Chuck Hagel

Posted 544 day(s) ago 2174 Views 83 Replies
Results 1 to 50 of 84
Page 1 of 2 1 2
  1. #1
    playmakr's Avatar
    Posts
    2,052
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond

    Chuck Hagel

    Wow.

    I'm not generally for denying cabinet appointments. President Obama won and he should be able to put in who he wants to be put in. But, wow, I don't recall a worse or more incompetent performance in a nomination process for a cabinet nominee. It's not about disagreeing with him on policy, but rather he seemed unbelievably unfamiliar with the basics of these issues.

  2. #2
    I would be glad for a more libertarian leaning guy as secretary of defense but he won't cut the militarism and stop the interventionist policies we've got in place so I don't see much of a change no matter who is Sec of Defense.

  3. #3
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,129
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    0
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    So this moron admits he doesn't know everything he needs to know but will be willing to learn if confirmed. Afuckingmazing. What's one more unqualified, inexperienced person in the WH?

  4. #4
    .
    Last edited by soonerintn; July 19th, 2013 at 05:52 PM.

  5. #5

  6. #6
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Joe Scarborough Calls John McCain And Ted Cruz 'Embarrassing' For 'Badgering' Chuck Hagel

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chuck...#ixzz2JmIWnH6B
    .

  7. #7
    .
    Last edited by soonerintn; July 19th, 2013 at 05:51 PM.

  8. #8
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by soonerintn View Post
    Of course he did. Hagel is a joke.
    Scarborough is an embarrassment.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    Scarborough is an embarrassment.
    McCain is the embarrassingest of them all.

  10. #10
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by TIMB0B View Post
    McCain is the embarrassingest of them all.
    Not on Friday.

  11. #11
    Yuck Fu's Avatar
    Posts
    4,285
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Ah so, mutha fucka.

    Originally Posted by TIMB0B View Post
    McCain is the embarrassingest of them all.
    You have to question why McCain had Hagel co-chair his presidential candidacy in 2000 since Hagel is such an idiot.

    I wonder who is a bigger idiot? Hagel or Colin Powell?

  12. #12
    http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/02/02/...el-had-to-lie/
    Why Hagel Had To Lie

    Like most supporters of Chuck Hagel’s appointment to serve as Secretary of Defense, I was appalled by his performance at the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday. He was inarticulate, incoherent and bumbling. Nonetheless, I completely sympathize with him.
    An honest man, lying about his views doesn’t come naturally to him. Unlike John McCain and his other attackers and many of his supporters, he has a real inability to say what he doesn’t mean. It affected his whole performance. He is not the man we saw on Thursday.But lying is required on the subject of Israel (the only subject that mattered at this hearing).
    No, Hagel is not anti-Israel. Nor does he want to see Iran develop nuclear weapons. But his views on Israel-related matters are nuanced. Having spoken with him on Israel, I would characterize his views as pretty much the same as Israel’s president, Shimon Peres. He wants the occupation to end. He favors war only as a last resort in dealing with Iran. And he supports territorial compromise with the Palestinians. He certainly supports a secure Israel and would help preserve that security.
    However, although it is fine for Shimon Peres to publicly hold these views, the lobby will fight to the death to destroy any American official who does.
    So politicians lie. I don’t think Hagel lies about his views on Israel any more (actually he lies less) than Al Franken, Chuck Schumer,* Sherrod Brown, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer or Bernie Sanders. Not one of them believes the things he or she is forced to say about Israel. It’s just that the Nebraskan does not lie as smoothly as the others.
    But he has no choice but to lie. Otherwise the lobby will go after him. And, adding insult to injury, he has to lie about the existence of the lobby that is making him lie as he did when he apologized for saying that the lobby makes senators take positions they know are “stupid.”
    I really don’t know what a guy like Hagel can do about this. The lobby is going to be a domineering force in American political life until the current generation of Israel First donors dies off (Jewish kids are as likely to join AIPAC as the NRA).
    But here is my recommendation for now: learn to lie better. Be smooth, get tears in your eyes when you mention Israel, invoke the Holocaust, quote your “sainted mother” (as Biden does) who told you to love Israel like a brother.
    And then get in there and support negotiations with Palestinians, Iranians, and an end to the occupation. In other words, fake it. But do it well. On Thursday, Hagel failed the test. He is a terrible faker. And the lobby’s dominance ensures that only the best get to serve. Except as president of Israel.
    The lobby has got to go. But, until it does, this is reality. On Thursday, we all got to see the lobby in all its ugliness and unlimited power. We can’t just look away.

    *I worked On Capitol Hill for 20 years including working closely with Chuck Schumer and his staff. He has no interest in Israel whatsoever, other than as a cash cow for his campaigns. That makes it all the easier for him to support positions that could lead to its collapse; he does not care. Never did. His opposite is Dianne Feinstein who actually cares about Israel and (unlike her Schumeresque colleaguse, Barbara Boxer), avoids advocating lobby dictated policies that are destroying Israel.

  13. #13

    Chuck Hagel

    Or better yet, don't be a coward.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Or better yet, don't be a coward.
    Even if your career may be at stake?

  15. #15

    Chuck Hagel

    Originally Posted by TIMB0B View Post
    Even if your career may be at stake?
    Especially then. If people are more worried about keeping their jobs instead of doing their jobs, we end up with today's Washington.
    The following users like this post: TIMB0B


  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Yuck Fu View Post
    You have to question why McCain had Hagel co-chair his presidential candidacy in 2000 since Hagel is such an idiot.
    Isn't that McCain the same guy who picked the genius from Wasilla as his running mate? Pretty obvious the guy has horrible judgment.

  17. #17
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    McCain did show bad judgement with hagel and Palin and continues to show it on immigration. Obama and hagel should be a good fit since they both were against the surge even after it worked. You can't beat judgement like that.

  18. #18
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, Brooke Brower, NBC News
    *** Hagel’s rough day: There’s no need to sugarcoat it -- former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s (R-NE) confirmation hearing yesterday before the Senate Armed Service Committee was brutal. It was a combination of a defense secretary nominee who appeared unprepared (you could tell he’s been out of politics since 2008), as well as a downright hostile reception from his former GOP colleagues (especially John McCain). Here’s the Washington Post: “Hagel appeared defensive, frustrated and lethargic during much of the hearing.” The New York Times: “Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee showed him little deference, cross-examining him like prosecutors and often cutting him off.” And here was Sen. Claire McCaskill’s (D-MO) charitable response to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “I think that Chuck Hagel is much more comfortable asking questions than answering them.” She added, “That’s one bad habit I think you get into when you’ve been in the Senate. You can dish it out, but sometimes it’s a little more difficult to take it.” Yesterday, we wrote that a bad performance could undo all the positive momentum Hagel’s nomination had over the past couple of weeks. So there goes the momentum.
    http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...&lite=obinsite

  19. #19
    playmakr's Avatar
    Posts
    2,052
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond

    McCain is definitely all over the place. I don't know why there were so many questions on Iraq. But Hagel and the admin. had to know that's just how these hearings go. Old scores to settle, political gains trying to be made. It's the nature of the beast, right or wrong. And he was unprepared and weak. I don't even disagree with Hagel on all that much, really, but it was a horrible day for him.

  20. #20
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    McCain is definitely all over the place. I don't know why there were so many questions on Iraq. But Hagel and the admin. had to know that's just how these hearings go. Old scores to settle, political gains trying to be made. It's the nature of the beast, right or wrong. And he was unprepared and weak. I don't even disagree with Hagel on all that much, really, but it was a horrible day for him.
    Ole chuck didn't mind calling out W where he thought he was wrong....he just can't admit where he was right.

  21. #21
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Nebraska GOP senator says she will vote against Obama's choice of Hagel for defense secretary


    02-07-2013 08:31 AM CST |By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press

    WASHINGTON (Associated Press) --
    Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer says she will vote against Chuck Hagel to be the next defense secretary.

    Fisher wrote an op-ed published Thursday in the Omaha World-Herald. She casts Hagel's views as out of the mainstream, a point she argued during his confirmation hearing last week. She also says Hagel gave, quote, "confusing and contradictory" testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    Fischer's opposition was widely expected, as Hagel endorsed her Democratic rival _ former Sen. Bob Kerrey _ in the November election. Hagel is a former two-term GOP senator from Nebraska.

    .

  22. #22
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Here's a bit of good news:

    Republicans linking Hagel's nomination to demand for information from White House on Benghazi


    02-14-2013 07:52 AM CST |By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press

    WASHINGTON (Associated Press) --
    Senate Republicans have questioned Chuck Hagel's truthfulness and they've challenged his patriotism.

    Now they're threatening to stonewall his nomination to be President Barack Obama's defense secretary unless the White House gives them more information about what Obama was doing on the night of the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has set the stage for a full Senate vote on Hagel, a former two-term Republican senator from Nebraska and twice-wounded Vietnam combat veteran. Reid filed a motion Wednesday to limit debate and force a vote, which is expected to be held Friday. While Democrats hold a 55-45 edge in the Senate and have the numbers to confirm Hagel on a majority vote, they need the support of five Republicans to clear the way for an up-or-down vote on him.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he'll vote against ending debate on Hagel's nomination, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., may join him, if the White House doesn't tell them whether Obama spoke to any Libyan government official during the assault and requested assistance for the American personnel at the mission. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the raid last September at the compound in Benghazi.

