[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Since when are snitches hailed as heros? [/quote]
Who, exactly is hailing Felt as a hero?
GDollars37 wrote:
“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.”
What about turning the powers of the state (his staff/troopers) against a private citizen? What about obstruction of justice (using above powers).
It is very germane to the impeachment trial.
No man is above the law. That is the very basis of our government. No kings. No Royal perogative.
No one can decide what is an “acceptable lie.”
THAT is the very essence of the whole issue.
I would say there are many unanswered questions about the rape allegation.
I challenge you to think through this entire episode.
As far as Nixon, he got what he deserved.
However, we should not continue to celebrate Felt, Woodward, or Bernstein.
Again, no man is above the law and Nixon’s crimes should have been exposed. However, Felt’s motives don’t seem altruistic.
Woodward and Bernstein’s expose led to an era of unprecedented press power that we are still struggling to repudiate.
They have shown quite clearly (cbs/newsweek) that they are a flawed “watchdog of the people.”
JeffR
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He went to jail rather than rat out his boss.
Didn’t he go to jail for masterminding the illegal breakin?[/quote]
He went to jail for organizing the “Black Bag” jobs.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He went to jail rather than rat out his boss.
Didn’t he go to jail for masterminding the illegal breakin?[/quote]
If I remember correctly, he was asked to testify against Nixon. He refused. He was found guilty because he wouldn’t roll over.
I could be wrong, but that is how I am remembering it.
Am I the only one that finds it incredibly ironic Deep Throat was convicted of breaking and entry unrelated to Watergate, but felt the need to rat out Nixon for the same thing?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If I remember correctly, he was asked to testify against Nixon. He refused. He was found guilty because he wouldn’t roll over.
I could be wrong, but that is how I am remembering it. [/quote]
He went to jail because he was a petty criminal and a thug. He was found guilty because he was guilty, not because he didn’t testify against anyone else. He had an opportunity to possibly reduce his sentence by testifing, and he refused. Big deal, so he was a “stand-up” thug. Honor among thieves.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If I remember correctly, he was asked to testify against Nixon. He refused. He was found guilty because he wouldn’t roll over.
I could be wrong, but that is how I am remembering it. [/quote]
Either way, he did some illegal shit and got put away for it! Seems like being loyal in this regard is also called stupidity.
This Deep Throat nonsense shows just how insane the American media is. They make a big deal about absolutely nothing.
I really don’t see this as important.
Dustin
[quote]mark57 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If I remember correctly, he was asked to testify against Nixon. He refused. He was found guilty because he wouldn’t roll over.
I could be wrong, but that is how I am remembering it.
He went to jail because he was a petty criminal and a thug. He was found guilty because he was guilty, not because he didn’t testify against anyone else. He had an opportunity to possibly reduce his sentence by testifing, and he refused. Big deal, so he was a “stand-up” thug. Honor among thieves.
[/quote]
Well put.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Woodward and Bernstein’s expose led to an era of unprecedented press power that we are still struggling to repudiate.
They have shown quite clearly (cbs/newsweek) that they are a flawed “watchdog of the people.”
JeffR[/quote]
I would agree with that.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Either way, he did some illegal shit and got put away for it! Seems like being loyal in this regard is also called stupidity.[/quote]
Is that how you rationalize your support of Clinton?
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Since when are snitches hailed as heros?
Who, exactly is hailing Felt as a hero?[/quote]
During the press conference last night, his daughter used the word hero, or heroic several times.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Am I the only one that finds it incredibly ironic Deep Throat was convicted of breaking and entry unrelated to Watergate, but felt the need to rat out Nixon for the same thing? [/quote]
No - you’re not. And to take it even further, he was quoted several years ago talking about how despicable Deep Throat’s roll was in taking down a President.
Before you start throwing around all kinds of insults at this guy about a situation that you know absolutely jack-shit about when it comes down to it, try reading this article:
On Tuesday, his lawyer John O’Connor told US media: “Mark felt that he was somehow a dishonourable guy, an FBI agent who was disloyal, who leaked when he shouldn’t have leaked. He kept saying an FBI agent doesn’t do this.”
The guy wasn’t fucking proud of what he did. His family are the ones that convinced him he did a good thing. And I’d be willing to bet that on the inside he still isn’t proud of it, despite the fact that he’s come out about it now. This guy made a mistake in his own eyes, yet his is on a much greater level of responsibility than most if not all of us will ever face. Just be glad you don’t have that kind of responsibilty. We all make mistakes, but most of us will probably never have to live with the fear that we or our loved ones could be harmed/killed as result of them; so, get down off your fucking pedestal by insulting this guy for what he did and the way he went about it.
Is this as big a deal as the media is making it out to be? No, as it mostly has no bearing on the current political situation. Is this guy a hero? No, he merely exposed a scandal, nothing more, nothing less.
And no one here can say what they would or wouldn’t have done in this guy’s situation, because when it comes to matters of national security, no one here has a real clue what they’re fucking talking about. You have no clue how you would see the world in general and politics more specifically after going through the kind of training and experiences that people at that level have gone through. You can only react based on your own life experiences.
BTW, of course people would find a way to bring up Bill Clinton in all this shit. Note to Dems: His term is over, he’ll never be president again. Note to Reps: His term is over, he’ll never be president again. Get the fuck over Bill Clinton, everybody.
I’m not really sure what kind of factual revelation I will have by reading BBC stuff, but The guy was quoted several years ago - not through his lawyer - as describing how much of a low-life Deep Throat had to be to sell out the President.
Clinton was brought up on the first page of this thread. Instead of trying to prove how smart you are - why not read the entire thread before making comments that proves your laziness.
You seem to want to be the voice of all the people on this thread. I really don’t care what you think or what spin someone is now putting on it. He did what he did and he had a choice at the time.
He chose to not only rat, but put his family in harms way to get back at his boss for dissing him. National security my ass. The Rep’s were trying to find out election strategy–get a clue.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m not really sure what kind of factual revelation I will have by reading BBC stuff, but The guy was quoted several years ago - not through his lawyer - as describing how much of a low-life Deep Throat had to be to sell out the President.[/quote]
Um, doesn’t that just go even more to show that he felt bad about what he did? He probably really did/does think the guy was a low-life; it’s just that no one knew he was referring to himself in the third-person at the time.
I did read the thread. And where the fuck was I trying to prove how smart I am? Because I told people to get over Bill Clinton? And what the hell does the fact that I said for people to quit finding a way to always relate things to Bill Clinton have anything to do with where it was brought up in the thread?
P.S. The Clinton comment was mostly made toungue-in-cheek, anyway, because I think it’s funny that Reps still love to despise him, and Dems won’t quit sucking the guy off. But people who are extremely opinionated and pissed off all the time usually don’t catch on to someone joking around about shit like that…
Nixon tapped the democrat’s phonelines because he thought that they were being funded by Communists. I hardly call that “getting things done.”
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
You seem to want to be the voice of all the people on this thread.[/quote]
I’m not trying to be the voice of anybody. I just get sick of people judging others all the time for shit they have no clue about, especially when it’s not even what the topic was attempting to discuss in the first-place (see below). As I recall, I didn’t think you started this thread to get people’s opinions on whether Felt is a “snitch” or not. Perhaps I’m wrong.
And you think I give a rat’s ass as to what you think, either? I was simply trying to make the point that this started off as an objective look at what exactly happened with the events surrounding the DeepThroat scandal, until it turned into some bullshit, name-throwing catfight that eventually had nothing to do with the original topic (which tends to be the case any time politics are related). As I said before, isn’t that why you started this thread, to find out and/or discuss what happened and why and not just some democrat/republican’s biased view on who/what this Felt guy was? Or am I mistaken?
No shit, hence my stating that most of us make mistakes yet don’t have to live with the consequences that he did. As you said, he had a choice and he did what he did. Afterwards, he felt like he made the wrong choice; what reason is there not to believe that he regrets it? Do you think this guy is really looking for sympathy?
And until it comes out of Felt’s mouth, who’s to say the shit about being bitter because his “boss dissed him” isn’t also propaganda? To believe that outright would be just as naive as to believe the insanely biased liberal media that he is a hero.
And you think that was the only thing surrounding the events of the time? We were in the middle of a fucking war that we had questionable motives for being in, threatening to piss off other countries that might have led to even greater war, and you don’t think that factored into some people wanting to get the current president out of office and others finding any way possible to keep him in, at all? I’m no conspiracy theorist, but if you think everything is as black and white as the White House would have you believe, then, well…wow.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have been in the war. I’m just saying that when you look at events like Watergate, when it comes to something on a national scale at a time like that did, reducing the motive to just an “election scandal” is being pretty close-minded. I don’t think I’m the one that needs to be getting a clue…
[quote]CC wrote:
P.S. The Clinton comment was mostly made toungue-in-cheek, anyway, because I think it’s funny that Reps still love to despise him, and Dems won’t quit sucking the guy off. But people who are extremely opinionated and pissed off all the time usually don’t catch on to shit like that…[/quote]
Sorry for the lashing. Your post just hit me wrong.
On a serious note - maybe you’re just not funny. It takes years to hone a talent like mine. Keep working at it, though.