I'd like to know why all liberals ALWAYS brings up Nixon whenever their man screws up?
News flash! Nixon is gone, dead, and buried!
Obama is in the White House and if he screws up then HE'S going to take the heat...Like it or not!
For instance: It was the president OBAMA that bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, NOT Nixon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bravo Red, good job.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that they don't bring up is that Nixon had China peeing in their pants. The difference between Nixon talking to a Chinese dignitary and obama kissing a ring is just that. obama was kissing someones ring and bowing.
ReplyDeleteSince Obama is telling people "not to panic," it would be wise for all of us to start panicing and going to the doctor for medicine before it disappears.
ReplyDeleteOne other point. It is the current administration that is actually putting the brakes on creative research by constantly hinting at government intervention. Nothing can kill innovation in drug discovery like the heavy hand of the US government. They need to butt out and let scientists do their job instead of hanging over their shoulders and trying to regulate everything and anything they do. Obama has only himself and his Marxist tendencies to blame if the US stops producing the world's best medicines.
Last point. If ANYONE dies in the United States because of this government's "political" response to a major flu outbreak, there will be hell to pay. They need to call a spade a spade and put the source of this epidemic where it lies: MEXICO.
NOTICE TO PITBULL! I haven't been able to comment on your blog. For some reason the comment page won't open.
Thank you for letting me know. I'll check that now.
ReplyDeleteHell I liked Nixon. He got the military the largest pay raise in history, and we appreciated it. Oh yea, I really like your blog layout, and again thank you for your service.
ReplyDeleteI've never particularly liked Nixon. But, he seems to have had better morals than some of the people who are in office now...
ReplyDeleteRed, this is the third (or fourth) post you've done from a hit and run comment left at my blog. I wasn't comparing Obama to Nixon. I was showing that Bush and Nixon had a lot in common in terms of Presidencies and historical happenings, as well as policies. For example: Illegal wiretaps on US citizens. Destruction of evidence. Etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd again with Obama "bowing" to him? Ugh.
ReplyDeleteBush kissed him. And held hands with him. And danced with him. And other presidents have done the same. Bowed. Shook hands.
There are many legitimate criticisms of Obama. I've posted on a couple myself.
The GOP really needs to start picking what things they are going to criticize and do better than Obama, not just say "no" to everything he comes up with and stop criticizing every little thing. When you criticize everything, the big & valid criticisms get lost in all the whininess.
Good point: a lot like bringing up Jimmy Carter all the time...
ReplyDeleteExactly. Or Hoover. Or FDR. Or Reagan(omics).
ReplyDeleteSort of like when liberals scream McCartherism all of the time too. It gets a little old after awhile.
ReplyDeleteOr when Neo-cons say "Karl Marx" or "Communist"...
ReplyDeleteOr when Communists say neo-con.
ReplyDeleteJames' Muse said...
ReplyDelete"Red, this is the third (or fourth) post you've done from a hit and run comment left at my blog."
What? What the heck does that mean "hit and run" Just because I make a comment am I supposed to hang around there and wait for your reply...!
NO! I made my comment and went on... To me that is NOT "hit and run"
But I guess to a lib, they spin it however it suits them best.
Now there another Lib/Con feud over at Progressive Eruptions..
ReplyDeleteI put the responsibility on the personal actions directly on Shaw. She was way out of line.
It's the responsibility of the blogs author to listen to both sides.
The is no such thing as a "Liberal Blog" as she claims.
The country STILL has free speech..(so far)
He's their fall-back guy when there's nothing else that can be said.
ReplyDelete"Well, uh... ya... but then there was Nixon... ya!!"
They don't get the fact that it isn't the "party"... it's the individual.
Bluepitbull: Neo-conservative is a legitimate term for what happened under Bush. Bush himself was almost textbook towards the end of his presidency. I supported him his first term because he wasn't neo-conservative but just conservative. From wikipedia's "neo-conservative" entry:
ReplyDeleteNeoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. It supports using U.S. power, including military force, to bring democracy and human rights to other countries, seeing this as virtuous or even morally obligatory. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war et al are examples of neo-conservatism. Those that supported, and still support, these policies are neo-cons, in place of conservatives.
Red: You do a little bit of hit and run over at my blog. You leave a comment, usually a little bit insulting, and then don't follow up.
ReplyDeleteBtw, I'm not a "liberal."
Maybe, just maybe, the liberals in this community will grow up...But I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe both sides could grow up...but I doubt that, too.
ReplyDeleteJames is not a liberal, he is a moderate. But he does play a liberal to get the debate going.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he is intentionally pissing anyone off, just likes discussion. He and I have had a few lively discussion on my site.
One thing, James, I don't give a crap about what wikipedia says. They are historically inaccurate and hate the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
Bluepitbull:
ReplyDeleteOn the first note, thanks. You're right. I'm a moderate who does like to play a little bit of devil's advocate in order to promote people justifying their opinions.
On the second note, I have to say that it is strange that conservatives like to attack all media as "hating the conservative movement"...
There is a multitude of other evidence that shows that George W. Bush's policies were strongly influenced by neo-conservatives. Namely that many of his cabinet and advisors that he listened to post 9/11 were neo-conservatives, and the neo-conservative movement itself claims Bush as one of their own when looking at his policies.
From self-described "paleoconservative" Gary North's "An Introduction to Neo-conservatism", the essay talks about the history of neo-conservatism and its emergence during George W. Bush's presidency.
Basically it comes down to this: regular conservatism (paleoconservatism) is Reagan: Reactionary. We didn't invade the USSR or attack them, we were just ready in case they attacked us. It's butter and guns meaning diplomacy first, then military if needed.
Neo-conservatism is guns and butter meaning military first, diplomacy later. George W. Bush's Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, which is what we did in Iraq. We thought they might attack us and so we invaded.
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html
Ah, so little people know about Iraq.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't think they'd attack us immediately, but that they might be able to eventually.
ReplyDeleteNixon learned the political game from the Kennedys; Dirty politics with dirty money.
ReplyDelete