Comrade Chris Matthew's Hero! - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Jim B. · #76 12-25-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Yes, I constantly forget that Republicans had no participation in the Vietnam issue . . .

You are not alone.

Millions upon millions of OTHER Republicans forgot, too.

Ever heard of "selective amnesia" ?

Sev · #77 12-25-2009, 08:15 PM

the word liberal no longer has a meaning. people substitute it regularly for 'progressive', or far-leftist (socialist). liberal with a small L used to mean something before the far left perverted it. for the record i am neither a liberal, conservative, democrat or republican

Sev · #78 12-25-2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Ever heard of "selective amnesia" ?

i may have heard of it, but selectively chose to forget it

#79 12-25-2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sev

the word liberal no longer has a meaning. people substitute it regularly for 'progressive', or far-leftist (socialist). liberal with a small L used to mean something before the far left perverted it. for the record i am neither a liberal, conservative, democrat or republican

Agreed, the term conservative has also lost all meaning; since the time of the Reagan administration it has been hijacked. I try to avoid using either term, they have both become pejoratives.

MS Fowler · #80 12-26-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sev

the word liberal no longer has a meaning. people substitute it regularly for 'progressive', or far-leftist (socialist). liberal with a small L used to mean something before the far left perverted it. for the record i am neither a liberal, conservative, democrat or republican

And yet many on this forum deny that today's liberals are the extension of the progressives of the post WW1 time.
As far as terms having no meaning...I am a firm believer in a smaller, as opposed to a larger, federal government. Yet I unabashedly support individual rights, including the freedom of speech especially for those with whom I disagree ( as opposed to the practice of limiting the speech of the opposition as tyrants always do.). I have been called a "classical liberal" , and perhaps I am, but I have nothing in common with today's liberals. I also have little in common with the republican party of the last administration who refused to limit their spending. To really foul up fitting into any particular party "box", I think I could be persuaded to bring all troops home and reduce the military to a simple home defense force with the technological ability it needs to keep foreign adversaries at bay, really reducing the federal budget, allowing lowered taxes, and more money for domestic spending.

tonkovich · #81 12-27-2009, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

You are mischaracterizing what occurred; Nixon didn’t “finally pull the plug prior to resigning”! Nixon began removing the US from Vietnam as soon as he became president; it took some time to withdraw the ground combat troops in some “orderly” fashion, at the same time he strategically projected what power we had to increase pressure on the North Vietnamese to agree to some peaceful settlement. There was no easy way out of Vietnam once the democrats and the media decided the public did not possess the will to prevail, within the geopolitical reality of the day we probably could not have afforded a “Vietnamese Dunkirk or Gallipoli”. Nixon and Kissinger where absolutely brilliant in accomplishing what they did and how they did it when you consider the constraints and the possible alternative outcomes.

People talk about Nixon and his breakthrough opening to China, North Vietnam’s biggest supporter and defender. This was an essential element of achieving a peace agreement with North Vietnam.

“Accompanied by NSC staffers Winston Lord and John Negroponte, Kissinger met secretly in Beijing on June 20, 1972 with Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai. Toward the conclusion of the four hour meeting Dr. Kissinger said to the Chinese, "And while we cannot bring a communist government to power, if, as a result of historical evolution it should happen over a period of time, if we can live with a communist government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina."

I've no lost love for Nixon the man, but to not give his and Kissinger's geopolitical understanding, insight and skill their due is foolish.

uh, perhaps, if you knew of kissinger's double dealing (sabatoging lbj and negotiating a secret deal with nixon) in '68, which scuttled the paris peace talks, and his (and the u.s. government's) agreement to exactly the same terms four? five? years (and thousands of lives lost) later, you would have a different view of both those wonderful americans. for the record, lbj was too chickens**t to pull out before the 66 midterms (listen to the tapes) - kissinger is an evil man and war criminal, starting with vietnam, then chile, and on and on, and nixon talked tough on vietnam and is responsible for many deaths, cynically doing anything to get into office and then get re-elected.

as to the "north" vietnam - china connection, you might note the brief border war between those two in the mid '70's, after the unification of north and south vietnam.

the vietnamese were fighting-for a thousand years- to free themselves from occupation. from the chinese, the japanese, the french and then the americans.

cmac2012 · #82 12-27-2009, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

A couple weeks ago according to Comrade Chris the US Military Academy at West Point was the "enemy camp", then about ten days ago while commiserating with fellow travelers Salon.com’s Joan Walsh and AOL PoliticsDaily.com/ NYTimes/Huffingtonpost.com’s Melinda Henneberger; he removes all doubt when he states “It`s complicated when liberals get to keep score. We`re always arguing. Well, I`m a liberal, too. You are watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC. “

Wait, Matthews actually said, "I'm a liberal, too?!?"" Why, the idea, the unmitigated gall of the man. Will he stop at nothing??

cmac2012 · #83 12-27-2009, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

uh, perhaps, if you knew of kissinger's double dealing (sabatoging lbj and negotiating a secret deal with nixon) in '68, which scuttled the paris peace talks, and his (and the u.s. government's) agreement to exactly the same terms four? five? years (and thousands of lives lost) later, you would have a different view of both those wonderful americans. for the record, lbj was too chickens**t to pull out before the 66 midterms (listen to the tapes) - kissinger is an evil man and war criminal, starting with vietnam, then chile, and on and on, and nixon talked tough on vietnam and is responsible for many deaths, cynically doing anything to get into office and then get re-elected.

as to the "north" vietnam - china connection, you might note the brief border war between those two in the mid '70's, after the unification of north and south vietnam.

the vietnamese were fighting-for a thousand years- to free themselves from occupation. from the chinese, the japanese, the french and then the americans.

When Ho made common cause with the French after WW2, his plan was to use them for security for a spell then oust them. He responded to criticism from his cronies with something like, "I'd rather sniff French $h!t for 4 years than eat Chinese $h!t for 1,000 years."

Billybob · #84 12-27-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

uh, perhaps, if you knew of kissinger's double dealing (sabatoging lbj and negotiating a secret deal with nixon) in '68, which scuttled the paris peace talks, and his (and the u.s. government's) agreement to exactly the same terms four? five? years (and thousands of lives lost) later, you would have a different view of both those wonderful americans. for the record, lbj was too chickens**t to pull out before the 66 midterms (listen to the tapes) - kissinger is an evil man and war criminal, starting with vietnam, then chile, and on and on, and nixon talked tough on vietnam and is responsible for many deaths, cynically doing anything to get into office and then get re-elected.

as to the "north" vietnam - china connection, you might note the brief border war between those two in the mid '70's, after the unification of north and south vietnam.

the vietnamese were fighting-for a thousand years- to free themselves from occupation. from the chinese, the japanese, the french and then the americans.

Uh' perhaps if it where true! Surely a scholar such as you is capable of documenting a fact of two contained in this thus far completely unsubstantiated allegation? You know just little things like a timeline and an explanation as to what position Kissinger occupied that gave him the capacity to "sabotage" LBJ, maybe even the nature and extent of the "secret deal" with Nixon. But you'll have to do better than LBJ "of Tonkin Gulf fame/credibility" talking to someone on the phone and a line or two in one of his co-conspirators books though!

As to the "north" vietnam - china connection, you might note the brief border war between those two in the mid '70's, after the unification of north and south vietnam.”

So you are attempting to compare and contrast the material, manpower, and political support which the PRC provided and that the North Vietnamese enjoyed for more than a decade with this relatively insignificant border skirmish to make what point?

cmac2012 · #85 12-27-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Uh' perhaps if it where true! Surely a scholar such as you is capable of documenting a fact of two contained in this thus far completely unsubstantiated allegation? You know just little things like a timeline and an explanation as to what position Kissinger occupied that gave him the capacity to "sabotage" LBJ, maybe even the nature and extent of the "secret deal" with Nixon. But you'll have to do better than LBJ "of Tonkin Gulf fame/credibility" talking to someone on the phone and a line or two in one of his co-conspirators books though!

