Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
A quote from Bush 43rd about the CONSTITUTION "It's just a goddam piece of paper". This is how he will be remembered!

Source or it didn't happen.

I see you registered just 10 days ago ... perhaps that's why you are unaware of common knowledge.

Is this a joke? I registered 10 days ago?

Registered: March 11, 2009

You are badly mistaken in that. Are you intentionally trying some form of obfuscation here?

Epic fail.

I have the source where I got it from saved in many formats. That source has an additional THREE sources who corraborated the quote.

I'll not do your homework for you - it won't help you learn to do your own research.

Just Google the quote and trackback to 2005. Simple.

I didn't realize I was being schooled here. I didn't realize it was my assignment to track down quotes you proclaim to be truth. You made the claim, not I, so it is your responsibility to back it up. Otherwise, you are parroting.

Come on, post a simple link to a reliable source. Then we can chat. As it stands now, you are batting a thousand.

Registered 10 days ago? Heh.


Ok, I looked it up for craps and giggles, and guess what? Lets throw a Dem's favorite source back at them: Fact Check dot org:
www.factcheck.org...

There's no record of Bush ever using these words in public and no other news organization has reported him using them privately. Thompson based his report on three sources whom he didn't name. He gave the date of the quote as "last month," which would put it sometime in November 2005.

Thompson told us he once removed the story from his Web site when others raised doubts and no other news organization came up with a similar story. But he said he later reinstated it and currently believes it to be true. "I wrote the story and I stand by it," Thompson said in a telephone interview.

Thompson told us he based the story on e-mail messages from three persons he knows, all of whom claim to have been present at a White House meeting and to have heard Bush make the statement. He said he finds their account credible: "Sometimes I just have to go with my gut, and my gut tells me he did say this."

Thompson's "gut" has proven to be a unreliable guide in the past, however. He has admitted quoting trusted sources in the past who later turned out to be frauds -- twice.

In 2003 Thompson confessed that he had been "conned big time" by a source who claimed to be a former CIA contract consultant named Terrance J. Wilkinson. Thompson quoted this "source" as claiming to be present at two White House meetings in which Bush ignored intelligence officials' doubts about reports of Iraq seeking uranium. Thompson said he had been relying on the same man for two decades and had "no doubt" about his credibility, only to discover that "someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme." He erased a number of stories from the site that had been based on information from "Wilkinson" and deleted anonymous quotes given to him by "Wilkinson" from other stories.

Thompson said then: "It will be a long time (and perhaps never) before I trust someone else who comes forward and offers inside information. The next one who does had better be prepared to produce a birth certificate, a driver's license and his grandmother's maiden name."


That was two years before the "piece of paper" quote attributed to three unnamed sources. But, far from demanding solid proof, Thompson continued to quote at least one more phony source until 2006, when a blogger started to question the existence of "George Harleigh." Thompson had for years quoted this supposed former Nixon and Bush appointee. But when no records of such a man could be found, Thompson admitted he had never even met him:

Doug Thompson (July 26, 2006): We would get quotes via email on current topics. He claimed to be a retired political science professor from Southern Illinois University and an appointee of both the Nixon and Bush administration. I was told he had been checked out. But he wasn't who he said he was and we used his phony name in stories.

This time Thompson says he revised or deleted 83 stories that had relied on information from "Harleigh" or quoted him.

There, I did YOUR homework for you, and proved you are lying intentionally.

Thanks for playing!


Oh, and Democratic Underground and Capitol Hill Blue are not credible sources.

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
I like how Obama gets blamed for things that have never happened or are hilariously stupid. DEATH PANELS OMGZZZZZZ! And now it's this jail time for not accepting health care!!! Oh noes! God people are stupid.

People are stupid? Are you inferring I am stupid, or this never happened? The bill was passed, just in case you missed it.

It is not jail for not "accepting" insurance. It is for refusing to buy *any* insurance, and refusing to pay the tax penalty, up to 2.5% of your total income per year, levied by the IRS. Refual to pay the tax will lead to charges of tax evasion, hence, the jail time.

Please quit trying to make me out a liar. Please quit personally attacking me. If you are so avidly against this thread, please quit posting to it and find another thread to post in.

At least I can make comments that I can support. Yes, you can go to jail over health insurance. People *are* stupid, aren't they? Especially when it comes to understanding these monstrosity bills they are dancing in the aisles over.

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.”
[page 1]

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”
[page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

www.shtfplan.com...

As it stands, it has little to no chance to pass the Senate, then things can be added in conference, or removed before it goes back to the house again.

factcheck.org...

I do find it amusing, Libertygal, that you would accuse someone of intentionally lying, after you "prove" to them that their source was invalid. Is this proof of a lie or just a matter of lazy research on their part?

As an observer of this thread, I think it was a dishonest presumption on your part and it was intentional. You debunked a myth that HE believed. HE is not a liar for presenting a myth that HE believed. I think you know this. Therefore, I think it's you who have done the lying.

Care to apologize for libeling?

Originally posted by Libertygal

Is this a joke? I registered 10 days ago?

Registered: March 11, 2009

You are badly mistaken in that. Are you intentionally trying some form of obfuscation here?

Epic fail.

Do you notice how the dates of registration are presented on each user's sidebar? Mine says 9-3-09. Does this mean I registered in September?

Or did I register in March? Without any prior knowledge of how this site displays dates, would you be able to tell me if it's September or March that I registered?

Do you feel stupid now for belittling a mistake that anybody could make?

Originally posted by Pontius


I do find it amusing, Libertygal, that you would accuse someone of intentionally lying, after you "prove" to them that their source was invalid. Is this proof of a lie or just a matter of lazy research on their part?

As an observer of this thread, I think it was a dishonest presumption on your part and it was intentional. You debunked a myth that HE believed. HE is not a liar for presenting a myth that HE believed. I think you know this. Therefore, I think it's you who have done the lying.

Care to apologize for libeling?

When does a myth someone believes become his truth?


You are welcome to your opinion.

I do not think he felt he belived a "myth". In fact, I think I can derive from the post, he presented it as a truth he believed in, with the intent of bringing ridicule upon me, and derailing the thread.

In my opinion, thats intentional and for the sake of humiliating me, and trying to paint me in a negative light. He ridules me of being unaware of common "knowledge". Do you think "common knowledge" is accepted truth? I do. You have your opinions, and I have mine.

So they have an original source, thats expressed as a truth, then an additional "THREE" sources, presented as furthering his truth.

Let's revisit that.

"I see you registered just 10 days ago ... perhaps that's why you are unaware of common knowledge.

I have the source where I got it from saved in many formats. That source has an additional THREE sources who corraborated the quote.

I'll not do your homework for you - it won't help you learn to do your own research.

Just Google the quote and trackback to 2005. Simple. "

So he was not going to help me learn. Learn what? A myth? A myth he believed in? That he presented as a truth? Then belittled me for not having as "common knowledge"?

Then you accuse me of intentioonal dishonesty? You accuse me of lying? About what? More intent to bring ridicule upon me, no?

So by your logic, you just libeled me.

Why do you people insist on derailing the thread from the original topic?

edit for typo

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Libertygal]

Originally posted by Pontius

Originally posted by Libertygal

Is this a joke? I registered 10 days ago?

Registered: March 11, 2009

You are badly mistaken in that. Are you intentionally trying some form of obfuscation here?

Epic fail.

Do you notice how the dates of registration are presented on each user's sidebar? Mine says 9-3-09. Does this mean I registered in September?

Or did I register in March? Without any prior knowledge of how this site displays dates, would you be able to tell me if it's September or March that I registered?

Do you feel stupid now for belittling a mistake that anybody could make?

Why would someone make a statement as such intended to ridicule them, if they didn't have the sense to look at their profile, unless it were for the intent to derail the topic, or to attempt to humliate them?

More laziness, right? Oh right, an honest mistake. Included in a post intended to paint me as unknowledgeable and in a bad light? Like it was a "myth" he believed in as a truth?

I don't feel stupid for knowing how to look at someones' registration date. Should I?

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed reading it.

When Obama was elected I knew the Democrats would have all the power they ever wanted. They can do and pass almost anything they desire (within law, of course).

I wasn't entirely pleased with McCain (in addition if anyone remembers that Saturday Night Live skit with McCain claiming he will never, ever, ever run for office... well, it bothered me that he was now in the forefront. People have the right to change their minds, I guess), I wasn't pleased with Obama, so for me it was up in the air. The people I'd like to see in charge will probably never be in charge as long as the Democrats and Republicans are around.

Although I was opposed to Obama's ideas, on the positive side I thought that it would be good for the country to finally elect someone other than a white man. I was hoping it would give hope to non-whites and boost their morale, maybe encouraging more non-white children to study hard, go to college and feel that anything is possible. I was hoping that it would make them feel more like the country has let go of most racism which was so prevalent in the past (I know there's still a lot of work to be done in respect to that).

Nowadays when I hear Obama speak I almost want to claw at my ears. Sometimes (it seems to me) he is trying to sound like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (except that MLK's speeches had true power and meaning behind them) The words roll smoothly off his tongue, almost too perfect. He sounds like a preacher to me. His voice is smooth and melodic. He is too charismatic! It's like eating too much sugar. At first it looks good and it tastes good, but the more you eat of it the more horrible you feel, and you don't want to see another bit of sugar for at least a week.

Maybe this is just my personal problem, but I can't really focus on what he says. I keep hearing all these promises and things about how we all have to work together to get the country back on it's feet. I also hear a lot about how the previous administration screwed up. OK! WE GET IT! We know what you think, so please move on and do something to fix problems. The speeches seem too well-rehearsed and I can't help but dislike that! Despite a difference in politics I really tried to like him and I really tried to believe that maybe "change" could be good for us, but I'm going against that idea more and more these days.

I was hopeful in the beginning. Now,.. less and less everyday.

Wow, you really gave expression to the feelings I'm having listening to Obama!

I too want to "claw at my ears" when I hear him. Yes, just like eating too much sugar. Exactly right! Really well-stated.

Originally posted by Janky Red
George W Bush is a hero and a REAL American!
He spread freedom to the world and liberated the Iraqi people, now they don't have to be
worried about getting shot. He created more growth than any other president and protected the constitution and YOUR freedoms!

This thread and posts like the one above is proof that GOD loves ignorant people which is why he made so many of them.

Ironic that OP responded to nearly all replies but mine. I merely pointed out that 911 occurred on HIS watch. He DID NOT keep us safe despite accurate prior warnings. Strangely, he later blamed faulty intelligence for invading Iraq. So he ignored the factual intelligence and relied on the non factual intelligence to enact his unwarranted, unprovoked invasion. Is DUH a word?

As far as I'm concerned, he can visit the victims of every tragedy for the remainder of his life and still not atone for his misdeeds.

Regards...KK

[edit on 14-11-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by Pontius


I do find it amusing, Libertygal, that you would accuse someone of intentionally lying, after you "prove" to them that their source was invalid. Is this proof of a lie or just a matter of lazy research on their part?

As an observer of this thread, I think it was a dishonest presumption on your part and it was intentional. You debunked a myth that HE believed. HE is not a liar for presenting a myth that HE believed. I think you know this. Therefore, I think it's you who have done the lying.

Care to apologize for libeling?

In fact, I think I can derive from the post, he presented it as a truth he believed in, with the intent of bringing ridicule upon me, and derailing the thread.

His intent to ridicule you is beside the point. Just as my intended ridicule is beside the point. You just admitted to believing that he presented his "truth". Thus by you calling him an intentional liar, you are confirming now that you were being intellectually dishonest as you believed that he was telling something he believed in, yet you called him a liar for it. A lie is entirely the opposite of that. A lie presupposes a lack of belief, as it implies a manipulation and a knowing of what is not truth pushed off as truth.

Do you really fail to see how you maligned yourself by admitting to your dishonesty? Or do you really not know the difference between a mistake and a lie?


I guess for me. when taking into account your feelings and your thoughts I must decipher whether or not to trust you. That is the purpose of my posting in this thread.; to make aware for fellow readers that your thought patterns lead to intellectual dishonesty. This is pertinent to any opinion that you might spew, which in this thread, are plentiful. I'm just giving people reasonable doubt as to your trustworthiness and intent, like any HONEST person should do.

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by Pontius

Originally posted by Libertygal

Is this a joke? I registered 10 days ago?

Registered: March 11, 2009

You are badly mistaken in that. Are you intentionally trying some form of obfuscation here?

Epic fail.

Do you notice how the dates of registration are presented on each user's sidebar? Mine says 9-3-09. Does this mean I registered in September?

Or did I register in March? Without any prior knowledge of how this site displays dates, would you be able to tell me if it's September or March that I registered?

Do you feel stupid now for belittling a mistake that anybody could make?

I don't feel stupid for knowing how to look at someones' registration date. Should I?

Is my point really that hard to miss? He obviously made a mistake in confusing the dates as they are presented on the sidebar. To me it's an understandable mistake as they are ambiguous to anybody who has no foreknowledge.

I just think it's another example of you being intellectually dishonest and of using that logic to respond to ridicule. No, it doesn't make you a better person to get "revenge", especially when your "revenge" is based on something as arbitrary as an ambiguous date. A proper reply might've included with it the fact that you could possibly understand how he could confuse the information and thus you could've brought about correction. Instead you resort to criticism and with it a lack of understanding.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Ironic that OP responded to nearly all replies but mine. I merely pointed out that 911 occurred on HIS watch. He DID NOT keep us safe despite accurate prior warnings. Strangely, he later blamed faulty intelligence for invading Iraq. So he ignored the factual intelligence and relied on the non factual intelligence to enact his unwarranted, unprovoked invasion. Is DUH a word?

As far as I'm concerned, he can visit the victims of every tragedy for the remainder of his life and still not atone for his misdeeds.

Regards...KK

[edit on 14-11-2009 by kinda kurious]

Hi,

I didn't feel as though your post really needed a reply, as you stated you pointed out what you feel is an obvious fact. And trust me, I, by far did not reply to nearly every post.

We all feel strongly about 9/11, I do not fault you or anyone else that one bit. As for atonement? Well, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder.

In the OP I was asking for opinions, and you gave yours, and you have the conviction of your feelings, so kudos to you for that. You said your peace without hate or vitriol, so thanks for that.

reply to post by Pontius


Thanks, you made your point, so move along. No matter what I say, you are going to twist my words to however you wish to paint a picture of me.

This is off topic, and I really wish to not be attacked any further.

You have your opinion and are welcome to it, so either please stay on topic, or post elsewhere.

The thread is not about judging my honesty or intellectual abilities.

I am tired of having to defend myself to you.

reply to post by Pontius

I just think it's another example of you being intellectually dishonest and of using that logic to respond to ridicule.

It is against T&C to attack posters on the board. I am tired of the thread being derailed by personal attacks where I feel forced to defend myself.

Do you have anything on topic to contribute?

A proper reply might've...

Again, off topic. Thanks for yet again, derailing the thread.

A proper reply is what I feel proper to reply, I see no mention on this board I have to bow to your idea of proper.

Instead you resort to criticism

You mean much like you?

Now, can you please quit attacking me, which is against T&C, and stay on topic, or go post somewhere else?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I'm actualy a fairly young person and have only been able to vote a few times now, and none of the people I voted for were ever elected. These people do not represent me.

Originally posted by Libertygal
I am tired of the thread being derailed by personal attacks where I feel forced to defend myself.

In all due respect. When someone pulls the Fire Alarm, they should not act surprised when the Fire Dept. shows up.

Unless, of course, they just wanted to attract people with matches and gasoline.

It is an inflammatory thread fraught with political baiting and provocative to those who disagree with people who attempt to rewrite history or dilute the legacy of a controversial President inciting strong personal convictions.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by Libertygal


I just finished reading the entire OP and the propaganda crap is just to sticky and stinky for me.

reply to post by kinda kurious


You are correct, but people can discuss the topic and not the poster.

There were a multitude of reasons for posting the article, and they were stated in the thread when I posted.

People have strong emotions about Bush in a lot of directions, not all agree with mine, and I do not agree with all.

That should be ok.

Why does posting a topic for discussion automatically open me up to attack? Forone, it isn't allowed by T&C, and for another, it's off topic, also not allowed by T&C.

I was really looking forward to some discussion on both the subject of the article, the change in attitude of the posters, and the change of point of view within the gay community and how this may affect outcomes of the next election.

I see this as perhaps a positive thing in moving the country in a different and hopefully better direction, and something that has the opportunity to bring people together across partisan lines.

That is what should be being discussed, not me.

reply to post by Libertygal


I will be honest enough to give credit to Bush and wife Laura, after all the are not longer the first family and taking time to go and visit with the families of the unfortunately victims of the massacre in Texas is actually something they really do not need to do as private citizens.

So I guess they are doing it on their own private time and for that alone I have to say that is commendable.

Now the News article is glorifying too much the former president when he or she wrote the article.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


Thank you for your reply. I am not sure why you revisited the thread after your first post, but I am glad that you did.

I think the idea the writer was trying to bring across is that Bush has a good heart, and that he was perhaps too angry to see that during his presidency. To be able to let go of that was admirable, IMO.

No matter what you think about the ones behind the puppet, they are still human beings, and it is sometimes a bit surprising to realize in the face of all they have facing them, they can maintain that aspect of themselves.

Bush put up with ridicule almost daily from everywhere, and if that had been most people, they would be bitter and nasty after it all.

I think we may see some of this after Obama's presidency, as well. Hind sight and all of that. I don't think Obama realized exactly what position he put himself in, and I feel for him for that.

I respect you very much for posting your thoughts, thank you again.

reply to post by Libertygal


The reason I came back is because after posting in my spite toward Bush, I realized that this was about the families of the victims in Texas and that is a different subject and nothing to do with how I feel about Bush when he was a president.

Sorry if my first post was a littler bit heartless.