Awesome - did not know this - Oliver Stone

[savvyman]

is making a movie about a true American patriot and hero and if Obama had any courage at all - which he most certainly does not - would grant amnesty to and bring the hero home.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSAiI3xMh4&feature=youtu.be


Fire away unthinking masses brainwashed by the Oligarchy controlled mainstream media and government officials who have provided you with your thoughts and talking points on the issue....

[savvyman]

It must be said, savvy, that you have got this right. He blew the whistle, and we have learned some truths because of it. The government overstepped, and he pointed it out.

Yes they most certainly did.

For people who want to understand the facts of a situation and not allow themselves to have their opinions formed by others..... here is a couple links

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/united-states-of-secrets/

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365251169/


WARNING - You will have to invest a little time and effort to gain a true understanding - which is why 90% of people never do........

[RiverDog]

I've seen enough of Oliver Stone's revisionist history works, and I refuse to reward his efforts by paying to see his trash. His crowning achievement, JFK, was the most outrageous attempt to inflame public opinion that I've ever witnessed, mixing in fictional scenes done in grainy black and white to match actual historical footage to give the audience the impression that it really happened, completely and intentionally misrepresented known facts, and made a hero out of a lunatic. "Nixon" was another POS of his. He had Pat Nixon threatening to divorce RN unless he came clean about Watergate, something that by every single account of those who knew them best never came close to happening. Richard Nixon was a lot of things, but he and his wife were in love every minute of their lives until the day they were parted by death, not even a rumor of an extramarital affair, something that a number of POTUS over the past 70 years cannot claim. I also didn't appreciate him putting a Brit in the role of an American president.

[savvyman]

I've seen enough of Oliver Stone's revisionist history works, and I refuse to reward his efforts by paying to see his trash. His crowning achievement, JFK, was the most outrageous attempt to inflame public opinion that I've ever witnessed, mixing in fictional scenes done in grainy black and white to match actual historical footage to give the audience the impression that it really happened, completely and intentionally misrepresented known facts, and made a hero out of a lunatic. "Nixon" was another POS of his. He had Pat Nixon threatening to divorce RN unless he came clean about Watergate, something that by every single account of those who knew them best never came close to happening. Richard Nixon was a lot of things, but he and his wife were in love every minute of their lives until the day they were parted by death, not even a rumor of an extramarital affair, something that a number of POTUS over the past 70 years cannot claim. I also didn't appreciate him putting a Brit in the role of an American president.

That's interesting viewpoint RD. I enjoyed JFK and recommend it. You are correct that Oliver Stone movie introduced some narrative that was pure speculation on events that no one could know about - he does this to fill in the gaps between the facts that are historically accepted about the assassination of JFK - so yes the movie as a whole should not be accepted as a 100% historical documentary - but it is a very thoughtful and excellent movie.

On Nixon portrayal - I disagree - I thought it was an excellent movie and I don't think any histroical figure would object to one of the all time great actors - Antony Hopkins - as portraying them.

Oliver Stone was actually critically attacked by the "Liberal Elites" over this movie - the felt that Stone had made Nxon into to sympathetic a character in the movie - at the end of the movie you feel that you have viewed a very human story and not a simpleton attack piece that so many people wish the Nixon movie would have been.

Below is the 4 star review of Oliver Stone "Nixon" from the All time great Roger Ebert:


>>>>Oliver Stone's "Nixon" gives us a brooding, brilliant, tortured man, sinking into the gloom of a White House under siege, haunted by the ghosts of his past. Thoughts of Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear come to mind; here, again, is a ruler destroyed by his fatal flaws.

There's something almost majestic about the process: As Nixon goes down in this film, there is no gloating, but a watery sigh, as of a great ship sinking.

The movie does not apologize for Nixon, and holds him accountable for the disgrace he brought to the presidency. But it is not without compassion for this devious and complex man, and I felt a certain empathy: There, but for the grace of God, go we. I rather expected Stone, the maker of "JFK" and "Natural Born Killers," to adopt a scorched-earth policy toward Nixon, but instead he blames not only Nixon's own character flaws but also the Imperial Presidency itself, the system that, once set in motion, behaves with a mindlessness of its own.

In the title role, Anthony Hopkins looks and sounds only generally like the 37th president. This is not an impersonation; Hopkins gives us a deep, resonant performance that creates a man instead of imitating an image. Stone uses the same approach, reining in his stylistic exuberance and yet giving himself the freedom to use flashbacks, newsreels, broadcast voices, montage and the device of clouds swiftly fleeing over the White House sky as events run ahead of the president's ability to control them.

"Nixon" is flavored by the greatest biography in American film history, "Citizen Kane." There are several quotes, such as the opening upward pan from outside the White House fence, the gothic music on a cloudy night, the "March of Time"-style newsreel, and the scene where the president and Mrs. Nixon sit separated by a long dinner table. The key device that Stone has borrowed is the notion of "Rosebud," the missing piece of information that might explain a man's life.

In Stone's view, the infamous 18 1/2-minute gap on the White House tapes symbolizes a dark hole inside the president's soul, a secret that Nixon hints at but never reveals. What is implied is that somehow a secret CIA operation against Cuba, started with Nixon's knowledge during the last years of the Eisenhower administration, turned on itself and somehow led to the assassination of John F.

Kennedy.

The movie doesn't suggest that Nixon ordered or desired Kennedy's death, but that he half-understood the process by which the "Beast," as he called the secret government apparatus, led to the assassination. Learning that former CIA Cuba conspirator E. Howard Hunt was involved in the Watergate caper, he murmurs, "He's the darkness reaching out for the dark. Open up that scab, you uncover a lot of pus." And in an unguarded moment, he confides to an aide, "Whoever killed Kennedy came from this thing we created - this Beast." If the 18 1/2-minute gap conceals Rosebud, it is like the Rosebud in "Kane," explaining nothing, but pointing to a painful hole in the hero's psyche, created in childhood. "Nixon" shows the president's awkward, unhappy early years, as two brothers die, and his strict Quaker parents fill him with a sense of purpose and inadequacy. "When you quit struggling, they've beaten you," his father says. And his mother (Mary Steenburgen), speaking in the Quaker tradition of thees and thous, seems always to hold him to a higher standard than he can hope to reach.

Stone, who was burned by accusations that some of the history in "JFK" was fabricated, opens with the disclaimer that some scenes are based on hypothesis and speculation. Many of the scenes, in fact, come out of our memory book of Nixon's greatest hits: the Checkers speech, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore"; the summit with Mao; the bizarre midnight visit with anti-war protesters at the Lincoln Memorial, and the strange scene, reported in Woodward and Bernstein's The Final Days, in which a crushed president asks Henry Kissinger to join him on his knees in prayer.

One theme throughout the film is Nixon's envy of John F. Kennedy. He judges his entire life in terms of his nemesis. Nixon on JFK's 1960 campaign: "All my life he's been sticking it to me. Now he steals from me." Nixon, bitter at not being invited by Kennedy's family to JFK's funeral, reflecting half-enviously: "If I'd been president, they never would have killed me." Nixon, alone at the end, speaking to the portrait of JFK: "When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are." Stone has surrounded his Nixon with a gallery of figures we remember from the Watergate years, played by actors of a uniformly high caliber. Bob Hoskins creates a feral, poisonous J. Edgar Hoover, eating melon from the mouth of a handsome pool boy and ogling the Marine guards at a White House reception. Paul Sorvino plays Kissinger, reserved, watchful, disbelieving as he gets down on his knees to pray. J. T. Walsh and James Woods are Ehrlichman and Haldeman, the inner guard, carefully monitoring the nuances between what is said and what is implied. Powers Boothe is the impeccable Alexander Haig, who firmly guides the president toward resignation.

When Nixon ponders a cover-up of the tapes, it is Haig who raises the (imaginary?) possibility that backup copies might surface. Notice the precision of his wording: "I know for a fact that it's possible that there was another tape." The key supporting performance in the movie, however, is by Joan Allen as Pat Nixon. She emerges as strong-willed and clear-eyed, a truth-teller who sees through Nixon's masks and evasions. She is sick of being a politician's wife. Their daughters, she says, know Nixon only from television. More than anyone else in the film, she supplies the conscience.

"Nixon" would be a great film even if there had been no Richard Nixon. In its control of mood and personality, in the way the president musters moments of brilliance even as the circle closes, in the way it shows advisers huddled terrified in the corridors of power, it takes on the resonance of classic tragedy. Tragedy requires the fall of a hero, and one of the achievements of "Nixon" is to show that greatness was within his reach.

Aristotle advises that the listener to a tragic tale will "thrill with horror and melt with pity." Yes, and so we do, because Nixon was right about his life: The cards were stacked against him, even though he dealt most of them himself.


http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/nixon-1995

[savvyman]

I've seen enough of Oliver Stone's revisionist history works, and I refuse to reward his efforts by paying to see his trash. His crowning achievement, JFK, was the most outrageous attempt to inflame public opinion that I've ever witnessed, mixing in fictional scenes done in grainy black and white to match actual historical footage to give the audience the impression that it really happened, completely and intentionally misrepresented known facts, and made a hero out of a lunatic. "Nixon" was another POS of his. He had Pat Nixon threatening to divorce RN unless he came clean about Watergate, something that by every single account of those who knew them best never came close to happening. Richard Nixon was a lot of things, but he and his wife were in love every minute of their lives until the day they were parted by death, not even a rumor of an extramarital affair, something that a number of POTUS over the past 70 years cannot claim. I also didn't appreciate him putting a Brit in the role of an American president.

As far as President Nixon Accomplishments - while he does have some blemishes (who doesn't
when they rise from nothing to a position of great power) - he had many significant achievements:


Domestic Policy

In 1973, President Nixon ended the draft, moving the United States military to an all-volunteer force.

Responding to rising concern over conservation and pollution, President Nixon founded the Environmental Protection Agency, and later oversaw passage of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Mammal Marine Protection Act.

By appointing 4 Supreme Court justices; Chief Justice Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist, who later became Chief Justice, President Nixon ushered in an era of judicial restraint.

Dedicated a $100 million to begin the War on Cancer, a project that created national cancer centers and antidotes to the deadly disease.

Signed Title IX in 1972, preventing gender bias at colleges and universities receiving federal aid, opening the door for women in collegiate sports.

President Nixon initiated and oversaw the peaceful desegregation of southern schools.

Welcomed the astronauts of Apollo XI safely home from the moon, eventually overseeing every successful moon landing.

President Nixon was a great proponent of the 26th Amendment, extending the right to vote to 18-20 year olds, lowering the voter age from 21.

President Nixon effectively broke the back of organized crime, authorizing joint work between the FBI and Special Task Forces, resulting in over 2,500 convictions by 1973.

President Nixon ended the policy of forced assimilation of American Indians, returned sacred lands, and became the first American President to give them the right to tribal self-determination.

Foreign Policy

President Nixon participated in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with Soviet Secretary General Brezhnev in 1972 as part of the effort to temper the Cold War through diplomatic détente.

Signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, helping to calm U.S.-Soviet tensions by curtailing the threat of nuclear weapons between the world’s two superpowers.

President Nixon was the first President to visit the People’s Republic of China, where he issued the Shanghai Communiqué, announcing a desire for open, normalized relations. The diplomatic tour de force brought more than a billion people out of isolation.

Signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973, ending U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Announced a groundbreaking foreign policy doctrine in 1969 that called for the United States to act within its national interest and keep all existing treaty commitments with its allies.

Established a new relationship with the Middle East, eliminating Soviet dominance in the region and paving the way toward regional peace.

Brought home the POWs from Vietnam, and hosted the largest reception in White House history in their honor.

Initiated Project Independence in reaction to the oil embargo of 1973, which set a timetable to end reliance on foreign oil by 1980.

In 1970, President Nixon avoided a second Cuban Missile Crisis involving a Soviet submarine base by adhering to his policy of hard-headed détente, an active rather than passive form of diplomacy.

Supported Israel with massive aid in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which Prime Minister Golda Meir later said saved her country.

[savvyman]

Food for Thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4LOyi3EMWU

Every American Citizen should watch this Documentary:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKkF-X4QLB4


Now for you Knuckleheads that will only accept information from an "Authority Figure" - then here is one for you:

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-opposes-2017-intelligence-authorization-act-that-expands-government-surveillance-and-undermines-independent-oversight-board


>>>>>>>Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Washington, D.C. –Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., today voted against the 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The bill includes provisions to expand warrantless government surveillance and takes aim at a valuable independent oversight board.

