PDA

View Full Version : Reagan



Qtec
02-06-2011, 04:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists. Why is he a hero to conservatives? I don’t think you understand it. </div></div>

Me too.
Didn't he also negotiate with Iran to not release the hostages until after the election? Promise them weapons and used the profits to fund a terrorist group in S America behind the back of Congress?

Q

cushioncrawler
02-06-2011, 04:33 AM
The gypper woz praps the worst prez in the modern era. Looking at it from a science and green and environmental point of view (and socialist point of view).
mac.

Soflasnapper
02-06-2011, 10:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists. Why is he a hero to conservatives? I don’t think you understand it. </div></div>

Me too.
Didn't he also negotiate with Iran to not release the hostages until after the election? Promise them weapons and used the profits to fund a terrorist group in S America behind the back of Congress?

Q </div></div>

Both true, but different occasions and negotiating parties.

First was the mullahs, and the second was Hizbollah (sponsored by the mullahs).

Gayle in MD
02-07-2011, 03:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists. Why is he a hero to conservatives? I don’t think you understand it. </div></div>

Me too.
Didn't he also negotiate with Iran to not release the hostages until after the election? Promise them weapons and used the profits to fund a terrorist group in S America behind the back of Congress?

Q </div></div>

Didn't you know, friend, "conservatives" break the law, and it is completely overlooked, or denied by themselves, and their whacky followers.

Sort of reminds one of this forum, doesn't it?

RR was a JOKE. The Repiglican party is full of them.

DELUSIONAL!

LWW
02-07-2011, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists. Why is he a hero to conservatives? I don’t think you understand it. </div></div>

Me too.
Didn't he also negotiate with Iran to not release the hostages until after the election? Promise them weapons and used the profits to fund a terrorist group in S America behind the back of Congress?

Q </div></div>

If he did all that then he must be a hero of the far left.

What's that?

It's all a fraud?

I already knew that.

LWW

llotter
02-07-2011, 07:48 AM
Reagan was a great president because he won the cold war without firing a shot, he lifted the spirits of the country, he refocused budget priorities toward less government and more personal responsibility. As a percentage of GDP, he was unable to cut the federal government share as he intended but neither did it grow and that is an accomplishment in the era of the nanny state.

The Iran Contra affair was much ado about nothing. It is a question about how much he knew about what was going on but in reality, the scheme was merely attempting to get around the Boland amendment,a pathetic Democrat foreign policy gambit, as they all are, to restrict the presidents prerogatives. Reagan probably should have been more confrontational with Congress because helping the Contras was good and necessary at a time when our communist enemy was making progress in South America.

But beyond his success as president and governor, Reagan's continuously uplifting view of America, its freedom and its responsibility to future generations to keep that freedom viable though his eloquent anti-communist, anti-statist persona that he embodied.

Soflasnapper
02-07-2011, 10:50 AM
The Iran Contra affair was much ado about nothing. It is a question about how much he knew about what was going on but in reality, the scheme was merely attempting to get around the Boland amendment,a pathetic Democrat foreign policy gambit, as they all are, to restrict the presidents prerogatives

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

If a president can have a private foreign policy, using private funds, then the power of the purse which is the great power of Congress is thwarted.

Do you believe in the Constitution or don't you?

LWW
02-07-2011, 11:58 AM
Here is the, and I know the left really hates this, reality:

1 - Right or wrong, the US had committed to fund the Contras against the Sandanista.

2 - The Boland Amendnment banned appropriated intelligence funds from being used to fund the Contras.

3 - The BA did not ban private funds from being used.

4 - The BA was a ban and not a criminal statute, hence nobody could be indicted as violation was a civil and not a criminal action.

5 - Hence, again good or bad, the BA forced the US to abandon an army in the field which it had committed to.

6 - The arms were actually sold to Iranians by Israel/

7 - The arms were not sold to the Iranian Khomeini regime.

8 - The arms were sold to what the Israelis referred to as "moderate Iranians" opposed to Khomeini.

9 - The moderates swore to work with their connections inside Iran to secure the release of hostages.

10 - The hostages were released as promised.

11 - Several Arabs, including the Sultan of Brunei, funded the entire deal.

12 - Iran was an enemy of the US.

13 - Iraq was an enemy of the US.

14 - Iran and Iraq were at war.

15 - By working things the way they did, IS policy allowed both Iran and Iraq to bleed each other out.

OH DEAR!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment)

OH MY! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra)

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-07-2011, 07:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is the, and I know the left really hates this, reality:

1 - Right or wrong, the US had committed to fund the Contras against the Sandanista.

2 - The Boland Amendnment banned appropriated intelligence funds from being used to fund the Contras.

3 - The BA did not ban private funds from being used.

4 - The BA was a ban and not a criminal statute, hence nobody could be indicted as violation was a civil and not a criminal action.

5 - Hence, again good or bad, the BA forced the US to abandon an army in the field which it had committed to.

6 - The arms were actually sold to Iranians by Israel/

7 - The arms were not sold to the Iranian Khomeini regime.

8 - The arms were sold to what the Israelis referred to as "moderate Iranians" opposed to Khomeini.

9 - The moderates swore to work with their connections inside Iran to secure the release of hostages.

10 - The hostages were released as promised.

11 - Several Arabs, including the Sultan of Brunei, funded the entire deal.

12 - Iran was an enemy of the US.

13 - Iraq was an enemy of the US.

14 - Iran and Iraq were at war.

15 - By working things the way they did, IS policy allowed both Iran and Iraq to bleed each other out.

OH DEAR!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment)

OH MY! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra)

LWW
</div></div>

Semi-true, but also false in critical areas.

2 - The Boland Amendnment banned appropriated intelligence funds from being used to fund the Contras.

3 - The BA did not ban private funds from being used.

2nd Boland amendment (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a101084boland2) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bookmark and Share
October 10, 1984: Second Boland Amendment Outlaws CIA, Defense Department, or Third-Party Funding of Contras
Edit event

Congress passes the second Boland Amendment, which outlaws the use of “third-party nations” to support the Contras. The bill also bars the use of funds by the CIA, the Defense Department, or any intelligence agency for “supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization or individual.” [PBS, 2000] The amendment is largely in response to the efforts of the Reagan administration to get around the restrictions of the first amendment (see December 1982), and the CIA’s mining of three Nicaraguan harbors. This amendment is far more restrictive than the first, saying flatly, “During fiscal year 1985, no funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.” [New York Times, 7/10/1987; House Intelligence Committee, 2005; Savage, 2007, pp. 53] “There are no exceptions to the prohibition,” says Edward Boland (D-MA), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the primary sponsor of the amemdment. Contra supporters in Congress denounce the bill, with Dick Cheney (R-WY) calling it a “killer amendment” that will force the Contras “to lay down their arms.” After President Reagan signs it into law, Cheney launches a lengthy, determined effort to persuade his colleagues to rescind the amendment. Inside the White House, particularly in the National Security Council, a number of Reagan officials, including National Security Adviser John Poindexter and his aide Colonel Oliver North, begin conspiring to circumvent the amendment with a complex scheme involving selling arms to Iran at inflated prices in exchange for American hostages held by Lebanese militants, and using the profits to fund the Contras. [Savage, 2007, pp. 53] </div></div>

4 - The BA was a ban and not a criminal statute, hence nobody could be indicted as violation was a civil and not a criminal action.

Right. But still an impeachable offense, which is no slight matter. Then you have the question of why exactly did Oliver North have his shredding party, if no crimes had been committed, and the DOJ who would have investigated was Reagan's own AG.

6 - The arms were actually sold to Iranians by Israel/


Not really, although the form of the arrangement looked like that, I agree. What happened actually was that the exact same inventory 'sold' by Israel was replaced at no cost from pre-positioned US-supplied NATO materiel without telling NATO. It's a strange position to say Israel really sold anything, when after the 'sale,' they had just as many of the things they 'sold' as before. Essentially, they middle-manned a sale from the US, is the best description.

10 - The hostages were released as promised.

Sorta. William Buckley wasn't released (and he was the critical hostage, as CIA station chief in Lebanon), since he was killed under torture interrogation. Also, it should be noted, as hostages got release, OTHER HOSTAGES WERE TAKEN BY THESE PEOPLE.

11 - Several Arabs, including the Sultan of Brunei, funded the entire deal.

I think their funding went directly to the Contras, and didn't contribute anything to this arms sale. And then of course you had the $10 million in funding of the Contras from the Medellin Cartel boys.

13 - Iraq was an enemy of the US.

That one is quite false, as proven by several facts. One, Iraq hit the USS Stark with two Exocet missiles, killing 37 and wounding 21 more. We took it as an accident from a friendly power, and did no retaliation, impossible if they were an enemy at the time. Secondly, Bush pere moved heaven and earth to provide fraudulent agricultural loan subsidies known to be diverted into weapons programs, to the tune of billions of dollars. Again, not the actions the US would take to aid an enemy.

Stretch
02-08-2011, 01:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is the, and I know the left really hates this, reality:

1 - Right or wrong, the US had committed to fund the Contras against the Sandanista.

2 - The Boland Amendnment banned appropriated intelligence funds from being used to fund the Contras.

3 - The BA did not ban private funds from being used.

4 - The BA was a ban and not a criminal statute, hence nobody could be indicted as violation was a civil and not a criminal action.

5 - Hence, again good or bad, the BA forced the US to abandon an army in the field which it had committed to.

6 - The arms were actually sold to Iranians by Israel/

7 - The arms were not sold to the Iranian Khomeini regime.

8 - The arms were sold to what the Israelis referred to as "moderate Iranians" opposed to Khomeini.

9 - The moderates swore to work with their connections inside Iran to secure the release of hostages.

10 - The hostages were released as promised.

11 - Several Arabs, including the Sultan of Brunei, funded the entire deal.

12 - Iran was an enemy of the US.

13 - Iraq was an enemy of the US.

14 - Iran and Iraq were at war.

15 - By working things the way they did, IS policy allowed both Iran and Iraq to bleed each other out.

OH DEAR!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment)

OH MY! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra)

LWW
</div></div>

Semi-true, but also false in critical areas.

2 - The Boland Amendnment banned appropriated intelligence funds from being used to fund the Contras.

3 - The BA did not ban private funds from being used.

2nd Boland amendment (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a101084boland2) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bookmark and Share
October 10, 1984: Second Boland Amendment Outlaws CIA, Defense Department, or Third-Party Funding of Contras
Edit event

Congress passes the second Boland Amendment, which outlaws the use of “third-party nations” to support the Contras. The bill also bars the use of funds by the CIA, the Defense Department, or any intelligence agency for “supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization or individual.” [PBS, 2000] The amendment is largely in response to the efforts of the Reagan administration to get around the restrictions of the first amendment (see December 1982), and the CIA’s mining of three Nicaraguan harbors. This amendment is far more restrictive than the first, saying flatly, “During fiscal year 1985, no funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.” [New York Times, 7/10/1987; House Intelligence Committee, 2005; Savage, 2007, pp. 53] “There are no exceptions to the prohibition,” says Edward Boland (D-MA), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the primary sponsor of the amemdment. Contra supporters in Congress denounce the bill, with Dick Cheney (R-WY) calling it a “killer amendment” that will force the Contras “to lay down their arms.” After President Reagan signs it into law, Cheney launches a lengthy, determined effort to persuade his colleagues to rescind the amendment. Inside the White House, particularly in the National Security Council, a number of Reagan officials, including National Security Adviser John Poindexter and his aide Colonel Oliver North, begin conspiring to circumvent the amendment with a complex scheme involving selling arms to Iran at inflated prices in exchange for American hostages held by Lebanese militants, and using the profits to fund the Contras. [Savage, 2007, pp. 53] </div></div>

4 - The BA was a ban and not a criminal statute, hence nobody could be indicted as violation was a civil and not a criminal action.

Right. But still an impeachable offense, which is no slight matter. Then you have the question of why exactly did Oliver North have his shredding party, if no crimes had been committed, and the DOJ who would have investigated was Reagan's own AG.

6 - The arms were actually sold to Iranians by Israel/


Not really, although the form of the arrangement looked like that, I agree. What happened actually was that the exact same inventory 'sold' by Israel was replaced at no cost from pre-positioned US-supplied NATO materiel without telling NATO. It's a strange position to say Israel really sold anything, when after the 'sale,' they had just as many of the things they 'sold' as before. Essentially, they middle-manned a sale from the US, is the best description.

10 - The hostages were released as promised.

Sorta. William Buckley wasn't released (and he was the critical hostage, as CIA station chief in Lebanon), since he was killed under torture interrogation. Also, it should be noted, as hostages got release, OTHER HOSTAGES WERE TAKEN BY THESE PEOPLE.

11 - Several Arabs, including the Sultan of Brunei, funded the entire deal.

I think their funding went directly to the Contras, and didn't contribute anything to this arms sale. And then of course you had the $10 million in funding of the Contras from the Medellin Cartel boys.

13 - Iraq was an enemy of the US.

That one is quite false, as proven by several facts. One, Iraq hit the USS Stark with two Exocet missiles, killing 37 and wounding 21 more. We took it as an accident from a friendly power, and did no retaliation, impossible if they were an enemy at the time. Secondly, Bush pere moved heaven and earth to provide fraudulent agricultural loan subsidies known to be diverted into weapons programs, to the tune of billions of dollars. Again, not the actions the US would take to aid an enemy. </div></div>

You're doing a fine job snap! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

LWW
02-08-2011, 04:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4 - The BA was a ban and not a criminal statute, hence nobody could be indicted as violation was a civil and not a criminal action.

Right. But still an impeachable offense, which is no slight matter.</div></div>

That is simply precious.

Only the left can, through massive use of Orwellian doublethink, come to the conclusion that:

1 - The non-commission of a violation of a non-criminal non-law rises to the level of "HIGH CRIMES" ... as specified in the COTUS as the grounds for impeachment and removal from office ... when not committed under the Reagan regime.

2 - Actual commission of an actual violation of an actual criminal statute doesn't when it is actually committed during the Clinton regime.

We have always been at war with Eurasia haven't we.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-08-2011, 04:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4 - The BA was a ban and not a criminal statute, hence nobody could be indicted as violation was a civil and not a criminal action.

Right. But still an impeachable offense, which is no slight matter.</div></div>

That is simply precious.

Only the left can, through massive use of Orwellian doublethink, come to the conclusion that:

1 - The non-commission of a violation of a non-criminal non-law rises to the level of "HIGH CRIMES" ... as specified in the COTUS as the grounds for impeachment and removal from office ... when not committed under the Reagan regime.

2 - Actual commission of an actual violation of an actual criminal statute doesn't when it is actually committed during the Clinton regime.

We have always been at war with Eurasia haven't we.

LWW </div></div>

Yep. It's true. Running a secret private foreign policy is a high crime and misdemeanor, in the meaning of the impeachment language in the Constitution, especially when it is done in explicit contravention of a duly passed law that president himself signed. The president is charged to, and swears to, faithfully execute the law. Doing this end-run around the very law he signed, and lying to Congress, is a violation of the oath of office (hence, impeachable).

Whereas miscellaneous and tawdry supposed crimes do not rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor.

This language comes from our British background, and does not mean what it literally says. High crime and misdemeanor from the British tradition means something against the Crown or the State.

This is why neither of the impeachment articles against Clinton achieved even a majority vote. The Republicans voting 'not guilty' (which prevented any majority finding, still less the required 2/3rds vote to convict upon impeachment charges) were all former AGs of their respective states, and knew a thing or two about the law.

Not to mention the TWO OTHER impeachment articles that even the GOP majority house couldn't pass by a bare majority.

LWW
02-08-2011, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep. It's true. Running a secret private foreign policy is a high crime and misdemeanor, in the meaning of the impeachment language in the Constitution, especially when it is done in explicit contravention of a duly passed law that president himself signed. The president is charged to, and swears to, faithfully execute the law. Doing this end-run around the very law he signed, and lying to Congress, is a violation of the oath of office (hence, impeachable).

Whereas miscellaneous and tawdry supposed crimes do not rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor.

This language comes from our British background, and does not mean what it literally says. High crime and misdemeanor from the British tradition means something against the Crown or the State.

This is why neither of the impeachment articles against Clinton achieved even a majority vote. The Republicans voting 'not guilty' (which prevented any majority finding, still less the required 2/3rds vote to convict upon impeachment charges) were all former AGs of their respective states, and knew a thing or two about the law.

Not to mention the TWO OTHER impeachment articles that even the GOP majority house couldn't pass by a bare majority.

</div></div>

1 - Every POTUS from Wahington to Obama has ran a secret foreign policy and is most certainly not illegal.

2 - Please, cease and desist from using the language improperly. The Boland Amendment was not a law.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-08-2011, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - Every POTUS from Wahington to Obama has ran a secret foreign policy and is most certainly not illegal.

2 - Please, cease and desist from using the language improperly. The Boland Amendment was not a law.

LWW </div></div>

Which OTHER president ran a secret, PRIVATE foreign policy? Isn't the answer, none?

How can Congress do oversight on such a practice? How can it be made accountable to the people through their representatives, when the answer to any question is a lie ('we're not doing anything like that, for goodness sake!')

The Boland Amendment sure sounded like a law. What was it, if it wasn't a law? What it didn't do was prescribe a legal penalty for its violation, but lots of law fail to do that.

LWW
02-08-2011, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which OTHER president ran a secret, PRIVATE foreign policy? Isn't the answer, none?

How can Congress do oversight on such a practice? How can it be made accountable to the people through their representatives, when the answer to any question is a lie ('we're not doing anything like that, for goodness sake!')</div></div>

Might I suggest that you actually read THIS DOCUMENT (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2).

LWW

LWW
02-08-2011, 05:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Boland Amendment sure sounded like a law. What was it, if it wasn't a law? What it didn't do was prescribe a legal penalty for its violation, but lots of law fail to do that. </div></div>

The Boland not only wasn't a law, it wasn't even a bill.

It was an amendment, authored by Edward Patrick Boland ... my guess is that's why they called it the Boland Amendment, attached as a rider to a defense appropriations bill.

LWW &lt;--- Doing the research the American left just won't do.

Soflasnapper
02-08-2011, 07:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Boland Amendment sure sounded like a law. What was it, if it wasn't a law? What it didn't do was prescribe a legal penalty for its violation, but lots of law fail to do that. </div></div>

The Boland not only wasn't a law, it wasn't even a bill.

It was an amendment, authored by Edward Patrick Boland ... my guess is that's why they called it the Boland Amendment, attached as a rider to a defense appropriations bill.

LWW &lt;--- Doing the research the American left just won't do. </div></div>

Hardly. You appear to misunderstand this whole question.

An amendment once passed becomes part of the body of the bill. The bill once passed and signed by the president becomes a law. All parts of the bill are the law, including parts put in as amendments. Appropriation bills are laws about how much money can be spent (this year or over several years, in a given area), and may contain other language that control other things, as law.

Congress exercised its power to control spending for wars in exactly these kinds of amendments to defense spending authorization bills previously.

See here, page 154 (http://books.google.com/books?id=C56qIArVlyUC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=boland+amendment+not+a+law&source=bl&ots=kQ40zlJQ-b&sig=ODwQcF3bvzLT5ZKtwS9PAPBsA7Y&hl=en&ei=_eFRTb-WOMSqlAfO5dTTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=boland%20amendment%20not%20a%20law&f=false)

Such 'riders' and 'amendments' made it unlawful to spend any of the money appropriated to invade Laos, Thailand, or Cambodia (various countries for various amendments).

These were perhaps hotly debated, but their binding force as law was not disputed.

LWW
02-09-2011, 12:09 AM
Keep dancing.

Proceed.

LWW

Stretch
02-09-2011, 04:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep dancing.

Proceed.

LWW </div></div>

You are obviously outmatched. I guess that's as gracefull a white flag as you can muster. lol St.

Qtec
02-09-2011, 04:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep dancing.

Proceed.

LWW </div></div>

You are obviously outmatched. I guess that's as gracefull a white flag as you can muster. lol St. </div></div>


LOL

Q

LWW
02-09-2011, 04:19 AM
Well ... I don't have "RUMOR MILL NEWS" to back me up.

LWW

Stretch
02-09-2011, 04:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well ... I don't have "RUMOR MILL NEWS" to back me up.

LWW </div></div>

No, you preffer the National Enquirer. St.

Qtec
02-09-2011, 05:07 AM
Or WND, Fox News, Breitbart, Newsmax.............etc.......fake videos...doctored videos...quotes out of context...pure unadulterated lies...ETC...ETC

Good call St.

Q

LWW
02-09-2011, 06:53 AM
To "RUMORMILLNEWS" ... yes, I do.

LWW

LWW
02-09-2011, 06:54 AM
And your claim is supported by?

What's that?

Nothing?

I already knew that.

LWW

Stretch
02-09-2011, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And your claim is supported by?

What's that?

Nothing?

I already knew that.

LWW </div></div>

Yawn, more cookie cutter responses. They seem to be lacking the zing they used to. Funny how a limited amount of "go to" sayings like that lose their punch after hereing them in 12294 inane posts. St.

LWW
02-09-2011, 08:08 AM
That was just precious.

Did you channel the Orbegons for that one?

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-09-2011, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well ... I don't have "RUMOR MILL NEWS" to back me up.

LWW </div></div>

And you don't have the CONSTITUTION to back you up either.

What does the CONSTITUTION say about 'laws'?

Section 7, in part:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. </div></div>

So, bills or acts that pass through Congress and are signed by the president become LAWS. All of them.

See also Section 9, in part:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. </div></div>

So, appropriations bills create law as well.

Well, I guess that's settled, then.

Gayle in MD
02-09-2011, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Iran Contra affair was much ado about nothing. It is a question about how much he knew about what was going on but in reality, the scheme was merely attempting to get around the Boland amendment,a pathetic Democrat foreign policy gambit, as they all are, to restrict the presidents prerogatives

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

If a president can have a private foreign policy, using private funds, then the power of the purse which is the great power of Congress is thwarted.

Do you believe in the Constitution or don't you?

</div></div>

If I may, a serious question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a president can have a private foreign policy, using private funds, then the power of the purse which is the great power of Congress is thwarted.

</div></div>

Since we know he did it, would it be considered treason.

He lied about it, over and over.

Certainly, it was an impeachable offense, but is such a blatantly illegal, unconstitutional action, considered treason?


He certainly undermined the government, it was subversive, and a dilberate betrayal.
G.

Soflasnapper
02-09-2011, 12:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If I may, a serious question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a president can have a private foreign policy, using private funds, then the power of the purse which is the great power of Congress is thwarted.

</div></div>

Since we know he did it, would it be considered treason.

He lied about it, over and over.

Certainly, it was an impeachable offense, but is such a blatantly illegal, unconstitutional action, considered treason?


He certainly undermined the government, it was subversive, and a dilberate betrayal.
G.

</div></div>

No, the Constitution is clear as to what can, and what cannot be, considered treason. No extended definitions, sorry.

LWW
02-09-2011, 03:30 PM
You know full well that I meant a criminal law ... but if you feel the need to split a hair that finely to "WIN ONE" I'll indulge you.

LWW

LWW
02-09-2011, 03:32 PM
BTW ... I'm still waiting see a citation which says the congress has oversight on US foreign policy?

What's that?

It doesn't say that?

I already knew that.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-09-2011, 05:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW ... I'm still waiting see a citation which says the congress has oversight on US foreign policy?

What's that?

It doesn't say that?

I already knew that.

LWW </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Oversight[2] is an implied rather than an enumerated power under the U.S. Constitution. The government's charter does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or testimony from the executive.

There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in the Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law.[citation needed]

Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature's authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.</div></div> (Wiki)

The implied powers were used as early as 1792 to investigate a defeat of the army by Indian tribes.

In more recent times, the oversight function has been codified in laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president.

LWW
02-10-2011, 03:09 AM
So it actually doesn't exist ... and every POTUS from Washington to Obama has conducted secret foreign policy.

Welcome to reality.

Without foreign policy conducted in secret, no nation could survive.

This isn't an endorsement for illegal activities ... but absolutely everything cannot be laid on the table.

Sadly, if today's moonbat crazy leftist media had existed in WWII the war would have been lost as the idjits would have blasted the D-Day plans on page 1.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-10-2011, 04:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it actually doesn't exist ... and every POTUS from Washington to Obama has conducted secret foreign policy.

Welcome to reality.

Without foreign policy conducted in secret, no nation could survive.

This isn't an endorsement for illegal activities ... but absolutely everything cannot be laid on the table.

Sadly, if today's moonbat crazy leftist media had existed in WWII the war would have been lost as the idjits would have blasted the D-Day plans on page 1.

LWW </div></div>

Secret, as in 'not public,' sure. Secret, as in not disclosed to Congress? Rarely, and when it happened in modern times (Cambodia air war), extremely controversial.

Now, secret and PRIVATE? As in, the president does a secret foreign policy and utilizes private monies and private third parties so there is never a need to disclose it?

Other than Reagan, I don't remember that ever happening. Can you name another president who has done this?

LWW
02-10-2011, 05:05 PM
Nothing disclosed to congress is secret.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-10-2011, 08:13 PM
Sure, some things are. What do you call the disclosures to the intel committees?

When FDR disclosed the existence of the Manhattan Project to a couple senior members of Congress, did that information leak? Not that I've heard, but please tell me if you know differently.

For the various black projects, even disclosing their NAME is a federal crime, and we do not have many examples of on-going black projects being revealed by Congress, although they know of them.

And as to PRIVATE?

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:01 AM
1 - The Manhattan Project wasn't foreign policy.

2 - The Manhattan Project was full of leaks ... as was the FDR and Truman regimes ... working for another the left's then heroes, uncle Joe Stalin.

3 - Don't forget that Bin Laden breathes today only because members of congress exposed to the press how we were tracking him.

LWW

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Other than Reagan, I don't remember that ever happening. Can you name another president who has done this? </div></div>

We could start with the Bay of Pigs invasion.

LWW