Timber? Yep, timber appears to be correct

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wait a moment, I happen to do consulting, on a small scale but professionally, and even this does generate jobs.  I buy materials for work, which generates jobs for manufacturers and store clerks.  I by persoal goods.

You just wait until Bush uses his $84 of timber revenue to replace those 800,000 jobs he lost.

[ATFFL]

Just to add a bit more truth to the thread, factcheck.org updated the story with this correction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just to add a bit more truth to the thread, factcheck.org updated the story with this correction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, the Cheney approved site made a minor correction.

[ATFFL]

Just to add a bit more truth to the thread, factcheck.org updated the story with this correction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, the Cheney approved site made a minor correction.

Yes, that is good journalism.  When you make a mistake, as all journalists do, you admit it and correct it.  See what Fox did with their recent mistakes.

Also, Bush is correct, he does not own a timber company.  This makes your opening post incorrect.

You should apologize and post a retraction.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just to add a bit more truth to the thread, factcheck.org updated the story with this correction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, the Cheney approved site made a minor correction.

Yes, that is good journalism.  When you make a mistake, as all journalists do, you admit it and correct it.  See what Fox did with their recent mistakes.

Also, Bush is correct, he does not own a timber company.  This makes your opening post incorrect.

You should apologize and post a retraction.

(Oct 9; CORRECTION: What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such.)

[ATFFL]

Just to add a bit more truth to the thread, factcheck.org updated the story with this correction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, the Cheney approved site made a minor correction.

Yes, that is good journalism.  When you make a mistake, as all journalists do, you admit it and correct it.  See what Fox did with their recent mistakes.

Also, Bush is correct, he does not own a timber company.  This makes your opening post incorrect.

You should apologize and post a retraction.

(Oct 9; CORRECTION: What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such.)

Here is what you said:

Well, I had thought it a gaffe, but a quick check of factcheck.org shows that Bush did indeed report buisness income from a small timber buisness enterprise.

Bush did not report income from a small timber business enterprise.  His income was from an oil and gas production concern.  Your statement is, per factcheck.org, incorrect.

[jimrtex]

Well, I had thought it a gaffe, but a quick check of factcheck.org shows that Bush did indeed report buisness income from a small timber buisness enterprise.
source

Which now says

Oct 9; CORRECTION: What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust.

It then goes on to say that the Lone Star Trust owns a 50% interest in a tree-growing company.

[jimrtex]

Bush did not report income from a small timber business enterprise.  His income was from an oil and gas production concern.  Your statement is, per factcheck.org, incorrect.

So do you think that Kerry was just cruising the internet and read the factcheck.org site and didn't really check the data?  Or did the Democrats operations research team feed the information to factcheck.org who didn't track down the information closely?

Given that the 2001 tax return with the $84 investment income, also reported $400,000+ interest income, plus several $10,000 in dividend income from the same source, does it really make sense that anyone would look at the 2003 disclosure form and decide that it was was from a tree company that doesn't expect to sell any trees before 2007?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does it really matter whether Lone-Star is a timber trust or an oil-and-gas trust other than the confusion it caused at the debate? I'm certain Kerry would have preferred to avoid that confusion as it is obscuring his point that Bush would be categorized as the owner of a small business under some arcane measurement despite the self-evident fact that is not his primary occupation, thus showing that the arcane measurement has problems.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just to add a bit more truth to the thread, factcheck.org updated the story with this correction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, the Cheney approved site made a minor correction.

Yes, that is good journalism.  When you make a mistake, as all journalists do, you admit it and correct it.  See what Fox did with their recent mistakes.

Also, Bush is correct, he does not own a timber company.  This makes your opening post incorrect.

You should apologize and post a retraction.

(Oct 9; CORRECTION: What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such.)

Here is what you said:

Well, I had thought it a gaffe, but a quick check of factcheck.org shows that Bush did indeed report buisness income from a small timber buisness enterprise.

Bush did not report income from a small timber business enterprise.  His income was from an oil and gas production concern.  Your statement is, per factcheck.org, incorrect.

I'm glad that you're so concerned about minor factual problems when a Democrat quotes an innaccurate source.

Now apply that standard to your own party.

