Skip to main content

with contempt, disdain and disgust!

Those diehards who still contend that Richard Nixon got a bad deal might profit from seeing what kind of a bad deal he dealt to a distinguished military officer, who has now been vindicated of the charges unjustly made against him in the Vietnam era.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...97.html?hpid=topnews

What a ROTTEN human being Nixon was. And he had an equally rotten colleague in the warmongering scheming weasel, Henry Kissinger.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The devil must be wearing long-johns BeterNu, because I agree with you 100%. It would appear Nixon was being manipulated by Kissinger, but he should have had enough guts to take responsibility for what he did. From what I have read, it is just another chapter in the disgrace of the most powerful position of authority we have here in the US. No wonder people cannot trust the government.
Hi Beter,

This type of thing is all too common in the military. Although I was on the other end of the pay scale from this general -- I, too, was made a scape goat for a superior's goof in the Air Force while serving in Formosa (Taiwan) in 1957 and punished by being overlooked for promotions.

I am happy for this man's family that he has been vindicated.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
With the job numbers that came out last Friday I'd be talking about Richard Nixon too. 16,000,000 unemployed Americans find Nixon very relevant to what is going on in America.


Big Grin My sentiments exactly.
I wondered if I was the only one thinking that.
It's funny how they try to divert attention
from Present to Past and Now and back again. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by pineywoodscat:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
With the job numbers that came out last Friday I'd be talking about Richard Nixon too. 16,000,000 unemployed Americans find Nixon very relevant to what is going on in America.


Big Grin My sentiments exactly.
I wondered if I was the only one thinking that.
It's funny how they try to divert attention
from Present to Past and Now and back again. Big Grin


Actually Reagan has came up quite a bit over the past few weeks, so it isn't exactly off topic
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
With the job numbers that came out last Friday I'd be talking about Richard Nixon too. 16,000,000 unemployed Americans find Nixon very relevant to what is going on in America.


Your predictable tactic, Ronnie, when confronted with something you disagree with--but can't rebut--or something you consider of no particular interest to yourself, is to deflect from the actual subject and interject material of the "So's yer old man" or "A-a-rgh, yer mother wears army boots" genre. Try sticking to the topic once in a while and see what that might accomplish toward much-needed improvement of your polemical skills.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Betern nuttin uses a straw man argument to obfuscate -- a dead one, at that.


And just what did I obfuscate? I posted the truth about something Nixon did that recently came out in the news and I posted a link to the source of my information. It is part of the sordid history of his administration. What is obfuscatory about THAT?

Nor was there any "straw man argument" involved in what I posted. You seem not to know what a
"straw man argument" actually is or you would not have raised that silly and irrelevant criticism.

You are slipping, old boy!
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
You resurrected old history for no good reason. Attacking the dead do it for you? Necrosy is a nasty disease!


First, there is no such word as "necrosy." You are indeed slipping.

Secondly,history is chock full of dead folks, elinterventor, and it diminishes the value of discourse if we ignore the lessons to be learned frodead, whether they were good or evil or somewhere in between.

"[N]o good reason" to cite this newsworthy item concerning Nixon and his treachery? I'll let the readers decide that. I cited a good reason, I believe, namely the fond hope that the lingering little knot of unapologetic Nixon defenders might see yet more compelling evidence of what an unprincipled scumbag their boy was and maybe get their heads on straight at long last and stop rationalizing away the criminal and sordid actions of the sorry varmint!
I think what elinterventor is trying to say is who gives a rats butt about Nixon. We have an administration now that is going to surpass anything Nixon did as far as damaging this country. The progressives plan to collapse the system is going just as planned so far. Our country is in a worse position than Russia was in 1998 and worse than Greece has ever been. Who believes Obama's quote that he brought us back from the "brink of depression"? We have not seen the bottom yet.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
I think what elinterventor is trying to say is who gives a rats butt about Nixon. We have an administration now that is going to surpass anything Nixon did as far as damaging this country. The progressives plan to collapse the system is going just as planned so far. Our country is in a worse position than Russia was in 1998 and worse than Greece has ever been. Who believes Obama's quote that he brought us back from the "brink of depression"? We have not seen the bottom yet.


If that is what elinterventor was trying to say, then that is what he should have said instead of (1)accusing me of some presumably perverse disposition (his illiterate reference to"necrosy") or (2) alleging that I had somehow created a "straw man," which is as inept and ignorant a distortion as is No. 1, above.

Let the varmint come on here and defend his own ineptitude if he can--which I doubt, given the depth of incompetence into which his muddled posts in this string have sunk.
I generally never agree with BeternU, but have to for a change. An artilce of a political was published in a major newspaper and BeternU linked it for discussion. If anyone is guilty of obfuscation, it's those who changed the subject from Nixon to Obama. There's nothing wrong with starting a thread on Nixon, especially considering the recent news. A Republican poster recently posted a news article declaring Howard Zinn to be a Communist. Where were all the "who cares, we have high unemployment" people then? What's the difference?
quote:
Obama does not have Nixon people all around him. He does have communists all around him. Other than that you're right.


Really the better analogy is that Nixon and Zinn are both dead. If connections to this administration are the measuring stick for news-worthiness, starting a topic about one is as relevant as starting a topic about the other
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
...I believe, namely the fond hope that the lingering little knot of unapologetic Nixon defenders might see yet more compelling evidence of what an unprincipled scumbag their boy was and maybe get their heads on straight at long last and stop rationalizing away the criminal and sordid actions of the sorry varmint!


