Originally Posted By ActionJack
  Perhaps some equate love of country, and a desire to promote and protect freedom and democracy as extremism.  I for one do not, so I can't possibly understand what extremism you're talking about.  And we don't need to wait and see this administration's motivations because they are clear; so too were those of Reagan. [font="times new roman"][size="3"]   

Go back to the quote, the Reagan Administration traded guns for hostages. If that's not caving to extremism I don't know what is.

There have been few more important causes in this century than fighting Totalitarian Communism. It was slavery write large. However, that importance is irrelevant. They could have gone to congress. They could have told the truth. That was all that was required.

So what exactly is the moral difference here. The Obama Administration believes that their domestic agenda is important enough to warrant Illegal actions and the Reagan Administration thought the same of their foreign agenda. You could point me to where the law makes a distinction.

Originally Posted By zmantle
    So you are saying if tomorrow it came out that someone in Obama Administration was found to be selling weapons to the Taliban that you would consider it "selfless"? I mean most people can tell the difference.    

Originally Posted By ActionJack
No, the Obama administration thinks it important enough to break the law for personal gain.  But even if your contention were correct then you must believe it an impeachable offense since you see no distinctions with Reagan!

Originally Posted By Smuckatelli

Originally Posted By zmantle
    So you are saying if tomorrow it came out that someone in Obama Administration was found to be selling weapons to the Taliban that you would consider it "selfless"? I mean most people can tell the difference.   

    How does that tie in with Iran-Contra?   If you want to present an opinion, good to go but at least attempt to tie an analogy in with your opinion.      You didn't think that one out did you?

That is what I think. Both would be grounds for impeachment. The problem is that you think that somehow think that since the Reagan Administration was trying something that you agree with that it gives him a blank check. It does not. If what he was doing was Moral and Legal why did he apologize? (This is more from the earlier speech) This [action] runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake. The point that I am trying to make here is that you cannot use two standards.

Originally Posted By zmantle
        It ties in because when faced with a terrorist threat they caved and gave said terrorists everything they wanted.         What do you suppose would have happened to Carter if he had done something similar?    

Having gotten to this point, can we focus on the here and now instead of the past?

Originally Posted By HarleyRider

Having gotten to this point, can we focus on the here and now instead of the past?

  I doubt that we can.   We've watched, for quite some time now, a school of thought that elevates Party over Country.  I've always heard that two Wrongs don't make a Right.  I wonder if I'll ever stop hearing how two Wrongs do make things Fair.

Originally Posted By Smuckatelli

Originally Posted By zmantle
It ties in because when faced with a terrorist threat they caved and gave said terrorists everything they wanted. What do you suppose would have happened to Carter if he had done something similar?

You do realize that we are actively fighting the Taliban...don't you?    

Originally Posted By zmantle
       

Originally Posted By HarleyRider
       

Having gotten to this point, can we focus on the here and now instead of the past?

        I doubt that we can.         We've watched, for quite some time now, a school of thought that elevates Party over Country.  I've always heard that two Wrongs don't make a Right.  I wonder if I'll ever stop hearing how two Wrongs do make things Fair.    

        Its all well and good to focus on the present but its impossible to judge without looking at the past.         To say that the Obama Administration is more corrupt than any previous Administration would be incorrect.         (Aside:Sorry for kind of going on a rant. Iran-contra has always been kind of touchy for me. It amazes me that it never get brought up as part of Reagan's legacy.)    

Originally Posted By zmantle
    Poor choice of words.         Lets say that someone today took American hostages and demanded we sell them guns to use on someone else. Would you be for it or against it?         Personally, I think that is the very definition of caving to extremism.         Some disagree.    

Originally Posted By ActionJack
I would definitely agree that the Obama administration's actions pale in comparison to FDR's from 1933-1941 when it comes to corruption.

Its all well and good to focus on the present but its impossible to judge without looking at the past.           To say that the Obama Administration is more corrupt than any previous Administration would be incorrect.           (Aside:Sorry for kind of going on a rant. Iran-contra has always been kind of touchy for me. It amazes me that it never get brought up as part of Reagan's legacy.)

Who's to say my comment wasn't aimed at Jack ... but I like the way you're thinking. Freudian slip, perhaps ?

I guess it went right by me.

Originally Posted By HarleyRider
   

I guess it went right by me.

         That could easily happen, Jack ... if you're not constantly on the prowl to defend the misdeeds of the current Administration by referring to the mistakes of Administrations gone by.   

Originally Posted By zmantle
(Aside:Sorry for kind of going on a rant. Iran-contra has always been kind of touchy for me. It amazes me that it never get brought up as part of Reagan's legacy.)

To say that the Obama Administration is more corrupt than any previous Administration would be incorrect.

Its all well and good to focus on the present but its impossible to judge without looking at the past.

That could easily happen, Jack ... if you're not constantly on the prowl to defend the misdeeds of the current Administration by referring to the mistakes of Administrations gone by.

I just think that we should judge the actions of politicians by the same standard whether we agree with their policies or not.

Come on now; when have you ever, let alone constantly, seen me defend THIS administration! I laughed so hard at this I almost fell out my chair.

I just think that we should judge the actions of politicians by the same standard whether we agree with their policies or not.