What Republican President Has Ever...

[Katzndogz]

obama divided the nation deliberately. It is much easier to destroy a fractured country than one that is united.

 

[Jarhead]

Well so far they have soon to be Swifters have three things going: purple hearts ala Kerry, women and Israel. Got to be plenty more things in the woodpile.

No...they do not have the "women" thing.

They are not using it...for they have no issue with his pro life position.

They are not using his purple heart thing....although the left seems to believe that his purple hearts make him qualified to be SoD......they have nothing to do with qualiuficationas.

The Israel thing?

Sure, they have that. And it is a legitimate concern for a man with that position to be involved in mnilitary decisions.

So far, then, you believe it will be the Israel issue that carries the day against Hagel? Wonder if Obama even knew about this issue?

I bleive his position in regards to an ally in the most volatile area in the world; with the most military activity, is, by far, the most important issue that should be addressed.

His purple hearts has nothing to do with his qualifications...and there is nothing one can do or say to make them relevant.

His position on abortions has nothing to do with his qualifications...and there is nothing one can say or do to make it relevant.

 

[Jarhead]

Interesting....the police acted stupidly, huh...

Soooooo...

Lets say the man who answered the door claimed to be the owner of the house, and the police said "OK, sorry to bother you"...and left..

And the next day we find out that the good professor was found dead in his house tied to a chair, where he was bound and gagged when the police came and didnt bnother to ask the "apparent homeowner" for ID?

Would you, again, say the police acted stupoidly for NOT asking for ID?

The rich may nbeed to pay their fair share....but being presented as "the rich need to pay their fair share" when the rich pay 70% of the taxes is a DIVISIVE way to say it....

How could it have been said in a non divisive way?

"We have a serious issue. We are spending more than we take in and whereas it may sound easy to cut spending, such is not so easy during a long and hard recession. So whereas the wealthier Americans already pay the majority of the taxes that support this country, I am asking congress to turn to them and ask them to help out even more, for most Americans can not afford a tax increase right now"

As opposed to making it sound like the wealthy are greedy and selfish...he could have presented in a way where the wealthier Americans are "helping" the problem.

Obama chose the divisive approach.

You need to pay more attention.

No response Sallow?

What response was needed?

I thought I covered it.

The police did act stupidly.

They should have been put on desk duty.

And the rich do need to pay more.

We've been cutting taxes since the 80s on the top grifters.

Now we have a huge deficit.

Opps.

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

 

[saveliberty]

Sallow is not a debater.

 

[BlindBoo]

What GOP President has ever nominated a Democrat to a position similar to Secretary of Defense?

Who cares?...We oppose Hagel based on his positions, not his party plus he's not qulified..Which doesn't matter much to liberals since Obama's not quilified to be president

All we have to know is that Hagel is Anti-Zionist. After all, Obummer grew up with a steady dose of Anti-zionism under his Reverend Wright for about 20 years or so. In fact, Rev. Wright used to pass out tracts in favor of Palestinian support.

Geesh. Is that so hard?

In addition, I remember watching Romney and Obama debate foriegn policy. Romney kept agreeing with Obama, only, he claimed he could do it much better.

That's absurd.

"This accusation -- Fred Kaplan calls it the "bugaboo issue" -- stems from the time, six years ago, when as a Senator Hagel complained to a reporter that "the Jewish lobby" intimidates many lawmakers on Capitol Hill. According to Kaplan, Hagel also "once mentioned that he was a senator from Nebraska, not a senator from Israel," to which Kaplan says, "These may have been impolitic remarks, but they weren't false -- either in strict substance or in spirit."

"The absurdity of this charge, leveled last month by editorial writer and columnist Bret Stephens, ought to be apparent to anyone who reads what Israelis themselves write. I direct Stephens and others to page 426 of Anita Shapira's new book, Israel: A History. She writes that when the George H.W. Bush administration in 1992 withheld $10 billion in loan guarantees, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir "enlisted the help of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. Congress, but in vain." Shapira is professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University.

Dorian de Wind: Chuck Hagel: 'A Touch Anti-Semitic'? A 'Bugaboo Issue'

 

[Sallow]

No response Sallow?

What response was needed?

I thought I covered it.

The police did act stupidly.

They should have been put on desk duty.

And the rich do need to pay more.

We've been cutting taxes since the 80s on the top grifters.

Now we have a huge deficit.

Opps.

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

 

[saveliberty]

What response was needed?

I thought I covered it.

The police did act stupidly.

They should have been put on desk duty.

And the rich do need to pay more.

We've been cutting taxes since the 80s on the top grifters.

Now we have a huge deficit.

Opps.

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Police responded to a disturbance at the property. It was a reasonable search. This is a long standing understanding of the amendment. Actually it would have been preferential treatment had they not checked and also potentially unsafe for the professor.

 

[whitehall]

Why does it matter? Democrats are so fixated on party loyalty that they forget about qualification for the job. Hagel made the wrong call regarding the Troop surge and it remains to be seen if he is really an anti-semite. Are republicans supposed to confirm him because he once ran as a republican? Democrats threw Joe Lieberman out of the party when he became too moderate. If bush mane any mistakes regarding 9-11 it was keeping every dumb-assed Clinton appointee.

 

[Jarhead]

What response was needed?

I thought I covered it.

The police did act stupidly.

They should have been put on desk duty.

And the rich do need to pay more.

We've been cutting taxes since the 80s on the top grifters.

Now we have a huge deficit.

Opps.

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Complete diversion.

I will ask again....

If the police came due to a call of an apparent break in at the premises...and a man answered the door and claimed to be the nome owner...and the police said "opk, sorry to bother you" and left wiothout checking ID..

And the next day, the professor was found dead and it was revealed that the man who claimed to be the homeowner was, actually, an intruder who had the professor tied up and gagged at the time...

Would you say the police acted stupidly by not asking for ID when the intruder claimed to be the homeonwner?

Why do you keep deiverting from the question?:

Bear in mind.....the scenario I described above is a scenario the police are trained to CONSIDER....."impersoinating" is what many criminals will do when caugfht in the act......

So answer me....what would have been more stupid...asking foir id....or not asking for id?

 

[Inthemiddle]

As Obama didn't have any executive experience, he had few contacts and had to use others.

Seriously? Of all the raging partisan BS to be found on this board, this falls into a special category deluded stupidity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What GOP President has ever nominated a Democrat to a position similar to Secretary of Defense?

Similar?

How's Vice-President?


Republican Abraham Lincoln's vice-president was Democrat Andrew Johnson.

 

[blackhawk]

What GOP President has ever nominated a Democrat to a position similar to Secretary of Defense?

Presidents rarely nominate people from the opposition party to high profile positions when they do it's usually just to give the appearance of them being bipartisian.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Who cares?...We oppose Hagel based on his positions, not his party plus he's not qulified..Which doesn't matter much to liberals since Obama's not quilified to be president

In other words, when the Democrats get bipartisan, the GOP doubles down on partisanship.

 

[Jarhead]

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Police responded to a disturbance at the property. It was a reasonable search. This is a long standing understanding of the amendment. Actually it would have been preferential treatment had they not checked and also potentially unsafe for the professor.

Exactly...

If that professor was NOT home...and it was an intruder who was in the house....and the police "believed his word" and didnt ask for ID...and the next day the professor came home to a ransacked home with all of his valuables stolen...and then he got word that the police were there and did not ask the intruder for ID...my guess is he would have siad that the police acted stupidly and they should have asked for ID.

 

[Jarhead]

What response was needed?

I thought I covered it.

The police did act stupidly.

They should have been put on desk duty.

And the rich do need to pay more.

We've been cutting taxes since the 80s on the top grifters.

Now we have a huge deficit.

Opps.

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

I just noticed you threw that line in.

Which means you are not at all interested in what I am saying and instead acting like a child.

You are no longer worthy of my time.

 

[Inthemiddle]

All we have to know is that Hagel is Anti-Zionist.

You say that as if it's a bad thing....

 

[DiamondDave]

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Complete diversion.

I will ask again....

If the police came due to a call of an apparent break in at the premises...and a man answered the door and claimed to be the nome owner...and the police said "opk, sorry to bother you" and left wiothout checking ID..

And the next day, the professor was found dead and it was revealed that the man who claimed to be the homeowner was, actually, an intruder who had the professor tied up and gagged at the time...

Would you say the police acted stupidly by not asking for ID when the intruder claimed to be the homeonwner?

Why do you keep deiverting from the question?:

Bear in mind.....the scenario I described above is a scenario the police are trained to CONSIDER....."impersoinating" is what many criminals will do when caugfht in the act......

So answer me....what would have been more stupid...asking foir id....or not asking for id?

SwallowTroll cannot answer that one... He is too busy thinking how to turn the play on words on his username back at someone...

 

[DiamondDave]

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

I just noticed you threw that line in.

Which means you are not at all interested in what I am saying and instead acting like a child.

You are no longer worthy of my time.

The mind of a child acts like a child.. go figure

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

What GOP President has ever nominated a Democrat to a position similar to Secretary of Defense?

Why would they? There aren't any qualified.

 

[Sallow]

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Police responded to a disturbance at the property. It was a reasonable search. This is a long standing understanding of the amendment. Actually it would have been preferential treatment had they not checked and also potentially unsafe for the professor.

No it's not.

Professor Gates was on his property.

What part of the amendment aren't you getting?