|
|
| Nixon Smoking Gun (1411588) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1411588) | |
Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 1 19:11:14 2017 So he really was guilty of treason, and the possible* death of 25,000 additional Americans, after all.Pushing the President of South Vietnam to reject Johnson's peace initiative. “! Keep Anna Chennault working on” South Vietnam, Haldeman scrawled, recording Nixon’s orders. “Any other way to monkey wrench it? Anything RN can do.” * Obviously, there is no guarantee the peace initiative would have worked. |
|
|
| (1411607) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 1 23:42:20 2017, in response to Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 1 19:11:14 2017. NYSlimes? More fake news. Never mind Farrell. |
|
|
| (1411612) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Jan 2 02:25:45 2017, in response to Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 1 19:11:14 2017. You should read more Shakespeare. |
|
|
| (1411617) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 2 09:10:10 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 1 23:42:20 2017. NYSlimes? More fake news.I await the evidence published by Breitbart that they forged Haldeman's writing. |
|
|
| (1411618) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 2 09:43:18 2017, in response to Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 1 19:11:14 2017. They did not call him "Trickie Dickie" for nothing.Kissinger's role deserves some investigation, if one were interested in looking for Americans who were trying to prolong the war. However, most of the blame belongs to Johnson. He really is a tragic figure. He had doubts as to whether the Tonkin Gulf incident wasn't manufactured. Still, he pursued through policies that eventually forced him from office. |
|
|
| (1411621) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jan 2 10:47:46 2017, in response to Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 1 19:11:14 2017. Is your aim to further denegrate Nixon or rehabilitate Johnson? |
|
|
| (1411623) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 2 11:34:43 2017, in response to Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 1 19:11:14 2017. Where is the evidence that he smoked a gun? |
|
|
| (1411624) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 2 12:13:40 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by SLRT on Mon Jan 2 10:47:46 2017. Neither. |
|
|
| (1411625) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jan 2 12:42:59 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by SLRT on Mon Jan 2 10:47:46 2017. Johnson cannot be rehabilitated. |
|
|
| (1411628) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jan 2 15:23:31 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jan 2 12:42:59 2017. The Left tries. |
|
|
| (1411634) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 2 19:33:09 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by SLRT on Mon Jan 2 15:23:31 2017. It was the far left and the far right that most maligned him, the left for Vietnam, and the right for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicare, and the War on Poverty.Moderates never really despised Johnson in the first place (even if they were saddened outraged by his Vietnam debacle) so he doesn't need rehabilitation in their eyes. And the right is too embarrassed about its former positions on civil rights, voting rights, and Medicare to bring up the issue of Johnson very much. |
|
|
| (1411636) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jan 2 20:38:07 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 2 19:33:09 2017. Enough people not on the far left or far right despised him enough that he saw the handwriting on the wall and didn't run in 1968.How old were you in 1968? Middle America turned on him when even small towns began to receive their share of flag-draped boxes. |
|
|
| (1411637) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 2 21:11:38 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 2 19:33:09 2017. And the right is too embarrassed about its former positions on civil rights, voting rights, and Medicare to bring up the issue of Johnson very much.The right wing is still following anti-civil rights, anti-voting rights and anti-Medicare policies. |
|
|
| (1411638) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jan 2 22:14:49 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 2 21:11:38 2017. ...and we are about to see them codified into law. Sure you want this?Just got a notification that te "new" Congress has unilaterally voted to disband the ethics committee. Hmmmmm...... |
|
|
| (1411639) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Jan 2 23:07:55 2017, in response to Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 1 19:11:14 2017. not going to vietnam in 1971 !!!!!hell no and i did not go |
|
|
| (1411640) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by MTK52983 on Mon Jan 2 23:14:56 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 2 19:33:09 2017. And the loudest critics on issues like Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, etc. were DEMOCRATS |
|
|
| (1411641) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 2 23:35:42 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by MTK52983 on Mon Jan 2 23:14:56 2017. And the loudest critics on issues like Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, etc. were DEMOCRATSI would not add the etc. The southern Democrats were for Medicare. There was at least one loud critic on the Republican side: Barry Goldwater. |
|
|
| (1411642) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 2 23:37:32 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by bingbong on Mon Jan 2 22:14:49 2017. that te "new" Congress has unilaterally voted to disband the ethics committee.If there is nobody in Congress with any ethics, why waste money for a committee to investigate it? |
|
|
| (1411643) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Jan 2 23:39:27 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by SLRT on Mon Jan 2 20:38:07 2017. He was about 17. |
|
|
| (1411647) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Jan 3 00:29:16 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by bingbong on Mon Jan 2 22:14:49 2017. PROOF? Notification from whom? |
|
|
| (1411651) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jan 3 01:47:43 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 2 21:11:38 2017. OMG, it's like I never left.Stephen Bauman is still posting facts to try and counter the tide of bullshit. AlM is still maintaining a position exactly halfway between the truth and the most popular lie. Olog still thinks he can make facts stop being true simply by adding a question mark to the subject line. Have you guys been doing this nonstop since SubTalk opened in the 90s? |
|
|
| (1411652) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 03:07:00 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by SLRT on Mon Jan 2 20:38:07 2017. didn't run in 1968He died in early 1973. Don't you think his doctor told him he'd never survive the stress of another term? |
|
|
| (1411653) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 03:07:29 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Jan 2 23:39:27 2017. Heh. Someone reads my posts. :) |
|
|
| (1411654) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 03:09:28 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by MTK52983 on Mon Jan 2 23:14:56 2017. Only until Johnson put out the not welcome sign for them. They've been Republicans since 1972. |
|
|
| (1411659) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 06:59:41 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 03:07:00 2017. No. |
|
|
| (1411660) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 3 07:24:53 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Jan 3 00:29:16 2017. A version of this article appears in print on January 3, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York editionWith No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office By ERIC LIPTON JAN. 2, 2017 WASHINGTON — House Republicans, overriding their top leaders, voted on Monday to significantly curtail the power of an independent ethics office set up in 2008 in the aftermath of corruption scandals that sent three members of Congress to jail. The move to effectively kill the Office of Congressional Ethics was not made public until late Monday, when Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced that the House Republican Conference had approved the change. There was no advance notice or debate on the measure. The surprising vote came on the eve of the start of a new session of Congress, where emboldened Republicans are ready to push an ambitious agenda on everything from health care to infrastructure, issues that will be the subject of intense lobbying from corporate interests. The House Republicans’ move would take away both power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries. It also came on the eve of a historic shift in power in Washington, where Republicans control both houses of Congress and where a wealthy businessman with myriad potential conflicts of interest is preparing to move into the White House. Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the majority leader, spoke out during the meeting to oppose the measure, aides said on Monday night. The full House is scheduled to vote on Tuesday on the rules, which would last for two years, until the next congressional elections. In place of the office, Republicans would create a new Office of Congressional Complaint Review that would report to the House Ethics Committee, which has been accused of ignoring credible allegations of wrongdoing by lawmakers. “Poor way to begin draining the swamp,” Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, said on Twitter. He added, “Swamp wins with help of @SpeakerRyan, @RepGoodlatte.” Mr. Goodlatte defended the action in a statement on Monday evening, saying it would strengthen ethics oversight in the House while also giving lawmakers better protections against what some of them have called overzealous efforts by the Office of Congressional Ethics. “The O.C.E. has a serious and important role in the House, and this amendment does nothing to impede their work,” the statement said in part. But Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, joined others who had worked to create the office in expressing outrage at the move and the secretive way it was orchestrated. “Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp,’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Ms. Pelosi said in a statement on Monday night. “Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.” The Office of Congressional Ethics has been controversial since its creation and has faced intense criticism from many of its lawmaker targets — both Democrats and Republicans — as its investigations have consistently been more aggressive than those conducted by the House Ethics Committee. The body was created after a string of serious ethical issues starting a decade ago, including bribery allegations against Representatives Duke Cunningham, Republican of California; William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana; and Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio. All three were ultimately convicted and served time in jail. The Office of Congressional Ethics, which is overseen by a six-member outside board, does not have subpoena power. But it has its own staff of investigators who spend weeks conducting confidential interviews and collecting documents based on complaints they receive from the public, or news media reports, before issuing findings that detail any possible violation of federal rules or laws. The board then votes on whether to refer the matter to the full House Ethics Committee, which conducts its own review. But the House Ethics Committee, even if it dismisses the potential ethics violation as unfounded, is required to release the Office of Congressional Ethics report detailing the alleged wrongdoing, creating a deterrent to such questionable behavior by lawmakers. Under the new arrangement, the Office of Congressional Complaint Review could not take anonymous complaints, and all of its investigations would be overseen by the House Ethics Committee itself, which is made up of lawmakers who answer to their own party. The Office of Congressional Complaint Review would also have special rules to “better safeguard the exercise of due process rights of both subject and witness,” Mr. Goodlatte said. The provision most likely reflects complaints by certain lawmakers that the ethics office’s staff investigations were at times too aggressive, an allegation that watchdog groups dismissed as evidence that lawmakers were just trying to protect themselves. “O.C.E. is one of the outstanding ethics accomplishments of the House of Representatives, and it has played a critical role in seeing that the congressional ethics process is no longer viewed as merely a means to sweep problems under the rug,” said a statement from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an ethics watchdog group that has filed many complaints with the Office of Congressional Ethics. “If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining O.C.E., it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated,” the statement continued. One Republican House aide on Monday disputed the suggestion that the Office of Congressional Complaint Review was a new entity, arguing that the current staff would largely remain and that the outside board overseeing it would also continue to exist. “It’s the same office, same people, most of the same rules,” said the House aide, who was not authorized to speak on the record. Among the most prominent cases brought by the Office of Congressional Ethics since it was created was an investigation into Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, who was accused of intervening with the Treasury Department to try to assist a struggling bank in which her husband owned stock. Ms. Waters was ultimately cleared by the House Ethics Committee, but the committee criticized the actions of her grandson, who was then her chief of staff, and urged the House to consider broadening a ban on lawmakers’ hiring their relatives to include grandchildren. By moving all of the authority to the House Ethics Committee, several ethics lawyers said, the House risks becoming far too protective of members accused of wrongdoing. Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed. “This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.” |
|
|
| (1411661) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 3 07:45:14 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by Nilet on Tue Jan 3 01:47:43 2017. I suspect that facts will become increasingly irrelevant for making public policy during the coming four years. |
|
|
| (1411662) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 09:19:27 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 03:09:28 2017. Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd (D-WVa), who filibustered the Civil Rights Act never left the Democrat Parry, and went on to be described as "The Conscience of the Senate." |
|
|
| (1411663) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 09:20:38 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Jan 2 23:07:55 2017. Draft Dodgers usually didn't. |
|
|
| (1411664) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 09:41:03 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 09:19:27 2017. And?He is one of the people I would include when I say the right wing opponents of the Civil Rights Act became too embarrassed by their past opposition to ever bring it up later. Thus right wingers would not say that they are re-examining LBJ in the light of history because they don't want to bring up their own position on the wrong side of history. In contrast, left wing opponents of the Vietnam War continue to maintain that their opposition was the correct course of action. Therefore they are the ones who would be most likely to consider that Johnson maybe deserves "rehabilitation" because he had positive aspects too. And I still maintain that moderates never despised LBJ so much that they see his reputation as needing rehabilitation. |
|
|
| (1411665) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 09:43:45 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 09:41:03 2017. I guess we disagree.Gosh. |
|
|
| (1411667) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 09:52:15 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 09:43:45 2017. I guess we disagree.About what? I'm not saying Byrd was a positive force in American politics. |
|
|
| (1411669) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 10:03:08 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 09:52:15 2017. I don't accept your premise. |
|
|
| (1411674) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 10:25:09 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 10:03:08 2017. Which premise is that? That right wingers who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became embarrassed about their opposition in later years and didn't want to bring that up any more? Byrd seems to have been one of those. I don't remember him proclaiming "I used to be a racist but now I'm not." |
|
|
| (1411680) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Jan 3 10:56:34 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by Nilet on Tue Jan 3 01:47:43 2017. Were you gone? |
|
|
| (1411681) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 3 11:03:09 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Jan 3 10:56:34 2017. He's still gone, even though he's here. |
|
|
| (1411686) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun? |
|
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Jan 3 11:16:18 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 3 11:03:09 2017. Ah, so he is. |
|
|
| (1411691) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 12:12:35 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 09:20:38 2017. i did not dodge the draft |
|
|
| (1411702) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 13:12:10 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 12:12:35 2017. You didn't register; isn't that what you've said?I apologize if I'm mistaken. |
|
|
| (1411703) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Tue Jan 3 13:18:37 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 13:12:10 2017. Salaam refused to register for the draft because he was opposed to the war in Viet Nam. He does not consider that to be draft dodging regardless of what the law or the majority of citizens may say!!! |
|
|
| (1411723) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 14:51:42 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by SLRT on Tue Jan 3 13:12:10 2017. i refused to go to war |
|
|
| (1411725) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 14:52:09 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by R2ChinaTown on Tue Jan 3 13:18:37 2017. STFU white boy |
|
|
| (1411746) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Tue Jan 3 16:56:24 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 14:52:09 2017. STFU black boy |
|
|
| (1411752) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 18:09:35 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by R2ChinaTown on Tue Jan 3 16:56:24 2017. ladies first ! |
|
|
| (1411754) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 18:13:25 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 14:52:09 2017. How do you know he's white? |
|
|
| (1411755) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 18:15:07 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 18:13:25 2017. his actions |
|
|
| (1411759) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 19:02:28 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 18:15:07 2017. Woah. That is super racist.It is not super surprising. |
|
|
| (1411760) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 19:23:08 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 19:02:28 2017. Well, at least the probability is very high. What is the chance a person of color would imply a causative effect between the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Chicago murder rate? |
|
|
| (1411761) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 19:57:00 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 19:23:08 2017. What is a "Person of Color" and does it include everyone who is not "White?" |
|
|
| (1411764) | |
Re: Nixon Smoking Gun |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 3 20:12:38 2017, in response to Re: Nixon Smoking Gun, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 19:02:28 2017. oh really ?? |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|