hillery can't stop - Page 20

Hilery in the wh is continuing the criminal acts of the current regime;

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/09/obama-congress-guilty-of-treason-2741984.html

@beetree, you don't get it. I'm not demonizing Reagan, I'm asking why you and Joan and others aren't demonizing him. I'm not saying Obama or Hillary should get a pass, I'm asking why you all give passes based on tribal affiliations.

Look at Joan. She keeps posting the same lies, and they are lies, from Breitbart and other phony news sources. She speaks of Obama and Hillary with a deep, almost insane, hatred. She could easily say that she finds Reagan, GWB and other members of her tribe just as revolting and un-American but she doesn't. Why? Because they didn't push her bigot buttons. You have two presidents, Reagan and Obama. Obama is being accused of doing something similar to Reagan (what Reagan did was far worse) yet it's as though Obama is the only one who is doing something wrong. What's the difference? I can't help but wonder how much race factors in. It's the same with gun control. Reagan supported gun control as gov of CA and as president. Again, it's only Obama who is trying to take our guns away.

If someone like Joan were to say, "it's wrong for A PRESIDENT to do X," then I could take her seriously. But when she says it's wrong for Obama or Hillary to do X then her point has the irrational taint of bigotry and tribalism. I mean, what exactly are we arguing about? Is it Obama and Hillary or some behavior or actions? So I'm not saying why it's OK for Obama or Hillary to do something. I'm asking why it isn't OK FOR THEM to do it.

She is a liar who lies about lying, over and over and....true Americans, like Sheriff Clarke, see her for what she is.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/08/05/sheriff-david-clarke-hillary-clinton-a-morally-bankrupt-pathological-liar/

 

 

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

@Noitsyou. I am going to deny my support of Reagan on the grounds of tribal affiliations. I simply think he thought more of the hostages, over the law, and he accepted what would be those consequences, as far as I can tell. Did he have a precedent for this type of dilemma? I don't think so— I think he set it. And Obama doesn't have that type of excuse, does he? He thought the answer was in being more clever in the way to go about it.

As far as gun control goes, you might not be aware, but I am all for it.

I can't help what Joan posts, and I have learned not to bother trying to stop her.

@beetree, ask yourself why you feel that way about Reagan vs Obama. What is it about Reagan that makes you feel he was more sincere than Obama? Is it nostalgia? Is it that you were younger then and an old guy like Reagan was able to project a grandfatherly vibe? When you say you think do you really mean you feel?

But let's not forget exactly what he did. He didn't simply sell arms to Iran (illegal) in order to get their help in releasing hostages. It's also about who that money went to. It's how that was tied into allowing drugs into the country. That to me sounds a lot worse than giving Iran its own money back.

Was there a precedent? Knowing human history there probably was. Reagan wasn't the first crooked leader the world ever knew. Is there any other kind?

As far as gun control, I didn't say you were against it. I'm just saying that those who are and bring it up when it comes to Obama act like he is the first person to think of it.

I don't need to self-examine my conclusion, but only wonder why you were in such a hurry to make it personal and emotional for me. The problem we again are having, is keeping to time and place when discussing controversial events. I asked ... Was Reagan first for encountering a hostage exchange situation that required ... flexibility. Yes, that is an euphemism  I used just to drive the meat of the conversation to a meaningful conclusion.

Yes, he was. Now Obama gets what it feel like.

And finally, you ask me to consider, who gets the money... And how it becomes tied up. Oh, yes, that is it, isn't it, and you should also ask that about the $400 million converted funds delivered on pallets....

Are you seriously confused about that? I don't think so, you have a bit more finesse to know better, IMHO

Actually Obama doesn't get to know what it feels like because no one is calling Reagan a traitor.

The 400 million, and the remaining payments, are Iran's money. The money Reagan got from selling arms was America's money. I'm not confused at all.

Well, because he was the first! Who knew, then if one is first! The answer is, only Obama knew, he was second, not Reagan! One followed the other. I prefer we don't get cute with this and go Ring around the Rosie.

Do the banking search and then come back and  define who gets "Iran's money" . You will find it is not the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker. Hint: Try the military.

 

 

Banking search? I don't think any of us are privy to Iran's financial statements. I'm sure Breitbart with its non-existent staff of investigative journalists will say it knows. It's Iran's money anyway. And where did the arms that Reagan sold Iran go? The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker?

At the time obviously no one knew what Reagan was up to but he was still in office when it came out. Looking back no one is saying traitor. They can't say they don't know. The fact that we have this transparency with Obama that didn't exist with Reagan says something.