Republican Fred Thompson officially Announces Candidacy for President. Good News, Or? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 11-06-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know host, if you could do me the favor, please tell me which Republican is the worst, more corrupt, and most vile so I know who to vote for in the primary.

Thompson is my current front runner though.

It's amusing to read the attempts of you and The_Jazz to portray me as

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

...reading them with the intent of deriding Thompson....

No one is deriding Thompson, or other unprincipled, unscrupulous, disingenuous republicans, as much as they are doing it to themselves. You either don't perceive it, or refuse to let on that you do. The uniformity of your reaction indicates that you are sincere, but consistently incorrect. You're seeing "honest men", and even "heroes", where the relentless progression of revelations about their actions and intent, tells us the opposite about the characters of these partisan political operators. They are revealed as committed only to partisan goals.

The_Jazz · 11-06-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

It's amusing to read the attempts of you and The_Jazz to portray me as

No one is deriding Thompson, or other unprincipled, unscrupulous, disingenuous republicans, as much as they are doing it to themselves. You either don't perceive it, or refuse to let on that you do. The uniformity of your reaction indicates that you are sincere, but consistently incorrect. You're seeing "honest men", and even "heroes", where the relentless progression of revelations about their actions and intent, tells us the opposite about the characters of these partisan political operators. They are revealed as committed only to partisan goals.

Please, host. You're the most partisan regular poster in Tilted Politics. If you can't acknowledge that about yourself, then we really have nothing to discuss. Even the Democratic operative that posts here will occassionally acknowledge that not all Republicans are bad people.

The fact that I find it far easier to discuss anything with Ustwo than you for the simple reason that he'll accept shades of grey should speak volumes to you. I don't have any problem with you bringing your axe to grind in every thread, but the fact that you expressly refuse to acknowledge your agenda really detracts from your overall message here.

I've never said that Thompson was a choir boy or an angel. Far from it, as a matter of fact. What I have said, at least in the last 24 hours worth of posts is that Thompson pumped the White House for information that he used against them.

Really, all of this stuff has been in the historical record for decades and it's nothing new. The only reason it's being dredged up again is Thompson's political aspirations. Why is it relavent what the White House thought of Thompson at the time when the results CLEARLY show something completely different actually happened? There were always accusations that the Republicans on the Watergate committee were taking orders from the White House. Those who made those accussations changed their tune after Nixon's resignation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Please, host. You're the most partisan regular poster in Tilted Politics. If you can't acknowledge that about yourself, then we really have nothing to discuss. Even the Democratic operative that posts here will occassionally acknowledge that not all Republicans are bad people.

The fact that I find it far easier to discuss anything with Ustwo than you for the simple reason that he'll accept shades of grey should speak volumes to you. I don't have any problem with you bringing your axe to grind in every thread, but the fact that you expressly refuse to acknowledge your agenda really detracts from your overall message here.

I've never said that Thompson was a choir boy or an angel. Far from it, as a matter of fact. What I have said, at least in the last 24 hours worth of posts is that Thompson pumped the White House for information that he used against them. If that's not the definition of a sonofabitch, I don't know what is. Frankly, I know that post-Watergate many White House Republicans were not happy with either Thompson or Baker.

Really, all of this stuff has been in the historical record for decades and it's nothing new. The only reason it's being dredged up again is Thompson's political aspirations. Why is it relavent what the White House thought of Thompson at the time when the results CLEARLY show something completely different actually happened? There were always accusations that the Republicans on the Watergate committee were taking orders from the White House. Those who made those accussations changed their tune after Nixon's resignation.

host · 11-06-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Please, host. You're the most partisan regular poster in Tilted Politics. If you can't acknowledge that about yourself, then we really have nothing to discuss. Even the Democratic operative that posts here will occassionally acknowledge that not all Republicans are bad people.

The fact that I find it far easier to discuss anything with Ustwo than you for the simple reason that he'll accept shades of grey should speak volumes to you. I don't have any problem with you bringing your axe to grind in every thread, but the fact that you expressly refuse to acknowledge your agenda really detracts from your overall message here.

I've never said that Thompson was a choir boy or an angel. Far from it, as a matter of fact. What I have said, at least in the last 24 hours worth of posts is that Thompson pumped the White House for information that he used against them.

Really, all of this stuff has been in the historical record for decades and it's nothing new. The only reason it's being dredged up again is Thompson's political aspirations. Why is it relavent what the White House thought of Thompson at the time when the results CLEARLY show something completely different actually happened? There were always accusations that the Republicans on the Watergate committee were taking orders from the White House. Those who made those accussations changed their tune after Nixon's resignation.

The_Jazz, it is an extreme provocation that you would compare me to Ustwo. I meticulously and studiously provide ALL of the information that shapes my opinions.

