Deep Throat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]
How impossible would it be to be President of the country or most lasrge companies if this were the case everywhere.

There has to exist a certain level of loyalty and looking the other way for the President to get things done. Look at what we’ve since learned of many of our leaders and their actions while in office.

Sometimes it’s a dirty job and in that case give me all the G. Gordon’s and Olly’s that you got. They’ll walk the wall and watch your back![/quote]

That’s just bullshit, and you know it. If the president of the country or of a company is doing something illegal he should be able to count on the “loyalty” of his subordinates to “get things done”? Holy fucking shit, that’s so wrong.

So Ken Lay should be a free man now, because no one who worked for him at Enron should have “ratted him out”?

Nixon wasn’t committing illegal acts in the name of “national security” (that would be Reagan), it was done in the name of “re-election”.

Liddy is not a hero, he’s a piece of shit. “Deep Throat” was not a hero either, but neither is he a rat. He saw illegal activity and exposed it.

I don’t want Liddy or North watching my back, their “loyalty” was misplaced and harmful.

42

What I am trying to point out is the way you rationalize and okay whatever fits your side of the argument. Did Clinton lie under oath yes. After a witch hunt yes, but in the end I can’t deny he lied under oath.

Did Nixon order members of his administration to break into Democratic headquarters to instal bugs and wiretaps? Yes, he did. A president of the USA authorizing breaking and entering and illegal wiretapping. And then attempting to cover it up.

Now let’s reverse the roles and put Clinton in the role of Watergate. I could be wrong here, but I think ol Rainjack and others would be hailing the whistle-blower Deepthroat a national hero and praising his dedication to doing the right thing. Blind to their own bias.

Now conversely let’s say Bush received a blowjob in the oval office. If he came forth and said he asked his higher power to forgive him all would be well and it would be the evil liberal media’s fault for exposing the blowjob in the first place. After all they only report the negative.

Whatever can be justified for your side you do it and vilify it for the Democrats.

Was Clinton a terrible husband and dishonest to his wife? Yes, with out a doubt. Was he guilty of lying under oath? Yes.

Was Nixon guilty of his crimes? Yes.

43

There are plenty of Rep scumbags, but when they get caught they usually are forced out. Trent Lott, Newt, Nixon come immediately to mind.

Tom DeLay has not played out yet, but as I said before it won’t breal my heart if he is forced out.

I cannot think of one Dem off the top of my head that has stepped down due to scandal, and they are involved in just as many.

Deep Thoat himself was convicted for his involvement in illegal break ins, yet he sold Nixon out for his involvements in an illegal break in.

I reserve the right to call Deep Throat a scum bag.

44

GDollars37 wrote:

“And it pains me to say it, but I don’t think Clinton’s crimes are on the same level of Nixon’s. There’s a big difference between perjuring yourself about infidelity, as wrong as that is, and siccing the power the government on your political enemies. The latter is a far worse abuse of power.”

GDollars, I appreciate your post.

I want you to think through all of the ramifications of clinton’s situation for a second.

Remember that Paula Jones had filed suit against clinton for sexual harrassment. The lewinsky investigation was an offshoot of this.

There were very suspicious situations uncovered that were not fully investigated. There was talk of a woman being raped in the late 1970’s.

Do I know this for sure? No, I do not. Would I apologize immediately if this were found to be false? Absolutely.

However, think through this, had there not been obstruction from clinton and his gang, who knows where it would have eventually gone.

Rape and misuse of government officials (state troopers/his staff/secret service agents), and lying under oath by the Chief Executive are very serious.

For once and for all, would people STOP saying it was about a damn blowjob!!!

Don’t get sucked into this liberal horseshit.

It’s their way of narrowing the discussion to obscure the larger issues.

Thanks.

JeffR

45

Does anyone think Nixon was the first President to spy on the other political party using break-ins and wiretaps?

Do you think that Hoover’s FBI files were used to protect the national interest? The files on the Kennedy’s, MLK, Marilyn Monroe, Sinatra?

Think about it why did the whistle get blown on Nixon?

Just curious?

46

No, Elk - you’re wrong. There has already been a post wrt Linda Tripp explaining the differences, and that she is indeed a piece of scum.

No one is excusing Nixon of his crimes.

I think a rat is a rat, regardless of which party they belong to. Are you saying i would be driving the Deep Throat bandwagon had this wormy bastard turned on Clinton, or any other democrat? I think you would be wrong.

My question to you is - If it was a Dem that had done all the Watergate stuff, do you think there would have even been a story on it? I gotta think that it would have been little more than back-page filler, if a piece would have been written at all.

47

[quote]mark57 wrote:

How impossible would it be to be President of the country or most lasrge companies if this were the case everywhere.

There has to exist a certain level of loyalty and looking the other way for the President to get things done. Look at what we’ve since learned of many of our leaders and their actions while in office.

Sometimes it’s a dirty job and in that case give me all the G. Gordon’s and Olly’s that you got. They’ll walk the wall and watch your back!

That’s just bullshit, and you know it. If the president of the country or of a company is doing something illegal he should be able to count on the “loyalty” of his subordinates to “get things done”? Holy fucking shit, that’s so wrong.

So Ken Lay should be a free man now, because no one who worked for him at Enron should have “ratted him out”?

Nixon wasn’t committing illegal acts in the name of “national security” (that would be Reagan), it was done in the name of “re-election”.

Liddy is not a hero, he’s a piece of shit. “Deep Throat” was not a hero either, but neither is he a rat. He saw illegal activity and exposed it.

I don’t want Liddy or North watching my back, their “loyalty” was misplaced and harmful.

[/quote]

I don’t think it’s bullshit or I wouldn’t have written it. As stated to Elk previously about the slippery slope–I’ll use it again.

In everyhting there exist degrees. The degree or scope of Enron is different from that of a competitor trying to steal a trade secret or infringe on a patent. Illegal both, but the degrees vary.

Come on, you have to understand that. Examples from previous–your best buddy steals a car and goes joyriding, nobody gets hurt, do you turn him in? Your best buddy murders someone–do you turn him in? I would have 2 different answers myself, and I wouldn’t be all that morally conflicted about it.

I never claimed Liddy was a hero, but the dude could be my lieut. any day of the week. And Olly my capt.

48

Brother E.,

Your points are well taken.

However, to say that no one is hailing Felt as a hero is incorrect.

Many on your side feel he is a damn hero.

Don’t believe me? Ask your pals.

JeffR

49

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I cannot think of one Dem off the top of my head that has stepped down due to scandal, and they are involved in just as many.[/quote]

Dan Rostenkowski comes to mind right off the top of my head.

50

Zap

not disagreeing at all with the Deep Throat characterization.

Just the differentiation between Rep and Dem scumbags.

51

RJ

Try and show Elk that all conservatives are not blind, raging, lets get the liberals, goofballs.

Explain how we have all shown Nixon to be culpable for his crimes.

It’s 80 degrees here and I’m on my way out to do 18. I hope to join this later tonight.

Peace all

52

I don’t know… this whole schoolyard snitching thing seems a bit absurd.

Sometimes, yes, only sometimes, you are forced to look at the greater good and go against what you perceive as your duty of loyalty.

Perhaps for some, nothing would ever make you do that.

I have no idea whether or not Deep Throat is really a scumbag or a hero. Perhaps he is neither.

However, it is incredibly important that the government not act outside of the bounds of legality, abusing the rights of its citizens. This is a HUGE fucking deal.

It’s good that the information came out and it’s good that the president at the time got slapped. Given the attitudes expressed, I’d imagine Deep Throat would indeed have been killed if he had gone public – since we are so much more “enlightened” in this day and age.

Maybe he didn’t want to sacrifice being around for his family? Maybe he should have found a better way to expose the truth? Maybe he should have had a better reason?

Who cares? The real issues is that the government learned that it wasn’t always able to be above the law and do what it wishes. Assuming the lesson actually took, which is questionable, this is priceless – and worth much more than a possible broken loyalty between people we don’t know anything about.

53

[quote]mark57 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I cannot think of one Dem off the top of my head that has stepped down due to scandal, and they are involved in just as many.

Dan Rostenkowski comes to mind right off the top of my head.

[/quote]

Rostenkowski tried to run for re-election from his jail cell. He did not step down.

54

[quote]JeffR wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

“And it pains me to say it, but I don’t think Clinton’s crimes are on the same level of Nixon’s. There’s a big difference between perjuring yourself about infidelity, as wrong as that is, and siccing the power the government on your political enemies. The latter is a far worse abuse of power.”

GDollars, I appreciate your post.

I want you to think through all of the ramifications of clinton’s situation for a second.

Remember that Paula Jones had filed suit against clinton for sexual harrassment. The lewinsky investigation was an offshoot of this.

There were very suspicious situations uncovered that were not fully investigated. There was talk of a woman being raped in the late 1970’s.

Do I know this for sure? No, I do not. Would I apologize immediately if this were found to be false? Absolutely.

