@Statikk
It would really help if you had some type of references for some of these claims. I can't really believe all of these, as i'm sure some of these would have made huge news. Regardless, i'll respond...
:
|
How about bush saying that he was going to give 10 times what he actually gave to fund education?
|
That is not a "flip-flop". He never
changed his opinion on the matter. You obviously have failed to realize that congress as a whole is who is spending the money, and what a President wants is not always what he gets.
:
|
How about Bush saying that he was not in favor of regime changes when hes already attempted two of them?
|
When did he say such a thing? If it was pre-9/11, it's kind of irrelevant, don't you think? Sure, he isn't in
favor of regime change, but sometimes it must be done. Even that dolt John Kerry recognizes this (or at least he DID...).
:
|
How about Bush saying the main cause for war was WMDs. Then it was about regime changes. Then it was containing terrorists.
|
I am sick of people
constantly bringing this moronic argument up..
Would you like to know WHY he said those three things? Because, sir, all three of those were listed in the multiple
UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Bush cited those resolutions, notably 1441, as his reasons for operation Iraqi Freedom. It is apparent that you have yet to read
any of those - why attempt at a forein policy debate, then?
:
|
lies and pass one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of the world with the vast majority of the money being funnelled to the richest 1 percent of America?
|
You
do realize that this 1% you speak of is actually paying 75% of the nations taxes, right? Naturally, if tax cuts are based on PERCENTS, and man A makes more than man B, who is going to get more of a tax cut?
Let's say i make $100, and you make $10 - i am taxed 30% and you are taxed 20%. Who is keeping more money? Yes, the "rich", but who is PAYING more money? Bingo - the rich. What's so hard to understand about this? Democratic politicians are constantly pushing the cliché that "Bush is for the rich", which is nothing more than propaganda for dinner-time discussion.
THE "RICH" MAKE MORE - SO PROPORTIONALLY THEY WILL KEEP MORE.