most corrupt administration in the history of the US

[BigBallinStalin]

instead of voter ID law how about a test to see if you understand simple U.S. history. it seems to me there was an administration that sold weapons to a country that was a sworn enemy of the US.supplying the enemy with weapons is treason.Why republicans look at Ronald Reagan the same way a child looks at Superman I will never know.

Which administration are you talking about? Reagan? Bush I? Clinton? Bush II? Obama?

Cause I'm pretty sure all of those administrations have done it.

Reagan obviously,if you have proof of others supply it.

Done (but only Presidents Clinton and Obama):

http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/articles/actmay95.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-2 ... ia-and-uae
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... gn-policy/

To be fair, right now Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates aren't enemies of the United States.

Bud,you just wasted my time there,I was looking for sworn enemies of the US in these articles I did not find any.

So selling weapons to despotic regimes as bad as Saddam Hussein's is totally fine with you?

If not, how do such sales affect the images of those presidents? (Certainly can't be a positive image--as much as people try to reinvent their favored presidents, e.g. Obama).

[patrickaa317]

What gets me is this...there are plenty of things that Obama has done that are seriously bad, even to the point that I would consider to be impeachment-worthy. But Benghazi isn't one of them. It just isn't.

I'd agree that Benghazi is not impeachment worthy though I think the administration definitely screwed the pooch on it. Would you agree? And it's crazy there isn't more publicity about the fact that not only did some corruption occur but that for one of the first times in the history of America, we didn't go in to save our own whether it was a long shot at success or not. We don't leave Americans behind, ever. Let alone an ambassador which is equivalent to a 4 star general in diplomatic rank (could be wrong on that comment, don't quote me).

If they had came out right away and said "we underestimated intelligence reports and four good Americans died, which we deeply, deeply regret". It would have sucked but the way this was handled was bad on many levels. I would have given credit for honesty though I would have probably criticized them for underestimating those reports. If it wasn't within months of the election, I wonder how it would have been handled.

[thegreekdog]

instead of voter ID law how about a test to see if you understand simple U.S. history. it seems to me there was an administration that sold weapons to a country that was a sworn enemy of the US.supplying the enemy with weapons is treason.Why republicans look at Ronald Reagan the same way a child looks at Superman I will never know.

Which administration are you talking about? Reagan? Bush I? Clinton? Bush II? Obama?

Cause I'm pretty sure all of those administrations have done it.

Reagan obviously,if you have proof of others supply it.

Done (but only Presidents Clinton and Obama):

http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/articles/actmay95.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-2 ... ia-and-uae
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... gn-policy/

To be fair, right now Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates aren't enemies of the United States.

Bud,you just wasted my time there,I was looking for sworn enemies of the US in these articles I did not find any.

So selling weapons to despotic regimes as bad as Saddam Hussein's is totally fine with you?

If not, how do such sales affect the images of those presidents? (Certainly can't be a positive image--as much as people try to reinvent their favored presidents, e.g. Obama).

You know how you don't really argue with Phatscotty because he's so ridiculously over-the-top partisan? Oooge fits that description as well.

[thegreekdog]

I was a classified military network system administrator during Iran-Contra. I know a lot about it. Essentially, there was an arms embargo against Iran, and our government arranged to get arms to them in an effort to secure the release of our hostages and in the hope of sending the money to those fighting Communism in Nicaragua.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying there was a reason for it, just like there are reasons why we are supporting the Arab Spring uprisings or selling weapons to countries whose leaders routinely violate human rights and/or will eventually be fighting us. It's not like the Reagan administration said "let's sell some weapons to Iran and see what happens" (although, that was kind of what it was).

In any event, my comparisons are valid.

[BigBallinStalin]

You know how you don't really argue with Phatscotty because he's so ridiculously over-the-top partisan? Oooge fits that description as well.

[Phatscotty]

Which administration are you talking about? Reagan? Bush I? Clinton? Bush II? Obama?

Cause I'm pretty sure all of those administrations have done it.

Reagan obviously,if you have proof of others supply it.

Done (but only Presidents Clinton and Obama):

http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/articles/actmay95.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-2 ... ia-and-uae
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... gn-policy/

To be fair, right now Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates aren't enemies of the United States.

Bud,you just wasted my time there,I was looking for sworn enemies of the US in these articles I did not find any.

So selling weapons to despotic regimes as bad as Saddam Hussein's is totally fine with you?

If not, how do such sales affect the images of those presidents? (Certainly can't be a positive image--as much as people try to reinvent their favored presidents, e.g. Obama).

You know how you don't really argue with Phatscotty because he's so ridiculously over-the-top partisan? Oooge fits that description as well.

You just can't help yourself, can you? It's not my fault what you think is wrong.

[Phatscotty]

Obama Approval Rating - How low will he go?

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) now disapprove.

Today’s figures include 26% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 39% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13

[AndyDufresne]

You just can't help yourself, can you? It's not my fault what you think is wrong.

--Andy

[thegreekdog]

You just can't help yourself, can you? It's not my fault what you think is wrong.

I was making a point to Woodruff that he thinks you're partisan. Really has nothing to do with you (sorry).

Not that it matters, but I think you are partisan, not consistent in your arguments, and unknowledgeable about the subjects you argue. I agree with you on more than a few things, but your argument style is atrocious. You need to go to debate school or something.

[muy_thaiguy]

You just can't help yourself, can you? It's not my fault what you think is wrong.

I was making a point to Woodruff that he thinks you're partisan. Really has nothing to do with you (sorry).

Not that it matters, but I think you are partisan, not consistent in your arguments, and unknowledgeable about the subjects you argue. I agree with you on more than a few things, but your argument style is atrocious. You need to go to debate school or something.

CC IS debate school. And like any school, it has its honor roll students, average students, and punk ass bitch students that think they know what they're doing/saying but tend to fail or come off as punk-ass bitches.

[Woodruff]

What gets me is this...there are plenty of things that Obama has done that are seriously bad, even to the point that I would consider to be impeachment-worthy. But Benghazi isn't one of them. It just isn't.

I'd agree that Benghazi is not impeachment worthy though I think the administration definitely screwed the pooch on it. Would you agree?

I would agree that it definitely appears that way, yes.

And it's crazy there isn't more publicity about the fact that not only did some corruption occur

I'm not convinced of the corruption angle, to be honest.

If they had came out right away and said "we underestimated intelligence reports and four good Americans died, which we deeply, deeply regret". It would have sucked but the way this was handled was bad on many levels. I would have given credit for honesty though I would have probably criticized them for underestimating those reports.

I agree completely.

[Woodruff]

instead of voter ID law how about a test to see if you understand simple U.S. history. it seems to me there was an administration that sold weapons to a country that was a sworn enemy of the US.supplying the enemy with weapons is treason.Why republicans look at Ronald Reagan the same way a child looks at Superman I will never know.

Which administration are you talking about? Reagan? Bush I? Clinton? Bush II? Obama?

Cause I'm pretty sure all of those administrations have done it.

Reagan obviously,if you have proof of others supply it.

Done (but only Presidents Clinton and Obama):

http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/articles/actmay95.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-2 ... ia-and-uae
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... gn-policy/

To be fair, right now Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates aren't enemies of the United States.

Bud,you just wasted my time there,I was looking for sworn enemies of the US in these articles I did not find any.

So selling weapons to despotic regimes as bad as Saddam Hussein's is totally fine with you?

At the time, was Saddam someone who was working for our interests? I'm pretty sure he was.

Don't get me wrong...I have long held that we supply our own eventual enemies, so I'm certainly not trying to justify that. But selling to an actual current enemy is a far different thing in my view.

[Woodruff]

I was a classified military network system administrator during Iran-Contra. I know a lot about it. Essentially, there was an arms embargo against Iran, and our government arranged to get arms to them in an effort to secure the release of our hostages and in the hope of sending the money to those fighting Communism in Nicaragua.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying there was a reason for it, just like there are reasons why we are supporting the Arab Spring uprisings or selling weapons to countries whose leaders routinely violate human rights and/or will eventually be fighting us. It's not like the Reagan administration said "let's sell some weapons to Iran and see what happens" (although, that was kind of what it was).

Of course he wasn't, and I'm not saying that there wasn't some political reason for it. However...

In any event, my comparisons are valid.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, given the status of the nations those weapons are being sold to. I don't even understand why you think it's a valid comparison.

[Woodruff]

Obama Approval Rating - How low will he go?

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) now disapprove.

Today’s figures include 26% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 39% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13

Not that it's any great victory, but that's a hell of a lot stronger than Congress'...

[BigBallinStalin]

So selling weapons to despotic regimes as bad as Saddam Hussein's is totally fine with you?

At the time, was Saddam someone who was working for our interests? I'm pretty sure he was.

Don't get me wrong...I have long held that we supply our own eventual enemies, so I'm certainly not trying to justify that. But selling to an actual current enemy is a far different thing in my view.

Sure, it's different, but I'm trying to see where ooge's moral compass lay because it seems a bit inconsistent whenever the word "Democrat" becomes involved.

Even if it's different, I don't praise subsidizing corrupt, oppressive regimes--nor do I find it useful enough. And with blowback or their becoming enemies of the US, it was a complete waste. Encouraging despotism and creating waste v. subsidizing a current enemy.... hmm, it's not an important distinction if the outcomes are both poor.

[ooge]

Obama Approval Rating - How low will he go?

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) now disapprove.

Today’s figures include 26% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 39% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13

Not that it's any great victory, but that's a hell of a lot stronger than Congress'...

Repubs are not trying to raise their approval numbers but instead drag everyone else down to their level.This also helps with promoting their long stated goal of all government is evil.

[thegreekdog]

I was a classified military network system administrator during Iran-Contra. I know a lot about it. Essentially, there was an arms embargo against Iran, and our government arranged to get arms to them in an effort to secure the release of our hostages and in the hope of sending the money to those fighting Communism in Nicaragua.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying there was a reason for it, just like there are reasons why we are supporting the Arab Spring uprisings or selling weapons to countries whose leaders routinely violate human rights and/or will eventually be fighting us. It's not like the Reagan administration said "let's sell some weapons to Iran and see what happens" (although, that was kind of what it was).

Of course he wasn't, and I'm not saying that there wasn't some political reason for it. However...

In any event, my comparisons are valid.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, given the status of the nations those weapons are being sold to. I don't even understand why you think it's a valid comparison.

Because in 5 years or 10 years or 15 years or whatever, if we are at war with those countries, they will use those weapons against us. We aren't even at war with Iran (nor were we ever). I'm not making an excuse for Reagan or his administration because I wouldn't sell weapons to anyone (if I was the dictator of the U.S.) and will continue to think it was a bad idea. But selling weapons in exchange for getting hostages back, selling weapons to corrupt allies, selling weapons to degraders of human rights, and selling weapons to future enemies are comparable.

[BigBallinStalin]

Obama Approval Rating - How low will he go?

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) now disapprove.

Today’s figures include 26% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 39% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13

Not that it's any great victory, but that's a hell of a lot stronger than Congress'...

US V. THEM!!
US V. THEM!!
US V. THEM!!
US V. THEM!!

GOOOOOO, US!!!!!

Thank you, ooge.

[ooge]

I was a classified military network system administrator during Iran-Contra. I know a lot about it. Essentially, there was an arms embargo against Iran, and our government arranged to get arms to them in an effort to secure the release of our hostages and in the hope of sending the money to those fighting Communism in Nicaragua.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying there was a reason for it, just like there are reasons why we are supporting the Arab Spring uprisings or selling weapons to countries whose leaders routinely violate human rights and/or will eventually be fighting us. It's not like the Reagan administration said "let's sell some weapons to Iran and see what happens" (although, that was kind of what it was).

Of course he wasn't, and I'm not saying that there wasn't some political reason for it. However...

In any event, my comparisons are valid.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, given the status of the nations those weapons are being sold to. I don't even understand why you think it's a valid comparison.

Because in 5 years or 10 years or 15 years or whatever, if we are at war with those countries, they will use those weapons against us. We aren't even at war with Iran (nor were we ever). I'm not making an excuse for Reagan or his administration because I wouldn't sell weapons to anyone (if I was the dictator of the U.S.) and will continue to think it was a bad idea. But selling weapons in exchange for getting hostages back, selling weapons to corrupt allies, selling weapons to degraders of human rights, and selling weapons to future enemies are comparable.

I do not disagree with you.but you have changed the subject from selling weapons to a sworn enemy against the laws of congress, to arms proliferation.

[ooge]

We could discuss the Grant administration for corruption,but that would not be as much fun.

[danco]

Xxxxxx

[AndyDufresne]

We could discuss the Grant administration for corruption,but that would not be as much fun.

Granted.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

this 4th of July

[ooge]

this 4th of July

I hope you participate Phatman.

[BigBallinStalin]

We could discuss the Grant administration for corruption,but that would not be as much fun.

Granted.


--Andy

Oh, quit your grant-standing.