Senate Confirms Loretta Lynch as Attorney General After Long Delay

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I fucking hate the fucking Huffington Post and Arianna Huffington too, but proving even a blind squirrel can stumble across a nut, when they got a point, they got a point.

If you really want a "Dude, come on" moment go click some of Don's links in that gun thread you and he got heated about.
Yeah, the one where I said I wasn't crazy about the sites I had to link to to find information that the media generally doesn't bother to cover. You can't say you weren't warned.

Oh, and would you care to point out what information is wrong on the two articles I linked from Reason, or is that just a general ad hominem against Reason?
 
Last edited:

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
I fucking hate the fucking Huffington Post and Arianna Huffington too, but proving even a blind squirrel can stumble across a nut, when they got a point, they got a point.

If you really want a "Dude, come on" moment go click some of Don's links in that gun thread you and he got heated about.


I'm saying, yes, consider the source, but the source alone is not a disqualifier.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Yeah, the one where I said I wasn't crazy about the sites I had to link to to find information that the media generally doesn't bother to cover. You can't say you weren't warned.

You didn't warn anyone you were trolling wanna-be Stormwatch sites for your links either.

Here's a tip: When you're looking for supporting information for your argument, don't get it from one deliberately designed to offend anyone with an I.Q. higher than a glass of cold water.

Don said:
Oh, and would you care to point out what information is wrong on the two articles I linked from Reason, or is that just a general ad hominem against Reason?

I have a better question. Would you care to point out where I said any of the information from the two articles you linked from Reason were wrong or is that just a general ad hominem against me?

I'm saying, yes, consider the source, but the source alone is not a disqualifier.

It is always a disqualifier when the source is an overtly racist one.

I don't want any credit.

That's fine because I wasn't offering any.

robeiae said:
I was just noting the mendacious disingenuousness nature of your post.

Praise from the master.
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
So can anyone explain to me why so many on the left are celebrating the confirmation of a new AG who holds a number of positions to the right of the outgoing AG, and who is inarguably to the right of Obama on marijuana? I could understand the right if they were crowing, but that ain't happening either.

Is it purely partisanship, and actual stances on the issues no longer matter?
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
So can anyone explain to me why so many on the left are celebrating the confirmation of a new AG who holds a number of positions to the right of the outgoing AG, and who is inarguably to the right of Obama on marijuana? I could understand the right if they were crowing, but that ain't happening either.

Is it purely partisanship, and actual stances on the issues no longer matter?


Partly because she's the first black AG, but yeah, mostly partisanship.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
So can anyone explain to me why so many on the left are celebrating the confirmation of a new AG who holds a number of positions to the right of the outgoing AG, and who is inarguably to the right of Obama on marijuana? I could understand the right if they were crowing, but that ain't happening either.

Is it purely partisanship, and actual stances on the issues no longer matter?

It's not partisanship. It's pragmatism. Something the ideological purist has little patience with or understanding of. The purist can hold whatever politically impossible belief they want because there often are few to none like-minded souls in positions of power whom share their ideological purity.

What you get with rigid, inflexible and unshakable commitment to principle is the Tea Party and if anybody believes Ted Cruz is the template to be followed because of his sharp elbows style they know a lot about a political theater and nothing about the political process.

Loretta Lynch is not a committed Leftist, progressive or liberal. She's a career prosecutor with impeccable legal credentials. Not being an ideological purist made her confirmable and even then she faced an unprecedented degree of stonewalling and footdragging from the obstructionist Republican-led Senate and all this for a job she won't even have in two years.

I take pride in Loretta Lynch becoming the nation's first African American Attorney General and when I disagree with her decisions, it will be no different than when I disagree with the first African American President.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Partly because she's the first black AG, but yeah, mostly partisanship.

First Black Attorney General, huh? That's gonna be news to Eric Holder. :e2cry:
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
First Black Attorney General, huh? That's gonna be news to Eric Holder. :e2cry:

Sorry - I meant first black woman.

ETA: And you did it too. :p

I take pride in Loretta Lynch becoming the nation's first African American Attorney General and when I disagree with her decisions, it will be no different than when I disagree with the first African American President.
 
Last edited:

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
What's pragmatic about protesting for or going on a hunger strike to promote the confirmation of a bureaucrat who holds worse views than her predecessor? Staying home I could understand. Letting Obama know that if this was his choice he'd fight his own battles I could understand. But lining up in support of someone who's likely to move issues like the war on drugs, police militarization, sentencing reform and asset forfeiture backwards strikes me as anything but pragmatic.

What's practical about telling the president you'll support his choice when supporting his choice means going backward in time, getting more drug raids, more heavily-armed police, more taking from the innocent not yet proven guilty and seeing terribly-needed sentencing reform sent to take a seat in the back of the bus?

People complain about the sorry state of politics, the out-of-control police and the uneven justice on one hand, and support the ascension of a career politician who will quite likely make all those issues worse on the other hand. That seems more partisan than pragmatic to me.

I just don't get it.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Sorry - I meant first black woman.

ETA: And you did it too. :p

Yes, but in my defense I am Drunk Superman. :e2drunk:

Drunk%20Superman_zpssjilhkpy.jpg
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
What's pragmatic about protesting for or going on a hunger strike to promote the confirmation of a bureaucrat who holds worse views than her predecessor? Staying home I could understand. Letting Obama know that if this was his choice he'd fight his own battles I could understand. But lining up in support of someone who's likely to move issues like the war on drugs, police militarization, sentencing reform and asset forfeiture backwards strikes me as anything but pragmatic.

What's practical about telling the president you'll support his choice when supporting his choice means going backward in time, getting more drug raids, more heavily-armed police, more taking from the innocent not yet proven guilty and seeing terribly-needed sentencing reform sent to take a seat in the back of the bus?

People complain about the sorry state of politics, the out-of-control police and the uneven justice on one hand, and support the ascension of a career politician who will quite likely make all those issues worse on the other hand. That seems more partisan than pragmatic to me.

I just don't get it.

Yes, I see that you don't and that's a big slice of Sad Pie, but there's nothing I can do about. :e2shrug:

It's really quite simple. However, you insist on making it complicated, which is why you don't "get it." Dubya's former A.G. Alberto Gonzales (hardly one of my favorites) explains it all for you:

“I think people forget that the attorney general, while he or she may be the chief law-enforcement officer in the country, is also part of the president’s team and I don’t think the president is going to nominate someone who goes against part of his policies.”

Get it now? When Don becomes POTUS you can name Ron Paul as your attorney general and you will be within the scope of your authority. Obama didn't conduct a poll before he chose Lynch. He chose someone he thought would be on his team and rowing in the same direction along with the rest of the team.

Loretta Lynch. Team Player. That's the facts, Jack. Don't dig it? Sorry, but that's all we got and that's all you're gonna get.

Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of the United States of America and your Chicken Little apocalyptic predictions of dogs sleeping with cats aside, she will be until the new President is sworn in.

Deal with it. Or don't. :sarcasm
 
Last edited: