posted 05-08-2003 02:50 AM            

Goldwater's "domino theory" was also correct.
after Vietnam; the rest of Indochina went over to the Communist system.

After Goldwater commented in 1993:
"Gays have as much right to die for their country as anyone else."
And spoke in favor of the Separation of Church & State in 1994:
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others."

He was hounded out of the Republican Party.

"I didn't leave them; they left me." -Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater just couldn't lie, so he couldn't be President.

A story our dear Dubya told in a house on the Montrose (Houston TX) winter of 1975-76

"George Washington was really from Texas.

The family ranch was in west Texas and there was only one tree in the yard.
A mesquite tree grew just out from the front porch.

George's daddy came home from riding the range and saw the tree cut down.
Little George sat on the porch whittling with his pocket knife.

"George. (his daddy said) Did you cut that tree down."
"I cain't tell a lie daddy. I cut that tree down so's I could whittle some."
"Git in the house boy and pack your bags!" his daddy yelled.
"Why daddy? Little George bawled.
"Iffin you cain't lie. You'll never make it in Texas." he explained.
"Now get in the house and pack your bags. We're moving up north."

***
George W Bush & Dick Cheney are both Texans.

posted 05-08-2003 03:30 AM            

My point being that the critics are diligent about digging up the truth
and supporters are concerned with hiding the truth
on all sides.

Before Alaska became a state,
Texans proudly proclaimed that Texans had the biggest state and told the biggest whoppers.
Here is proof that they still tell the biggest whoppers: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/bushlies.html
(edit to add)
Numerous sources to hundreds of Bushlies http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
Caught on film- Bush lies documented: http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

A more partisan list of 189 lies by W & co. http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=s how_thread&om=3035&forum=DCForumID12

a quick search for "bushlies" http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/proxy.htm

Turned up 26 separate websites listing well documented lies by herr Bush

posted 05-08-2003 03:43 AM            

(cut & pastes from Texas sources to irritate those who hate the truth) http://austin.about.com/library/weekly/aa111900a.htm
>George W. Bush is, without a doubt, a resident of Texas. Since 1995 Dick Cheney has lived in Highland Park (Dallas), Texas.

Voter Registration vs. Bona Fide Resident
In July, shortly before being named as Bush's running mate, Cheney changed his voter's registration from Texas to Wyoming where he was raised, served as a U.S. Congressman, and still owns a home. However, one of the requirements for Voter Registration in Wyoming is that the registrant "Be an actual and physically bona fide resident of Wyoming" living in the state for one year before becoming a resident.

Interesting side note: According to a news report in the November 22, 2000 Austin American-Statesman, Cheney claimed the homestead tax exemption on his Dallas home (put up for sale just this month) which is only allowed on property the owner considers their main home. So, did he simply consider it his main home for tax purposes but not for Presidential electoral vote purposes?

Is a hasty change in voter registration sufficient to satisfy the spirit and letter of the law? Does being registered to vote in Wyoming mean that Cheney is no longer a Texas resident and more important, could it change the election outcome?
<
***
The lawsuit thrown out by a (R) judge "on a technicality" http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/11-15-00/2000111504_s03_Constituti.html
>The question is whether or not Dick Cheney is an inhabitant of Texas or Wyoming. Back when the campaign was getting underway in July, Cheney switched his voter registration to Wyoming, evidently to avoid just this type of constitutional challenge to his candidacy. Caplan's complaint, however, argues that being a registered voter in a state is not enough to constitute habitation.

The language of the residency requirement for voter registration in Wyoming is that a person must "be an actual and physically bona fide resident of Wyoming." Caplan, however, argues that there is a critical distinction between being a resident and being an inhabitant. Since there are two different words, there must be two different concepts, right?

According to the text of Caplan's suit, Black's Law dictionary defines inhabitant as "one who resides actually and permanently in a given place and has his domicile there." The lawsuit also claims that there is legal precedent to the idea that a resident is not the same as an inhabitant. In fact, the word "inhabitant," according to case law, assumes "a more fixed and permanent abode ... imparting privileges and duties to which a mere resident would not be subject." Maybe being in the Bush good ol' boy network, or running one of the wealthiest corporations in Texas would qualify as a privilege that mere residents would not have access to.

Cheney has his primary home here in Texas, and his last employment was with Halliburton Corp., which is based in Dallas. All his tax returns call him a Texan, and he has a valid Texas driver's license. He also voted as a Texas resident in the last eight election cycles, up to this one. Come on, folks, Dick Cheney is as Texan as the Family Bush.

posted 05-08-2003 03:51 AM            

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/photoessay/index_cheney.html
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/poycheney.html

And those where hardly lies…what a bunch of bull. You want real lies, type in the phrase Clinton’s lies….or Gore’s lies in any search engine, and you will get thousands of sites.

posted 05-08-2003 06:08 AM            

Newt Gingrich was one of the participants.

The oft repeated charge that Gore claimed to have invented the internet was brought up.

Referring to the internet's origions, several participants described the DARPANET, and one gave Newt Gingrich credit for co-sponsoring the bills that funded the
expansion of DARPANET into the public access Internet

Newt pointed out that Gore had written and sponsored those bills to fund the development of the internet from the DARPANET.

Newt Gingrich commented:
"I was in Congress with Al Gore and politically speaking; he did invent the internet."

Now I realize that even Newt Gingrich cannot convince a genuine neo-con of anything unless Rush says it first.
As FW just proved by totally ignoring the facts about Dick;
and posted quickly the links provided by the 'team leader'

But I believe Newt.

posted 05-08-2003 10:44 AM            

quote:

---

Newt pointed out that Gore had written and sponsored those bills to fund the development of the internet from the DARPANET.

---

C'mon, I don't think there are too many people who would deny that Gore was/is a pathological liar....almost to a greater degree than Clinton. And it's a little bit of a stretch to go from having sponsored bills to fund the development of the internet to saying, "I invented the internet"...Geeeeez

Edited to add that I'm a big fan of Newt, by the way....talking about brilliant men. Newt's ego may often work at odds with his intelligence however, so it's not uncommon for him to "step in it".......(countless media enemies don't help either, having effectively turned him into "damaged goods").

posted 05-08-2003 10:27 PM            

and newt's ok-by-me...

I think he's right about the state department....

never forget when clinton and gore first came into office...they were touring some of the sites in washington...and gore look's up and asked the guide "who's that"...the guide said something like "well that's the founding fathers"

gore "oh"

posted 05-09-2003 02:21 AM            

Zieg...
(odd couple will continue to do the heiling
as usual)

"I've just been reminded of something that's really important and is so true....Democrats are just as patriotic about their country as Republicans" George W. Bush- January 22,2001

posted 05-09-2003 02:36 AM            

a leftist conservative....looks like a liberal to me...

////

Most Think Bush Will Win in 2004 Poll:

In the latest FOX News nationwide poll of registered voters, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation May 6-7, a majority (61 percent) predicts Bush will be re-elected, while 20 percent think he will be a one-term president.

Republicans are confident in their party leader retaining his office, as fully 85 percent think Bush will be re-elected compared to only 38 percent of Democrats. Independents fall in between with 57 percent thinking Bush will win in 2004.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86357,00.html

posted 05-09-2003 02:49 AM            

To remind people of his worst past event;
Clinton= sex in the White House
Bush= desertion from the Alabama National Guard)
(Kinda like if Clinton stupidly did a PR stunt with a nubile young female
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3248.htm

>Man on Horseback
George Bush's "Top Gun" act aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln — c'mon, guys, it wasn't about honoring the troops, it was about showing the president in a flight suit — was as scary as it was funny.

By PAUL KRUGMAN

05/06/03: (New York Times) Gen. Georges Boulanger cut a fine figure; he looked splendid in uniform, and magnificent on horseback. So his handlers made sure that he appeared in uniform, astride a horse, as often as possible.

It worked: Boulanger became immensely popular. If he hadn't lost his nerve on the night of the attempted putsch, French democracy might have ended in 1889.

We do things differently here — or we used to. Has "man on horseback" politics come to America?

Some background: the Constitution declares the president commander in chief of the armed forces to make it clear that civilians, not the military, hold ultimate authority. That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb.

Given that history, George Bush's "Top Gun" act aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln — c'mon, guys, it wasn't about honoring the troops, it was about showing the president in a flight suit — was as scary as it was funny.

Mind you, it was funny. At first the White House claimed the dramatic tail-hook landing was necessary because the carrier was too far out to use a helicopter. In fact, the ship was so close to shore that, according to The Associated Press, administration officials "acknowledged positioning the massive ship to provide the best TV angle for Bush's speech, with the sea as his background instead of the San Diego coastline."

A U.S.-based British journalist told me that he and his colleagues had laughed through the whole scene. If Tony Blair had tried such a stunt, he said, the press would have demanded to know how many hospital beds could have been provided for the cost of the jet fuel.

But U.S. television coverage ranged from respectful to gushing. Nobody pointed out that Mr. Bush was breaking an important tradition. And nobody seemed bothered that Mr. Bush, who appears to have skipped more than a year of the National Guard service that kept him out of Vietnam, is now emphasizing his flying experience. (Spare me the hate mail. An exhaustive study by The Boston Globe found no evidence that Mr. Bush fulfilled any of his duties during that missing year. And since Mr. Bush has chosen to play up his National Guard career, this can't be shrugged off as old news.)

Anyway, it was quite a show. Luckily for Mr. Bush, the frustrating search for Osama bin Laden somehow morphed into a good old-fashioned war, the kind where you seize the enemy's capital and get to declare victory after a cheering crowd pulls down the tyrant's statue. (It wasn't much of a crowd, and American soldiers actually brought down the statue, but it looked great on TV.)

Let me be frank. Why is the failure to find any evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program, or vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons (a few drums don't qualify — though we haven't found even that) a big deal? Mainly because it feeds suspicions that the war wasn't waged to eliminate real threats. This suspicion is further fed by the administration's lackadaisical attitude toward those supposed threats once Baghdad fell. For example, Iraq's main nuclear waste dump wasn't secured until a few days ago, by which time it had been thoroughly looted. So was it all about the photo ops?

Well, Mr. Bush got to pose in his flight suit. And given the absence of awkward questions, his handlers surely feel empowered to make even more brazen use of the national security issue in future.

Next year — in early September — the Republican Party will hold its nominating convention in New York. The party will exploit the time and location to the fullest. How many people will dare question the propriety of the proceedings?

And who will ask why, if the administration is so proud of its response to Sept. 11, it has gone to such lengths to prevent a thorough, independent inquiry into what actually happened?
(An independent study commission wasn't created until after the 2002 election, and it has been given little time and a ludicrously tiny budget.)

There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of his role as commander in chief.
But that, it seems, was another country.<

zieg...
(the odd couple will continue to do the heiling)

"Ye shall know the truth & the truth shall make you free."-
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/
>This is not the story of a search for missing records. We have the pertinent records.

This is not a hunt for credible eyewitnesses and first hand statements. The officers involved have stepped forward. We have their testimony and we have the signed statements of those no longer living.

This is the story of how George Walker Bush walked away from a years duty while in the National Guard.

And, this is the story of how he has thus far gotten away with it.
<

zieg...
(the odd couple will continue to do the heiling)

posted 05-09-2003 05:00 AM            

The impression I got from the Abraham Lincoln landing was that here is a man who is willing to take a risky landing to show he is one of the troops....and I thought it was brilliant. It wasn't brilliant just because it was a brilliant PR photo opportunity, but because it was a symbolic gesture that said more than words could. Here was the president of the United States making a risky landing (all tail hook landings are risky) as a way of saying...hey, I love you guys...I want to thank you, and I want to experience a part of what you experienced.

If liberals didn't get that message, it is all too evident that the crew of the Abraham Lincoln and military people everywhere got that message.

It's in the same vein that a CEO visits the company factory and puts on work clothes and goes into where people are working for him and gets a taste of the jobs that people are doing for the company. I know first hand the respect that such an action of management endears among the guys doing the job...to have "management" actually come down, get their hands a little dirty, and pay a visit to show utter respect and thanks for the jobs that working people are doing...Well, the significance of that act as a gesture of thanks (which it truly was) can't be measured.

That's why I think if liberals were paying attention they'd realize that the real objective here was not so much public relations as it was military relations. Bush wanted to show his genuine thanks and gratitude to these men and women who had just put themselves in harm's way for America at the behest of their commander in chief, and what better way to do that than actually come aboard the carrier as a fighter pilot would....as the fighter pilot that Bush is.

The outpouring of love the military have for this guy was self evident, if you watched the event that day...no matter how the whining losers on the left want to spin it. They are like petty children who can't stand to see someone achieve success when they are drowning in their own cesspools of phoniness...That's all this whining is really about. There is no doubt that Bush was quite at home in that flight suit which he was wearing for a very practical reason....It's required if you're going to be a passenger on that jet. If the jet were to go down at sea, Bush would need to be wearing that gear. Besides...he actually IS the part as much as he looks it...He's genuine...He is still a fighter pilot...just as much as the aging Chuck Yeager is a fighter pilot…..(not current perhaps…but a fighter pilot just the same).

Can you imagine Gore, Slick Willey, or Hitlery, or any other whining leftist doing this? The military would be booing and throwing tomatoes... They couldn't pull it off. Besides...They are just jealous GW looks good in a flight suit, is what it all really boils down to. Just petty whining.

posted 05-09-2003 09:36 PM            

Can you imagine Gore, Slick Willey, or Hitlery, or any other whining leftist doing this? The military would be booing and throwing tomatoes...

posted 05-09-2003 09:38 PM            

Mike Dukakus served in the US Army.
He was years later riduculed (by the RW media) for riding in a tank.

The RW biased media skewed the coverage to denigrate the real veteran, and they now skew the media coverage to build up the deserter.

Zieg...
(the odd couple will continue to do the heiling
http://www.lcr.org ]http://www.lcr.org

Just like 2000 when the coward who "served" in a NG unit to avoid Vietnam service got kudos over trhe patriot who enlisted and volunteered for service (as a combat cameraman) in vietnam)

Zieg...

(the odd couple will continue to do the heiling
http://www.lcr.org ]http://www.lcr.org

posted 05-09-2003 09:43 PM            

care to talk about al gore's daddy dear shitoga ?

btw...until you can learn how to post a link...I not clicking any more of yours...this is all I get...and frankly I'm sick of it...

posted 05-09-2003 09:54 PM            

You (team) who post as $eeker serve to illustrate just how ridiculous the RW fanatics have become.

Zieg...
The odd couple:
$eeker and FW will continue to do the heiling.
http://www.lcr.org

Party of Lincoln?
$eeker never visited a link yet/
why Mech continues to post
"what the fanatics dare not visit links and read for themselves"
"In you face means something different to you RW Falwellians" doesn't it?
http://www.lcr.org

posted 05-10-2003 02:07 AM            

BTW, I am often immitated...but NEVER duplicated...

thinking otherwise for YOU or anyone else brings serious credibility and paranoia issues...

and I reserve the balance of my time....

posted 05-10-2003 03:23 AM            

-----
They already think NW and PHXPilot are in the government's pocket.. it doesn't take a stretch to cover anyone else who disagrees with conspiracies

posted 05-11-2003 12:04 AM            

Gratifying that the team has called in reinforcements for their "Web of Deceit".

Parrot that Bush Party line all you wish.
Or until they stop paying you to do so.

Is ChemCap a team leader?
Or just another mindless dittohead?

Odd couple has become a threesome!
http://www.lcr.org

I'm flattered- that it now takes 3 to divert from the facts I post.

If only I could post as many facts as Mech does it would really gall you dittoheads.

Truth will win out.

zieg...

Troll team will continue to do the heiling

Or prove you (any of you hypocrites) posted to "support the President at all times" during the Clinton years... or shut up!

posted 05-11-2003 01:35 AM            

'm flattered- that it now takes 3 to divert from the facts I post

shit I can't figure out what your saying...or the implication of the link you finally got corrected...

little self absorbed are we ?

posted 05-11-2003 01:38 AM            

Nope, not a greeny, sorry.

I should tell you, I'm not a Republican, I've never once said on this forum I support Bush... It's all assumed because I disagree with the idiotic things you say.

I really don't like alarmists, like Mech and Hitech, they do nothing good for society but pray off fears people have. It's sickening. That is why I sit here and debunk a bit, just in my freetime.

Now:

"Gratifying that the team has called in reinforcements for their "Web of Deceit"."

It's all part of your guys' twisted fantasy.

I like to sit here and imagine what you guys are thinking, it's quite hard.

I've never spoken to seeker or anyone else outside of these threads. You'd like to think it's some big bad conspiracy, we get together on friday nights at 8 or something to discuss what we're gonna do about that conspiracy problem (i've said too much! ), it just isn't happening.

Do you guys honestly think because people come here to debunk you, that you must be right, of course, whoever denied it supplied it? Pardon the school joke . That the overwhelming majority of the world is just blind? You are so "in the know", smirking at the idiots because they don't buy into obviously idiotic conspiracies? Keep your fantasy, I'll keep my reality.

My only problem is wondering if a part of your fantasy is that you are winning these silly arguements.

posted 05-11-2003 02:40 AM            

quote:

---

Prove you (any of you hypocrites) posted to "support the President at all times" during the Clinton years... or shut up!

---

Why would I support Clinton who was/is an evil, murderous, adulterous, traitorous, sleezeball, bastard son of a bitch who should be hanged by the gonads till dead for his crimes against humanity?....What's your point?....

posted 05-11-2003 02:26 PM            

I get the feeling f/w that you are holding back on your opinion here...