Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Yes We Can!


I find when I am feeling down and disheartened, a little dose of Reagan always perks me up again.

HT -- Instapundit

13 comments:

Rodak said...

Yeah, you just gotta love a guy who subverts the will of the people and uses a hated Islamic dictatorship to illegally sell arms to nun-raping fascist death squad runners in Central America. Whatta guy! It's just gotta make you proud to have that Old Glory decal on the bumper of your pickup.

William R. Barker said...

Yep. Amen, Anthony. If only Ronny hadn't gotten sick perhaps he would have been able to prevent Bush the Elder from screwing things up the way he did (which led to his re-election defeat and Clinton's victory) or absent that, perhaps with Ronny behind him, Newt could have succeeded - long term, I mean - in setting up a true, lasting, CONSERVATIVE Republican majority.

BILL

P.S. - And Rob... as strong as your hatred for Ronny is... our love for him is stronger. (*SHRUG*

Rodak said...

Bill--
If a liberal/Democrat president had done anything even remotely close to what Reagan did in Iran/Contra, he probably would have been impeached, convicted, and jailed in Levenworth. That operation made Watergate look like a schoolboy prank.
Give him a pass, if you will, but at least acknowledge that you approve of nun-raping, subverting will of Congress, cutting secret deals with the enemy, and supporting murderous fascists.

William R. Barker said...

Absolutely ridiculous, Rob. (*SHRUG*)

BILL

Rodak said...

Bill--
How so? Everything I said happened and was orchestrated out of the White House. Men were convicted for it--men who took the fall for Cowboy Ron--and Reagan was their boss.
What is "ridiculous"? You buy the Reagan package and you buy all of that: own it.

William R. Barker said...

But I do, Rob! I had no problem with Iran-Contra. (*SHRUG*)

(*NEIL YOUNG IMPERSONATOR TAKING THE STAGE*)

(*CUE MUSIC - SINGING VERSE*)

Now Iran-Contra doesn't... bother me!
Does you conscience bother you - now tell the truth...
Sweet home, Tony's website,
Where Rob is so the blue...
Sweet home, Tony's website,
God bless Ronny, I know he will...

BILL

Rodak said...

Fine. Then you endorse fascism, death squads, and illegal, clandestine operations by an executive branch that has usurped the authority of congress and taken on powers that the constitution does not give it.
Bravo. Just don't come on all self-righteous about what this congress, or that POTUS does in the future with regard to constitutional powers. (*SHRUG, INDEED*)

William R. Barker said...

Rob,

I've tried to explain this to you before - apparently with little success:

Other than *my* pronouncements (which are of course infallable - spoken from the Chair of St. Bill) on the Constitution, what's constitutional, what's not... in the REAL world the balance of power between the three branches means that for all intents and purposes, one branch's actions are deemed constitutional until and unless another branch (or the other two branches) take action to counter.

For example... taking your example here... by NOT impeaching President Reagan, Congress - as a Body, as the Legislative Branch - in a sense "ratified" his actions. (You might prefer the word "allowed." (*WINK*)

Along the same lines... even the Supreme Court basically relies upon tradition and respect for its decisons rather than on raw power. It's the executive branch which is (in simplist terms) charged with enforcement of laws, regulations, and court decisions.

Anyway... that's our lesson for today, kids! Enjoy the upcoming weekend!

Yours in fascism,

Il Billce

Rodak said...

Bill--
Whatever. The Congress passed legislation; Reagan ignored the law and did what he wanted to anyway. Congress did not ignore it, but they only convicted a couple of fall-guys. Everybody covered up for Reagan. There is honor among thieves (and fascists). Thereafter, Reagan was "the Teflon president." That wasn't a title of praise, or a term of endearment, you know.

William R. Barker said...

"Bill--Whatever."

Ya play poker, Rob? Ya know what a "tell" is? (*GRIN*) Well, buddy... this ain't poker, but the aboe "Bill--Whatever" is as clear a sign that you've already admitted to yourself, "DAMN! Bill is right again!," as any cardplayer's "tell."

(*SMILE*)

In any case... I was actually trying to draw Anthony into this discussion. So far he hasn't taken the bait. (*WINK*)

BILL

P.S. - Oh... and just to edumacate you, Rob... (*GRIN*)... there were several "Boland Amendments" and within these amendments were contradictory messages. But putting that aside, (more edumacation coming!) (*WINK*) "Congress" didn't convict anyone of anything. (*SHAKING MY HEAD*) (Did you perhaps "misspeak?)

Wikipedia - even with a healthy dose of liberal spin on the matter (not mentioning the multiple Boland Amendments for example) does a fairly decent job of outline the Iran-Contra scandal history.

Rodak said...

"Bill--Whatever" is as clear a sign that you've already admitted to yourself, "DAMN! Bill is right

To the contrary, it's a clear sign that I've dismissed your argument as illogical, but--strictly out of a feeling of camaradarie--am willing to go on banging my head against the brick wall of your emperor's-new-clothes blind spot with regard to that evil dufus, Ronald "Cut and Run" Reagan.

Rodak said...

"Congress" didn't convict anyone of anything. (*SHAKING MY HEAD*) (Did you perhaps "misspeak?)

Yes, technically, I guess I mispoke. The point I was making, however, was that congress did not do nothing about Iran-Contra, as you implied. Congress investigated and found the principles culpable, following which they were indicted and tried in court:

Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988.[31] North, indicted on 16 counts, was found guilty by a jury of three minor counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress which had been given under a grant of immunity. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation.

Congress didn't just let it slide. That's all I meant. How do construe this?:
Congress - as a Body, as the Legislative Branch - in a sense "ratified" his actions.

William R. Barker said...

By not impeaching/convicting him.

(*SHRUG*)

BILL