Franken claimed Bush "rolled back" the arsenic drinking water standards that Clinton had issued which in office. He fails to mention hat he issued them during his last hours in office.
Bush did roll them back.
Clinton did issue them while in office.
Whether or not they happened while Clinton was getting serviced by Monica on the way out the door is irrelevant. The statement, unfortunately for your argument here, is true.
Why do you feel so horribly compelled to lie all of the time? Well, I guess we all know the answer to that: your world view has no positive relationship with reality.
The Bush admin was forced to adopt the Clinton plan even though by that time we found it even that wasn't as strong as it needs to be.
I like how you refuse to even quote my words.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Bush took the recommendation of the research then he did not ROLL BACK the Clinton standard. He REVIEWED IT. Then that would make Franken a liar for claiming he did roll it back. Even if all Bush did was modify the standard and timeline it isn't rolling back because Clinton never implimented it.
Lastly the studies that came out around the time Clinton acted recommended 5 ppb and came out in 1999. Clinton had them well before the literally last hour on the last day he was in office. He took a cowards course and left others to clean up the mess and find a way to pay for the improvements.
I like this bit too..
Quote:
Lawsuits by NRDC since last year initially prompted the Clinton administration to propose a standard of 5 ppb, but after industry protests it was set at 10 ppb. NRDC is now suing the Bush EPA over its decision to suspend the Clinton arsenic rule and for ignoring a June 22 congressional deadline for having a new plan to reduce arsenic levels.
Oh Clinton, the environmentalist.. sued into lowering the standards while hitting the door.
Please...that is from your own link BTW which shows Clinton was sued into the actions he took.
So the Clean Air act and Bush's EPA dismantling of it isn't an issue?
Al's point was that Bush is so political that he rescinded an order to reduce Arsenic levels just BECAUSE it was issued by Clinton on his way out the door.You're the hypocrit. He rescinded it for no other reason than political motive.
Al was right.
Clinton is the hypocrit. Contending to be above poliics while issuing last minute executive orders is nothing but politics. Bush did the right thing in reviewing an order based of nothing but the pressure of the door hitting you on the ass.
Al is a liar because he characterized this review as a rollback. The review went forward and so have the standards. The arsenic levels didn't "roll back" because they weren't set to go into effect until 2006.
Bush had a 60 day hold on almost all those last minute executive orders. The reasonable ones went forward.
I suppose when Bush leaves office someday that if he issues a boatload of executive orders on his last day in office any review of them will just be "partisan politics" in your eyes.
I didn't quote you because your words have no relatioship to reality.
Quote:
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Bush took the recommendation of the research then he did not ROLL BACK the Clinton standard. He REVIEWED IT.
No, they suggested putting it at 20 ppb and felt 10ppb was too costly
Quote:
Lastly the studies that came out around the time Clinton acted recommended 5 ppb and came out in 1999.
Clinton had them well before the literally last hour on the last day he was in office. He took a cowards course and left others to clean up the mess and find a way to pay for the improvements.
Maybe, but I don't know and I don't care. What's relevant here is that you tried to lie to support a bullshit argument. You also clearly didn't know anything about this until this discussion and attacked the franken book anyway.
Just like with the last BS you started, planned parenthood, good job at lying in an effort to promote your destructive and unrealistic ideology.
Maybe, but I don't know and I don't care. What's relevant here is that you tried to lie to support a bullshit argument. You also clearly didn't know anything about this until this discussion and attacked the franken book anyway.
Just like with the last BS you started, planned parenthood, good job at lying in an effort to promote your destructive and unrealistic ideology.
Don't you have a conscience?
First I wasn't talking about the EPA recommendation. I was talking about the NAS recommendation of which the EPA recommendation is based off. That was 1999, got it genius? Clinton had access to both got that too genius?
As for you, well as usually you resort to name calling since you have no ideas with which to combat what I say. As if I should expect any better.
Go read your Franken comic book. (Supply-side Jesus) It is obvious Franken writes to the level of his readers. I guess he figures a few of them might understand if he included lots of name calling and pretty pictures.
That was 1999, got it genius? Clinton had access to both got that too genius?
Well, I'm glad google taught you something today. Since you like NAS studies so much, maybe you should notice that the 2001 NAS study that finally forced Bush to adopt Clinton's standards actually shows 10ppb to be far too high. And who is ignoring it? Of course, I'll blame the EPA (EPA under the bush admin) for ignoring it, since it is up to the EPA to make the recommendation. Hence why the EPA paper is the important one.
And I do apologize for calling you 'genius.' I admit that you are very far from one. Sorry for mischaracterizing you.
Sorry Trumpt-guy, but I did think this hit the nail on the head about some of your posts.
As I mentioned I can understand why you call a book full of name calling, pretty pictures and comics "political discourse."
Franken writes to his audience which must consist of adults reading at about the third grade level with the assistance of pictures to help them with the harder words.
When viewed in that context I can understand why my posts appear to be hard for you to comprehend.
When viewed in that context I can understand why my posts appear to be to hard for you to comprehend.
Nick
Well, they are not so much hard to comprehend, but sometimes a bit free and loose with the facts and non-linear in approach. That being said, I do enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your views, although I don't often agree with them. Some conservatives (and liberals, I have to admit) show no signs of critical self-examination in their viewpoints. I do think yours are the product of such examination, even if the results sometimes make me angry.
Regarding Franken's book: yes it is written at a simple level. I think that we have discussed this before on AO - that there is legitimate room in political discourse for this sort of writing, as there is room, at the other end of the spectrum, for academic political writing, and for many types in between.
Apparently not... it's SATIRE. It shows in a funny and twisted way how wrongheaded supply side economics is. Ever watch SNL? same kind of humor.
I've read the book. And all you did was flip through it in a bookstore.
And the spinsanity article doesn't even find a single lie! It just doesn't like the "tone" of the book and how partisan it is.
Chu...
I read the comic and most of the book. It was a quick read. There is certainly nothing difficult about it. I skipped over all the sections on O'Reilly because I don't watch him, read him or even care about him enough to deal with the material.
I understand the comic is satire. I wasn't making fun of the material rather the medium.
Franken for example takes Coulter to task for a couple issues. He claims she quotes items out of context to to draw wrong conclusions. He claims she does shoddy research and doesn't use enough endnotes or footnotes or misuses them. He uses for example a column that she wrote about the Times not covering the death of a Nascar driver to show how out of touch they are with common folk as an example of strawman type approaches. (How does coving Nascar make one objective or biased?)
My example was exactly in the vein of what Franken claims to be refuting as a polemist. Europe has had arsenic levels at 10 PPB for years before the United States. Clinton was implored for the entire 8 years of his presidency to lower the arsenic levels and was even sued to do so.
Clinton finally relented and lowered them via executive order on just about the last day he was in office. Bush held this order and most other orders up for review. Upon review of the science and also with some congressional pressure he agreed to the stanrdards as well. They will be implemented in 2006 just as they would have been under Clinton.
To declare this to be rolling back environmental protections is just the height of what Franken claims to counter. Franken is basically taking a position, and mischaracterizing/lying about it in hopes of political gain. If he claims to be the standard barrer of refutation, he ought not use the same tools as those he claims need to be targeted.
As for Franken's work on SNL, I didn't find him funny then either. That Stuart character did nothing for me. I will also say that I have never really found Dennis Miller be he conservative or liberal this week to be funny.
Well, they are not so much hard to comprehend, but sometimes a bit free and loose with the facts and non-linear in approach. That being said, I do enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your views, although I don't often agree with them. Some conservatives (and liberals, I have to admit) show no signs of critical self-examination in their viewpoints. I do think yours are the product of such examination, even if the results sometimes make me angry.
Regarding Franken's book: yes it is written at a simple level. I think that we have discussed this before on AO - that there is legitimate room in political discourse for this sort of writing, as there is room, at the other end of the spectrum, for academic political writing, and for many types in between.
Well thanks for the half complement and the ability to take a little ribbing when giving some. I am glad you saw the smilies and treated the post as such.
Franken's book is writing at a simple level but I don't really find it compelling. I do enjoy South Park for example much more which is likely considered at least as "juvenile"/basic/simple as Franken's stuff but is actually so much more effective. I can laugh at Mahler even though I am sure my views would be the butt of many a joke by him. However Franken is just shrill and misleading which is sad considering that is what he claims to cure.
I don't think he's claiming to cure anything... and he certainly isn't shrill... O'Reilly and Coulter are shrill.
He went after Ann Coulter and exposed her lame tactics... that's not misleading.
Clinton had a good record on the environment but he didn't go out of his way to please every environmentalist cause either.
All you have to do is look at who is current EPA head elect is... and it's clear who Bush is trying to please.
The tactics he claimed about Coulter were poor documentation of research, paraphrasing to misrepresent a point, and trying to convince with evidence that wasn't related.
He then turns out a book with fewer endnotes than Coulter's and it has absolutely no index. (really ought to be a intellectual crime ) I showed where he was mischaracterizing an action to make a point.
However we could go even beyond that. We could say that discussing whether someone labeled someone as a father or grandfather really has nothing to do with the message being conveyed at all. Attempts to play "gotcha" politics are exactly again what Franken claims the right uses instead of ideas. Sadly Franken attempts to discredit Coulter's tactics and mistakes that for discrediting her ideas.
The article I linked to called Bush a Clinton Jr. Clinton had 8 years to raise CAFE standards and remove exceptions that allow SUV's to pollute as they do. He never did. He never acted on the arsenic either. Just tossed off a last minute executive order that would need review, clarification and a means of implementation.
Bush hasn't had 8 years yet so it really isn't fair to compare records in totality yet. I do know that environmental groups are often a Democratic interest group. That doesn't mean that I discredit the work they are trying to bring about. Just that I believe they should hold all the feet to the same fire. NOW did some serious credibility damage to themselveswhen they allowed Clinton to do what he did for example. Likewise there are environmental groups who while grousing give Clinton a pass since he is "one of them" even while not attending to their agenda. This happens on the right as well.
There are environmental groups with which I agree and disagree. Since it is a series of trade offs, that can easily happen. There are those that believe in NO trade offs and that human impact on the planet should be unmeasuable and the planet itself, static. I don't personally agree with those views.
The tactics he claimed about Coulter were poor documentation of research, paraphrasing to misrepresent a point, and trying to convince with evidence that wasn't related.
Hmmm.... So printing the front page of the nytimes to next to a whole paragraph of her lying about that specific issue was somehow misrepresentation?
The tactics he claimed about Coulter were poor documentation of research, paraphrasing to misrepresent a point, and trying to convince with evidence that wasn't related.
He then turns out a book with fewer endnotes than Coulter's and it has absolutely no index. (really ought to be a intellectual crime ) I showed where he was mischaracterizing an action to make a point.
Unless you're brain-dead, you should realize you're insinuating that Al Franken is no better than Ann Coulter in terms of.... credibility.... intellectual honesty.... scholarship. You gotta be kidding me to suggest anything but Ann Coulter is the lowest of the low in all three.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Franken claimed Bush "rolled back" the arsenic drinking water standards that Clinton had issued which in office. He fails to mention hat he issued them during his last hours in office.
Bush did roll them back.
Clinton did issue them while in office.
Whether or not they happened while Clinton was getting serviced by Monica on the way out the door is irrelevant. The statement, unfortunately for your argument here, is true.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by giant
Trumptman, why in the world would you think you can get accurate info from that column (or up-to-date for that matter).
The fact is, everything you posted is wrong. Plain and simple.
The EPA report came out in 2000 recommending 5 ppb
then...
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic.html
http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/...1newars10.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=614
Why do you feel so horribly compelled to lie all of the time? Well, I guess we all know the answer to that: your world view has no positive relationship with reality.
The Bush admin was forced to adopt the Clinton plan even though by that time we found it even that wasn't as strong as it needs to be.
I like how you refuse to even quote my words.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Bush took the recommendation of the research then he did not ROLL BACK the Clinton standard. He REVIEWED IT. Then that would make Franken a liar for claiming he did roll it back. Even if all Bush did was modify the standard and timeline it isn't rolling back because Clinton never implimented it.
Lastly the studies that came out around the time Clinton acted recommended 5 ppb and came out in 1999. Clinton had them well before the literally last hour on the last day he was in office. He took a cowards course and left others to clean up the mess and find a way to pay for the improvements.
I like this bit too..
Lawsuits by NRDC since last year initially prompted the Clinton administration to propose a standard of 5 ppb, but after industry protests it was set at 10 ppb. NRDC is now suing the Bush EPA over its decision to suspend the Clinton arsenic rule and for ignoring a June 22 congressional deadline for having a new plan to reduce arsenic levels.
Oh Clinton, the environmentalist.. sued into lowering the standards while hitting the door.
Please...that is from your own link BTW which shows Clinton was sued into the actions he took.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
So the Clean Air act and Bush's EPA dismantling of it isn't an issue?
Al's point was that Bush is so political that he rescinded an order to reduce Arsenic levels just BECAUSE it was issued by Clinton on his way out the door.You're the hypocrit. He rescinded it for no other reason than political motive.
Al was right.
Clinton is the hypocrit. Contending to be above poliics while issuing last minute executive orders is nothing but politics. Bush did the right thing in reviewing an order based of nothing but the pressure of the door hitting you on the ass.
Al is a liar because he characterized this review as a rollback. The review went forward and so have the standards. The arsenic levels didn't "roll back" because they weren't set to go into effect until 2006.
Bush had a 60 day hold on almost all those last minute executive orders. The reasonable ones went forward.
I suppose when Bush leaves office someday that if he issues a boatload of executive orders on his last day in office any review of them will just be "partisan politics" in your eyes.
The bullshit stinks...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I like how you refuse to even quote my words.
I didn't quote you because your words have no relatioship to reality.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Bush took the recommendation of the research then he did not ROLL BACK the Clinton standard. He REVIEWED IT.
No, they suggested putting it at 20 ppb and felt 10ppb was too costly
Lastly the studies that came out around the time Clinton acted recommended 5 ppb and came out in 1999.
The epa recommendation came out in 2000. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/arsenic.txt
You were looking at the wrong thing, genius.
Clinton had them well before the literally last hour on the last day he was in office. He took a cowards course and left others to clean up the mess and find a way to pay for the improvements.
Maybe, but I don't know and I don't care. What's relevant here is that you tried to lie to support a bullshit argument. You also clearly didn't know anything about this until this discussion and attacked the franken book anyway.
Just like with the last BS you started, planned parenthood, good job at lying in an effort to promote your destructive and unrealistic ideology.
Don't you have a conscience?
Originally posted by giant
I didn't quote you because your words have no relatioship to reality.
No, they suggested putting it at 20 ppb and felt 10ppb was too costly
The epa recommendation came out in 2000. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/arsenic.txt
You were looking at the wrong thing, genius.
Maybe, but I don't know and I don't care. What's relevant here is that you tried to lie to support a bullshit argument. You also clearly didn't know anything about this until this discussion and attacked the franken book anyway.
Just like with the last BS you started, planned parenthood, good job at lying in an effort to promote your destructive and unrealistic ideology.
Don't you have a conscience?
First I wasn't talking about the EPA recommendation. I was talking about the NAS recommendation of which the EPA recommendation is based off. That was 1999, got it genius? Clinton had access to both got that too genius?
As for you, well as usually you resort to name calling since you have no ideas with which to combat what I say. As if I should expect any better.
Go read your Franken comic book. (Supply-side Jesus) It is obvious Franken writes to the level of his readers. I guess he figures a few of them might understand if he included lots of name calling and pretty pictures.
At least we know why you like him so...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
That was 1999, got it genius? Clinton had access to both got that too genius?
Well, I'm glad google taught you something today. Since you like NAS studies so much, maybe you should notice that the 2001 NAS study that finally forced Bush to adopt Clinton's standards actually shows 10ppb to be far too high. And who is ignoring it? Of course, I'll blame the EPA (EPA under the bush admin) for ignoring it, since it is up to the EPA to make the recommendation. Hence why the EPA paper is the important one.
And I do apologize for calling you 'genius.' I admit that you are very far from one. Sorry for mischaracterizing you.
Franken's satirical Lies
Enjoy.
Originally posted by giant
Sometimes I feel like you just scramble up the word magnets on your fridge to come up with your posts.
Originally posted by Chinney
As I mentioned I can understand why you call a book full of name calling, pretty pictures and comics "political discourse."
Franken writes to his audience which must consist of adults reading at about the third grade level with the assistance of pictures to help them with the harder words.
When viewed in that context I can understand why my posts appear to be hard for you to comprehend.
Nick
Apparently not... it's SATIRE. It shows in a funny and twisted way how wrongheaded supply side economics is. Ever watch SNL? same kind of humor.
I've read the book. And all you did was flip through it in a bookstore.
And the spinsanity article doesn't even find a single lie! It just doesn't like the "tone" of the book and how partisan it is.
Originally posted by trumptman
When viewed in that context I can understand why my posts appear to be to hard for you to comprehend.
Nick
Well, they are not so much hard to comprehend, but sometimes a bit free and loose with the facts and non-linear in approach. That being said, I do enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your views, although I don't often agree with them. Some conservatives (and liberals, I have to admit) show no signs of critical self-examination in their viewpoints. I do think yours are the product of such examination, even if the results sometimes make me angry.
Regarding Franken's book: yes it is written at a simple level. I think that we have discussed this before on AO - that there is legitimate room in political discourse for this sort of writing, as there is room, at the other end of the spectrum, for academic political writing, and for many types in between.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
DID YOU READ THE SUPPLY SIDE JESUS COMIC?
Apparently not... it's SATIRE. It shows in a funny and twisted way how wrongheaded supply side economics is. Ever watch SNL? same kind of humor.
I've read the book. And all you did was flip through it in a bookstore.
And the spinsanity article doesn't even find a single lie! It just doesn't like the "tone" of the book and how partisan it is.
Chu...
I read the comic and most of the book. It was a quick read. There is certainly nothing difficult about it. I skipped over all the sections on O'Reilly because I don't watch him, read him or even care about him enough to deal with the material.
I understand the comic is satire. I wasn't making fun of the material rather the medium.
Franken for example takes Coulter to task for a couple issues. He claims she quotes items out of context to to draw wrong conclusions. He claims she does shoddy research and doesn't use enough endnotes or footnotes or misuses them. He uses for example a column that she wrote about the Times not covering the death of a Nascar driver to show how out of touch they are with common folk as an example of strawman type approaches. (How does coving Nascar make one objective or biased?)
My example was exactly in the vein of what Franken claims to be refuting as a polemist. Europe has had arsenic levels at 10 PPB for years before the United States. Clinton was implored for the entire 8 years of his presidency to lower the arsenic levels and was even sued to do so.
Clinton finally relented and lowered them via executive order on just about the last day he was in office. Bush held this order and most other orders up for review. Upon review of the science and also with some congressional pressure he agreed to the stanrdards as well. They will be implemented in 2006 just as they would have been under Clinton.
To declare this to be rolling back environmental protections is just the height of what Franken claims to counter. Franken is basically taking a position, and mischaracterizing/lying about it in hopes of political gain. If he claims to be the standard barrer of refutation, he ought not use the same tools as those he claims need to be targeted.
As for Franken's work on SNL, I didn't find him funny then either. That Stuart character did nothing for me. I will also say that I have never really found Dennis Miller be he conservative or liberal this week to be funny.
Nick
Originally posted by Chinney
Well, they are not so much hard to comprehend, but sometimes a bit free and loose with the facts and non-linear in approach. That being said, I do enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your views, although I don't often agree with them. Some conservatives (and liberals, I have to admit) show no signs of critical self-examination in their viewpoints. I do think yours are the product of such examination, even if the results sometimes make me angry.
Regarding Franken's book: yes it is written at a simple level. I think that we have discussed this before on AO - that there is legitimate room in political discourse for this sort of writing, as there is room, at the other end of the spectrum, for academic political writing, and for many types in between.
Well thanks for the half complement and the ability to take a little ribbing when giving some.
Franken's book is writing at a simple level but I don't really find it compelling. I do enjoy South Park for example much more which is likely considered at least as "juvenile"/basic/simple as Franken's stuff but is actually so much more effective. I can laugh at Mahler even though I am sure my views would be the butt of many a joke by him. However Franken is just shrill and misleading which is sad considering that is what he claims to cure.
Nick
Originally posted by Chinney
Well, they are not so much hard to comprehend, but sometimes a bit free and loose with the facts
And the understatement of the month goes to Chinney!
He went after Ann Coulter and exposed her lame tactics... that's not misleading.
Clinton had a good record on the environment but he didn't go out of his way to please every environmentalist cause either.
All you have to do is look at who is current EPA head elect is... and it's clear who Bush is trying to please.
http://www.doi.gov/secretary/
the joke on us continues...
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I don't think he's claiming to cure anything... and he certainly isn't shrill... O'Reilly and Coulter are shrill.
He went after Ann Coulter and exposed her lame tactics... that's not misleading.
Clinton had a good record on the environment but he didn't go out of his way to please every environmentalist cause either.
All you have to do is look at who is current EPA head elect is... and it's clear who Bush is trying to please.
The tactics he claimed about Coulter were poor documentation of research, paraphrasing to misrepresent a point, and trying to convince with evidence that wasn't related.
He then turns out a book with fewer endnotes than Coulter's and it has absolutely no index. (really ought to be a intellectual crime
However we could go even beyond that. We could say that discussing whether someone labeled someone as a father or grandfather really has nothing to do with the message being conveyed at all. Attempts to play "gotcha" politics are exactly again what Franken claims the right uses instead of ideas. Sadly Franken attempts to discredit Coulter's tactics and mistakes that for discrediting her ideas.
The article I linked to called Bush a Clinton Jr. Clinton had 8 years to raise CAFE standards and remove exceptions that allow SUV's to pollute as they do. He never did. He never acted on the arsenic either. Just tossed off a last minute executive order that would need review, clarification and a means of implementation.
Bush hasn't had 8 years yet so it really isn't fair to compare records in totality yet. I do know that environmental groups are often a Democratic interest group. That doesn't mean that I discredit the work they are trying to bring about. Just that I believe they should hold all the feet to the same fire. NOW did some serious credibility damage to themselveswhen they allowed Clinton to do what he did for example. Likewise there are environmental groups who while grousing give Clinton a pass since he is "one of them" even while not attending to their agenda. This happens on the right as well.
There are environmental groups with which I agree and disagree. Since it is a series of trade offs, that can easily happen. There are those that believe in NO trade offs and that human impact on the planet should be unmeasuable and the planet itself, static. I don't personally agree with those views.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The tactics he claimed about Coulter were poor documentation of research, paraphrasing to misrepresent a point, and trying to convince with evidence that wasn't related.
Hmmm.... So printing the front page of the nytimes to next to a whole paragraph of her lying about that specific issue was somehow misrepresentation?
When your facts don't hold water, neither does your point.
Ann is the factual collander of the right.
Originally posted by trumptman
The tactics he claimed about Coulter were poor documentation of research, paraphrasing to misrepresent a point, and trying to convince with evidence that wasn't related.
He then turns out a book with fewer endnotes than Coulter's and it has absolutely no index. (really ought to be a intellectual crime
Unless you're brain-dead, you should realize you're insinuating that Al Franken is no better than Ann Coulter in terms of.... credibility.... intellectual honesty.... scholarship. You gotta be kidding me to suggest anything but Ann Coulter is the lowest of the low in all three.