I'll tell you what. Find me the adults that consider going from 10 to 10 a rollback.
Nick
I'll tell you what: you need to point out where he actually said that, because I just looked and also can't find anything on arsenic at all. I'm a fast reader and spent 4 minutes going page by page and didn't see it at all, and as shawn said, it's not in the environment section. A google search turns up no references to it. I would really like to know where it is if it really is in there.
You are going to have to back this up sine you have a history of making up opposing arguments, notably when you argued about calling Iraq a 'police state' when you were the only one that called it that: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=34857
In the end it doesn't matter, because Bush tried to push it to 20ppb and failed because he was forced by a newer study to accept the 10ppb even though we now know that even that is far too high.
So keep on defending it. It doesn't do you any good.
I'll tell you what: you need to point out where he actually said that, because I just looked and also can't find anything on arsenic at all. I'm a fast reader and spent 4 minutes going page by page and didn't see it at all, and as shawn said, it's not in the environment section. A google search turns up no references to it. I would really like to know where it is if it really is in there.
You are going to have to back this up sine you have a history of making up opposing arguments, notably when you argued about calling Iraq a 'police state' when you were the only one that called it that: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=34857
In the end it doesn't matter, because Bush tried to push it to 20ppb and failed because he was forced by a newer study to accept the 10ppb even though we now know that even that is far too high.
So keep on defending it. It doesn't do you any good.
You are by any objective measure, high as a kite.
A Google search might not turn up anything in Franken's book, but it does about the lies you are trying to put forth regarding Bush and arsenic.
I don't own the book. I read it in a very short sitting at Barnes and Noble because it is that type of read. As I mentioned, with any decent author, you would have an index and wouldn't have to accuse me of lying because you have to scan a book to make up for his lack of professionalism.
As for backing it up, you think I'm going to waste my time when Franken himself didn't. Write him and tell him to put an index and real end notes in his book.
As for Iraq and police state, if checkpoint+ID = police state then again, we must live in the biggest police state on earth by YOUR definition.
I could find it for you and so you could if Franken had an index. (could you imagine any other author presenting "research" without an index and not getting slammed for it?)
You could also look it up if he documented his endnotes better. (Something he slams Coulter for while doing an even worse job of it himself.)
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. Honestly his book should have both if it expects any of the details it presents to be taken seriously even though parts of it are satire.
Nick
Well, the bit about the arsenic in the water should be in the book if you want to be taken seriously. First you found it "without even looking hard" but now you need an index? Come on. I mean, it's not hard to ask you not to completely make up things.
Well, the bit about the arsenic in the water should be in the book if you want to be taken seriously. First you found it "without even looking hard" but now you need an index? Come on. I mean, it's not hard to ask you not to completely make up things.
Shawn,
I don't need an index. I don't own the book. You don't even assign a motivation to your lack of intellectual depth anymore.
Calling Franken a liar about arsenic didn't change your opinion of him. Nor did the lack of index or lack of real footnotes which again, any real writer would use to document their research. (I know Franken says so when discussing Coulter.)
The lying letter to Ashcroft didn't change your opinion about him nor did the Spinsanity article. So why would I make up a lie? Likewise why would I make it up about something as stupid and mundane as arsenic standards?
To be credible as a prosecutor when claiming a crime, you also have to assign a motive. I gain nothing by lying about Franken, nor would anybody I would be advocating for. Bush wouldn't suddenly be seen as some great environmentalist. Clinton wouldn't suddenly be evil.
Likewise you haven't shown that there are other Franken assertions that you can look up in Google whereas this one you can't. "I can't google it so it isn't true" isn't a crime nor is "I can't find it in the book when the author is a hack posing as a researcher."
Now let me predict your next course of action. You will continue to act like the hack, nonintellectual you are and keep calling names. Likewise you will continue to take actions that would never do to my face while cowering behind the keyboard of your powerbook.
People complained about Bush suspending the order. He took a political hit for it. Dems even ran ads against about it. Then when Bush decided to set the same standard, 6 months or a year or whatever it was later, the criticism about it stopped, AFAIK.
If someone now says Bush is worse than Clinton on that issue, that would be wrong, but if someone said it then, and a lot of people did, that would be fair.
