|
|
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Saturday described John Kerry's tour of
duty in Vietnam as more heroic than his own service in the Air National Guard,
saying his Democratic rival had been "in harm's way."
But the president told NBC's "Today Show" that both sides should drop the debate
over their wartime service, saying, "I think that we ought to move beyond the
past. ... The real question is who best to lead us forward."
Asked if he believed that he and Kerry "served on the same level of heroism,"
Bush replied, "No, I don't. I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my
flying fighter jets. He was in harm's way and I wasn't."
Excerpts of the interview, conducted on Saturday for broadcast on Monday, were
released by NBC.
The president continued to defend his own service in the Air National Guard,
saying, "On the other hand, I served my country. Had my unit been called up, I
would have gone."
Kerry's war record in Vietnam has dominated the 2004 presidential campaign in
recent weeks, after advertisements by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth accused him of lying about the events that led to his decoration for
bravery.
The White House on Thursday said it would file a lawsuit to try to force the
Federal Election Commission to crack down on the ads. Bush says he does not
believe Kerry lied about his record, but he has refused to condemn the ads
directly.
Kerry accuses the Bush campaign of colluding with the Swift Boat Veterans on the
ads, a charge the White House has denied. But its case was hurt this past week
when a top lawyer for the Bush campaign, Benjamin Ginsberg, resigned after
disclosing he was providing legal advice to the veteran's group.
Federal election rules bar organizations that take unrestricted donations from
coordinating their activities with campaigns or political parties.
The issue has also caused tension with Republican Sen. John McCain, another
Vietnam veteran and influential lawmaker who has urged Bush to condemn the ads
and get them halted.
McCain is backing Bush for the White House, but the Arizona senator has defended
his friend Kerry and threatened to raise the issue with Bush when they campaign
in Iowa next week.
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote:
New handle, Danny, now that "vox populi" has been exposed?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Saturday described John
Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam as more heroic than his own service
in the Air National Guard, saying his Democratic rival had been "in
harm's way."
Bush is bullsh*tting, as politicians are generally wont to do. Kerry
turned tail and ran at the first hint of trouble.
[...]
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Saturday described John
Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam as more heroic than his own service
in the Air National Guard, saying his Democratic rival had been "in
harm's way."
Bush is bullsh*tting, as politicians are generally wont to do.
In short, Bush is an inveterate liar. He lied when he said he would
conduct a "humble" foreign policy, practice fiscal responsibility, and
not use our troops in "nation-building exercises."
Even if Kerry inflated his resume by exaggerating about his exploits
in Vietnam (Kerry's tale appears substantially true, even if every minor
detaii is not), Bush inflated the case for invading Iraq by exaggerating
see http://www.bi30archive.org/extras/Powell-Rice-Iraq_no_threat.asx for
Uncle Tom Powell and Aunt Condi, in their own words) about the threat it
posed to American interests.
Let's see, now. Attorney SwiftVet Alfred French lied about an affair
and lied under oath. Does that remind you of anyone? John O'Neill was
nowhere near Vietnam when Lt. Kerry was commanding his Swift Boat. For
the most part, the Swifties knew next to nothing about Kerry's actions
at first hand, in stark contrast to those close to him.
If I had a dollar for every time a politician inflated his resume, I
could buy General Motors from petty cash. But Bush lied to get us into
a war, a transgression for which there can be no excuse or absolution.
The Gulf of Tonkin, redux. Bush lied; our kids died. NEEDLESSLY.
Kerry turned tail and ran at the first hint of trouble.
Whereas, Shrub ran in terror at the thought of tinkling in a plastic
cup, presumably, knowing full well that he might be caught out for his
cocaine abuse.
Kerry might not be my first choice, but George W. "My Pet Goat" Bush
is absolutely my LAST choice. As John O'Neill said, "an empty suit."
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote:
New handle, Danny, now that "vox populi" has been exposed?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Saturday described John
Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam as more heroic than his own service
in the Air National Guard, saying his Democratic rival had been "in
harm's way."
Bush is bullsh*tting, as politicians are generally wont to do.
In short, Bush is an inveterate liar.
Says the incorrigible mendacious prevaricator Ken Smith.
He lied when he said he would conduct a "humble" foreign policy,
After 9/11 happened, he had to make adjustments. And I applaud him for
doing so.
practice fiscal responsibility,
There is some genuine criticism to be made here. But I doubt that it
will be forthcoming from you. The tax cuts should have been more
aggressive, and he should have held a tighter rein on Congress.
and not use our troops in "nation-building exercises."
He didn't have much of a choice here, particularly in Afghanistan.
Still, he should have decimated the Sunni triangle before declaring
hostilities over in Iraq.
Even if Kerry inflated his resume by exaggerating about his exploits
in Vietnam
Kerry didn't merely "exaggerate", Kerry lied.
(Kerry's tale appears substantially true,
Yeah, about as "true" as the typical statement from Ken Smith.
even if every minor detaii is not),
It isn't just the details, it's also many of the major assertions.
Bush inflated the case for invading Iraq by exaggerating
No he didn't. Saddam was a murderous thug who needed to be taken out.
Thank God Bush had the courage to do so. Even just for this, he
deserves to be re-elected.
see [url to misleading website elided] for Uncle Tom Powell and Aunt
Condi, in their own words)
You racist.
about the threat it posed to American interests.
It wasn't just about threats to American interests, it was also about
JUSTICE (a concept with which you seem estranged).
Let's see, now. Attorney SwiftVet Alfred French lied about an
affair and lied under oath.
And Ken Smith lies as a matter of course (which is perhaps why he
apparently likes Kerry so much). BIrds of a feather flock together,
after all.
Does that remind you of anyone?
Yes. You.
John O'Neill was nowhere near Vietnam when Lt. Kerry was commanding
(To use the term loosely.)
his Swift Boat.
So? Did he claim to be?
For the most part, the Swifties knew next to nothing about Kerry's
actions at first hand, in stark contrast to those close to him.
BBZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!!!! LIE! A majority of those who served with Kerry
say that he is grossly unqualified to serve as commander-in-chief.
If I had a dollar for every time a politician inflated his resume, I
could buy General Motors from petty cash.
And if I had two slices of bread, I could make a sandwich, if I had some
ham. What's your point here?, I'm the one who pointed out that Bush was
lying about Kerry when he said the above. It is part of the nature of
politicians to lie when it is convenient for them to do so. You can't
take the politics out of politics, after all.
But Bush lied to get us into a war,
No he didn't.
a transgression for which there can be no excuse or absolution.
Nor need there be. Bush need not apologise for the war in Iraq.
The Gulf of Tonkin, redux.
The Gulf of Tonkin "incident" WAS a lie.
Bush lied;
No, but Ken Smith apparently lies with alarming regularity.
our kids died. NEEDLESSLY.
No, but with valour and honour, both also concepts with which you are
apparently also estranged.
Kerry turned tail and ran at the first hint of trouble.
Whereas, Shrub ran in terror at the thought of tinkling in a plastic
cup,
Rather, as you did at the thought of taking a psychological examination
when the Examiners' Board of the Colorado Bar Association asked you to
submit to one when you applied to become a lawyer in Colorado.
presumably, knowing full well that he might be caught out for his
cocaine abuse.
Innuendo. Cocaine wasn't a very popular drug in those days, its use was
confined primarily to musicians. Moreover, there is no substantive
evidence that Bush was ever a cocaine user.
Kerry might not be my first choice, but George W. "My Pet Goat" Bush
is absolutely my LAST choice.
Yeah, well, you've exhibited other poor judgment in the past as well.
(As, for example, trying to sue the Colorado Supreme Court in federal
court.)
As John O'Neill said, "an empty suit."
Which makes him ever more credible as a witness against Kerry.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
"Theodore A. Kaldis"> wrote
Ken Smith wrote:
No he didn't. Saddam was a murderous thug who needed to be taken out.
Thank God Bush had the courage to do so. Even just for this, he
deserves to be re-elected.
The people that are in favor of the Iraq war should be the ones to pay for
it.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<4131D190.6080108@it.com>...
Kerry might not be my first choice, but George W. "My Pet Goat" Bush
is absolutely my LAST choice.
Bush spent 7 minutes procesing what had happened in a most unlikely
and yet observable setting.
Skerry and Daschole sat in the lattter's Senate office for over 1/2
and hour watching it on TV and had to be evacuated after the Pentagon
was hit.
Great men of action, eh?
|
| |
| |
"unclesam"> wrote
Ken Smith> wrote
Bush spent 7 minutes procesing what had happened in a most unlikely
and yet observable setting.
Skerry and Daschole sat in the lattter's Senate office for over 1/2
and hour watching it on TV and had to be evacuated after the Pentagon
was hit.
Great men of action, eh?
The most amazing part is, that inlight of what you said, which is common
knowledge everywhere, there are still millions of people arguing about which
of those two idiots should occupy the WH.
|
| |
| |
In article <BPqYc.4120$JT3.102@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis"> wrote
The people that are in favor of the Iraq war should be the ones to pay for
it.
If the government sold those yellow ribbons you see everywhere for about
$5000, that would about do it.
--
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
-- Albert Einstein
|
| |
| |
Hugh Sedditt wrote:
In article
<BPqYc.4120$JT3.102@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
If the government sold those yellow ribbons you see
everywhere for about $5000, that would about do it.
Or charge $5000 every time some yayhoo neo-patriot flew the U$ flag
backwards or otherwise inappropriately/disrespectfully.
|
| |
| |
In article <BPqYc.4120$JT3.102@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
If the government sold those yellow ribbons you see everywhere for about
$5000, that would about do it.
Nah, thats not fair, some of the *pro's* don't have a yellow ribbon.
The following way is more consistent with gov't practices:
The gov't should take a poll, on-line, by phone, by mail-in, etc., and
collect the names and addresses for all the people that comment favorably
for the Iraq War to the pollsters.
Then the gov't should go to each *pro's* home and under the threat of death
or imprisonment sieze assests equivalent to the *pro's* fair share of the
cost of the Iraq war.
Then the rest of us who weren't in favor of the war won't have to pay for
something we did not want and we get to point at and ridicule all the stupid
asses that were in favor of the immoral war.
One more thing.
All of the people that were in favor of the war shall receive a large red
tattoo on their foreheads so that terrorists can easily find them, and a
list of all of their names and addresses will be forwarded to the
terrorists.
Then maybe the rest of us, that weren't in favor of an immoral war, can get
on with the business of living our lives and leaving other people the hell
alone......
|
| |
| |
"unclesam"> wrote
The most amazing part is, that inlight of what you said, which is common
knowledge everywhere, there are still millions of people arguing about
which
of those two idiots should occupy the WH.
actually, I think they can both stand daown and go home...GWB said America
was in God's hands.
|
| |
| |
"Jesus is my Co-Pilot"> wrote
"Don"> wrote
actually, I think they can both stand daown and go home...GWB said America
was in God's hands.
I won't argue with that.
I'm an atheist but I'd prefer god over anyone else in the WH.
|
| |
| |
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message news:<BPqYc.4120$JT3.102@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
The people that are in favor of the Iraq war should be the ones to pay for
it.
Yo moron - there's no check off box on your 1040 for which functions
of govt. you *personally* don't like.
HTH.
FOAD.
|
| |
| |
unclesam wrote:
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<4131D190.6080108@it.com>...
Bush spent 7 minutes procesing what had happened in a most unlikely
and yet observable setting.
Skerry and Daschole sat in the lattter's Senate office for over 1/2
and hour watching it on TV and had to be evacuated after the Pentagon
was hit.
Great men of action, eh?
Rudy Guiliani knew PRECISELY what to do, and he done it. He'd be my
first choice.
|
| |
| |
unclesam wrote:
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message news:<BPqYc.4120$JT3.102@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Yo moron - there's no check off box on your 1040 for which functions
of govt. you *personally* don't like.
The only aternative is to throw the government out, and hold persons
responsible civilly and criminally liable.
I will pay personally for Bush's plane trip to the Hague to stand
trial for war crimes.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<4132AA5A.1030503@it.com>...
unclesam wrote:
Rudy Guiliani knew PRECISELY what to do, and he done it. He'd be my
first choice.
Forced to agree there, RG in 08!
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
unclesam wrote:
The only aternative is to throw the government out, and
hold persons
responsible civilly and criminally liable.
I will pay personally for Bush's plane trip to the Hague
to stand trial for war crimes.
And I'd buy the hemp rope that'll stretch his lying, cowardly
criminal neck when the trial is over.
|
| |
| |
"unclesam"> wrote
"Don"> wrote
Yo moron - there's no check off box on your 1040 for which functions
of govt. you *personally* don't like.
So?
Nothing you said has anything at all to do with my comment.
Whats the matter, you don't like to pay for the things you choose?
|
| |
| |
Forced to agree there, RG in 08!
Ya gotta wonder about the IQ of people that willingly choose a massah for
the plantation.
|
| |
| |
unclesam wrote:
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<4132AA5A.1030503@it.com>...
Forced to agree there, RG in 08!
Kerry in '04 (by default, because the other guy is *so* bad),
Guiliani in '08. I can get behind that. :)
If our Party can't get its act together and do something bold, then
to hell with it this year.
The smoking gun has been found -- Daddy Bush called Ben Barnes, and
he blackmailed Baby Bush to the tune of $1B (with $23M for himself) to
keep it quiet. And, as is always the case with BushCrime, the taxpayers
were left holding the bag.
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
[...]
For the most part, the Swifties knew next to nothing about Kerry's
actions at first hand, in stark contrast to those close to him.
BBZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!!!! LIE! A majority of those who served with
Kerry say that he is grossly unqualified to serve as commander-in-
chief.
Which puts Kerry *light-years* ahead of Dubya.
Except that Bush has already demonstrated that he is qualified.
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-dp.php?collection=opensource_movies&collectionid=pgr
My Pet Goat, he has! :)
I disagree. This election represents a clear-cut choice.
The choice is between Bush's brand of classical fascism and perpetual
war, and "anything else." I'm inclined to pick anything else, because
at least, it buys us time.
Colorado will ultimately go for Bush. And it won't even be close.
If Diebold has anything to say about it. Frankly, you could have
knocked me over with a feather when Zogby suggested it, but there are
plenty of Republicans that I know who won't be pulling the Bush lever.
If I can sway twenty people in my circle of friends, I'll be doing a
service in the cause of freedom.
What, you're going to vote 20 times???
Remember, this *IS* Diebold country. And there is no paper trail we
can trust.
If I had a dollar for every time a politician inflated his resume, I
could buy General Motors from petty cash.
And if I had two slices of bread, I could make a sandwich, if I had
some ham. What's your point here?,
No it isn't. Bush served honourably.
Bush didn't even @$#*in' SERVE. He went AWOL for more than a year,
which constitutes desertion. This "gifted pilot" didn't even fly the
requisite number of hours to earn his wings in the first place.
Kerry spent most of his time in 'Nam (including one full tour of duty
off the coast, which qualifies as 'Nam service). Bush spent most of his
time in the @$#*in' BAR.
Kerry lied about being under enemy fire when he put himself in for his
first Purple Heart, which means that he didn't deserve it -- or to be
dismissed from Vietnam after only 4 months' service.
Someone signed off on the award, and those who said that he didn't
had the opporuntity to dispute that report during the debriefing. It's
like Paul Hamm's gold medal -- you can't complain 35 years later, and
expect to win the day.
Oh really? Where?
The video is hosted by Salon, though I don't have the URL.
I'm the one who pointed out that Bush was lying about Kerry when he
said the above.
But yet, you called *ME* out for it?!?
I'm calling you out for not seeing the REASON for it.
And what reason does a good Christian (as opposed to a Ted
Kaldis-type Christian) have to lie? The fact is that Bush is an
inveterate liar, and we all know it. Sucks for you, but don't tell me
what a great guy he is.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<413334CD.3060807@it.com>...
unclesam wrote:
Yo moron - there's no check off box on your 1040 for which functions
of govt. you *personally* don't like.
The only aternative is to throw the government out
Do you ever have anything more substantive than a knee jerk reaction?
Your rhetorical absolutist blather is getting *real* old.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<41335C37.9080308@it.com>...
Kerry in '04
TRAITOR!
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Yes I do.
Powell is Bush's house-n****r. Bush should have picked someone less
liberal.
What, CU (where you did your undergrad studies), or DU (where you got
your law degree -- even though you're not a lawyer).
about the threat it posed to American interests.
It wasn't just about threats to American interests, it was also about
JUSTICE (a concept with which you seem estranged).
You *really* don't want to go there,
Sure I do. After all, I am not estranged from the subject.
Really? We wouldn't know that from your body of work, Tyre-Iron Ted.
for if you cry for justice, you have to cry for it everywhere.
Crying about it is one thing, doing about it is another.
Tibalism at work.
More tribalism.
Tribalism exacerbated by islamic barbarism.
So, why aren't we doing something, Ted? Because they have too many
niggers, and the Party of Trent Lott would never stand for it? Or is
Iraq just a naked resource grab?
In other words, our own national interests don't mean anything to you.
Then, let's ACT in accordance with our national interests, and stop
@$#*ing around! Let's start by cutting Israel off -- ALL THE WAY OFF!
Let's recognize that we had a vital interest in getting Iraq's spigots
flowing and therefore, a valid reason to keep CIA asset Saddam Hussein
in power. Or failing Saddam, let's cut a deal with the Shiites. Fuck
Israel!
Similarly, if one person is entitled to challenge the facial
constitutionality of a statute, then the one who is denied that right
is denied justice.
Perhaps. But if one is denied a licence to practise law because of
concerns about his psycholological fitness, the proper solution is NOT
to grant him a licence anyway because there might be some flaw in the
process of determining psychological fitness. The fitness question
STILL needs to be resolved.
The proper solution is to promulgate a constitutionally valid statute
which is not void for vagueness and applied *consistently* to every bar
applicant without fail. It's like having a rule allowing the State to
lock up suspected baby-killers on reasonable suspicion pending a trial
-- two or three out of a hundred may be innocent, but we recognize that
it is better to lock 'em all up than have 'em fleeing the jurisdiction.
Again, if you want to have a law, it has to apply to everyone, and if
one guy scores a 25 on his flight exam, he shouldn't be picked over the
guy who scored a 98. Take the corruption and favoritism out of it!
If you could show that there was a valid reason for a psychological
fitness test, then why shouldn't EVERY bar applicant have to take one?
The only explanation for Colorado's law is corruption.
(We can go on, but I'd prefer it if we stick to the issues
For a change?
What "personal" dispute? I simply point out some facts which you might
happen to find inconvenient.
You mean, like my pointing out some facts which you might happen to
find incredibly damning -- showing that it is more likely than not that
Cameron Brown murdered his illegitimate four-year-old daughter in cold
blood?
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Many places.
Be specific. One lie will do.
There's no point in that. You do so with reckless abandon. You even
lie when you think you're telling the truth.
Oh, that's a good one, Teddi! A "lie" is defined by the American
Heritage Dictionary as "a false statement deliberately presented as
being true," and "deliberate," defined as "considered or planned in
advance with a full awareness of everything involved."
If I think I am telling the truth, I can't be lying, now can I?
That I don't see things in the light you do doesn't mean that I am
"lying," a word with a specific meaning.
Perhaps not, but when you tell untruths it does.
So, you will admit that when George Bush claimed that Saddam had vast
stockpiles of weaponized biological and chemical agents at his disposal
and therefore, posed an imminent threat to America, he was "lying?"
That is the definition of "lying" you are using here, Ted! Or does
it only apply when those you disagree with are alleged to have done it,
but not when people you agree with do it?
[snip]
|
| |
| |
unclesam wrote:
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<413334CD.3060807@it.com>...
Yo moron - there's no check off box on your 1040 for which functions
of govt. you *personally* don't like.
Do you ever have anything more substantive than a knee jerk reaction?
Sure -- but what's the point of sharing it with you, when all you do
is snip it out of existence?
Your rhetorical absolutist blather is getting *real* old.
What alternative do we have? I didn't get elected to the Delegation,
and can have no further influence over the platform or candidates we run
for national office. Unless Bush fires his entire foreign policy staff,
he's telling us that he isn't going to "change course." So, why follow
him as he runs our ship of state onto the shoals of bankruptcy?
My only option at this point is to vote for Kerry -- knowing that he
can't do that much damage as long as we keep the House and Senate.
|
| |
| |
unclesam wrote:
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<41335C37.9080308@it.com>...
Kerry in '04
TRAITOR!
I see. To the fascist Bush junta and its supporters, dissent is now
"treason?" And people wonder when I say that the Republican Party has
been hijacked by a criminal consortium, headed by the emptiest suit on
the freakin' planet?
LOL!
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
And I'd buy the hemp rope that'll stretch his lying, cowardly
criminal neck when the trial is over.
Keep at it. I'm enjoying watching the sane, civil voters shy away from you
guys.
|
| |
| |
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<kaldis-2B6AE4.04302329082004@news.giganews.com>...
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote:
New handle, Danny, now that "vox populi" has been exposed?
Bush is bullsh*tting, as politicians are generally wont to do. Kerry
turned tail and ran at the first hint of trouble.
|
| |
| |
Ted Kaldis wrote
"You even lie when you think you're telling the truth."
Say... WHAT ???!!!
Gosh, Ted, i think its time that you pulled over on the information super
highway... and let someone else drive for awhile.
-----
have a GREAT day !!!!
Solar
|
| |
| |
SolarChase wrote:
Ted Kaldis wrote
Say... WHAT ???!!!
Gosh, Ted, i think its time that you pulled over on the information super
highway... and let someone else drive for awhile.
He can't -- he's already crashed and burned. :)
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Keep at it. I'm enjoying watching the sane, civil voters shy away from
you
guys.
Civil voters? ;-)
|
| |
| |
In article <kaldis-E978CD.10595830082004@news.giganews.com>,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
In economics, there's no free lunch.
Tell that to the democrats in Congress.
It's the Republicans in Congress who say there is a free lunch. The
Democrats say there isn't. Whom do you believe?
Trickle-down economics
"Trickle-down" is the wrong terminology. A rising tide lifts all boats.
New politically correct terminology doesn't change the fact that this
tide is leaving a lot of boats on the short. More people fell below the
poverty level each of the last three years.
doesn't work at these tax rates -- the Laffer curve predicts this.
The Laffer curve simply predicts that, at some point, tax increases
result in diminishing returns. And we are still far ahead of that
point. So the corollary holds, that if taxes are lowered, returns will
be enhanced.
You have no evidence of that. Clinton raised taxes and revenues
increased. Bush reduced taxes and revenues dwindled. So far,
tax revenue has been decreased
Total tax revenue: (billiions of dollars) according to the CBO.
2000 2,025.2
2001 1,991.2
2002 1,853.2
2003 1,782.3
It's pretty obvious which side of the Laffer curve we must be on.
I'll attribute your misstatement to ignorance, this time, but next time
I won't be so gracious.
--
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
-- Albert Einstein
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<4133B058.9090404@it.com>...
unclesam wrote:
Kerry in '04
I see.
You've never seen further than your own myopic kookdom.
|
| |
| |
| | |
