Jump to content

yaqdum

Full Members
  • Posts

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by yaqdum

  1. buy that. just would be nice if mueller has enough that he can slow-cook him and manafort and a few others. edit: it wouldn't cause me undue doodoo if that facebook prick is an other.
  2. fingernails . . . chalkboard. next time say it like this: only reason i wouldn't piss on him is if he were on fire.
  3. ever notice how every thread seems to have one of these fuckers assigned to it?
  4. creep managing to tie up this thread.
  5. any of you buckeroos or buckerooskies who doubt the national position after all this is over with need to read this long thread that was recommended by rick wilson. note the similarites and especially the strong right-wing support of nixon even after his sins were exposed. i ask you to think today of our collective memory of the nixon saga. today few recall or realize how bent this nation was at that time. few today don't see nixon as what he sadly was. me, i mourn for what he might have been. click the link below to read the original and see some great photos and graphics from that era. Joshua Tait @Joshua_A_Tait - 7:25 pm - 27 Jul 2018 A long thread on conservative intellectuals' responses to Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Movement intellectuals around the magazine National Review, who had gone a long way toward popularizing “conservatism” as a conscious and articulated political outlook, were never especially keen on Nixon. William F. Buckley voted for Nixon in 1960. The magazine’s publisher, William Rusher, a key conservative activist, wrote in Barry Goldwater, the candidate he helped to draft for the 1964 presidential election. Rusher thought Nixon’s ’60 defeat was essential to the emergence of conservatism. Had Nixon won, then Eisenhower-Nixon Republicanism would have predominated the early 1960s. No Goldwater run, no conservative takeover of the GOP. After LBJ’s landslide defeat of Goldwater in 1964, some conservative intellectuals, including Buckley, decided that the right needed some wins and Nixon would be their best bet. Pat Buchanan, a Nixon aide and conservative, was a key conduit in making conservatives feel listened to by Nixon and for papering over some public disagreements. By the end of the first Nixon term, conservative intellectuals were divided. In ‘69 and ‘70, Nixon seemed to tack to a hard conservative line, but after the ‘70 midterms, he moved to the center. Conservative intellectuals were in a bind. Did they support Nixon, the president – in power and the rightmost option in the election – or retreat to opposition and find a true conservative alternative, maybe Reagan. Rusher wanted Reagan. He compared conservative support for Reagan unfavorably with conservative criticism of the Eisenhower years writing that “modern American conservatism largely organized itself during, and in explicit opposition to, the Eisenhower administration.” During the election, National Review offered qualified support for Nixon. The letters the magazine received divided evenly between readers asking why they weren’t supporting Nixon more and why they were supporting Nixon at all. Early in Nixon’s second term, James Burnham, a driving force within NR and a conservative philosopher, turned massively against Nixon. According to Rusher, Burnham thought the administration was the most “outrageously secretive and Byzantine in American history.” Burnham quashed Rusher’s attempts to criticize the threat that he thought the press’s legal immunity for publishing leaked documents posed to national security. Rusher noted the irony of the growing liberal worry of the imperial presidency, since it echoed arguments that conservatives had made for the previous three decades. [ed-*wink* does this sound familiar?] In June 1973, NR’s “Washington Editor,” George F. Will wrote about Watergate in his WaPo column. He asked what the conservative position on burglary could possibly be. He argued that: “Reflective conservatives know they must act with special severity against miscreants whose political activism represents a perversion of conservatism in the name of – but contrary to – the essential conservative values.” Liberals excused leftist violence, conservatives supported McCarthy. Nixon struck at “what conservatives cherish most: the institutions and procedures that guarantee limited government and prevent ordered liberty from degenerating into the licentious abuse of unchecked power.” Will’s criticism of Nixon and esp. VP Spiro Agnew (a conservative favorite) got him in trouble with the NR editors. Buckley and the other editors tried several times to rein in Will’s “gleeful” commentary since he was attached to NR's masthead. Will responded that WFB did not realize that “when NR’s role as an opinion journal conflicts with its role as an instrument of a political movement (and, increasingly, as the instrument of a candidate), the second role is given priority.” Will regarded “the fate of this administration as nothing short of a national tragedy.”: He had “no desire to adopt an ideological sense of justice, ie judging an act by the political views of the person committing the act..." Rusher told Buckley that those at NR thought of Will as their Washington Editor, but he thought of NR as a magazine he freelanced for. Rusher thought Will a good writer with important connections to Irving Kristol's set, but a hassle to deal with. Into August, 1973, Will’s columns in the Washington Post constituted the most robust conservative criticism of Watergate. Rusher fumed that Will was taking them to war with Nixon the way LBJ did with Vietnam: “without the benefit of an official declaration by those empowered to do the official declaring.” Finally, in October in response to the Saturday Night Massacre, NR editorialized that Nixon had to shape up by the new year or the magazine would call for his resignation or impeachment. The reader letters NR received in response were 85% pro-Nixon. The readers raged that NR was going leftwing commie pinko and that the “Kennedy tramp” Will would lead to cancelled subscriptions. The pro-Nixon letters made familiar arguments: - Nixon is the greatest president of the century - Nixon has issues, but anyone liberals hate that much is good. - Removing a president due to media pressure will damage the country - Will’s hatred for Nixon invalidates his comments In March, 1974 NR reemphasized, belatedly, its criticism of Nixon, Watergate, and the coverup. Within the magazine, William Rusher, Jeffrey Hart and others continued their campaign against Will. Rusher wrote repeatedly to Buckley about Will. Most baldly, he wrote: By Will’s “consistent shilling for established liberal positions, NR is not only being used (and misused, and abused) to further liberal objectives, but... is being deprived of what it badly needs: a competent Washington correspondent who will state the conservative position…” Some of this was professional jealousy. Several of the editors were in direct competition with Will as “minor spokesmen for the conservative position” and in 1974 Will was on a wave of favorable publicity as someone who could write for readers of NR and WaPo Another editor at NR wrote to Buckley to say that another part of the animus against Will was that he affronted conservatives by being “prematurely right” about Watergate and breaking with and criticizing the president from a conservative perspective early. So what’s the point? Conservative intellectuals struggle with proximity to power: it warps them. Rusher opposed Nixon on ideological terms, but supported him late into the Watergate scandal because he was attacked by the left.
  6. i've never heard them called that.
  7. yep. and yeoman's work on that project was done by none other than rupert murdoch. this mess is so large that tendrils of it will tail off for years after the big fireworks have gone cold, but by that point the whole nation will be on-page regarding what has happened. until somewhat recently these people have been free to spew their crap with relative impunity since none of us realized the significance of it prior to the big blowup. in the future the whole nation will be on point to deal with these creeps. i don't like to imagine living here at that point and trying to do as they've been free to do. the incorrigible may find it difficult simply to get by. i don't think they realize right now what it's going to be like. at worst, i'm guessing, they think things will go back to the way they were. that goose has been plucked.
  8. no different than an abortion. this stuff matters to them unless it involves someone they need it not to matter. truth is what you need it to be when you have faith.
  9. i think we need to quit worrying about people who can't be reached. who gives a shit what they think?
  10. oh, absolutely. it's the salt in all our drinking water.
  11. one important aspect that hasn't been mentioned on this thread is that we now know the source of the bitterness that is tearing brisket apart.
  12. let me remind, too, that this is a skirmish in a war. the whole country is watching this trial, and issues like lifestyle resonate with people. there's probably nothing said or done in this trial that isn't attuned to the overall impact.
  13. this carny and the carny in the white house are essentially embodiments of tabloid foolishness. this set of generations you belong to, gentle reader, will go down in history as goofy.
  14. i think you guys are over committed to the accouterments. they are certainly nice, but that whole package is A+ to me, thus drawing the rare capital letter. looks are the skin on the apple, for sure, but they are far from insignificant. that is an exceptionally attractive woman in my book, though i admit my book doesn't have that many pages. oh, the trial. yes. i think this apparent one-legged defense is testimony to the expectation of minifart that he would never see the inside of a courthouse from that chair.
  15. sometimes unmasking doesn't take all that much effort.
  16. just a guess, but i doubt trump could shoot lincoln again and impact democrat or independent-voting-anti-gop turnout. my great suspicion is many, many people are itching to get in that booth.
  17. enough of them on a train will levitate the thing.
  18. the old ranch part of texas will tell you truth is what you need it to be.
  19. surprised no one has noted the wording on the cap of the supposed lady. it's misspelled (of course) but it's there to warn junior of his next big worry.
  20. if every woman were roseanne, we'd be egg-stinked in a generation.
  21. this whole thing reminds me of the movie la strada, where putin is the brute, trump is the girl, and cohen is the trumpet.
  22. i go out of my way to hide my tracks. pay for most stuff in cash. nothing official on the internet. use encryption emailing. don't even own a phone. my tv is so dumb it doesn't exist and hasn't for some number of years. i haven't watched tv regularly since saturday night was bob newhart followed by mary tyler moore followed by carol burnett (born in texas, i wonder if she is a descendant of burk burnett). couple years ago enforced my intent to abandon credit card use by shredding my card and dropping my allowable to $150, but a recent move pretty much forced me to get a new one. there are things you just can't do these days without one. so that phone call (at a branch of my bank, thank you) to the credit agency was an interesting one. i've apparently been on some sort of mystery list. (realize that when i was a roadie in the world of aerospace design, i used my c-card so much that my monthly payment was often well up in the thousands (especially when it covered extended stay in bethpage ny where the weekly rent was 700 smackeroos).) i had to answer a bunch of questions to get them to raise the allowable. guess that was my payback for hiding much of my life from them. bill whatsit was right. advertisers and money people should kill themselves and today is not too soon.
  23. you guys keep talking legalese, and i don't think that's the game the traitors are playing. my bet is they've long known they are skinny-legged fucked if this stuff ever lands in a courtroom of the united states. what they are doing is desperately pushing for the numbnuts to try to overthrow the country. else they are plain straight-up screwed.
×
×
  • Create New...