Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So about that Gonzales fellow...

1468910

Posts

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! I can gaurentee you, it is not because of partisan activities on the left that the White House is scared of public testimony.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yanno - I am convinced that youre more interested in scoring points than actually discussing the issue. I said WHICH emails; not WHAT emails. There is a big difference between the two - not the least of which is the fact that one allows your really unecessary ranting to continue, and the other doesn't.

    Grow the fuck up.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The first one on that page.

    edit: The only one!

    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Yanno - I am convinced that youre more interested in scoring points than actually discussing the issue. I said WHICH emails; not WHAT emails. There is a big difference between the two - not the least of which is the fact that one allows your really unecessary ranting to continue, and the other doesn't.

    Grow the fuck up.

    Yanno?

    Also, I fucking linked the fucking email you fucking twat, and every fucking news article specificially referenced that specific email, and yes you would have to live in a hole to not know this

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The e-mails talked about keeping "Bushies" and firing others. I don't know what more evidence you need that firing them for cause was, at best, unethical.

    Having checked out the email in question - if THAT is the only thing your basing it on, despite the other emails out there. . .

    But I say fine - use that as the basis of a Congressional investigation to discover whether or not the 8 fired were revenge firings, I'm willing to bet money that others see it not as a smoking gun - but as a e-mail political gaffe/blunder in this hyper analytical world we now live in. Something tells me that the reason no one has moved on it yet, is because they realize the futility of basing an investigation on that "point".

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Mahnmut wrote: »
    The first one on that page.

    edit: The only one!

    I asked WHICH of the numerous emails Thanatos had referred to. I had not seen THAT email (which I guess is my fault since neither CNN, NPR or my Holy Grail FoxNews.com referenced it in anything I read).

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    The e-mails talked about keeping "Bushies" and firing others. I don't know what more evidence you need that firing them for cause was, at best, unethical.

    Having checked out the email in question - if THAT is the only thing your basing it on, despite the other emails out there. . .

    But I say fine - use that as the basis of a Congressional investigation to discover whether or not the 8 fired were revenge firings, I'm willing to bet money that others see it not as a smoking gun - but as a e-mail political gaffe/blunder in this hyper analytical world we now live in. Something tells me that the reason no one has moved on it yet, is because they realize the futility of basing an investigation on that "point".

    Our government isn't prone to going about blabbing its dirty secrets. If there's a document from an official with something seriously questionable on it, who the fuck is going to say, "Well, let's wait for a few more of these to pop up before we actually investigate." The WH is going to make damn sure to cover its ass so as to not let this sort of thing slip out again, and if it isn't investigated now, it probably won't be.

    I'm starting to wonder if anything less than a signed confession from the AG himself is going to convince you.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    The e-mails talked about keeping "Bushies" and firing others. I don't know what more evidence you need that firing them for cause was, at best, unethical.

    Having checked out the email in question - if THAT is the only thing your basing it on, despite the other emails out there. . .

    But I say fine - use that as the basis of a Congressional investigation to discover whether or not the 8 fired were revenge firings, I'm willing to bet money that others see it not as a smoking gun - but as a e-mail political gaffe/blunder in this hyper analytical world we now live in. Something tells me that the reason no one has moved on it yet, is because they realize the futility of basing an investigation on that "point".

    Our government isn't prone to going about blabbing its dirty secrets. If there's a document from an official with something seriously questionable on it, who the fuck is going to say, "Well, let's wait for a few more of these to pop up before we actually investigate." The WH is going to make damn sure to cover its ass so as to not let this sort of thing slip out again, and if it isn't investigated now, it probably won't be.

    I'm starting to wonder if anything less than a signed confession from the AG himself is going to convince you.

    No, he's going to keep trolling the fucking thread asking for more "proof". The AG could turn himself in and he'd blame it on the "juggernaut like liberal media causing him to doubt himself".

    Seriously, go back to fucking Free Republic or wherever it was you came from.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Mahnmut wrote: »
    The first one on that page.

    edit: The only one!

    I asked WHICH of the numerous emails Thanatos had referred to. I had not seen THAT email (which I guess is my fault since neither CNN, NPR or my Holy Grail FoxNews.com referenced it in anything I read).

    CNN and NPR did indeed reference it.

    In places like this

    Which was the top google result for "CNN emails attorney"

    Which means that that is the number 1 linked web-site on the internet with regards to those keywords.

    In that article there are three links to primary source documents, with direct reference to said emails

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm starting to wonder if anything less than a signed confession from the AG himself is going to convince you.

    And to counter that Im going to wonder why anything less than that is enough to convince YOU.

    You cant lower the bar because you dislike someone, just like you cant raise it because youre on their side. The e-mail in question deserves to be answered and clarified so - as is vogue to do - it can become a matter of public record EXACTLY what, if any, weight is to be assigned to the comment. But, you can't look at this email, and then look at the other emails, and cherry-pick what you focus your assumption around. If youre saying "Well look at what Sampson says here" - then you have to look at what the guy said to congress about their firings NOT being retaliatory in nature. So you have one comment - AFAIK, this rock gets shitty reception - out of 3000 pages of documents that fits the view of impropiety. I'm not going to argue from a position of what might be there - because then I could argue that theres a memo signed by the prez that says "These firings are 100% not partisan punishments!".
    No, he's going to keep trolling

    The irony couldnt be more obvious if it put on pink spandex, red lipstick and came and gave me a reach around.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm going to go ahead and infract the rest of you fuckers if you can't act like adults. And I"ll take your toy away. This is the only warning you'll get.

    tmsig.jpg
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited April 2007
    What the hell this argument went really fucking retarded, I have yet to hear anything which makes this issue anything but chrystal clear, maybe not as for what occured, but for what should be done, an investigation is needed, and if you are going to ask an official questions you might as well have it under oath so that if he lies he can't just do the "hehe well funny story, fuck you guys" a month later.

    Why were these attorneys fired for performance issues? they performed well, they were however leading several trials against republicans.
    If the goverment fires people in the penal system who are suspecting them to be corrupted you might need to find out if maybe they are fucking corrupted.
    Jesus fucking christ this is kinder garten logic.

    You cant lower the bar because you dislike someone, just like you cant raise it because youre on their side. The e-mail in question deserves to be answered and clarified so - as is vogue to do - it can become a matter of public record EXACTLY what, if any, weight is to be assigned to the comment. But, you can't look at this email, and then look at the other emails, and cherry-pick what you focus your assumption around. If youre saying "Well look at what Sampson says here" - then you have to look at what the guy said to congress about their firings NOT being retaliatory in nature. So you have one comment - AFAIK, this rock gets shitty reception - out of 3000 pages of documents that fits the view of impropiety. I'm not going to argue from a position of what might be there - because then I could argue that theres a memo signed by the prez that says "These firings are 100% not partisan punishments!".

    Your argument is that "Because were are not entirely sure if they are corrupt it is stupid to try and investigate wether they are or not"
    I mean that is jjust fucking brilliant isn't it?

    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Your argument is that "Because were are not entirely sure if they are corrupt it is stupid to try and investigate wether they are or not"
    I mean that is jjust fucking brilliant isn't it?

    My argument, is you SHOULD NOT investigate someone on the grounds of corruption because you have a personal/political bias that compels you to do so.

    This is true whether you are a donkey, an elephant, or some strange hybrid. Its not about scoring points with your constituents, who are already convinced of what actually happened and simply want an investigation as a matter of formality - its about doing the RIGHT thing. If there exists in these papers and JD testimonies proof enough to start such an inquiry - then go balls to the wall and get the feds involved - with the feds.

    As far as I'm concerned - they dont have that. And to pursue this, following on the heels of a disastrous investigation into the Plame issue, w/o have that impetus to do so - would only hurt the dems and their credibility in the long run; caiuse thats what its all about no - right above partisanship?

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm going to go ahead and infract the rest of you fuckers if you can't act like adults. And I"ll take your toy away. This is the only warning you'll get.

    Frankly, I think you should close the thread, since it's pretty obvious ED!'s trolling. I mean, come the fuck on, don't discuss news if you haven't heard about it. Speaking of which, Why the Fuck have you not heard of this? How could you be so cut off from the world as to not hear of this? Seriously, what's wrong with you.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    You didn't suspect any sort of ulterior motive behind it?

    So they should have kept Lam on because to let her go would have made it look like a revenge firing? How does that make any sense?

    It doesn't, and it amazes me that you somehow divined that idiocy from what I had said. What does make sense, though, would be to expect some sort of backdraft to come about from firing someone like her for political reasons, especially when you label it as performance related. Yet the Prez seems to be immune to the very idea that he had done any sort of questionable action worth investigating.

    tea-1.jpg
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    If one party is actually in the wrong in a certain situation, it is not "partisanship" to point that out. It is sanity.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Your argument is that "Because were are not entirely sure if they are corrupt it is stupid to try and investigate wether they are or not"
    I mean that is jjust fucking brilliant isn't it?

    My argument, is you SHOULD NOT investigate someone on the grounds of corruption because you have a personal/political bias that compels you to do so.

    Exactly. you should fire them, besmirch their character and job skills, making them unhireable.

    it's the American way...


    apparently

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm going to go ahead and infract the rest of you fuckers if you can't act like adults. And I"ll take your toy away. This is the only warning you'll get.

    Frankly, I think you should close the thread, since it's pretty obvious ED!'s trolling. I mean, come the fuck on, don't discuss news if you haven't heard about it. Speaking of which, Why the Fuck have you not heard of this? How could you be so cut off from the world as to not hear of this? Seriously, what's wrong with you.

    I'm perfectly well aware of the issue, where on earth did you get that impression? I'm also perfectly well aware that you've contributed exactly nothing of substance to this thread in at least the last five pages, and if you don't like it, you should get the fuck out and stop acting like a petulant child.

    tmsig.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm going to go ahead and infract the rest of you fuckers if you can't act like adults. And I"ll take your toy away. This is the only warning you'll get.

    Frankly, I think you should close the thread, since it's pretty obvious ED!'s trolling. I mean, come the fuck on, don't discuss news if you haven't heard about it. Speaking of which, Why the Fuck have you not heard of this? How could you be so cut off from the world as to not hear of this? Seriously, what's wrong with you.

    I'm perfectly well aware of the issue, where on earth did you get that impression? I'm also perfectly well aware that you've contributed exactly nothing of substance to this thread in at least the last five pages, and if you don't like it, you should get the fuck out and stop acting like a petulant child.

    I was talking about ED. Sorry, but the fact that he had no idea what was being talked about... irked me. Should have been more clear. Sorry, The Cat.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned - they dont have that.

    I honestly don't believe you're remotely correct there. There's easily reasonable grounds for an investigation. Your opposition seems to stem from your impression that investigation = guilty, which is pretty foolish. The end result is not presupposed, even in your country's wacked out justice system.

    tmsig.jpg
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Frankly, I think you should close the thread, since it's pretty obvious ED!'s trolling. I mean, come the fuck on, don't discuss news if you haven't heard about it. Speaking of which, Why the Fuck have you not heard of this? How could you be so cut off from the world as to not hear of this? Seriously, what's wrong with you.

    Just stop if youre going to infer things I haven't said or project nonsense on to me. I responded to Thanatos that I wasn't aware of the specefic email he was referring to. Seriously - just stop. If you dont want to discuss this, and instead want to nitpick on one thing - then just leave the thread.
    It doesn't, and it amazes me that you somehow divined that idiocy from what I had said.

    Thats the only other alternative I see. I DONT see the connection between Lam's dismissal and the successful Duke prosecution. Knowing that, in my eyes, the only reason to keep Lam on if she was one of the ones chosen to be on the chopping block would be because it isnt politically expedient to let her go because others WOULD see it as a revenge firing.

    No ones asking for the AG to go on national television and say "Hey we didn't like these laywers and what they did - so they gots to go"; what I am asking for is a little bit more than "loyal Bushies" in ONE email, surrounded by Sampsons testimony and the other emails that were released. I mean the guy himself, under oath, after resigning and having no reason to toe company line, says "Look - the way we handled our explanation and media furor stunk, but nothing was improper about what we did".
    Your opposition seems to stem from your impression that investigation = guilty

    Not at all. I have no problem with an investigation. But dont do it for bullshit reasons if the evidence doesnt support it. If you want to investigate because you just want clarification on the timeline of events, who handled what, etc. so as to ensure that a media blunder doesnt happen like this again - fine. But thats not what they want. They want scandal. They didnt get it with Plame (or they didnt get the people/charges they wanted with Plame), and after being assured theyd get it once a JD staffer testified - they didnt get it here either. The rationale for the anger changed from "these were revenge firings" to "well, it was handled stupidly - just like IRAQ!"

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Frankly, I think you should close the thread, since it's pretty obvious ED!'s trolling. I mean, come the fuck on, don't discuss news if you haven't heard about it. Speaking of which, Why the Fuck have you not heard of this? How could you be so cut off from the world as to not hear of this? Seriously, what's wrong with you.
    Just stop if youre going to infer things I haven't said or project nonsense on to me. I responded to Thanatos that I wasn't aware of the specefic email he was referring to. Seriously - just stop. If you dont want to discuss this, and instead want to nitpick on one thing - then just leave the thread.

    I dunno, but if everyone's discussing what the hell happened with the firings, and why it's obvious that Gonzales was responsible for them because of emails (and separate testimony from chief of staff, btw, we seem to have forgotten that) and then you argue partisan hackery (which can be a valid claim to make at times), and then say "Wait, what emails?", it's a little disheartening.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Thats the only other alternative I see. I DONT see the connection between Lam's dismissal and the successful Duke prosecution. Knowing that, in my eyes, the only reason to keep Lam on if she was one of the ones chosen to be on the chopping block would be because it isnt politically expedient to let her go because others WOULD see it as a revenge firing.

    Interrobang.
    No ones asking for the AG to go on national television and say "Hey we didn't like these laywers and what they did - so they gots to go"; what I am asking for is a little bit more than "loyal Bushies" in ONE email, surrounded by Sampsons testimony and the other emails that were released. I mean the guy himself, under oath, after resigning and having no reason to toe company line, says "Look - the way we handled our explanation stunk, but nothing was improper about what we did".

    Sampson's testimony only exists because of a Congressional hearing which you find to be illegitimate. The revelations of the e-mail correspondence only exists because of a Congressional hearing which you find to be illegitimate. You are using the evidence brought about by this investigation to prove that the investigation is not warranted. Not that it absolves the president of guilt/wrongdoing (which is clearly argueable), but that the very notion of asking whether or not he had done something wrong or in any way acted inappropriately is beyond reproach.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The real scare is, for me at least, is the mounting evidence that the Bush administration has directed the Department of Justice against Democratic state congresscritters all across the country by about an 8 to 1 ratio.

    Now, are local Dems eight times more corrupt than local Republicans? I don't think so- I think the've been using the "Investigated by the Justice Department!" tagline as a way to sink officials looking for re-election. They're not coming up with evidence of corruption, just using the fact that someone was investigated to win points. And the clever thing is- they're doing it only on the state and local levels, not against Congressional dems, to avoid notice.

    That, combined with having the DOJ avoid investigation into Republican voter suppression and making them go after "voter fraud" (which is Rep codeword for: "Suppress votes!" since there's no evidence of large scale voter fraud in the US), I think the case can easily be made that the Bush administration intended to secure that "Permanent Republican Majority" by locking the Democrats out of political power with the Executive branch's powers. While they still controlled Congress, it isn't as if the Republicans would step in to block such a play.
    that the very notion of asking whether or not he had done something wrong or in any way acted inappropriately is beyond reproach.

    Right. If he has nothing to hide, there's nothing to fear by allowing an investigation- in fact, it would only end in his vindication if the investigators don't find anything. All this, "We won't testify under oath or with a transcript" stuff just makes them look guilty. Well, more guilty.

  • Mobile-DMobile-D Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The worst result of all of this isn't the effect it had on democratic congressmen, though. Democrats still took both houses in '06. The firings, combined with the stats on investigations and Bush's worst-ever attempt to diffuse the scandal, make the entire DoJ look terrible. When will they ever be able to investigate a political figure again without being accused of partisanship?

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pretty much every news source in the country reported that particular line, with the possible exception of Fox News.

  • supabeastsupabeast Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Mobile-D wrote: »
    The worst result of all of this isn't the effect it had on democratic congressmen, though. Democrats still took both houses in '06. The firings, combined with the stats on investigations and Bush's worst-ever attempt to diffuse the scandal, make the entire DoJ look terrible. When will they ever be able to investigate a political figure again without being accused of partisanship?

    People will get over the last decade of partisanship eventually. Remember, as nutty as things are now, it’s nothing compared to the late 18th and early 19th century when guys in Congress beat each other up, dueled with pistols, and had their mudracking friends call Thomas Jefferson a lech and whoremonger, among other things. If this were 1801 Bush would respond to all this by getting the Washington Times to run stories about Nancy Pelosi blowing Jacques Chirac, and Harry Reid would respond with a vitriolic speech that would lead to him and Trent Lott blowing each other away under the cherry trees at 10:00 AM on Saturday so everyone in town could toast to the dead before starting brunch.

  • Mobile-DMobile-D Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    supabeast wrote: »
    Remember, as nutty as things are now, it’s nothing compared to the late 18th and early 19th century when guys in Congress beat each other up, dueled with pistols, and had their mudracking friends call Thomas Jefferson a lech and whoremonger, among other things.

    Well sure, things wore worse back then, but I'd hate to think that we're taking steps backwards, instead of forwards. You can always come up with examples of "it could be worse."

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Mobile-D wrote: »
    supabeast wrote: »
    Remember, as nutty as things are now, it’s nothing compared to the late 18th and early 19th century when guys in Congress beat each other up, dueled with pistols, and had their mudracking friends call Thomas Jefferson a lech and whoremonger, among other things.

    Well sure, things wore worse back then, but I'd hate to think that we're taking steps backwards, instead of forwards. You can always come up with examples of "it could be worse."

    Two steps forward, one step back is still a shuffle towards progress. Besides, you don't even have to go that far back to get a more decisive public sentiment. Nixon wasn't 40 years ago, afterall, and he was way worse than what's going on now. Of course, he also had some wonderful things about his administration which doesn't seem to exist with Bush. Maybe if we get good immigration reform passed this session things'll balance out a little bit better.

    tea-1.jpg
  • supabeastsupabeast Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Mobile-D wrote: »
    supabeast wrote: »
    Remember, as nutty as things are now, it’s nothing compared to the late 18th and early 19th century when guys in Congress beat each other up, dueled with pistols, and had their mudracking friends call Thomas Jefferson a lech and whoremonger, among other things.

    Well sure, things wore worse back then, but I'd hate to think that we're taking steps backwards, instead of forwards. You can always come up with examples of "it could be worse."

    Two steps forward, one step back is still a shuffle towards progress. Besides, you don't even have to go that far back to get a more decisive public sentiment. Nixon wasn't 40 years ago, afterall, and he was way worse than what's going on now. Of course, he also had some wonderful things about his administration which doesn't seem to exist with Bush. Maybe if we get good immigration reform passed this session things'll balance out a little bit better.

    Nixon was worse? He was a sleazy bastard, but at least his incompetence was mostly limited to Watergate and his handling of it—I’m not counting Vietnam because I don’t think that there were any good solutions for that by the time Nixon was elected. But compared to Bush, Nixon was a flower child. Nixon never had people hidden away to be tortured in secret prisons, he didn’t make a string of tragic decisions that flushed a war victory down the toilet, and he didn’t even try to get Congress to throw out habeus corpus, much less pull it off. Right now I’d love to have a guy like Nixon in charge; it would be a hell of an improvement.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hell yeah. Zombie Nixon would be a better President by an order of magnitude.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Compared to Bush Jr. Nixon was a bastion of bipartisan brotherhood...

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Pretty much every news source in the country reported that particular line, with the possible exception of Fox News.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=%22loyal+bushies

    This is what Google turns up.

    And this is Sampson's explanation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aO3gCJ_fe4

    In any case, I agree - this thing is beaten to death. If anything turns up that counters Sampson assertions and explanations, well I will step on in and owe some of you a big ol' apology sandwich. I dont think thats going to happen, and we'll be stuck where we've been stuck since the beginning.

    EDIT: Time - The Whitewash of History. I think Eliot Richardson, Bill Ruckelhaus and Archibald Cox might have something to say regarding these waves of relative criticism being tossed Nixon's way.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yeah, because Sampson doesn't have any incentive to say they weren't retaliatory, right?

    There's a reason one of the hearsay exceptions in a courtroom is a "declaration against interests." Something someone has said that goes against their interests is much, much more likely to be true than whatever volume of things they've said that support their interests. For instance, "I am not a crook."

  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yeah, because Sampson doesn't have any incentive to say they weren't retaliatory, right?

    Welp - when you look at it from that pov - theres really NOTHING that goes contrary to the accepted belief of retaliation that will be accepted here.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »
    Yeah, because Sampson doesn't have any incentive to say they weren't retaliatory, right?
    Welp - when you look at it from that pov - theres really NOTHING that goes contrary to the accepted belief of retaliation that will be accepted here.

    Actually, the best way to disprove the idea that they were retaliatory would be to present their performance reviews. Their negative performance reviews.

    Oh, wait, most of them don't have 'em...huh. I wonder: if we can therefore rule out the idea that they were fired for cause, what else might they have been fired for? Hmm, what's this? Many of them either refused to rubber stamp blatantly political meddling or already took action against allies of the administration who happened to be committing crimes?

    I wonder! I wonder...indeed.

  • Evan WatersEvan Waters Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hell yeah. Zombie Nixon would be a better President by an order of magnitude.

    Nixon was evil, but competent. He knew how to play the game, and do some things that needed to be done (like making sure China didn't hate us completely.) Bush the Younger seems to lack that acumen.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hell yeah. Zombie Nixon would be a better President by an order of magnitude.

    Nixon was evil, but competent. He knew how to play the game, and do some things that needed to be done (like making sure China didn't hate us completely.) Bush the Younger seems to lack that acumen.

    Evan? Is that you? Hello!

    Anyway, yes, Nixon was paranoid and more than a little power hungry, but on foreign policy? The man had game. Opening up China was the kind of two-turns-to-checkmate move we needed to start ending the Cold War.

  • Evan WatersEvan Waters Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hell yeah. Zombie Nixon would be a better President by an order of magnitude.

    Nixon was evil, but competent. He knew how to play the game, and do some things that needed to be done (like making sure China didn't hate us completely.) Bush the Younger seems to lack that acumen.

    Evan? Is that you? Hello!

    Anyway, yes, Nixon was paranoid and more than a little power hungry, but on foreign policy? The man had game. Opening up China was the kind of two-turns-to-checkmate move we needed to start ending the Cold War.

    Yep, it's me. Nice to see you here.

    It's interesting. Nixon ended up doing the most damage to the Presidency because of Watergate, but he may not even be in the bottom 5 of actual worst Presidents. The ones that were actually incompetent have really been more harmful to the country overall, and sadly this holds true today.

  • BitstreamBitstream Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Dun dun dunnnnnnnn

    So, which annoying brings-out-the-worst-in-people story will get more coverage this week: Gonzales or Anna Nicole Smith's babydaddy? Smith has led the last month 3 to 1.

Sign In or Register to comment.