I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.
I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.
“I’m on strike!”
I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.
“I’m on strike!”
How patriotic! You might also be interested to read the associated comments from other Tea Party Nation members who have their own versions of ways to obstruct the successful recovery of our economy. Nice.
Thankfully, these people do not have the same power as the Tea Party obstructionists in Washington. That's because they are under the false notion that only Republicans are job creators. Democrats are business owners too and we will be happy to hire workers to do the jobs these people are choosing not to do. And, we will do so while paying our fair share of taxes without complaining. That's how we roll.
If we all worked together and really tried to get things fixed in this country we actually might get something done. Fighting those who's primary goal is the failure of our economy makes things a lot harder - but not to worry, we Democrats know how to do it and we will manage without you. If you won't hire - we will. So thanks for those extra job opportunities that will help us get America back to work.
124 comments:
I think this whole pouting/stand-off game is soooo infantile. Come on Congress, pass SOMETHING! They can't be serious about making things better for the majority (middle class America). Politics above progress. Denbec, you've mentioned this before... If republicans are so sure that the President's plan is so off-the-rails bad for the country, pass it and say i told you so before the next election. To listen to them now, things couldn't get much worse anyway. They can't take the risk though. Doing nothing or even worse, preventing progress is unamerican in my opinion amd i hope the sheepish voting public recognize this. Gridlock hardly affects the republican base so they can afford to pussyfoot around. Why isn't the Tea Party screaming about this?!
"If republicans are so sure that the President's plan is so off-the-rails bad for the country, pass it and say i told you so before the next election."
At some point in the future (hopefully as early as next November; but if not then,eventually) there will likeley be a period of time when the Republicans will have simultaneous control of both the Presidency and the Congress. I look forward to your post at that time urging all your allies in the Democratic Party and all of your Dem Congressmen not to oppose the Republicans policies in any way, but to just roll over and give them anything that they want, just like you are asking the Republicans to do now.
I'm sure you will do that....won't you?
The Dems roll over all the time Andre and get screwed by the republicans. They basically gave Bush carte blanche after 9/11. Of course back then if you opposed Buch or his policies you were branded unpatriotic....remember that? Remember when the phone book sized Patriot Act was passed without even being read, dispite cries from the ACLU, and our personal privacy was signed away? We went to war with Iraq based on unverifyable evidence but if you questioned it...you were unamerican. "you're either with us or against us.". Remember that? Where the hell was the Tea Party then to protest? I sure would've signed up for that cause.
The answer to your question is yes... I would want the Dems to compromise if the situation were reversed - like we've been doing all this time. But you see Andre, the
Dems would never hijack America because they didn't like the republican commander-in-chief.
I abhor spelling errors and i must apologize for any mistakes in the previous entry but i'm on an iphone. :)
FOX NEWS POLL:
Which of the following best describes why the economy is not doing better under Barack Obama’s leadership?
His ideas are good, but he hasn’t been able to get them implemented... 52%
His ideas are bad, and too many of them are being implemented... 37%
That's a FOX NEWS POLL
Andre - the answer to your question is in this blog - way back then. We worked on compromise - we didn't totally block. Please note the word "totally" because there certainly was some wise blocking going on.
I read or heard recently that President Obama has been extremely successful on all his campaign promises that did not require GOP approval.
ANYTHING that required approval was totally blocked. No compromise - just NO. That is wrong. TOTALLY WRONG. You cannot hold this country hostage for a day - let alone a 4 years. The terrorist hostage takers will be removed in 2012.
Personally, I get nervous when the two parties start to work together too much...I think all of our freedoms are much safer with both parties conflicting with each other, rather than conspiring with each other.
The both act as a check on each others corrupt elements and factions.
Also, I can think of very few of Obama's policies that deserve anything other than absolute and complete rejection, but obviously there are some. Here is a good example from this very day:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281472/house-passes-obama-jobs-bill-provision-andrew-stiles
One line in the above linked post that caught my eye:
"The House has now passed a total of 17 jobs bills that are still awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled Senate.."
Tell me again, WHO are the obstructionists?
Andre: "Also, I can think of very few of Obama's policies that deserve anything other than absolute and complete rejection"
Only 37% of the country agrees with you.
"Only 37% of the country agrees with you."
Not according to last November's election (the only "poll" that counts).
Checks and balances are good. Very good. Lots of crazy people with wacko ideals get elected and without checks and balances this country would be a terrible mess. However total obstruction is completely unproductive.
What really bothers me is the politics of it all. Andre article states that 17 jobs bills have been passed and Democrats are holding up the show. Nothing is mentioned about what is in those bills. Saying the bills passed the house without saying what is in them is just stupid politics. The House could "pass" a bill that says all taxes in the USA must be paid directly to the House. Would that be what America wants? Of course not. So saying it passed the House and is being blocked is really just stupidity.
However, The Presidents Jobs Bill is comprised of things that previously had bi-partisan support. Now, somehow it's just totally bad. That's wrong.
Political leaders - on both sides - who write bills that they know won't pass so they can say the other side is blocking are total idiots and should be removed from office. Put highly controversial items in single separate bills and vote on them individually. I've written about this in the past.
This childishness on both sides needs to stop right now.
Hubby and friends and I went to Dayton yesterday for a Halloween party. We were protesters carrying a sign saying, "We are the 99%" and on the other side "Main Street NOT Wall Street"
good times.
Lisa in Indy
Peaceful protests?
http://tv.breitbart.com/occupydenver-thugs-knock-motorcycle-cop-to-ground/
Reality check time.
This type of shit NEVER happened at Tea Party rallies.
Does this type of violent stupidity represent just a minority of Occupiers? Probably. But what I fear is that as the initial euphoria wears off, and this movement realizes that, unlike the Tea Party, they are having zero actual influence changing anything, that the more reasonable and moderate participants will begin to drift off, leaving only the more committed and violence-prone radical core.
As their frustration grows, and the public's patience with their street antics shrinks, more and more ugly incidents like this, or worse, will occur, which will alienate the public even more, furthering the downward death spiral of the movement.
You guys need to realize, quick, that it's time for a major re-think (or first-think?) about your end game.
You quote breitbart? OMG, Why don't you quote Limbaugh or Beck too! If you think we're going to 'consider' their point of view, then why not Pat Buchanan! He says that this protest is going to end badly, very badly!
Why is it that peaceful protests are forbidden? The Constitution allows for peaceful protests yet the laws in these states have required a PERMIT? That's just messed up. Freedom is not so free in 2011.
I think when you get defensive to another point of view, you're on the wrong side. It's not your way or the highway. It's dialog that gets democracy to work.
This protest is about protecting that democracy and until the anti-protesters see that, nothing will get resolved.
Lisa
"You quote breitbart?"
No, as a point of fact, I did not (not that I would ever hesitate to do so).
Where did I quote Breitbart?
All I did was to link to a video that I saw on his site.
I guess that's just another one of those "subtle distinctions" that makes your head hurt when you try to think about them.
***
"...why not Pat Buchanan! He says that this protest is going to end badly, very badly!"
He's probably right.
***
"Why is it that peaceful protests are forbidden?"
They are not. Who ever said they were? (Straw-man Alert)
"...these states have required a PERMIT? That's just messed up."
That's the law. If you don't like it, there is an appropriate and Constitutionally mandated process for changing it. Until then, we are all obliged to obey it. You break it, you are acting illegally. Period. So when the police attempt to break up an "illegal" demonstration, otherwise known as a "mob", they are doing exactly what they are paid to do; enforce the law, and thus protect the rights of EVERYONE.
(PS: I don't care much for Permitting requirements myself either, especially when it comes to free speech issues. On the other hand, there are legitimate public safety and accommodation issues involved....but note: I am not objecting here to protesting without a permit; what I am objecting to is the violent behavior of some of the protesters. If you can't just unequivocally join me in condemning that violence, then all I can say is that is really messed up).
***
"I think when you get defensive to another point of view, you're on the wrong side."
Stated without a hint of self-conscious irony.
Andre, i'm hurt and disappointed. I'm mean i gave you a link to the chart and everything. Start the data from whatever year you want, it doesnt decrease the gap of the 1% and the rest of us.
In another post i quoted the rising gap in the salaries of CEO's and wage workers ( whose earnings have stalled while those of CEOs have continued to skyrocket). There was also evidence of Corp Execs manipulating the fair market where their salaries are concerned.
Why the hell do you want to give tax breaks to the same people the government just bailed out, who continue to make record salaries while raising consumer prices. We just handed them billions in tax payer money!!!!!
Damn, now i've gotten myself worked up.
"Start the data from whatever year you want, it doesn't decrease the gap of the 1% and the rest of us."
I never said it decreased. The post I linked to didn't say it decreased. What it said was that if flat-lined and remained essentially static since about 1994. Is that true? I don't know. I plan to investigate it more, but that will take some time.
***
"Why the hell do you want to give tax breaks to the same people the government just bailed out,.."
The answer to that question is completely contained within the question itself: We both agree that the Government bailed out a whole bunch of fat cats, who through own greed and/or stupidity would have otherwise lost their shirts. In other words, the Government wasted a ton of our hard earned tax dollars, and your answer to this boneheaded move is to now turn around and hand over to this same Government even MORE of our money?
"We just handed them billions in tax payer money!!!!! "
Ya...you are going to trust and reward a Government that stupid by handing them billions more to plunder and play with? I don't think so.
That's insane. I say give them less, far far less. The more you give them, the more they will just waste and squander it.
Power to the People? OK, then let's start by leaving the money with the people.
Thohea: It's socialism in reverse. Welfare to the rich with the taxpayer footing the bill. Your links were spot on.
Andre: Why do you insist on quoting far right wing sites like Briebart's? The guy is a con man and you quote his links? Come on. Can't you use honest to goodness journalism sites like, I don't know, The NYT, Washington Post, BBC? How about the Guardian? Or the Economist? But if you are going down to the Drudge level of reporting then I'm afraid, I won't bother looking at your links and you should be embarrassed to even type the link on this blog.
Violence? Hate it, won't even shoot a gun. Won't touch one. I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in the second amendment right to own a gun. Not at all.
The only 'violent' act I saw by a protester is the guy that faked getting run over by a moped. Every crowd is going to attract those that are mentally disturbed. That's the human race but the brutality by the police was uncalled for. It was wrong. And that guy in the wheelchair that was thrown to the ground was absolutely shocking. Even if he was drunk and cussing up the police, what threat was a man in a wheelchair? That made me sick.
Protesters that are rounded up and arrested for squatting is just stupid and has been proven only to bring more out of the woodwork to support their cause. The only safety issue is from the police that are packing heat, stun guns and rubber bullets.
Did you see any tea party members packing heat get arrested? Why hell no. Those police were afraid of losing their life with those second amendment right crazies.
Anything else?
Lisa
In my opinion:
Bail out banks - totally stupid. The FDIC was supposed to protect us.
Bail out corporations like GM - Well....possibly to save a lot of jobs - and if we get the money back it was a good investment.
Use taxpayer money to build and repair infrastructure - Absolutely! That's what our tax dollars are supposed to be used for. Especially if it will help put people back to work. It is a smart investment and the President is wise to suggest it again.
If the President was asking for more bailout money I'd be mad. But he isn't. He is asking for money to invest in our infrastructure and get people back to work. I can't believe anyone would argue with that.
Lisa,
Take a breath, clear your mind, and actually try to read the words I am writing. Then, try to actually understand them. Try to understand what the words actually mean, not what your strangely dysfunctional mind is imagining that they mean.
Ready?
Here we go:
For the SECOND time: I did not "quote" anything Andrew Briebart wrote or said.
Do you understand that?
OK, next: I linked to a video that I happened to find on Andrew's site (quite likely it appeared at numerous other sites...I think I first saw it at RealClear Politics.com, but I can't exactly remember).
On this video, a group of Occupy Protesters are clearly seen mobbing threateningly around a police officer on his motorcycle. They stand directly in his path, hurling verbal abuse at him,making threatening gestures, and attempting to block his forward movement (a criminal act in and of itself). One man kicks the motorcycle, then another pushes it over. The police officer jumps off the motorcycle as it is falling over and chases after the idiot who attacked him, eventually catching him and taking him to the ground.
This clear, specific, and indisputable act of violence on the part of the Occupy-ista's goes completely uncommented upon by you. Instead we are treated to a completely irrelevant and ad hominem attack on a number of people who have nothing at all to do with the content of the video and with the events that are captured and documented on it, followed by a distractingly vague and non-specific objection to "violence", couched in the terms of an irrelevant and knee-jerkingly cliched attack of the Second Amendment, irrespective of the fact that the right to bear arms had absolutely nothing to do with the events captured on this video.
No mention of the violence on display by the protesters. No specific condemnation of it. Not even an honest acknowledgement of it's existence.
This only confirms for me the impression that you have already conveyed that you are completely uninterested in the truth of these events, and are instead fully committed to a deeply dishonest and false ideological narrative. Thus you ignore all evidence that challenges that narrative in any way.
***
"Did you see any tea party members packing heat get arrested? Why hell no."
Did it ever occur to you that the reason none of them were ever arrested was that they were all completely law-abiding citizens, and that none of them were ever in the slightest violation of a single law?
Nah...I'm sure it didn't.
"On Strike"
Irony of ironies: tomorrow I'm helping a friend install some baseboard in his mom's house in Oakland.
Coincidentally, tomorrow is the day that Sit In The Park Oakland has called for a city-wide general strike.
Should make for an interesting day (I'm bringing my tear gas mask, just in case), but it is ironic that on what will probably be the only day that I work in Oakland this year, a general work stoppage has been called by the Leftists.
Kinda appropriate though, don't you think?
Hey! What happened to my post with the link to the study showing the raising gap in income between the top 1% and the rest?
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/inequalitygraph.pdf
This data clearly shows a marked increase in income of the top 1% just between 2000 and 2007 alone!
So Andre, you don't trust the research and chart I linked to, that acquired the data from the same organization you have used in the past to support your own arguments? Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.
Slow down there, Scooter. I've got a pile of papers on my desk related to all those questions, but I've been too busy to read through them all yet (plus, I admit, I've been playing a little hookie doing other things).
I'll respond to all the very interesting issues and claims you've presented, but I don't want to go off all half-cocked.
I want to go off full-cocked!
(what? What are you giggling about, Dennis? I don't get it..)
Andre, you puzzle me? The work has been done already. It's even in a handy-dandy chart and provided in a link; Just the way you like it. The only thing missing is a pretty red bow.
Are you going to re-invent the wheel next? Perhaps re-write history?
I do admire your writing style though. If nothing else, whatever you come up with will be beautifully worded.
Sorry, Thohea, but it's not as simple as that. If the CBO and Census numbers are in disagreement,as seems might be the case, then it's a matter of doing some research to see which of the two is the more comprehensive and accurate. What did one leave out, or take into consideration, that the other one might not have, and all that sort of thing.
That takes time. I'm a little swamped with work, and other commitments, right at this moment (among other things, I've got a Proposal for a $630,000 painting job (world headquarters of one of those big evil corporations (God Bless them!)...we will have to probably triple our payroll if when get the job...that has to be submitted by the end of the day tomorrow...burning the midnight oil on that one, believe me).
Although, I must admit that I did find the time to go on the big Occupy Oakland march to "shut down" the Port of Oakland this evening. I was riding right by it on my bicycle on the way to the train station, so I thought I might as well check it out.
Big turnout. Reuters says 5000, but I would have guessed it was more, maybe double that. There was definitely some violence: windows were smashed at a Wells Fargo and at a Bank of America (really big expensive windows...thousands of dollars of damage) and some damage was done to a Whole Foods also, which struck me as an odd choice (although they are a big corporation, and based out of Texas to boot, so I guess they deserve to be terrorized by the angry mob too!). I saw one idiot chase after a motorist with a stick in his hand (though someone else from the march did chastise him for it).
But on balance, even though this march was thus at least 100% more violent than any Tea Party demonstration, the overwhelming majority of the marchers seemed reasonably well behaved and peaceful.
I left right when the bulk of the march was arriving at the Port gates, so I don't know yet what else may have happened after...as I write this the night is young).
My favorite banner that I saw this evening was being carried by a group of self-described "Revolutionary Feminists" (average age probably about 19), it read in big bold letters:
"It's a man's world.
Let's fuck it up!"
You gotta love it.
Ironic that Andre just happened to be in Oakland (on bike no less or so he says) and saw the violence. Really Andre? And did you see those thugs that had their face covered wearing black hoods too? I think some opportunists decided to take advantage of a planned strike day to make the whole effort look unruly and violent. Very convenient. Odd too that this is the first time the violence came with protesters covering their faces. Stinks to high heaven of a infiltration in order to bring negative press to the protests.
Andre counters in 3...2...1
Lisa
From Democratic pollster Doug Schoen:
"On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.
Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html
Read that last line again:
"...nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda."
***
"...did you see those thugs that had their face covered wearing black hoods too?"
No, I only saw the damage an hour or two afterwards. Maybe the Rotary Club did it.
I did witness a few lesser acts of aggression and violence by individuals during the march itself (none of whom were masked).
"I think some opportunists decided to take advantage of a planned strike day to make the whole effort look unruly and violent."
That is possible I suppose, but other than your personal desire for that to be the explanation, do you have any actual evidence that it is? Listening to local Oakland AM news station station all day at work (who by the way, seemed quite favorably disposed towards the protesters and kept mentioning how the majority were committed to non-violence and peaceful protest), I heard lots of interviews with protesters (the peaceful ones) who spent the day cleaning up the damage from last night, and they all agreed that the damage was done by the resident Anarchist faction of the squat.
"Odd too that this is the first time the violence came with protesters covering their faces."
I don't think that is quite accurate. I seem to remember seeing plenty of masked protesters in previous weeks, some peaceful, other violent (some of whom can be seen on video throwing things directly at the police).
Andre - clearly you are out to demonize this movement for whatever reason and have spent a lot of time on this blog alone doing so. If you - and others are so adamant about showing this movement in a bad way then it would seem likely - if not almost guaranteed that some anti-protesters would join the movement and act in violence to "prove" their point.
I do not support violence in the movement. It is a peaceful protest. If you do a percentage of the number of protesters world wide versus the very few violent acts (not started by the police) you will find it is minuscule.
Just calling it like I see it.
I think my reporting on this movement has been significantly more fair and balanced than either yours or Lisa's.
I've spent considerable time among them, talking with them, listening to their conversations, observing their actions and behavior.
Have you done any of that?
That was a rhetorical question.
I'm bored with Sit In The Park...let's get back to something interesting, like the Solyndra "non-scandal".
The Obama Administration has just announced that it is going to illegally ignore Congressional subpoenas....if Bush had ever done anything like this the media would have gone ballistic, but because it's one of their own, they don't even make a peep:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/wh-rejects-subpoena-request-solyndra-docs
It's a risky gambit on their part. I wonder what they are trying so desperately to cover up?
This development encourages me to repeat my previous prediction that Barack Obama will not be the Democrat candidate for President in November,2012.
I am, of course, half kidding...but only half.
Read the title of this article. They are obstructionists and desperate ones at that. Anything - ANYTHING they can do to try to discredit this President they will do - no matter what the cost to taxpayers.
You cannot honestly scream about skyrocketing deficits and lack of jobs while at the same time asking for a costly investigation on a non-scandal while not passing a jobs bill. Americans can see right through this.
"...not passing a jobs bill."
The Republican controlled House has passed 17 jobs bills in recent months. They are all languishing on the shelf in the Democrat controlled Senate.
To just say that they are "stupid" Bills is to just avoid a serious response. If these are stupid or frivolous Bills then the Democrat majority in the Senate would have no problem defeating them in an open vote.
Why don't they do that? Why don't they embarrass the GOP by publicizing how "stupid" these Bills are?
Maybe it's because they know that these are serious and substantive Bills, and that many Democrats would be afraid to vote against them.
"You cannot honestly scream about skyrocketing deficits and lack of jobs while at the same time asking for a costly investigation on a non-scandal..."
I thought you said that "Checks and balances are good. Very good."
I guess what you really meant was that checks and balances are good when they are used to investigate possible Republican wrongdoing, but they should be just thrown out the window and completely forgotten about if it's a matter of investigating possible Democrat wrongdoing.
Is that what you meant?
"if Bush had ever done anything like this the media would have gone ballistic"
Wrong Andre! While the Bush Administration was, quite literally, going "ballistic" on Iraq for unsubstantiated and unfounded reasons, the media did NOTHING. When the Bush Administration ignored the UN findings on the absence of WMD in Iraq, the media did NOTHING. When Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tenet authorized tourture and committed international war crimes, the media (and so far the Obama administration) did NOTHING. In the Bush Administration's rush to pass the PATRIOT ACT, giving government unprecedented power, the media did NOTHING. When the Bush Administration was giving no-bid contracts to Haliburton, the media did NOTHING.
The GOP is more interested in discrediting the Obama Administration and preventing a second term than it is in fixing our economy.
The erroneous intelligence of the Bush Administration has, at the very least, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, but I guess the GOP did feel that was something to be vocal about.
Well said Thohea - and I might add that if the Bush admin did anything illegal (which they did a LOT) they just changed the law to make it legal - like the patriot act.
Andre - checks and balances are very good when they block STUPID BILLS like the ones the GOP is proposing. Why not just work on the bill the President proposed that has elements previously agreed upon by both parties?
This Solyndra case is nothing but STUPID POLITICS. It is not a check or balance - it is just additional money being spent on a project that has already cost the tax payers too much. Stop the stupidity!! We have real problems and real debt to deal with. Don't add to both.
"..STUPID BILLS like the ones the GOP is proposing."
Please provide the details of what these 17 Bills propose, and point out exactly which points of each make them "stupid".
Dennis completely misses the point (again!). If you are served a legal subpoena, you have no right to ignore it just because you think "there is nothing to it". Try telling that to a judge, see how well that line of defense works out for you!
Thohea,
Your account of the MSM response to the actions of the Bush Administration is absurdly inaccurate. Hilariously so.
But let's ignore that for the moment, and let us for the sake of argument accept your completely revisionist premise that the MSM gave Bush a pass on everything.
I will gladly rephrase my statement from: ".."if Bush had ever done anything like this the media would have gone ballistic".
to:
"if Bush had ever done anything like this the media SHOULD have gone ballistic".
Will you and Dennis now remain consistent in your line of reasoning and argue against that statement also? Will you now claim that if the Bush Administration had ignored legal subpoenas from Congress and had refused to turn over requested documents, that the media should NOT have gone ballistic over such an outrageously arrogant abuse of Presidential power?
It seems that you have argued yourselves into a bit of a corner; depending on how you answer the above question, you run the risk of unmasking yourselves as either hypocrites or liars.
Which shall it be?
Andre - This whole Solyndra thing is just totally idiotic! Nobody should be doing anything about it! It is a failed business investment. A bad choice. There is no scandal. It's just stupid and it is costing us MORE money and time not helping get people back to work to have a pointless investigation.
Can't you see that? Do you want us to waste even more money on Solyndra? Why?!
Maybe, maybe not... I don't know, and you don't know...but one thing that is indisputable is that the Obama Administration, in complete contradiction to all it's cheap boasting about alleged "transparency", has been consistently throwing road blocks in front of Congressional investigators.
They are either trying to hide something, or they are just complete idiots...and even I don't believe that they are complete idiots.
At the beginning of the Solyndra affair, I was content to assume it was just another case of Federal incompetence and stupidity, but the Administration has been acting so guilty all along, and now with this latest development, it is beginning to appear more and more that some significant degree of criminality may be involved.
A completely innocent President just wouldn't act this way. They are desperately attempting to hide something from Congress, and from us.
We have the right to demand to know what that is.
Solyndra may as well be on it's knees, in a blue-stained dress, smoking a cigar.
Anyone who thinks we need to spend even more money on Solyndra are the real idiots. It is nothing more than a distraction - an obstruction.
Do we have any figures on how much tax payers paid for the Clinton "scandals"? All of them? In fact we are still paying for those cases through our deficits. Yet the Clinton's are both still prominent, well liked and effective politicians. Those so called scandals were really nothing more than expensive political games.
I'm tired of paying for senseless political lawsuits when teachers are being laid off. This is insanity and it has to stop.
OK, Dennis...but now we have it on the record that you believe that the President of the United States is above the Law and can do whatever he wants.
So let's hear no more claims about any allegedly unlawful activities from the Bush years, since according to the new Dennis Standard, anything the President does is, by definition, lawful, and the people's Representatives have no right to monitor or investigate the Imperial Presidency.
Just another example of how Leftism ALWAYS leads to dictatorship.
"Do we have any figures on how much tax payers paid for the Clinton "scandals"? All of them?"
Interesting that you miss the most obvious (and meaningful) point about the cost of the Clinton investigations: namely, that every single penny spent by the taxpayers was because President Clinton choose to LIE about it all and refused to admit the truth until the evidence against him was overwhelming.
"Solyndra may as well be on it's knees, in a blue-stained dress, smoking a cigar."
The clear implications of that tortured analogy are that all the worst suspicions of criminal wrongdoing in the Solyndra affair are TRUE. Was that really the point you attempting to make?
"Anyone who thinks we need to spend even more money on Solyndra are the real idiots."
So all your bitching and complaining about the influence of Corporate money in politics was all just a bunch of self-serving bullshit, huh?
You don't really give a crap about Government corruption, do you? As long as the powers that be are catering and pandering to your little list of personal agenda items, it doesn't matter how crooked or dishonest they are.
Power is all that matters to the Left. Principle is just a punch line.
What a bunch of hypocrites and phonies you guys are!
If there were a REAL scandal regarding Solyndra they wouldn't need to dig up a bunch of "evidence". But there is no scandal - it's just for show.
Regarding the Clinton's there were WAY more "scandals" than just that one and involved both Hillary and Bill. None of them were real. TONS of money wasted trying to discredit good people.
Even the B.J. scandal had nothing to do with the American people. It was a problem between Bill and Hillary. The whole thing was STUPID and terribly expensive.
And - as I already mentioned, if Republicans get caught in a real scandal - they just change the laws to make it legal.
I go on record saying all of the the above - and nothing that you say I'm saying.
Question for Andre - what is the goal of any investigation into Solyndra - to get the taxpayer money back?
I saw a PAC ad on the Solyndra "scandal" last night. An AD! Tell me this isn't just a smear campaign.
Andre wants Obama to be accountable for Solyndra, a bad business decision at best, but has nothing to say of Bush and company knowingly leading us to war for erroneous reasons and committing international war crimes....but WE'RE hypocrites.
We're either liars or hypocrites. Reminds me of Bush's "you're either with us or against us."
That was an excellent attempt at twisting the truth around to make us out to be something we're not. You weren't by chance a consultant for the defense in the O.J. trial were you?
"That was an excellent attempt at twisting the truth around to make us out to be something we're not. "
I didn't twist anything. I just asked a question, which you both have so far avoided answering:
"if Bush had ever done anything like this the media SHOULD have gone ballistic".
Yes or No?
You either agree with that, or you do not.
Why are you so afraid to tell me which one it is?
"Andre wants Obama to be accountable for Solyndra, a bad business decision at best, but has nothing to say of Bush and company knowingly leading us to war for erroneous reasons and committing international war crimes...."
Oh, believe me, I've got LOTS to say about that...but I'm not going to let you change the subject and wiggle out of the corner you've argued yourself into.
Answer the question: if Bush was President when the Solyndra fiasco went down, and he acted exactly as Obama has done and declared his intent to ignore legal Congressional subpoenas and without public documents from Congressional investigators, should the media have "gone ballistic"?
Yes or No?
Grow a pair, and answer the question.
ugh! Typos! That should have been "...withHHOLD public documents from Congressional investigators".
Now answer the damn question!
Please.
They are not withholding documents. They have already complied with requests. The GOP is requesting efforts outside the scope of this investigation. The Obama administration is not going to jump through a bunch of hoops for the GOP's entertainment. It's too expensive. Just the facts.
Your question cannot be answered because the Democrats would not have fabricated a "scandal" such as this. Therefore there would be no need for media coverage or anything at all.
However, my question can be answered. What is the goal of this investigation?
I'm not answering your bated question Andre. Rephrase it if you must. You've already decided we're hypocrites (or liars) and i'm not playing your game.
The Bush Administration had already vetted Solyndra before Obama took office. If a restructuring of the loan is determined to be illegal, The administration should be held accountable - i guess that would be Dept of Energy officials. I think any decision to get behind this loan was to jump start new technology and create growth. If there was a rush, it was to create jobs. The intent of the administration was good, unlike The Bush Administration's rush to go to war.
If Solyndra does turn out to be a scandal for this administration, at least no lives were lost.
My original post was not to defend the illegal action of ANY administration, but to counter your inference that bush was vilified by the MSM and Obama gets a free pass.
Next thing i know i'm being called a hypocrite and liar.
Now, can we get back to creating jobs or would you like to throw up another unnecessary road block?
I totally agree with all of that Thohea.
Thohea is so spot on, there is no need to add anything. But since I've been so busy lately, I'll just add this:
This 'drama' is just another distraction for the GOP to bash and bash and bash Obama.
You hate him, we get it.
How about proposing something to actually help the country? You GOP- Greedy One Percenters have a year before you can replace him. And if Cain is any indication of your idea of a replacement, bwahaaaaa, you'll be crying this time next year. And I may be living abroad again.
Cheers,
Lisa
Point. Match. Set.
(BTW: The correct answer to my very simple question,the one that none of you had the balls to provide was "Yes".)
PS: "The Bush Administration had already vetted Solyndra before Obama took office."
Incorrect. The panel appointed by the Administration to review applicants for this program, recommended against it during the last weeks of the Bush Administration. It was the Obama Administration that brought it back from the grave (why?...follow the money).
"You hate him, we get it."
I don't hate Obama. I just believe that most of his policies are bad for this country. But I do believe in the Rule of Law, which quite clearly, none of you do.
And Bill Clinton's administration warned the Bush administration about Osama bin Laden in 2000 and look what that got us. Should we continue to play this game? Back and forth, back and forth...nobody will win. Especially not the country that needs the lawmakers and the President to work together.
Lisa
Andre: "Incorrect. The panel appointed by the Administration to review applicants for this program, recommended against it during the last weeks of the Bush Administration"
No Andre, i was correct the first time...The panel of career officials that remanded the project during the Bush administration is the exact same committee that then approved the loan guarantee transaction several months later after due diligence.
Andre: But I do believe in the Rule of Law, which quite clearly, none of you do.
Great Andre! Then let's go after the Bush Administration for committing war crimes!
Well, the Wiki article that you plagiarized verbatim without attribution is highly suspect (and has been flagged as such).
"The panel of career officials that remanded the project during the Bush administration is the exact same committee that then approved the loan guarantee transaction several months later after due diligence."
The same panel?
Hmmm.
It may be the same panel in the sense of having the same name,and of occupying the same offices, but you may be mistaken in just assuming that means it is composed of the same people and political appointees.
"Here are those who have since left the U.S. Department of Energy but who gave their seal of approved the $535 million loan guarantee. Hat tip to Darren Samuelsohn at Politico:
- Steve Isakowitz – The department’s former CFO. He is now VP and chief technology officer for Virgin Galactic, a commercial space flight company run by Richard Branson. Branson was a private investor in Solyndra.
- Matt Rogers – Secretary Steven Chu’s point person on Solyndra. He has returned to the consulting giant McKinsey & Co in their San Francisco office.
- Rod O’Connor – Secretary Chu’s first Chief of Staff who reassured President Obama he should not be concerned about visiting Solyndra. He now is the EVP to AEG Facilities in London.
- Steve Spinner – A major Obama fundraiser in 2008 who was awarded with a DOE post and repeated frustrated career DOE officials who were concerned about Solyndra. Spinner is a campaign bundler for Obama, raising $500,000 in the third quarter of 2011.
- Lawrene Oliver – Sat on the pivotal Credit Committee that approved the Solyndra loan guarantee while the assistant general counsel to DOE. He retired in 2009.
- Ove Westerheim – He was the director of DOE’s loan program. He is now back at OPIC, a semi-public overseas investment commission.
I find it highly unlikely that a "major Obama fundraiser" would have been appointed onto a Bush era panel.
Sounds like they were not the only ones who failed to engage in "due diligence" in their research.
"...let's go after the Bush Administration for committing war crimes!"
If laws were broken, then I have no problem with it being investigated, regardless of who was President.
But then again, I am not a hypocrite in this area.
Too bad you all are unable to make a similar claim.
"And Bill Clinton's administration warned the Bush administration about Osama bin Laden in 2000 and look what that got us.'
Would that be the same Bill Clinton, who while in office, was offered custody of Osama bin Laden on multiple occasions, but took a pass each time?
The laws were simply changed - ie - Patriot act. Also laws on torture, preemptive war etc.etc.etc.
How many jobs are being created while we are having this pointless discussion??
Forgive me professor Andre for not giving a hat tip for my source. I wasn't aware this was being graded. Its much easier to copy and past while on my iphone since i am without wifi service for the time being.
On the brightside though, it gave you another opportunity to insult me. Hypocrite, liar, plagiarist...
I don't mind your sarcasm, Andre, but the insults are getting old, as is this topic.
"How many jobs are being created while we are having this pointless discussion??"
Well, hold on a minute, let me check; is Obama still President? Yes, he is...so the answer would be: very, very few (but I don't think our conversation has anything to do with it, do you? Really?).
****
"The laws were simply changed - ie - Patriot act. Also laws on torture, preemptive war etc.etc.etc."
So are you saying Bush broke the law, or not? Sounds like you are saying he didn't. As a matter of fact, it sounds like you are explicitly saying that he DID obey the laws of the land. That bastard.
"Hypocrite, liar, plagiarist..."
You forgot "ball-less coward".
Just kidding (more or less).
"I don't mind your sarcasm, Andre, but the insults are getting old, as is this topic."
Well then walk away. You already admitted defeat by refusing to answer the question I posed. Stop prolonging the agony.
Nice Andre, how "christian" of you.
I see Andre - you support changing laws that protect our freedoms, rights, and international policy to further a business need or personal vendetta. All hail the great Republican!
I usually try to be respectful in my replies to you Andre, and your point of view has made me stop and challenge my own views. But you are so condescending, judgemental, and an all around jerk that any point you make now is lost on me.
So, in the spirit of following your Christian example, here's a question for you Andre. Let's see if you have the balls to answer it...
Do you deny the fact that you're a soul-less, flaming A**hole?
The answer is easy. It's either a yes or a no.
Just kidding (more or less)
LOL! (More or less)
Never fail to crack me up!
Lisa
"Do you deny the fact that you're a soul-less, flaming A**hole?"
Close, but no cigar. If the question had simply been "Do you deny the fact that you're a flaming A**hole?",
I could have unhesitatingly answered "No, not at all.". (and of course, my follow up question would have been: "But what possible relevance does that have to the substance of the issue we have been debating, or towards why you have so spinelessly refused to answer my oh-so-simple question").
Where you blew it was with "soul-less". A bridge too far. All humans are ensouled beings.
The White House comes to it's senses:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282918/wh-will-comply-solyndra-subpoena-after-all-andrew-stiles
(maybe they have been reading this blog?)
"I usually try to be respectful in my replies to you..."
I appreciate the sentiment (and I also realize that I sometimes play too rough), but I would think that an authentic display of "respect", and of just plain fair-play, would have been for you to have honestly answered a question honestly asked, not to have run away from it (and from all it's obvious implications).
Andre - you have failed to answer my simple question. And I believe we both answered yours. It wasn't the answer you wanted but it was an answer.
"..you have failed to answer my simple question."
What question was that?
I've looked back at your last few posts, and I don't see any question.
Was it this one: "How many jobs are being created while we are having this pointless discussion??"
I did answer that one.
The really tragic part of the Solyndra issue is that no matter how much documentation is provided - even if it shows absolutely no misconduct - the GOP will not drop the issue. The "birthers" haven't given up and neither will this group. It will cost us added millions - it won't get any of the money already lost to Solyndra back and it won't create any jobs. The only good news is that it also won't win the GOP this important election because it just continues to prove their obstructionism.
No need to answer my question Andre - not that you were planning to. The answer is in the above paragraph.
"I believe we both answered yours"
Really?
"I'm not answering your bated question Andre."
and
"Your question cannot be answered..."
I answered it.
"The answer is in the above paragraph."
What was the question?
"...you support changing laws that protect our freedoms, rights, and international policy to further a business need or personal vendetta."
I don't even know what that means. Laws get changed all the time. Sometimes wisely, sometimes unwisely.
Do I favor maintaining the right of the citizens to change existing laws through the Constitutionally mandated precess? Of course I do, don't you?
What does that have to do with anything we've been discussing on this thread?
Seriously, why do you find it so extremely difficult to stay on point?
Oh Andre - you tickle me. I'm the one that gets off topic. LOL
Interesting how you copied and pasted a response of mine where - in the same comment - my question was asked (for a second time).
Let me help you by copying and pasting the original question:
"Question for Andre - what is the goal of any investigation into Solyndra - to get the taxpayer money back?"
The goal?
How about accountability and transparency in Government, for starters.
Why are plane crashes investigated with a fine tooth comb? To find out exactly what went wrong, so that we can hopefully learn what to do, and perhaps more importantly, what NOT to do, to avoid such disasters in the future.
"...get the taxpayer money back?"
That would be nice. However,it has been reported that the Obama Administration, in violation of Federal Law, allowed this deal to be structured so that in the event of a bankruptcy the taxpayers would be the LAST ones to get a claim on the remaining assets.
I,for one, would like to find out if that is true, and if it is, I would like to see the responsible people held accountable. If laws were indeed broken, there should be criminal indictments. At the very least those guilty of stupidity and gross incompetence should be demoted or fired, and those guilty of illegal activity (if any) should be fined, imprisoned, or otherwise sanctioned.
Would any reasonable person be opposed to any of this?
Would you?
No - I would not be opposed to an investigation if there was criminal activity suspected. What Federal law are you speaking of?
CORRECTION: a typo.
In the paragraph above:
"Oddly enough, one of the "creditors" listed to receive priority repayment over the American taxpayer for the billions of dollars lost is the California Democratic Party!"
It should have read "millions of dollars", not "billions of dollars".
It did it again! What's going on? Twice now I've posted pretty much the same thing and twice it appears only to disappear a few minutes later.
Are they going to your email instead? (that's happened a couple of times before).
Oh well....no great loss (as I'm sure you would all agree!)
Andre's missing post (that still doesn't specify what law was supposedly broken).
Andre has left a new comment on your post "Obstructionists Confess":
"What Federal law....?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-obama-and-rahm-emanuel-pushed-to-spotlight-energy-company/2011/10/07/gIQACDqSTL_story.html
"The e-mails show that Mary Miller, an assistant Treasury secretary, wrote to Jeffrey D. Zients, deputy OMB director, expressing concern. She said that the deal could violate federal law because it put investors’ interests ahead of taxpayers’ and that she had advised that it should be reviewed by the Justice Department.“To our knowledge that never happened,” Miller wrote in a Aug. 17, 2011, memo to the OMB."
"The records provided Friday by a government source also show that an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, pushed for Solyndra’s loan despite having recused himself because his wife’s law firm did work for the company. Spinner, who left the agency in September 2010, did not respond to requests for comment Friday."
Prior to recieving that position in the DOE, Steven Spinner was a major campaign fundraiser for Obama's Presidential campaign (a role he continues in to this day; he raised $500,000 in the third quarter of 2011 alone).
Funny enough, it just so happens that one of the "creditors" who were listed to receive priority repayment over the taxpayers for the billions of dollars lost was the California Democratic Party!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/25/bankrupt-solyndras-curious-creditor/
"Why California Democrats would be creditor to a company that received more than a half-billion dollars in federal loans to build a solar-panel plant isn’t clear. Even party officials say they’re not sure."
Yeah, no "scandal" here. Not a whiff.
No reason at all to even suspect the possibility of any criminal activity of any kind. Right.
Maybe there is a perfectly innocent (and legal)explanation for all of this. Or maybe a bunch of greedy and corrupt political hacks have been caught red-handed trying to rip off the taxpayers.
I don't know, and you don't know.
Let's find out.
I read through the article you linked to and found nothing that constitutes a national crisis regarding Solyndra. I continue to call this whole episode a distraction, an obstruction, and a gigantic waste of time and tax payer money. The goal is not to get the tax payer money back - it is a total smear campaign. It will drag out through the entire election year - costing taxpayers millions and, I predict, will not work at discrediting the President (thankfully).
I don't want to pay for it. No taxpayer should want to continue to pay for something this trivial when we are working through a serious debt crisis.
"I read through the article you linked to and found nothing that constitutes a national crisis regarding Solyndra."
I wasn't aware that anyone had claimed it was a "national crisis".
I myself certainly don't think it rises to the level of a crisis. At the least, it is an example of massive stupidity and incompetence on the part of the Obama administration (no big surprise there), at the most, it may involve illegal activity by a number of people.
"The goal is not to get the tax payer money back..."
Neither is it the goal of prosecuting a murderer to give life back to his victim. Does that mean that society has no compelling interest in prosecuting murderers?
Are you seriously going to hold to the position that public officials are not to be held at all accountable for their actions?
Seriously?
Are you seriously suggesting we spend a whole lot more money on Solyndra in the midst of a devastating debt crisis?! Seriously?!
It is not in the Nation's interest - it is only in the Tea Party's interest.
"I continue to call this whole episode a distraction, an obstruction, and a gigantic waste of time and tax payer money."
That's fine. You can call it anything you want. But don't act as if you have some deep inside information about what did or did not occur. You don't know. Your claim that it is "trivial" is based solely on your desire that it turns out to be that way, not on any actual knowledge that it is.
We don't know yet what all the relevant facts are. That's why the House committee is investigating it; to find out what really went on.
You may be perfectly content to just believe whatever the Obama Administration spin is; I am not.
Especially given that they have already been caught in outright lies about some of the facts of the case:
From just a couple of days ago:
"E-mails obtained by the House committee investigating the $535 million Solyndra loan scandal reveal that George Kaiser, the Oklahoma billionaire who was heavily invested in Solyndra through his Family Foundation, and a major Obama fundraiser in 2008, had discussions about the solar panel company with White House officials, directly contradicting earlier statements from both the White House and Kaiser himself."
If they lied about this detail, about something which as far as I know is not illegal, is it really at all unreasonable to wonder what else they may be lying about?
"It is not in the Nation's interest..."
There you have it, folks. I asked him if he really believed public officials are not to be held at all accountable for their actions, and this was his answer:
"It is not in the Nation's interest..."
I know it's a cliche, but I've got to say it:
Wow.
"Are you seriously suggesting we spend a whole lot more money on Solyndra in the midst of a devastating debt crisis?! Seriously?!"
Yes. Seriously. I am also seriously saying that we should keep the courts and prisons open and running too. We should keep the entire Justice system operating...devastating debt crisis, or not.
Yes. Laws should still be enforced.
Radical, I know.
"...it is only in the Tea Party's interest."
Interesting. Dennis believes that good and honest government, and holding elected official accountable for their actions is "only in the Tea Party's interest."
I am almost tempted to agree with that (as I am tempted to respond that those things are certainly not in the interests of the Left!).
But no, sadly I must pass on such an easy and tempting slam on the Left, because the truth is that these things are in all of our interests.
Even if Dennis is too blinded by his ideological hatreds to see it.
I dare you go to any employment agency or unemployment agency and ask those people if we should concentrate our efforts on Solyndra.
I dare you.
Huh?
Are you insinuating that unemployed people are that stupid?
"..ask those people if we should concentrate our efforts on Solyndra."
Who is asking them, or you, to concentrate your efforts on Solyndra? That's like asking if plumbers should lay down their tools and concentrate on Solyndra. Hairdressers should put down their blow dryers, and waitresses should take off their aprons.
Totally idiotic.
The only people who are "concentrating" on Solyndra are the people whose job it is to concentrate on things like this.
Congressional oversight committees are responsible for the "oversight" of Government activities. That's their job. It's what they get paid to do.
They ain't asking you to put on a suit and tie and drive down to DC to help them out.
Even I, who am no slouch when it comes to criticizing the generally poor performance of the Federal Government in so many areas...even I can acknowledge that the average Congressman or Congressional staffer, is fully capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. if they can't uphold the multiple responsibilities that naturally come with the job, then they have absolutely no business being there.
That was truly one of your dumbest ever comments.
(It's Friday night; maybe you've just had a long hard week, so your brain isn't firing on all cylinders. Get some rest...I'm sure you will feel better, and be thinking clearer, in the morning).
How will they pay for it - lay off more teachers?
Yes, that is exactly how they will pay for it. They will also sell some of the teachers to be used as slave labor by Haliburton at the opium farms created by the CIA in Afghanistan.
So the whole Solyndra smear campaign will not only be "revenue neutral", it will also be hugely profitable for the Koch Brothers (the secret puppet masters behind it all).
Diabolical, isn't it?
Hahahahaha (evil cackling laughter)
Andre - I give you this argument. I, like thohea, believe that politicians should be held to an ethical and legal standard. So let the investigation continue. But do it quickly, with as few resources as needed, and most importantly - accept the evidence and the conclusion that it draws. If it continues to be nothing more than a smear campaign, I will object.
Getterdone!
An eminently reasonable and balanced position to take.
"If it continues to be nothing more than a smear campaign, I will object."
I fear that, given human nature and the rough'n'tumble of power politics in an election season, some amount of opportunistic partisan smearing will be an inevitable by-product of any such investigation, regardless of which Party holds the majority on the relevant Congressional committees.
However, you may rest assured, that should any such unfortunate actions come to pass, I shall stand shoulder to shoulder with you in my condemnation of them.
(I'm sure that brings you much comfort and reassurance!).
Hmmm..A huge no-bid contract, for a product of dubious usefulness, goes to a big money donor of an American President.
Sounds familiar.
File this under: The More Things "Change", The More They Stay The Same.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-smallpox-20111113,0,4293298.story
And the subject changes yet again. As Lisa said - you don't like Obama - we get it.
Same subject: the dishonesty and corruption of the Obama Administration, and the growing list of his failures that are the direct result of his pandering to the big money donors.
Hmmmm. The original topic isn't at all similar. As Thohea said - perhaps you should write your own blog.
In other words, you are going to just completely ignore the evidence that Obama is doing the exact same things that warranted multiple apoplectic blog posts from you when you perceived Bush as doing them.
I haven't changed the topic "yet again". Fundamentally, I've really only ever spoken to one continuously present topic at this blog-site, and that is the topic of the blatant and outrageous hypocrisy of the Liberal Left.
This is just another example.
Well if that has been your goal - you have failed miserably. It only appears to us and the readers that you are trying to justify gross injustice done by the Bush administration.
"In other words, you are going to just completely ignore the evidence that Obama is doing the exact same things ..."
Once again Andre - let me say my own words.
Ah, yes, but that's the rub, isn't it... it is exactly to those words that you don't say, to which I am specifically addressing my criticism.
Off Topic.
Denbec (10 posts ago): "Andre - I give you this argument."
Andre (i'm paraphrasing here): blah, blah, blah
Just can't let go can you Andre. Even when someone concedes an argument. Geez.
Kind of what I was thinking........
So which is it?
Is this latest example of Obama Administration corruption "Off Topic", or not?
If it is, then how can it indicate that I "can't let go" if, according to Dennis, I have now moved on to a completely new topic?
If anything, that would tend to indicate that I CAN let go.
On the other hand, if Thohea is accurate in his observation that I "can't let go", then logically he must agree with me that it is one and the same topic which I am addressing, and thus he must disagree with Dennis's complaint that I have gone "off topic".
So,to summarize, if I am understanding this all correctly, Thohea is ignoring this latest example of Obama sleaze because he thinks we have already discussed it. Dennis is ignoring it because he thinks we haven't been discussing it, and he prefers that we keep it that way.
Have I got that about right?
It is very, very simple Andre. Read the article and comment on the topic. If the topic isn't the one you want to discuss then write your own article somewhere or read one that someone else wrote that you want to talk about. This particular article - in MY blog - is about the GOP being - and admitting to being obstructionists. They are deliberately blocking progress of this country for political gain. THAT is the topic. And it will be the topic again on Friday when I write an article on on a little prediction I made 2 months ago.
...blah! Yawn
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but am I to understand that the answer to the last question that I asked, the one at the end of my last post, is "Yes"?
There was no answer to that question. Therefore there can be no assumption or accusation. We can choose not to jump through your hoops. Make your point without making a demand.
Never before have I known a couple of guys who were so fearful of simple questions as you two.
To quote Thohea: "Geez".
What interests me is that you feel we should be obligated to answer your questions! They are usually silly and off-topic and most times you ask them in such a way that any answer would be twisted out of context (the last one was a perfect example). No thank you. If you have something to say - say it. No need to have me answer a question to make your point. It is really a bit childish.
If you can't answer simple questions of the form; "What do you think about...", or "Do you agree or disagree with...", then you are obviously afraid to publicly go on record with an honest answer.
I can only speculate as to why you fear such public exposure of your true beliefs and opinions.
Seriously Andre - if you can't make a point without trying to trap someone in an oddly worded question then I can only speculate that your point can't stand on it's own.
If it doesn't fit you must acquit.
Post a Comment