http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...0.html?cnn=yes
it's a nine page article, so who knows who'll read this. but it is interesting.
/edit: link fixed
Printable View
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...0.html?cnn=yes
it's a nine page article, so who knows who'll read this. but it is interesting.
/edit: link fixed
Wow Soly you havent lost any mod skills have you? And your excuse for deleting my post entirely? Or at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
The page you've requested has been moved or taken off the site.~:confused:
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Where did my post in this thread go? ~:eek:
I guess soly is saying I've got the powar
Bartix fix! :charge:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...0.html?cnn=yes
~:eek:
Two of those appointeees really stand out as cause for concern .
The fellow who is supposed to ensure that drugs are safe , but seems more concerned about the profitability of pharmacutical giants .
The fellow in procurement , he wouldn't be the one who awarded most of the Katrina contracts on a no-bid basis would he . To the same companies that got so much of the no-bid Iraq contracts .
It does look like certain people are helping their corporate buddies to fleece the tax-payer .
Is that what Government agencies are supposed to be doing ?
I thought they were supposed to fleece the tax-payer for the benefit of the country , not for corporations .
Since some people are complaining that they cannot get their message out here , let me oblige .
This is all rubbish , people are only saying it because they hate Bush . ~;)
Hear, hear! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Besides, it does show that Republicans have the balls to reward their campaign supporters after getting the power. Liberal pinko panty-waist Democrats would never dare do that!
Cronyism has been with us here in the USA at least since the Jackson administration. Unless and until political appointments are excised from government, it will continue. Occasionally, this means a chowderhead gets a job for which they have no ability. Also, some folks in such jobs feel it is their duty to pass on some of the largess they have received to friends and associates -- particularly in the industry they are heading back to at the end of an administration. Is it wrong, of course. Ha any administration since Washington's avoided it? Not really. I can't think of a way to remove this weakness entirely. At least with changing administrations in a democratic republic you can avoid have an appointed crook in office for life.
Seamus
Cronyism is only done by Republicans, haven't you all been listening to CNN this morning? Democrats only appoint people who are fully qualified (indeed brilliant) for their jobs.
Wait a minute... no. Hasn't this been happening since at least Rome? I don't like it, but isn't this part of politics?
Azi
Cronyism is part of politics - but I don't think we should accept it. It has what has turned the US from a democracy to corporatist slush state.
And as long as "the other party" is doing it too, why should "our party" stop the tradition? Besides, they <insert favorite complaint about disliked party> more often to cover it up!
The US isn't the only country where it happens, but the sums often look incredible. Something to do with the size of the country and administration.
This was beyond predictable when I saw that he returned. Can't wait to see the warnings start piling up on fellow conservatives. Typical.... ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Just for some clarification - it seems that there was a first thread with a wrong title that got deleted before Soly re-started the thread.
The two posts that got lost in this process were the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
So neither of the post was on the original topic but seemingly only about the misleading topic title.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Sorry - no conspiracy here today ~:)
Holy cow, Bush appointed people who agree with him on what he wants to do. I bet that's never happened before. And I bet Bill Clinton never did that, and if he did, he didn't do it as badly as Bush. Nope, everything Bush does is not only bad, but worse than anyone else before him.
~:rolleyes:
Crazed Rabbit
PS. Gawain, PJ, would you guys mind PMing me your posts, if you still have (remember) them, for curiosity's sake? EDIT: That may not be necessary now.
Thank you for the explanation Ser Clegane. I knew it wasnt because of any attack on the left by me. ~D Just thought the higher ups might have lost their sense of humor. Good to see its still intact.
Unfortunately, the truth is the Bush administration has taken this to new levels. His admin and supporters have been operating in "total war" mode from the start. Things that were once considered neutral ground have been made utterly partisan. It's like we are no longer a nation, we are two nations sharing the same space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
And what to do we have to show for it? An absolute mess at home and abroad.
Would you like to compare Bushs cabinet to Clintons? What a bunch of losers they were. Does Waco ring a bell? Or how about Ellio Gonzales? Yeah Janet Reno was a peach. And let us not forget Joycelyn Elders.Quote:
Unfortunately, the truth is the Bush administration has taken this to new levels
Or Lanni Guinier. How about the Travel Office scandal, where Hillary went in and sacked anyone and everyone that even a faint tie to the GOP. Red, be reasonable, I'm not excusing it, but you're coming off as an idealogue when you say "nope, the Republicans do it much worse". It's a universal constant that we all try to limit but can't do much about, like sewage.
Does Waco ring a bell?
Is that anything like Taco Bell ?
On that subject . Actually I am quite surprised you havn't posted the articles doing the rounds on your usual right wing blog sources ,i t was really Hillary Clinton who ordered the massacre . ~D
Or how about Ellio Gonzales?
Would that be the child that was returned home to live with his father instead of being kept in a foriegn country and placed with relatives who he had never known ?
All very highly relevant to the article in question eh ?
Your typical response.Make a joke out of it if you cant argue the point.Quote:
Is that anything like Taco Bell ?
On that subject . Actually I am quite surprised you havn't posted the articles doing the rounds on your usual right wing blog sources ,i t was really Hillary Clinton who ordered the massacre .
You mean the one where the courts said he should have a hearing but Reno sent in a swat team anyway and took the kid. I wonder how the poor kid is today. Its the same as if Bush had sent in someone to save that woman in Florida from being disconnected from her feeding tube. I guess when liberals do it its fine with you.Quote:
Would that be the child that was returned home to live with his father instead of being kept in a foriegn country and placed with relatives who he had never known ?
The orginal title didn't have the word "Bush" in it, not a big diff in my book- but whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The whole Elian thing was a travesty of justice. The father hadn't been a custodial parent since the child was born. It was all a big ass-smooch, Clinton bending over and kissing Castro's. I can give him a pass on some things from his presidency, but certainly not that. We should have told Fidel to come and get him, if he had the stones for it.
Tell me the truth, how many gun control advocates were offended by the pictures of the swat teams pointing the barrels of high powered rifles into the faces of unarmed, and non-resisting family members, including young children, during that raid?
I've been watching what this administration does, and it indeed has been far worse about this than others. I didn't like what was happening in the past, but it has become much more pervasive. It has been "total war" with no neutral ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
This administration gives lip service to representing all of America, but its actions show that serves only those who share its views. There has been a disturbing tendency towards their "ends justifying the means." On the "ruthless" scale they would score incredibly high. Abu Ghraib and the justification for the Iraq war are excellent examples of how this backfires.
pointing the finger to Clinton doesn't make it okay for Bush. stay on topic rather than trying to change the subject.
learn this term because those of you who continue to use it will be called on it:
The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
Thank you Soly. I had no idea what a straw man argument was prior to your post. We don't get much edumacation down here in the Red states.
I was refuting this specific statement:
Quote:
Unfortunately, the truth is the Bush administration has taken this to new levels. His admin and supporters have been operating in "total war" mode from the start. Things that were once considered neutral ground have been made utterly partisan. It's like we are no longer a nation, we are two nations sharing the same space.
Look none of us is denying the Bush administration is guilty here. But are we to ignore Reds assertion that its only under him or worse under him than before? We have no argument on the main point of the article.Quote:
pointing the finger to Clinton doesn't make it okay for Bush. stay on topic rather than trying to change the subject.
well okay. i was only pointing to the article. worst ever? i somehow doubt it, too. but like i said in the original post, interesting reading....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I thought it was a known fact that the Bush administration had overdone it in the favor department when Michael Brown's prior career experience, as a horse-show organizer, came to light. Those horse shows must be tougher than I thought, he didn't back down yesterday.
I've often wondered to myself, what is considered good experience for disaster management other than disaster management?
Your typical response.Make a joke out of it if you cant argue the point.
What point , that your government took action to try to take a vast quantity of illegal firearms off of a bunch of nuts . Oh damn that government .
You mean the one where the courts said he should have a hearing but Reno sent in a swat team anyway and took the kid.
You mean where a court put forward another delay in reuniting a child with its parent , yes delays are so good for stability in childhood , or are you of the opinion that a familly court would eventually give custody of a young child to a distant relative who happens to be a convict whose own children were also convicts ?
And as for the armed police . What do you expect when there are huge crowds surrounding the house with the intention of blocking any attempt to remove the child
Waving guns in the faces of innocent children (they hadn't broken any laws) and a lack of willingness to acknowledge the court as the final authority on everything are not hallmarks of the Democrats. Guess it's alright, as long as it's one of theirs in office?
I guess you start with cleaning up after someone's spilled a glass of milk and work your way up from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So, if you cry over it, are you dismissed or promoted? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Paul Peru