GQP

[Big RR]

THAT GOP went to Nixon and demanded he resign, or be removed.

And got him a pardon in the deal.

Again, I'd love for you to be right, but I'm pretty sure the GOP will be back.

[Scooter]

In fairness, I think the pardon was less about saving Nixon's ass than it was about a (probably misguided) attempt to avoid what might have been years of a divisive criminal investigation and trial at a time when the country was in crisis on so many fronts (the remnants of Vietnam, a faltering economy, energy shortages, ongoing racial strife, etc.). I think that contrasts sharply with the motivations of today's Republicans in trying to protect Trump from being called to account.

[Big RR]

I don't buy that; I think the republicans were trying to avoid the facts that would come out during the trial and implicate many of them. They just wanted to hush it up ASAP. I don't think it was misguided, I think it was carefully planned.

[Joe Guy]

Yeah, she said she was allowed to believe things that weren’t true.

What does that mean? Who allowed it?

Who says she can't? People have a right to be assholes, and also to vote for assholes. But I see no problem the House couldn't strip her of her committee assignments; I'm old enough to expel Adam Clayton Powell (also an asshole), and found out they did not (not to mention his district elected him to fill the vacancy left by his expulsion), but they can control internal procedures. Surprisingly (or maybe not so) it was a pretty close vote.

As for "political violence" rhetoric, if they are crimes the justice department can prosecute her.

I'm confused by the "allowed" part of her statement. Why did she use that word? Of course she has the right to think stupid thoughts and push conspiracy theories. Is she claiming that since there is no law against being a loony tune, we shouldn't be concerned that she is one?

[Scooter]

If I get the jist of her rationalizations, she is trying to make herself into some sort of passive vessel for the receipt of conspiratorial misinformation, who therefore doesn't bear any responsibility for buying into it and disseminating it herself. Because all sources of information are, according to her, equally suspect, she is not to blame for falling for the bullshit she chose to believe. It is, instead, the fault of others for "allowing" her to be taken in by it, presumably by failing to tell her that it was bullshit.

[Big RR]

Well, that works for me--the poor deluded woman.

[Sue U]

Can't you see? She's the real victim here!

[liberty]

I remember when the left believed Kennedy was killed by the Klan or the conservative CIA,

No you don't.

NO, YOU ARE WRONG, AND THAT IS NOT ALL I REMEMBER. THE LEFT HAS BLOOD ON ITS HANDS THAT SHOULD LAST A HUNDRED YEARS:


JEFF JACOBY
American leftists were Pol Pot's cheerleaders
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | April 30, 1998
The death of Pol Pot, 23 years to the day after he and the Khmer Rouge seized control of Cambodia, occasioned long backward glances at one of the 20th century's most horrific genocides. It was noted everywhere that the communist reign of terror in Cambodia lasted nearly four years and that at least 1 million human beings -- by some estimates as many as 2 1/2 million -- were murdered in an orgy of executions, torture, and starvation.

``In the name of a radical utopia,'' The New York Times recalled in its long obituary, ``the Khmer Rouge regime had turned most of the people into slaves. . . . Dictatorial village leaders and soldiers told the people whom to marry and how to live, and those who disobeyed were killed. [Those] who did not bend to the political mania were buried alive, or tossed into the air and speared on bayonets. Some were fed to crocodiles.'' Nearby was a photograph of human skulls -- emblem of the dreadful ``killing fields'' in which the communists butchered a quarter of Cambodia's people.

But nowhere in the Times story was there a reminder that the Khmer Rouge was able to seize power only after the US Congress in 1975 cut off all aid to the embattled pro-American government of Lon Nol -- and that it did so despite frantic warnings of the bloodbath that would ensue. President Ford warned of ``horror and tragedy'' if Cambodia was abandoned to the Khmer Rouge and pleaded with Congress to supply Lon Nol's army with the tools it needed to defend itself.

To no avail. US troops had come home two years earlier, but American antiwar activists were still intent on effecting the ``liberation'' of Southeast Asia. Radicals like Jane Fonda, David Dellinger, and Tom Hayden stormed the country, denouncing anyone who opposed communist victory in Cambodia and Vietnam. On the campuses, in the media, and in Congress, it was taken on faith that a Khmer Rouge victory would bring peace and enlightened leadership to Cambodia.

``The growing hysteria of the administration's posture on Cambodia,'' declared Senator George McGovern, ``seems to me to reflect a determined refusal to consider what the fall of the existing government in Phnom Penh would actually mean. . . . We should be able to see that the kind of government which would succeed Lon Nol's forces would most likely be a government . . . run by some of the best-educated, most able intellectuals in Cambodia.''

Stanley Karnow, hailed nowadays as an authoritative Indochina historian, was quite sure that ``the `loss' of Cambodia would . . . be the salvation of the Cambodians.'' There was no point helping the noncommunist government survive, he wrote, ``since the rebels are unlikely to kill more innocent civilians than are being slaughtered by the rockets promiscuously hitting Phnom Penh.''
The New Republic told its readers that the ouster of Lon Nol should be of no concern, since ``the Cambodian people will finally be rescued from the horrors of a war that never really had any meaning.''

In Washington, then-Representative Christopher Dodd of Connecticut averred: ``The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.''
Was this willful blindness or mere stupidity? To believe that the Khmer Rouge would be good for Cambodia, one had to ignore everything the world had learned about communist brutality since 1917. How could intelligent Americans have said such things?
But they did, repeatedly.

In the news columns of The New York Times, the celebrated Sydney Schanberg wrote of Cambodians that ``it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.'' He dismissed predictions of mass executions in the wake of a Khmer Rouge victory: ``It would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior as national policy under a Communist government once the war is over.'' On April 13, 1975, Schanberg's dispatch from Phnom Penh was headlined, ``Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life.''

On the op-ed page, Anthony Lewis was calling ``the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future could possibly be more terrible,'' he demanded, ``than the reality of what is happening to Cambodia now?''
As the death marches out of Phnom Penh proceeded, Lewis went on making excuses for the Khmer Rouge. He mused that it was ``the only way to start on their vision of a new society.'' Americans who objected were guilty of ``cultural arrogance, an imperial assumption, that . . . our way of life'' would be better.

Amazing, the lies that were told as Cambodia's holocaust roared on. The ``scholars'' were the worst. Gareth Porter and G.C. Hildebrand of the Indochina Resource Center insisted that Pol Pot's horrendous cruelties ``saved the lives of tens of thousands of people.'' Ben Kiernan, who would eventually head the Cambodian Genocide Program, asserted that ``the Khmer Rouge movement is not the monster that the press have recently made it out to be.'' Tell that to a million murdered Cambodians.
Twenty-three years ago, American leftists cheered, justified, and denied as the communists plunged Cambodia into a nightmare of atrocity. In the end, they failed to whitewash Pol Pot's record. They will not succeed in whitewashing their own.

[Scooter]

So the appropriate response to

I remember when the left believed Kennedy was killed by the Klan or the conservative CIA

remains

No you don't.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I remember when the left believed Kennedy was killed by the Klan or the conservative CIA,

No you don't.

True dat, Sue.

[Joe Guy]

If I get the jist of her rationalizations, she is trying to make herself into some sort of passive vessel for the receipt of conspiratorial misinformation, who therefore doesn't bear any responsibility for buying into it and disseminating it herself. Because all sources of information are, according to her, equally suspect, she is not to blame for falling for the bullshit she chose to believe. It is, instead, the fault of others for "allowing" her to be taken in by it, presumably by failing to tell her that it was bullshit.

Good explanation. I get it. She was just channeling conspiratorial information. It's a gift she has but it's not what she believes. Okay.... I forgive her and I apologize to her for being one of her enablers....

[BoSoxGal]

She’s blaming Facebook Instagram and other big tech social media conduits for letting her be exposed to Q and other conspiracies.


And yet she’s all about

[BoSoxGal]

I wonder if she makes those masks herself or if a friend at church makes them for her. So she can focus on unriddling Q.

[liberty]

I remember when the left believed Kennedy was killed by the Klan or the conservative CIA,

No you don't.

That, using the liberal standard of truth makes you a liar. Remember that GW was a liar because he was wrong about WMD in Iraq. Being wrong about what I remember makes you are a liar. I am the only expert on what I remember, and I seriously doubt you are a mind reader, so you are a liar. However, since having higher respect for the truth, I have to admit that memories especially old memories and not always true. Memory is a strange thing and can not always be depended on, but I am not the only one that remembers how liberals acted during the Cold War. No hostility was intended in the statement above; it is just the way it is.

And since today is Sunday a sacred day, something S.H. can’t comprehend, I can’t comment on S. H. to do would defile the sacredness of the day.

[liberty]

I remember when the left believed Kennedy was killed by the Klan or the conservative CIA,

No you don't.

True dat, Sue.

Are you a mind reader or are you a liar? See reply to Sue.

[Scooter]

You made a claim about what you "remembered" that the amorphous "left" believed about the Kennedy assassination, and when Sue called you on it, you posted a complete non sequitur about Cambodia.

[Sue U]

I remember when the left believed Kennedy was killed by the Klan or the conservative CIA,

No you don't.

That, using the liberal standard of truth makes you a liar. Remember that GW was a liar because he was wrong about WMD in Iraq. Being wrong about what I remember makes you are a liar. I am the only expert on what I remember, and I seriously doubt you are a mind reader, so you are a liar. However, since having higher respect for the truth, I have to admit that memories especially old memories and not always true. Memory is a strange thing and can not always be depended on, but I am not the only one that remembers how liberals acted during the Cold War. No hostility was intended in the statement above; it is just the way it is.

And since today is Sunday a sacred day, something S.H. can’t comprehend, I can’t comment on S. H. to do would defile the sacredness of the day.

In order to "remember" something happening, it had to have actually happened. Making shit up about the past is not "remembering" anything, it's making shit up, about the past. Some would (accurately) call it "lying." Pointing out that some shit you made up about the past didn't actually happen is (accurately) "not lying." Your brain is irreparably broken.

[ex-khobar Andy]

And since today is Sunday a sacred day, something S.H. can’t comprehend, I can’t comment on S. H. to do would defile the sacredness of the day.

I'm lost. I know we got onto the subject of Iraq but I really don't understand what Saddam Hussein - who really never got Sundays when he was alive (he was more of a Friday guy) - has to do with all this.

[Bicycle Bill]

And since today is Sunday a sacred day, something S.H. can’t comprehend, I can’t comment on S. H. to do would defile the sacredness of the day.

I'm lost. I know we got onto the subject of Iraq but I really don't understand what Saddam Hussein - who really never got Sundays when he was alive (he was more of a Friday guy) - has to do with all this.

Only liberty could take a thread about Marjorie Taylor Greene and her wacked-out beliefs, somehow drag McGovern and 1960s politics into it, and wind up talking about Saddam Hussein.

Deflector shields up, indeed!!

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

In order to "remember" something happening, it had to have actually happened. Making shit up about the past is not "remembering" anything

That, lib, is the point.