What the 2012 election taught us

What the 2012 election taught us

There are 10313 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 6, 2012, titled What the 2012 election taught us. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7414 Jan 29, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Actually, Reagan furnished weapons to Iran, and Reagan illegally provided funding and arms to insurgents Contras in Nicaragua. The furnishing of weapons to the Contra was forbidden by congressional enacted legislation.
Reagan should have been imprisoned for those actions, and impeached at the least but the Democrats never pursued those charges.
In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran.
Reagan had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon.
While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with terrorists violated Reagan's campaign promise never to do so.
<quoted text>
Actually, the law that prevented the US from supporting anti-communist armies in Centra America during the Cold War was enacted as a result of blatant lies John Kerry spewed on the floor of the Senate after he visited Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Ironically, at the very same time Kerry was spewing these lies about there not being any communist involvement in Central America, Ortega was at that very moment in Moscow securing Nicaragua as a staging point for the communists' next proxy war to be fought right on our southern border in all the countries that border Nicaragua, and beyond.

So, what do you do when the Democrats are the majority party in Congress and committing treason?
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#7415 Jan 29, 2013
What ever the motivation was, the Boland Agreement was Congressional Enacted Legislation and forbid the actions of Ronald Reagan, as did the embargo against selling Arms to Iran a state that sponsored terrorist and were holding Americans hostage at the time, neither stopped Ronald Reagan from violating the laws of the United States of America.

In Nicaragua, the fact is Reagan took illegal actions to overthrow a democratically elected government of the Sandinistas People.
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the law that prevented the US from supporting anti-communist armies in Centra America during the Cold War was enacted as a result of blatant lies John Kerry spewed on the floor of the Senate after he visited Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Ironically, at the very same time Kerry was spewing these lies about there not being any communist involvement in Central America, Ortega was at that very moment in Moscow securing Nicaragua as a staging point for the communists' next proxy war to be fought right on our southern border in all the countries that border Nicaragua, and beyond.
So, what do you do when the Democrats are the majority party in Congress and committing treason?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7416 Jan 29, 2013
from another thread, but worth repeating:

They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But, are we talking about African slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#7417 Jan 29, 2013
Sandinistas in Nicaragua are a sovereign state and people and choose their alliances as they deem appropriate to their needs.

There's something a bit totalitarian about your diplomatic philosophy, you think..... ROFLMAO
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the law that prevented the US from supporting anti-communist armies in Centra America during the Cold War was enacted as a result of blatant lies John Kerry spewed on the floor of the Senate after he visited Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Ironically, at the very same time Kerry was spewing these lies about there not being any communist involvement in Central America, Ortega was at that very moment in Moscow securing Nicaragua as a staging point for the communists' next proxy war to be fought right on our southern border in all the countries that border Nicaragua, and beyond.
So, what do you do when the Democrats are the majority party in Congress and committing treason?
jackson

Lexington, KY

#7418 Jan 29, 2013
I don't care about THEN -- we live in the NOW and have to work for our FUTURE.
We need to work together to find solutions to our problems to strengthen our country and our infrastructure.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#7419 Jan 29, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Contras are by far worse, you obviously are unfamiliar with their history of brutality. There were part of the forces that raped and killed the Nuns and Americans in Nicaragua. So you tell us are they worse?
The Contras were supplying drugs to America to obtain financing for weapons before there were South America or Mexican Drug Cartels. There Contra's drug shipments were protected by Reagan's CIA.
How did you guys miss this information that came out during the televised Congressional Hearings on the Iran-Contra Affair?
........and tell us how did did Thomas Jefferson having a slave affect Obama's none black heritage.
jackson

Lexington, KY

#7420 Jan 29, 2013
Do you believe there are likely terrorists infiltrating our country, working to gain positions of more and more power? They're patient and taking their time to get where they want to be. They infiltrated and lived among us before 9/11.
We need our system of checks and balances to deny the powers they want/need to bring us down. We need to work together to assure that system remains strong.
Just another point of view.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#7421 Jan 29, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Sandinistas in Nicaragua are a sovereign state and people and choose their alliances as they deem appropriate to their needs.
There's something a bit totalitarian about your diplomatic philosophy, you think..... ROFLMAO
<quoted text>
Fast and Furious and 204 dead. That's now. That's real. Now can you deal with today, or do you want to go to the OFFBEAT threads where your post belong.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7422 Jan 29, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Sandinistas in Nicaragua are a sovereign state and people and choose their alliances as they deem appropriate to their needs.
There's something a bit totalitarian about your diplomatic philosophy, you think..... ROFLMAO
<quoted text>
... dupes.... ignorant dupes... and can't read and comprehend the written English language...

"...staging point for the communists' next proxy war to be fought right on our southern border in all the countries that border Nicaragua, and beyond."
You do recall the communist insurgents being supported and harbored in Nicaragua going into El Salvador and Honduras and even as far north as Guatemala to overthrow the existing governments there, don't you, idiot?
Central America was merely the next front in the Cold War for the Communists after the Democrat-controlled Congress of 1973 (Case-Chruch Amendment, if you are really ignorant of American history) sabotaged the South Vietnamese after the South Vietnamese defeated the single largest communist invasion of the entire Vietnam war in 1972 WITHOUT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM US GROUND COMBAT UNITS.
After the Democrats gave the victory to the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union just moved the front from Southeast Asia to Central America,right on our southern border, for the next proxy war of the Cold War.
I'm sure none of these FACTS were included in that phony excuse of a history you got in your indoctrination sessions.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#7424 Jan 29, 2013
jackson wrote:
Do you believe there are likely terrorists infiltrating our country, working to gain positions of more and more power? They're patient and taking their time to get where they want to be. They infiltrated and lived among us before 9/11.
We need our system of checks and balances to deny the powers they want/need to bring us down. We need to work together to assure that system remains strong.
Just another point of view.
The checks and balances are long gone. As to working together, those in power are working hard at divide and conquer. As long as we are fighting each other, we can't defend ourselves from them taking everything.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7425 Jan 29, 2013
jackson wrote:
Do you believe there are likely terrorists infiltrating our country, working to gain positions of more and more power? They're patient and taking their time to get where they want to be. They infiltrated and lived among us before 9/11.
We need our system of checks and balances to deny the powers they want/need to bring us down. We need to work together to assure that system remains strong.
Just another point of view.
The Border Patrol has a name for them, "OTMs" Other Than Mexicans. It's so common, they have a name for them. Of course they are setting up sleeper cells here we'll have to deal with.
And, on the other front, Obama is inviting them into the country through the goddam White House. Now, please tell me why a president would routinely invite the Wahabist Muslim Brotherhood with known ties to every goddam terrorist group known into the White House?

When Obama is finished, all hell is going to break loose. We're really going to have a mess to clean up.
Shakalaka

Morrow, GA

#7426 Jan 29, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
you will probably get your wish, that's where we are heading....but remember, they tried that in South Africa too, and look where they are now.
plus, the mexicans will rapidly out birth blacks, so in a few years, they will be the majority voting block, and they don't like blacks, they despise their work ethic, so dont be too disappointed if you are sent to the back of the bus, again.
Those are YOUR fears. I have lived around muti-cultures all of my life. We all get along just fine and have one common enemy. YOU!
Major Republic-an

Columbus, OH

#7427 Jan 29, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>A booming economy and china. Now, back to the here and Now.
I'm going to take a guess and say, you were born yesterday.
Major Republic-an

Columbus, OH

#7428 Jan 29, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, Bush did it and it was terrible, but Obama does it MORE and it's great?
You don't even see anything wrong with that, do you?
Bush ravaged a surplus left to him.

Obama had to clean up Bush's crap first.

If you can't see the difference, you should watch something besides Fox News.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#7429 Jan 29, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, Reagan furnished weapons to Iran, and Reagan illegally provided funding and arms to insurgents Contras in Nicaragua. The furnishing of weapons to the Contra was forbidden by congressional enacted legislation.

Reagan should have been imprisoned for those actions, and impeached at the least but the Democrats never pursued those charges.

In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran.

Reagan had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon.

While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with terrorists violated Reagan's campaign promise never to do so.
He was found innocent!

It was the Liberal Media that hated his popularity and landslide win!!!

They were in a witch hunt!

Now no with Obama but with Romney and Cain and Sarah Palin!

Why did the New York Time offered a reward for any damaging info on Sarah Palin's emails? Why?

Your "unbiased" media is fooling you!!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#7430 Jan 29, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, Bush did it and it was terrible, but Obama does it MORE and it's great?
You don't even see anything wrong with that, do you?
See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites easy to fool!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#7431 Jan 29, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>So you are saying the Mexican Drug Lords are the same a Iran when they were our friends. So you must thing the Drug Lords are Obama's friends.
See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites east to fool!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#7432 Jan 29, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Reagan secured the release of 3 American hostages from the Iranian Terriorist, but the Iranians once they received 1500 Missiles took 3 more Americans as hostage.

Of course he lied and swore he never traded Arms for Hostages, However, during the investigation Attorney General Edwin Meese discovered that only $12 million of the $30 million the Iranians reportedly paid had reached government coffers. Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council explained under oath that he had been diverting funds from the arms sales to the Contras, in violation of the Congressional Enacted Legislation Titled the Bolan Agreement.....

Reagan was totally out of control as President and really should have spent the rest of his life from that point in a Federal Prison.

I don't know how Republicans act as if this was not the case, the entire congressional hearing was played out on television. Some of the players were sentenced to prison for the cover up involved. North was convicted, although his conviction was over turned, the AG used testimony from the Hearing he should not have used in getting the conviction.
North? Oliver North? The one who warned us about Osama Bin Laden and ALL democrats laughed at him?

Yes, you Liberals were warned about ten years earlier and you ignored and laughed!!!

You Liberals are responsible for he 6,000 death of Sept. 11!!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7433 Jan 29, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
Immigration “reform”…
There should be no special path to citizenship.
They should take yours away to make room for people who deserve it more.

The first person who applies.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7434 Jan 29, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
The one who warned us about Osama Bin Laden
Ollie North? The felon? the one who got caught? the one who shredded documents so he wouldn't go to prison? the one who imported cocaine into the the USA as part of the Iran Contra scheme?

He had absolutely NOTHING to do with Bin Laden.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHHA!

Have to LOVE these ignorant tea baggers who keep recycling cr@p that was REFUTED.

And the person who REFUTED the NONSENSE, you MOOO-ron, was Ollie NOrth himself, TWELVE YEARS AGO.

IDDDDiot.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min NTMD8OR 1,685,119
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 hr Mothra 37,864
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr loose cannon 243,256
News Trump vs. Clinton: The feud continues even afte... 7 hr mr gleeble 35
News Romney declines to say whether he'd run for Uta... 12 hr Chilli J 12
News Voter ID Laws Could Disenfranchise 1 Million Yo... (Sep '12) 16 hr Injudgement 15
News Standing up to the lynch mob 18 hr Biff 47
More from around the web