Question?
May 20, 2013 16:55:34 #
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.
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?
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.
May 20, 2013 17:06:47 #
straightUp wrote:
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.
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.
May 20, 2013 17:17:12 #
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.
Note: I said "Hmmm I don't recall any issues to this magnatude surfacing in the past?"
May 20, 2013 17:19:59 #
straightUp wrote:
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.
Please give me the detais of this.....
May 20, 2013 17:30:25 #
The Dutchman wrote:
Please give me the detais of this.....
He is using the word Irangate when perhaps he is referring to the IranContra issue involving Oliver North.
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.
May 20, 2013 17:50:57 #
The Dutchman wrote:
Note: I said "Hmmm I don't recall any issues to this magnatude surfacing in the past?"
Inasmuch as he believes military personnel are "more dispensable" (how declass) .....I ...
:mrgreen: :hunf: :-(
May 20, 2013 18:00:47 #
straightUp wrote:
I think you folks are getting ahead of yourselves.... (show quote)
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."
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".
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 t***h, 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.
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.
May 20, 2013 18:09:52 #
straightUp wrote:
1. Your commenting on the wrong quote. br 2. Forgi... (show quote)
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 t***sactions 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.
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 se******n 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"
May 20, 2013 18:30:09 #
straightUp wrote:
Look up "Top Political Scandals in U.S. Histo... (show quote)
I really believe the dumbohcrap congress had a hand in this in an attempt to discredit a good man.
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.
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.
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".
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.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.