Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   SCOTUS: "Richard Milhous Nixon was a stand-up fella, and nothing he did amounted to corruption or even looked like a distant cousin of corruption"   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 155
    More: Obvious, Richard Nixon, U.S. Supreme Court, Nixon White House, corruption, Latin phrases, Nixonian, stand-up, Chief Justice John Roberts  
•       •       •

3281 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Apr 2014 at 12:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-07 04:10:11 PM  

Teiritzamna: I know many here feel that this is a foolish statement, that much like Potter Stewart's statement re: obscenity, "i know it when i see it" but the fundamental difference is that  obscenity is not covered by the First Amendment, while political expression is.


Literally nothing in the amendment makes any distinction at all between different kinds of speech; there's no special language in there about "political expression":

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So I don't really know what you're talking about.
 
2014-04-07 04:11:34 PM  

Serious Black: What if you make an obscene political statement?


The test for determining obscenity pretty much prevents such an occurrence as one of the prongs requires a finding that:

the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
 
2014-04-07 04:11:57 PM  

dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: Compared to what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done, Nixon looks quite innocent.

hurr

hurr derpity derp?

You know its true!

That you're spewing derp? Absolutely.

Nope.. no derp, just reality.


stream1.gifsoup.com

At least Nixon started getting us out of a war, while Clinton, Bush and Obama are the bomb strike/war mongers I despise.. and you can probably add Reagan to that list.

Citations needed. No, I don't expect you to show your work. You're one of those "both sides are bad/Obama is one of History's Greatest Monster" type lolbertarians/closeted "ex"-Republicans. I'm just humoring you at this point.

One small lie about a break in where no-one was hurt and the cover up was what sunk Nixon..  stack the more recent Presidents against that and he looks clean as can be... its all about perspective.

No, it's about your ignorance of history. While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.

Now run along.
 
2014-04-07 04:13:51 PM  

DamnYankees: Teiritzamna: I know many here feel that this is a foolish statement, that much like Potter Stewart's statement re: obscenity, "i know it when i see it" but the fundamental difference is that  obscenity is not covered by the First Amendment, while political expression is.

Literally nothing in the amendment makes any distinction at all between different kinds of speech; there's no special language in there about "political expression":

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So I don't really know what you're talking about.


Obscenity is one of the classic exceptions to the first amendment, mainly because we have the framers themselves passing laws banning obscenity and when questioned saying "oh obscenity isn't speech, its obscenity"

as to the political expression bit, the court has long held that political expression (especially expression critical of the government) gets the strongest baseline protections as a read of the federalist papers (and common sense) shows that that was the speech the framers were most afraid of being curtailed.
 
2014-04-07 04:15:45 PM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: What if you make an obscene political statement?

The test for determining obscenity pretty much prevents such an occurrence as one of the prongs requires a finding that:

the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value


So theoretically speaking, a video of a fully naked man and woman having sex with each other couldn't be considered obscene if the man and woman were discussing the merits of single-payer health care while having sex?
 
2014-04-07 04:16:17 PM  

Teiritzamna: Obscenity is one of the classic exceptions to the first amendment, mainly because we have the framers themselves passing laws banning obscenity and when questioned saying "oh obscenity isn't speech, its obscenity"


1) The Framers also passed the alien and sedition acts, and we don't think of those as carveouts to free speech.

2) Regardless of what the framers did, the distinction still isn't in the amendment, as you claimed.

Teiritzamna: as to the political expression bit, the court has long held that political expression (especially expression critical of the government) gets the strongest baseline protections as a read of the federalist papers (and common sense) shows that that was the speech the framers were most afraid of being curtailed.


This is a circular argument. You can't say that political expression deserves more protection from courts than obscenity because its in the first amendment, and then say that while its not actually in the first amendment, that's how courts have always interpreted it. Pick an argument.
 
2014-04-07 04:24:29 PM  

Serious Black: Teiritzamna: Serious Black: What if you make an obscene political statement?

The test for determining obscenity pretty much prevents such an occurrence as one of the prongs requires a finding that:

the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

So theoretically speaking, a video of a fully naked man and woman having sex with each other couldn't be considered obscene if the man and woman were discussing the merits of single-payer health care while having sex?


I know it is obscene to bring up anything negative about the ACA (as would any discussion on the full merit of a policy) but no one has ever discussed the wholesale bannination of it.
 
2014-04-07 04:29:27 PM  

whidbey: Citations needed.


What, and give away Nixon's secret plan to end the war? I'll never talk.

whidbey: While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.


Well, let us see the scoreboard so far...

1  Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)
 
2014-04-07 04:30:00 PM  

DamnYankees: Teiritzamna: Obscenity is one of the classic exceptions to the first amendment, mainly because we have the framers themselves passing laws banning obscenity and when questioned saying "oh obscenity isn't speech, its obscenity"

1) The Framers also passed the alien and sedition acts, and we don't think of those as carveouts to free speech.

2) Regardless of what the framers did, the distinction still isn't in the amendment, as you claimed.

Teiritzamna: as to the political expression bit, the court has long held that political expression (especially expression critical of the government) gets the strongest baseline protections as a read of the federalist papers (and common sense) shows that that was the speech the framers were most afraid of being curtailed.

This is a circular argument. You can't say that political expression deserves more protection from courts than obscenity because its in the first amendment, and then say that while its not actually in the first amendment, that's how courts have always interpreted it. Pick an argument.


Ah sorry - i was speaking as an attorney as if i was talking to one.

There is this thing called constitutional common law, wherein the courts of this country, especially the constitutional highest federal court, the Supreme Court interprets what the clauses of the constitution mean.  This interpretation should usually begin with the text of the constitution, here as you quoted:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ."

The important question for the court is "what exactly is "the freedom of speech" as the clause itself is rather short and the constitution provides no definitions.  So courts have had to traditionally look about at what the framers wrote, what dictionaries of the time suggested and often for the liberal justices, what the modern idea of what, in this instance, "the freedom of speech" means. 

Based on this approach over the last few hundred years a large body of jurisprudence has arisen suggesting that "the freedom of speech" does not include certain forms of expressive conduct - obscenity being one, fighting words, incitement to immanent lawless action, criminal/tortious  expression (fraud defamation and the like) being some others.  These exceptions are pretty much universally understood by federal courts to not be encompassed within "the freedom of speech."

As to the gloss regarding political expression, that is mostly just the courts applying common sense.  Generally if you see an opinion regarding government suppression of speech, there will be a section where the court invariably says something along the lines of "well the first amendment was designed to protect expression and thus it shall be hard for the government to overcome the amendment's prohibition, but if the first amendment protects anything, it protects political speech."

Partially i suppose this is in contrast to commercial speech (a digression to be sure, but there is also a long jurisprudential history indicating that traditional and strong power of government to regulate commerce means that it has some role in regulating commercial speech that does not offend "the freedom of speech") but it is also an acknowledgement that the speech the government is most likley to be interested in manipulating is likely to be political speech, that the form of government meddling most hated by those who fought the revolution was meddling in political speech, and the most harmful form of government censorship is censorship of criticisms of the government itself that the courts must be extra vigilant to prevent such interference with political speech.
 
2014-04-07 04:34:29 PM  

Serious Black: So theoretically speaking, a video of a fully naked man and woman having sex with each other couldn't be considered obscene if the man and woman were discussing the merits of single-payer health care while having sex?


Pretty much yeah - doesn't mean it couldn't be regulated (for example age limits on porno are based on a different (if shaky) rationale), just means the government would have a much harder time.

As a further note, remember that an actual finding that material is obscene is rare as hell these days - given the rather lax community standards (hooray lax community standards) its very difficult to find that something is not protected by the first amendment because it is obscene.  I personally think this is a good thing, as 60 years ago 90% of the internet would be liable for bananating by the government.
 
2014-04-07 04:37:32 PM  

Destructor: whidbey: Citations needed.

What, and give away Nixon's secret plan to end the war? I'll never talk.

whidbey: While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.

Well, let us see the scoreboard so far...

1  Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)


Notsureifserious.jpg
 
2014-04-07 04:38:00 PM  

Teiritzamna: Dr Dreidel: That's why I prefer the Talmudic approach - ANY gift influences a jurist's opinions, so EVERY gift is outlawed. A judge who says to themselves: "I won't rule in his favor, even if he bought me a car! THAT's how un-bribe-able I am!" is still being swayed by the gift (maybe the dishonest man's claim is the more valid one).

Basically, that the mere appearance of corruption is enough for impeachment, as justice depends not only on the equitable resolution of disputes, but also on the trust we place in their decisions.

Which is fair to an extent - except that it pushes very very far into the realm of protected expression.


It certainly does; the Talmud didn't recognize a freedom of expression, but that rule is enlightening.

Teiritzamna: For example, advocating for someone, even if just verbally, tends to make people favor you as well. Which means under your rubric volunteering and speaking on someone's behalf should also be precluded. Soon basically any political advocacy could be excluded from the first amendment's ambit, meaning that we would have the perverse result wherein an amendment meant to protect political speech most would protect political speech not at all.


Well, it's limited to accepting items of value - ANY item, of ANY measurable value (IIRC, the smallest denomination of currency - in the US, that would be anything with market value equal to or greater than a penny [not "nominal value", like the 1/30th of a cent they claim a coupon is worth]).

Though (and this is probably better kept offline, if you're interested) the way a Talmudic trial runs, there is no "advocacy" - only statements from the accused and the accusers (two witnesses to the crime bring the accusation), followed by any other witnesses and questioning of all 3 parties by a panel of judges (3 in civil cases, 23 in capital cases*, 70 for matters of Canon**).

*and the rules for getting a conviction in capital cases are enough to set a modern American lawyer's teeth on edge
**only the 3-judge civil court is in use these days
 
2014-04-07 04:40:35 PM  

Mahhughes: SCROTUS's furious five are rogue ideologues whose sole mission is to hand the keys to the kingdom to the winners of economic Darwinism. You just became a blight in the eyes of a purer class of people. Enjoy your future. All that cheep money from the Fed sure has lead to a lot of consolidated power...hmmm.


Bwah! "SCROTUS" I love it. It is what you get when you insert an (R) into the Supreme Court!
 
2014-04-07 04:41:01 PM  

LordJiro: Destructor: whidbey: Citations needed.

What, and give away Nixon's secret plan to end the war? I'll never talk.

whidbey: While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.

Well, let us see the scoreboard so far...

1  Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)

Notsureifserious.jpg


No kidding. The moment Obama is mentioned in the company of Nixon, Reagan and Bush's legacy of paranoia, corruption and failed neo-conservative imperialism, it turns into a Bill Cosby routine:


RIIIIGHT.
 
2014-04-07 04:41:25 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Well, it's limited to accepting items of value - ANY item, of ANY measurable value (IIRC, the smallest denomination of currency - in the US, that would be anything with market value equal to or greater than a penny [not "nominal value", like the 1/30th of a cent they claim a coupon is worth]).

Though (and this is probably better kept offline, if you're interested) the way a Talmudic trial runs, there is no "advocacy" - only statements from the accused and the accusers (two witnesses to the crime bring the accusation), followed by any other witnesses and questioning of all 3 parties by a panel of judges (3 in civil cases, 23 in capital cases*, 70 for matters of Canon**).

*and the rules for getting a conviction in capital cases are enough to set a modern American lawyer's teeth on edge
**only the 3-judge civil court is in use these days


As a (lapsed) catholic attorney who went to Brandeis, i have always thought jewish law to be deeply interesting.  Also the fact that European civil law is based in part of roman law but also on Canon law which was in turn based on Judaic law, including the lack of advocacy and inquisitorial judges.
 
