More Indications of Bush Deception

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

Can you list 3 examples from each party?

My mistake...could you provide specific legislation?

Generalities suck...I mean, the same Party you claim brought us the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I claim brought us the Viet Nam "Conflict" and the riots at the convention in Chicago in 1968...So, like statistics, generalities can be used to mislead...

[bush]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

My mistake...could you provide specific legislation?

I can provide numbers for one of his points.

Tax cuts for the wealthy:
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.

I'm in the process of looking for the specific legislation regarding some of these cuts, but I'm currently at work, so my efforts come in bursts of 5-10 minutes at a time. More to follow.

[jim schmidt]

The Democrat stuff is specific legislation. The Republican stuff is many pieces of legislation.

The issue was not whether either has done bad stuff, both have. It was who they legislate on behalf of.

[bush]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

The Democrat stuff is specific legislation. The Republican stuff is many pieces of legislation.

And before we go any furthur, I'd like to remind everybody that getting a hummer from an intern does not constitute legislation.

Thank you.

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

The Democrat stuff is specific legislation. The Republican stuff is many pieces of legislation.

The issue was not whether either has done bad stuff, both have. It was who they legislate on behalf of.

So you are telling me that the Democratic Party, the party you claim are the party of the "poor working people" and Civil rights, who entered and escalated the fighting in Southeast Asia were working for the poor, southern blacks who died at a disproportionate rate than even the poor southern whites?

Are you telling me that the Democratic party wasn't passing out lucrative no bid defense contracts to companies like Graumann, lockheed and General Dynamics, all of which were headquartered in Texas at the time??

I believe you're using a mighty wide brush to paint with...

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

So you are telling me that the Democratic Party, the party you claim are the party of the "poor working people" and Civil rights, who entered and escalated the fighting in Southeast Asia were working for the poor, southern blacks who died at a disproportionate rate than even the poor southern whites?

Are you telling me that the Democratic party wasn't passing out lucrative no bid defense contracts to companies like Graumann, lockheed and General Dynamics, all of which were headquartered in Texas at the time??

I believe you're using a mighty wide brush to paint with...

And now, the Republicans started a war in a country that wasn't in conflict. The "party of inclusion" now passes out no bid contracts, with direct relationships to the VP of the US AND at the expense of poor soldiers from less than stellar socioeconomic backgrounds.

Just because one group of assholes does it, doesn't make it ok for another group of assholes to do it.

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

And now, the Republicans started a war in a country that wasn't in conflict. The "party of inclusion" now passes out no bid contracts, with direct relationships to the VP of the US AND at the expense of poor soldiers from less than stellar socioeconomic backgrounds.

Just because one group of assholes does it, doesn't make it ok for another group of assholes to do it.

My point exactly!! Which is why I challenged the statement jim schmidt made here as incorrect and too vague...looking back over the legislative histories of both parties show a different pattern then what jim schmidt suggests

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

Compare legislative historys. You'll find that there are significant differences in the kinds of legislation they propose which casts a different light than you've described.

[bush]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

My point exactly!! Which is why I challenged the statement jim schmidt made here as incorrect and too vague...looking back over the legislative histories of both parties show a different pattern then what jim schmidt suggests

Both sides are guilty of being bastards. I just figured you needed proof, or at least numbers.

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

My point exactly!! Which is why I challenged the statement jim schmidt made here as incorrect and too vague...looking back over the legislative histories of both parties show a different pattern then what jim schmidt suggests

Over recent history, which party has been known to be more friendly to social programs and worker's benefits?

All parties go through philosophical shifts.

For instance, this Republican group is PRO big government and PRO wasteful spending. Two things that the Republicans claim they are NOT for.

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Over recent history, which party has been known to be more friendly to social programs and worker's benefits?

All parties go through philosophical shifts.

For instance, this Republican group is PRO big government and PRO wasteful spending. Two things that the Republicans claim they are NOT for.

Again...What do you consider to be recent history?? I have a car and clothes at home that are older than 75% of the people on this board.

Jim schmidt's comment did not say recent history...it said legislative history...I am trying to take jim schmidt at his posts. If he meant legislative history since 1988, he should have posted that...

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

Again...What do you consider to be recent history?? I have a car and clothes at home that are older than 75% of the people on this board.

Jim schmidt's comment did not say recent history...it said legislative history...I am trying to take jim schmidt at his posts. If he meant legislative history since 1988, he should have posted that...

Which party created social security and social services?

Over the last 50 or so years, the Democrats have been more social program and worker friendly.

Every party does stupid shit, but you can't deny the reputation. Can you?

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Which party created social security and social services?

Over the last 50 or so years, the Democrats have been more social program and worker friendly.

Every party does stupid shit, but you can't deny the reputation. Can you?

I'm getting confused...what has any of this to do with my questions to jim schmidt, which he hasn't answered?? I asked him specific questions based upon the posts he made in this thread, his thread. Now, instead of answering the questions, things are being spun and deflected. I have opinions about the questions you raise here, and I'm willing to share them, but let's do one thing at a time.

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

I'm getting confused...what has any of this to do with my questions to jim schmidt, which he hasn't answered?? I asked him specific questions based upon the posts he made in this thread, his thread. Now, instead of answering the questions, things are being spun and deflected. I have opinions about the questions you raise here, and I'm willing to share them, but let's do one thing at a time.

You made the statement that Democrats try to decieve. Which is an opinion, not a fact.

You made the statement that they try to deceive when they claim they are for the people. If you were to follow that line, which party has a better record on social services issue voting?

and deception is DEFINITELY NOT the domain of only the Democrats. So, I would say your assertion doesn't work either.

All politicians are corrupt.