Forums | MacLife

I suggest suicide.

Well, he DID use an incompetence defense. What did he expect would happen?

Anyway, he could write one hell of a book if he gets cracking (have to get it out before Bush leaves office, otherwise there'll be no interest)

If he wanted a job he would be snapped up in an instant.
I call BS on the NYT.

resedit wrote:

If he wanted a job he would be snapped up in an instant.

I'm sure he's looking for something a bit more than managing a DQ.

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

If he wanted a job he would be snapped up in an instant.

I'm sure he's looking for something a bit more than managing a DQ.

I don't think he was talking about managing a DQ.

You probably have to be able to remember a lot of stuff to manage a DQ.

resedit wrote:

He could get a six figure income in a heartbeat.

OK, then, so why hasn't he?

resedit wrote:

If he wanted a job he would be snapped up in an instant.
I call BS on the NYT.

Which facts do you consider wrong, and what basis, aside from your political beliefs, do you have for considering them incorrect?

He seems to be doing ok, pulling down 200K on the lecture circuit.

resedit wrote:

Jaligard wrote:

resedit wrote:

They probably liked the story and didn't bother checking the credibility of the sources.
It's happened before. Several times.

Could you do us a favor and show something supporting your theory that they didn't check their sources *this* time?

Cause, you know, pot...kettle...

You want me to prove that they didn't do something?
I don't even know who their "sources" are.

The only source they name is Bork - who does not say that Gonzales is being turned down, but rather -

He is considering his opportunities in law and business,” Mr. Bork said, “but after many years in public service he is considering his options carefully.”

Sounds to me like he is using his speaking income to allow himself to be extremely selective in who he gives the opportunity to hire him.

So the answer is no; you don't have anything but your own political opinions to back up your accusation.

resedit wrote:

Not political opinions - the fact that someone with his qualifications would be extremely useful to many high end law firms.

I'd have the same opinion if he was Al Gore's left wing lover.

Hell - I have the same opinion about Al Gore despite his blatantly exposed twisting of the facts for his film.

Dude, you have no facts at all. Just assumptions. It's cool, there's nothing wrong with that. Just be honest, mmkay?

You'd think he'd be able to get a teaching gig at Regent University law school.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Not political opinions - the fact that someone with his qualifications would be extremely useful to many high end law firms.

I'd have the same opinion if he was Al Gore's left wing lover.

Hell - I have the same opinion about Al Gore despite his blatantly exposed twisting of the facts for his film.

Dude, you have no facts at all. Just assumptions. It's cool, there's nothing wrong with that. Just be honest, mmkay?

Take a look at what I said -

They probably liked the story and didn't bother checking the credibility of the sources.
It's happened before. Several times.

Taking the NYT at their word when they have had faulty reporting numerous times in the past is more fact based than my statements.

Note that the only source they named did not state anything that even remotely backs up the claim.
These un-named sources that journalists are using have become an excuse to either downright lie or be lazy in their fact gathering.

IMHO - the first time a journalist uses an un-named source that turns out to be wrong, he should be severely reprimanded by the editor. The second time, he should be shown the unemployment line. I don't care how big or small the story is. Editors these days don't have balls anymore, and their papers are no longer believable as a result.