I thought you folks didn't believe anything the Washington Post says.
If it's more accurate to say that you only believe the things you think are true, that pretty much destroys any arguments you make against things it says based on the fact that it's the WaPo saying them. It collapses your arguments into "it's not true because we said so."
Do you really want to lose a discussion tactic that you use so frequently? |
|
Sorry Bob, but wrong.
We (at least real conservatives) believe that the Post slants it's news to the left. Some of it is outright leftist propoganda. But not all of it.
And, to state the obvious, the piece you are referring to is an opinion piece. It is opinion wrapped around facts.
Are the facts true? Probably. But there are few absolutes in todays politics. |
|
|
You didn't respond to my argument; in fact, you agreed with it, that "real conservatives" (which seems to mean "me and everybody who agrees 100% with me" wherever used) can't use the argument that something ISN'T true because the WaPo says it IS. |
|
But I do add that each article needs to be read with a raised brow.
I'd like to see one quote from anyone saying that you can't believe anything from the WaPo.
Nobody has said that. |
|
Rep. Bachmann is plugging this WaPost editorial.
It begins by flatly contradicting her most important talking points:
1. "Contrary to the baldly political suggestions regarding lower gasoline prices by President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), drilling would make no impact on today's pain at the pump because it would be years before any oil flowed from the Outer Continental Shelf."
2. "We agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its varied and sensitive ecosystems, should be preserved. In the quest for new sources of energy, there are trade-offs. That pristine area must remain off-limits."
This directly contradicts what Bachmann's been telling Americans ever since she appointed herself some kind of expert about energy and oil supply--a little over a month or so ago.
As for the rest of the editorial, the point that the WaPo makes about |
|
|
Good for the WaPo for pointing out the lies about drilling. The real solution is to build more nuclear reactors, which McCain wants to do. However, the 3% of the world reserves is a complete lie, the oil companies are only not drilling on leases that are not profitable or where there is no oil and drilling is not environmentally dangerous. |
|
As for the rest of the editorial, the point that the WaPo makes: "Hey, they drill in the Caspian and Nigeria, and those are environmentally sensitive areas, why not drill in our environmentally sensitive areas?"
This particular point is what is referred to in policy circles as "stupid." Russia and Nigeria disregard environmental concerns regularly because their government are run and bribed by notoriously corrupt oil lobbies. The notion that it is "okay" for Americans to disregard environmental concerns because the Russian mafia does, is astounding. |
|
Your right, they're at it again. The liberal media and Liberal Dems don't want the drilling. They do not want oil independence. Why, because like Nancy Pelosi, they are all highly leveraged in eco-friendly energy companies. And, they all bought T. Boone Pickens stock when it went public a year ago. Oil independence means they lose big time bucks.
Organization of Conservative Americans
http://www.ocamericans.org |
|
I and my wife were watching the History channel the other night and they were showing Products that are produced from oil and my wife almost had a heart attack when they showed all those COSMETICS that are made from OIL.
So where are all the women on we dont NEED OIL/COSMETICS anymore. I dont know about most of you but I still like to see my wife looking good with her make-up on and she has now changed her mind about DRILLING FOR OUR OWN OIL and by the way you LIBS lost another vote for my wife is a LIB and she said she will not vote for someone who will take away her MAKE-UP.
The more we learn the more we will see.
DRILL NOW |
|
|
I think the previous commenter sums up the problem in a nutshell. |
|
The "Makeup" vote.
Awesome. |
|
1. Drilling now will not affect the price for years. Then why was congress blaming high prices on speculators? The price will start coming down as soon as the law allowing drilling is passed.
2. ANWR pristine. Stipulated. But, where they want to drill is frozen tundra (which looks like a lunar landscape) half the year, and uninhabitable the rest because of mosquitoes.
3. How much oil naturally seeps up out of the oceans every day?
|
|
|
the unreasonable. Facts have no place in this argument or any argument for that matter where emotions are all that is needed. If you don't believe me, just ask a liberal! |
|
Michele Bachmann is an energy expert.
Bachmann is a lying End-Times nut. Here's her energy and environmental "expertise":
"(Pelosi) is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she's just trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet -- we didn't need Nancy Pelosi to do that," says Bachmann.
|
|
Myth 1: Drilling is pointless because the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves.
Crap in a bag. You don't know what is where, becasue the entire science has changed.
Whatever there is needs to be available.
Myth 2: The oil companies aren't using the leases they already have.
Maybe somebody should ask them why instead of simply harping this point.
Myth 3: Drilling is environmentally dangerous.
More 50 year old mythology. Remember Katrina ? Remember all the oiul spills from the gulf ? No ? Correct. The industry has advanced. |
|
|
|