solstice
(278 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-05-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 14. But why did Obama nominate him? That's the question - which you obviously cannot answer. |
| -Sen. Kit Bond: "Mudd's ties to the program would be investigated during the confirmation hearing." |
ProSense |
Jun-05-09 05:04 PM |
#0 |
 -
No comment? n/t |
ProSense |
Jun-05-09 05:37 PM |
#1 |
| -
I EXPECT hypocrisy from Repug congressmen. I DON'T expect Obama to nominate as an intelligent chief |
katandmoon |
Jun-05-09 05:42 PM |
#2 |
 -
Fascinating, so who do you want investigated: |
ProSense |
Jun-05-09 05:47 PM |
#3 |
 -
Fascinating. And how do you feel about this nomination of Obama's? |
katandmoon |
Jun-05-09 06:01 PM |
#4 |
| -
Funny how the "choir" are attacking you instead of answering the question |
solstice |
Jun-05-09 06:13 PM |
#12 |
| -
Choir? "That's the issue. Not the repug hypocrisy. " |
ProSense |
Jun-05-09 06:21 PM |
#20 |
| -
Why did Obama nominate somebody involved in the torture program? |
solstice |
Jun-05-09 06:24 PM |
#23 |
| -
Link, quote, source, proof? That excludes unsourced hearsay and rumor, BTW. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:27 PM |
#27 |
| -
No, I haven't spoken to Obama, and |
ProSense |
Jun-05-09 06:28 PM |
#28 |
| -
It's a question based on a presumption of guilt, which you two are all to eager to push. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:25 PM |
#25 |
| -
That should be obvious from the OP |
ProSense |
Jun-05-09 06:20 PM |
#18 |
| -
Spare us your melodrama. We all know you expect the worst of Pres. Obama in all things. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:06 PM |
#7 |
| -
It's not melodrama. It's a valid question that deserves an answer. Why did Obama nominate someone |
katandmoon |
Jun-05-09 06:09 PM |
#9 |
| -
Your emotionally biased question is based on a presumption based on zero proof. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:12 PM |
#11 |
| -
That's OK. The Bush Administration had no comment, either. |
katandmoon |
Jun-05-09 06:17 PM |
#15 |
| -
No comment on what? |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:21 PM |
#19 |
| -
Mudd dropped out over this. Republicans are so disappointed. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:01 PM |
#5 |
| -
His dropping out strongly indicates his record will not stand up to hypocritcal Repug investigation |
katandmoon |
Jun-05-09 06:04 PM |
#6 |
| -
Or it indicates he doesn't want to be a long MSM distraction with Sotomayor waiting in the wings. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:08 PM |
#8 |
| -
Then why does he avoid saying his record is clean? And why does the White House |
katandmoon |
Jun-05-09 06:10 PM |
#10 |
| -
Um, why should he or the WH say anything because of a trumped-up GOP witchhunt? |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:16 PM |
#13 |
| -
Doesn't say much for Obama if he lets the repugs treat his nominees that way without a peep |
solstice |
Jun-05-09 06:18 PM |
#16 |
| -
How so? It was Mudd's call, unless you have proof otherwise. Which I doubt. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:23 PM |
#21 |
| -
If I were Mudd, and had no tires to torture, I'd appreciate a defense against the GOP witchhunt. |
katandmoon |
Jun-05-09 06:28 PM |
#30 |
| -
If I were Mudd, I wouldn't allow myself to be used as a GOP weapon against Pres. Obama. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:31 PM |
#32 |
| -
But why did Obama nominate him? That's the question - which you obviously cannot answer. |
solstice |
Jun-05-09 06:16 PM |
#14 |
| -
Because he's qualified. Do you have proof otherwise or are you doing what you usually do? |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:20 PM |
#17 |
| -
Oh my resorting to the usual insults instead of answering the real |
solstice |
Jun-05-09 06:23 PM |
#22 |
| -
Didn't you just throw out the "choir" label? n/t |
ProSense |
Jun-05-09 06:25 PM |
#24 |
| -
I'm asking for proof of your presumption of guilt on Mudd's part. You don't have any, I'll bet. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:28 PM |
#29 |
| -
'Cause it's |
Cha |
Jun-05-09 06:26 PM |
#26 |
| -
Way overdue, imo. |
ClarkUSA |
Jun-05-09 06:29 PM |
#31 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread