News Can You Find a Flip-Flop? A Challenge to Bush Fans

[wasteofo2]

Alright, to counter-act GENIERE's thread about being able to find a flip-flop about every stance Kerry's ever taken, I challenge you Bush fans to come up with stances that Bush's taken, and I'll see if I can't find an instance where he's flip-floped about his stance on it, or outright lied about it (ie. said he would buy a red house, bought a brown one).

So, go nuts.

And just to be fair, I'm not going to choose out flip-flops, expose them, and then give myself points, I'll only try to expose flip-flopping/lying about an issue someone else brings up.

 

[Gokul43201]

Is this necessary ? I'm sure there are more useful things you can do with your time...

 

[wasteofo2]

Is this necessary ? I'm sure there are more useful things you can do with your time...

Ya know, at 1:32 in the morning on a Thursday(the time I made this thread), I generally don't have very many useful things I can do, so trying to make people realize Bush isn't the straight talker with strong convictions he claims to be seems like an alright alternative to eating cookies and watching bad sitcoms. Hell, what is there that teenagers really do past midnight on weekdays during the summer besides go out and get drunk/high?

 

[GENIERE]

http://www.climatevision.gov/statements.html
Today, I make our investment in science even greater. My administration will establish the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative to study areas of uncertainty and identify priority areas where investments can make a difference.

 

[wasteofo2]

http://www.climatevision.gov/statements.html
Today, I make our investment in science even greater. My administration will establish the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative to study areas of uncertainty and identify priority areas where investments can make a difference.

Alright, let's see...

He claims he wants sound policies based on sound science, agree?

"More than 60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels. "
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381

Ok, so a bunch of top scientists think Bush actually ended up lying, and hasn't used sound science in his policies. But that's a general thing, involving many issues, though it does include things about the Bush administration distorting the science about global warming/pollution, I'll try to get to a much more specific thing than scientists saying Bush distorts science.

Here are a few quotes from the article you linked to:
"Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the Earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution."

"We all believe technology offers great promise to significantly reduce emissions -- especially carbon capture, storage and sequestration technologies."

And here's a quote from a campaign outline on Bush's environmental plan if elected from (you guessed it) before he was elected.

"Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide."

It seems evident Bush understands Carbon Dioxide is causing global warming, is a danger, and it's emissions should be slowed, right?

"I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act,"
-Bush in a letter to Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator of Nebraska.

So, not only has he reversed his position on whether or not CO2 should be regulated, he's also had the less important flip flop of saying originally that CO2 is a pollutant, then not.

So is that enough of a flip-flop for you?

I think that easily denotes 1 point to Bush's Flip Flopping column.

Total score:
Bush lying/flip-flopping: 1
Bush staying consitant/straight-talking: 0

 

[Gokul43201]

You're supposed to say, in bold, "Total Score : Flip/Lie - 1, No Flip/No Lie - 0"

 

[Artman]

In 2002 the president proposed the following:

Tightening of immigration, border control, extradition and secrecy laws.

New measures to protect power plants, water supplies, bridges and other critical infrastructure assets.

Nationwide standards for state drivers licenses.

I've seen evidence of all of these. Just as promised. Whether or not you agree with them, he has done them.

 

[Adam]

"Is our kids still learning?" ~ Bush.

 

[Gza]

I've seen evidence of all of these. Just as promised

Can we see some evidence of all these (post some resources) ?

 

[Artman]

Can we see some evidence of all these (post some resources) ?

Very reasonable request. I have tried to provide some real world examples.

http://www.drba.net/about/mins/files/200401minutes.pdf

The part on security is at the end of page 2.

Shortly after the President's address concerning these issues I had seen fencing and lights added to bridge areas that used to be highly accessible. I have also seen fencing go up around water works in several areas.

http://www.afsa.org/StateVP/FromMDOT.cfm

“Understandably, since the tragic events on September 11, even more stringent licensing requirements are in effect in Maryland.”

I know many people in NJ as well that have had trouble renewing their licenses because of stricter requirements.

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/news/20020722_e.asp

Friends of mine just returned from a trip to Canada. They took two cousins that were German citizens. They were very glad they had their passports when coming back into the USA.

I also work for an engineering firm that does a lot of State work in DE. It is much more difficult to get into state facilities than it used to be.

 

[GENIERE]

Are there no rules in this thread? He did what he said he would do. No post's have or can state otherwise. Useless thread!

 

[Dissident Dan]

What about the immigration amnesty? How is that a tightening of immigration?

 

[wasteofo2]

In 2002 the president proposed the following:

Tightening of immigration, border control, extradition and secrecy laws.

