MAY 23, 2009
***
BLK: "As Bjorn Lomborg, the author...>>
DAR
Bjorn Lomborg is a profoundly dishonest person. One of his books has 300 lies in it. See this documented over and over, here:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Chapter by chapter errors here:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/skeptical.htm
He may be right about this simple claim, but you always have to check the guy. He's very sneaky.
BLK: companies and other interested groups had hired 2,430 lobbyists last year, and that was up 300% from a year ago. So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh?">>
DAR
Obama can control how many lobbyists are hired by private industry?
Did Obama say he would or could control how many lobbyists are hired by private industry?
Don't you think such a claim insults the intelligence of your readers?
D.
*****
BIGD: Bush was accused of being in bed with big business, particularly Big Oil.>>
DAR
Just accused? LOL.
BIGD: Obama is in bed with big business, particularly Big Green.>>
DAR
You may be right on this. Invest accordingly. One president reveled in the waste and pollution of a dead end resource, the other will help America compete by reducing waste and pollution and improving efficiency. And that's a very good thing.
BIGD: The nation has gotten cooler and there are too many scientists who say sunspot activity is the issue, not CO2.>>
DAR
If you ever want to go to the mat and try and defend your unscientific anti-climate change beliefs, just let me know. And no, there aren't "too many" scientists who think sunspots explain our warming, there are hardly any and almost without exception, they are NOT climate scientists. Regarding the sunspots, begin here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -sunspots/
Regarding the "nation [has] gotten cooler," look at a hundred year graph, not a cherry-picked couple of years.
BIGD: Mars is warming, guess the Martians have SUVs.>>
DAR
Actually, that's complete rubbish. Take a moment and learn the truth from an award winning science site (no politics) written by climatoligists:
"Global warming on Mars?"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Excerpt:
"Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data."
D.
****
DAR
You can't be serious.
Blake says: "...companies and other interested groups had hired [x number]" of lobbyists. And then concludes:
"So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh?"
My point is, companies and interest groups hiring lobbyists has nothing, *No Thing,* to do with Obama or what has said he will do or even can do. But Blake pretends he can blame private industry hiring practices on Obama? That's insultingly absurd. And you want to defend that?
BIGD: "...the reality is that Obama said he would have no lobbyists in his administration and that lobbyists would not influence his administration.">>
DAR
When you start a sentence with "the reality is" it's best to be dealing with reality.
If Obama said:
a) "he would have no lobbyists in his administration"
b) "lobbyists would not influence his administration."
Then you shouldn't have any trouble quoting him saying exactly this.
Now he did make strong claims regarding lobbyist reform and setting high standards. And he has carried a great deal of them out. There have been exceptions. Lets look at the details:
***
"Obama's executive order on ethics sets these limits on former lobbyists: they can't leave the administration and lobby on matters they dealt with in the administration for two years; and lobbyists can't join agencies they lobbied in the two previous years."
There have been three waviers of this rule:
"The White House has issued three waivers lifting its ban on former registered lobbyists working in the administration. The first was to Bill Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon, so he could become deputy Defense secretary; Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel of the National Partnership for Women and Families; and Cecilia Munoz, the former vice president of the National Council for La Raza. Frye is now the director of policy and projects for first lady Michelle Obama, and Munoz is the director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs."
Here are his rules. Strict and unprecedented:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15515.html
Here is Norm Ornstein praising them:
***
Statement of Norm Ornstein
American Enterprise Institute
"Restoring trust in government is a prerequisite to enacting good policy and the tough choices the country needs. This ethics policy for the transition is a far-reaching, bold and constructive step to do just that. The policy may exclude some good people with deep experience in their fields, but it will also exclude those who see government service as a springboard to financial success, or who are more intent on pleasing future potential employers or clients than making tough choices in the public interest. As much as anything, this ethics policy is a statement about the tone and tenor of the Obama administration. It is a good sign."
--ibid
****
ADAM: "Obama is president elected with a firm majority...">>
DAR
Let me back that up a little. The country voted for Obama by such a margin that he could have spotted McCain California AND New York and he still would have won.
And these guys think if only... McCain would have been more to the right.
D.
-----------------
"...the political numbers that are truly striking. Obama has a 66 percent approval rating, which is the highest this poll has recorded, while the GOP's favorability is at 31 percent, the lowest the poll has recorded in 25 years of asking the question. Arguably more remarkable still is that, asked whether Obama or the GOP Congress would be more likely to make "the right decisions about the nation's economy," respondents broke for Obama 63 percent to 20 percent. That means that even within the 31 percent rump that holds a positive view of the GOP, at least a third trust Obama's instincts on the economy equally or more. And why shouldn't they? Despite Rush Limbaugh's best efforts just 2 percent of respondents blame Obama for the state of the economy, compared to 33 percent who blame George W. Bush."
--New Republic, April 7, 2009
****
INON: "He [Dar] is so full of hate."
DAR
This is called projection. You behave a certain way and then project and attribute your behavior onto others.
I don't act like you. Ever.
When you remove the hate, vitriol, personal attacks and insults from "Inonitnot's" posts, there is nothing left. And that's too bad. It's a wasted opportunity and not an effective way of getting any point across.
D.
****
BIGD: "Obama misled people in that speech.">>
DAR
Still waiting for one example. Blake made a few attempts but as I showed he had to resort to completely making them up.
Quote Obama "in that speech," show how/where he "misled people." Make your case. Let's see what you've got.
You've brought a squirt gun to a gun fight, but did you bring any water?
D.
****
DAR
This Pelosi story presents an interesting conundrum for conservatives (other than it's usefulness as a distraction from their policies of torture).
They pretend she should have done something to stop this. So to the extent they make noise about this, they are admitting there was something wrong that needed to be stopped.
A couple of points. She was minority leader at the time and being briefed in a way that allowed no notes, no cross-examination and no counter point. You sit, you listen, and you can't talk about it because it's top secret. And because you can't have a record of the event, you can't show you have or have not been told, anything.
And you're minority leader so you have very little power if any, anyway (ask Boehner about that).
Now comes along this wholly baseless claim:
BIGD: "She has lied about her knowledge of waterboarding being used..."
DAR
Show this. I ask this knowing you cannot.
All you have is an awkward press conference where she fumbled over herself. Big whoop.
Before I post something I have a policy of asking myself if my claims are true. It's a good policy and I recommend you give this method a try.
D.
-----------------
"Sen. Bob Graham backs up Pelosi and says he was never briefed on waterboarding by the CIA"
"Former Sen.(D)Bob Graham, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee told David Shuster that he never was briefed about waterboarding by the CIA on MSNBC. He also said that he was never allowed to take real notes about the CIA briefings, but he did log the topics and the amount of times he was briefed. They don't match up with the CIA's version."
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/se ... nd-says-he
****
BLK: "Obama said that lobbyists would HAVE NO INFLUENCE in his administration."
DAR
What an absurd claim. Lobbying, even by paid individuals is an important part of our governing process and representative feedback system.
When are you going to show, cite, reference this statement that you say Obama said? You will need to do this to build your case for a "lie."
It's becoming clear that don't have basic skills in how to snoop around and find evidence to back up your claims. I'm pretty good at it so I did a bit of checking for you. If such a quote existed it would be very easy to find.
It doesn't exist.
Try again.
D.
*****
BIGD: since she [Pelosi] did not say anything she agreed with it.>>
DAR
But no one has shown, or even can show, she was told waterboarding was occurring.
BIGD: Even the minority leader can bring the objection up...>>
DAR
Why would she bring it up if she wasn't told? Because of the secrecy, you can do no better than "he said she said."
BIGD: I wonder how many of people like you thought the whole Plame issue was worth pursuing..>>
DAR
When a spy is outed by it's own government, reasonable people would say it is worth pursuing.
BIGD: when Bush was not involved,>>
DAR
Then he should pay closer attention and/or not surround himself with people who keep things from him and lie to him. Scott McClelland, Bush's press secretary knows about being lied to by this bunch.
BIGD: Plame was not covert,>>
DAR
The prosecutor said she was. Let me know if you want the quote.
BIGD: and the leaker was someone who did not agree with Bush on war policy.>>
DAR
That doesn't narrow it down much.
BIGD: Also, the specials prosecutor knew who it was after 3 days of investigation.>>
DAR
But Scooter did his best to obstruct justice in the case, as the jury decided.
BIGD: The CIA said she was briefed and SHE said she was briefed after several denials.>>
DAR
Of course she was briefed. The question is what was she briefed on. This is what is in question.
Best to not call someone a liar unless you can back it up. That's not too much to ask. I was pretty rough on GW Bush over the years but I rarely if ever claimed that he was a liar. This is because I know that to show a lie you have to show someone intentionally said something untrue. It's hard to show intent.
BIGD: And you cite a Democrat as her alibi? That is credible.>>
DAR
Yes, it is. James Fallows of The Atlantic addresses this:
***
Part of the payoff of reaching age 72 and having spent 38 years in public office, as Graham has, is that people have had a chance to judge your reputation. Graham has a general reputation for honesty. In my eyes he has a specific reputation for very good judgment: he was one of a handful of Senators actually to read the full classified intelligence report about the "threats" posed by Saddam Hussein. On the basis of reading it, despite a career as a conservative/centrist Democrat, he voted against the war and fervently urged his colleagues to do the same. "Blood is going to be on your hands," he warned those who voted yes.
More relevant in this case, Graham also has a specific reputation for keeping detailed daily records of people he met and things they said. He's sometimes been mocked for this compulsive practice, but he's never been doubted about the completeness or accuracy of what he compiles. (In the fine print of those records would be an indication that I had interviewed him about Iraq war policy while he was in the Senate and recently spent time with him when he was on this side of the world.)
So if he says he never got the briefing, he didn't. And if the CIA or anyone acting on its behalf challenges him, they are stupid and incompetent as well as being untrustworthy. This doesn't prove that the accounts of briefing Pelosi are also inaccurate. But it shifts the burden of proof."
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/arc ... am_how.php
***
DAR
I don't trust the Moonie times. I did see this:
"CIA said it stood by its record of the 2002 briefing that showed, based on recollections of agency employees..."
So we have nobody allowed to take notes, and people babbling about what they think they "recollect" from 7 years ago. This story is going nowhere. Nice try though.
Water boarding is of course torture and it is a millstone that will be hung around the GOP's neck for a very long time.
D.
***
BIGD: And if you ask yourself if claims are true why do you cite things that are incorrect?>>
DAR
When did I do that?
BD: Just because you cite places that are sympathetic to liberal views does not make them accurate.>>
DAR
Of course.
BD: Like Snopes and the COLB which is not a birth certificate.>>
DAR
The snopes article I cited specifically referred to the "Certificate of Live Birth."
BIGD: Or that Obama never said what he did about lobbyists.>>
DAR
Show he said what you claim he said. Back it up. That's in another thread. I'll get to it in a minute.
D.
***
BIGD: In the 1970s the big fear was an ice age and we can see how that turned out.>>
DAR
No, that's false. A lie peddled by dishonest commentators like George Will (who I usually like).
For starters, see:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... -1970s.php
And:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
For a debunk of Will's latest howlers on this see:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04 ... ts_wmo.php
BIGD: There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in GW...>>
DAR
Right-wing weathermen, are not climate scientists. Let's check:
****
"According to a recent article in Eos (Doran and Zimmermann, 'Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change', Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23 - only available for AGU members - update: a public link to the article is here), about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed. The disproportion between these numbers is a concern, and one possible explanation may be that the <B>science literacy among the general public is low."
Note: "Not one single, solitary scientific professional or honorific science organization has dissented from the consensus opinion on climate change. Not one. And it’s been examined in minute detail by the NAS, AGU and a veritable alphabet soup of scientists [and science organizations].
BIGD: and many who believe in sunspot activity.>>
DAR
Actually your GW denier material is out of date. This isn't even brought up anymore and when it was, it was be people who weren't climate scientists.
BIGD: To say the issue is settled is a slap in the face to real science...>>
DAR
Science doesn't give us certainty, it gives us probabilities. We have about 95% confidence that the claims held by the climate scientists regarding mankind's influence in warming the earth, current and in the future, are accurate.
You could be right. It could be some unknown cause we have not recognized. But this is not very likely.
BIGD: Stopping the debate with inane suggestions that the science is settled, especially since it has yet to be proved, is careless.>>
DAR
Don't stop the debate but give some good reasons to doubt the consensus position. Sunspots, cooling in the 70's, we breath CO2, doesn't get it. Here is a standard FAQ on this. You no doubt have a few more of these floating around because you have heard them but not checked them out. Check out the debunk before you pass along GW denier material. There are probably 80 in this list:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... ceptic.php
BIGD: Al Gore stands to make a ton of money on a hoax.>>
DAR
His investments in green technology are given to a non-profit (FOX dishonestly edited that part out of his video testimony). See:
"Fox News Caught Repeatedly Cropping, Manipulating Video"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2DJR8I ... r_embedded
BIGD: Green technology is a way to make special people rich at our expense.>>
DAR
Anyone can invest. I encourage you to. My computer is running on solar power right now. I bought four 15 watt panels at Tractor Supply for $299 and the battery for $69. They probably won't pay for themselves because energy is still far too cheap. This will change. I charge tools and play with them for fun.
BIGD: Oil is here for a reason and that reason is for us to use. There is a lot of it and a lot of natural gas.>>
DAR
There used to be a lot of it. We are going to use it, every bit of it, but we need to be smart. 12 mpg is not smart. Driving a hummer is not smart and giving a $100,000 tax benefit to encourage the purchase of heavier vehicles is stupidity on stilts. We will need that last bit of oil to lube the gears on my grandsons electric vehicle. And we need oil for our fertilizers.
BIGD: They keep finding oil fields and we have not run out yet.>>
DAR
All the big ones have been found and many of those are in major decline. I encourage you to read up on this. I have put this rather concise collection together:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1873&p=9426&hilit=peak#p9277
BIGD: I also don’t want to be poor and without power while a guy who flies in private jets and uses more electricity...>>
DAR
More rubbish about Al Gore. Make your claims specific and I'll roast them.
And your smears are out of date. As I posted over a year ago:
"Gore makes Nashville home more 'green'
* Home now has solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating
* Highest rating possible "short of tearing it down," says U.S. Green Building Council
The CNN article is gone but I copied it all here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4451&p=13623&hilit= ... rgy#p13623
Half way down my post.
Excerpt:
"The Green Building Council's certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification....
...his natural gas use has dropped 93 percent in the three months since the geothermal pump was activated."
D.
***
DAR [re lobbying]
The yahoo article is good. I encourage people to read it. Eight thousand people hired, and he it shows what, 12 waviers?
As your Yahoo News article quotes:
“Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule,”
If Obama has an excellent qualified person in front of him he can choose to throw them away to strictly follow something he said, or he can in very rare occasions, set aside his own rule.
I don't want a president that is so ridge he can't make exceptions on occasion. What does twelve represent out of 8,000? .15 %
The quote from "Des Moines" quote is vague and is further detailed in his rules regarding lobbyists. His claim regarding funding was specifically, according to his rules, with regard to federally registered lobbyists.
Your "Roll Call" article makes this point and refutes yours (while noting that Obama had 40 donations and McCain 440). To quote:
"The Obama campaign said it has not changed its policy regarding lobbyist contributions and that it continues to take steps to ensure such contributions are returned."
And: "“Because of a law championed by Sen. Obama, lobbyists are now required to disclose their contributions, which gives us another chance to make sure we haven’t taken any money from lobbyists,” Vietor said. “Any contributions from lobbyists that weren’t already returned will be soon.” --Roll Call, ibid
DAR
You should read the articles you cite. Using a persons own source against them (by careful reading) is a bit of a specialty of mine.
D.
***
BIGD: "OK, then I don’t trust any of the liberal publications you cited for any argument..>>
DAR
Sorry, Moonie Times is junk. Quote Pelosi, (even from them, I can check that) that's fine, Moonie Times opinion/spin, not a reputable source.
BIGD: Under the law waterboarding was not torture when it was done in 2002.>>
DAR
You like to change the subject a lot. If you want to defend "water boarding is not torture" lets go. I'll roast you to a crisp.
BIGD: Let me ask, do you think the people who waterboarded the terrorists intended to hurt them or just make them talk?>>
DAR
Probably both. I don't see why "intent" would bear upon the question of whether the action is torture. Water boarding is torture. Always has been, always will be. See below.
BIGD: Was the intent to inflict damage to them?>>
DAR
I have no idea and the question is irrelevant. If I have a car battery hooked up to your reproductive organs, does my intent really matter? Does it matter if I want to hurt you or just make you talk? No.
D.
--------------------
Waterboarding
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[1] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[2][3] politicians, war veterans,[4][5] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[12]
In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[2] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_boarding
As I am sure you have heard, conservative radio commentator "Man Cow" who sang the company line that it is not torture, had the testes to have it done on him. A light version, no sleep deprivation, no restraints, friends all around. Just a little exercise. He made it 6 seconds. Result?
"Absolutely torture." --Man Cow
Six, seconds.
Hannity offered to do it for charity:
"Sure," Hannity said. "I'll do it for charity ... I'll do it for the troops' families."
Olbermann offered $1,000 per second and now has doubled it. No response from Hannity.
I haven't really gotten concerned about these these three we know about. More important would be the people the US has tortured to death (who we know were innocent) and sent to Syria and Egypt for god knows what (This was discovered because they accidentally sent an innocent Canadian). See "Taxi to the Dark Side."
A blurb:
"Taxi to the Dark Side is a 2007 documentary film directed by American filmmaker Alex Gibney, and produced by Eva Orner and Susannah Shipman, which won the 2007 Academy Award for Documentary Feature.[1]
The film focuses on the murder in custody of an Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar.[2] Dilawar was beaten to death by American soldiers while being held in extrajudicial detention at the Bagram Air Base."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side
****
BIGD: "Snopes said the COLB was proof of citizenship.">>
The article I cited is here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bi ... ficate.asp
It says no such thing. The word "proof" does not occur in the article.
D.
****
BIGD: "If she supported a letter objecting to the use of these techniques then it means she knew."
DAR
Non sequitur. Your "then" doesn't follow from your "if."
BIGD: "...either way she looks like a liar."
DAR
She has handled this poorly and picking a fight with the CIA was dumb and unnecessary. But as Senator Boxer has said, these briefings are handled very poorly and are a big of a joke. And obviously, they can be used to try to string you up but because of the no notes, no recordings rules.
D.
------------
Trying to be more concise.
****
BLK: "and will your friends let you charge at their house if you run low?>>
DAR
Yes, they will. The nice thing is, electricity is ubiquitous in our society. And it's cheap (for a little while longer).
BLK: That will cost probably 50 bucks, perhaps more after cap and trade.>>
DAR
I owned a business selling electric vehicles in 2006 (lost about $15 grand too) so I know a little about the cost to charge them. My (E-max) full size 2,000 watt, 48 volt scooter (eight 12 volt batts in two strings) would take a full size adult almost 30 miles. The cost to charge it is about 30 cents.
I was considering the plug in hybrid GM Volt which may never happen now. I have a service business (besides the goats, which are pets) which requires about 20k of driving per year. If I was to charge my GM volt at a customers home I would meter it and pay them for their electricity of course.
I suspect it would be considerably less than a dollar. Electricity is quite cheap and electric motors are about 90% efficient.
The problem is the batteries.
D.
***
BIGD: "Chavez and Saddam Hussein receive 98% of the votes...">>
DAR
I know you are using hyperbole here but, let's see what the real numbers are:
In 1998 Chavez won the election "with 56% of the votes."
In 2006 he won the election "with 63% of the vote,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
Learn something new every day.
****
I'll just unpack the first two sentences:
BIGD: It has been shown that Bush [the election] won over and over.>>
DAR
Actually no. Consider:
***
[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.
--Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.
BIGD: Gore only wanted some places recounted so he would win.>>
DAR
Not true either:
“The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.”
--Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films ... .php?id=16
The nice thing about Michael is he is so good at backing up nearly every claim in his movies with a reference.
***
ADAM: "...your side is full of irrational people who think that ACORN’s faulty registrations added up to enough actual fraudulent votes to swing an election...>>
DAR
When you say "enough actual fraudulent votes" this almost suggests that they have more than one. That's far too kind.
There isn't any evidence of that.
The ACORN issue is a complete fraud and a phoney from top to bottom. See the roast here:
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ads_fraud
Just the other day Glen Beck's show tried to sandbag Barney Frank with some anti-ACORN nonsense. Frank, being smarter than the average bear, had his way with the guy, as follows:
***
Frank: As you know, the Bush administration, every year of the eight years of the Bush administration gave them well over a million dollars for housing counseling, and nobody has shown me any sign that any of that federal money was misspent. You know, I think people are being somewhat unfair to President Bush and his secretaries of HUD who consistently funded ACORN for, as I said, for a total of about 14 million dollars during the Bush years. If someone has evidence that the money that President Bush made available was misspent -- that's what I have jurisdiction over, I don't have jurisdiction over election activities by another ACORN organization -- but if anyone has any evidence, and no one has sent it to me yet, that the Bush administration ignored the misspending of that $14 million, I'll look into it.
Griff: Yes, sir, but would you hold hearings or an investigation ...?
Frank: I think you're being very unfair to President Bush."
--
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=538&start=600#p18973
***
No, *Bush* is a "cowboy" who is "all hat and no cattle."
I grew up on a 180 acre dairy farm and helped milk 40 head, twice a day. We had lots of cattle. I know the difference.
Regarding guns, I have lots of them and am a bit of a marksman. So again, you don't know what you are talking about.
D.
-----------------
“You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.” -George W. Bush, 1989
****
Bigd: [As an example of a "lie" Bigd says Obama lied because he didn't mention the US over threw Iranian leader in a speech on memorial day]
DAR
Blame America First eh?
Sneaky bugger! You're trying to be sensible and throw me off my game. Of course America's history is a mixed bag. You could give an hour lecture on the good stuff and one at least as long on the bad stuff.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't know about the three examples you give above and if they bring them up, they are accused of being anti-American and "blaming America first."
Should have Obama worded his sentence this way?
"From Europe to the Pacific, we’ve been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law, well except for Iran, Guatemala and Indonesia, and a few others where we screwed the pooch."
Really, is that the time to get into that sort of detail? Of course not. That would be viewed as insane.
For once the GOP would have something substantive to get him on!
Is Obama's comment true? Can we find many instances where "from Europe to the Pacific" the US has "shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law." In fact, has there been a country that has done it more effectively?
You have found some instances that turned out very poorly (I've used that list before on right-wing nutbars who think the US has done no wrong) but you haven't shown Obama's claim to be false and in fact, it's manifestly true. That sentence doesn't mean the US is "as pure as the driven snow" it just means what it says, that is, the US has been the nation at the fore front of "shut[ing] down torture chambers and replac[ing] tyranny with the rule of law."
WWII alone would make the case. South Korea and pushing the Soviets over the edge do too.
I do appreciate the attempt though.
D.
***
***
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." --Her column; December 21, 2005