Comments on: Bush: I Think I Lost Money, Too
President Says Recession Has Likely Hit Him; Assets Are In A Blind Trust
Add a Comment See all 156 Comments
- You throw up SCOTUS stuff you have absolutely no knowledge a bout what it means...
Posted by TexHillGirl at 01:09 PM : Jan 14, 2009
Strange the sources I have posted have been right so far, But even they stated no guarantees on their beliefs of what the court would ultimately do.
I can claim no credit for the accuracy as I like they offered no assurances of the outcome unlike you who seem to be coming up wrong quite often. - Reply to this comment
- Pres. Bush is very lucky, he pressed and pressed and wanted to put Social Security in the Stock Market, converting it to Individual Accounts but was denied, had Pres. Bush succeeded in putting Social Security in the Stock Market and had the entire country lost their retirement with the Stock Market crash and decline Pres. Bush would surely have worst problems than he has now and would likely have been Impeached and removed from office! Its a good thing the effort to put Social Security in the Stock Market failed, the U.S. dodged a bullet avoided that scenario.
- Reply to this comment
- You are the one that profanely claimed the following statement was a lie.
Thrice asserted statements are not true based solely on the fact they are thrice asserted.
I provided you a link to the entire source and the excerpt of the pertinent portion of the source to review your flawed conclusion. Your choice as to how to address the inconsistency of your position of my interpretation of the previously referenced Parhat Decision in the Appellate Court. Just a courtesy to you and the other posters to save you and them time finding the applicable material.
Posted by misha128 at 12:
... you haven''''t posted anything credible as long as I''''ve seen you post....
Posted by TexHillGirl at 12:52 PM : Jan 14, 2009
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/parhat.pdf
as referenced in details here
Posted by misha128 at 12:36 PM : Jan 14, 2009
still refute your unsubstantiated claims. - Reply to this comment
- The federal government has no business whatever having anything at all to do with the art world. Not funding it, not directing it, not planning it, not even promoting it.
Posted by TexHillGirl at 12:56 PM : Jan 14, 2009
That''s nothing more than your personal sentiment. The rest of us might view it as "promoting the general welfare." - Reply to this comment
- I think he lost his marbles too.
- Reply to this comment
- repeat -- slowly this time
You are correct on this point you do not HAVE to post references;
HOWEVER NO ONE HAS TO BELIEVE YOU.
Without references all you have is your credibility, and the credibility of ANY anonymous poster is suspect making references quite important in this media.
Posted by misha128 at 12:45 PM : Jan 14, 2009
... I don''''t have to do a ... thing you say....
Posted by TexHillGirl at 12:47 PM : Jan 14, 2009
Let''ss see if I can get this down to one syllable words.
Yes Tex, I agree only to the part when you say you don''t have to do any thing I say. Tex we (I) also do not have to believe what you say. Posting sources allows others to decide the value of the content.
What is your preoccupation with Prescott Bush anyway? I left that subject ages ago after offering an alternate opinion for consideration. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by misha128 at 12:36 PM : Jan 14, 2009
This has something do with Prescott Bush?
Posted by TexHillGirl at 12:39 PM : Jan 14, 2009
You are the one that profanely claimed the following statement was a lie.
Thrice asserted statements are not true based solely on the fact they are thrice asserted.
I provided you a link to the entire source and the excerpt of the pertinent portion of the source to review your flawed conclusion. Your choice as to how to address the inconsistency of your position of my interpretation of the previously referenced Parhat Decision in the Appellate Court. Just a courtesy to you and the other posters to save you and them time finding the applicable material. - Reply to this comment
- ... I don''''''''''''''''t have to post references to it, ...
Posted by TexHillGirl at 11:53 AM : Jan 14, 2009
Correct on this point you do not HAVE to post references; however no one HAS to believe you either. Without references all you have is your credibility, and the credibility of any anonymous poster is suspect making references quite important in this media.
Posted by misha128
If you wanna know,, go look it up like I did...it''''s all over the internet, Misha...just because you pick and choose the Bush mania garbage krap and slap it up here, doesn''''t mean it''''s anywhere near the truth...I''''ve sifted through it all and sifted the garbage out of it...you might try that instead of posting garbage like it''''s the truth.
Posted by TexHillGirl at 12:37 PM : Jan 14, 2009
repeat -- slowly this time
You are correct on this point you do not HAVE to post references;
HOWEVER NO ONE HAS TO BELIEVE YOU.
Without references all you have is your credibility, and the credibility of ANY anonymous poster is suspect making references quite important in this media. - Reply to this comment
- Thrice asserted statements are not true based solely on the fact they are thrice asserted.
Posted by misha128 at 12:10 PM : Jan 14, 2009
Oh ..., you keep asserting this ... that''''s a total bunch of ... lies! ...
Posted by TexHillGirl at 12:23 PM : Jan 14, 2009
A link to the appellate court parhat decision and the applicable exercpt. You and others can verify this for yourselves.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/parhat.pdf
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued April 4, 2008 Decided June 20, 2008
No. 06-1397
HUZAIFA PARHAT,
PETITIONER
v.
ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS
First, the government suggests that several of the assertions in the intelligence documents are reliable because they are made in at least three different documents. We are not persuaded. Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has %u201Csaid it thrice%u201D does not make an allegation true. See LEWIS CARROLL, THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK 3 (1876) (%u201CI have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.%u201D). In fact, we have no basis for concluding that there are independent sources for the documents%u2019 thrice-made assertions. To the contrary, as noted in Part III, many of those assertions are made in identical language, suggesting that later documents may merely be citing earlier ones, and hence that all may ultimately derive from a single source. - Reply to this comment
rushlimpdrug: I Think I Lost Money, Too- Reply to this comment
- Posted by misha128 at 12:06 PM : Jan 14, 2009
CORRECTION
Thrice asserted statements are not true based solely on the fact they are thrice asserted. - Reply to this comment
- Sorry, but that''''s a total lie, Prescott Bush owned one share of Union Bank, period.
Posted by TexHillGirl at 11:54 AM : Jan 14, 2009
The Parhat case in appellate court made it clear that thrice asserted statements are not true, so it matters not how many times you make a statement. Furthermore, the court further elaborated that a statement cannot even be asserted to have been made multiple times unless it is proven to be from different sources -- you are the only one I see making this statement making it legally asserted only ONCE regardless of how many times you cut and paste it. - Reply to this comment
- Sorry, but that''''s a total lie, Prescott Bush owned one share of Union Bank, period.
Posted by TexHillGirl
You are so the "river" girl--de-nial! You don''t like what you see or read, so you deny it!! LOL - Reply to this comment
- Posted by takebackusa at 11:39 AM : Jan 14, 2009
I am among the many to be falsely accused of being this entity with super speed in terms of posting capability. - Reply to this comment
- ... I don''''t have to post references to it, ...
Posted by TexHillGirl at 11:53 AM : Jan 14, 2009
Correct on this point you do not HAVE to post references; however no one HAS to believe you either. Without references all you have is your credibility, and the credibility of any anonymous poster is suspect making references quite important in this media. - Reply to this comment
- No wonder Obama wants all this bail out money. He needs to protect that 6 figure check from Fannie and that $200k check for his wife that made her a proud American.
- Reply to this comment
- George Bush''s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company''s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar - Reply to this comment
- He''ll make it up in blood money.
- Reply to this comment
- Yes, I''''ve already read all that ... Misha, and debunked it about 20 times....
Posted by TexHillGirl at 11:33 AM : Jan 14, 2009
You don''t post references or even conflicting information just opinion (and faulty opinions on many occasions) -- the first amendment allows for the expression of conflicting views and the review by others of information they choose to consider -- not just the information you approve. - Reply to this comment
- The fact is Prescott Bush owned one share in Union Bank, Harriman and son owned he rest...the Tyssen brother that controlled the bank was put in jail by the Nazi''''s and the other Thyssen brother who had nothing to do with the bank....had controlling interest in many companies...
If you''''d bother to read facts instead of propaganda, it might help.
Posted by TexHillGirl
The rest of us have done some reading as well and post what is fact--you''re posting just a tiny bit about Prescott Bush---perhaps you need to read ALL the facts as well. - Reply to this comment
