Lies and more lies. Who Said What When

Discussion in 'Politics' started by trader556, May 30, 2003.

  1. Isn't Schakowsky the one who tried to bring a marginal tax rate of 39.6 % and wanted to include anyone making over 136K?

    Like any Congressional elected, Schakowsky uses consultants to oversee her lobbying, generate direct mail campaigns, etc. Schakowsky pays her husband, Robert Creamer to do all this in a cozy bit of financial incest. Not a big deal except Creamer seems to be a crook. Her hubby is head of the Strategic Consulting Group and is a Democratic operative previously investigated by the Feds for a check-kiting scheme in connection with the Chicago based consumer advocate group Citizen Action that he was ultimately forced to resign from.

    Your post of her shrieking liberal propaganda contains no substance on any of those issues being whined about. Particularly grating is her view on taxing people who earn $136K at the highest rate and then claiming that the administration is giving "more tax cuts for millionaires," forgetting the salient point that the wealthiest in this country are already paying the majority of all income tax revenue.
     
    #41     Jun 6, 2003
  2. Typical right-wing response - slander the character of the critic - ignore the substance of the accusation.

    You people are absolutely transparent in your tactics and your deceit.

    It's like watching a small child lie - he fools only himself and the exceptionally gullible.


    You really have no shame and no credibility. If any of you had the balls and the backbone to stand up and cry foul, and demand accountability when your own leaders deceive and betray the public trust you would have my (and many others) hard won respect. Instead you engage in the politics of character assassination and wrap yourselves in self righteous indignation.

    Pathetic.
     
    #42     Jun 6, 2003
  3. How can one do anything but ignore the "substance of the accusation?" You didn't offer any substance, only Ms. Schakowsky's rantings.
     
    #43     Jun 6, 2003
  4. indeed.
     
    #44     Jun 6, 2003
  5. Perhaps you require a more remedial narrative? Or perhaps you simply prefer your lies contrite, or choose to uphold that lies of omission and less precise deceit do not offend your moral code?

    What is most sickening to me in this well worn pattern of deception is that is relentlessly targets those groups within our society who are most vulnerable. The very people that any decent human being, let alone leader ought to defend before all others.

    Well here are just a few for you to begin with:


    Direct quotes from GWB:

    Our Children

    “I want to thank the Boys & Girls Clubs across the country…The Boys & Girls Club have got a grand history of helping children understand the future is bright for them, as well as any other child in America. Boys & Girls Clubs have been safe havens. They're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country. Part of the vision for America is that we have a mosaic of all kinds of people providing love and comfort for people who need help.” – Bush, 1/30/03


    In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed eliminating all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club of America. IN his 2003 budget, he proposed cutting the program by 15% (from $70 million down to $60 million).


    Medicare Recipients

    “Within that budget I proposed last night is a substantial increase in Medicare funding of $400 billion on top of what we already spend, over the next 10 years. This is a commitment that America must make to our seniors. A reformed and strengthened Medicare system, plus a healthy dosage of Medicare spending in the budget, will make us say firmly, we fulfilled our promise to the seniors of America.” – Bush, 1/29/03


    Under Bush’s proposal, there should be a roughly $40 billion increase in Medicare each year for a decade. However, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes just $6 billion – 85% less than what would be needed to meet his goal. Additionally, his budget would leave 67% of the total $400 billion pledge to be spent after 2008. [Bush Budget, pg. 318]


    Veterans

    “Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.” – Bush, 1/17/03


    Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].


    Our Public Classrooms:

    “This administration is committed to your effort. And with the support of Congress, we will continue to work to provide the resources school need to fund the era of reform.” – Bush, 1/8/03

    The 2003 and 2004 Bush budgets proposes to freeze the Congregate Nutrition Program, which assists local soup kitchens and meals on wheels programs. With inflation, this proposal would mean at least 36,000 seniors would be cut from meals on wheels and congregate meals programs. Currently, 139,000 seniors are already on waiting lists for home-meal programs. His 2004 budget continues the freeze.

    The Disadvantaged

    “I hope people around this country realize that agencies such as this food bank need money. They need our contributions. Contributions are down. They shouldn't be down in a time of need. We shouldn't let the enemy affect us to the point where we become less generous. Our spirit should never be diminished by what happened on September the 11th, 2001. Quite the contrary. We must stand squarely in the face of evil by doing some good.” - Bush, 12/19/02


    The 2003 and 2004 Bush budgets proposes to freeze the Congregate Nutrition Program, which assists local soup kitchens and meals on wheels programs. With inflation, this proposal would mean at least 36,000 seniors would be cut from meals on wheels and congregate meals programs. Currently, 139,000 seniors are already on waiting lists for home-meal programs. His 2004 budget continues the freeze.



    Just a few specific examples, courtesy of the House Appropriations Committee – Minority Contact: David Sirota
     
    #45     Jun 6, 2003
  6. Whoa! You quoted Ms. Schakowsky's diatribe and it was too much trouble to research all her crap to find out whether or not it has substance. So, then you go to the notoriously liberal "Caught on Film" web site and cut & paste new and different liberal whining. Clearly you have no ability to seek out the truth in anything, you simply cut and paste the liberal mantra blindly without any real knowledge.
     
    #46     Jun 6, 2003
  7. There is one hard fact for sure. LIBERALS ARE LIARS. I have witnessed this for years and now it is screaming across the internet, the radio waves, tv, and now the print media. Witness the NYT, the Guardian and others. It didn't start with the Clintons but they were (are) the king and queen of it. From lying in the courtroom to low level bureaucrats if they are liberals they are liars and if you want to take the time I can prove it from court proceedings to bureaucratic decisions. LIARS to the core because if their true(socialist) intentions were ever admitted they would lose all the power they have left.
     
    #47     Jun 6, 2003
  8. We're so lucky to have tatertrader to SHOW us how to argue, aren't we? Notice how his response to the Ann Coulter piece on liberals' reaction to Iraq eschewed personal attacks, name-calling, and self-righteous indignation, and instead went right to the substance of the matter (Iraq policy):

    Good job, hypocrite.
     
    #48     Jun 6, 2003
  9. \


    More transparent, feeble right-wing evasion.

    You can't respond to nor defend the lies because they are fully documented and indefensible - so you attack the documentary and dismiss it as "cut-n-paste" because I choose to include the original source, giving full and proper credit????

    Had I not included any third party source you would have attempted an equally predictable assault on it as "unsubstantiated."

    You really must be accustomed to a very unsophisticated audience.
     
    #49     Jun 6, 2003
  10. What are you talking about? You switched from the Congresswomen to other, completely different diatribes.
     
    #50     Jun 6, 2003