FISCHER VIOLATED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

Bobby spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
trade embargo in 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for that
act of asserting human autonomy and economic freedom
against an overweening central regime. -- Larry Parr

In 1942 the U.S. was in a state of declared war
with Germany. In 1992 Serbia had not and still has
not done a thing to attack the United States.

An act of Congress is not the same thing as a
presidential executive order, which should have no
power in our system of separation of powers.

Juergen, our statist gherkin, would have been
among the first to attack Rembrandt for offering his
genius for money, if the customer offended Juergen's
political outlook.

Bobby played 30 games of chess for about $100,000
a game, and he played several very fine games,if GM
Alex Fishbein's estimation in his book on the match is
to be entertained. He offered his genius for money
with no identifiable victims. Such an act may be
illegal, but it is not criminal.

Trading freely with "the enemy" is often the most
effective way of undermining a foe, especially a
dictatorial foe that controls society with top-down
directives -- indeed, the very kind of foe, in the
case of the Soviets, that our Gherkin admires.

There are quite a few intellectual ins and outs
in the above. For example, is it both illegal and
criminal -- in the example given here -- to trade for
goods produced not merely by controlled,
state-exploited labor, but by outright slave labor?

If our Gherkin would care to ask the above
question, I will address it.

Yours, Larry Parr




Jürgen R. wrote:
Bobby
spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
trade embargoin 1992

More precisely, the "Trading with the Enemy Act"

for playing Spassky who returned
to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for
that act of asserting asserting human autonomy and
economic freedom against an overweening central regime.

This kind of 'assering economic freedom' has the following
precedent:

"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush,
was a director and shareholder of companies that profited
from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly
discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm
of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with
the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's
assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act..."

Evil overweening central regime prevents upstanding American
businessman from making a buck.

schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
FISCHER VIOLATED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

Bobby spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
trade embargo in 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for that
act of asserting human autonomy and economic freedom
against an overweening central regime. -- Larry Parr

In 1942 the U.S. was in a state of declared war
with Germany. In 1992 Serbia had not and still has
not done a thing to attack the United States.

True enough; but please remind us: Why was the U.S.
bombing Serbia?

An act of Congress is not the same thing as a
presidential executive order, which should have no
power in our system of separation of powers.

The "Trading with the Enemy Act" *is* an act
of Congress passed in 1917.

Juergen, our statist gherkin, would have been
among the first to attack Rembrandt for offering his
genius for money, if the customer offended Juergen's
political outlook.

You keep pulling these dead rabbits out of your hat.
In fact you know nothing about my attitudes toward
this or anything else.

Bobby played 30 games of chess for about $100,000
a game, and he played several very fine games,if GM
Alex Fishbein's estimation in his book on the match is
to be entertained. He offered his genius for money
with no identifiable victims. Such an act may be
illegal, but it is not criminal.

Neither the Harriman investments in Germany and
Poland nor the Union Bank Corporation services
for Thyssen had identifiable victims either.

Trading freely with "the enemy" is often the most
effective way of undermining a foe, especially a
dictatorial foe that controls society with top-down
directives -- indeed, the very kind of foe, in the
case of the Soviets, that our Gherkin admires.

There are quite a few intellectual

Intellectual? In that case you are clearly out of your depth.

ins and outs
in the above. For example, is it both illegal and
criminal -- in the example given here -- to trade for
goods produced not merely by controlled,
state-exploited labor, but by outright slave labor?

This is deep? The difference lies in your
approval or disapproval of the specific law.

If our Gherkin would care to ask the above
question, I will address it.

LOL - you will 'address' it, will you now? Save yourself
the trouble.

"Jürgen R." wrote in message ...

Bobby
spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
trade embargoin 1992

More precisely, the "Trading with the Enemy Act"


Source please.

I don't think this is correct. The US implemented the
UN sanctions via Executive Order - a perfectly
routine practice in the American system of
government - but I don't think the underlying
congressional authorization is known as
the "Trading with the Enemy Act"

Our poorly-informed hypocrite Mr. Parr,
of course, doesn't mind a little bloodshed
as long as it's not occurring in the name of
communism - although in the former
Yugoslavia many of the principles were
still nominally communist.

(NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.195)
wrote (Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT):

...
* * * Having written the above, I agree that based on
what Fischer said and often acted, he was a prime
louse. *A crapulous human being.
...
_
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crapulous

"Louis Blair" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.195)
wrote (Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT):

...
Having written the above, I agree that based on
what Fischer said and often acted, he was a prime
louse. A crapulous human being.
...
_
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crapulous

ROFL - you want to teach Parr English?

wrote in message
...
FISCHER VIOLATED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

Bobby spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
trade embargo in 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for that
act of asserting human autonomy and economic freedom
against an overweening central regime. -- Larry Parr

Now for the facts.

1. The UN passed an embargo on Yugoslavia, in response
to the escalating conflict there.
2. The US complied with the UN embargo, as all UN
member nations were supposed to. The method used to
enact the sanctions was perfectly routine. Neither the method used
(President Bush declaring the embargo in accordance with
laws enacted by Congress) nor the fact of the embargo
were controversial.
3. The US informed Fischer prior to the match that it would violate the
law.
4. Fischer publicly declared his intention to violate the law.
5. Fischer, not having renounced American citizenship and
in fact traveling on an American passport, did violate the law.

It is hard to imagine any legal theory under which
*not* indicting Fischer would have made sense. (Parr seems
to have some bizarre theory related to laziness in the French
justice department - thankfully he has spared us a full
articulation of that nonsense.)

One does not expect the anti-democratic Parr to have
even a rudimentary understanding of democracy and
we find our expectations fulfilled. And, of course, who
really cares about a few hundred dead Croats? It's the
price per chess game that Fischer could fetch with his
exhibition that is *really* important.

THE KANESTAR

More precisely, the "Trading with the Enemy Act" -- Juergen

Source please. I don't think this is correct. The US implemented the UN sanctions via Executive Order - a perfectly routine practice in the American system of government - but I don't think the underlying congressional authorization is known as the "Trading with the Enemy Act" -- David Kane

The Kanester is correct to this extent: executive
presidential orders have indeed become a kind of
routine in our governance. They are no different in
principle from similar orders that came and come from
assorted dictators. They are not yet quite as
bloodthirsty, however. But they will be.

As for the civil war in Yugoslavia, Kanester is
wrong about my not minding the bloodshed (I wrote an
article stating that one would not shake Bobby's hand
or break bread with the man because of his actions)
but if he were to have stated more percipiently that I
don't think America should be concerned with these
civil wars, he would have been correct.

CRAPUOUS

Thanks go to Louie Blair for correcting my
misusage of "crapulous." Bobby may have been
intemperate, but his problem was not sickness from
intemperance -- or, at least, not as his defining
characteristic. I could write a defense of
"crapulous" as I employed the word but it would be
based on moving from the word itself to a portion of
its definition ("intemperance") and then noting that
the latter word is sometimes employed, apparently
correctly these days, to mean immoderate behavior.

But no. After I posted the message with
"crapulous," I recollected that I probably got the
word wrong. Didn't check. Louie did.

I stand corrected.

ABBORAGATED

Juergen's repetition of "abboragated" can be
found in a 1918 edition of the OED.

The word refers to borrowing the original copy
of an abrogated contract, though in older usage, may
also refer to stealing an abrogated treaty or a secret
document from an archive. It is said that Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle had "abboragated" in mind when writing
"The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans."

In an obscure letter to Conan Doyle, Joseph
Conrad spoke of an "abboragation of parturition" to
reference a kidnapped baby. Years later, Jack Kieran
employed the phrase in an article he wrote for
Mencken's Freeman concerning the Lindbergh kidnapping.
He may also have used the word in his autobiography,
Not Under Oath, or in a work he wrote on Audubon. I
can't quite recollect.

Kieran, by the way, coined the phrase, "grand
slam" for a bases-loaded home run.


Jürgen R. wrote:
"Louis Blair" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.195)
wrote (Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT):

...
Having written the above, I agree that based on
what Fischer said and often acted, he was a prime
louse. A crapulous human being.
...
_
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crapulous

ROFL - you want to teach Parr English?

CRAPUOUS

Try again. Maybe on the third attempt you'll get it right.

Your attempts to impress by using uncommon words
are ludicrous. What was the pathetic fraud's name who did
this routinely on TV? Some guy from Connecticut who
continually bragged about actually having graduated
from Yale, and consequently talked like the Queen
might have talked, had she been born in New Haven.
Probably one of your heroes.

"David Kane" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news

wrote in message
...
FISCHER VIOLATED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

Bobby spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
trade embargo in 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for that
act of asserting human autonomy and economic freedom
against an overweening central regime. -- Larry Parr

Now for the facts.

The indictment cites:

Violation 50 USC 1701, 1702, and 1705, which is the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and
Executive Order 12810, which in turn cites
the UN resolutions re Yugoslavia among other things.

The 'Emergency Economic Powers Act' is the modern
version of the older 'Trading with the Enemies Act'.
Apparently the latter did, and the former does not,
require a declaration of war as a precondition for
an executive order.


1. The UN passed an embargo on Yugoslavia, in response
to the escalating conflict there.
2. The US complied with the UN embargo, as all UN
member nations were supposed to. The method used to
enact the sanctions was perfectly routine. Neither the method used
(President Bush declaring the embargo in accordance with
laws enacted by Congress) nor the fact of the embargo
were controversial.
3. The US informed Fischer prior to the match that it would violate the
law.
4. Fischer publicly declared his intention to violate the law.
5. Fischer, not having renounced American citizenship and
in fact traveling on an American passport, did violate the law.

It is hard to imagine any legal theory under which
*not* indicting Fischer would have made sense. (Parr seems
to have some bizarre theory related to laziness in the French
justice department - thankfully he has spared us a full
articulation of that nonsense.)

One does not expect the anti-democratic Parr to have
even a rudimentary understanding of democracy and
we find our expectations fulfilled. And, of course, who
really cares about a few hundred dead Croats? It's the
price per chess game that Fischer could fetch with his
exhibition that is *really* important.

On May 13, 3:58*am, Jürgen R. wrote:
CRAPUOUS

Try again. Maybe on the third attempt you'll get it right.

Your attempts to impress by using uncommon words
are ludicrous. What was the pathetic fraud's name who did
this routinely on TV? Some guy from Connecticut who
continually bragged about actually having graduated
from Yale, and consequently talked like the Queen
might have talked, had she been born in New Haven. *
Probably one of your heroes.

I would guess you're referring to the late William F. Buckley? If
so, I do not recall that he "continually bragged" about his education,
and while I probably disagreed with him more often than not, I never
considered him a fraud.