Previous 21 - 30 Next
Chries....that comment is WAY over the top...the most dishonest SOTU in history? Based on what? The most egregious point you could come up with was that Pres Obama stated that the primary "CHALLENGE" for "FUTURE GENERATIONS" is going to be dealing with climate change. That falls WAY short of being a lie or of being dishonest.......I guess that we'll have to wait a few generations to see if he was right or not. He might very well be wrong. But, again, if that's the best example of dishonesty/lying that you can come up with, this might actually have been the MOST TRUTHFUL SOTU speech in history!
Mark-John.........I'm sure you're correct in that this is going to now be Prager's new and updated position on climate change. But, to be clear, it IS a change in his stance and, to my knowledge he never made any kind of acknowledgement that the world is warming and/or that climate change is occurring....and/or that he had been WRONG. Up to now, he has been beating the bushes trying to find pundits to tell him what he wanted to hear, ie that the earth has actually been cooling of late, that, in this or that portion of the world there is actually more ice than 10 years ago, etc etc etc. So for him to now say "OK climate change is real.....but I'm talking about man made climate change" speaks for itself. I imagine that, in a few years, he'll be saying "Ok, man made climate change is real..but I was only referring to the man made climate change caused by Americans". This is very similar to his stance on Aids.....years ago, he used to rail about how it was virtually impossible for aids to pass via heterosexual sex. But when it became clear to any thinking person, that it WAS being passed that way in Africa, he continued with his rant but would then add "in America" at the end.
Chries.....interesting. Are any GOP senate members actually quoted as giving that explanation? (I'm not challenging you, I'm just curious...and still astounded). I'm still trying to digest this....I initially was willing to give kudos to the GOP for finally seeing the light, but , based on your post, I think I have way LESS respect for the GOP. Clearly, the climate change issue has been one of the strongest and biggest divides between the 2 sides for SEVERAL years. Other than a handful of outliers in the GOP ( including Huntsman and, IIRC, Graham), there were the more "moderate" republicans who would shrug their shoulders and say "I'm not a scientist", while, in effect, claiming that climate change has not been prooven to them, and the more fringe people (like Prager) who insist, with certainly, that the whole climate change issue is an absolute "hoax". So, for you to tell me that now, virtually every GOP senator suddenly agreed that climate change is terms of the SEASONS seems absolutely disgusting. If some/many of the pols in question do really feel that GW/CC is not only made up, but also potentially very damaging to the country (in terms of the ramifications of implementing policies to combat GW), they absolutely should have had the integrity to have voted against the attachment. I would have similar disgust for Dem pols who, in order to get a pet project passed, signed off on an agreement that there is NO climate change....and then provided a weasel explanation that they were really only talking in terms of the climate between Aug 1 and Aug 2 or between Sept 23 and Sept 24. doubt that Pres Obama spun things in the most positive light possible (as ANY politician would) but I wouldn't even categorize this as "dishonesty". For example, when Pres Bush was giving SOTU addresses he might have said something along the lines of "our braves troops continue the battle in Iraq, where they are steadily vanquishing the enemies of what will soon be a full fledged democracy" . Now I could then write a column in which I editorialize that what Pres Bush SHOULD have said was "our troops continue the battle in Iraq in what is, in the end, a war that I completely bungled us into". But that second "quote" would just be my (biased) does NOT at all make the original "quote" (which, to be clear, I just invented now to make my point) a "lie" or, in any real sense, dishonest.
Chries........that comment is NOT a "bold faced lie". By using the term "future generations", one could assume that the President is perhaps talking about 100 years down the road. Per the President, THIS (if not somehow reversed) is going to be the greatest threat to humanity at that time. Now you might disagree with this thought.....and only time will tell how accurate it is.......but to call it a "bold faced lie" is simply not warranted. And, I might add that, if this is the closest that the President came to actually lying in the speech, it might just have been the most honest speech ever given by any politician.
Science....really, how can you tell that "the left" bothers Prager? Is it because he can't utter or write 3 consecutive sentences without bringing "the left" into the conversation.
Scott...good stuff. Thanks for taking the time to post that. OK, I should have known that it was an attachment to a bill, in this case a Keystone Pipeline bill. Methinks that there are enough Senators with rooting interests in Keystone (thank you Citizens United) that they'd that they'd agree to pass an attachment making Charles Manson's birthday a national holiday. I don't disagree at all that climate change IS real....but this is such a MAJOR change in philosophy for the GOP. It definitely hasn't been that long since I heard Prager insist that climate change was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon the American people
Science........I don't have a particular problem with what you say in your middle paragraph but as for your first and last paragraphs, that would be a MAJOR switch in the right wing talking points. prager has had NUMEROUS guests on his show who insist that there is NO validity whatsoever to ANY claims of climate change.
Kirk.......fine....point out from this column, from prager's examples, where the actual LIES are.
Carlos....thank you for that. I have to run now but I will absolutely look into this. I find this did it not make the news? How/why was Prager not absolutely livid that approx 59 GOP Senators confirmed that climate change is real? Again, I'm definitely going to look into this..... and thank you again for the info.
This is a rather remarkable column, even for Prager's low standards. As I mentioned earlier, .he VERY often makes a major deal about how loath he is to ever say anyone is lying......he has claimed that he just HATES saying this so much, that he calls it the "L Word". So, he somehow managed to tough it out and crank out this column in which the whole point is to show how much the President of The United States lies.....but......upon closer inspection, he does not site ONE example of where the President actually made a factual lie. All this is, is Prager giving his very biased opinion of what he thinks the President should "really" have said (based on Prager's take of the various issues/situations). But NONE of the examples are lies of any type.
Previous 21 - 30 Next