Discussion:
Oliver North should let us know what kind of weaponry Iran has, if we decide to invade.
(too old to reply)
Captain America
2006-05-24 03:47:39 UTC
Permalink
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
Eggs Ackley
2006-05-24 03:59:15 UTC
Permalink
BTW, what happened to that blonde bombshell?
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-24 04:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Joseph Welch
2006-05-24 05:59:36 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
He helped clandestinely broker a deal that put weapons into the hands of
Iranian terrorists in exchange for American hostages - and lied about it.

That help, Bonzo?
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-24 17:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
He helped clandestinely broker a deal that put weapons into the hands of
Iranian terrorists in exchange for American hostages - and lied about it.
That help, Bonzo?
I asked what made him a "traitor". His efforts with freeing the American
hostages seem like they are honourable. Don't you care if American
hostages are freed?
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Joseph Welch
2006-05-24 18:21:19 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
He helped clandestinely broker a deal that put weapons into the hands of
Iranian terrorists in exchange for American hostages - and lied about it.
That help, Bonzo?
I asked what made him a "traitor".
"Treason" is the act of lending aid and comfort to the enemy. Iran was the
sworn enemy of the United States, and had in fact committed an act of war in
kidnapping American citizens.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
His efforts with freeing the American hostages seem like they are
honourable.
O.K. - I'll bite. So when Saddam took Americans hostage during Gulf War 1
and distributed them to potential military targets as "human shields", you
believe that Bush 41 should have given Saddam weapons in order to buy their
release?

Damn, you right-wingers are some stupid motherfuckers.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-24 18:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
He helped clandestinely broker a deal that put weapons into the hands of
Iranian terrorists in exchange for American hostages - and lied about it.
That help, Bonzo?
I asked what made him a "traitor".
"Treason" is the act of lending aid and comfort to the enemy. Iran was the
sworn enemy of the United States, and had in fact committed an act of war in
kidnapping American citizens.
So paying a ransom is "treason"? You don't know what you are talking
about.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
His efforts with freeing the American hostages seem like they are
honourable.
O.K. - I'll bite. So when Saddam took Americans hostage during Gulf War 1
and distributed them to potential military targets as "human shields", you
believe that Bush 41 should have given Saddam weapons in order to buy their
release?
No, I didn't say that. I didn't even say that Reagan should've traded
arms for the hostages that Iran had control over in Lebanon. Keep in
mind that is what we are talking about. You think it's the hostages that
Iran took when Carter was president, from the American embassy, don't
you?
Post by Joseph Welch
Damn, you right-wingers are some stupid motherfuckers.
It would be difficult to out do you.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Joseph Welch
2006-05-25 03:27:50 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Treason" is the act of lending aid and comfort to the enemy. Iran was the
sworn enemy of the United States, and had in fact committed an act of war in
kidnapping American citizens.
So paying a ransom is "treason"?
Yeah.

Anything else I can answer for you?
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
You don't know what you are talking about.
I know a hell of a lot more than you do, Bonzo.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
O.K. - I'll bite. So when Saddam took Americans hostage during Gulf War 1
and distributed them to potential military targets as "human shields", you
believe that Bush 41 should have given Saddam weapons in order to buy their
release?
No, I didn't say that.
Yeah, that's exactly what you said.

You stupid fucking prick.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-25 05:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Treason" is the act of lending aid and comfort to the enemy. Iran was the
sworn enemy of the United States, and had in fact committed an act of war in
kidnapping American citizens.
So paying a ransom is "treason"?
Yeah.
Anything else I can answer for you?
Apparently you are a kook. But how is paying ransom an act of "treason"?
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
You don't know what you are talking about.
I know a hell of a lot more than you do, Bonzo.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
O.K. - I'll bite. So when Saddam took Americans hostage during Gulf War 1
and distributed them to potential military targets as "human shields", you
believe that Bush 41 should have given Saddam weapons in order to buy their
release?
No, I didn't say that.
Yeah, that's exactly what you said.
No, I didn't even mention Saddam.
Post by Joseph Welch
You stupid fucking prick.
Is there some reason why you can't just have a calm discussion about
issues?
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Joseph Welch
2006-05-26 00:48:25 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
Anything else I can answer for you?
Apparently you are a kook.
Apparently not.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
But how is paying ransom an act of "treason"?
When that "ransom" provides more money or resources to Americas enemies to
be used to kill more Americans.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
O.K. - I'll bite. So when Saddam took Americans hostage during Gulf
War
1
and distributed them to potential military targets as "human shields", you
believe that Bush 41 should have given Saddam weapons in order to buy their
release?
No, I didn't say that.
Yeah, that's exactly what you said.
No, I didn't even mention Saddam.
Sure you did.

Why are you so fucking stupid? Seriously.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
You stupid fucking prick.
Is there some reason why you can't just have a calm discussion about
issues?
I have.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-26 01:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
Anything else I can answer for you?
Apparently you are a kook.
Apparently not.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
But how is paying ransom an act of "treason"?
When that "ransom" provides more money or resources to Americas enemies to
be used to kill more Americans.
I don't know what you mean. The Iranians paid top dollar plus some more
for the weapons, weapons which weren't enough to change the balance in
their war whit Iraq. In fact, militarily insignificant were the words
most often used.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
O.K. - I'll bite. So when Saddam took Americans hostage during Gulf
War
1
and distributed them to potential military targets as "human shields", you
believe that Bush 41 should have given Saddam weapons in order to buy their
release?
No, I didn't say that.
Yeah, that's exactly what you said.
No, I didn't even mention Saddam.
Sure you did.
You did.
Post by Joseph Welch
Why are you so fucking stupid? Seriously.
Seriously answer that yourself.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
You stupid fucking prick.
Is there some reason why you can't just have a calm discussion about
issues?
I have.
You are ranting and swearing and carrying on like some kind of nut. Did
you drain too much Sanka or something?
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Joseph Welch
2006-05-26 08:52:59 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
But how is paying ransom an act of "treason"?
When that "ransom" provides more money or resources to Americas enemies to
be used to kill more Americans.
I don't know what you mean.
If bin Laden had kidnapped Americans and demanded that Al Queda be provided
weapons in exchange for freeing hostages - how would you feel about that?

This is a question that you've already answered, you fucking traitor.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-26 16:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
But how is paying ransom an act of "treason"?
When that "ransom" provides more money or resources to Americas enemies to
be used to kill more Americans.
I don't know what you mean.
If bin Laden had kidnapped Americans and demanded that Al Queda be provided
weapons in exchange for freeing hostages - how would you feel about that?
How would I feel about that? I'd want to get al Qaeda. Whether I'd
support trading some weapons to the Taliban, which is really much more
analogous here, in order for them to give up al Qaeda would depend on
more information.
Post by Joseph Welch
This is a question that you've already answered, you fucking traitor.
I see, you're a kook.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Joseph Welch
2006-05-28 02:03:16 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
If bin Laden had kidnapped Americans and demanded that Al Queda be provided
weapons in exchange for freeing hostages - how would you feel about that?
How would I feel about that? I'd want to get al Qaeda.
No you wouldn't, you fucking idiot. Your own logic dictates that you'd send
them weapons.

You traitor fuck.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
l***@yahoo.com
2006-05-25 07:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Treason" is the act of lending aid and comfort to the enemy. Iran was the
sworn enemy of the United States, and had in fact committed an act of war in
kidnapping American citizens.
So paying a ransom is "treason"?
Yeah.
Anything else I can answer for you?
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
You don't know what you are talking about.
I know a hell of a lot more than you do, Bonzo.
Actually there was a little more to the Iran-Contra Affair than that.
Some of the money the Iranians paid for the weapons (yes, they did pay
for the weapons in addition to releasing the hostages) was used to buy
other weapons (to be untraceable to the US) and given to the Nicaraguan
Contras. But some of the money had peanut butter or something on it cuz
it struck to various hands. Like Ollie North's. (Remember the security
fence he had built around his property? That's where the mopney came
from.) And good ol' Poindexter was also involved.

Ollie also lied about Iran-Contra to Congress under oath. But cut a
deal with Congress to get immunity for testimony. He was then indicted
for several Iran-Contra felonies, and found guilty based on evidence
gathered through the Congressional testimony. But because he had
testified under immunity, an Appeals set aside (but not reversed!) the
guilty finding. Several Reagan officials did prison time for
Iran-Contra. Bush the smarter pardoned Casper Weinburger because, some
say, Weinburger could have implicated GHWB himself. GHWB, some say,
played Cheney to Reagan because Reagan had faded due to Alzheimer's.

Some suspect the Reagan adminstration also was involved in the
importation of cocaine to help fund the Contras.

BTW, while all this was going on, North was an active duty Colonel in
the Marines. Given his perjury and the subsequent guilty verdict, the
least the Marines Corps should have done was given him a dishonorable
discharge. The Marine Corps appears not to hold to duty, honor, country
except where convenient or useful....or if it's just enlisted
personnel. The days of a Major General Smedley Butler are long gone.
(Just fer fun, go to Wikipedia and look up ol' Smedley's biography.
Don't ignore the reference to Roosevelt, check it out. Then ask
yourself: would a two-time Medal of Honor winner be a liar like an
Ollie North?)
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
O.K. - I'll bite. So when Saddam took Americans hostage during Gulf War 1
and distributed them to potential military targets as "human shields", you
believe that Bush 41 should have given Saddam weapons in order to buy their
release?
No, I didn't say that.
Yeah, that's exactly what you said.
You stupid fucking prick.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-25 16:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Treason" is the act of lending aid and comfort to the enemy. Iran was the
sworn enemy of the United States, and had in fact committed an act of war in
kidnapping American citizens.
So paying a ransom is "treason"?
Yeah.
Anything else I can answer for you?
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
You don't know what you are talking about.
I know a hell of a lot more than you do, Bonzo.
Actually there was a little more to the Iran-Contra Affair than that.
Some of the money the Iranians paid for the weapons (yes, they did pay
for the weapons in addition to releasing the hostages) was used to buy
other weapons (to be untraceable to the US) and given to the Nicaraguan
Contras. But some of the money had peanut butter or something on it cuz
it struck to various hands. Like Ollie North's. (Remember the security
fence he had built around his property?
Yea, sure, so supposedly he's embezzling money and what does he do, he
puts a security fence in. Good grief. The need for a security fence was
directly related to the situation that occurred because of the Iran
Contra Affair. If the Secret Service provided someone with protection,
wouldn't a security fence be possibly something they'd choose to assist
them in protecting someone? If North wanted to enrich himself
personally, a fence wouldn't be it.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
That's where the money came
from.) And good ol' Poindexter was also involved.
Ollie also lied about Iran-Contra to Congress under oath. But cut a
deal with Congress to get immunity for testimony.
People's lives were at stake because they were in the field during the
first testimony. The Democrats in Congress wanted to attack Reagan in
public so they needed public testimony. They got North to give them that
under a limited immunity deal that wasn't needed in any way. The
Congress should have let the independent investigation go forward but
they had to make political hay. So almost all the convictions, which
were not about the original Iranian side of the deal or about the
Contras, got overturned.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
He was then indicted
for several Iran-Contra felonies, and found guilty based on evidence
gathered through the Congressional testimony. But because he had
testified under immunity, an Appeals set aside (but not reversed!) the
guilty finding. Several Reagan officials did prison time for
Iran-Contra. Bush the smarter pardoned Casper Weinburger because, some
say, Weinburger could have implicated GHWB himself. GHWB, some say,
played Cheney to Reagan because Reagan had faded due to Alzheimer's.
Some suspect the Reagan adminstration also was involved in the
importation of cocaine to help fund the Contras.
You people are simply insane.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
BTW, while all this was going on, North was an active duty Colonel in
the Marines. Given his perjury and the subsequent guilty verdict, the
least the Marines Corps should have done was given him a dishonorable
discharge. The Marine Corps appears not to hold to duty, honor, country
except where convenient or useful....or if it's just enlisted
personnel. The days of a Major General Smedley Butler are long gone.
(Just fer fun, go to Wikipedia and look up ol' Smedley's biography.
Don't ignore the reference to Roosevelt, check it out. Then ask
yourself: would a two-time Medal of Honor winner be a liar like an
Ollie North?)
I think anyone would lie to protect lives in the field. Congress should
not have taken testimony in public on a sensitive issue like Iran-Contra
was at that time. If you'll note, Clinton lied under oath repeatedly and
it was entirely about his obdurate personal behaviour. He doesn't have
any excuse but what we hear from people like you is that since it was a
lie "about sex", it should be allowed. Meanwhile a "lie" about
protecting Americans and its allies is some huge crime. No word about
the Clinton administration lying to the congress about how long
Americans would be in the Balkans. They claimed one year. As far as can
be ascertained, the American military is *still* in the Balkans today.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Captain America
2006-05-24 19:34:00 UTC
Permalink
WTF? Making sweetheart deals with terrorists?
Malibu Skipper
2006-05-24 23:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
He helped clandestinely broker a deal that put weapons into the hands of
Iranian terrorists in exchange for American hostages - and lied about it.
That help, Bonzo?
I asked what made him a "traitor". His efforts with freeing the American
hostages seem like they are honourable. Don't you care if American
hostages are freed?
So, in general, all the conservative bluster about NOT BARGAINING WITH
TERRORISTS is just bullshit, huh?
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-25 03:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malibu Skipper
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
He helped clandestinely broker a deal that put weapons into the hands of
Iranian terrorists in exchange for American hostages - and lied about it.
That help, Bonzo?
I asked what made him a "traitor". His efforts with freeing the American
hostages seem like they are honourable. Don't you care if American
hostages are freed?
So, in general, all the conservative bluster about NOT BARGAINING WITH
TERRORISTS is just bullshit, huh?
I don't see how whether or not you bargain with terrorists defines you
or not as a "traitor". Would you not even negotiate with someone holding
hostages? "Oh", you'd say, "just kill the old lady and the kids, we
don't even talk to the bad guys around here." That's silly.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
jas
2006-05-25 08:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Wasn't the issue raised that while President Carter was trying to get
the hostages released, Bush, the former, had already been over to Iran
where he had set up a deal to trade arms for hostages thereby insuring
no earlier release of the hostages?

