Nixon 2.0

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Nixon 2.0

Postby cartervj » Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:09 pm

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/what-did-nixon-do/

Nixon endorsed but then quickly backed away from an ambitious crackdown on left-wing organizations urged by his aide, Tom Charles Huston. Nixon approved Huston’s plan on July 14, 1970 but by July 27 he had changed his mind and rescinded approval for it after FBI director J. Edgar Hoover voiced objections.

Huston later lamented that dealing with the IRS was fraught with peril. “Making sensitive political inquiries at the IRS is about as safe a procedure as trusting a whore,” since the Nixon administration at the time had no “reliable political friends at IRS.”

Later in September 1971 Nixon ordered White House aide John Ehrlichman to direct the IRS to look into the tax returns of all those thought to be seeking the 1972 Democratic presidential nod, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

“Are we going after their tax returns?” Nixon said. “You know what I mean? There’s a lot of gold in them thar hills.”

Nominated as IRS commissioner by Nixon, Johnnie Mac Walters headed the IRS from Aug. 6, 1971, to April 30, 1973. Nixon White House counsel John Dean gave Walters an envelope containing the names of about 200 prominent Democrats to harass.

Walters refused to target the individuals. “The story is interesting because the IRS wouldn’t do it,” said Tim Naftali, former director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. “It didn’t happen, not because the White House didn’t want it to happen, but because people like Johnnie Walters said ‘no.’”

Contrast Walters with left-wing bureaucrat Lois Lerner, head of the tax exempt organizations division at the IRS, who apparently did the Obama administration’s bidding, harassing conservative groups and funders. Lerner testified before Congress last week and after ostentatiously protesting her innocence invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to continue testifying.

Returning to Nixon, even if he had used the IRS in the way described in the second article of impeachment, he was simply doing what presidents had done for the previous 40 years. This is not to excuse Nixon’s behavior, but it hardly seems fair to single him out for doing what had long been the norm in Washington.

The first known instance of an administration snooping around in its enemies’ tax records for intelligence purposes happened during the presidency of Republican Herbert Hoover (1929-33). FBI director J. Edgar Hoover tried to dig up dirt on a conservative group called the Navy League. He found nothing.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7333
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL


Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby cartervj » Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:10 pm

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/09/white-house-irs-exchanged-confidential-taxpayer-info/


[url]Top Internal Revenue Service Obamacare official Sarah Hall Ingram discussed confidential taxpayer information with senior Obama White House officials, according to 2012 emails obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and provided to The Daily Caller.

Lois Lerner, then head of the IRS Tax Exempt Organizations division, also received an email alongside White House officials that contained confidential information.

Ingram attempted to counsel the White House on a lawsuit from religious organizations opposing Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Email exchanges involving Ingram and White House officials — including White House health policy advisor Ellen Montz and deputy assistant to the president for health policy Jeanne Lambrew — contained confidential taxpayer information, according to Oversight.


The emails provided to Oversight investigators by the IRS had numerous redactions with the signifier “6103.”

Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code forbids a federal employee from “disclos[ing] any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/09/white ... z2hHUNFiBm[/url]
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7333
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:08 am

Conservatives LOVED Nixon and supported virtually every move he made, no matter how nefarious. They chuckled about Watergate. And if a conservative president were in the White House right now pulling a Nixon redux conservatives would have his back every step of the way
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby assateague » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:28 am

You're insane. If you substitute "republican" where you used "conservative", I would be inclined to agree. But not as written.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:49 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:Conservatives LOVED Nixon and supported virtually every move he made, no matter how nefarious. They chuckled about Watergate. And if a conservative president were in the White House right now pulling a Nixon redux conservatives would have his back every step of the way


Die hard Republicans, yes. True conservatives, no. There are a whole lot of conservatives who are sick and tired of the status quo. Many of them are working to fix that problem. It is really pissing the powers that be on both sides of the fence off right now.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6641
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby stackemhigh » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:04 am

ScaupHunter wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Conservatives LOVED Nixon and supported virtually every move he made, no matter how nefarious. They chuckled about Watergate. And if a conservative president were in the White House right now pulling a Nixon redux conservatives would have his back every step of the way


Die hard Republicans, yes. True conservatives, no. There are a whole lot of conservatives who are sick and tired of the status quo. Many of them are working to fix that problem. It is really pissing the powers that be on both sides of the fence off right now.


Really? I have a pretty good feeling that Democrat leadership is probably feeling pretty good about a fractured conservative vote moving forward.
stackemhigh
hunter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby cartervj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:40 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:Conservatives LOVED Nixon and supported virtually every move he made, no matter how nefarious. They chuckled about Watergate. And if a conservative president were in the White House right now pulling a Nixon redux conservatives would have his back every step of the way



appears to be the same deal with a different party

kinda shows the MSM that brought Nixon down is no longer
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7333
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:17 pm

cartervj wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Conservatives LOVED Nixon and supported virtually every move he made, no matter how nefarious. They chuckled about Watergate. And if a conservative president were in the White House right now pulling a Nixon redux conservatives would have his back every step of the way



appears to be the same deal with a different party

kinda shows the MSM that brought Nixon down is no longer

I think it was the Justice Department. And yes, there are definite parallels to today's JD. I didn't like it then and I don't now
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby cartervj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:44 pm

The 2 Post reporters got the low down and reported it. Not sure if they did so cause of bias, kinda feel journalism was still alive then.

It would be great to see real journalism again, nailing the crooks no matter the party, sadly it appears those days are over.

Petty sure that 99.9% of all politicians would be on the crook list, the .01% would be the ones not there long enough yet.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7333
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby Underradar » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:02 pm

Nixon was the greatest American ever.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
My lab died, and no one on Duckhuntingchat even cared.

Google I'm feeling lucky: DU biologist stole my car

You may win a fight, but you can never win an argument.
User avatar
Underradar
hunter
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Rut Coon, LA

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:54 pm

Underradar wrote:Nixon was the greatest American ever.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

That would be Ted Williams
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby assateague » Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:12 am

Speaking of baseball, I watched Cobb the other day. Maybe one of Tommy Lee Jones' best roles ever.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:11 pm

assateague wrote:Speaking of baseball, I watched Cobb the other day. Maybe one of Tommy Lee Jones' best roles ever.

It really was.........hardly got any press though.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby assateague » Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:24 pm

"And bring him some cologne, cuz the sumbitch stinks"

Great movie.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:08 am

cartervj wrote:The 2 Post reporters got the low down and reported it. Not sure if they did so cause of bias, kinda feel journalism was still alive then.

It would be great to see real journalism again, nailing the crooks no matter the party, sadly it appears those days are over.

Petty sure that 99.9% of all politicians would be on the crook list, the .01% would be the ones not there long enough yet.

I think the Harry Reid interview the other day when he started denigrating the report for asking a question and then no response from other journalists show how pathetic things are. If a Republican had done this, he would have been rightly hammered for it.



Then remember when Joe Biden put the reporter in the closet?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/03/biden-team-apologizes-to-reporter-for-sticking-him-in-closet/

The problem is the people that pursue journalism careers are just too damned stupid to understand anything more complex than the gossip column reporting. They are not taught to think and be problem solvers. They are taught to look good and sound good. Much like a used car salesman is.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16187
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nixon 2.0

Postby cartervj » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:43 pm

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/06/which-major-newspaper-is-comparing-obama-to-nixon/

The Star-Ledger, the largest newspaper in New Jersey, endorsed President Barack Obama for re-election last October. A little more than a year later, the paper’s editorial board has drawn parallels with Obama and Richard Nixon.

Star Ledger Newspaper Compares Obama to Nixon
AP
Specifically, the newspaper cited his widely disputed statements on Obamacare, the National Security Agency’s spying on foreign allies, and on dealing with Syria’s chemical weapons, and asked, “What’s the public to believe?”

In the editorial, which carried the headline, “Obama’s Growing Credibility Gap,” the board wrote: “It’s more than not just an old wives’ tale that a politician is only as good as his word. It’s mostly true.”

“(A politician) can lose an election — even more than one, as Richard Nixon proved — and still win the voters favor,” the editorial said of the president who left office in disgrace after the the Watergate scandal. “But he’s in real trouble if the paying public stops believing what he says, as Nixon also discovered. That’s why President Obama’s real problem is not so much the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, but the growing sense he doesn’t tell the whole truth, or doesn’t know it. Either can be fatal for leader.”

The editorial referred to Obama’s tortured explanation for having “sworn on a stack of speeches that everyone who’s happy with his or her current health insurance can keep it under Obamacare.”

The Star-Ledger did not directly accuse Obama of lying, but assumed he either didn’t know or decided to “fudge” the truth.

“The president got it wrong. But why is unclear. Was he misinformed?” the Star-Ledger asked. “Did he just misunderstand? Did he not take enough time to comprehend a complex law that would affect almost every American, as incomprehensible as that seems? Or did he just deliberately fudge it?”


While accusing European allies of hypocrisy for their public outrage over the NSA eavesdropping, the president’s reaction is also puzzling for the paper’s editorial board.

“What’s troubling here is the suggestion Obama didn’t know we were eavesdropping on German Chancellor Angela Merkel,” the paper said. “Actually, it’s not clear what’s true — wasn’t he told, or is he dissembling? Either way, he risks suffering a loss of public confidence.”

On another foreign policy issue, the paper criticized the president’s lack of following through with the Assad regime in Syria, a matter White House press secretary Jay Carney said was a key second term success.

“How about the ‘red line’ in Syria, Obama’s declaration that any use of poison gas by the Assad regime would bring a U.S. military response?” the paper said. “In the absence of such a response, Obama has labored to parse that commitment to make it seem less ironclad.”
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7333
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests