**DONOTDELETE**
03-09-2001, 02:06 PM
sear
New Member
posts: 3
(2/20/01 10:26:14 am)
Reply I don't think much of Reagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st of all, Ronald Reagan is a very handsome man. He was a charitmatic leader to many. He's recently been voted the best President in a popularity contest.
And while Reagan may have done several things his fans can dote upon, the standard for making such judgements is not generally the best a politician (or athlete, or surgeon, or whatever) has done, but the worst. A relative amateur can shoot a hole in one. It's happened. But what makes a champion golfer is being able to consistently play under par.
Consider some of the worst Reagan did.
The Iran / Contra arms for drugs deal was a huge scandal. He pretty much got a pass on it. It's certainly a greater threat to the Republic than getting a BJ in the Oval Office.
But that's just the beginning.
According to the United States Constitution it is the Presidents job to see that the laws be faithfully executed. One of the things that's illegal is treason, which the Constitution defines as waging war against the States and People. President Lyndon Johnson waged a War on Poverty. But that wasn't a real war, with hand grenades, and bullets, and heavily armed troops bashing doors down, and hauling away prisoners. President Johnson could not legitimately be charged with treason for his War on Poverty.
But Reagan's War on Drugs [actually, a War against Americans] was not like Johnson's war. In Reagan's War, the warriors used paramilitary troops, and combat tactics, they used bullets and hand grenades (called flash-bangs by the police that evidently have a difficult time with the more formal "percussion grenade"), took prisoners, and in many other ways waged war against his own People. That is not only a monstrous betrayal of his People, for which he should have expressed deep shame, though never has. It also perjured his oath to the Constitution, as a traitor to his People. President Ronald Reagan is a conspirator to Treason, and a firing squad is too good for him.
That other low lifes like Clinton and the Bush's participate in the same crime does not absolve Reagan's guilt.
President Ronald Reagan is a traitor. He is a disgrace to humanity. The mere thought of him disgusts me.
In addition to his oath of office, stipulated in Article 2 Sect. 1; Article 2 Sect. 3 says that the President
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 3. SECTION 3.
1 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War Against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oracle
I should register!
(2/20/01 3:50:48 pm)
Reply re: I don't think much of Reagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's get some facts straight.
Iran-Contra was not an arms for drugs deal.
The association of drugs with the contras funding operation was never part of the report by Walsh and was made afterwards by people trying to sell books but was never proven.
As to the war on drugs, yes they used paramilitary troops and combat tactics, but they used them against potentially heavily armed drug dealers. Took prisoners? You mean they actually arrested people who were breaking the law. Funny how you quote the Constitution where it requires the President to enforce the laws yet you call him a traitor for enforcing the anti-drug laws. Make up your mind, do you want laws enforced or not? You can't have it both ways.
(Don't think this means I agree with everything that has been done. I definitely think that they've gone too far with the laws that require you to justify why you are traveling with a large sum of money and some of the asset forfeture laws. Unfortunately, the courts haven't agreed with me.)
As for Clinton, it is so typical of his defenders to try and trivialize his actions by saying it was just a BJ. The threat to the republic was not from getting a BJ in the Oval Office, the threat came about when he conspired to lie under oath (about his relationship, not just a BJ) as part of an effort to deny a US citizen her Constitutional right to her day in court. A threat also came about when he sent out his minions to try to win public opinion by lying and attacking Ken Starr.
When the president is sworn in, he takes an oath that he "will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Defending the Constitution doesn't mean he will defend the written copy of the Constitution, but rather the principles and the institutions established by it. This includes the Judicial System and the right to fair hearing in a court of law. The Judicial System depends on the ability to rely on witnesses to tell the truth under oath; when the highest ranking law-enforcement official in the country commits perjury, it is an assault on the our court. The President also has a duty to protect the officials who are doing their job, he failed to do this.
sear
New Member
posts: 16
(2/20/01 7:05:01 pm)
Reply Reagan is icky icky icky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make up your mind, do you want laws enforced or not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent point. Thanks for making it. OK:
#1 According to the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Art. 6 Sect. 2 [see below]) when statute conflicts with the Constitution, it's the statute which must fall to the Constitution, not the other way around.
It is a founding principle of the United States of America that Liberty is an unalienable right, as enumerated in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, and numerous other writings (Federalist). But Drug War usurps Liberty.
But don't take my word for it; just look at history. Before the Revolution, did King George III in eight years do anywhere near the harm to Americans that Ronald Reagan did in eight years? I suggest to you sir, that the Revolution would have been fought much sooner if he had. I believe you will find that the government founded to protect our Liberty has usurped more of it than the King George III ever did, even in Revolutionary war. Just look at the battle deaths. I believe in Drug War we're up to over 20K of INNOCENT victims; not of drugs, of Drug War. How may did King George III take out? A dozen?
#2 Amendment #18 was repealed. Prohibition doesn't work. How many conservatives do you need to hear that from? Milton Friedman, George Shultz, William Buckley? Walter Williams?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The threat to the republic was not from getting a BJ in the Oval Office, the threat came about when he conspired to lie under oath (about his relationship, not just a BJ) as part of an effort to deny a US citizen her Constitutional right to her day in court." Oracle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Not Guilty." The United States Senate Impeachment Vote of W.J. Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending the Constitution doesn't mean he will defend the written copy of the Constitution, but rather the principles and the institutions established by it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be the essence of our disagreement. I may not yet be able to prove this false, but I believe it is. As I understand the meaning of the oath, it may mean both, but certainly the former. If it didn't, why bother having it written down? I believe and hope you are in error sir.
BTW: I obviously started this tread with a chip on my shoulder. I appreciate the way you've addressed the issue. Thanks very much. Reagan is icky icky icky!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 6.
2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 59
(2/21/01 6:15:39 am)
Reply Re: I don't think much of Reagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sear: "I don't think much"
you should have stopped there while you were ahead
sear
New Member
posts: 18
(2/21/01 11:06:19 am)
Reply Re: I don't think much of Reagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you CainLondon, for a number of reasons.
First, thanks for responding. Posting would be quite dull without response.
Second, I can't think of a debate victory sweeter than a victory against a grudging vanquished. I note that you didn't address a single argument of mine, but rather made a general criticism of my post instead. I can't think of a more sincere acknowledgment on your part of the validity of my posts from you than that.
Third, while not exactly Socratic, your response seems to me to be good natured, and rather clever. I've enjoyed this post of yours almost as much as I've enjoyed other posts of yours.
Thanks again.
Reagan is icky icky icky!
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 63
(2/21/01 12:50:42 pm)
Reply You still don't think much
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you insist.
For starters: sear speaking of the current President George Bush in another thread: "He's no where near conservative enough for my liking."
How would it be "more to your liking" if he was more conservative? Would it be a more attractive opportunity for you to pillory his administration and memory after he were gone? Or are we to believe that you are of a conservative bent? Given your diatribe in this thread, you'll forgive my doubts about the latter. It's unwise to play games on this board sear unless your goal is to not be taken seriously at which point you join the ranks of the Yukon man as comic relief for the rest of us.
There's not been a more conservative president in recent history than Ronald Reagan yet you chose to go out of your way, with tortured references, to disparage him with extremely vile and slanderous epithets (i.e. "President Ronald Reagan is a conspirator to Treason, and a firing squad is too good for him.", "President Ronald Reagan is a traitor. He is a disgrace to humanity.") A bit over the top perhaps? The language is certainly inflammatory which I must assume was your intent. Even Reagan's most dedicated enemies in Washington who knew him personally and have a far better understanding of what went on during his administration would not stoop to such sophomoric and baseless rhetoric.
Given what I viewed as a rather lame performance thus far on your part, I did not attempt to engage your points; I thought oracle had already done a fine job. So I insinuated that your words lacked much thought by responding in kind. A bit glib I'll admit. Please do not allow my errant glibness to serve as an acknowledgment of the validity of your posts. I strive not to encourage folly whenever possible.
Reagan is as deserving of criticism as any world leader. When you couch your argument in terms of how Reagan did not adhere to the Constitution you're on very thin ice. Name the last US President who commanded within the strict bounds of the Constitution. If you had spewed your venom at all our past leaders (if I may steal one of your sharp-witted phrases, "US Presidents are icky, icky, icky") then perhaps you make some sense.
Finally, to add insult to injury, you couple a rather dubious assault on Reagan with a defense of Bill Clinton (I'll assume you're as well acquainted with Clinton's respect for personal liberty as the average 4th grader). You are utterly exposed at this point as merely partisan. You rage about the assault on personal liberty under Reagan yet defend Clinton. How? By pointing out that the Senate did not find him guilty. I shouldn't have to explain the obvious fallacy here but I feel I must lest you repeat past mistakes. Reagan was not impeached. It wasn't brought up for a vote. It wasn't even debated in committee. What did the Senate find Ronald Reagan guilty of? By using your own logic, Reagan is in the clear, so why hate him?
Reagan was not a perfect man but he was a great man and an even greater president nonetheless. It will take far more than you've brought here to taint his accomplishments. And for future reference, defending Clinton while attacking Reagan in your posts will get smoked out of the park every time. Keep 'em separate if you want to avoid looking foolish.
Edited by: CAinLondon at: 2/21/01 1:36:18 pm
sear
New Member
posts: 22
(2/22/01 2:33:29 am)
Reply Why the DEVIL would you doubt my conservatism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would it be "more to your liking" if he was more conservative?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a conservative, for libertarian reasons. Some liberals* claim to be libertarians because they want to drug themselves into a stupor all the time. I'm a conservative that believes that government governs best which governs least. I don't expect much from Democrats, so they don't disappoint me much. But Republicans should know better. Republicans are a profound and persistent disappointment to me. My criticism of Reagan, and my reciprocal praise for Clinton arises from the fact that Clinton actually DID what Reagan promised but failed to do. In fact: Reagan did the opposite. Reagan isn't the 1st to break a political campaign promise. But I have little patience for liars. Reagan lied. Trickle down indeed! Fiddle Sticks! As far as I'm concerned that makes him no better than liar Clinton. However, I'd much rather be lied to about a BJ in the oval orifice than about federal deficit reduction. For that reason (and because of the spectacular wealth my investments accrued during the Clinton Administration) I rather prefer Clinton. As I say, Clinton's a Democrat. I simply don't expect as much from them.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ...conservative president in recent history than Ronald Reagan yet you chose to go out of your way, with tortured references, to disparage him with extremely vile and slanderous epithets (i.e. "President Ronald Reagan is a conspirator to Treason, and a firing squad is too good for him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slander? I presume you mean libel. None the less, I believe neither apply. For my observations to be libelous they'd have to be not true.
To be a conspirator to Treason Reagan would have to be BOTH a conspirator, and Treasonous.
Conspire is a word English obtained from ancient Latin. It meant "to breathe together". Drug War is perpetrated with Congressional funding; in Reagan's case a Democrat controlled Congress. They're in on it together. That's why it meets the legal definition of conspiracy. They (most but not all of them. Not Ben Nighthorse Campbell or Arlen Specter for example) should be tried, convicted, and shot too; along with Reagan, the Bush's, Clinton, and the rest of those ghastly traitors.
There may be all sorts of definitions of the word "treason". But the only one that matters is the one in the U.S. Constitution's Art.3 Sect.3, listed in my original post. Therefore Reagan is both a conspirator, by definition, and treasonous, by Constitutional definition.
It is a traditional and accepted practice in times of War for egregiously treasonous traitors to be executed by firing squad. I know of no rational argument that every guilty D.W. conspirator in U.S. government, including myself, should not be tried, convicted, and executed by firing squad for conspiring to Drug War treason. Provided the executions are conducted in alphabetical order, I'll be absolutely DELIGHTED to meet such a fate.
*
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It [liberal] is pretty much now a lost word, in the original sense of being an effort to restrain government; and one has to keep that in mind when using it." William F. Buckley Jr. April 2, 2000 on C-SPAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buckley RULES!!!
BTW: Do you object to my attempt at humor with a malaprop like "oval orifice"?
If you do I may endeavor to minimize it. But I enjoy your thoughtful posts, and I thought I'd try to keep mine as enjoyable for you to read as well.
Thanks
sear
New Member
posts: 25
(2/22/01 4:54:38 am)
Reply "conservative"? what does he wish to conserve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did the Senate find Ronald Reagan guilty of?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't aware Reagan had been impeached.
What did the Senate find W.J. Clinton guilty of?
What did the jury find O.J. Simpson guilty of? What's your point?
Please don't put me in the position of having to defend Clinton. I've got just as much Clinton fatigue as any other conservative; perhaps worse, as Hilary is now my junior Senator [gag, gasp; and Chuck Schumer is my senior Senator! D'oh!]. I miss D'Amato, infamous "Senator Pot Hole", for whom I voted. He (his staff actually) was very helpful to me personally.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language is certainly inflammatory which I must assume was your intent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. Honestly, doesn't a challenging dialogue, even if somewhat caricaturish, deepen your appreciation for this "great" man? Would you prefer a love fest with lots of pretty flowers? I suspect you benefit from, if not enjoy, analyzing Reagan & his actions. Your affection for him is unmistakable. I presume coming to his defense is a moral delight to you, in some small way.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had spewed your venom at all our past leaders (if I may steal one of your sharp-witted phrases, "US Presidents are icky, icky, icky" then perhaps you make some sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please direct me to the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush fora. I'll be delighted to indulge you further in them.
BTW: if when you post:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... if I may steal one of your sharp-witted phrases, "US Presidents are icky, icky, icky"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your intent was primarily ridicule, that's fine. But if on the other hand you are sincerely offended by such light hearted fluff, then please let me know, and I'll be delighted to withdraw. Being absolutely inoffensive to a mind as obviously discriminating as yours may be near impossible. But being gone I can accomplish in a thrice.
Do you still doubt my conservatism? Do you still doubt my sincerity about wanting the usurpers of my Countrymen's creator endowed, Constitutionally enumerated, unalienable Liberty punished appropriately for their crimes?
Why would you presume insincerity? Because you think nobody could be more conservative than you?
Isn't the government usurpation of Liberty a direct contradiction of the very purpose for which United States government was founded; as expressed in paragraph #2 of the U.S. Declaration of Independence?
Why if you are a conservative, would you not join me in condemning Totalitarianism, both abroad, and domestic?
Reagan is icky icky icky.
One last note for this post:
I've chosen to post this here because I find your posts particularly responsive and well organized. I admire your passion, and presume I share it on many other issues (I've been making trouble about abortion elsewhere at this site). Thus, I enjoy our dialogue. Please forgive me if you do not.
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 65
(2/22/01 5:35:24 am)
Reply My doubts remain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's difficult for me to take you at your word but I will try.
So you're a conservative libertarian who doesn't expect much from Democrats. I assume then that you hold Republicans to a higher standard? Fair enough. I do the same. We just clearly disagree on the outcomes from two different presidents. It sounds like you're arguing that the economy did poorly under Reagan. The numbers don't support that although I must grant that you may not have fared well financially during that time. Reagan promised to cut taxes and rebuild the military. He did just that. Unfortunately, he did not control the purse strings. In order to attain his military goal, he was forced to sign budgets that satisfied the social goals of the Democrats in Congress. The results of that being a massive federal debt, a booming economy, and a vanquished Soviet Union. A great investment in my opinion. Many will argue that the economic boom in the 90's is a direct result of Reagan's economic policies. I believe this as well. Clinton should thank Reagan and his vision on a daily basis.
You continue to assert that Clinton lied about sex. Oracle addressed that and you've said nothing to counter. Clinton, in the role of lead law enforcement official, blatantly and repeatedly subverted the legal system. He continued to do that right up to his last hours in office with pardons for the rich and connected. This is the part that makes me question your libertarian claim. I know many libertarians, and none are willing to give Clinton's deeds the pass that you apparently do. Leaders like Clinton are pure enemies of liberty. Far more of a threat than Reagan ever could have imagined being. Why are so you quick to excuse this?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slander? I presume you mean libel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. Thank you.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore Reagan is both a conspirator, by definition, and treasonous, by Constitutional definition.
It is a traditional and accepted practice in times of War for egregiously treasonous traitors to be executed by firing squad. I know of no rational argument that every guilty D.W. conspirator in U.S. government, including myself, should not be tried, convicted, and executed by firing squad for conspiring to Drug War treason. Provided the executions are conducted in alphabetical order, I'll be absolutely DELIGHTED to meet such a fate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This just feels like you're reaching for reasons to hate Reagan. Were you an air traffic controller by any chance? The Constitution stipulates war against the United States. Comparing the fight against the drug trade to war on the US represents what I meant earlier by "tortured references". It just doesn't fly. Just curious, did Waco or Ruby Ridge bother you as much as the drug war?
Over the last decade I have come to agree with those who detest the "war" on drugs. It is clear to me that these laws are pernicious, unenforcable, and that it's time to end it. But you simply go too far with the treason and firing squad stuff. If treason bothers you greatly, I would think that you'd be most exercised by military technology transfers to China or by our ongoing cooperation with the UN to name only two.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: Do you object to my attempt at humor with a malaprop like "oval orifice"?
If you do I may endeavor to minimize it. But I enjoy your thoughtful posts, and I thought I'd try to keep mine as enjoyable for you to read as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No objections to funnies. It's hard not to laugh at some of the mess that goes on around us. It helps keep us from crying sometimes.
I don't think we'll ever agree on Reagan or Clinton but that's OK. It's good to have another voice on the board that's able to attack sacred cows with some thoughtful dialog. It's hard to grow if you just hang out with the choir.
Edited by: CAinLondon at: 2/22/01 5:36:41 am
sear
Gold Star Member
posts: 27
(2/22/01 8:10:51 am)
Reply Your doubts remain? Oh. OK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like you're arguing that the economy did poorly under Reagan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By many credible standards it did SPECTACULARLY better under Reagan than Carter. I happen to like Carter a little better, but if / when the conspirators are punished, Carter's gone too. I think liberals make great friends, and rotten politicians. But some very clever persons are liberals; Phil Donahue, Chris Hitchens, etc. They're clever entertainers. Thank goodness they're not in government.
BUT!
My HUGE problem w/ Reaganomics was his more than doubling of the national debt.
If a punk jams a .38 in my kidney and demands my wallet with the $100 bill inside, that's stealing. My options are to resist or report the crime.
If a politician raises my taxes $100 to fund a program I disapprove, that's politics. My option as a voter is to vote against him next time.
But taxation is not deficit is not debt. "Nothing is certain, but death and taxes." (Franklin).
Once the debt is driven up as far as Reagan drove it up, that's an entirely different issue. For a substantial portion of the citizens burdened by the debt Reagan presided over giving them (spending), weren't even eligible to vote against him as he was spending their money. The mugging victim has recourse. The overtaxed citizen has recourse. What recourse do the citizens burdened with the debt of their forebears have? Renounce their citizenship? Scorched Earth politics is one thing. But scorching the Earth of our own Posterity? Sounds like madness to me. But there's an even better term for it. Though the term still applies to our debt, that sort of economics used to have another name.
It was called taxation without representation. I presume you've heard that expression before. I remind you, that was such an egregious notion to our nations Founders that they fought a Revolutionary War against it. It was wrong in 1776. It was precisely as wrong in 1985, and it's precisely as wrong now. Reagan should be ashamed for his debt. And Clinton, regardless of all his bad stuff, at least had the character to resist buying the Peoples good will with hot checks as Reagan did. Clinton not only paid his own way, he paid for Reagan's betrayal too, or at least a portion of it. Clinton paid more of Reagan's debt down than Reagan, & both the Bush boys did combined.
I've heard the term "liberal" defined as someone that would give you the shirt, off someone else's back. That's what Reagan did. Only the backs he loaded his own spending on are the backs of our children and grand children. Shame on you Reagan! Shame!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. Clinton's slime. The Rich pardon is over the top, even for him. The pathetic thing is; as bright as Clinton is, I believe he perpetrated the Rich pardon blunder out of his own ignorance, not out of criminal intent.
But regarding Oracle's issue:
As I understand it Clinton's original assertion was that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I believe that statement, although obviously deliberately deceptive, was not technically a lie, by a definition of "sexual relations" I believe the court accepted. But Clinton was hounded relentlessly, pushing him further and further to the "that depends on what your definition of the word is is" word parsing edge. Did Clinton eventually lie under oath about it. Yes. Was that lie perjury? No. Why? Because the lie was not a lie material to the inquiry; an essential legal requirement to meet the definition of perjury. But don't take my word for it. Read the impeachment transcripts, and the recorded Senate votes. Not guilty, on every count. Case closed. Let's move on.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are so you quick to excuse this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it arose from a private matter. I don't want the government casting judgement about how or where I get my BJs. And I'm enough of a conservative to not be a hypocrite about my equal respect for others; even the President. None of that impeachment business would have happened were it not for Lewinsky. It seemed to me then, and I think history is beginning to confirm now, that Clinton's impeachment was a maliciously motivated partisan political artifice. The objective: political vengeance, not legal justice.
I've already posted that I don't want to be a Clinton apologist. Further, as much contempt as I have for Reagan, I at least have enough respect for him not to want to sully his forum with dialogue on the likes of Clinton.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were you an air traffic controller by any chance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Not a member of PATCO at all. I am a former Drug Warrior / Cold Warrior. I was a Military Policeman in the 8th Infantry Division, West Germany in the ‘70's. I busted my own countrymen on petty drug charges, and deeply regret my having done so. I would not make that mistake again. But I was a teenager. Ignorance is no excuse, but I can't deny that it was a causative factor.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just curious, did Waco or Ruby Ridge bother you as much as the drug war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Terribly! I'm grappling for a way to hold Reno legally responsible. There's no statute of limitations on murder. As far as I know, Reno was about the most notorious mass murderer in U.S. history, until McVeigh came along. And McVeigh would not have "come along" IMAO if Reno had been tried, convicted, and executed for her crime. The initial Mt. Carmel raid may legitimately have sneaked in below Reno's radar. I grudgingly admit that. But the 7 week long siege / torture, and the monumental incompetence with which that portion of the issue was bungled was absolutely world class incompetent. As long as we continue to indulge such deadly incompetence in our own government, we will continue to suffer it. But don't take my word for it. Just ask Randy Weaver, or Rodney King, or Abner Lewima, or Wen Ho Lee, ...
It's been a pleasure. But day's a wastin'. I think I'll strap on the feed bag, and then see how much money I made today.
Thanks
Later
Reagan is icky icky icky!
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 68
(2/22/01 9:37:18 am)
Reply Re: Your doubts remain? Oh. OK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't put me in the position of having to defend Clinton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't have to. Nor would I ever put someone there. You squirmed into that position all by your lonesome.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please direct me to the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush fora. I'll be delighted to indulge you further in them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point was, all these presidents you just mentioned governed unconstitutionally. The federal income tax is unconstitutional for starters. The "unconstitutional" acts you claim Reagan engaged in are debatable and do not come close to the disregard that Clinton has shown the Constitution.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you still doubt my conservatism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed. More than ever actually.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overtaxed citizen has recourse. What recourse do the citizens burdened with the debt of their forebears have? Renounce their citizenship? Scorched Earth politics is one thing. But scorching the Earth of our own Posterity? Sounds like madness to me. But there's an even better term for it. Though the term still applies to our debt, that sort of economics used to have another name.
It was called taxation without representation. It was wrong in 1776. It was precisely as wrong in 1985, and it's precisely as wrong now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Your quarrel is with the spender my friend. That is Congress. In your love of hating Reagan you failed to place blame where it squarely belongs. That would be with the folks who write the checks. It's an easy mistake but also easily corrected.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton paid more of Reagan's debt down than Reagan, & both the Bush boys (you're not giving Dubya much of a chance there are you?) did combined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes. Part and parcel of your earlier mistake. Once again you've placed blame where it does not belong. Congress passes budgets; Congress spends money. Clinton was extremely fortunate to have had a superior Congress serving during his term than that which Reagan was forced to deal with. Clinton's Congress was fiscally responsible and passed balanced budgets. Again, an easy mistake. You're not the only one. Apparently Clinton and Gore seem to think the debt reduction was somehow their doing. Funny men really.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. Clinton's slime. The Rich pardon is over the top, even for him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you're getting it.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pathetic thing is; as bright as Clinton is, I believe he perpetrated the Rich pardon blunder out of his own ignorance, not out of criminal intent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a very trusting soul. Too trusting perhaps? Don't forget the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." How many times will you allow Clinton to fool you?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it Clinton's original assertion was that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I believe that statement, although obviously deliberately deceptive, was not technically a lie, by a definition of "sexual relations" I believe the court accepted. But Clinton was hounded relentlessly, pushing him further and further to the "that depends on what your definition of the word is is" word parsing edge. Did Clinton eventually lie under oath about it. Yes. Was that lie perjury? No. Why? Because the lie was not a lie material to the inquiry; an essential legal requirement to meet the definition of perjury. But don't take my word for it. Read the impeachment transcripts, and the recorded Senate votes. Not guilty, on every count. Case closed. Let's move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've no choice but to move on. You truly seem to believe impeachment was all about sex. This discussion will go nowhere. I will add that it is truly pitiful that the Senate is currently populated with spineless Democrats, everyone of them, along with a handful of Republican cowards as well. BTW and for the record, Clinton was found in contempt of court by a former student and Democrat judge. That means he lied bud. He paid a stiff fine and lost his license to practice law. And what he did was indeed perjury. Many Democrats admitted as much then chose to acquit anyway. As I said, spineless.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it arose from a private matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, so that excuses a citizen's right to a fair trial and the expectation of equal justice under the law? Some libertarian you are.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I'm enough of a conservative to not be a hypocrite about my equal respect for others; even the President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you aren't enough of a conservative to not be a hypocrite about your respect for ordinary peons; even Paula Jones.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of that impeachment business would have happened were it not for Lewinsky.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. That was fun.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed to me then, and I think history is beginning to confirm now, that Clinton's impeachment was a maliciously motivated partisan political artifice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you listen to Clinton and his apologists, that is exactly the story you're hearing. If you believe polls, nothing of the sort is forthcoming. Sear, 10-20 years from now I'm afraid you're destined to be a rather lonely voice in the wilderness when trying to convince people how not-so-bad Bill Clinton was compared to that icky, icky, icky President Ronald Reagan. Hope springs eternal though.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already posted that I don't want to be a Clinton apologist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're so good at it.
I do hope you made lots of money today.
Edited by: CAinLondon at: 2/22/01 12:15:34 pm
sear
Gold Star Member
posts: 29
(2/22/01 7:56:32 pm)
Reply mostly error correction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You squirmed into that position [defending Clinton] all by your lonesome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you'll stop making false accusations against Clinton, I'll stop correcting you.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Your quarrel is with the spender my friend. That is Congress. In your love of hating Reagan you failed to place blame where it squarely belongs. That would be with the folks who write the checks. It's an easy mistake but also easily corrected. ... Congress passes budgets; Congress spends money. Clinton was extremely fortunate to have had a superior Congress serving during his term than that which Reagan was forced to deal with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read anecdotally, but have not confirmed factually that Reagan's Democrat Congress actually approved spending on LESS than Reagan usually proposed in his annual budget proposals. I agree that it is essentially Congress that writes the checks. But it is the President that proposes the budget / priorities.
But apart from that, you can't have it both ways. Either we credit Reagan for the record U.S. debt, or we credit Clinton for record U.S. prosperity. Is the President the CEO of the U.S., or isn't he? Crediting the Republican President for one, and crediting the Republican Congress for the other is laughable!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point was, all these presidents you just mentioned governed unconstitutionally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, the old "the other guys did it too!" defense (which is no defense at all). Inspiring.
Yes. I got your point, both times. Did you get mine?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you're getting it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-aggrandizing perhaps, but factually inaccurate (ironically in a Clintonesque way on your part). The fact is I've never NOT gotten it. I have never taken a position other than to strongly condemn the Rich pardon; though I respect the Constitution which accords the President the authority. BTW, Reagan issued some pardons I'm not delighted with, though nobody from the FBI's most wanted list; as far as I know.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times will you allow Clinton to fool you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero. I've already told you; Democrats don't disappoint me, because I expect next to nothing of them. Disappointment is a function of expectation. Expect nothing, and you're sure never to be disappointed.
On the topic of Clinton's impeachment, sear posted:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Did Clinton eventually lie under oath about it. Yes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAinLondon responds:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You truly seem to believe impeachment was all about sex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I confess, I'm disappointed in you. I'd expected better. It's like trying to dialogue with a brick. In fact, I ironically experience from you precisely the type of frustration you falsely attribute to me regarding Clinton / Dems.
And you doubt MY conservatism?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, so that excuses a citizen's right to a fair trial and the expectation of equal justice under the law?
Some libertarian you are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting Clinton's impeachment was not a fair trial? I think invoking the impeachment was rather aggressive; but the trial itself? Rehnquist DESPISES Clinton; or so I'm told. [How could you not love Rehnquist?] That Clinton was voted not guilty on all impeachment counts would seem to me to be either incompetence on Rehnquist's part (I DOUBT it), or nearly divine judicial restraint (what else could it be?). What ever. It was a Republican controlled Senate.
The "inside" murmuring I've heard suggests that the Senate never really wanted the impeachment anyway, that it was the HOR that dumped it in the Senate's lap. So the Senate dealt with it; somewhat of a political hot potato.
"Some libertarian"? If you're sincere, yes. I am a card carrying Libertarian in fact. If on the other hand you were attempting derision by sarcasm, I confess I don't believe I've earned it from you; unless that's the frustration you falsely attribute to me surfacing in you. [That would be a psychological process called "projection" on your part. Evidently you have inferred something that I did not imply. Don't know why; unless it's your projection.]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you aren't enough of a conservative to not be a hypocrite about your respect for ordinary peons; even Paula Jones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've made no statement on Paula Jones specifically; or peons (by that specification) in general. You presume madam. Further, you presume insultingly. Perhaps worse, I have no evidence to indicate that you do not presume wrongly. Are you a poor judge of character, or do you disparage my judgment for other reason (such as it's easier than refuting my arguments)?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do hope you made lots of money today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I wish. My portfolio is in the potty (can I say toilet?). I've got too much in an S&P500 Index fund. A hangman's noose would have been cheaper, and perhaps no worse an investment. I know Bush wants to jazz up the sputtering economy Clinton left him, but Greenspan is DIDDLING! Half a % interest rate drop indeed! I presume he didn't drop it a full %, because he didn't want to start a panic. But I think economics are more important than window dressing at this point.
The Federal Reserve System. Now THERE'S a scandal!
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 76
(2/23/01 9:01:02 am)
Reply Re: mostly error correction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you'll stop making false accusations against Clinton, I'll stop correcting you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollow, baseless. Please cite examples of false accusations.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But apart from that, you can't have it both ways. Either we credit Reagan for the record U.S. debt, or we credit Clinton for record U.S. prosperity. Is the President the CEO of the U.S., or isn't he? Crediting the Republican President for one, and crediting the Republican Congress for the other is laughable!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assign credit where credit is due. When Reagan took office the economy was in shambles. He cut taxes, endorsed a tightened money policy at the fed, and left office with a booming economy. Clinton took office with a healthy economy, raised taxes massively, and President Bush now has, in your own words, the "sputtering economy Clinton left him".
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, the old "the other guys did it too!" defense (which is no defense at all). Inspiring.
Yes. I got your point, both times. Did you get mine?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, clearly you did not get my point, either time. I'll assume that's my fault and try to clarify. The "other guys do it too" defense is almost wholly owned by liberals and Clinton apologists in particular.
The steady march away from constitutional government didn't happen overnight but began slowly and built momentum. You know this. To assail Reagan in this forum for presiding over an unconstitutional government is/was naive of you. You may as well endorse ticketing a pedestrian for jaywalking after being shoved out of a moving taxi in the middle of the street.
This thread was begun by you making clumsy references to Iran/Contra and drugs, and the "drug war" in general. You made a poor case. So you moved on to attacking Reagan on his economic policy. Again, making a poor case. I'm mildly surprised you haven't accused Reagan of inventing homelessness and AIDS thereby completing the standard liberal, Reagan-hating, trifecta.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already told you; Democrats don't disappoint me, because I expect next to nothing of them. Disappointment is a function of expectation. Expect nothing, and you're sure never to be disappointed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You confuse disappointment with foolishness. If you truly believe that Clinton did not act with criminal intent, knowing that he dodged the Justice Dept., acted at the very last hour possible, ignored his own legal lapdogs, was fully aware of Denise Rich's generous contributions, and owns a Herculean track record of selling access and influence peddling (ie. Lincoln bedroom, WH coffees, Chinagate, ... ad nauseum), then you are unquestionably a fool. Your lack of disappointment not withstanding.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I confess, I'm disappointed in you. I'd expected better. It's like trying to dialogue with a brick. In fact, I ironically experience from you precisely the type of frustration you falsely attribute to me regarding Clinton / Dems.
And you doubt MY conservatism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't make sense. How can one falsely attribute frustration? Is my frustration not mine to freely distribute where I may? You may feel you don't deserve it but on that we'll have to disagree. In future, may I ask that you kindly spare me your parental-like condescensions. Your expectations of, and/or disappointment in, me are irrelevant to the discussion. Save it for your cat.
Do I still doubt your conservatism? Almost completely at this point.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting Clinton's impeachment was not a fair trial? I think invoking the impeachment was rather aggressive; but the trial itself? Rehnquist DESPISES Clinton; or so I'm told. [How could you not love Rehnquist?] That Clinton was voted not guilty on all impeachment counts would seem to me to be either incompetence on Rehnquist's part (I DOUBT it), or nearly divine judicial restraint (what else could it be?). What ever. It was a Republican controlled Senate.
The "inside" murmuring I've heard suggests that the Senate never really wanted the impeachment anyway, that it was the HOR that dumped it in the Senate's lap. So the Senate dealt with it; somewhat of a political hot potato.
"Some libertarian"? If you're sincere, yes. I am a card carrying Libertarian in fact. If on the other hand you were attempting derision by sarcasm, I confess I don't believe I've earned it from you; unless that's the frustration you falsely attribute to me surfacing in you. [That would be a psychological process called "projection" on your part. Evidently you have inferred something that I did not imply. Don't know why; unless it's your projection.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah.... a veritable smorgasbord of nonsense in this paragraph.
I was not speaking of Clinton's trial. We've already covered the Senate's spinelessness in that regard. Murmurings and hot potatoes aside, they had a duty to perform and they failed miserably in my opinion.
But how telling it is that you were unable to grasp the beginning of Clinton's impeachment problems. Paula Jones had every right to a fair trial charging sexual harassment without the President of the United States engaging in behaviour that would eventually find him in contempt of court. Being the self proclaimed, card-carrying libertarian you are, I should be able to expect that you would want to recognize an individual's right to due process. Particularly when the highest law-enforcement officer in the country is denying that due process. My turn to be disappointed I guess. It may not be too late to turn that card back in.
Your points on 'projection' and, once again, "falsely attributed frustration" (whatever the hell you think that is), are amusing, but remain irrelevant. In addition to you not being my parent, you're also not my psychiatrist. Please feel free to continue to practice on your cat but stop boring me with it doc. Thanks.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've made no statement on Paula Jones specifically; or peons (by that specification) in general. You presume madam. Further, you presume insultingly. Perhaps worse, I have no evidence to indicate that you do not presume wrongly. Are you a poor judge of character, or do you disparage my judgment for other reason (such as it's easier than refuting my arguments)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sear, if nothing else, you're good for a few chuckles in the middle of my day. Only someone who believes Clinton is innocently ignorant with his many questionable pardons could manage to accuse someone else of presumptions while being so comically presumptuous. You should try and avoid assigning gender until you know who you're talking to. I must admit that, based on your level of logic and reasoning skills, I've been tempted to assume you're female. But I would never presume to call you madam without first knowing who you are. Please forgive me for disparaging your judgement but you really make it unavoidable. You've made several stupid moves on this thread but this one's especially delicious.
And BTW, there are few things easier than refuting your "arguments" except perhaps falling out of bed.
I'd better be careful or ALS is going to move this thread onto the Flame Wars board.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I wish. My portfolio is in the potty (can I say toilet?).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine too.
Edited by: CAinLondon at: 2/23/01 11:14:24 am
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 77
(2/23/01 9:18:08 am)
Reply Re: mostly error correction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot to add a well deserved thank you. In your most recent post, you managed not to use the word "icky" even once!
You're making fine progress.
sear
Gold Star Member
posts: 37
(2/23/01 1:36:53 pm)
Reply spineless groveling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...you managed not to use the word "icky" even once!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I regret my inadvertent omission.
