Comments on We need to go back to the chalkboard.............

Go to Did I Say That? - Add a comment - Go to We need to go back to the chalkboard.............

Funny cartoon. Thanks for the pic. 10 clicks are here.

posted by A-and-B on December 6, 2006 at 5:17 PM | link to this | reply

Somebodyneeds to correct lies and misinformation at its root, Corbin,

its so prevalent.  Sadly, there are things I'd much rather be doing. It's a dirty job, trying to get you to make sense but someone has to do it. And, I don't recall having been as nasty to you, right out of the gate as you  have been to me, to Professor Peabody and literally anyone who merely dares disagree with you.

Not being able to disagree without being disagreeable, and making it personal, Corbin, is the sign of a weak and lazy mind. You need some schoolin' boy.

posted by Blanche. on November 26, 2006 at 10:49 PM | link to this | reply

Always after being fired upon first......

You come here of your own choice, and since it's my blog, I can respond in kind.....Meanwhile, you have still not responded to the points......

You talk about people on other blogs, call names, attack them personally, and then........when someone posts about people attacking others on blogit in comment sections....you're one of the first to chime it...."Yeah, that is so wrong!"

There's something wrong with this picture don't you think?  Something not normal?

You come here to a tribute to our troops and choose to attack.....when that wasn't what the post was about.....You can't stay on topic.........when that happens, I'm gonna save blogit a bit of bandwidth and cut out that kind of crap.

So go and do  a few 30 seconds of googling, or immerse yourself in researching scholarly icons like wikipedia or Playboy.......I don't really care.....

But when you make a emotionally driven claim with little basis of fact while addressing me......I'm going to call you on it each and every time.......

 

posted by Corbin_Dallas on November 26, 2006 at 10:12 PM | link to this | reply

You sure can dish out the insults for someone who squawks about disrespect

posted by Blanche. on November 26, 2006 at 9:53 PM | link to this | reply

So..you're saying that his indictments were without basis, Corbin? He

admitted to selling arms to the Iranians, in order to fund the anti-Sandinistas.  What's so difficult to comprehend about that? 

posted by Blanche. on November 26, 2006 at 9:52 PM | link to this | reply

Man, it's like talking to a wall.......

"His numerous indictments are public record, Corbin, anyone can check.

The internet is our friend."

I know you know better than this...but you choose not to acknowledge it.....anyone can be indicted......but remember in this country you are innocent until you are PROVEN guilty......ALL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED!  From the very source you brought up to  begin with

Unlike the  disbarred "felon-in chief" you so warmly admire.........

LOL...the internet is our friend.......and so was Barney the dinosaur........

posted by Corbin_Dallas on November 26, 2006 at 9:28 PM | link to this | reply

Did you even read my comment?

I'll ignore you namecalling....it's your Modus Operandi....but yet again you refuse to respond to the counter point......ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED.  And he was defended by the ACLU....one of your favorite leftist groups. 

You're no fun Blanche......it's always a onesided argument.....You make your points based on an emotional argument and when it is properly countered....you go personal..........and never respond to the actual point.....

Hell, I'm still waiting on the source for your claim that more illegials in LA are from Central American countries than from Mexico.......

posted by Corbin_Dallas on November 26, 2006 at 9:23 PM | link to this | reply

His numerous indictments are public record, Corbin, anyone can check.

The internet is our friend. 

posted by Blanche. on November 26, 2006 at 9:18 PM | link to this | reply

Wrongo, boychik, it's a more credible source than an indicted felon: North

posted by Blanche. on November 26, 2006 at 9:15 PM | link to this | reply

First of all, Blanche........Wickipedia is not exactly a full-proof source.

First of all, Blanche........Wickipedia is not exactly a full-proof source.

It is based on information posted or added by anyone.....it has been found to contain numerous false and intentionally misleading "facts"....you know, the kind you specialize in?

But since you used it I hop in the mix and point out an actual FACT! The fact that you cherry picked the information you posted here....

Let's continue down to the next section.....kind of like.....pick up where you left off, shall we?

However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the ACLU (see [3]), North's conviction was overturned by a three-judge appeals panel in advance of further proceedings on the grounds that his public testimony may have prejudiced his right to a fair trial ([4]).

The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Judge Gesell dismissed the charges on September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel. Judge Gesell fell ill soon afterwards, and passed away from liver cancer in 1993.

Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony was deemed to have influenced witnesses at his trial.

