Ooooooooooh, nooooooooooo... President PERRY ?????

[The Anvil]

I know nothing of his politics or his personally either.  I'd like to hear from Danial Meyer or others on this board from Texas.  Perhaps they could shed some light on Mr Perry for the rest of us. 

Can you say, "pandering whore?"

EXACTLY, in relation to Obama and the Unions.  A "pandering whore".

Thank you Mr Eagle, for putting my thoughts into words you can understand.

You said it much better than I could.

MP

Like I said; elections are no longer about getting the right man for the job, but voting for the despot who's self interests align most closely with your own. In this case you're willing to vote out the pander bear that doesn't satisfy your self interests (Obama) for one that does (Perry).

Congrats, you've really raised the bar. But the joke's on you because neither one of them really cares about you or your interests.

[Trynt]

I know nothing of his politics or his personally either.  I'd like to hear from Danial Meyer or others on this board from Texas.  Perhaps they could shed some light on Mr Perry for the rest of us. 

Can you say, "pandering whore?"

EXACTLY, in relation to Obama and the Unions.  A "pandering whore".

Thank you Mr Eagle, for putting my thoughts into words you can understand.

You said it much better than I could.

MP

Like I said; elections are no longer about getting the right man for the job, but voting for the despot who's self interests align most closely with your own. In this case you're willing to vote out the pander bear that doesn't satisfy your self interests (Obama) for one that does (Perry).

Congrats, you've really raised the bar. But the joke's on you because neither one of them really cares about you or your interests.

And that Anvil, is an excellent argument for smaller government. Both sides are self-serving pr#cks.

[f6john]

Anvil for President!!!?? ]

[RoadKill]

Perry is a politician. They all suck ! Until we get rid  of politicians (the two party system, at least) it will always be a vote for the "lessor of two evils".   If he gets the nomination you must ask yourself 'Which is the lessor EVIL ?' .   I think most already know what their answer would be.             
      

[The Anvil]

Perry is a politician. They all suck ! Until we get rid  of politicians (the two party system, at least) it will always be a vote for the "lessor of two evils".   If he gets the nomination you must ask yourself 'Which is the lessor EVIL ?' .   I think most already know what their answer would be.             
      

Why lease evil when you can sell it outright? Cthulhu for President 2012.

[Serk]

Perry is a politician. They all suck ! Until we get rid  of politicians (the two party system, at least) it will always be a vote for the "lessor of two evils".   If he gets the nomination you must ask yourself 'Which is the lessor EVIL ?' .   I think most already know what their answer would be.             
      

Why lease evil when you can sell it outright? Cthulhu for President 2012.

I shoulda guessed you're a visitor to Ry'leh... I bet you've also been touched by his noodly appendage, haven't you? 

[The Anvil]

Perry is a politician. They all suck ! Until we get rid  of politicians (the two party system, at least) it will always be a vote for the "lessor of two evils".   If he gets the nomination you must ask yourself 'Which is the lessor EVIL ?' .   I think most already know what their answer would be.             
      

Why lease evil when you can sell it outright? Cthulhu for President 2012.

I shoulda guessed you're a visitor to Ry'leh... I bet you've also been touched by his noodly appendage, haven't you? 

What happens in R'lyeh stays in R'lyeh. 

[RoadKill]

Perry is a politician. They all suck ! Until we get rid  of politicians (the two party system, at least) it will always be a vote for the "lessor of two evils".   If he gets the nomination you must ask yourself 'Which is the lessor EVIL ?' .   I think most already know what their answer would be.             
      

Why lease evil when you can sell it outright? Cthulhu for President 2012.

Hey !!  you are not grammar police around here !!   Moran! (sic)    

[RoadKill]

Perry is a politician. They all suck ! Until we get rid  of politicians (the two party system, at least) it will always be a vote for the "lessor of two evils".   If he gets the nomination you must ask yourself 'Which is the lessor EVIL ?' .   I think most already know what their answer would be.             
      

Why lease evil when you can sell it outright? Cthulhu for President 2012.

I shoulda guessed you're a visitor to Ry'leh... I bet you've also been touched by his noodly appendage, haven't you? 

I'm not so sure it is not his home town....we only see the "tip of the iceberg" .

