Doesn't This President's Dealings With Iran Make You Mad?

Everybody's upset with Obama, but they seem to love this guy.

No votes yet

There is a slight distinction between weapons, and NUCLEAR WEAPONS, isn't there, or is this distinction one that has gone completely over the top of your head?

Also it's not just Republicans and Israel against Iran having a nuclear weapon.

It's Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar who are against it. In the Senate you also have A LOT of Democrats against it.... like soon to be Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. In fact, from what I'm seeing they're getting quite close to a veto-proof vote in favor of Corker's bill that will stop this deal.

Of course... the liberals won't tell you that... even as they prosecute Bob Menendez for daring to speak out against the administration on this and Cuba.


Isn't that the same Menendez that is involved with some kind of hooker scandal?

That was the investigation that led to this investigation.


Every liberal in Congress should be investigated--they're all guilty of something! A dragnet will provide enough evidence to put them all in jail, and for a long, long time.

Ronnie did all of this right after Iran had been holding American hostages.

sworn in on January 20, 1981. This has NOTHING to do with American hostages!
It's quite simple. The Reagan Administration screwed up. Like many Presidents, Reagan perceived his ability to influence people extended to world leaders, and where Carter failed to communicate effectively with Iranian leaders, Reagan felt he could find common ground.

Reagan was wrong. But, he is beloved by the ideological right, so those of you who love Reagan cannot admit that his administration did ANYTHING wrong. Obama is vehemently hated by the ideological right, so, in their eyes, Obama can do NOTHING right!

BTW -- If we look at Reagan's positions on many issues, including tax rates on investments, I conclude that most modern conservatives would label Reagan a RINO, and would not support him for the nomination for POTUS today! But, once a person becomes a myth, it is impossible to evaluate that person impartially.

Please check my post again. It says "right after Iran had been holding American hostages". In other words, my point is that the beloved Ronnie had the audacity to do this with a country that had(past tense) held his own people hostage. That's more than a screw up in finding common ground.

I misunderstood your post. My screwup!

I probably should have written it a little clearer in the first place.

To be more precise,your post should have said "right after HE FREED THE HOSTAGES.


Be careful with that one, G-man.
That's the can of worms the Ronnie lovers never really want to open. Many of the better informed worshippers of Saint Ronnie are well aware of what that implies. And, they (the better informed Ronnie lovers) tend to realize that Limbaugh talking points don't always cut it when attempting to explain the miraculous freeing of the hostages right as Ronnie was being sworn in.

That being said, I think you may have a point. I can't be certain, but I too think Ronnie may have actually "freed" those hostages somehow. He must have been an amazing future president, since he managed to do it all before he was even sworn in.

Remember when Obama was working to rid the world of nukes and not help countries get them?


It is amazing how Reagan was able to fool much of America. The middle and lower class of this nation was devastated by his eight year reign. The elder Bush thought he could lie like Reagan did and get away with it. They call Reagan the Great Communicator. It should be the Great Bull-Shitter. Let's not forget the drug trafficking that went on in the arms deal with Iran.

Oh really? I was a blue collar middle class worker during that eight year period. It was by far the best eight years of my union job career(40 years). No layoffs, lots of hours to work, real good management/union relations, many safety issues were settled, and lots of Black/Hispanic/female workers were hired. When Renaldus Magnus was president, there were over 4K union and salaried employees working there. Thanks to the liberals mantra of "donothingness", that number is right around 1K employed. Yeah, baby, The drug trafficking that went on then is nothing compared to what it is now.

What's that liberal mantra of "donothingness" that you speak of? That's a new one to me. I'd really like to hear that one explained. It's alright if you talk down to me. I admit ignorance on this one.

It is simple enough-liberals never have to provide results, only to say "I support this, or don't support that"is all they have to do. In other words they have to actually DO nothing else.

Rush would be ashamed of you, G-man.
The way you ditto heads are supposed to say it is: 'Liberals don't have to provide results, only show that they have good intentions'. You left out the important part. The best thing to do would be to dump Rush and start thinking for yourself.

Not quite, but getting closer. Rush would say "all liberals have to do is SAY they have good intentions, not actually show any". I am sorry I'm such a disappointment to you with my posts.

It's just that your posts are rather confusing.

For example: you say you had good years in a union under Reagan- totally ignoring the fact that the union you were in predated Reagan, and that its legal existence was the result of liberal policy.

You then accuse "liberal donothingness" of causing a decrease in union numbers; when, in fact, unions probably wouldn't even exist had it not been for the liberals.

In other words, the liberals got a result; you seemed to like the result, and now you're complaining about them never getting results. What's the deal, G-man?

I worked in a union shop, not in a union. You tell me if you can draw a distinction between the two.

When you say things like "I was a blue collar middle class worker during that eight year period. It was by far the best eight years of my union job career", a direct quote from your post, it pretty much makes it sound like you were a member of a union. I didn't take it to mean you were the business agent of the local. I took your post to mean you worked in a union shop as a union member. Am I wrong?

Yes, of course you're wrong. I worked in a union shop, as a construction worker.

Fine...but, were you a member of a union when you were working in your union shop as a construction worker? This is a "yes" or "no" question.

Waiting for your answer...

I am currently a dues paying retiree. I haven't missed a single dues payment since 1968, not ONE. I can't give simple yes or no answers, because I don't see the world as one dimensional, where everything is one way or the other, everything is either black or white and so on. For "some people" i.e. liberals, they DO see everything as black or white--because they're "color-struck", to speak in the vernacular.

I respect any man that has worked hard and made it to retirement. I hope your life is good.

Thank you, PMW, and my best wishes to you as well!!


Technically speaking, the Reagan Administration were drug dealers and an organized crime organization. No individual should be allowed to traffic illegal drugs and the government is no exception. Reagan should have been impeached, but who recalls.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.