However, think through this, had there not been obstruction from clinton and his gang, who knows where it would have eventually gone.

Rape and misuse of government officials (state troopers/his staff/secret service agents), and lying under oath by the Chief Executive are very serious.

For once and for all, would people STOP saying it was about a damn blowjob!!!

Don’t get sucked into this liberal horseshit.

It’s their way of narrowing the discussion to obscure the larger issues.

Thanks.

JeffR

[/quote]

Sexual harassment, again, isn’t on the same level as turning the powers of the state against your political opponents. And maybe Juanita Broaddrick is telling the truth, maybe she isn’t. Who knows. But that was irrelevant to the impeachment trial.

55

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
mark57 wrote:

How impossible would it be to be President of the country or most lasrge companies if this were the case everywhere.

There has to exist a certain level of loyalty and looking the other way for the President to get things done. Look at what we’ve since learned of many of our leaders and their actions while in office.

Sometimes it’s a dirty job and in that case give me all the G. Gordon’s and Olly’s that you got. They’ll walk the wall and watch your back!

That’s just bullshit, and you know it. If the president of the country or of a company is doing something illegal he should be able to count on the “loyalty” of his subordinates to “get things done”? Holy fucking shit, that’s so wrong.

So Ken Lay should be a free man now, because no one who worked for him at Enron should have “ratted him out”?

Nixon wasn’t committing illegal acts in the name of “national security” (that would be Reagan), it was done in the name of “re-election”.

Liddy is not a hero, he’s a piece of shit. “Deep Throat” was not a hero either, but neither is he a rat. He saw illegal activity and exposed it.

I don’t want Liddy or North watching my back, their “loyalty” was misplaced and harmful.

I don’t think it’s bullshit or I wouldn’t have written it. As stated to Elk previously about the slippery slope–I’ll use it again.

In everyhting there exist degrees. The degree or scope of Enron is different from that of a competitor trying to steal a trade secret or infringe on a patent. Illegal both, but the degrees vary.

Come on, you have to understand that. Examples from previous–your best buddy steals a car and goes joyriding, nobody gets hurt, do you turn him in? Your best buddy murders someone–do you turn him in? I would have 2 different answers myself, and I wouldn’t be all that morally conflicted about it.

I never claimed Liddy was a hero, but the dude could be my lieut. any day of the week. And Olly my capt.[/quote]

That’s a good analogy. But I still don’t understand why anyone would want Gordon Liddy or Ollie North on their side.

56

RJ,

In my view there is no such thing as “snitching”: If someone does something gravely immoral or illegal, they must be prepared to answer for it. Covering for cowards who don’t want to do that is misunderstood loyalty; covering for criminals can be a crime.

There is no moral right for protection by others when breaking the law. That someone rats you out to his/her own advantage might piss you off, but it is your fault, if you’ve given him/her something to rat about.

That’s my take.
Makkun

57

[quote]makkun wrote:
RJ,

In my view there is no such thing as “snitching”: If someone does something gravely immoral or illegal, they must be prepared to answer for it. Covering for cowards who don’t want to do that is misunderstood loyalty; covering for criminals can be a crime.

There is no moral right for protection by others when breaking the law. That someone rats you out to his/her own advantage might piss you off, but it is your fault, if you’ve given him/her something to rat about.

That’s my take.
Makkun[/quote]

That my friends is called taking responsibility and not playing a John Gotti “Hey Sonny Da Bull is a fucking rat and will sleep wit da fishes,” Mentality.
As Makkun said live your life where you’re not going to be called upon to “rat” on people. Don’t hang out with vermin.

I wouldn’t be involved with the cattle rustlers in the first place if I didn’t want to end up in a shed with a twelve gauge in my mouth. That was honorable? Maybe he just cowardly did it to himself first before the rustlers did it to him in a more tortous fashion.

58

If it was just a matter of ratting on his boss, then you and I would just have a simple difference of opinion.

It was the way in which this slimeball went about it that makes him a slime ball. Instead of going through the proper channels, he makes an anonymmous tip to the WaPo. Instead of showing his face and owning up to what he was doing, he stays in the shadows for 35 years.

Now he is a hero to the press. I think he’s a chicken shit coward.

59

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Where I come from, you don’t rat folks out. You especially don’t run to the newspaper under anonymity and blab everything you know. He should have at least been man enough to show his face while he was selling out his boss.[/quote]

man enough? riiiiiiight…

60

[quote]rainjack wrote:

He went to jail rather than rat out his boss.[/quote]

Didn’t he go to jail for masterminding the illegal breakin?