"(Cuz I think I overdid the condescending schtick a little too much. But at least here I can say "You two must have been first in line when they handed out the believe-any-old-shit-the admin-throws-at-you part of the brain. If it wasn't for the selective thinkers at NRO and elsewhere I'd say you got the lion's share. Doesn't leave much room for actual thinking does it now?)
Nice attempt at spin by the way, that at least was more original than "Cilnton did it"
But then, you need to add Clinton to your list too."
On thread I believe you are referring ALL I posted in sum total was:
"So, what you are claiming is that Reagan and Bush sr were the exception to something which otherwise was a common practice?"
[which btw was ignored]
And:
yawn (n/t)
And:
93 federal prosecutors (n/t)
I thought I would just remind everyone that it was only RL and others who was flaming and in general making a complete ass of themselves.
Other than that I have no comment regarding the above. But I will try to respond to the rest of tony's silly tirade.
"See thing is, at the start of a Presidents term EVERY president replaces ALL of the US Attorneys. All Prezzes, all attorneys. With me so far?
I'll wait. "
I don't know if that is actually true, but I don't it matters. I will agree that all president can replace "ALL of the US Attorneys" I don't know if they all have. I know Clinton cleared the deck of all of them at the beginning of his term- which was unusual - but certainly within his power.
"OK, so to repeat ALL Presidents replace ALL US attorneys.
The only remarkable thing about Clinton is that he/Reno did it all at once. Usually there is a gradual change.
That's it.
I'll pause again just to make sure you got that. "
If all presidents can replace all US attorneys whenever he/she wants but it's customary to allow US attorneys to finish the term. I got no problem. But again I don't know if all president have replace all attorneys. I would add that when president from different political party gets in office there is probably a higher chance of replacing US attorneys that would reflect a different political view- and therefore when Bush sr took over after Reagan there might have been less replacing of US attorneys. But again, whatever.
"Still following? Good.
Since Nixon, there have been precisely two US attorneys who have been replaced other than natural attrition. 2.
Thats the number slightly less than 3, a bit bigger than 1. 2.
One by Nixon, one by Carter. I think Carter's was involved in a Democrat investigation. But I wasn't in the country, was only about 13 and didnt have access to the Zone to register my complaint about his subversion of the Judicial process. I have no idea about Nixon's but the above conditions apply (except that I was only about 6 years old).
Still there?."
Yeah, whatever.
"OK, do we need a recap?
Oh alright then, just for you.
All Presidents replace all their US Attorneys. Only 2 in the past 37 years have been removed. "
Ok, let's imagine that is accurate.
"Current situation:
This administration decided to can 8 US Attorneys.
NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.
1 is not common.
2 has never been done.
8 is about as unusual as either of you becoming a Green Party Presidential nominee tomorrow. "
Wow, and people say Bush is boring.
Yeah, so what?
"The story on why they got canned has changed with every new revelation.
Oh they got fired because of performance issues. Really? Why'd you give them good performance appraisals? Umm, because they weren't prosecuting illegal immigration enough. Really? Because at least one you said there was too much focus on illegals and not enough focus on imaginary democrat corruption. Oh err, performance? No we covered that earlier. Oh nuts....well at least Rove definitely wasnt invloved. Really? Cuz you nomiated his former Chief of Staff for one of the newly vacant posts, and emails show he was invloved in a lot of these. Who showed you that? You did. Nuts...."Mistakes were made". Cant believe you used those words heheheheheheh."
So it wasn't explained well. But of course no explanation is actually needed.
As I said before:
Yawn.
"Is there anything else I can help you gentlemen with? "
That about does it.
Flame » in reply to Preemptive cross posting to Flame for TB and GB
re: Preemptive cross posting to Flame for TB and GB
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Preemptive cross posting to Flame for TB and GB
- re: Preemptive cross posting to Flame for TB and GB
- Point out where I said "all presidents," or amend your header. (n/t)
- No idea what you're talking about.
- What the hell's your point, then?
- What do you mean "back to that"?
- The Premise...and a reference
- re: The Premise of your argument is that nothing unusual is going on
- "unusual" is not automatically "wrong," never mind "illegal."
- P.S. Show me where I ever used the word "illegal". Your word, not mine. (n/t)
- Clarification...
- You can lead a horse to water
- Give up. He says Bush didn't lie about torture, too.
- You can type it all you like. It's still a lie.
- You can lead a horse to water
- re: If you havent yet seen that the Attoney General lied to Congress...
- "unusual" is not automatically "wrong," never mind "illegal."
- re: The Premise of your argument is that nothing unusual is going on
- Did I not type slowly enough?
- No fake names in this, please. (n/t)
- Sorry.. Should have been (n/t)
- That works. (n/t)
- Sorry.. Should have been (n/t)
- No fake names in this, please. (n/t)
- Has anybody ever told you that you don't know how to make an argument?
- The Premise...and a reference
- What do you mean "back to that"?
- What the hell's your point, then?
- No idea what you're talking about.
