Write Review
1,891,329 Total Reviews 3,560 New Reviews
9,118 Users Online

Politics and Religion

I've never seen any source that backs up your assertion.
ed2000 31 Reviews 172 reads
posted

If you can provide one, I'd be very interested to investigate. It wasn't just IL and WV. TX was also suspect. Anything else sounds like just a convenient excuse to avoid the topic.

ed20006574 reads

It's an absolute disaster how low things have gotten.

In 1960 when many in the Republican party were pushing Nixon hard to challenge his very close loss to Kennedy, Nixon told everyone to stand down. History shows the Kennedy's stole Illinois and West Virginia with vote tampering. A recount most likely would have gone in Nixon's favor. But Nixon stated he could not throw the country into a Constitutional confrontation. He thought more of the country than himself. It's sad today's Democrats can't say the same thing and be more like Nixon.  

What they actually need is for one of them to man up and tell the others to stand down.

ReplyQuoteReport
JakeFromStateFarm294 reads

And it's actually true that Papa Joe Kennedy stole Illinois and WVA for Jack.  But today's far left Dems aren't challenging Delicate Donnie's win.  There was one weak effort by Jill Stein (not Hillary, who conceded gracefully) and that was months ago. So the entire premise of your post is wrong.
Now, if you want to have a real debate, challenge the Dems' relentless opposition to all of Trump's initiatives. I happen to agree with most of it, but at least that's a legitimate question.

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000265 reads

To make your lousy point even hold water, the 1960  Republicans would have had to do everything possible to denigrate President Kennedy.  

Analogies just aren't your forte. This one is obviously too complex for you.

This goes beyond the actual lection. The far left is trying to over turn Trump moving forward.

-- Modified on 3/11/2017 9:32:49 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
JakeFromStateFarm198 reads

You're a legend in your own mind, right???

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000360 reads

Since all you have remaining is a FG meme, I guess not.

ReplyQuoteReport
JakeFromStateFarm231 reads

Your typically tendentious, poorly written and dense posts deserve only derision.  Hence, this....If you don't like it, don't respond to my posts.

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000360 reads

It’s understandable you rather join your friends here to bury your head in the sand rather than face the fact that the far Left has not accepted Hillary Clinton’s concession. These “unacceptors” range from the rioters and protesters to a solid majority of the Press to the leaders of the Democrat Party and most importantly to Democrats working in government agencies. Most vocally say yes he is President but their actions indicate otherwise. And Clinton and Obama (Obama especially) are doing what they can to stoke the fire, not tamp it down. This isn’t about resisting Trump’s policies, it’s about working to get rid of Trump.  

Blaming my grammar or writing style only shows you are either lazy or you’ve actually realized you have less integrity and character than Nixon did in 1960 and you just can’t bring yourself to face it. BTW, tendentious is sort of what I was going for. Maybe you need a dictionary.

We’ll see now if you spend your time searching for or creating another meme vs. facing reality. My guess is you’ll pick plan C and simply sit on your hands.  

ReplyQuoteReport
JakeFromStateFarm250 reads

You are really, really dense.  I did not read your post. I just told you I consider you a buffoon so idiotic I have no interest in debating anything with you.  Yet you feel compelled to respond anyway.  Perhaps you simply MUST have the last word.  OK, go for it if you're really that retarded.  I can guarantee I won't be reading it.  Just laughing at you....

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000202 reads

Good one. It suits you well.

ReplyQuoteReport
Hpygolky279 reads

How far would have trump taken this "Election was rigged" nonsense. He had his based primed and ready to fight it till the end. How many state recalls would have he demanded. He for sure wasn't going away quietly..I think we all know that. Just a thought...
And Nixon was a true "Republican" in the sense he put "Country before party". Can today's republicans say that?
So as for "standing down", not really sure why or what for.
So I'm not sure if this gives your post a different take or...

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000390 reads

Posted By: hpygolky
So as for "standing down", not really sure why or what for.
Your inability to recognize "why or what for" is precisely the problem.

ReplyQuoteReport
impposter275 reads

Posted By: ed2000
In 1960 when many in the Republican party were pushing Nixon hard to challenge his very close loss to Kennedy, Nixon told everyone to stand down. History shows the Kennedy's stole Illinois and West Virginia with vote tampering. A recount most likely would have gone in Nixon's favor. But Nixon stated he could not throw the country into a Constitutional confrontation.
There was also the argument (I don't want to call it a fact but I don't have time to search for all the old stories) that Nixon's people had stolen votes in other places (they just didn't steal enough votes to swing the election their way :-) .) The Republicans didn't want a thorough investigation to show that "Crooked Election Boulevard" was a two-way street.

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000173 reads

If you can provide one, I'd be very interested to investigate. It wasn't just IL and WV. TX was also suspect. Anything else sounds like just a convenient excuse to avoid the topic.

ReplyQuoteReport
impposter369 reads

I used to read a lot more political stuff, pre-internet. Jack Anderson pulled up lots of stuff in the Nixon days, but I'm not saying that I remember reading the election fraud allegations in Anderson's work. There were a lot of investigative reporters back then.

And the argument that 1960 RMN was somehow better than 1968 RMN doesn't hold up, to me. RMN earned the nickname Tricky Dick going waaaay back in his career. 1950s, HUAC, Adlai Stevenson, threats, harassment, ...  

RMN didn't change from pre-1960 to 1960 to 1968. He evolved.

Posted By: ed2000
If you can provide one, I'd be very interested to investigate. It wasn't just IL and WV. TX was also suspect. Anything else sounds like just a convenient excuse to avoid the topic.

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000288 reads

I never brought Nixon's behavior post 1960 into this. Others in this thread have tried to as well as you. It IS possible to praise or point out one good thing a person does without excusing all the bad things that person ever did. I think I will never get  over the mentality here akin to if you're not 100% with me then you are my enemy.  

BTW here is a linked source to evidence supporting your original claim.

Related Link: https://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=303626&boardID=...

ReplyQuoteReport
BigPapasan327 reads

...Nixon committed treason by sabotaging the Paris peace talks, resulting in the Vietnam War continuing for five more years and thousands more American soldiers killed.  Trump + Russia = treason.

Related Link: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/notes-indicate-nixon-interfered-1968-peace-tal...

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000240 reads

You're talking about 1968 Nixon while I was talking about 1960 Nixon AND we are still left with the far left Democrats of today having less integrity and character than 1960 Nixon. Maybe you're implying that in a few years the far Left Democrats will have even less integrity and character than they do now?

ReplyQuoteReport
BigPapasan254 reads

...than in 1968?  Why don't you go back to 1946 and 1950 to see his character in his races against Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas.  See also his sob story Checkers speech in 1952 to save his Veep ambitions.

Yeah sure, he had a good character in '60 compared to '68.  ROTFLMAO.

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000280 reads

drives everything they do in their life must be based on your personal life.

I never made any favorable statement or characterization of Nixon's actions either before or after the 1960 election.

You know and everyone knows that your lying and subterfuge repeats itself with every post you make.

ReplyQuoteReport
BigPapasan345 reads

...Nixon's character and integrity in 1960, yet when shown his total lack of character and integrity throughout his life, you post some bullshit about never making any favorable statement or characterization of Nixon's actions either before or after the 1960 election.  Way to dance on the head of a pin - now you're claiming your OP was limiting Nixon's "character and " integrity" to the 1960 election. Bwahahahaha!!

Read the subject line of your OP again:  "Richard Nixon had far more integrity and character than today's far left Democrats.". You didn't say Nixon had far more integrity and character in the 1960 election, you simply stated in the headline of your post that Nixon had more integrity and character than today's far left Democrats.  It's close to Spring - spread your bullshit in your garden and you will grow beautiful flowers this year.

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000371 reads

Your statement, "You didn't say Nixon had far more integrity and character in the 1960 election" is 100% false. The 1960 clarification was right up front in the first sentence of my main paragraph in the OP. So I'm not JUST NOW making the claim. It was RIGHT IN THE OP.

You obviously think the ENTIRE point and all of the points of a post need to be contained in the headline. LOL. OR we now know all you ever do is read the headlines, LOL. Unlike most truly weasel posts here that never clarify a misleading headline, I'll expect you to point out your requirement to your friends here the next time they intentionally break your rule.  

