Jump to content

Richard Nixon was a total idiot. He opened China, Started the EPA and the Vietnam war.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:

 

COMPLETELY FALSE.   As I've proven countless time.   Where were you?

 

Here's what really happened ...

 

Zaro made a post that indicated she was under seventeen ( http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/page-3 ), so I ask if she was really 16 and I expressed concern to the forum that we have a minor on the site ( http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=1059618312 ).  Zaro didn't deny being a minor, so I again questioned whether this is a good idea ... expressing the opinion that it might open the site to liability should anything happen to said minor as a result of being on it.      Moderator Isabel (later DemoMan) then joined the discussion and immediately attacked me (with vile language, unsuitable for children I might add: http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=105961836 ).  So I asked her sarcastically if the plan was to make this site friendly to pedophiles in order to increase forum visits ( http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=1059618371 ).   


I did not say there were already pedophiles on the site and I'll point out that Isabel herself regularly accused posters of being pedophiles.  Isabel's response ( http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=1059618412 ) was to accuse me of being a pedophile (thus proving my point).  I think given that sort of behavior, BY ONE OF THE TOP MODERATORS on the forum at the time, perhaps an ADMITTED sixteen year old (or younger) poster did not belong on this forum. So I pinged  Chuck (top dog at the time) to that effect.    And note that I did not accuse Chuck or the site of harboring pedophiles.  I only warned him that allowing 16 year olds (or younger) on the forum MIGHT attract them, and that his own top moderator, The Empress ... Isabel, suggested the forum was ALREADY harboring pedophiles.    You remember that, don't you SM?

 

Next, other liberals joined the thread in question and piled on me as well.   shintao (ANOTHER long gone leftist MODERATOR, by the way) accused me of being a "child molester" "in favor of brutally raping 13 year olds" ( http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=1059618430 ). Again, I pinged Chuck about this behavior and the assertion by his own moderators that there were pedophiles on the forum, and suggested that GIVEN THAT, perhaps admitted children don't belong on the website.   And when Chuck finally showed up ( http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=1059618587 ), I posted the following to him: http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=1059618624 .  I'll stand behind everything I said in that.
 
  When he posted back, acting clueless and asking exactly what I was referring to that made this site unfit for teenagers, I wrote ( http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=1059618768 ) "You don't spend much time here, do you, Chuck.   You do realize that your moderators are going around accusing people of being pedophiles. If they believe that, then that by itself makes this site unfit for minors."   Chuck's response was to admit that he didn't spend much time on the site, demand a link to one of his moderators making the pedophile accusation, and then basically ignore the rest of my concern.  I then supplied him ( http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=1059618834 ) with links from the thread to where moderators were accusing *me* of being a pedophile and told him that if moderators "are convinced that members are pedophiles and then encourage someone who says she is a minor to remain on this forum, that's a problem".
 
My last post before I was then suspended by Chuck (he told me to respond with the threat of suspension or banning hanging over my head) was this:
 
 http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/199146-lib-moderator-run-forum-is-disaster/?p=1059618874
 

 


I'll STILL stand by that opinion as well.   

 

Now what does all that mean?

 

First, you lied, ScottMon.  The above proves that I was NOT suspended for "chasing Zaro around" or "Pestering her about her age".    

 

Second, I predicted that your answer would prove you're a SLIMY, DISHONEST debater, and it did. :lol:

 

Third, *I* didn't say there were pedophiles on the forum.   I said to Chuck "your own moderators have indicated the belief that many of the folks on this forum are pedophiles."    True.    So, Chuck was outright wrong in suspending me for (in his words) claiming that I said he was harboring pedophiles. I did no such thing. His moderators did.

 

Fourth, Zaro, who started out acting like a sweet innocent female poster, ended up claiming she ruled the roost and using sexually explicit language only appropriate to gutter.

In other words, she apparently was corrupted, just as I feared would happen, by the forum.     

 

And finally, Fifth.   I'm still here.    Zaro, Isabel, shintao and maybe even Chuck are all gone.   Will you be next?  B)

Thanks for proving to entire forum that you are indeed a creep.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mirabeau said:

Trump is NOT a conservative.

 

If you don't know that, then you don't know the definition of "conservative."

 

So it begins. LOL.

 

Former Trumpists will soon be blaming us liberals for the biggest fuck up of a president, Donald J Trump, to ever disgrace the office. LOL.

 

Bill 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Whatever said:

Sexual harrasment.  I mean more so than the claims against Trump/

 

First, learn to use the quote feature.  You don't put answers inside another poster's quotes.

