• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eric Holder To Step Down As Attorney General

got it
you just made that **** up

just as i thought


ohhh, I see.... You would have people violate medical privacy just to make a minor point on a political forum web site, to complete strangers...

Well, at least we now know the type of person we are sharing the forums with.... Thanks.

-
 
However your post was still racist. "Darkie" is a term not in much use since the segregation era.

Was it? Or should I have rather used "Uncle Tom", "Nigga" or plain old Black Man? Which noun or adjective would have sufficed? And would using any of them alter the truth of the matter....that the path to Justice Clearance Thomas' nomination started in the Reagan era for two purposes:

1) to eventually get another Conservative Republican on the bench; and,

2) to get another Black man in a high position within the three branches of government and the easiest place to do that was through the Supreme Court.

Fact is, the GOP (Reagan Administration) knew in advance they'd have an opportunity to nominate another SC Justice and wanted to clear the way for a Black attorney to secure the nomination. They were very much aware that Thurgood Marshall was planning on retiring; they just didn't know precisely when. So, to show they had a "Big Tent" but remaining true to nominating a Conservative to the bench, they appointment Clearance Thomas to a few key positions within Reagan's Cabinet (lower level, of course) in the hopes that they'd eventually get their chance to nominate him to the SC. But because Thurgood didn't retire until 1991, Reagan didn't get to be that President who reached across the racial demographic line from within. (And if you paid any attention to the social divide during the Reagan years, you'd know he wasn't well liked among many Blacks at the time. "Reaganomics" anyone?) But...

GH Bush knew that Clearance was "their guy", next in line for the judiciary. So, when the time came Thomas was nominated. Democrats were right to question his character and his ideology because of how Thomas viewed issues along the lines of race, sex and class. And he's largely legislated - not ruled - that way from Day-1. But my broader point here is that there was an objective to brining Clearance Thomas in during the Reagan years.

The only problem I have with Justice Clearance Thomas is he's no Thurgood Marshall, a Black Supreme Court Justice who did more to bring fairness into the America social fabric by followed the letter of the law and not legislating from the bench. But in all fairness, I take that same position with any Supreme Court Justice who legislates from the bench no matter their Party affiliation. It's probably why I applauded Justice Robert when he gave the final vote on ObamaCare. While I clearly saw that he did some serious verbal gymnastics with his legal opinion, he ultimately came back to the law (Re: "IRC") to make his ruling.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, Holder was a hard core partisan which explains how his legacy is viewed by other partisans. To me he was Obama's AG not mine.

I wish there weren't reason to feel this way, but there is. I don't really think of Holder so much as partisan, though, as I think of him as racially biased and willing to ignore the law when it suits his agenda.
 
Was it? Or should I have rather used "Uncle Tom", "Nigga" or plain old Black Man? Which noun or adjective would have sufficed?

How about none of the above.


And would using any of them alter the truth of the matter....that the path to Justice Clearance Thomas' nomination started in the Reagan era for two purposes:

1) to eventually get another Conservative Republican on the bench; and,

2) to get another Black man in a high position within the three branches of government and the easiest place to do that was through the Supreme Court.

Fact is, the GOP (Reagan Administration) knew in advance they'd have an opportunity to nominate another SC Justice and wanted to clear the way for a Black attorney to secure the nomination. They were very much aware that Thurgood Marshall was planning on retiring; they just didn't know precisely when. So, to show they had a "Big Tent" but remaining true to nominating a Conservative to the bench, they appointment Clearance Thomas to a few key positions within Reagan's Cabinet (lower level, of course) in the hopes that they'd eventually get their chance to nominate him to the SC. But because Thurgood didn't retire until 1991, Reagan didn't get to be that President who reached across the racial demographic line from within.

Why can't you just accept that HW Bush nominated an African American conservative to the court and leave it at that? Why suggest conspiracies?

(And if you paid any attention to the social divide during the Reagan years, you'd know he wasn't well liked among many Blacks at the time. "Reaganomics" anyone?) But...

Now you are suggesting that Reagan policies were detrimental to blacks? How so?

GH Bush knew that Clearance was "their guy", next in line for the judiciary. So, when the time came Thomas was nominated. Democrats were right to question his character and his ideology because of how Thomas viewed issues along the lines of race, sex and class. And he's largely legislated - not ruled - that way from Day-1. But my broader point here is that there was an objective to brining Clearance Thomas in during the Reagan years.

What you are attempting to say is that Clarence Thomas did not stay on the democrat party plantation. He had the nerve to choose conservative policy over liberalism. And he did not legislate from the bench. He ruled according to the US constitution.

The only problem I have with Justice Clearance Thomas is he's no Thurgood Marshall, a Black Supreme Court Justice who did more to bring fairness into the America social fabric by followed the letter of the law and not legislating from the bench. But in all fairness, I take that same position with any Supreme Court Justice who legislates from the bench no matter their Party affiliation. It's probably why I applauded Justice Robert when he gave the final vote on ObamaCare. While I clearly saw that he did some serious verbal gymnastics with his legal opinion, he ultimately came back to the law (Re: "IRC") to make his ruling.

No...Roberts did not come back to the law. He did what you just accused Thomas of doing. He legislated from the bench. His ruling in effect violated the 10th Amendment to the US constitution. He did employ verbal gymnastics in an attempt to justify his decision....calling it a tax instead of a penalty...despite the fact that the bill was not crafted that way and the Obama Administration in their attempts to defend the bill claimed over and over and over again that it was not a tax. Considering the fact that his conservative colleagues on the court claimed that he was against obamacare nearly until the vote came up......I kind of wonder what kind of detrimental information the administration had on Roberts to black mail him into changing his mind.
 
Neither Holder nor Lerner will ever see the inside of a jail. My guess is that they are both going to get thrown under the bus and then pardoned, just to keep them quiet about the whole truth. Look for an investigation coming during the last two years of Pres. Obama's term where the Reps. will be repeatedly vilified for a carrying out a witch hunt and then a sudden confession to minimal actions, followed by a sentencing, followed by a pardon. The worst of these crimes will get swept under the rug in exchange for the Reps. getting to be the heroes in this with no further condemnation from the WH.

Im hoping the facts speak for themselves, but then again-Obama was elected twice and if the constant parade of scandals had been known just a few months before they started coming out-he'd have lost the election. These guys are more Nixonian than Nixon.
 
However your post was still racist. "Darkie" is a term not in much use since the segregation era. To the point, I don't have a problem with Reagan appointing an African American to a post partially to add ethnic diversity...as long as the appointee is qualified. When HW Bush nominated him to the US Supreme Court, I did find the attack on Clarence Thomas by the left to be quite repugnant. They pulled out all stops. It was not so much that Thomas was a conservative nominee. It was that he was an African American conservative. The left sees conservative minorities as a threat. They feel that they own minorities and get quite frightened of a high profile minority conservative perhaps drawing minority followers to the conservative side.

Agreed. Yesterday, in liberal southern california I was behind a car with a Ben Carson sticker. I like the guy and had to smile about seeing that here of all places. He has done surgery locally and many docs I work with speak very highly of him, and have for decades from what they say, Im stoked.
 
Agreed. Yesterday, in liberal southern california I was behind a car with a Ben Carson sticker. I like the guy and had to smile about seeing that here of all places. He has done surgery locally and many docs I work with speak very highly of him, and have for decades from what they say, Im stoked.

I am as well. The liberals are in a quandary. They cannot do a Sarah Palin on him. They know he is intelligent. They cannot attack him on policy...so they are attempting to make him out as a religious nut. If he runs, that will backfire big time.
 
cjones09262014.jpg

http://www.redstate.com/diary/candicelanier/2013/06/26/sixteen-scandals-the-legacy-of-eric-holder/

While I know that it is a red source, you are free to google each case to find their legitimacy.
 
What difference does it make?

Is anyone on here naive enough to think that whomever replaces him won't be chosen because they agree to do exactly what Obama (a lawyer) tells him/her to do?

Little will change.
 
Im hoping the facts speak for themselves, but then again-Obama was elected twice and if the constant parade of scandals had been known just a few months before they started coming out-he'd have lost the election. These guys are more Nixonian than Nixon.

Very true, or so it would seem. Just seems to be too much of a coincidence that a day after the judge rules in the Judicial Watch law suit that the DOJ must make public the documents for Fast and Furious, Holder resigns.

I am as well. The liberals are in a quandary. They cannot do a Sarah Palin on him. They know he is intelligent. They cannot attack him on policy...so they are attempting to make him out as a religious nut. If he runs, that will backfire big time.

While all true, still, wouldn't it be another instance of electing someone with little to no experience in political office? Kinda did that last 2 times and hasn't really worked out too well.

Even so, does seem that Carson exudes confidence, reasonability, logic and integrity. Those are positive characteristics we should be seeking in our leaders, but how would the good doctor fair when faced with leading a large and cumbersome bureaucratic monstrosity that is the federal government?
 
Very true, or so it would seem. Just seems to be too much of a coincidence that a day after the judge rules in the Judicial Watch law suit that the DOJ must make public the documents for Fast and Furious, Holder resigns.



While all true, still, wouldn't it be another instance of electing someone with little to no experience in political office? Kinda did that last 2 times and hasn't really worked out too well.

Even so, does seem that Carson exudes confidence, reasonability, logic and integrity. Those are positive characteristics we should be seeking in our leaders, but how would the good doctor fair when faced with leading a large and cumbersome bureaucratic monstrosity that is the federal government?

I suspect that Dr Carson is smart and wise enough to surround himself with a competent cabinet and advisors. In his case, not having political experience is a plus. I have had it with establishment politicians.
 
I suspect that Dr Carson is smart and wise enough to surround himself with a competent cabinet and advisors. In his case, not having political experience is a plus. I have had it with establishment politicians.

I agree. I've had it with them as well. I was not criticizing Dr. Carson, as I very much like what he's saying and his positions, and he really does communicate far better than most of the other politicians. In the unmeasurable part, I get a good vibe from him too.

Just wondering how it'd work, and you make a good point about likely surrounding himself with competence (would it be fair to say that surgeons typically value competence above many other things?), and listening and taking council from them.
 
I think Dr. Carson would make a great Veep nominee.
 
How about none of the above.

Agreed, but since so many take such liberties with freedom of speech, I thought I'd be a bite flipped here just to illustrate a point.

Why can't you just accept that HW Bush nominated an African American conservative to the court and leave it at that? Why suggest conspiracies?

I accept that he did just that. No conspiracy. He simply had a dual purpose in mind when he nominated him. That was his choice, of course. I just see the nominate for what it was.

Now you are suggesting that Reagan policies were detrimental to blacks? How so?

I didn't say that. I'm merely saying that during the Reagan years there were many Blacks who didn't like his policies same as many White people today don't like Pres. Obama's policies. But I'm in no way suggesting that either President's policies were detrimental to anyone regardless of their race. But a truth is that unemployment among Blacks were high back then just as they are higher among Blacks compared to Whites today under Pres. Obama. However, statistically speaking I'm pretty certain that's always been the case. Improved quality of life for Blacks...now that's a different story. So, before you try to bait that hook, let's fish for the right storyline.

What you are attempting to say is that Clarence Thomas did not stay on the democrat party plantation. He had the nerve to choose conservative policy over liberalism.

I'm not saying he changed his political or world views, you are. It's true that early in Justice Thomas' career he was a political activist for Civil Rights, but somewhere along the lines his views changed and he become more Conservative. However, I never made such an assessment of his career or political views or even eluded to such. You did this by yourself. You let that cat out of the bag, not I.

And he did not legislate from the bench. He ruled according to the US constitution.

...

No...Roberts did not come back to the law. He did what you just accused Thomas of doing. He legislated from the bench. His ruling in effect violated the 10th Amendment to the US constitution. He did employ verbal gymnastics in an attempt to justify his decision....calling it a tax instead of a penalty...despite the fact that the bill was not crafted that way and the Obama Administration in their attempts to defend the bill claimed over and over and over again that it was not a tax. Considering the fact that his conservative colleagues on the court claimed that he was against obamacare nearly until the vote came up......I kind of wonder what kind of detrimental information the administration had on Roberts to black mail him into changing his mind.

On the first part, not sure I'd agree with you there; so let's just agree to disagree. As to the second, specifically the part that's underlined...

