These aren't the droids you're looking for. If you and Blue Shift can't see that it's because you're grasping at straws.
Not only that this is CNN and it seems they are nat a bastion of Bush support. Those last two paragraphs seem to be thrown in there in case the shells are not WMD'd, as sort of a "I told you so." Like a default ending like they do with all Apple press releases.
The guy is a disgruntled employee. Give us a break. What does he have to loose by making an outrageous claim? Nothing. Gain? Everything, he is on TV again.
The guy is a disgruntled employee. Give us a break. What does he have to loose by making an outrageous claim? Nothing. Gain? Everything, he is on TV again.
That doesn't mean he's not telling the truth and we should imediately dismiss him. Maybe he had good reason to be disgruntled.
That doesn't mean he's not telling the truth and we should imediately dismiss him. Maybe he had good reason to be disgruntled.
No. But it does tell you he might have a reason to carry out a personal vendetta against his former employer. Public servants rarely get dismissed as abruptly as Mr. O'Neill was. So you might consider that for all intent and purpose he's been publicly disgraced. I also kinda think that it's sleazy for him to ware that pin on TV while he's trying to sell his book of trash.
No. But it does tell you he might have a reason to carry out a personal vendetta against his former employer. Public servants rarely get dismissed as abruptly as Mr. O'Neill was. So you might consider that for all intent and purpose he's been publicly disgraced. I also kinda think that it's sleazy for him to ware that pin on TV while he's trying to sell his book of trash.
All the more reason to think there might be something to what he's saying.
All the more reason to think there might be something to what he's saying.
It's times like this that I thank the all mighty that my brain isn't hardwired to follow your kind of "reason". (This applies to your previous post as well).
It's times like this that I thank the all mighty that my brain isn't hardwired to follow your kind of "reason". (This applies to your previous post as well).
The guy is a disgruntled employee. Give us a break. What does he have to loose by making an outrageous claim? Nothing. Gain? Everything, he is on TV again.
worked for ford and nixon, personal friend of george senior, ran alcoa, very wealthy....yeah, typical "disgruntled employee" looking for TV time....
g
also, not his book, he did not write it, nor did he have it ghost written...and he is making no money from it.
nice to see some calling it trash without reading it
It's times like this that I thank the all mighty that my brain isn't hardwired to follow your kind of "reason". (This applies to your previous post as well).
Yes, obviously it's been hardwired in another direction.
how's that "middle class" tax cut working for you?
Good for Investors, Bad for the Rest
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, January 14, 2004; Page A19
If you work for a living in George W. Bush's America, you're a sap.
Take a quick look, or a long one, at the tax code as Bush has altered it during his three years as president, and you're compelled to conclude that work has become a distinctly inferior kind of income acquisition in the eyes of the law. Bush tax policy rewards investment and inheritance. Relying on work for your income, by contrast, turns you into a second-class citizen.
In his first round of tax cuts in 2001, Bush got Congress to phase out the estate tax by 2010. Last year, with Republicans in control on Capitol Hill, he reduced the top tax rate on dividends from 39.6 percent to 15 percent, and brought the capital gains tax rate down from 20 percent to 15 percent as well.
This year, his new budget proposes that families be allowed to shield as much as $30,000 yearly on their investment income, which will abolish all remaining taxes on such income. Meanwhile, the income tax cuts to most middle-class families don't exceed a couple of hundred dollars, and payroll taxes for employees remain untouched. In part, this devaluing of work is simply an expression of Bush family values. As Kevin Phillips points out in his new biography of the Bush dynasty, the Bushes don't do anything so vulgar as going into professions. Rather, the clan lives by its connections. For George W. and his brothers, work has meant riffling through Pappy's Rolodex. Theirs is the cronyest form of capitalism...
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
From the article you linked:
These aren't the droids you're looking for. If you and Blue Shift can't see that it's because you're grasping at straws.
I am sorry, but you sir are a word parsing idiot.
They meant up to this point and since they have not had independent confirmation, they are not officially considered chemical weapons.
You are getting very predictable. I knew when I read that article someone would tray that tact.
Originally posted by bunge
From the article you linked:
These aren't the droids you're looking for. If you and Blue Shift can't see that it's because you're grasping at straws.
Not only that this is CNN and it seems they are nat a bastion of Bush support. Those last two paragraphs seem to be thrown in there in case the shells are not WMD'd, as sort of a "I told you so." Like a default ending like they do with all Apple press releases.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am sorry, but you sir are a word parsing idiot.
They meant up to this point and since they have not had independent confirmation, they are not officially considered chemical weapons.
You are getting very predictable. I knew when I read that article someone would tray that tact.
Call me whatever name you want, the point doesn't change. The Bush administration is on my side in this argument.
Ahhhhh! What a nice warm fire!
Originally posted by jimmac
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/12/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
Ahhhhh! What a nice warm fire!
The guy is a disgruntled employee. Give us a break. What does he have to loose by making an outrageous claim? Nothing. Gain? Everything, he is on TV again.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The guy is a disgruntled employee. Give us a break. What does he have to loose by making an outrageous claim? Nothing. Gain? Everything, he is on TV again.
That doesn't mean he's not telling the truth and we should imediately dismiss him. Maybe he had good reason to be disgruntled.
Originally posted by jimmac
That doesn't mean he's not telling the truth and we should imediately dismiss him. Maybe he had good reason to be disgruntled.
No. But it does tell you he might have a reason to carry out a personal vendetta against his former employer. Public servants rarely get dismissed as abruptly as Mr. O'Neill was. So you might consider that for all intent and purpose he's been publicly disgraced. I also kinda think that it's sleazy for him to ware that pin on TV while he's trying to sell his book of trash.
Originally posted by Scott
Yea the Clinton recession has hit the country hard.
Did you notice no one pays attention to this?
This reasoning ran out of gas ( and excuses ) a long time ago.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
No. But it does tell you he might have a reason to carry out a personal vendetta against his former employer. Public servants rarely get dismissed as abruptly as Mr. O'Neill was. So you might consider that for all intent and purpose he's been publicly disgraced. I also kinda think that it's sleazy for him to ware that pin on TV while he's trying to sell his book of trash.
All the more reason to think there might be something to what he's saying.
Originally posted by jimmac
All the more reason to think there might be something to what he's saying.
It's times like this that I thank the all mighty that my brain isn't hardwired to follow your kind of "reason". (This applies to your previous post as well).
Originally posted by Blue Shift
It's times like this that I thank the all mighty that my brain isn't hardwired to follow your kind of "reason". (This applies to your previous post as well).
Amen brother blue!
Originally posted by NaplesX
The guy is a disgruntled employee. Give us a break. What does he have to loose by making an outrageous claim? Nothing. Gain? Everything, he is on TV again.
worked for ford and nixon, personal friend of george senior, ran alcoa, very wealthy....yeah, typical "disgruntled employee" looking for TV time....
g
also, not his book, he did not write it, nor did he have it ghost written...and he is making no money from it.
nice to see some calling it trash without reading it
oh well
Originally posted by Blue Shift
It's times like this that I thank the all mighty that my brain isn't hardwired to follow your kind of "reason". (This applies to your previous post as well).
Yes, obviously it's been hardwired in another direction.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Amen brother blue!
This one's just constantly arcing.
Originally posted by thegelding
worked for ford and nixon, personal friend of george senior, ran alcoa, very wealthy....yeah, typical "disgruntled employee" looking for TV time....
g
also, not his book, he did not write it, nor did he have it ghost written...and he is making no money from it.
nice to see some calling it trash without reading it
oh well
I assume you are disappointed to find out O'Neill is now disputing the authenticity of what's been printed then?
Originally posted by rageous
I assume you are disappointed to find out O'Neill is now disputing the authenticity of what's been printed then?
After reading the article, I don't see O'Neill disputing what's been printed. Where do you see that?
Originally posted by tonton
Just jumped in on page three and have to ask how this about O'Neill is related to this thread, which is about the economy.
I think the thread can be considered a little more generic than that. And there is some evidence that Bush was not correct about a lot of things.
Good for Investors, Bad for the Rest
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, January 14, 2004; Page A19
If you work for a living in George W. Bush's America, you're a sap.
Take a quick look, or a long one, at the tax code as Bush has altered it during his three years as president, and you're compelled to conclude that work has become a distinctly inferior kind of income acquisition in the eyes of the law. Bush tax policy rewards investment and inheritance. Relying on work for your income, by contrast, turns you into a second-class citizen.
In his first round of tax cuts in 2001, Bush got Congress to phase out the estate tax by 2010. Last year, with Republicans in control on Capitol Hill, he reduced the top tax rate on dividends from 39.6 percent to 15 percent, and brought the capital gains tax rate down from 20 percent to 15 percent as well.
This year, his new budget proposes that families be allowed to shield as much as $30,000 yearly on their investment income, which will abolish all remaining taxes on such income. Meanwhile, the income tax cuts to most middle-class families don't exceed a couple of hundred dollars, and payroll taxes for employees remain untouched. In part, this devaluing of work is simply an expression of Bush family values. As Kevin Phillips points out in his new biography of the Bush dynasty, the Bushes don't do anything so vulgar as going into professions. Rather, the clan lives by its connections. For George W. and his brothers, work has meant riffling through Pappy's Rolodex. Theirs is the cronyest form of capitalism...
cont'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan13.html
By the way... Kevin Phillips is a conservative.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
how's that "middle class" tax cut working for you?
Um...it sucks? Sorry, but Bush is a sick bastard.