• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Culture of corruption

Can we ascribe the "Culture of Coruption" handle to the Obama Admin.? with


  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
We heard this term during the 2006 midterms... and it helped propel the D's to victory.

In light of Benghazi, that Obama,Clinton, Rice etc. have been caught in a coverup of dead Americans (due to their incompetence), can we say that the Obama administration and the Democrat leadership are wading in a Culture of Corruption?
 
No more than any of previous administrations.

They all have had their problems.

Looking for another molehill to spin into a mountain......again?
 
No more than any of previous administrations.

They all have had their problems.

Looking for another molehill to spin into a mountain......again?

You call 4 dead Americans and the following coverup a "molehill"?

etnabubbles_fulle_big.jpg


"Other" huh?
 
Last edited:
No more than any of previous administrations.

They all have had their problems.

Looking for another molehill to spin into a mountain......again?

I would agree - the Obama administration itself is too incompetent to actually be corrupt - you need a certain level of intelligence, such as Clinton, to pull off corruption.

It is possible, however, that Obama administration incompetence has made it possible for corrupt individuals to benefit from their incompetence.
 
You call 4 dead Americans and the following coverup a "molehill"?

"Other" huh?

Compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, I sure do.

Every administration has blood on their hands.

Reality check for you.
 
I would agree - the Obama administration itself is too incompetent to actually be corrupt - you need a certain level of intelligence, such as Clinton, to pull off corruption.

It is possible, however, that Obama administration incompetence has made it possible for corrupt individuals to benefit from their incompetence.

Well... this corruption has a certain Clinton's fingerpirints all over it. But... it was an election and Democrats were so thick as to think they would win with this on their plate.

I didn't say it before, but Obama should be impeached... and unlike Felonious Bill Clinton... should be removed and sent back to the arms of Wright and Ayers.
 
Compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, I sure do.

Every administration has blood on their hands.

Reality check for you.
You mean the Osama and his band of merry terrorists were not using Afghanistan as a home base?

You mean Iraq did not wage a war, lost it, agreed to disarm and prove it to the world but did? Even Hans Blix gave scathing testimony about Saddam playing games. After 911 all the world's idiots were looking at the US, and we were looking at closing down Iraq's capability to provide terrorists with WMD.

I guess 12-years to disarm, and 17 UN Resolutions weren't enough for you.

In short... there was no corruption you can ascribe to going to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Try, try again.
 
Corruption, lies and dishonesty are inherent aspects of the religion of Liberalism. For the true believers, Truth is what benefits the Liberal agenda, nothing else is truth. Liberals find glory and gloat in being able to spread the darkness of their lack of a core of decency or values. Over arching Corruption is only a small part of the descriptors of the administration.

We see all of the worst aspects of Liberalism defended daily in this forum by the endlessly braying loons, all with their carefully disguised individual agendas.
 
Last edited:
You mean the Osama and his band of merry terrorists were not using Afghanistan as a home base?

You mean Iraq did not wage a war, lost it, agreed to disarm and prove it to the world but did? Even Hans Blix gave scathing testimony about Saddam playing games. After 911 all the world's idiots were looking at the US, and we were looking at closing down Iraq's capability to provide terrorists with WMD.

I guess 12-years to disarm, and 17 UN Resolutions weren't enough for you.

In short... there was no corruption you can ascribe to going to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Try, try again.

You might want to remove these from your eyes:

blinders23.jpg
 
Obama sucks, Obama bad.

Progressive suck, progressives bad.

repeat endlessly.




Just pretending I am a conservobot...:lamo
 
You might want to remove these from your eyes:

That's no rebuttal to claims of corruption about heading into Afghanistan or Iraq.
Have a try...
 
You might want to remove these from your eyes:

That's no rebuttal to claims of corruption about heading into Afghanistan or Iraq.
Have a try...
 
That's no rebuttal to claims of corruption about heading into Afghanistan or Iraq.
Have a try...

How many lives lost in these two wars thanks to the Bush 1 and 2?

If you are som worried about lost American lives, count all of our service folks lost there.
 
That's no rebuttal to claims of corruption about heading into Afghanistan or Iraq.
Have a try...

Posting twice still does not make you right.

Spin again.
 
More silly and useless partisan pukery. Obama Administration corrupt? Yes. Compared to what? Show me an administration in recent memory that hasn't been corrupt.
 
No wonder we can't win any wars anymore. Omg 4 people died. If we had thought like that we could never had D day.
 
No more than any of previous administrations.

They all have had their problems.

Looking for another molehill to spin into a mountain......again?

So you are a moderate politically but a redneck on drugs and other social issues? What a strange bird you are.
 
Compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, I sure do.

Every administration has blood on their hands.

Reality check for you.

We agree on something SMTA. Too bad you hate me so bad because of the drug issue.
 
How many lives lost in these two wars thanks to the Bush 1 and 2?

If you are som worried about lost American lives, count all of our service folks lost there.

Great point. We where all lied to and it cost almost 4500 American lives. Benghazi the nimber was 4 and we did not start it.
 
More silly and useless partisan pukery. Obama Administration corrupt? Yes. Compared to what? Show me an administration in recent memory that hasn't been corrupt.

corruption is the grease that drives American politics. Power is the worst corrupter of all.
 
Corruption can be a culture and it can be thwarted with equal or a larger amount of non corrupt people. Whether this has anything to do with your leaders is another story. But I personally think that has nothing to do with them.
 
How many lives lost in these two wars thanks to the Bush 1 and 2? If you are som worried about lost American lives, count all of our service folks lost there.
Doh... let's see.

TIME FOR A SHORT HISTORY TEST


1. Why did Bush 41 assemble a coalition to wage Gulf War 1?
a. Nothing to do.
b. Needed to test the latest military technology.
c. War Monger.
d. He wanted to convert them to Christianity.
e. Saddam invaded Kuwait.

2. Why did Bush 43 go into Iraq?

a. Clinton did nothing for 8-years except get a dozen or more UN Resolutions that did nothing.
b. Because 500,000 children and 500,000 adults died and Maddie Albright said it was worth it.
c. He wanted to test the military and see where they stood after 8-years of Clinton neglect.
d. Because war is fun.
e. Because Saddam had 12-years and 17 UN Resolutions, did not prove he disarmed (accordning to Hans Blix), and after 911 there was fear he would give WMD to terrorists.

3. Why did Clinton send Sec. Def. Cohen on a public mission to warn the country/world about how a little lunch bag of WMD could kill hundreds of thousands?

a. Clinton thought it would be fun.
b. He thought it would impress the women.
c. He likes playing games.
d. Hillary told him to.
e. He feared that after Saddam kicked out the UN Inspectors that he would use WMD and wanted to set the oundation for an attack to neutralize Saddam.

4. Why did ranking Libs like Daschle, Kennedy, Gore, Clinton, etc. etc. go on public record warning about Saddam and his WMD after he kicked out the UN Inspectors?
a. They wanted some face time.
b. They had nothing better to do.
c. They lost a poker game and this is what they had to do for losing.
d. They were drunk and stoned.
e. They feared what Saddam might do with the WMD they believed he had.

Why do Libs fail to learn their history?
... please learn this... ONE TIME...
 
Last edited:
Newsflash ladies and gents there are such things called suprise attacks.
But we can keep playing the card "obama sucks, liberals sucks, democrats suck".
 
2. Why did Bush 43 go into Iraq?[/B]

Another important driver was that Iraq started to sell oil in the Euro instead of the US Dollar. In the beginning it was seen as stupid because the dollar was stronger than the Euro, but as the dollar slid and the Euro grew the serious threat of the US Dollar losing its status as reserve currency was too dangerous.

People are corrupt. Unfortunately some are much better at it than others. Those become crooks, politicians and wall st. titans.
 
Back
Top Bottom