I'll repeat what I just told imposter.  It IS possible to praise or point out one good thing a person does without excusing all the bad things that person ever did. But in your case I can't think of even one good thing.

BTW, you still have time to delete your post before too many see it.

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd261 reads

would argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. I had always pictured Ed as being one of the one's arguing, not one of ones dancing! ;)

ReplyQuoteReport
EuroModelsShown275 reads

My count is a big zero.

ReplyQuoteReport
2465305390 reads

That pretty much sums up his entire 8 years.

Posted By: EuroModelsShown
My count is a big zero.

ReplyQuoteReport
2465305268 reads

But Obama the RACIST was a saint?

He further divided a country, he showed a lack of support of law enforcement, and he created something he called AFFORDABLE that became UNAFFORDABLE.

Posted By: BigPapasan
...Nixon committed treason by sabotaging the Paris peace talks, resulting in the Vietnam War continuing for five more years and thousands more American soldiers killed.  Trump + Russia = treason.

ReplyQuoteReport
Jinx_The_Cat347 reads

The truth is that Nixon and the GOP launched a massive nationwide campaign for a recount of the 1960 election.  The meager recount effort for the 2016 election pales in comparison as it was limited to one state.  Check out Greenberg of Columbia University's extensive work on Nixon history and place in American politics for the actual truth.  There are plenty of other historical sources.  Thank god Trumpy and the radical elements of the GOP's vision of 1984 just won't play out because the truth is out there.  I just wish more progressives would do more to point it out.

Both Trumpy and Hitler share the same belief that if you repeat the same lie enough, people will start to believe it.  That's all that is going on with the OP.

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000355 reads

Posted By: Jinx_The_Cat
Check out Greenberg of Columbia University's extensive work on Nixon history and place in American politics for the actual truth.
I guess I can believe the GOP made court challenges as David Greenberg asserts, but in all the Google hits, he seems to be the sole person in all of history to have taken up this version of events. How did all the other historians, the vast majority of them liberal and who eventually hated Nixon, get their recording so wrong?  

Two interesting points I read.  
1) In his 2001 critique of Doris Goodwin's recollection of the 1960 election, David Greenberg lets stand what he surely must think is an inaccurate description by Goodwin of Nixon's benevolence.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/03/doris_kearns_goodwin.html

2) David Greenberg's own account of the GOP's efforts states that it all ended after the Electoral College voted and cast the final result. That sort of altruism has certainly NOT been duplicated by ANY of the far Left factions, beginning with the riots and continuing through to the felonious and several false "leaks" coming from inside the government, not to mention the complicit Press merrily going along with the mantra.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/10/local/me-49741

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd151 reads

Absolute disaster? Yep! That truly was! There' so much missing in both contexts you present; that of Nixon, and that of Trump's election, and the democrats response to it, that you are left with just a fat pile of BS! ;)

But, you're going to try an justify it anyways! ;)

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000298 reads

The content that clearly spells out it was about Nixon's actions relating to the 1960 election results. But then I expect you to only look at headlines so I'm not at all surprised at your reaction. At worst I'm guilty of an incomplete headline and since I rail against them I deserve that, sorry that they are limited in length here. But then again you live for false headlines.

Posted By: mattradd
There' so much missing in both contexts you present; that of Nixon, and that of Trump's election, and the democrats response to it


-- Modified on 3/13/2017 6:31:54 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd223 reads

The context I was pointing out was in regard to the man and his political history, not the one aspect within that context that you present!

Here's another part of the context I was referring to! ;)

Your one little part of the context of his political life, does not stack up well amidst  the total, hence not a good a good example to use for your argument! ;)

Related Link: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gain...

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000304 reads

That's a common tactic when you have no actual countering argument that stays within the context parameters.

Nixon indeed had several character defects. His actions immediately after the 1960 election was not among them.

Interesting though how few people, including you, believe that someone that is considered evil cannot be allowed to have done even one good thing.

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd220 reads

But, you just can't see it or admit it. And, after all that's said and done, it made you sound like you are crying about how unfairly Trump is being treated! ;)

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000258 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!