[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
This has to be the most corrupt administration in the history of the country. How Eric Holder still has a job is a testament to just how corrupt DC really is.
It’s time for some of these Obama flunkies to go to jail. There is no bottom to the level of failure within this administration. [/quote]
just looks like the same shit; different boss to me. [/quote]
I would tend to agree but for the fact the IRS, against federal law, claims both Lerner’s e-mails and hard drive were destroyed. That is a blatant cover up in direct violation of federal law. If the Justice Dept. had any ethics whatsoever they would prosecute those responsible but we all know they won’t. They are blatantly covering up the fact the administration targeted ideological groups they disagree with. Any misconceptions the government is a friend to the American people have been clearly exposed by Obummer and his flunkies.
[/quote]
It is standard operating procedure for people in authority to loose/misplace/conceal/accidentaly damage any evidence of their wrong doings. Law enforcement specializes in the practice, big business and finace have incoporated the techique into their procedures, etc…there is little room for integrity in modern society. [/quote]
But the use of the IRS for political purposes is without precedent since the Nixon administration.
Is that the comparator with which you are comfortable?
[/quote]
It’s without precedent…in so far as us as the public knows…
Mufasa
[/quote]
Who else has done as good–or bad–job at concealing information, and destroying evidence?(At least since Nixon and Rosemary Woods, Erlichman, Haldeman, Dean…)
Mufasa is correct, the Reagan administration had the most indictments and convictions of any presidency. Counting Beans can’t deflect the facts with his schoolyard tactics.
[quote]‘By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.’
from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday)[/quote]
Look in the mirror, and take a big whiff, if you’re looking for bullshit, CB…[/quote]
Lol, dude your slip was showing and I pointed it out. If that makes me “bullshit” then so be it.
[quote]Reagan was, and is, worshiped by the right FAR more than The President is by the Left.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Even if that is true, which I have no idea how you could quantify it to prove it. WTF does it matter? Oh right, it doesn’t. It was a typical and played out partisan diversion.
Fact of the matter is Obama is worshiped and apologized for over and over again. If even Reagan is by his base, get this Reagan is dead and hasn’t been president for like 25 years dude.
Would it be relevant if I said: What about LBJ? Nope
Or what about JFK? FDR?
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Mufasa is correct, the Reagan administration had the most indictments and convictions of any presidency. Counting Beans can’t deflect the facts with his schoolyard tactics.
[quote]‘By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.’
from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday)[/quote][/quote]
I’m not defending Reagan, trust me when I say I can find plenty with his administration that I don’t like. (Some I do, but plenty I don’t.)
But the fat of the matter is what Reagan did, it totally fucking irrelevant to what is happening today. The only reason you two bring it up is you’re butthurt you guy ended up a massive fucking scumbag just like the rest of them.
So, either deal with the fact Obama is a dirt bag, lying cheat like all the rest, and we have every right to mention it, or continue to try and DEFLECT things towards Reagan, your choice.
And that is where the litigation stands as of today. Having launched a secret probe that has now been shut down by both the state and federal courts, the Democratic district attorneys find themselves the subject of an ongoing civil rights lawsuit for infringing the First Amendment rights of conservatives. But that is not how the media have reported the case.
Might want to read outside your bubble once in awhile.
Look in the mirror, and take a big whiff, if you’re looking for bullshit, CB…[/quote]
Lol, dude your slip was showing and I pointed it out. If that makes me “bullshit” then so be it.
[quote]Reagan was, and is, worshiped by the right FAR more than The President is by the Left.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Even if that is true, which I have no idea how you could quantify it to prove it. WTF does it matter? Oh right, it doesn’t. It was a typical and played out partisan diversion.
Fact of the matter is Obama is worshiped and apologized for over and over again. If even Reagan is by his base, get this Reagan is dead and hasn’t been president for like 25 years dude.
Would it be relevant if I said: What about LBJ? Nope
Or what about JFK? FDR?
God damn it Mufasa what about Jon Adams?
[/quote]
So what ABOUT Reagan?
That’s on the Right, Beans…
The only time Bush 1 and 2 seem to ever be mentioned by the Right is either as a) RHINO or b) in derision against the current President.
And that is where the litigation stands as of today. Having launched a secret probe that has now been shut down by both the state and federal courts, the Democratic district attorneys find themselves the subject of an ongoing civil rights lawsuit for infringing the First Amendment rights of conservatives. But that is not how the media have reported the case.
Might want to read outside your bubble once in awhile.
[/quote]
Another comment critical of the WP report:
“Perhaps you should note that the courts found that Walker did nothing wrong, and that these documents were released in a civil suit filed against the prosecutors who brought the case. How does it feel to be widely known as a BS in the bag media outlet?”
Look in the mirror, and take a big whiff, if you’re looking for bullshit, CB…[/quote]
Lol, dude your slip was showing and I pointed it out. If that makes me “bullshit” then so be it.
[quote]Reagan was, and is, worshiped by the right FAR more than The President is by the Left.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Even if that is true, which I have no idea how you could quantify it to prove it. WTF does it matter? Oh right, it doesn’t. It was a typical and played out partisan diversion.
Fact of the matter is Obama is worshiped and apologized for over and over again. If even Reagan is by his base, get this Reagan is dead and hasn’t been president for like 25 years dude.
Would it be relevant if I said: What about LBJ? Nope
Or what about JFK? FDR?
God damn it Mufasa what about Jon Adams?
[/quote]
So what ABOUT Reagan?
That’s on the Right, Beans…
The only time Bush 1 and 2 seem to ever be mentioned by the Right is either as a) RHINO or b) in derision against the current President.
But mention Reagan?
“…It’s morning in America again…”
Mufasa
[/quote]
The most criminally corrupt administration in modern times was neither the Reagan administration nor the Obama regime. It was the Harding administration. However, carry on with the Reagan bashing partisanism.
And that is where the litigation stands as of today. Having launched a secret probe that has now been shut down by both the state and federal courts, the Democratic district attorneys find themselves the subject of an ongoing civil rights lawsuit for infringing the First Amendment rights of conservatives. But that is not how the media have reported the case.
Might want to read outside your bubble once in awhile.
While exiting a book signing event in D.C. on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton was approached by Jason Mattera, publisher of the website Daily Surge. Mr. Mattera handed a copy of the book and said, “If you could make it out to Christopher Stevens - I think you knew him.”
When the former Secretary of State balked, he responded, “What difference does it make?” - a reference to Mrs. Clinton’s 2013 testimony to the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee regarding the Benghazi attack.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
In other news, looks like Governor Chris Christie might be going to prison. On the positive side, they say that striped clothing can appear slimming.
Also, Governor Walker in Wisconsin is probably toast as well.
What about him? He was a Keynesian that oversaw one of the most significant and rapid expansions of not only the economy as a whole, but the national debt as well. (Although I think his ratio’s to GDP were better than most POTUS’s, but don’t quote me on that.)
He oversaw the most significant overhaul of the IRC since 1913, expanding the base, while not significantly changing effective rates, therefore not over burdening the taxpayer or the economy, but still achieving results.
Much of the recent financial meltdown can be traced back to his administration, but it isn’t even remotely close to “his fault” as portions can be traced back across many administrations.
He gets credit (arguably more than he should) for destroying/ending communism/the cold war.
Do you really want me to go on? I can even start picking out more things I disagree with.
Because none of this is relevant to the Obama is a dirt bag that swindled one of my votes, and the votes of millions. Care to explain WTF Reagan has to do with the Obama post you brought him up in response to?
Funny, I didn’t do that. I just pointed out your tactic.
41 wasn’t really much in the way of controversy, and I’ve said my peace on 43 plenty of times.
I don’t think there was an original thought in that piece. These media hacks just keep regurgitating the same crap over and over and are too lazy to even fact check. Although in their defense, with a journalism degree, they most likely are not smart enough to understand the facts anyway.
What about him? He was a Keynesian that oversaw one of the most significant and rapid expansions of not only the economy as a whole, but the national debt as well. (Although I think his ratio’s to GDP were better than most POTUS’s, but don’t quote me on that.)
He oversaw the most significant overhaul of the IRC since 1913, expanding the base, while not significantly changing effective rates, therefore not over burdening the taxpayer or the economy, but still achieving results.
Much of the recent financial meltdown can be traced back to his administration, but it isn’t even remotely close to “his fault” as portions can be traced back across many administrations.
He gets credit (arguably more than he should) for destroying/ending communism/the cold war.
Do you really want me to go on? I can even start picking out more things I disagree with.
Because none of this is relevant to the Obama is a dirt bag that swindled one of my votes, and the votes of millions. Care to explain WTF Reagan has to do with the Obama post you brought him up in response to?
Funny, I didn’t do that. I just pointed out your tactic.
41 wasn’t really much in the way of controversy, and I’ve said my peace on 43 plenty of times.
[/quote]