2014-04-07 04:55:15 PM  

Teiritzamna: As a (lapsed) catholic attorney who went to Brandeis, i have always thought jewish law to be deeply interesting. Also the fact that European civil law is based in part of roman law but also on Canon law which was in turn based on Judaic law, including the lack of advocacy and inquisitorial judges.


Do you mean "Jewish legal proceedings" or "Jewish law, with all its many twists and turns, such that the simplest question turns into a doctorate-level thesis for an answer"? :P

The legal proceedings are, in a word, weird - at least when examined by a modern American steeped in Law and Order episodes from the mid-late 1990s.

// RIP Briscoe (I share a birthday with Jerry Orbach)
 
2014-04-07 04:56:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: (I share a birthday with Jerry Orbach)


*raises a Pellegrino
 
2014-04-07 04:57:21 PM  

whidbey: LordJiro: Destructor: whidbey: Citations needed.

What, and give away Nixon's secret plan to end the war? I'll never talk.

whidbey: While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.

Well, let us see the scoreboard so far...

1  Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)

Notsureifserious.jpg

No kidding. The moment Obama is mentioned in the company of Nixon, Reagan and Bush's legacy of paranoia, corruption and failed neo-conservative imperialism, it turns into a Bill Cosby routine:


RIIIIGHT.


Tonight's story... is about... a Chicken Hawk.
 
2014-04-07 04:57:44 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Do you mean "Jewish legal proceedings" or "Jewish law, with all its many twists and turns, such that the simplest question turns into a doctorate-level thesis for an answer"? :P

The legal proceedings are, in a word, weird - at least when examined by a modern American steeped in Law and Order episodes from the mid-late 1990s.


Both actually, substantive and procedural.
 
2014-04-07 05:07:14 PM  

whidbey: Notsureifserious.jpg

No kidding. The moment Obama is mentioned in the company of Nixon, Reagan and Bush's legacy of paranoia, corruption and failed neo-conservative imperialism, it turns into a Bill Cosby routine:
RIIIIGHT.


/shrug... I don't know.

There are no tapes to subpoena. No missing 18 minutes. Just your general, run-of-the-mill obstruction... so far.

Maybe you're right. Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.

LordJiro: 1 Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)

Notsureifserious.jpg


Yeah, 1 is unsupportable (at present). 4 is comparable because it might have actually affected the outcome of an election. And 5 is pure speculation pending further investigation.

Then there's the stuff Obama is getting away with that Nixon could only dream of. It'll just annoy everyone here to roll out that old chestnut, so I'll call it quits while I'm ahead... :-)
 
2014-04-07 05:08:55 PM  

Destructor: Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.


lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?
 
2014-04-07 05:10:52 PM  

whidbey: Destructor: Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.

lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?


Because it's the truth and you refuse to acknowledge it.

You have a big case of cognitive dissonance on your hans.
 
2014-04-07 05:13:39 PM  

dwrash: whidbey: Destructor: Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.

lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?

Because it's the truth and you refuse to acknowledge it.


But it isn't. It's just you talking shiat and making absurd comparisons.

You have a big case of cognitive dissonance on your hans.

Like comparing things you don't like about Obama to real documented crimes of the Nixon administration?

Dude, pull your farking head out of Ron Paul's ass.
 
2014-04-07 05:13:56 PM  

Teiritzamna: Dr Dreidel: Do you mean "Jewish legal proceedings" or "Jewish law, with all its many twists and turns, such that the simplest question turns into a doctorate-level thesis for an answer"? :P

The legal proceedings are, in a word, weird - at least when examined by a modern American steeped in Law and Order episodes from the mid-late 1990s.

Both actually, substantive and procedural.


I won't bore the rest of you, but if you can get your hands on a copy of the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, I think around page 60 or 70 is a great summary of the legal proceedings. *Googles a bit* It's 40a, start of Chapter 5 where they explain the stages of a proceeding.

There's also a chapter that starts on page 70a (IIRC) with some fascinating discussion, about when it's OK to use deadly force, starting on 71b-72a. From what I understand, the end of the tractate also has some wacky stuff about death and the afterlife, but I've never read that far.

// it's amazing that I still remember that from junior year of high school
 
2014-04-07 05:23:07 PM  

whidbey: lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?


Geez whidbey... Why do you hate Nixon so much? So he lied to the American people... So did Obama. So he covered up a little incompetent burglary. Obama covered up some incompetence with Benghazi.

Or are you...

whidbey: one of those "both sides are bad


...guys...? :-)

Nixon used his (hilariously not secret) plan to eventually (and painfully) pull us out of 'nam. He made peace with China, got us the EPA, ended the draft, and brought us title IX.

Obama, on the other hand, has managed to divide the nation, stagnate the economy, reduce the middle class, and continue his most favorite parts of the Bush legacy (drones, NSA, etc)...

On the plus side, he did managed to ram through a generally unpopular healthcare law.
 
2014-04-07 05:23:39 PM  

dwrash: whidbey: Destructor: Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.

lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?

Because it's the truth and you refuse to acknowledge it.

You have a big case of cognitive dissonance on your hans.


Bigger than calling Obama an ineffectual, spineless leader and an iron-fisted tyrant?
 
2014-04-07 05:25:09 PM  

Destructor: Nixon used his (hilariously not secret) plan to eventually (and painfully) pull us out of 'nam. He made peace with China, got us the EPA, ended the draft, and brought us title IX.

Obama, on the other hand, has managed to divide the nation, stagnate the economy, reduce the middle class, and continue his most favorite parts of the Bush legacy (drones, NSA, etc)...

On the plus side, he did managed to ram through a generally unpopular healthcare law.


Citations needed. Also riling up a bunch of stupid teabag dipshiats does not constitute "dividing the nation."

4/10 for replies
 
2014-04-07 05:27:08 PM  

Destructor: whidbey: lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?

Geez whidbey... Why do you hate Nixon so much? So he lied to the American people... So did Obama. So he covered up a little incompetent burglary. Obama covered up some incompetence with Benghazi.

Or are you...

whidbey: one of those "both sides are bad

...guys...? :-)

Nixon used his (hilariously not secret) plan to eventually (and painfully) pull us out of 'nam. He made peace with China, got us the EPA, ended the draft, and brought us title IX.

Obama, on the other hand, has managed to divide the nation, stagnate the economy, reduce the middle class, and continue his most favorite parts of the Bush legacy (drones, NSA, etc)...

On the plus side, he did managed to ram through a generally unpopular healthcare law.


Ooh, that's gotta be one of my favorite Teabagger talking points. "We went absolutely batsh*t when a black guy got elected! He's the MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVAR!"
 
2014-04-07 05:31:55 PM  

LordJiro: Ooh, that's gotta be one of my favorite Teabagger talking points. "We went absolutely batsh*t when a black guy got elected! He's the MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVAR!"


He's got a point - in January 2009, pretty much the whole country was united in not wanting the GOP to run even the local waffle joint. By November 2010 however, enough of us disagreed that control of the US House went to that same GOP.

The teabag conclusion does not follow from those premises, but the premises themselves contain elements of truth.
 
2014-04-07 05:32:27 PM  

LordJiro: "We went absolutely batsh*t when a black guy got elected! He's the MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVAR!"


How Destructor sees himself:

i.imgur.com

The reality:

progressivepopulist.org
 
2014-04-07 05:34:07 PM  

whidbey: Citations needed.


Uhh... Your favorite history book and newspaper?

whidbey: Also riling up a bunch of stupid teabag dipshiats does not constitute "dividing the nation."


That's right, there's just so much cooperation in Congress today! I can't imagine what I was thinking. Why, just the other day, Nancy Pelosi and Boehner were singing kumbaya together while Obama was laughing and joking with Paul Ryan about how well the budget was coming together.

Dude. You have states talking about splitting apart. Colorado, California, even Michigan. I don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor. Maybe on Whidbey island (been there, nice place, btw), your just scratching your head wondering what the moron conservatives are whining about, so you really weren't aware. It's bad out there, whidbey.

whidbey: 4/10 for replies


Yay? That's good, right?
 
