Chuck Hagel Punnished For Views on GWB..

[GannonFan]

Of course you think the rhetoric escalated when Newt Gingrich came aboard - you're a hardcore Dem partisan, what else would you think? To you the GOP is always at fault. That's a fine position to have, and you're free to have it. But politics has been politics for centuries - I think you're giving Karl Rove too much credit if you think he invented political mud slinging.

And like I said, what does it matter if the GOP is being beat at their own game or not? At the end of the day, Obama is stuck with a moribound economy and now an intransigent GOP controlled House that will likely stay that way throughout his last term. What has been won? To have the White House and no power to do anything truly substantial with it is nice but not what it could be. Politics might be the winner but for most of us who aren't partisans (although that's gotten less and less over time) there's not a lot of winning out here.

So you're blaming Obama's meanness for the make up of the GOP?

I believe I was pretty clear that I said the GOP shares the blame in that but yes, Obama's successful politicking has pushed the GOP into the corner where they are where they look like dunces, and probably are dunces. However, that now means Obama has to work with those dunces to get anything substantial done, and hence, why he'll finish his term without doing that. Soemtimes you can be too successful.

[BDKJMU]

Of course you think the rhetoric escalated when Newt Gingrich came aboard - you're a hardcore Dem partisan, what else would you think? To you the GOP is always at fault. That's a fine position to have, and you're free to have it. But politics has been politics for centuries - I think you're giving Karl Rove too much credit if you think he invented political mud slinging.

And like I said, what does it matter if the GOP is being beat at their own game or not? At the end of the day, Obama is stuck with a moribound economy and now an intransigent GOP controlled House that will likely stay that way throughout his last term. What has been won? To have the White House and no power to do anything truly substantial with it is nice but not what it could be. Politics might be the winner but for most of us who aren't partisans (although that's gotten less and less over time) there's not a lot of winning out here.

Wrong again, bro. Registered Independent since 1972.

You act like the republicans just became intransigent, that simply isn't true. And if you think the Republican's tactics didn't change with the coming of the neocons then you haven't been in touch for a while.

Nor am I a hard core democrat partisan, in fact, I would most always rather have the opposing party controlling one of the houses of Congress. I'm more of a populist and think Bernie Sanders is da man.

And I didn't venture an opinion as to whether it matters if the conks are getting beat at their own game; I'm just saying they are, that's all. Not that it isn't funny to watch them squeal, I mean these are the clowns that wanted to impeach a sitting Prez for getting some on the side, never mind that they were out soliciting in public restrooms themselves and screwing around on their dying wives.

Well, you play one on this message board, siding with the donks 99% of the time.

[houndawg]

Wrong again, bro. Registered Independent since 1972.

You act like the republicans just became intransigent, that simply isn't true. And if you think the Republican's tactics didn't change with the coming of the neocons then you haven't been in touch for a while.

Nor am I a hard core democrat partisan, in fact, I would most always rather have the opposing party controlling one of the houses of Congress. I'm more of a populist and think Bernie Sanders is da man.

And I didn't venture an opinion as to whether it matters if the conks are getting beat at their own game; I'm just saying they are, that's all. Not that it isn't funny to watch them squeal, I mean these are the clowns that wanted to impeach a sitting Prez for getting some on the side, never mind that they were out soliciting in public restrooms themselves and screwing around on their dying wives.

Well, you play one on this message board, siding with the donks 99% of the time.

Just tryin' to have some fun. If I had a lot more money I'd go with the other side.

[Baldy]

You're going to have to be more specific. Obama has made too many stupid moves to count, and there has yet to be one where it was a stroke of genius.

Sure. You explained that it was stupid for him to nominate Hagel, yet you also explained that it was genius ("win/win") because either way the Republicans come out looking bad. Go!

Wrong.
I said nominating Hagel was "well played" by Obama, period. I also said he has made too many stupid moves to count, but I clearly didn't lump the Hagel nomination in that category.

Try again.

[ASUMountaineer]

Sure. You explained that it was stupid for him to nominate Hagel, yet you also explained that it was genius ("win/win") because either way the Republicans come out looking bad. Go!

Wrong.
I said nominating Hagel was "well played" by Obama, period. I also said he has made too many stupid moves to count, but I clearly didn't lump the Hagel nomination in that category.

Try again.

Wrong.

You said that Obama made a "horrible" choice in picking Hagel. You then stated it was a "win/win," but not a ploy.

Like many of Obama's nominees, Hagel was a horrible choice from the start. It was a win/win for him.

Try again.

[kalm]

Wrong.
I said nominating Hagel was "well played" by Obama, period. I also said he has made too many stupid moves to count, but I clearly didn't lump the Hagel nomination in that category.

Try again.

Wrong.

You said that Obama made a "horrible" choice in picking Hagel. You then stated it was a "win/win," but not a ploy.

Like many of Obama's nominees, Hagel was a horrible choice from the start. It was a win/win for him.

Try again.

This is impossible. Baldy has never been wrong at anything...ANYTHING!

[Baldy]

Wrong.
I said nominating Hagel was "well played" by Obama, period. I also said he has made too many stupid moves to count, but I clearly didn't lump the Hagel nomination in that category.

Try again.

Wrong.

You said that Obama made a "horrible" choice in picking Hagel. You then stated it was a "win/win," but not a ploy.

Like many of Obama's nominees, Hagel was a horrible choice from the start. It was a win/win for him.

Try again.

Appies.

I NEVER said it was stupid for Obama to nominate Hagel. I said (as you quoted) Hagel was a HORRIBLE choice, period. The two are not mutually inclusive.

You do realize that stupid and horrible are not synonyms, correct?

Put the shovel down, Dude...

[ASUMountaineer]

Wrong.

You said that Obama made a "horrible" choice in picking Hagel. You then stated it was a "win/win," but not a ploy.



Try again.

Appies.

I NEVER said it was stupid for Obama to nominate Hagel. I said (as you quoted) Hagel was a HORRIBLE choice, period. The two are not mutually inclusive.

You do realize that stupid and horrible are not synonyms, correct?

Put the shovel down, Dude...

Iggles.

Ok, so Obama makes a lot of "stupid" moves, but the Hagel nomination was a "horrible" move, not a "stupid" move. Yet it was a "win/win" for Obama and was "well played" because no matter what the GOP looks bad. But, it was not a ploy by Obama, it was actually a "horrible" move. Was it dumb luck?

You do realize that "horrible" and "win/win" are mutually exclusive, correct?

Put the shovel down, dude (and learn to properly use the quote function).

[JohnStOnge]

I believe I was pretty clear that I said the GOP shares the blame in that but yes, Obama's successful politicking has pushed the GOP into the corner where they are where they look like dunces, and probably are dunces. However, that now means Obama has to work with those dunces to get anything substantial done, and hence, why he'll finish his term without doing that. Soemtimes you can be too successful.

It's not the the GOP members of Congress are dunces. It's that a critical mass of the electorate is composed of dunces. Thus Obama being elected President not only once but twice.

And if we are not dunces, we do not WANT Obama to get anything substantial that he wants done done. If he gets anything substantial that HE wants done done, that will be bad for the country. So we are better off trying to get through this disaster of an 8 year Presidency while minimizing the damage this President does.

[houndawg]

I believe I was pretty clear that I said the GOP shares the blame in that but yes, Obama's successful politicking has pushed the GOP into the corner where they are where they look like dunces, and probably are dunces. However, that now means Obama has to work with those dunces to get anything substantial done, and hence, why he'll finish his term without doing that. Soemtimes you can be too successful.

It's not the the GOP members of Congress are dunces. It's that a critical mass of the electorate is composed of dunces. Thus Obama being elected President not only once but twice.

And if we are not dunces, we do not WANT Obama to get anything substantial that he wants done done. If he gets anything substantial that HE wants done done, that will be bad for the country. So we are better off trying to get through this disaster of an 8 year Presidency while minimizing the damage this President does.

At least you would be if he wasn't kicking the bejeezus out of you at most every turn....

How do you guys like the politics of scorched-earth partisan ideology now, Johnny?

[Bronco]

He is a very smart man

Hagel 2007 Speech: North Korea 'Moving in the Right Direction'

In a speech to the Cato Institute in July 2007, then-Sen. Chuck Hagel claimed that relations with North Korea were "moving in a positive" direction because of multilateral talks with the regime of Kim Jong-Il.

[Bronco]

He learned from the Pres on how to hide his past

According to the Weekly Standard, Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel continues to block access to his archive at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.

There are piles of papers, speeches, and multimedia by or about Hagel at the university. Yet reporters are barred from seeing them. Hagel spokesman Marie Harf blathered, “Chuck Hagel’s record in the Senate is well documented in the public domain. Given his extraordinary disclosures to date, which surpass the threshold applied to nominees, there is no need to make this archived material public.”

The university says that the archives will eventually become available for viewing, but gave no timeline; administrators acknowledged that if Hagel were to grant access, the university could comply with his requests.

[CID1990]

I believe I was pretty clear that I said the GOP shares the blame in that but yes, Obama's successful politicking has pushed the GOP into the corner where they are where they look like dunces, and probably are dunces. However, that now means Obama has to work with those dunces to get anything substantial done, and hence, why he'll finish his term without doing that. Soemtimes you can be too successful.

It's not the the GOP members of Congress are dunces. It's that a critical mass of the electorate is composed of dunces. Thus Obama being elected President not only once but twice.

And if we are not dunces, we do not WANT Obama to get anything substantial that he wants done done. If he gets anything substantial that HE wants done done, that will be bad for the country. So we are better off trying to get through this disaster of an 8 year Presidency while minimizing the damage this President does.

Here's something he wanted done, and got done:

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/d ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

Man, conks, y'all are getting wasted here.

[Baldy]

Appies.

I NEVER said it was stupid for Obama to nominate Hagel. I said (as you quoted) Hagel was a HORRIBLE choice, period. The two are not mutually inclusive.

You do realize that stupid and horrible are not synonyms, correct?

Put the shovel down, Dude...

Iggles.

Ok, so Obama makes a lot of "stupid" moves, but the Hagel nomination was a "horrible" move, not a "stupid" move. Yet it was a "win/win" for Obama and was "well played" because no matter what the GOP looks bad. But, it was not a ploy by Obama, it was actually a "horrible" move. Was it dumb luck?

You do realize that "horrible" and "win/win" are mutually exclusive, correct?

Put the shovel down, dude (and learn to properly use the quote function).

"horrible move" was your choice of words, not mine.
I clearly said Hagel was a "horrible choice". There is a BIG difference between the two.
Maybe this will help you understand (doubtful though). Think of it as if the captain of the opposing team gets to pick a member of your team. The nonathletic geek is a horrible choice, but was a well played move by the opposing captain.

Hope you can get out of that hole, bro...

[houndawg]

Iggles.

Ok, so Obama makes a lot of "stupid" moves, but the Hagel nomination was a "horrible" move, not a "stupid" move. Yet it was a "win/win" for Obama and was "well played" because no matter what the GOP looks bad. But, it was not a ploy by Obama, it was actually a "horrible" move. Was it dumb luck?

You do realize that "horrible" and "win/win" are mutually exclusive, correct?

Put the shovel down, dude (and learn to properly use the quote function).

"horrible move" was your choice of words, not mine.
I clearly said Hagel was a "horrible choice". There is a BIG difference between the two.
Maybe this will help you understand (doubtful though). Think of it as if the captain of the opposing team gets to pick a member of your team. The nonathletic geek is a horrible choice, but was a well played move by the opposing captain.

Hope you can get out of that hole, bro...

You're being abused, Baldy. I'm calling Child protective service, hold tight.

[kalm]

Iggles.

Ok, so Obama makes a lot of "stupid" moves, but the Hagel nomination was a "horrible" move, not a "stupid" move. Yet it was a "win/win" for Obama and was "well played" because no matter what the GOP looks bad. But, it was not a ploy by Obama, it was actually a "horrible" move. Was it dumb luck?

You do realize that "horrible" and "win/win" are mutually exclusive, correct?

Put the shovel down, dude (and learn to properly use the quote function).

"horrible move" was your choice of words, not mine.
I clearly said Hagel was a "horrible choice". There is a BIG difference between the two.
Maybe this will help you understand (doubtful though). Think of it as if the captain of the opposing team gets to pick a member of your team. The nonathletic geek is a horrible choice, but was a well played move by the opposing captain.

Hope you can get out of that hole, bro...

Graduate of the AZ school of analogies.

[ASUMountaineer]

Iggles.

Ok, so Obama makes a lot of "stupid" moves, but the Hagel nomination was a "horrible" move, not a "stupid" move. Yet it was a "win/win" for Obama and was "well played" because no matter what the GOP looks bad. But, it was not a ploy by Obama, it was actually a "horrible" move. Was it dumb luck?

You do realize that "horrible" and "win/win" are mutually exclusive, correct?

Put the shovel down, dude (and learn to properly use the quote function).

"horrible move" was your choice of words, not mine.
I clearly said Hagel was a "horrible choice". There is a BIG difference between the two.
Maybe this will help you understand (doubtful though). Think of it as if the captain of the opposing team gets to pick a member of your team. The nonathletic geek is a horrible choice, but was a well played move by the opposing captain.

Hope you can get out of that hole, bro...

Don't hurt yourself backtracking, bro.

Your analogy is weak as it describes a ploy by the opposing captain, yet these are your words:

It wasn't a ploy.

Of course, your analogy also presents two perspectives. From my point of view (team captain), the nonathletic geek is a horrible choice, but from the point of view of the opposing captain it is a clever choice. So, either Obama made a clever choice in picking a horrible candidate as it harms the GOP, or he made a "horrible choice" and by dumb luck he happened into a "win/win" situation that he ultimately played well.

Pick which story you want to go with this time, or come up with a better analogy, then come back and try again.

[Baldy]

Don't hurt yourself backtracking, bro.

Your analogy is weak as it describes a ploy by the opposing captain, yet these are your words:

It wasn't a ploy.

Of course, your analogy also presents two perspectives. From my point of view (team captain), the nonathletic geek is a horrible choice, but from the point of view of the opposing captain it is a clever choice. So, either Obama made a clever choice in picking a horrible candidate as it harms the GOP, or he made a "horrible choice" and by dumb luck he happened into a "win/win" situation that he ultimately played well.

Pick which story you want to go with this time, or come up with a better analogy, then come back and try again.

Excellent.

My analogy was indeed a ploy (not that it's important) because the captain gained an advantage over the other team by picking the nonathletic geek. Now tell the class what advantage Obama gained by picking Hagel.

Let me help you....None. He's not running for reelection, choosing Hagel won't affect one single Congressional race next year, nor will it make one iota of a difference how the DoD operates.

Instead of getting your panties in a wad about whether Obama picking Hagel was a ploy or not (clearly not since there was no advantage gained), take some time, gather your thoughts, redirect your focus on the gist of the argument, and try again later.

[Baldy]

You're being abused, Baldy. I'm calling Child protective service, hold tight.

Since you are the resident expert on getting prison raped inside these forums, I respect your opinion.

[kalm]

Don't hurt yourself backtracking, bro.

Your analogy is weak as it describes a ploy by the opposing captain, yet these are your words:

Of course, your analogy also presents two perspectives. From my point of view (team captain), the nonathletic geek is a horrible choice, but from the point of view of the opposing captain it is a clever choice. So, either Obama made a clever choice in picking a horrible candidate as it harms the GOP, or he made a "horrible choice" and by dumb luck he happened into a "win/win" situation that he ultimately played well.

Pick which story you want to go with this time, or come up with a better analogy, then come back and try again.

Excellent.

My analogy was indeed a ploy (not that it's important) because the captain gained an advantage over the other team by picking the nonathletic geek. Now tell the class what advantage Obama gained by picking Hagel.

Let me help you....None. He's not running for reelection, choosing Hagel won't affect one single Congressional race next year, nor will it make one iota of a difference how the DoD operates.

Instead of getting your panties in a wad about whether Obama picking Hagel was a ploy or not (clearly not since there was no advantage gained), take some time, gather your thoughts, redirect your focus on the gist of the argument, and try again later.

"Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?"

[ASUMountaineer]

Don't hurt yourself backtracking, bro.

