Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

by **thephan** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 16:56:01

Rev_Beezer wrote:Glad most people here seem to think Alex Jones is nuts. I was reading threads on reddit during lunch, they love the guy.

consider the source and the reasoning @reddit A very high entertainment factor.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 17:32:27

jerseyhoya wrote:If Romney had won and selected the actual VP nominee for the Democratic Party from 2000 as his Secretary of Defense, the Democratic reaction would have been nothing but applause, presumably

Leiberman was never an enlisted man, so no. Not a salute, either

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 19:17:41

thephan wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:If Romney had won and selected the actual VP nominee for the Democratic Party from 2000 as his Secretary of Defense, the Democratic reaction would have been nothing but applause, presumably

Come on Hoya, you are better then that. Joe Lieberman would be a gawd awful SecDef where as that turncoat Hagel has plenty to offer in this area. If you went with Kerry as SecDef I still think, aside from veteran status, he would be a bad choice too.

Lieberman would offer the same advantages to a Republican president as Secretary of Defense as Hagel offers to Obama. Over the past decade they have both increasingly found themselves aligned with the views of the opposing party on foreign policy/defense issues. Lieberman would have given some degree of bipartisan cover to any initiatives Romney wanted to pursue, which seems to be the reason Hagel is being chosen. Lieberman just spent the last 20 years of his life on the Senate Armed Services Committee and would've been plenty well qualified to run the Defense Department.

All of that is kind of irrelevant to the point I was making that because you liked someone a decade ago doesn't mean you should have to support them in the present if different issues have arisen in the interim on which you have significant disagreements.

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:If Romney had won and selected the actual VP nominee for the Democratic Party from 2000 as his Secretary of Defense, the Democratic reaction would have been nothing but applause, presumably

Leiberman was never an enlisted man, so no. Not a salute, either

Do you think serving in the military should be a requirement for one to be Secretary of Defense? 6 of the previous 21 Secretaries of Defense did not serve in the military. The only legal requirement is that the Secretary of Defense has not served in the military for at least seven years prior to appointment as head of the Defense Department in order to ensure our tradition of civilian command of the military does not come into question.

by **JFLNYC** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 19:28:52

jerseyhoya wrote:Lieberman would offer the same advantages to a Republican president as Secretary of Defense as Hagel offers to Obama.

Hagel's in the pocket of the insurance industry, too?

by **phdave** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 19:58:57

jerseyhoya wrote:The only legal requirement is that the Secretary of Defense has not served in the military for at least seven years prior to appointment as head of the Defense Department in order to ensure our tradition of civilian command of the military does not come into question.

I thought the only legal requirement for being Sec of Defense was that you had to be a Republican.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 21:09:33

Does the opposition to Hagel have any real legs? I would think a former Senator (who happened to be a Republican) would have enough allies left in the Senate that his confirmation would sail through.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 22:33:13

jerseyhoya wrote:Do you think serving in the military should be a requirement for one to be Secretary of Defense? 6 of the previous 21 Secretaries of Defense did not serve in the military. The only legal requirement is that the Secretary of Defense has not served in the military for at least seven years prior to appointment as head of the Defense Department in order to ensure our tradition of civilian command of the military does not come into question.

1) no
2) i just love it when the chickenshit republizards like Cheney, or Lindsay Graham, or Dan Senor, or their swiftboatload of assholes go after guys who served, questioning their - well my personal feeling is they don't have standing to question any of those guys even if they walked over to the would-be questioners & pissed on their shoes

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 23:02:49

Analysis: Obama may turn Medicare reform into wider health debate

At root this is a brilliant idea.

In practice I'm not sure either the configuration of elected players, or Obama's health policy authorities are up to it.

I'm a probably post this in econ & health reform threads because it cuts across all three

by **Youseff** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:33:22

Rev_Beezer wrote:Glad most people here seem to think Alex Jones is nuts. I was reading threads on reddit during lunch, they love the guy.

He's a thought leader of your average new Republican.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:36:47

Oh for fuck's sake

by **Doll Is Mine** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:38:47

Youseff wrote:
Rev_Beezer wrote:Glad most people here seem to think Alex Jones is nuts. I was reading threads on reddit during lunch, they love the guy.

He's a thought leader of your average new Republican.

This.

by **Youseff** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:40:43

jerseyhoya wrote:Do you think serving in the military should be a requirement for one to be Secretary of Defense? 6 of the previous 21 Secretaries of Defense did not serve in the military. The only legal requirement is that the Secretary of Defense has not served in the military for at least seven years prior to appointment as head of the Defense Department in order to ensure our tradition of civilian command of the military does not come into question.

If it's good enough for this guy, it's relevant enough to cherry pick statistics to prove your point.

by **Youseff** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:42:02

jerseyhoya wrote:Oh for fuck's sake

Not you, necessarily, but the aggressively pro-2nd amendments type loves this shit. You're more of the type that tries to play pundit on a board with your friends.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:50:26

Youseff wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Do you think serving in the military should be a requirement for one to be Secretary of Defense? 6 of the previous 21 Secretaries of Defense did not serve in the military. The only legal requirement is that the Secretary of Defense has not served in the military for at least seven years prior to appointment as head of the Defense Department in order to ensure our tradition of civilian command of the military does not come into question.

If it's good enough guy, it's relevant enough to cherry pick statistics to prove your point.

What does this mean?

by **Youseff** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:51:22

sorry

...good enough ... "for this" guy, it's...

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:53:55

Youseff wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Oh for fuck's sake

Not you, necessarily, but the aggressively pro-2nd amendments type loves this shit. You're more of the type that tries to play pundit on a board with your friends.

Alex Jones isn't a thought leader of young Republicans. He's a fringy libertarian conspiracy theorist with a decent sized following that votes more Republican than Democrat, but a huge portion of his audience either votes third party or doesn't register to vote because that's just another way the government can track you. Anyone who advances theories that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks is not a Republican. End of story.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:54:56

Youseff wrote:sorry

...good enough ... "for this" guy, it's...

In the history of the United States of America there have been 21 men who have served as Secretary of Defense. 6 of them did not serve in the military. What's being cherry picked? It's the entire population.

by **Youseff** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:55:46

Please reject them from your party, but they are definitely in your party and they definitely vote very similar to you.

by **Youseff** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 00:59:43

ah gotcha I thought it was around longer than that. Didn't realize it was a 20th century invention.

by **Youseff** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 01:10:32

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... can-party/

“Tea party” movement Republicans – 28 percent of Republicans

Archived

Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff