Liar of the year by who? Politifact? Like I said it doesn't matter what the facts are nothing will change your view. Solyndra was a mistake, but it was not the only loan given to green initiatives & most of them have been successful. Do you think that there has never been Government investment in future technologies?
... etc.
I’ll note that you’re not naming any successful green initiatives. The Solyndra debacle was half a billion dollars; maybe you don’t care about our government throwing our money around on dead horses for pure political reasons, but I do and so do many others who expect accountability from our leaders.
You seem to think the Obama administration operates in a vacuum. The world does not; and he and his acolytes unfortunately have yet to acknowledge that. Anyone who slavishly believes that our President can do no wrong - in spite of errors or lack of experience & incompetence is most definitely ignorant, and you fit that mold pretty well. One example of such: popular opinion was in no way, shape or form in favor of so-called “gun reform” laws, and for that reason those initiatives are routinely shot down. Same for minimum wage increases; it takes a special kind of jackass to actually come out for support of oversight of that at the federal level! I’d say that popular opinion is definitely moving in favor of more gay rights, though.
And yes, Bush blew his good will when we charged into Iraq. When he didn’t build a coalition around it through the United Nations like his old man, that was a bad move from the get-go. He should have reigned in Cheney and Rumsfeld. By statistics, Obama has an overall lower average rating than Bush over the term of his presidency, and it’s low enough that unless Democrats gain control of the House (very unlikely at this point), he’ll never recover. The plain language is just that he’s been doing a bad job over his tenure. By your language, Obama would technically be the worst president of all time as far as job performance.
As far as Ralph Nader, check out the documentary called “An Unreasonable Man”. That guy has been chased by politicians and corporations his whole career, in literally some very scandalous ways at times. If that isn’t a sure sign of somebody who is capable of creating serious reform in a crooked system, I don’t know what is.
Having an opponent is not an indicator of innocence. Some information is still being withheld; you're projecting your beliefs on facts that have yet to be presented. The "entrenched enemy" language you like throwing around is exactly what a thin-skinned administration would say about anyone opposed to their initiatives. And Carney didn't just spin, he flat out lied, repeatedly.
Absolutely "Having an opponent is not an indicator of innocence." but my proposition isn't that at all: it's that having an opponent investigating without tangible negative results after much effort certainly is a better indication there's no there "there" than having a friend "investigate". Enemies have better motivation to find dirt and guilt so when an enemy comes up empty after dozens of investigations and hearings and document demands as here? Facts that HAVE been "presented"? Well, that is rather solid. The opponents ineffectiveness rather than their simple existence you see.
Oh and there's zero documentation Carney "lied". No tangible proof he stated items he KNEW were not true. In particular on Benghazi the statements were so early (within a day or two or so of the murders) that the speculation was always going to be tentative based on incomplete information. And that turned out to be the case. And most of that centered on speculation about the motives of the attackers and that's fuzzy in any case: how does anyone parse foreign attackers from a distance as to what set them off? If even they know... Yet labels are demanded.
Comments
Little anecdote: Nikola Tesla kept his patents in a desk drawer and his proof of American citizenship in a safe.
That's very cool; I didn't know that.
Liar of the year by who? Politifact? Like I said it doesn't matter what the facts are nothing will change your view. Solyndra was a mistake, but it was not the only loan given to green initiatives & most of them have been successful. Do you think that there has never been Government investment in future technologies?
... etc.
I’ll note that you’re not naming any successful green initiatives. The Solyndra debacle was half a billion dollars; maybe you don’t care about our government throwing our money around on dead horses for pure political reasons, but I do and so do many others who expect accountability from our leaders.
You seem to think the Obama administration operates in a vacuum. The world does not; and he and his acolytes unfortunately have yet to acknowledge that. Anyone who slavishly believes that our President can do no wrong - in spite of errors or lack of experience & incompetence is most definitely ignorant, and you fit that mold pretty well. One example of such: popular opinion was in no way, shape or form in favor of so-called “gun reform” laws, and for that reason those initiatives are routinely shot down. Same for minimum wage increases; it takes a special kind of jackass to actually come out for support of oversight of that at the federal level! I’d say that popular opinion is definitely moving in favor of more gay rights, though.
And yes, Bush blew his good will when we charged into Iraq. When he didn’t build a coalition around it through the United Nations like his old man, that was a bad move from the get-go. He should have reigned in Cheney and Rumsfeld. By statistics, Obama has an overall lower average rating than Bush over the term of his presidency, and it’s low enough that unless Democrats gain control of the House (very unlikely at this point), he’ll never recover. The plain language is just that he’s been doing a bad job over his tenure. By your language, Obama would technically be the worst president of all time as far as job performance.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_job_approval_ratings.html
As far as Ralph Nader, check out the documentary called “An Unreasonable Man”. That guy has been chased by politicians and corporations his whole career, in literally some very scandalous ways at times. If that isn’t a sure sign of somebody who is capable of creating serious reform in a crooked system, I don’t know what is.
Having an opponent is not an indicator of innocence. Some information is still being withheld; you're projecting your beliefs on facts that have yet to be presented. The "entrenched enemy" language you like throwing around is exactly what a thin-skinned administration would say about anyone opposed to their initiatives. And Carney didn't just spin, he flat out lied, repeatedly.
Absolutely "Having an opponent is not an indicator of innocence." but my proposition isn't that at all: it's that having an opponent investigating without tangible negative results after much effort certainly is a better indication there's no there "there" than having a friend "investigate". Enemies have better motivation to find dirt and guilt so when an enemy comes up empty after dozens of investigations and hearings and document demands as here? Facts that HAVE been "presented"? Well, that is rather solid. The opponents ineffectiveness rather than their simple existence you see.
Oh and there's zero documentation Carney "lied". No tangible proof he stated items he KNEW were not true. In particular on Benghazi the statements were so early (within a day or two or so of the murders) that the speculation was always going to be tentative based on incomplete information. And that turned out to be the case. And most of that centered on speculation about the motives of the attackers and that's fuzzy in any case: how does anyone parse foreign attackers from a distance as to what set them off? If even they know... Yet labels are demanded.