"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:50:59 GMT, NOYB penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

Interesting. Any citation?


http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watc...al-appts.shtml

The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp



You are correct as it indeed looks like GWB has a lot of catching up to do
to beat Clintons numbers. ;-)

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

So 38.4% are still Clinton appointees.

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

So 38.4% are still Clinton appointees.

What a weird post, weird point, lack of logic and total lack of
coherence. Its not a relevant point for this site, and this guy could
not reason his way out of a wet paper bag. I think the comment about
the effects of a diet of right wing blowhards was probably on the money
- severe indigestion from that diet may have caused this gaseous
discharge.

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

So 38.4% are still Clinton appointees.

Welcome to the fight, davee. In your two attempts at posting, you failed to
write anything at all in the first one, and failed to form a coherent
sentence in the second one. When you're ready, Mr. Paulson, to discuss
issues at the level of an adult with a working brain, I'm here to give you
smack down.

Carry on.




"davee" wrote in message
ups.com...
What a weird post, weird point, lack of logic and total lack of
coherence. Its not a relevant point for this site, and this guy could
not reason his way out of a wet paper bag. I think the comment about
the effects of a diet of right wing blowhards was probably on the money
- severe indigestion from that diet may have caused this gaseous
discharge.

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out
of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

So 38.4% are still Clinton appointees.