RE: RE: RE: There is no spoon
Steve opines: "Right. I guess the part where I said I wasn't defending her is one of those things that slipped out of your alternate reality."
Actually, when one says, "I have to offer a caveat here...I am also not defending her in any way", you are actually defending her. To put that "caveat" in there, you must have felt that what you were about to say would come across as defending her, which you ended up doing.
"In any case, what she said was that she wanted to take proceeds from taxes collected on oil companies. If you want to spin it as "taking oil company profits," that's fine..."
How is it spin when I'm quoting her exact words??? You're the one who's spinning... Who would have thought Steve Brenneis would be defending and spinning for Hillary Clinton??? Ha! :-)
"Did I say anything at all about Bush proposing a windfall profits tax? Did I say anything about Hillary proposing one? I don't mind debating, but I can't be held responsible for positions you make up out of thin air and arbitrarily assign to me."
This is what you said in the original post: "That being said, what she actually proposed was to take some or all of the proceeds of the windfall profits tax on oil, a tax the oil companies already pay, and put them in some kind of strategic reserve fund. That's not all that different than what Bush proposed before the elections last year, Andy." Actually, you are responsible for writing that oil companies were already paying a windfall profits tax. Since I didn't believe we had that tax in place, that's why I asked you when did Bush propose a windfall profits tax. It was just a mis-communication. As you can see, I didn't make it up "out of thin air."
"Back before the elections, either last year or in 2004, I forget which, maybe both times, Bush proposed taking proceeds from taxes on oil to set up a fund for investigating alternative energy sources."
Searching the web, I can't find where Bush proposed that...
"I remember watching the gaping dimwit grin like a fool as he said that the oil companies "ought to pay for" the research and if they weren't willing to do it voluntarily, the government would help them. So please, outside of some Kool-aid-guzzling pubbie dream, how, exactly is that any different than what Hillary said?"
Maybe you dreamed that Bush was grinning like a fool... Ha! Seriously, I can't find anything about this Bush proposal that you are talking about. BTW, what's a "pubbie?"
"Hillary is a dedicated socialist, and I said as much repeatedly. So is your President. What's your point? She isn't going to run as one, and for the thirtieth time, all you pubbies screeching about it plays right into her hands. Unless the GOP has a viable alternative, the "we're not Hillary" tactic is going to fail in a blaze of tears and thrashing among the faithful, just like the very same tactic failed last November. You guys can sit there like stumps, insisting that Hillary is all sorts of things, lesbian, socialist, axe murderer, whatever, until the cows come home. Your continued insistence on that as a tactic to keep her out of the White House will net you nothing but disappointment. That was the original point of my critique of Blankley's article, and regardless of how much you attempt to fragment my argument into side issues, I'm going to repeat it in every response."
Since this post was originally about Hillary, then one should ask you what's your point with your Bush obsession in this post??? I was actually talking about something she proposed. I'm still scratching my head over the rest of your rant.
Actually, when one says, "I have to offer a caveat here...I am also not defending her in any way", you are actually defending her. To put that "caveat" in there, you must have felt that what you were about to say would come across as defending her, which you ended up doing.
"In any case, what she said was that she wanted to take proceeds from taxes collected on oil companies. If you want to spin it as "taking oil company profits," that's fine..."
How is it spin when I'm quoting her exact words??? You're the one who's spinning... Who would have thought Steve Brenneis would be defending and spinning for Hillary Clinton??? Ha! :-)
"Did I say anything at all about Bush proposing a windfall profits tax? Did I say anything about Hillary proposing one? I don't mind debating, but I can't be held responsible for positions you make up out of thin air and arbitrarily assign to me."
This is what you said in the original post: "That being said, what she actually proposed was to take some or all of the proceeds of the windfall profits tax on oil, a tax the oil companies already pay, and put them in some kind of strategic reserve fund. That's not all that different than what Bush proposed before the elections last year, Andy." Actually, you are responsible for writing that oil companies were already paying a windfall profits tax. Since I didn't believe we had that tax in place, that's why I asked you when did Bush propose a windfall profits tax. It was just a mis-communication. As you can see, I didn't make it up "out of thin air."
"Back before the elections, either last year or in 2004, I forget which, maybe both times, Bush proposed taking proceeds from taxes on oil to set up a fund for investigating alternative energy sources."
Searching the web, I can't find where Bush proposed that...
"I remember watching the gaping dimwit grin like a fool as he said that the oil companies "ought to pay for" the research and if they weren't willing to do it voluntarily, the government would help them. So please, outside of some Kool-aid-guzzling pubbie dream, how, exactly is that any different than what Hillary said?"
Maybe you dreamed that Bush was grinning like a fool... Ha! Seriously, I can't find anything about this Bush proposal that you are talking about. BTW, what's a "pubbie?"
"Hillary is a dedicated socialist, and I said as much repeatedly. So is your President. What's your point? She isn't going to run as one, and for the thirtieth time, all you pubbies screeching about it plays right into her hands. Unless the GOP has a viable alternative, the "we're not Hillary" tactic is going to fail in a blaze of tears and thrashing among the faithful, just like the very same tactic failed last November. You guys can sit there like stumps, insisting that Hillary is all sorts of things, lesbian, socialist, axe murderer, whatever, until the cows come home. Your continued insistence on that as a tactic to keep her out of the White House will net you nothing but disappointment. That was the original point of my critique of Blankley's article, and regardless of how much you attempt to fragment my argument into side issues, I'm going to repeat it in every response."
Since this post was originally about Hillary, then one should ask you what's your point with your Bush obsession in this post??? I was actually talking about something she proposed. I'm still scratching my head over the rest of your rant.
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 8:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home