Why is BP taking all the blame?
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I just did a search for Libby's use of the word "neocon". It took the server 12.93 seconds and returned the maximum of 400 posts, meaning that he used it a lot more.
He joined the forum on 5/10/09 and he first used the word 6 days later, here: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=438470&postcount=10
He first accused me of being a neocon 2 days after that, here: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=439105&postcount=116
Its a funny exchange because its early in his career here and his pattern hasn't changed at all since then.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Pay attention "Dude"....Fact Check article DISCUSSING PENDING JONES ACT WAIVERS. Go back and READ the damned thing thoroughly.
The Fact Check article addresses the neocon LIE that the Obama administration REJECTED the assistance of foreign ships and vital foreign aid to deal with the oil spill. The Coast Guard Admiral and the chart YOU harped on PROVES otherwise. That is what YOU are in constant denial of.
The article you provided just essentially gives Slick Willy's opinion and rehashes information THAT THE FACTCHECK ARTICLE ALREADY COVERED.
I have now TWICE challenged you to provide quotes from both sources in order to prove your assertion. To date, you've followed true neocon bluff formation and given your OPINION and your VERSION....NOT actual comparative quotes from both sources.
In short "Dude" you're full of shit. Like your neocon parrot pals, you want to rag on Obama without challenge, no matter how exaggerated and/or false your criticisms may be. That you can't do that without being challenged is TFB for you.
Now, unless you've got something other than a rehash of the BS you've previously bullhorned, I'll just move on.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Grow up, Damo.
You mouth the same anti-Obama, Shrub induced BS as Southy and Freedumb, yet you want to be perceived as "above it all" and intellectually better than them. Puh-leeze.
You've been having a hissy fit because you can't get past me on certain discussions. And you did EXACTLY like I pointed out all defeated neocon parrots due....start a maudlin exchange personally slamming the person that just defeated you in a debate.
I started TWO threads criticizing Obama, so that hardly makes me an "apologist". And as I proved in the previous posts, it is YOU who continually avoids a simple burden of proof by substituting your personal opinion for FACTS.
Get your act together, Damo. You look like a braying ass in print...despite you're telling us how "amused" you are an other bluffs and blusters. Seriously, you're starting to make Southy and Freedumb
The factcheck article did discuss it, the whole thing was supposedly to "prove" that nobody has asked, they were flat wrong.. Quit pretending you have a point other than to make yourself look foolish. Frick I reposted the link from their own article that showed that until very recently there was no help accepted, and that permission from the government was delayed. I reposted their link that had the joint informational center (the Administration's own informational center) stating directly that there were requests for waivers of the Jones Act that have yet to be approved. I posted a link with Clinton stating that they "finally" accepted help (and if you listened to the video, he stressed that one)... This man has sucked at "leading", even worse than Bush did.
Fact Check article DISCUSSING PENDING JONES ACT WAIVERS. Go back and READ the damned thing thoroughly.
The Fact Check article addresses the neocon LIE that the Obama administration REJECTED the assistance of foreign ships and vital foreign aid to deal with the oil spill. The Coast Guard Admiral and the chart YOU harped on PROVES otherwise. That is what YOU are in constant denial of.
The article you provided just essentially gives Slick Willy's opinion and rehashes information THAT THE FACTCHECK ARTICLE ALREADY COVERED.
I have now TWICE challenged you to provide quotes from both sources in order to prove your assertion. To date, you've followed true neocon bluff formation and given your OPINION and your VERSION....NOT actual comparative quotes from both sources.
In short "Dude" you're full of shit. Like your neocon parrot pals, you want to rag on Obama without challenge, no matter how exaggerated and/or false your criticisms may be. That you can't do that without being challenged is TFB for you.
Now, unless you've got something other than a rehash of the BS you've previously bullhorned, I'll just move on.
Their own fricking links in their articles showed them to be incorrect, flat wrong, and IMO purposefully so.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
PROVE IT YOU LYING SOS! Provide us with the quotes from your source material and compare it to the source material from Fact Check! YOUR OPINION IS WORTHLESS, AS I'VE PROVEN YOU TO BE A LIAR. To date, you just keep parroting YOUR OPINION....and that's a piss in the wind.
Put up or shut up....a simple burden of proof of your assertions. I've provided quotes in earlier posts the contradict your BS...you can't do likewise.
Get your ass in gear, bunky.
Dude, I posted the fricking links. It's long been proven. The only person who can't see it is the ultimate party hack, you. Unlike you, I feel no need to post links to posts from previous, you either can read or ignore them at your leisure. However, the reality is the joint informational center directly stated that at that time there were six Jones Act waivers requested and that none had been granted. It also showed with their own chart that help came late, and it was due to the Administration's feet-dragging position...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
"Dude" you're a fucking liar and an insipidly stubborn child akin to the neocon parrots that infect this board:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=672971&postcount=289
You made a claim that you can't logically or factually prove...so you just squawk the SOS over and over again and bluff a cop out.
As the chronology of the posts shows, you just lie and stamp your widdle feet when you can't have your way. TFB.....I detest dishonesty in a debate, and you are no exception. I'm done with you....seek solace with Freedumb or Southy or the Loyal End...they're more your speed.
No, I am not. There's a whole 'nother thread dealing with that particular issue, on it I posted exactly what I stated. You can spend time reading it, or you can keep sounding like an idiot. It really doesn't matter to me. Apologists, whether they are for the Catholic Church or this sad administration, are sad little creatures who put people onto pedestals.
Here, I'll help you out:
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/red_tape_keeps_prized_oil-figh.html
Please pay particular interest to the last paragraph.
Here is the website they got that information from:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/
It's rather nifty when you actually read things from the site, and find out things like factcheck.org is full of apologist rubbish in this case.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/red_tape_keeps_prized_oil-figh.html
Please pay particular interest to the last paragraph.
Here is the website they got that information from:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/
It's rather nifty when you actually read things from the site, and find out things like factcheck.org is full of apologist rubbish in this case.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
When?
christiefan915
Catalyst
If that's not already a fallacy, it should be. Just another unnecessary and disgraceful episode of our history that's been extensively whitewashed to put the US in a better light.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
So you would rather 11 million people have died to help you sleep better at night? You're part of the problem that drove Paul Tibbets to have his burial shrouded in secrecy.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I'm saying that the claim "11 million people would have died" is supposition and conjecture.
Did you ever read Aquinian "just war" theory, among others, on the use of disproportionate force?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The Japanese had an "insect mentality" during WW2 and were willing to throw themselves into flaming pits in order to keep Evil Johnny from them. They had to be shocked into reality. Truman saved millions of their lives.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Most of those killed were innocent civilians.
"But what if the invasion of an all-but-defanged Japan was, and remains, a red herring? What if, just as the Nazi threat fell by the wayside, the Japanese threat was not the real issue by then either? What if, by the summer of 1945, the overriding purpose of the atomic bomb was not to end a conflict against Japan, but to control the shape of an anticipated conflict with the Soviet Union? What if it was not Emperor Hirohito we were mainly trying to terrorize, but Premier Stalin? Not a last shot against the Axis powers, but a first shot against the Kremlin?
In war and politics, there are never one-factor answers to complex questions. In truth, the atomic bomb was a last shot and a first shot both. The point of my asking is simply to suggest that, as a people insisting on a narrative in which Hiroshima marked the end of a conflict instead of the beginning of one, we have given ourselves a pass on a far more troubling question.
If we used the nuclear weapon as much to send a signal to the Soviet Union as to end World War II, then all the wickedness unfolding from that use - not only the arms race, but the demonic new idea that national power can properly depend on the threat of mass destruction - belongs to us. If Saddam Hussein wants weapons of mass destruction for the sake of the strategic diplomatic power they will give him, he is playing by rules written in Washington. There are two ways to use the nuke - as a source of world destruction, and as a source of world power. We did the former at the end of World War II, which was the exact beginning of the Cold War. We have been doing the latter every day since. And why should Hussein not want to imitate us?
The bombing of Hiroshima was a great crime. That the United States of America has yet to confront it as such not only leaves the past with unfinished business, but undercuts the possibility of present moral clarity about the exercise of American power and leaves the earth's future tied to a fuse that we set burning 57 years ago today."
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0806-01.htm
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Most of them were. Most of the people killed during WW2 were innocent civilians. All the "but what ifs" don't matter.
The Japanese Emperor was willing to accept the deaths of most of his people as long as they went down fighting Evil Johnny hand to hand. It wasn't until he was made to realize that we had the capacity and the will to annihilate them all from the air with no corresponding deaths of our own that he changed his mind and surrendered.
Thus Truman saved millions of Japanese lives. He may have avoided their genocide.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Are you even aware that the Japanese Government was training women, children, and old people to attack American Military Personel with sharpened bamboo, if America invaded Japan.
They were instructed to fight to the last person.
We would of had to kill entire villages, across all of Japan.
I assume that would have been a better alternative for you??
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Christie disappears, unwilling to learn and unwilling to admit she was wrong. 