“This bill takes a hatchet to important protections for Americans’ liberty,” Wyden said following the vote. “This bill would mean more government surveillance of Americans, less due process and less independent oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies. Worse, neither the intelligence agencies, nor the bill’s sponsors have shown any evidence that these changes would do anything to make Americans more secure. I plan to work with colleagues in both chambers to reverse these dangerous provisions.”

Wyden opposes multiple provisions to the bill, including;

-Allowing the FBI to obtain Americans’ email records with only a National Security Letter. Currently, the FBI can obtain email records in national security investigations with an order from the FISA Court. The bill would allow any FBI field office to demand email records without a court order, a major expansion of federal surveillance powers. The FBI can currently obtain phone records with a National Security Letter, but not email records.

-Narrowing the jurisdiction of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), for the second consecutive year. The bill would limit the PCLOB to examining only programs that impact the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. Wyden has supported the PCLOB’s focus on the rights of US persons. Wyden opposed this provision, however, since global telecommunications networks can make it difficult to determine who is an American citizen, and this provision could discourage oversight of programs when the impact on Americans’ rights is unclear. Furthermore, continually restricting a small, independent oversight board sends the message that the board shouldn’t do its job too well.<<<<<<<<<<<

[Seahawks4Ever]

While Nixon indeed had many accomplishments you simply can't give him credit for the Apollo Moon landings, everything was set in motion before he became POTUS. He just happened to be the President during the landings.

Nixon picked some really good Supreme Court picks, and the Right Wing of the GOP accused them, falsely, of "legislating" from the bench. Then, through Roberts we now have a SCOTUS that has done but legislate from the bench and the loss of Scalia has hardly slowed them down.

[RiverDog]

While Nixon indeed had many accomplishments you simply can't give him credit for the Apollo Moon landings, everything was set in motion before he became POTUS. He just happened to be the President during the landings.

Nixon picked some really good Supreme Court picks, and the Right Wing of the GOP accused them, falsely, of "legislating" from the bench. Then, through Roberts we now have a SCOTUS that has done but legislate from the bench and the loss of Scalia has hardly slowed them down.

No one affiliated with NASA and the Apollo project will grant Nixon a thing. He cut the last 3 manned moon missions...the Saturn V booster rockets were all finished and ready to fly and now sit in museums...and wanted to cut two more after the Apollo 13 disaster because he was afraid that an aborted moon mission prior to the '72 election would have hurt his chances of being re-elected.

Not that he was wrong about those decisions...they were hugely expensive and there was a lot smarter way to spend our research money once we had beaten the Russians...but it's revisionist history to suggest anything positive about Nixon and the Apollo program.

But I do agree with Savvy in his general theme that Nixon was a very underestimated President that accomplished a lot more than his critics are willing to concede.

[Hawktawk]

Id be for exhuming Nixon and having him run this November. Weekend at Tricky Dicks. It couldn't be any worse than the POS we are presented with.

[c_hawkbob]

All this "Nixon was a swell guy" revisionism is making me nauseous. If we're exhuming dead Presidents how 'bout we bring back FDR, see if we can't restore our middle class, bring back an honest living wage and a fair distribution of the tax burden.

[burrrton]

If we're exhuming dead Presidents how 'bout we bring back FDR

FDR's brilliant ideas are now bankrupting this country, and your nostalgia for his reign is due almost completely to the rest of the planet having been reduced to rubble.

see if we can't restore our middle class

Most of the middle class that "disappeared" has moved to higher brackets, and it's not a set group- people move among brackets. Do you want to be "middle class" again if you've advanced beyond that?

bring back an honest living wage

What's a living wage in your opinion? You ever hired a guy, or a kid, to mow your lawn?

and a fair distribution of the tax burden.

What portion of the overall burden would you like each quintile/bracket to bear, Bob?

The top 20% cover over 80% of our country's tax revenue (they only make ~50% of the income, which is a bullsht way to figure obligations, but there you go). You want it to be 90%? 100%??