Again, please stop shooting the messenger and discuss the information, Challenge it, or ignore it, but stop coming at me. Your argument is weak, and since it is weak and contrary to the news reporting it can reasonably be described as a meritless, partisan defense of Fred Thompson's conduct when he served as minority counsel on the Watergate investigation committee.

Again, I am not "one of the most partisan". The "most partisan" are folks who post unsupported statements of opinion, or supported only by, over and over, highly prejudiced sources, instead of by news reporting.

My expectations are dashed more as I read each new post from you, but I still hold out a sliver of hope that you are able to do the right thing here, since I believe that you have repeatedly directed opinions at me, and about me, that are inappropriate and uncalled for. You've made it more difficult for me to participate here. Please stop doing it.

Quote:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/st...-of-watergate/
Exposing the tapes of Watergate
Don Sanders set aside his interests to do what was right — and played a pivotal role in bringing down Nixon

By BRENDEN CLAWSON

June 12, 2005 | 12:00 a.m. CST

The revelation that former FBI second-in-command W. Mark Felt was “Deep Throat” has brought new attention to the role reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein played in unraveling the Watergate conspiracy.

But Michael Sanders says another man, who was just as responsible for bringing down Richard Nixon, has been mostly forgotten by history. That man was his father, Don Sanders, who was a lawyer, an FBI agent, Boone County commissioner, and the man who, during the Watergate hearings, discovered there was a tape recorder in the Nixon White House.

“It’s always been a little bit frustrating to me that the Woodward and Bernstein team got all of the attention,” Michael Sanders said. “Uncovering the White House tapes was the key. That’s what my dad did, and nobody even knows his name.”....

....Sanders, a Republican, was chosen to be the deputy minority counsel to the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate committee. He worked under Fred Thompson, who would later become a senator and an actor.

Two documents in the archive illuminate Sanders’ role in the Watergate proceedings: a handwritten account of his interview with Butterfield, who was the former deputy assistant to Nixon, written just three days after the interview and a draft of “Watergate Reminiscences,” dated March 1987. The article about his work on the Watergate committee was first published in the Journal of American History in 1989.

In “Reminiscences,” Sanders wrote that he noticed something odd about a White House document containing a list of conversation summaries between Nixon and former White House counsel John Dean. He felt that they were almost too precise, a fact that he mulled over as he waited for his turn to question Butterfield.

“As the minutes passed, I felt a growing certainty that the summaries had been made from a verbatim recording,” Don Sanders wrote. “I wondered whether Butterfield would be truthful if asked about a hidden recording system.”

This led to his decision to ask Butterfield a question he hoped would reveal the existence of a taping system. The handwritten account relates that before Sanders asked his question, he considered what the implications could be to both national and international security.

“I also took into consideration the political impact on the president and the party, and admittedly, the effect it would have on my future,” Sanders wrote. “I decided that this was a matter too important for personal considerations, that the people were entitled to the facts and that the tapes, if made, might even exonerate the president. I could not conceive that the president would utter incriminating statements knowing he was being recorded for history.”

Sanders then asked the question that contributed to Nixon’s demise.

“I asked Butterfield if he knew any reason why the president would take John Dean to a corner of a room and speak to him in a quiet voice, as Dean had testified,” Sanders wrote in “Reminiscences.”

Butterfield admitted that there was a recording system in the White House.

What followed was a yearlong battle in which the Watergate committee tried to gain access to Nixon’s tapes. On Aug. 5, 1974, Nixon finally released tapes that showed he had called for a cover-up of the Watergate burglary. He resigned three days later....

Willravel · 11-06-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Please, host. You're the most partisan regular poster in Tilted Politics.

Partisan suggests bias motivated not just by logic or reason, but emotion.

I don't think his allegiance is emotional. I'd say it's more rational. Yes, one can have an emotional response from a reasonable conclusion, but the initial opinions and facts are dispassionate.

host · 11-06-2007, 10:34 AM

This is an excerpt of what you wrote in post #77:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

......Baker and Thomspon walked a fine line between what was best for the United States and what was best for the Republican Party. In the end, revealing all of the incriminating evidence in open testimony pretty much sealed the deal on Nixon.

In other words, I think that Thompson worked well with the White House and then turned around and fucked them for the betterment of the country.......

...it is partisan, IMO, to the degree that it is divorced from what a reasonable person would conclude, after earnestly researching the available record, actually happened. Your idea that Thompson

Quote:

....worked well with the White House and then turned around ....

...is as partisan an opinion as mine would be if I posted that Thompson took the revelation from Sanders and called the white house to warn them about Butterfield's revelations, so that the white house would be alerted to destroy the taped evidence.... Thompson admitted in his 1975 book that, he

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...atergate_role/
...Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation...

