One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Question?
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
May 20, 2013 18:44:02   #
The Dutchman
 
straightUp wrote:
OK look...*I* am not the one deciding who is going to take the fall for all these scandals either.


We The People need to decide & fast before the obozo lies his way out of them. It looks as though the liberal medias are already waking up to his miss-deeds...

Reply
May 20, 2013 19:02:19   #
ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio
 
AuntiE wrote:
The continued use by yourself of the young man deficating is becoming hackneyed and banal.


Your lack of concern for what he is doing is just that.

Reply
May 20, 2013 19:03:22   #
ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio
 
straightUp wrote:
LOL


You must be one of the ENEMY WITHIN!

Reply
 
 
May 20, 2013 19:07:00   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
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 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.
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 wh**ever, 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.

Reply
May 20, 2013 19:26:34   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
ABBAsFernando wrote:
You must be one of the ENEMY WITHIN!

LOL - They're already on to me!

Reply
May 20, 2013 19:36:29   #
The Dutchman
 
straightUp wrote:
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 wh**ever, 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.
Yup... that was probably the beginning of the upsu... (show quote)


I had already retired from the Navy when it happened and was working hwy construction in a remote part of Wy. We didn't get a lot of news up there. One of the guys had a dish on his camper but could never get a signal.

Reply
May 20, 2013 19:37:39   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
AuntiE wrote:
I did notice. Have you noticed, as have I, commenters who only insult never provide facts?



almost all of that kind tend to lean quite a way left.

Reply
May 20, 2013 20:11:10   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
straightUp wrote:
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.
1. Your commenting on the wrong quote. br 2. Forgi... (show quote)


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:

Reply
May 20, 2013 20:16:07   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
straightUp wrote:
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.


What part of my reference to the FBI in relationship to my Constitutional quotes did you miss? You only seem able to talk about the IRS. Have you missed the FBI issue? Apparently, "Yes." would be the answer.

Reply
May 20, 2013 22:56:37   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
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...

Reply
May 20, 2013 23:22:57   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
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.)

Reply
May 20, 2013 23:26:14   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
[quote=straightUp]
AuntiE wrote:


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.)


Or would it perhaps be the FBI and the Associated Press?

Reply
May 20, 2013 23:31:06   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
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.

Reply
May 20, 2013 23:49:45   #
The Dutchman
 
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. I can see your very narrow minded on this issue failing to realize the dumbocraps had the helm during this issue

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.

straightUp wrote:
So then, the socialist component of Military-Industrial-Complex.


Are you saying the NDAA is the socialist component of Military-Industrial-Complex? If so your more than all wet on this one. I think you need to do a bit of reaserch on the NDAA....

Reply
May 20, 2013 23:55:03   #
The Dutchman
 
straightUp wrote:
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.)


All this is, is the obozo using just one of his private armys to dig for dirt & if you can't see that your blind.....

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.