http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= 1003537212

Mr. Nixon is looking better and better, indeed.

Herbert M.

The article hardly makes Nixon look "better and better."

What you are comparing is rotten vs. miserable.

In fact, the article shows how they both are
horrible, leacherous, and criminal.

Absolutely right, Herb. Bush has done far more damage than Nixon could. Nixon was also intelligent and shrewd about foreign policy. Bush likes to clear brush on his ranch.

Andrew

Mr. Nixon was the best anti-communist president we ever had. He had their number and is the one who prosecuted Alger Hiss.

Contrast this with the likable, but inept Mr. Kennedy, who because of his mis-step during the Bay of Pigs, destined those poor Cubans to a wretched existence under that black-heart, Mr. Castro.

If Mr. Nixon had been president right after WWII, we not only would have won the Cold War...the Cold War never would have happened. I'll let you guys guess what he would have done with Mr. Castro.

Herb

Although the Bay of Pigs was a fiasco, it wasn't all Kennedy's fault (at least he took responsibility for it at the time). The thing had been planned under Eisenhower and was based on the flawed assumption that the Cuban people would simply rise up when an invasion began; the CIA also underestimated the hold Castro's regime had already created over the Cuban people. Kennedy has been blamed for tweaking the invasion plan, denying the attacking force air cover, but that's largely irrelevant to the other false assumptions that would have caused the whole plan to fail either way.

Andrew

Hey Herb,

Here's an audio clip for you....
https://home.comcast.net/~amusaudio/Nixon.mp3

A masterful bit of editing done in the days of razor blades & tape.

Amus-I remember doing stuff like that at Z100 with OJ Simpson audio.

Chris, What tools did you use?

"The thing had been planned under Eisenhower and was based on the flawed assumption that the Cuban people would simply rise up when an invasion began.."

Then why didn't Mr. Kennedy nix it?

Seriously. Don't you see what you're doing? You're shifting the blame, when the decision was Mr. Kennedy's.

Mr. Bush isn't allowed that option. So why is Mr. Kennedy? I mean, I liked the guy. He was a war hero and captain of PT-109. But let's deal with facts.

Those excuses simply don't wash with Cubans held hostage in Cuba since 1959.

Herb

Oh gee what was it now. Matt Jones would remember. I want to say Orban, but that does EQ among other things. If I see the name I would remember but just can't...sorry. Call it an ADD or mid-life moment.

Herb, I like you.

Does anyone here care what is thought of Nixon today? I mean, besides Herb? Does 30+ year old history effect you so directly today that you are in need of convincing that Nixon has - or has NOT, depending on why you cite him - gotten us where we are today?

Herb, I like you. But I can never understand why you pick these random things to point us towards as if ti has an bearing on the world today. And ta boot, you often try and rub our faces in something we have been telling you we want. As if a victory by those you lost to, is somehow actually a victory for you. And the people who got what they wanted are somehow the losers?

Nixon was bad - but not as bad as Bush? OK. We agree. And that means what exactly? Therefore we should now, what, exactly?

I'm not trying to be combative or play any game with you. I'm talking as straight as I can. But this is a pattern with you to which I just don't see the connection.

Finish this sentence:

I posted that like so you would _______ .

Start something? Giving Nixon credit for something? Stop something? Stop calling him bad?
Know something? Know that Bush is really bad?
Do what with that knowledge? Vote accordingly?

What?

Sometimes I think you are really a Democrat at heart. You toast Democratic victories ALL the time.

Signed - very confused.

"I posted that...so you would _______."

Great question, ChickenJuggler.

You're right. I refer to Nixonian minutiae from time-to-time. It's because I like to stick up for who I see as a flawed underdog...one who often tried to do the right thing and was his own worst enemy. Democrats do that with Mr. Clinton and they're cheered on. I do it for a man whom I admire, even though those on the left side of the aisle condemn me for it.

You ask a good question. And as you so correctly point out, there is a thread of consistency to my posts. Here's my response.

Whether one goes back 10 years, 100 years, or 1,000 years, we are essentially dealing with essentially the same types of human beings. Human thoughts. Human intelligence. Human stupidity. You get the point.

Man hasn't changed much in the past 10,000 years. So I try not to re-invent the wheel. Ol' Herb mines history and uses it as a guide.

I may not be as quick as the collective thought of this board. But certain truths transcend time.

Democrats fear Mr. Bush's deeds. I too, fear for our country. But what I fear most stems from the damage to the human condition from communism and socialism...and it gravely concerns me.

'Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'
George Santayana


Herb

Thanks man - I'm a lot closer to really hearing you now.

Democrats fear Bush's "deeds???" LOL! Sounds like a lot of Republicans lately are fearing his "deeds" too. Our grandkids will be paying for them, that's for sure.

Andrew

Democrats fear Mr. Bush's deeds. I too, fear for our country. But what I fear most stems from the damage to the human condition from communism and socialism...and it gravely concerns me.

I think that scenario is very unlikely for us.

Herb said>>>
I refer to Nixonian minutiae from time-to-time.

Like I refer to neo-CONs as being scumbags from time to time... RIIIIIIIIIIGHT~

"I think that scenario is very unlikely for us."

I honestly wish you were right.

Ever heard of 'creeping socialism?'

But this much I know. Like other great nation-states, we're more likely to rot from within first, before being overthrown from outside forces.

Think about it. Romans were entertained by feeding Christians to lions and turning them into human torches. Is our violent, drugged and debauched society...that molests and aborts kids...really any more moral?

Herb

"Is our violent, drugged and debauched society...that molests and aborts kids...really any more moral?"

Good debatable subject.

You'll probably find segments in our society where socialism is strong but under the radar. While we do have loads of violence and criminal activity (US has more people in jail per capita than any other country in the world) there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic.

Herb you tend to lean on fear based thought. I try to realistically view things in broader terms. Constantly playing the abortion card is one of those fear leaning thoughts in my opinion. The very violence towards women in general is actually more shocking. Once women and children are safe from violence (and I don't include abortion as violence towards children...I know we differ on that) is where you'll find societies flourishing in community.

I love history not so much on not making the same mistakes but on looking how some societies did live in peace for many generations. Our own Native Americans that roamed the Pacific NW some 10,000 years ago for the most part lived in peace with each other. We can learn from that kind of culture, which you find in human history all over the world.

I think we can see a trend towards socialism in a lot of things in today’s society.

Public transportation - We all pay for it, but only a few (percentage wise) benefit from it. My take on it would be that if it costs $X to haul a person from point A to point B then that's what the fare should be. Run it like a business. Handicapped and people that can't drive for some mental or physical reason would be given reduced rate or free passes.

Food Stamps & Welfare - It is basically the Robin Hood syndrome; take from the rich and give to the poor. My solution: Sure you can have food stamps or get a welfare check, but if you get $100 worth of aid, then you are going to put in $100 worth of work. Even if it's just picking up trash or cleaning brush up along the highway. Included in this would be mandatory training so the person could work themselves off the dole.

We could have the mess in New Orleans and the gulf coast cleaned up in no time if the government would include a bus ticket to New Orleans with the next welfare check along with a note that says that's where they will be picking up their check from now on.

Aid to Dependent Children - If you get pregnant (assuming you are female!) and you are not married and you expect the state to support you and you kid(s) you must name the father of your child(ren) and the state will go after the father to recoup the money paid to the mother. They already do this in Wisconsin.

Those are just a few examples, but it’s easy to see the socialist tendencies in society. The government wants to keep raising taxes so we can fund more and more of the socialist programs.

With very few exceptions, there is nothing that the Government does that private industry can't do better and cheaper.

I've not got an issue with helping the people that truly need it, but its way too easy to get government handouts and not have to do anything in return for it.

"Contrast this with the likable, but inept Mr. Kennedy, who because of his mis-step during the Bay of Pigs, destined those poor Cubans to a wretched existence under that black-heart, Mr. Castro."

The same Kennedy who thwarted nuclear annihilation by stepping in and staring down Khruhschev during the Cuban Missile Crisis? THAT same Kennedy?

"I don't include abortion as violence towards children...I know we differ on that.."

We do indeed differ absolutely on that.

Herb

Healthy societies have more capacity to handle unwanted children, and have fewer of them than would otherwise be the norm.

Just something to think about.

In some ways our society has more capacity than others to handle unwanted children. Our birth rate is actually fairly average. Other countries like Italy, Russia and Japan are quite low in birth rate.

An overarching reality: A society's capacity to handle unwanted children in no way changes the inherent value of human life. In my view, a child born in Romania or Cuba is as important in God's eyes as a child born in Italy or Denmark or the USA.

Man, I sound like a bleeding heart liberal.

Herb

So okay let's make abortion illegal. Who then pays the price for one done illegally. Let's start with man who got the woman pregnant. Is it jail time, a fine? What about the doctor who performs an illegal abortion. License revoked for a period of time and a fine? What about the facility the illegal abortion is done in? What about the woman, what is going to be the penalty for her?

So let's add it all up. Lawyers fees, tying up the courts, medical malpractice suites...and this is for just one illegal abortion.

None of that.

The woman is the victim, not a criminal.

Go after the doctors.

That'll stop the blood from running really quick.

Herb

Okay we agree the woman is the victim here, but I still believe the man who got the woman pregnant is also responsible. So often they get off scott free.

Yep. That's a big problem, IMHO.

I wish we could come to some better middle ground. Personally I don't think an outright ban is just. Too many complications that keep that from being an outright known good decision. Rowe is solid law in this regard.

Having said that, I think the really late term stuff is just not ok. If we have to abort, it needs to be really early.

We also need aggressive alternatives and advocacy on all levels. The general taboo and stigma attached to this topic inhibit this. It's wrong and it's doing us harm.

There is middle ground here too.

The churches can go for the abstinence programs, but we should encourage all programs. Safe sex programs, testing, morning after pill, adoption, education on all levels for all ideologies.

Instead of this being a dark topic, don't we all have a common shared interest in keeping the numbers down no matter how it gets done?

An outright ban will just be like prohibition. It will sort of work, but won't completely work. No matter what we choose to legislate, people are still gonna have sex and they still are gonna end up in a position where they would consider an abortion, and they are still gonna have one.

In the end, the best we can do is cut down the numbers. So why not accept that stark reality and actually do everything we can to cut the numbers without dictating peoples life choices then? Seems to me the greater overall good is best served that way.

Doctors are instructed first to 'do no harm.'
That's why the book is thrown and thrown hard at them.

As for the dead-beat dads, go after them big time, but be creative. Hit 'em in the pocketbook, post their names all over the place, garnish their wages, you know the drill.

Herb

I am in agreement that late term abortions we need to stay away from.

This is such a personal decision that I simply don't think we can legislate any better than what Rowe v Wade already does. But all angles of educating the masses is important and it starts at home. If home is an unsafe place to hold that discussion then other social service agencies, or churches or places of safety would be other alternatives. Once you know the risks, and the responsibilities, hopefully better choices.

Herb,

Your opinions on abortion are well known, (and although I don't totally agree, I respect them).

Would it be safe to assume that you are also a proponent of abstinence only sex education?

I don't like age-inappropriate sex ed.

Age-appropriate is ok, especially in a health class.

The problem I have and a lot of others have is what can become a promotion of sexual behaviour that young kids don't need to learn. The basics in age-appropriate settings? Yes.

Does this mean that kids should also learn that abstinence will prevent pregnancy and also lower the risk for sexually-transmitted diseases? Absolutely.

Remember. These are children, especially in grade school.

Herb

Children? Yeah, Children having sex.

In about 1974, my 8th grade locker partner got pregnant and "had" to leave school. She never came back. I always wonder what happened to her and her now 33-year old child, as we celebrate Baby Merkin's 1st.

How about my cousin's 12-year-old half-sister being "aquaintance raped" (never reported, of course) and going into labor at the Thanksgiving dinner table, and nobody had any idea what was happening? No prenatal care whatsoever.

My Mom took early retirement from teaching at a fairly wealthy local junior high/middle school; She was shocked at the number of kids having sex, (partly because they were bored, and home alone after school, and from peer pressure) and sick of the disrespect of the kids, and the parents not caring about the disresect much either.

Girls start their periods earlier and earlier, me, way back then, age 12. I could get pregnant in 6th grade.

"The basics in age-appropriate settings? Yes."

That would start at HOME at really early age, before kindergarten and at grade school, too.

Oh, and condoms should be free and easy to get.

(I do have an issue with the DARE program, however, so we'll say "no thanks" to that one!)

My teenage daughter is such a joy. She came out of the womb on a mission. She knows who she is and where she is going.

Some of the boys at school will come up to her at lunch with her girlfriends and start flirting or actually picking up some of the girls up playfully. One of the boys came up to my daughter and started to reach for her and he stopped and said something like..." I don't know you really" ....translation "I ain't gonna mess with you!"

My daughter gets loads of respect because she is not afraid to be herself. She was very challenging as a small child because she had to have things done her way. We had lots of people telling us to "shape her up" but we knew as long as our boundaries were fair she'd be alright. That has proven to be true.

We have had the sex talk for years with both our kids. As they have matured we added more to the conversation when we feel they are ready. These days we hear them talking to each other about sex and it’s comfortable and natural. However when mom and dad kiss they prefer not to see that kind of PDA.

My daughter is reaching "that age" ... I told her that the first time she brings a boy home, I will drag out the cutesy-little baby-nude-in-the-tub pictures and show them to him. I will also tell him that this better be the **ONLY** time he sees her nude.

And people say scare tactics don't work!