:lamo (Literally!!!) And you say I was being racist!?! At least I was bold enough to come right out with it even in gest. But you cloaked yours in plain-sight vernacular. :lamo

If you look at the Internal Revenue Code, you'll see that our tax laws are riddled with "tax penalties" based solely on a person or business entity not performing a certain administrative function as directed by law. Now, I would agree with you that the tax penalty is a weaker element to Congress' taxing power, but it is a tax nonetheless. In that, Justice Roberts ruled in accordance with the law. I don't like it any more than you do, but IMO he ruled properly on the matter.
 
I fully expect that Holder will remain through to the end of Obama's term.
Based on their track record, the do nothing congress will never approve anyone the President nominates.
This is a non-news story.
I expect someone equally bad installed before the democrats lose the Senate.
 
Agreed, but since so many take such liberties with freedom of speech, I thought I'd be a bite flipped here just to illustrate a point.



I accept that he did just that. No conspiracy. He simply had a dual purpose in mind when he nominated him. That was his choice, of course. I just see the nominate for what it was.



I didn't say that. I'm merely saying that during the Reagan years there were many Blacks who didn't like his policies same as many White people today don't like Pres. Obama's policies. But I'm in no way suggesting that either President's policies were detrimental to anyone regardless of their race. But a truth is that unemployment among Blacks were high back then just as they are higher among Blacks compared to Whites today under Pres. Obama. However, statistically speaking I'm pretty certain that's always been the case. Improved quality of life for Blacks...now that's a different story. So, before you try to bait that hook, let's fish for the right storyline.



I'm not saying he changed his political or world views, you are. It's true that early in Justice Thomas' career he was a political activist for Civil Rights, but somewhere along the lines his views changed and he become more Conservative. However, I never made such an assessment of his career or political views or even eluded to such. You did this by yourself. You let that cat out of the bag, not I.



On the first part, not sure I'd agree with you there; so let's just agree to disagree. As to the second, specifically the part that's underlined...

:lamo (Literally!!!) And you say I was being racist!?! At least I was bold enough to come right out with it even in gest. But you cloaked yours in plain-sight vernacular. :lamo

If you look at the Internal Revenue Code, you'll see that our tax laws are riddled with "tax penalties" based solely on a person or business entity not performing a certain administrative function as directed by law. Now, I would agree with you that the tax penalty is a weaker element to Congress' taxing power, but it is a tax nonetheless. In that, Justice Roberts ruled in accordance with the law. I don't like it any more than you do, but IMO he ruled properly on the matter.

On the race issue, I am going to assume that you are speaking in jest. As for tax or penalty...it really does not matter. The Federal Government telling Americans they must buy any given goods or services is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
 
While all true, still, wouldn't it be another instance of electing someone with little to no experience in political office?

He's still a politician, you dont get to be a chief attending, department head, world leader in your field, patient advocate, family advocate, educator, etc with out getting some meaningful experience in politics, if not in an official position.

Id be for it.
 
On the race issue, I am going to assume that you are speaking in jest. As for tax or penalty...it really does not matter. The Federal Government telling Americans they must buy any given goods or services is a violation of the 10th Amendment.

So...the States should be allowed to institute a "mandate" on a product that's international in scope? I don't think that would work until you break down the barriers that first prohibits insurance from being sold across state lines and secondly keeps health insurance mostly in the hands of corporations. The public option would have taken care of that, but neither the insurance lobby (NAIC) nor Republicans wanted that.

In any case, I understand your opposition on the health care reform issue, but must we go down this road again? I really don't care to rehash the debate again. Health care reform is here now. It's been ruled constitutional. Both parties had their chances to work across the isle and give the American people something they could swallow whole, but it failed for a whole host of reasons most of which were ideological if not personal.

See the PBS Special, Obama's Deal for deals.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that Dr Carson is smart and wise enough to surround himself with a competent cabinet and advisors. In his case, not having political experience is a plus. I have had it with establishment politicians.
That is the problem with Obama. Not only does he not know what he is doing, but he's surrounded himself with a bunch of clueless fools based on their political convictions and not their capabilities.
 
Holder will retain his office until 2017.
This announcement gives him a free hand to increase his influence on the DOJ and make congress look even stupider than they have been.

It would be nice if he ever realized that it's his job to enforce the laws, not break them. Or announce which laws they have decided not to enforce.
 
Back
Top Bottom