yut wrote:Clinton was also the guy who said he didn’t inhale… He also said this great one: “That depends on what the definition of the word “is” is”.

He should have joined in the back end of the ID/Evo thread.
Or maybe Bill IS Matthew!!

I guess it depends on the definition of the word 'is'

Anyways, this Yut fella is not making any friends, insulting folk and what have you, but I pretty much agree with him re-voting. I spoke about this ages ago and since did actually change my mind some and registered to vote but Yut's pretty much changed it back.

On saying that I'll use my vote but I just won't expect it to be of any use whatsoever other than it will prevent people from saying 'well if you don't vote you can't complain' in a whiny voice at me.

I like complaining

Also Yut do you not think the pressure groups have an impact because the politicians are concerned that they might effect the voting numbers?

I guess your stance is that voting itself is harmful but the alternative as far as I can see isn't pressure groups - its guns.

I don't like either so I'm going to buy me a farm and herd sheep.

Little Atlas Heavyweight wrote:so if a rush limbaugh thread chases matthew off...

what other threads can i start?

hm...

Um...you're a little short on the number of posts here, so don't start rubbing yourself while looking in the mirror trying to think up posts designed to drive other people away. You sound a bit.....trollish.

Roberto Gonzales is a pussy. I fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys after Clinton appointed me. It wasn't for political reasons. I just didn't like the cut of their jib.

I attended political demonstrations recently, to see what the kids are up to. They kept chanting "Gore, more war!".

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publi ... 3823.shtml

excerpt from URL (above) wrote:In 1989, a neoconservative primer entitled The Democratic Imperative: Exporting the American Revolution was published. According to Richard Nixon’s blurb on the book jacket, “Isolationists of both the left and the right will not like Fossedal’s conclusions: that if the Democratic trend is to continue, it will be because the United States ensures that it does by pursuing an activist, even interventionist, foreign policy.” Who else praised the book? Republican Jack Kemp and Democrat Al Gore also commended this work. Both Kemp and Gore had run for their party’s presidential nomination the previous year. Seven years later, these men would compete against one another as vice-presidential nominees. By the 1990s, Kemp, a “Neoconservative,” and Gore, a “New Democrat,” represented the bipartisan legacy of Humphrey-Jackson Cold War liberalism. Gore’s words of praise for the Fossedal book—“a forceful analysis of what American foreign policy should stand for, and how it can prevail”--cast doubt on the widely held assumption that the Iraq War and broader war on terror would not have occurred after 9/11 had Gore been in the White House. Given Gore’s own neoconservative philosophy, his support for the first Gulf War, his anti-Iraq stance during eight years as vice president, and his choosing of hawk Joseph Lieberman as a running mate, we cannot assume that Gore would not have initiated an attack on Iraq during his presidency. Or he may have chosen instead to launch full-blown military intervention into Colombia, a country linked to both “the war on drugs” and the Gore family’s extensive ties to Occidental Petroleum. [8] It is inaccurate to see Gore as a principled opponent of interventionism or war.

Would you rather have a Starbucks on every corner in every corner of the world, or a mosque? Those are your two choices. 1 or 0.

Hillary even makes me even more proud. From her own website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1328

Hillary wrote:Now, make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's request to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own American soldiers. As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.

I agree. We need to militarily engage anyone who is an enemy of the U.S. and Israel (as long as congress is OK with it, don't worry they will be). Iran is just the start. Soon we will have Starbucks everywhere, because most of the world does not like the U.S. or Israel...

I disagree that both parties are the same. The Democrats are even better at fooling people who care and mean well into falling for a neo-conservative agenda. We're better at firing U.S. Attorneys and appointing "liberals" that suit our agenda. We engage global warming and health care, much like Don Quixote would challenge a windmill.



Steve "Coulter" Al-bini is also into selling Democratic values to sustain a neo-conservative agenda:

http://petdance.com/actionpark/bigblack/press/fe9.php

Steve Al-bini wrote:No, I just played bass and they were upset that I kept calling Bryan Ferry a stupid fag...

...We played at this frat party in Idaho, which was actually pretty great...

Wow, how surprising that a former Attorney General doesn't know the difference between a federal judge and a U.S. Attorney!

I have heard something about how they're actually in entirely separate branches of government, they fill completely different roles, and no one with a shadow of a clue could ever confuse them in a typo... but hey, that might have been from a high-school civics class or something, so never mind.

I have to wonder if this is actually someone else posting.

Janet Reno 911 wrote:Roberto Gonzales is a pussy. I fired all 93 federal judges after Clinton appointed me. It wasn't for political reasons. I just didn't like the cut of their jib.

...

I disagree that both parties are the same. The Democrats are even better at fooling people who care and mean well into falling for a neo-conservative agenda. We're better at firing federal judges and appointing "liberals" that suit our agenda. We engage global warming and health care, much like Don Quixote would challenge a windmill.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 61,00.html

Woops, I made a typo in addition to all the other problems I caused as Attorney General. Yes, I fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, who are federal (and not state) attorneys.

oxlongm wrote:I have heard something about how they're actually in entirely separate branches of government, they fill completely different roles, and no one with a shadow of a clue could ever confuse them in a typo... but hey, that might have been from a high-school civics class or something, so never mind.

It is true, they are not judges. This is what I get for listening to the media. I never said they were part of the judicial branch of government. They are part of the executive branch.

The great intellectual journalists have been using this interchangably with "U.S. Attorney".

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/

Each United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction.

United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. The United States Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the Federal government;
the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party; and
the collection of debts owed the Federal government which are administratively uncollectible.
Although the distribution of caseload varies between districts, each has every category of cases and handles a mixture of simple and complex litigation. Each United States Attorney exercises wide discretion in the use of his/her resources to further the priorities of the local jurisdictions and needs of their communities. United States Attorneys have been delegated full authority and control in the areas of personnel management, financial management, and procurement.

This is the best you've got? Semantics? So I made a small mistake, but I am not one who believes the structure of government and it's "checks and balances" are really working... The problem is, people spend too much time learning how government works "officially", but this is not how it really works. Yes, the Attorney General can fire U.S. Attorneys. Your representatives in the House and Senate are supposed to represent you too. Much of what you learn in government class is fiction, and the other stuff is true, but of no real consequence.

The point is, it doesn't matter which party fires U.S. Attorneys, appoints federal judges, etc. They are all after the same neo-conservative agenda. By belittling me for a minor mistake (which I was informed from sloppy TV news coverage that I should not be even watching) you simply do not do any damage to the claim that both parties are the same.

I don't believe that the high school government class is important. The rules and structure of the goverment facilitate the agendas of interest groups. It has always been the case. Did people vote for prohibition? Do you think they wanted to ban alcohol? No, it was interest groups. Does the president keep your vote in mind when he appoints judges? Does the Attorney General keep your vote in mind when he or she fires U.S. Attorneys? Does the president keep your vote in mind when he hires them? No. This is the point, and your small, trivial, yet correct point fails to address this.

What about Gore's pro-war ideologies? Sure, now he is saying he is against Bush's war. But he would have had his own war.

What about Hillary's sabre-rattling over Iran? She also says she is against Bush's war, but voted for it and continues to fund it.

I don't care about the structure of government. It is irrelevant. This is not a republic, but an aristocracy. You try to diminish my argument by pointing out one inaccuracy, which was a mistake. Yes, they are not federal judges, but U.S. Attorneys. Who cares? The assholes you (most likely) voted for are pulling the wool over your eyes. The far more gross inaccuracy is the notion that Democrats are liberals or even a better party to vote for. So, while you are correct with the government trivia, you completely miss the point.

Roberto Gonzales is a pussy. I fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys after Clinton appointed me. It wasn't for political reasons. I just didn't like the cut of their jib.

I attended political demonstrations recently, to see what the kids are up to. They kept chanting "Gore, more war!".

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publi ... 3823.shtml

excerpt from URL (above) wrote:In 1989, a neoconservative primer entitled The Democratic Imperative: Exporting the American Revolution was published. According to Richard Nixon’s blurb on the book jacket, “Isolationists of both the left and the right will not like Fossedal’s conclusions: that if the Democratic trend is to continue, it will be because the United States ensures that it does by pursuing an activist, even interventionist, foreign policy.” Who else praised the book? Republican Jack Kemp and Democrat Al Gore also commended this work. Both Kemp and Gore had run for their party’s presidential nomination the previous year. Seven years later, these men would compete against one another as vice-presidential nominees. By the 1990s, Kemp, a “Neoconservative,” and Gore, a “New Democrat,” represented the bipartisan legacy of Humphrey-Jackson Cold War liberalism. Gore’s words of praise for the Fossedal book—“a forceful analysis of what American foreign policy should stand for, and how it can prevail”--cast doubt on the widely held assumption that the Iraq War and broader war on terror would not have occurred after 9/11 had Gore been in the White House. Given Gore’s own neoconservative philosophy, his support for the first Gulf War, his anti-Iraq stance during eight years as vice president, and his choosing of hawk Joseph Lieberman as a running mate, we cannot assume that Gore would not have initiated an attack on Iraq during his presidency. Or he may have chosen instead to launch full-blown military intervention into Colombia, a country linked to both “the war on drugs” and the Gore family’s extensive ties to Occidental Petroleum. [8] It is inaccurate to see Gore as a principled opponent of interventionism or war.

Would you rather have a Starbucks on every corner in every corner of the world, or a mosque? Those are your two choices. 1 or 0.

Hillary even makes me even more proud. From her own website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1328

Hillary wrote:Now, make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's request to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own American soldiers. As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.

I agree. We need to militarily engage anyone who is an enemy of the U.S. and Israel (as long as congress is OK with it, don't worry they will be). Iran is just the start. Soon we will have Starbucks everywhere, because most of the world does not like the U.S. or Israel...

I disagree that both parties are the same. The Democrats are even better at fooling people who care and mean well into falling for a neo-conservative agenda. We're better at firing U.S. Attorneys and appointing "liberals" that suit our agenda. We engage global warming and health care, much like Don Quixote would challenge a windmill.



Steve "Coulter" Al-Bini is also into selling Democratic values to sustain a neo-conservative agenda:

http://petdance.com/actionpark/bigblack/press/fe9.php

Steve Al-Bini wrote:No, I just played bass and they were upset that I kept calling Bryan Ferry a stupid fag...

...We played at this frat party in Idaho, which was actually pretty great...

Janet Reno 911 wrote: You try to diminish my argument by pointing out one inaccuracy, which was a mistake.

It's okay, Janet. Even Tony Banks plays a bum note every now and then.

Great, WZ's getting out the sockpuppets. Step 3 is spamming a bunch of threads, step 4 is getting banned again, and step 5 is coming back with another username. Fun.

Apart from that...

The reality is that US Attorneys are political appointees. It's not uncommon at all for all of them to leave when a new president takes office. Yes, Clinton accepted 93 of 93 resignations in 1993. Why didn't it make news? The same reason it didn't make news when Bush accepted 91 of 93 resignations in 2001. What doesn't happen is US Attorneys being fired in the middle of a term for the heinous offense of doing their jobs.

LOL! Welcome back Yut, you cockgobbler.