Was Nixon so bad?

[SkinWalker]

Moderator Note: Posts that were trolling, vulgar or led of with how "stupid" another participant is, or some similar ad hominem remark were deleted. Please feel free to repost your key arguments or points in a reasoned and civil fashion. This is not Politics, Free Thoughts, or the Cesspool.

 

[iceaura]

For those actually curious about what Count is talking about, here is the "gaffe" (note spelling, Count):

They were scum because they negotiated with the Iranians to hold Americans hostage until after they had helped defeat Carter with the bad PR, treasonous because they dealt sophisticated weaponry to the nation's enemies (and potential terrorism supporters) in return for money, and evil because they used that money to support drug cartels and terrorism in Central America.

And criminals in all three aspects.

Building that kind of relationship with the enemy is what earns the perp a firing squad.

That was about Reagan, part (about a third) of an argument that he did more damage to the country than Nixon. It was - and is - on topic. The last sentence was a reply to a defense of Reagan that pointed out he had expectably and normally tried to "build a relationship with the Iranians".

My argument is not that Nixon was OK, somehow. My argument is that Reagan (and Bush and especially W, Reagan's continuations) was worse in terms of damage done.

 

[countezero]

Ice, this cover-up is pathetic. Admit your error and move on. . .

For those actually curious about what Count is talking about, here is the "gaffe" (note spelling, Count):

Wow. So now you're pointing out spelling errors, ostensibly to gain points and cover up your ignorant distortion? That's mature.

That was about Reagan, part (about a third) of an argument that he did more damage to the country than Nixon. It was - and is - on topic. The last sentence was a reply to a defense of Reagan that pointed out he had expectably and normally tried to "build a relationship with the Iranians".

My argument is not that Nixon was OK, somehow. My argument is that Reagan (and Bush and especially W, Reagan's continuations) was worse in terms of damage done.

What's amazing is that you're restating your error and adjoining two events that had nothing to do with each other AGAIN. When you write "they negotiated with the Iranians to hold Americans hostage until after they had helped defeat Carter with the bad PR, treasonous because they dealt sophisticated weaponry to the nation's enemies (and potential terrorism supporters) in return for money, and evil because they used that money to support drug cartels and terrorism in Central America" you are [deleted]

There is no evidence "they" negotiated with the Iranians in 1979 or 1980. And, despite being asked several times, you have not provided any proof this happened. In fact, you suggested it would be difficult to find proof "anywhere." And yet, you continue to make the claim? To contrast, I have posted a link to the fruits of the actual negotiations.

You are also repeating the link the arms sales in 1985 with these earlier hostage takings, when, in fact, they are completely DIFFERENT incidents in history. What's funny is that you all but admitted your screw-up a few pages ago when you made a lame attempt to link them, post de facto, in the face of strong criticism. Now, in another attempt to slither away and save face, you're arguing you never made the error to begin with? The dishonesty here is plain for all to see.

 

[superstring01]

So, if there is not evidence (hell, I'll settle for residue of evidence), then how can one claim an intellectual understanding of an event? I can comprehend about having a "feeling", like my "feeling" that it's gonna' rain tomorrow, but if provided evidence to the contrary, I might adjust my leaning.

Show me proof, and not some Rube Goldberg Machine of disparate evidence which you've strung together to create an end product that doesn't necessarily match reality. While there is no proof that Reagan wasn't dealing with the Iranians (I guess there's no proof he didn't kill Mr. Whipple the "Don't squeeze the Charmin" man either... so he must have), I'd like to see something a bit more compelling, especially from a member who prances about like he's an intellectual.

I base my opinion on my limited, though thorough readings that I've found by Warren Christopher (as in THE man negotiating for the release of the 52 hostages) and a smattering of other websites, articles and publications. I'd like to see where Ice got his. My guess is they either don't exist or are from sources so laughable as to be better left unnamed.