[musclehead]

Refresh my memory please, was Reagan a Democrat or Republican when he gave stinger missiles and other assorted weapons (that are still being used to kill our troops BTW) to the Taliban and facilitated the sale of arms to Iran to simultaneously facilitate the release of American hostages (we don't negotiate with terrorists) and fund South American rebels?

The ATF under Obama lets a few guns go south of the border and Obama needs to be impeached, but the Gipper showered weapons on rogue states like a broken pinata and he's still a hero. F**kin hypocrites.

where is that pic at? oh boy it's been a while.......

[The Anvil]

Refresh my memory please, was Reagan a Democrat or Republican when he gave stinger missiles and other assorted weapons (that are still being used to kill our troops BTW) to the Taliban and facilitated the sale of arms to Iran to simultaneously facilitate the release of American hostages (we don't negotiate with terrorists) and fund South American rebels?

The ATF under Obama lets a few guns go south of the border and Obama needs to be impeached, but the Gipper showered weapons on rogue states like a broken pinata and he's still a hero. F**kin hypocrites.

where is that pic at? oh boy it's been a while.......

Ah yes, very cute.

But everything I said is true. Suck on that nipple.

[Jeff K]

I'm voting for "Generic Republican" he seems to be ahead in the polls too. 

[Trynt]

Refresh my memory please, was Reagan a Democrat or Republican when he gave stinger missiles and other assorted weapons (that are still being used to kill our troops BTW) to the Taliban and facilitated the sale of arms to Iran to simultaneously facilitate the release of American hostages (we don't negotiate with terrorists) and fund South American rebels?

The ATF under Obama lets a few guns go south of the border and Obama needs to be impeached, but the Gipper showered weapons on rogue states like a broken pinata and he's still a hero. F**kin hypocrites.

The Gipper wasn't trying to use the transfer as arms as a pretext to further a gun control agenda.  The AFT, with the likely approval of Eric Holder, allowed the sale of guns in an effort to "prove" the Left's narrative regarding the need for further restrictions on gun sales and the assault weapons ban. Now that's not only Hypocritical its machevialian. It's not grounds for Obama"s impeachment, but Eric, I facilitated the Marc Rich pardon, Holder should go.  He either knew or should have known.

[The Anvil]

Refresh my memory please, was Reagan a Democrat or Republican when he gave stinger missiles and other assorted weapons (that are still being used to kill our troops BTW) to the Taliban and facilitated the sale of arms to Iran to simultaneously facilitate the release of American hostages (we don't negotiate with terrorists) and fund South American rebels?

The ATF under Obama lets a few guns go south of the border and Obama needs to be impeached, but the Gipper showered weapons on rogue states like a broken pinata and he's still a hero. F**kin hypocrites.

The Gipper wasn't trying to use the transfer as arms as a pretext to further a gun control agenda.  The AFT, with the likely approval of Eric Holder, allowed the sale of guns in an effort to "prove" the Left's narrative regarding the need for further restrictions on gun sales and the assault weapons ban. Now that's not only Hypocritical its machevialian. It's not grounds for Obama"s impeachment, but Eric, I facilitated the Marc Rich pardon, Holder should go.  He either knew or should have known.

Save your breath. I'm not defending Obama. That operation was reprehensible. I'm taking issue with Ronald Reagan's status as messiah. But what Reagan did has had much deeper reaching effects than what Obama did. Tell the families of the dead in Afghanistan how much worse what Obama did was. You see, it's all relative.

Again, nothing I said is untrue and you answer it with weaksauce excuses.

[f6john]

     Digging up bones when we need to be dealing with today.

[The Anvil]

     Digging up bones when we need to be dealing with today.

Again you're missing the point. Some people worry about this kind of thing only when it's convenient to (i.e; NOT their binky doing it). I call BS on that. If you're gonna take issue with it then take issue with it and be consistent about it. If not then you're a gutless hypocrite and I see a lot of hollow body cavities these days.

[The Anvil]

What's amazing is that he's such a terrible governor and people are taking him seriously. He's a joke, a walking mullet. Seriously, look at this guy's record.  It's going to be funny as watching two dogs get stuck together when other Republican candidates really start tearing him apart.

[DarkMeister]

Oh come now. Electing to highest office a c-minus grad, pro-business, Texas governor, who claims regular conferences with God. What could possibly go wrong? 

[The Anvil]

Oh come now. Electing to highest office a c-minus grad, pro-business, Texas governor, who claims regular conferences with God. What could possibly go wrong? 

SOMEBODY gets it.

"Oh, why are you bringing up what happened in the past? It's all about today!"

Meanwhile the current darling of the right is a Bush II clone. This is why paying attention to the past is important.

[Jeff K]

Oh come now. Electing to highest office a c-minus grad, pro-business, Texas governor, who claims regular conferences with God. What could possibly go wrong?  

So what were Obama's grades like?

Really, we would like to know.  

Oh, wait, I guess it's none of our business?

But since it's up to us to guess, I'd guess he got a B in teleprompter, and D's in everything else. Or he just got smiley's for "participation".

[Trynt]

Refresh my memory please, was Reagan a Democrat or Republican when he gave stinger missiles and other assorted weapons (that are still being used to kill our troops BTW) to the Taliban and facilitated the sale of arms to Iran to simultaneously facilitate the release of American hostages (we don't negotiate with terrorists) and fund South American rebels?

The ATF under Obama lets a few guns go south of the border and Obama needs to be impeached, but the Gipper showered weapons on rogue states like a broken pinata and he's still a hero. F**kin hypocrites.

The Gipper wasn't trying to use the transfer as arms as a pretext to further a gun control agenda.  The AFT, with the likely approval of Eric Holder, allowed the sale of guns in an effort to "prove" the Left's narrative regarding the need for further restrictions on gun sales and the assault weapons ban. Now that's not only Hypocritical its machevialian. It's not grounds for Obama"s impeachment, but Eric, I facilitated the Marc Rich pardon, Holder should go.  He either knew or should have known.

Save your breath. I'm not defending Obama. That operation was reprehensible. I'm taking issue with Ronald Reagan's status as messiah. But what Reagan did has had much deeper reaching effects than what Obama did. Tell the families of the dead in Afghanistan how much worse what Obama did was. You see, it's all relative.

Again, nothing I said is untrue and you answer it with weaksauce excuses.

I was not offering excuses. I was explaining why some people were upset with the Obama administration over this. And Reagan is not my messiah. My impression of him was that of an old man used as a facade for the people who really ran the country during those years.

And as far as our left over arms from the Soviet's war in Afghanistan and their impact, hindsight is 20/20. For example  had Clinton acted on Sudan's offer to arrest and detain Bin Laden, just how different our country and the world might be today. The issue is intent. The ATF's intent was to deceive in order to further an ideology driven agenda. Reagan's deception was to effect the return of the hostages, which at least IMHO, is a more worthy motivation.

[musclehead]

Perry is a politician. They all suck ! Until we get rid  of politicians (the two party system, at least) it will always be a vote for the "lessor of two evils".   If he gets the nomination you must ask yourself 'Which is the lessor EVIL ?' .   I think most already know what their answer would be.             
      

Why lease evil when you can sell it outright? Cthulhu for President 2012.

I shoulda guessed you're a visitor to Ry'leh... I bet you've also been touched by his noodly appendage, haven't you? 

don't we have a don't ask don't tell policy (need a barfing smiley)

[musclehead]

Refresh my memory please, was Reagan a Democrat or Republican when he gave stinger missiles and other assorted weapons (that are still being used to kill our troops BTW) to the Taliban and facilitated the sale of arms to Iran to simultaneously facilitate the release of American hostages (we don't negotiate with terrorists) and fund South American rebels?

The ATF under Obama lets a few guns go south of the border and Obama needs to be impeached, but the Gipper showered weapons on rogue states like a broken pinata and he's still a hero. F**kin hypocrites.

The Gipper wasn't trying to use the transfer as arms as a pretext to further a gun control agenda.  The AFT, with the likely approval of Eric Holder, allowed the sale of guns in an effort to "prove" the Left's narrative regarding the need for further restrictions on gun sales and the assault weapons ban. Now that's not only Hypocritical its machevialian. It's not grounds for Obama"s impeachment, but Eric, I facilitated the Marc Rich pardon, Holder should go.  He either knew or should have known.

Save your breath. I'm not defending Obama. That operation was reprehensible. I'm taking issue with Ronald Reagan's status as messiah. But what Reagan did has had much deeper reaching effects than what Obama did. Tell the families of the dead in Afghanistan how much worse what Obama did was. You see, it's all relative.

Again, nothing I said is untrue and you answer it with weaksauce excuses.

Reagen's not the messiah, Obama was supposed to be.

I'm not sure what reagen knew, I'm not sure what obama knows.

Reagen was just a man like me, maybe even like you

[Bigun]

As far as Teavangelicals go, I believe Perry is the real deal. What does need watching is where he gets his money to finance his political ambitions. Look no further than the Koch brothers. Perry along with a handfull of Tea Party govenors were flown out to Vail CO to a stratigy meeting with them recently. It has been said that Perry is their new poster boy.

Koch Brothers vs The evil one that backs the Dems, I'll take the pro American pro Business Koch brothers over one who would lead his own people to the ovens.

[F6Mark]

I tried to post earlier but I may have deleted it instead of posting- I saw an article that mentioned an analysis by the Ft Worth Star Telegram that showed the TX debt increased 282% during Perry's terms.
Of course, if the debt is real low, then increasing it 3-fold might not be so bad.
So I looked for a website that gave the actual numbers, and found a Tx debt clock, and included those numbers in my missing post- but now I'm not sure about the numbers.
I'm glad the post didn't get posted- I know if any of you guys read it I'd be ridiculed mercilessly.
Whew that was close.

[Jeff K]

As far as Teavangelicals go, I believe Perry is the real deal. What does need watching is where he gets his money to finance his political ambitions. Look no further than the Koch brothers. Perry along with a handfull of Tea Party govenors were flown out to Vail CO to a stratigy meeting with them recently. It has been said that Perry is their new poster boy.

Koch Brothers vs The evil one that backs the Dems, I'll take the pro American pro Business Koch brothers over one who would lead his own people to the ovens.

+1 
For some reason they fail to even acknowledge that he even exists, but they don't have a problem taking his money.

[f6john]

     Digging up bones when we need to be dealing with today.

Again you're missing the point. Some people worry about this kind of thing only when it's convenient to (i.e; NOT their binky doing it). I call BS on that. If you're gonna take issue with it then take issue with it and be consistent about it. If not then you're a gutless hypocrite and I see a lot of hollow body cavities these days.

   Let me assure you, I haven't missed any points. And, to be sure, you are not a hollow body cavity, cause it's running out your ears. You are passionate about it though, if you could just get everyone to see the light!

[The Anvil]

And as far as our left over arms from the Soviet's war in Afghanistan and their impact, hindsight is 20/20. For example  had Clinton acted on Sudan's offer to arrest and detain Bin Laden, just how different our country and the world might be today. The issue is intent. The ATF's intent was to deceive in order to further an ideology driven agenda. Reagan's deception was to effect the return of the hostages, which at least IMHO, is a more worthy motivation.

And Clinton admitted his mistake.

But you know, I actually LIKE Reagan for the most part. He was just what this country needed when he came along. But what bugs me is that people have very short memories. The only thing we shared in common with the Mujaheddin was our hate for the Soviets. There was no reason to think they could become our allies (or anything other than a threat) once Russia left Afghanistan. Giving them weapons to fight them was a bad idea from the get go, but the danger was overlooked in an effort to stick it to the commies. Overall success or failure in Afghanistan was not going to help the Soviet Union stick together. We should have let the Russians hack away at Afghanistan and let Afghanistan hack back until there was nothing left but cut down poppy stems and turbans and the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway. Win-win.

Well Obama pulled the same stunt, both backfired and both should have seen that coming. And what Reagan did was also backed by an ideology.

As far as getting the hostages back from Iran goes, that was an awful move and it set a precedent which was that no matter what our public stance may be we WILL negotiate with terrorists and once they know you'll negotiate with them it only emboldens them. It does nothing to appease, placate, satisfy or quiet them. Carter for his part at least TRIED a military option to get them back and had another in the works (google: Credible Sport). Reagan capitulated. Those are facts.

What did Obama do with those Somali pirates that took that ship captain hostage? He had their f**king HEADS blown off (in a truly underrated act of marksmanship BTW). What did he do with Osama bin Laden when he found him? He had him executed like a dog. In matter of "diplomacy" where terrorists are concerned I'll take Obama or Carter over the back door dealing, hat-in-hand Reagan any day every day.

Reagan was overall, a good president. Not a great one, a good one. But he also saddled this country with problems that wound up costing Bush I his job (a better president and statesman than he gets credit for) because he had to make a lot of tough choices as a president taking hold of a reeling country.

[DarkMeister]

Thanks for the history lesson, Anvil - now I *know* I'm old. I still remember how disappointed and devastated I was with that failed run on Tehran fiasco. Keystone Kolonels... And proud when it came to light that Canadians saved and 'stored' a number of US personnel.
Seems like yesterday.
 
Still remember papa Bush saying "Read my lips: no more Texas Taxes!"

[The Anvil]

Thanks for the history lesson, Anvil - now I *know* I'm old. I still remember how disappointed and devastated I was with that failed run on Tehran fiasco. Keystone Kolonels... And proud when it came to light that Canadians saved and 'stored' a number of US personnel.
Seems like yesterday.
 :'(
Still remember papa Bush saying "Read my lips: no more Texas Taxes!"

I read an interesting article in the Atlantic several years ago about the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. It could have actually worked, but for a couple of unfortunate wrenches thrown into the plan.

Check out the videos of the CS modified C130's...

Credible Sport Test YMC 130 H	powered by Aeva

[DarkMeister]

I would love VTOL doodads for my Valk! Talk about collision avoidance and easy parking.

[Willow]

But you know, I actually LIKE Reagan for the most part. He was
As far as getting the hostages back from Iran goes, that was an awful move and it set a precedent which was that no matter what our public stance may be we WILL negotiate with terrorists and once they know you'll negotiate with them it only emboldens them. It does nothing to appease, placate, satisfy or quiet them. Carter for his part at least TRIED a military option to get them back and had another in the works (google: Credible Sport). Reagan capitulated. Those are facts.

Not to put to fine a point on what is obviously an emotional argument, but when one emphatically states, "Those are facts," he should responsibly be sure his "facts" are, in fact, accurate.  Those of us who were adults at the time will remember the hostages held in Iran were released in the closing moments of the Jimmy Carter administration.

The allegations regarding the "arms for hostages" scandal involved supposed attempts to persuade believed moderates within the Iranian government to use their influence to bring about the release of hostages held by Hezbollah in, I believe, Lebanon.

The real historical situations will probably allow you to still support, at least from youir viewpoint, some of your speculations, but it casts a pall on the whole Carter attempts rescue while Reagan negotiates with terrorists assertion.  Incidentally, negotiations with Iran for the release of the embassy hostages were ongoing all through the final year of the Carter administration.

Your arguments are energetic and enthusiastic, but your "facts" and your grasp of history is somewhat flawed.        

[The Anvil]

But you know, I actually LIKE Reagan for the most part. He was
As far as getting the hostages back from Iran goes, that was an awful move and it set a precedent which was that no matter what our public stance may be we WILL negotiate with terrorists and once they know you'll negotiate with them it only emboldens them. It does nothing to appease, placate, satisfy or quiet them. Carter for his part at least TRIED a military option to get them back and had another in the works (google: Credible Sport). Reagan capitulated. Those are facts.

Not to put to fine a point on what is obviously an emotional argument, but when one emphatically states, "Those are facts," he should responsibly be sure his "facts" are, in fact, accurate.  Those of us who were adults at the time will remember the hostages held in Iran were released in the closing moments of the Jimmy Carter administration.

The allegations regarding the "arms for hostages" scandal involved supposed attempts to persuade believed moderates within the Iranian government to use their influence to bring about the release of hostages held by Hezbollah in, I believe, Lebanon.

The real historical situations will probably allow you to still support, at least from youir viewpoint, some of your speculations, but it casts a pall on the whole Carter attempts rescue while Reagan negotiates with terrorists assertion.  Incidentally, negotiations with Iran for the release of the embassy hostages were ongoing all through the final year of the Carter administration.

Your arguments are energetic and enthusiastic, but your "facts" and your grasp of history is somewhat flawed.        

Different hostage situation Willow. Everything I said was factual;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

"The scandal began as an operation to free American hostages being held by terrorist groups with Iranian ties. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the U.S. would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, who in turn were connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[2][3] 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.[4][5]"

[Willow]

Different hostage situation Willow. Everything I said was factual;

Canned and predictable response, as inaccurate as your original post.  We've come to expect that.    

[The Anvil]

Different hostage situation Willow. Everything I said was factual;

Canned and predictable response, as inaccurate as your original post.  We've come to expect that.    

How is it incorrect? Reagan sold arms to Iran to free American hostages and then took the proceeds and funded south American rebels. It's called "Iran Contra". If you were paying attention (rather than just being alive and vegging out) then you may have heard of it. But that's what happened.

So I ask you again, HOW is what I said incorrect?

You know why it was predictable? Because that's how the truth is. Even if you try to deny it you still know it to be true. 

[Willow]

The hostages were not released during the closing days of the Carter admin. They were releleased 20 minutes after Reagsn's Inauguration address thus leading to charges of a conspiracy

One of the leading, national issues during that year was the release of 52 Americans being held hostage in Iran since November 4, 1979.[1] Reagan won the election. On the day of his inauguration—in fact, twenty minutes after he concluded his inaugural address—the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages. The timing gave rise to an allegation that representatives of Reagan's presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the election in order to thwart President Carter from pulling off an "October surprise".

According to the allegation, the Reagan Administration rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in US banks.

LOL!  A technically valid point.  I guess I should have stated that the release occurred before Ronald Reagan had made his way to the White House office to assume the responsibilities of the President.  Maybe a more accurate phrase would have been as the Jimmy Carter administration was exiting the White House.

There are a few logical holes in the alleged conspiracy theory.  One is that one would have to jump (a large leap) to the conclusion that Iran actually preferred Ronald Reagan to James Earl Carter.  The other is that the release of the hostages occurred before Reagan's administration could officially do anything and the transfer of military equipment didn't happen until well into Ronald Reagan's second term as President.

I liked Jimmy Carter as a person and I think he was a very amicable representative of the generous American people, but if I were going to get into a sabre rattling contest against the super power of the west, I would much rather have had at the helm Jimmy Carter rather than Ronald Reagan.  Just my personal guess, but I believe the Iranians had similar thoughts.

I guess you and I will never know for sure.  It's also likely you and I will never agree on the subject.    

[Trynt]

The hostages were not released during the closing days of the Carter admin. They were releleased 20 minutes after Reagsn's Inauguration address thus leading to charges of a conspiracy

One of the leading, national issues during that year was the release of 52 Americans being held hostage in Iran since November 4, 1979.[1] Reagan won the election. On the day of his inauguration—in fact, twenty minutes after he concluded his inaugural address—the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages. The timing gave rise to an allegation that representatives of Reagan's presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the election in order to thwart President Carter from pulling off an "October surprise".

According to the allegation, the Reagan Administration rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in US banks.

LOL!  A technically valid point.  I guess I should have stated that the release occurred before Ronald Reagan had made his way to the White House office to assume the responsibilities of the President.  Maybe a more accurate phrase would have been as the Jimmy Carter administration was exiting the White House.

There are a few logical holes in the alleged conspiracy theory.  One is that one would have to jump (a large leap) to the conclusion that Iran actually preferred Ronald Reagan to James Earl Carter.  The other is that the release of the hostages occurred before Reagan's administration could officially do anything and the transfer of military equipment didn't happen until well into Ronald Reagan's second term as President.

I liked Jimmy Carter as a person and I think he was a very amicable representative of the generous American people, but if I were going to get into a sabre rattling contest against the super power of the west, I would much rather have had at the helm Jimmy Carter rather than Ronald Reagan.  Just my personal guess, but I believe the Iranians had similar thoughts.

I guess you and I will never know for sure.  It's also likely you and I will never agree on the subject.    

According to this article  Iran-Contra was initiated in 1985 with a secret Iranian request for arms. The Carter administration ended in 1981.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/

[fudgie]

I thought Tx had crappy 2A/gun laws? Cant open carry in TX can you? He wont get my vote then.