[RiverDog]

I think that Hawktalk's proposal to exhume Nixon wasn't to indicate that he thought Nixon was a "swell guy", it was a demonstration of just how horrible our two viable choices for POTUS are this year. Although I can think of scores of dead politicians I'd exhume before I got to Nixon, he'd be a better choice than either of these two clowns. It's also not revisionist to list Nixon's achievements as Savvy has done, although I don't agree with some of what he's listed as being a positive achievement. If you were to take away the Watergate scandal, Nixon would probably be ranked relatively high by most standards.

I agree with burrton about FDR. Although he was what the country needed at the time and it's hard telling which direction the country would have headed had FDR not come along when he did, many of our fiscal problems today can be traced back to his administration. I also don't go along with this "living wage" nonsense, either. I don't know how we ever got to this entitlement mindset that it's the government's responsibility to provide us with "living wage" jobs (probably can be traced back to FDR), or any jobs at all as far as that goes. That responsibility rests with the individual, not the government. The government's role as to our employment is to preserve our right to pursue our interests and to make sure that we're all playing on a level field.

[savvyman]

I think that Hawktalk's proposal to exhume Nixon wasn't to indicate that he thought Nixon was a "swell guy", it was a demonstration of just how horrible our two viable choices for POTUS are this year. Although I can think of scores of dead politicians I'd exhume before I got to Nixon, he'd be a better choice than either of these two clowns. It's also not revisionist to list Nixon's achievements as Savvy has done, although I don't agree with some of what he's listed as being a positive achievement. If you were to take away the Watergate scandal, Nixon would probably be ranked relatively high by most standards.

I agree with burrton about FDR. Although he was what the country needed at the time and it's hard telling which direction the country would have headed had FDR not come along when he did, many of our fiscal problems today can be traced back to his administration. I also don't go along with this "living wage" nonsense, either. I don't know how we ever got to this entitlement mindset that it's the government's responsibility to provide us with "living wage" jobs (probably can be traced back to FDR), or any jobs at all as far as that goes. That responsibility rests with the individual, not the government. The government's role as to our employment is to preserve our right to pursue our interests and to make sure that we're all playing on a level field.

The problem Riverdog is unlike when you came of age and there were many good paying "Middle Class" Jobs available to most Americans - today we have an economy that can only create for the most part "Shitty Low paying jobs".

See for example the below graphic - the loss of good Paying jobs and their replacements are crappy waitress, Bar tending, Cashiers and Home aids - all paying around $25,000 a year:

Shitty Jobs.jpg (104.99 KiB) Viewed 5908 times

Now continuing on this subject - lets look at the projections for what jobs will be created over the next 10 years - well guess what? Once again the vast majority of these Jobs (Cashiers, waitresses & Bartenders, Cashiers, Home Health Aids, Office Clerks & Janitors) pay around........$25,000 a year:






That is the problem Riverdog - For the past 30 years, every time the USA has gone into a recession, millions of good "Livable-Wage" paying "Middle Class" jobs disappear forever and have been replaced with Shitty service sector Jobs - Multiply this by 4 major recessions, Globalization and outsourcing, technology replacing workers (and the robotic revolution is just starting to emerge now) and you have in 2016 an economy for the most part that can only produce shitty jobs that pay people enough to qualify for food stamps.

[savvyman]

All this "Nixon was a swell guy" revisionism is making me nauseous. If we're exhuming dead Presidents how 'bout we bring back FDR, see if we can't restore our middle class, bring back an honest living wage and a fair distribution of the tax burden.

Let's see Nixon only did the following:

Negotiated the first nuclear reduction treaty with the Soviet Union
Opened up relations with Communist China that no one thought was possible.
Started the environmental protection agency.
Got rid of the Mandatory draft which like all drafts was very unfair to poor and working class kids.
Tried to win the war in Viet Nam and then when he found out it was not going to be possible got us the hell out.
Allowed Native American tribes the most sovereignty of any president to date.
Appointed Chief Justice Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist to the Supreme court who historians generally agreed were all outstanding Justices.


Compared to that Lying Knucklehead Bush and that coward Obama, and the most corrupt politician in USA history Hillary Clinton - - Nixon is George F@cking Washington

[burrrton]

The problem Riverdog is unlike when you came of age and there were many good paying "Middle Class" Jobs available to most Americans - today we have an economy that can only create for the most part "Shitty Low paying jobs".

So if we have an economy that "can only create" those shitty, low-paying jobs, what do you propose to do about it, and what is your rationale for doing so? I'm interested in hearing your "here's how we get from A to B" argument.

