Hatz

It's time to say that this just isn't good for anyone involved. Tragedy is too small a word for this event.

My vanity plates (as much so I can remember them as for the novelty) are: Hatz (surprise! :jump:) Saruh (My daughter's car :thumb:) KY 8X1 (So close to changing it the last three years. So close. :ohbrother:)

Parts of the field were only pellets and gooey from the sun. Unsafe conditions

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I would probably disagree because Reagan's end game all along was to deal with Hezbollah and get the hostages freed. In my mind it's semantics as to who talked to whom. (Kind of like a multi team trade/deal in sports) Thanks for answering HHS. :thumb:

I thought that all along. I've never cared for Obama's foreign policy. This will be seen as deflection HHS but please realize it was from earlier in this thread. Reagan negotiated with Hezbollah. Reagan negotiated with terrorists. I agree about Obama. Will you agree about Ronnie?

:lol2: I'm sorry but everytime I see this response I think immediately of "Madame Defarge" in "Tale of Two Cities." :thumb:

We will have to agree to disagree. Again, I would give anything to have a President with the leadership skills of Reagan. But he had his warts. He was so passionate about getting the hostages free that he made "deals with the devil" (indirectly or not doesn't matter. wouldn't happen if he didn't initiate it) to get them freed. This is the same Hezbollah who was at least in bed with if not actually a part of the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. It was the same Iran who created the crisis that helped spring Reagan into office because he would be more hard-line than Carter on them. I get the semantics of what you are saying HHS, but I disagree that they are really different at the heart of issue. It was a bad move by Reagan (more were captured soon after by terrorist groups expecting the same payday) and an even worse move by Obama considering that it will only lead to more "political prisoners" for ransom. In the end, both are equally bad precedents.

I would also add, almost all of the hostages were freed soon after.

You are the one looking at it through a different lens. Reagan Administration people stated that the reason for the sale of weapons to Iran was in order for the Iranian Government to "influence" the terrorist groups that held 7 Americans hostage in Lebanon. The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua. Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Iran-Contra Affair was a clandestine action not approved of by the United States Congress. It began in 1985, when President Ronald Reagan's administration supplied weapons to Iran¹ — a sworn enemy — in hopes of securing the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's leader. Iran-Contra Affair Even a more conservative source reminds us that even if it was "said" it was not a ransom scenario, Reagan later admitted that that was what it became. The foreign-policy scandal known as the Iran-contra affair came to light in November 1986 when President Ronald Reagan confirmed reports that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran. He stated that the goal was to improve relations with Iran, not to obtain release of U.S. hostages held in the Middle East by terrorists (although he later acknowledged that the arrangement had in fact turned into an arms-for-hostages swap). The Iran-Contra Affair Here is Reagan's address to the nation about the events. It is his willingness to take responsibility that burns his legacy in my mind as a great leader who refuses to pass the buck of blame along to others. Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation during a nationally televised address from the Oval Office on March 4, 1987, and two other speeches;[60] Reagan had not spoken to the American people directly for three months amidst the scandal.[61] President Reagan told the American people the reason he did not update them on the scandal: The reason I haven't spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion. There's been enough of that. He then took full responsibility for the acts committed: First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. Finally, the president stated that his previous assertions that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect: A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind.

You do realize he did the exact same thing, don't you?

While I agree with all of you that this is a bad mistake and poor policy, it reminds me of Reagan and the Iran Contra deal. I hated that deal as well.

I didn't see the issue of the speaker in your original link, just a conversation about the flags. Am I looking at the correct link you posted?

And this my friends is why the Political Forum was shut down before. It's not enough to post your stand on people and issues, you have to attack and destroy conflicting views. Even some on this thread who will never vote for Hillary are castigated for pointing out some fallacies and inaccuracies. :angrybird6:

Add George Wallace into the mix as he took parts of the Democratic Party with him in 64 and 68. Good call on the Kingfish, Huey Long.

:clap::clap::clap:

Marilyn Mosby on Freddie Gray’s case: we could try the cops 1

Is Squeaky Fromme still in prison?

I'm curious how many innocent casualties happen because the "enemy" is embedded deeply into "innocent areas," such as hospitals, schools and such. I have always hated the loss of innocent lives, even in war. But sometimes the "other side" brings it upon themselves by hiding with the innocent population.

Reagan was pushing 80 I think when his terms ended

Tim Kaine was one of the best Governors Virginia has had. He must not be too far to the left to be elected a Senator in the Old Dominion.

I recall thinking how much more I liked Lloyd Bensen much better than Dukakis. Kind of the same right now.

Is he related to Tuck Woolum?

Always has been. Kennedy chose LBJ for the South and unity. Reagan chose Bush to unify party. It's long been a policy.

I hope she has the greatest Presidency of my lifetime. I also hope that if Trump wins.

:ohbrother: