Don’t know if anyone posted anything on this yet, but if you were wondering about the $84 lumber company thing-- From factcheck.org
Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry’s contention that he had
received $84 from “a timber company.” Said Bush, “I own a timber
company? That’s news to me.”
In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does
own part interest in “LSTF, LLC”, a limited-liability company
organized “for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial
sales.” (See “supporting documents” at right.)
So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn’t have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush’s definition
of “small business” is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a “small business” in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.
Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating
that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns “reported $84 of
business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing
enterprise.” We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from
Bush’s Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001
income-tax returns as an “oil and gas production” business. The Lone
Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn’t get
into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we
should have described the $84 as coming from an “oil and gas” business
in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.
I don’t understand two things:
1 - why does joe have to join the challenge (with the dems) b/c he posted an article from factcheck.org - haven’t both sides used this site in the forum?
2 - what is unclear about the article? it’s just stating some facts.
[quote]Bob423 wrote:
I don’t understand two things:
1 - why does joe have to join the challenge (with the dems) b/c he posted an article from factcheck.org - haven’t both sides used this site in the forum?
2 - what is unclear about the article? it’s just stating some facts. [/quote]
Bob, I think most have taken to ignoring JeffR…he’s a quacky dude.
In all honesty, I don’t know if I could vote for either. If I COULD vote of course! I really like the idea of someone who stands up for what they believe is right, no matter what people say, but I equally value the ability to admit when you’re wrong. And frankly, I don’t know where to put GW and Kerry in this! I appreciate Kerry’s more nuanced approach to things, but from hearing multiple opinions come out of the GOP, I wonder if they have a nuanced position as well, but they know what plays with the voters and go with that. ZEB was talking about how it’s just an image game, and that fact pisses me off to no end. I can’t really support either of them in the ‘war on terror’ b/c I don’t think either of them would fight it the right way. But it my crazy world I’d slash the defense budget at least in 1/2 and turn it into aid. Think about it, who hates Santa Claus? I also wonder if people have crunched the numbers on how much risk is involved for the average from terrorist attacks, and from…say medical mistakes. Or pollution. Or lifestlye choices (read fat and lazy). Actually, I bet they have, and I bet the last two are a lot more worrisome then the first, but they don’t get votes, not dramatic enough. I’m much more leftist when it comes to the environment and social policy compared to either party, but I suspect I’d match up better with the Democrats. I don’t know about the bet though, b/c my support would probably go to the green party, so I’d be changing my name no matter what. So basically the Canadian gets screwed either way! : )
[quote]
Show you are bigger than lumpy/danh/tme/joe/JusttheFacts who have dodged the challenge thus far.
JeffR[/quote]
because i choose to not participate in your challenge is meaningless. i fully believe bush will win in a landslide. that does not mean i have to like it.
So do I make the call based on who I think will win, or who I want to win, and do I just have the choice of R or D? I’m missing what the challenge is about: If it’s about who you think would win, the ILoveKerry/Bush monikers don’t make sense. If it’s about who you support, I don’t understand how their loss in the upcoming election means you ‘lost’ or ‘were wrong’. The only way I can see the logic in it is if the participants are actively involved in trying to get their choice elected: then I see ‘they lose’ and ‘you lose’ being grouped together. Otherwise it suggests that we’re having a big popularity contest and if your choice loses you’re on the wrong side, which means we’re going to string you up…or just ask you to change your name. I just have this instinct to avoid the us vs. them mentality, since everyone is fighting for a better future, so we’re all on the same side. So JeffR, I guess if you still want me for the challenge, you’re going to have to sell it to me. : ) But I promise I can be bought for the right price (=argument).