radio. http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:25:56 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Title III deals with enforcement of the Act. Without Title III, the legislation has no teeth. It matters not that Clinton and GWB haven't enforced Title III. The fact of the matter is Kerry said he voted for the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity ...and he didn't. Ergo, he lied. Title III deals with Protection of Property Rights of US Nationals (property confiscated by Castro 40 years ago). |
A devastating attack on the Bush Administration...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:44:08 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:54:01 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote: The reporters of the 60 minutes Kerry re-election team forgot to mention during the book review that their parent company (Viacom) also ownes the publisher of Clark's book. And why did the sales date change to fit the testimony on Capital hill. Talk about biased and hiding it, geeze, stop at nothing... Frankly, for years, I have thought of 60 Minutes as lousy entertainment, not news and I don't watch it. It doesn't change what Clarke said, but if it upsets you, why not boycott Viacom. You can start by not watching: MTV MTV2 Nickelodeon BET VH1 CMT Comedy Central Showtime Movie Channel Avoid: Paramount Pictures Simon & Schuster Blockbuster Video And let's not forget radio. http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp Whew! Rush is safe. The rest make no difference, but I just can't give up Blockbuster Video. Hell, I rent at least 5 movies a year! John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com