Obama Picks Eric Holder To Be Attorney General

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY



You don't seem to understand what I've stated. So far BHO's appointments have been politics as usual - not "change"from politics as usual. We are talking about the picks- NOT what they have done, because obviously they aren't in the WH yet. People "hoped" for change but so far all they have is the turd of politics as usual.

I'm curious as to who would satisfy you as a pick or are you just hungry to point as many fingers, as quickly as possible?

Forget to read the thread?

Hence why I'm asking you who you think would be a change. It's axiomatic to say it's Obama's choice to make, but I'm curious if you can actually offer up someone who you personally would think would be a wise choice and a change.

How about people who weren't part of the business as usual Clinton era? I don't much care who he appoints though - like I've stated - it's about the BS "change" from the "politics as usual" crap BHO sold people.

Uhh... he's not president and I don't see how appointing someone who is well-qualified to be attorney general isn't change, particularly considering the muppets that occupied that position in the Bush administration. You're already biased to hating the guy despite the fact he hasn't spent one minute as AG, just like your blasting Obama before he even gets started.

What's with you people not reading what I posted? I have no problem with him as the choice so far. HOWEVER, the choice of a Clinton era guy is not the "change" from the politics as usual that he was promising.
Seems to me that it's a change from politics as usual from the last 8 years. If there was one valid complaint for the Right regarding Obama's promise of change it's that he wasn't very specific. I don't recall him saying that he'd not put experienced people in his Administration.

wow :roll: it's a "change" from Bush. Well no shit sherlock, it's a different Administration and different appointees. BHO promised to "change" things and not have it be politics as usual - these Clinton Era people are not "change" to politics as usual no matter what kind of excuses you people try to trot out.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

wow :roll: it's a "change" from Bush. Well no shit sherlock, it's a different Administration and different appointees. BHO promised to "change" things and not have it be politics as usual - these Clinton Era people are not "change" to politics as usual no matter what kind of excuses you people try to trot out.
Trust me, change from Bush and the last 7+ years is change enough. I doubt this guy will be throwing a blanket of Lady Justice like Ashcroft did both figuratively and literally.

Of course you're just complaining to complain, you were just fine with the way Bush went about things, at least I don't recall you saying much about it if you weren't. You might have uttered a blurb here or there but nothing comes to mind .

BTW is this forum slow for anybody else this morning?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

wow :roll: it's a "change" from Bush. Well no shit sherlock, it's a different Administration and different appointees. BHO promised to "change" things and not have it be politics as usual - these Clinton Era people are not "change" to politics as usual no matter what kind of excuses you people try to trot out.
Trust me, change from Bush and the last 7+ years is change enough. I doubt this guy will be throwing a blanket of Lady Justice like Ashcroft did both figuratively and literally.

Of course you're just complaining to complain, you were just fine with the way Bush went about things, at least I don't recall you saying much about it if you weren't. You might have uttered a blurb here or there but nothing comes to mind .

BTW is this forum slow for anybody else this morning?

Again, I'm not complaining - just pointing out that BHO is not upholding his promise(not that I figured he would) to "change" things from the politics as usual with these picks. This has ZERO to do with Bush and has ZERO to do with Bush's appointments. This is about BHO and his promises...which his followers seem to not care about anymore... go figure.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, I'm not complaining - just pointing out that BHO is not upholding his promise(not that I figured he would) to "change" things from the politics as usual with these picks. This has ZERO to do with Bush and has ZERO to do with Bush's appointments. This is about BHO and his promises...which his followers seem to not care about anymore... go figure.
Well it was the change I and the majority who voted for him were looking for and that's all that matters.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, I'm not complaining - just pointing out that BHO is not upholding his promise(not that I figured he would) to "change" things from the politics as usual with these picks. This has ZERO to do with Bush and has ZERO to do with Bush's appointments. This is about BHO and his promises...which his followers seem to not care about anymore... go figure.
Well it was the change I and the majority who voted for him were looking for and that's all that matters.

So if Obama is worse than Bush you will still be happy because its the change you voted for?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, I'm not complaining - just pointing out that BHO is not upholding his promise(not that I figured he would) to "change" things from the politics as usual with these picks. This has ZERO to do with Bush and has ZERO to do with Bush's appointments. This is about BHO and his promises...which his followers seem to not care about anymore... go figure.
Well it was the change I and the majority who voted for him were looking for and that's all that matters.

So if Obama is worse than Bush you will still be happy because its the change you voted for?
No, I will be greatly disappointed if he's as bad or worse.

 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,145
26
91
That's right. Government in the future will be a back and forth "change" from fascism to socialism to communism to.....
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You don't seem to understand what I've stated. So far BHO's appointments have been politics as usual - not "change"from politics as usual. We are talking about the picks- NOT what they have done, because obviously they aren't in the WH yet. People "hoped" for change but so far all they have is the turd of politics as usual.

Again, politics as usual is about the culture and tactics - not necessarily the people. I don't care if it's Al Gore or Newt Gingrich that gets appointed to his cabinet - the culture can still change, bipartisanship can still occur, and things can still get done. To assume otherwise is just poo-flinging at this point.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
The change we needed was anything but another 4 years of Bush.

We got that in spades.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The change we needed was anything but another 4 years of Bush.

We got that in spades.

It's quite obvious that a simple minded partisan such as yourself would have voted for my nutsack if it was the democrat nominee.

For those who are more interested in real change, including myself, are finding that Obama is simply not to this point bringing that. To this point it appears to simply be an echo of clinton, just like Bush jr. was an echo of Bush sr.

Two new cabinet members today, more campaign insiders:
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is Obama's primary choice to be secretary of the Homeland Security Department, several news organizations reported Thursday. The New York Times, citing Democrats with knowledge of the process, said Napolitano was about to be offered the job. The Washington Post also reported that she was Obama's choice.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081120/D94ILB280.html

I have less of an opinion on them, other than noting they are both appear to be standard "you helped my campaign, here is a cabinet position" appointments. Does this mean they won't bring change? Time will tell, but all signs point to politics as usual.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Oh please, McCain also ran on a "change" platform. Every politician runs on the platform of bringing change. It is tired and cliched because no real "change" will happen in the expectation of bi-partisin politics.

There are systemic problems in the country and in the world that will require good faith efforts to work together with those whom we may disagree. So long as we live in a two-party political culture, those two parties must work together with a measure of civility to solve those problems. As currently practiced in the U.S., partisanship precludes civic discourse.

The problem with our current political structure is that political partisanship in the U.S. is an industry. The two major political parties have become little more than Coke and Pepsi battling over customers with marketing campaigns, spokespeople, and jingles designed solely to sell the product. Perhaps more aptly, partisanship is like a professional sports league with just two teams in it; you root for your team and despise the other. Partisanship is the reason for FOX-News' existence, and the reason for MSNBC's rise; it is the animating purpose behind much of the professional political blogosphere. It is, in short, BIG BIG business. It is also one of the primary reasons the U.S. has been essentially dysfunctional for 40 years.

"Bipartisanship" is part of the propaganda of assimilation that keeps the status quo intact. Rather than new ideas entering Washington, what we're likelier to see is both wings of the Business Party, Democrat and Republican alike, coming together, circling the wagons, even in the face of an overwhelming urge for "change" on the part of the majority of voters. The disconnect between the Beltway and the rest of the country is only going to get worse as "bipartisan" bad ideas get trotted out for people to gawk at, for the corporate media to gush over.

New parties need to enter into the political fray, representing new ideas, bringing "change", and relying on grassroots support and active organizing to get heard. That methodology is the key to honest reform, versus hoping that glad-handing Democrats and Republicans are going to be vanguards for change, instead of the stewards for the status quo they've always been.

It's not merely that the whole change = more bipartisanship is a straw man and that congress is already more "bipartisan" than it should have been. Congress, regardless of party affiliation, has been abdicating its constitutional duties over a long period time, culminating in the failures

Actually, the reason why people fight is because they have radically and irreconcilably different views over issues that are important to them. Some people want to invade Iraq and some don't. Some want to outlaw abortion and others want it to be legal. Some want to bomb Iran and others don't. Some want universal health insurance and others don't. Some want to prosecute Bush officials and others don't.

The clash of different ideas is actually what "democracy" is all about. As unpleasant as you might find it, nobody - not even Barack Obama - will be able to wave a magic wand and make it all pleasantly fade away.


 

DanceMan

Senior member
Jan 26, 2001
474
0
0
Ok, for all the Obama critics and naysayers, I'd like to know who you guys would choose for the positions of Secretary of State, Attorney General, HHS and HLS secretaries.

Here's the catch: Your selections have to be plausible. That means that these folks would be willing to work under Obama, and if need be, articulate his administration's positions and views. Also, they have to have the experience necessary to head the agency.

For example, I think I remember Obama offering Dick Lugar SoS, but he flatly turned him down.

I'm just interested in knowing WHO you guys would choose.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The change we needed was anything but another 4 years of Bush.

We got that in spades.

It's quite obvious that a simple minded partisan such as yourself would have voted for my nutsack if it was the democrat nominee.

For those who are more interested in real change, including myself, are finding that Obama is simply not to this point bringing that. To this point it appears to simply be an echo of clinton, just like Bush jr. was an echo of Bush sr.

Two new cabinet members today, more campaign insiders:
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is Obama's primary choice to be secretary of the Homeland Security Department, several news organizations reported Thursday. The New York Times, citing Democrats with knowledge of the process, said Napolitano was about to be offered the job. The Washington Post also reported that she was Obama's choice.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081120/D94ILB280.html

I have less of an opinion on them, other than noting they are both appear to be standard "you helped my campaign, here is a cabinet position" appointments. Does this mean they won't bring change? Time will tell, but all signs point to politics as usual.
Your bitterness and pettiness suits you well. BTW you're not fooling anybody, the only thing you were looking forward too is nit picking Obama after he was elected. Hey you were doing it for the whole campaign why should we believe this is anything different?

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yep.... more "change".... :roll:

Don't you think if people wanted a White House full of Clinton cronies they would have voted Hillary in?

Agreed, wonder when we will ever see this change that was sold througout the election?

The fact you can't see the difference between Obama's nominee for Attorney General and Alberto Gonzales shows you are too clueless to know change when it slaps you.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The change we needed was anything but another 4 years of Bush.

We got that in spades.

It's quite obvious that a simple minded partisan such as yourself would have voted for my nutsack if it was the democrat nominee.

For those who are more interested in real change, including myself, are finding that Obama is simply not to this point bringing that. To this point it appears to simply be an echo of clinton, just like Bush jr. was an echo of Bush sr.

Two new cabinet members today, more campaign insiders:
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is Obama's primary choice to be secretary of the Homeland Security Department, several news organizations reported Thursday. The New York Times, citing Democrats with knowledge of the process, said Napolitano was about to be offered the job. The Washington Post also reported that she was Obama's choice.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081120/D94ILB280.html

I have less of an opinion on them, other than noting they are both appear to be standard "you helped my campaign, here is a cabinet position" appointments. Does this mean they won't bring change? Time will tell, but all signs point to politics as usual.
Your bitterness and pettiness suits you well. BTW you're not fooling anybody, the only thing you were looking forward too is nit picking Obama after he was elected. Hey you were doing it for the whole campaign why should we believe this is anything different?
You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag, unless it said "Bush" on it. STFU, troll unless you have something substantive to add.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

wow :roll: it's a "change" from Bush. Well no shit sherlock, it's a different Administration and different appointees. BHO promised to "change" things and not have it be politics as usual - these Clinton Era people are not "change" to politics as usual no matter what kind of excuses you people try to trot out.
Trust me, change from Bush and the last 7+ years is change enough. I doubt this guy will be throwing a blanket of Lady Justice like Ashcroft did both figuratively and literally.

Of course you're just complaining to complain, you were just fine with the way Bush went about things, at least I don't recall you saying much about it if you weren't. You might have uttered a blurb here or there but nothing comes to mind .

BTW is this forum slow for anybody else this morning?

Then why did Obama beat out Clinton? What did he offer that made him a better candidate than her?
 

chrisho

Member
Jun 17, 2008
63
0
0
so when does the "Change" begin?

Pretty soon he might have all of the old Clinton white house along.

as if Biden isn't his Cheney (err overlord)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The change we needed was anything but another 4 years of Bush.

We got that in spades.

It's quite obvious that a simple minded partisan such as yourself would have voted for my nutsack if it was the democrat nominee.

For those who are more interested in real change, including myself, are finding that Obama is simply not to this point bringing that. To this point it appears to simply be an echo of clinton, just like Bush jr. was an echo of Bush sr.

Two new cabinet members today, more campaign insiders:
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is Obama's primary choice to be secretary of the Homeland Security Department, several news organizations reported Thursday. The New York Times, citing Democrats with knowledge of the process, said Napolitano was about to be offered the job. The Washington Post also reported that she was Obama's choice.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081120/D94ILB280.html

I have less of an opinion on them, other than noting they are both appear to be standard "you helped my campaign, here is a cabinet position" appointments. Does this mean they won't bring change? Time will tell, but all signs point to politics as usual.
Your bitterness and pettiness suits you well. BTW you're not fooling anybody, the only thing you were looking forward too is nit picking Obama after he was elected. Hey you were doing it for the whole campaign why should we believe this is anything different?
You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag, unless it said "Bush" on it. STFU, troll unless you have something substantive to add.
You're the one posting about your genitals in this thread and I'm the troll? FYI you're not debating, your just chipping your teeth because you're still bitter about Obama winning and you're being damn rude about it. Hey I understand that forums like this gives you the opportunity to post stuff that you wouldn't dream of saying to a persons face but don't kid yourself that you are engaging in the act of debating because you are just being a little asshole.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: chrisho
so when does the "Change" begin?

Pretty soon he might have all of the old Clinton white house along.

as if Biden isn't his Cheney (err overlord)

is freep still down?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The change we needed was anything but another 4 years of Bush.

We got that in spades.

It's quite obvious that a simple minded partisan such as yourself would have voted for my nutsack if it was the democrat nominee.

For those who are more interested in real change, including myself, are finding that Obama is simply not to this point bringing that. To this point it appears to simply be an echo of clinton, just like Bush jr. was an echo of Bush sr.

Two new cabinet members today, more campaign insiders:
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is Obama's primary choice to be secretary of the Homeland Security Department, several news organizations reported Thursday. The New York Times, citing Democrats with knowledge of the process, said Napolitano was about to be offered the job. The Washington Post also reported that she was Obama's choice.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081120/D94ILB280.html

I have less of an opinion on them, other than noting they are both appear to be standard "you helped my campaign, here is a cabinet position" appointments. Does this mean they won't bring change? Time will tell, but all signs point to politics as usual.
Your bitterness and pettiness suits you well. BTW you're not fooling anybody, the only thing you were looking forward too is nit picking Obama after he was elected. Hey you were doing it for the whole campaign why should we believe this is anything different?
You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag, unless it said "Bush" on it. STFU, troll unless you have something substantive to add.
You're the one posting about your genitals in this thread and I'm the troll? FYI you're not debating, your just chipping your teeth because you're still bitter about Obama winning and you're being damn rude about it. Hey I understand that forums like this gives you the opportunity to post stuff that you wouldn't dream of saying to a persons face but don't kid yourself that you are engaging in the act of debating because you are just being a little asshole.
OH here goes the e-biker tough guy routine. I know it usually works with usual internet geek squad, but I'm sorry - you are an intellectual pussy and can't rely on your tough guy routine to bully me on the internet.

So I say again, troll, untill you have something substantive to post (you remember the original topic?), SFTU. Here's some hints:

Holder's positions on the drug war, property seizures
Holder's well documented self-interest in the pardon
Holder's apparent corporate love-fest over the last 7 years

Oh, I'm sorry, you're utterly incapable on forming a political opinion that goes beyond "durr Bush" or some other neanderthal emotion you stir up in your tiny brain stem.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The change we needed was anything but another 4 years of Bush.

We got that in spades.

It's quite obvious that a simple minded partisan such as yourself would have voted for my nutsack if it was the democrat nominee.

For those who are more interested in real change, including myself, are finding that Obama is simply not to this point bringing that. To this point it appears to simply be an echo of clinton, just like Bush jr. was an echo of Bush sr.

Two new cabinet members today, more campaign insiders:
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is Obama's primary choice to be secretary of the Homeland Security Department, several news organizations reported Thursday. The New York Times, citing Democrats with knowledge of the process, said Napolitano was about to be offered the job. The Washington Post also reported that she was Obama's choice.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081120/D94ILB280.html

I have less of an opinion on them, other than noting they are both appear to be standard "you helped my campaign, here is a cabinet position" appointments. Does this mean they won't bring change? Time will tell, but all signs point to politics as usual.
Your bitterness and pettiness suits you well. BTW you're not fooling anybody, the only thing you were looking forward too is nit picking Obama after he was elected. Hey you were doing it for the whole campaign why should we believe this is anything different?
You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag, unless it said "Bush" on it. STFU, troll unless you have something substantive to add.
You're the one posting about your genitals in this thread and I'm the troll? FYI you're not debating, your just chipping your teeth because you're still bitter about Obama winning and you're being damn rude about it. Hey I understand that forums like this gives you the opportunity to post stuff that you wouldn't dream of saying to a persons face but don't kid yourself that you are engaging in the act of debating because you are just being a little asshole.
OH here goes the e-biker tough guy routine. I know it usually works with usual internet geek squad, but I'm sorry - you are an intellectual pussy and can't rely on your tough guy routine to bully me on the internet.
Nobodies trying to bully you but it seems you think you can bully others and it's extremely tiresome.

So I say again, troll, untill you have something substantive to post (you remember the original topic?), SFTU. Here's some hints:

Holder's positions on the drug war, property seizures
Holder's well documented self-interest in the pardon
Holder's apparent corporate love-fest over the last 7 years

Oh, I'm sorry, you're utterly incapable on forming a political opinion that goes beyond "durr Bush" or some other neanderthal emotion you stir up in your tiny brain stem.
I don't agree with his stance regarding the drug war as I feel it's a waste of money. However I seriously doubt that you'd find a credible candidate that would espouse doing away with it and expect to be approved for the position.

I'm not aware of his self interest regarding Rich's pardon but I am aware that he felt that he erred after the fact and that's documented.

Regarding his so called love fest with corporations, he's well versed regarding that issue which I think would come in handy when dealing with the issue of Corporate crime which IMO makes him a worthy candidate.

See troll, not one mention of your shameful political legacy support.

Now please direct me to the section in the book of debating where it says to demean those who you disagree with in order to convince them that your argument is the one they should take heed too. My Neandethal sized brain stem doesn't seem to recollect that being part of the debate process.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
I'd really like to hear an answer to my question.

Why did Obama beat Clinton? What has Obama offered that Clinton did not?
 

fallenangel99

Golden Member
Aug 8, 2001
1,721
1
81
Originally posted by: bbdub333
I'd really like to hear an answer to my question.

Why did Obama beat Clinton? What has Obama offered that Clinton did not?

well-oiled campaign strategy and a marketing machine. both on a strategic and tactical level (same reason for beating mccain). i think David Axelrod should get all the credits.. he is the main behind the curtain
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: bbdub333
I'd really like to hear an answer to my question.

Why did Obama beat Clinton? What has Obama offered that Clinton did not?
Himself.