Eh, I don't know anything about the science behind it, but I have a feeling it's one of those things that has a basically negligible effect anyway.
I'm still curious to see exactly what Franken said about it, though. I'm going to suspend judgment on the way Franken dealt with that issue until I see it. All we have right now to go on is trumptman's claim against several others who have the book and can't even find the part in the book about it.
People complained about Bush suspending the order. He took a political hit for it. Dems even ran ads against about it. Then when Bush decided to set the same standard, 6 months or a year or whatever it was later, the criticism about it stopped, AFAIK.
If someone now says Bush is worse than Clinton on that issue, that would be wrong, but if someone said it then, and a lot of people did, that would be fair.
Eh, I don't know anything about the science behind it, but I have a feeling it's one of those things that has a basically negligible effect anyway.
I'm still curious to see exactly what Franken said about it, though. I'm going to suspend judgment on the way Franken dealt with that issue until I see it. All we have right now to go on is trumptman's claim against several others who have the book and can't even find the part in the book about it.
"Part" in the book?
I'd settle for the word "arsenic" used in any context.
I'm still curious to see exactly what Franken said about it, though. I'm going to suspend judgment on the way Franken dealt with that issue until I see it. All we have right now to go on is trumptman's claim against several others who have the book and can't even find the part in the book about it.
Well that would of course necessitate Trumptman owning the book and pawing through the entire thing again. Since Franken didn't include an index.
Quote:
"Part" in the book?
I'd settle for the word "arsenic" used in any context.
I'd settle for you being banned for a week for your constant personal attacks. I'd make time to find it if that were the outcome when I do. Also you didn't seem to dispute it when you had just finished reading the book nor did anyone else who had read it at that time. Previous forum debate
Instead the debate was that Franken didn't distort the truth of the matter because it was a lie of omission. (Bush did "roll them back".... for review and then went forward with them. Just because Franken forgot that part doesn't make him a liar, Bush did roll them back, etc.)
Maybe you should be look for the word rollback in the index...
What part of this can you not get through that thick skull of yours?
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Doood, you still can't even get the number straight.
Not only that, the bush admin did try to push for 20ppb because 10ppb was considered too costly. Then, a new report came out saying that even 10ppb was too high, and the Bush admin finally accepted the 10ppb.
This is after clinton tried to push for 5ppb, as recommended, and industry pressure bumped it up to 10ppb.
As for the 'took effect 4 years after he left office': earth to trumptman! Not only does the bush order not take effect until 2006, but the reason for that is a practical one. Did you just think they were going to send a genie to all those towns to magically upgrade their water systems in an instant?
And this is pretty funny:
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Also you didn't seem to dispute it when you had just finished reading the book nor did anyone else who had read it at that time
Well, if you go look at the thread, my posts had nothing to do with whether or not it was in the book, all they did was point out your lies on the topic.
I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it is in the book and that I missed it. The problem I have is with your obsession with the phrase "rolled back." You have a history of totally making up phrases to argue against, such as the recent discussion about Iraq as a "police state."
It's important that it does not turn up on google because it would be a point that people would attack him on, justified or not, and the fact that no one has indicates that it might not be in there.
Be a man for once.
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
so let me get one thing straight from this mess.
in the end, did Clinton and Bush use the same number for acceptable arsenic levels or not? a yes or no will suffice.
edit: typo. can't spell arsenic.
Short answer: eventually
Full answer: read above. The bush admin did try to bump it to 20ppb and was forced back to 10ppb after a newer study found out even 10 and even 5 ppb was far too high.
What part of this can you not get through that thick skull of yours?
The part where you lie and distort is the part I can't get through my head.
The word rollback wasn't even mine to argue against. It was in numerous Democratic ads, columns, etc and was also what I read in the Franken book.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth so often it is hysterical. Clinton issuing the order like a coward is him being "practical." That order for example was going to cost just the state of New Mexico $400 million in water treatment improvements. When someone issues an order that cost states BILLIONS with hours left in their office, I think it is worthy of review. That review was called a Bush raising the arsenic standards/ Bush rolling back the arsenic standards/ Bush putting more arsenic in our water etc. It was even the subject of Democratic ads.
A review is not a rollback, the standard never went lower and you can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face and that won't be true.
Quote:
Well, if you go look at the thread, my posts had nothing to do with whether or not it was in the book, all they did was point out your lies on the topic.
I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it is in the book and that I missed it. The problem I have is with your obsession with the phrase "rolled back." You have a history of totally making up phrases to argue against, such as the recent discussion about Iraq as a "police state."
It's important that it does not turn up on google because it would be a point that people would attack him on, justified or not, and the fact that no one has indicates that it might not be in there.
Be a man for once.
You are hilarous. I have a "history." I'll tell you what, instead of studying the history of my life, go get one of your own. You also have a history of settling on words and personal attacks, along with accusations you never prove.
You claimed talking about your networth was in bad form. Of course you never found where I said my networth. You also claimed "success" didn't exist. Lastly you said that because I get my money differently than yourself, I don't understand how complex the financial world is, etc. Lastly you made entire assumptions about me and my life that were just wrong.
You were and are, an accusing, manipulative, attacking liar.
Hey why don't you Google for me how many people argued that Franken's jokes comparing his writing to starving Indian children were cruel or tasteless. How about the "tone" and his two or three chapters about that?
Why don't you be a man and just find the mention of the Bush and arsenic in the book that you already own. Go ahead and read the whole thing again with that phrase in mind. Be tough and macho and make up for the lack of index.
Quote:
Short answer: eventually
Eventually... after a review. You can't rollback what hasn't even gone into effect yet.
You claimed talking about your networth was in bad form. Of course you never found where I said my networth.
You were talking about it a lot at that time, bragging about how many slums you lorded over and how that factors into your financial situation. We were all there. So when you have three or four threads a week discussing your financial situation then you better expect someone to point it out.
Quote:
You also claimed "success" didn't exist.
And I stand by what I wrote, which was:
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It seems to me that in the real world it doesn't exist.
'Success' (and by extension, the idea of a 'self-made man' and, by extension, trumptman's online persona) only exists in the minds of idiots that think money and/or property serves anything other than a purely utilitarian purpose.
The first defintion of the word 'success' is 'The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted.' I like that one. You have a goal and achieve it. The second one is 'The gaining of fame or prosperity.' This is the one people mean when they say a person is 'successful.' Only losers use the word this way, because it then implies that people without fame or comfortable financial position are 'failures.' That is wrong.
Well that would of course necessitate Trumptman owning the book and pawing through the entire thing again. Since Franken didn't include an index.
I'd settle for you being banned for a week for your constant personal attacks. I'd make time to find it if that were the outcome when I do. Also you didn't seem to dispute it when you had just finished reading the book nor did anyone else who had read it at that time. Previous forum debate
Instead the debate was that Franken didn't distort the truth of the matter because it was a lie of omission. (Bush did "roll them back".... for review and then went forward with them. Just because Franken forgot that part doesn't make him a liar, Bush did roll them back, etc.)
Maybe you should be look for the word rollback in the index...
Nick
Oh wait a second. Look at this:
Al Franken: "Now, trumptman, that right-wing scoundrel over at AppleInsider, will fabricate at least one lie about my book and devote two threads to that fabrication! No, I never said anything about the levels of arsenic in the water."
Well, I guess since Franken doesn;t have an index. You can;t find it. But trust me, guys, it's in there. Now I'm going to create a second thread about it.
Al Franken: "Now, trumptman, that right-wing scoundrel over at AppleInsider, will fabricate at least one lie about my book and devote two threads to that fabrication! No, I never said anything about the levels of arsenic in the water."
Well, I guess since Franken doesn;t have an index. You can;t find it. But trust me, guys, it's in there. Now I'm going to create a second thread about it.
And in true Franken fashion you are a liar because GROVE started this thread. I just added to it. It makes you as much a liar as Ann Coulter who's terrible sin was... claiming the Times didn't run a NASCAR story on the front page.
Shawn and Ann Coulter, birds of a feather.
I'm sure the fact that Grove started this thread doesn't change the intent of what you were trying to say Shawn, but that is true of Franken's targets as well. It never bothered him, and now you are an infamous liar as well by his standard.
Oh and I would hope Franken wouldn't let me off with just being a scoundrel. I would hope to be challenged to a fight, attempted bitch-slapping or something of that nature.
And in true Franken fashion you are a liar because GROVE started this thread. I just added to it. It makes you as much a liar as Ann Coulter who's terrible sin was... claiming the Times didn't run a NASCAR story on the front page.
Shawn and Ann Coulter, birds of a feather.
I'm sure the fact that Grove started this thread doesn't change the intent of what you were trying to say Shawn, but that is true of Franken's targets as well. It never bothered him, and now you are an infamous liar as well by his standard.
Nick
Peanuts. I really don't care. If someone finds the Franken passage, great. If no one does, well, it's not surprising. Two of us have already gone through the book page by page......and it's just not there. *shrugs*
Well that would of course necessitate Trumptman owning the book and pawing through the entire thing again. Since Franken didn't include an index.
Two people who have the book say they can't find it. I did a full text search on amazon.com and nothing came up for the word "arsenic" in that book. Maybe you're mistaken, and you read it somewhere else. Lots of people were talking about it at the time: Bush did reverse the order, and during that time, many conservatives said that Clinton's standards were too strict and Bush was right to stop them. There was a legitimate debate during that period of time.
And even if Franken does talk about it, I'd like to see exactly what he says before I just assume he's a liar based on a second-hand account.
The quote you are referring to was calling Shawn a liar using Franken's standards. (Basically not a mistake of belief, but a mistake of research/attribution/etc.)
By Franken's standards, lies are simply mistakes. Shawn made a mistake about the originator of the thread and was appropriately tortured with a smilie.
Franken claimed Bush rolled back arsenic standards. I can't give you the quote since I don't own the book. I didn't claim the exact quote or ownership of the book in either thread. I also said he left off the other half of the information. (Bush instituting the standards after the review) and that the omission was intentional.
I also can't quote suppy-side Jesus, Franken claiming he can't lose his job to Indians via outsourcing, the debate about the "tone." Bitchslapping Bernie Goldberg, etc. That doesn't mean I didn't read and process the information related to them.
Two people who have the book say they can't find it. I did a full text search on amazon.com and nothing came up for the word "arsenic" in that book. Maybe you're mistaken, and you read it somewhere else. Lots of people were talking about it at the time: Bush did reverse the order, and during that time, many conservatives said that Clinton's standards were too strict and Bush was right to stop them. There was a legitimate debate during that period of time.
And even if Franken does talk about it, I'd like to see exactly what he says before I just assume he's a liar based on a second-hand account.
I doubt they read the books page by page again. The claims were that they scanned in the environmental sections. I didn't read any other similar books on the day I read the Franken book. I hadn't even intended to read the Franken book but since it literally is in big type and little more than a comic book, I figured I would give it the short time it required since so many had claimed it practically as gospel.
I think your characterization of the debate during that time is accurate. There likely still is plenty of debate about what the true trade off on arsenic and treatment costs should be. I think when the debate is basically a handful of lives affected at a cost of hundreds of millions, that debate will always occur no matter what the topic. The point should be that having the debate doesn't mean someone wants children dead or things of that nature. Cost versus benefit derived is done all the time without attribution of evil intent.
That is what I teased Shawn about. Who started this thread didn't change the intent of what he was trying to say. He isn't suddenly "evil" because Grove started it instead of myself. (He is evil for entirely different reasons. )
Franken's standard which can be seen aside from this one example which I am not going to buy the book to find, is that a mistake is a lie with evil intent. I don't assign that sort of "gotcha" thinking to liberals or conservatives. If anything it will encourage even less independent thinking, more sticking to talking points, etc.
Wow...you know what Franken said, what he didn't say, and even his intention behind what he said, and yet you seem surprised that those who cannot find the statements want you to back it up? Amazing.
FWIW, I read (and enjoyed) Franken's book, and confess that I thought I recalled him mentioning arsenic as well, but have long since passed the book on to friends, so can't check on it.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll tell you what. Find me the adults that consider going from 10 to 10 a rollback.
Nick
I'll tell you what: you need to point out where he actually said that, because I just looked and also can't find anything on arsenic at all. I'm a fast reader and spent 4 minutes going page by page and didn't see it at all, and as shawn said, it's not in the environment section. A google search turns up no references to it. I would really like to know where it is if it really is in there.
You are going to have to back this up sine you have a history of making up opposing arguments, notably when you argued about calling Iraq a 'police state' when you were the only one that called it that: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=34857
In the end it doesn't matter, because Bush tried to push it to 20ppb and failed because he was forced by a newer study to accept the 10ppb even though we now know that even that is far too high.
So keep on defending it. It doesn't do you any good.
Originally posted by giant
I'll tell you what: you need to point out where he actually said that, because I just looked and also can't find anything on arsenic at all. I'm a fast reader and spent 4 minutes going page by page and didn't see it at all, and as shawn said, it's not in the environment section. A google search turns up no references to it. I would really like to know where it is if it really is in there.
You are going to have to back this up sine you have a history of making up opposing arguments, notably when you argued about calling Iraq a 'police state' when you were the only one that called it that: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=34857
In the end it doesn't matter, because Bush tried to push it to 20ppb and failed because he was forced by a newer study to accept the 10ppb even though we now know that even that is far too high.
So keep on defending it. It doesn't do you any good.
You are by any objective measure, high as a kite.
A Google search might not turn up anything in Franken's book, but it does about the lies you are trying to put forth regarding Bush and arsenic.
I don't own the book. I read it in a very short sitting at Barnes and Noble because it is that type of read. As I mentioned, with any decent author, you would have an index and wouldn't have to accuse me of lying because you have to scan a book to make up for his lack of professionalism.
As for backing it up, you think I'm going to waste my time when Franken himself didn't. Write him and tell him to put an index and real end notes in his book.
As for Iraq and police state, if checkpoint+ID = police state then again, we must live in the biggest police state on earth by YOUR definition.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I could find it for you and so you could if Franken had an index. (could you imagine any other author presenting "research" without an index and not getting slammed for it?)
You could also look it up if he documented his endnotes better. (Something he slams Coulter for while doing an even worse job of it himself.)
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. Honestly his book should have both if it expects any of the details it presents to be taken seriously even though parts of it are satire.
Nick
Well, the bit about the arsenic in the water should be in the book if you want to be taken seriously. First you found it "without even looking hard" but now you need an index? Come on. I mean, it's not hard to ask you not to completely make up things.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, the bit about the arsenic in the water should be in the book if you want to be taken seriously. First you found it "without even looking hard" but now you need an index? Come on. I mean, it's not hard to ask you not to completely make up things.
Shawn,
I don't need an index. I don't own the book. You don't even assign a motivation to your lack of intellectual depth anymore.
Calling Franken a liar about arsenic didn't change your opinion of him. Nor did the lack of index or lack of real footnotes which again, any real writer would use to document their research. (I know Franken says so when discussing Coulter.)
The lying letter to Ashcroft didn't change your opinion about him nor did the Spinsanity article. So why would I make up a lie? Likewise why would I make it up about something as stupid and mundane as arsenic standards?
To be credible as a prosecutor when claiming a crime, you also have to assign a motive. I gain nothing by lying about Franken, nor would anybody I would be advocating for. Bush wouldn't suddenly be seen as some great environmentalist. Clinton wouldn't suddenly be evil.
Likewise you haven't shown that there are other Franken assertions that you can look up in Google whereas this one you can't. "I can't google it so it isn't true" isn't a crime nor is "I can't find it in the book when the author is a hack posing as a researcher."
Now let me predict your next course of action. You will continue to act like the hack, nonintellectual you are and keep calling names. Likewise you will continue to take actions that would never do to my face while cowering behind the keyboard of your powerbook.
Nick
in the end, did Clinton and Bush use the same number for acceptable arsenic levels or not? a yes or no will suffice.
edit: typo. can't spell arsenic.
Originally posted by alcimedes
so let me get one thing straight from this mess.
in the end, did Clinton and Bush use the same number for acceptable arsnic levels or not? a yes or no will suffice.
yes...
Be prepared for some serious spinning from some others though.
Nick
People complained about Bush suspending the order. He took a political hit for it. Dems even ran ads against about it. Then when Bush decided to set the same standard, 6 months or a year or whatever it was later, the criticism about it stopped, AFAIK.
If someone now says Bush is worse than Clinton on that issue, that would be wrong, but if someone said it then, and a lot of people did, that would be fair.
Eh, I don't know anything about the science behind it, but I have a feeling it's one of those things that has a basically negligible effect anyway.
I'm still curious to see exactly what Franken said about it, though. I'm going to suspend judgment on the way Franken dealt with that issue until I see it. All we have right now to go on is trumptman's claim against several others who have the book and can't even find the part in the book about it.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'll spin it a little.
People complained about Bush suspending the order. He took a political hit for it. Dems even ran ads against about it. Then when Bush decided to set the same standard, 6 months or a year or whatever it was later, the criticism about it stopped, AFAIK.
If someone now says Bush is worse than Clinton on that issue, that would be wrong, but if someone said it then, and a lot of people did, that would be fair.
Eh, I don't know anything about the science behind it, but I have a feeling it's one of those things that has a basically negligible effect anyway.
I'm still curious to see exactly what Franken said about it, though. I'm going to suspend judgment on the way Franken dealt with that issue until I see it. All we have right now to go on is trumptman's claim against several others who have the book and can't even find the part in the book about it.
"Part" in the book?
I'd settle for the word "arsenic" used in any context.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'll spin it a little.
I'm still curious to see exactly what Franken said about it, though. I'm going to suspend judgment on the way Franken dealt with that issue until I see it. All we have right now to go on is trumptman's claim against several others who have the book and can't even find the part in the book about it.
Well that would of course necessitate Trumptman owning the book and pawing through the entire thing again. Since Franken didn't include an index.
"Part" in the book?
I'd settle for the word "arsenic" used in any context.
I'd settle for you being banned for a week for your constant personal attacks. I'd make time to find it if that were the outcome when I do. Also you didn't seem to dispute it when you had just finished reading the book nor did anyone else who had read it at that time. Previous forum debate
Instead the debate was that Franken didn't distort the truth of the matter because it was a lie of omission. (Bush did "roll them back".... for review and then went forward with them. Just because Franken forgot that part doesn't make him a liar, Bush did roll them back, etc.)
Maybe you should be look for the word rollback in the index...
Nick
What part of this can you not get through that thick skull of yours?
Originally posted by giant
Doood, you still can't even get the number straight.
Not only that, the bush admin did try to push for 20ppb because 10ppb was considered too costly. Then, a new report came out saying that even 10ppb was too high, and the Bush admin finally accepted the 10ppb.
This is after clinton tried to push for 5ppb, as recommended, and industry pressure bumped it up to 10ppb.
As for the 'took effect 4 years after he left office': earth to trumptman! Not only does the bush order not take effect until 2006, but the reason for that is a practical one. Did you just think they were going to send a genie to all those towns to magically upgrade their water systems in an instant?
And this is pretty funny:
Originally posted by trumptman
Also you didn't seem to dispute it when you had just finished reading the book nor did anyone else who had read it at that time
Well, if you go look at the thread, my posts had nothing to do with whether or not it was in the book, all they did was point out your lies on the topic.
I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it is in the book and that I missed it. The problem I have is with your obsession with the phrase "rolled back." You have a history of totally making up phrases to argue against, such as the recent discussion about Iraq as a "police state."
It's important that it does not turn up on google because it would be a point that people would attack him on, justified or not, and the fact that no one has indicates that it might not be in there.
Be a man for once.
Originally posted by alcimedes
so let me get one thing straight from this mess.
in the end, did Clinton and Bush use the same number for acceptable arsenic levels or not? a yes or no will suffice.
edit: typo. can't spell arsenic.
Short answer: eventually
Full answer: read above. The bush admin did try to bump it to 20ppb and was forced back to 10ppb after a newer study found out even 10 and even 5 ppb was far too high.
Originally posted by giant
Trumptman,
What part of this can you not get through that thick skull of yours?
The part where you lie and distort is the part I can't get through my head.
The word rollback wasn't even mine to argue against. It was in numerous Democratic ads, columns, etc and was also what I read in the Franken book.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth so often it is hysterical. Clinton issuing the order like a coward is him being "practical." That order for example was going to cost just the state of New Mexico $400 million in water treatment improvements. When someone issues an order that cost states BILLIONS with hours left in their office, I think it is worthy of review. That review was called a Bush raising the arsenic standards/ Bush rolling back the arsenic standards/ Bush putting more arsenic in our water etc. It was even the subject of Democratic ads.
A review is not a rollback, the standard never went lower and you can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face and that won't be true.
Well, if you go look at the thread, my posts had nothing to do with whether or not it was in the book, all they did was point out your lies on the topic.
I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it is in the book and that I missed it. The problem I have is with your obsession with the phrase "rolled back." You have a history of totally making up phrases to argue against, such as the recent discussion about Iraq as a "police state."
It's important that it does not turn up on google because it would be a point that people would attack him on, justified or not, and the fact that no one has indicates that it might not be in there.
Be a man for once.
You are hilarous. I have a "history." I'll tell you what, instead of studying the history of my life, go get one of your own. You also have a history of settling on words and personal attacks, along with accusations you never prove.
Like this thread.
You claimed talking about your networth was in bad form. Of course you never found where I said my networth. You also claimed "success" didn't exist. Lastly you said that because I get my money differently than yourself, I don't understand how complex the financial world is, etc. Lastly you made entire assumptions about me and my life that were just wrong.
You were and are, an accusing, manipulative, attacking liar.
Hey why don't you Google for me how many people argued that Franken's jokes comparing his writing to starving Indian children were cruel or tasteless. How about the "tone" and his two or three chapters about that?
Why don't you be a man and just find the mention of the Bush and arsenic in the book that you already own. Go ahead and read the whole thing again with that phrase in mind. Be tough and macho and make up for the lack of index.
Short answer: eventually
Eventually... after a review. You can't rollback what hasn't even gone into effect yet.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are hilarous. I have a "history." I'll tell you what, instead of studying the history of my life, go get one of your own.
You know that most of the time I don't even read your posts. But when you were starting literally a thread a day it's a little hard to not notice.
Like this thread.
You claimed talking about your networth was in bad form. Of course you never found where I said my networth.
You were talking about it a lot at that time, bragging about how many slums you lorded over and how that factors into your financial situation. We were all there. So when you have three or four threads a week discussing your financial situation then you better expect someone to point it out.
You also claimed "success" didn't exist.
And I stand by what I wrote, which was:
Originally posted by giant
It seems to me that in the real world it doesn't exist.
'Success' (and by extension, the idea of a 'self-made man' and, by extension, trumptman's online persona) only exists in the minds of idiots that think money and/or property serves anything other than a purely utilitarian purpose.
The first defintion of the word 'success' is 'The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted.' I like that one. You have a goal and achieve it. The second one is 'The gaining of fame or prosperity.' This is the one people mean when they say a person is 'successful.' Only losers use the word this way, because it then implies that people without fame or comfortable financial position are 'failures.' That is wrong.
Originally posted by trumptman
Well that would of course necessitate Trumptman owning the book and pawing through the entire thing again. Since Franken didn't include an index.
I'd settle for you being banned for a week for your constant personal attacks. I'd make time to find it if that were the outcome when I do. Also you didn't seem to dispute it when you had just finished reading the book nor did anyone else who had read it at that time. Previous forum debate
Instead the debate was that Franken didn't distort the truth of the matter because it was a lie of omission. (Bush did "roll them back".... for review and then went forward with them. Just because Franken forgot that part doesn't make him a liar, Bush did roll them back, etc.)
Maybe you should be look for the word rollback in the index...
Nick
Oh wait a second. Look at this:
Al Franken: "Now, trumptman, that right-wing scoundrel over at AppleInsider, will fabricate at least one lie about my book and devote two threads to that fabrication! No, I never said anything about the levels of arsenic in the water."
Well, I guess since Franken doesn;t have an index. You can;t find it. But trust me, guys, it's in there. Now I'm going to create a second thread about it.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh wait a second. Look at this:
Al Franken: "Now, trumptman, that right-wing scoundrel over at AppleInsider, will fabricate at least one lie about my book and devote two threads to that fabrication! No, I never said anything about the levels of arsenic in the water."
Well, I guess since Franken doesn;t have an index. You can;t find it. But trust me, guys, it's in there. Now I'm going to create a second thread about it.
And in true Franken fashion you are a liar because GROVE started this thread. I just added to it. It makes you as much a liar as Ann Coulter who's terrible sin was... claiming the Times didn't run a NASCAR story on the front page.
Shawn and Ann Coulter, birds of a feather.
I'm sure the fact that Grove started this thread doesn't change the intent of what you were trying to say Shawn, but that is true of Franken's targets as well. It never bothered him, and now you are an infamous liar as well by his standard.
Oh and I would hope Franken wouldn't let me off with just being a scoundrel. I would hope to be challenged to a fight, attempted bitch-slapping or something of that nature.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
And in true Franken fashion you are a liar
How is franken a liar? And use an actual quote.
Originally posted by trumptman
And in true Franken fashion you are a liar because GROVE started this thread. I just added to it. It makes you as much a liar as Ann Coulter who's terrible sin was... claiming the Times didn't run a NASCAR story on the front page.
Shawn and Ann Coulter, birds of a feather.
I'm sure the fact that Grove started this thread doesn't change the intent of what you were trying to say Shawn, but that is true of Franken's targets as well. It never bothered him, and now you are an infamous liar as well by his standard.
Nick
Peanuts. I really don't care. If someone finds the Franken passage, great. If no one does, well, it's not surprising. Two of us have already gone through the book page by page......and it's just not there. *shrugs*
Originally posted by trumptman
Well that would of course necessitate Trumptman owning the book and pawing through the entire thing again. Since Franken didn't include an index.
Two people who have the book say they can't find it. I did a full text search on amazon.com and nothing came up for the word "arsenic" in that book. Maybe you're mistaken, and you read it somewhere else. Lots of people were talking about it at the time: Bush did reverse the order, and during that time, many conservatives said that Clinton's standards were too strict and Bush was right to stop them. There was a legitimate debate during that period of time.
And even if Franken does talk about it, I'd like to see exactly what he says before I just assume he's a liar based on a second-hand account.
Originally posted by giant
How is franken a liar? And use an actual quote.
The quote you are referring to was calling Shawn a liar using Franken's standards. (Basically not a mistake of belief, but a mistake of research/attribution/etc.)
By Franken's standards, lies are simply mistakes. Shawn made a mistake about the originator of the thread and was appropriately tortured with a smilie.
Franken claimed Bush rolled back arsenic standards. I can't give you the quote since I don't own the book. I didn't claim the exact quote or ownership of the book in either thread. I also said he left off the other half of the information. (Bush instituting the standards after the review) and that the omission was intentional.
I also can't quote suppy-side Jesus, Franken claiming he can't lose his job to Indians via outsourcing, the debate about the "tone." Bitchslapping Bernie Goldberg, etc. That doesn't mean I didn't read and process the information related to them.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
Two people who have the book say they can't find it. I did a full text search on amazon.com and nothing came up for the word "arsenic" in that book. Maybe you're mistaken, and you read it somewhere else. Lots of people were talking about it at the time: Bush did reverse the order, and during that time, many conservatives said that Clinton's standards were too strict and Bush was right to stop them. There was a legitimate debate during that period of time.
And even if Franken does talk about it, I'd like to see exactly what he says before I just assume he's a liar based on a second-hand account.
I doubt they read the books page by page again. The claims were that they scanned in the environmental sections. I didn't read any other similar books on the day I read the Franken book. I hadn't even intended to read the Franken book but since it literally is in big type and little more than a comic book, I figured I would give it the short time it required since so many had claimed it practically as gospel.
I think your characterization of the debate during that time is accurate. There likely still is plenty of debate about what the true trade off on arsenic and treatment costs should be. I think when the debate is basically a handful of lives affected at a cost of hundreds of millions, that debate will always occur no matter what the topic. The point should be that having the debate doesn't mean someone wants children dead or things of that nature. Cost versus benefit derived is done all the time without attribution of evil intent.
That is what I teased Shawn about. Who started this thread didn't change the intent of what he was trying to say. He isn't suddenly "evil" because Grove started it instead of myself. (He is evil for entirely different reasons.
Franken's standard which can be seen aside from this one example which I am not going to buy the book to find, is that a mistake is a lie with evil intent. I don't assign that sort of "gotcha" thinking to liberals or conservatives. If anything it will encourage even less independent thinking, more sticking to talking points, etc.
Nick
FWIW, I read (and enjoyed) Franken's book, and confess that I thought I recalled him mentioning arsenic as well, but have long since passed the book on to friends, so can't check on it.
Fish