• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TitanTiger last won the day on March 9

TitanTiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,696 Sterling

About TitanTiger

  • Rank
    Secretary of Crowd Control

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Montgomery, AL
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,903 profile views
  1. Cold ass move. Sessions fires McCabe and though it wasn't unexpected or undeserved, he chose to do so 48 hours before he could have retired with 21 years of service and been eligible for his full pension benefits. Damn, son.
  2. The white trash trifecta

    It's not like it was the lead story on Anderson Cooper or NBC Nightly News. It was a story on The Daily Beast. Unclinch.
  3. Once is too many, but it's happened far more than just once. Just one non-profit, The Innocence Project, has exonerated 20 people through DNA evidence who were on death row. How many more have there been over the years who were executed before DNA evidence was available? I'd rather a 1000 people be locked away til they die than end up executing one innocent person. If we screwed up on a life sentence, we might not be able to give them back the years they lost, but we can set them free and pay them some monetary restitution. But dead is dead. It's over. It can't be fixed.
  4. But again, the context here is death penalty cases, not petty drug offenses and whatnot. Do you believe the quality of representation doesn’t make a difference there? And do you believe that typically, the ability to afford a better legal team helps over a public defender? Put another way, if you were facing a death penalty sentence for a crime you didn’t commit, which situation would you want to be in...relying on a public defender, or mortgaging the house and clearing out the 401k to get the best firm you could afford to represent you?
  5. I think given that we were discussing the death penalty, it’s safe to assume Tex was speaking primarily of criminal cases. But I disagree that it doesn’t dictate how justice plays out. Put it this way: a poor OJ never gets acquitted. I’d bet my house on it. Well off clients can afford better and more attorneys. Poor ones are stuck with whoever they get, possibly an overworked and underpaid public defender. And the data seems to show that that does make a difference.
  6. You disagree that “the justice system often comes down to who can afford justice?”
  7. I’m not sure as to the constitutional question. I’m just not qualified to say. I’m opposed for two reasons primarily. 1. We have executed innocent people. This is unacceptable. Being imperfect people, we cannot guarantee this won’t happen again. And unlike a prison sentence, there’s no real way to make it up to someone. You can’t correct the mistake because the sentence is final. 2. I don’t think the data shows it’s really effective, nor is it less expensive than simply a life sentence. So just on utilitarian grounds I think it’s bad policy. There are other reasons, but these are my main ones.
  8. Obama Campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012

    You may not be bellyaching about the definition of the term, but you are bellyaching based on a faulty definition of the term. The end result is that you see inconsistencies where there aren't any. If you think I'm being inconsistent, then nebulous references to other times or other people don't suffice. In the future, point it out like you attempted to do in this thread. But if you're going to point it out, please make sure that your example is one that is actually accurate. It wasn't this time. Perhaps the next time it will be. I will try to be open minded enough to admit it if I have been inconsistent. But don't get upset if it isn't and I point it out. EDITED TO ADD: Also, don't assume that just because I haven't said something, that I've simply ignored it. I may not have seen it. Feel free to bring it to my attention. This isn't a free pass to become a hall monitor though. I have a life.
  9. Obama Campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012

    First of all, just because I call someone a name doesn't mean it's simply because they disagree with me. Disagree with me all you want, but know what you're talking about if you do. In this case, it was because neither of you know what you're talking about. Second, if we're going to start pedantically pulling dictionaries out rather than understanding colloquial usage, it would help if you would take into account the entire sentence. I said he was an ignoramus "on this subject." So yes, you and he in continuing to bellyache about this when you don't even comprehend what it is that you're bellyaching about (and are thus wrong) are "utterly ignorant" on the subject of whataboutism. Clear enough?
  10. Obama Campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012

    @NolaAuTiger and @Proud Tiger, I'm going to try to explain this one more time. Because whataboutism isn't a term I just made up to gig you about. It is a term that has been around for a while and I am operating within that well-known definition. Let's take Tex's example again for illustration purposes: Let's say that someone was bashing Mueller's handling of this investigation - saying he's botched it, that he's ethically compromised or biased, that he's bought and paid for by the Trump opposition, or criticizing specific actions Mueller has taken. Then Tex strides in and doesn't address any of the points the person made, but simply retorts with "At least he's not Ken Starr who never saw a TV camera or microphone he wasn't in love with. Never saw you complain about Starr's handling of Clinton." He's not actually addressing any of the points made about Mueller, he's just using Ken Starr as a prop to avoid the argument and charge the other side with hypocrisy. This would be whataboutism and if I saw it I would call him or anyone else out for it. Now let's look at what Tex actually did: First, no one was critiquing Mueller. Tex wasn't responding to some attack on him. Tex was responding that neither he nor anyone else knows a lot of details about this current case because Mueller isn't talking. There aren't any (or there are precious few) leaks to the press. Then he tosses in as an aside, "unlike Ken Starr who loved a microphone." There's no attempt to charge anyone here with hypocrisy. He's not deflecting or avoiding any arguments about Mueller. It was a casual side remark that had zero bearing on what was being discussed. This is not whataboutism and thus I wouldn't have called out PT, you or anyone else for something similar. If you can't understand the difference after this explanation, then there's no hope. But I will continue to moderate this forum on this issue based on the actual definition of whataboutism and not the version that you two have in your heads. If that is going to be a source of unbearable angst for you, I'm sorry. I'm not changing to your custom definition just to make you feel better. And if you complain about it because you refuse to comprehend this important distinction, it will be deleted on sight. If you persist, then you may find yourself no longer discussing politics here. I don't mind moderating but I'm not going to babysit.
  11. Obama Campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012

    Another ignoramus on the subject. It's not merely comparisons. It's using comparisons to deflect or mitigate the wrong actions of another. Had you bothered to read what whataboutism actually is (or managed to comprehend it) you'd get it. Instead you just whine and bitch about favoritism. I can take getting called out on something legit. But if you're going to just try to call me out on bull**** because you can't be bothered to understand terminology, you can just go talk football and be relieved of the anxiety this forum apparently causes you.
  12. Obama Campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012

    Because you don't understand what it means. If you understood it, you'd get why Tex's mention of Starr isn't anywhere near fitting the definition. It's not like someone criticized Mueller and Tex tried to deflect and defend him by saying, "But that Ken Starr a-hole...!" THAT would be whataboutism. Simply mentioning that Starr loved the spotlight when making a comment on the fact that he doesn't know any of the details because Mueller isn't talking isn't Whataboutism. My application of it is perfectly in line with what it is. And what it isn't.
  13. Obama Campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012

    No, it's hard because you still don't understand what the term means.
  14. Obama Campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012

    One of these days, it'll sink in to you what 'Whataboutism' actually is. Hint: this wasn't it. Tex wasn't saying "what about Ken Starr?!?" He simply was saying the Mueller hasn't dropped any leaks as to what he's found or where the case is heading. The Starr mention was just an aside, not an attempt to deflect. Why is this so hard for you?
  15. You didn't "offend" me, you just made a claim that I felt needed a little more backing up than you provided, which was none. I also think you're gilding the lily a bit here. Or the author of the op-ed you're quoting does. You don't date it from the first moment the FBI discovered it and compare that to a timeline that's measuring from the time Congress passed a law. According to this timeline, the FBI didn't announce they were investigating the hacking of the DNC until late July 2016. So the timeline just on that basis was only about six months. But Obama's situation was also different given the election season that was in full swing and he had to be more careful about taking any actions that could be interpreted as trying to unduly influence the outcome. I just think the comparisons being made here aren't really apples to apples. And there really wasn't any good reason for Trump to sit on a near unanimous bill from Congress. Obama at least had some extenuating circumstances between waiting to see exactly what the FBI's findings were and the election cycle. What plausible reason would Trump have for waiting on this?