Skip to main content

View Diary: The problem with Chuck Hagel (216 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Some kossaks will tell any lie to win an argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    craigkg

    here. It would appear you are one of them.

    Hagel's apology for his slurs against the ambassador seemed sincere, and the ambassador accepted the apology.
    The first phrase of your blockquoted sentence represents your opinion, to which you are entitled. The purported recipient does not share your opinion, or even acknowledge such an apology was made. The bolded phrase is an easily disprovable LIE, which took less than 5 seconds to bust in a search. I add the link here for you, since you seem to have completely missed it in the diary post. You finish with
    Asking about his current views on DADT repeal are proper and important (he says he supports it), but I think we should move past the stuff from the 90s
    which (in my opinion) is an example of straight white male privilege rearing its ignorant head on a blog and in a post where it truly does not belong or have credence. The questions are important but his only history on the subjects isn't? Pfui, as Nero Wolfe would have said. That "reasoning" is similar to the kind of 'apples and oranges are both fruits' argument which you demonstrated in your comment here:
    Clinton signed DOMA, and now he gets props from the LGBT community for recently coming out for gay marriage.
    Clinton signed DOMA to avoid a further push for a constitutional amendment. This historical FACT from the '90s is known to every honest commenter on this blog. Hagel worked very actively to defend both DADT and DOMA during his 12 years as a senator. If you didn't know that, a search engine would have educated you prior to your writing that fatuously ignorant line.

    Scott Wooledge (great post, Scott, thanks) spent his entire post below the fold talking about why 'stuff from the '90s' which is still unresolved is very important in picking the next SecDef, which you blew off with that line.

    Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

    by davidincleveland on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:25:11 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I apologize for suggesting you were lying. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob, IM, Skipbidder

      On that issue, I was mistaken, and had I followed my own advice (by double checking for an update) before excoriating you, I'd have saved myself the humiliation of having to publicly admit I am guilty of what I accused you of.

      The purported recipient does not share your opinion, or even acknowledge such an apology was made. The bolded phrase is an easily disprovable LIE, which took less than 5 seconds to bust in a search. I add the link here for you, since you seem to have completely missed it in the diary post.
      I was corrected by another kossak, which I acknowledged here. I am truly sorry for my affront to you.

      Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

      by davidincleveland on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:51:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site