• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

RIP JHMD

Wrangor said:
Pretty much all politicians are a bunch of liars trying to save their own skin. Benghazi and Iran/Contra have a lot of similarities. Well intentioned screwup that the administration subsequently lied about. Not an impeachable offense, just poor decision making throughout and the result is a degradation of trust in the oval office to present factual information to the public, especially when those facts might be politically damning.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, Iran-Contra was an impeachable offense. It was/is a felony to sell/trade arms with Iran. There are documents that demonstrate Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush knew about the deals and concocted them. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-10-31/news/1992305001_1_weinberger-george-bush-iran I understand Reagan believed the Contras were 'freedom fighters' and that he honestly wanted to defeat the Commies and he was 'well intentioned,' but when Congress passed a law ending support for the Contras because they were slaughtering innocents, Reagan went around them. This was a premeditated crime. Benghazi, from what you guys are posting, has chafed you because after an attack by a foreign band of criminals was carried out Rice was still attributing it to the wrong band of criminals. Not even in the same universe as a felonious weapons transfer to our enemies concocted in the White House.

That is why I have thrown my hands up in frustration with you and jhmd and Issa and the rest of of the witch hunt calling this thing a huge scandal and spending time and money and energy on it. Its not worthy of all this. Even if they really knew and she lied on TV, is that even a crime? It doesn't change the outcome of the event whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Without using google, someone tell me the only person that spent time in prison for Iran-Contra.
 
WakeandBake said:
Respectfully, Iran-Contra was an impeachable offense. It was/is a felony to sell/trade arms with Iran. There are documents that demonstrate Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush knew about the deals and concocted them. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-10-31/news/1992305001_1_weinberger-george-bush-iran I understand Reagan believed the Contras were 'freedom fighters' and that he honestly wanted to defeat the Commies and he was 'well intentioned,' but when Congress passed a law ending support for the Contras because they were slaughtering innocents, Reagan went around them. This was a premeditated crime. Benghazi, from what you guys are posting, has chafed you because after an attack by a foreign band of criminals was carried out Rice was still attributing it to the wrong band of criminals. Not even in the same universe as a felonious weapons transfer to our enemies concocted in the White House.

That is why I have thrown my hands up in frustration with you and jhmd and Issa and the rest of of the witch hunt calling this thing a huge scandal and spending time and money and energy on it. Its not worthy of all this. Even if they really knew and she lied on TV, is that even a crime? It doesn't change the outcome of the event whatsoever.
Click to expand...


I have never stated they committing any crimes. Only that they are lying. People (like RJ) who refuse to look at the mountain of evidence that pretty clearly shows they are lying, drive the conversation. The evidence is what it is. I am not saying impeach anyone. I just feel it is worth noting when our president (and his admin) blatantly lie to the American public for political gain. It is not a good precedent, and I think we should call it for what it is. Thats all. If we just pass over it like it is no big deal, then it will give politicians even more liberty to deceive the American public for their own personal gain. I don't think that is what we want (either political party).
 
no matter how many times you say there is "the mountain of evidence that pretty clearly shows they are lying" , it will not be true.

There have been multiple investigations, form multiple bodies and NONE of them have shown ANY EVIDENCE that either Obama or Hillary Clinton was involved AT ALL.

What you are saying is simply not true.
 
Wrangor said:
I have never stated they committing any crimes. Only that they are lying. People (like RJ) who refuse to look at the mountain of evidence that pretty clearly shows they are lying, drive the conversation. The evidence is what it is. I am not saying impeach anyone. I just feel it is worth noting when our president (and his admin) blatantly lie to the American public for political gain. It is not a good precedent, and I think we should call it for what it is. Thats all. If we just pass over it like it is no big deal, then it will give politicians even more liberty to deceive the American public for their own personal gain. I don't think that is what we want (either political party).
Click to expand...

I don''t want to be lied to either.

I would stop short of crediting Obama with setting that precedent, though. Every single president this nation has ever had has lied to the American public, and I would posit that every leader of every nation on earth has lied to its people. Sucks, but we are humans. Sinners, if you will. Given that, we are left to deal with the severity and the impact of the lies. If indeed they lied about this, and told us it was a band of demonstrators who killed our citizens and not a band of terrorists, I fail to see how that is worthy of the attention it is being paid. They were killed by a band of killers on Obama's watch. That energy should be going toward noting and correcting the security failures before and during the attack. It is being framed as an election changing lie, and the evidence shows it didn't move the needle, and I think 15 days later they said it was terrorists- long before the election.
 
WakeandBake said:
I don''t want to be lied to either.

I would stop short of crediting Obama with setting that precedent, though. Every single president this nation has ever had has lied to the American public, and I would posit that every leader of every nation on earth has lied to its people. Sucks, but we are humans. Sinners, if you will. Given that, we are left to deal with the severity and the impact of the lies. If indeed they lied about this, and told us it was a band of demonstrators who killed our citizens and not a band of terrorists, I fail to see how that is worthy of the attention it is being paid. They were killed by a band of killers on Obama's watch. That energy should be going toward noting and correcting the security failures before and during the attack. It is being framed as an election changing lie, and the evidence shows it didn't move the needle, and I think 15 days later they said it was terrorists- long before the election.
Click to expand...

Most certainly agree. Have never claimed otherwise. I don't think Romney was winning that election even if the Benghazi deal had blown up in Obama's face like it probably should have. Now if the DOJ, IRS, and Benghazi events of the past month had all happened in October you would have probably seen a much closer election, but Romney had the chips stacked against him anyway due to his very obvious liabilities as a politician. Obama is just REALLY good at campaigning and organizing. I don't care too much for his presidency (obviously) but it is impossible to deny that he is an excellent campaigner. I dont think we are all that far off. I would like to see more transparency in government. That was one of the things that Obama ran on the first time that really sold me.

It will be interesting to see how effective Obama can be in the next 3 years being that all of his election momentum has pretty much been stopped. All his numbers have dropped in the past couple of weeks as he battles the three headed attack of DOJ, IRS, and Benghazi. If nothing else, the Republicans have taken a bit of the wind of his sails. It will be interesting to see how he bounces back.
 
He WAS a community organizer at one time. As you all know, people have short memories. I imagine all this will eventually blow over when the economy starts rocking and that is in its initial stages of doing so.
 
Wrangor said:
It will be interesting to see how effective Obama can be in the next 3 years being that all of his election momentum has pretty much been stopped. All his numbers have dropped in the past couple of weeks as he battles the three headed attack of DOJ, IRS, and Benghazi. If nothing else, the Republicans have taken a bit of the wind of his sails. It will be interesting to see how he bounces back.
Click to expand...

Don't think the 'Pubs can simply play rope a dope for 3 years, scandal hunt, and hope they find a silver bullet that takes out Obama and/or Hillary. There's a reason a President hasn't been elected directly from the Senate since 1960, and after watching Obama's stumbles, I'd guess the GOP nominee will be a Governor (Christie, Jeb, Jindal, Walker), but they'll still need a Capital Hill Bwana (ala Cheney or Biden). All of the wannabes from the Senate (Rubio, Paul, Cruz) have gotta stay above the fray and let the House do all the heavy lifting on scandalramas. People still won't have fond memories of W's term and thanks to the Tea Party the House and Senate have nearly completely turned, so nobody from that era is going to be VP. The same demographics that worked against the GOP are going to be far worse in 2016, so the GOP is going to hang their hat on some legislation they passed and it's still gotta be signed by Obama. They're screwed if they let immigration die in the House, and it's even worse for them if Obama pushes centrist legislation (jobs, mental health) that they blow off just because it's proposed by Obama. If they can't conclusively hang a scandal directly on Obama, they gotta hope unemployment climbs while growth declines, or they won't have much to talk about in 2014 and 2016.

Also think the IRS thing screws the GOP if it reinflates the Tea Party. The GOP left 5 Senate seats (Angle, O'Donnell, Buck, Akin, and Mourdock) on the table and control of the Senate between 2010 and now. They can add more conservative Senators in red states, but they won't control the Senate or get anywhere near a veto proof majority with Tea Party only candidates in blue and purple strates.
 
RJKarl said:
no matter how many times you say there is "the mountain of evidence that pretty clearly shows they are lying" , it will not be true.

There have been multiple investigations, form multiple bodies and NONE of them have shown ANY EVIDENCE that either Obama or Hillary Clinton was involved AT ALL.

What you are saying is simply not true.
Click to expand...

Third request. Honorably, even W&B admits it in his own way. Time to man up and do the same, RJ.
 
WakeandBake said:
I did what?
Click to expand...


"I don''t want to be lied to either.

I would stop short of crediting Obama with setting that precedent, though. Every single president this nation has ever had has lied to the American public,..." - W&B, ten minutes ago.
 
jhmd2000 said:
"I don''t want to be lied to either.

I would stop short of crediting Obama with setting that precedent, though. Every single president this nation has ever had has lied to the American public,..." - W&B, ten minutes ago.
Click to expand...

oh, that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top