 

Second, post that on the other thread.   That will make it easy for me to DESTROY YOU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Whatever said:

I am not your bitch.  I respond how I want,  You make up/ bullshit.  Use terms liek :shooting fish in a barrel" but at te end of the day you got nothing.  Just a poser.

 

What you are is a COWARD, Whatever.   I've presented a very fair offer.   Simply post your claims on the thread where that list came from (like I nicely asked) and where it was amply supported.  That you won't do that only says you want to make me your bitch by forcing me to repost a mountain of material from one thread to another.   I won't do that ... first because it's off topic in this thread, second because I'm not YOUR bitch, and third because I don't need to do it to prove you a moron.  All I need is direct folks to that thread where all the assertions were supported with ample evidence to the tune of crickets from leftists like you.   Truth is that you're the one making claims with absolutely no supporting evidence, snowflake.  You're the one throwing out wild accusations.   And anyone here with two neurons to rub together can see it.   New prediction ... you won't survive here long.   :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ScottMon said:

Thanks for proving to entire forum that you are indeed a creep.  

 

LOL!   Keep digging, SM.   If you don't see what my post did, you're not only a slimy, dishonest debator ... you're a MORON.  

 

But since you want to continue this, let me point out to our readers that you previously posted this smear against me back in 2016:

 

Quote

You accused him of harboring pedofiles you dumb fuck... :D

 

The "him" being Chuck.  

 

Which as everyone can see from the links and quotes in my previous post on this thread is absolutely false.  

 

I did no such thing and provided links to prove it ... with you just ignored because that's what you do.  

 

And everyone should know that after you posted that 2016 smear, I responded with all that I stated in my post on this thread.  

 

Here, read it for yourself, folks:   https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/201114-for-posterity’s-sake-…-well-worth-the-time/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1059680191

 

So, SM, you were completely aware of the real facts when you posted what you did on this thread.  

 

Regurgitating your false smear.

 

That's further proof to everyone of how dishonest a poster you really are, SM.   What a LIAR you are.

 

And falsely implying I'm a "pedofile" (remember, I pointed out that you spelled that wrong, MORON) makes YOU the "creep" here.

 

But then most of us already know that to be true from the last time you hung around here for any length of time.  

 

Count yourself lucky that I don't start *recalling* additional posts showing even more of your dishonesty on topic after topic after topic.   

 

Like the death of Vince Foster and Ron Brown, the Fabian Society, Iraq, the bogus rape allegations against Trump, AGW, FDR being socialist, you claiming you're a Republican, the rape allegations against Clinton, McCarthy and HUAC, the number of people who died of starvation in the Great Depression, Mark Clemmons, the Clinton Foundation, Chinagate, the ACLU, the 2000 election, you claiming Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a socialist, and I could go on and on.   You see folks, I have a LOT of material on SM that he'd probably not like revisited.  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

LOL!   Keep digging, SM.   If you don't see what my post did, you're not only a slimy, dishonest debator ... you're a MORON.  

 

But since you want to continue this, let me point out to our readers that you previously posted this smear against me back in 2016:

 

 

The "him" being Chuck.  

 

Which as everyone can see from the links and quotes in my previous post on this thread is absolutely false.  

 

I did no such thing and provided links to prove it ... with you just ignored because that's what you do.  

 

And everyone should know that after you posted that 2016 smear, I responded with all that I stated in my post on this thread.  

 

Here, read it for yourself, folks:   https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/201114-for-posterity’s-sake-…-well-worth-the-time/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1059680191

 

So, SM, you were completely aware of the real facts when you posted what you did on this thread.  

 

Regurgitating your false smear.

 

That's further proof to everyone of how dishonest a poster you really are, SM.   What a LIAR you are.

 

And falsely implying I'm a "pedofile" (remember, I pointed out that you spelled that wrong, MORON) makes YOU the "creep" here.

 

But then most of us already know that to be true from the last time you hung around here for any length of time.  

 

Count yourself lucky that I don't start *recalling* additional posts showing even more of your dishonesty on topic after topic after topic.   

 

Like the death of Vince Foster and Ron Brown, the Fabian Society, Iraq, the bogus rape allegations against Trump, AGW, FDR being socialist, you claiming you're a Republican, the rape allegations against Clinton, McCarthy and HUAC, the number of people who died of starvation in the Great Depression, Mark Clemmons, the Clinton Foundation, Chinagate, the ACLU, the 2000 election, you claiming Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a socialist, and I could go on and on.   You see folks, I have a LOT of material on SM that he'd probably not like revisited.  :lol:

I'm not the one who followed a young girl around pestering her about her age.  That is documented.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Wallco1 said:

That son of a bitch really screwed us.

Nixon had little to do with the Vietnam war.  He inherited it from a string of Democrat presidents who started and escalated the conflict.   Opening China was a good idea at the time.  Nixon never intended to cut China a blank check like Carter, Clinton and Obama did. He was well aware of their evil empire and knew to proceed with caution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

More delusion by XO.

You are claiming that Nixon started the Vietnam War, then? Really?

YOu are denying that MacNamera did not know that the war there was totally unwinnable no matter what the US did?The best that could be hoped for was a permanent deployment of half a million Americans to South Vietnam forever. MacNamara knew this and continued sending more and more troops, including "MacNamara's Morons",  draftees who were too stupid to be trusted with a firearm.

 

The Vietnam War was a mistake, a HUGE mistake, made by the Dulles Brothers and then every president from Truman on down. The original plan was to give Vietnam back to the French to run as their colony. This failed at Dien Bien Phu, and the French Legionnaires, many of them Algerians, returned to Algeria to send the message that France's colonial powers were bogus and could be defeated. Then France lost Algeria bigtime.

 

It started when the US government, against the advice of its experts, decided to cooperate with the French in reimposing colonial status on Vietnam.

 

None of this is delusion. Just watch the Ken Burns PBS documentary on Vietnam.

 

I continue to insist that BeaLoser would be greatly improved by smacking him upside the head with a seven pound mackerel. The Fabian Society tells me to wait a decade before doing this, but I insist that NOW is the proper time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

LIAR.

 

The North Vietnamese commander who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam, General Bui Tin, publicly stated that we would have won the war if, instead of letting the anti-war left and left leaning mainstream media characterize Tet as a defeat and thus demoralize the American public, had treated Tet as the great victory for American and ARVN forces that it was and then done what Westmoreland was asking President Johnson to do at the time; namely, close the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and bomb the north.  

 

But LBJ wouldn't let him do that. 

You do not know shit about this.  The War was unwinnable. LBJ knew it, MacNamara knew it, Nixon knew it. No bombings would bring about any victory because the majority of the Vietnamese either supported the Viet Cong or just wanted the war to end. They did NOT support Diem and Ky or the US approved puppet governments.  The government lied for a decade to the people about how a Communist Vietnam was a huge threat to the US.

 

Now that Vietnam has had a Communist government since  1975 and it has posed no threat to our country. So the lies of the US government have been fully exposed through the release of the Pentagon Papers.

 

Be a Loser continues to be filled with reeking shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

I agree with you about his opening China being a bad thing, but Nixon didn’t start the Vietnam war … he tried to end it in an honorable manner.  By the time he got in office the possibility of victory was lost and there was no coming back. The American public had been too brainwashed by the left. The demand for withdrawal was simply too great. Even so, Nixon tried to secure some sort of lasting stalemate with the North. So he proposed we get out WITH HONOR by negotiating an end and giving the South the means to defend itself. And part of that plan (which the Democrats initially accepted) (i.e., they "mouthed" their agreement with Nixon's plan on how to get out) was to build up the South Vietnamese forces and promise to supply them with arms and other support as and after we did withdraw. But when the time came to authorize those supplies, it was the DemocRATS who voted not to do so. And that act broke the will of the South Vietnamese. So DemocRATS were responsible, not Nixon, for the fall of Saigon and Vietnam.  Just saying …

 

On the plus side, he massively supported Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War … which Golda Meir said saved the country. I really doubt Democrats today would do the same.  But Trump would.  In 1969 Nixon also called for the US to act in it’s own national interest and keep existing treaty commitments with allies. Again, this is something that sounds more like Trump than DemocRATS.  Now if you want to really get mad at Nixon, get mad at his support for the War On Poverty.  That has been a frightful disaster.

Lots of parallels between Nixon and Trump. Both tried to end unpopular wars, both passed more Progressive and liberal legislation than the democrats before them. Both hated by the left despite passing laws and policies they hold dear. Both attacked by a relentless media. The msm saw Trump as another opportunity to take down an American president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

You do not know shit about this.  The War was unwinnable. LBJ knew it, MacNamara knew it, Nixon knew it. No bombings would bring about any victory because the majority of the Vietnamese either supported the Viet Cong or just wanted the war to end. They did NOT support Diem and Ky or the US approved puppet governments.  The government lied for a decade to the people about how a Communist Vietnam was a huge threat to the US.

 

Now that Vietnam has had a Communist government since  1975 and it has posed no threat to our country. So the lies of the US government have been fully exposed through the release of the Pentagon Papers.

 

Be a Loser continues to be filled with reeking shit.