I remember that they were released when Regan took office and it was
represented in the press that the Iranians were just so afraid of
Reagan they released them.

I know some people associated with Reagan and the contras were either
dying of attempting suicide when the investigation of all this started
-- but why didn't they ever finish investigating it?
hopeful
2006-05-25 12:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by jas
Wasn't the issue raised that while President Carter was trying to get
the hostages released, Bush, the former, had already been over to Iran
where he had set up a deal to trade arms for hostages thereby insuring
no earlier release of the hostages?
I remember that they were released when Regan took office and it was
represented in the press that the Iranians were just so afraid of
Reagan they released them.
I know some people associated with Reagan and the contras were either
dying of attempting suicide when the investigation of all this started
-- but why didn't they ever finish investigating it?
Yep it was and the people that ran that scheme are now running the current
scam from the White House. The investigation ran into several dead ends,
literally, and was stopped rather than expose the ugly, corrupt episode.
Typical of money and power being above the law. Lord only knows what the
amoral people are up to now.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-25 15:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jas
Wasn't the issue raised that while President Carter was trying to get
the hostages released, Bush, the former, had already been over to Iran
where he had set up a deal to trade arms for hostages thereby insuring
no earlier release of the hostages?
You mean when Bush Sr supposedly flew himself to Iran in a SR71
Blackbird? Why must he have done that? Because his whereabouts were
accounted for in the time frame by public appearances and only that
plane might have given him a chance to do what the nuts claimed.
Post by jas
I remember that they were released when Regan took office and it was
You don't even know which hostages we are talking about or how to spell
"Reagan". "Regan" worked for Reagan.
Post by jas
represented in the press that the Iranians were just so afraid of
Reagan they released them.
I know some people associated with Reagan and the contras were either
dying of attempting suicide when the investigation of all this started
-- but why didn't they ever finish investigating it?
What are you talking about? It certainly has nothing whatever to do with
actual history.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
jas
2006-05-26 08:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Well, since there was no thorough investigation into the matter it's
easy to set up false dilemma arguments like your SR71 BS. I don't want
to detract from the discussion topic in this thread but the fact is
Iran Contra dwarfed Watergate in the number of administration officials
caught lying to congress under oath, destroying documents and the
blatant outright obstruction of justice. Had investigations been
carried out with the same vigor as the republican investigations of
President Clinton's sex life, we wouldn't have anything to discuss here
because the perpetrators would all be in jail -- instead of on talk
radio. Then to name a few, there was McFarlane attempting suicide on
the eve of the Iran Contra investigations, William Casey died of
pneumonia, and Ollie was caught lying to congress under oath to protect
Reagan from the truth -- and there was that fellow who walked out to
his car at 3 AM and died the very morning he was to testify about
matters supposedly linking domestic illegal drug sales directly to the
Reagan administration. What was his name? There were quite a few
others, too.

I read Donald Regan's book by the way -- since you brought him up --
the main thing I recall is he was really upset with all the voodoo
horoscope stuff the Reagans adhered to. He complained that it got
progressively so bad he couldn't set up meetings for Reagan anymore
because a star or that planet wasn't in the right place. I imagine he
was ultimately discharged for not being more receptive to such
foolishness.

History? Try this: While President Carter flatly refused to negotiate
with terrorists Reagan broke rank on that policy and did bargain with
them -- and confessed to doing it. He also approved the sale of arms
and machine parts to Iran at the same time the rest of the world was
observing an embargo imposed (oddly enough) by the US. And, if you
think that's funny, after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit,
Reagan "redeployed" our troops offshore -- and people like OBL, being
somewhat less astute that you are on the finer points of the king's
English, took note of it and considered it a "retreat". Those two
points, first that we would indeed bargain with terrorists and second
that we would retreat in the face of conflict might have been
inconsequential, except for the fact that Reagan had months prior taken
sides in the Israel Palestinian conflict by shelling Palestinian
positions in Lebanon while engaged in a UN peacekeeping mission, no
less. You might say, and you would be quite justified in doing so, that
our current problems in Iraq as well as decades of airplane hijackings
and other terrorist activities -- directed at us -- are the direct
result of decades of utterly stupid republican foreign policy.

Your response? Let me help, Bill and Hillary Clinton...
hopeful
2006-05-25 19:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jas
Wasn't the issue raised that while President Carter was trying to get
the hostages released, Bush, the former, had already been over to Iran
where he had set up a deal to trade arms for hostages thereby insuring
no earlier release of the hostages?
I remember that they were released when Regan took office and it was
represented in the press that the Iranians were just so afraid of
Reagan they released them.
I know some people associated with Reagan and the contras were either
dying of attempting suicide when the investigation of all this started
-- but why didn't they ever finish investigating it?
Yep and the same crowd is now in the White House. Some within Reagan's gang
did die before they could testify. Now the likes of Negroponte, Cheney and
Rumsfeld are once again pulling the strings. Not something to put much
faith into. How many times did REagan deny trading "drugs for guns for
hostages" before he had to tell the truth; remember that when Bush opens his
mouth.
Adam Albright
2006-05-24 13:21:29 UTC
Permalink
On 24 May 2006 06:07:02 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Poor Billy, he can't remember straight.

Ollie was a member of the Marine Corps, as a secret operative he was
in Reagan's whitehouse involved in the clandestine selling of weapons
to Iran in order to generate proceeds to support the Contra rebel
group in violation of the law — specifically, a provision known as the
"Boland Amendment". You remember Billy what your boy Reagan said he
didn't know about.

Of course we all known when a right wing administration breaks the
law, rightards everywhere stand up and cheer and clap their hands and
want to pin a metal on the doofus. Remember the discussion yesterday
about criminals? <snicker>
kirtland
2006-05-24 14:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
On 24 May 2006 06:07:02 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Poor Billy, he can't remember straight.
Ollie was a member of the Marine Corps, as a secret operative he was
in Reagan's whitehouse involved in the clandestine selling of weapons
to Iran in order to generate proceeds to support the Contra rebel
group in violation of the law — specifically, a provision known as the
"Boland Amendment". You remember Billy what your boy Reagan said he
didn't know about.
Dont' forget the drugs they smuggled into the US to get money to buy
the arms.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
An August, 1996, series in the San Jose Mercury News by reporter Gary
Webb linked the origins of crack cocaine in California to the contras,
a guerrilla force backed by the Reagan administration that attacked
Nicaragua's Sandinista government during the 1980s. Webb's series,
"The Dark Alliance," has been the subject of intense media debate, and
has focused attention on a foreign policy drug scandal that leaves
many questions unanswered.

This electronic briefing book is compiled from declassified documents
obtained by the National Security Archive, including the notebooks
kept by NSC aide and Iran-contra figure Oliver North, electronic mail
messages written by high-ranking Reagan administration officials,
memos detailing the contra war effort, and FBI and DEA reports. The
documents demonstrate official knowledge of drug operations, and
collaboration with and protection of known drug traffickers. Court and
hearing transcripts are also included.
Post by Adam Albright
Of course we all known when a right wing administration breaks the
law, rightards everywhere stand up and cheer and clap their hands and
want to pin a metal on the doofus. Remember the discussion yesterday
about criminals? <snicker>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

Many senior officials of the Reagan administration illegally trained
and armed the Nicaraguan Contras, which they funded by the shippment
of large quantities of cocaine into the United States using U.S.
government aircraft and U.S. military facilities (National Security
Archives, Documentation of Official U.S. Knowledge of Drug Trafficking
and the Contras,
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-24 17:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
On 24 May 2006 06:07:02 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Poor Billy, he can't remember straight.
Ollie was a member of the Marine Corps, as a secret operative he was
in Reagan's whitehouse involved in the clandestine selling of weapons
to Iran in order to generate proceeds to support the Contra rebel
group in violation of the law — specifically, a provision known as the
"Boland Amendment".
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
Post by Adam Albright
You remember Billy what your boy Reagan said he
didn't know about.
What are you talking about?
Post by Adam Albright
Of course we all known when a right wing administration breaks the
law, rightards everywhere stand up and cheer and clap their hands and
want to pin a metal on the doofus. Remember the discussion yesterday
about criminals? <snicker>
The administration has every right to exercise its constitutional
powers. If the legislative branch has a problem with that, have them
take it to the Supreme Court.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Adam Albright
2006-05-24 17:49:15 UTC
Permalink
On 24 May 2006 19:06:44 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Adam Albright
On 24 May 2006 06:07:02 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Poor Billy, he can't remember straight.
Ollie was a member of the Marine Corps, as a secret operative he was
in Reagan's whitehouse involved in the clandestine selling of weapons
to Iran in order to generate proceeds to support the Contra rebel
group in violation of the law — specifically, a provision known as the
"Boland Amendment".
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
Bonde, you're a bonehead if there ever was one. You constantly twist
the law to fit whatever half-ass conclusion your primative mind comes
up with.
c***@yahoo.com
2006-05-24 19:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
You have a citation for a court ruling that the Boland amendment was
unconstitutional, or are you just talking out of your ass?
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-25 03:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
You have a citation for a court ruling that the Boland amendment was
unconstitutional, or are you just talking out of your ass?
You can't show any ruling that said it was constitutional. The Democrats
never took it to the courts.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
SilentOtto
2006-05-25 09:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
You have a citation for a court ruling that the Boland amendment was
unconstitutional, or are you just talking out of your ass?
You can't show any ruling that said it was constitutional. The Democrats
never took it to the courts.
Gimme a break...

It works the other way around.

Laws are presumed to be constitutional until they are challanged and
found not to be so.

Otherwise, no law could ever take effect until it was challanged and
the courts had ruled on the subject.

Really Bill...

I've seen a lot of rightwingers grasp at straws to try and defend their
political icons, but your willingess to twist basic facts of law to
defend a clearly illegal action on the part of the Reagan
administration is over the top.

Just as I have to challange a law I believe to be unconstitutional, so
does the president.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-25 15:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentOtto
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
You have a citation for a court ruling that the Boland amendment was
unconstitutional, or are you just talking out of your ass?
You can't show any ruling that said it was constitutional. The Democrats
never took it to the courts.
Gimme a break...
It works the other way around.
Laws are presumed to be constitutional until they are challanged and
found not to be so.
They can't be challenged unless you have some reason to challenge them,
so the president has to break them.
Post by SilentOtto
Otherwise, no law could ever take effect until it was challanged and
the courts had ruled on the subject.
Of course it can take effect. We are talking about a law that attempts
to limit the presidential power. The president has every right to act in
the way he believes are within his rights as president. In fact, it's
his obligation.
Post by SilentOtto
Really Bill...
I've seen a lot of rightwingers grasp at straws to try and defend their
political icons, but your willingess to twist basic facts of law to
defend a clearly illegal action on the part of the Reagan
administration is over the top.
There was nothing clearly illegal about what Reagan did. It doesn't take
any searching to find support for my contention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment
#begin quote
The Boland Amendment prohibited the federal government from providing
military support "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of
Nicaragua." As such it was thought by many to be an unconstitutional
interference with the President's ability to conduct foreign policy.
#end quote
Post by SilentOtto
Just as I have to challange a law I believe to be unconstitutional, so
does the president.
They still haven't challenged the War Powers Act, either side. Each
president (of either party) claims it is unconstitutional but abides by
it enough to avoid bringing it before the courts:

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0023840.html
#begin quote
Legislation passed in 1973 restricting the US president's powers to
deploy US forces abroad for combat without prior Congressional approval.
The president is required to report to both Houses of Congress within 48
hours of having taken such action. Congress may then restrict the
continuation of troop deployment despite any presidential veto.

The act was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto, and aimed at
restricting the president's introduction of US forces into potentially
hostile situations without Congressional declaration of war. The act has
been considered unconstitutional by each president since its passage,
and its provisions generally have been ignored by both Congress and
presidents.
#end quote
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
s***@hotmail.com
2006-05-26 00:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
You have a citation for a court ruling that the Boland amendment was
unconstitutional, or are you just talking out of your ass?
You can't show any ruling that said it was constitutional. The Democrats
never took it to the courts.
Gimme a break...
It works the other way around.
Laws are presumed to be constitutional until they are challanged and
found not to be so.
They can't be challenged unless you have some reason to challenge them,
so the president has to break them.
Utter nonsence.

Laws are challanged without anyone having broken them all the time.

South Dakota is a current example.

They recently passed a law severely limiting abortion.

The law hasn't even taken effect yet, but it's already being challanged
in the courts as being unconstitutional.

In fact, many laws are challanged on constitutional grounds, and the
courts frequently prevent such a law from taking effect until the
matter of constitutionality is settled.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Otherwise, no law could ever take effect until it was challanged and
the courts had ruled on the subject.
Of course it can take effect.
Not by the explaination you provided in your previous post.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
From what you said, any law could can be ignored until it's challanged
and held as constitutional by the courts.

That's an absurd understanding of the law.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
We are talking about a law that attempts
to limit the presidential power.
There are lots of laws governing what a president can and cannot do.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The president has every right to act in
the way he believes are within his rights as president. In fact, it's
his obligation.
He also has an obligation to act within the law.

If the President doesn't like the law, he can work to change it or
challange it in the courts.

Simply ignoring it, and doing what he damn well pleases, is grounds for
impeachment.

Had anyone been able to tie Iran-Contra directly to Reagan during his
term, he probably would have been impeached.

As it worked out, his underlings provided "plausable deniability" and
took the fall, probably knowing that they'd be pardoned.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Really Bill...
I've seen a lot of rightwingers grasp at straws to try and defend their
political icons, but your willingess to twist basic facts of law to
defend a clearly illegal action on the part of the Reagan
administration is over the top.
There was nothing clearly illegal about what Reagan did. It doesn't take
Then why did the Reagan administration resort to a cover-up. breaking
numerous laws in the process, instead of asserting executive power and
fighting it out in court?
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment
#begin quote
The Boland Amendment prohibited the federal government from providing
military support "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of
Nicaragua." As such it was thought by many to be an unconstitutional
interference with the President's ability to conduct foreign policy.
#end quote
Yea, some thought it unconstitutional.

And many others thought it WAS constitutional.

That makes it a matter for the courts to decide.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Just as I have to challange a law I believe to be unconstitutional, so
does the president.
They still haven't challenged the War Powers Act, either side. Each
president (of either party) claims it is unconstitutional but abides by
In other words, THEY FOLLW THE LAW.

That was easy...
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0023840.html
#begin quote
Legislation passed in 1973 restricting the US president's powers to
deploy US forces abroad for combat without prior Congressional approval.
The president is required to report to both Houses of Congress within 48
hours of having taken such action. Congress may then restrict the
continuation of troop deployment despite any presidential veto.
The act was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto, and aimed at
restricting the president's introduction of US forces into potentially
hostile situations without Congressional declaration of war. The act has
been considered unconstitutional by each president since its passage,
and its provisions generally have been ignored by both Congress and
presidents.
#end quote
Like I said, they follow the law.

How does providing an example of presidents following the law support
your proposition that presidents don't have to follow the law if they
think a law is unconstitutional?
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-26 01:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
You have a citation for a court ruling that the Boland amendment was
unconstitutional, or are you just talking out of your ass?
You can't show any ruling that said it was constitutional. The Democrats
never took it to the courts.
Gimme a break...
It works the other way around.
Laws are presumed to be constitutional until they are challanged and
found not to be so.
They can't be challenged unless you have some reason to challenge them,
so the president has to break them.
Utter nonsence.
Laws are challanged without anyone having broken them all the time.
He's a bit on the Line Item Veto:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec97/veto_8-11a.html
#begin quote
Jackson wrote: "Where the president signs a bill but then purports to
cancel parts of it, he exceeds his constitutional authority and prevents
both houses of Congress from participating in the exercise of lawmaking
authority. But in June, the Supreme Court let the line item veto stand,
at least temporarily. The justices decided that no legal challenge to
the law could take place until the law was put into use. And that’s what
happened today.
#end quote
Post by s***@hotmail.com
South Dakota is a current example.
They recently passed a law severely limiting abortion.
The law hasn't even taken effect yet, but it's already being challanged
in the courts as being unconstitutional.
In fact, many laws are challanged on constitutional grounds, and the
courts frequently prevent such a law from taking effect until the
matter of constitutionality is settled.
You can't bring a question like that to the high court without a client
who has been affected by it. The law exists so they are bringing it to
the high court with an abortion provider as the client affected by the
law.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Otherwise, no law could ever take effect until it was challanged and
the courts had ruled on the subject.
Of course it can take effect.
Not by the explaination you provided in your previous post.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
From what you said, any law could can be ignored until it's challanged
and held as constitutional by the courts.
This is your statement, right? You are making this confusing by muxing
up the >s in the requote.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
That's an absurd understanding of the law.
No, it's how it is.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
We are talking about a law that attempts
to limit the presidential power.
There are lots of laws governing what a president can and cannot do.
And if they infringe on the constitutional powers of the president, he
doesn't have to follow them.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The president has every right to act in
the way he believes are within his rights as president. In fact, it's
his obligation.
He also has an obligation to act within the law.
He has an obligation to follow the constitution.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
If the President doesn't like the law, he can work to change it or
challange it in the courts.
Simply ignoring it, and doing what he damn well pleases, is grounds for
impeachment.
Anything the house decides is grounds for impeachment is.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Had anyone been able to tie Iran-Contra directly to Reagan during his
term, he probably would have been impeached.
That's funny. There was *no* doubt that Reagan ordered the arms
transfers/sales/trades for hostages with Iran. This was known nearly
from the start. No one in government was convicted of any crimes
relating to those transfers or, I believe, any relating to the actual
diversion of surplus funds to the Contras. The issues were lying under
oath and that some of the money ended up being used purportedly for
personal gain.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
As it worked out, his underlings provided "plausable deniability" and
took the fall, probably knowing that they'd be pardoned.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Really Bill...
I've seen a lot of rightwingers grasp at straws to try and defend their
political icons, but your willingess to twist basic facts of law to
defend a clearly illegal action on the part of the Reagan
administration is over the top.
There was nothing clearly illegal about what Reagan did. It doesn't take
Then why did the Reagan administration resort to a cover-up. breaking
numerous laws in the process, instead of asserting executive power and
fighting it out in court?
What laws did it break?
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment
#begin quote
The Boland Amendment prohibited the federal government from providing
military support "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of
Nicaragua." As such it was thought by many to be an unconstitutional
interference with the President's ability to conduct foreign policy.
#end quote
Yea, some thought it unconstitutional.
And many others thought it WAS constitutional.
And it was never brought before the courts even though Reagan ignored
it.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
That makes it a matter for the courts to decide.
Have at it. There are reasons that the Democrats didn't want to go
there.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Just as I have to challange a law I believe to be unconstitutional, so
does the president.
They still haven't challenged the War Powers Act, either side. Each
president (of either party) claims it is unconstitutional but abides by
In other words, THEY FOLLW THE LAW.
That was easy...
Neither side wants to make it a courts issue.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0023840.html
#begin quote
Legislation passed in 1973 restricting the US president's powers to
deploy US forces abroad for combat without prior Congressional approval.
The president is required to report to both Houses of Congress within 48
hours of having taken such action. Congress may then restrict the
continuation of troop deployment despite any presidential veto.
The act was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto, and aimed at
restricting the president's introduction of US forces into potentially
hostile situations without Congressional declaration of war. The act has
been considered unconstitutional by each president since its passage,
and its provisions generally have been ignored by both Congress and
presidents.
#end quote
Like I said, they follow the law.
"...its provisions generally have been ignored by both Congress and
presidents." This is not a new idea.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
How does providing an example of presidents following the law support
your proposition that presidents don't have to follow the law if they
think a law is unconstitutional?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
#begin quote
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than
750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power
to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his
interpretation of the Constitution.
#end quote
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
s***@hotmail.com
2006-05-26 02:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
You have a citation for a court ruling that the Boland amendment was
unconstitutional, or are you just talking out of your ass?
You can't show any ruling that said it was constitutional. The Democrats
never took it to the courts.
Gimme a break...
It works the other way around.
Laws are presumed to be constitutional until they are challanged and
found not to be so.
They can't be challenged unless you have some reason to challenge them,
so the president has to break them.
Utter nonsence.
Laws are challanged without anyone having broken them all the time.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec97/veto_8-11a.html
#begin quote
Jackson wrote: "Where the president signs a bill but then purports to
cancel parts of it, he exceeds his constitutional authority and prevents
both houses of Congress from participating in the exercise of lawmaking
authority. But in June, the Supreme Court let the line item veto stand,
at least temporarily. The justices decided that no legal challenge to
the law could take place until the law was put into use. And that's what
happened today.
#end quote
So, the law is the law until someone challanges it.

