Jump to content
The Education Forum

Does the Tea Party Want to Destroy America?


Recommended Posts

Here are some of the outrageous beliefs and statements made by Tea Party leaders.

''Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.''

—Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don't win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas's WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010

''They're following me. They follow me home at night. I make sure that I come back to the townhouse and then we have our team come out and check all the bushes and check all the cars to make sure that -- they follow me.''

—Delaware GOP Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, claiming that unnamed political opponents are following her, Weekly Standard interview, Sept. 2, 2010

''I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change. It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination...It's far more likely that it's just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time. Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 'gets sucked down by trees and helps the trees grow.'''

—Ron Johnson, Tea Party-backed GOP Senate candidate in Wisconsin, Aug. 16, 2010

''The Federal Department of Education should be eliminated. The Department of Education is unconstitutional and should not be involved in education, at any level.''

—Nevada GOP Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle, July 12, 2010

''We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves.''

—Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), founder of the congressional Tea Party Caucus, speaking at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver about the evils of the Obama administration, July 9, 2010

Tea Party candidate Ken Buck, after being asked why people should vote for him for the Colorado GOP Senate nomination: ''Because I do not wear high heels. She has questioned my manhood, and I think it's fair to respond. I have cowboy boots, they have real bullxxxx on them. And that's Weld County bullxxxx, not Washington, D.C., bullxxxx.'' Buck was referring to an ad run by his opponent, which decried third-party spending on behalf of his campaign and urged Buck to ''be man enough'' to run the ads himself (July 21, 2010)

''It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be abstinent alone. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. You can't masturbate without lust!''

—Delaware GOP Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, advocating against masturbation in a 1996 appearance on MTV's 'Sex In The 90s' TV show

And my personal favorate...

''Do you know, where does this phrase 'separation of church and state' come from? It was not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. ... The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph Hitler's mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they're Nazis.''

—Glen Urquhart, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for the Delaware House seat held by Rep. Mike Castle, April 2010

:lol::lol::lol:

And the ignorance goes on and on.

The next installment will include some of Sarah Palin's asinine quotes, plus much more ignorance from the Party who wants to take over America... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of the outrageous beliefs and statements made by Tea Party leaders.

''Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.''

Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don't win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas's WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010

''They're following me. They follow me home at night. I make sure that I come back to the townhouse and then we have our team come out and check all the bushes and check all the cars to make sure that -- they follow me.''

Delaware GOP Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, claiming that unnamed political opponents are following her, Weekly Standard interview, Sept. 2, 2010

''I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change. It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination...It's far more likely that it's just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time. Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 'gets sucked down by trees and helps the trees grow.'''

Ron Johnson, Tea Party-backed GOP Senate candidate in Wisconsin, Aug. 16, 2010

''The Federal Department of Education should be eliminated. The Department of Education is unconstitutional and should not be involved in education, at any level.''

Nevada GOP Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle, July 12, 2010

''We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves.''

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), founder of the congressional Tea Party Caucus, speaking at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver about the evils of the Obama administration, July 9, 2010

Tea Party candidate Ken Buck, after being asked why people should vote for him for the Colorado GOP Senate nomination: ''Because I do not wear high heels. She has questioned my manhood, and I think it's fair to respond. I have cowboy boots, they have real bullxxxx on them. And that's Weld County bullxxxx, not Washington, D.C., bullxxxx.'' Buck was referring to an ad run by his opponent, which decried third-party spending on behalf of his campaign and urged Buck to ''be man enough'' to run the ads himself (July 21, 2010)

''It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be abstinent alone. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. You can't masturbate without lust!''

Delaware GOP Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, advocating against masturbation in a 1996 appearance on MTV's 'Sex In The 90s' TV show

And my personal favorate...

''Do you know, where does this phrase 'separation of church and state' come from? It was not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. ... The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph Hitler's mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they're Nazis.''

Glen Urquhart, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for the Delaware House seat held by Rep. Mike Castle, April 2010

:lol::lol::lol:

And the ignorance goes on and on.

The next installment will include some of Sarah Palin's asinine quotes, plus much more ignorance from the Party who wants to take over America... :

Duane

Slandering the Tea Party Movement and posting collected statements by Republicans, most of which appear to be taken out of context, offers les than nothing in the way of constructive criticism. After the congress has used the debt ceiling as a political football, resulting in partisan bickering on both sides, but especially by the Democrats, indicates an urgent need for change in our government. That is the platform of the Tea Party.

George Will, when questioned about the Tea Party and their seeming naive belief that election of Tea Party oriented legislators would bring immediate needed change said:

"....the Tea Party movement, which doesnt understand the fundamental paradox, which is if Washington were as easy to turn around as they seem to think it is, we wouldnt need the Tea Party movement which we do,

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/17/george-will-tea-party-lacks-understanding-of-difficultly-of-change-in-washington/#ixzz1V1c65MCs

Your post offers nothing in the way of insight as to reason, or alternative, to your vapid and trite attempt to libel.

What do you offer as to the current state of the ineffectual Washington political situation?

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not slandering the Tea Party .. I'm merely exposing the incompetent, dangerous mentality of those who belong to it.

As much as you might want their asinine statements to have been taken out of context, they weren't .. The context in which they made those inane/insane comments were included.

Why the Tea Party Is Far More Dangerous Than Progressives Give It Credit For

This post originally appeared on Booman Tribune.

I think Bill Scher is spot-on in everything he has to say about the Tea Party and its historic and contemporary place in American politics. But there is one very important thing that he misses. He’s completely correct in saying this:

The Tea Party is nothing new. It is merely the latest incarnation of the right-wing fringe that predictably overheats whenever a left-of-center reformer is elected to the presidency. It was the John Birch Society and the National Indignation Convention in the early 1960s, the Moral Majority and other “New Right” groups in the late 1970s, and Rush Limbaugh’s “dittoheads” and the militia movement in the 1990s.

I have said these same things many times. But the difference between now and the 1960’s or even the 1990’s is that the fringe of the right-wing has now spread to the whole carpet. Sure, only 18 percent of the electorate self-identifies as a Tea Party supporter, but that’s a huge percentage of the Republican electorate (and, yes, they are almost all Republicans). Fringe has built upon fringe.

How many Republicans have had to back down and apologize to Rush Limbaugh for contradicting or criticizing something he’s said on the air? Republican politicians are dealing with an insane base that’s been fed on paranoid hate-filled garbage from ‘entertainers’ for decades. It’s a rare Republican who’s willing to tell it like it is to these people. After Rep. Bob Inglis told South Carolina Republicans to stop listening to Glenn Beck, they gave him a meager 29% of the vote in the primary. His opponent got 71%. Here’s what Inglis says now:

Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, who last month lost a primary battle to retain his seat, is now taking aim at some members of his own party – the second ousted Republican to express frustration with the GOP in as many weeks.In an interview with the Associated Press and confirmed to CNN by his office, Inglis targets the “death panels” phrase made famous by Sarah Palin when the former Alaska governor inaccurately claimed the Democratic-backed health care legislation would ration health care for the elderly.

“There were no death panels in the bill … and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It’s not leadership. It’s demagoguery,” said Inglis, who lost his primary challenge to conservative Trey Gowdy by 42 points last month and faced heavy criticism for voting in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2009.

What’s changed is that the nutcases on the right are capable of beating a sane Republican incumbent by 42 points if they step out of line. Believe me, every member of the GOP in Congress is aware of this fact. They have to eat chicken dinners with these people and ask them for money. Arlen Specter knew his goose was cooked as soon as he saw the reaction to Sarah Palin. In fact, it was the selection of Sarah Palin to be a vice-presidential candidate that put this Tea Party movement into overdrive. Up to that point all their energy was being put into Ron Paul’s delegate-deprived run for the presidency. McCain made the single most irresponsible political decision since a lame-duck James Buchanan sat silently while half the country seceded from the Union.

But I’m getting off my point. My point is that, while Scher is correct to point out the Tea Party is merely the latest incarnation of the right’s rage at being governed by a Democratic President, and to point out their overall numbers are small, he’s wrong to give the impression that we’re not dealing with something extremely dangerous. Because, if you haven’t noticed, the Republicans are voting in absolute lockstep, and they’re dancing to the Tea Partiers tune. They are terrified of opposing them. And even when they do oppose them we see outcomes like Rand Paul crushing the establishment candidate in a socially conservative (i.e., not a libertarian) state.

I’ve never seen a fringe movement take control of a party’s soul and mind like this before. I was hoping that the governance of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Karl Rove was the worst the right could offer, but it’s not even close. The Republicans have been cynical so long that they’ve been taken over by the duped.

Actual Republican congresspeople (with a handful of exceptions) have no interest in the Tea Party’s priorities. Want proof? Read the Mission & Platform just passed by Maine’s GOP. It’s cuckoo land. And that might be the saving grace for this country, because the establishment GOP doesn’t intend to become the party of Rand Paul. They just want to use that energy to get back into power and take the gavels back from the Democrats. But, first of all, we just saw what ‘reasonable’ establishment Republican politics can do to our country, so we can’t take much solace from the fact that that establishment is taking their cynicism to eleven by playing footsie with these people. Secondly, a bunch of the new Republicans elected this November are going to be certifiably Michele Bachmann-insane. And just like with the Republican Class of 1994, sixteen years later some of the people will be governors and senators.

The Republican Party that impeached Clinton was dangerously insane. They took it up several notches after 9/11. But what we’re witnessing now is of a totally different scale. The parasite has taken over the host.

So, I don’t dismiss these people at all. I think they rank with climate change and nuclear proliferation as threats to humanity. And we have no time to be dicking around arguing over the soul of Barack Obama.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/12/why-the-tea-party-is-far-more-dangerous-than-progressives-give-it-credit-for/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not slandering the Tea Party .. I'm merely exposing the incompetent, dangerous mentality of those who belong to it.

As much as you might want their asinine statements to have been taken out of context, they weren't .. The context in which they made those inane/insane comments were included.

Obviously, Duane, you do not understand the nature of context.

For one thing, you cut and paste an editorial, not just a post, because the editorial uses the first person POV; The "I"; When you copy an editorial without using quotation marks around each statement, regardless of the imprimatuer of the origin site, the context appears to be in your point of view, ie, it is your statement. That is rather unethical.

Secondly, just stating the title and/or your label of the subject (in your opinion?) is not context. To offer the context, you have to identify the object of the speech as well as the statement, the state of mind of the speaker, and the audience, as well as the nature of the audience. There is a difference speaking out for choice, between addressing a feminist action group and a Walt Whitman poetry convention, just to apply a simple analogy. You do not apply context with a couple of opinions as to what the speaker was really saying.

Your definition and application of context is not only unethical, it can be dangerous, in the wrong hands.

Quite a large part of the Tea Party constituency primarily just advocate change. That is one point of context you quite glaringly omit. So your point then is to advocate the status quo?

Not a very enlightened point of view, Duane.

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously, Duane, you do not understand the nature of context

I understand the nature if context very well .. My own claims have been taken out of context often on this forum.

As for the statements made by these Tea Party leaders, perhaps you can enlighten us with their suppossed context and show where they may have been misrepresented?

For one thing, you cut and past an editorial, not just a post, because the editorial uses first person POV, the "I"; when you copy an editorial without using quotation marks around each statement, regardless of the imprimatuer of the origan site, the context appears to be in your point of view, ie, your statement. That is rather unethical.

Quotes are not necessary when the source link shows who wrote the text.

Quite a large part of the Tea Party constituency primarily just advocate change

That may be true, but they are being very much overshadowd by the ignorant loud mouths who are in charge of that "change".

I forgot to answer your question before..

What do you offer as to the current state of the ineffectual Washington political situation?

My solution to fixing what's wrong with the current political situation in DC would be to elect a Democrat like Hilary Clinton, who doesn't just talk the talk (like our current President) but can also walk the walk, like her husband Bill.

President Clinton not only cleaned up the original 12 year Reagan / Bush financial mess and balanced the national budget in less that eight years, but did it while being attacked by the rabid republican witch hunters who impeached him for not keeping his pants zipped.. An offense that is NOT impeachable .. An impeachable offense is LYING ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ, WAGING TWO WARS FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON, AND STEALING TWO ELECTIONS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously, Duane, you do not understand the nature of context

My solution to fixing what's wrong with the current political situation in DC would be to elect a Democrat like Hilary Clinton, who doesn't just talk the talk (like our current President) but can also walk the walk, like her husband Bill.

President Clinton not only c, leaned up the original 12 year Reagan / Bush financial mess and balanced the national budget in less that eight years, but did it while being attacked by the rabid republican witch hunters who impeached him for not keeping his pants zipped.. An offense that is NOT impeachable .. An impeachable offense is LYING ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ, WAGING TWO WARS FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON, AND STEALING TWO ELECTIONS.

Congress actually appropriates monies, not the President. I suggest you read David Stockman's book (he was Director of the OMB under Reagan) "Triumph of Politics" to provide an understanding of why there was a budget deficit under Reagan and Bush.

To my knowledge Hilary Clinton has never held an elected office. What is your basis for saying that she can "Walk the Walk"? To what political philosphy does she subscribe? I have never read her political platform, maybe you can provide some reference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest you read David Stockman's book (he was Director of the OMB under Reagan) "Triumph of Politics" to provide an understanding of why there was a budget deficit under Reagan and Bush.

I suggest you read more unbiased material, instead of more republican propaganda.. Reagan's "trickle down economics" was a joke.

The Reagan Budget: The Deficit that Didn't Have to Be

"With all the heated arguments about Reaganomics in the last year and a half, the following may seem a startling assertion, but it is true: There is no Reaganomics. There is a new style of rhetoric in Washington, a lot of talk about tax cuts, getting the government off our backs, reducing the size of government. But it is all talk. Taxes and spending are going to be higher every year. The rhetoric is different. The policies are the same.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013.html

The massive (but under-reported) Reagan Administration corruption

"Conservatives and Republicans are such paragons of virtue and truth that they tried to pin Ronald Reagam's "most corrupt administration in American history" medal on Bill Clinton! Despite the fact that the President and first lady, and many members of the Clinton administration were deluged with charges of criminal behavior on the street and in the media, their accusers fell flat on their faces when they had to prove their trumped up charges in court, where it's evidence and proof that matter not claims that a good lawyer can show to be devoid of serious credibility.

Contrast that to the great numbers of the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan who were not just charged, but were found guilty, in court! How can it be that most Americans don't remember the Reagan administration for its corruption? It couldn't possible be because the so-called "Liberal media" rarely, if ever, shines its powerful spotlights on that part of U.S. history? My spotlight is nowhere as strong as theirs, but if enough of us help to spread the word, mayhe we can make up for that deficiency.

The contenders for the title of "the most corrupt administration in American history" are all Republican administrations. It may be hard to order them exactly, but the contenders for the first, second, third & fourth "most corrupt administrations in American history" are the Republican administrations of Grant, Harding, Nixon and Reagan.

Before any conservative dismisses what we have to say about Reagan on this site just because we are liberals, after taking a good hard look at the record, the very conservative site Jesus-is-Savior.com/Wolves/reagan.htm came to many of the very same conclusions that we reached, i.e. ( in their own words) :

"Let us remember Reagan as he really was :

xxxx

Thief

Mass murderer

Supporter of abortion

War criminal

Destroyer of freedom

Traitor of the American people

Corporate whore

Destroyer of the environment

Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "

Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration:

"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

Much more here...

http://great-liberal-insights.org/about/Reagan.html

To my knowledge Hilary Clinton has never held an elected office. What is your basis for saying that she can "Walk the Walk"? To what political philosphy does she subscribe? I have never read her political platform, maybe you can provide some reference?

Hilary Clinton was elected Senator of New York.

She can walk the walk because she understands the mindsets of her conservative enemies better than anyone else on the planet.. Which means she wouldn't allow a republican congress to walk all over her the way Barack Obama does.

Her political philosphy is the same as her husband's .. and he didn't allow those conservative goons to walk all over him either, even after they threw away over 40 billion taxpayer dollars impeaching him for an unimpeachable offense.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic ...

The Tea Party Is Dangerous: Dispelling 7 Myths That Help Us Avoid Reality About the New Right-Wing Politics

"It may be fashionable to dismiss the Tea Party and its radical, right-wing pals, but we do so at our peril.

Really, we shouldn’t have been surprised. Just as a recession hit of unprecedented force, yielding high unemployment, conservatives found themselves sidelined, Obama’s triumph coming on the heels of the Democrats’ congressional victories of 2006. That partisan change would have been enough to make conservatives ornery, but the cultural change represented by the nation’s first African-American president struck fear into the hearts of many -- especially after liberal San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to wield the gavel of the Speaker of the House.

The inevitable backlash against such a sweeping shift, shepherded by an array of corporate-funded entities, culminated in the creation of the Tea Party movement -- a dangerous brew of resentment and fear that threatens to roll back the majority the Democrats enjoy in the House of Representatives, and set the nation on a path to a right-wing government even more restrictive and regressive than that of the Bush era.

But bad economies create bad politics, notes economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. Economic downturns traditionally, over the course of history, usher in swings to the right, Krugman writes. The administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an aberration in this regard, and, perhaps, as Michael Tomasky suggests, in the course of American history. But since the Great Depression offers our most recent experience of severe economic crisis, its story is etched in the progressive mind as the narrative for how the nation naturally responds to economic catastrophe.

More than a year ago, Robert Reich warned of the vitriol we see today from the Tea Party movement, as well as its likely targets. “Make no mistake: Angry right-wing populism lurks just below the surface of the terrible American economy,” Reich wrote, “ready to be launched not only at Obama but also at liberals, intellectuals, gays, blacks, Jews, the mainstream media, coastal elites, crypto socialists, and any other potential target of paranoid opportunity.”.."

More here ..

http://www.alternet.org/news/147307/the_tea_party_is_dangerous:_dispelling_7_myths_that_help_us_avoid_reality_about_the_new_right-wing_politics/?page=entire

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
I suggest you read David Stockman's book (he was Director of the OMB under Reagan) "Triumph of Politics" to provide an understanding of why there was a budget deficit under Reagan and Bush.

I suggest you read more unbiased material, instead of more republican propaganda.. Reagan's "trickle down economics" was a joke.

The Reagan Budget: The Deficit that Didn't Have to Be

"With all the heated arguments about Reaganomics in the last year and a half, the following may seem a startling assertion, but it is true: There is no Reaganomics. There is a new style of rhetoric in Washington, a lot of talk about tax cuts, getting the government off our backs, reducing the size of government. But it is all talk. Taxes and spending are going to be higher every year. The rhetoric is different. The policies are the same.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013.html

The massive (but under-reported) Reagan Administration corruption

"Conservatives and Republicans are such paragons of virtue and truth that they tried to pin Ronald Reagam's "most corrupt administration in American history" medal on Bill Clinton! Despite the fact that the President and first lady, and many members of the Clinton administration were deluged with charges of criminal behavior on the street and in the media, their accusers fell flat on their faces when they had to prove their trumped up charges in court, where it's evidence and proof that matter not claims that a good lawyer can show to be devoid of serious credibility.

Contrast that to the great numbers of the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan who were not just charged, but were found guilty, in court! How can it be that most Americans don't remember the Reagan administration for its corruption? It couldn't possible be because the so-called "Liberal media" rarely, if ever, shines its powerful spotlights on that part of U.S. history? My spotlight is nowhere as strong as theirs, but if enough of us help to spread the word, mayhe we can make up for that deficiency.

The contenders for the title of "the most corrupt administration in American history" are all Republican administrations. It may be hard to order them exactly, but the contenders for the first, second, third & fourth "most corrupt administrations in American history" are the Republican administrations of Grant, Harding, Nixon and Reagan.

Before any conservative dismisses what we have to say about Reagan on this site just because we are liberals, after taking a good hard look at the record, the very conservative site Jesus-is-Savior.com/Wolves/reagan.htm came to many of the very same conclusions that we reached, i.e. ( in their own words) :

"Let us remember Reagan as he really was :

xxxx

Thief

Mass murderer

Supporter of abortion

War criminal

Destroyer of freedom

Traitor of the American people

Corporate whore

Destroyer of the environment

Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "

Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration:

"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

Much more here...

http://great-liberal-insights.org/about/Reagan.html

Actually Duane, in the article you linked there were only 38, not 138, officials in the Reagan Administration either indicted or convicted. The liberal site you linked isn't very reliable, especially the math. Look at the list. There are 38, not 138, identified officials.

Records show that 31 Reagan adinistration officials were convicted, compared to 40 Clinton Administration officials. The Clinton Administration was one of the most corrupt administrations in history.

http://www.prorev.com/legacy.htm

As to slandering David Stockman's book "Triumph of Politics" calling it right wing propaganda, without even opening the cover, that is fairly sleazy, even for you.

Stockman's book provides the history of the OMB in producing a balanced budget and provides a great deal of insight into the workings of the OMB. Of course the Congress actually approves the budget, not the President, so you would have to understand the legislative side of government spending.

For your information, due to the absolute mismanagement of the US Government under Jimmy Carter, the resulting double digit inflation created a huge tax windfall, and the US was capable of running in the black (i.e. out of debt), when Ronald Reagan was President. Congress and pork Barrel spending may be blamed for the beginning of the debt that currently plagues and overshadows us. If you would care to read Stockman's book you would learn how this happened. It is not right wing propaganda.

By any metric, the Clinton administration was more corrupt than the Reagan administration, unless of course you quote extreme liberal websites, such as "great liberal insights.org"

Some of the labels you apply to Reagan are so wrong they're funny.

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to post
Share on other sites

Records show that 31 Reagan adinistration officials were convicted, compared to 40 Clinton Administration officials. The Clinton Administration was one of the most corrupt administrations in history.

Can you supply evidence in support of the underlined claim? Anonymous claims on obscure websites aren't evidence.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
By any metric, the Clinton administration was more corrupt than the Reagan administration, unless of course you quote extreme liberal websites, such as "great liberal insights.org"

Can you provide any proof of the alleged corruption of the Clinton administration?.. Or are you just quoting more radical conservative propaganda?

I'm sure there is corruption in all administrations, Democrat and Republican .. but the bottom line is Clinton actually balanced the national deficit in his eight years in office, while Reagan and Bush senior created even more debt.. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

Some of the labels you apply to Reagan are so wrong they're funny.

What labels are suppossedly wrong and why do you think they're funny?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...