One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: straightUp
Page: <<prev 1 ... 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 next>>
May 20, 2013 23:31:06   #
The Dutchman wrote:
I really believe the dumbohcrap congress had a hand in this in an attempt to discredit a good man.

Well, I can see you're pretty set in your view.

The Dutchman wrote:

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a United States federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. Each year's act also includes other provisions. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.
br The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) ... (show quote)


So then, the socialist component of Military-Industrial-Complex.
Go to
May 20, 2013 23:22:57   #
AuntiE wrote:
What part of my reference to the FBI in relationship to my Constitutional quotes did you miss?

Not sure... your reference to the FBI was somewhat vague and curtailed by your insults.

AuntiE a few posts back wrote:

You seem overly fond of the IRS issue and carefully avoid the egregious violation by the FBI.

Of course, you are the vitiate person who find military personnel "dispensable".


AuntiE wrote:

You only seem able to talk about the IRS. Have you missed the FBI issue? Apparently, "Yes." would be the answer.


I dunno...Which FBI issue? There's a number of them. ...the one where the FBI is investigating Bachman's campaign for illegal use of SuperPAC funds? Gee, that's not a reason to maybe do a search on SuperPACs (Careful now..., don't start Googling "Bachman" unless you Google "Pelosi" too.)
Go to
May 20, 2013 22:56:37   #
AuntiE wrote:
Offended is a mild word. "Put it this way...you don't send dispensable people into battle." Be very clear you addlepate , when you join me at the WALL on Memorial Day and Veteran's Day with three wreaths, then and only then may you speak or write about what military personnel are!!! Your comment was arrogantly flippant.

You state the President is "symbolic". A correct statement. Through my long life, never have I seen a President show such disdain, by action not words, toward the dispensable. He can barely lift his basketball arm to return a salute to the military personnel at his plane. The unmitigated gall of his treating a US Marine as if he was a doorman by requesting he hold an umbrella at the press conference last week with the Turkish Ambassador in the Rose Garden was beyond the pale. The press conference could have been held inside, especially since there had been rain on and off for two days and was called for. His total and blatant disregard for the safety of a Seal Team by naming them in the Bin Laden event is incomprehensible to any rational person. The Seal Teams and Force Recon Marines nor any other Special Ops personnel do not want public acknowledgment of their performance, and his lack of understanding of this is profane.

:thumbdown:
Offended is a mild word. "Put it this way...y... (show quote)


Well now...
Go to
May 20, 2013 21:00:25   #
Quote:
I don't think anyone wants to abolish taxes, only looking for a fair and balanced system totally different from what we have now

Then what's with all he "abolish taxes", "taxes are unfair" BS? Or is that just people being overly dramatic which seem to happen ALL the TIME on sites like this.

So from what I can tell - YOU just want a different kind of tax and a different kind of government.

Fair enough.
Go to
May 20, 2013 19:26:34   #
ABBAsFernando wrote:
You must be one of the ENEMY WITHIN!

LOL - They're already on to me!
Go to
May 20, 2013 19:07:00   #
The Dutchman wrote:
The Iran-Contra Affair was a clandestine action not approved of by the United States Congress. It began in 1985, when President Ronald Reagan's administration supplied weapons to Iran, a sworn enemy in hopes of securing the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's leader


The transactions that took place in the Iran-Contra scandal were contrary to the legislation of the Democratic-dominated Congress and contrary to official Reagan administration policy.
The Iran-Contra Affair was a clandestine action no... (show quote)


Yup... that was probably the beginning of the upsurge in terrorism when the Reagan administration made it clear to the world that even though we SAY we don't negotiate with terrorists, we really do.

Want some weapons? Just take some hostages. ;)

So, anyway... whether you think it was justified or whatever, it WAS a major scandal and that was the only point I was making in answer to your statement... "Hmmm I don't recall any issues to this magnatude surfacing in the past?"

Well, there you go.
Go to
May 20, 2013 18:33:47   #
AuntiE wrote:
The Constitution of the United States: Amendment I (1791) ...."or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press;" Amendment I'VE (1791); "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So? What does this have to do with ANYTHING the IRS did? Putting the words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in a computer search argument does not constitute a search nor a sezuire of anyone's property.

AuntiE wrote:

You seem overly fond of the IRS issue and carefully avoid the egregious violation by the FBI.

What violation?

AuntiE wrote:

Of course, you are the vitiate person who find military personnel "dispensable".


OK look... Let's get something straight. I was describing the way the system works. According to the system - military personell ARE dispensible. This does not mean that *I* agree.

*I* did not create the system.
- in fact -
*I* do not "find" ANYONE military or otherwise "dispensible".
- but -
*I* am not the one deciding who is going to take the fall for all these scandals either.
Go to
May 20, 2013 18:19:01   #
The Dutchman wrote:
Please give me the detais of this.....


Look up "Top Political Scandals in U.S. History" Iran-Contra will show up as either #2 or #3 in every list. Watergate seems to have #1 locked up.

In a nutshell, high-ranking officials in the Reagan Administration were selling weapons to Iran even though the U.S. had an arms embargo against that country. They used the money they got from the sale of arms to illegally fund the Contras. That was doozy!
They protected Reagan by insisting he had no knowledge, but that gave a lot of us the impression that the president didn't have much control over his own administration.., for something that huge to happen whithout him knowing it...

This wasn't just the dubious selection of words in a database search. This was full-scale, law-breaking, war-funding and weapons trading!

I think was about the time, Reagan started "not remembering things"
Go to
May 20, 2013 18:03:24   #
AuntiE wrote:
He is using the word Irangate when perhaps he is referring to the IranContra issue involving Oliver North.

Irangate was a term used by the headlines at the time to refer to the Iran Contra Affair.
Go to
May 20, 2013 18:02:11   #
AuntiE wrote:
I am beyond appalled :thumbdown: that any citizen of this country would have the unmitigated gall to write such such a perfidious statement concerning the dispensability of our military personnel. Your statement is a disgrace.


1. Your commenting on the wrong quote.
2. Forgive me for not candy-coating the truth, but it's a matter of fact. In any situation where someone has to take a fall, the president will be the last choice because he IS the symbolic head of state. That sanctity simply does not exist in the military ranks.

Now, I'm sorry that you get offended when someone describes military personell as dispensable, but that is exactly what they are - by design. Put it this way... you don't send indespensible people into battle.

Do you remember when Oliver North was taking all the shots for the Iran Contra affair? Yeah... the guy in the uniform.
Go to
May 20, 2013 17:35:57   #
AuntiE wrote:
Dutchman, there have been issues of large magnitude in past presidencies; however, it is my feeling there have not been so many arising at the same time. Not an argument, just a thought.

I think you folks are getting ahead of yourselves. I mean seriously, just how many "large magnitude issues" do you think there are right now? I can't even bring myself to qualify the IRS "scandal" as anything THAT earth shattering. No weapons were sold to enemies like they were in the Iran-Contra Affair, no offices were broken into like in Watergate... In fact, no laws were broken at all.

I think the swell of controversy you might be feeling is almost entirely composed of the melodrama arising from whiny-ass people who are constantly playing victim.
Go to
May 20, 2013 16:58:09   #
Quote:
This very admistration has fired a large number of high ranking members of the Military for the actions of their subordinatrs!

Presidents are different, they are symbolic. Military personal are not, they are far more dispensible.

Quote:

Hmmm I don't recall any issues to this magnatude surfacing in the past?

You don't? WTF have you been? I still remember Irangate, where the GOP was selling arms to our enemies. Compared to that I'd call this IRS incident small potatoes.
Go to
May 20, 2013 16:42:26   #
AuntiE wrote:
I know you are going to come after me; however, let me toss out two names. Valerie Jarrett and David Axlerod. The President may not have had direct knowledge. It would be a very far stretch for me to believe one of these two had no knowledge.


I don't really know much about either of these characters. A quick scan on the Internet tells me that there are the standard sources that don't say much other than a breif description of their careers etc... and a rash of "angry" sources that basically say they are communists and evil.

I assume you have reason to suspect they were involved in the IRS profiling. Personally, I'm just not that interested. I am concerned about these types of issue as they happen, but I'm not going to get all outragged to where I can't stop obsessing about it, when the "scam" itself seems so run-of-the-mill.
Go to
May 20, 2013 16:24:02   #
Janc469 wrote:
Do we have the same option for Ron Paul?

Yes we do... don't elect him - LOL
Go to
May 20, 2013 16:21:41   #
So another link to another article promoting the shut down of the IRS without any annotation, no reflection or comment whatsoever. Is there a point, other than to prove that there are some idiots out there writing articles? OK, look. I’m just going to start asking some questions…

To those who want to abolish taxes…
1. Do you also want to abolish government?
2. Is there some kind of limit to what you want to abolish for instance, only federal tax/government, or only income tax, while preserving other taxes, or is this a “principal” thing?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.