Friday, February 25, 2011

PS TO LAST POST

Here.

36 comments:

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lally said...

There are enough lies out there in the media, we don't need to add to them here by those who cannot make a reasonable argument without resorting to them.

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
harryn said...

and this is exactly why Obama is now being accused of being an 'apologist' - because he defends an American integrity that seems to be lost in the ignorance of knee-jerk, name calling reactionaries that behave with less civility or willingness for reasonable discourse ...
just another example of a mind left behind ...

JIm said...

harryn, Now calling someone a liar is civility, even though he can not point out the lie. That is beyond ignorant.

-K- said...

This might be a good time to remind people who believe their message is not being heard that blogs are free from Blogger and that they take less than five minutes to set up.

JIm said...

K, The internet is the equivilent to the town square or tavern of our forbears. When Lally spouts politically, a destructive and anti constitutional philosophy, he should be able to defend it. Invariably when challenged, he responds with shouts of liar, but is unable to identify the lie. Every " Comment Deleted" is an admission of his inablility and is a confirmation of the flawed philosophy of liberalism. If this is to be a site where conservatives need not apply, there should be a sign in for liberals only.

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

I think Jim is afraid of being on the receiving end of someone like himself. It's easier and less responsibility to take potshots at others.

-K- said...

He's pulling a little sleight of hand by using "Internet" interchangably with a blog. The Internet may be a town square but a person's blog is more like a home where, as you know, different rules apply. Walking into someone's living room is not a guarantee that I will never be asked to leave, especially if I'm under the delusion that I can behave as if I'm in the town square or a bar.

Not having a blog himself, he seems to be unaware of the difference between a host and a guest, especially a guest who has no intention of inviting you to his house.

Miles said...

Jim,

You've told many lies here. And you've been asked many times to back up specific lies with proof. On these occasions you almost never address the initial lie. That you pretend this is not your normal pattern, shows your dishonesty. Another example of your dishonesty is your claim that you would go away. Why did you lie about that? I'm asking you point blank about a specific lie of yours, and I'm not the first person to do so. If you want to stick to your word and not be a liar, you need to go away like you said you would.

JIm said...

Miles,
Name the lie.

Lally said...

And there you have it folks. Mind boggling isn't it? The right's strategy writ small enough for the comments section of this blog. But since he doesn't get it or pretends not to in order to justify his ideological prejudices, distortions, misrepresentations, and obviously outright lies, I will continue to delete when it begins to become too tiresome again, which it once again has.

JIm said...

Lally, Name the misrepresentation,lie or distortion.

Anonymous said...

liar liar pants on fire!

the "left/liberals" ALWAYS tell the truth?
the "right/conservative" ALWAYS lie?

the bottom-line "truth" ? Might Makes Right and
Whoever controls The Media rules!!!


the 'other' anonymous

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

Newsflash - Rush Limbaugh rearranged the letters of his name long ago. His real name is "Glush Hubima", from Yemen, and he was born Muslim! Pass it on, so it becomes truth!

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

People can change their minds about going away and coming back. Jim's going away is not going to change his toxic viewpoint and expression. Or his convenient double standards and prevarications. Only when Jim becomes the recipient of the fruits of his own mentality will he possibly come around.

JIm said...

Guys, I understand that a simple question is hard for liberals. Let me repeat the request, name the falsehood!!

Anonymous said...

"That means cutting back on big government spending and encouraging free enterprize, by being more friendly toward business."

To me this is the lie Jim. If America isn't friendly toward business then why are all the CEO's so filthy rich while their American workers struggle to make ends meet? I can think of few other countries so blessed to have fabulously wealthy business owners, so... that's one lie I can think of.

Caitlin

Lally said...

"If the domestic energy industry had not been prevented by Democrats and Obama from developing domestic recources, the prices would not be going up."

Now there's an obvious lie within another lie.
First: The Democrats and Obama unfortunately expanded off shore drilling and allowed other forms of dangerous and even destructive methods for removing oil, so they did not "prevent" the "domestic energy industry...from developing domestic resources."
Second: If that's the cause of oil prices going up, which is presumed in the conclusion that says otherwise "the prices would not be going up" then why did they go up under Bush/Cheney so sharply when there were more than enough resources being exploited and the demand hadn't reached the level it has in the past two years, etc. etc. etc. et-endlessly-cetera.