Fine.

How does that give the President the power to BREAK the law?

The Boland amendment was the law. If Reagan felt effected by it, he
should have challanged it.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
South Dakota is a current example.
They recently passed a law severely limiting abortion.
The law hasn't even taken effect yet, but it's already being challanged
in the courts as being unconstitutional.
In fact, many laws are challanged on constitutional grounds, and the
courts frequently prevent such a law from taking effect until the
matter of constitutionality is settled.
You can't bring a question like that to the high court without a client
who has been affected by it. The law exists so they are bringing it to
the high court with an abortion provider as the client affected by the
law.
Ok.

So if what you just wrote is correct, then Reagan, as the effected
party, could have challanged the Boland amendment in court.

That's not the same as you were saying before, when you wrote "They
can't be challenged unless you have some reason to challenge them, so
the president has to break them.", is it?

So which is it Bill?

Presidents can't challange laws that effect executive power and so they
have to break the law to see if it's constitutional, or as the effected
party they can challange laws that effect executive power?

You can't have it both ways.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Otherwise, no law could ever take effect until it was challanged and
the courts had ruled on the subject.
Of course it can take effect.
Not by the explaination you provided in your previous post.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
From what you said, any law could can be ignored until it's challanged
and held as constitutional by the courts.
This is your statement, right? You are making this confusing by muxing
up the >s in the requote.
Yes, it was my statement.

I didn't do anything to the quote indicators.

Blame Google.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
That's an absurd understanding of the law.
No, it's how it is.
No, it isn't.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
We are talking about a law that attempts
to limit the presidential power.
There are lots of laws governing what a president can and cannot do.
And if they infringe on the constitutional powers of the president, he
doesn't have to follow them.
He can challange them and get them tossed out as unconstitutional.

That's not the same as being able to simply ignore them.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
The president has every right to act in
the way he believes are within his rights as president. In fact, it's
his obligation.
He also has an obligation to act within the law.
He has an obligation to follow the constitution.
When the constitution may be at odds with law, then it's for the courts
to decide.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
If the President doesn't like the law, he can work to change it or
challange it in the courts.
Simply ignoring it, and doing what he damn well pleases, is grounds for
impeachment.
Anything the house decides is grounds for impeachment is.
The standard is high crimes and misdemeanors.

For practical purposes you're right, the house decides what meets that
standard.

But, my point was that ignoring a law clearly meets the standard.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Had anyone been able to tie Iran-Contra directly to Reagan during his
term, he probably would have been impeached.
That's funny. There was *no* doubt that Reagan ordered the arms
transfers/sales/trades for hostages with Iran. This was known nearly
from the start. No one in government was convicted of any crimes
relating to those transfers or, I believe, any relating to the actual
diversion of surplus funds to the Contras. The issues were lying under
oath and that some of the money ended up being used purportedly for
personal gain.
There was "no doubt" Reagan was involved, but there also wasn't any
PROOF that Reagan ordered the actions surrounding Iran-Contra.

Reagan accepted responsibility, because it happened on "his watch", but
he denied that he knew about it and his underlings like Poindexter and
McFarlane when through great pains in their testimony to shield Reagan
from guilt.

That's when the phrase "plausable deniability" first entered the
lexicon.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
As it worked out, his underlings provided "plausable deniability" and
took the fall, probably knowing that they'd be pardoned.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Really Bill...
I've seen a lot of rightwingers grasp at straws to try and defend their
political icons, but your willingess to twist basic facts of law to
defend a clearly illegal action on the part of the Reagan
administration is over the top.
There was nothing clearly illegal about what Reagan did. It doesn't take
Then why did the Reagan administration resort to a cover-up. breaking
numerous laws in the process, instead of asserting executive power and
fighting it out in court?
What laws did it break?
In the cover-up?

Lying to Congress for one.

Aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry is
illegal and that was one of the charges for which North was convicted.

The conviction was later overturned because North had been granted
limited immunity when he admitted that he had lied to Congress.

But, that doesn't mean lying to Congress is legal.

Now, why would members of the Reagan administration resort to such
blatant lawbreaking to hide their violation of the Boland amendment if
they thought they were acting within executive power?
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment
#begin quote
The Boland Amendment prohibited the federal government from providing
military support "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of
Nicaragua." As such it was thought by many to be an unconstitutional
interference with the President's ability to conduct foreign policy.
#end quote
Yea, some thought it unconstitutional.
And many others thought it WAS constitutional.
And it was never brought before the courts even though Reagan ignored
it.
Nope.

But many of the people who ignored it were convicted of crimes they
comitted while trying to hide the fact that they ignored it.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
That makes it a matter for the courts to decide.
Have at it. There are reasons that the Democrats didn't want to go
there.
With no hard evidence that Reagan had ordered Iran-Contra, the Senate
in Republican control and Reagan a lame duck by the time most of this
became known, what was the point?
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by SilentOtto
Just as I have to challange a law I believe to be unconstitutional, so
does the president.
They still haven't challenged the War Powers Act, either side. Each
president (of either party) claims it is unconstitutional but abides by
In other words, THEY FOLLW THE LAW.
That was easy...
Neither side wants to make it a courts issue.
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0023840.html
#begin quote
Legislation passed in 1973 restricting the US president's powers to
deploy US forces abroad for combat without prior Congressional approval.
The president is required to report to both Houses of Congress within 48
hours of having taken such action. Congress may then restrict the
continuation of troop deployment despite any presidential veto.
The act was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto, and aimed at
restricting the president's introduction of US forces into potentially
hostile situations without Congressional declaration of war. The act has
been considered unconstitutional by each president since its passage,
and its provisions generally have been ignored by both Congress and
presidents.
#end quote
Like I said, they follow the law.
"...its provisions generally have been ignored by both Congress and
presidents." This is not a new idea.
As you said, they stay within the law closely enough so that nobody
kicks up a fuss.
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by s***@hotmail.com
How does providing an example of presidents following the law support
your proposition that presidents don't have to follow the law if they
think a law is unconstitutional?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
#begin quote
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than
750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power
to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his
interpretation of the Constitution.
#end quote
If he didn't have a rubber stamp congress, it would be another matter.

That's one of the reasons that Republicans are pissing their pants
about November.

If the Democrats get ahold of one of the houses of Congress, there WILL
be an accounting, and the Bush administration knows it.
Malibu Skipper
2006-05-24 23:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Adam Albright
Ollie was a member of the Marine Corps, as a secret operative he was
in Reagan's whitehouse involved in the clandestine selling of weapons
to Iran in order to generate proceeds to support the Contra rebel
group in violation of the law — specifically, a provision known as the
"Boland Amendment".
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.
Sure it was, Bill. Anything that keeps the President from exercising
his Divinely Given Power is unconstitutional, huh?

Out of curiousity, though -- if the Boland amendment was
unconstitutional, why did St. Ronald sign it? Was that some sort or
clever trick?
c***@yahoo.com
2006-05-24 19:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
He took an oath to defend the constitution, then he violated that oath
by ignoring laws passed by the congress to not supply weapons to the
contras in Nicaragua. In essence, by his actions he helped to destroy
the seperation of government powers.

You don't get to ignore laws you don't like just because you work out
of the white house.
Peacenik
2006-05-25 02:48:48 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Better brush up on your '80s history, bub.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-25 04:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Better brush up on your '80s history, bub.
I remember it from when it happened. How was North a "traitor"? The
answer is that he wasn't.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Adam Albright
2006-05-25 05:18:36 UTC
Permalink
On 25 May 2006 06:11:16 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Better brush up on your '80s history, bub.
I remember it from when it happened. How was North a "traitor"? The
answer is that he wasn't.
Well of course not in your fairy tale world. No Republican is every
guilty of anything only Democrats.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-25 15:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
On 25 May 2006 06:11:16 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Better brush up on your '80s history, bub.
I remember it from when it happened. How was North a "traitor"? The
answer is that he wasn't.
Well of course not in your fairy tale world. No Republican is every
guilty of anything only Democrats.
I never claimed anything like that. If a Republican does something
illegal, I'm equally demanding that it be prosecuted with whatever a
Democrat might do. There's still nothing traitorous about what North
did. I think there is something wrong with what the Democrats in
congress did, however.

They attempted to interfere with the president's rights as commander in
chief to run American foreign policy. They also changed the
appropriations repeatedly which made it difficult to create a consistent
policy. Perhaps they have the right to do that but that doesn't make it
right to do.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Peacenik
2006-05-25 14:29:49 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Better brush up on your '80s history, bub.
I remember it from when it happened. How was North a "traitor"? The
answer is that he wasn't.
He wasn't involved in Contragate? Tell us more.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-25 15:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Better brush up on your '80s history, bub.
I remember it from when it happened. How was North a "traitor"? The
answer is that he wasn't.
He wasn't involved in Contragate? Tell us more.
You are just silly. There was nothing traitorous in what North did in
the Iran Contra Affair.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Peacenik
2006-05-26 01:05:22 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Better brush up on your '80s history, bub.
I remember it from when it happened. How was North a "traitor"? The
answer is that he wasn't.
He wasn't involved in Contragate? Tell us more.
You are just silly. There was nothing traitorous in what North did in
the Iran Contra Affair.
The whole affair was traitorous.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2006-05-26 01:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Joseph Welch
"Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
How was Oliver North a "traitor"?
Better brush up on your '80s history, bub.
I remember it from when it happened. How was North a "traitor"? The
answer is that he wasn't.
He wasn't involved in Contragate? Tell us more.
You are just silly. There was nothing traitorous in what North did in
the Iran Contra Affair.
The whole affair was traitorous.
Why? Trying to make nice with Iran is certainly something you support.
Hell, you *still* want to try to make nice with them, don't you? And the
Contras were funded to the tune of $100 million when the scandal broke,
all legal and all supported by the very same congress that wanted to run
North out of town.
--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Topaz
2006-05-24 16:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Who can say "we" when referring to the USA? Definately the Jews.
Maybe women and minorities. Certainly not a White man.

The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University

Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...

The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>



http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Scotius
2006-05-31 05:34:17 UTC
Permalink
On 23 May 2006 20:47:39 -0700, "Captain America"
Post by Captain America
He must have a receipt somewhere. Ah, shit, I forgot, the traitor had
his secretary shred it.
Hate to break it to ya', but Iran's most advanced weaponry is
not of US design. It's of Russian design, and mostly of Russian
manufacture. If you really want to know, here's the systems I know
from various materials that they have.
1) MiG-29 "Fulcrum" air superiority fighters. These are
probably of the new MiG-29/M variant.
2) Su-27 "Flanker" fighter bombers. The most maneuverable
fighter aircraft currently in service, and also very capable ground
attack/ close air support aircraft, like the US F-15 Eagle, but better
in almost every respect.
3) Long range radars, bought from Russia in the early and mid
'90s.
4) FROG intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs). Hussein
had FROGs during the first Gulf War. They're similar in range and
payload to SCUDs, but accurate enough to target individual buildings.
*** Possibly *** 5) Concrete submarines either produced and
designed, or at least designed in Russia. They are designed to carry
the new ...
6) Shkval rocket torpedo. It has an underwater speed of
roughly 250 mph, and is pretty much unavoidable by conventional
(non-stealth) watercraft, whether surface ships or subs.
7) Various new air to air missiles to go with the nice new
fighters.
8) A naval force designed specifically to attack US
weaknesses. One US admiral described it as an "asymetrical force",
meaning they weren't aiming for capabilities across a broad range of
problems, but just to hurt the US Navy as much as possible.
That's the short list. They also have bought Surface to Air
Missile systems (SAMs) from Russia that are more capable than most
versions of the Patriot SAMs currently in service with the US forces.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...