Bush camp caught in yet another lie

Bush's Misleading Attack Video

Internet attack ad says Kerry got most "special interest money" of any senator. He didn't. And Bush got lots more.

The Bush campaign sent an e-mail Feb. 12 to six million supporters with a link to an Internet video attacking Kerry for being "unprincipled." The ad claims Kerry got "more special interest money than any other senator," which is false.
While it is true that Kerry got $640,000 over the past 15 years from individual lobbyists, that's only one type of special-interest money. And the Bush campaign itself has reported raising $960,000 from individual lobbyists in the past year alone.
The ad says Kerry got "millions from executives at HMO's, telecoms, drug companies," which is true -- for Kerry's entire political career. But so far Kerry's presidential campaign has received a small fraction of what the Bush campaign has received from those particular sources. By any definition, Bush's "special interest" money greatly exceeds Kerry's.

full article at factcheck.org

I don't know if Kerry got more special interest money than any other candidate, but if Bush "lied" then he would be sued for slander.

While it may be true, politics is taking facts out of context to make your side seem more proper.

Misleading is not a lie. Look at Bowling for.... By mike moore.

Anyway, it's nothing new is this campaign. People have been slandering Bush for months.

Note:this is not an endorsement for Bush

Bowling for Columbine is it? not to make an affiliation either way, but you may find some of the answers to the numerous, (and for a lot, blatently baseless) allegations from the horses mouth, here

Ok, kegs, let's disect what I said so you can understand it.

I don't know if Kerry got more special interest money than any other candidate, but if Bush "lied" then he would be sued for slander.

You could also say this, although I thought it was self explanitory, "If Moore lied then he would be sued." Make sense?

While it may be true, politics is taking facts out of context to make your side seem more proper.

Out of context is not always what it seems. Out of context could be what Bush or Moore did, which was what I was alluding to. To take a number of facts that resemble on another, then make assumptions of pose "questions" that allude to a point.

Misleading is not a lie. Look at Bowling for.... By mike moore.

I do not subscribe to those sites which bash moore. I don't think he was lying. But there is a great deal of misrepresentation going on.

When looking at the Bush ad, which does not lie, it would appear that Kerry was a nasty lier. But when compaired to other related facts, it might seem so.

Same goes with Mike Moore.

....that you & I are governed by.
Jethro, if you learn that simple fact, I think it will flavor your perceptions to be more in line with the reality of history.
"If he did that, he'd be in jail........If he said that he'd be sued for slander...."

No.

If you look at everything from SEC investigations stopping their due process over Arbusto, to being allowed reduced service time to work on campaigns, to lying repeatedly about a push for war, you'll see that he HAS been above the law his whole life. No different from a Kennedy/Rothchild/Rockerfeller or any of the other old money clans.

Bush received more special interest money than Kerry. That fact would alone make me more likely to vote for Bush, since special interest money mostly comes from big business, who provide jobs for the working man. There does not need to be a disconnect between big business and the working man. This is what the Democratic party has forgotten over the years, and why they are losing elections.

Do you really think Big Business gives two #s about the common man? All they look at is their bottom line. If you ever work in any factory, count the number of Mexicans that work their. Alot of companies employ Illegal Aliens to do labor for less than minimum wage. If any business could get away with having nothing but illegal labor, they would.

This ain't no lovefest. Business has an obligation to the stockholders. Many "common men" also p*ss in their own nest. I have worked for telco installation crews and have seen my co-workers stick straight pins in telephone cables and cutting the head off, thus destroying an entire run. I have worked for a computer company that was once second in size behind IBM, run by one of the greatest engineers of his time. The man would not lay off workers in spite of bad times and plummeting profits. He truly cared for his employees. Still does not make special interest money bad in and of itself. Where is the sense of paying a worker $15/hour to make shoes that sell for $10? How can you compete?

Originally posted by OXmanK
Do you really think Big Business gives two #s about the common man? All they look at is their bottom line. If you ever work in any factory, count the number of Mexicans that work their. Alot of companies employ Illegal Aliens to do labor for less than minimum wage. If any business could get away with having nothing but illegal labor, they would.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't. I pretty sure that it would depend on who you talked to.

The fact is, is that big business IS important and DOES require consideration due to the fact that they have the jobs you, your mother, father, son, daughter has (barring civil or self started work).

They are the ones that #ed up and lost millions of jobs.

"to being allowed reduced service time to work on campaigns"

This may or may not be legal depending on the situation which you nor I will ever know. This I do know, that records kept today in the reserves are bad, but 30 years ago they were terrible. This is what you ASSUME due to your agenda.

"to lying repeatedly about a push for war"

Again, that agenda thing. You will probably never know if he lied or not. But you will say he did because it is that interpritation that suits your agenda.

About the SEC, I don't know much about that so i won't comment about it. If you have some non-partisan links I'd read them

KJ

The only agenda I see is your denial; it getting that one can set their watch by it.

We have an economic team, in this administration, that is driven by nothing more than ideology. Because of that, the input that government can provide to spur business was often if not always bypassed.

Reduced Service Time - A NG pilot NOT showing up for rotation gets sent to active duty. Period. You honestly think that, which is one thing the White House has admitted to, a pilot would get a free pass to go work a campaign desk today, much less then? Come on.

Lying repeatedly - You honestly think that Iraq was a clear & present danger to the US? It was sold as that. It's been proven not to have been; not on faulty intelligence, but selective use of the intelligence provided. Here's what they said: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Bout Time
KJ

The only agenda I see is your denial; it getting that one can set their watch by it.

It's not so much a denial as it is an openness to possibility

We have an economic team, in this administration, that is driven by nothing more than ideology. Because of that, the input that government can provide to spur business was often if not always bypassed.

If it is spurred by idealogy, it is not a republican one. Otherwise he would not have set up Homeland Security which increases government size (a big mistake if you ask me).

Reduced Service Time - A NG pilot NOT showing up for rotation gets sent to active duty. Period. You honestly think that, which is one thing the White House has admitted to, a pilot would get a free pass to go work a campaign desk today, much less then? Come on.

With the reduction in forces (RIF) which happens at the end of armed conflict sometimes (which is happening now in the Air Force) I can certainly see that happening. As much has been said by quite a few members at the time. In addition, they would allow extended time to aid in transition to the private sector. This is not nessisarily the truth of Bush, but again possible.

Lying repeatedly - You honestly think that Iraq was a clear & present danger to the US? It was sold as that. It's been proven not to have been; not on faulty intelligence, but selective use of the intelligence provided. Here's what they said: www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, I did not see them as a clear and present danger, especially now that we have found the WMD programs to be a corrupted front to steal. There was no product of said programs so nothing could be sold to terrorists. But is it not true that they were a destablizing element in the region? Also, the government resolved to get Saddam out of power by policy in 1998 signed by Clinton in the Iraqi Liberation Act. Although it does not prescribe military force, this change could be attribulted to 9-11 policy change.