Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKcurly on September 29, 2003, 04:22:42 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/timep.klein.tm/
Read past he Clinton line.
curly
-
The cost of 9-11 by most conservative estimates exceeded 90 Billion....common sense tells me this 87 billion is smart money....not politically, but practically.
Can you hear how loud they all will scream when 10,000 Americans die in the next attack? A power plant gets hit or any attack for that matter, will paralyze our economy once again.
The more liberal media talking heads keep saying that Americans are uncomfortable about spending this particular 87 Billion....what's that they say about repeating the same statement over and over and soon it will become like the truth?
I'm too tired and busy to look it up, but I believe the prescription drug bill exceeded 400 Billion....500 Billion in my book is well worth the return of peace and a shift in geopolitical thinking and design in the mideast....of course, I'm a right wing radical, so I'm wrong.
Those who believed we could remove Sadams regime, restore peace to the whole of Iraq, establish a constitution, conduct free elections by the Iraqi people, restore the infrastructure, rebuild the economy, riemburse ourselves thru oil revenues and exit the country, all in 4-6 months, are either stupid or so partisan motivated that reality is a non factor.
-
Shoulda read it Rude. Not saying we shouldn't spend the money, just positing a way to pay for it. Sounds like a winner (politically) for the Dems.
-
recinding a tax cut is the same a raising taxes, just dosn't sound so bad.
americans are rich, raise their taxes, and wile we are at it , i need a govt program to pay for my new computer so i can play AH2, and i need free health care and i need more money in my SS check.
-
I always hear republicans cry about how dems are unrealistic, not willing to take responsability for their actions.
how is spending 87 million you don't have realistic? is spending cash while lowering taxes, so you can pass your debt on to the next guy, taking responsability for your actions?
BTW- Rude, refresh my memory, how many Iraqis where involved in 9-11?
-
It's a nice thought, but I'm guessing we will spend hundreds and hundreds of billions before Iraq is "stable".
-
Do all muslims hate all christians?
-
Only those who remember that long retreat from Jeruselum in the 3rd Crusade. No color, not even the color of blood. Just everywhere the white of the snow... They put their wounded on the carts,...
[scratches head]No,...wait a minute maybe I got that wrong...[/scratches head]
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Shoulda read it Rude. Not saying we shouldn't spend the money, just positing a way to pay for it. Sounds like a winner (politically) for the Dems.
I did read it.....the dems started three months ago....anything that comes up they will blame Bush....that's the political winner for the dems.
However, I believe once one opponent is left to compare with Bush, things will get tight.
Perhaps Bush should lose, so I can see how the dems will fix all of our problems....or will they just cop out and blame Bush?
I hate election years...so much from both sides...I hope Bush just tells the American public....here is what I've done and what I believe is best for the nation....you make your choice....unlike some, I know he will live with the outcome and go back to Texas...that'll make you all happy:)
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I always hear republicans cry about how dems are unrealistic, not willing to take responsability for their actions.
how is spending 87 million you don't have realistic? is spending cash while lowering taxes, so you can pass your debt on to the next guy, taking responsability for your actions?
BTW- Rude, refresh my memory, how many Iraqis where involved in 9-11?
9-11 is relevant, not because of how many Iraqi's were involved, but because a war on terror carries a wide playing field....of course, you're probably mad due to him stealing the election in the first place.
Be careful....you might just get what you wish for.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's a nice thought, but I'm guessing we will spend hundreds and hundreds of billions before Iraq is "stable".
I agree
-
sorry Rude....but in the international community....Bush is a seen as a dumbprettythang.
this is what we hear....
before war.
Bush : UN is irelevent.
after war.
Bush : we need UN help in Iraq.
sorry but he is a dumbprettythang :eek:
-
I agree, being so patient as he was for months on end and now again really is dumb of him - but he's giving it a shot...
Why do all weak countries of the world, like Canada, place so much starry eyed faith in the UN as some grand arbitor of justice and truth?
-
Minor correction-If you had heard his speech to the UN, you would realize that he did not ASK for help from the UN; He TOLD the UN what was the right thing to do. Not just in Iraq, but worldwide. Basically his speech laid out what the UN failed to do, What the US did and will do, and what the UN should do.
-
wow.. gadfly is actually right.
The Canadians are so interested in America and American politics because... well what else do they have to do?
lazs
-
I still say he's a dumbprettythang :D
at least here in Canada we do NOT dictate what others should do.....
at least here in Canada we do NOT piss off most countries in the world.....
at least here in Canada we do NOT invade a soveriegn nation based upon assumptions.....
the list is big but i gotta go......:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why do all weak countries of the world, like Canada,
where are still waiting for you to invade us....
350 million vs. 30 million......i say we kick your fat mcdonalds prettythanges back across the border :rofl
-
slo
the international group thought clinton was great
so who cares what they think
-
Clinton's support came from the middle, so he watched the polls to decide what his policy was going to be that day. Bush's support comes from the far right, and he already know's what policies they expect, and their tax cuts are at the top of the list.
-
Originally posted by SLO
sorry Rude....but in the international community....Bush is a seen as a dumbprettythang.
this is what we hear....
before war.
Bush : UN is irelevent.
after war.
Bush : we need UN help in Iraq.
sorry but he is a dumbprettythang :eek:
I can understand your viewpoint to some degree....however, he did solicit the help of the UN from the git go....it was witheld....the irrelevence point was made by him regarding the UN and not enforcing it's own resolutions....meaning that if they put forth resolutions and do nothing to enforce them, then the UN becomes irrelevant in it's existence as a world body.
From my opinion and many here in the US as well, the UN has become irrelevant.....they bark, yet do not bite. What is interesting to me personally is that the request Bush is making now is the same as from the start. The goal was to remove him for the benefit of the entire world....a stable and friendly Iraq is good for all of us. The problem is that we(nations around the globe) see things differently.
What's that about a house divided against itself? Our country suffers the same from within and it's getting worse. My Bible tells me that the purpose of Jesus's return is to establish his government on this earth...no suprise to me....we can't even get along when trying to solve the simplest of problems, much less anything of global porportions.
-
Originally posted by popeye
Clinton's support came from the middle, so he watched the polls to decide what his policy was going to be that day. Bush's support comes from the far right, and he already know's what policies they expect, and their tax cuts are at the top of the list.
Do you think that perhaps the bitterness regarding these tax cuts might be born from those who make and pay less...you know, the "it's not fair thingie"?
I make a good living, yet I'm not rich....however, the left tells me I am and that I don't deserve a tax break. Furthermore, I should pay more so that they can spend more.
I'm sorry Popeye....the taxes of higher income earners in this country have always paid for the bulk of social programs, infrastructure and geopolitical endeavors....in addition, it is firms like mine that employ hundreds of workers and provide the impetus for commerce in general, especially taxed income on the local, state and national level.
I see those without, looking at those with and saying, hey that's not fair...make them pay more. I also see the politicians recognizing this and taking full advantage rather than promoting hard work and sacrifice.
Do folks on the left really believe that those with money were all born with it? I've had my four kids and wife living in a friends basement due to a downturn in my career....I never applied for aid nor did I even apply for unemployment....I just went to work doing whatever I could to make a buck....sold suits to the brutha's in the ghetto.
By God's grace, all has been restored to me and mine...still, I have others without, believing I don't do enough....it's a crazy world man:)
-
Originally posted by SLO
where are still waiting for you to invade us....
350 million vs. 30 million......i say we kick your fat mcdonalds prettythanges back across the border :rofl
If there was anything in Canada that we wanted we would have already taken it. Hmmmm, kinda like Alaska?
-
I didn't have to read past the word "wealth" As I have posted here before “Wealth” is not taxed. And the "TAX" cuts are for those who work, not those who are allready "WEALTHY"
And the top 2% of the highest income earners are small business, so to repeal a tax cut on small business will stop this recovery dead. End of story
-
Investors Bussniess Daliy
About the Rich.
Here is a compelling statement, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, D-RI (Rhode Island for those of you in public schools) recently declared to fellow members at a Washington nightspot, “I don’t need Bush’s tax cut, I’ve never worked a F***king day in my life”
A number of other rich people, i.e. Warren Buffet, have at various times likewise declared that they do not need what are called “tax cuts for the rich”. But whatever political points such rhetoric may score, it confuses issues that are long overdue to be clarified.
One of the most basic confusions is between income and wealth. You can have high income and low wealth or vice versa. We have all heard of athletes and entertainers who have earned millions, that ended up broke.
There are also people of relatively modest incomes who have saved and invested enough over the years to leave surprisingly large amounts of wealth to their heirs.
Income tax cuts apply to income, not wealth. So the fact that some rich people say they don’t need a tax cut means nothing because they are not getting a tax cut on their wealth, since their wealth is not being taxed anyway.
