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.
This kind of person being prevalent in America is the reason Al Franken and his ilk write their books. They are fighting the good fight against a "well-oiled" Right Wing machines with millions of Dittohead footsoldiers who drink the GOP Koolaid like trumptman who is otherwise very competent.
Nick do you HONESTLY believe what you just wrote up there?! Ann Coulter called liberals "traitors" guilty of "treason." That is worse than lying about NASCAR. And that lying about NASCAR was a fact that was more importantly used to show how the "liberal media" are cold-hearted anti-American traitors that don't care about Dale or 9/11 security or yada yada. Ann Coulter is a NUT CASE.
Don't be so disingenuous. I don't know if you are aware of what you are doing because you are a decent and competent poster. But you should read some Ann Coulter or Hannity to see how RIDICULOUS parts of the Right like Fox "News" and its guests are getting.
Franken's book is mostly just a funny book from a comedian, not a text book with a freakin index. However most of the political satire has roots. I haven't come across a lie in there yet, unless it was a joke. Seriously. Kidding on the square. (anyone else like that one? ) I am now around halfway through the book and it's really good.
Groverat are you a Republican? Do you like Bush? I can't see why anyone wouldn't like this book even if they are Republican, it's mostly just a funny book where he catches pompous conservative commentators off guard and makes fun of them; he usually does stand up for corporate events, how much more conservative can you get. Even if you disagree with his politics most of the book is just plain funny, some of the politics is vapid or acidic but the beginning is just funny. Even my Creationist friend thought so!
This kind of person being prevalent in America is the reason Al Franken and his ilk write their books. They are fighting the good fight against a "well-oiled" Right Wing machines with millions of Dittohead footsoldiers who drink the GOP Koolaid like trumptman who is otherwise very competent.
I'm occasionally competent. Why that is...sorta a compliment I guess. As for drinking the dittohead kool-aid. I don't even listen to Rush, or O'reilly or even watch cable news. I just don't like double standards with regard to tactics.
Quote:
Nick do you HONESTLY believe what you just wrote up there?! Ann Coulter called liberals "traitors" guilty of "treason." That is worse than lying about NASCAR. And that lying about NASCAR was a fact that was more importantly used to show how the "liberal media" are cold-hearted anti-American traitors that don't care about Dale or 9/11 security or yada yada. Ann Coulter is a NUT CASE.
I think you are doing exactly what Franken claims is a lie. You are paraphrasing intent from multiple sources to draw a conclusion. Coulter did write a book called Treason. That doesn't mean all liberals are traitors or that she called them all that. What Franken called her on was claiming the New York Times was out of touch with middle America because when a famous Nascar driver died, she claimed they didn't run it front page when in fact they did. The two aren't related and you shouldn't relate them. Being wrong on Nascar doesn't mean she was wrong on her book. (though since I haven't read it, I can't honestly judge it) When she claims two items are related when they aren't, it is wrong. When someone on the left claims two items are related that aren't they should be called on it as well.
Quote:
Don't be so disingenuous. I don't know if you are aware of what you are doing because you are a decent and competent poster. But you should read some Ann Coulter or Hannity to see how RIDICULOUS parts of the Right like Fox "News" and its guests are getting.
I've read some of Ann's columns. The humor strikes me as very similar to Franken though with less wit, but also less profanity and namecalling. I've never seen Hannity and I don't get any of my news from television be it Fox, CNN, or god forbid the big three.
Quote:
Franken's book is mostly just a funny book from a comedian, not a text book with a freakin index. However most of the political satire has roots. I haven't come across a lie in there yet, unless it was a joke. Seriously. Kidding on the square. (anyone else like that one? ) I am now around halfway through the book and it's really good.
I'm very aware of Franken's book. I've read it. His humor attempts occasionally hit a target but mostly are just bitter and mean. I even appreciate silly humor like if he claimed Bush farted on Rove's head or something like that but the book is really just petty. (most of the "lies" don't change the person's argument, they just show anyone can make a mistake with fact checking) Pretending to make people uncomfortable at parties, writing fake letters, making fun of people trying to get ahead in India, etc. most of it just doesn't hit a target with me.
Oh and for the rest of you with the arsenic issues... Pg. 155.
Amusingly, the reference you finally found in the book does NOT make the claim that Bush "reversed" anything, but explicitly states that Bush "delayed" the rule going into effect (which is exactly what happened).
Well two things. First I got to the part about Paul Wellstone's memorial. Explain that Nick. Who's petty there? Ouch.
That's not funny, it is sad. And it makes me angry. The public's apathy lets it happen and let Bush steal the election. You don't have to read the book to find out what happened out in Minnesota.
Second, this quote:
Quote:
I said: Nick do you HONESTLY believe what you just wrote up there?! Ann Coulter called liberals "traitors" guilty of "treason." That is worse than lying about NASCAR. And that lying about NASCAR was a fact that was more importantly used to show how the "liberal media" are cold-hearted anti-American traitors that don't care about Dale or 9/11 security or yada yada. Ann Coulter is a NUT CASE.
Nick said:
I think you are doing exactly what Franken claims is a lie. You are paraphrasing intent from multiple sources to draw a conclusion. Coulter did write a book called Treason. That doesn't mean all liberals are traitors or that she called them all that. What Franken called her on was claiming the New York Times was out of touch with middle America because when a famous Nascar driver died, she claimed they didn't run it front page when in fact they did. The two aren't related and you shouldn't relate them. Being wrong on Nascar doesn't mean she was wrong on her book. (though since I haven't read it, I can't honestly judge it) When she claims two items are related when they aren't, it is wrong. When someone on the left claims two items are related that aren't they should be called on it as well.
Cut the crap. Did you read the book? Do I really have to scan in and use OCR to print out that chapter? And did you read Treason? What exactly is Ann Coulter not wrong about? It's not that she's just not as witty, she's just a big ol' can of
Amusingly, the reference you finally found in the book does NOT make the claim that Bush "reversed" anything, but explicitly states that Bush "delayed" the rule going into effect (which is exactly what happened).
So - willing to admit you were wrong Trumptman?
Fish
I'll be very happy to say I was wrong as soon as you explain how you delay something that didn't go into effect for another 4-6 years.
The Clinton rule didn't go into effect until 2004-2006 depending upon the source you look at. How does reviewing that and still having it go into effect in the same time frame "delay" it.
Those early months were heady days for George W. Bush. Emboldened by his landslide victory, Bush passed a $1.6 billion tax cut which when primarily to the rich, pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, delayed rules that reduce acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water, and implemented the enormously successful Operation Ignore."
So Franken does address "arsenic in the water." I'll give that one to you. Although, he doesn't claim Bush's action constitutes a "rollback;" he claims it's a "delay." \ There's a difference, of course, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it. A lot can get lost from initial reading to posting when you don't have the book. The question is just why you'd spend two threads talking about his "gross error" on such a shoddy position yourself.
Those early months were heady days for George W. Bush. Emboldened by his landslide victory, Bush passed a $1.6 billion tax cut which when primarily to the rich, pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, delayed rules that reduce acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water, and implemented the enormously successful Operation Ignore."
So Franken does address "arsenic in the water." I'll give that one to you. Although, he doesn't claim Bush's action constitutes a "rollback;" he claims it's a "delay." \ There's a difference, of course, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it. A lot can get lost from initial reading to posting when you don't have the book. The question is just why you'd spend two threads talking about his "gross error" on such a shoddy position yourself.
Well there are these things called replies, and when people use them to speak to me. I speak back.
Grove mentioned that he thought the book was garbage. I just tossed in my two cents. Some people had very strong opinions about my two cents and here we are right now.
But I'll show a little willingness again to say I was wrong. All anyone has to do is show what was delayed.
Was the funding delayed?
Was the planning delayed?
Was the installation of equipment delayed?
Was the 10 ppb acceptable level of arsenic in water delayed?
Just tell me what was delayed and I'll say I was wrong.
That is why I said to giant that Clinton took the cowards path. No plan, no funding, no nothing but an executive order saying that arsenic levels had to be lowered to 10 ppb. Since there were no other items besides that standard Bush delayed nothing in reviewing it.
I would declare Franken 100% right if Clinton had actually taken action. If there were a budget, purchases, a plan, etc. in place that Bush held up or suspended. But Clinton issued a a piece of paper with a date and a number. The date was four years later and the Bush review did not delay anything. Considering it was really going to be Bush telling these states they had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, I would think he would want some support and science behind him. He got it and went forward.
It is, in fact the exact type of lie that Franken spends the entire book trying to rip apart.
1. You specifically said "Franken is just a liar for calling the 10 ppb a rollback". So, ok...you are wrong there.
2. You yourself referred to Bush's actions as a "stay" on the arsenic law (see page one of this thread). Now, according to the dictionary, "stay" means:
To stop or halt; check.
To postpone; delay.
To delay or stop the effect of (an order, for example) by legal action or mandate: stay a prisoner's execution.
So are you AND Franken liars? After all, how could you "stay" an order that doesn't take go into effect for years?
Not a big deal...anyone could mis-recall somehting they read, but geez, is it so tough to just say "yeah, I guess I was wrong on that point"?
1. You specifically said "Franken is just a liar for calling the 10 ppb a rollback". So, ok...you are wrong there.
2. You yourself referred to Bush's actions as a "stay" on the arsenic law (see page one of this thread). Now, according to the dictionary, "stay" means:
To stop or halt; check.
To postpone; delay.
To delay or stop the effect of (an order, for example) by legal action or mandate: stay a prisoner's execution.
So are you AND Franken liars? After all, how could you "stay" an order that doesn't take go into effect for years?
Not a big deal...anyone could mis-recall somehting they read, but geez, is it so tough to just say "yeah, I guess I was wrong on that point"?
As you noted, stay has multiple definitions. I think it was clear all my posts that he checked/reviewed the executive order. Even the definitions you cite have check among them. You will also note that nothing was delayed by Bush. Why is it so hard for YOU to admit Franken was wrong on that one.
Is it really so hard to just say "Yeah, Franken said Bush delayed an order that didn't go into effect for another 4 years, when in fact he didn't."
On a side note, suppose I gave you the clear benefit of the doubt. I'm not the one writing a book declaring large numbers of people to be liars. I'm not given a year to creat e my posts nor 14 research assistants to check over all of it. So if you want to compare myself to Franken, be sure you do so in all contexts. You don't like one word I used. I don't like one word he used. I'm back by my butt. He is backed by a university and 14 research assistants. Something tells me he should be doing a little better don't you think?
I guess arguing with you about this really is a waste of my time.
I posted your (inaccurate) quote, but still you insist you weren't wrong. What else can I say? Other than Franken specifically says his book is not all facts, and if the best you can do is this for proof of "lying"...well, clearly you will not have a reasonable conversation about this.
Those early months were heady days for George W. Bush. Emboldened by his landslide victory, Bush passed a $1.6 billion tax cut which when primarily to the rich, pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, delayed rules that reduce acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water, and implemented the enormously successful Operation Ignore."
Hmm. "Those early months..." So Franken is very clearly saying that he did these things in the early months of the Bush administration. That's absolutely true. That was the hobbyhorse that I was riding earlier in this thread - that at the time it was a big deal that they halted the order, and many conservatives defended the move and wanted it stopped, period.
I guess arguing with you about this really is a waste of my time.
I posted your (inaccurate) quote, but still you insist you weren't wrong. What else can I say? Other than Franken specifically says his book is not all facts, and if the best you can do is this for proof of "lying"...well, clearly you will not have a reasonable conversation about this.
Fish
You can say that Franken was wrong in saying Bush delayed standards on arsenic levels. My quote using stay met your definition of stop and check. You posted the definition yourself. I really don't understand what the heck you are trying to get at. Checking, or even stopping and checking did not delay the standards going into effect in 2004.
Franken says his book is the truth. He presents it as factual, but takes different tones regarding how the information is presented. If you said his book wasn't just made up of statements, that would be true because he has satire, comics, sarcaism, etc. But he does consider his entire book to be presenting truthful information.
Since you seem to like definitions, why don't you look up delay.
Here I'll do it for you since I am "reasonable."
Quote:
1. To postpone until a later time; defer.
2. To cause to be later or slower than expected or desired: Heavy traffic delayed us.
Find me the delay, or it is a lie. The time given on the Clinton order was 2004. Since Bush had to actually do more than issue a piece of paper with a number, he shouldn't be chastized for that. Clinton issued a paper. Bush did the work.
The date cited is the date that water systems have to comply, not when they have to start getting ready to comply. Upgrading them can take years. When the bush admin suspended, withdrew, delayed (or whatever your want to call it) the standard in early 2001, it was something that had an immediate effect.
Furthermore, the only reason the Bush admin was so quick to adopt the clinton standard was because the new NAS study showed 10ppb to be WAY too high and therefore forced them to abandon the effort to raise it.
[BFind me the delay, or it is a lie. The time given on the Clinton order was 2004. Since Bush had to actually do more than issue a piece of paper with a number, he shouldn't be chastized for that. Clinton issued a paper. Bush did the work. [/B]
Care to address the "Those early months..." issue? Franken was very clearly saying this is what happened at a specific time, and that was true. They revoked Clinton's order, and said they wanted to study it some more. Delay is a completely fair term for what happened at the time; in fact, they could have simply said Whitman revoked Clinton's order, and that would have been accurate, for the context Franken was stating, because at the time it wasn't even clear that they would eventually reinstate Clinton's policy. Lots of people at the time said they shouldn't.
BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "Clinton issued a paper, Bush did the work." They both used studies. They both issued orders after the studies came out. What was the difference?
It's not a big deal, but I think you're wrong if you try to get Franken on a technicality, when technically, what he said was totally accurate, given that he was describing what happened at a particular time.
Care to address the "Those early months..." issue? Franken was very clearly saying this is what happened at a specific time, and that was true. They revoked Clinton's order, and said they wanted to study it some more. Delay is a completely fair term for what happened at the time; in fact, they could have simply said Whitman revoked Clinton's order, and that would have been accurate, for the context Franken was stating, because at the time it wasn't even clear that they would eventually reinstate Clinton's policy. Lots of people at the time said they shouldn't.
BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "Clinton issued a paper, Bush did the work." They both used studies. They both issued orders after the studies came out. What was the difference?
It's not a big deal, but I think you're wrong if you try to get Franken on a technicality, when technically, what he said was totally accurate, given that he was describing what happened at a particular time.
I always try to do my best with you Brussell. Even though we disagree at times, I feel like you at least read the words.
The early months... now please remember this is from memory so it may not be perfect. Franken is using sarcasm and I believe the chapter has to do with "the tone." Franken spends a couple chapters sarcastically discussing how Bush was going to change "the tone" in Washington. In this particular paragraph (if memory serves me right) he was teasing that Bush had shown right off how he was going to change the tone. (Landslide victory, etc.) The early months referred to the few months Bush had to do what he wanted to change the tone before Jeffords defected from the Republican party and gave the Democrats the Senate.
Franken, I believe is arguing that since the Republicans had the House, Senate, and Executive Branches, the "tone" should have changed in those early months away from pure politics and the bickering that surrounded the Clinton impeachment. Franken was claiming that Bush not only didn't change "the tone" but alienated even a member of his own party with the hard partisan swing to the point of him defecting to the Democrats and giving them the Senate.
Of course after Jeffords defected Bush (from Franke's view) that since their was deadlock (Republican House, Democratic Senate) that the "tone" wouldn't change and it was out of his hands, etc.
In the context of the writing, Franken is not, in my view, trying to show that Bush carried out or even reviewed Clinton's arsenic order. It appears he is using it to show a hard partisan swing and a desire to harm the environment. However even while reviewing the order, the same standards were in effect that had been in effect for decades, including the entire 8 years of the Clinton presidency.
As for what I meant by Clinton issued the paper, Bush did the work, I'll expand on that. Clinton's executive order was issued (depending upon accounts) within the last three days or even the last night of his presidency. The executive order simply declared that water treatment had to get arsenic levels down to 10 ppb by 2004.
Now water treatment isn't a federal level. In fact it is a profoundly local level in many regards with regard to the running and funding of the actual equipment. That meant that someone who was not Clinton (read Bush) was going to have to strong arm states, counties, and even cities into upgrading their water treatment systems at the costs of hundreds of millions of dollars. I can understand why anyone, Bush or Clinton, would review this when it was issued by someone else and then has all the costs carried forward.
Let me flip it onto an example you probably like better and are more likely to see in line with.
Bushes tax cuts, many of them haven't even gone into effect yet. Pretend my taxes were $5000 this year, and as a result of his tax cuts, would be $3000 in 2008. Now two points, first if say, Dean reviewed the tax cuts and left them in place and I paid $3000 in 2008. Did Dean delay my tax cut. Secondly if under Bush, I were slated to possibly pay $3000 in 2008, but instead he altered the formula so I paid $4000 in 2008, did Dean raise my taxes?
The first issue, if someone claimed Dean delayed my tax cut. I would call it a lie. On the second issue, if they claimed Dean raised my taxes, I would consider that a technicality. In all honesty they would be lower than they had been and in reality they were not raised. So I think Franken's remarks are not a technicality, I do think they are a lie.
Now I did say, that in fairness to Franken and Clinton, if there had been anything in place besides the time (2004) and the standards (10 ppb) and Bush took action. I would say it was delayed. If there were funds allocated by Congress from a Clinton water treatment plan that were held up for purchasing equipment, a program, a timeframe that was lengthened, ANYTHING. But the Bush review didn't delay anything since Clinton had given 4 years to meet the 10 ppb standard. I think I am being really fair in that regard.
A midnight executive order that demands a standard and makes no accomodations toward actually meeting it deserves review of the standard and of actually how to meet it as well. Bush did that and still got the job done within the timeframe. Bush did in less than 4 years what Clinton didn't get done in 8. I think he deserves some credit for that and not to be portrayed as harmful to the environment with regard to arsenic. (We can argue other environmenal issues in other threads of course)
Operation Chickenhawk is awesome. Some great jokes in there, like O'Reilly's sex story (yea he wrote a filthy novel, it's quoted) and Buchanan's 40 foot deep foxhole (reminds me of that "meatball add" with a guy choking on a meatball calling 911: for Spanish, press 1, for French, Press 2, For Swahili, press 3, etc and then the voiceover, tired of English not being a priority in America? Vote for Führer Buchanan. Buchanan is very isolationist/xenophobic if you don't get the allusion). And Cheney's heart attacks and Bush filling the fire extinguisher with potent booze, the icing on the cake! That was damn funny.
Comments
groverat which specific parts don't you like?
It says so right in the beginning everything is either factually true or a joke.
groverat you're usually level headed I am surprised. Pick up a Bill O'Lielly or Ann Coulter book and we'll talk about garbage.
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.
This kind of person being prevalent in America is the reason Al Franken and his ilk write their books. They are fighting the good fight against a "well-oiled" Right Wing machines with millions of Dittohead footsoldiers who drink the GOP Koolaid like trumptman who is otherwise very competent.
Nick do you HONESTLY believe what you just wrote up there?! Ann Coulter called liberals "traitors" guilty of "treason." That is worse than lying about NASCAR. And that lying about NASCAR was a fact that was more importantly used to show how the "liberal media" are cold-hearted anti-American traitors that don't care about Dale or 9/11 security or yada yada. Ann Coulter is a NUT CASE.
Don't be so disingenuous. I don't know if you are aware of what you are doing because you are a decent and competent poster. But you should read some Ann Coulter or Hannity to see how RIDICULOUS parts of the Right like Fox "News" and its guests are getting.
Franken's book is mostly just a funny book from a comedian, not a text book with a freakin index. However most of the political satire has roots. I haven't come across a lie in there yet, unless it was a joke. Seriously. Kidding on the square. (anyone else like that one?
Groverat are you a Republican? Do you like Bush? I can't see why anyone wouldn't like this book even if they are Republican, it's mostly just a funny book where he catches pompous conservative commentators off guard and makes fun of them; he usually does stand up for corporate events, how much more conservative can you get. Even if you disagree with his politics most of the book is just plain funny, some of the politics is vapid or acidic but the beginning is just funny. Even my Creationist friend thought so!
Originally posted by Aquatic
This kind of person being prevalent in America is the reason Al Franken and his ilk write their books. They are fighting the good fight against a "well-oiled" Right Wing machines with millions of Dittohead footsoldiers who drink the GOP Koolaid like trumptman who is otherwise very competent.
I'm occasionally competent. Why that is...sorta a compliment I guess. As for drinking the dittohead kool-aid. I don't even listen to Rush, or O'reilly or even watch cable news. I just don't like double standards with regard to tactics.
Nick do you HONESTLY believe what you just wrote up there?! Ann Coulter called liberals "traitors" guilty of "treason." That is worse than lying about NASCAR. And that lying about NASCAR was a fact that was more importantly used to show how the "liberal media" are cold-hearted anti-American traitors that don't care about Dale or 9/11 security or yada yada. Ann Coulter is a NUT CASE.
I think you are doing exactly what Franken claims is a lie. You are paraphrasing intent from multiple sources to draw a conclusion. Coulter did write a book called Treason. That doesn't mean all liberals are traitors or that she called them all that. What Franken called her on was claiming the New York Times was out of touch with middle America because when a famous Nascar driver died, she claimed they didn't run it front page when in fact they did. The two aren't related and you shouldn't relate them. Being wrong on Nascar doesn't mean she was wrong on her book. (though since I haven't read it, I can't honestly judge it) When she claims two items are related when they aren't, it is wrong. When someone on the left claims two items are related that aren't they should be called on it as well.
Don't be so disingenuous. I don't know if you are aware of what you are doing because you are a decent and competent poster. But you should read some Ann Coulter or Hannity to see how RIDICULOUS parts of the Right like Fox "News" and its guests are getting.
I've read some of Ann's columns. The humor strikes me as very similar to Franken though with less wit, but also less profanity and namecalling. I've never seen Hannity and I don't get any of my news from television be it Fox, CNN, or god forbid the big three.
Franken's book is mostly just a funny book from a comedian, not a text book with a freakin index. However most of the political satire has roots. I haven't come across a lie in there yet, unless it was a joke. Seriously. Kidding on the square. (anyone else like that one? ) I am now around halfway through the book and it's really good.
I'm very aware of Franken's book. I've read it. His humor attempts occasionally hit a target but mostly are just bitter and mean. I even appreciate silly humor like if he claimed Bush farted on Rove's head or something like that but the book is really just petty. (most of the "lies" don't change the person's argument, they just show anyone can make a mistake with fact checking) Pretending to make people uncomfortable at parties, writing fake letters, making fun of people trying to get ahead in India, etc. most of it just doesn't hit a target with me.
Oh and for the rest of you with the arsenic issues... Pg. 155.
Nick
So - willing to admit you were wrong Trumptman?
Fish
That's not funny, it is sad. And it makes me angry. The public's apathy lets it happen and let Bush steal the election. You don't have to read the book to find out what happened out in Minnesota.
Second, this quote:
I said: Nick do you HONESTLY believe what you just wrote up there?! Ann Coulter called liberals "traitors" guilty of "treason." That is worse than lying about NASCAR. And that lying about NASCAR was a fact that was more importantly used to show how the "liberal media" are cold-hearted anti-American traitors that don't care about Dale or 9/11 security or yada yada. Ann Coulter is a NUT CASE.
Nick said:
I think you are doing exactly what Franken claims is a lie. You are paraphrasing intent from multiple sources to draw a conclusion. Coulter did write a book called Treason. That doesn't mean all liberals are traitors or that she called them all that. What Franken called her on was claiming the New York Times was out of touch with middle America because when a famous Nascar driver died, she claimed they didn't run it front page when in fact they did. The two aren't related and you shouldn't relate them. Being wrong on Nascar doesn't mean she was wrong on her book. (though since I haven't read it, I can't honestly judge it) When she claims two items are related when they aren't, it is wrong. When someone on the left claims two items are related that aren't they should be called on it as well.
Cut the crap. Did you read the book? Do I really have to scan in and use OCR to print out that chapter? And did you read Treason? What exactly is Ann Coulter not wrong about? It's not that she's just not as witty, she's just a big ol' can of
Originally posted by fishdoc
Amusingly, the reference you finally found in the book does NOT make the claim that Bush "reversed" anything, but explicitly states that Bush "delayed" the rule going into effect (which is exactly what happened).
So - willing to admit you were wrong Trumptman?
Fish
I'll be very happy to say I was wrong as soon as you explain how you delay something that didn't go into effect for another 4-6 years.
The Clinton rule didn't go into effect until 2004-2006 depending upon the source you look at. How does reviewing that and still having it go into effect in the same time frame "delay" it.
Nick
Those early months were heady days for George W. Bush. Emboldened by his landslide victory, Bush passed a $1.6 billion tax cut which when primarily to the rich, pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, delayed rules that reduce acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water, and implemented the enormously successful Operation Ignore."
So Franken does address "arsenic in the water." I'll give that one to you. Although, he doesn't claim Bush's action constitutes a "rollback;" he claims it's a "delay."
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Context:
Those early months were heady days for George W. Bush. Emboldened by his landslide victory, Bush passed a $1.6 billion tax cut which when primarily to the rich, pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, delayed rules that reduce acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water, and implemented the enormously successful Operation Ignore."
So Franken does address "arsenic in the water." I'll give that one to you. Although, he doesn't claim Bush's action constitutes a "rollback;" he claims it's a "delay."
Well there are these things called replies, and when people use them to speak to me. I speak back.
Grove mentioned that he thought the book was garbage. I just tossed in my two cents. Some people had very strong opinions about my two cents and here we are right now.
But I'll show a little willingness again to say I was wrong. All anyone has to do is show what was delayed.
Was the funding delayed?
Was the planning delayed?
Was the installation of equipment delayed?
Was the 10 ppb acceptable level of arsenic in water delayed?
Just tell me what was delayed and I'll say I was wrong.
That is why I said to giant that Clinton took the cowards path. No plan, no funding, no nothing but an executive order saying that arsenic levels had to be lowered to 10 ppb. Since there were no other items besides that standard Bush delayed nothing in reviewing it.
I would declare Franken 100% right if Clinton had actually taken action. If there were a budget, purchases, a plan, etc. in place that Bush held up or suspended. But Clinton issued a a piece of paper with a date and a number. The date was four years later and the Bush review did not delay anything. Considering it was really going to be Bush telling these states they had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, I would think he would want some support and science behind him. He got it and went forward.
It is, in fact the exact type of lie that Franken spends the entire book trying to rip apart.
Nick
1. You specifically said "Franken is just a liar for calling the 10 ppb a rollback". So, ok...you are wrong there.
2. You yourself referred to Bush's actions as a "stay" on the arsenic law (see page one of this thread). Now, according to the dictionary, "stay" means:
To stop or halt; check.
To postpone; delay.
To delay or stop the effect of (an order, for example) by legal action or mandate: stay a prisoner's execution.
So are you AND Franken liars? After all, how could you "stay" an order that doesn't take go into effect for years?
Not a big deal...anyone could mis-recall somehting they read, but geez, is it so tough to just say "yeah, I guess I was wrong on that point"?
Originally posted by fishdoc
Very interesting trumptman....
1. You specifically said "Franken is just a liar for calling the 10 ppb a rollback". So, ok...you are wrong there.
2. You yourself referred to Bush's actions as a "stay" on the arsenic law (see page one of this thread). Now, according to the dictionary, "stay" means:
To stop or halt; check.
To postpone; delay.
To delay or stop the effect of (an order, for example) by legal action or mandate: stay a prisoner's execution.
So are you AND Franken liars? After all, how could you "stay" an order that doesn't take go into effect for years?
Not a big deal...anyone could mis-recall somehting they read, but geez, is it so tough to just say "yeah, I guess I was wrong on that point"?
As you noted, stay has multiple definitions. I think it was clear all my posts that he checked/reviewed the executive order. Even the definitions you cite have check among them. You will also note that nothing was delayed by Bush. Why is it so hard for YOU to admit Franken was wrong on that one.
Is it really so hard to just say "Yeah, Franken said Bush delayed an order that didn't go into effect for another 4 years, when in fact he didn't."
On a side note, suppose I gave you the clear benefit of the doubt. I'm not the one writing a book declaring large numbers of people to be liars. I'm not given a year to creat e my posts nor 14 research assistants to check over all of it. So if you want to compare myself to Franken, be sure you do so in all contexts. You don't like one word I used. I don't like one word he used. I'm back by my butt. He is backed by a university and 14 research assistants. Something tells me he should be doing a little better don't you think?
Nick
I posted your (inaccurate) quote, but still you insist you weren't wrong. What else can I say? Other than Franken specifically says his book is not all facts, and if the best you can do is this for proof of "lying"...well, clearly you will not have a reasonable conversation about this.
Fish
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Context:
Those early months were heady days for George W. Bush. Emboldened by his landslide victory, Bush passed a $1.6 billion tax cut which when primarily to the rich, pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, delayed rules that reduce acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water, and implemented the enormously successful Operation Ignore."
Hmm. "Those early months..." So Franken is very clearly saying that he did these things in the early months of the Bush administration. That's absolutely true. That was the hobbyhorse that I was riding earlier in this thread - that at the time it was a big deal that they halted the order, and many conservatives defended the move and wanted it stopped, period.
Originally posted by trumptman
Oh and for the rest of you with the arsenic issues... Pg. 155.
Trumptman, this is the icing on the cake.
That deserves a
and a
followed by a nice
Originally posted by fishdoc
I guess arguing with you about this really is a waste of my time.
I posted your (inaccurate) quote, but still you insist you weren't wrong. What else can I say? Other than Franken specifically says his book is not all facts, and if the best you can do is this for proof of "lying"...well, clearly you will not have a reasonable conversation about this.
Fish
You can say that Franken was wrong in saying Bush delayed standards on arsenic levels. My quote using stay met your definition of stop and check. You posted the definition yourself. I really don't understand what the heck you are trying to get at. Checking, or even stopping and checking did not delay the standards going into effect in 2004.
Franken says his book is the truth. He presents it as factual, but takes different tones regarding how the information is presented. If you said his book wasn't just made up of statements, that would be true because he has satire, comics, sarcaism, etc. But he does consider his entire book to be presenting truthful information.
Since you seem to like definitions, why don't you look up delay.
Here I'll do it for you since I am "reasonable."
1. To postpone until a later time; defer.
2. To cause to be later or slower than expected or desired: Heavy traffic delayed us.
Find me the delay, or it is a lie. The time given on the Clinton order was 2004. Since Bush had to actually do more than issue a piece of paper with a number, he shouldn't be chastized for that. Clinton issued a paper. Bush did the work.
Nick
Furthermore, the only reason the Bush admin was so quick to adopt the clinton standard was because the new NAS study showed 10ppb to be WAY too high and therefore forced them to abandon the effort to raise it.
Originally posted by trumptman
[BFind me the delay, or it is a lie. The time given on the Clinton order was 2004. Since Bush had to actually do more than issue a piece of paper with a number, he shouldn't be chastized for that. Clinton issued a paper. Bush did the work. [/B]
Care to address the "Those early months..." issue? Franken was very clearly saying this is what happened at a specific time, and that was true. They revoked Clinton's order, and said they wanted to study it some more. Delay is a completely fair term for what happened at the time; in fact, they could have simply said Whitman revoked Clinton's order, and that would have been accurate, for the context Franken was stating, because at the time it wasn't even clear that they would eventually reinstate Clinton's policy. Lots of people at the time said they shouldn't.
BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "Clinton issued a paper, Bush did the work." They both used studies. They both issued orders after the studies came out. What was the difference?
It's not a big deal, but I think you're wrong if you try to get Franken on a technicality, when technically, what he said was totally accurate, given that he was describing what happened at a particular time.
Originally posted by applenut
toilet paper isn't that much money man. surely less than those books.
I suggest a bidet.
Originally posted by BRussell
Care to address the "Those early months..." issue? Franken was very clearly saying this is what happened at a specific time, and that was true. They revoked Clinton's order, and said they wanted to study it some more. Delay is a completely fair term for what happened at the time; in fact, they could have simply said Whitman revoked Clinton's order, and that would have been accurate, for the context Franken was stating, because at the time it wasn't even clear that they would eventually reinstate Clinton's policy. Lots of people at the time said they shouldn't.
BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "Clinton issued a paper, Bush did the work." They both used studies. They both issued orders after the studies came out. What was the difference?
It's not a big deal, but I think you're wrong if you try to get Franken on a technicality, when technically, what he said was totally accurate, given that he was describing what happened at a particular time.
I always try to do my best with you Brussell. Even though we disagree at times, I feel like you at least read the words.
The early months... now please remember this is from memory so it may not be perfect.
Franken, I believe is arguing that since the Republicans had the House, Senate, and Executive Branches, the "tone" should have changed in those early months away from pure politics and the bickering that surrounded the Clinton impeachment. Franken was claiming that Bush not only didn't change "the tone" but alienated even a member of his own party with the hard partisan swing to the point of him defecting to the Democrats and giving them the Senate.
Of course after Jeffords defected Bush (from Franke's view) that since their was deadlock (Republican House, Democratic Senate) that the "tone" wouldn't change and it was out of his hands, etc.
In the context of the writing, Franken is not, in my view, trying to show that Bush carried out or even reviewed Clinton's arsenic order. It appears he is using it to show a hard partisan swing and a desire to harm the environment. However even while reviewing the order, the same standards were in effect that had been in effect for decades, including the entire 8 years of the Clinton presidency.
As for what I meant by Clinton issued the paper, Bush did the work, I'll expand on that. Clinton's executive order was issued (depending upon accounts) within the last three days or even the last night of his presidency. The executive order simply declared that water treatment had to get arsenic levels down to 10 ppb by 2004.
Now water treatment isn't a federal level. In fact it is a profoundly local level in many regards with regard to the running and funding of the actual equipment. That meant that someone who was not Clinton (read Bush) was going to have to strong arm states, counties, and even cities into upgrading their water treatment systems at the costs of hundreds of millions of dollars. I can understand why anyone, Bush or Clinton, would review this when it was issued by someone else and then has all the costs carried forward.
Let me flip it onto an example you probably like better and are more likely to see in line with.
Bushes tax cuts, many of them haven't even gone into effect yet. Pretend my taxes were $5000 this year, and as a result of his tax cuts, would be $3000 in 2008. Now two points, first if say, Dean reviewed the tax cuts and left them in place and I paid $3000 in 2008. Did Dean delay my tax cut. Secondly if under Bush, I were slated to possibly pay $3000 in 2008, but instead he altered the formula so I paid $4000 in 2008, did Dean raise my taxes?
The first issue, if someone claimed Dean delayed my tax cut. I would call it a lie. On the second issue, if they claimed Dean raised my taxes, I would consider that a technicality. In all honesty they would be lower than they had been and in reality they were not raised. So I think Franken's remarks are not a technicality, I do think they are a lie.
Now I did say, that in fairness to Franken and Clinton, if there had been anything in place besides the time (2004) and the standards (10 ppb) and Bush took action. I would say it was delayed. If there were funds allocated by Congress from a Clinton water treatment plan that were held up for purchasing equipment, a program, a timeframe that was lengthened, ANYTHING. But the Bush review didn't delay anything since Clinton had given 4 years to meet the 10 ppb standard. I think I am being really fair in that regard.
A midnight executive order that demands a standard and makes no accomodations toward actually meeting it deserves review of the standard and of actually how to meet it as well. Bush did that and still got the job done within the timeframe. Bush did in less than 4 years what Clinton didn't get done in 8. I think he deserves some credit for that and not to be portrayed as harmful to the environment with regard to arsenic. (We can argue other environmenal issues in other threads of course)
Hope that made my points clear to you.
Nick