    "There seems to not be much interest to hold this president accountable for a national security breakdown that led to the first ambassador being killed in the line of duty in over 30 years," Graham said. "No, the debate on Chuck Hagel is not over. It has not been serious. We don't have the information we need. And I'm going to fight the idea of jamming somebody through until we get answers about what the president did personally when it came to the Benghazi debacle."

    McCain declined to say Wednesday whether he would try to delay Hagel's confirmation if Obama did not provide an answer. "My position right now is I want an answer to the question," he said.

    The nomination of John Brennan as CIA director is also being delayed; the Senate Intelligence Committee is pushing off a vote amid demands that the White House turn over more details about drone strikes against terror suspects and about the Benghazi attacks. Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein of California said a vote likely will be postponed till late February.

    A president's pick for a Cabinet post usually requires only a majority vote, leading Reid to accuse Senate Republicans of orchestrating a filibuster against a nominee for defense secretary for the first time in the country's history.

    But the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee challenged Reid's claim, saying it's not unusual to hold a Cabinet nominee to a 60-vote threshold. "It's not a filibuster," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. "This has happened (before), and it's happening again right now."

    Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he's confident that the White House will supply the information Graham and McCain want and that Hagel will be confirmed.

    A bitterly divided Armed Services Committee on Tuesday voted to approve Hagel by a 14-11 vote, with all the panel's Democrats backing him. The committee's Republicans were unified in opposition to their onetime colleague, who will succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta if he's confirmed.

    Hagel has faced intense opposition from Republicans, who have challenged his past statements and votes on Israel, Iran, Iraq and nuclear weapons.

    But the questions and comments before Tuesday's vote took a more personal and confrontational turn. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, demanded that Hagel provide information on compensation for speeches over a five-year period _ three years more than required _ and suggested that without the information, the committee wouldn't know whether Hagel got money from "extreme and radical groups."

    Inhofe said reports about Iranian leaders praising Hagel's nomination back up Cruz's claim. "I'd say he's endorsed by them. You can't get any cozier than that," Inhofe said.

    Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican senator from Maine once thought to be a possible backer of Hagel's nomination, said Wednesday she'll oppose his confirmation. Hagel's views on the most critical threats facing the United States are "unsettling," she said in a four-page statement.

    Collins said Hagel was unwilling to ask the European Union to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization in 2006, and he has been hesitant to back the use of all nonmilitary options, such as unilateral sanctions, to pressure Iran into ceasing its nuclear program.

    But Collins, who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she would not join in a filibuster to block a final vote.

    In a statement, Collins said that Hagel's "courageous military service deserves our praise and gratitude" and that he cares deeply about the welfare of the troops. But she said she could not get past what she described as Hagel's troubling record on key national security issues. Confirming him as defense secretary would send the wrong message to the country's allies and adversaries about the resolve of the United States, Collins said.

    "I am unable to support Senator Hagel to be the next secretary of defense because I do not believe his past positions, votes and statements match the challenges of our time, and his presentations at his (confirmation) hearing did nothing to ease my doubts," Collins said. "I regret having to reach that conclusion given our personal relationship and my admiration for Senator Hagel's military service. But I have concluded that he is not well-suited for the tremendous challenges our country faces during this dangerous era in our history."

    Two Republicans _ Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Mike Johanns of Nebraska _ have announced their support for Hagel.
    Hagel may still get confirmed but I am enjoying all of the delays and angst he receives.

  23. #23

    Chuck Hagel

    Unprecedented and disgraceful from the GOP senators.

  24. #24
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Unprecedented and disgraceful from the GOP senators.
    LOL

  25. #25
    SarasotaSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    5,948
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Sarasota, FL

    Re: Chuck Hagel

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Unprecedented and disgraceful from the GOP senators.
    Almost as bad as politicizing a war?

  26. #26

    Chuck Hagel

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Unprecedented and disgraceful from the GOP senators.
    Bush had a scotus nominee knocked down because it was a terrible choice.

  27. #27
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Bush had a scotus nominee knocked down because it was a terrible choice.
    So did Reagan. Are you equating a SCOTUS seat to a cabinet position? And to top it off, didn't the Senate have to vote on those nominees? Republicans won't even allow a vote. The use of the filibuster to block a cabinet position is what I was referring to.

  28. #28
    boomermagic's Avatar
    Posts
    5,234
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Bush had a scotus nominee knocked down because it was a terrible choice.
    bush made a terrible choice ???? NO !!!!! Thats all that **** knew.

  29. #29
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Bush had a scotus nominee knocked down because it was a terrible choice.
    That was a bipartisan thing, as Republicans were against Harriett Miers, too. Swing and a miss!

  30. #30

    Chuck Hagel

    Originally Posted by Sinatra View Post
    That was a bipartisan thing, as Republicans were against Harriett Miers, too. Swing and a miss!
    Well, yea. The pubs were instrumental in stopping the nomination. Bush told them to trust him and they said, nope. Congress stopped the nomination--hell, that's the point of nominating someone. I missed nothing. The pubs stopped a bad court nom and they're stopping a bad cabinet nom here.

  31. #31

    Chuck Hagel

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    So did Reagan. Are you equating a SCOTUS seat to a cabinet position? And to top it off, didn't the Senate have to vote on those nominees? Republicans won't even allow a vote. The use of the filibuster to block a cabinet position is what I was referring to.
    An argument could be made that in a time of perpetual war, Sec Def is as important as a seat on the Court.

  32. #32

    Re: Chuck Hagel

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    An argument could be made that in a time of perpetual war, Sec Def is as important as a seat on the Court.
    False. The cabinet position is temporary. Court positions are for life.

    But beyond that is the idea that a Secretary of Defense nomination vote has never been filibustered, which is another ridiculous use of the tool. And then to top it off, it is circulating that the vote is being denied not because the senate has a problem with Hagel, but because they want more Benghazi information. It is bullshit that the President of the United States cannot even get a vote on his Secretary of Defense.

  33. #33

    Chuck Hagel

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    False. The cabinet position is temporary. Court positions are for life.

    But beyond that is the idea that a Secretary of Defense nomination vote has never been filibustered, which is another ridiculous use of the tool. And then to top it off, it is circulating that the vote is being denied not because the senate has a problem with Hagel, but because they want more Benghazi information. It is bullshit that the President of the United States cannot even get a vote on his Secretary of Defense.
    And nobody is going to die because of a decision made by a court member.

    If they're doing it to get more info on Benghazi, good for them. This admin has done it's best to filibuster any investigations there. I know you like the guy, but you really need to stop and consider why would Congress do this to get info on Americans dying? Why do they have to do this to get info?

  34. #34

    Re: Chuck Hagel

    I just hope that if the republicans ever win the presidency, the democrats give them hell.

    Again, it is unprecedented, and extremely shitty to deny a vote on the President's choice for Secretary of Defense. It would be one thing to have the nomination fail, but to block a vote period is so low and despicable, it really shows how divided Washington is and makes the GOP look like a bunch of little shits.

    This is inexcusable, when Obama has offered an olive branch by picking a Republican to run Defense, and is an escalation in hyperpartisanship by the Right.

  35. #35

    Re: Chuck Hagel

    I can see the headlines now as the NATO Summit approaches and the Pentagon is without a new leader. And threats of another filibuster on CIA nominee, John Brennan.

    "Republicans Play Politics with National Security"

    I am sure after a recent electoral ass whooping, and a feeble attempt to rebrand as a party of decent people, this is exactly what the GOP and conservatives need.

  36. #36

    Chuck Hagel

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    I just hope that if the republicans ever win the presidency, the democrats give them hell.

    Again, it is unprecedented, and extremely shitty to deny a vote on the President's choice for Secretary of Defense. It would be one thing to have the nomination fail, but to block a vote period is so low and despicable, it really shows how divided Washington is and makes the GOP look like a bunch of little shits.

    This is inexcusable, when Obama has offered an olive branch by picking a Republican to run Defense, and is an escalation in hyperpartisanship by the Right.
    There's a lot of unintended irony in your post. If you think Hagel is an olive branch to the Pubs, or that Obama even understands what bipartisanship is, you truly have no objectivity regarding this admin.

  37. #37

    Re: Chuck Hagel

    Traditionally when a president nominates or retains a member from the previous administration (from a different party) it is viewed as an olive branch and a sign of bipartisanship. Ted Cruz crossed the line in committee questioning Hagel's patriotism and character. And this can only end badly for the republicans.

    What is the harm in allowing a vote on the Secretary of Defense?

  38. #38
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Traditionally when a president nominates or retains a member from the previous administration (from a different party) it is viewed as an olive branch and a sign of bipartisanship. Ted Cruz crossed the line in committee questioning Hagel's patriotism and character. And this can only end badly for the republicans.

    What is the harm in allowing a vote on the Secretary of Defense?
    Did he bother to nominate a pub that hadn't pissed off the rest of the party? He could have nominated a number of pubs and not had problems. Panetta breezed through his confirmation.

  39. #39

    Re: Chuck Hagel

    Well, at one point Mitch McConnell himself praised Hagel for his foreign policy chops and John McCain said he would make a fantastic Secretary of State.

    Again, what is the harm in allowing a vote, and why shouldn't the President be able to pick his own cabinet?

  40. #40
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Well, at one point Mitch McConnell himself praised Hagel for his foreign policy chops and John McCain said he would make a fantastic Secretary of State.

    Again, what is the harm in allowing a vote, and why shouldn't the President be able to pick his own cabinet?
    All politics, OOO. Hagel is probably going to be confirmed...the pubs are just delaying it while they drag Hagel through the mud and twist Obama's arm on Benghazi.

  41. #41
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Well, yea. The pubs were instrumental in stopping the nomination. Bush told them to trust him and they said, nope. Congress stopped the nomination--hell, that's the point of nominating someone. I missed nothing. The pubs stopped a bad court nom and they're stopping a bad cabinet nom here.
    Incorrect. Preventing the Miers nomination from moving forward was a bipartisan effort. Stopping/slowing down/whatever else you want to call what's being done to Hagel is strictly a partisan effort. Also, if you think the Republicans are "stopping a bad cabinet nom[ination] here", then what will you say if they let the nomination move to a full vote by the Senate?

  42. #42
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    All politics, OOO. Hagel is probably going to be confirmed...the pubs are just delaying it while they drag Hagel through the mud and twist Obama's arm on Benghazi.
    The headlines will read. "GOP Plays Politics with National Security".

    I do find it sad that our new Secretary of Defense will not be around for next week's NATO summit among civilian defense leaders. I bet it would have been a great chance for him to meet with our allies.

  43. #43

    Re: Chuck Hagel

    Does anyone think it is ironic that OOO is essentially now defending the Bush foreign policy stance?

  44. #44
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,388
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    Does anyone think it is ironic that OOO is essentially now defending the Bush foreign policy stance?
    I think it's more ironic that you are somehow blind to the fact that Mr. Hagel leans far more toward Ron Paul than W.

  45. #45

    Re: Chuck Hagel

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    I think it's more ironic that you are somehow blind to the fact that Mr. Hagel leans far more toward Ron Paul than W.
    Based on his history that is hard to say. I think he will pretty much push the Obama/Bush foreign policy regardless.

  46. #46
    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    I do find it sad that our new Secretary of Defense will not be around for next week's NATO summit among civilian defense leaders. I bet it would have been a great chance for him to meet with our allies.
    You obviously don't understand that it's more important for Graham to pander to his Tea-Party base in S.C. by leaning as far to the right as possible to insure his reelection in 2014.

  47. #47
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by Sinatra View Post
    You obviously don't understand that it's more important for Graham to pander to his Tea-Party base in S.C. by leaning as far to the right as possible to insure his reelection in 2014.
    If graham is pandering to the tea party then he is doing a poor job. His obamalike doormat approach to immigration should get his ass beat by the tea party.

  48. #48
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    If graham is pandering to the tea party then he is doing a poor job. His obamalike doormat approach to immigration should get his ass beat by the tea party.
    I don't follow the immigration issue closely and it seems apparent that you do. How is Obama's policy different than Reagan's was?

  49. #49
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,323
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by Sinatra View Post
    I don't follow the immigration issue closely and it seems apparent that you do. How is Obama's policy different than Reagan's was?
    Not really any different except in numbers...Reagan gave 3,000,000 amnesty in exchange for the "promise" of increased border security...but the border security obviously never happened. Now its 11,000,000 illegals but Obama wants to make their citizenship not contingent on having a secure border. Graham and some other pubs are for citizenship but they are stating it will be contingent on secure borders. Most tea partiers that I'm familiar with don't support any amnesty.

  50. #50
    I would support amnesty if we ended the federally funded war on drugs. Seriously that's a huge problem with our immigration policy right now because of all the violence that happens on our border because of it. This would become a free for all if we just gave amnesty to some of the same people we are trying to kill because of this stupid policy.

Similar Threads

  1. Hey Chuck. You Around?
    By KCRuf/Nek in forum Wayman's House
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 26th, 2013, 11:21 PM
  2. Hagel batting 000 in OK
    By okie52 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 17th, 2013, 07:50 AM
  3. Chuck Me
    By SoonerBounce in forum O'Connell's
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: September 21st, 2012, 06:03 PM
  4. LOL @ OKC Chuck
    By SarasotaSooner in forum O'Connell's
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: July 24th, 2012, 02:51 PM