Solargate

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

she didn't say it wasn't bad...she just started naming similar eff ups by others...you know, cause that makes it ok
somehow. there's only something to see, or something to say, if it has (r) next to it...but not (d)..they're saints donchaknow. that's how you see both sides of a situation-don't acknowledge bad behavior by your side, just start throwing out what the 'other side' did...

No. What I actually said, my first comment on this, was:

If there was something illegal going on, absolutely heads should roll.

But don't let reality change your opinion.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The accusation isn't that "it's bad". Geeshus cripes. And I didn't say, "nothing bad happened". Try to not falsely or deliberately mischaracterize what other posters have said. Bad habit you have.

Now, are you going to list those specific "facts" you are talking about, or not, and change the subject?

post 41 you say "nothing bad happened"
post 52 you say you didn't say "nothing bad happened"

I'm sure you will try to weasel out and say it was taken out of context or some other bs but seriously what is wrong with you?
Outside of radical political operatives with mental deficencies who in the world takes the positions that you take EVERY time? Not to mention doing exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing, namely changing the subject or focusing on a single minor aspect of a larger topic? Your agenda is clear but that doesn't mean that there is shame in admitting that your guy is a miserable failure and the GOP isn't the cause of all evil in the world. You consistently accuse me of being a radical conservative yet in many cases I dont do anything but poke holes in your arguments. Even in cases like the Chicago teachers union where you say you don't agree with them, you spend most of the thread careening off topic and generally blaming the right for things despite the fact that they aren't even involved. Like Danzig has said, most people are fed up, period with the entire process and most politicians of all parties yet you won't even concede that point. Even with Congress with an approval rate of 15%.

I'm sure you will go through line by line to try to discredit me but I really don't care very much. I suppose if it wasn't for your inane takes and laughable responses the political section would wind up as dull as the sports section has. So go ahead and take credit for keeping the DT political section alive and call it is win for Obama if you want. He needs all the W's he can get.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

she didn't say it wasn't bad...she just started naming similar eff ups by others...you know, cause that makes it ok somehow. there's only something to see, or something to say, if it has (r) next to it...but not (d)..they're saints donchaknow. that's how you see both sides of a situation-don't acknowledge bad behavior by your side, just start throwing out what the 'other side' did...

the biggest problem of it all is that both 'sides' are bad, and we're the poor bastards stuck in the middle of both sets of crooks. and the fact that some think that having faith in one side will somehow right the ship--the one both sides are sinking.

actually she did. post 41 under "number one lie"

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Top Five Lies

The Number One Lie

And the number 1 lie told by conservatives is:

1) Something bad happened. The right has been trying to push the idea that something bad has happened involving Solyndra. They are calling it a "scandal." But it is entirely a manufactured scandal, like those from the Clinton era. This is what they do. Nothing bad happened.

The loan was good for the country, even though one company went bankrupt.

Again

Really the "the loan was good for the country" line was even more incredibly inane than "nothing bad happened".

The loan was good for the country...

the logic used I'm sure will be like saying that going bankrupt is good because then you dont have to pay all your debts

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

post 41 you say "nothing bad happened"
post 52 you say you didn't say "nothing bad happened"

No Chuck, that's an article. Don't attribute other people's words to me.

I'm sure you will try to weasel out and say it was taken out of context or some other bs but seriously what is wrong with you?

What the hell is wrong with you? I said if anything criminal happened heads should roll. In the rush to attack, you jackasses can't even get my stated opinion about this right.

Chuck said: "Like Danzig has said, most people are fed up, period with the entire process and most politicians of all parties yet you won't even concede that point."

Stop lying. You just make crap up out of thin air. I've never said most people are not upset with politicians. "concede that point"? Concede what to whom? You are complaining about something that never even happened? Just making crap up out of your ****ing imagination?

I'm sure you will go through line by line to try to discredit me but I really don't care very much.

Because apparently honest discourse isn't your forte. Just making imaginary crap up about people is. But I've known that for some time.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

No Chuck, that's an article. Don't attribute other people's words to me.



What the hell is wrong with you? I said if anything criminal happened heads should roll. In the rush to attack, you jackasses can't even get my stated opinion about this right.



Stop lying. You just make crap up out of thin air. I've never said most people are not upset with politicians. "concede that point"? Concede what to whom? You are complaining about something that never even happened? Just making crap up out of your ****ing imagination?




Because apparently honest discourse isn't your forte. Just making imaginary crap up about people is. But I've known that for some time.

What article? I see no link. I see nothing that says who wrote that or where it appeared.

You arent even honest with yourself

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Top Five Lies

Now they're at it again, this time trying to turn the unfortunate bankruptcy of a solar-power company named Solyndra into an all-out anti-Obama and anti-government attack. Here is a countdown of the top five lies they are telling about what happened with Solyndra:

5) The biggest investor in Solyndra was an Obama donor. Conservatives (and now picked up by corporate "mainstream" outlets) make the accusation that there was corruption in the process by which Solyndra received its loan because a major Obama donor named George Kaiser is a major investor in Solyndra. The charge is that Solyndra only received the loan guarantee as a result of campaign contributions by people "connected to" Solyndra. The problem with this is that George Kaiser was not an investor in Solyndra. According to Tulsa World,

In an emailed statement to the Tulsa World, a representative of the George Kaiser Family Foundation said the organization made the investment through Argonaut.

"George Kaiser is not an investor in Solyndra and did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan," the statement said. "GKFF invests in a globally diversified portfolio across many different asset classes."

The Kaiser Family Foundation is a philanthropic organization, which means Kaiser (or anyone else) could not personally profit from a successful investment by the foundation.

4) Green energy is a bad investment. Oil-connected conservatives have been trying to kill off investment in green energy for some time. They see opportunity in hyping up a "scandal" over the bankruptcy of Solyndra as a way to attack the idea of developing a green-energy industry in the US. Just today, Heritage Foundation, which for months has been attacking the idea of creating green jobs, has this posted: Solyndra Scandal Ends Green Jobs Myth. (I have several examples of conservative attacks on green manufacturing in the post, The Phony Solyndra Solar Scandal.)

Just in the last year China gave $30 billion financing to 6 solar companies. If the benefits from developing a green energy industry that provides lots of green jobs are a myth then why is China putting so much into this effort?

3) The government lost money "picking winners and losers." This is a core line of attack by the right. By tricking the public into thinking that the purpose of government's efforts to trigger a green-energy industry was to make money for the government by investing in individual companies, they can make this look bad because one company went into bankruptcy. But the purpose of our government's involvement in this is to help trigger an ecosystem around which a green-energy industry can grow. When a new technology is promising, it might be risky to investors, but very beneficial to us as a country to pursue it. That way we end up with a chunk of the millions of jobs and trillions of dollars that result. That benefits everyone.

The government does not operate like a venture capitalist, investing in companies with the hope of reaping a profit for itself. Compare the effort to trigger a green-energy industry to government-funded cancer research. Some directions of exploration don’t pan out. But you don’t know that until you fund the tests. This is what happened with Solyndra. The loan guarantee enabled Solyndra to get private investment hire researchers as well as manufacturing and other employees, to build a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in the US, to develop a supply chain, to buy equipment, etc. This was part of the stimulus and all that money was moved into the economy. And all of those are still in the United States, ready to be part of scaling up a green-energy industry. So where the country is concerned, we didn’t lose at all.

The goal was not to make Solyndra a successful company, the goal was to trigger an ecosystem for the green-energy industry in the US. Weren't the things the money was used for, good for the country? Even though the company Solyndra didn’t make it, the money created jobs and leaves behind technology, trained workrs, equipment and facilities that other companies will use.

2) The Solyndra loan was rushed or pushed. This loan originated under the Bush administration -- and for good reasons. Following the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the government began efforts to cultivate a US-based green-energy industry. Solyndra offered a promising technology and applied for loan guarantees. Following a review by career professionals in the Department of Energy (DOE) Solyndra was asked to provide more information. A few months later, under the new Obama administration, the same career professionals received the requested information and proceeded to approve the loan.

They DOE had some conditions, and a few months later those conditions were met, and the timeline of meeting the conditions meant it happened under the new administration but was handled by the same career professionals. It was the right thing to do for the country to suggest the loan under the Bush administration, which did nothing wrong. Approving the loan under the Obama administration also helps the country because that money went toward helping develop that ecosystem that creates companies and jobs. Stories about rushing the approval are meant to make it sound like it was done to help a major campaign donor who, as point #1 above makes clear, was not the investor. It is the only reason the timing is an issue.

The Number One Lie

And the number 1 lie told by conservatives is:

1) Something bad happened. The right has been trying to push the idea that something bad has happened involving Solyndra. They are calling it a "scandal." But it is entirely a manufactured scandal, like those from the Clinton era. This is what they do. Nothing bad happened.

The supposed campaign donor/investor is not an investor. The timing of the loan is not suspect, it followed the proper, transparent, accountable procedures. The loan assisted the development of a promising technology. The green-energy industry stands to create millions of jobs and trillions of dollars to the countries that are smart enough now to make the investments that help them grab a chunk of it. The loan was good for the country, even though one company went bankrupt.

ok?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What article? I see no link. I see nothing that says who wrote that or where it appeared.

You arent even honest with yourself

Bullshit. That's a pathetic attempt to defend yourself. Posting something that has no relationship at all to the way I write or the words I use, that is clearly an article, surely confused you, I suppose. Is that what you are saying? Here:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...about-solyndra

And rest assured I don't think "nothing bad happened". Not that someones' real opinions matter to you.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

No Chuck, that's an article. Don't attribute other people's words to me.



What the hell is wrong with you? I said if anything criminal happened heads should roll. In the rush to attack, you jackasses can't even get my stated opinion about this right.



Stop lying. You just make crap up out of thin air. I've never said most people are not upset with politicians. "concede that point"? Concede what to whom? You are complaining about something that never even happened? Just making crap up out of your ****ing imagination?




Because apparently honest discourse isn't your forte. Just making imaginary crap up about people is. But I've known that for some time.

tsk tsk and from someone so quick to take offense from others

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

tsk tsk and from someone so quick to take offense from others

Hold onto that self-rightousness.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Hold onto that self-rightousness.

now, there's the line of the day from you.

you, madam, are the one who has always reacted harshly when others 'insulted' you, whether real or imagined. but i guess you've finally given up trying to have others act one way, while you cast slings and arrows at will. go for it. if you want to keep calling people losers and jackasses, that's certainly your right. but i will continue to chuckle everytime someone 'insults' you and you get hurt, hot and bothered, and then do the same in return.


i guess i could have saved all the writing above and just listed the definition of the word hypocrite...but you'd probably just accuse me of being self-righteous again. hell, i thought i was just pointing out the obvious....guess i hit a nerve.


i have to say though, i do find it odd how your opinions of people changes based on whether they agree or disagree with a point you make.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

now, there's the line of the day from you.

you, madam, are the one who has always reacted harshly when others 'insulted' you, whether real or imagined. but i guess you've finally given up trying to have others act one way, while you cast slings and arrows at will. go for it. if you want to keep calling people losers and jackasses, that's certainly your right. but i will continue to chuckle everytime someone 'insults' you and you get hurt, hot and bothered, and then do the same in return.

i guess i could have saved all the writing above and just listed the definition of the word hypocrite...but you'd probably just accuse me of being self-righteous again. hell, i thought i was just pointing out the obvious....guess i hit a nerve.


i have to say though, i do find it odd how your opinions of people changes based on whether they agree or disagree with a point you make.

Feel better?

Yes, "madam", I'll be happy to continue to call rude bullshiat out as just that. I really don't take well to being repeatedly called a c.u.n.t., or a liar, or stupid. I will continue to respond to that. You are free to call it on me. In fact, feel free to list them. Am I mad if you do? Nope. Feel free. My "anger" is just one more thing you make up about what you know I must "think.

BTW, nice of you to attribute one more of your imaginings to me, but no, my "opinions" about people here are based upon what I know about them, and do not depend upon their political views. Please don't lump me in with how you think.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by geeker2

See Deb-O-Deb I just knew it had to be Bush's fault

The odds were pretty good.

[lord007]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...cda......:eek:

[Riot]

Guess that throws a wrench into the "Obama scandal!" meme.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Feel better?

Yes, "madam", I'll be happy to continue to call rude bullshiat out as just that. I really don't take well to being repeatedly called a c.u.n.t., or a liar, or stupid. I will continue to respond to that. You are free to call it on me. In fact, feel free to list them. Am I mad if you do? Nope. Feel free. My "anger" is just one more thing you make up about what you know I must "think.

BTW, nice of you to attribute one more of your imaginings to me, but no, my "opinions" about people here are based upon what I know about them, and do not depend upon their political views. Please don't lump me in with how you think.

but here's the thing...i've never, ever done any of that to you. i don't resort to name calling, but you and others do. all i did in these threads recently is voice my opinion...and for that, i'm a jackass according to you. you can direct your tirades at those who treat you poorly til the sun goes down for all i care. but please don't try to get on a high horse towards me, i've done nothing to deserve any of that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but here's the thing...i've never, ever done any of that to you. i don't resort to name calling, but you and others do. all i did in these threads recently is voice my opinion...and for that, i'm a jackass according to you.

Nope. I called several of you jackasses for deliberately mischaracterizing what I said. Not for any political opinion you've expressed. Only for things you said directly about me.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nope. I called several of you jackasses for deliberately mischaracterizing what I said. Not for any political opinion you've expressed. Only for things you said directly about me.

No one mischaracterizes what you say. It is usually very clear what you say until called out when then all of a sudden there are nuances and subtlties that all us jackasses dont see.

You post an "article" without a link or author or place of origin and yet us jackasses are mischaracterizing you?

[dellinger63]

Until she stops mischaracterizing herself this problem will always persist. For God's sake she's still a registered republican.

It's got to be hard to be hypocritical to a mirror.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You post an "article" without a link or author or place of origin and yet us jackasses are mischaracterizing you?

And I immediately corrected the article and gave you the link reference, didn't I? But you refuse to acknowledge that, too.

LOL - this is perfect example of what you do: create straw men and change the reference.

I didn't call you a jackass for anything to do with the article I posted. I called you a jackass because you ignored and deliberately mischaracterized my position, which was "If anything criminal happened, heads should roll".

God forbid anything bad I say about the Obama administration should be acknowledged by some here. It doesn't work with their "we hate Obama and all who supported him" meme. Black and white, yes, unable to appreciate any nuance in politics.

So yes, you're pretty much still a jackass, because you constantly take what I say and attribute it to something entirely different.

And that's makes a good point, too: how many of your posts on this thread had anything to do with politics, and how many were just making comments about me? It's pretty clear you barely post anything about politics.

You can't do it. You can't post about politics without bashing other posters.