------------------
"No man can establish himself by wickedness,but good men have roots that cannot be dislodged" Proverbs 11:3
New Member
posts: 3
(2/20/01 10:26:14 am)
Reply I don't think much of Reagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st of all, Ronald Reagan is a very handsome man. He was a charitmatic leader to many. He's recently been voted the best President in a popularity contest.
And while Reagan may have done several things his fans can dote upon, the standard for making such judgements is not generally the best a politician (or athlete, or surgeon, or whatever) has done, but the worst. A relative amateur can shoot a hole in one. It's happened. But what makes a champion golfer is being able to consistently play under par.
Consider some of the worst Reagan did.
The Iran / Contra arms for drugs deal was a huge scandal. He pretty much got a pass on it. It's certainly a greater threat to the Republic than getting a BJ in the Oval Office.
But that's just the beginning.
According to the United States Constitution it is the Presidents job to see that the laws be faithfully executed. One of the things that's illegal is treason, which the Constitution defines as waging war against the States and People. President Lyndon Johnson waged a War on Poverty. But that wasn't a real war, with hand grenades, and bullets, and heavily armed troops bashing doors down, and hauling away prisoners. President Johnson could not legitimately be charged with treason for his War on Poverty.
But Reagan's War on Drugs [actually, a War against Americans] was not like Johnson's war. In Reagan's War, the warriors used paramilitary troops, and combat tactics, they used bullets and hand grenades (called flash-bangs by the police that evidently have a difficult time with the more formal "percussion grenade"), took prisoners, and in many other ways waged war against his own People. That is not only a monstrous betrayal of his People, for which he should have expressed deep shame, though never has. It also perjured his oath to the Constitution, as a traitor to his People. President Ronald Reagan is a conspirator to Treason, and a firing squad is too good for him.
That other low lifes like Clinton and the Bush's participate in the same crime does not absolve Reagan's guilt.
President Ronald Reagan is a traitor. He is a disgrace to humanity. The mere thought of him disgusts me.
In addition to his oath of office, stipulated in Article 2 Sect. 1; Article 2 Sect. 3 says that the President
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 3. SECTION 3.
1 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War Against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oracle
I should register!
(2/20/01 3:50:48 pm)
Reply re: I don't think much of Reagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's get some facts straight.
Iran-Contra was not an arms for drugs deal.
The association of drugs with the contras funding operation was never part of the report by Walsh and was made afterwards by people trying to sell books but was never proven.
As to the war on drugs, yes they used paramilitary troops and combat tactics, but they used them against potentially heavily armed drug dealers. Took prisoners? You mean they actually arrested people who were breaking the law. Funny how you quote the Constitution where it requires the President to enforce the laws yet you call him a traitor for enforcing the anti-drug laws. Make up your mind, do you want laws enforced or not? You can't have it both ways.
(Don't think this means I agree with everything that has been done. I definitely think that they've gone too far with the laws that require you to justify why you are traveling with a large sum of money and some of the asset forfeture laws. Unfortunately, the courts haven't agreed with me.)
As for Clinton, it is so typical of his defenders to try and trivialize his actions by saying it was just a BJ. The threat to the republic was not from getting a BJ in the Oval Office, the threat came about when he conspired to lie under oath (about his relationship, not just a BJ) as part of an effort to deny a US citizen her Constitutional right to her day in court. A threat also came about when he sent out his minions to try to win public opinion by lying and attacking Ken Starr.
When the president is sworn in, he takes an oath that he "will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Defending the Constitution doesn't mean he will defend the written copy of the Constitution, but rather the principles and the institutions established by it. This includes the Judicial System and the right to fair hearing in a court of law. The Judicial System depends on the ability to rely on witnesses to tell the truth under oath; when the highest ranking law-enforcement official in the country commits perjury, it is an assault on the our court. The President also has a duty to protect the officials who are doing their job, he failed to do this.
sear
New Member
posts: 16
(2/20/01 7:05:01 pm)
Reply Reagan is icky icky icky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make up your mind, do you want laws enforced or not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent point. Thanks for making it. OK:
#1 According to the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Art. 6 Sect. 2 [see below]) when statute conflicts with the Constitution, it's the statute which must fall to the Constitution, not the other way around.
It is a founding principle of the United States of America that Liberty is an unalienable right, as enumerated in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, and numerous other writings (Federalist). But Drug War usurps Liberty.
But don't take my word for it; just look at history. Before the Revolution, did King George III in eight years do anywhere near the harm to Americans that Ronald Reagan did in eight years? I suggest to you sir, that the Revolution would have been fought much sooner if he had. I believe you will find that the government founded to protect our Liberty has usurped more of it than the King George III ever did, even in Revolutionary war. Just look at the battle deaths. I believe in Drug War we're up to over 20K of INNOCENT victims; not of drugs, of Drug War. How may did King George III take out? A dozen?
#2 Amendment #18 was repealed. Prohibition doesn't work. How many conservatives do you need to hear that from? Milton Friedman, George Shultz, William Buckley? Walter Williams?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The threat to the republic was not from getting a BJ in the Oval Office, the threat came about when he conspired to lie under oath (about his relationship, not just a BJ) as part of an effort to deny a US citizen her Constitutional right to her day in court." Oracle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Not Guilty." The United States Senate Impeachment Vote of W.J. Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending the Constitution doesn't mean he will defend the written copy of the Constitution, but rather the principles and the institutions established by it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be the essence of our disagreement. I may not yet be able to prove this false, but I believe it is. As I understand the meaning of the oath, it may mean both, but certainly the former. If it didn't, why bother having it written down? I believe and hope you are in error sir.
BTW: I obviously started this tread with a chip on my shoulder. I appreciate the way you've addressed the issue. Thanks very much. Reagan is icky icky icky!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 6.
2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 59
(2/21/01 6:15:39 am)
Reply Re: I don't think much of Reagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sear: "I don't think much"
you should have stopped there while you were ahead
sear
New Member
posts: 18
(2/21/01 11:06:19 am)
Reply Re: I don't think much of Reagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you CainLondon, for a number of reasons.
First, thanks for responding. Posting would be quite dull without response.
Second, I can't think of a debate victory sweeter than a victory against a grudging vanquished. I note that you didn't address a single argument of mine, but rather made a general criticism of my post instead. I can't think of a more sincere acknowledgment on your part of the validity of my posts from you than that.
Third, while not exactly Socratic, your response seems to me to be good natured, and rather clever. I've enjoyed this post of yours almost as much as I've enjoyed other posts of yours.
Thanks again.
Reagan is icky icky icky!
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 63
(2/21/01 12:50:42 pm)
Reply You still don't think much
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you insist.
For starters: sear speaking of the current President George Bush in another thread: "He's no where near conservative enough for my liking."
How would it be "more to your liking" if he was more conservative? Would it be a more attractive opportunity for you to pillory his administration and memory after he were gone? Or are we to believe that you are of a conservative bent? Given your diatribe in this thread, you'll forgive my doubts about the latter. It's unwise to play games on this board sear unless your goal is to not be taken seriously at which point you join the ranks of the Yukon man as comic relief for the rest of us.
There's not been a more conservative president in recent history than Ronald Reagan yet you chose to go out of your way, with tortured references, to disparage him with extremely vile and slanderous epithets (i.e. "President Ronald Reagan is a conspirator to Treason, and a firing squad is too good for him.", "President Ronald Reagan is a traitor. He is a disgrace to humanity.") A bit over the top perhaps? The language is certainly inflammatory which I must assume was your intent. Even Reagan's most dedicated enemies in Washington who knew him personally and have a far better understanding of what went on during his administration would not stoop to such sophomoric and baseless rhetoric.
Given what I viewed as a rather lame performance thus far on your part, I did not attempt to engage your points; I thought oracle had already done a fine job. So I insinuated that your words lacked much thought by responding in kind. A bit glib I'll admit. Please do not allow my errant glibness to serve as an acknowledgment of the validity of your posts. I strive not to encourage folly whenever possible.
Reagan is as deserving of criticism as any world leader. When you couch your argument in terms of how Reagan did not adhere to the Constitution you're on very thin ice. Name the last US President who commanded within the strict bounds of the Constitution. If you had spewed your venom at all our past leaders (if I may steal one of your sharp-witted phrases, "US Presidents are icky, icky, icky") then perhaps you make some sense.
Finally, to add insult to injury, you couple a rather dubious assault on Reagan with a defense of Bill Clinton (I'll assume you're as well acquainted with Clinton's respect for personal liberty as the average 4th grader). You are utterly exposed at this point as merely partisan. You rage about the assault on personal liberty under Reagan yet defend Clinton. How? By pointing out that the Senate did not find him guilty. I shouldn't have to explain the obvious fallacy here but I feel I must lest you repeat past mistakes. Reagan was not impeached. It wasn't brought up for a vote. It wasn't even debated in committee. What did the Senate find Ronald Reagan guilty of? By using your own logic, Reagan is in the clear, so why hate him?
Reagan was not a perfect man but he was a great man and an even greater president nonetheless. It will take far more than you've brought here to taint his accomplishments. And for future reference, defending Clinton while attacking Reagan in your posts will get smoked out of the park every time. Keep 'em separate if you want to avoid looking foolish.
Edited by: CAinLondon at: 2/21/01 1:36:18 pm
sear
New Member
posts: 22
(2/22/01 2:33:29 am)
Reply Why the DEVIL would you doubt my conservatism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would it be "more to your liking" if he was more conservative?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a conservative, for libertarian reasons. Some liberals* claim to be libertarians because they want to drug themselves into a stupor all the time. I'm a conservative that believes that government governs best which governs least. I don't expect much from Democrats, so they don't disappoint me much. But Republicans should know better. Republicans are a profound and persistent disappointment to me. My criticism of Reagan, and my reciprocal praise for Clinton arises from the fact that Clinton actually DID what Reagan promised but failed to do. In fact: Reagan did the opposite. Reagan isn't the 1st to break a political campaign promise. But I have little patience for liars. Reagan lied. Trickle down indeed! Fiddle Sticks! As far as I'm concerned that makes him no better than liar Clinton. However, I'd much rather be lied to about a BJ in the oval orifice than about federal deficit reduction. For that reason (and because of the spectacular wealth my investments accrued during the Clinton Administration) I rather prefer Clinton. As I say, Clinton's a Democrat. I simply don't expect as much from them.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ...conservative president in recent history than Ronald Reagan yet you chose to go out of your way, with tortured references, to disparage him with extremely vile and slanderous epithets (i.e. "President Ronald Reagan is a conspirator to Treason, and a firing squad is too good for him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slander? I presume you mean libel. None the less, I believe neither apply. For my observations to be libelous they'd have to be not true.
To be a conspirator to Treason Reagan would have to be BOTH a conspirator, and Treasonous.
Conspire is a word English obtained from ancient Latin. It meant "to breathe together". Drug War is perpetrated with Congressional funding; in Reagan's case a Democrat controlled Congress. They're in on it together. That's why it meets the legal definition of conspiracy. They (most but not all of them. Not Ben Nighthorse Campbell or Arlen Specter for example) should be tried, convicted, and shot too; along with Reagan, the Bush's, Clinton, and the rest of those ghastly traitors.
There may be all sorts of definitions of the word "treason". But the only one that matters is the one in the U.S. Constitution's Art.3 Sect.3, listed in my original post. Therefore Reagan is both a conspirator, by definition, and treasonous, by Constitutional definition.
It is a traditional and accepted practice in times of War for egregiously treasonous traitors to be executed by firing squad. I know of no rational argument that every guilty D.W. conspirator in U.S. government, including myself, should not be tried, convicted, and executed by firing squad for conspiring to Drug War treason. Provided the executions are conducted in alphabetical order, I'll be absolutely DELIGHTED to meet such a fate.
*
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It [liberal] is pretty much now a lost word, in the original sense of being an effort to restrain government; and one has to keep that in mind when using it." William F. Buckley Jr. April 2, 2000 on C-SPAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buckley RULES!!!
BTW: Do you object to my attempt at humor with a malaprop like "oval orifice"?
If you do I may endeavor to minimize it. But I enjoy your thoughtful posts, and I thought I'd try to keep mine as enjoyable for you to read as well.
Thanks
sear
New Member
posts: 25
(2/22/01 4:54:38 am)
Reply "conservative"? what does he wish to conserve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did the Senate find Ronald Reagan guilty of?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't aware Reagan had been impeached.
What did the Senate find W.J. Clinton guilty of?
What did the jury find O.J. Simpson guilty of? What's your point?
Please don't put me in the position of having to defend Clinton. I've got just as much Clinton fatigue as any other conservative; perhaps worse, as Hilary is now my junior Senator [gag, gasp; and Chuck Schumer is my senior Senator! D'oh!]. I miss D'Amato, infamous "Senator Pot Hole", for whom I voted. He (his staff actually) was very helpful to me personally.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language is certainly inflammatory which I must assume was your intent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. Honestly, doesn't a challenging dialogue, even if somewhat caricaturish, deepen your appreciation for this "great" man? Would you prefer a love fest with lots of pretty flowers? I suspect you benefit from, if not enjoy, analyzing Reagan & his actions. Your affection for him is unmistakable. I presume coming to his defense is a moral delight to you, in some small way.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had spewed your venom at all our past leaders (if I may steal one of your sharp-witted phrases, "US Presidents are icky, icky, icky" then perhaps you make some sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please direct me to the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush fora. I'll be delighted to indulge you further in them.
BTW: if when you post:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... if I may steal one of your sharp-witted phrases, "US Presidents are icky, icky, icky"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your intent was primarily ridicule, that's fine. But if on the other hand you are sincerely offended by such light hearted fluff, then please let me know, and I'll be delighted to withdraw. Being absolutely inoffensive to a mind as obviously discriminating as yours may be near impossible. But being gone I can accomplish in a thrice.
Do you still doubt my conservatism? Do you still doubt my sincerity about wanting the usurpers of my Countrymen's creator endowed, Constitutionally enumerated, unalienable Liberty punished appropriately for their crimes?
Why would you presume insincerity? Because you think nobody could be more conservative than you?
Isn't the government usurpation of Liberty a direct contradiction of the very purpose for which United States government was founded; as expressed in paragraph #2 of the U.S. Declaration of Independence?
Why if you are a conservative, would you not join me in condemning Totalitarianism, both abroad, and domestic?
Reagan is icky icky icky.
One last note for this post:
I've chosen to post this here because I find your posts particularly responsive and well organized. I admire your passion, and presume I share it on many other issues (I've been making trouble about abortion elsewhere at this site). Thus, I enjoy our dialogue. Please forgive me if you do not.
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 65
(2/22/01 5:35:24 am)
Reply My doubts remain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's difficult for me to take you at your word but I will try.
So you're a conservative libertarian who doesn't expect much from Democrats. I assume then that you hold Republicans to a higher standard? Fair enough. I do the same. We just clearly disagree on the outcomes from two different presidents. It sounds like you're arguing that the economy did poorly under Reagan. The numbers don't support that although I must grant that you may not have fared well financially during that time. Reagan promised to cut taxes and rebuild the military. He did just that. Unfortunately, he did not control the purse strings. In order to attain his military goal, he was forced to sign budgets that satisfied the social goals of the Democrats in Congress. The results of that being a massive federal debt, a booming economy, and a vanquished Soviet Union. A great investment in my opinion. Many will argue that the economic boom in the 90's is a direct result of Reagan's economic policies. I believe this as well. Clinton should thank Reagan and his vision on a daily basis.
You continue to assert that Clinton lied about sex. Oracle addressed that and you've said nothing to counter. Clinton, in the role of lead law enforcement official, blatantly and repeatedly subverted the legal system. He continued to do that right up to his last hours in office with pardons for the rich and connected. This is the part that makes me question your libertarian claim. I know many libertarians, and none are willing to give Clinton's deeds the pass that you apparently do. Leaders like Clinton are pure enemies of liberty. Far more of a threat than Reagan ever could have imagined being. Why are so you quick to excuse this?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slander? I presume you mean libel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. Thank you.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore Reagan is both a conspirator, by definition, and treasonous, by Constitutional definition.
It is a traditional and accepted practice in times of War for egregiously treasonous traitors to be executed by firing squad. I know of no rational argument that every guilty D.W. conspirator in U.S. government, including myself, should not be tried, convicted, and executed by firing squad for conspiring to Drug War treason. Provided the executions are conducted in alphabetical order, I'll be absolutely DELIGHTED to meet such a fate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This just feels like you're reaching for reasons to hate Reagan. Were you an air traffic controller by any chance? The Constitution stipulates war against the United States. Comparing the fight against the drug trade to war on the US represents what I meant earlier by "tortured references". It just doesn't fly. Just curious, did Waco or Ruby Ridge bother you as much as the drug war?
Over the last decade I have come to agree with those who detest the "war" on drugs. It is clear to me that these laws are pernicious, unenforcable, and that it's time to end it. But you simply go too far with the treason and firing squad stuff. If treason bothers you greatly, I would think that you'd be most exercised by military technology transfers to China or by our ongoing cooperation with the UN to name only two.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: Do you object to my attempt at humor with a malaprop like "oval orifice"?
If you do I may endeavor to minimize it. But I enjoy your thoughtful posts, and I thought I'd try to keep mine as enjoyable for you to read as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No objections to funnies. It's hard not to laugh at some of the mess that goes on around us. It helps keep us from crying sometimes.
I don't think we'll ever agree on Reagan or Clinton but that's OK. It's good to have another voice on the board that's able to attack sacred cows with some thoughtful dialog. It's hard to grow if you just hang out with the choir.
Edited by: CAinLondon at: 2/22/01 5:36:41 am
sear
Gold Star Member
posts: 27
(2/22/01 8:10:51 am)
Reply Your doubts remain? Oh. OK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like you're arguing that the economy did poorly under Reagan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By many credible standards it did SPECTACULARLY better under Reagan than Carter. I happen to like Carter a little better, but if / when the conspirators are punished, Carter's gone too. I think liberals make great friends, and rotten politicians. But some very clever persons are liberals; Phil Donahue, Chris Hitchens, etc. They're clever entertainers. Thank goodness they're not in government.
BUT!
My HUGE problem w/ Reaganomics was his more than doubling of the national debt.
If a punk jams a .38 in my kidney and demands my wallet with the $100 bill inside, that's stealing. My options are to resist or report the crime.
If a politician raises my taxes $100 to fund a program I disapprove, that's politics. My option as a voter is to vote against him next time.
But taxation is not deficit is not debt. "Nothing is certain, but death and taxes." (Franklin).
Once the debt is driven up as far as Reagan drove it up, that's an entirely different issue. For a substantial portion of the citizens burdened by the debt Reagan presided over giving them (spending), weren't even eligible to vote against him as he was spending their money. The mugging victim has recourse. The overtaxed citizen has recourse. What recourse do the citizens burdened with the debt of their forebears have? Renounce their citizenship? Scorched Earth politics is one thing. But scorching the Earth of our own Posterity? Sounds like madness to me. But there's an even better term for it. Though the term still applies to our debt, that sort of economics used to have another name.
It was called taxation without representation. I presume you've heard that expression before. I remind you, that was such an egregious notion to our nations Founders that they fought a Revolutionary War against it. It was wrong in 1776. It was precisely as wrong in 1985, and it's precisely as wrong now. Reagan should be ashamed for his debt. And Clinton, regardless of all his bad stuff, at least had the character to resist buying the Peoples good will with hot checks as Reagan did. Clinton not only paid his own way, he paid for Reagan's betrayal too, or at least a portion of it. Clinton paid more of Reagan's debt down than Reagan, & both the Bush boys did combined.
I've heard the term "liberal" defined as someone that would give you the shirt, off someone else's back. That's what Reagan did. Only the backs he loaded his own spending on are the backs of our children and grand children. Shame on you Reagan! Shame!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. Clinton's slime. The Rich pardon is over the top, even for him. The pathetic thing is; as bright as Clinton is, I believe he perpetrated the Rich pardon blunder out of his own ignorance, not out of criminal intent.
But regarding Oracle's issue:
As I understand it Clinton's original assertion was that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I believe that statement, although obviously deliberately deceptive, was not technically a lie, by a definition of "sexual relations" I believe the court accepted. But Clinton was hounded relentlessly, pushing him further and further to the "that depends on what your definition of the word is is" word parsing edge. Did Clinton eventually lie under oath about it. Yes. Was that lie perjury? No. Why? Because the lie was not a lie material to the inquiry; an essential legal requirement to meet the definition of perjury. But don't take my word for it. Read the impeachment transcripts, and the recorded Senate votes. Not guilty, on every count. Case closed. Let's move on.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are so you quick to excuse this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it arose from a private matter. I don't want the government casting judgement about how or where I get my BJs. And I'm enough of a conservative to not be a hypocrite about my equal respect for others; even the President. None of that impeachment business would have happened were it not for Lewinsky. It seemed to me then, and I think history is beginning to confirm now, that Clinton's impeachment was a maliciously motivated partisan political artifice. The objective: political vengeance, not legal justice.
I've already posted that I don't want to be a Clinton apologist. Further, as much contempt as I have for Reagan, I at least have enough respect for him not to want to sully his forum with dialogue on the likes of Clinton.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were you an air traffic controller by any chance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Not a member of PATCO at all. I am a former Drug Warrior / Cold Warrior. I was a Military Policeman in the 8th Infantry Division, West Germany in the ‘70's. I busted my own countrymen on petty drug charges, and deeply regret my having done so. I would not make that mistake again. But I was a teenager. Ignorance is no excuse, but I can't deny that it was a causative factor.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just curious, did Waco or Ruby Ridge bother you as much as the drug war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Terribly! I'm grappling for a way to hold Reno legally responsible. There's no statute of limitations on murder. As far as I know, Reno was about the most notorious mass murderer in U.S. history, until McVeigh came along. And McVeigh would not have "come along" IMAO if Reno had been tried, convicted, and executed for her crime. The initial Mt. Carmel raid may legitimately have sneaked in below Reno's radar. I grudgingly admit that. But the 7 week long siege / torture, and the monumental incompetence with which that portion of the issue was bungled was absolutely world class incompetent. As long as we continue to indulge such deadly incompetence in our own government, we will continue to suffer it. But don't take my word for it. Just ask Randy Weaver, or Rodney King, or Abner Lewima, or Wen Ho Lee, ...
It's been a pleasure. But day's a wastin'. I think I'll strap on the feed bag, and then see how much money I made today.
Thanks
Later
Reagan is icky icky icky!
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 68
(2/22/01 9:37:18 am)
Reply Re: Your doubts remain? Oh. OK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't put me in the position of having to defend Clinton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't have to. Nor would I ever put someone there. You squirmed into that position all by your lonesome.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please direct me to the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush fora. I'll be delighted to indulge you further in them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point was, all these presidents you just mentioned governed unconstitutionally. The federal income tax is unconstitutional for starters. The "unconstitutional" acts you claim Reagan engaged in are debatable and do not come close to the disregard that Clinton has shown the Constitution.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you still doubt my conservatism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed. More than ever actually.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overtaxed citizen has recourse. What recourse do the citizens burdened with the debt of their forebears have? Renounce their citizenship? Scorched Earth politics is one thing. But scorching the Earth of our own Posterity? Sounds like madness to me. But there's an even better term for it. Though the term still applies to our debt, that sort of economics used to have another name.
It was called taxation without representation. It was wrong in 1776. It was precisely as wrong in 1985, and it's precisely as wrong now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Your quarrel is with the spender my friend. That is Congress. In your love of hating Reagan you failed to place blame where it squarely belongs. That would be with the folks who write the checks. It's an easy mistake but also easily corrected.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton paid more of Reagan's debt down than Reagan, & both the Bush boys (you're not giving Dubya much of a chance there are you?) did combined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes. Part and parcel of your earlier mistake. Once again you've placed blame where it does not belong. Congress passes budgets; Congress spends money. Clinton was extremely fortunate to have had a superior Congress serving during his term than that which Reagan was forced to deal with. Clinton's Congress was fiscally responsible and passed balanced budgets. Again, an easy mistake. You're not the only one. Apparently Clinton and Gore seem to think the debt reduction was somehow their doing. Funny men really.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. Clinton's slime. The Rich pardon is over the top, even for him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you're getting it.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pathetic thing is; as bright as Clinton is, I believe he perpetrated the Rich pardon blunder out of his own ignorance, not out of criminal intent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a very trusting soul. Too trusting perhaps? Don't forget the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." How many times will you allow Clinton to fool you?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it Clinton's original assertion was that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I believe that statement, although obviously deliberately deceptive, was not technically a lie, by a definition of "sexual relations" I believe the court accepted. But Clinton was hounded relentlessly, pushing him further and further to the "that depends on what your definition of the word is is" word parsing edge. Did Clinton eventually lie under oath about it. Yes. Was that lie perjury? No. Why? Because the lie was not a lie material to the inquiry; an essential legal requirement to meet the definition of perjury. But don't take my word for it. Read the impeachment transcripts, and the recorded Senate votes. Not guilty, on every count. Case closed. Let's move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've no choice but to move on. You truly seem to believe impeachment was all about sex. This discussion will go nowhere. I will add that it is truly pitiful that the Senate is currently populated with spineless Democrats, everyone of them, along with a handful of Republican cowards as well. BTW and for the record, Clinton was found in contempt of court by a former student and Democrat judge. That means he lied bud. He paid a stiff fine and lost his license to practice law. And what he did was indeed perjury. Many Democrats admitted as much then chose to acquit anyway. As I said, spineless.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it arose from a private matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, so that excuses a citizen's right to a fair trial and the expectation of equal justice under the law? Some libertarian you are.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I'm enough of a conservative to not be a hypocrite about my equal respect for others; even the President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you aren't enough of a conservative to not be a hypocrite about your respect for ordinary peons; even Paula Jones.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of that impeachment business would have happened were it not for Lewinsky.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. That was fun.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed to me then, and I think history is beginning to confirm now, that Clinton's impeachment was a maliciously motivated partisan political artifice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you listen to Clinton and his apologists, that is exactly the story you're hearing. If you believe polls, nothing of the sort is forthcoming. Sear, 10-20 years from now I'm afraid you're destined to be a rather lonely voice in the wilderness when trying to convince people how not-so-bad Bill Clinton was compared to that icky, icky, icky President Ronald Reagan. Hope springs eternal though.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already posted that I don't want to be a Clinton apologist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're so good at it.
I do hope you made lots of money today.
Edited by: CAinLondon at: 2/22/01 12:15:34 pm
sear
Gold Star Member
posts: 29
(2/22/01 7:56:32 pm)
Reply mostly error correction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You squirmed into that position [defending Clinton] all by your lonesome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you'll stop making false accusations against Clinton, I'll stop correcting you.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Your quarrel is with the spender my friend. That is Congress. In your love of hating Reagan you failed to place blame where it squarely belongs. That would be with the folks who write the checks. It's an easy mistake but also easily corrected. ... Congress passes budgets; Congress spends money. Clinton was extremely fortunate to have had a superior Congress serving during his term than that which Reagan was forced to deal with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read anecdotally, but have not confirmed factually that Reagan's Democrat Congress actually approved spending on LESS than Reagan usually proposed in his annual budget proposals. I agree that it is essentially Congress that writes the checks. But it is the President that proposes the budget / priorities.
But apart from that, you can't have it both ways. Either we credit Reagan for the record U.S. debt, or we credit Clinton for record U.S. prosperity. Is the President the CEO of the U.S., or isn't he? Crediting the Republican President for one, and crediting the Republican Congress for the other is laughable!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point was, all these presidents you just mentioned governed unconstitutionally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, the old "the other guys did it too!" defense (which is no defense at all). Inspiring.
Yes. I got your point, both times. Did you get mine?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you're getting it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-aggrandizing perhaps, but factually inaccurate (ironically in a Clintonesque way on your part). The fact is I've never NOT gotten it. I have never taken a position other than to strongly condemn the Rich pardon; though I respect the Constitution which accords the President the authority. BTW, Reagan issued some pardons I'm not delighted with, though nobody from the FBI's most wanted list; as far as I know.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times will you allow Clinton to fool you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero. I've already told you; Democrats don't disappoint me, because I expect next to nothing of them. Disappointment is a function of expectation. Expect nothing, and you're sure never to be disappointed.
On the topic of Clinton's impeachment, sear posted:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Did Clinton eventually lie under oath about it. Yes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAinLondon responds:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You truly seem to believe impeachment was all about sex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I confess, I'm disappointed in you. I'd expected better. It's like trying to dialogue with a brick. In fact, I ironically experience from you precisely the type of frustration you falsely attribute to me regarding Clinton / Dems.
And you doubt MY conservatism?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, so that excuses a citizen's right to a fair trial and the expectation of equal justice under the law?
Some libertarian you are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting Clinton's impeachment was not a fair trial? I think invoking the impeachment was rather aggressive; but the trial itself? Rehnquist DESPISES Clinton; or so I'm told. [How could you not love Rehnquist?] That Clinton was voted not guilty on all impeachment counts would seem to me to be either incompetence on Rehnquist's part (I DOUBT it), or nearly divine judicial restraint (what else could it be?). What ever. It was a Republican controlled Senate.
The "inside" murmuring I've heard suggests that the Senate never really wanted the impeachment anyway, that it was the HOR that dumped it in the Senate's lap. So the Senate dealt with it; somewhat of a political hot potato.
"Some libertarian"? If you're sincere, yes. I am a card carrying Libertarian in fact. If on the other hand you were attempting derision by sarcasm, I confess I don't believe I've earned it from you; unless that's the frustration you falsely attribute to me surfacing in you. [That would be a psychological process called "projection" on your part. Evidently you have inferred something that I did not imply. Don't know why; unless it's your projection.]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you aren't enough of a conservative to not be a hypocrite about your respect for ordinary peons; even Paula Jones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've made no statement on Paula Jones specifically; or peons (by that specification) in general. You presume madam. Further, you presume insultingly. Perhaps worse, I have no evidence to indicate that you do not presume wrongly. Are you a poor judge of character, or do you disparage my judgment for other reason (such as it's easier than refuting my arguments)?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do hope you made lots of money today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I wish. My portfolio is in the potty (can I say toilet?). I've got too much in an S&P500 Index fund. A hangman's noose would have been cheaper, and perhaps no worse an investment. I know Bush wants to jazz up the sputtering economy Clinton left him, but Greenspan is DIDDLING! Half a % interest rate drop indeed! I presume he didn't drop it a full %, because he didn't want to start a panic. But I think economics are more important than window dressing at this point.
The Federal Reserve System. Now THERE'S a scandal!
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 76
(2/23/01 9:01:02 am)
Reply Re: mostly error correction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you'll stop making false accusations against Clinton, I'll stop correcting you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollow, baseless. Please cite examples of false accusations.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But apart from that, you can't have it both ways. Either we credit Reagan for the record U.S. debt, or we credit Clinton for record U.S. prosperity. Is the President the CEO of the U.S., or isn't he? Crediting the Republican President for one, and crediting the Republican Congress for the other is laughable!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assign credit where credit is due. When Reagan took office the economy was in shambles. He cut taxes, endorsed a tightened money policy at the fed, and left office with a booming economy. Clinton took office with a healthy economy, raised taxes massively, and President Bush now has, in your own words, the "sputtering economy Clinton left him".
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, the old "the other guys did it too!" defense (which is no defense at all). Inspiring.
Yes. I got your point, both times. Did you get mine?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, clearly you did not get my point, either time. I'll assume that's my fault and try to clarify. The "other guys do it too" defense is almost wholly owned by liberals and Clinton apologists in particular.
The steady march away from constitutional government didn't happen overnight but began slowly and built momentum. You know this. To assail Reagan in this forum for presiding over an unconstitutional government is/was naive of you. You may as well endorse ticketing a pedestrian for jaywalking after being shoved out of a moving taxi in the middle of the street.
This thread was begun by you making clumsy references to Iran/Contra and drugs, and the "drug war" in general. You made a poor case. So you moved on to attacking Reagan on his economic policy. Again, making a poor case. I'm mildly surprised you haven't accused Reagan of inventing homelessness and AIDS thereby completing the standard liberal, Reagan-hating, trifecta.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already told you; Democrats don't disappoint me, because I expect next to nothing of them. Disappointment is a function of expectation. Expect nothing, and you're sure never to be disappointed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You confuse disappointment with foolishness. If you truly believe that Clinton did not act with criminal intent, knowing that he dodged the Justice Dept., acted at the very last hour possible, ignored his own legal lapdogs, was fully aware of Denise Rich's generous contributions, and owns a Herculean track record of selling access and influence peddling (ie. Lincoln bedroom, WH coffees, Chinagate, ... ad nauseum), then you are unquestionably a fool. Your lack of disappointment not withstanding.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I confess, I'm disappointed in you. I'd expected better. It's like trying to dialogue with a brick. In fact, I ironically experience from you precisely the type of frustration you falsely attribute to me regarding Clinton / Dems.
And you doubt MY conservatism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't make sense. How can one falsely attribute frustration? Is my frustration not mine to freely distribute where I may? You may feel you don't deserve it but on that we'll have to disagree. In future, may I ask that you kindly spare me your parental-like condescensions. Your expectations of, and/or disappointment in, me are irrelevant to the discussion. Save it for your cat.
Do I still doubt your conservatism? Almost completely at this point.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting Clinton's impeachment was not a fair trial? I think invoking the impeachment was rather aggressive; but the trial itself? Rehnquist DESPISES Clinton; or so I'm told. [How could you not love Rehnquist?] That Clinton was voted not guilty on all impeachment counts would seem to me to be either incompetence on Rehnquist's part (I DOUBT it), or nearly divine judicial restraint (what else could it be?). What ever. It was a Republican controlled Senate.
The "inside" murmuring I've heard suggests that the Senate never really wanted the impeachment anyway, that it was the HOR that dumped it in the Senate's lap. So the Senate dealt with it; somewhat of a political hot potato.
"Some libertarian"? If you're sincere, yes. I am a card carrying Libertarian in fact. If on the other hand you were attempting derision by sarcasm, I confess I don't believe I've earned it from you; unless that's the frustration you falsely attribute to me surfacing in you. [That would be a psychological process called "projection" on your part. Evidently you have inferred something that I did not imply. Don't know why; unless it's your projection.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah.... a veritable smorgasbord of nonsense in this paragraph.
I was not speaking of Clinton's trial. We've already covered the Senate's spinelessness in that regard. Murmurings and hot potatoes aside, they had a duty to perform and they failed miserably in my opinion.
But how telling it is that you were unable to grasp the beginning of Clinton's impeachment problems. Paula Jones had every right to a fair trial charging sexual harassment without the President of the United States engaging in behaviour that would eventually find him in contempt of court. Being the self proclaimed, card-carrying libertarian you are, I should be able to expect that you would want to recognize an individual's right to due process. Particularly when the highest law-enforcement officer in the country is denying that due process. My turn to be disappointed I guess. It may not be too late to turn that card back in.
Your points on 'projection' and, once again, "falsely attributed frustration" (whatever the hell you think that is), are amusing, but remain irrelevant. In addition to you not being my parent, you're also not my psychiatrist. Please feel free to continue to practice on your cat but stop boring me with it doc. Thanks.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've made no statement on Paula Jones specifically; or peons (by that specification) in general. You presume madam. Further, you presume insultingly. Perhaps worse, I have no evidence to indicate that you do not presume wrongly. Are you a poor judge of character, or do you disparage my judgment for other reason (such as it's easier than refuting my arguments)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sear, if nothing else, you're good for a few chuckles in the middle of my day. Only someone who believes Clinton is innocently ignorant with his many questionable pardons could manage to accuse someone else of presumptions while being so comically presumptuous. You should try and avoid assigning gender until you know who you're talking to. I must admit that, based on your level of logic and reasoning skills, I've been tempted to assume you're female. But I would never presume to call you madam without first knowing who you are. Please forgive me for disparaging your judgement but you really make it unavoidable. You've made several stupid moves on this thread but this one's especially delicious.
And BTW, there are few things easier than refuting your "arguments" except perhaps falling out of bed.
I'd better be careful or ALS is going to move this thread onto the Flame Wars board.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I wish. My portfolio is in the potty (can I say toilet?).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine too.
Edited by: CAinLondon at: 2/23/01 11:14:24 am
CAinLondon
Gold Star Member
posts: 77
(2/23/01 9:18:08 am)
Reply Re: mostly error correction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot to add a well deserved thank you. In your most recent post, you managed not to use the word "icky" even once!
You're making fine progress.
sear
Gold Star Member
posts: 37
(2/23/01 1:36:53 pm)
Reply spineless groveling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...you managed not to use the word "icky" even once!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I regret my inadvertent omission.
------------------
"No man can establish himself by wickedness,but good men have roots that cannot be dislodged" Proverbs 11:3