Oh, and by the way....this all happened before the Iranians released the hostages? Before Reagan's Inauguration? are you saying Ollie North was working in the Carter administration? Or are you a bit confused?

Here's the actual hostages referred to.........

In 1983, members of Al-Dawa ("The Call"), an exiled Iraqi political party turned militant organization, were imprisoned for their part in a series of truck bombs in Kuwait. In response to the imprisonment, an ally of Al-Dawa, Hezbollah took 30 hostages, ^[9] six of whom were American. Hezbollah demanded the release of the prisoners for these hostages. Members of the Reagan Administration believed that by selling arms to Iran, Iran would influence the Hezbollah kidnappers in Lebanon to release their hostages.

posted by Corbin_Dallas on November 26, 2006 at 9:15 PM | link to this | reply

And, here's the Wikipedia quote to back it up, Corbin,

[edit] Iran-Contra affair

North became famous due to his participation in the Iran-Contra Affair, in which he was the chief coordinator of the sale of weapons via intermediaries to Iran, with the profits being channeled to the Contras in Nicaragua. He was responsible for the establishment of a covert network used for the purposes of aiding the Contras.

According to the National Security Archive, in an August 23, 1986 email to John Poindexter, Oliver North described a meeting with a representative of Panamanian President Manuel Noriega: "You will recall that over the years Manuel Noriega in Panama and I have developed a fairly good relationship", North writes before explaining Noriega's proposal. If U.S. officials can "help clean up his image" and lift the ban on arms sales to the Panamanian Defense Force, Noriega will "'take care of' the Sandinista leadership for us." North tells Poindexter that Noriega can assist with sabotage against the Sandinistas, and suggests paying Noriega a million dollars – from "Project Democracy" funds raised from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran – for the Panamanian leader's help in destroying Nicaraguan economic installations (see [1]).

In November 1986, North was fired by President Reagan, and in July 1987 he was summoned to testify before televised hearings of a joint Congressional committee formed to investigate Iran-Contra. During the hearings, he admitted that he had lied to Congress, for which he was later charged among other things. He defended his actions by stating that he believed in the goal of aiding the Contras, whom he saw as freedom fighters, and said that he viewed the Iran-Contra scheme as a "neat idea" (see [2]).

North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.

posted by Blanche. on November 26, 2006 at 4:27 PM | link to this | reply

That is, Sen. North's credibility as a witness is nullified by arms trading

posted by Blanche. on November 26, 2006 at 4:06 PM | link to this | reply

Facts are indeed verifiable, as explained by Argee, however, Oliver North

as a repondent/defendant in the "Iran-Contra" debacle (the reason that it is called that is because arms that were not Senator North's to sell or broker as personal property were traded in exchange for hostages in the Embassy, who were released on Ronald Reagan's inauguration, after over a year in captivity, which leads one to suspect that Reagan's minions bartered American hostage's lives and freedom for a political coup to win the election).  IMHO barterering lives for political gain is despicable.

That is your hero, Corbin, forshame. 

posted by Blanche. on November 26, 2006 at 4:05 PM | link to this | reply

Iran-Contra is just another Dem inspired code word, Blok...

Facts are verifiable, and if you make the effort, you can discover the facts, as opposed to the Dem spin on so-called Iran-Contra. Check out Oliver North's book, Under Fire, that gives you the inside view of what happened, and why the issue was (and remains) so hot. You can get the book through the following link:

 

posted by arGee on November 16, 2006 at 8:16 AM | link to this | reply

Hmmm...Iran contra?

I think both parties are in trouble because they are too fragmented.

posted by WritersBlok on November 16, 2006 at 7:21 AM | link to this | reply

Did you eat pizza???

posted by Corbin_Dallas on November 15, 2006 at 8:00 AM | link to this | reply

what about Nixon? I am not a crook!!!

i know that has nothing to do with anything but for some reason I dreamt of that news conference last night - must have been something on TV Fox News!!!

posted by ladychardonnay on November 15, 2006 at 7:21 AM | link to this | reply

We Republicans....

have to be reminded to return to the principles that got us where we were.....Ronald Reagan's conservatism......

posted by Corbin_Dallas on November 15, 2006 at 6:59 AM | link to this | reply

Excuse my naivety

I am not American and do not catch the cartoon's point. Would you mind explaining to me.

posted by Tanga on November 15, 2006 at 5:58 AM | link to this | reply