Dave Hall wrote:


Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave




Lied? Lies.

Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
his deficit spending.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave




Lied? Lies.

Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
his deficit spending.


To quote someone:

"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave




Lied? Lies.

Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
his deficit spending.


To quote someone:

"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:48:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave




Lied? Lies.

Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
his deficit spending.


To quote someone:

"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

Such as?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:


Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

Such as?

Dave

Everything:

The entire or unabated amount or quantity of; the whole extent,
substance, or compass of; the whole.



--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:50:16 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

Such as?

Dave

Everything:

The entire or unabated amount or quantity of; the whole extent,
substance, or compass of; the whole.


That's a non-answer.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to life,
since they died for nothing.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:04:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to life,
since they died for nothing.

Which Iraqi's? The ones who were loyal to Saddam, or the ones involved
in the current insurgence?

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:04:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to life,
since they died for nothing.

Which Iraqi's? The ones who were loyal to Saddam, or the ones involved
in the current insurgence?

Dave


No. The innocent ones who got in the way.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:02:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:04:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to life,
since they died for nothing.

Which Iraqi's? The ones who were loyal to Saddam, or the ones involved
in the current insurgence?

Dave


No. The innocent ones who got in the way.

How many "innocents" died in WWII? Should the fact that innocents
often die in war, deter us from the greater common good?

Dave