Skip

Bush Cited Non-Existent eport
February 24, 2003 7:19 AM   Subscribe

Bush Cited Non-Existent eport There was only one problem with President George W. Bush's claim Thursday that the nation's top economists forecast substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president's tax cut: The forecast with that conclusion doesn't exist.
posted by orange swan (82 comments total)

 
That should have been "Report" of course. Yeah, yeah, you're all out there busily typing comments about non-existent R's.
posted by orange swan at 7:21 AM on February 24, 2003


It's a good thing that Bush isn't lying about oral sex.
posted by DragonBoy at 7:30 AM on February 24, 2003


"Moore said that a survey taken in January before the president announced his plan forecast 3.3 percent annual growth between the last quarter of 2002 and the last quarter of 2003. A survey taken in February reached the same consensus." [emphasis added]

so, the survey DOES exist. the problem is his linkage of the forecast to the tax cut. the way i read it, knowlege of his tax cut plan had no effect on the estimated 3.3% growth. so his use of the word "if" to cleverly attempt to link his plan to the forecast result is the deception here. things like this embarrass bush-haters like me. he's a big enough liar in his own right. no need for the press to invent lies for him. bad newsday.
posted by quonsar at 7:32 AM on February 24, 2003


It's semantics, quonsar. There is no report extant which links the 3.3% growth with the tax cut. It doesn't exist. The fact there is a report which describes a 3.3% increase published before the tax cut was announced has no bearing on the claim that there is a report endorsing the tax cut. If anything, the February report, which reaches the same conclusion, is rather damining for Bush, as it shows that the economists don't believe the tax cut will have any effect.
posted by jburka at 7:38 AM on February 24, 2003


Just give Special Prosecutor Paul Krugman unlimited time and money and subpoena power, we'll finally find out the truth and restore dignity to the office
posted by matteo at 7:50 AM on February 24, 2003


(from linked article) "I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month. "I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. "It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case."

Hey - lies, as such, aren't the point. The point is that the "truth", in the public mind, is shaped by whoever gets the lies out first (over the major news networks).
posted by troutfishing at 7:50 AM on February 24, 2003


jburka, if i'm not mistaken, that's exactly what i said.
posted by quonsar at 8:08 AM on February 24, 2003


On second thought - Poopyhead Bush Basher!
posted by troutfishing at 8:24 AM on February 24, 2003


Bush has a history of fuzziness when it comes to quoting magical reports. This google search provides ample insight from both the left and the right about Bush's "confusion" when citing documents whose "conclusions" are critical to domestic and foreign policy.
posted by vraxoin at 8:31 AM on February 24, 2003


Can anyone justify this lie? Can anyone spin it? I'd really like to see it attempted. I swear, the White House is getting more brazen and unscrupulous every day.
posted by jbrjake at 9:19 AM on February 24, 2003


Don't blame me I voted for Kodos.
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:22 AM on February 24, 2003


It's fun to watch the Bush Presidency take a total nosedive.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:23 AM on February 24, 2003


Damn, missed the comma there. I need more coffee.

Yes, jbrjake, someone will inevitable try to spin this, and show us how we don't really understand anything. The Resident has lied so many times now it's getting kind of embarrassing.
He lied about his past business dealings.
He lied about serving in the national guard.
He lied about being for better public schools.
He lied about the budget surplus, oops, I mean deficit.
He lied about a report that claimed Iraq would have nuclear capabilities within 6 months.
He's telling lies right now, and FOX news is reporting them as truths.
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:31 AM on February 24, 2003


Well, on the plus side, at least I'm getting a very thorough answer to my question "How much harm can one man do in four years?"
posted by mosch at 9:53 AM on February 24, 2003


"FOX News" is a synonym for "lies".
posted by quonsar at 9:56 AM on February 24, 2003


*baby Viking cries*

I have been, and remain, completely astounded that anyone believes a word that Bush says. I wouldn't necessarily blame the media. They're, for the most part, just reporting what the White House says. When they attempt to defend those statements after they've been debunked, then we have issues. But I do blame the people who continue to listen to this lying sack of President, and defend him by calling me a Bush-hater, or anti-Bush...as if that's some shame to me. Yes, I am anti-Bush and here's why ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:03 AM on February 24, 2003


Bush Lies, Media Swallows
posted by homunculus at 10:13 AM on February 24, 2003


Even those of us who despise him and his cronies have to salute the genius of this strategy: Push everything to the wall of plausible credibility and then through the wall - lie so brazenly it takes everybody's breath away, and then once they get enough air to start rebutting you, lie again, only even more outrageously, on top of it. Meanwhile, Joe Sixpack continues to watch Joe Millionaire, and the beat-down goes on.

It really is kind of a work of art...
posted by soyjoy at 10:19 AM on February 24, 2003


Even those of us who despise him and his cronies have to salute the genius of this strategy:

No, I don't. It is a good strategy, but its not like I haven't had my nose rubbed in it before. Watergate, the Contract On With America, the vendetta and Impeachment against a President who lied about getting a blowjob, led by people who likewise have had to admit to extra-marital affairs. The only genius in this strategy is the insult to the American people, that we will continuously accept the lie to get what we think we want.

I live in a state where our governor has lied, endorsed incompetant policies and advisors, openly damaged evidence in a criminal investigation, and is reviled by her own party. She is the least favored governor in the US. I keep asking, why hasn't she been recalled? I've signed a petition to do so. I ask the same about Bush, why aren't we recalling this ass?
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:33 AM on February 24, 2003


Politicians telling fibs is nothing new. Politicians telling outrageous fibs is nothing new.

What disappoints me about these is that a Yale alumni would be unable to properly cite sources. They have always had stringent academic honesty policies. When a high profile alumni behaves like this, it besmirches the honor of the college.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:28 AM on February 24, 2003


What disappoints me about these is that a Yale alumni would be unable to properly cite sources. They have always had stringent academic honesty policies. When a high profile alumni behaves like this, it besmirches the honor of the college.

what's totally beyond the pale is when people say "politicians lying is nothing new." you are part of the problem that continues to give us lying sacks of shit in the oval office, legislature, corporate boardrooms and in the media. i assert that the "honor" of an institution which produces lying sacks of shit with stunning reliability is already besmirched and further tarnishment is far beyond the ability of its ignoble alumni to bring about through poor citation of imaginary sources. god, i cannot beleive you actually posted that crap.
posted by quonsar at 11:52 AM on February 24, 2003


why aren't we recalling this ass?
Wulfgar... you're beginning to sound a lot like a "suspected terrorist" to me. Do you have your papers, citizen?
posted by owillis at 11:57 AM on February 24, 2003


It's not so much Bush's trouble with the truth that get me. He's a legacy; his challenges with geography, history, basic grammar, etc. are expected and understandable. It's Ari Fleischer(source of the original quote) that really gets my goat. He certainly knows better...
posted by ubi at 11:57 AM on February 24, 2003


Sorry, quonsar. I keep forgetting to close my /sarcasm tag.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:58 AM on February 24, 2003


Dig that hole, boy.
Hopefully he's not only looking at a 1 term presidency, he's paving the way for the next president to sail through for 2.
posted by 2sheets at 12:06 PM on February 24, 2003


"Politicians telling outrageous fibs is nothing new. "

The difference is that now Americans don't care about the truth. We enjoy a good spin. We even like our reality shows doctored and fluffed up.

Bush knows this. He knows that as long as there is the slightest hint of plausibility we'll shrug and turn the page. He also plays up the idea that he's not too smart. So if he gets a few facts wrong, no one notices. Look at Bush's past and tell me anyone could think he knows his way around economics.

We didn't elect him because he was smart or honest. We elected him because Gore was dull and boring.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:17 PM on February 24, 2003


lying sacks of shit in the oval office, legislature, corporate boardrooms

Speaking of corporate boardrooms, whatever happened to these guys?
posted by homunculus at 12:20 PM on February 24, 2003


You silly, silly people. President Bush is obviously referring to a highly classified economic report to which only top level officials have access. The informational assets available to the President are nearly infinite, and those of us without equal resource should just hush.
posted by Opus Dark at 12:23 PM on February 24, 2003


We elected him because Gore was dull and boring.

What do you mean by "we", Kemo Sabbi?
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:23 PM on February 24, 2003


We elected him because Gore was dull and boring.
I thought he got votes by saying, 'look, I'm dumb, just like you.' What he didn't tell anyone was that he is mean and dumb. It really doesn't matter that our Resident is a dumb mofo, since he's got a bunch of reasonably intelligent, really really mean people telling him what to do.

It seems that lying does work. Bush has used deception extremely effectively throughout his tenure. It works this way, tell a lie and let the media report it. When the lies are refuted, make no comment. The media might report the refutation on page 37d inbetween a public notice and an ad for maytag, or they might not report it at all. Bush's lies, then, become political truths on the talkshow circuit and anyone who questions their validity isn't American enough.

I wonder how anyone is going to beat this guy in the next "election" when he has such firm control on the media and on the government itself. The media is going to pick any democrat apart on a level not seen since Clinton and Bush may well roll into his second term. If he can steal one "election" why not two?
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:54 PM on February 24, 2003


Frankly I'm disgusted with the media. There once was a time about 15-20 years back when fallacies and falsehoods were called into question in the mainstream press. It was called investigative journalism and seems to be nonexistent in today's political reporting. It was also called "Liberal Bias"--but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

Here's an analogy of the problem as I see it:

Let's say everyone is sitting in a Movie Theater. Someone gets up and yells FIRE! The rest of us in the theater wait for the theater reporter to report to us that someone yelled "FIRE!". For good measure and "balance" the report dutifully digs out at least one other person in the theater who thinks there is no fire and the other guy is just making it up. So we get a great story about this guy who yells FIRE! followed up with a rebuttal from the other guy who doesn't think there is a fire but at no time does the reporter actually investigate whether or not there is a fire or who may be lying.

This seems to be the way politics is reported nowadays. Kind of makes me sick really.
posted by aaronscool at 12:55 PM on February 24, 2003


I really wish one of the big outlets would publish a job approval poll for Bush. America is about to go to war. It may do so in defiance of the UN. This is a pretty noteworthy moment for the country. You'd think the media would be polling people left and right, but I haven't seen one in weeks.
posted by gsteff at 12:57 PM on February 24, 2003


We didn't elect him because he was smart or honest

We didn't elect him at all, technically :-)
posted by jonson at 1:02 PM on February 24, 2003


Sorry, quonsar. I keep forgetting to close my /sarcasm tag.

DAMN!
[quonsar repairs to the corner, where he begins to bang his head against the wall (with stunning reliability) all the while muttering to himself "moron! moron! moron!"]
clearly I have no sense of humor where dubya is concerned. perspective either. sorry joey.
posted by quonsar at 1:08 PM on February 24, 2003


When the lies are refuted, make no comment.

Just like the right wingers on Mefi, I've noticed.

S@telite of Love, Hammer7, et al - are you not 'Bushies' after all? Is there any defence for this?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:13 PM on February 24, 2003


Wait a minute, the Resident is just using the tried and true method that his friends use. Remember Enron anyone? If the figures don't add up to what you want, just make them up! You can even bring in Arthur Andersen or some other "experts" to verify the figures for you. At least with Enron the SEC and FTC are supposed to be looking out for the investors, who's looking out for us investors (read: taxpayers) now?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:16 PM on February 24, 2003


Wait a minute, the Resident is just using the tried and true method that his friends use.

I should let the Resident speak for himself!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:26 PM on February 24, 2003


quonsar: sorry joey.

No need - it wasn't very good sarcasm on my part. Swift, I am not. Jonathan or quick...
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:14 PM on February 24, 2003


y6y6y6,
Bush was not "elected" at all--his presidency is the result of an unconstitutional adjudicatory coup. I don't say that melodramtically--it's fact, plain and simple.
Even people who voted for the man were shut out of the democratic process that the Constitution of the United States of America demands.
It is what it is, and this nation will survive his administration as well as the judicial activism that granted him presidential legitimacy--some people may have voted for him (not the majority, mind you) but he was not "elected."
posted by Tiger_Lily at 3:16 PM on February 24, 2003


"Bush was not "elected" at all--his presidency is the result of an unconstitutional adjudicatory coup."

Are people actually still saying this?

And let me get this straight, a bunch of frothing left wing Bush-bashers are upset by a tax cut, meaning they get to keep more of their own money?

This is astounding, but why am I not bewildered at one of the most throwaway gossipy newsfilter smear threads in recent memory, based on nothing?

In other news: Bush says people want to keep more of what they earn, and a shrieking mob of MetaFilter hypochondriacs declares Bush a stupid lying chimp. Wow. Stop the presses.

The web really does have a lot to offer.
posted by hama7 at 3:39 PM on February 24, 2003


Bush was not "elected" at all--his presidency is the result of an unconstitutional adjudicatory coup.

Are people actually still saying this?

Is Bush actually still in office?
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:49 PM on February 24, 2003


In other news: Bush says people want to keep more of what they earn, and a shrieking mob of MetaFilter hypochondriacs declares Bush a stupid lying chimp. Wow. Stop the presses.

Did you miss the top part of the thread? Go on now. Scroll up. Read it a bit... go on now.

The tax cut was NEVER the issue.
At least you're trying.
posted by Espoo2 at 4:25 PM on February 24, 2003


hama7: You sir are a fool.

First this thread is about a bald faced lie told by the administration to try and justify a policy that no economist seems to think will do much to help out the country.

Second few (if any) real economists believe voodoo economics works very well. Bottom line tax cuts for people who don't need them (i.e. the rich) don't help the economy.

Thank you for your uninspiring rebuttal though...I think you get cuter the more knee jerk you get.
posted by aaronscool at 4:36 PM on February 24, 2003


--I like this thread--

Bush Lies. The Right tries.

It's okay bub. You can agree with the good guys for once Hama7.

Don't waste no ten years of your life on this or nuthin'. . .

no I am not calling you a nazi. but do get out your irony goggles
posted by crasspastor at 4:57 PM on February 24, 2003


H7 -

Maybe if you and the some others in the US could try and empathise with this: The leader of a country who has serious doubts surrounding his election, and who has very close ties to corrupt big business, as well as a penchant for pushing his religious morality onto others, is leading the world to war. The world is very concerned about unintended consequences.

If that described any other regime than the current one in the US - say, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or maybe Iraq - wouldn't you be up in arms? That's where we are. Up in arms - and quite scared, too.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:14 PM on February 24, 2003


hama 7:

Interesting post, if for nothing else than it's utter lack of relevance or coherency.

Are people actually still saying this?
Odd the way people keep coming back to this, I suppose we should just get over it... it's just the FUCKING PRESIDENCY.

And let me get this straight, a bunch of frothing left wing Bush-bashers are upset by a tax cut, meaning they get to keep more of their own money?
Without getting into the pros and cons of a tax cut, what concievable relevance does this have to the President brazenly fabricating data to bolster a case for his economic policy?

Bush says people want to keep more of what they earn, and a shrieking mob of MetaFilter hypochondriacs declares Bush a stupid lying chimp. Wow. Stop the presses.
C'mon, if your going to set up a straw man try a little harder. Bush has been declared a stupid liar because that's what the facts support.

I do have a certain matter of respect for your willingness to jump in here. It's a rather bold move, in a creepy Rush Limbaugh kind of way, but your case would be better made with a few facts (hopefully remotely connected to the topic) and a little less rhetoric.






posted by cedar at 6:17 PM on February 24, 2003


Bush won the election. The axes called, they want their grind back.

Let's review the article.

"'I don't know what he was citing,' said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast."

I guess I just don't have the logical agility to leap to the "sneaky pack of lies" conclusion.

But right: Tax cut = Teutonic fascist idealogy. Good one.
posted by hama7 at 6:57 PM on February 24, 2003


hama7, you might be right, that there isn't anything wrong with a tax cut. To which I have to ask, if there isn't anything wrong with a tax cut, then WHY IS THE WHITE HOUSE LYING about it to garner support? Maybe its because myself, and many of my fellow Americans prefer a balanced federal budget to the tax-and-spend Republican idiologies of Bush and company. Or maybe, the President is just a pathological liar, incapable of telling the truth for fear that the people may not agree. Your choice, of course.
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:23 PM on February 24, 2003


quonsar caught it in the third comment, for Pete's sake:

"no need for the press to invent lies for him. bad newsday."

Where the is the "lie"?

This is just a funny blue call-Bush-things-like "warmonger" and "fascist" thread, isn't it?
posted by hama7 at 7:30 PM on February 24, 2003


hama7, like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target. So let me spell out the lie for you:

Ari Fleischer's words: A new element in the President's remarks today will be an analysis of the Blue Chip Economic Forecast for this year. The Blue Chip Forecast, which projects growth at 3.3 percent, is predicated on Congress passing a significant tax reduction plan in 2003, with a substantial amount of tax relief effective in 2003.

Do I need to explain to you what the words "predicated on" mean? The prediction of 3.3% growth came out before and unrelated to Bush's tax cut. But the White House claims that that growth will happen because of the tax cut, and logically, not without it (that's what "predicated on" means). Are you seeing the lie yet, and if not, how can you possibly be so blind to the facts?
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:49 PM on February 24, 2003




There once was a time about 15-20 years back when fallacies and falsehoods were called into question in the mainstream press. It was called investigative journalism

15-20 years ago was the reagan presidency, right? I remember a book called On Bended Knee about the press during those years... The left was equally frustrated by Reagan's ability to tell blatant lies, cover up illegal arms sales, and get away with hardly a scratch (the teflon president?).
posted by mdn at 8:08 PM on February 24, 2003


Oh, I found a nice little article detailing Bush's own accounting scandals while working at Harkin oil. But at least he wasn't involved with Enron, right?
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:22 PM on February 24, 2003


Oh, and I almost forgot this little party favor! I'm just some guy with internet, imagine what an independent prosecutor might find.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:26 PM on February 24, 2003


Are you seeing the lie yet, and if not, how can you possibly be so blind to the facts?

I'm still having a hard time seeing any relevance to this at all. Check the title of this very thread: 'Bush cited non-existent (r)eport'

The report exists.

Is 3.3% "substantial"? It's just hard to get all exited about this, 'predicated on' or not. Sorry.

Newsflash: George tells Barbara that he'll be home a 6:30, and doesn't show up until 7:00, (and he didn't even call!!)! That fascist warmongering election-bandit no-good two-timing wifebeater!!!! See?

dash_slot: said that Bush "is leading the world to war."

That glib choice of loaded words is as familiar as "no blood for oil" and almost as erroneous. You see, Hussein, and Hussein alone is responsible for leading the world to war.

Hussein is a tyrannical genocidal murderer, yet he has every option available to him to prevent conflict if he should so choose. He does not so choose. Hussein alone wants war. Bush is trying to encourage the U.N. to force Hussein to keep the armistice promises he made when he lost the Gulf War, in which he alone was the aggressor.

Not to derail, or to interrupt the Bush group-hug or anything.
posted by hama7 at 8:33 PM on February 24, 2003


as was the case with the plagiarized british intelligence report, i found little or no mention of this story at the websites for the national review, rush limbaugh, newsmax, or foxnews (as of 10:32 pm central time on 02/24/2003).

i'm afraid that to conservatives and other bush supporters, this means that none of this happened. and even if it did happen, it doesn't matter because bill clinton was a horrible, evil person who lied all the time, so a few bush lies mean nothing.

i really wonder what i did in a previous incarnation that has condemned me, along with all of my sisters and brothers around the world (even those of you who support mr. bush), to live in such interesting times.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:39 PM on February 24, 2003


hama7:

Your comments are right out of a Rush Limbaugh lambast or a Kent Beck tirade! A few pointers on this strategy for the uninitiated:

1) Change the topic, stupid! While we were discussing the blatant lies of our Commander in Chief in front of the wonderfully uninspired and inept press corp, you decide to bring tax cuts into the discussion. Bravo for fooling us.

2) Make blanket statements that completely miss the nuances and finer aspects of the conversation. Say things like, "You people DON'T WANT MORE MONEY IN YOUR POCKETS?" Well my friend, as off-topic as this is, it's a good distraction ploy. Bravo to you for once again fooling us.

3) Paint all those who do not agree with you as "them", color them with language like "leftists" to give them a negative connotation. Creative - and quite successful in the print and radio these days.

4) Neglect the fact that ** no policy ** is a simple matter, be it tax, education, economic, international, etc. etc. etc. As a favorite graduate school professor once said to me, "When you meet the man who has all the answers in a simple formula - run. Do not walk. Run. If everything were so damned simple, we would have figured it all out already."

Integrity is long gone in this country and as cheesy as it may sound, living without honor or integrity is ultimately an empty existence.
posted by tgrundke at 9:08 PM on February 24, 2003


we must have touched one of hama7's two nerves because now he wants to steer the thread in a direction he's more comfortable with.

yes, hussein's insatiable thirst for war is obvious considering his cooperation with inspectors, who have yet to find WMD, which we definitely know he has because bush would never lie. if his own-people-gassin' ass doesn't cough up something we can get mad about quickly, then clearly the only option even worth talking about is assassination (and they've been talking about it for quite some time now).

it's just not safe out there with war mongers like saddam around! the sooner we oust him and prop up a sham government ala Iran, Guatamela, Greece, Chile, etc. etc. etc. etc. then the safer we'll all be!
posted by mcsweetie at 9:12 PM on February 24, 2003


H7:

You know, I just read your most recent post where you state:
"That glib choice of loaded words is as familiar as "no blood for oil" and almost as erroneous. You see, Hussein, and Hussein alone is responsible for leading the world to war."

Once again you strengthen argument #1 made in my post above: Change the topic.

You are nothing, if not persistent. Keep up the grand work.
posted by tgrundke at 9:15 PM on February 24, 2003


Change the topic.

Response to dash_slot is a "change of topic"? O.K. have it your way.

This whole thing rests on a tax cut, and it's relationship to a "non-existent" document, which actually exists. Who is fabricating what? And how is that "off-topic"?

Or should I say "newsworthy"? Whichever. Let's move along.
posted by hama7 at 9:31 PM on February 24, 2003


George tells Barbara that he'll be home a 6:30, and doesn't show up until 7:00, (and he didn't even call!!)! That fascist warmongering election-bandit no-good two-timing wifebeater!!!! See?

Are you having trouble keeping your Bushes straight, or is there something kinkier going on that we should know about?

Perhaps you meant the fascist one who is also a deserter, and not his father the pious theocrat who actually did serve?


Let's move along.

Let's move on instead.

Also, I should point out that no one in this thread used the C-word until you did. Why? Is the pre-emptive strike meme already so widely spread?
posted by trondant at 10:43 PM on February 24, 2003


George tells Barbara

Right you are, sir. George tells Laura. Slip of the keyboard. Nice catch.

We now return to your regularly scheduled "pious theocrat", and "fascist" mud-wrestling contest.
posted by hama7 at 10:53 PM on February 24, 2003


I'm still having a hard time seeing any relevance to this at all. Check the title of this very thread: 'Bush cited non-existent (r)eport'

The report exists.


The news article also used the phrasing "the report does not exist." If you really want to get exactly articulate about the situation, Bush attributed conclusions to an existent report that the authors/publishers of said report say cannot reasonably be attributed to it. Yes, this is slightly different than citing a completely fictional study, but it's either (a) equally dishonest -- and therefore a brazen lie -- or (b) rather incompetent. There's no way around that (well... outside of the possibility that the news article and Blue Chip economists are lying).

But just so I can tick everyone off:

(1) For better or worse, the supreme court are, by the law itself, the arbiters/interpreters of the law. They took the 2000 election case before them and interpreted it in such a way that Bush won. Bush therefore legally won the election. I'm unhappy about it too, but I can't see how bringing up strengthens a logical position most any current political discussion, and it often weakens a rhetorical position. Best to just drop it.

(2) Clinton lied under oath. Perjury. No, I don't think the consequences of that are as bad as the unholy mess of policy the Bush Admin seems determined to unleash on the world. But maybe, just maybe, one of the consequences of the dismissive attitude Clinton supporters took towards said perjury was a further erosion of whatever was left of public officials' regard for telling the truth.
posted by namespan at 11:37 PM on February 24, 2003


Sorry to get off-track here, but damn it we've got to get this "election" business straight... I can handle having to endure the consequences, but the wink-and-nod let's just say he was "elected" bit--it drives me up the friggin wall.

hama7,
Your myopic glee and characterization of this impasse as Democrat vs. Republican issue is so damned typical.

A) I’m not a Democrat.
B) This is fundamentally at State vs. Federal jurisdiction issue.

Now are you genuinely having a hard time wrapping your mind around the scandalous implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in 2000, or are you just being coy because the decision favored a candidate you prefer?
‘Cause, I’ve got to tell you, a Federal court’s decision to effectively declare a state’s electorate, legislative and judicial apparatus untrustworthy and therefore unfit to elect a chief executive shouldn’t sit well with any self-respecting American.
The Constitution of the United States of America first had to be loosely interpreted (and I mean loose like a street corner whore, loose) before the Bush team’s case could be heard by a Federal court, to begin with. Secondly, the precedent that was set under that decision may very well have disastrous consequences on future elections, in states where the electorate is deemed too unpredictable for a candidate to risk.
The next time this happens, maybe five Supreme Court justices decide that they don’t think your state’s legislative and judicial branches are fit to sort out a tight election where you live. Maybe, they see an opportunity to save everyone the trouble of our messy democratic mechanism –so they step in and shut the whole lot of you down to declare a liberal Democratic president for the country. Maybe when the dust settles, you learn that voters in your state, along with the majority of voters in the nation, actually favored the Republican candidate. Maybe then it’ll become abundantly clear to you what an egregious offense the highest court in land committed against you and your representative democracy. Maybe, just maybe, then you’ll gag on your “stop whining ‘cause you lost” routine.
posted by Tiger_Lily at 12:27 AM on February 25, 2003


Maybe, just maybe, then you’ll gag on your “stop whining ‘cause you lost” routine.

(derail:) That's not my routine at all, but now that you mention it, there has been an awful lot of whining and wailing "fascist" and hanging the American flag upside-down. The fact is, Bush did win. And I live in South Korea.

Anyhoo, as namespan pointed out, Clinton was a perjurer, and not only lied under oath, but directly to the American people, and was only the second President in U.S.history to be impeached. Impeached. But we digress.

In any case, the existent report, which may or may not exist, and may or may not be an oversight or an outright lie, is one of the best arguments against the creeping "newsfilter" aspects of MetaFilter that I've seen in a long while. We don't know the whole story, because it's news, and it develops as such, and becomes irrelevant after two days.

Please, think of the children.
posted by hama7 at 2:02 AM on February 25, 2003


and may or may not be an oversight or an outright lie

That should read: and may or may not be a Bush oversight...et cetera.

Should "existent" be "extant"? Ah, English.
posted by hama7 at 2:06 AM on February 25, 2003


You're either a prop or you really are nuts. I mean, it's there in front of you man! Right there.

Are you paid by a PR firm to like, be here or something? I mean I'm glad and all that you're here. To argue with and all. But how on god's green Earth can you at all find no anti-Democratic fault on the Bush administration's part? This among other things: How? How? How? How?

How do you do it?

Oh yeah:

That's not my routine at all, but now that you mention it, there has been an awful lot of whining and wailing "fascist" and hanging the American flag upside-down. The fact is, Bush did win. And I live in South Korea.

Anyhoo, as namespan pointed out, Clinton was a perjurer, and not only lied under oath, but directly to the American people, and was only the second President in U.S.history to be impeached. Impeached. But we digress.


Is that like, the old bait and switch?

Please, think of the children.

Like the children you apparently think everybody other than yourself are?

Man. You gotta be some sorta' spook. Either that or you gotta a wierd lone-gunman: cyber-style type thing goin' on.

Do you ever step out of role?
posted by crasspastor at 2:42 AM on February 25, 2003


Do you ever step out of role?

What role? :)

And yes, I'm getting filthy rich from shadowy PR firms funding my MetaFilter comments.

Let's see what happen in the next 24 hours, father crassness.

On the "anti-democratic" front: the electoral college pretty much precludes the ideal of direct democracy. Is that what you mean?
posted by hama7 at 5:04 AM on February 25, 2003


If I were Karl Rove, I would arrange for the secret funding thousands of "Hama7's" to tie down - and so consume the political energy of - articulate people opposed to Bush Adm. policy through specious, provocative comments on internet forums.

It seems to work very efficiently here.

Behavior management theory would suggest "Planned Ignoring"
posted by troutfishing at 5:10 AM on February 25, 2003


"The forecast WITH that CONCLUSION doesn't exist."

I don't see how Hama7 can even try to refute this.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 6:06 AM on February 25, 2003


troutfishing:

Ah yes, but how do you know that Rove has not already cloned millions of H7s to spread the Gospel of the Lord Bush?
posted by tgrundke at 6:29 AM on February 25, 2003


Ah yes, but how do you know that Rove has not already cloned millions of H7s to spread the Gospel of the Lord Bush?

Henceforth to be known as "O' Defenders Of All Things Duhbya."

Some willingly sacrifice their own credibility in their loving blindness and servitude to the Boy King. Even Powell did it.
posted by nofundy at 6:55 AM on February 25, 2003


Unfortunately, hama7, it seems I owe you. After posting this, I kind of regretted it - there was the whole missing "r" issue and moreover there seemed not to be anything to discuss. Bush said there was a report that predicted economic growth due to his tax cuts. There wasn't one. There really wasn't much to discuss in that. If it hadn't been for you we'd all have made the usual lying dumbo jokes and called it a day and the thread would have garnered less than 20 comments.

You're a gift of the white elephant sort to the kind of person who measures the success of his/her threads by number of comments.

I'm not that kind of MeFier though. The next time I post, I do vow to select something more intrinsically interesting and complex so I don't have to rely on someone like you to spin out the discussion.
posted by orange swan at 7:07 AM on February 25, 2003


trgrundke - I don't! - That's why planned ignoring is such a good tactic.
posted by troutfishing at 7:23 AM on February 25, 2003


All right, jeebus, people, you get on H7 for being "anti-democratic" and a paranoid zealot, listen to yourselves! Doesn't he have the right to his own opinion? He may be wrong (or right even, not a judgement call at this time) but that doesn't make him crazy or evil or even stupid, it just means you don't agree, let's leave personal attacks out of this. He may (or may not, depending on your view) be ignorant or misguided or misinformed but that does not make him a nut or a moron. He has an opinion, you have yours and he could say the same things I've said about you.

Anyway, now let's get to the judgement calls:

I am a leftist, but I think George is our President. The Constitution is the letter of the law. No where in the Constitution does it say that the judicial branch can't make any decision it sees fit. The Supremes made their decision, whether politically motivated or wrong I feel it was, they made their decision, it was upheld by Florida, Bush got the electoral votes (as mandated by the Constitution) he is now the President. In a short while we'll thankfully have the opportunity to change that, but right now he's President. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you would hear Gore say today (in public) so I don't see why anyone else needs to say differently (especially those in our group that voted for Nader).

A tax cut for the rich along with an increase in government spending, hmm, sounds strikingly similar brilliant economic plans that had my middle class family eating tuna and ramen noodles every day back in the 80's?

Clinton lied, yep, he did, under oath even, he even got impeached by the House, yep, pretty crazy. I guess since he lied about getting a blow job, then that justifies all the Republican lies about bombings in Cambodia, shoddy burglarizing of the DNC headquarters, firebombing a psychologists office to cover another shoddy burglary (and planning to do the same at the Brookings Institute), arms sales to Iran, "No New Taxes", "We will bring Ossama to justice" suddenly, that blow job seems to diminish in significance, sort of like Andrew Johnson's "crimes" (being southern, not agreeing politically with the Republican congress, firing Stanton) back in the 19th century.

The Bush admin has made up some figures to suit their needs. Is it a huge deal, no, does it deserve this much debate, probably not, is it once again another example of a program of false financials based on speculative figures rather than actual numbers perpetrated by Texan MBA's, you bet your ass it is! Do I want to put up with it again? I'll once again let Dubya tell you how I feel about that.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:26 AM on February 25, 2003


I prefer to use this method found on Troutfishing's link:

Closes eyes tightly to not look at adult or activity

if that doesn't work I move on to plan B:

Removes clothing - pulls pants down to ankles
posted by Pollomacho at 7:33 AM on February 25, 2003


it's a little odd that hama7 is the only one in this thread calling bush a "fascist," despite his accusations that thats precisely what everyone else is doing.

in an unrelated story, my favorite character from The Wizard of Oz was the strawman.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:35 AM on February 25, 2003


hama7,
You have got to be kidding me. You’re sitting there trying to give a born and resident American the rough edge of your reason about the presidential election of 2000 and you live in South Korea? Are you out of your ever-loving mind brother, or just on the piss?
Well, well… Forgive a most unusual moment of dismissive bluntness from me here: Get buggered, numbty--we're finished discussing this or any U.S. domestic political issue.
posted by Tiger_Lily at 9:43 AM on February 25, 2003


rough edge of your reason
or just on the piss?
Get buggered, numbty

I can't help but notice that your expressions don't really sound all that American, unless you're Australiamerican, or Tasmaniamerican or something.

Jusy an idle observation, 'numbty'(?).
posted by hama7 at 3:28 PM on February 25, 2003


god, now there are foreigners on mefi!
posted by mcsweetie at 4:58 PM on February 25, 2003


"Kill them all, and let God sort them out"
posted by troutfishing at 11:17 PM on February 25, 2003


A motherfucking men.
posted by crasspastor at 1:20 AM on February 26, 2003


« Older Living in poverty and fear of abandonment, the...   |   Sick? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post