[ATFFL]

Just to add a bit more truth to the thread, factcheck.org updated the story with this correction:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, the Cheney approved site made a minor correction.

Yes, that is good journalism.  When you make a mistake, as all journalists do, you admit it and correct it.  See what Fox did with their recent mistakes.

Also, Bush is correct, he does not own a timber company.  This makes your opening post incorrect.

You should apologize and post a retraction.

(Oct 9; CORRECTION: What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such.)

Here is what you said:

Well, I had thought it a gaffe, but a quick check of factcheck.org shows that Bush did indeed report buisness income from a small timber buisness enterprise.

Bush did not report income from a small timber business enterprise.  His income was from an oil and gas production concern.  Your statement is, per factcheck.org, incorrect.

I'm glad that you're so concerned about minor factual problems when a Democrat quotes an innaccurate source.

Now apply that standard to your own party.

It's nice to know you ignore minor factual problems when a Democrat quotes an inaccurate source. 

Now apply that standard to the opposite party.

What I care about is mistakes, when made, being fixed.  You have yet to fix the error in your post.  You now admit that you have a "minor factual probelm" in your post.  You need to fix it.

When FOX posted inaccurate information they fixed it and printed a retraction.  That is the standard I expect you to mee.  Does FOX have higher standards than you do, jfern?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's nice to know you ignore minor factual problems when a Democrat quotes an inaccurate source. 

Now apply that standard to the opposite party.

What I care about is mistakes, when made, being fixed.  You have yet to fix the error in your post.  You now admit that you have a "minor factual probelm" in your post.  You need to fix it.

When FOX posted inaccurate information they fixed it and printed a retraction.  That is the standard I expect you to mee.  Does FOX have higher standards than you do, jfern?

This is an inane conversation.
Bush lies all the time about important matters.
And Fox makes up news, so they don't count.

[shankbear]

Everybody that posted on this......please repeat it for us

[ATFFL]

It's nice to know you ignore minor factual problems when a Democrat quotes an inaccurate source. 

Now apply that standard to the opposite party.

What I care about is mistakes, when made, being fixed.  You have yet to fix the error in your post.  You now admit that you have a "minor factual probelm" in your post.  You need to fix it.

When FOX posted inaccurate information they fixed it and printed a retraction.  That is the standard I expect you to mee.  Does FOX have higher standards than you do, jfern?

This is an inane conversation.
Bush lies all the time about important matters.
And Fox makes up news, so they don't count.

Basically, you are unhappy you were caught in an error and want out now.

Now we know that you can not meet even the standard of journalism practiced by FOX, the outfit you despise.  In dealing with you I will show the same regard for the truth you have here.

[Citizen James]

Looks like they only kept the retraction until they could double check their sources.  They have removed the retraction and posted the evidence.

Now, I'm sure someone will take a look at the docs and claim that this is as reliable as CBS or the documents that proved 'without a doubt' that saddam had wmds, but this is about as close to a 'reliable source' as you can get if you're open minded and lack a security clearance.  (If you're closed minded, the only qualification for a reliable source is that it tells you what you want to hear).

[jimrtex]

Does it really matter whether Lone-Star is a timber trust or an oil-and-gas trust other than the confusion it caused at the debate? I'm certain Kerry would have preferred to avoid that confusion as it is obscuring his point that Bush would be categorized as the owner of a small business under some arcane measurement despite the self-evident fact that is not his primary occupation, thus showing that the arcane measurement has problems.

It illustrates the problems of using the tax code in attempt to reward/punish certain types of activity.   The Democrat position is to have as high as possible nominal rates, so that tax loopholes can be used to encourage certain types of behavior.

[ATFFL]

Looks like they only kept the retraction until they could double check their sources.  They have removed the retraction and posted the evidence.

Now, I'm sure someone will take a look at the docs and claim that this is as reliable as CBS or the documents that proved 'without a doubt' that saddam had wmds, but this is about as close to a 'reliable source' as you can get if you're open minded and lack a security clearance.  (If you're closed minded, the only qualification for a reliable source is that it tells you what you want to hear).

Who printed a retraction?  Factcheck.org never printed a retraction, they printed a correction, and it is still there. 

[MODU]

"Investing" and "owning" are two separate things.  Bush did a wise comeback on Kerry's jab, even if it were "technically" correct.