It is not reasonable to say that Thompson called the white house so that it would know to destroy the taped evidence, and it is not reasonable to say:

Quote:

.....Thompson worked well with the White House and then turned around .....

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A96F958260
Donald G. Sanders Dies at 69; Brought Nixon Taping to Light

By WILLIAM H. HONAN
Published: September 29, 1999

Donald G. Sanders, a former Senate lawyer who uncovered the White House tapes that led to President Richard M. Nixon's resignation, died on Sunday at a hospital in Columbia, Mo. He was 69.

Mr. Sanders, who lived in Columbia, died of cancer, said his wife, Dolores.

A former F.B.I. agent, Mr. Sanders was a Republican staff lawyer for the Senate committee investigating the Watergate break-in when he brought to light ''the smoking gun'' that eventually pointed to Nixon's complicity in a cover-up of the break-in.

It was in a closed-door preliminary interrogation that Mr. Sanders's curiosity was aroused by seemingly apprehensive answers from Alexander P. Butterfield, Nixon's former appointments secretary.

<h3>Mr. Sanders dug deeper and asked if it were possible that some sort of recording system had been used in the White House.

Mr. Butterfield answered, ''I wish you hadn't asked that question, but, yes, there is.''

Mr. Sanders then hurried to tell Fred D. Thompson, the lead minority counsel who is now a Republican senator from Tennessee.</h3>

''We both knew then it was important,'' Mr. Sanders recalled in a 1997 interview.

Then, in nationally televised hearings, Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Butterfield about the recording system.

<h3>''It was actually Don who discovered the existence of the White House taping system, but he was too unassuming to ever mention it,'' Mr. Thompson said on Monday in an interview with The Associated Press.</h3>

Mr. Sanders had returned to his home state in the 1980's after more than two decades of Federal Government service as a lawyer for Congressional committees, an F.B.I. agent and an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Gerald R. Ford.

Don't you think that I anticipate, that, at the very least, I will be subjected to ridicule in a series of one line "drive by" posts, in response to anything I post? I take extreme measures to post almost exclusivey what will "stand up".

I posted that Libby and Wilkes broke the law, they were convicted on multiple charges. I posted that the president committed the crime of pre-emptive aggressive war. I cited in agreement, no less than the opinion of Ben Ferencz the eminent living expert on the issue. A reasonable person could conclude that former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz's opinion on the matter, along with the quotes I've posted of chief Nuremberg Prosecutor Robert Jackson's arguments at the Nuremberg trials, would make an argument reasonable, that, Bush, by ordering pre-emptive war against another sovereign nation, had committed a war crime, a crime against humanity, in that, as Jackson said, all subsequent crimes related to the decision to wage such a war, were the responsibility of those who launched pre-emptive war.

None of these examples from my posts are partisan, because they are reasonable to believe.

The_Jazz · 11-06-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

None of these examples from my posts are partisan, because they are reasonable to believe.

host, you've posted that you want me to stop making this about you, and I'll respect that if its what you want. That said, this is the last line of your lastest post. I'm happy to go find any number of posts that are actually partisan from any one of several threads. I'll add that just because you've said it and supplied "evidence" doesn't make things truth or fiction.

If you were actually offended by a comparison to Ustwo you shouldn't be. It wasn't a comparison, simply my perferrence for debate partners.

Again, I'll let this drop if that's what you want, but you seem to be reopening the door, so I'll leave it to you where to continue this conversation.

Ustwo · 11-06-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Even the Democratic operative that posts here will occassionally acknowledge that not all Republicans are bad people.

You mean its not host?

Ustwo · 11-14-2007, 09:40 PM

So.... our operative is?

The_Jazz · 11-15-2007, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So.... our operative is?

Seriously, you need me to answer that? You're a smart guy; you may be rude and belittling sometimes, but you're definitely smart. I refuse to belive you haven't figured it out for yourself.

loquitur · 11-15-2007, 04:39 PM

I'm only an occasional visitor........ please enlighten me, Jazz?

Ustwo · 11-16-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Seriously, you need me to answer that? You're a smart guy; you may be rude and belittling sometimes, but you're definitely smart. I refuse to belive you haven't figured it out for yourself.

Yep, I'm obviously stupid, and it wouldn't be fair to label someone based on the limited interaction of the internet when you have eliminated the obvious candidate. I may have a suspect, but unlike others who post here I won't accuse them of being an 'agent' just because I don't agree with their politics or manner of posting.

If you said something you were not suppose to accidentally, it happens, let me know and I'll drop it, but I feel its fair to know who has a professional agenda when posting in what should be a free discussion of ideas when considering their opinion.

11-14-2007, 09:40 PM	#88 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So.... our operative is? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-15-2007, 04:39 PM	#90 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I'm only an occasional visitor........ please enlighten me, Jazz?