It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has any president lied as much as bush?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Jungle boy, If you were paying attention you would of noticed that the assault was directed at the current president(cheney). I am sorry your fearless, drunken,bad parenting,murdering wife marrying.alcoholic,cheerleader,slurring,speech impedement,minor stroke victim,idiot leader doesnt grab any attention. Why should he? The experiment of putting the retarded son of a former president in office has failed. Get over it and learn, Oh, im sorry, i forgot your a christian. Well than deal instead . Shouldnt you be washing some other faggots feet right now.




posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Has any president lied as much as bush?

Yep. Sure. Almost all of them. Next question?


_



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
So what happens when you illegally divert (re: steal)700 million for the war in Afghanistan in defiance of Congressional appropriations, at the risk of our troops there, to a failed war in Iraq? IS that ok? Is that worse that lying about sex?


Originally posted by junglejake As for the illegal diversion, I wasn't aware it was illegal. Could you give a source? What law did he break by doing that?


What rape? What sexual harrassment?

Listen, when Congress, a law-making body, allocates funds that you request for a specific program and you spend it on something else, that's illegal! You are defrauding the taxpayers!

[Edited on 27-4-2004 by Colonel]


No, not rape! Come on, Colonel, the quote I used showed exactly what I was talking about. As for Congress appropriating funds, durring the LBJ years, an executive privilage was set up where the president could send troops, and adjust the budget accordingly, without a declaration of war by congress. So I'm still not seeing what BUSH (We're not talking Clinton and rape here
) did in that respect that was illegal.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
irrelevant, angry post. Ignore it if you read it.

[Edited on 4-27-2004 by junglejake]



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashley

I am sorry your fearless, drunken,bad parenting,murdering wife marrying.alcoholic,cheerleader,slurring,speech impedement,minor stroke victim,idiot leader doesnt grab any attention. Why should he? The experiment of putting the retarded son of a former president in office has failed. Get over it and learn, Oh, im sorry, i forgot your a christian. Well than deal instead . Shouldnt you be washing some other faggots feet right now.



__

ashley, I'm inclined to call you insensitive; how else would you describe someone who would make fun of a physically sick person? Please show some compassion for those less fortunate.




[Edited on 28-4-2004 by jsobecky]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Hey jake, If only it was true. Everything is less than jake.

You mispelled pedestal. And yes it is nice up here. Too bad the anchor of jesus will never let you see the topside. Go wash.
Maybe i will slop from the grail onto your subserviant head one day.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

As for Congress appropriating funds, durring the LBJ years, an executive privilage was set up where the president could send troops, and adjust the budget accordingly, without a declaration of war by congress. So I'm still not seeing what BUSH (We're not talking Clinton and rape here
) did in that respect that was illegal.


As you can see, LBJ didn't run again for his lying about the Gulf of TYonkin. The Dems wouldn't have him. Not so with repugnants. And exactly WHAT executive prvilige are you talking about. I never heard of it.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
As you can see, LBJ didn't run again for his lying about the Gulf of TYonkin. The Dems wouldn't have him. Not so with repugnants. And exactly WHAT executive prvilige are you talking about. I never heard of it.


The one that allowed LBJ and Nixon to send troops to Iraq. I'll look it up tomorrow, if I have a reminder
, but right now, I'm about to go to bed. Really bad day ended with a really foolish post...



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
signature
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. -- Isaiah 53:6

The LORD is my light and my salvation - whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life - of whom shall I be afraid? --Psalm 27:1




What foolish post are you talking about? I see a few?
Phaaah,,,,,,,,,christian. I am disgusted. Maybe you tricked me in to talking to you but at least i realize my disgust.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Colonel, check this site out:

www.howardsmead.com...

It doesn't specifically address the executive privilege that allowed LBJ, Nixon, etc. to send troops to the 'nam, but explains how they were able to get around congress and do this. The whole site is actually a really interesting take on 1970-1979.

Also, if you haven't read it, I highly recomend the book A People's History of the United States. It's a totally different take on history, told from the victim's perspective. A must read, in my opinion, for anyone who is into political history and American history in general. Doesn't paint a very flattering image of this nation.

EDIT: Almost forgot! Thanks again, jsobecky!

[Edited on 4-28-2004 by junglejake]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Amazingly enough, I have read it. By Howard Zinn right? No, it doesn't paint a pretty picture but, I think, it paints an accurate picture than the one we've been taught.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Amazingly enough, I have read it. By Howard Zinn right? No, it doesn't paint a pretty picture but, I think, it paints an accurate picture than the one we've been taught.


More accurate, yes. And I actually don't have the book anymore, a girl I used to date "borrowed" it and then moved away. It's a hard book to find! Speaks wonders for the powers that be....

On another note, I thought it was really cool when Will Hunting mentioned it in Good Will Hunting. After seeing the movie, that quote spurred on an awesome conversation about revisionist history, victor tells all history and the like with the friends who went to see it with me



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Colonel
Amazingly enough, I have read it. By Howard Zinn right? No, it doesn't paint a pretty picture but, I think, it paints an accurate picture than the one we've been taught.


More accurate, yes. And I actually don't have the book anymore, a girl I used to date "borrowed" it and then moved away. It's a hard book to find! Speaks wonders for the powers that be....

On another note, I thought it was really cool when Will Hunting mentioned it in Good Will Hunting. After seeing the movie, that quote spurred on an awesome conversation about revisionist history, victor tells all history and the like with the friends who went to see it with me


Speaking of victors, here's a bit of a video for ya:

www.informationclearinghouse.info...



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Dang, that's a long video. I'm still watching it, but I wanted to mention a quote I found very amusing while it was still fresh in my brain.



Our beliefs are exactly the opposite as the fanatics.


That was Mr. Blair...Now, why I found it so amusing. If you believe the exact opposite of a fanatic......doesn't that make you a fanatic?



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Dang, that's a long video. I'm still watching it, but I wanted to mention a quote I found very amusing while it was still fresh in my brain.



Our beliefs are exactly the opposite as the fanatics.


That was Mr. Blair...Now, why I found it so amusing. If you believe the exact opposite of a fanatic......doesn't that make you a fanatic?


In a word, yes.

The video is called "Surfing the Apocolypse."



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Bush and his butt-monkey, appear in front of the 9-11 commision tommorow. They are not going to be under-oath??????? That gives them permision to LIE.

Not under-oath, that is absurd. WE ARE NEVER GOING TO KNOW WHAT BUSH KNOWS OR DID.

This is worse than watergate, someone say.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I've got to say, for the first 5/6ths of that video, I thought it was cute, and amusing. A catchy little video. That, however, changed when I watched the end. It went from cute and catchy to powerful. Right after seeing it, I thought it would have been better if it was just the last sixth, but then, thinking on this, I realized that wouldn't be true.

It kind of builds up a humorous mentality, and while you're smiling about the banjo going in the background as Bush tries to say something about the American people. Then, it nails ya with an introspective approach. And of course, the change of music also helped this.

Nice video, Colonel


There was one thing that confused me, though. The quote at the top:



"The victor is not asked if he tells the truth"


I didn't really see how that applied to the video.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Is really the wrong title for what you're after.

Try:

" Has any president lied as much as bush on matters of consequence to the dtriment of the American people"?

I know it won't fit the subject line, but it's important.

Remember this:

Bush is testifying in frront of the 9/11 commission with Cheny AND his lawyer Gonzalez at his side.

This White House REFUSED:
- for it to be under oath
- For Bush to testify solo
- For it to be recorded
- For an !!!!!!!!!!! official transcript !!!!!!!
" Legal scholars said the lack of an official transcript would give the White House some deniability and make it more difficult to use the president's words as evidence in a future suit against the government."

" Mr. Roemer noted that "we were able to get about four hours with former President Bill Clinton and three" with former Vice President Al Gore and that Bob Woodward spoke more than three hours with Mr. Bush for his Iraq war book.

"I don't know that the metric should be what Bob Woodward got on the Iraq war," Mr. Roemer said. "But certainly the seriousness of 3,000 people dying on 9/11 would suggest that we need ample time."



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashley
Oh, im sorry, i forgot your a christian. Well than deal instead . Shouldnt you be washing some other faggots feet right now.


NAME CALLING WILL STOP NOW.


Bliar or Bliar as he is called in England lies through his arse as does Bush his master

Its a trend that Presidents and Prime Ministers lie

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by drunk]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
This White House REFUSED:
- for it to be under oath
- For Bush to testify solo
- For it to be recorded
- For an !!!!!!!!!!! official transcript !!!!!!!


It's just disgusting. Make the bush take the stand and burn.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join