Eric Holder is Obama's Pick for Attorney General
Posted by Brandon Crow on 11.19.2008
After John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, Eric Holder will not only be breath of fresh air, but someone who...wait for it...actually upholds United States law.
Many news sources, including NBC News and Newsweek have reported that President-Elect Barack Obama has officially, but conditionally, offered the spot of Attorney General to Eric Holder, one of Obama's top advisors during the campaign. Besides being a close advisor to Obama, Holder was also the co-chair (with Caroline Kennedy) of Obama's Vice Presidential search team.
In my opinion, Holder is an excellent pick by Obama. The two have been friends for a long time, and Obama not only trusts Holder, but the two also hold similar views on many important social, political and ethical issues facing the US and the world.
Sources say that Holder has been on Obama's short list of AG since the very beginning. And this is for good reason. Holder spent much of his career serving in the Justice Department as a prosecutor. The man has prosecuted many high profile cases with high-ranking defendants including a judge, a diplomat, an assistant U.S. attorney and a leading organized crime figure (American Bar Association Journal).
Though Holder is a staunch supporter of Obama and worked under Bill Clinton, he has a history of bipartisanship and has worked well with both parties. Most notably, Holder was nominated to a judgeship by President Ronald Reagan, and served very briefly as AG under George W Bush while John Ashcroft was undergoing Senate confirmation. The American Bar Association Journal said, "In 1999 (after the Ken Starr circus), Holder helped convince Republicans to scrap independent counsel investigations, successfully arguing before Congress that wrongdoing by public officials can, and should, be handled by the Justice Department."
Most importantly for Obama, the United States, and the world, the selection of Holder signals the end of two of the biggest stains on America in recent times--GITMO and the use of torture.
On GITMO, Holder said, "the utility of Guantanamo has long since passed. It is a place now that has given this nation a black eye around the world. It has an impact on our ability to interact with our allies. It certainly gives fuel to our adversaries, who would say that we are a nation that is not governed by law." Holder has also publicly stated that Guantanamo must be closed as part of the healing process.
If you thought Holder felt strongly about closing GITMO, look at what he has to say about torture: "The notion that the Department of Justice would in essence sanction the use of torture as part of the President's plenary power over military operations is as wrong as it is shortsighted. This position flies in the face of the entire history of American law, helping to create a climate in which unnecessarily abusive conduct can somehow be considered legitimate."
Besides being capable and eager to rectify these two pockmarks on the face of American history, Holder also holds the correct perspectives on a few other, pressing issues for the country:
1. The overhaul of the Justice Department: "I think the next president is going to have to deal with...trying to revitalize and remake a Justice Department that has been really sullied in the last four, eight years or so by people who tried to politicize. And I want to make very clear, I am excluding the present Attorney General [Michael Mukasey], who I think is doing a good job, as well the people who served as Deputy Attorneys General, who I also think have done a good job. But other people at the Justice Department have not necessarily done what has always happened under Republican and Democratic administrations, where the Department has essentially been seen as something not political, and really kind of left to its own. That was not the case in this past administration."
2. Corporate Malfeasance: "Some really intense, vigorous investigation needs to be done to see if any laws were broken. We're facing the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression and to the extent people have done anything -- either by fraud, conspiracy or broken any federal laws -- I think that needs to be uncovered, and people need to be held accountable. The United States taxpayers are going to be paying substantial amounts of money for a good many years in order to make this thing better and to prevent this thing from getting worse. And to the extent that people have profited illegally, or done things illegally, they need to be found out and they need to be prosecuted. And I think that should be a priority for the next Attorney General."
Isn't it great...doesn't it provide us all a much-needed shot of national pride--dare I say, PATRIOTISM--to see the future Attorney General of the United States stand up to torture, to politicizing the Justice Department, to corporate greed and fraud?
After John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, Eric Holder will not only be breath of fresh air, but someone who...wait for it...actually upholds United States law rather than try to find loopholes and side doors to help keep his friends and bosses from being prosecuted as war criminals.
I don't know how Obama will turn his comments on marijuana law reform in 2004 into action with this guy. Holder has said in interviews that the laws aren't to be ignored or weakened and that penalties should be stricter. I say nuts to that!
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 04:02 AM
And another Clinton holdover joins the crew...MORE CHANGE FROM WASHINGTON POLITICS AS USUAL!
Seriously, who won the election, Obama or Hillary?
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 08:17 AM
One more thing...On the last day of Clinton's term, Holder told the White House he was "neutral, leaning toward favorable" for a presidential pardon for Marc Rich, a wealthy commodities dealer who had spent years running from tax charges. Rich's ex-wife, Denise, was a prominent Democratic Party donor.
====> CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! WE'LL MAKE THOSE RICH WALL STREET GUYS PAY (except when they give our party lots of money).
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 08:29 AM
"And another Clinton holdover joins the crew"
Is that really wrong when the Clinton crew had one of the most popular terms in recent history?
Posted By: Bob (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 09:05 AM
Closing GITMO + Soft on torture...
You sure Obama isnt looking out for some of his buddies? wink wink
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 09:29 AM
"Isn't it great...doesn't it provide us all a much-needed shot of national pride--dare I say, PATRIOTISM--to see the future Attorney General of the United States stand up to torture, to politicizing the Justice Department, to corporate greed and fraud? "
Holder acted as defense for Chiquita in a case where the banana giant was accused of colluding with death squads committing atrocities against plantation workers. That's change you can keep.
Posted By: Archer (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 09:36 AM
Competence is a change. Holder will help restore the justice department.
Posted By: Matt (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM
To those who are complaining this isn't really "change," I've got one straight, serious question for you:
You really don't think there is going to be a difference between Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales?
Remember, eight years ago, lots of people thought there'd be no difference whether or not Al Gore was in the White House or George W. Bush.
I think history has a valuable lesson here that we ought to look at and learn before we complain.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Holder is no saint. He helped keep the Rich pardon from the people who prosecuted the case, refused to indict Ira Magaziner for perjury and other charges even after a federal judge basically said he should and was complicit in the seizure of Elian Gonsalez at gun point.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered) on November 19, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Chris,
You may be right that Holder "is no saint." And anyone who's been around for that long, playing at that level of power crosses paths with some tough cases and situations. That's a given to anyone who holds/will hold that office.
However, like I said in my previous comment, the majority of the body of this man's work has clearly demonstrated his pension for ethics, thoughtfulness and consideration for the rule of law. To pick at perhaps 5% of his record as an argument against the other 95% seems too fickle and ideological.
Like I said, look at his entire career. Most importantly, look at his stance on the two most vital issues of our time and how they reflect on the US image in the world: GITMO and torture.
Holder may have some small bumps in his past, but on the truly important issues of our time, he is dead-on right.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 01:46 PM
Isn't this the same PUNK that was guilty of Tax evasion among other crimes against the Government, but was pardoned by Clinton?
Posted By: Truth (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Ethics? Clinton used him to get Reno to not pursue the illegal campaign donations scandal.
And he isn't going to do a damn thing about the recent mortgage meltdown, since the epicenter was at Fannie and Freddie where almost everyone from the Clinton administration got cushy jobs. Do you really think he has the stones to go after Rahm and the rest of them?
If Obama really wanted to send a message of change, he should have offered the job to Patrick Fitzgerald. Although that would never happen because he is about to take down the half of the government of Illinois.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered) on November 19, 2008 at 04:22 PM
Holden might not be a saint, but he's far more qualified and competent than Gonzales. You can't argue that.
Our justice department has been tarnished over the last eight years, and everyone is crying about some stupid pardon? Holden has been openly critical of gitmo, torture, and the politicization of the justice department. He's a solid choice.
Posted By: matt (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Matt,
I absolutely agree with you. Nobody is untainted, but the difference is crytal clear between Gonzales/Bush and Holder/Obama.
Only ideologues refuse to see or acknowledge this.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 06:44 PM
"Only ideologues refuse to see or acknowledge this."
====> Even lefties like CNN's Jack Cafferty are openly questioning why the CANDIDATE OF CHANGE is picking so many Clinton retreads. Sorry, it isn't just the "idealogues" who see it this way.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 08:07 PM
"
====> Even lefties like CNN's Jack Cafferty are openly questioning why the CANDIDATE OF CHANGE is picking so many Clinton retreads. Sorry, it isn't just the "idealogues" who see it this way.
"
Changing the coach can be enough to get the team to play differently. You don't have to replace all the players as well.
Posted By: JO (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Oh this is so amusing hearing the right wingers mocking the choice it is a big time change there Eric and definitly something we can believe and its definitly better then a holdover from Bush because 8 years of that loser is something we all would like to forget.
Posted By: Guest#2739 (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Funny someone named truth stated a false opinion no he didn't get pardoned.
Posted By: Guest#8820 (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Has there ever been a left winger you didn't masterbate to Crow?I thought you socialists hated multi-million dollar theives.Well your wonder boy led the charge to pardon Marc Rich, so were is your outrage?I guarantee you if Bush had done the same you would have posted on it in two seconds.You are a partisan hack on par with the Keith Olbermanns of the world.There is one difference,Olby takes in 7.8 million a year while you live in your moms basement.LOSER
Posted By: Bill (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 01:29 AM
yeah closing gitmo is great in theory but we will have two options, release them, when some 40 + prisoners we have released have been captured or killed, or hold them in leavenworth where they wait for trial, and since they would be in the us, these terroists would have the right to look at classified info, and tell me how many people would've have been killed had we not extracted the info from khalied sheik mohamedd, and so far it looks like the only new face obama will have is janet napoltino as dhs head, which even though i'm a conserative think is a very good choice as she is a border governor and has actully been rather tough as far illegal immigration goes in arizona
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 02:02 AM
You know... for a bunch of people who couldn't stop talking about Obama not having sufficient experience for the positon for more than 2 seconds during the election, nobody seems to think he should select people for his team who have experience. I have expressed this point in previous posts... any President, be they Republican or Democrat has a very very limited talent pool to choose from. Exactly how many people in America do you think are qualified to hold these positions?
Just because these people have been in Washington for a while now doesn't mean that it will be business as usual. Whether or not that happens will be largely determined by Obama's ability to lead his staff in the direction he wants them to go rather then being led by them. Only time will tell whether that happens or not. Get over yourself people. Do you really think that if McCain were elected we would not have seen a multitude of appointements that had experience in the Regan/Bush/Bush administrations? I wonder if you'd be howling so loudly about broken promises of change which Mr. McCain also offered in bulk.
Posted By: Riverbottom Nightmare (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 07:51 AM
Bill said "You are a partisan hack on par with the Keith Olbermanns of the world.There is one difference,Olby takes in 7.8 million a year while you live in your moms basement.LOSER"
Its nice to see that the right wing is so well represented by great intellects that not only directly take on the important issues but also inspire with their ability to build a respectful consensus around them.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 09:36 AM
"these terroists would have the right to look at classified info,"
If you've already decided on their guilt or innocence, there's no need for a trial.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on November 20, 2008 at 10:08 AM
SHIT!!!! Riverbottom Nightmare, you nailed it right on the head. These people are just Obama-critics-no-matter-WHAT.... Holder was also involved in the Reagan Administration, but you don't here them mention that.
To hear these people complian about the staff of a very well liked and successful, administration is DUMBFOUNDING. (especially successful economically while we're in a recession).
Posted By: LawrenceNY (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Bill the Loser:
Perhaps in your blind, conservative, ideological rage, you completely missed (but I think you just chose to ignore) the part where I talk about Eric Holder's bipartisan credentials. So, let me quote that paragraph for you here again, in entirety:
>>Though Holder is a staunch supporter of Obama and worked under Bill Clinton, he has a history of bipartisanship and has worked well with both parties. Most notably, Holder was nominated to a judgeship by President Ronald Reagan, and served very briefly as AG under George W Bush while John Ashcroft was undergoing Senate confirmation. The American Bar Association Journal said, "In 1999 (after the Ken Starr circus), Holder helped convince Republicans to scrap independent counsel investigations, successfully arguing before Congress that wrongdoing by public officials can, and should, be handled by the Justice Department."
Reagan, the man-god you masturbate to, appointed him to a judgeship. He convinced a Republican-dominated Congress to do away with the very partisan act of using special prosecutors.
If that's a socialist liberal to you, then you're a burger, fries and drink short of a Happy Meal.
It's pretty easy, isn't it Bill the Loser, to completely ignore everything about a man, draw up your own strawman and then "tear down that wall..."
I'll leave the masturbating to the experts, namely you, in your mother's basement. I'm too busy teaching college students, meeting with them during office hours, as well as spending my evenings sitting with clients and planning their retirement.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Hey now... there are worst things in the world than masturbating.. I c'mon, tell me Janet Reno doesn't get your pulse racing just a bit. Seriously though...
It would seem we've made it through yet another day with somebody being accused of being a socialist. To those who have been calling any Progressive in sight a socialist I have one question...
If you in fact do receive a tax cut in the next few years, do you pledge to not accept the money? To not spend it on anything whatsoever to make your life better. I work for a company owned by Warren Buffett, would you like a mailing address where you can stroke a check every two weeks to return that tax cut to him since a good portion of the wealth being spread would be coming from his pocket? If you aren't willing to pledge that than please... shut up and stop calling people socialists, otherwise you are a hypocrite which is far worse.
Posted By: Riverbottom Nightmare (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 01:11 PM
Way to not sink to Bill's level, Brandon. Your students would be proud; keep those ideals alive!
Posted By: Bisch (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Eirc Holder is responsible for the Presidential pardon of Mark Rich who by any account is one of this countries most notorious influence peddler and tax cheats. As political as any AG in recent history. Epic!
Obama is turning into Clinton's bitch.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 02:01 PM
Bisch:
I hear you; I get your point. But sometimes, some people need to be shown what they look and sound like.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 03:39 PM
Fair enough. I've succumbed to the temptation multiple times myself; didn't mean to come across like I was immune to it.
Posted By: Bisch (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 05:02 PM
Bisch,
Have you participated in F or F before? If not, care to? If so, care to again?
Email me. crow.brandon@gmail.com
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Riverbottom Nightmare
" If you in fact do receive a tax cut in the next few years, do you pledge to not accept the money? "
I know this isnt the topic of this post but Riverbottom has missed the point completely. And I had to comment. The very fact of government intervention results in deadweight loss (administrative cost of distribution) and disencentives that simply make bottom up economics unworkable. Case in point enrique's excelent article on the GM situation. See what happens when the proletariat takes over. Please pick up an economics book sometime.
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 09:42 PM
I never heard of college professors blogging on a wrestling sight before.Do you and your community college students argue about who was the real nature boy .Flair,Rodgers,Landell?I have read your posts before Brandon and if you really are a prof. then I feel bad for the education system.Everthing liberal is perfect,everything conservative is evil is just tired and lame.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 09:55 PM
Another sweeping generalizing statement; I'm not this writer's #1 fan but I haven't exactly seen evidence to support that he believes everything conservative is "evil".
Also, I don't think you assumed enough about wrestling fans. Next time you should outright accuse us of living in dilapidated trailer parks, eating Pogos we found under the oven, and fucking our sisters. Then maybe people would take you more seriously.
Posted By: Bisch (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Bisch,I know you want to defend your fellow left wing post friend but seroiusly Brandon Crow is one of the most disrespectful people on this sight.If he is a prof.,can you imagine the hate he spews to his class?As for him not saying everything conservative is evil, well you have me on semantics but little else.Scroll through these articles and see the bile he posts.As for the attorney general he advocates for,honestly do not know enough about him.Willing to learn,the Marc Rich stuff is tawdry.Notice Mr.Crow never defends his action,just spins and changes the subject.An educator indeed.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 12:04 AM
By the way Bisch,It stands to reason if I am on this sight I have probably taken in a wrestling match or two in my day.The point I was making is that Brandon Crow talks down to people with his superior attitude on a sight that has roundtables about Chris Jerichos tights.If he is involved with a institution of higher learning,I find it funny that he pounds his chest here instead of somewhere like Olbermann watch were he will be truley challenged.Of couse most left wing profs. don't like to be challenged,they like to indoctrinate.Thanks all the same and have a good night.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM
OK, the remark about Jericho's tights made me laugh. It's hard not to take this site seriously with such impassioned topics and a forum in which to discuss them, but it's definitely important to try and stay grounded.
Should I be embarrassed to be affiliated with an academic institution as well as being a regular commenter on 411 politics?
Posted By: Bisch (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Bisch,you do not have anything to be ashamed of at all.I do not see you acting superior much unlike the person referenced earlier.Discourse is healthy,fanatic hate mongering on either side ruin the debate.Late
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 12:55 AM
This is seriously a bad choice for marijuana advocates. Despite Obama's previous statement about not having the justice department "waste resources on prosecuting those individuals," this pick definitely flies in the face of all that. Holder is someone who believes in the strict, textual letter of the law and considers nothing to be a "petty" crime. He actually blamed stoners for the rise in violent crime in DC and fought for stiffer penalties there. Likely, he will not respect state law and will continue pushing Bush's agenda of continually busting cannabis clubs in California and other places where it is legal. Get ready to dig in deep, 'cause the War on Drugs is about to get nastier.
Posted By: Sudoku (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 03:56 AM
That's good because you loser drug addicts need to realize there is a price to be paid for your laziness and refusal to follow the law.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 09:33 AM
John, John, John...
Wow, are you ever losing it, if you ever had it to start with. I'm not Crow's biggest fan either, but seriously dude, you need to step back and reconsider. I've followed this zone a lot and I've seen a lot of Crow's work dating back some three years here. He does lean left--he makes no secret of this--but he's not anti-conservativism and he definitely doesn't think everything conservative is evil. If you have history with this writer, you'll know that he's slowly moved left and more and more "against coservativism" because Bush has bastardized what it means to be a conservative as well as what it means to lead by his horrible choices and outright bullying, superior mentality. I'm assuming you haven't followed Crow's stuff very long.
In any case, I don't think Bisch has you only on "semantics" when he called you on the "everything conservative is evil" remark. It's not mere semantics when you go for an easy-out, gross overgeneralization like that. I'm not an English professor like Crow is, but I can just see him shaking his head when he read your post.
A gross overgeneralization like that isn't just a matter of semantics. It shows a penchant for exaggeration, a deficit of clear thinking and judgment. Not to mention...precision and articulation.
You're playing right into Crow's hands. Here you are criticizing him for "being superior," meanwhile, you provide not only ammo for him, but a crystal example of why he's "superior," if he indeed is.
And John, before you come here and bash Crow for "acting superior," you should really check yourself before you post. Have you even looked at the full crappiness of your posts?
Do you really call that writing? Your comments are so chock full of errors that I can again, see Crow (or anyone with command of the English language for that matter), laughing at you. Not because he's superior, but because you provide the perfect ammo for a case against yourself.
Posted By: You Wish You Could Be Crow (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM
John,
Let me continue with what I was saying. You need to stop sabotaging yourself if you want to be taken seriously. Here, let me show you:
"The point I was making is that Brandon Crow talks down to people with his superior attitude on a sight that has roundtables about Chris Jerichos tights."
Ok, first of all, it's site, not sight. Sight means vision. And Chris Jerichos tights needs an apostrophe between "Jericho" and the "s" after it. That shows possession. What you've said is that there are a bunch of Chris Jerichos and then just tossed in "tights" for some crazy reason.
"I find it funny that he pounds his chest here instead of somewhere like Olbermann watch were he will be truley challenged.
Dude, John, what did I just get through telling you? You just keep making yourself look like an idiot. What exactly does "omewhere like Olbermann watch were he will be truley challenged." even mean? What's an Olbermann watch? Also, "were he will" should read "where." And "truley" is spelled truly.
You've got to stop. If you can't even show you have some semblance of knowledge of the English language beyond a second grade level, how are you going to come on here and try to call Crow out? This is like a whiny third grader calling out his teacher for "acting superior."
I'll be real clear...it's not acting superior. It's demanding accountability. If your comments were an essay, and Crow failed your ass because of all the grammar and syntax issues (not to mention spelling problems), would you cry and condemn him as being superior?
Well, one, he would be superior because he actually has a command of the language. Two, good luck trying to convince others he's "being mean and superior" because he failed an F paper.
"Of couse most left wing profs. don't like to be challenged,they like to indoctrinate."
Wow, there you go again with the broad-sweeping overgeneralizations. Oh wait...is this one also "semantic?" In that case, you sure have a lot of problems with semantics.
Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously, don't be so fucking laughable.
Posted By: You Wish You Could Be Crow (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 11:36 AM
"Bill the loser" OH SNAP! Brandon just smacked u down boy!
and "john" i've tangled with brandon before; you want to be careful when you try. the man is super sharp and he'll give you a tongue lashing th likes of whch uyou've never seen. make you crwal into a corner and hug yourselfand cry!
by the way, why do you characterize liberal profssos as indoctrinating? isn't that gernally all profs? what, conserative profs dont indoctrinate? they don't push their own worldviews? they lecture about the greatness of clinton and obama?
if libby profs indotrnate, and according to myth, higher ed is filled with libby profs, then you might want to explain where all these people with conservative (some times xtreme views) keep coming from?
youve got some major gaps in your argumnt buddy. and frankly, i'm surprised brandon hasn't come back on and smacked you around yet.
and why are you focusing on his libby prof job? the next sentence he says he spends evenings working as a financial planner. why'd you completly ignore that? are financial planners also libby elites who think all conservatives are evil?
im really surprised brandon hasn't coem back and smacked you down. you make so easy for him.
Posted By: WhipCrack (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Didn't know my post was being graded for a english essay."wish you were Brandon" Does not cover the points I made about Crow,he only nitpicks my typing.Sad really that you have that much free time on your hands.As for you calling me names and questioning my intelligence, it says more about you than it does me.If you are "grading "essays do you want to take a crack at whipcracks post?It makes me look like Hemingway.By the way,I do not wish to be Brandon Crow.I have a great job,beautiful wife and three kids.I live in a nice house on a lake with a view of Mt.Rainier.Honestly I am lucky.Besides I do not covet other peoples lifestyles or things.Nice try
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 11:28 PM
John,
Here we go again...
Way to go, bro! You claim I don't address your points. I think I do. You bashed Crow for being superior. I consistently referenced that point while picking at your typing. Try to deny it as much as you want. I addressed your major gripe with Crow.
And insofar as me not addressing your point goes...where oh where in your entire response do you even come close to addressing anything I pointed out?
NEVER. NADA.
Remember what I said to you about you providing the best example against yourself? Well, congratulations, buddy boy, you did it again! See, this is why Crow talks to some people like they're real slow. It's because they're real slow.
"Didn't know my post was being graded for a english essay."wish you were Brandon" Does not cover the points I made about Crow,he only nitpicks my typing.Sad really that you have that much free time on your hands"
I'm not grading your comments like an English essay. I even said I'm not an English Prof, but I could pick all of your crappy language use (or lack of language use) up. Crow would have a field day "grading" your drivel.
And you wanna talk about having too much free time? I'm a single college guy, barely 19 years old, and frankly, I happen to be off this entire week due to Thanksgiving. No wonder I have free time on my hands.
What about you?
According to you, you've got a beautiful wife and three kids. And you can see Rainier. What the hell are you doing constantly checking a "politics zone" built into a "wrestling" website?
Look at how many posts and how many times you're here! You've got more posts here than anybody on this freakin' thread!
Yeah...real nice buddy!
Like I keep telling you, but you simply won't drill into your thick skull...
You keep offering the best counter case against yourself.
You need to hone some thinking skills, or grow some brain cells.
You can't even handle me. Stop trying to call out Crow. It's obvious you'll get your ass "PWNED!"
Frankly, WhipCrack can't spell or write either. But he doesn't claim to be anything. He's not calling out Crow. And no, he doesn't make you look like Hemingway; just a fifth grade version of himself. Congrats! You just jumped three grade levels.
But WhipCrack ponders why Crow hasn't com back to personally smack you down. It's pretty clear why.
He simply doesn't need to. You prove his case so well all by yourself.
Put the shovel down; stop digging. The more you post, the bigger a fool you look, the more Crow sits in his office and laughs at you while comparing you his "special needs" students.
Posted By: You Wish You Could Be Crow (Guest) on November 22, 2008 at 12:12 AM
"That's good because you loser drug addicts need to realize there is a price to be paid for your laziness and refusal to follow the law."
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 09:33 AM
Because the law is always correct, yes? Just as prohibition was the law, just as segregation was the law. You're a fucking idiot if that's how you guide your life, by letting others tell you what is lawful without thinking. So tell me, bitch, what exactly is a "drug" then? And why is tobacco and alcohol legal when they are physically more dangerous than pot?
A vast majority of drug abuse and overdose in this country are from LEGAL prescription drugs. So who the fuck is abusing what? Go ahead though, lock up all the petty "drug" offenders but don't whine about why all your taxes are going toward building endless prisons.
P.S. There's a new law that says you are required to choke on my prick.
Posted By: Sudoku (Guest) on November 22, 2008 at 04:30 AM
Other than the P.S. part i have to agree with Sodoku.By the way,"wish you could be crow" if you really are 19 then why don't you go to the gym or try to meet a girl.Do something normal people your age do instead of critizing my bad typing skills.Really dude,there is more out there than turning my opinions on a website into anger and name calling.Trust me,when you get older you will understand.Now calm down and have a great thanksgiving.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 24, 2008 at 12:55 AM
STAY CURRENT