Your analogy is weak as it describes a ploy by the opposing captain, yet these are your words:

Of course, your analogy also presents two perspectives. From my point of view (team captain), the nonathletic geek is a horrible choice, but from the point of view of the opposing captain it is a clever choice. So, either Obama made a clever choice in picking a horrible candidate as it harms the GOP, or he made a "horrible choice" and by dumb luck he happened into a "win/win" situation that he ultimately played well.

Pick which story you want to go with this time, or come up with a better analogy, then come back and try again.

Excellent.

My analogy was indeed a ploy (not that it's important) because the captain gained an advantage over the other team by picking the nonathletic geek. Now tell the class what advantage Obama gained by picking Hagel. Then why was it a "win/win" for Obama? Your words, not mine.

Let me help you....None. He's not running for reelection, choosing Hagel won't affect one single Congressional race next year, nor will it make one iota of a difference how the DoD operates.

Instead of getting your panties in a wad about whether Obama picking Hagel was a ploy or not (clearly not since there was no advantage gained), take some time, gather your thoughts, redirect your focus on the gist of the argument, and try again later.

Hmm...interesting, your words seem to defy you. Let's look back at your words:

It wasn't a ploy. Like many of Obama's nominees, Hagel was a horrible choice from the start. It was a win/win for him.

So, just to be clear, it was a "horrible choice," that was a "win/win" for Obama yet he "gained no advantage?" I'm only looking at your words here.

The only panties in a wad here are yours because you're the one that can't keep his argument straight. I don't have to defend my argument because I'm not making an argument, just picking apart yours. Aren't you tired of digging yet?

Just imagine what might have been Baldy had you quoted my post with a relevant response.

[houndawg]

Excellent.

My analogy was indeed a ploy (not that it's important) because the captain gained an advantage over the other team by picking the nonathletic geek. Now tell the class what advantage Obama gained by picking Hagel. Then why was it a "win/win" for Obama? Your words, not mine.

Let me help you....None. He's not running for reelection, choosing Hagel won't affect one single Congressional race next year, nor will it make one iota of a difference how the DoD operates.

Instead of getting your panties in a wad about whether Obama picking Hagel was a ploy or not (clearly not since there was no advantage gained), take some time, gather your thoughts, redirect your focus on the gist of the argument, and try again later.

Hmm...interesting, your words seem to defy you. Let's look back at your words:

It wasn't a ploy. Like many of Obama's nominees, Hagel was a horrible choice from the start. It was a win/win for him.

So, just to be clear, it was a "horrible choice," that was a "win/win" for Obama yet he "gained no advantage?" I'm only looking at your words here.

The only panties in a wad here are yours because you're the one that can't keep his argument straight. I don't have to defend my argument because I'm not making an argument, just picking apart yours. Aren't you tired of digging yet?

Just imagine what might have been Baldy had you quoted my post with a relevant response.

What we have here folks is a textbook case of a real conservative asserting his right-of-ownage over a garden variety punk-neocon faux-conservative.

If this sort of thing can get legs on a national level the Republican Party may be able to regain some of its lost tattered credibility and actually cut a deal or two.

[kalm]

Hmm...interesting, your words seem to defy you. Let's look back at your words:



So, just to be clear, it was a "horrible choice," that was a "win/win" for Obama yet he "gained no advantage?" I'm only looking at your words here.

The only panties in a wad here are yours because you're the one that can't keep his argument straight. I don't have to defend my argument because I'm not making an argument, just picking apart yours. Aren't you tired of digging yet?

Just imagine what might have been Baldy had you quoted my post with a relevant response.

What we have here folks is a textbook case of a real conservative asserting his right-of-ownage over a garden variety punk-neocon faux-conservative.

If this sort of thing can get legs on a national level the Republican Party may be able to regain some of its lost tattered credibility and actually cut a deal or two.

I would vote for "Mounty" in a heart beat.

[houndawg]

What we have here folks is a textbook case of a real conservative asserting his right-of-ownage over a garden variety punk-neocon faux-conservative.

If this sort of thing can get legs on a national level the Republican Party may be able to regain some of its lost tattered credibility and actually cut a deal or two.

I would vote for "Mounty" in a heart beat.