Well, sentencing is right around the corner, and it seems that the judge has lowered the sentencing guidelines by ignoring the “obstruction of justice” enhancement that Virginia state law allows.[
Oh, please. Like McDonnell is going to do Hard Time in a Shawshank-like maximum security penitentiary with murderers and rapists for cell-mates. He’ll do four years in some country club with chain-link fence around it, where “punitive measures” boil down to “No seconds on dessert.” :rolleyes:
This is a pretty horrifying defense – they’re arguing that someone’s lifestyle before the crime should have some impact on the sentencing… like, for Bernie Madoff, “isn’t not being rich punishment enough?” – and conversely, for someone very poor – “a year is a cakewalk, as tough as his life is – it should be ten years minimum”.
Well, sometimes attorneys take what they’re given. I knew a guy once who was capital-case certified in Ohio - whatever the term is - who told me he was requested a delay of an execution because his client was allergic to the drugs they used. He told me when you’re out of good arguments you throw the ball downfield and hope a receiver gets under it.
I wouldn’t expect the mainstream media to emphasize the story – dog bites man isn’t news – but did the Fair and Balanced News Network report it at all? If so, did they, as usual, “accidentally” add a “(D)” suffix to the convict’s name?
septimus, the author of the initial claim, has posted an impassioned screed in The Pit in which (apart from heaping insult after insult on me in fine Pit fashion) he passionately argues for the freedom to make little mistakes like this. He appears to believe that saying “usual,” instead of another word like “often,” is a simple stylistic choice and to focus on the factual inaccuracy of “usual,” is unfair.
Obviously, I don’t agree. This is a forum governed by the rules of GD, and permitting a rhetor to gain rhetorical advantage with a factually false claim like “usual,” is quite properly called out as error.
There’s nothing false about the claim that Fox News has a habit of identifying people as being from the wrong political party; septimus’s post was factually correct. The cite offered supports his claim. What evidence do you have to refute it?
Your restatement of his claim is slightly more defensible. You take “as usual,” which has a more clear definition of “more than half the time,” and transform it into “habit,” which doesn’t carry such a clear connotation.
I don’t agree that “habit,” is correct, for what it’s worth. But before I begin that discussion, let’s be clear that the false factual claim made by septimus was that Fox “as usual,” substitutes a ‘D’ for an ‘R’ in such reporting. That’s what he typed, and it’s factually incorrect.
Do you agree?
As a percentage, how often do you contend Fox does this? Out of 100 graphics identifying malfeasant officials, how many does Fox alter?
Your claim of what septimus posted is factually incorrect. Your characterization of my post is also factually incorrect. You and Shodan appear ignorant with respect to what the word “usual” means.
ETA: I see you edited your post before I posted my reply. Good on you for catching your error, but you lose any points you might have gained by doubling down on your conclusion despite your factual mistakes.
Bricker, you are arguing semantics. Doing so is an indication you don’t have an actual argument. The second someone tells you what they meant by use of a word, that’s the end of it. You can tell them that another word would be more accurate, but the second you know what they meant, you deal with what they meant. Continuing to harp on semantics is an indicating you are trying to avoid the actual argument. Debate is about ideas, not words.
Plus, it’s highly unlikely you really believed he thought that Fox News regularly changes the party of politicians based on their opinions of them. Pretending to believe the most disfavorable interpretation of what someone says is a dishonest debating tactic.
septimus is not defending the right to make errors. He spoke in a way that was understood, which means there were no errors. He is arguing against the dishonest debating tactic of pretending to misunderstand someone. He is arguing against the kid who claims he thinks okay to play catch in the house when his parents tell him not to play “ball,” which he says is a different game.
I know you are a textualist and ignore intent. And while that may be a valid legal practice, it does not work in the real world.
He said clearly that Fox News regularly/usually changes the party of politicians who are involved in wrongdoing. Since you now assert that he does not really believe that this is the case, then his statement must have been incorrect. I was Mod Noted for speculating on his motive for doing so. Nonetheless, his statement was and is false.
There were no errors of understanding his statement - he said something that is false, and cannot be substantiated for that reason.
No, it actually is not. He claimed that this was usual, and it isn’t.
It is easy enough to check - the poster in question made his false statement as part of a further accusation that Fox News would do so in the case of reporting McConnell’s conviction. In fact, Fox News did not misreport McConnell’s affiliation even once in the whole course of their coverage of the case. So, the specific allegation is false, and the wider accusation that this is Fox New’s usual practice is also false.
He made a false statement, and (obviously) can’t back it up. And you (of course) pretend that the statement is other than it was. No surprise there, from either of you.
As Bricker has mentioned in the past, this is an unfortunate but common characteristic of debate on the SDMB. The Left will tie themselves into knots denying foolishness from the Left that they would attack immediately if it came from anyone else.
It’s sometimes irritating, sometimes amusing, but nearly always a sign that they have lost the argument. The amusing part is watching them flail around and contradict themselves doing it.
Choosing the word “typical” would have been better than “usual.” I do take more care when preparing journal articles for publication, but not in the idle chatter at a message board. It was the thrust of my argument that seemed important, and I doubt the poor word choice affected the post’s meaning, at least for reasonable people. Fortunately demonstrating my intelligence to the board’s right-wingers is not one of my priorities. [spoiler]Recently I was reminded of the YouTube channel Numberphile, and the fact that Brady Haran e-mailed me several months ago for help on one of his videos. This was flattering indeed, to an out-of-the-loop retiree, especially since he often interviews John Conway or Ron Graham! I’m also startled to see that video is now near the top of the Numberphile channel in views!
Perhaps I should have told Brady, “Sorry, no time. I need every waking hour to proofread my SDMB rants better!” [/spoiler]
So yes, I’ll concede “typical” would have been preferred to “usual”, and I’d have made the substitution if I’d spent a minute reviewing my post to avoid silly nitpicking. (But frankly, nitpicking usually tells us more about the picker than the pickee.)
OK? Now, turn-about is fair play. How many of those complaining that Fox’s substitution of “(D)” for “(R-with-a-problem)” is less common than “usual”, also believe that its use, of which at least six examples are known(), is accidental or coincidental? (-Any cites for similar reversals on reputable news sites?)
And which of the following is the more worrisome and venal liar?
(1) A random poster on a random board writes “usual” where “typical” would have been a better word choice.
(2) A major news organization, on at least five occasions, switches party designations to serve their propaganda.
[/spoiler]