Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__These people really are crazy.__
By "these people", I'm assuming you're referring to people with whom you disagree. Nice. Although I might disagree with you, I'd never suggest you deserve to be put in a straitjacket.
No, I'm referring to people prepared to advance an argument by entirely fabricating - in quotation marks - a citation from a scientific journal. It's not a matter of agreeing with me, ron. It's a reality thing.
-
Well, there goes the "sentence was inappropriate" excuse ...
Although President Bush said he commuted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice because it was "severe" and "excessive," several former prosecutors and sentencing law experts told ABC News that Libby's sentence was not unusually harsh.
A 30-month sentence is not far out of line with what several prosecutors said they would expect in a politically charged case that involves a person of Libby's public standing. His sentence was within the range recommended by federal sentencing guidelines.
Though Libby's jail term was tougher than that of several other recent high profile defendants, such as Martha Stewart, his sentence is consistent with other, lesser-known, perjury and obstruction of justice cases, they said.
"It can't be described as excessive or extreme," Terree Bowers, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles under the Clinton and first Bush administrations, said of Libby's sentence.
Libby's high position of trust in the government and the seriousness of the investigation could account for the differences in sentences, several experts said.
"Perjury and obstruction of justice are very serious crimes that strike at the core of the truth-seeking objective of the criminal justice system," Mary Jo White, the former U.S. attorney in Manhattan, said in an e-mail to the ABC News Law & Justice Unit. "A 30-month sentence is not excessive for the crimes committed."
Of course the preznit and his cult know better ...
-
Strategists 1 & 2 together: "Pure Genius"
Brilliant. I presume someone will be laughing darkly on the ninth floor. But not too loud in case herself should hear ...
-
Hurrr...hurrr... he said "pubic"...
Oh, and it always happens when you're stuck for the morning at a conference ....
-
RB,
Rasmussen has those self identifying as Repubs at 32% and the Dems at 36%.Which isn't the same thing as either voting intentions or approval ratings.
You can't be happy with a group of people who say they are going to be the most ethical Congress in history and then promptly try to ram through 32,000 earmarks in a bill with no review.
Which would be a better point if the previous Congresses hadn't set whole new standards for pork. But I agree, the legislative process that allows earmarking on bills intended for a wholly different purpose is completely lunatic.
It's worth noting that Obama has made all his earmark requests public, and is the only presidential candidate to do so.
Or Nancy demanding that her adult children can fly free on congressional trips.
Sigh ... this is such a discredited talking point that even Tony Snow talked it down:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/08/pelosi-snow-livingood/
Wouldn't you be pissed if you were a relative of one of the Lebanese politicians who had had been killed by the Syrians and Nancy flies to Damascus (outside her perview) and says "the road to peace passes through Damascus"?
She visited Syria shortly after several Republican Congressmen for much the same purpose. I presume you're similarly outraged that Israel is preparing to resume talks with Syria.
Honestly James, Bush-cult talking points are not the same thing as reality. At all.
-
I also wonder, surely a sensible way around this is to ban any party identifiers on anything with the H.O.R. crest.
Which is where it gets a bit weird, because the leaders' fund is there to help parties communicate policy to the public. But the auditor-general has drawn the lines so tightly that it's hard to tell what counts as electioneering. If you've got loadsa money to do your own promotion, outside the campaign period, it's not a problem.
If "The Government" wants to advertise a new thing that it is doing then it has to do so as "The Government", not "Labour" or "National" if we move into hypotheticals.
That's what I thought.
-
Of course, if the Nats win the next election Labour will be hoist with it's own petard -- one can just imagine the liberties the Nats will take exploiting Labour's validating legislation, given the tricks they pulled with the Exclusive Brethren.
The legislation only lasts till the end of this year, whereupon it's supposed to be replaced with a clearer set of rules, in time for the election. Which is why it seems such a bloody liberty taking advantage of it in this way.
It seems pretty clear that neither Labour or National will be able to do what they did in 2005.
-
Yes, Bush is at 29% approval, and his disgraceful performance on the immigration bill has a lot to do with that. Still, if opinion polls matter and Bush sucks because he is at 29%, what does it say about the Democratic controlled congress which is at 14% approval? It has taken Bush 6 years and a lot of water under the bridge to get to 29%, the Dems in Congress have gotten to 14% after barely 6 months in office. So who really sucks the most?
Good try James. But the idea that it's all "the Dems in Congress" should be tempered with the knowledge that while recent polls have the Democratic Party still (just) over 50% approval, the Republican Party is at 36%, its second-lowest rating in 15 years.
And the dreaded immigration bill is a controversy invented by conservatives so they didn't have to talk about Iraq any more.
-
No-one from Act spoke, or was present during the debate. Indeed, only one member of the press gallery sat through the whole thing.
(a) I know it must be difficult with a caucus of two, but when you've expressed a view to media, isn't it just good form to actually turn up and express it in the House?
(b) That's a bit tragic, given the fuss those same media organisations have been making.
-
Should I? What's actually happening in there that is more important or interesting than bad clowning? Does it actually affect me any more than exclusive interviews with Paris Hilton? It's certainly a lot less interesting.
So it's completely trivial and the only thing worth televising? Do you bother voting, Ben?
Tom Frewen is a curmudgeonly old bugger (and I say that affectionately) but Today in Parliament was (and is, in its weekly version on Radio Live) a useful broadcast guide to what's happened and what it means -- that doesn't make me want to scream. Ironically, it is there solely because the Clerk of the House gave up on the press doing it themselves, and started bankrolling it himself.
If all you want is broadcast coverage that depicts Parliament as a meaningless pit of personalities, I would think you're quite well served elsewhere.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 … 2279 Older→ First