“trying to blame his woes on some suburban stay-at-home mom”

Again,that was not and is not my intention nor my desire.

Well, that explains what I only half-heard on NPR this morning. Thanks, ALmod.

Birmingham Weekly
Birmingham News

Now, if a person slaps you in the face when you say the word “stop,” and this happens three times in a row… It is likely that you can predict to the person next to you, “He’ll slap you in the face if you tell him to stop.” How is that unfair and/or unbalanced?

Now, you asked the following:

“Did Langford actually ” in fact all but say that” or is that you “spinning” his statement?”

Yes, he did. Did you not read the transcript or the findings of the investigation thus far? It’s a big file, so I’m not going to copy and paste the whole thing. I’m not spinning. I’m paraphrasing. Big difference.

“I can’t recall a time when I’ve “attacked you” during the course of this discussion.”

Maybe you should go back and re-read your previous post in this and another discussion. Then you have the testicular fortitude to call my calling you out on it as a personal attack. I do think Langford deserves a better defense than that. If the best you can come up with to justify LARRY’S is to claim that a private citizen who is in no way involved in the investigation has already “tried and convicted” him, then you’re doing a bad job of defending him. Even I can come up with a better defense than that in spite of the evidence by saying he was likely unaware as to what was going on. I doubt that’s the case, but it’s much better an actual defense of Langford than “the media isn’t reporting it right” because at least my defense shows some deniability on his part.

I find it odd that you would take such an observation so personally. Since you are not, or at least claim not to be, a member of Langford’s inner circle or part of his public relations circle, you have no real reason to be concerned over my previous remark. It’s not your job to defend Langford, so if you’re not excelling at it, then it’s no big deal.

And yes, that is exactly what you are doing. You’ve thus far blamed the media and the bloggers and the occasional commenter for getting it so wrong when in fact, they’re just reporting the very things that happened. You seem to be of the mind that these things did not happen. Okay, so then tell us how the evidence is incorrect. The one thing that you have not done is take a look at Langford and his actions and make an assessment based on that– for good or bad. Instead, it’s all the media’s fault or it’s the bloggers’ fault or it’s my fault.

Which is my point exactly.

I really don’t understand how asking you to be fair and balanced has translated into me “deciding that Langford is capable of doing no wrong”.

You said:
Langford can say that he took favors from lobbyists in exchange for bond deals that squandered taxpayer money and put them millions of dollars further into debt. In fact, he all but did say that.”

Did Langford actually ” in fact all but say that” or is that you “spinning” his statement?

You have accused me of trying to justify Langfords actions and of attacking you. I can’t recall a time when I’ve “attacked you” during the course of this discussion. However I do consider this statement by you a very personal attack:

“If that’s the best you can come up with I’m glad you are not his attorney, and I hope you’re not someone in his inner circle. As bad as I think Langford is for the public he serves, at least I think he deserves better than that.”

Please provide me with any statement I made in which I personally attacked you. We may have differing opinions, but I really do try to agree to disagree without resorting to personal attacks and insults.

Let me end this discussion by saying I am not trying to “justify” Langfords “actions” and I am not attempting to provide any “real defense on Langford’s behalf” because as I’ve said countless times before it’s NOT personal with regards to Landford for ME. I would also like to apologize if to you if any opinions expressed by me during the course of this disucssion were an attempt to as you say:

trying to blame his woes on some suburban stay-at-home mom? Quit blaming the witness on the stand for the criminal having to face the consequences of his own actions”

That is not and was not my intention.

You, however, have already decided that Langford is capable of doing no wrong. Langford can say that he took favors from lobbyists in exchange for bond deals that squandered taxpayer money and put them millions of dollars further into debt. In fact, he all but did say that. Those are his words in that transcript. Yet you still seem to think that there’s some missing link that we don’t know about, some reason, that will justify it all.

And so, your only defense and/or justification for the actions that Langford himself admits to is to attack me. You’re grasping at straws. If that’s the best you can come up with I’m glad you are not his attorney, and I hope you’re not someone in his inner circle. As bad as I think Langford is for the public he serves, at least I think he deserves better than that.

So why don’t you come up with some real defense on Langford’s behalf besides trying to blame his woes on some suburban stay-at-home mom? Quit blaming the witness on the stand for the criminal having to face the consequences of his own actions.

Most public hearings are just that– public. That includes those of non-public officials. If you’ll take note, most cases do allow transcripts available to the media and/or public unless the judge orders otherwise. But then, Langford would have to actually be charged with something to even face that possibility. Even if he was charged, the public would demand to know what is going on. The release of the transcript of his testimony to the SEC is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary. The unusual and extraordinary cases are the ones where transcripts are NOT made available.

But again, you only raise the question of privacy for a public official. You still haven’t addressed the question you quoted. How on earth is a transcript of Langford’s own words considered an unbalanced report on what happened?

Therein lies the problem, I don’t believe it was “fair” or “balanced” that the transcript from the SEC was “made available by the media in full form and unedited for anyone who wanted to download it”. I believe it to be unfair and unbalanced. If you were facing an investigation and possible trial would you want the transcript made available by the media in full form and unedited for anyone ( including possible jurors) who wanted to download it?