I see you are a provacateur –

Just so you know, I invited Jon to come to this post and respond to you.  I expected an entertaining result, and you obliged. 

… then you threaten me for what you describe as an entertaining result. Thuggish. You are a sad fella Don. 

It clearly is political. The President stated that there wasn’t time due to a political gambit by congressional Republicans. As mentioned, I suspect had you known this – from the press release – your article would have been as detailed but would have taken a political bent rather than an economic one. The original article focused on increasing gas prices and a delayed-if-not-lost opportunity to help lower them. Prices and costs aren’t economics to you? Additionally, it’s highly amusing that you’re opining on what bent my articles should or shouldn’t take. If you’ve convinced yourself that I value your opinion on…well, anything, you’ve deluded yourself, fella.

Further, unless you are willing to call the President a liar, he stated clearly that he is in favor of both north american sources of oil and pipelines. I never said the president wasn’t in favor of those things. Frankly, who ISN’T in favor of something so unspecific as “north american sources of oil and pipelines.” The problem is, nowadays, when someone tries to implement a solution (new pipeline, new oil wells) that would actually improve our energy supply, the federal government gets in the way. (Unless you want to spend stimulus money on soon-to-be-bankrupt green energy companies that is). My article was about the Keystone XL pipeline. You DID understand that, right? (I’m not so sure anymore).

I’ll admit that I don’t have the kind of ironclad evidence necessary to clear the self-serving bar you just set and call the president a “liar” on this issue. I can say that very, very few people (Washington Post, Economist magazine) seem to be swallowing that press release as fully as you are. (Do you have a Shepard Fairey “Hope” poster on your wall, with a prayer rug beneath it?)

Your piece while detailed seemed off point as a result. So? Who cares if you don’t like the point of my article? I don’t.

Which is why I provided a link to and a copy of the material from the Whitehouse. And I repeat – NONE of the information is mine or claimed by me. A simple enough fact that you know who didnt seem to understand. Instead he initiated an attack of his own – which it appears you are unwilling to recognize. Is this out of political loyalty? Just curious. Jon responded because he was following blogger’s instinct: When rude, feeble-minded people say something stupid, never ever miss the chance to have fun with them.

I will state categorically – when attacked – I will respond. Period. Oh no, you won’t. Not on this blog. Follow the rules here or be gone. Right now I keep you around because you’re amusing. Furthermore, Jon is free to call you whatever he wants on this blog. Dont expect less. You are threatening the defender while ignoring the initial and inaccurate attack from Duhamel. He was both wrong on the facts and insulting. 

Do what you will – defend the offender. I have always treated people the way they treated me; as I did in this case. That will not stop for you or anyone else. I can see that fairness isnt your strong suit – otherwise there would have been a threat following his initial post.

Disappointing Don. Couldn’t care less, JimBodkins

P.S.

I wouldnt consider blogging here. Under any circumstances. Ah, so you’re willing to throw rocks at other people’s work but unwilling to put your name AND PICTURE out there yourself, eh?

And just to reiterate as it seems you are in the dark as much as he who shall not be named Jim—if you think I’m in the dark, I take that as validation that I’m on the right track- the material I posted was from the Whitehouse not from me and in no way represented any position that I may of may not have on the subject. It was presented for your use not as my opinion. An obvious fact that both of you appear to have missed entirely. Which is precisely while his false assertion and insults were out of line. And then he began arguing President Obama’s position with me as if it had even the slightest of anything to do with me. He was in error and insulting and I responded the way I will always respond.

JimBodkins, to be honest, I hope you never change. When I try to convince independents or disaffected Democrats to vote GOP, I can point to your, ahem, thoughts and say “Seriously—do you want your government run by politicians favored by people like THIS guy?
 

Just so you know, I invited Jon to come to this post and respond to you.  I expected an entertaining result, and you obliged.

When you told me that I needed “facts,” you then cited—a presidential press release, written in an election year.  I think it’s reasonable to assume that there’s a fair amount of political embellishment in that statement.  The Economist magazine seems to agree.

The administration now claims, insouciantly, that it had to rule against the pipeline because the Republicans had denied it the chance to consider all the risks properly.

As Jon pointed out, Keystone has been under review since 2008.  Just how much more time should the administration need?

In my opinion, the press release was designed to be a fig leaf, which the administration’s most gullible supporters could hide behind or latch onto uncritically.