Anyone see Bush's MeltDown?

[Risa]

Bush was on live TV when that old lady asked him why he really went to War and Bush went off on her! Anyone see Bush's MeltDown?

here's another one for your consideration (all video links at the site):



dig the (real) tagline: 'now there's no link?'

http://www.crooksandliars.com
Bush makes false claim about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
Olbermann: "Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?"


I know it's hard to believe Mr. President, but they have these things know that actually record what you say and are able to play back what they record. Even after a long period of time. Keith Olbermann and Countdown supply the evidence.
Video-WMP Video-QT

Today in his speech in Cleveland:

Bush: "First-just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein."

In days gone by-SOTU-three years ago:

Bush: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

Now-anyone listening and watching his speech back then would make that connection easily enough since al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11-don't you think? Keith analyzes it very nicely.

Olbermann: "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in the same sentence separated by seven words. Sept. 11th and Saddam Hussein -two sentences later, separated by six words. In a moment Craig Crawford joins me to discuss the fundamental remaining question. Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?

[Risa]

shutyomouth posts a link :? and a commentary.

http://thetrolls.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.p ... daba8f1966

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/busi ... 147002.htm

IRS plans to allow preparers to sell data
Critics said the proposed regulation could lead to a loss of privacy for clients.
By Jeff Gelles
Inquirer Staff Writer

The IRS is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns. If it succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers will be able to sell information from individual returns - or even entire returns - to marketers and data brokers.

The change is raising alarm among consumer and privacy-rights advocates. It was included in a set of proposed rules that the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Dec. 8 Federal Register, where the official notice labeled them "not a significant regulatory action."

IRS officials portray the changes as housecleaning to update outmoded regulations adopted before it began accepting returns electronically. The proposed rules, which would become effective 30 days after a final version is published, would require a tax preparer to obtain written consent before selling tax information.

Critics call the changes a dangerous breach in personal and financial privacy. They say the requirement for signed consent would prove meaningless for many taxpayers, especially those hurriedly reviewing stacks of documents before a filing deadline.

"The normal interaction is that the taxpayer just signs what the tax preparer puts in front of them," said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America, one of several groups fighting the changes. "They think, 'This person is a tax professional, and I'm going to rely on them.' "

Criticism also came from U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.). In a letter last Tuesday to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, Obama warned that once in the hands of third parties, tax information could be resold and handled under even looser rules than the IRS sets, increasing consumers' vulnerability to identity theft and other risks.

"There is no more sensitive information than a taxpayer's return, and the IRS's proposal to allow these returns to be sold to third-party marketers and database brokers is deeply troubling," Obama wrote.

The IRS first announced the proposal in a news release the day before the official notice was published, headlined: "IRS Issues Proposed Regulations to Safeguard Taxpayer Information."

The announcement did not mention potential sales of tax information. It said the proposed rules were guided by the principle "that tax return preparers may not disclose or use tax return information for purposes other than tax return preparation without the knowing, informed and voluntary consent of the taxpayer."

IRS spokesman William M. Cressman defended the proposal in similar terms.

"The heart of this proposed regulation is about the right of taxpayers to control their tax return information. The idea is to emphasize taxpayer consent and set clear boundaries on how tax return preparers can use or disclose tax return information," Cressman said in an e-mail response to questions.

Cressman said he was unable to explain "why this issue has come up at this time other than our effort to update regulations that date back to the 1970s and predate the electronic era."

Not all the changes have drawn opposition.

Beth A. McConnell, director of the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group (PennPIRG), said she welcomed a requirement that a taxpayer would need to consent to overseas processing of any portion of a tax return.

"That's a positive development, but I don't think it's worth giving up our tax returns' privacy for," said McConnell, who plans to testify on behalf of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group at an April 4 IRS hearing in Washington on the rule changes.

McConnell accused the IRS of using the new limit on overseas processing to dress up changes that would chiefly benefit tax preparers, marketers and data brokers.

"That's a disturbing trend among Washington officials lately," McConnell said. "They'll offer a modest consumer protection in one area in exchange for dramatic weakening of consumer protections in another area, and then try to convince the public that it's all in our interests."

Critics of the proposal said it could do more than open up sales of tax information to data brokers and marketers, because it could undermine taxpayer confidence in the entire tax system.

"Privacy protections for tax information are especially critical given the largely voluntary nature of the U.S. tax system," said Chi Chi Wu, a tax-law specialist at Boston's National Consumer Law Center.

Wu and other critics said they were uncertain who or what was behind the proposed changes in IRS privacy rules, which currently prohibit tax preparers from selling returns to third parties for marketing purposes, and require written consent if they want to use it for marketing by companies under their own corporate umbrella.

Officials at H&R Block and Jackson-Hewitt, two of the nation's largest tax-preparation firms, did not respond to requests for comment. Cressman said the IRS had so far received only about a dozen comments on the proposal.

"I think this just flew under the radar screen for so many people," McConnell said.

Although the formal comment period ended March 8, Cressman said late comments "may receive consideration if they are sent to the IRS promptly." Consumer advocates are urging taxpayers who oppose the changes to contact the agency and Washington lawmakers.

Where to Write

It's too late to comment electronically, but the IRS may still consider written comments. Mail them to:

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-137243-02)

Room 5203

Internal Revenue Service, Box 7604

Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.


If there was NO IRS, this wouldn't be an issue.

[Moving Sale]

Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?

I was watching when he said that....

BBBBWWWWWAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Rack KO

Or is it "Rack the KO?"

[Risa]

YT1300inhouston posts a question in response to BS's philly news link:

I guess thjs trumps Gramm Leach Billey?

The Gramm Leach Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, is a federal law that compels a financial institution to “respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers’ non-public personal information.” The law provides for stiff penalties for companies found to be in violation of its regulations.

A.1. Q. Who must comply with the Privacy Rule?

A. Any financial institution that provides financial products or services to consumers must comply with the privacy provisions of Subtitle A of TitleV of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB Act") (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-09) and the Privacy Rule. You have consumers if you provide your financial products or services to individuals, not businesses, to be used primarily for their personal, family, or household purposes.

EDIT: then he writes:

IRS officials portray the changes as housecleaning to update outmoded regulations adopted before it began accepting returns electronically. The proposed rules, which would become effective 30 days after a final version is published, would require a tax preparer to obtain written consent before selling tax information.

I would never in a million years ask one of my clients to sign such a thing.

Critics call the changes a dangerous breach in personal and financial privacy. They say the requirement for signed consent would prove meaningless for many taxpayers, especially those hurriedly reviewing stacks of documents before a filing deadline.

"The normal interaction is that the taxpayer just signs what the tax preparer puts in front of them," said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America, one of several groups fighting the changes. "They think, 'This person is a tax professional, and I'm going to rely on them.' "

Maybe at H&R. Generally, when I deliver a return to a client, we go over it so I can make sure they have a good understanding of what all I have done and why and what the effects are. I also do not have them sign returns at my office.

Criticism also came from U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.). In a letter last Tuesday to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, Obama warned that once in the hands of third parties, tax information could be resold and handled under even looser rules than the IRS sets, increasing consumers' vulnerability to identity theft and other risks.

"There is no more sensitive information than a taxpayer's return, and the IRS's proposal to allow these returns to be sold to third-party marketers and database brokers is deeply troubling," Obama wrote.

The IRS first announced the proposal in a news release the day before the official notice was published, headlined: "IRS Issues Proposed Regulations to Safeguard Taxpayer Information."

The announcement did not mention potential sales of tax information. It said the proposed rules were guided by the principle "that tax return preparers may not disclose or use tax return information for purposes other than tax return preparation without the knowing, informed and voluntary consent of the taxpayer."

IRS spokesman William M. Cressman defended the proposal in similar terms.

"The heart of this proposed regulation is about the right of taxpayers to control their tax return information. The idea is to emphasize taxpayer consent and set clear boundaries on how tax return preparers can use or disclose tax return information," Cressman said in an e-mail response to questions.

Cressman said he was unable to explain "why this issue has come up at this time other than our effort to update regulations that date back to the 1970s and predate the electronic era."

Spin.

Other CPAs, your thoughts?







and i'd like to tie it together with something else on crooks and liars, lifted from the charlie rose interview last night:

http://www.crooksandliars.com

Russ Feingold on Charlie Rose

(Click here for the video)

Feingold: "The President got out and said basically, "tough luck," I'm going to do what ever I want to do here, whether it's within the law or not. That to me demands a response and I decided that we had to look at the possibility of letting the President know on the record, that what he has done here is illegal and wrong. And that's why I proposed censure."

but mvscal wants to claim that Feingold was merely showboating with his public censure of the president a week or two ago? :? and that that public censure went over like a 'lead balloon' because... there was nothing to it?


And why WAS there hemming and hawing and foot shuffling when the administration was asked last week about the extent of the domestic spying program beyond persons with suspected links to terrorists?


Bushbots, where are you? Explain this. Explain his actions.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Yes, he is quite the liberal.

No, being a liberal requires that one care about other people. Bush obviously cares about no one except himself and his cronies.

[Risa]

Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?

I was watching when he said that....

BBBBWWWWWAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Rack KO

Or is it "Rack the KO?"

Dude, wish I'd seen it. I thought the dude (turns out to be Feingold) on Charlie Rose last night was on fire. Keith Olbermann tells the truth. I wish I had seen that in real time. Somebody needs to break it down.

This is way, way, WAY more important than 'I did not have sex with that woman'.


Somebody on another board even caught George Bush pulling a 'what is the definition of 'is'' that was truly mindblowing. or were they cribbing from Keith/ Roach's interview link/the Helen Thomas interview link?

[Terry in Crapchester]

I was just kinda funnin' with ya', mvscal.

Johnson was a spectator, much like W. And any time the People are stupid enough to elect a spectator, evil liberalism will abound, like it has under Bush.

I disagree most heartily about Johnson's presidency. Johnson was the most skilled, dirtiest, most backroom oriented president we've had in decades. He lorded over the Senate for years. He was a snake in the grass.

When he won the presidency outright, he did so with a record-breaking majority of popular votes over Goldwater.

Johnson was a spirited, principled, highly intelligent pol who made his mark lastingly on the American political landscape. In fact, it's funny you mention him as the wallflower, considering who he was veep to.

What exactly brought you to this belief?

Rack that.

There's a lot of negative things than can be said about LBJ, but it damn sure cannot be said that he was a spectator. In fact, it could be said that LBJ was THE classic example of the aggressive/aggressive Presidency. He was only in office for 5 years, and he managed to completely reshape the Federal Government's approach to poverty, pushed through civil rights legislation that had languished in Committee for years, pushed through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, sold the Russians on the Outer Space Treaty...

Of course, he only did all of this out of fear that RFK would challenge him from the left, and claim the mantle of being JFK's true heir apparent.

[Goober McTuber]

Hey, Risa, if we want to read the political punditry of shutyomouth, we’ll go over to .net and do so. You don’t need to cut and paste large chunks of it over here. Ignorant cunt.

[BSmack]

Of course, he only did all of this out of fear that RFK would challenge him from the left, and claim the mantle of being JFK's true heir apparent.

Be that as it may, he was hardly a spectator. If anything, he overreached his grasp.

[Risa]

Bush obviously cares about no one except himself and his cronies.

You are "obviously" a complete dumbfuck.

Hey, chulo! ain't you the one who posted this

So, where was the president?

Choking on his own cock. This deal was critically important and he dropped the fucking ball.

in Clonewolf's ports deal thread over at .net?

and remember how, during the Harriet Miers nomination, you made statements about how far from conservatism this president has shown in his actions? or am I mixing up old time freepers objections to Bush's shit, over the din of Bushbots and their 'Bush can do no wrong, there's always a plan' bullshit -- with your views?


How is Terry a dumbfuck? Terry's condemnation is cast over a wider area than yours, but even you dogged the President on certain issues (immigration?)... and particularly, as above, on his handling of the ports shit.

Why do you have to disagree with Terry?

Once, a long time ago, you claimed not to be a Bushbot, mvscal. Well, prove it.

What has Bush done that has amounted to a presidency built upon the foundation of conservatism? instead of runaway spending (among other sins)?

[Risa]

Hey, Risa, if we want to read the political punditry of shutyomouth, we’ll go over to .net and do so. You don’t need to cut and paste large chunks of it over here. Ignorant cunt.

Whatever, man. If that philly article is real, shutyomouth was doing a good service by informing those of us who hadn't read it that it existed.

Buttsprays only comment was that none of this would be necessary if the IRS didn't exist. The rest of it was the article.

The article itself said this shit just flew in under the radar. What good can come of the IRS selling private citizen's information to PRIVATE companies? Who needs that money? Why do they need it in the first place?

Where is it going? What companies want this information? How can a citizen avoid having their shit sold by the government? Is there an opt-out?

[Bizzarofelice]

If I wanted to read .net posts, I would go over there and read them.

Merely C & Ping .net posts both leaves Cuda without a role and offers nothing to this board. People are posting here and not there for a reason, just as those that post there and not here have their reasons.

[Goober McTuber]

Hey, Risa, if we want to read the political punditry of shutyomouth, we’ll go over to .net and do so. You don’t need to cut and paste large chunks of it over here. Ignorant cunt.

Whatever, man. If that philly article is real, shutyomouth was doing a good service by informing those of us who hadn't read it that it existed.

Buttsprays only comment was that none of this would be necessary if the IRS didn't exist. The rest of it was the article.

The article itself said this shit just flew in under the radar. What good can come of the IRS selling private citizen's information to PRIVATE companies? Who needs that money? Why do they need it in the first place?

Where is it going? What companies want this information? How can a citizen avoid having their shit sold by the government? Is there an opt-out?

So you need an internet tard named shutyomouth to find your news for you? Shocking.

[Risa]

If I wanted to read .net posts, I would go over there and read them.

Merely C & Ping .net posts both leaves Cuda without a role and offers nothing to this board. People are posting here and not there for a reason, just as those that post there and not here have their reasons.

reasons being they're banned, like DrDetroit? :?

That's a good article BS posted, if it's true. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it, but it's nice to be informed about what the administration is doing to us.



So, what can we do about it, or should we not worry when the government sells information to private parties? this isn't like someone getting paid to look through public shit for information. this is the government doing the selling.

why would the government need to do so in the first place?

[Dinsdale]

reasons being they're banned, like DrDetroit?

I'd pretty much forgotten that name.

And I'm not sure if I ever fully disclosed what a great move I thought it was on the part of the admins here. For this, they get my RACKs.

[Bizzarofelice]

If I wanted to read .net posts, I would go over there and read them.

Merely C & Ping .net posts both leaves Cuda without a role and offers nothing to this board. People are posting here and not there for a reason, just as those that post there and not here have their reasons.

reasons being they're banned, like DrDetroit? :?

Maybe two or three are banned. The rest of the posters there prefer it to here. Super. I'm glad they found something that makes them happy. No further thought needed.

[PSUFAN]

reasons being they're banned, like DrDetroit?

I'd pretty much forgotten that name.

And I'm not sure if I ever fully disclosed what a great move I thought it was on the part of the admins here. For this, they get my RACKs.

All he had in him was one or two 'THEY BANNED ME" threads at T1Bbannedme.net. I guess he's doing something else with his life, so he'd probably RACK us too.

[LTS TRN 2]

The Chimp, Cheney, and Rummy--what former under-Secretary Of State Lawerence Wilkerson described as "a cabal"--is dead on the run. Their insane and desperate splurge of criminality will indeed take a while to clean up and repair. But it's coming down fast. (Tony "the toad" Blair, btw, is about get RUN for selling seats in the House of Lords) And there will be no long-term soft-spinning of their crimes, ala Nixon, to somehow restore them to a gauzy historical Stateman role in history. No, this cabal will go straight into infamy as the most corrupt and dangerous administration in our nation's brief and convulsive history.

Rack Helen Thomas for being a courageous Professional when the vast majority of mainstream media figures have curled into fetal positions before the Rove "Smear 'n Spin" machine.

[LTS TRN 2]

. The invasion of Iraq is illegal within the framework of the laws of the United States Constitution and the United Nations Charter.


1. The invasion of Iraq has been planned for many years by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an organization founded by a small group of right wing political ideologues and corporate elite dedicated to promoting American global leadership. The PNAC signatories hold the most powerful positions in the current administration and other highly influential political offices. Read their Statement of Principles and note the signatories. Read the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" for a detail of their military strategy for American global hegemony. The Downing Street Memo and other key documents unambiguously indicate that the policy of regime change in Iraq was planned as early as July 2002 and "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."


2. Many members of the Bush Administration are convicted criminals. The World Tribunal on Iraq held it's culminating session in Istanbul in June 2005 and declared the Bush Administration guilty of starting a War of Aggression, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity as indicated in their Declaration of the Jury of Conscience. A War Crimes Tribunal held in NYC on August 26, 2004 found many members of the Bush Administration guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and high crimes and misdemeanors for which they are impeachable (audio of Ramsey Clark). The International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan convened in Tokyo, 2003 found the Bush Administration guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity for the invasion of Afghanistan. The Brussels Tribunal has conducted "A Hearing on the Project for the New American Century" to discuss the nature of a premeditated, preemptive wars - a "war of aggression" being the highest international crime. In 1992, an International War Crimes Tribunal found the senior officers in the first Bush administration guilty on 19 counts of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and other criminal acts in Violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International Law, The Constitution of the United States and Laws made in Pursuance thereof, for crimes committed during "Operation Desert Storm". View a list of our `elected' officials, their appointees, and their criminal offenses.


3. There is no degree of separation between the current administration and those who control the means of production, the means of communication, and the military-industrial complex. Those individuals will benefit unfathomably from this and many future wars already planned by the PNAC. View information on who is making the money from the "War on Terrorism".


4. "We the People" pay for "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the staging of "multiple theatre wars", and the killing of the innocent peoples of foreign lands in the name of Freedom and Democracy, while 'elected' officials pass radical legislation taking away our rights and controlling the flow of information.



"Mr. Bush, you have the right to remain silent...."

[Tom In VA]

Yes, he is quite the liberal.

No, being a liberal requires that one care about other people.

Good joke.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Once, a long time ago, you claimed not to be a Bushbot, mvscal.

I don't recall this, but if he did, I call bullshit.

[LTS TRN 2]

Bab's explains it all,

"including the cease fire agreement"

Oh, you mean firing a few harmless rounds at drones and spy planes crisscrossing Iraq? Shit, you're right, that's a violation. Okay, sure, better invade. :)

[mouse]

The level of quality smack in this topic is very rare these days.

[LTS TRN 2]

The level of quality smack in this topic is very rare these days.

...."this topic"?...You mean WWIII? And the neocon/evangelical/oil consortium that hatched it like a Ponzi scam and is currently backpeddling and babbling--didja see the Chimp in friendly West Virginia SERIOUSLY babbling? He's close to the edge :)

And who or what the fuck are you and your BOLD type?

[Atomic Punk]

their crimes.

Link?

You're arguing with Nick Frisco's latest shit troll. Learn to not respond to it and it will die another death.

[LTS TRN 2]

LTSTRN2
The tribunal carefully considered the evidence and convicted you of being a buffoon. .

Actually, I'd agree with their verdict--and be secretly pleased they didn't find out oh so much more!

But seriously, isn't it cute to see the Rove machine level its broadsides at the mainstream media itself--effectively accusing it of adding the Enemy in their propaganda efforts? Isn't it a hoot to see such desperate spinnery, such Orwellian warpitude? Too bad we're all paying the price. Well, hunker down, you lil' Mission Accomplished supporters, and enjoy the Chimp 'n Cheney show on Fox News, of course.