COL Gene

Dan Rather files lawsuit over Bush National Guard Story

▼

Dan Rather files lawsuit over Bush National Guard Story

from JoeUser Forums
Dan Rather filed a $70 Million dollar lawsuit against CBS for being the “fall guy” over the Bush Texas Air National Guard story. The controversy over the authenticity of the order given Bush by his Commanding Officer to take a Required Flight Physical was the only issue everyone wanted to focus on. The facts about Bush and his service in the Air Guard were not important. In reality this story has many more issues the most important of which is how Bush got an Honorable Discharge without which he could never have run for Governor of Texas much less President of the United States.

The issues and questions that are part of the Bush National Guard service include the following:


How did Bush obtain his Commission?

Why did Bush seek a National Guard Commission?

Did Bush attend the required drills?

Did Bush participate in required training exercise?

Did Bush maintain his Flight Qualification by:

Attending the required drills?

By taking the required Flight Physical?

Did Bush receive an Order from his commander to take the Flight Physical?

Was a Board of Inquiry convened to investigate the grounding of Bush?

Where is the report from the Board of Inquiry?

Why did George Bush refuse to take his Flight Physical?

How did Bush receive his early release?

How did Bush get an Honorable Discharge given his refusal to take a physical and attend drills in Texas as ordered?
politics
27,989 views 104 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you really think all that pork was added by Republicans only?


yes you see when the democrats add pork they change parties. after it is passed they change back
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
the last time they raised taxes we ended up in a recession.


The last time Federal taxes were increased was Bush 41 Read My Lips-- That helped balance the budget and gave us the best decade in our history - the 1990's. That PROVES that higher taxes on the wealthy will not harm the economy. We need to balance the budget and stop borrowing like Bush and the GOP has done. As for spending, Bush has increased spending and added more to the debt then ALL the DEMOCREAS in HISTORY combined. Any one that supports Bush and the GOP has no right to talk about increased spending! Bush and the GOP proved that from 2001 -2006!
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 27, 2007Do you really think all that pork was added by Republicans only?yes you see when the democrats add pork they change parties. after it is passed they change back


There has been more pork and increased spending since 2001 the EVER in our history. Earmarks increased 10 Times under Bush. Bush and the GOP in Congress increased entitlements more then any time since Johnson in the 1960's with the prescription Drug Plan with NO money to pay for that added benefit! Bush and the GOP controlled Congress added $4 TRILLION dollars to the national debt! They spent a Trillion dollars on an unneeded war that has all been borrowed!


Bush told us we had a $5.7 Trillion Dollar surplus and there was NOT ONE CENT of any SURPLUS. The Bush Surplus is the same place as the WMD in Iraq!
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
they want to bring about universal health care. spendingthey want to give all new borns 1000 for retirement. spendingthey want to give all new borns 5000 for education. spendingthey want to give everybody a free house. spending.


Here is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats--

The GOP spent money on an unneeded war and many of their supporters made a fortune.

The GOP gave big tax cuts to the wealthy.

The GOP gave big tax cuts to OIL companies

Everything the GOP did goes to the people who have at all.

The increased spending you claim the democrats want helps the low and middle income Americans. I would rather spend money on the masses then to feather the nests of the wealthy and Big Business!
Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
The 90s? You mean where Clinton inhereted an expanding economy and passed a recession on to Bush?

All Clinton did was bring an end to the longest era of economic growth in US history.
Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top
The last time Federal taxes were increased was Bush 41 Read My Lips


the last time federal taxes were raised was 5 days after Clinton took office. the economy took a nose dive. yes it took 7 years for it to bottom out but it still ended in a recession.
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
The increased spending you claim the democrats want helps the low and middle income Americans. I would rather spend money on the masses then to feather the nests of the wealthy and Big Business!


You are such a hypocrite gene.  In one thread you scream about no more additional spending, but then you defend democrats with their useless social programs.  You are truly a DNC hack.


Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would rather spend money on the masses then to feather the nests of the wealthy and Big Business!


And that is where you and I differ, Col. I would rather NOT spend the money and cut the taxes.

We can agree, though, on the need to stop corporate welfare. I just think we should stop individual welfare as well.
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply | Edit | DeleteReply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Tuesday, November 27, 2007The 90s? You mean where Clinton inhereted an expanding economy and passed a recession on to Bush?All Clinton did was bring an end to the longest era of economic growth in US history.


First, Most of the Clinton time was great and all that is NOT because of Bush 41 who was the last president to INCREASE TAXES. The recession started in the last year of Clinton and continued about 3-4 years into the Bush years.

Reply By: Island DogPosted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007The increased spending you claim the democrats want helps the low and middle income Americans. I would rather spend money on the masses then to feather the nests of the wealthy and Big Business!You are such a hypocrite gene. In one thread you scream about no more additional spending, but then you defend democrats with their useless social programs. You are truly a DNC hack.


Say what you want-- I support policies that help average person over policies that help Big Business and the very wealthy!

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007I would rather spend money on the masses then to feather the nests of the wealthy and Big Business!And that is where you and I differ, Col. I would rather NOT spend the money and cut the taxes.We can agree, though, on the need to stop corporate welfare. I just think we should stop individual welfare as well.




There are times when it is necessary to spend money. To help push an effective energy program. To secure our borders and ports. To help our children get an education so they can be successful and continue the greatness of this country. To keep the promises made to those who have worked their lives and now must rely on those promises to help them live during retirement. To maintain the infrastructure of this country so future generations can enjoy this country. There are MANY reasons why it is FAR mote important to spend money then CUT TAXES for the wealthy!

Thank GOD the majority do not agree with your ideas!!!!!
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
Say what you want-- I support policies that help average person over policies that help Big Business and the very wealthy!


You support welfare and a nanny state.  Heavily taxing employers and business is not smart.


Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
st, Most of the Clinton time was great and all that is NOT because of Bush 41 who was the last president to INCREASE TAXES. The recession started in the last year of Clinton and continued about 3-4 years into the Bush years.


On this we agree, Bush 41 didn't do a thing one way or the other when it came to the economy... He merely enjoyed the ride started by the policies of Prs. Reagen. It's too bad Prs. Clinton didn't follow suit, instead of claiming credit for economic growth he killed.
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, Most of the Clinton time was great and all that is NOT because of Bush 41 who was the last president to INCREASE TAXES. The recession started in the last year of Clinton and continued about 3-4 years into the Bush years.


you cannot change history by ignoring it.


bill Clinton not only raised taxes, he made them retroactive. that means that he decided that nobody had payed enough taxes the year before. not only that but thanks to Clinton we, those of us who pay taxes, pay taxes on tax returns. tax returns have already been taxed once.
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
Say what you want-- I support policies that help average person over policies that help Big Business and the very wealthy!


you support policies that are supposed to help the average person, they usually don't, and you support policies that will destroy small businesses. big business will survive, but they will have fewer jobs and employees.
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
The recession started in the last year of Clinton and continued about 3-4 years into the Bush years.


the recession started on black tuesday when the stock market crashed.
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007Say what you want-- I support policies that help average person over policies that help Big Business and the very wealthy!You support welfare and a nanny state. Heavily taxing employers and business is not smart.


The tax rates on the wealthy in effect during the 1990's were NOT HIGH!!!
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
The tax rates on the wealthy in effect during the 1990's were NOT HIGH!!!


It's not the 90's anymore gene.  Your opinion of what is high is different than everyone elses.  You advocate class warfare, plain and simple.


Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007The recession started in the last year of Clinton and continued about 3-4 years into the Bush years.the recession started on black tuesday when the stock market crashed.


"Black Tuesday" was on October 29, 1929 and started the Great Depression!
Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top
Black Tuesday" was on October 29, 1929 and started the Great Depression!


then black friday or when ever the market crashed during clinton.
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply | Edit | DeleteReply By: Island DogPosted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007The tax rates on the wealthy in effect during the 1990's were NOT HIGH!!!It's not the 90's anymore gene. Your opinion of what is high is different than everyone elses. You advocate class warfare, plain and simple.


No my opinion is in Agreement with the vast majority and with the results during the 1990's! There is nothing that feeds class warfare more then Bush and is transfer of wealth from the middle income to the wealthy! “George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich”
Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank GOD the majority do not agree with your ideas!!!!!


Pushing for a theocracy, I see?

Why, then, do you condemn the right for doing the same?

Boy, Gene, you just may be the meanest, nastiest individual I've come across. And you have the gaul (misspelled on purpose, in homage to MM) to accuse ME of not holding Christian ideals?!?
Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top
“George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich”


this is a good analogy. since robin hood stole from the government. and what you keep saying so is bush.


keep it up bush the modern day robin hood.
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
No my opinion is in Agreement with the vast majority and with the results during the 1990's! There is nothing that feeds class warfare more then Bush and is transfer of wealth from the middle income to the wealthy! “George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich”


What do you know about the "vast majority"?  If the vast majority wanted a welfare, socialist state as you do, democrats would always be in power.  Stop speaking about something you don't know about.

Bush hasn't transfered anything, no matter what the title of your so-called book says.  People make their own income, and should not be punished by higher taxes to pay for social programs.


Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007Thank GOD the majority do not agree with your ideas!!!!! Pushing for a theocracy, I see?


No for a Democracy where the WILL of the Majority is followed!
Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007No my opinion is in Agreement with the vast majority and with the results during the 1990's! There is nothing that feeds class warfare more then Bush and is transfer of wealth from the middle income to the wealthy! “George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich”What do you know about the "vast majority"? If the vast majority wanted a welfare, socialist state as you do, democrats would always be in power. Stop speaking about something you don't know about.


LOOK at the election results in 2006. People are NOT in agreement with the policies we are following and you will see MORE of that desire for change in 2008. The leading GOP candidates support the current policies and no American who wants change should vote for them!
Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top
No for a Democracy where the WILL of the Majority is followed!


Oh, ok, so you are calling for the abolition of the Constitution...

curiouser and curiouser. One might even call you an enemy of the state for calling for the outlawing of the Constitution.

You see, the Constitution does not call for a direct Democracy, but outlines the duties of the federal government. It relegates to the states the powers not specifically outlined in the Constitution. Meaning things like universal health care or social security, when implemented at the federal level, are, by their very nature, unConstitutional.

Too bad we don't have enough people with the cojones to challenge it.