Jump to content

ian_a

MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

    2,364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About ian_a

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  1. The Director of Public Affairs for the USDOJ admitted to breaking the law. Don't forget bi-partisan calls for Gonzales to resign. All Congress is trying to do is find out what happened with these dismissals. They're Constitutionally responsible for doing so. You have admissions of wrongdoing and resignations left and right. There is no doubt in my mind that if a Democratic administration did this, you would respond very differently with regards to the thought of a basic investigation Here's some other information to consider: Admission of wrongdoing, several high-ranking resignations, contradictory statements, unwillingness to testify under oath, specific allegations made by the U.S. attorneys related to their firings -- i.e. "They [Republicans] called and pressured me to indict by the November elections. I did not, and then I was subsequently fired" when such firings are extremely rare... but let's not even investigate it.
  2. Aides recently admitted under oath to breaking the law with how they handled the hiring process for U.S. attorneys. This isn't solely political; turn off Limbaugh for a bit.
  3. It is a very big deal if in fact they were arrested for defying political demands made of them' date=' e.g. "Do not investigate Republicans." [url']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy Quite a bit more complex than how you choose to present it.
  4. WHO rankings The poor in America are worse off than the poor in Cuba for health care. Situations are reversed for the wealthy. This was Moore's main point, the breadth of coverage Cuba provides in comparison to America. Moore doesn't dwell on the negatives of socialized medicine much in SiCKO, but it's not nearly as "dishonest" as Bowling for Columbine or some of his other films. It makes a lot of good points but unfortunately it's tarred because of his previously questionable work. I would be interested in knowing which conservatives commenting on it have seen it. I thought it was so-so, but did in fact watch it before passing judgment.
  5. This quote came directly before this quote It is pretty obvious in context that the "callousness" is referring to the decision and Bush's role in it, not towards Tucker in particular. When you're sentencing someone to death, that's a serious power you're wielding and it should be treated as such. Perfectly rational, even if you disagree and think "lol ur dead" is appropriate.
  6. No, it doesn't go on in every administration. Bush is the first President to ever grant clemency before a single day of a sentence is served. Of course I can't do anything about it. Neither can you, so why are you commenting in this thread, by your own apparent standard? No one posted here apologizing for Clinton's pardons at the time, so your gotcha! fails. This thread isn't about Bill Clinton.
  7. I think you are fooling yourself if you pretend the timing isn't relevant here. If Bush had pardoned Libby in his last days of holding the Presidency, that'd be expected. Instead he made it so his friend served less time in jail for numerous federal crimes against the people of America than Paris Hilton served for driving on a suspended license. Bush's actions are totally unprecedented. Rich's pardon was wrong, but he'd also spent nearly 20 years abroad as a result of his actions and had people such as the PM of Israel arguing for clemency. His initial crime also typically was settled by civil law, not criminal. Contrast that to Libby, who's crimes typically result in nearly twice the length of prison time than what he was actually SENTENCED to, much less served. In Rich's case, too, professors of tax law argued that he never even committed a crime in the first place. What he was doing was fleeing from an indictment. That people's motivations may be characterized by (D) or ® doesn't mean the facts aren't significantly different.
  8. The CIA was told to find evidence supporting a decision that was made. Evidence was drummed up to support a decision, rather than a decision being made on the evidence. Directly to your point, yes, the British government also falsified/purposely misled regarding Iraq. In addition, it was not the slam dunk you present it as. Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector for example that vehemently argued that Iraq had no WMD. In January 2003 UN weapons inspectors reported that they had found no evidence of WMD in Iraq. Hans Blix was in charge of those inspections and shortly after the war began complained of dramatization on the part of both the U.S. and U.K. governments in the build-up to the war. Perhaps you should try to read about the war from more reputable news sources. Have you read ANYTHING about the weapons inspections that were ongoing?
  9. How hard is it to understand that those people were acting on falsified intelligence provided to them by the White House? Very hard, apparently.
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly#Disputes_of_factual_accuracy http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/billoreilly Read Franken's book with O'Reilly on the cover.
  11. Is offense susceptible to marginal returns, or am I missing something? ex. +5 runs scored is better than -4 runs allowed, regardless of team strength. I find it hard to believe that the move from Casey to Dunn would be worth less because the offense is already good.
  12. I think whether or not the current system is good is separate from analyzing Boras. He's doing the best possible job he can given the current system. You can't expect him to voluntarily leave millions on the table; If MLB finds these dollar amounts unsuitable, they need to change the system, it's not Boras' fault that they don't.
  13. "God Dang" is kinda funny. I guess taking the Lord's name in vain is okay, but let's not take it too far by saying Damn!
  14. If they don't like his demands, don't sign the player. If they don't like someone exercising an opt-out clause, don't give the player that option. Owners don't like Boras because he uses market power effectively and that makes their jobs harder.
  15. Is Maybin really playing RF and not CF? They can't be moving him away from center yet.
×
×
  • Create New...