We abandoned them and millions were murdered. Not a great moment in American history but certainly a lesson in what the left considers victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

Lots of parallels between Nixon and Trump. Both tried to end unpopular wars, both passed more Progressive and liberal legislation than the democrats before them. Both hated by the left despite passing laws and policies they hold dear. Both attacked by a relentless media. The msm saw Trump as another opportunity to take down an American president. 

Trump needs to be taken down, even more than Nixon did.

Nixon was relatively smart, and was a schemer. He read newspapers and books. He read his daily briefings.

Trump is a functional illiterate that reads nothing. He gets the truth from Hannity's mouth.

All Trump is skilled at is rabble rousing. he is losing bigtime in WI, MI, PA and VA and FL is slipping away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

Trump needs to be taken down, even more than Nixon did.

Nixon was relatively smart, and was a schemer. He read newspapers and books. He read his daily briefings.

Trump is a functional illiterate that reads nothing. He gets the truth from Hannity's mouth.

All Trump is skilled at is rabble rousing. he is losing bigtime in WI, MI, PA and VA and FL is slipping away.

We are voting for the message, not the man. Though he is uniquely immune to negative publicity and fights back. It will be far closer than the polls indicate. I give him better than a 50% chance right now. If the economy improves and the riots continue his chances will rise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

We abandoned them and millions were murdered. Not a great moment in American history but certainly a lesson in what the left considers victory.

Who won in Vietnam? The  poor saps who would have been drafted to keep the War going could not be sent after the us was driven out.

The taxpayers who would have been forced to pay the bills for arms and munitions.

 

\The Vietnam War was a HUGE MISTAKE from 1946 on. Vietnam was and is no ally of China, and amicable relations with Ho's government would have been a huge asset. 54,000 Americans would not have died in Vietnam. Our country would not have been divided over Vietnam, and Millions of Vietnamese would be alive today. And of course, no one would have been poisoned by Agent Orange. Both parties and of course, the Military Industrial Complex were to blame

 

Pol Pot would never have ended up wrecking Cambodia.

 

The main drawback would be that we would have fewer Vietnamese restaurants in the US

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XavierOnassis said:

Who won in Vietnam? The  poor saps who would have been drafted to keep the War going could not be sent after the us was driven out.

The taxpayers who would have been forced to pay the bills for arms and munitions.

 

\The Vietnam War was a HUGE MISTAKE from 1946 on. Vietnam was and is no ally of China, and amicable relations with Ho's government would have been a huge asset. 54,000 Americans would not have died in Vietnam. Our country would not have been divided over Vietnam, and Millions of Vietnamese would be alive today. And of course, no one would have been poisoned by Agent Orange. Both parties and of course, the Military Industrial Complex were to blame

 

Pol Pot would never have ended up wrecking Cambodia.

 

The main drawback would be that we would have fewer Vietnamese restaurants in the US

Everyone lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Redoctober said:

Nixon was a liberal. 


I firmly believe his opening up China allowed China to drag on for decades, instead of falling back in the 80s.

After Mao and Chou En-Lai died, their many failings were reviewed and those in charge, who had actually studied both Marxism and capitalism became aware that the traditional collective mindset that the Chinese people had always had and their ability to work towards goals tirelessly could transform China. The evidence was all around them in Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and S. Korea. The idea of Nixon opening up China was really that of Kissinger, who thought that China and the US could be allies that would discourage the North Vietnamese. But sooner or later, with or without the US, China was going to do what it eventually did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

Everyone lost.

There are no wars where there are more winners than losers. Victory is a myth in modern times.

The Romans could defeat an enemy and bring back loot and booty and slaves that would benefit the Roman people.

This cannot be done today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XavierOnassis said:

There are no wars where there are more winners than losers. Victory is a myth in modern times.

The Romans could defeat an enemy and bring back loot and booty and slaves that would benefit the Roman people.

This cannot be done today.

We can get rid of the foolish notion of cultural imperialism at gunpoint. That worked in Germany and Japan because we first totally defeated the enemy militarily. Even if we didn't skip that step in the middle east we would be doomed to failure. Better to just take out terrorist camps and use covert intelligence to gain actionable intelligence. Invading and occupying won't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

We can get rid of the foolish notion of cultural imperialism at gunpoint. That worked in Germany and Japan because we first totally defeated the enemy militarily. Even if we didn't skip that step in the middle east we would be doomed to failure. Better to just take out terrorist camps and use covert intelligence to gain actionable intelligence. Invading and occupying won't work.

I agree with that. The First Iraq War could have been avoided had Olebush  understood Saddam better, and the Second Iraq War, the destruction of Kuwait, the Syrian Civil War, along with Isis and the Yemen war could all have been avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...