Yes...if we could get our head on straight about some other presidents as well...

While no doubt Nixon was a “scumbag”…pretty much every modern president is a scumbag. If certain secrets were to come to light of any administration, crimes much worse than Nixon would sure to be revealed. But even when the “crimes” and bad judgments are right out in the open, they are ignored for partisan reasons. Was Clinton morally worse than Nixon? Probably. Was (either) Bush worse than Clinton? Probably.

Here are a couple of presidents that are light years beyond Nixon in the scumbag department.

Truman…we could debate about his role in beginning the “unconstitutional” un-declared wars…Korea. Or his Soviet style take over of the steel industry. But of course the thing that puts him right at the top of “scumbag” presidents is the dropping…not once but twice…of the “big one”…the atomic bombings of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and of Nagasaki three days later.

Over the years, he gave different grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge for Pearl Harbor. The rationale for the atomic bombings has come over time to be “that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives.” These are the lives that would have been “supposedly” lost in the planned invasion of Japan. Even though that’s what is taught in school…at the time the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.

The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur…and Truman’s own chief of staff Admiral William D. Leahy: “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children”.

Truman was a war criminal…what is the difference between Truman massacring civilians from the air at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Nazis wiping out the inhabitants of Czech or Polish villages?

But hey…killing civilians is OK, right. Every president from Wilson to Bush and now Obama has rationalized this because…Well Lincoln did it…so it must be OK.

Dishonest Abe, America’s first dictator ruled the country by presidential decree, exercised dictatorial powers over a free people, and proceeded to wage war without a declaration from Congress. Lincoln blocked Southern shipping ports, justifying his actions by saying "he would enforce all laws and collect all revenues due the North." The blockades were an act of war.

In the march through Georgia during Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression, he and Sherman carved out a murderous campaign, maiming innocent civilians and setting a precedent for the next century’s bloody genocides that followed.

Lincoln had no fondness for the black man, and in fact, often spoke with the candor of that which would make him a modern-day racist. Lincoln believed there was an inherent inequality between the black and white race, and held a conviction that a "superior position" should be assigned to the white man over the black man due to this political and social inequality.

In 1862, Lincoln published a letter stating, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored.

I could go on and on…I’ll close with Lincoln micromanaged the waging of war on civilians, including the burning of entire towns populated only by civilians, massive looting and plundering, rape, and the execution of civilians.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
You resurrected old history for no good reason. Attacking the dead do it for you? Necrosy is a nasty disease!


First, there is no such word as "necrosy." You are indeed slipping.

Secondly,history is chock full of dead folks, elinterventor, and it diminishes the value of discourse if we ignore the lessons to be learned frodead, whether they were good or evil or somewhere in between.

"[N]o good reason" to cite this newsworthy item concerning Nixon and his treachery? I'll let the readers decide that. I cited a good reason, I believe, namely the fond hope that the lingering little knot of unapologetic Nixon defenders might see yet more compelling evidence of what an unprincipled scumbag their boy was and maybe get their heads on straight at long last and stop rationalizing away the criminal and sordid actions of the sorry varmint!


Far from being illiterate, necrosy is a word. It means taking pleasure from viewing exhumation of the dead. I've read it a couple of times in blogs describing Hugo Chavez, buddy of yours?, and his twitter session while viewing the exhumation of Simon Bolivar's remains. A quick search on google finds a rather nasty band called Exhumer with a recording Necrosy.

The only good thing I'll say about Nixon is he did get the troops out of Nam. As to posting this, it belongs in miscellaneous, certainly not politics. Too bad there's no history forum.
Last edited by elinterventor01
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
You resurrected old history for no good reason. Attacking the dead do it for you? Necrosy is a nasty disease!


First, there is no such word as "necrosy." You are indeed slipping.

Secondly,history is chock full of dead folks, elinterventor, and it diminishes the value of discourse if we ignore the lessons to be learned frodead, whether they were good or evil or somewhere in between.

"[N]o good reason" to cite this newsworthy item concerning Nixon and his treachery? I'll let the readers decide that. I cited a good reason, I believe, namely the fond hope that the lingering little knot of unapologetic Nixon defenders might see yet more compelling evidence of what an unprincipled scumbag their boy was and maybe get their heads on straight at long last and stop rationalizing away the criminal and sordid actions of the sorry varmint!


Far from being illiterate, necrosy is a word. It means taking pleasure from viewing exhumation of the dead. I've read it a couple of times in blogs describing Hugo Chavez, buddy of yours?, and his twitter session while viewing the exhumation of Simon Bolivar's remains. A quick search on google finds a rather nasty band called Exhumer with a recording Necrosy.

The only good thing I'll say about Nixon is he did get the troops out of Nam. As to posting this, it belongs in miscellaneous, certainly not politics. Too bad there's no history forum.


You might have encountered "necrosy" in blogs or as the name taken by some nasty rock band, but you will not encounter it in any dictionary, since it is NOT a recognized word of the English language. I note that in your response above you did NOT attempt to validate the word by the most obvious and creditable means, namely finding it in a dictionary and posting a link to it or copying and posting the text. Unless and until you can do that, my indictment stands--you have used a non-word, elinterventor!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×