Crazy nutters.

[Charles]

http://newsbusters.org/node/39436/print

Any thoughts...other than attacking the source?

Chas

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by Charles

http://newsbusters.org/node/39436/print

Any thoughts...other than attacking the source?

Chas

The part about China is so insane. China came out 2 years ago and said their goal was to TRIPLE the number of cars on the road in 10 years and were going to grow the economy with OIL. They didn't go get that crap in Canada for no reason. These lefty idiots are showing how sick in the head they are. They are about to get it right up the A$$ thanks to this lunatic and his dirty staff.
"Crazy Nutters"? That's way to God Damn P.C. my friend. Let these losers attack. After all, without a job or a life, this stupid board is all they have.
Just a fact.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

The part about China is so insane. China came out 2 years ago and said their goal was to TRIPLE the number of cars on the road in 10 years and were going to grow the economy with OIL. They didn't go get that crap in Canada for no reason. These lefty idiots are showing how sick in the head they are. They are about to get it right up the A$$ thanks to this lunatic and his dirty staff.
"Crazy Nutters"? That's way to God Damn P.C. my friend. Let these losers attack. After all, without a job or a life, this stupid board is all they have.
Just a fact.

You're one deranged MoFo. Condolences.

[Charles]

And the bright side is no one has attacked the source.

Chas

[westgate]

yes. get well soon, there, djvwhatever...

[finnbow]

As for the article, it seems a bit more of a opinion piece than a fact check. That said, looking for half-truths in any politician's speeches is not a particularly difficult exercise.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

As for the article, it seems a bit more of a opinion piece than a fact check. That said, looking for half-truths in any politician's speeches is not a particularly difficult exercise.

It is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff once they've become soaked in bullshit.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

It is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff once they've become soaked in bullshit.

Chas

The substance if the article is deserving of criticism on it's own merits. First, it was opinion checking, rather than fact checking.

It chided the President for indicating that this type of disaster underscores the need for alternative energy, when in fact this type of disaster highlights the need to get off the oil tit.

It took issue with the President saying China was getting a head start in developing green industry, by point out that China is already a big polluter and on the way to becoming a bigger polluter. That misses the point that China in in the process of developing the capacity to compete with our start up industries that would create environmentally friendly products and alternative energy sources - that China want's to profit over our desire to improve the environment, not that it wants to improve its own.

It tried to rebut the President's statements on the Oil companies' resistance to regulations by pointing out that BP supported some of the President's environmental initiatives. Again comparing apples and oranges. The regulations that the oil companies have fought are the ones that would require them to engage in safer and more environmentally friendly practices in their own oil production, not in areas outside of their industry.

Finally, the alleged potential reserves about which the article spoke are reserves that could be tapped at tremendous environmental cost. I don't think the way around one environmental disaster is to create another one.

As I see it, the article's fact checking really only pointed out policies with which it disagreed, or misrepresented what was said. That is not fact-checking. That is hogwash.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

The part about China is so insane. China came out 2 years ago and said their goal was to TRIPLE the number of cars on the road in 10 years and were going to grow the economy with OIL. They didn't go get that crap in Canada for no reason. These lefty idiots are showing how sick in the head they are. They are about to get it right up the A$$ thanks to this lunatic and his dirty staff.
"Crazy Nutters"? That's way to God Damn P.C. my friend. Let these losers attack. After all, without a job or a life, this stupid board is all they have.
Just a fact.

What are you, like twelve? Grow up moron.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The substance if the article is deserving of criticism on it's own merits. First, it was opinion checking, rather than fact checking.

It chided the President for indicating that this type of disaster underscores the need for alternative energy, when in fact this type of disaster highlights the need to get off the oil tit.

It took issue with the President saying China was getting a head start in developing green industry, by point out that China is already a big polluter and on the way to becoming a bigger polluter. That misses the point that China in in the process of developing the capacity to compete with our start up industries that would create environmentally friendly products and alternative energy sources - that China want's to profit over our desire to improve the environment, not that it wants to improve its own.

It tried to rebut the President's statements on the Oil companies' resistance to regulations by pointing out that BP supported some of the President's environmental initiatives. Again comparing apples and oranges. The regulations that the oil companies have fought are the ones that would require them to engage in safer and more environmentally friendly practices in their own oil production, not in areas outside of their industry.

Finally, the alleged potential reserves about which the article spoke are reserves that could be tapped at tremendous environmental cost. I don't think the way around one environmental disaster is to create another one.

As I see it, the article's fact checking really only pointed out policies with which it disagreed, or misrepresented what was said. That is not fact-checking. That is hogwash.

Regards,

D-Ray

Pretty much what I got from it. Although I would say that the Presidents speech did strike me as opportunistic. I felt he should have stuck to the crisis at hand and saved his "clean energy" pitch for another time.

Dave