I can do this with pretty much any comment on this blog from the rightwingers. They almost always rely on one lie to refute "liberal/socialist" thinking—which of course is a rare thing in this country because there are very very very few active socialists—and then using the first lie they add another to their conclusion. It's an old propaganda trick.
Like the one about Democrats wanting to raise your taxes. No, they want to raise taxes on the wealthiest one percent of the population, but by generalizing it down to the rest of us the right convinces people who would benefit from higher taxes on the wealthiest into thinking somehow it would hurt them. As they've convinced a lot of working people that unions are not in their best interest, but cutting taxes for the wealthy is. Misrepresentation, misdirection, and outright lies. Instead of being angry at the Wall Street profiteers who caused the Great Recession and then benefited from the government bailing them out (initiated by Bush/Cheney) and were never brought to justice, the right has convinced working people that it's the last of the unions—public service employees—who have caused the economic woes. Clever, diabolical, and extremely dangerous.

JIm said...

Thank you Caitlin. Finally we have a liberal with the courage of her convictions. We have had many experiments in socialism and or big government control. The most obvious beginning is the French Revolution that ended badly for both the peasant and nobel. 1917 brought the Bolsevick revolution which again ended badly. Big government takeovers occured in the 30's in the Germany, Italy, Japan and the US. All ended poorly. The US suffered through a big government expansion under Hoover and FDR. They compounded the problem and stretched a recession into a Depression. Only WWII pulled us out. Calvin Coolidge and Harding were faced with, at least an equally severe recession/depression after WWI. They responded with a 50% cut in government expenditures and taxes. The roaring 20s ensued.

Caitlin, does it do more good to punish people, who have been financially successful but invest in the US economy, thus stimulating the economy and employment or should we tax them heavily and encourge then to invest in a different country that may be more friendly to inv estment. We can bemoan the preceived unfairness or deal with reality and make the USA more friendly to business and employment which will again make America that "Shining City on the Hill", with near full employment and a vibrant economy.

JIm said...

Lally,
Sometimes you are beyond silly. Obama closed down the gulf to energy production. When the courts pushed back they continued to block production that has cut domestic energy production and employment. The Democrats continue to oppose Alaskan and off shore oil drilling. Obama's energy department has shut down shale production in Colorado. Lally, if you do not realize that low US energy production leads to higher domestic gas prices, you are truly an idiot.

Lally said...

Okay, laat comment of his Ill leave up for a while because he can't stop calling names )and notice how he has consistently claimed "liberals" and Democrats and "socialists" etc. especially me are the ones calling names. Check out the history of this blog and I doubt you'll find that I used anything other than labels like "rightwinger" etc.

The lie here is that "Obama and Democrats" "prevented domestic energy industry"—I didn't even mention all the energy projects other than oil that the Obama administration and Democratic majority Congress initiated during the two years they existed.
And of course they didn't "prevent" the "domestic energy industry" etc. what he is referring to are policies which have been supported and even intitated in some instances by administrations and Congresses of both parties over the past few decades at times, and only certain limited policies. Obama and the Democrats have mostly conceded to the usual oil industry demands, including tax breaks the rest of us don't get, nor do small businesses etc. But he can't acknowledge any subtle differences of gradients, the difference between limiting certain aspects of oil exploitation over others he sees only as "prevention" etc. It's like claiming a man under house arrest has been executed. It's a rhetorical device the right has wileded expertly now pretty much since Reagan, the man who grew the government and raised taxes on ordinary people like us many times during his administration but the right still touts as someone who shrunk government and cut taxes (which of course he did do, but only for the wealthiest ultimately).
But the insults have become too much, let alone the usual misdirection, misinformation and lies (look at the way he avoided answering Caitlin's question directly and instead posited some faux "history" starting with the misdirection of "many experiments in socialism and big government" as if that had anything to do with what Caitlin asked or what's going on now. As I said, the federal government GREW THE MOST UNDER REAGAN/BUSH AND BUSH/CHENEY and was actually CUT, that is was SHRUNK under Clinton/Gore so if you wanted to draw any conclusions about which party is for BIG GOVERNMENT in the past thirty years you'd have to choose the Republicans. It's like shooting somebody and saying I couldn't have shot him because that's not my ideology so therefore Im innocent and it must have been my enemy that shot him. etc. Just pure lack of reason or logic.
I could refute the rest of it but I've got things to do, but the bottom line is his oversimplified version of "history" is incorrect in almost every phrase let alone sentence and builds on the usual misdirections, misinformation and lies to to create a false premise for a conclusion that is also false.

JIm said...

Here is Lally's lie accusation, followed by recent AP and Fox news stories describing Obama's obstruction of energy development in the Gulf, Alaska and Colorado.

"The lie here is that "Obama and Democrats" "prevented domestic energy industry"

Obama: No offshore drilling in East Coast waters
The decision is a reversal from what the administration proposed in March
Michael Spooneybarger AP

By Brendan Farrington and Matthew Daly
Associated Press / December 1, 2010
In a reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will not pursue offshore drilling off the East Coast of the U.S. and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Associated Press that because of the BP oil spill, the Interior Department will not propose any new oil drilling in waters off the East Coast for at least the next seven years.

President Barack Obama's earlier plan -- announced in March, three weeks before the April BP spill -- would have authorized officials to explore potential for drilling from Delaware to central Florida, plus the northern waters of Alaska. The new plan allows potential drilling in Alaska, but officials said they will move cautiously before approving any leases.
Politics
February 16, 2011

Obama Slowing Down Shale Oil Development Out West

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

As i recall, many jobs were lost and the ecosystem was long term damaged from the BP oil disaster (it may be out of the news, but the effects are now with us for beyond our lifetime). We have a first hand disaster as example of the dangers and consequences of offshore drilling, and of corporate irresponsibility as a result of short term greed. We need to evolve into alternative energy modes/technologies that are currently available and will foster many jobs, and the oil industry must adapt, and government must stop caving in to it.

JIm said...

Lally,
I assume you will apologize for falsly accusing me of lying. Sister Gemma would expect nothing less.

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

Jim, the "Lally" thing immediately shows lack of respect and is telling of where you are coming from, of your intentions in this whole thing. By invoking Sister Gemma you also reveal a past you're not able or willing to move beyond. If you let go, you may see things in a different way and therefore feel differently.

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lally said...

The rightwinger can't seem to comprehend the difference between limiting and "preventing." There are more oil wells working in the Gulf of Mexico, unfortunately, under Obama than previously. That is certainly by every definition of "prevention" not "preventing" domestic oil development. But because the oil companies are not writing the energy bills, ala Bush/Cheney, and being given total free reign, ala Bush/Cheney, then they are being "prevented" from developing oil as freely as the right would like them to so it's an all or nothing deal, as usual, No room for bargaining (ala Wisconsin) or compromise (ala Obama) or regulations (ala almost all administrations before Bush/Cheney when it came to big oil) just compelte freedom to profiteer no matter what and anything less is "prevention" etc. So by those terms, a state limiting the time or place or age of people who can buy booze equals prohibition. It's ludicrous, but look at the rightwing media and ludicrous is obviously the norm on the right. yes the Dems and Obama are far from perfect, and conceded way too much when they won in 2008, and should have immediately attacked the right via the previous administration with investigations and criminal charges, not only because that would have been the just thing to do but because it also would have kept the right in a defensive mode instead of being nice and letting bygones be bygones and expecting some sort of bipartisan reasonableness. The Dems have been too soft, but that's another story.

JIm said...

Lally, You are guilty of calumny. Since you obviously are deficient in the English language, I have also provided a definition of lieing.

calumny-NOUN
1. defamation: the making of false statements about somebody with malicious intent
2. defamatory statement: a slanderous statement or false accusation

Lie-definition
"To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth."

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

You are describing yourself Jim. Except you need to add a little cowardice in there too. At least show your face.

JIm said...

Robert, Please provide an example of my supposed calumny and cowardness.

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

Like I said jim, show your face on this blog, since you take cheap, transparent pot shots at my friend. This is cowardly that you don't have the cajones to at least show your face as Michael (not Lally) and I do.

JIm said...

Robert, I have thought about doing a picture, but I lack computer expertise. I may look into it. I did not know you pined for my picture.

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

Don't flatter yourself Jim, but if you're going to take potshots like you do, at least show your face. Your kids can help you get a picture posted.