TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

State of the Union

Go To

rmctagg09 The Wanderer from Brooklyn, NY (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: I won't say I'm in love
The Wanderer
#51: Jan 27th 2011 at 10:22:10 AM

[up] Oh, you didn't know about the Iran-Contra Scandal?

Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.
silver2195 Since: Jan, 2001
#52: Jan 27th 2011 at 10:24:34 AM

Rjung was talking about something during the Carter presidency, though.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
saladofstones :V from Happy Place Since: Jan, 2011
:V
#53: Jan 27th 2011 at 10:25:58 AM

AFAIK, Iran-Contra was during Reagen's administration...

I don't know if Reagen even had the authority to do anything meaningful during Carter's administration. :V

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.
rjung He's just some guy, you know? from Fifth and Main (Five Year Plan) Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
He's just some guy, you know?
#54: Jan 27th 2011 at 11:45:14 AM

It's speculated (e.g., the documents haven't been declassified yet) that during the 1980 Presidential Election, Reagan was talking to the Iranians and urging them to refuse any and all deals from Carter to release the hostages, because he wanted to keep Carter looking weak and improve his own chances for election. That's why the hostages were released 5 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated, and why the Reagan Administration had no qualms about breaking US law and selling weapons to Iran a few years later.

Similarly, it is now known (the tapes have been released) that during the 1968 Presidential election, Nixon was urging the South Vietnamese to refuse all efforts at a peaceful settlement to the war to weaken Humphrey's campaign and improve Nixon's own. Johnson himself called Nixon's actions "treason", but ultimately decided to not say anything publicly to avoid disrupting the election with the appearance of partisan interference.

—R.J.

jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#55: Jan 27th 2011 at 11:50:26 AM

Before the 2004 elections, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft lobbied the DHS secretary to raise the threat level to ensure Bush's reelection. (He didn't, so props to him.)

silver2195 Since: Jan, 2001
#56: Jan 27th 2011 at 12:57:12 PM

It's speculated (e.g., the documents haven't been declassified yet) that during the 1980 Presidential Election, Reagan was talking to the Iranians and urging them to refuse any and all deals from Carter to release the hostages, because he wanted to keep Carter looking weak and improve his own chances for election. That's why the hostages were released 5 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated, and why the Reagan Administration had no qualms about breaking US law and selling weapons to Iran a few years later.

The article you linked to clearly debunks that conspiracy theory.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
americanbadass Banned from [CENSORED] Since: Mar, 2010
Banned
#57: Jan 27th 2011 at 3:02:35 PM

I'm just posting over my off site response to the state of the union:

The State of The Union was beautiful, too bad this is America so none of what was spoken of will get gone. Nothing more than pretty words. I would love to see a reformed health-care bill and support for education, rewarding good teacher and exiling the bad ones, but once again this is America and America is never going to move in that direction as long as the political climate is how it is. They tell us we're all friends now, it's lie. Here's to another year of the right and the left driving this nation into the floor.

  • Cheers*

edited 27th Jan '11 3:02:43 PM by americanbadass

[[User Banned]]_ My Pm box ix still open though, I think?
rjung He's just some guy, you know? from Fifth and Main (Five Year Plan) Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
He's just some guy, you know?
#58: Jan 27th 2011 at 3:16:08 PM

The article you linked to clearly debunks that conspiracy theory.
No, the Wikipedia page says that Congress concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation. It also notes that former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, former NSC member Gary Sick, and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer, Barbara Honegger stand by the claims.

The "debunking" is all in your mind.

—R.J.

silver2195 Since: Jan, 2001
#59: Jan 27th 2011 at 3:30:32 PM

Honegger is also a 9/11 "Truther". Sick was proven to have been lying by The Village Voice (hardly people likely to cover up wrongdoing by Reagan). Bani-Sadr doesn't strike me as particularly trustworthy either.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#60: Jan 27th 2011 at 4:44:32 PM

There's no point in arguing these sorts of things with R Jung, apparemtly Republican Block Ops guys zip line into his home and piss in his cornflakes every morning, and then tactically exfil before he turns around. Now that's skill.

But seriously, I don't think Rjung has ever made a post I've read that didn't involve him implicating something was the fault of the Republican party.

Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#61: Jan 27th 2011 at 5:16:15 PM

I could not help but laugh when I saw Obama mention that anyone can serve the military, no matter who they love, the camera panned to a bunch of old military generals (I assume) all making a >:[ face.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#62: Jan 27th 2011 at 5:28:48 PM

That was hilarious. Especially with everyone else clapping, even most of the Republicans. They've gotten out of touch with the actual country...

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#63: Jan 27th 2011 at 6:10:43 PM

That's because being in touch isn't a Generals job, effective command of the armed forces is.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#64: Jan 27th 2011 at 6:20:04 PM

I know that. Of course, the flip side of that is that they shouldn't be allowed to determine policy.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#65: Jan 27th 2011 at 6:29:40 PM

Or they're generals. Generals have their smile glands removed unless it's a photo-op in which case two hundred hours of make up is used to provide the illusion of smiling.

edited 27th Jan '11 6:29:53 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#66: Jan 27th 2011 at 7:44:48 PM

^^

Policy has plenty to do with the success of the military, which is why it should be under their purview.

Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#67: Jan 27th 2011 at 8:15:21 PM

[up] Well its been proven that gays in the military does affect morale, so they should not be so assmad.

edited 27th Jan '11 8:15:37 PM by Thorn14

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#68: Jan 27th 2011 at 8:22:23 PM

No, it shouldn't. Do you really think the military should be allowed to do something a supermajority of the American population disagrees with? Really? Even if it does mean a tiny hit to morale, it's worth it so that the military isn't going against the will of the people.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#69: Jan 27th 2011 at 8:23:27 PM

[up]

Well the president follows the will of the people (on paper) and he's the commander in chief, so in a way the people have control, I guess.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#70: Jan 27th 2011 at 8:28:31 PM

I know. I like our current system. But I'm getting the impression that Barkey wants these decisions to be made by military leaders, which I definitely object to.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#71: Jan 27th 2011 at 8:35:30 PM

^

Coming from my lifestyle and community, it seems really presumptuous for people to expect Generals to give a shit what people who aren't higher rank than them think.

Gates, Petraeus, Mullen, all the big names in the DOD supported the repeal.(Not to mention most of the Secretaries of each branch) I wanted them to do it because they thought it was the best course of action, not have the entire DOD pressured into doing it by outside interests, that isn't something that sits well with me.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#72: Jan 27th 2011 at 8:42:04 PM

Obama is higher up. He's the Commander in Chief. That's my point, right there. Just because you don't like what he does doesn't mean you can call him an 'outside interest'.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#73: Jan 27th 2011 at 8:46:15 PM

No, he is an outside interest, he's not involved in any real dealings with the military unless he suddenly gets a wild hair up his ass to change something. He has technical authority, but he isn't one of the people who gets any of our shit done.

You need to understand, to folks in the military, Presidents come and go. What he says goes, and we will obey, but yeah, we really will kick, scream, and disagree while we do it. As far as we're concerned, the people who actually deserve the power to change things stop after the Sec Def. Our Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries, Sec Def, and Generals are the folks we look to as the highest authority.

I'm not saying any troops are going to just refuse to recognize the authority of the Commander and Chief because we don't like what he has to say, but you need to have a bit of empathy and realize we're about as pissed off as anybody would if they were at their job and one day your corporations CEO who's never done anything to directly affect your job just suddenly decides to come out of his lofty perch in a high-rise office and changes something because he can. To the one million or so members of the US Military, he's just some guy in a suit who might know a good deal about lots of things that a president needs to know, but he isn't one of us, and doesn't know fuck all about the military.

edited 27th Jan '11 8:47:59 PM by Barkey

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#74: Jan 27th 2011 at 8:56:19 PM

OK, calm down, let's just agree to disagree, because we're getting off-topic here.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
rjung He's just some guy, you know? from Fifth and Main (Five Year Plan) Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
He's just some guy, you know?
#75: Jan 28th 2011 at 11:37:07 PM

But seriously, I don't think Rjung has ever made a post I've read that didn't involve him implicating something was the fault of the Republican party.
You need to search the forums more, then. Try twigging me in a Pixar thread, for instance. :)

From where I'm sitting, the Republicans haven't implemented a single major policy initiative that actually improved the country in the last 30 years. Why shouldn't I be annoyed?

—R.J.

edited 28th Jan '11 11:39:00 PM by rjung


Total posts: 101
Top