Nixon nasties – The Brookings Institue | Media activism

Nixon nasties – The Brookings Institue

Question:

"We’re up against an enemy, a conspiracy, that are using any means," Nixon said on "We are going to use any means," the president said in a steely tone, hitting the desk seven times, once for each word. "Is that clear? Did they get the Brookings Institute raided last night? Get it done! I want it done! I want the Brookings safe cleared out." July 1, 1971, at an Oval Office meeting with White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman and national security adviser Henry A. Kissinger. Harry

Response:

Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon?

Why the sudden sensitivity? This is just a restatement of information on Nixon tapes released this week by the National Archives. Hmm. Harry

Response:

Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon? Why the sudden sensitivity? This is just a restatement of information on Nixon tapes released this week by the National Archives. Hmm. Harry

Well, from my perspective it’s not as "current" as a lot of the other stuff discussed on this newsgroup. In fact, you could argue that there is nothing particularly surprising in the National Archive release, so I wonder about its news-worthiness. Anyway, I thought this news group was called alt.politics.democrats.d.

Response:

Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon? Why the sudden sensitivity? This is just a restatement of information on Nixon tapes released this week by the National Archives. Hmm. Harry Well, from my perspective it’s not as "current" as a lot of the other stuff discussed on this newsgroup. In fact, you could argue that there is nothing particularly surprising in the National Archive release, so I wonder about its news-worthiness.

Still ranting about Clinton being a dope smoker and a draft dodger? I was just curious to see what your definition of "current" encompasses. Anyway, I thought this news group was called alt.politics.democrats.d.

Not the group I’m posting from. As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and good. But that doesn’t mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance. And I detest dittoheads. Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina

Response:

I have _never_ written anywhere that Clinton is a dope smoker and a draft dodger. I defy anyone to produce anything that I’ve posted that says so. Zepp is not addressing me, he is experiencing a knee jerk response and is reflexively playing out the same tired roles of liberal vs. conservative, democrat vs. republican. For him the opposition must belong to the fundamentalist christian group, the rich white male republican group, or whatever stupid stereotype, and the idea that an opposing view could arise from anywhere else is incomprehensible. What I _have_ posted is that that stuff belongs in the distant past, that the two parties are more alike now than dissimilar in their politics and in their slavish devotion to big money, and that only a dinosaur would believe that ideology has anything to do with it anymore. Anyway, I thought this news group was called alt.politics.democrats.d. Not the group I’m posting from.

Well, I stand corrected then. As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and good. But that doesn’t mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance. And I detest dittoheads. Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.current-events.usa,talk.pol itics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.so ciety.liberalism

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon? Why the sudden sensitivity? This is just a restatement of information on Nixon tapes released this week by the National Archives. Hmm. Harry Well, from my perspective it’s not as "current" as a lot of the other stuff discussed on this newsgroup. In fact, you could argue that there is nothing particularly surprising in the National Archive release, so I wonder about its news-worthiness. Still ranting about Clinton being a dope smoker and a draft dodger? I was just curious to see what your definition of "current" encompasses. I have _never_ written anywhere that Clinton is a dope smoker and a draft dodger. I defy anyone to produce anything that I’ve posted that says so. Zepp is not addressing me, he is experiencing a knee jerk response and is reflexively playing out the same tired roles of liberal vs. conservative, democrat vs. republican. For him the opposition must belong to the fundamentalist christian group, the rich white male republican group, or whatever stupid stereotype, and the idea that an opposing view could arise from anywhere else is incomprehensible. What I _have_ posted is that that stuff belongs in the distant past, that the two parties are more alike now than dissimilar in their politics and in their slavish devotion to big money, and that only a dinosaur would believe that ideology has anything to do with it anymore.

You discern no ideological differences between Clinton and Newt? Been asleep for the past two years? I am pleased to see that you are NOT one of the ones who feels that events in 1968 are valid only if they support your cause. As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and good. But that doesn’t mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance. And I detest dittoheads. Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina

Response:

Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon?

So that the right will not forget their corrupt past and foundation. RT

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon? Why the sudden sensitivity? This is just a restatement of information on Nixon tapes released this week by the National Archives. Hmm. Harry Well, from my perspective it’s not as "current" as a lot of the other stuff discussed on this newsgroup. In fact, you could argue that there is nothing particularly surprising in the National Archive release, so I wonder about its news-worthiness. Still ranting about Clinton being a dope smoker and a draft dodger? I was just curious to see what your definition of "current" encompasses. I have _never_ written anywhere that Clinton is a dope smoker and a draft dodger. I defy anyone to produce anything that I’ve posted that says so. Zepp is not addressing me, he is experiencing a knee jerk response and is reflexively playing out the same tired roles of liberal vs. conservative, democrat vs. republican. For him the opposition must belong to the fundamentalist christian group, the rich white male republican group, or whatever stupid stereotype, and the idea that an opposing view could arise from anywhere else is incomprehensible. What I _have_ posted is that that stuff belongs in the distant past, that the two parties are more alike now than dissimilar in their politics and in their slavish devotion to big money, and that only a dinosaur would believe that ideology has anything to do with it anymore. You discern no ideological differences between Clinton and Newt? Been asleep for the past two years? I am pleased to see that you are NOT one of the ones who feels that events in 1968 are valid only if they support your cause.

Let’t face it, Newt Gingrich has to some extent been demonized in the media and made to appear more extreme than he actually is. He may be to the right of Clinton, but I hardly think the differences they have in ideology are one of polarity rather than degree. Let’s look at the two presidential candidates for the two parties in this last election. They were after all elected to lead their respective parties and should represent to at least some degree what both parties are on about. Bob Dole’s big gripe in the election was that Clinton was co-opting all of his positions. The battle cry of the Republicans was "He talks the talk, but does he walk the walk?" In his last two State of the Union addresses, Clinton sounded more like Gingrich than a liberal Democrat. The president after all liked to boast about how he signed the welfare reform bill into law, how he supported the idea of teen curfews, school uniforms and mandatory drug tests for teens before they could get their driver’s license. He also campaigned on the fact that under him the defense budget had been increased to allow cost-of-living increases for military personnel. And of course, the president is pro-death penalty. Not to mention the immigration reform law he signed. How liberal is that? Did I mention that the Democratic Party refused to give any money or support to the opposition to California’s Civil Rights Amendment? It should be obvious why. How liberal is that? And what about foreign policy? When he ran against Bush, Clinton promised to put human rights on the foreign policy agenda, especially when it came to China. After being told to go jump in a lake by the Chinese government, what was his reaction? An announcement that human rights and trade were being "delinked" with regards to China’s Most-Favored-Nation status; in other words a China policy that was essentially identical to Bush’s. Just today Knight-Ridder ran an article about how some human rights groups are accusing the president of abandoning human rights issues in favor of expediency in diplomatic relations with China. And do I really need to talk about Indonesia and East Timor? How liberal is that? And finally, we have a Republican controlled Congress that passed a minimum wage law and reformed health care to some extent. Finally, you haven’t addressed the issue of how you bizarrely came to believe that I had written that Cilnton was a pot smoker and draft dodger. (Let’s fact it though, he is. Whether or not those are bad things is up to you.) That speaks realms about how political positions in this country have become entrenched to the point of immobility. As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and good. But that doesn’t mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance. And I detest dittoheads. Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.current-events.usa,talk.pol itics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.so ciety.liberalism

Response:

[snip] Don’t forget George Wallace in that case. What do the Democrats have to look back to by comparison in the South of the 1950’s and ’60’s? Unlike Nixon, Wallace at least had the courage to admit he was wrong. Alas, Wallace was but one drop in a Southern Democratic ocean.

Growing up in a Democratic family I always wondered why the Dixiecrats were in the party. They would fit, it seemed, much better in the Republican party (which focused on ignoring or denying the existance racism in America). It seems that they have now come to the same conclusion. Dan Haskell

Response:

Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon? So that the right will not forget their corrupt past and foundation. RT

Don’t forget George Wallace in that case. What do the Democrats have to look back to by comparison in the South of the 1950’s and ’60’s?

Response:

Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon? So that the right will not forget their corrupt past and foundation. RT Don’t forget George Wallace in that case. What do the Democrats have to look back to by comparison in the South of the 1950’s and ’60’s?

Unlike Nixon, Wallace at least had the courage to admit he was wrong. As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and good. But that doesn’t mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance. And I detest dittoheads. Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina

Response:

Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon? So that the right will not forget their corrupt past and foundation. Don’t forget George Wallace in that case. What do the Democrats have to look back to by comparison in the South of the 1950’s and ’60’s? Unlike Nixon, Wallace at least had the courage to admit he was wrong.

More like, Unlike any right wing republican… RT Tea. Earl Grey. Hot. Shaken, not stirred. – Jean Luc Bond

Response:

Everyone would do well to remember how Nixon was more instrumental than anyone in bringing us peace from the Soviet Union. Get off your horse, and find something better to do than trash out someone who is dead and bring yourself more current and deal with today’s problems while they are here!! RRBilly

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmm, why this sudden fascination with Nixon? So that the right will not forget their corrupt past and foundation. RT Don’t forget George Wallace in that case. What do the Democrats have to look back to by comparison in the South of the 1950’s and ’60’s? Everyone would do well to remember how Nixon was more instrumental than anyone in bringing us peace from the Soviet Union. Get off your horse,

revisionist bullshit It was JFK that was successful in diffusing several crisises with theUSSR. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -and find something better to do than trash out someone who is dead and bring yourself more current and deal with today’s problems while they are here!! RRBilly

Response:

Alas, Wallace was but one drop in a Southern Democratic ocean. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and good. But that doesn’t mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance. And I detest dittoheads. Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina

Response:

Filed under: Media activism

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism