Comments for The Hayride

Comment on Another Example Of Energy-Policy-As-Treason by Mike_Youngblood

Mike_Youngblood — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:29:56 +0000

Yeah – that pretty much sums it up!

Comment on Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute… by oyster

oyster — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:32:44 +0000

So this is not about "irrelevant semantics" at all. We're not arguing about the meaning of a word you chose to use. This is about feigned ignorance that misled at least one of your readers (Gil) who bought the idea that Obama's comment was so off-the-wall that it was evidence of Obama having a breakdown, when in fact the only plausible event Obama could've been referring to was the 2006 quake– which you, macaoidh, apparently knew about, yet you suggested Obama made a gaffe or was losing touch.

I'm basically wondering why you felt compelled to (apparently) dissemble in this post and mislead your readers, when you could've simply made the points you made in the comments to me. Instead of feigning complete wonder at what Obama could possibly be talking about, you could've written something along the lines of "The earthquake Obama is probably referring to is a small non major one that occurred in 2006 and damaged one hotel. This doesn't merit any redirection of FMAP funds." Wouldn't that have been preferable?

Comment on Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute… by oyster

oyster — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:32:13 +0000

(cont'd) But that brings me to the reason I commented here in the first place. I thought I was providing information to you (and Gil), that Obama was actually referring to an earthquake that occurred a few years back. He didn't make an apparent gaffe, and certainly wasn't referring to the Chile quake, which I find curious in light of your knowledge of the 2006 event. It's one thing if you want to have an argument about whether the 06 earthquake was MAJOR or NOT MAJOR, but it went totally unmentioned. Instead, Obama's comment was treated as a gaffe, or evidence that he was making a bizarre reference to Chile, or that he was "out of touch".

(more below)

Comment on Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute… by oyster

oyster — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:31:41 +0000

As for the last paragraph, that's just a clumsy attempt to bully. I didn't make any claims based on the validity of what Bush said, as you falsely assert. I merely made the claim that Bush declared the quake a "Major disaster". You apparently have studied the 06 quake, and disagree with Bush's assessment. That's fine. I have no idea one way or the other– I 'd venture to guess that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, between your position and Bush's, but I don't know and don't care to find out. However: mocking what I DIDN'T say, while ignoring what I DID say, and dismissing my comment with an unwarranted linkage to uncritical "lefties" strikes me as a rather poor form for a blog that claims to "welcome all political perspectives". C'est la vie, I suppose.

Comment on Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute… by oyster

oyster — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:31:04 +0000

I'll answer your queries as you as you avoid mine. I haven't a clue about the 2006 earthquake. It's not something I know much about. However, I presume that it was more serious than you describe, since the President (who at the time happened to be Bush) declared it a "major disaster", but I don't know the extent of the damage, nor if Hawaii requires an alteration of its FMAP formula. I would assume not.

(more below– the comment system here forces you to split up a reply of any length)

Comment on Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute… by macaoidh

macaoidh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:12:07 +0000

Let me ask you this question – is it your understanding that Hawaii requires an alteration of its FMAP formula based on the 2006 earthquake there? If so, can you provide documentation of same?

If not, what Obama said was patent bovine scatology and what you are complaining about here amounts to irrelevant semantics. As relates to the current discussion, the 2006 earthquake was not a major one in that the recovery from it had no effect on federal policy in 2010.

Besides, lefties accuse Bush of lying about almost everything under the sun – now all of a sudden you're going to consider him a valid source for your claims?

Comment on Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute… by oyster

oyster — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:26:19 +0000

Yes, I read and understood your post. Again, I'm providing the information you requested.

However, since you obviously knew about the non-MAJOR 2006 quake in Hawaii (that Pres. Bush declared "a major disaster"), why did you make the bizarre suggestion that Obama might be referring to the Chilean quake, when you were aware of a much more plausible alternative? That's my question to you.

Comment on Another Example Of Energy-Policy-As-Treason by macaoidh

macaoidh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:50:02 +0000

Agree with the sentiments. There is a graph making the rounds of late which rather succinctly describes this administration's attitude toward checks and balances.

See it here: http://api.ning.com/files/zWh1UWp9w58MA0Dn8oYYaTp...

Comment on Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute… by macaoidh

macaoidh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:41:55 +0000

In the post I said that Hawaii hasn't had a MAJOR earthquake since 1975. I stand by that statement, for the reasons enumerated in the response above.

Comment on Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute… by oyster

oyster — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:49:36 +0000

That's all fine. It's interesting that you know so much about the event but didn't mention it in the post, yet in bizarre fashion you speculated that Obama might be referring to the Chile quake, which did NO damage whatsoever in Hawaii.

You were asking the questions, I'm answering them. Obama's referring to the 2006 quake.