Looked at differently, high tax rates hit people who are currently earning high incomes- usually late in life, after having worked their way up in their professions over a period of decades. Such as myself.
Genuinely rich people who have never had to work a day in their lives –people like Kennedy- are unaffected by income taxes except on what they are currently earning, which may be a tiny fraction of what they own.
In other words, soak-the-rich tax rates do not, in fact, soak the rich.
Someone who eventually works his way up to $100,000 a year will qualify as “rich” in liberal rhetoric, but by the time you reach that level you may have a few kids, college tuition, mortgage etc. You’re not exactly buying yachts.
Another fundamental confusion over tax rates with reduction in tax revenues collected by the government.
One of the enduring political myths of our generation has been the claim that the rise in deficits during the 1980s resulted from President Reagan’s “tax cuts for the rich.”
Tax rates were cut. Tax revenues were not.
More tax revenues were collected during every year of the two Reagan administrations than had ever been collected in any previous year in the history of the country. Nor was this experience unique.
When President Kennedy cut tax rates during the 1960s, tax revenues went up. The whole point was –and is- to encourage more economic activity and more activity generates more tax revenues, even at lower rates.
The same thing happened back in the 1920s.
Why, then, were there federal deficits during the Reagan administration? Because Congress spent even more money the then rising tax revenues brought in.
There is no amount of money that congress cannot out spend.
Although these were christened “the Reagan deficits,” all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives- and Reagan was never a member of congress. Indeed, the Republicans never controlled the House of Representatives during the Reagan Years.
Only after the Republican party gained control of the house in 1994 were there budget surpluses-for which president Clinton took credit, even though he too, had never been a member of Congress.
It is fascinating to see congressional Democrats, who have for decades been spending the country into growing deficits, suddenly expressing shock at the current deficits that have occurred while President Bush is in the White House- and the country is at war.
How serious are these deficits? As with all debts the burden depends on what your income is. As a percentage of national income, today’s deficits and national debts are far below what they were when Democrats were spending.
-
Federal sales tax to replace income tax sounds better 'n better all the time.
Well said JBA.
-
Originally posted by SLO
at least here in Canada we do NOT invade a soveriegn nation based upon assumptions.....
You guys could'nt invade a Wal-Mart.:D
-
they invade Fl every winter
it has already started
white hair, pasty with blue veins
going 20 in a 45 with canadian tags :)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Federal sales tax to replace income tax sounds better 'n better all the time.
Well said JBA.
Can't find too much to argue with JBA except that I think I'd prefer a flat tax... across the board... no excemptions, no exclusions, no tax credits. I don't believe that the federal government can help the economy by taxing each transaction. In California, we have 8% (or more depending on the location). For small purchases, I generally don't even blink an eye, but for large purchases, I quite often find myself stepping down from what I prefer simply because I don't want the tax that goes with it.
-
"How serious are these deficits? As with all debts the burden depends on what your income is. As a percentage of national income, today’s deficits and national debts are far below what they were when Democrats were spending."
Another view:
http://www.concordcoalition.org/federal_budget/030929jointstatement.pdf
-
Some statistics from the IRS, to further debunk the lie that "The rich don't pay taxes!"
The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that is startling: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.
*Data covers calendar year 2000, not fiscal year 2000 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? No, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a mere 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.
Bottom line: The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
A quick note on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.
-
Originally posted by popeye
"How serious are these deficits? As with all debts the burden depends on what your income is. As a percentage of national income, today’s deficits and national debts are far below what they were when Democrats were spending."
Another view:
http://www.concordcoalition.org/federal_budget/030929jointstatement.pdf
Don't talk to me about democrats spending.
The budget deficit during the Reagan administration exceeded the total of all previous presidents.
Let me make sure you understand what I'm saying. Take the budget deficit of George Washington and add that to the budget deficit of John Adams and so on. Right up through Woodrow Wilson (WW1) and FDR (WW2) and Harry Truman (KW) and Johnson/Nixon (Vietnam) up to and including Jimmy Carter, the president preceding Ron Regan. The sum of all those budget dificits was smaller than the deficit generated by Reagan.
curly
-
Originally posted by SLO
I still say he's a dumbprettythang :D
at least here in Canada we do NOT dictate what others should do.....
at least here in Canada we do NOT piss off most countries in the world.....
at least here in Canada we do NOT invade a soveriegn nation based upon assumptions.....
the list is big but i gotta go......:rolleyes:
1. we don't care what you say
2. most people in the world cant find Canada on a globe
3. you are not capable of invading anything larger then Winter Park, Florida in the winter. That you do well
4. Slo go have a beer
Do you really think you are that tough, I can't understand all this fight talk you must be drunk
:rolleyes: :rofl
-
AKcurly, you mean the deficit generated by the Democratic-controlled Congress while Reagan was President, do you not?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
AKcurly, you mean the deficit generated by the Democratic-controlled Congress while Reagan was President, do you not?
SDI. Not the democratic congress. In the words of Sagan, billyuns and billyuns.
As a governing agency we seem to fare better when we have different parties in control of the oval office and congress.
curly
-
Certainly a lot of money went into SDI. However, surely you're not claiming that the entire deficit, or even the lion's share of the deficit during the 80's was due to SDI. If so, I'd ask what figures you have to back that up, as I'm somewhat dubious of such a sweeping claim. Also, while some of the projects that were funded by SDI turned out to be technologic dead-ends, it none the less was arguabley a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and thus money well spent, IMO. Not to mention the wealth of technology developed that did find it's way into military and civilian use.
Oh, and Congress controls military spending, as you know.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Certainly a lot of money went into SDI. However, surely you're not claiming that the entire deficit, or even the lion's share of the deficit during the 80's was due to SDI. If so, I'd ask what figures you have to back that up, as I'm somewhat dubious of such a sweeping claim. Also, while some of the projects that were funded by SDI turned out to be technologic dead-ends, it none the less was arguabley a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and thus money well spent, IMO. Not to mention the wealth of technology developed that did find it's way into military and civilian use.
Oh, and Congress controls military spending, as you know.
No, not claiming anything. It's a fact that can be readily verified with some minor research ... google ... whatever.
It's quite funny. Republicans want to give Reagan credit for burying the old Soviet Union, but they want no part of his budget deficit excesses.
However, it appears to me that you want to give the democrats credit for spending the USSR into bankruptcy ... congress controls military spending ... :) That's a novel thought.
While you're looking up budget deficits, you might also look at some of the claims made by Reagan concerning his role in WW2, all widely reported by the news.
I've always been surprised that George Bush Sr. would have had anything to do with Reagan. After all, Bush went in harms way during WW2. Reagan on the other hand told monstrous lies concerning his role during WW2.
Most politicians readily lie - I guess we all expect it. But I've never been ready to accept a president lying about what he did during a war.
Bush did correctly identify "trickle down economics" as "voodoo economics." Remember that? But then he became a running mate and well then, it's only politics. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If there was anything in Canada that we wanted we would have already taken it. Hmmmm, kinda like Alaska?
*sigh*
It might help your case if the US actually took Alaska instead of purhcasing it from Russia.
-
How would Canada repel an American invasion? You guys have less military funding than Iceland... :rolleyes:
Hell the Canadian Government couldn't even keep me out, I'll say and they tried hard... :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How would Canada repel an American invasion?
First you have to be able to find it on a map. :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
First you have to be able to find it on a map. :D
LOL. So thats why US schools are so bad at geography - infiltrating our schools and defeating american children is the only way canada can survive.
But Hah! I'm an immigrant, I know full well where Canada is hiding and I personally confirmed it this summer, you guys are screwed. :rofl
-
LOL!
*Canada quietly tries to remained unnoticed somewhere to the north of the US*
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
LOL!
*Canada quietly tries to remained unnoticed somewhere to the north of the US*
Shhhhh..
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
First you have to be able to find it on a map. :D
Hopefully Bush will still be prez and they'll invade Mexico. ;)
-
Originally posted by Torque
Hopefully Bush will still be prez and they'll invade Mexico. ;)
At a recent fund raising dinner for Bush's reelection campaign we discussed this very thing. In the end we flipped a coin, heads Canada and tails Mexico. Heads it was. Canada will be first.
:p
-
Originally posted by Twist
At a recent fund raising dinner for Bush's reelection campaign we discussed this very thing. In the end we flipped a coin, heads Canada and tails Mexico. Heads it was. Canada will be first.
:p
easy too beat you guys.......FREE McDonalds to every soldier :rofl
-
We were spending 50 billion a year securing the middle east long before the attack. Did it prevent 9/11? Spending $$ and being over there caused it. Now we are going to start spending 87 billion a year. At what point to we start to realize that spending all this $$ isn't working. It's time to get the U.N. back in there and let the rest of the world(who are so vocal about being involved) start footing the bill.
Y'all make it sound like this is the first 87 billion we are spending. Add that to all the $$ we have spent the last 20 years and give me a total. The answer might raise an eyebrow.
Alot of working people are going to lose a son over there. I bet not one politician will.
-
AKcurly, when you make a claim like that, it's your job to support it, not mine. Otherwise, I'll assume you're generalizing and pulling ideas out of the air. And yes, Congress does control the purse strings, and thus could take some credit for supporting Reagan's leadership in confronting the USSR head-on, rather than through appeasement...if the democrats hadn't been dragged screaming and kicking behind like they were (my recollection, though perhaps clouded by the passage of time). I often have to stand over my 5-year old to make him clean his room. When that's the case, my praise is significantly less than when he goes in and does it on his own;).
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
*sigh*
It might help your case if the US actually took Alaska instead of purhcasing it from Russia.
Riiiight.
And they'll be reading in the history books in a hundred years or so how we bought the middle east too.
;)
-
Originally posted by Sabre
AKcurly, when you make a claim like that, it's your job to support it, not mine. Otherwise, I'll assume you're generalizing and pulling ideas out of the air. And yes, Congress does control the purse strings, and thus could take some credit for supporting Reagan's leadership in confronting the USSR head-on, rather than through appeasement...if the democrats hadn't been dragged screaming and kicking behind like they were (my recollection, though perhaps clouded by the passage of time).
It's not my job. I simply reported a fact. I have no interest in convincing anyone of its accuracy. If you wish to consider my remarks inaccurate, that's ok with me.
You didn't mention your age but you mention having a 5 year old. Were you beyond adolescence when Reagan was president? I'm not trying to be insulting, but frequently, young kiddos don't read newspapers. Perhaps you were a teenager?
The budget deficit issue was widely reported by all newspapers and magazines of that time period.
The military service issue was really gross and again, widely reported. I'll give you the gist of the story.
First, the preliminaries. I spent 3 years in the USN teaching mathematics and physics to officers of foreign navies. This was in the late 60s, early 70s. No one shot a bullet at me. I was in Memphis, Tenn the entire period.
I had a lot of friends that went to Vietnam that didn't return. Willingly or unwillingly, they went to a place where folks were shooting bullets at them. They didn't desert, they didn't frag their officiers and many died. Maybe it was a stupid war, dunno, but they still went and died.
When Reagan was President he was widely quoted as saying that he was part of the US Army outfit that made first contact with Auswitz.
That was a lie. He never left Hollywood. He made movies for the US Army. I thought it was obscene that he would report that he went in harms way --- a place where other men shot bullets at you.
Finally, look at your sentence starting with "And yes, Congress ..."
You can either give credit to congress or Reagan for the military deficits of that period. It is illogical to fault congress (for the deficit) and praise Reagan for the results. That would be called "having your cake and eating it too."
If you really want to track down the budget reference, you can either examine historical budgets (they're out there) or search old newspapers files. Both will have the figures.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Don't talk to me about democrats spending.
The budget deficit during the Reagan administration exceeded the total of all previous presidents.
Let me make sure you understand what I'm saying. Take the budget deficit of George Washington and add that to the budget deficit of John Adams and so on. Right up through Woodrow Wilson (WW1) and FDR (WW2) and Harry Truman (KW) and Johnson/Nixon (Vietnam) up to and including Jimmy Carter, the president preceding Ron Regan. The sum of all those budget dificits was smaller than the deficit generated by Reagan.
curly
The only true measurement of deficits is as a percentage of GDP and right now it is were it always is after a recession at 4.5%. The national average is 4.2% GDP after all recessions we have ever had. Further more Reagan was trying to out spend the USSR and force their bankruptcy, which he succeeded in doing along with depressed oil values, thanks to the Saudi’s.
-
Curly, while not NEARLY as old as you, I am old enough to remember the "Reagan Years" quite well. I always knew that Reagan's contribution to the war effort was in making training films. I never heard the quote you ascribed to him 'till now.
I'm sure you realize that "he was widely quoted" isn't the same as you saying he said it. Lot of people didn't like him, you have any other evidence he actually lied about his service?
-
There was a black Senator or rep of something can't recall now but will look for it, who recived an award from the Jews communited, He has said he was at Auswitz for the liberation. Never proved by any records or witnesses. Maybe your thinking of him.
I remember Reagan and have read a bit about him, never heard that quote made by him.
-
When Reagan was President he was widely quoted as saying that he was part of the US Army outfit that made first contact with Auswitz.
I'm hardly a Reagan fan, but I gotta call BS on this one. Never happened as far as I can remember, nor as far as an extensive search of the internet can find.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm hardly a Reagan fan, but I gotta call BS on this one. Never happened as far as I can remember, nor as far as an extensive search of the internet can find.
Yeah midnight? Well, this one (unlike the budget issue) is very easy to find.
I well remember being outraged when Reagan said that.
Here's the text of his remarks and a URL. Of course, URLs prove nothing, but I read it, saw a hilarious report on the news (complete with Reagan's lips moving) and so a URL convinces me that I'm not suffering from dementia.
By the way, read the entire page. George W Bush is leading the pack. :)
Text of the remark:
The Liberator.
In November 1983, Reagan told visiting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had served as a photographer in a U.S. Army unit assigned to film Nazi death camps. He repeated the story to Simon Wiesenthal the following February. Reagan never visited or filmed a concentration camp; he spent World War II in Hollywood, making training films with the First Motion Picture Unit of the Army Air Corps.
URL:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.mendacity-experts.html
I have many flaws. Prevarication isn't one of them.
curly
-
I'm gonna hafta do some research on this one Curly.
"In November 1983, Reagan told visiting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had served as a photographer in a U.S. Army unit assigned to film Nazi death camps. He repeated the story to Simon Wiesenthal the following February. Reagan never visited or filmed a concentration camp; he spent World War II in Hollywood, making training films with the First Motion Picture Unit of the Army Air Corps."
This statement doesn't actually say Reagan lied. It implies it. It is possible Reagan said which unit he was assigned to without saying he filmed any Nazi death camps. There's so much spin in politics I'm gonna trust ya but verify. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.mendacity-experts.html
I have many flaws. Prevarication isn't one of them.
curly
That is too funny, I like the killer trees
-
I can't find anything else to either support or disprove your link Curly. May have to concede that Reagan lied and if he did it is deplorable. However, to rank any president as a bigger liar than Bill (as did your reference) is ludicrous and definitely calls into question it's honesty.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I can't find anything else to either support or disprove your link Curly. May have to concede that Reagan lied and if he did it is deplorable. However, to rank any president as a bigger liar than Bill (as did your reference) is ludicrous and definitely calls into question it's honesty.
You're letting your political opinions get in the way of open and honest judgment.
Was Bill a liar? Oh yeah, he was really skillful! And so is/was W. Bush, Reagan, HW Bush, Nixon, Roosevelt and probably every politician to hold public office (heh, didn't include Truman.)
I didn't fault Reagan for being a consummate liar. He was though. I faulted Reagan for the type of lie he told.
curly
-
They didn't even mention one of Bill's biggest lies "...but I didn't inhale". You didn't believe that one didja? If ya did I got some prime swampla... er real estate in Forida for sale.
Of course Bill's biggest offenses weren't actually lies but his deeds, to name a couple, accepting campaign funds from the Chinese in exchange for technology and pardoning murderers as he slithered out of office.
I really couldn't care less how many blowjobs he got in the oval office though I did take great offense at electing someone who so thoroughly abused his office as governor.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
They didn't even mention one of Bill's biggest lies "...but I didn't inhale". You didn't believe that one didja? If ya did I got some prime swampla... er real estate in Forida for sale.
Of course Bill's biggest offenses weren't actually lies but his deeds, to name a couple, accepting campaign funds from the Chinese in exchange for technology and pardoning murderers as he slithered out of office.
I really couldn't care less how many blowjobs he got in the oval office though I did take great offense at electing someone who so thoroughly abused his office as governor.
Heh, hard to separate political opinion from facts. You keep ignoring the facts and throwing up political smoke. ;)
I don't think you'll find a person on the planet who believes WC respected the truth (certainly not me!)
But I'm telling you, Ron Reagan's lies were far more reprehensible than anything that Clinton/Johnson/Kennedy ever did.
Evidently both Clinton & Kennedy had a fondness for young females. Johnson had a fondness for winning elections, even if it meant voting a few folks from the graveyard.
But none of them misrepresented their service (or lack of it) to their country. What Reagan did was a far greater disgrace to the office than anything "slick willie" did. And that bud isn't a political fact, it's just a plain old simple fact to all men and women who have served in the US military.
curly