Obamagate

Status
Not open for further replies.
GhostWriter16 said:
Cutlass is one of the most straight out partisan posters I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
While you and kochman aren't?

The subject bar speaks volumes. This thread is yet another litmus test of quite obvious partisanship.
 
JollyRoger said:
Pretty rich coming from a partisan of the shrimp farming lobby's boy.
Click to expand...

You mean that guy who voted against those earmarks and voted against the laws containing them?

Huh?

I am not a person who touts one party's line continually, nor do I pretend that one party is a party of saints while the other party is evil and demonic.
 
kochman said:
Oh, so you guys think that Reagan conspired with the Ayatollah against Carter specifically.

Cutlass is mad because his agenda only allows him to compliment or accept goodness from people with D's in their title and not R's. He doesn't actually hide it or contest that idea.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Reagan, on his very first day, whipped up his Gipper Magic on the telephone with Khomeini and accomplished what Carter couldn't after prolonged negotiation? Because it seems to me that, for the hostages to be released on Reagan's first day in office, there must have been successful negotiations beforehand, either by Carter or Reagan.

Thankfully, as is usually the case, history supports my observations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords
 
GhostWriter16 said:
You mean that guy who voted against those earmarks and voted against the laws containing them?

Huh?

I am not a person who touts one party's line continually, nor do I pretend that one party is a party of saints while the other party is evil and demonic.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see you do nothing but praise Saint Paul.
 
Kennigit said:
um

I'll give you a HW assignment to read the article and write a summary of it. Maybe just 2 paragraphs. Due tomorrow.

I think that the result will be a lot different than whatever "vibe" you have dommy.

obviously communications was pretty poorly handled but this article just explicitly does the opposite of what you think it does dommy (ninja edit- in relation to Obama specifically)
Click to expand...

deadline coming up fast dommy!
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Cutlass is one of the most straight out partisan posters I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
Cutlass may be partisan, but at least he's capable of talking about the economy using actual economics, not just the moralism/ideology soundbites you always fall back on.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Well, except when those "R"s kill hundreds of thousands of people in order to fight against self-determination, then and only then are they good people.

Cutlass is one of the most straight out partisan posters I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Will you ever quit complaining about the War of Southern Aggression?
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
So you're saying that Reagan, on his very first day, whipped up his Gipper Magic on the telephone with Khomeini and accomplished what Carter couldn't after prolonged negotiation? Because it seems to me that, for the hostages to be released on Reagan's first day in office, there must have been successful negotiations beforehand, either by Carter or Reagan.

Thankfully, as is usually the case, history supports my observations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords
Click to expand...
I'm saying, it was absolutely Reagan's achievement. Them being released on that day was purely for show, sure, but why shouldn't he take the credit for his achievement.
I never once denied the the negotiations took place beforehand, in fact, I defended them taking place beforehand... so, in your efforts to use history in defense of what you are saying, you also unwittingly used history to prove what I was saying (which was blatantly obvious anyhow), that Reagan negotiated beforehand.

So, thanks for proving I was right by thinking you were proving me wrong. :lol:

Reading comprehension, brother... maybe wiki that? This is hardly the first time... If you weren't being so snarky about it, I wouldn't have been, but you should at least understand what you are contending if you are going to be snarky.
 
Leoreth said:
Cutlass may be partisan, but at least he's capable of talking about the economy using actual economics, not just the moralism/ideology soundbites you always fall back on.
Click to expand...
Well, I'd say your wrong, because the only solution he ever has for the economy is government spending... that's not really actual economics. That's one thing that sometimes works, he tries to apply it to everything whether it fits or not because that's his moral/ideological agenda.

Formaldehyde said:
While you and kochman aren't?

The subject bar speaks volumes. This thread is yet another litmus test of quite obvious partisanship.
Click to expand...
And what party am I in Formy?
Being anti-Obama makes me a Republican?
Wake up, man, it's already very hard to take you seriously at all... but you're really pushing the evelope.

As for GW16, he's a libertarian if I've ever seen one.

You? You're just a contrarian.
 
kochman said:
I'm saying, it was absolutely Reagan's achievement. Them being released on that day was purely for show, sure, but why shouldn't he take the credit for his achievement.
I never once denied the the negotiations took place beforehand, in fact, I defended them taking place beforehand... so, in your efforts to use history in defense of what you are saying, you also unwittingly used history to prove what I was saying (which was blatantly obvious anyhow), that Reagan negotiated beforehand.

So, thanks for proving I was right by thinking you were proving me wrong. :lol:

Reading comprehension, brother... maybe wiki that? This is hardly the first time... If you weren't being so snarky about it, I wouldn't have been, but you should at least understand what you are contending if you are going to be snarky.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're missing the point that Reagan potentially doing so was breaking the law, because he was not a diplomatic agent of the US government, yet was negotiating with a foreign government on behalf of our government.

My point is that Reagan clearly did NOT negotiate the hostage situation away, it was Carter and his own delegation, in Algiers, before Reagan became President.

So take that snarky big about reading comprehension and put it you know where, because the shoe is clearly on the other foot.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
I am not a person who touts one party's line continually, nor do I pretend that one party is a party of saints while the other party is evil and demonic.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? Every other one of your posts follows the exact format you laid out.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Perhaps you're missing the point that Reagan potentially doing so was breaking the law, because he was not a diplomatic agent of the US government, yet was negotiating with a foreign government on behalf of our government.

My point is that Reagan clearly did NOT negotiate the hostage situation away, it was Carter and his own delegation, in Algiers, before Reagan became President.

So take that snarky big about reading comprehension and put it you know where, because the shoe is clearly on the other foot.
Click to expand...
Ummmm, you're now saying, Carter arranged it and for it to happen on Reagan's inauguration day.
Carter failed at it.

You want to try Reagan for getting US hostages released? It was breaking the law? Too little too late. He did a good job, give the man credit where credit is due for crying out loud. You won't have to turn your communist party membership card in (will you?).

Which is it? Carter did it?
Or Reagan broke the law?

Or both? Carter made it happen, and Reagan somehow convinced them to hold off until his inaug?
 
To listen to GW speak, Ron Paul would almost walk on water if that wasn't mildly blasphemous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom