Yeah, that's precisely why I posted it. Mags posts things he thinks makes a good point and they're just crap. So I posted something HE posted himself thinking he made a good point.
Yes I have. I vote based on their actions, not their words. I just recently (well, when he was running) actually voted for Gordon Smith when he first ran for Senate back in whatever the hell year that was. He had his moments where I didn't necessarily agree with him, but you could tell he was doing what he felt was best for Oregon, and not doing what the party is telling him to do/say, or what some rich super pac/donor was telling him what to say. But most of the republicans now are sanctimonious blowhards who are in favor of things I am not in favor of. I could've voted for the guy who was from Utah in the 12 election (but because I'm getting old, I forgot his name). Worked for BOTH Bush and Clinton, something to do with China...damnit, I hate aging.
Obama's actions actually spoke much louder than his words, which was why he didn't get my vote for his second term. And if you actually meant that, you wouldn't have voted for him either.
This is about protecting them from Iran's aggression, not oil..it's a weapons deal for a security net...yeah, the secretary of defense negotiated and what's wrong with her foundation getting money from countries that we've made rich? Check out Dick Cheney to see oil deals..I'm not a Hilary fan either but your post is misleading mags
Then they crack a deal with Iran later? According to the deal, U.S. Must aid Iran from any aggression. That means they must defend Iran if, let's say, England decides to invade Iran.
nonsense..we sold arms to allies of the US and we've always done that. If you don't like the Iran deal, that's a different issue. Personally I want our allies in the Middle East to step up and promote peace in the region.
The difference is Democrats advertise this being an atrocity. But since they now do it, we can say "everyone is jumping off the bridge so we can?!"
Show me one ad where the entire Democratic party and it's membership call selling weapons to Saudi Arabia an atrocity. We've armed Israel since I was born, South Korea, Taiwan, etc...all allies. Arms dealers are usually interested in profit only. Would you rather Russia or China armed them?
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-9-n-h-gains-iowa-n422111 Bernie Sanders Leads Hillary Clinton by 9 in New Hampshire, Gains in Iowa: Poll http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252825-poll-trump-beats-hillary-head-to-head Poll: Trump beats Hillary head-to-head
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/sh...25-of-black-vote-in-general-election-matchup/ SHOCK POLL: Trump receives 25% of black vote in general election matchup
Obviously, you didn't read the link. You know, where it states the Entire Democratic Party was against selling weapons????? You asked me to provide that right?
your statement about dems seeing arms deals as atrocities was present tense and you pick a situation from Reagan's contra war? We could go back to WWII you want to prop up your view of dems as anti war....the days when americans actually got behind an idea across the board. If you want to connect a current Democratic candidate with an arms deal....then use current info please
I did read the link and it had nothing to do with the arms negotiation in the middle east under Hillary's watch, but nice try
Ahhhhhh okay, so it's okay when they are doing it but not okay when others are... Great point riverman
Your comment said "show me where the Democratic Party didn't support selling arms" Are you arguing you didn't say that?
