NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Dick Cheney stated during the debate that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the legislature to change their Constitution. This is completely and patently untrue. What the court stated was that, under the current Mass Constitution, marriage benefits must be applied equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The result has been that the legislature has tried to change the constitution, but that is their decision, not a mandate from the court.

I've got another one. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/5/234647/200) (Don't worry, I'll get to the important ones in a minute, like the ones about terrorist links that don't exist.)

Cheney said that he'd never met Edwards before that night. Sorry, Dick. Sources put the two of you together publicly at least twice before that.Addressing the National Prayer Breakast, Cheney said: "Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning." [FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]

Senator Edwards Escorted Elizabeth Dole When She Was Sworn In As North Carolina's Other Senator. Elizabeth Dole was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003. Gannet News Service wrote: "As per Senate tradition, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., escorted her."
Dole Took The Senate Oath Administered By Vice President Dick Cheney. According to Gannet News Service: "[Dole] raised her right hand and took the oath administered by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Senate president." [Gannet News Service, 1/8/03]

I've got another one. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/5/234647/200) (Don't worry, I'll get to the important ones in a minute, like the ones about terrorist links that don't exist.)
Um, 2 people can both be at an event and not meet. This is hardly a "lie". :rolleyes:

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Dick Cheney stated during the debate that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the legislature to change their Constitution. This is completely and patently untrue. What the court stated was that, under the current Mass Constitution, marriage benefits must be applied equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The result has been that the legislature has tried to change the constitution, but that is their decision, not a mandate from the court.

You use the term 'lie' loosely...I always give people the benefit of the doubt that it was an unintentional mistake. I don't think Edwards 'lied' when he said that 200 billion was used for the war in Iraq, I think it was an honest mistake.

You use the term 'lie' loosely...I always give people the benefit of the doubt that it was an unintentional mistake. I don't think Edwards 'lied' when he said that 200 billion was used for the war in Iraq, I think it was an honest mistake.
It might have been an honest mistake had it happened only once. But he restated it even after getting corrected by Cheney.

From the debate transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6187803/):
CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there‘s a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there‘s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.

From Meet the Press (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/):
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

From the debate transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6187803/):


From Meet the Press (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/):
What are you trying to point out here? In the portion you quoted from MTP, he says "we just don't know". He talks about a Czech's report about a link, but says nothing more came of it.

I think you read something else into his words on that one.

Another thing that both Cheney and Bush talk about MUCH too freely:
"The Iraq elections will take place next January, and over half of the million voters are Women." While not an outright lie, it is based on a fairly antiquated poll, taken before the rise of such people as Al-Sadr. The numbers have since fallen significantly.

What are you trying to point out here? In the portion you quoted from MTP, he says "we just don't know". He talks about a Czech's report about a link, but says nothing more came of it.

I think you read something else into his words on that one.Nope--I didn't. Because at the time of the Meet the Press interview, he knew that the Atta in Prague story was a line of shit--it had been debunked well before then, and yet he was deliberately trying to make a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then in the debate, he says he'd never tried to make the connection. Lie.

I'll throw in an inaccuracy that doubles as a misleading statement. Cheney said, speaking of Afghanistan, "We‘ve got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women." Problem is that the UN and other people involved in the election process have said that the maximum possible total of registered voters in Afghanistan is 8.6 million people. So is saying that you've got 10 million registered voters really something to be bragging about? Or is Cheney supporting voter fraud?

Talk about using the term 'lie' loosely. :rolleyes: But seriously, I'd rather keep an eye on my forum credibility than make accusations about anything political. Then again, that's what everybody else here seems to be doing. Oh well, to each his own soapbox I suppose.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg


Still think they never met? Hmmmm?

Nope--I didn't. Because at the time of the Meet the Press interview, he knew that the Atta in Prague story was a line of shit--it had been debunked well before then, and yet he was deliberately trying to make a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then in the debate, he says he'd never tried to make the connection. Lie.
You are putting words and meanings into his mouth. In that particular quote he said that there was a story, but so far no one had been able to confirm it.

He even says that "we just don't know". Im curious Incertonia, what does that sentance mean to you?

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg


Still think they never met? Hmmmm?
Can you say for certain they were introduced? Did they have words together? What does "meet" mean to you, see someone from across the room?
To me it means being introduced and had words.

I think you are being a bit too quick to jump on the "slam Cheney" bandwagon. I had thought you were more intellectually honest than that.

You are putting words and meanings into his mouth. In that particular quote he said that there was a story, but so far no one had been able to confirm it.

He even says that "we just don't know". Im curious Incertonia, what does that sentance mean to you?
Of course no one had been able to confirm it--it had been debunked with full and complete certainty months earlier! Jesus--what part of that don't you get? He lied on Meet the Press when he insinuated that there was still some potential truth to the story. We do know. We knew then. We know now. And to suggest otherwise is complete and utter bullshit. When Cheney said "we just don't know," it means he's trying to finesse his way out of lying and failing.

Can you say for certain they were introduced? Did they have words together? What does "meet" mean to you, see someone from across the room?
To me it means being introduced and had words.

I think you are being a bit too quick to jump on the "slam Cheney" bandwagon. I had thought you were more intellectually honest than that.
You're the one being intentionally blind here. Don't even try to spin this on me.

Of course no one had been able to confirm it--it had been debunked with full and complete certainty months earlier! Jesus--what part of that don't you get? He lied on Meet the Press when he insinuated that there was still some potential truth to the story. We do know. We knew then. We know now. And to suggest otherwise is complete and utter bullshit. When Cheney said "we just don't know," it means he's trying to finesse his way out of lying and failing.
What did he do to insinuate it had some truth? I say again, you are putting meaning into his words, inorder to justify your hatred of the man and the administration.
You are either taking it personally, or not as open minded as I had come to believe. :(

Of course no one had been able to confirm it--it had been debunked with full and complete certainty months earlier! Jesus--what part of that don't you get? He lied on Meet the Press when he insinuated that there was still some potential truth to the story. We do know. We knew then. We know now. And to suggest otherwise is complete and utter bullshit. When Cheney said "we just don't know," it means he's trying to finesse his way out of lying and failing.

You say that it had been debunked with certainty -- what are your standards for 'debunking something with certainty?' If you could provide a link for some convincing analysis, I would be grateful.

You say that it had been debunked with certainty -- what are your standards for 'debunking something with certainty?' If you could provide a link for some convincing analysis, I would be grateful.

(long lingering look of disbelief) How about the 9/11 report, the CIA and George Bush himself? They all have said that there is no Iraq-9/11 connection.

You say that it had been debunked with certainty -- what are your standards for 'debunking something with certainty?' If you could provide a link for some convincing analysis, I would be grateful.
Here's a link from UPI (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021020-092811-8185r)--owned by the Rev Sun Myung Moon and notoriously conservative.
UPI exclusive: Czechs retract terror link
By Martin Walker
UPI Chief International Correspondent

Published 10/20/2002 10:27 AM

PRAGUE, Czech Republic, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Czech intelligence officials have knocked down one of the few clear links between al Qaida terrorists and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, UPI has learned.

Senior Czech intelligence officials have told their American counterparts that they now have "no confidence" in their earlier report of direct meetings in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers and an Iraqi diplomat stationed in Prague who has since been expelled for "activities inconsistent with his diplomatic status."

"Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems " a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday.

What did he do to insinuate it had some truth? I say again, you are putting meaning into his words, inorder to justify your hatred of the man and the administration.
You are either taking it personally, or not as open minded as I had come to believe. :(
Look at what Cheney said--when he says "we just don't know" when in fact we do know that the story he's telling in untrue, then he's lying. There's no putting words in his mouth there--he's lying. How much more simply do you want it?

Here's a link from UPI (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021020-092811-8185r)--owned by the Rev Sun Myung Moon and notoriously conservative.

So the absolute certainty is completely dependent on Czech intelligence? I'm not attacking the position, I just want clarification.

(long lingering look of disbelief) How about the 9/11 report, the CIA and George Bush himself? They all have said that there is no Iraq-9/11 connection.

The question is whether or not Cheney strongly maintained that there was a connection, not whether the connection itself existed.

So the absolute certainty is completely dependent on Czech intelligence? I'm not attacking the position, I just want clarification.The original claim was completely dependent on Czech intelligence, so if they pull the claim, then yes, it's debunked.

So the absolute certainty is completely dependent on Czech intelligence? I'm not attacking the position, I just want clarification.

Yes, the same Czech intelligence that was the sole informant as to the meeting in the first place. In other words, the only voice that said there was a meeting has now said that, indeed, there was not.

Cheiney DID NOT LIE. Edwerds said that Kerry took masive fire during Viet. Nam, but the worst fire he took was small arms fire. I don't think that military history should not be what gets the canidates elected, but what they plan do should get them elected. After all Kerry plans on funding aids in Aferica from 20 mill. to 50 mill. Where is the money comming from, the gov. is in trillions in debt, Kerry will raise taxes, Democrats always raise taxes thats why they are such bastards. :mad: :mad: :mad:

The original claim was completely dependent on Czech intelligence, so if they pull the claim, then yes, it's debunked.

"Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems " a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday."

Based on this quotation by the Czech officials, isn't it fair to say that they aren't 100% sure one way or the other? They question the credibility of their source - they may be right to question it...but they haven't conclusively proven that the claim was a fabrication either, correct?

The question is whether or not Cheney strongly maintained that there was a connection, not whether the connection itself existed.

Yes, MSNBC just ran a clip from an episode of Meet The Press where Cheney referred to Iraq as the central location on the War on Terrorism and a place where those that attacked us were gathered/

Yes, MSNBC just ran a clip from an episode of Meet The Press where Cheney referred to Iraq as the central location on the War on Terrorism and a place where those that attacked us were gathered/

can you provide a link to that video clip?

"Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems " a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday."

Based on this quotation by the Czech officials, isn't it fair to say that they aren't 100% sure one way or the other? They question the credibility of their source - they may be right to question it...but they haven't conclusively proven that the claim was a fabrication either, correct?
I knew there was more to this story. Unfortunately, the NY Times archives cost money to access, but this blog (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001049.html) by Brad DeLong quotes an article from the paper that puts the question out of reach.
As nearly complete disproof of the Prague story as possible (to convince reasonable people) has, in fact, already been offered in the commission staff report—as noted by, among others, the NY Times' own James Risen earlier this week:

The report cited a photograph taken by a bank surveillance camera in Virginia showing Mr. Atta withdrawing money on April 4, 2001, a few days before the supposed Prague meeting on April 9, and records showing his cellphone was used on April 6, 9, 10 and 11 in Florida.
Atta couldn't have been in Prague meeting with an Iraqi because he was in Virginia and Florida at the time.

You use the term 'lie' loosely...I always give people the benefit of the doubt that it was an unintentional mistake. I don't think Edwards 'lied' when he said that 200 billion was used for the war in Iraq, I think it was an honest mistake.

If Kerry or Edwards has said "we spent $200G on the war in Iraq" that would be false, whether a lie or a mistake. If they said. however, that "this war is costing us $200G" then that is the closest thing to the truth we have on the matter, as that is the current approximated projection.

Maybe somebody can quote me a misstatement of this nature, but I already have doubts on the ability of Bush or Cheney to recognize an actual lie even when coming out of their own mouths.

I'll throw in an inaccuracy that doubles as a misleading statement. Cheney said, speaking of Afghanistan, "We‘ve got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women." Problem is that the UN and other people involved in the election process have said that the maximum possible total of registered voters in Afghanistan is 8.6 million people. So is saying that you've got 10 million registered voters really something to be bragging about? Or is Cheney supporting voter fraud?

Why not? Voter fraud has been very good to Cheney.

I knew there was more to this story. Unfortunately, the NY Times archives cost money to access, but this blog (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001049.html) by Brad DeLong quotes an article from the paper that puts the question out of reach.

Atta couldn't have been in Prague meeting with an Iraqi because he was in Virginia and Florida at the time.

Does the blogger maintain that Atta could not have travelled to Prague between the 4th and the 9th of April?

Does the blogger maintain that Atta could not have travelled to Prague between the 4th and the 9th of April?Well, first off, the blogger was citing a news report by James Risen of the NY Times, and if Atta were have to traveled to Prague, he would have had to 1) have given his cell phone to someone else to use during that time while 2) simultaneously getting out of the country without having it show up on his passport or visa. That would indicate that he thought he was being tailed, and there's no evidence to show that he thought that. But hey--look up the Risen report yourself. I think I've more than done my part in this discussion.

Cheiney DID NOT LIE. Edwerds said that Kerry took masive fire during Viet. Nam, but the worst fire he took was small arms fire. I don't think that military history should not be what gets the canidates elected, but what they plan do should get them elected. After all Kerry plans on funding aids in Aferica from 20 mill. to 50 mill. Where is the money comming from, the gov. is in trillions in debt, Kerry will raise taxes, Democrats always raise taxes thats why they are such bastards. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Oh you're an entertaining little thing, aren't you?

Lots and lots of small arms fire can certainly be called massive fire.

Funding AIDS in Aferica? Why fund AIDS? AIDS is doing great with the amounts of money we're already spending to teach abstinance (LOL) to the Afericans. AIDS is coming along swimmingly.

Oh those dirty Democrats... always raising taxes and balancing budgets. Sometimes they even vote against omnibus spending bills that contain portions that they voted FOR! Just because the final bill is dripping with sweet innocent pork! Damn flip-floppers! Hey, ostirch-head, why do you think we are trillions in debt? Clinton left us a surplus... remember that?

"Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems " a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday."

Based on this quotation by the Czech officials, isn't it fair to say that they aren't 100% sure one way or the other? They question the credibility of their source - they may be right to question it...but they haven't conclusively proven that the claim was a fabrication either, correct?

I tell someone the sky is falling, and he tells everyone. Then he finds out that I make up lies all the time, so he says "it's extremely probable that the sky is not falling". Everybody that was running around heard it from him, so now they should realize that it is almost certainly something I made up, because the person who reported it in the first place says that the only evidence that he had had came from an inveterate liar. Case closed?

Now Cheney comes and says "maybe the sky is falling, maybe it isn't... we just don't know."

Maybe 9/11 was masterminded by Elvis from his crystal palace on Hyades Prime 2. We just don't know.

So maybe Cheney was not lying, that time. Maybe he was just engaging in a thin trite and childish sophistry that insults the intelligence of every american voter.

Does the blogger maintain that Atta could not have travelled to Prague between the 4th and the 9th of April?

4th and 6th. Airlines do keep passenger records, btw, and we pretty much know his aliases by now. Of course, we don't know that it was he that was using his phone. But you know was? The reporters that unearthed the "story" believe now that their source is full of shit. All that made it a credible story in the first place was their presentation of it - their credibility. Therefor it now has no credibility. It's as much of a "possibility" as any made-up story. Maybe it happened, but there is zero evidence that it did. Hey! Maybe Canada was behind 9/11? We don't know for sure that they weren't, after all.

kerry flip flops on the issues.
Kerry flip flops on Iraq.

I've got another one. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/5/234647/200) (Don't worry, I'll get to the important ones in a minute, like the ones about terrorist links that don't exist.)
Being in the same room is different from a meeting.

Being in the same room is different from a meeting.

Ah, but the point Cheney was making was that Edwards was never around, not that they hadn't been introduced.

Wow these are all groundbreaking lies that are sure to sway the election...


:rolleyes:

Seriously, is this the same crowd that wasted two days looking at a slow motion video to see what Kerry pulled out of his pocket, but you're going to give a total pass on the implication that Cheney never saw (sorry, met) Edwards until now, even though it's patently obvious that he had? Seriously?

Is it the the linch pin in the election? No. Is it indicative of the kind of person Cheney (and you all for giving him this pass) is? Yep.

Thing is, you don't have to say "OMG, Now I'm not voting for him." Just admit it was a mistake and move on to more important issues. Where is the accountability you all promised when Bush took office? The only thing left for this administration to blame for stuff is my cat.

You use the term 'lie' loosely...I always give people the benefit of the doubt that it was an unintentional mistake. I don't think Edwards 'lied' when he said that 200 billion was used for the war in Iraq, I think it was an honest mistake.

The term 'lie' was really meant to be a joke, as I saw similar threads about Kerry from the last debate.

I don't really think Cheney intentionally lied, but I do find it to be very disturbing that the VP of our country doesn't know how our government works.

IF Cheney didn't lie about meeting Edwards, then shouldn't we be asking ourselves WHY the Vice President in the four years of his term has NOT met all 100 members of the Senate? He OUGHT to know them all, and if he doesn't then he is remiss. So either he is a liar or an incompetent, or both.

I also thought it was interesting that in trying to point out a 'mistake' that Edwards made about the money spent in Iraq, he succeeded in making Edwards' point. $5 billion for the Gulf War, and by Cheney's accounting, $105 billion for Iraq. $200 billion or $105 billion,...it's still too much considering that the administration is underfunding their No Child Left Behind Act, and has been completely negligent about protecting our borders and ports.

Whether Cheney is a liar is immaterial to me. The fact is, he is a war monger and a war profiteer. Lying is just part of the MO.

"Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems " a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday."

Based on this quotation by the Czech officials, isn't it fair to say that they aren't 100% sure one way or the other? They question the credibility of their source - they may be right to question it...but they haven't conclusively proven that the claim was a fabrication either, correct?

BS! What we did is produce security video of Atta in the US at the time of the alleged meeting in Czechoslavakia. It most certainly was debunked and is WAY old news.

IF Cheney didn't lie about meeting Edwards, then shouldn't we be asking ourselves WHY the Vice President in the four years of his term has NOT met all 100 members of the Senate? He OUGHT to know them all, and if he doesn't then he is remiss. So either he is a liar or an incompetent, or both.

Oh, well that wasn't the lie I was talking about. =)

Talk about using the term 'lie' loosely. :rolleyes: But seriously, I'd rather keep an eye on my forum credibility than make accusations about anything political. Then again, that's what everybody else here seems to be doing. Oh well, to each his own soapbox I suppose.

Talk about utterly missing parody. :rolleyes: But seriously, I think I can point out that my VP either lied outright, or has less understanding of the governmental system than your average civics class student.

Talk about utterly missing parody. :rolleyes: But seriously, I think I can point out that my VP either lied outright, or has less understanding of the governmental system than your average civics class student.

So do it.

Cheiney DID NOT LIE. Edwerds said that Kerry took masive fire during Viet. Nam, but the worst fire he took was small arms fire. I don't think that military history should not be what gets the canidates elected, but what they plan do should get them elected. After all Kerry plans on funding aids in Aferica from 20 mill. to 50 mill. Where is the money comming from, the gov. is in trillions in debt, Kerry will raise taxes, Democrats always raise taxes thats why they are such bastards. :mad: :mad: :mad:
You're being sarcastic right? About democrats rasing taxes?
Name the first time a democrat got into office and raises taxes. If you can prove he did then you might have a point but you can't can you. Your speaking through talking points.

Reagon raised taxes and republicans people still admire him. Why is it okay to have a double standard for republican presidents?

Your being sarcastic right? About democrats rasing taxes?
Name the first time a democrat got into office and raises taxes. If you can prove he did then you might have a point but you can't can you. Your speaking through talking points.

1992 Highest Marginal Tax Rate : 31%
1993 Highest Marginal Tax Rate : 39.6%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=213

Unless rich people don't count as people.

You're being sarcastic right? About democrats rasing taxes?
Name the first time a democrat got into office and raised taxes. If you can prove one did then you might have a point but you can't can you? You're speaking through talking points.

Reagan raised taxes and republican people still admire him. Why is it okay to have a double standard for republican presidents?

Because Republicans are the only True Americans. ;) Oh and you forgot how George the Elder vowed promised swore whatever that he would not raise taxes. Of course it was perfectly alright when he did, because Republicans always know what's best for America, and if they have to lie to get it done, that's just because we don't know any better and need to be lied to.

1992 Highest Marginal Tax Rate : 31%
1993 Highest Marginal Tax Rate : 39.6%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=213

Unless rich people don't count as people.

You know, you may be on to something. ;)

Because Republicans are the only True Americans. ;) Oh and you forgot how George the Elder vowed promised swore whatever that he would not raise taxes. Of course it was perfectly alright when he did, because Republicans always know what's best for America, and if they have to lie to get it done, that's just because we don't know any better and need to be lied to.
Why did you change he to one in your quote? In the context "he" meant the first democrat, one means any. That was not my question. If the first democrat raised taxes and all the rest after him did then one could believe that all democrats do that but not if they didn't.

When trying to substantiate his claim that Edwards had a poor Senate attendance record, Cheney said that he never saw Edwards in the Senate.
The vice president's job is to vote to break ties, not to hang out in the Senate Chamber as if he had nothing better to do.
In order to put truth to Cheney's statement, we'd have to determine how often Cheney had to go to the Senate to break ties during Edwards single term in the Senate, then check it against whether or not Edwards was there on those (few) occasions.
Besides, Cheney said that he never met Edwards. IF that is the truth, could he have even recognized Edwards before the Senator declared his candidacy?

Why did you change he to one in your quote? In the context "he" meant the first democrat, one means any. That was not my question. If the first democrat raised taxes and all the rest after him did then one could believe that all democrats do that but not if they didn't.

Apologies. Actually you refered to the first tax-raising Democrat President, not the first Democrat President. Perhaps that is why I misunderstood. Actually, I am sure that there has been a first tax-raising Democrat President, simply because taxes do get raised and there have been Democrat Presidents for over a century. How about Hoover*? But to really have a point he would have to show that there never was a Democrat President who did not raise taxes.

But anyway, the first Democrat President to raise taxes would be accurately described as one Democrat President, while "he" tends to refer to a known person. Anyway... ;)

...come to think (a good habit) no president has ever raised taxes. Congress has, but never a president.



* my mistake ... please do not bother.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Dick Cheney stated during the debate that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the legislature to change their Constitution. This is completely and patently untrue. What the court stated was that, under the current Mass Constitution, marriage benefits must be applied equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The result has been that the legislature has tried to change the constitution, but that is their decision, not a mandate from the court.

That is why his real name is Tricky Dick ;)

Apologies. Actually you refered to the first tax-raising Democrat President, not the first Democrat President. Perhaps that is why I misunderstood. Actually, I am sure that there has been a first tax-raising Democrat President, simply because taxes do get raised and there have been Democrat Presidents for over a century. How about Hoover*? But to really have a point he would have to show that there never was a Democrat President who did not raise taxes.

But anyway, the first Democrat President to raise taxes would be accurately described as one Democrat President, while "he" tends to refer to a known person. Anyway... ;)

...come to think (a good habit) no president has ever raised taxes. Congress has, but never a president.



* my mistake ... please do not bother.

You kinda answered my point anyway. Presidents don't give tax increases, but they can ask and state that they would be good. Congress is the one who agrees or disagrees with this statement and acts accordingly.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272

Note that this page is pretty hot right now, so expect connection delays.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Dick Cheney stated during the debate that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the legislature to change their Constitution. This is completely and patently untrue. What the court stated was that, under the current Mass Constitution, marriage benefits must be applied equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The result has been that the legislature has tried to change the constitution, but that is their decision, not a mandate from the court.

OMG I KNOW! It was EXACTLY THE REVERSE, it was the Constitution that required the change in policy. And you know what really bugs me too? "We never suggested that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein." One: that's completely a lie. Two: if that's not a lie, then you communicate so badly to the public that it's a horrible argument to make, it just discredits you. Three: you can't argue that you didn't "suggest" something anyway, because suggestion is implication, and therefore subject to others' inference.

OMG I KNOW! It was EXACTLY THE REVERSE, it was the Constitution that required the change in policy. And you know what really bugs me too? "We never suggested that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein." One: that's completely a lie. Two: if that's not a lie, then you communicate so badly to the public that it's a horrible argument to make, it just discredits you. Three: you can't argue that you didn't "suggest" something anyway, because suggestion is implication, and therefore subject to others' inference.
Cheney now wants to regulate Opinion! I wonder if that would pass Congress?

:D LOL

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/CheneyEdwards.gif

Still think that Edwards and Cheney never met?

Okay, I refrained from yelling this out throughout Chemistry today, so I have to put it here: Cheney looks older than 63 and Edwards looks way younger than 51.

Cheney is a consummate liar, why should it come as a surprise that he lied during the debate?

Cheney is a consummate liar, why should it come as a surprise that he lied during the debate?

Yep. Cheney's the devil in the house, Bush is just his monkey servant.