|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
![]() |
Clio the Leo
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 08:59 AM Original message |
"Sestak couldn't have been nominated for secretary of the Navy" (The Timeline Doesn't Work) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joeybee12
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 09:05 AM Response to Original message |
1. This is BS...this "voice" is a conservative nut job...and as a reader points out... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 09:19 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Sestak didn't decide to run until AFTER Specter switched. So no, NOT easily proven wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joeybee12
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 09:25 AM Response to Reply #2 |
3. Did you read what i wrote? Specter was talking to Dems AND Obama |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 09:31 AM Response to Reply #3 |
4. What you wrote is irrelevant. If Sestak hadn't announced he was running... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joeybee12
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 09:54 AM Response to Reply #4 |
6. Bull-pucky...the timeline of when Specter ANNOUNCED is irrelevant... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 10:11 AM Response to Reply #6 |
7. Regardless of what you want to call it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 10:27 AM Response to Reply #7 |
9. Please cite the statute in question |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 10:50 AM Response to Reply #9 |
11. Sure, happy to oblige |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 11:02 AM Response to Reply #11 |
13. Ah, very good, a first step...Now, let's apply some facts, shall we |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 11:32 AM Response to Reply #13 |
14. Both sections are related |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 11:56 AM Response to Reply #14 |
15. Ah, ah, ah... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 12:23 PM Response to Reply #15 |
16. How come you won't answer the simple question? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 12:32 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. Ah... and where's that durn original birf certificate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 04:46 PM Response to Reply #17 |
37. I hope your judges are impressed with your deflection and straw men |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 04:52 PM Response to Reply #37 |
41. Why, thank you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 06:21 PM Response to Reply #41 |
49. In court we have depositions to take care of stonewalling. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 06:24 PM Response to Reply #49 |
50. Not when you file a complaint you do not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 01:47 PM Response to Reply #16 |
22. Are you really that clueless about how the typical Whitehouse uses lawyers? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 03:11 PM Response to Reply #22 |
31. I always love the "evil lawyer" thing... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 04:50 PM Response to Reply #31 |
40. Most lawyers consult other lawyers if they are accused of something. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 04:55 PM Response to Reply #40 |
43. Isn't anonymity a wonderful thing? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 06:19 PM Response to Reply #43 |
48. Anonymity certainly helps you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 06:29 PM Response to Reply #48 |
51. Umm... I'm not anonymous |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog
![]() |
Wed May-26-10 11:55 AM Response to Reply #51 |
57. So you are saying all the thousands of people on DU are cowards? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 04:48 PM Response to Reply #22 |
38. I am sure you will educate me. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 01:40 PM Response to Reply #15 |
20. An act is not a thing? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 02:16 PM Response to Reply #20 |
24. No, it is not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 02:44 PM Response to Reply #24 |
28. I believe you are arguing around my point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 03:07 PM Response to Reply #28 |
30. It's getting very close to the "double intent" principle |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 03:37 PM Response to Reply #30 |
32. So, hypothetically |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 03:59 PM Response to Reply #32 |
34. "you would not see any problem with that?" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 04:26 PM Response to Reply #34 |
35. The exercise of the appointment power IS a use of influence |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 04:39 PM Response to Reply #35 |
36. You did exactly what I warned you not to do |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 04:50 PM Response to Reply #36 |
39. Fair enough |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 05:01 PM Response to Reply #39 |
44. "but it is still clearly a quid pro quo" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 05:12 PM Response to Reply #44 |
45. I disagree with you inasmuch |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 05:14 PM Response to Reply #45 |
46. If you do... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mkultra
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 12:59 PM Response to Reply #14 |
18. dropping out of a race is not a legal "thing of value" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 01:17 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. Can you imagine the consequences.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Drunken Irishman
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 02:48 PM Response to Reply #19 |
29. Of course...whether it was politically or personally motivated. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rocktivity
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 01:45 PM Response to Reply #18 |
21. DING DING DING! Mkultra, you're our grand prize winner |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Drunken Irishman
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 02:27 PM Response to Reply #11 |
25. It's good to see a DUer whose name is literal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 10:35 AM Response to Reply #6 |
10. Sestak's HIMSELF SAID he was "being courted to run the day that news broke" that Specter SWITCHED. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rocktivity
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 01:48 PM Response to Reply #10 |
23. And if Sestak was offered A DIFFERENT job |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
butterfly77
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 02:40 PM Response to Reply #1 |
26. Everytime I hear this story .. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BeyondGeography
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 09:35 AM Response to Original message |
5. I wonder how smart Sestak feels now about pushing this story in the first place |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
butterfly77
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 02:43 PM Response to Reply #5 |
27. I knew Sestak would be a problem because.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AllentownJake
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 06:41 PM Response to Reply #27 |
54. Now are people starting to see my Arlen vote? nt. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
frazzled
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 10:14 AM Response to Original message |
8. Additionally, SecNav must have been retired from active duty for 5 years |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Phx_Dem
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 10:53 AM Response to Original message |
12. As long as he was qualified for whatever job he was offered, I don't see the problem. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 03:56 PM Response to Reply #12 |
33. +1. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cha
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 04:54 PM Response to Original message |
42. So what job was he offered? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 06:18 PM Response to Reply #42 |
47. GOP Talking Point Generator - He Accepted /nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cha
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 06:30 PM Response to Reply #47 |
52. .. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AllentownJake
![]() |
Tue May-25-10 06:40 PM Response to Original message |
53. One of the reasons I did not vote for Sestak was this issue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Phoebe Loosinhouse
![]() |
Wed May-26-10 06:21 AM Response to Original message |
55. Where did the whole "Secretary of the Navy" thing come from? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Phoebe Loosinhouse
![]() |
Wed May-26-10 07:04 AM Response to Reply #55 |
56. Here is an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer from February that gives a synopsis |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Mon Jun 17th 2024, 01:16 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC