Posted by Tina
Just a couple of swell guys working together to do what’s best for the masses.
Warren Buffett, mega billionaire and Obama supporter and adviser, stands to gain big-time from Obama’s axing the Keystone Pipeline. How, Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe along with Canadian railroads will profit over the pipeline delay? They can haul the oil, $3 a barrel more than a pipeline, to the refinery.
Remember recently Obama’s State Department denied TransCanada pipeline permit on Jan. 18 by whining to the world that there was not enough time to study the proposal by Feb. 21. Per Obamites, a mean spirited deadline that the Republican controlled Congress imposed on President Barack Obama. Obamites encouraged that TransCanada re-apply with a route that avoids the environmentally sensitive areas.
So why know employ lots of truckers … and spare the environment? What is your beef?
And will someone explain why the Canadians can’t just build themselves a refinery? Mayhap the refining process is just too damned costly and dirty to get past their own environmental regulations?
That says something, don’t it?
Learn to knit, people.
The Democratic Partys largest single contributors will make money off of the country losing hundreds of thousands of jobs with President Obama killing the Keystone Oil Pipeline from Canada.
Investors Business Daily:
Energy Policy: Killing the Keystone XL pipeline may help one of the worlds richest men get richer. North Dakotas booming oil fields will now grow more dependent on a railroad the presidents economic guru just bought.
Stop us if you see a pattern here. About the time George Soros Hungarian billionaire and key donor to leftist groups and the Democratic Party invested heavily in the stock of the state-run Brazilian oil company Petrobras, President Obama was curbing U.S. offshore oil production and the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced a $2 billion loan to Petrobras to finance deep-water drilling off the pristine beaches of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.
As he was imposing curbs and moratoria on U.S. offshore drillers, President Obama wished the Brazilians well in the hope we would someday be Brazils best oil customer.
Apparently, oil tankers coming from Brazil are better and safer than a pipeline from Canada, whose best customer we will not be if they ship their tar sands oil to China instead.
Interestingly, another billionaire, Obama economic inspiration Warren Buffett, stands to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline delay.
As oil production ramps up in the Bakken fields of North Dakota, plans to use the pipeline to transport it have been dashed.
As a result, North Dakotas booming oil producers will have to rely even more on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which Buffett just bought, to ship it to refineries.
Buffetts Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe in a deal valuing the railroad at $34 billion. Berkshire Hathaway already owns about 22% of Burlington Northern, and will pay $100 a share in cash and stock for the rest of the company.
Truthfully presented and hopefully this will knit it together
Thank you for the evaluation Quentin.
The title reads “Keystone blocked Buffet Benefits”…and he does! Trucking oil to the refineries is more expensive than transporting it through a pipeline. That means the price at the pump is also increased.
Keystone had already cleared a three year environmental impact investigation. Fifty thousand miles of pipeline already exist across America; pipeline consructed for oil transport is tested and safe. the company agreed to an alternate route that would avoid the aquafer.
The pipeline would create jobs and income both at the site during construction and for the local businesses that would serve them. It would also improve conditions that would fascilitate production to bring costs down. Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/01/18/obama-administration-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline/
Libby the beef is…what works better for all Americans. That is the presiidents job. It is not his job to pick winners and losers or make decisions that favor his big supporters.
While it’s true that these trucking jobs might be lost it is also true that higher gas prices are hurting trucking and business all across the country now. The pipeline would help to bring down the price of oil for Americans, American trucking and business. The consumer wins.
Instead Canada is looking to lay pipe westward to refineries that will ship the oil to China, a country eager to partner with Canada. And Buffet gets a favor from the O man.
Could we say that the president just denied the American people and sent jobs and opportunity to Cananda and China? Why yes, I think we could.
Harold Ey, quoting from Investor’s Business Daily:
“About the time George Soros Hungarian billionaire and key donor to leftist groups and the Democratic Party invested heavily in the stock of the state-run Brazilian oil company Petrobras, President Obama was curbing U.S. offshore oil production and the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced a $2 billion loan to Petrobras to finance deep-water drilling off the pristine beaches of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.”
This is a popular claim from conservative lately. It is also completely false.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/dec/12/george-allen/allen-says-us-lent-2-billion-brazil-oil-and-gas-ex/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/01/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-obama-delivered-2-billion-brazil-h/
“Perrys claim is wrong in several ways. First, the number is wrong. Although there was an initial commitment for $2 billion, it ultimately became a $308 million loan guarantee. Second, Perry ignores that the Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency, and he is wrong to attribute its actions to Obama. The initial commitment came when it was controlled by Bush appointees. And although the Obama appointee voted for the $308 million loan guarantee, there is no evidence that it done at the behest of Obama.
We rate this statement Pants on Fire.”
Harold very nicely done! The pattern is easy to see to anyone willing to look.
” … the country losing hundreds of thousands of jobs with President Obama killing the Keystone Oil Pipeline from Canada.”
Don’t make with the hyperbole. People just quit reading. That pipeline might employ a few thousand to build and a few hundred to run. Stacked against the environmental degradation, it just ain’t worth it. We’ll do something else.
And of course, if you had better arguments, I was dissuaded from reading them, wasn’t I?
What utter crappola, Libby. There won’t be any more environmental “degredation” from laying this pipe than there has been in constructing miles and miles of solar panels.
We already have many miles of pipe and there hasn’t been a peep about a spill of any kind or water being harmed.
Environmental hype is all we do have.
It is worth it when you consider the savings for Americans in energy costs over the long run. It is at the very least a move in a positive direction to bring needed energy supplies at a reasonable price to market.
Tina, get a clue. Solar panels, acres of them, ugly though they may be … don’t foul your drinking water at the extraction end, or the air you breath at the refining end, not to mention the spillages.
You have no case, girl.
Harold is not wrong the offer of $2 Billion was made in 2009 to Brazil…also the Import Export bank is a government bank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export-Import_Bank_of_the_United_States
This article seems to hit all of the myths and assumptions from both sides:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/03/17/dispelling-the-petrobras-loan-myth-as-obama-heads-to-rio/
One reason is they don’t need it and the other is they have made deals with China:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/19/china-gets-jump-on-us-for-brazils-oil/?page=all#pagebreak
This oil deal isnt the only business plan in which Obamas decision went against Americans and American business:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49008
What was really going on with that $2 billion loan. Petrobras declined to comment on it, but a spokesperson at the Export-Import Bank, which offered Petrobras $2 billion in a preliminary commitment in April 2009, did comment. The Export Import Bank is a government run bank. It made a preliminary commitment to offer Petrobras $2 billion in April 2009. What that means is, Petrobras could take out a loan from the Bank and use that money not to enrich Soros or shareholders, per se, (explanation of Per Se: not taking into consideration of profits on investment made by Soros) but to enrich US companies in the energy space, mainly businesses in the oil, natural gas, and oil rig space. The money would in fact come back to the US and, hopefully, even create jobs due to demand for goods and services from Petrobras, one of the biggest oil companies in the Americas.
Whats become of that $2 billion? On February 4, 2010, the Bank entered into a medium-term credit guarantee facility with Petrobras for $308 million. That means if Petrobras wants, it can go to a bank in this case it is JP Morgan (Bail out anyone) and take out a loan for $308 million to buy goods and services from US companies. The Export Import Bank (Government) then would guarantee that loan from default, which in turn makes JP Morgan happy because it will not lose money and will make interest on the loan; make Petrobras happy because the loan guarantee means low interest rates on the loan; and it makes the Export Import Bank happy because they can collect fees and provide a boost to the companies in the US in which Petrobras will do business. (a job creation at a higher than reasonable cost using tax dollars)
Although the Bank has agreed to guarantee the loan to be made by JP Morgan, the transaction is not operative. Thats a legal term that means no legal documents have been signed by JP Morgan or Petrobras saying that the loan is active. The Bank approved it, but Petrobras has not acted on it for more than one year later.
In other words, the $308 million is part of the $2 billion offer. Petrobras has not yet tapped a single dime of it. (got exposed by a non bias media reporter)
Petrobras has a LOT of money at low interest, and probably doesnt need the loan anyway.
And Soros who is an investor in Petrobras, although he is not even in the top 15 of major holders, still stands to make money which ever way this is going to end up.
After re-reading Harold Ey’s claim, I see that I read it wrong to begin with. I thought he was attributing responsibility for the loan to President Obama, which would have made the claim false. Sorry, Harold.
However, Tina, you DID claim that President Obama was responsible for the loan in another article. As Politifact points out, the President had nothing to do with it, and all the members who approved the loan were Bush appointees.
Please correct your error, Tina.
Chris: “the President had nothing to do with it”
You’re going to have to decide whether the man at the top is responsible for what happens under his watch or not; you don’t seem to mind holding Bush responsible even for things not under his direct control or order.
The president himself is constantly blaming other people (Bush, the Republicans, people clinging to their rligion and guns, Bush, the Tea Party, Republicans in Congress even when his super majority meant he didn’t need any Republican votes, Bush…)
The bank is in business to serve the needs of the government. If it wasn’t the President of the United States that courted this business from state owned Petrobras (Brazil) then who was it?
Tina: “If it wasn’t the President of the United States that courted this business from state owned Petrobras (Brazil) then who was it?”
Read the Politifact articles I posted to find out. The answer is right there. And then admit that you were wrong.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government.
Obama traveled to the area at the time.
The Congress was run by a super majority of Democrats.
The fact that the bank appointees were Bush’s is irrelevant; they are there as fascilitators to the congress and the president (government).
President Obama is the titular head of the Democrat Party; the party with that super majority in Congress.
I don’t believe president was just a bystander. to say so is an insult, like he is president puppet…a clean and articulate figure the party uses for photo ops.
I also recall that “politifact” has been described as a “left wing attack machine with a non partisan veneer” by Redstate:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/08/26/politifact-proves-yet-again-it-is-a-left-wing-attack-machine-with-nonpartisan-veneer/
Even lefties find its credibility questionable:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/politifact-just-lost-left/46449/
As far as I’m concerned you haven’t proven a thing.
I also would like to reiterate: The left always holds the president responsible when he has an “R” after his name no matter how far removed he may be from actual events.
Suck it up Chris this man with a questionable past is a three year nightmare for the American people. he was not ready for this job. Oh looky here; another loan/bankruptcy story out just this afternoon:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-26/ener1-battery-maker-seeks-chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection.html
Tina,
You still have not provided any evidence that President Obama was responsible for the loan. You are simply ASSUMING that he was responsible for it, because you don’t like him.
The information from Politifact comes directly from the bank itself:
“When we called the Ex-Im Banks spokesman Phil Cogan, we could hardly get the question out about Obama’s involvement before he interjected.
“Not true,” Cogan said.
This much is true — the bank agreed to a preliminary commitment with Petrobras in 2009 for $2 billion. That commitment, in lay terms, was “an expression of the banks willingness to consider an application of loans,” Cogan said.
But Obama had no role in approving it. When the banks board of directors made that decision on April 14, 2009, all five directors were appointed by Bush. Obama had no appointees on the board at that time.
And it’s important to understand that, according to the banks charter, the Ex-Im Bank is an independent credit agency. The president appoints the directors to the five-person board — three of the presidents party, two of the minority party — but does not vote on or sign off on transactions, Cogan said.
For transactions exceeding $100 million, there is a 30-day review period, during which the president and members of Congress can comment on proposed transactions, Cogan said. But its very rare to receive comments, and the ultimate decision is made by the banks board of directors…
…So far, there’s no evidence to support Perry’s case that Obama delivered the loan guarantee. But is it possible the bank was under White House pressure to act?
That’s not how the place works, said Joseph Grandmaison, an international trade consultant who lives in Rye, N.H. Grandmaison was appointed by Bush to serve on the Ex-Im Banks board of directors for seven years, ending his term in July 2009.
“In all the time I was there, to the best of my knowledge, there were never any calls from the White House to persuade us of anything,” said Grandmaison, a Democrat. “They dont influence transactions.”
That $2 billion preliminary commitment was tantamount to “establishing a line of credit” to Petrobras for the purpose of buying American goods. It was also intended to encourage U.S. companies to sell to Petrobras, Grandmaison said, because the financing was in place.
Oliver O’Connell, an analyst who follows the Ex-Im Bank as editor of Trade Finance Magazine, agrees.
“The idea that the president was somehow involved in this is a fallacy,” O’Connell said. “This was about the Ex-Im Bank making sure that U.S. exporters could compete on the same level playing field as their foreign competitors, with the intention of creating American jobs.”
Its a resilient fallacy, though, one that keeps popping up, from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News, going viral in emails and landing on various conservative blogs. Its been enough to encourage the Ex-Im Bank to post a fact sheet on its website in attempt to shoot down the various charges.
Addressing the claim that the loan represents a reversal of the Obama administrations stance on offshore drilling, the fact sheet states: “There is no connection between federal policies on offshore drilling in U.S. waters and financing U.S. export sales for drilling by other countries. In fact, should Ex-Im Bank refuse to finance sales by U.S. companies it is likely that the sales will go instead to their foreign competitors.”
Cogan could not keep exasperation out of his voice when discussing the matter.
“There have been so many errors and misconceptions about this,” he said. “It keeps getting repeated and repeated, despite the facts.””
Tina, you criticized the legitimacy of my source but you were not able to show how they were wrong in this instance. Whenever I criticize the legitimacy of the sources you use on this site, I always back up my criticism with facts about how exactly they are wrong. You didn’t do that.
Furthermore, you expect me to take the word of RedState.com over Politifact, without offering any justification for how the former is more reliable than the latter.
And if you had read the article from the Atlantic that you linked to, you would see that the reason liberals are angry with Politifact right now is because the site chose “Republicans want to end Medicare” as their Lie of the Year. This would be yet another example of you apparently misinterpreting a point AGAINST your argument as a point FOR it. This decision is evidence that Politifact is not as biased against conservatives as you claim.
“I also would like to reiterate: The left always holds the president responsible when he has an “R” after his name no matter how far removed he may be from actual events.”
And if you don’t like it when “the left” does it, then you shouldn’t do it either! And yet here you are, doing EXACTLY what you criticize, for the millionth time. Pure hypocrisy.
“Suck it up Chris this man with a questionable past is a three year nightmare for the American people. he was not ready for this job.”
And you seem to think that this justifies anything you can possibly say about him, regardless of whether or not it’s true. You don’t seem to care about whether or not specific charges against him are accurate; for he’s a bad, bad man, and you will stop him by any means necessary.
“Oh looky here; another loan/bankruptcy story out just this afternoon”
You’re starting to resemble the boy who cried wolf. That could present a problem for you. When you lie and lie and lie, people eventually stop listening. At a certain point you are no longer trusted to deliver the truth.
Chris: “You are simply ASSUMING that he was responsible for it, because you don’t like him.”
I don’t like or dislike him…I don’t know him. I hate what he is doing to America and I want him defeated in this election.
I am not assuming anything. I am speculating and drawing possible conclusions based not only on this information but also on his overall record. This fits perfectly into his pattern as he plays at being the most important person in the country if not the world.
“The information from Politifact comes directly from the bank itself”
The information from the Washington times is also from the bank amd inmcluded a quote of interest from Obama:
If that isn’t a pitch I’m not an ex-salesman! It’s very difficult to imagine that money or loan guarantees weren’t part of the pitch…I could be wrong and I am taking note and offering others the opportunity to do so as well.
(Now you tell me all of the many reasons that the left treated President Bush as if they liked him or his policies and we can all get along just fine!)
“But Obama had no role in approving it.”
Big deal. President are made aware of what is available for them to take advantage of. to nbelieve that the President pulls all pof the strings and pushes all of the levers himself is just naive or silly.
“you expect me to take the word of RedState.com over Politifact, without offering any justification for how the former is more reliable than the latter.”
I don’t expect you to take my word, Redstates word, or Politifacts word on anything…which is why I refuse to say you are either right or wrong. What we post here is information we get from other sources…it could be evidence but mostly we post it to talk about it. Since none of us has been present at the events, witnessed things said, been privy to documents, there is no way to know for an absolute certainty that anything is legit…we speculate at best. I have come to trust some sites over others but I sure wouldn’t swear to anything in court…and you shouldn’t either.
“This decision is evidence that Politifact is not as biased against conservatives as you claim.”
The claim was that liberals also don’t trust politifact.
When I googled there were many hits and they were not all on the same subject. The article I posted that showed politifact didn’t always get it straight before was on a different subject…don’t recall what. The point is that politifact has been shown to have false information also…and that was the source you initially used.
“And if you don’t like it when “the left” does it, then you shouldn’t do it either!”
The point isn’t whether it should or shouldn’t be done. the point is the BUCK always STOPS AT THE PRESIDENT! the president is always credited “on his watch”….or hadn’t you noticed? He is the top dog, the last word. The “decider” if you will. President Bush took responsibility even when he had to grit his teeth doing it…Obama passes the buck and places blame.
“And you seem to think that this justifies anything you can possibly say about him, regardless of whether or not it’s true…”
I post articles and information for discussion that is in the news. I have no other sources of information. I do not have access to important people or databases I can mine other than what is printed for public consumption….I also have a real job. YOU have the ability, as you have done here, to say anything. Our readers can decide for themselves what is true and not true. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
Chris a lot of associations are being made about Obama and his supporters. He is president and he is up for election. ANYTHING that might make his candidacy for reelection is relevant…as it should have been the first time around and wasn’t. If you want to know why there are so many angry people that might be the first clue…we elected someone that was never vetted! We elected someone who was promnoted like a rock star!
The country was treated to a complete vetting of Sarah Palin…a lot of it was bald faced lies and stalking harrassment through the legal system. That is the politics of the left sweety. I don’t like it but I will not run from it anymore…or cower when threatened…or refrain from posting something unpleasant or questionable about Obama. We all have to look at all of what is reported and attempt to determine what is true. I see a pattern in this president. It is a pattern of picking winners and loosers, awarding to bundlers and special interest groups. He talks in general terms about making the country whole again but he walks a completely different line. He spends and wastes money and then has the gall to tell us we need higher taxes and just a little more time. He works with big money people openly and then insults people that make or have a lot of money by referring to them as greedy. Do I think I should post any information that might be an example of this perceived pattern of incompetence and failure..you bet I do and I will.
As always you are free to post whatever you find that adds to the discussion.
“When you lie and lie and lie”
You think of this as a lie? You fool yourself that you know the truth or that any American has or knows the entire truth in politics. The best any of us can do is gather information and make a decision.
If I have learned one thing doing this I have learned that people read and then assume a lot that isn’t there. You assume hatred of Obama that is not there. You assume racism that is not there. You believe I have said things that I have not said or never intended to say. You go off on tangents. All of it becomes part of what is written on PS. But you apparently think you too will be judged by others. One thing others might notice is an unreasonable, near rabbid, insistence that I bend to your will over items in the news that neither of us can be certain is absolutely true or factual.
I think I have been successful in posting items that are of interest. I have expressed my opinions about them. I don’t claim to have all of the facts or expect anyone to believe me or the source.
The bankruptcy story I posted at the end: “Oh looky here; another loan/bankruptcy story out just this afternoon”, is a valid story and not a figment of my imagination. It was reported by many sources. I’d be happy to list them if you like but I think you and our readers have probably heard about it by now. The company made batteries for all of those cars Obama keeps promoting. (Pssst…that is not his job)
Watching the debate right now (late, I taped it).
Ron Paul is looking better and better! He is doing a great job explaining his positions. Might even say he looks Reaganesque!
(Oh…that had to hurt Q, but he has….really!)
Tina: One thing others might notice is an unreasonable, near rabbid, insistence that I bend to your will over items in the news that neither of us can be certain is absolutely true or factual.
I realized after my recent exchange with Chris that I was dealing with an adult version of a four year old yelling, MineI want! It is impossible to communicate with someone who believes the world still revolves around him and he gets everything he wants when he wants it. Chris even confirmed his unwillingness to listen to others when in one of his comments to you he said he didnt read specific items that you and others wrote. A closed mine is like a closed door. It has to be opened otherwise the person inside only sees and believes whats inside.
After my exchange with Chris, and seeing so many individuals on TV say they used to be liberals and had become conservatives I Googled and found a list of public individuals that made the conversion and another site that included very interesting comments. Sadly, today I am not able to relocate either site, but did find the below ABC interview with playwright David Mamet who after becoming a conservative in his 60s wrote The Secret Knowledge On the Dismantling of American Culture.
An individual who wants to explore with an open mind another side of an issue may find his comments good and his book enlightening. But, that would mean reading it with an open mind instead of a closed one.
Excerpts from article:
At the risk of biting the hand that feeds him, acclaimed playwright David Mamet has written a new book likely to enflame the liberal audience that has embraced him since his rise to fame with 1984’s “Glengarry Glen Ross.”
On the cover of “The Secret Knowledge On the Dismantling of American Culture,” Mamet proclaims: “The struggle of the Left to rationalize its positions is an intolerable Sisyphean burden. I speak as a reformed Liberal.”
Mamet, 63, who grew up the son of liberal Jewish immigrants in Chicago, came to his conversion late in life — he says he spoke to his first conservatives at age 60 — and got his schooling from folks like Shelby Steele and Glenn Beck.
“I didn’t think about the world before,” Mamet told ABC News.com. “I just didn’t and I started to think about it. Where does money come from? What’s free trade? Capitalism? How do people do business? The understanding that I came up with is we get money from fulfilling the needs of others.”
Link to full article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/david-mamet-book-liberal-conservative/story?id=13783247
Peggy I really appreciate your input…thanks.
I read about Mr. Mamet a couple of years ago. I may have even posted about his conversion. So many really wonderful conservatives were once liberal progressives! They express their change of heart with such amazing revelations about their former lives and thinking. Some, like David Horowitz had parents that were communists. Others just grew up in very liberal families.
I’ll go read that article, thanks for the link.
Peggy…good article! And no doubt, a great book.
Excellent article thanks for the comments too…you certainly summed it up right! lol -Jack
Wish I could have found the site again where people shared why they changed from liberals to conservatives. The underlying theme was they grew up and realized that responsible people paid for what they had. They couldn’t rely on mom, dad or the government any more.
Some children are smart enough to figure out at an early age what it means to be a responsible adult. Most of us grow up in our late teens or early 20s. The rest who haven’t figured it out by the time they reach their 30s will vote for those who will keep treating them like children giving them what they want and telling them they are entitled to it for free. NOTHING is free. Someone must pay the bill. It’s time to grow up.
Mitt Romney has a shrine to Hitler in his walk-in closet.
Now, before you get mad at me, keep in mind that this is just my opinion. And you can’t prove that Mitt Romney doesn’t have a shrine to Hitler in his walk-in closet. After all, none of us has perfect information. We don’t have access to Mitt Romney’s mansion, under which are buried several Catholic priests he viciously murdered in 1972.
Also, Mitt Romney is secretly gay for the estate tax.
What? I’m just stating my opinion. You want to call this a “lie,” when you have no way of really knowing if it is true or false? That’s not fair. It’s unreasonable. It’s near rabid! What is your problem? Stop acting like a five year old. You’re not always going to get your way, you know.
People have questions. Why hasn’t Mitt Romney answered them? I see patterns, and this would fit them quite nicely. You want me to say I was wrong? You want me to apologize? Not gonna happen. You are free to believe what you want. Every one of us is free to draw our own conclusions. Calm down. Get out of my face!
If the above sounds absurd to you, Tina, it should also sound familiar. This is about the level of argumentation at which you have stooped to here and in the birther thread, and this is why I felt the need to note what I see as a pattern of intellectual cowardice and dishonesty on this blog as of late.
We don’t have perfect information. Like you said, all we can do is gather information and make a decision. But surely, we owe it to ourselves and those we share our perspectives with to gather the BEST information out there, and draw a conclusion based on that. Don’t we?
Since neither you nor I have super-secret inside access to the White House, the best source of information on the Petrobus issue would be the bank who made the loan. Do you acknowledge that, Tina? Or do you think there is a better source in this case?
Because if you acknowledge that the bank is our best source of info, then you need to be aware that the bank says your claim that President Obama offered the loan was false.
Is it possible that the bank is lying? Sure it is, in the same way it’s possible that Mitt Romney is at this very moment praying to his Hitler shrine three stories above the decaying corpses of those Catholic priests, all while thinking sinful thoughts about the estate tax. But are either of these the most likely scenarios? No. They’re not.
The most likely scenarios are that Mitt Romney is doing normal things right now–at least, as normal as things can get while running for president in 2012–and that the bank is being truthful about how their bank operates, and the hands-off approach they are treated to from the fed. Until we get some kind of inside scoop from a better source than the bank itself, than the safest bet is to assume that the bank is right and that you were wrong.
At this point, Tina, the only honorable thing to do is admit that you are most likely wrong. To refuse to do so, to stick to your original claim in spite of the fact that the best source of information says you are wrong and you have no evidence to the contrary, is tantamount to deliberate lying.
And it is not unreasonable or immature or “rabid” of me to say that.