2014-04-07 05:37:02 PM  

Destructor: whidbey: Citations needed.

Uhh... Your favorite history book and newspaper?

whidbey: Also riling up a bunch of stupid teabag dipshiats does not constitute "dividing the nation."

That's right, there's just so much cooperation in Congress today! I can't imagine what I was thinking. Why, just the other day, Nancy Pelosi and Boehner were singing kumbaya together while Obama was laughing and joking with Paul Ryan about how well the budget was coming together.

Dude. You have states talking about splitting apart. Colorado, California, even Michigan. I don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor. Maybe on Whidbey island (been there, nice place, btw), your just scratching your head wondering what the moron conservatives are whining about, so you really weren't aware. It's bad out there, whidbey.

whidbey: 4/10 for replies

Yay? That's good, right?


Well, when half of Congress decides, on day one of the Presidency, that they will not let Obama get anything done, come Hell or high water? Yeah, that's pretty divisive. But blaming Obama for it seems a little silly.
 
2014-04-07 05:38:12 PM  
You can park it now, Destructor.
 
2014-04-07 05:45:47 PM  

Destructor: You have states talking about splitting apart. Colorado, California, even Michigan. I don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor.


Initially, they wanted to split TX into 5 states before they'd be allowed to join the union. People have been trying to split CA for at least a generation or two (I forget the name, but IIRC there's a separatist "state" between CA and OR that's a remnant of this push). IIRC people have been wanting to split Michigan's UP from the LP pretty much since they got the UP (and discovered it was lousy with beavers and their pelts).

Bills to split states are like bills proposing Constitutional Amendments - everyone's advanced one, no one thinks theirs is crap, and they're largely ignored (except to say "That's not gonna happen").

And the reason you "don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor" is that you're younger than 170 years old (I assume). We spent half (or three-quarters of) a million lives and $2 billion (in 1870s dollars) cleaning up that little spot of rancor, and I'd guess we're several years from that at least.
 
2014-04-07 05:57:02 PM  

dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: Compared to what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done, Nixon looks quite innocent.

hurr

hurr derpity derp?

You know its true!

That you're spewing derp? Absolutely.

Nope.. no derp, just reality.

At least Nixon started getting us out of a war, while Clinton, Bush and Obama are the bomb strike/war mongers I despise.. and you can probably add Reagan to that list.

One small lie about a break in where no-one was hurt and the cover up was what sunk Nixon..  stack the more recent Presidents against that and he looks clean as can be... its all about perspective.

FYI, I'm not a Nixon fan... but I am a fan of the 1968 party platform.. it's much more sane and inclusive than any other party platform since.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25841


ReThat's not even close to the actual truth. Yes, Watergate was what started the ball in motion. In and of itself, it probably would have been enough. The "small lie about a break in"? Give me a break. Read up on what the reasoning behind the break in was. Aside from that, the whole ongoing airing of the tapes gave the lie to everything about Nixon's public persona. He showed himself to be paranoid to the point of serious delusion, vindictive , contemptous of most of the public, corrupt and utterly without credibility. The airing of what Nixon was really like made him repugnant and unacceptable to not only the public, but most of his own party. THAT was the story of Watergate.
 
2014-04-07 06:00:22 PM  

whidbey: The reality:


I wish I had a tricorn hat that nice. (Also, I wish I was that thin.) However, I haven't made a placard yet... but if I did, it would be easier to read (honestly, who uses blue with black lettering?) and I would be careful when it came to spelling.

LordJiro: Ooh, that's gotta be one of my favorite Teabagger talking points. "We went absolutely batsh*t when a black guy got elected! He's the MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVAR!"


Why does this keep coming up? I don't care what color the man is. If it really makes a difference to you, I only don't like the part of Obama that's white. Geez.

LordJiro: Well, when half of Congress decides, on day one of the Presidency, that they will not let Obama get anything done, come Hell or high water? Yeah, that's pretty divisive. But blaming Obama for it seems a little silly.


Soooo. The same guy who can find time to deal with the international jerks of the world can't come to some sort of reconciliation with Congress? Heck, he can't even be bothered to make a public showing of good will. It is a little silly.

whidbey: You can park it now, Destructor.


Hmm. I really don't want to irritate you (needlessly). But you seem angry in this thread. I'm just going to back away slowly now. :-)
 
2014-04-07 06:05:34 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: I'll admit to only reading the article until this part, but it wasn't SCOTUS. It was CJoSCOTUS.


AKA, Dread Asshole Roberts
 
2014-04-07 06:08:50 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Initially, they wanted to split TX into 5 states before they'd be allowed to join the union. People have been trying to split CA for at least a generation or two (I forget the name, but IIRC there's a separatist "state" between CA and OR that's a remnant of this push). IIRC people have been wanting to split Michigan's UP from the LP pretty much since they got the UP (and discovered it was lousy with beavers and their pelts).


You're right. However, this stuff is actually making it to the ballot now. I don't think it's gone that far in a while.

Dr Dreidel: Bills to split states are like bills proposing Constitutional Amendments - everyone's advanced one, no one thinks theirs is crap, and they're largely ignored (except to say "That's not gonna happen").


I remember a time when they thought pot would never be legalized, too. :-)

Dr Dreidel: And the reason you "don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor" is that you're younger than 170 years old (I assume). We spent half (or three-quarters of) a million lives and $2 billion (in 1870s dollars) cleaning up that little spot of rancor, and I'd guess we're several years from that at least.


I don't... And I'm old by Earth standards. I believe I tried to frame my response to lay within the domain of "Living Memory". Using American History as a backdrop, you could say we've been living a fairly charmed existence in modern times. And then Obama came along... :-)
 
2014-04-07 06:11:56 PM  

Destructor: LordJiro: Well, when half of Congress decides, on day one of the Presidency, that they will not let Obama get anything done, come Hell or high water? Yeah, that's pretty divisive. But blaming Obama for it seems a little silly.


Soooo. The same guy who can find time to deal with the international jerks of the world can't come to some sort of reconciliation with Congress? Heck, he can't even be bothered to make a public showing of good will. It is a little silly.


Well, for starters, the Republicans in Congress are a greater threat to America than any of the "international jerks of the world". None of those "jerks" have come within days of defaulting on America's national debt out of spite.

And again, how do you "reconcile" with a group who outright declared they refuse to work with you no matter what? Republicans are petty, spoiled, whiny children throwing a temper tantrum, and if anything, Obama tried to work with them too MUCH in the early days, and it bit him in the ass.
 
2014-04-07 06:42:13 PM  

LordJiro: And again, how do you "reconcile" with a group who outright declared they refuse to work with you no matter what? Republicans are petty, spoiled, whiny children throwing a temper tantrum, and if anything, Obama tried to work with them too MUCH in the early days, and it bit him in the ass.


You compromise. The art of politics. But Obama doesn't like doing that. Look at healthcare. He didn't have to compromise... So he didn't. The rest is history.

So, Obama has discovered he simply doesn't need congress. So, he ignores them. It seems to suit him.
 
2014-04-07 07:11:29 PM  

Destructor: LordJiro: And again, how do you "reconcile" with a group who outright declared they refuse to work with you no matter what? Republicans are petty, spoiled, whiny children throwing a temper tantrum, and if anything, Obama tried to work with them too MUCH in the early days, and it bit him in the ass.

You compromise. The art of politics. But Obama doesn't like doing that. Look at healthcare. He didn't have to compromise... So he didn't. The rest is history.

So, Obama has discovered he simply doesn't need congress. So, he ignores them. It seems to suit him.


WRONG. He had to replace the public option that was in the original plan, with the insurance mandate to get "Blue Dog" Democrats (Republicans without the branding) on-board. It was supposed to get actual Republicans on board too, but they backed out at the last minute.

Democrats compromised on the stimulus, adding more tax cuts that kneecapped the recovery. Democrats compromised on spending; cutting it all over the place despite most economists saying we should be spending MORE, particularly on infrastructure. Every time Obama and the rest of the Democrats have tried to compromise with Republicans, the result has been the same. Either things get watered down with disproven 'supply-side' nonsense, to the point where they barely help, or Republicans back out of any deal that's made at the last minute.

You can not compromise with fascist radicals like the GOP.
 
2014-04-07 07:27:33 PM  
Circular reasoning, compliments of the your good ol' boys.
izquotes.com
 
2014-04-07 07:33:21 PM  

LordJiro: WRONG. He had to replace the public option that was in the original plan, with the insurance mandate to get "Blue Dog" Democrats (Republicans without the branding) on-board. It was supposed to get actual Republicans on board too, but they backed out at the last minute.


It's hardly the Republicans fault that members of the Democratic party had to be bribed into passing that monstrosity. Nope, the Democrats had to have that thing, come hell or high water, and they had to have it by Christmas. It was the Democrat's gift to America. Nancy Pelosi was very proud. Not one Republican vote. But, they got it! Yay!

LordJiro: Democrats compromised on the stimulus...
Democrats compromised on spending...
Every time Obama and the rest of the Democrats have tried to compromise with Republicans, the result has been the same. Either things get watered down with disproven 'supply-side' nonsense, to the point where they barely help, or Republicans back out of any deal that's made at the last minute.


Who have the Democrats been compromising with? Themselves? No, when they compromise, they compromise with the Republicans. You mean they don't get everything they want? Well, that's the way its supposed to work. Now, turn that around, and see it from the Republicans POV. They don't get everything they want either. That's politics.

Meanwhile, Obama is talking up the minimum wage, as if that's going to lower the unemployment rate or something. He's done with Congress. He's not interested in trying to work with them. So, this is what he's all about now; he'll change as much as he dares with executive orders.

It seems to be working for him.
 
2014-04-07 08:39:47 PM  
This would be the same Nixon that gave us OSHA and the EPA, and raised the minimum wage by 40% before imposing a wage and price freeze? The same Nixon that cut bait in Vietnam too bad you defense contractors? That Nixon?

Yeah he sounds like a real shill for campaign donors. What a puppet.

/revisionist fools
 
2014-04-07 10:12:30 PM  

Destructor: whidbey: You can park it now, Destructor.


Hmm. I really don't want to irritate you (needlessly). But you seem angry in this thread. I'm just going to back away slowly now. :-)


Not even mad. Just been here a long time. I tend to shoot from the hip. Appy Polly Logies.
 
2014-04-07 10:37:47 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-07 11:10:27 PM  

d23: Even this guy thought that the Bush (2) administration was more corrupt than Nixon.


He also said -- and this is probably the most shocking thing he ever wrote -- that if if Humphrey got the nomination in 1972, he would vote for Richard Nixon.
 
2014-04-08 03:51:05 AM  
"If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin".

-Hunter S. Thompson
 
2014-04-08 09:56:20 AM  

whistleridge: The idea of originalist arguments is just as silly when the left uses it as when the right does. Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist then, political parties were seen as a bad thing, and the unspoken code of gentlemanly behavior was that it simply wasn't 'done' to campaign.


We have Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to thank for political parties....and G. Washington hated the idea, he said political parties do nothing but divide people.

/got that from my 9yr old daughter's history book!
 
2014-04-08 10:20:50 AM  

ristst: whistleridge: The idea of originalist arguments is just as silly when the left uses it as when the right does. Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist then, political parties were seen as a bad thing, and the unspoken code of gentlemanly behavior was that it simply wasn't 'done' to campaign.

We have Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to thank for political parties....and G. Washington hated the idea, he said political parties do nothing but divide people.

/got that from my 9yr old daughter's history book!


Did you happen to read the part where parties didn't develop until 8-10 years AFTER the Constitution was written?

After all, if we're going to refer to the halcyon days of yore and the intent of the framers, it should be confined to the actual framing and writing. What came after is what came after, be it 5, 50, or 225 years later.
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report