Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I don't know what the split is between right and left bank, but my educated guess is 70% plus comes from the left bank/Cab based, and 30% right/merlot, so I tend to agree with the above. Also, my understanding of Cab/Bordeaux from the founding fahter's time is that is hugely different than anything one might get today, yes, more of punch. the nuances I forget but once upon a time I read about Jefferson's wine proclivities and it was discussed. As well as I think Judgment of Paris touched on the evolutionary differences.

I will add, in addition to Petrus, there are certainly some notable right bankers, Cheval Blanc, Ausone, Chateau Figeac, affordable but good: Château Pavie Macquin.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

in the Northwest/southwest terminal? I thought Legal was in the "new" part.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

But again, going to your post, the odds are in the left bank's favor.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

My two favorite French varietals are 80-100% merlot - Pomerols, and mostly grenache - Chateauneuf de Pape's.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Yes. You're so quick and clever that it frustrates me to the point of just holding on to my sanity. Gotta hold back. Gotta. hold. back.

I love this. I could very easily quote it right back to you. But then you may be overwhelmed with the brilliance of your own nuance.

And for the record, I don't think anyone you know would describe anything you've ever said or written as "nuanced."

Aside from the fact that this is complete bullshit, your response to my argument was, "No one can prove that things would have been radically different if there was a thoughtful, timely and well-prepared response," which is so stupid it probably didn't even deserve a response.

No. I did not say any of your arguments about you not believing Bush is racist were ridiculous. In fact, I just disagreed with you on that, because reasonable minds most assuredly can differ.

And don't overlook the substance of my argument with you on everything else. Just because I think you're a completely ridiculous person who thinks his fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants, everybody-mainly-agrees-I'm-mostly-correct posts are mostly silly, poorly thought-out and full of unintentional hyperbole doesn't mean I didn't respond to your arguments with substance. You chose to ignore the substance and focus on the insults. Not my problem.

Watch me shed some. And trust me, if you think anything you post here is any more complex than anything I've posted here, you are delusional. You post nonsense and tell me I'm simplistic when I point out that it doesn't make any sense. Whatever works for you.

TM

Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

Now, two USAs are saying they won't offer their resignation at the end of Bush's term because doing so would be "unseemly." Those are brass balls, my friend. Another example of so-called conservatives throwing out a century of tradition because it suits a short term interest, and they'll be a bunch of fucking crybabies if the shoe's ever on the other foot.

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

But Mary Beth Buchanan's Wikipedia entry says that her term expires January 20, 2009. Doesn't she understand what that means?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Wrong terminal though.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Okay.

I find it annoying when you argue with someone and, instead of just disagreeing with them and saying why, you postulate that their position must be wrong because it's "what the media is feeding us" or "the common wisdom" or whatever. I assume you do that to be "contrarian," and to paint those who disagree with you as sheep. But really, you're just being a sheep in drag.

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

Seems simple enough. "You're fired."

Oh, what's that Senator Hatch? Yeah. We all know they are supposed to resign, but regardless, I wanted to go another way. Too bad.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Names please? I need more wine to taste. I got some '04 Domaine Les Pallieres Gigondas last week. $19/btl. Good, as usual, and a value at that price.

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

None of that sounds very post-partisan. There must be a middleground to be had here......

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

2. Although technically because there's no longer an interim appointment under the new version of 28 U.S.C. section 546, the magic words are "Meet the new USA for this District. He's just been confirmed by the Senate. There's a cardboard box in the hall for your things. The nice burly gentlemen in the dark glasses will see you out."

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

"you rebelled against the men wearing suits by wearing jeans because you'd never wear a uniform, but you don't get that your jeans are just another uniform."

80s movie quote (or close to it) Cite please?

and Sebastian, I'm not avoided this issue because I'm sick of fighting with T. I just don't have a strong opinion. I agree FEMA could have done better, but not sure if it is fair to say they should have been able to predict much. I don't think Bush is racist, or doesn't care, but can't argue that a tornado that blew up Bloomfield Hills would not have resulted in rich people sleeping at the Palace. But I realize there are layers of reasons. So I just can't comment.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Translation: my corner office overlooks the dumpster.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

It's really a pity that we already have a board motto.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

This is killing me. I've seen this, I know it. Argh.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Totally opposite end of the airport. If you're at that end, proceed through security to Five Guys. Hank's right--terminal A is a wasteland.

Indeed.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

The thing is, the low blow would have worked a lot better if I hadn't had to advise GGG a few years back not to duct his house HVAC into his wine cellar.

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

That used to work, but then this board came along and decided the president didn't have that authority.

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

Or that he did, but ...


Ah, fuck it.

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

I'm not sure anyone said he didn't have the authority, and I don't remember anyone arguing that the dismissals were invalid. But that doesn't make then not shameful and worthy of political repercussions.

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

g.o.

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

2. And what's funny about the current situation is that the current USAs are trying to shame the new President into letting them stay, which is the unprecedented part, because apparently the Unitary Executive only works for Rs. His answer should be "Look, the Senate consented to a lot of stupid things in the past eight years, but you're still fired."

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

remember the episodes of the monkees where the guys are all serious and commenting on the riots on sunset and how the cops over-reacted? It was weird, because the guys were there for comic relief and not any substantive commentary.

they got cancelled soon after.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

And by Sunday night you'd be back in the alley with Shifter, all the while thinking longingly of Atticus.

You just don't know how to quit us, Hank.

S_A_M

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

You're right. I guess you just need to stop flying low-budget airlines.

It's the dirty story of a dirty man.
 

Bravo. Your talents are clearly wasted here. Have Gatti set you up with some meetings at the Marmount. And don't let them pull the net/gross thing on you like they did with Buchwald.

There are times, when all the world's asleep, the questions run too deep.
 

I think that everyone will mai. . . nah. Too easy.

Apropos of nothing, I made a plaintiff change his story four times today at a deposition. (1) He didn't see the spilled grape juice on aisle 9; (2) the grape juice had cart marks in it before he slipped; (3) he wasn't sure if there was grape juice on the floor because it was Welch's white, and it blended with the linoleum; and (4) the assistant manager distracted him when he entered the aisle by being available to be asked "where can I find Malomars?", and that's why he slipped.

Note: this is a true story, not a parable. Carry on.

Re: Interesting blowback from the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal.
 

Yeah, that's what happened.

Obama should order these USAs to prosecute prominent Republicans, and fire them if they refuse. After all, Bush established that the Dept of Justice is an organ of whatever party holds the White House.

Re: There are times, when all the world's asleep, the questions run too deep.
 

the way you always make everyone be nice to the most ignorant socks, and give them room to post and express themselves seems out of whack with bragging about twisting some poor injured numb-skull into mixing his story up. If I was P's lawyer, I'd double my demand and amend to make clear the fall caused brain damage based upon your examination.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Fine. But to reach that criticism, which I respect, one has to focus on one of two points I made (and the much weaker of the two), while ignoring the stronger argument.

I suggested that because Katrina and its response were such enormous, complicated events, that people should look more closely at who did what and who didn't before they blindly attack Bush as the most culpable incompetent in the mess. Folded into that point was the claim people do not know as much about this issue as they think they do. And that we probably never will know who was most culpable in its mishandling.

Those are reasonable points. Unfortunately, I also suggested that people may want to believe certain incomplete narratives about Katrina because of their partisan leanings. That left the barn door open for attacks asserting that I was calling people who bought the press's version of events "sheeple." Focusing on that point while ignoring the other is avoiding the real debate here.

I think, and I will always think, that if there were a trial of George Bush for negligence in the Katrina mess, the measure of negligence directly attributable to him would be low enough - and shared in near equal parts by so many others - that the present narrative holding him almost entirely culpable would be shown for the hyperbole I suspect it is. Is that an unreasonable suspicion? Has there been an evidentiary finding that such a position is untenable? To reach the conclusion my suspicion was "ridiculous!" one has to assume he knows all the facts of the event in detail, and I don't see that here.

I don't think anyone here is a blind follower on this issue or any other, but I do think there's a narrative feedback loop on this which has created many broad perceptions that deserve more scrutiny than they're getting. On the issue of whether after the storm had already hit NO, a better response from Bush and FEMA would have created a radically different result than what was achieved with the lax response we had, I think a close investigation might show no. That once the ability to evacuate the city early had been missed, the dire results that followed would have been similar, excellent response or not.

You're a litigator, right? If I gave you this case and said, "Here, prove that a good after the fact response wouldn't have made the massive difference people claim it would have," you could go through the record and probably put together a compelling case to show that while FEMA's incompetence led to more loss than otherwise would have resulted, it's not as large as people claim.

Why not apply scrutiny to the narrative? How else do you prove something?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I gather from this response that it's not that you think Bush or FEMA did anything particularly well, but rather that the contrarian in you rebels against the accepted perception that they screwed the pooch. If that's wrong, and you have the specifics that you accuse others of lacking, it would be interesting to hear them.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

couple of thoughts-

for the future record, since you believe Bush lied to start a war, complaining about all the other things you complain about is like accusing Hitler of jay-walking.

but more importantly, constructive criticism? unless you have flown fighter jets, you lack the gravitas to say "screwed the pooch."

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Has it occurred to you that perhaps haven't objected to this part of your point because (1) they don't particularly disagree, and (2) you are the only one interested in discussing relative culpactility. Bush, Brownie and FEMA share in the culpability. Whether their share is bigger or smaller than the locals doesn't really matter.


This statement has the convenient attribute of meaning almost nothing. What counts are radically different? Could they have magically whisked everyone out of the city and prevented all loss of life? Of course not. Could they have gotten food and water in to areas like the convention center and the Superdome, and perhaps saved lives by getting some people out? Of course they could. It is the failure to do what could have been done that Bush and FEMA get blamed for, not the failure to perform miracles.

This is politics, not a court room, and no one here is suing Bush for negligence.

Because you aren't really scrutinizing. You are arguing against an obvious strawman.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

That darn Ty, always believin' in reality.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Do you mean in the sense that it would probably also be very difficult to convince a Holocaust denier that Hitler frequently ignored traffic safety laws?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

guy had the syph. who can argue he ignored stop signs?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

It's more that he lied to sell the war. But thank you for trying to place his screw-ups in perspective.

Flying a fighter jet gives you something, but it's not gravitas. I thought we all could say that ever since The Right Stuff, though.

God Makes You Stupid
 

Just when you think they can not less rational, they go and further disappoint:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090117/...lbweR363ftiBIF