The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:38:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Dick Locke" wrote in message
.. .

I associate fiscal responsibility with Democrats. QED.


Let me revise my statement. Fiscal responsibility has not been associated
with Democrats for a very long time by any objective observer.



Bzzzt! Too late! You challenged anyone to show where you posted
something that wasn't true and I only had to look back about two
posts.

Now, lest I be accused of nit-picking, and recognizing the risk that
we will both wind up saying "anyone who disagrees with me isn't
objective" here's an interesting page that addresses both the issue of
fiscal responsibility an Mr. Ling's contention that lowering tax rates
increases revenue.

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/000038.html

"Dick Locke" wrote in message
...

Bzzzt! Too late! You challenged anyone to show where you posted
something that wasn't true and I only had to look back about two
posts.


Actually, the challenge was, "Please identify what I have written here that
is factually
incorrect and prove it to be so." Nobody has met the challenge.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Dick Locke" wrote in message
...

Bzzzt! Too late! You challenged anyone to show where you posted
something that wasn't true and I only had to look back about two
posts.


Actually, the challenge was, "Please identify what I have written here that
is factually
incorrect and prove it to be so." Nobody has met the challenge.

How about, as recently as today, when you asked "And you didn't read the
following message?", an obvious lie since there was no following message to be
read? And you weren't referring to other or previous messages, so don't try to
use that as an excuse. You referred to "the following message" and there was
none, which means that you lied when you inferred that there was a message
following.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

How about, as recently as today, when you asked "And you didn't read the
following message?", an obvious lie since there was no following message
to be
read?


You responded to my message; "You're confusing tax rates with tax revenue.
Reagan cut tax rates, tax revenue then rose, rising tax revenue does lead to
deficits." The message following that one is; "Oops, that obviously should
have been '...rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits.' Well, I guess
that isn't so obvious to some!"



And you weren't referring to other or previous messages, so don't try to
use that as an excuse. You referred to "the following message" and there
was
none, which means that you lied when you inferred that there was a message
following.


I obviously was referring to another message. Well, I guess that isn't so
obvious to some!

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:33:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Nobody has met the challenge.

Now you've done it twice.