~String

 

[countezero]

String, I posted the final settlement.

I also posted the NYT entire rundown of Iran/Contra. And having just read The Veil, I would be happy to share what I gleamed from that book, as I now know quite a bit about what actually happened. Ice's sources likely came from World Socialist Daily -- or whatever it is he reads. He's been asked to provide proof, and still he does nothing. . .

 

[iceaura]

Ice, this cover-up is pathetic. Admit your error and move on.

I reposted what you are talking about, for everyone to see, so they can appreciate your efforts here.

Wow. So now you're pointing out spelling errors, ostensibly to gain points and cover up your ignorant distortion?

A couple of times you, (and string recently), have noted with amusement when somebody (for example) misspells the word "stupid" when they are calling someone stupid.

I find a self-proclaimed professional journalist misspelling the word "gaffe" when they are (for the umpteenth time) wrongly and loudly and repetitively and irrelevantly accusing me of making one, similarly bemusing, in an admittedly light and trivial sense.

But carry on.

So, if there is not evidence (hell, I'll settle for residue of evidence), then how can one claim an intellectual understanding of an event?

There is the circumstantial evidence already listed by me (and szyg) regarding which there has been exactly one even partial response (Reagan's manliness so frightened the Iranians that they forked over the hostages as soon as they heard he had really been sworn in, was the somewhat comical and unserious response. Later, it split into the Iranians being very angry at Carter for attempting the rescue, and simultaneously contemptuous of Carter because he was a wimp, so they agreed to turn the hostages over to Carter after he wasn't President.)

In addition, I am informed that Reagan didn't have "people" capable of dealing with Iran until after he was elected, and that one of Carter's chief negotiators who failed during the campaign is a more reliable informant about matters that would have been deliberately hidden from him than the Iranian President at the time.

Surprisingly, what seems to me an obvious possibility - and one that does not violate reason - has not been proposed: that the Iranians preferred Reagan as President because they saw his administration would be easier for them to handle, understood American politics, and screwed Carter on their own.

Until the basic situation already described - including the consistency of Reagan's eight years of treasonous dealings with Iran, the remarkable cooperation of the Iranians with the Reagan campaign's needs, the ubiquitous involvement of Israel and the context of the Iran/Iraq War, the deep and extensive history of personal connections between members of the Reagan campaign in '80 and the governments of both Iran and Israel, and so forth - is dealt with, what is the point of gathering more "evidence" for my argument? -

which is, we recall, that the assumption of Reagan's treasonous dealings with Iraq during the campaign in '80 is the default assumption. It's the one that stands unless someone finds a flaw in it. It's what the agreed events look like.

And, on topic, that Nixon did not do damage at Reagan's level - that Nixon was a mere crook and would-be petty tyrant, by comparison.

 

[countezero]

I reposted what you are talking about, for everyone to see, so they can appreciate your efforts here.

And I'm somewhat glad you have. It lets everyone know what you really are.

A couple of times you, (and string recently), have noted with amusement when somebody (for example) misspells the word "stupid" when they are calling someone stupid.

I tend not to attack spelling because I am so poor at it. But hey, knock yourself out. Just realize that my suspect abilities do not cover up, excuse or muddy your intellectual fumbles -- intentional or otherwise.

I find a self-proclaimed professional journalist misspelling the word "gaffe" when they are (for the umpteenth time) wrongly and loudly and repetitively and irrelevantly accusing me of making one, similarly bemusing, in an admittedly light and trivial sense.

After initially resisting, you admitted you made the error several pages ago when you made some convoluted and specious argument about it not mattering. Then, if I recall correctly, you essentially told String that the gaff didn't matter, because lumping the incidents together makes sense. This kind of arguing is slippery rhetorical tricks and chicanery -- nothing more.

But carry on.

I will. Watching you squirm is fun.

There is the circumstantial evidence already listed by me (and szyg)

I've seen no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, anywhere in this thread listed by you. What I have seen is what I always see: Biased opinion backed up by more biased opinion. You've been asked to give us something more tangible, something that refutes the official documents or NYT synopsis that I posted, and you can't.

Until the basic situation already described - including the consistency of Reagan's eight years of treasonous dealings with Iran, the remarkable cooperation of the Iranians with the Reagan campaign's needs, the ubiquitous involvement of Israel and the context of the Iran/Iraq War, the deep and extensive history of personal connections between members of the Reagan campaign in '80 and the governments of both Iran and Israel, and so forth - is dealt with, what is the point of gathering more "evidence" for my argument? -

None of the above is evidence. It's your opinion and your assessment of the situation. Why don't you try posting something, anything that is factual? Can you do that?

And, on topic, that Nixon did not do damage at Reagan's level - that Nixon was a mere crook and would-be petty tyrant, by comparison.

Unfortunately, we must deal with results and the results are obvious. Like him or not, Ronald Reagan left the US a powerful nation with its image intact and its people positive about the future. Richard Nixon left his country with a tattered reputation that hindered its doings for at least six or seven years, its image worn and its people wholly negative. The historical consensus on the two men couldn't be more different, either.

To add to Nixon's list of crimes, I pulled the following information from the Church Committee's report:

• President Richard Nixon tasked CIA with domestic surveillance because he “wanted to know what his domestic opponents were up to.” Additionally, White House officials demanded that Howard Hunt and other members of the “plumbers” receive disguises and equipment from CIA. The office of the psychiatrist treating Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, was broken into in 1971 by men using CIA equipment.

• Henry Kissinger ordered the CIA to spy on the anti-war movement. As the Church committee noted, the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened at least 65,000 files in 1972 alone.

 

[iceaura]

After initially resisting, you admitted you made the error several pages ago

Two lies in one phrase - no resistance, no admission.

I made no gaffe, and you are still perfect on paraphrases of my stuff - always, every time, wrong. Often just plain stupid, occasionally forgivable (as here, where I didn't slow things down enough for an audience with you in it) if you haven't led off with jackassery and insult.

But you always have.

I've seen no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, anywhere in this thread listed by you.

Post 49 and 53, for repetiton of one item and argument. Earleir posts, for others.

Like him or not, Ronald Reagan left the US a powerful nation with its image intact and its people positive about the future.

Already laughed at in posts 5 and 44.

In the revisionist dreams of the befuddled right, maybe. He was not that popular among the regular voters, and the damage done to the economy, foreign policy and reputation, courts and infrastructure and government capability, and the various other real-life attributes of the actual country he had shafted, would not be matched until the unparalleled achievements of W - who inherited Reagan's administration without the obstacle of Reagan's Congress. Even in image, although Dan Quayle and HW first and now of course W the Inimitable have overshadowed Reagan's contributions to face-palm "did he really say that?" moments in Presidential rhetoric, we can still remember Reagan's very own PR guy explaining that sometimes Reagan was "disengaged".

Dave Barry was not the only guy to start talking about "disengaged as a stump" and "disengaged blondes".

America's "image" has never been the same, since Reagan proved that it's not only monarchies that get saddled with the mentally unfit and terminally corrupt - although after five years of hard work Clinton did manage to get a handle on the Reagan deficit. Good luck to Obama, with W's.

 

[countezero]

Two lies in one phrase - no resistance, no admission.

Sure, Ice. Whatever. This is your standard tripe, and largely why I tired of you months ago. You get in an argument and when people call you on your bullshit you change the subject, throw in new material, start calling people liars or charge that they as misrepresenting your arguments. In other words, your methods define and demonstrate chicanery and obfuscation in ways I never thought possible.

I made no gaffe

Yes, you did.

Since you insist on playing games, I will go through this one more time.

In post #30, you write:

The self-proclaimed "purity" of that kind of ideology is one of the worst aspects of Iran-Contra, because of the PR danger. They were doing some very dirty deals, and they were scum to do them. ... And pretending that Reagan's deals were, for example, intended to "secure the release of the hostages" - rather than, say, delay and time the release of some hostages for domestic political gain - overlooks a major aspect of the whole operation.

The "deals" or topic being discussed, which you chimed in about, was Iran-Contra. These deals had nothing to do with releasing hostages for political gain (an obvious jab at the embassy hostages, though not totally apparent here).

Before I continue with the gaff, I'd like to note the ridiculousness of the following:

the Executive Branch finances international cocaine cartels to fight communism, and the whole operation is arranged by fascists to support terrorism world wide

You've provided nothing that provides details about who any of these parties were or proves that what you claim happened actually happened. It's just more bullshit opinion from you.

In post 31, I brought your attention back to Iran-Contra. Again, specifically this event. No other.

Here is your response:

They were scum because they negotiated with the Iranians to hold Americans hostage until after they had helped defeat Carter with the bad PR, treasonous because they dealt sophisticated weaponry to the nation's enemies (and potential terrorism supporters) in return for money, and evil because they used that money to support drug cartels and terrorism in Central America.

Again, you're adjoining two events that shouldn't be. The hostages under Carter and the hostages under Reagan are mentioned in the same passage. By doing so, you connect 1979 to Iran-Contra (what I specifically asked you about remember?), when the two have nothing to do with each other. I asked you twice. Both times, you mention these disparate incidents.

Furthermore, you repeat your baseless allegations about secret Reagan negotiations, drug cartels, etc (not to mention your demented, and factually incorrect Benedict Arnold claim). Ice, please provide some fucking proof for anything you've written? Please, quit talking out of your ass. . .

After being called on your bullshit, with links, you come back with:

Reagan (his "people") handled them similarly, betraying his country for domestic political gain and corporate power. I don't see why we can't lump them.

First, you didn't address your confusion, though this statement basically admits it exists. Secondly, your statement forces us to accept a premise we have already rejected about Reagan's involvement. This is a slippery, lawyer trick. You proved nothing, so you want us to lump the unproven with the actual? That's perhaps one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. . .

Post 49 and 53, for repetiton of one item and argument. Earleir posts, for others.

Post 49 is your assessment of history. There's nothing factual, nothing that proves anything you said. The fact you continue to confuse your opinion with fact is evidence only of your dementia. Post 53 is more of the same, and yet you waste my time by sitting there and citing these as proof? Seriously, go look up the word "proof" and "fact" in the dictionary. This might clear up some of your inability to produce either -- despite being asked NUMEROUS times to do so. . .

Then we get prose like this:

The evidence already presented here is of course obvious, if you are willing to look at it.

Proof, of course, you will not find anywhere. Merely evidence, circumstance, etc

Who writes bullshit, obfuscatory prose like that?

I've posted two or three links that back up everything I have said in this thread. Proof is only difficult to find when you're making shit up and trying to pass your opinion off as fact.

To further demonstrate the dementia:

He was not that popular among the regular voters

You mean the overwhelming masses of American voters who elected him to two terms in office? The 1984 election, in particular, is something of a historical dunk and hang-on-the-rim kind of affair. From wiki:

"Reagan carried 49 of the 50 states, becoming only the second presidential candidate to do so after Richard Nixon's victory in the 1972 presidential election. Mondale's only electoral votes came from his home state of Minnesota—which he won by fewer than 3,800 votes—and the District of Columbia, which has always been a Democratic guarantee. Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate. Mondale's 13 electoral votes is also the 2nd-least ever received by a second-place candidate, second only to Alf Landon's 8 in 1936. In the national popular vote, Reagan received 58.8% to Mondale's 40.6%."

Sounds pretty damn unpopular to me. . .

 

[iceaura]

Those following the thread will find the first relevance at the bottom, after the - - - - - - division mark.

First, you didn't address your confusion, though this statement basically admits it exists.

Once again into the breach:

As always, I deny responsibility for any of your paraphrases and interpretations of anything I post. In this case, I deny your alleged "confusion", and I deny admitting it, "basically" or otherwise. I'm not going to "address" your bullshit, now or ever, except at my own whim. Nothing you represent as my posting is or has been accurate or reasonable, and I deny any obligations regarding it.

For example, we have another candidate for the gaff:

Since you insist on playing games, I will go through this one more time.

In post #30, you write:

What follows is a slightly edited version of post 30. (The editing somewhat obscures the argument, in a way that favors Counte's allegations). The original looks like this:

The self-proclaimed "purity" of that kind of ideology is one of the worst aspects of Iran-Contra, because of the PR danger. They were doing some very dirty deals, and they were scum to do them.

And pretending that Reagan's deals were, for example, intended to "secure the release of the hostages" - rather than, say, delay and time the release of some hostages for domestic political gain - overlooks a major aspect of the whole operation.

Note the separation into paragraphs. Idid that on purpose, to separate "Reagan's deals" (in general) from Iran Contra in particular. The discussion as a whole is not about Iran-Contra exclusively, but about Reagan overall vs Nixon overall, with examples to be drawn from Reagan's entire tenure in office.

And Count himself appears to take it that way, as a discussion of Reagan overall, in his immediate reply in #31:

"And pretending that Reagan's deals were, for example, intended to "secure the release of the hostages" - rather than, say, delay and time the release of some hostages for domestic political gain - overlooks a major aspect of the whole operation.
”
There absolutely no evidence that ever happened. Or if you have some, I'd like to see it.

So we see that the various hostage deals are easily kept separate, and the actual argument (Reagan's motives not assumably pure in hostage situations, among others) apparently comprehended, however narrowly, even in the brief and easily misread two paragrahs, if Counte so desires.

But Counte has other priorities, soon to the front.

And there is where I lose patience. If someone mistakes those two paragraphs as confusing two hostage situations, rather than illustrating the invalidity of simply claiming good motives on Reagan's part by reference to similar and related situations in which his motives were directly impugned, then I am happy to clarify a brief, easily and honestly misunderstood reference. I would even apologize for wasting the reader's time, by writing too little no less.

Instead, more Counte spewing and accusation and threadwasting off-topic crap, and it's addressed to me like I'm supposed to do something about it.

There's nothing I can do about it. It isn't honest, it isn't relevant, and it isn't worth anyone's time.
- - - -
Nixon was bad, very bad, impeachable and imprisonable bad, but unless you were Laotian or actually a government official his practical (other than morale, etc) effects were limited. Reagan was worse, in his actual effects on the country - so bad that one of the worst aspects of Nixon was his electoral enabling of Reagan. The question of who is worse - the President with the worse character, or the President who did the worse job - is kind of interesting and complicated, IMHO. There is a sense in which bad character in the Pres damages the country all by itself. But Nixon did plenty of damage as well as being a miserable human being, so his status is safe, and Reagan did so much harm that it isn't really necessary to dig into the various less savory aspects of hsi character to label his reign.

 

[countezero]

Note the separation into paragraphs. I did that on purpose, to separate "Reagan's deals" (in general) from Iran Contra in particular. The discussion as a whole is not about Iran-Contra exclusively, but about Reagan overall vs Nixon overall, with examples to be drawn from Reagan's entire tenure in office.

No, Ice. Go back and read the thread. The discussion was specifically about whether Iran-Contra was worse than Watergate. Several posts show this. What's more I specifically directed questions to you about Iran-Contra, and in response I got that wonderful bit of bullshit you re-posted for us all, in which you wax philosophic about the 1979 hostages and say little or nothing about 1985 onward. So either you were confusing the two or are completely incapable of sticking to a specific topic. Neither would surprise me, given your demonstrated tendency to intentionally obfuscate in nearly every discussion I've ever had with you.

Instead, more Counte spewing and accusation and threadwasting off-topic crap, and it's addressed to me like I'm supposed to do something about it.

The only thing I've alleged is that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. And so far as that is concerned, you are supposed to do something about it. You are supposed to demonstrate you know something about what the fuck you are talking about. The funny thing is, you haven't done that. Not once. You've been asked by two people to provide a shred of proof for numerous claims -- claims I would argue are wholly inaccurate -- in this thread. We're still waiting. . .

In case you're confused, we're interested in the following:

1. Something substantive that shows how Reagan was dealing with the Iranian prior to his election, and that this dealing led to their release.

2. Something substantive that describes this connection you allege with fascists and drug cartels.

And while we're at it . . .

3. Something substantive that explains your bizarre -- and I would argue, inaccurate claims -- about Benedict Arnold.

Please, give us something.

Elsewhere, as usual, you ignore it when you get completely and utterly shot down by reality. You said Reagan was "not that popular among the regular voters," so I posted the vote totals in 1984 proving you wrong. Can we say, score another point for me at your expense?

 

[iceaura]

No, Ice. Go back and read the thread. The discussion was specifically about whether Iran-Contra was worse than Watergate.

My posting was about whether Reagan was worse than Nixon.

In case you're confused, we're interested in the following:

I don't believe you.

Elsewhere, as usual, you ignore it when you get completely and utterly shot down by reality. You said Reagan was "not that popular among the regular voters," so I posted the vote totals in 1984 proving you wrong.

You posted vote totals showing the unpopularity of Fritz Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro for Pres and Veep.

Actually, you didn't even do that (you posted a percentage that could have been from a lower total vote, and some electoral college irrelevancies) - but I can help: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/population-and-popular-vote.html

As far as Reagan's popularity: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832

- - Through most of his presidency, Reagan did not rate much higher than other post-World War II presidents. And during his first two years, Reagan's approval ratings were quite low. His 52 percent average approval rating for his presidency places him sixth out of the past ten presidents, behind Kennedy (70 percent), Eisenhower (66 percent), George H.W. Bush (61 percent), Clinton (55 percent), and Johnson (55 percent). His popularity frequently dipped below 50 percent during his first term, plummeted to 46 percent during the Iran-Contra scandal, and never exceeded 68 percent. (By contrast, Clinton's maximum approval rating hit 71 percent.) - -

edit in (trying to stay on topic): The question of who makes the worse Pres, the bad man or the bad exec, do we have an example of an undeniably lousy human being who made a good Pres? Smart enough to not bug his own office, something like that?

 

[countezero]

Ice, I will try ONE more time before I conclude you are a clown.

I'm interested in the following:

1. Something substantive that shows how Reagan was dealing with the Iranian prior to his election, and that this dealing led to their release.

2. Something substantive that describes this connection you allege with fascists and drug cartels.

And while we're at it . . .

3. Something substantive that explains your bizarre -- and I would argue, inaccurate claims -- about Benedict Arnold.

Please, give me something other than your inchoate ramblings.

My posting was about whether Reagan was worse than Nixon.

Well, bully for you!

Apparently, you don't understand what a conversation is.

Let me try to help.

You see, in a conversation, people talk back and forth and they tend to address the points other people are making. In this case, the conversation you inserted yourself into was about Iran-Contra. Furthermore, once you blessed us all with your uninformed opinions, I specifically asked you to clarify and expand on your claims about Iran-Contra. So we were discussing Iran-Contra. What you are doing now is what you always do when you you've been beaten -- obfuscating, parsing and game-playing.

You posted vote totals showing the unpopularity of Fritz Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro for Pres and Veep.

Well, that's one way of looking at it, I suppose, but the point is that when Americans went to vote in either 1980 0r 1984 they overwhelmingly voted for a man you despise (oh, how it must hurt you!). I'm not sure how else one determines "popularity" with voters, if electoral results are to be considered nothing but achievements that encapsulate nothing but negation of the other party on the ballot.

Actually, you didn't even do that (you posted a percentage that could have been from a lower total vote, and some electoral college irrelevancies) - but I can help: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/population-and-popular-vote.html

Some electoral irrelevancies?

Yeah, I mean that's only how the presidency is determined and all . . .

Elsewhere, I'm curious what you're trying to prove. Reagan's victory in 1984 was a historical ass-whipping. Post whatever links and numbers you like -- they will only confirm the above point. What's even more funny is that your link show Reagan beats Obama, in terms of percentages of the population. Bet that hurts your brain, too. . .

As far as Reagan's popularity: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832

Now, you're slithering again and seeking to find new ground to make a separate and unrelated point, having failed to prove the first. Popularity with the voters has nothing to do with approval numbers, just as and popularity at any given point during the presidential term has nothing to do with popularity among the voters. People only vote every two or four years. What they think in between is largely irrelevant. But hey, looking at your link, Reagan checks in with "63 percent (Gallup, 1/10-14-01)." So where is that MAJORITY you said who didn't approve of him?

But in truth, I really don't care about any of that. You're squirming. Stop squirming and try to answer the questions you have been asked.

 

[iceaura]

I'm interested in the following:

You aren't.

And if you were, surely you would recall that I very explicitly and publicly informed you, months ago, that I was not going to bother looking up sources for you any more.

You see, in a conversation, people talk back and forth and they tend to address the points other people are making.

Sounds like a good idea.

Popularity with the voters has nothing to do with approval numbers, just as and popularity at any given point during the presidential term has nothing to do with popularity among the voters.

Approval numbers are a direct measure of popularity, unlike voting which is a limited indirect comparison registry with many extraneous and confounding factors, and certainly far more relevant than the electoral college, which doesn't even record the opinions of regular voters.

Ask the kids to vote on broccoli or dogshit for dinner, call the results overwhelming popularity of broccoli?

But we can also consider the question of whether popularity is a factor in considering whether a Pres is a bad one. Nixon was fairly popular until he got caught. Does that lessen his crime? If he hadn't been caught, and remained popular, would he have been actually a better President all else equal?

 

[superstring01]

You aren't.

And if you were, surely you would recall that I very explicitly and publicly informed you, months ago, that I was not going to bother looking up sources for you any more.

So, then, you're free to post "facts" but not back them up?

~String

 

[iceaura]

So, then, you're free to post "facts" but not back them up?

I'm free to ignore any and all of Count's demands. They don't usually have much to do with my posts, or the thread topic, so there's no loss to any real discussion.

Saves bandwidth and hassle, harms no one, solved the problem last time, what's not to appreciate?

 

[countezero]

Whatever, Ice.

String asked you pretty much the same thing.

You ignoring him, too?

All I have demanded is for you to provide proof for points that represent the foundation of the arguments you made in this thread. You have chosen not to do that, well aware of what it means for your "rep," which means that nobody should pay the slightest bit of attention to anything you say here or elsewhere. The clown mantle sticks.

 

[iceaura]

All I have demanded is for you to provide proof for points that represent the foundation of the arguments you made in this thread

If you can paraphrase for me, so that I recognize it, a single argument that I have made in this thread, I will provide links to evidence supporting it.

 

[countezero]

No, Ice.

I'm not going to post anything that will give you an opening to whine about me "misrepresenting" you, etc.

You've been asked, numerous times, to support your claims. And not just in this thread, either. Until you do, you will continue to look like a clown playing games with words. To contrast, the major claims I have made in this thread have all been supported with sources, most of them primary sources.

 

[iceaura]

If you can paraphrase for me, so that I recognize it, a single argument that I have made in this thread, I will provide links to evidence supporting it.

No, Ice.

Fair enough.

Carry on.