kelpdiver 2 #26 October 21, 2008 A new President routinely cleans house when he enters office. So if you want to allege it was done for unethical reasons, you'll need to support it with actual evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #27 October 21, 2008 I didn't allege anything. The cartoon merely showed how the media went crazy when a few attorneys were fired under Bush but nary made a peep when Clinton did. So if they can clean house at the beginning, why can't they do it ongoing? Those attorneys serve at will of the president. Nothing illegal was done. The media did, however, get excited in one case but not another.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #28 October 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteHe may be a great writer (I've never read Enders Game, but have heard it is good, maybe I'll check it out) but that does not mean that he is never wrong. Fantastic series I've read the first 4 (game, xenocite, speaker, children) 5 or 6 times. I read Enders Game when I was in highschool. A fantastic book. Hated the ending though. I've read Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind, and Shadow of the Hegemon, in that order. I thought Speaker was great, Xenocide decent, Children better, and Shadow quite good, abeit quite different. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #29 October 21, 2008 Quote A column that blames subprime borrowers, while ignoring Wall Street, is garbage. That's not an unfair statement.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #30 October 21, 2008 QuoteOrson Scott Card is much more than a Democrat and a newspaper columnist. He is one of the best writers of the past century in my opinion (Second only to Heinlein). . Hmmm, I can't find them on THIS list.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #31 October 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteOrson Scott Card is much more than a Democrat and a newspaper columnist. He is one of the best writers of the past century in my opinion (Second only to Heinlein). . Hmmm, I can't find them on THIS list. so you think his opinion doesn't count because it isn't in line with the nobel prize people? interesting. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #32 October 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteOrson Scott Card is much more than a Democrat and a newspaper columnist. He is one of the best writers of the past century in my opinion (Second only to Heinlein). . Hmmm, I can't find them on THIS list. so you think his opinion doesn't count because it isn't in line with the nobel prize people? interesting. Maybe he's on the Nobel committee and hasn't told us. Maybe he writes literary criticism for The New Yorker or The Columbia Journal, or the Oxford Essays in Criticism. I mean, his opinion on the ranking of writers could be worth knowing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #33 October 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteOrson Scott Card is much more than a Democrat and a newspaper columnist. He is one of the best writers of the past century in my opinion (Second only to Heinlein). . Hmmm, I can't find them on THIS list. Very few names on that list that I care to read and the few that I have did not interest me as much OSC. My opinion is just that and was stated as "My Opinion". My Point was that Card was much more than just a democrat and newspaper columnist. Enders game is one of the top selling Sci-fi books ever published. It is required reading at many military schools and some colleges. It won the Hugo and the Nebula award and he is the only author ever to have Both Awards two years in a row (Ender game and the follow up Speaker for the dead). Referring to him as a newspaper columnist greatly downplays literary accomplishments and the fact the editor made that note only goes to further support his point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #34 October 21, 2008 you need to know the bonafides of someone posting an opinion on an internet forum? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #35 October 22, 2008 Quoteyou need to know the bonafides of someone posting an opinion on an internet forum? If someone gives an opinion on skydiving safety on an internet forum, wouldn't you like to know their bonafides before taking any notice?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #36 October 22, 2008 congratulations, you found an exception to the rule. i understand that in your field, exceptions to the rule, no matter how small, can make the rule invalid. i would have to admit that bill booth's "opinion" on tandems would carry more weight than the average skydiver. even your "opinion" on fall rate and drift of belly vs. head down would carry a lot of weight. keep in mind though, those "opinions" are based on fact and data. opinions such as best actor, best singer, best artist, as the like are completely subjective. suggesting that someone's "opinion" about such things is wrong because the nobel people doesn't share that view seems silly. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #37 October 22, 2008 QuoteWhat's the difference between firing people who you think won't cooperate you and firing people who won't? Yes, I see a difference. Clinton stacked 'em up so he didn't have to fire them later. QuoteI didn't allege anything. The cartoon merely showed how the media went crazy when a few attorneys were fired under Bush but nary made a peep when Clinton did. So if they can clean house at the beginning, why can't they do it ongoing? Those attorneys serve at will of the president. Nothing illegal was done. The media did, however, get excited in one case but not another. Actually the media treated Pres GW Bush and President Clinton (& President Reagan) largely the same when they replaced almost all of the US attorneys within the first 120 days of taking office. President Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 US attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton also replaced 89. President GW Bush brought in 88 new US attorneys in his first two years. Iirc, three or four of the remaining spots were vacant. The precedent was established by President Reagan. The commerical media largely treated Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush similarly when the actions were done at the beginning of the term. The nine dismissed by AG Gonzales were among the 88 hired when Pres Bush took office. They were presumably already serving at pleasure of the President. The issue is not the right of the President to replace some or all US Attorneys at any time. No one doubts that he did. The issues rightly reported, imo, by the media were: Evidence that the attorneys may have been pressured to ignore crimes by members of the President’s political party while pressuring them to prosecute members of the opposition in conjunction with an election, i.e. favoritism in pursuing cases. Claiming falsely that the dismissals were “performance related” – the fired attorneys had positive reviews – when they were politically motivated. It is my speculation that if the reason for their firings were made clear from the beginning, there would have been much less attention, i.e,. don't lie especially when lawyers keep evidence to the contrary. Appearance of the historically independent US Attorneys as part of an independent, objective law enforcement executive branch, regardless of party being used for purely political reasons. Retaliation against US Attorneys who were attempting to exercise their authority fairly and objectively in accordance with their oaths of office. Use (some assert over-use) of new rules that allowed folks to serve as “Acting US attorneys” for long times in order to avoid the Senate Confirmation process. That's the 120-day rule. A more precise, imo, comparison would be to President Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” of Justice Department officials as opposed to President Reagan, President Clinton, or President GW Bush replacing the US attorneys at the beginning of the term. Otoh, it does raise the question of whether US attorneys should be career federal civil servants rather than political appointees. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #38 October 22, 2008 Quote Your one warning. I'll self imposed my own banning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
