Oil Spill Devastation

[The Sushi Hunter]

Thanks for proving my point about Bush's cronyism and the consequences of his deregulation.

So when are you going to shut up about Bush or will he always be the scapegoat you use for everything that doesn't go the way you want it to for the rest of your life?

[ohsherrie]

"as the Washington Post reported earlier this week, the White House actually accepted Dutch and Norwegian aid on the oil spill cleanup effort back last month -- though not in the form of dike builders.

In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/1 ... 14299.html

Yes, I found it on Huffpost but this is a quote from the Washington Post.

[The_Noble_Cause]

"as the Washington Post reported earlier this week, the White House actually accepted Dutch and Norwegian aid on the oil spill cleanup effort back last month -- though not in the form of dike builders.

In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/1 ... 14299.html

Yes, I found it on Huffpost but this is a quote from the Washington Post.

Try this -
http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... ll-aid-fl/

[ohsherrie]

Thanks for proving my point about Bush's cronyism and the consequences of his deregulation.

So when are you going to shut up about Bush or will he always be the scapegoat you use for everything that doesn't go the way you want it to for the rest of your life?

Only the one's he's responsible for. I mean, Hoover's administration was responsible for the bad economic policies that lead to the Great Depression and created the dust bowl, so who should all those people who suffered through have blamed, Roosevelt?

Well yeah, seeing as how Hoover was Republican and Roosevelt was Democrat you probably think they should.

[7 Wishes]

So when are you going to shut up about Bush or will he always be the scapegoat you use for everything that doesn't go the way you want it to for the rest of your life?

As soon as the GOBP acknowledges the fact that, with respect to the oil spill devastation, this disaster would not have happened without Bush's intentional deregulation. There would have been no war in Iraq had Bush not been "elected" in 2000. With (proven) Moderate Democratic economic principles in place in 2000 and 2004, there would not have been two recessions.

These are facts. As soon as HimmlerFan, RightWingWhackjob, et al, admit this, I'll shut up about Bush.

[RossValoryRocks]

So when are you going to shut up about Bush or will he always be the scapegoat you use for everything that doesn't go the way you want it to for the rest of your life?

As soon as the GOBP acknowledges the fact that, with respect to the oil spill devastation, this disaster would not have happened without Bush's intentional deregulation. There would have been no war in Iraq had Bush not been "elected" in 2000. With (proven) Moderate Democratic economic principles in place in 2000 and 2004, there would not have been two recessions.

These are facts. As soon as HimmlerFan, RightWingWhackjob, et al, admit this, I'll shut up about Bush.

As soon as you find sources that show what regulations and when the Bush administration removed that caused the disaster we will believe you...

[RossValoryRocks]

Thanks for proving my point about Bush's cronyism and the consequences of his deregulation.

So when are you going to shut up about Bush or will he always be the scapegoat you use for everything that doesn't go the way you want it to for the rest of your life?

Only the one's he's responsible for. I mean, Hoover's administration was responsible for the bad economic policies that lead to the Great Depression and created the dust bowl, so who should all those people who suffered through have blamed, Roosevelt?

Well yeah, seeing as how Hoover was Republican and Roosevelt was Democrat you probably think they should.

Hoover caused the Dustbowl huh??? Wow...that is SOME HUGE power that he had...to control the weather...and lemme see...cause people to not rotate crops correctly leaching the fields of what makes them fertile!

And as for Roosevelt...had he left well enough alone the great depression would have been over by about '33 or '34...not in the 40's when our military-industrial complext and WW2 pulled us out of it.

[The Sushi Hunter]

So when are you going to shut up about Bush or will he always be the scapegoat you use for everything that doesn't go the way you want it to for the rest of your life?

As soon as the GOBP acknowledges the fact that, with respect to the oil spill devastation, this disaster would not have happened without Bush's intentional deregulation. There would have been no war in Iraq had Bush not been "elected" in 2000. With (proven) Moderate Democratic economic principles in place in 2000 and 2004, there would not have been two recessions.

These are facts. As soon as HimmlerFan, RightWingWhackjob, et al, admit this, I'll shut up about Bush.

Stop kidding yourself because your not kidding anyone else, you'll go on for the rest of your life blaming Bush and other's for things, simply because I think you do it because they are Republicans.

[The Sushi Hunter]

The Wons BP Ass Kicking, The Musical!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yghFBt-f ... r_embedded

I bet you black communities throughout America and worldwide will be able to understand all that easily and perfectly. They probably didn't understand or remember a single word of it though when they watched it in it's original form.

[The Sushi Hunter]

The Wons BP Ass Kicking, The Musical!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yghFBt-f ... r_embedded

I bet you black communities throughout America and worldwide will be able to understand all that easily and perfectly. They probably didn't understand or remember a single word of it though when they watched it in it's original form.

Ummm..no comment..

Imagine all news stories in that same format.

[The Sushi Hunter]

The Wons BP Ass Kicking, The Musical!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yghFBt-f ... r_embedded

I bet you black communities throughout America and worldwide will be able to understand all that easily and perfectly. They probably didn't understand or remember a single word of it though when they watched it in it's original form.

Ummm..no comment..

Imagine all news stories in that same format.

,

I gotcha bro. Sad really, but pretty much true.

I remember back in elementary school, kids would be singing all day long "plop plop fizz fizz oh what a relief it is" over and over again but they couldn't remember how to do their school work.

[7 Wishes]

In reality, MMS had little way to assess the risk to wildlife, since a new policy instituted under Bush scrapped environmental analysis and fast-tracked permits. Declaring that oil companies themselves were "in the best position to determine the environmental effects" of drilling, the new rules pre-qualified deep-sea drillers to receive a "categorical exclusion" – an exemption from environmental review that was originally intended to prevent minor projects, like outhouses on hiking trails, from being tied up in red tape. "There's no analytical component to a cat-ex," says a former MMS scientist. "You have technicians, not scientists, that are simply checking boxes to make sure all the T's are crossed. They just cut and paste from previous approvals."

The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

Bush MMS adopted regulation stating drillers are "in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity." The Washington Post reported on May 25 that the actions taken by MMS, "are shaped in part by a 2005 regulation it adopted that assumes oil and gas companies can best evaluate the environmental effects of their operations." The article stated that "[t]he rule governing which information the MMS should receive and review before signing off on drilling plans states: 'The lessee or operator is in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity based on whether the operation is routine or non-routine.' " Rolling Stone magazine reported that these "new rules pre-qualified deep-sea drillers" to receive ... an exemption from environmental review," even though such exemptions were "originally intended to prevent minor projects, like outhouses on hiking trails, from being tied up in red tape."

In April 2008, Bush MMS loosened rules requiring blowout plan. The Associated Press reported on May 5 that a "rule change two years ago by the federal agency that regulates offshore oil rigs allowed BP to avoid filing a plan specifically for handling a major spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project." AP further reported: "The MMS rule change, made in April 2008, says that Gulf rig operators are required to file a blowout scenario only if one of five conditions applies. For example, an operator must provide a blowout scenario when it proposes to install a 'surface facility' in water deeper than 1,312 feet. While Deepwater Horizon was operating almost 5,000 feet below the surface, [BP spokesman William] Salvin said the project did not meet the definition of a surface facility. The MMS official agreed."

Bush MMS 2007 environmental impact assessment for BP lease dismissed risk of massive oil spill. The Washington Post reported on May 5: "While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout." The Post stated that "In one assessment, the agency estimated that 'a large oil spill' from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a 'deepwater spill,' occurring 'offshore of the inner Continental shelf,' would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall." According to the Times-Picayune, these assessments "paved the way for BP to assert that its plans for drilling in Lease Sale 206 posed no real dangers".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/ap_on_bi_ge/us_oil_spill_what_went_wrong

Turns out Obama was right on top of this mess, too.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004300053?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[donnaplease]

A question: these 'regulations' by Bush, Obama, whomever... do they have to be enacted by Congress? Can Bush (or Obama) just tell an agency such as the MMS to 'do this' or 'don't do that' and it be done?

I ask this because once again I am stumped by the concept that one person (Bush, Clinton, Obama, president X) can make such changes that affect us in so many drastic ways. I thought that was the reason for the checks & balances between the executive and legislative branches of our government. With the liberal democrats holding control over congress the last 2 years of Bush's presidency and so far into Obama's, I would think that they could have overturned whatever deregulation Bush may have put into effect, if they were as environmentally conscious as they would lead us to believe. Kinda reminds me of the 'I was for it before I was against it' motto. Why didn't they go forth with overturning such regs? I have heard often that if the republicans gain control of congress that one of their main objectives is to overturn the healthcare bill (all or in part). If the dems could have but chose not to, aren't they the ones you should be blaming, instead of Bush and his cronies, since they are the ones that knew of such dangers and opposed them so vehemently?

Can someone explain this without using either party's talking points?

[squirt1]

That ship should have been there a month ago ! Gov't is too big and INCOMPETENT so Obama grow it bigger with their salaries & pensions. When will more work for Fed, State Local ? Are we outnumbered already? BTW -BP starts deep water drilling off Libiya .I am sure Moamohr Quadafi will wholesale it to us for about $ 8-9 per gallon. Our politicians should all rename themselves Tonto !

[slucero]

In reality, MMS had little way to assess the risk to wildlife, since a new policy instituted under Bush scrapped environmental analysis and fast-tracked permits. Declaring that oil companies themselves were "in the best position to determine the environmental effects" of drilling, the new rules pre-qualified deep-sea drillers to receive a "categorical exclusion" – an exemption from environmental review that was originally intended to prevent minor projects, like outhouses on hiking trails, from being tied up in red tape. "There's no analytical component to a cat-ex," says a former MMS scientist. "You have technicians, not scientists, that are simply checking boxes to make sure all the T's are crossed. They just cut and paste from previous approvals."

The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

Bush MMS adopted regulation stating drillers are "in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity." The Washington Post reported on May 25 that the actions taken by MMS, "are shaped in part by a 2005 regulation it adopted that assumes oil and gas companies can best evaluate the environmental effects of their operations." The article stated that "[t]he rule governing which information the MMS should receive and review before signing off on drilling plans states: 'The lessee or operator is in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity based on whether the operation is routine or non-routine.' " Rolling Stone magazine reported that these "new rules pre-qualified deep-sea drillers" to receive ... an exemption from environmental review," even though such exemptions were "originally intended to prevent minor projects, like outhouses on hiking trails, from being tied up in red tape."

In April 2008, Bush MMS loosened rules requiring blowout plan. The Associated Press reported on May 5 that a "rule change two years ago by the federal agency that regulates offshore oil rigs allowed BP to avoid filing a plan specifically for handling a major spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project." AP further reported: "The MMS rule change, made in April 2008, says that Gulf rig operators are required to file a blowout scenario only if one of five conditions applies. For example, an operator must provide a blowout scenario when it proposes to install a 'surface facility' in water deeper than 1,312 feet. While Deepwater Horizon was operating almost 5,000 feet below the surface, [BP spokesman William] Salvin said the project did not meet the definition of a surface facility. The MMS official agreed."

Bush MMS 2007 environmental impact assessment for BP lease dismissed risk of massive oil spill. The Washington Post reported on May 5: "While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout." The Post stated that "In one assessment, the agency estimated that 'a large oil spill' from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a 'deepwater spill,' occurring 'offshore of the inner Continental shelf,' would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall." According to the Times-Picayune, these assessments "paved the way for BP to assert that its plans for drilling in Lease Sale 206 posed no real dangers".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/ap_on_bi_ge/us_oil_spill_what_went_wrong

Turns out Obama was right on top of this mess, too.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004300053?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Yup... this is an unbiased source...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... or_America

Media Matters for America
Media Matters for America (MMFA), a "Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media,"[1] was founded by David Brock in mid-April 2004. Along with former MoveOn consultant Tom Matzzie and John Podesta's Center for American Progress, it is behind Progressive Media, a liberal messaging campaign launched in 2008 and expanded in 2009 to become a 'war room' for promoting the foreign and domestic policies of Barack Obama. Media Matters for America's partner organization, Media Matters Action Network launched Conservative Transparency in November, 2009.

Background
"Because a healthy democracy depends on public access to accurate and reliable information, Media Matters for America is dedicated to alerting news outlets and consumers to conservative misinformation -- wherever we find it, in every news cycle -- and to spurring progressive activism based on standards and accountability in media," explains their website [2] "For the first time, Media Matters for America has put in place a system to monitor the media for conservative misinformation - every day, in real time -- in 2004 and beyond." [3]

The site "was devised as part of a larger media apparatus being built by liberals to combat what they say is the overwhelming influence of conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly." The "project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress, the policy group headed by John D. Podesta," Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. "Brock said he hoped it could help provide fodder for fledgling liberal radio talk shows being started across the country, including those of the comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo." [1]
"Mr. Brock, who has also spoken with Senator Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota and former Vice President Al Gore about his project, said he was ready to face skepticism. 'I think all ideological converts face a reality on that question,' he said. But, he added, 'I've found people very open to the idea that people can change.'"

MMFA has apparently retained Aman & Associates to promote their first book.


Funding
Funded with "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals." "Among Mr. Brock's donors is Leo Hindery, Jr., the former cable magnate; Susie Tompkins Buell, who is co-founder of the fashion company Esprit and is close to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and Ms. Buell's husband Mark; and James C. Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist whose appointment as ambassador to Luxembourg was delayed for a year and a half in the late 1990's by conservative lawmakers protesting what they called his promotion of a 'gay lifestyle.' [2]
Media Matters for America is funded in part by the Democracy Alliance.

Media Matters Action Network
The Media Matters Action Network is a 501(c)4 organization that is a partner organization to MMFA. In December 2008, the Media Matters Action Network acquired the Media Transparency website from Cursor Inc.[3]

Books
MediaMatters.org, Misstating the State of the Union: Right-wing media distortions about the Clinton and Bush presidencies, Akashic Books, October 2004, ISBN 1888451807

Related:
David Brock, The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy, Crown, 2004, ISBN 1400048753
David Brock and Paul Waldman, Free Ride: John McCain and the Media, Anchor, March 2008. ISBN 0307279405

People
Key personnel:[4]
David Brock - CEO
Eric Burns - President
Marcia Kuntz - Editor-in-Chief
Jeremy Schulman - Research Director
Jamison Foser - Senior Fellow
Eric Boehlert - Senior Fellow
Duncan Black - Senior Fellow
Karl Frisch - Senior Fellow
Jessica Levin - Press Secretary

Contact Details
Media Matters for America
455 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Suite 600
Washington DC 20001
Telephone: 202-756-4100
Fax: 202-318-0836
Website: http://mediamatters.org/
RSS Feed: http://mediamatters.org/tools/syndication/latest.rss

SourceWatch Resources
Democracy Alliance
Niki Jagpal

[7 Wishes]

Ah! The old hidden ball trick!

The last URL is extracted from the last line only. Everything else is from the AP or Wall Street Journal.

Way to deflect and ignore! Another classically executed GOBP strategy!

[donnaplease]

A question: these 'regulations' by Bush, Obama, whomever... do they have to be enacted by Congress? Can Bush (or Obama) just tell an agency such as the MMS to 'do this' or 'don't do that' and it be done?

I ask this because once again I am stumped by the concept that one person (Bush, Clinton, Obama, president X) can make such changes that affect us in so many drastic ways. I thought that was the reason for the checks & balances between the executive and legislative branches of our government. With the liberal democrats holding control over congress the last 2 years of Bush's presidency and so far into Obama's, I would think that they could have overturned whatever deregulation Bush may have put into effect, if they were as environmentally conscious as they would lead us to believe. Kinda reminds me of the 'I was for it before I was against it' motto. Why didn't they go forth with overturning such regs? I have heard often that if the republicans gain control of congress that one of their main objectives is to overturn the healthcare bill (all or in part). If the dems could have but chose not to, aren't they the ones you should be blaming, instead of Bush and his cronies, since they are the ones that knew of such dangers and opposed them so vehemently?

Can someone explain this without using either party's talking points?

From my own heart...it's not de-regulation that causes problems..it's the over regulation. Think about it and then look to the coast guard regs allowing oil cleanup. It's stupid.

I understand that, I guess I'm just wondering about the actual process of 'deregulating'. Who can, and under what circumstances, are these regulations changed?

[lights1961]

day 70...

[7 Wishes]

LMFAO. Dubbya spent 30% of his time away from Washington - on vacation at his ranch. Try another tack.

[ohsherrie]

Tell us again FF why Jingles and the great orator from Mississippi aren't utilizing all of the resources that the president has put at their disposal.

[RossValoryRocks]

LMFAO. Dubbya spent 30% of his time away from Washington - on vacation at his ranch. Try another tack.

If it wrong for Bush to do so...as you seem to think...then why isn't it wrong for Obama to do?

It's an easy question...

[7 Wishes]

LMFAO. Dubbya spent 30% of his time away from Washington - on vacation at his ranch. Try another tack.

If it wrong for Bush to do so...as you seem to think...then why isn't it wrong for Obama to do?

It's an easy question...

Because Obama has spent less time away from the White House, doing "recreational" activities, than any President in the past 50 years other than...(drumroll please)...Clinton.

THAT is why.

[donnaplease]

LMFAO. Dubbya spent 30% of his time away from Washington - on vacation at his ranch. Try another tack.

If it wrong for Bush to do so...as you seem to think...then why isn't it wrong for Obama to do?

It's an easy question...

Because Obama has spent less time away from the White House, doing "recreational" activities, than any President in the past 50 years other than...(drumroll please)...Clinton.

THAT is why.

It's not the amount of time spent away from the oval office, it's the timing. Did GWB say "we can worry about those people buried under that rubble another day, now I'm going to clear some brush..."? IMO, any president facing a crisis of this magnitude should be focused on doing his job, not on tee times. If Bush behaved in a similar way (don't know either way), I'd say shame on him too.

Oh, and Clinton got his 'recreation' in the oval office as we all know...

[7 Wishes]

Oh, bullshit, Donna. I just provided an AP article detailing exactly how Obama reacted to the crisis, how his hands were tied by Bush-era deregulation (which he should have, mind you, addressed before now, although he had enough on his hands, what with having to rescue the country from a potential second Depression and Bush's second recession), and how the GOBP's eight years of manipulation laid the ground for this disaster. Spare me the moribund and unfounded rhetoric, go back and read the articles, and get off your high horse.

So many of you are choking on Limbaugh's cock and rectally bleeding from your repeated sodomization at the fists of Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Katz, and Beck that you barely have enough time to repeat (ad nauseum) their jaded, slanted, and factually unfounded talking points. You wouldn't know an original thought if Kant and Hume came back from the dead, entered your bodies in your sleep, and took control of your brains and slacked jaws. Enough already.

[treetopovskaya]

Oh, bullshit, Donna. I just provided an AP article detailing exactly how Obama reacted to the crisis, how his hands were tied by Bush-era deregulation (which he should have, mind you, addressed before now, although he had enough on his hands, what with having to rescue the country from a potential second Depression and Bush's second recession), and how the GOBP's eight years of manipulation laid the ground for this disaster. Spare me the moribund and unfounded rhetoric, go back and read the articles, and get off your high horse.

So many of you are choking on Limbaugh's cock and rectally bleeding from your repeated sodomization at the fists of Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Katz, and Beck that you barely have enough time to repeat (ad nauseum) their jaded, slanted, and factually unfounded talking points. You wouldn't know an original thought if Kant and Hume came back from the dead, entered your bodies in your sleep, and took control of your brains and slacked jaws. Enough already.

wow. }:C\

you might want to do something about all that hatred you're harboring. sad really.

maybe you can focus your energy into something positive. like spending less time here talking to THOSE people. can't you volunteer or something?

[treetopovskaya]

...and get off your high horse.

you should REALLY take your own advice.

[7 Wishes]

You are quite a pain in the ass.

How do those glasses work that enable you to selectively see (and hence read)? When one of your right-wing nutjob heroes on this board tears me, Deano, TNC, or Sherrie, to shreds, you just stand idly by and often applaud.

Anyone who would interpret my post as "angry" would have to be severely out of touch with reality. But, I give you this - it's a good way to distract attention away from the real issues and points. No-one on the Wrong (or, rather, the Right) bothers to address the volumes of information or posts that refute any of their contentions...but, wow! Slander the Democrats or accuse them of being hot-heads...that's perfectly alright.

At least the GOBP'ers on this board let you know where they stand. You weave back and forth, nimbly trying to kiss everyone's ass when it suits you.

[Rockindeano]

LMFAO. Dubbya spent 30% of his time away from Washington - on vacation at his ranch. Try another tack.

If it wrong for Bush to do so...as you seem to think...then why isn't it wrong for Obama to do?

It's an easy question...

Because Obama has spent less time away from the White House, doing "recreational" activities, than any President in the past 50 years other than...(drumroll please)...Clinton.

THAT is why.

I get your point Daniel, and you are 100% correct, howewver, the President should be working 8 days per week right now, and golf should be the furthest thing from BO's mind. He should learn from Bush's poor behaviour. He is smarter than this.

[slucero]

LMFAO. Dubbya spent 30% of his time away from Washington - on vacation at his ranch. Try another tack.

If it wrong for Bush to do so...as you seem to think...then why isn't it wrong for Obama to do?

It's an easy question...

Because Obama has spent less time away from the White House, doing "recreational" activities, than any President in the past 50 years other than...(drumroll please)...Clinton.

THAT is why.

I get your point Daniel, and you are 100% correct, howewver, the President should be working 8 days per week right now, and golf should be the furthest thing from BO's mind. He should learn from Bush's poor behaviour. He is smarter than this.

SHould learn but apparently hasn't.... His inaction speaks much louder than his words...

[treetopovskaya]

You are quite a pain in the ass.

How do those glasses work that enable you to selectively see (and hence read)? When one of your right-wing nutjob heroes on this board tears me, Deano, TNC, or Sherrie, to shreds, you just stand idly by and often applaud.

Anyone who would interpret my post as "angry" would have to be severely out of touch with reality. But, I give you this - it's a good way to distract attention away from the real issues and points. No-one on the Wrong (or, rather, the Right) bothers to address the volumes of information or posts that refute any of their contentions...but, wow! Slander the Democrats or accuse them of being hot-heads...that's perfectly alright.

At least the GOBP'ers on this board let you know where they stand. You weave back and forth, nimbly trying to kiss everyone's ass when it suits you.

you... are... delusional.