Are you kidding me?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36831

Earlier this year Bush proposed a plan giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, and because of it, even more illegal immigrants decided to sneak into the USA, needless to say, he's backed off of that brilliant idea of his.

Bush may have put up some more fences and more lights on highways, but due to his ideas for policy, he's actually encouraged what he sought to diminsih. This isn't a flip-flop so much as a horrible failure.

Total score:
Bush lying/flip-flopping: 1
Bush staying consitant/straight-talking: 0
Bush's goals failing miserably because of stupidity: 1

New measures to protect power plants, water supplies, bridges and other critical infrastructure assets.

Nationwide standards for state drivers licenses.

I've seen evidence of all of these. Just as promised. Whether or not you agree with them, he has done them.

Please provide specific examples citing Bush for proposing/promising to do each of these specific things, because the way you stated all this, it's very vague, cite exactly what he said he would do, and I'll try to find if I can find a time where he said he'd do something different, or just didn't do what he promised.

 

[wasteofo2]

Are there no rules in this thread? He did what he said he would do. No post's have or can state otherwise. Useless thread!

There are rules, well, more like an outline: "I challenge you Bush fans to come up with stances that Bush's taken, and I'll see if I can't find an instance where he's flip-floped about his stance on it, or outright lied about it (ie. said he would buy a red house, bought a brown one)."
And why're you complaining about it, your outline was just you provide the stance, I'll provide the flip-flop, then you gave yourself a point for picking out something stupid Kerry's said. At least I didn't give myself points by juxtaposing campaign promises of not involving our troops abroad and being opposed to nation building with the current events in Iraq/Afghanistan, or show him saying "I want to be a peace President" and "You have to remember, I'm a war President".

Bush, as I showed before, did not do what he said he would do in regards to the environment, and while he may have meant to lessen illegal immigration, his announcement of his amnisty plan actually caused an increase in illegal immigration. I don't care if you say that no one can or has shown Bush hasn't done what he says, when I've shown it, when Bush himself has realized and attempted to justify his own flip-flops on things like nation building and keeping strong ties with allies.


And...
What's this?
Do I smell...
A FLIP-FLOP?

Geniere, I wonder if you could come up with a stance Bush's taken that you feel he's been consistant on, and let me see if I can find a flip-flop he's preformed, or an outright lie he's told in regards to it.

Wasteof2 - Start your own thread - I'l play.

But then, you say this is a useless thread, and don't play? Sounds like a fish on a wooden deck to me.

Or could it be, you realize Bush doesn't keep consistant stances on any issues that matter? Perhaps he has taken a consistant stance on the drivers liscence thing mentioned before, but things like the economy, foreign policy, health-care, social issues, scientific issues, immigration, he's been all over the place, flip-flopping and lying his way through life.

 

[Artman]

I don't see Bush as a flip flop type of person. You may not agree with his plans, but he seems to me to stick by them, at least in intent. For instance, the immigration plan was not intended to increase illegal immigrants. The intention was to control the status of the ones already coming in. Whether or not this worked is another issue. It was certainly not intended to increase the possibility of dangerous illegal immigrants gaining access to our country.

In my opinion, George W. Bush is the strongest leader this country has had in a long time. I am not saying he is the best, but I do feel that he is the strongest (largely due to a congress majority in his party).

Look around you, actually many of the changes are frightening, this is what I think scares many of the people who do not agree with his plans. He has the power and resolve to get things that he wants accomplished.

 

[Adam]

Sticking to a plan isn't necessarily good. Hitler could stick to a plan too.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't see Bush as a flip flop type of person.

That's why Waste included the lying/misleading clause. I think it's better to flip-flop than to mislead the country and govern through misinformation.

 

[wasteofo2]

I don't see Bush as a flip flop type of person. You may not agree with his plans, but he seems to me to stick by them, at least in intent. For instance, the immigration plan was not intended to increase illegal immigrants. The intention was to control the status of the ones already coming in. Whether or not this worked is another issue. It was certainly not intended to increase the possibility of dangerous illegal immigrants gaining access to our country.

The fact is, Bush presents himself as a straight-talker, and you've obviously been caught up in that image. I started this so you could cite something Bush's said that you think he's been consistant on, and I'll try SHOW you that in many cases he either flip-flopped to that position, or flat out lied about what he was going to do in relation to it. Look at the thing I posted earlier about the environment, you can read varying Bush quotes that show he's either a flip-flopper or a liar.

 

[Artman]

Sticking to a plan isn't necessarily good. Hitler could stick to a plan too.

Hitler was also a strong leader. Not a good one, but a strong one.

That's why Waste included the lying/misleading clause.

Yeah, I figured that was why. That is why I only mentioned the flip-flop part.

I think it's better to flip-flop than to mislead the country and govern through misinformation.

Then we have the question of whether it is lying or just bad information. Do appropriate actions applied to bad information make him a bad leader? Of course if the information is discovered to be wrong I would not mind a flip-flop to adjust.

The fact is, Bush presents himself as a straight-talker, and you've obviously been caught up in that image. I started this so you could cite something Bush's said that you think he's been consistant on, and I'll try SHOW you that in many cases he either flip-flopped to that position, or flat out lied about what he was going to do in relation to it. Look at the thing I posted earlier about the environment, you can read varying Bush quotes that show he's either a flip-flopper or a liar.

What I am saying is that if GWB sets his mind on a goal, it seems to get accomplished. I don't think he gives a rat's butt on environmental issues and therefore he may have flipped on this issue. I don't necessarily see it as weak leadership (those who are worried about those issues probably disagree).

By the way guys, I expected some flaming on my last post, you've all been very well behaved.

 

[kcballer21]

Sticking to a plan isn't necessarily good.

Exactly, I am pretty sick of hearing the rhetoric from the RNC that Bush "makes the tough decisions and sticks to them." I'm not even going to insult the intelligence of those who participate in this forum by listing examples of "tough decisions" that turned out to be wrong decisions. Being strong is a good trait but being sensible and humble are not all bad. Zell Miller might as well go on about how stubborn the president is and how that makes him "fit" for command. Oh and to stay in line with the topic of this thread, I love the flip-flop about the war on terrorism being unwinnable to "we will win." I think Bush was telling the truth at first but he obviously felt the pressure not only from the left but from his base, many of which will take what they want to hear over the truth.

 

[wasteofo2]

Hitler was also a strong leader. Not a good one, but a strong one.

I really disagree with this, it's no secret how much Rommel hated him for his horrible leadership, it's no secret that he LOST, it's no secret that as he was losing, he used children and retards to continue to fight. Certainly you can see that being able to change your mind when presented with a different situation is a virtue, right?

Then we have the question of whether it is lying or just bad information. Do appropriate actions applied to bad information make him a bad leader? Of course if the information is discovered to be wrong I would not mind a flip-flop to adjust.

You're obviously talking about the war in Iraq, I'm not even saying he lied about that, I'm saying he's lied about TONS of other stuff and flipp flopped on tons of more stuff.

What I am saying is that if GWB sets his mind on a goal, it seems to get accomplished. I don't think he gives a rat's butt on environmental issues and therefore he may have flipped on this issue. I don't necessarily see it as weak leadership (those who are worried about those issues probably disagree).

By the way guys, I expected some flaming on my last post, you've all been very well behaved.

And what I'm saying, is GWB lies about what he will do, changes his mind frequently, and when he does set his mind on a goal (slowing illegal immigration, lowering taxes, winning the peace in iraq), it often fails miserably. Please dude, quote a stance Bush has taken that you feel he's been consistant about, something you feel is a vital part of his character (being pro-choice, being for lowering taxes, ANYTHING!), and I will try to show you that your perception of him as a strong leader who takes a stance and stands by it isn't true, and you've just been decieved.

 

[Gokul43201]

Okay, this thread is being hijacked from its intended purpose. So Waste, I challenge you :

We know Bush is a straight talker when it comes to the economy.

Apr 2003 : "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax."

Dec 2003 (and several other times; in fact, we heard this again 2 days back from Pataki) : "In 2002, our economy was still recovering from the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, and it was pulling out of a recession that began before I took office."

So Waste, can you prove that either Bush's tax cuts don't help everyone, or that his claim of resuscitating the economy from the inherited recession was either misleading or was later reversed ?

 

[plover]

Hitler was also a strong leader. Not a good one, but a strong one.

I'm quite sure how you're defining strong here. If you just mean 'given a lot of power'. I can't disagree. He has a Republican congress to work with, and was granted extra powers after 9/11 with no thought applied to how long they should be granted, or what result they should be tied to. The U.S. president, however, is not supposed to be able to be a dictator. The constitution was designed to prevent that.

If you mean 'convinces people to follow him', then I'm utterly unconvinced. Some people hated Clinton, but more of the American people agreed with his policies than with Bush's, and he could get things done even with Congress against him. George H. W. Bush got wide international support for his actions (in Iraq anyway), something which the current president has signally failed at.

Then we have the question of whether it is lying or just bad information. Do appropriate actions applied to bad information make him a bad leader? Of course if the information is discovered to be wrong I would not mind a flip-flop to adjust.

The third choice is incompetence. Even when a leader makes correct decisions, if his plans to carry out those decisions are a complete shambles, he is a bad leader. If a leader makes the correct decision based on bad information, but good information was available, then he is a bad leader. (Anyone who thinks the latter has not happened may try to defend the administration's reliance on Ahmed Chalabi.)

Here's a challenge: find a description of Bush's leadership style that shows that he wields power in a fashion more suited to a democratic leader than a feudal lord or a gangster. (Simplistic definitions of 'democratic leader', 'feudal lord', and 'gangster' not allowed. Saying he doesn't assassinate his enemies is beside the point, that's a tactic not a leadership style -- plus, his minions are arguably guilty of character assassination anyway. I am actually interested to see if someone can do this, but I will probably not respond to intellectually dishonest attempts. Comparison to Kerry doesn't count, if Bush is worth defending, then defend him on his own merits.)

 

[wasteofo2]

Okay, this thread is being hijacked from its intended purpose. So Waste, I challenge you :

We know Bush is a straight talker when it comes to the economy.

Speak for yourself, it was Bush's panel of economic guys who predicted 7 MILLION new jobs from 2002 to 2003. Plus, Bush will now be the only president to loose jobs since hoover, and yet tries to tell everyone that if you say the economy isn't that good you're just a pessimist. Anyway, onto your topics:

Apr 2003 : "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax."

The average joe got around $300 in federal tax rebates, so the average joe is infact paying a lower rate of federal income tax. That statement would have been 100% true, and not misleading in any way if he had just said "reduce federal income tax rates", HOWEVER, he just said it would reduce tax rates. The states, as a whole, are not doing as well under Bush as they were under Clinton, and due to poor economic policy by Bush, state, county, and village taxes have gone up in most places in the country. Ask any average joewho pays taxes to look at the state, county, and village taxes they payed in 1999, and then look at the state, county, and village taxes they payed in 2003, and in almost every case, the state, county and village taxes would have raised so much as to cost the average joe well more than the $300 income tax credit they got.

The non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that “A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis.”

The following sub-sections of their website outlines how Bush's tax cuts, and other economic policies, are costing states and local governments to need to raise taxes:
Fact Sheet: http://www.cbpp.org/5-12-04sfp-fact.htm
Full Report: http://www.cbpp.org/5-12-04sfp.htm
State By State outline: http://www.cbpp.org/5-12-04sfp-states.htm

While that shows pretty much that Bush's tax plan is a failure, and he was totally wrong in what he thought it would do, that just shows Bush is a failure/idiot, not a flip-flopper. I'd like to have people actually post STANCES, like "I think that x should be done', or "I think that y is morally unacceptable".

Dec 2003 (and several other times; in fact, we heard this again 2 days back from Pataki) : "In 2002, our economy was still recovering from the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, and it was pulling out of a recession that began before I took office."

So Waste, can you prove that either Bush's tax cuts don't help everyone, or that his claim of resuscitating the economy from the inherited recession was either misleading or was later reversed

The National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that the recession started in March 2001, not under Clinton, and has all sorts of explanations of why they say that was the time the recession started, and graphs etc.

"The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession."
-http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

Certainily, in 2002, out economy was recovering from a recession, and 9/11 defiantely hurt the economy, but the recession did start under Bush, according to the NBER.

And while the quote you provided didn't say anything about resuscitating the economy, I would disagree that he's done any helpful resuscitation. We've had plenty of recessions since the great depression, and yet Bush 43 will be the only President to loose jobs in a term since Herbert Hoover, and I don't think I need to cite that.

Besides that, a recent Cencus Burea report showed 1.3 million more people were in poverty in 2003 than in 2002, that "the number of people in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cash-welfare program fell 4.3 percent from March 2002 to 2003, from nearly 5.19 million to 4.96 million. And the number of families on welfare fell 2 percent, from 2.08 million to 2.04 million."
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03hi.html
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030903-105027-1481r.htm

So with MORE people going into poverty, losing welfare, and jobs being lost, it's rather hard to say that the economy has been resuscitated by Bush, and I'd certainly call them AT LEAST misleading, but more bluntly, lies.

Hmm, but no straight out flip-flopping from your quotes, only lies and failures...

Total score:
Bush lying/flip-flopping/failing: 4 (lied about tax cuts lowering tax burden on people, lied about inheriting economy, lied that the economy was recovering when jobs were being lost, more people are falling into poverty and loosing welfare coverage)
Bush staying consitant/straight-talking: 0

 

[wasteofo2]

Why no more challenges? No russ, no phatmonkey, why is it? Could it be they know Bush doens't take a consistant stance on anything, and most all of his promises are empty lies?