As to the "north" vietnam - china connection, you might note the brief border war between those two in the mid '70's, after the unification of north and south vietnam.”

So you are attempting to compare and contrast the material, manpower, and political support which the PRC provided and that the North Vietnamese enjoyed for more than a decade with this relatively insignificant border skirmish to make what point?

I wasn't there but my take has been that Ho received a lot more help from Russia than China. The Vietnamese have been resisting being swallowed up by their much larger neighbor for a long time. Why would they establish a dependency on them?

As for Kissinger, I can easily imagine him exercising influence behind the scenes. I don't imagine he entered Nixon's gubmint as some kind of political virgin. Such machinations would be unllikely to be well documented.

I'm not sure if we know that LBJ knew of the G of Tonkin fraud.

tonkovich · #86 12-27-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Uh' perhaps if it where true! Surely a scholar such as you is capable of documenting a fact of two contained in this thus far completely unsubstantiated allegation? You know just little things like a timeline and an explanation as to what position Kissinger occupied that gave him the capacity to "sabotage" LBJ, maybe even the nature and extent of the "secret deal" with Nixon. But you'll have to do better than LBJ "of Tonkin Gulf fame/credibility" talking to someone on the phone and a line or two in one of his co-conspirators books though!

As to the "north" vietnam - china connection, you might note the brief border war between those two in the mid '70's, after the unification of north and south vietnam.”

So you are attempting to compare and contrast the material, manpower, and political support which the PRC provided and that the North Vietnamese enjoyed for more than a decade with this relatively insignificant border skirmish to make what point?

ho chi minh used anyone and everyone in his fight for liberation. think pragmatic

as for kissinger, there are several good books - christopher hitchens' comes to mind - that spell out the metternichean moves that are the essential henry kissinger. he is/was a little obsessed with power. at any cost. just ask the chileans and the timorese.

AdvisorGuy · #87 12-28-2009, 12:30 AM

Not defending the Comrade, but he did apologize for and clarify what he said on his next show..
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/chris-matthews-apologizes-calling-west-point

cmac2012 · #88 12-28-2009, 02:26 PM

This is the right deliberately and aggressively looking to misunderstand something that someone on the demon left uttered. Happens a lot. It's well known that career officers tend to be far more in the Rr ranks than the Dd. Tend to be more hawkish and more conservative than any dang Demo or liberal in general. As a result, a moderate liberal with dovish tendencies is not going to be among his dearest supporters when venturing into West Point.

Matthew's words were poorly chosen but the meaning was clear, or was to anyone looking to understand communication.

JollyRoger · #89 01-04-2010, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

If you think Nazism, Communism and Marxism are the same, you need to go back to school.

You entirely miss the point. My comment is sarcastic, directed at the Glenn Beck/Limbaugh mindset that has poisoned the Republican Party, like ole Billy Bob demonstrates so well here. At any given moment, according to America's conservative mouth pieces, Democrats and Obama are Fascists, or Nazis, or Communists, or Marxists, seen here applied to Chris Matthews. Hyperbolic-tic nonsense, poisoning the national debate.

Billybob · #90 01-04-2010, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

You entirely miss the point. My comment is sarcastic, directed at the Glenn Beck/Limbaugh mindset that has poisoned the Republican Party, like ole Billy Bob demonstrates so well here. At any given moment, according to America's conservative mouth pieces, Democrats and Obama are Fascists, or Nazis, or Communists, or Marxists, seen here applied to Chris Matthews. Hyperbolic-tic nonsense, poisoning the national debate.

Coming from such a voice as yours with its long track record of reason and tolerance of opposing viewpoints, this defense of liberal royalty scum masquerading as objective journalism such as in the case of Chris Matthews, is amusing if nothing else!