How we judge Presidents!

Yet again, Clownk ignores my response to his post...perhaps because there is zero evidence to support his wacky conspiracy theory? I find it hilarious how he spouts this paranoid BS as though it is factual, and expects everyone to believe it.
 
Yurt said:
while not necessarily appropriate....comparing that to talking with the enemy during a war is false comparison.

and yet another "they did it too" from christie....you don't have any ground to whine about anyone else using that....mmmmkay
Click to expand...

Are you stark raving bonkers? It's not okay to "talk" to the enemy but it's okay to sell weapons to the enemy? Sorry yurt, I know you weren't political when all that was happening but reagan and bush broke the law, period. Look up the Boland amendment.

"...the most significant effect of the Boland Amendment was the controversial Iran-Contra Affair, during which the Reagan Administration illegally circumvented the Amendment in order to continue supplying arms to the Contras, behind the back of Congress and the American public."

No matter how much you spin, it's not good. During the investigation Bush 41 said he was "out of the loop". reagan said "I don't remember." If they weren't out of touch, and I don't believe they were, they broke the law about the weapons and also perjured themselves under oath.

My own opinion is that this affair is what dubya wanted to keep hidden when he signed executive order 13233 barring access to those records.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm
 
I doubt there would be much of a report if they had been unsuccessful. I mean, he wouldn't be walking out and making an appearance to say, "Tonight, we failed to kill Osama bin Laden."
 
Yurt said:
and all the while bfgrn and christie ignore obama dealing with pakistan and saying mubarak is a symbol of freedom in the region

to play this hack game is ridiculous...sometimes administrations have to play nice with the enemy....and you guys ignore the fact that people change. not one of you criticized obama's admin extolling mubarak's value in the near past....
Click to expand...

You need to stop before embarrassing yourself any further.. Iran was the subject of an arms embargo and we secretly facilitated the sale of weapons to them. That was illegal. Re: Mubarak, I don't recall Egypt being under any sort of embargo or sanctions by the U.S. before the crisis but maybe you know something I don't. If so, cite.
 
Damocles said:
I doubt there would be much of a report if they had been unsuccessful. I mean, he wouldn't be walking out and making an appearance to say, "Tonight, we failed to kill Osama bin Laden."
Click to expand...

Like Carter had to do? :)

I bet he pissed his pants when the helicopter broke down. :)
 
Bfgrn said:
c12820-32.jpg
..
Click to expand...
Wasn't Ronnie great? :)
 
Yurt said:
a simple wiki look would have saved you from looking like a moron once AGAIN....

you have no clue what you're talking about....the group above did not have the same ideology as the group who later took over....further...it is understood that osama did not go radical until the early 90's or very late 80's....

you need pull your head out of your ass and stop being a partisan hack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Click to expand...

A simple wiki look would have informed you that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was a radical since the early '70s. He was never a nice guy who gradually went bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar
 
christiefan915 said:
A simple wiki look would have informed you that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was a radical since the early '70s. He was never a nice guy who gradually went bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar
Click to expand...

my lord....so now ONE person makes up the ENTIRE taliban government that took over in 1996? and i never said he wasn't radical...i said the GROUP was not and was not the same GROUP that took over in 1996..... did you even read how the 1996 take over radically changed afghanistan and led to the, then, modern taliban? they were NOT the same group they were in the 80's....period.
 
christiefan915 said:
You need to stop before embarrassing yourself any further.. Iran was the subject of an arms embargo and we secretly facilitated the sale of weapons to them. That was illegal. Re: Mubarak, I don't recall Egypt being under any sort of embargo or sanctions by the U.S. before the crisis but maybe you know something I don't. If so, cite.
Click to expand...

of course....when a lefty says nice things and works with a bad person....it is ok.

could you be any more transparent?
 
christiefan915 said:
Are you stark raving bonkers? It's not okay to "talk" to the enemy but it's okay to sell weapons to the enemy? Sorry yurt, I know you weren't political when all that was happening but reagan and bush broke the law, period. Look up the Boland amendment.

"...the most significant effect of the Boland Amendment was the controversial Iran-Contra Affair, during which the Reagan Administration illegally circumvented the Amendment in order to continue supplying arms to the Contras, behind the back of Congress and the American public."

No matter how much you spin, it's not good. During the investigation Bush 41 said he was "out of the loop". reagan said "I don't remember." If they weren't out of touch, and I don't believe they were, they broke the law about the weapons and also perjured themselves under oath.

My own opinion is that this affair is what dubya wanted to keep hidden when he signed executive order 13233 barring access to those records.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm
Click to expand...

cite to where i said it was OK to sell weapons to the enemy?

cite it or admit you're have no clue what you're talking about.
 
Yurt said:
of course....when a lefty says nice things and works with a bad person....it is ok.

could you be any more transparent?
Click to expand...

Did I say that, Kreskin?

Guess you're forgetting that since Mubarak was president for 30 years, repub presidents also said nice things and worked with him.
 
christiefan915 said:
Did I say that, Kreskin?

Guess you're forgetting that since Mubarak was president for 30 years, repub presidents also said nice things and worked with him.
Click to expand...

yes you did...and they did it too!!!

good lord, you're a whiny hypocrite....my stance is that sometimes presidents have to deal with the enemy in a friendly manner, i'm not out being a hypocrite like you and bfgrn bashing pubs for the same thing your beloved dems do which you of course don't bash them for

like i said....when a lefty does it...it is good and you will never call it out
 
Yurt said:
cite to where i said it was OK to sell weapons to the enemy?

cite it or admit you're have no clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Then reread and tell me exactly what your point is. Because it sure seems like you're saying Fonda's talking with the Vietcong is worse than reagan's selling arms to an enemy.
 
Yurt said:
yes you did...and they did it too!!!

good lord, you're a whiny hypocrite....my stance is that sometimes presidents have to deal with the enemy in a friendly manner, i'm not out being a hypocrite like you and bfgrn bashing pubs for the same thing your beloved dems do which you of course don't bash them for

like i said....when a lefty does it...it is good and you will never call it out
Click to expand...

That's just a load of compost. I actually commented on this very topic a few months ago in another thread.

Furthermore, I never said we shouldn't talk with our adversaries, just that we shouldn't BREAK THE LAW as reagan/bush did with Iran-Contra.

Maybe you recall that when Obama talked during the campaign of meeting our adversaries, righties excoriated him and twisted his words to mean "negotiating with terrorists."
 
christiefan915 said:
Then reread and tell me exactly what your point is. Because it sure seems like you're saying Fonda's talking with the Vietcong is worse than reagan's selling arms to an enemy.
Click to expand...

it is worse....but that does not mean i said it was OK....are you going to now admit i never said that? collaborating with an enemy during a WAR is vastly different than doing something illegal, such as selling arms to someone we are not at war with. does not make it right, but to compare the two is a false comparison.

i look forward to you admitting i never said it was ok.
 
christiefan915 said:
That's just a load of compost. I actually commented on this very topic a few months ago in another thread.

Furthermore, I never said we shouldn't talk with our adversaries, just that we shouldn't BREAK THE LAW as reagan/bush did with Iran-Contra.

Maybe you recall that when Obama talked during the campaign of meeting our adversaries, righties excoriated him and twisted his words to mean "negotiating with terrorists."
Click to expand...

sure you did....that is why you're doing nothing but bashing righties, thanking lefty posts that bash righties and completely ignoring the actions of the left

:rolleyes:
 
just that we shouldn't BREAK THE LAW as reagan/bush did with Iran-Contra.
Click to expand...

Please tell us, when exactly was Reagan or Bush convicted of wrongdoing in Iran-Contra? Unless you are somehow arguing that people are GUILTY of crimes, even when a court hasn't found them guilty and there is no prosecution... is THAT what you are saying here?
 
Dixie said:
Please tell us, when exactly was Reagan or Bush convicted of wrongdoing in Iran-Contra? Unless you are somehow arguing that people are GUILTY of crimes, even when a court hasn't found them guilty and there is no prosecution... is THAT what you are saying here?
Click to expand...

They have no proof -- no, not even a shred of evidence to support their claim. Twice now I have asked Clownk to support the "October Surprise" theory, and twice have I been ignored. It is apparent to me that they believe we should blindly accept whatever they say without question...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top