Flip Flopper In Chief (NSR)

[lemon boy]

http://people.delphiforums.com/BILL750/FLIP.pdf

[lemon boy]

I received an email from a friend in Germany last night regarding a very sad occurrence here in the US. Likely all you fokkers have seen this and well discussed the implications--but in the event it was "withheld" from the US public I will share this sad event--forgive me if you already know

It seems there was a tragic fire in the President's library in the White House. There was little damage to the building since the sprinkler system controlled the fire--that was the good news.

The bad news was that both of the President's books were consumed in the fire Especially tragic for the President was that he had not yet finished coloring the second one...





ba ding ding... thanks, I'll be here all week folks.

[mr_gyptian]

Trading one flipflopper for another? seriously, I can't believe you'd post this with Kerry as his "presumptive Democrat opponent", as the WaPo referred to him in his oh so groundbreaking Op-Ed this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

[lemon boy]

No no no Mr_G, your timeline is skewed. This was undoubtedly created in response to the republikan attack dog's accusation that Kerry is a flipper/flopper.

Primarily the piece is an illustration of the shrub's favorite saying don't worry about the splinter in your neighbor's eye when there is a log in your own. Of course when he said it he got it all backwards

The other funny thing is that they are trying to portray Kerry as both a flip flopper and as the most liberal member of the Senate. Those are mutually exclusive

To quote (or paraphrase) John Keynes (the British economist), "When the facts change, I change my position. What do you do?"

[mr_gyptian]

well first, I'd wait for the facts to change.

You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?

You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?

In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?

On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?

The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?

On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Persian Gulf War, you wrote "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?

You say the Bush administration questions "the patriotism" of its critics. You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot?

You strongly praise former Treasury secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?

You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?

In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?

[Cornholio]

Point of clarification:

BOTH Mr. G and Walter could be correct, here. Mr. G's numbers are a percentage of total income tax paid, while Walter's numbers are individual tax rates, for income and other.

Because TTOP make more money now, both of these are probably right.

Just FYI.

Carry on!

[lemon boy]

Walter- As much as the post is full of misdirection and innuendo and easily rebuttable, note it says that the top paid that percentage of all taxes not the rate they actually paid.

An easy refutation without even looking up das numbers we can take exception with the idea of quibbling with the amount they end up paying. The clear implication here is that 36.3% is too high. Well, to that all I can say is: What would be a better distribution?

Quibbling about rates is a fools errand.

[mr_gyptian]

Originally posted by Walter Sobchak
When you start anything off with such an easily refutable lie, how can you expect anyone to pay attention to the rest?

From the congressional budget office, numbers only up to 2001, all numbers for top 1% of filers.

1979 total effective federal tax rate: 37%

2001 total effective federal tax rate: 33%

1979 effective individual income tax rate: 21.8%

2001 effective individual income tax rate: 24.1%

We all know rates are lower now than they were in 2001, but those real numbers from the CBO do have a vague similarity to your numbers if you cross the wires. D'ya think maybe whoever you cut and pasted that from was comparing apples to oranges (individual to total) across the years? And you fell for it without thinking because it's what you want to hear?

ummh. how are those cognitive skills Walt??? j/k, he's talking about what percentage the wealthiest 1% pay as a percent of total revenues.

[up an down]

naw, bush never lies does he:


Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people.


Version 1.0 - Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat
Version 1.01 - Saddam Hussein is a gathering threat
Version 1.02 - Saddam Hussein poses a real and dangerous threat
Version 1.1 - The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud
Version 1.2 - We can't afford to wait
Version 1.3 - We never said imminent
Version 1.3.1 - OK, maybe we did say it once or twice
Version 1.4 - We should have been more precise


Saddam Hussein is ready to use weapons of mass destruction.


Version 2.1 - Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.2 - Saddam has nuclear weapons
Version 2.3 - Saddam has biological agents he's never accounted for
Version 2.3.1 - The trailers are mobile labs for producing chemical weapons
Version 2.3.2 - Unmanned aircraft are ready to spread Saddam's biological weapons
Version 2.4 - Saddam's going to make more of all these weapons
Version 2.5 - We all know where the weapons are
Version 2.5.1 - Well, Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction
Version 2.5.2 - Iraq is a big country. We'll find the weapons eventually.
Version 2.5.3 - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction programs
Version 2.5.4 - Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities" Version 2.5.5 - David Kay? Who's David Kay?
Version 2.6 - It's not about misleading the American people—Saddam Hussein is gone and that's the most important thing


The intelligence is clear.


Version 3.0 - We based our statements on our available intelligence
Version 3.1 - Saddam tried to buy uranium ore in Niger
Version 3.1.2 - Well, that was what the British told us
Version 3.1.3 - Did we tell you about Joe Wilson's wife?
Version 3.1.4 - Do you know a good lawyer?
Version 3.2 - The intelligence is absolutely clear
Version 3.2.1 - Intelligence is never 100 percent certain
Version 3.2.2 - We didn't manipulate the intelligence
Version 3.3 - There was no consensus within the intelligence community
Version 3.3.1 - We saw the same intelligence the last administration did


Saddam Hussein has deep ties to Al Qaeda.


Version 4.0 - Saddam has long-standing ties to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.1 - You can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.2 - There is an Al Qaeda terrorist network in Iraq
Version 4.0.3 - Saddam has provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
Version 4.0.4 - Saddam will give his weapons to Al Qaeda
Version 4.0.5 - Colin Powell: I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Al Qaeda and Iraq]
Version 4.0.6 - Vice President Cheney: I still believe there's a connection.
Version 4.0.7 - CIA Director George Tenet: I told Dick not to say that.


The United Nations just can't handle this.


Version 5.0 - The UN had 12 years to deal with this
Version 5.1 - We don't trust the UN to handle this
Version 5.1.1 - We don't need the UN's help
Version 5.1.2 - The UN should play a vital, but not central role
Version 5.1.3 - You there, UN, tell Ayatollah Sistani that elections aren't possible
Version 5.1.4 - UN, please oversee the election process
Version 5.1.5 - Pretty please? We'll pay our dues


The war in Iraq won't hurt our efforts in Afghanistan or the hunt for bin Laden.


Version 6.0 - Iraq won't affect our hunt for bin Laden
Version 6.1 - Assets have been moved from Afghanistan to Iraq
Version 6.1.1 - Assets are being returned to Afghanistan
Version 6.2 - We're mounting a spring offensive against bin Laden
Version 6.2.1 - We'll catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.2.2 - We hope to catch bin Laden this year
Version 6.3 - Even if we catch bin Laden, the threat will still exist.


Mission accomplished.


Version 7.0 - We won't need hundreds of thousands of troops—that's wildly off the mark
Version 7.1 - Mission accomplished
Version 7.1.1 - We'll stay as long as needed and not one day more
Version 7.1.2 - The troops will be home in six months
Version 7.1.3 - The Iraqi Army will provide security
Version 7.1.4 - Where's the Iraqi Army?
Version 7.1.5 - We've disbanded the Iraqi Army
Version 7.1.3 - The troops will stay a year and be replaced
Version 7.2 - We're training the Iraqi army—Iraqification will work
Version 7.2.1 - We don't need any more American troops
Version 7.2.2 - Well, maybe we do
Version 7.2.3 - We're keeping 30,000 more troops on active duty than were authorized
Version 7.2.4 - We don't know if this increase in troops is a spike or a plateau
Version 7.2.5 - We're establishing stop loss so troops can't leave
Version 7.2.6 - The Army is planning multi-year rotations


The cost to the American taxpayer.


Version 8.0 - Economic advisor Larry Lindsey: The war will cost $200 billion
Version 8.0.1 - President Bush: You're fired!
Version 8.1 - The war will pay for itself very quickly
Version 8.1.1 - Iraqi oil revenue will pay for reconstruction
Version 8.2 - Our allies will help us
Version 8.3 - We'll pay for the war through supplementals
Version 8.3.1 - Congress wouldn't let us put it in the budget
Version 8.3.2 - Can we please have $87 billion?
Version 8.3.3 - Well, we really can't calculate what it will cost...
Version 8.3.4 - Well, maybe we can—$50 billion may be on the low side
Version 8.3.5 - Ask us after November 2...


Democracy comes to Iraq.


Version 9.0 - We will be greeted as liberators
Version 9.0.1 - We'll establish democracy in Iraq
Version 9.1 - We'll turn this back to the Iraqis quickly
Version 9.1.1 - President Chalabi will be welcomed with open arms
Version 9.1.2 - Well, not so fast—we're prohibiting political parties
Version 9.2 - We have the November 15 agreement—it's unchangeable
Version 9.2.1 - We will appoint a small governing council
Version 9.2.2 - Well, maybe a larger one
Version 9.3 - We don't favor elections
Version 9.3.1 - Caucuses work in Iowa, why not Iraq?
Version 9.3.2 - OK fine, we'll have elections
Version 9.4 - We can't return sovereignty until there is a constitution Version 9.4.1 - Never mind, we'll turn over sovereignty first
Version 9.4.2 - We need to return this to the Iraqis—How about June 30?
Version 9.4.3 - We're still focused on elections—the ones on November 2

The bottom line.


Version 10.0 - Trust us. We know what we're doing

i trust bush to make the world even worse than he has already, VOTE THIS S. O. B. OUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!