I provided the reference but you didn't dispute it? It's just the Whitehouse itself.Mr duma,I really don't see where there is any thing to dispute. This all started with your statement that .he blew $90 Billion on solar and wind angel investments who were donors to his campaign. and my wondering if you were aware of any credible sources to back this up, or for that matter if you even cared if it was the truth. Perhaps the truth hurts or you need to qualify and obfuscate but the fact is, Obama did commit multiple Billions to green that could have been better spent on education.I need to qualify and obfuscate? In your own words...First you wrote.he blew $90 Billion on solar and wind angel investments who were donors to his campaign.Then you changed it to.it does appear that he was correct if one lumps all alternative energy initiatives together And finally you reduce it to the fact is, Obama did commit multiple Billions to green I'm sorry Mr Duma but since I am using your words, and your words only, the idea that it is me doing the qualifying and obfuscating is to put it mildly a very bizarre statement to make.Using the information you provided we can be 100% certain the first statement you made was a complete fabrication with simply no basis in reality. The second statement was somewhat improved, at least you had come up with the number. Unless however you can explain to me how weatherproofing a building or building a train is "alternative energy" (not to mention whether these would fit accurately under your "blown" characterization) I'm afraid it still falls squarely under the heading of untruthfulness.And now since you have done such a wonderful job of debunking your own statements you have reduced your accusation to "on green" which is such a broad and/or undefinable term as to make any further discussion pretty much useless.I did have to chuckle about one piece of spending that apparently you & Mitt don't approve of. $3 billion for research and development into capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide Remind me again, wasn't it Mitt in the debate that said he was a big supporter of "Clean coal". My question; does he understand how they are trying to clean it up, and if so, perhaps he might want to explain what his gripe is with this again. Dunno, maybe he wants to directly tax the coal companies or something to pay for it. What do you think?Back to my main point...This is your moment Mr Duma, given all of the above, if you are incapable of having some sort of a Mea culpa moment after this, then I can only conclude that having a honest discussion is simply not anything that interests you.That of course is your choice to make, but if I may say so, it seems a rather odd one to make for someone who is interested in getting independents to vote for Mr Romney as you appear to be.Have a nice day,BPS I noticed you also sidestepped my comments about what we saved by getting out of Iraq. I don't suppose you have calculated how many teachers we could hire with that vs. the money Mitt would still be spending there if we followed his advice.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra