arndt@dec-lymph.UUCP (05/16/86)
Well, there are a few things you ain't got right. Gerald Ford a 5!!! Your pen must have skipped across the page by accident into the 5 section. (Surely you meant a 2, for "meant well".) And Kennedy a 5!!!! Only his religious cult followers still revere him. And they are dying off at a rapid clip. People like Elvis and James Dean outlive themselves, but not a cartoon character who was fast driving us off the bridge (a Kennedy family trait - along with skirt chasing). Richard Nixon I see you at least rate higher than the above booby. But he should be a 10. His detractors even are saying nice things about him now and history will judge him (just behind Ronny) as the greatest president of our century. (If ONLY he had burned the tapes!!!) And of course Ron only a 6!!!! Shame on you. We won't mention Roosevelt. I realize that other people's opinions are so subjective on these questions. Keep chargin' Ken Arndt
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (05/22/86)
In article <3040@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: >Richard Nixon I see you at least rate higher than the above booby. But he >should be a 10. His detractors even are saying nice things about him now >and history will judge him (just behind Ronny) as the greatest president of >our century. (If ONLY he had burned the tapes!!!) Not *this* detractor. I have nothing nice to say about Nixon. Well, let us be more precise. The two nice things I have to say about him aren't very nice (sort of damning with faint praise): (1) He did start normalization of relations with China (2) He didn't actually *try* to impose martial law, although he sho 'nuff *thought* about it. He extended the war in Vietnam, he used the IRS to harass political opponents and people who said not-nice things about him, he managed to nominate three (count, 'em, three) people to the Supreme Court who were so bad that even the Senate didn't take them (which is usually a rubber stamp; this was a record for any President), he impounded funds which Congress had allocated for things he didn't want to do, he violated the Constitution by waging war against Cambodia and Laos without even the pretense of Congressional approval, he authorized illegal invasions of personal privacy by bypassing the courts, he belived that anything the President did in the name of National Security was ipso facto legal. On top of all this, there was Watergate, in which he suborned (incited others to commit) perjury, lied to the American people about what he knew and when, initiated more illegal wiretaps, invaded more peoples' personal freedoms, invoked National Security to hide his own wrongdoing, proved himself completely disloyal to his compatriots, had the campaigns of the leading Democratic contenders sabotaged so that he could run against one of the weaker candidates, obstructed justice, and general acted like a sleazy mobster. Speaking of which, I forgot to mention his connections with the Mob. And remember, folks, these were just as President. He had a long, checkered (pun intended) career before then, too, and if you want a few things I have to say about *that*, just ask. Me, I rate Nixon a 1. Or whatever the lowest is. Ken Arnold
hsgj@batcomputer.UUCP (05/24/86)
In article <9859@ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP> arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) writes: >In article <3040@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: >>Richard Nixon I see you at least rate higher than the above booby. But he >>should be a 10. His detractors even are saying nice things about him now >>and history will judge him (just behind Ronny) as the greatest president of >>our century. (If ONLY he had burned the tapes!!!) > >Not *this* detractor. I have nothing nice to say about Nixon. Well, >let us be more precise. The two nice things I have to say about him >aren't very nice (sort of damning with faint praise): > [...] > (2) He didn't actually *try* to impose martial law, although > he sho 'nuff *thought* about it. > [...] >Me, I rate Nixon a 1. Or whatever the lowest is. > > Ken Arnold I agree with Ken Arnold. A real eye opening book which is historically accurate (in my opinion at any rate) is "Time of Illusion" by Jonathon Schell. This book describes Nixon and his staff's attempt to centralize all the police government agencies (read FBI, CIA, NSA, etc) under one roof -- and under WHITE HOUSE control. To me this speaks of dictatorship where one person controls the "police" of the nation. Schell points out that probably the only reason this never went through is that the guy who was the director of the FBI (Helms???) knew that he would lose all his political contacts if his organization was taken away from him. So he (apparently) threatened to expose hidden secrets about the Nixon admin if the deal went through. As we know, the deal was cancelled. A lot of good that did ole Dick :-). Schell also describes lots of other neat things. By the way, I am changing the followup line to not include net.rumor anymore. But I am leaving this posting in net.rumor cause I feel tyrannical... -- Dan Green ARPA: hsgj@vax2.ccs.cornell.edu <== Preferred ~~~~~~~~~ BITNET: hsgj@cornella UUCP: {decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!cornell!batcomputer!hsgj
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (05/24/86)
>Not *this* detractor. I have nothing nice to say about Nixon. Well, >let us be more precise. The two nice things I have to say about him Arnold's summary of Richard Nixon is the only one on the net so far that comes close to the truth. And, yes, it does leave out the sorry fact that the man overstepped the bounds of decency and showed signs of being the out-and-out scoundrel he is, from the very first beginnings of his sorry political career. It is very discouraging evidence that he was able to make his way and be "successful" though all of this was known, and it is even more discouraging that now this man is being sort of rehabilitated. Recently Senator Barry Goldwater, who back in the '60's was a political ally of Nixon's, was interviewed on TV, and asked about former presidents with whom he has served. Re. Nixon he simply said: the most dishonest I've ever known (not exact quote, but not in any way unfair either way). Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264 uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/28/86)
re: Nixon There was an amusing article in this week's New Yorker (talk of the town) overviewing Time magazine's recent "He's Back!" article on Nixon. [Back from what? Exile! Exile from what? Why, media popularity! Oh, then I guess most of us are in exile...] -Barry Shein, Boston University
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (05/28/86)
-- > >>Richard Nixon I see you at least rate higher than the above booby... > >Not *this* detractor. I have nothing nice to say about Nixon... > I agree... One thing you have to give Nixon, paranoid scum that he was and maybe still is, credit for is the best US-USSR relationship since WW II. We had treaties, cultural exchanges, and an atmosphere with little tension. My own theory on this is that the Russians finally found an American leader they understood, whose mind worked like theirs. They trusted him--at least they knew how far they could. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 28 May 86 [9 Prairial An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
steve@grpthry.UUCP (Steve J. Rapaport) (06/06/86)
> Xref: dciem net.rumor:2431 > Hey, folks! I think net.politics and net.misc are GREAT places to discuss this topic. Haven't seen any juicy rumors in the whole discussion, though. Without meaning to offend anyone, or to fill the group with noise, could people just quietly remove the cross-postings on their followups on this topic? Please? Following my own dictum, I have posted this ONLY to net.rumor. Have Fun, Steve