Roll video, GeeDub, Oval Office, dark suit red tie…
“My fellow Merkins. I did it. Lied through my teeth, piled bullshit upon bullshit, whole damned time, hoooooo-doggies! the whoppers I told!..(and so on and so forth…)”
We: “There you have it! Pretty much settles that!..”
They: “Well, how do you know he’s telling the truth now! After all, you guys are all on about what a liar he is, how do you know he’s not lying now and was telling the truth then?”
Wheeeee!
Because she’s quickly morphing into a raving fruitcake providing the opposition with a steady stream of soundbites to be used against the anti war people.
http://www.xanax.com/content.asp?id=2&sid=3
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/anger.html
http://www.mhsanctuary.com/suicide/hotline.htm
Good luck on your journey, Finn.
Good point!
(So I guess this means you’re acknowledging that no irrefutable proof outside of Bush’s word really does exist; and secondly, that we’ll never know exactly whether he lied or not. This is most gratifying as it’s what we on the other side have been saying all along.)
Ah, another devestating factual rebuttal. It’s a wonder that the Dope functions at all when you’re away.
Oh and, by the way, not one single one of your links works. You can’t even do that right. Pathetic.
to you Starving.
There is a mountain of evidence, and it hasn’t been refuted. We don’t need a signed confession. And, in any case, the DSM is what Bush told the Brits. Instead, you might say that no evidence, short of Bush admitting it, would convince some of his supporters.
No…because as Elucidator so insightfully (ahem) elucidated, we would then have no way to establish whether he had lied about the war, or whether he had lied about lying about the war.
Man, I gotta get some of you Bush supporters on a jury if I ever kill anybody in cold blood with a dozen witnesses. It’s like a get out of jail free card!
Yes, but you’d have to be a Republican first; otherwise we’d say “Hell, yeah…string the sumbitch up!”.
Crazy is the new “card-carrying liberal,” don’tcha understand? These days, right-wingers positively trip over themselves to be the first to tar those who speak out against Bush with the “delusional” brush. Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Dan Rather, (9/11 widow) Kristin Braitweiser, Cindy Sheehan … they’re all cuckoo according to these flailing, pathetic Bush-defenders. Since the talking point is that Cindy’s crazy, they repeat it over and over again in their echo chambers.
And it’s so effective that even some lefties are falling over backwards to stiff-arm Sheehan, afraid to associate themselves with her. Just look at the first few posts on this thread from many known SDMB liberals, all basically saying “Cindy S. doesn’t count.”
Through all this, no one actually has any reasons for believing she’s delusional. It’s just the latest meaningless meme the right is trying to spread, like “blame game” was last week. And for the third time, if she’s delusional because she calls N.O. “occupied,” then you’d better fucking call Brian Williams delusional as well.
Disagreeing with you is NOT crazy, rightwingers. (Indeed, to some that may be the very definition of sanity.)
Now to the hijack…
Yes, well, perhaps you’ll forgive me if I trust respected experts, authors and journalists such as Kevin Phillips, Charles Lewis, Lou Dubose, and Craig Unger far more than some anonymous dude on a message board, no matter how many posts he has.
(I learned my facts from sources such as this Texas Observer article, not to mention the aforementioned American Dynasty by conservative Kevin Phillips, Bushwacked by Lou Dubose & Molly Ivans, the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, among many many others.)
Drove the price up? Not quite. Bush sold his stock after the board was told Harken was in serious financial trouble. He then hurriedly sold his stock for $4 per share prior to the release of this news. And after Harken’s fiscal crisis (a 60% plunge in profits) was revealed, the stock spiraled down 20% in a single day, eventually selling for only $1 per share.
This, to you, is a positive development for investors? I can’t imagine that the folks who sold their shares for $3 less than Bush would agree with you. But then again, neither I nor these unfortunate members of the hoi polloi are experts.
Here’s the timeline:
Note: when questioned later, Bush claimed he didn’t know about the company’s financial condition. Odd, since he was on their audit committee!
June 1990: Harken’s lawyers also sent out a memo, this one warning everyone against selling based on insider information.
A week after the attorney memo, Bush sold his 200,000 some-odd Harken shares for $800K, grabbing $4 per share.
Note: Bush also neglected to file the required SEC insider forms for eight months, despite having been specifically warned to file timely insider reports a few times before. He claims the SEC lost his filing.
Bush was investigated but cleared by the SEC. So he MUST be innocent, right? Why else would the SEC clear him? I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the SEC chairman at the time had been appointed by Bush Sr. himself. And that the SEC’s counsel had actually worked for GWB, helping with his Texas Rangers purchase. One big happy family!
Anyway, let’s look at your five requirements for suspecting skulduggery:
Harken was in serious financial straits, unable to make its June 15 payroll, and would soon to reveal $26 million in 2nd quarter losses.
Well, the internal memo was sent to all directors, including Bush. One must assume he posessed it (unless the dog ate that along with Bush’s SEC filing).
GWB sold his stock less than a month later for $4 a share. You claim that this is a coincidence, that W desperately needed the money to buy the Rangers. I say, bullshit. Bush already had a loan from the bank on whose board of directors he comfortably sat. (The very sort of loan he’d complain about once he became President, btw. But that’s irrelevant.)
It was material, according to your definition, because investors who sold after learning of the losses wouldn’t have gotten the same price Bush got for it.
The losses? Immediately after the release of the bad fiscal news, Harken’s stock went down 20%. That seems like a loss to li’l ol’ non-144-expert me.
Bush was a success in obtaining money – not earning it. Claiming he’s a “self-made” anything makes Horatio Alger turn over in his grave.
Indeed, I couldn’t agree more. It’s being liberal that’s crazy!
Being a good Republican, I always thought earning money was the same as obtaining it, and that obtaining it was the same as earning it. Isn’t this really just six of one and a half-dozen of the other?
And I suspect that the opinion of Horatio Hornblower (as Carter is wont to say) would depend to a large degree on his political persuasion…not the “self-made” comment. (Just like you and just like me, huh?)
By that definition, mobsters earn their money, too.
Six of one, half dozen of another, after all.
Depends on the context. My post was based on the supposition no illegality was involved in Bush’s business dealings. This supposition is based of course, on the fact that so far (amazingly) no one here has alleged any.
Nuh uh Starving. Check back on one of my posts where I pointed out that, at least 11 million dollars in land grabs that Bush made for the rangers were, if not illegal per se (or a crime), certianly not legal.
This explains a lot about contemporary kleptocratic Republicanism, doesn’t it?
Ah, I see you’re a member in good standing of the “words don’t mean what they mean, they mean whatever I want them to mean” school of liberalism. Freedom is a wonderful thing I know…but too much freedom results in anarchy.
I prefer to think that if Bush’s activities weren’t illegal (a crime), then they were legal (and not a crime). N’est pas?
So you claim that the land grabs which were not legal and which nobody was prosecuted for are… what?
Come on, Finn, you’re losing perspective here. Your own words were that Bush’s so-called land grabs were “not illegal per se.” If they’re not illegal, per se, they’re not illegal…period!
Apart from that, and in attempt to be honest here, I must confess I know nothing about Bush’s so-called “land grabs”, it’s just that common sense dictates that if they had been illegal, Bush would have been brought to account for them…especially given the tremendous amount of hatred heaped upon him by the left.
Starvin’, darlin’, for the moment I pass no judgment on whether or not Bush earned his money. The expression “self-made” is usually reserved for those who start out with little or nothing and become successful.
I don’t think the posts are saying that Cindy doesn’t count. Liberals generally think everyone counts. Speaking only for myself, I disagree with her on some issues and I think that her message is becoming unfocused. I never automatically agree with someone just because she or he is also liberal. That doesn’t mean that I am dismissive.
BTW, I really like your sources.