That is the problem Riverdog - For the past 30 years, every time the USA has gone into a recession, millions of good "Livable-Wage" paying "Middle Class" jobs disappear forever and have been replaced with Shitty service sector Jobs

If that's granted, what's your solution?

We had a metric assload of mfg jobs that disappeared, replaced by automation (we have many fewer mfg jobs now, but we produce *FAR* more than we ever have)- should those factories revert to human labor and ensure wages are forever "middle class" even though the tasks could be completed by trained chimpanzees?

[RiverDog]

Let's see Nixon only did the following:

Negotiated the first nuclear reduction treaty with the Soviet Union
Opened up relations with Communist China that no one thought was possible.
Started the environmental protection agency.
Got rid of the Mandatory draft which like all drafts was very unfair to poor and working class kids.
Tried to win the war in Viet Nam and then when he found out it was not going to be possible got us the hell out.
Allowed Native American tribes the most sovereignty of any president to date.
Appointed Chief Justice Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist to the Supreme court who historians generally agreed were all outstanding Justices.


Compared to that Lying Knucklehead Bush and that coward Obama, and the most corrupt politician in USA history Hillary Clinton - - Nixon is George F@cking Washington

Nuclear reduction treaty? Nixon negotiated Salt 1 and Salt 2, which by definition, only limited nuclear arms, they did not reduce them. Salt 2 was never ratified. It wasn't until the 80's that the US and USSR began negotiating a treaty that would reduce nuclear weapons, ie the START treaty, long after Nixon had left the arena.

I would not list the EPA as one of Nixon's shining moments. It's become just another over grown federal agency that has expanded their scope well beyond what was sold to the American public.

Troop withdrawals in Vietnam had started before Nixon took office. He used withdrawals as a political tool. Whenever he needed a boost in the polls, he'd announce the withdrawal of another 10,000 troops. He kept telling the public that he had this secret plan for ending the war, which turned out to be bombing the crap out of the North, which didn't work. He never "got us the hell out" as we were not officially out of Vietnam until spring of 1975, well after he resigned. Nixon's Vietnam policy/strategy was only slightly better than that of his predecessor.

Nixon promised to end the draft in his 1968 campaign. The law was set to expire in 1971 but Nixon ask for and was granted a two year extension. He didn't actually end it until January 27, 1973, after his re-election. He could have ended it sooner but he wanted to draw as many differences between himself and anti war candidate George McGovern, once again using it as a political weapon to manipulate public opinion.

And you keep forgetting to mention the Watergate scandal, which will forever define him as the first and only POTUS to resign the office.

Nixon is underrated by his critics and has some considerable accomplishments, particular in foreign areas, but you don't need to blow smoke up his arse.

[savvyman]

Nixon was the first to negotiate any type of arms treaty with the Soviet Union and while technically it did not reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons it at least put a cap on some and was the first type of this treaty to ever be negotiated. There would never had been a reduction treaty if there was not the first SALT 1 treaty that put a limit on nuclear warheads. And Nixon also was the one who started SALT 2 which of course he never got the opportunity to finish.

On the Draft - The bottom line is that the selective service that was in place since 1940 - And continued Under FDR, Truman Eisenhower, Kennedy & Johnson - but it came to an end under Nixon is 1973.

Yes Nixon had to resign in disgrace - as you pointed out - so my question to you is why have you chosen as a citizen of this country to ignore the Constitutional breaking by both the Government of Bush jr. & Obama in violating every American constitutional right to privacy (remember part oft the presidential oath is "to protect the constitution")? If Nixon deserved to be impeach for the Watergate scandal - then Bush and Obama should be in Jail right now for their actions in not bringing to a halt the Digital surveillance for all Americans that is going on right now and continues to be expanded. I provided the links for you and everyone to look at - yet you remain silent - completely failing in your duties as a citizen. Typical of the masses of Americans who cannot tell the difference between a "Traitor" - someone who sells American secrets to a foreign government for profit - and a "Whistle Blower" patriot such as Edward Snowden who sacrificed everything to alert the American people of the Constitutional violations that our government is doing right now in recording all of our phone calls, emails, texts etc. in violation of due process and constitutional protections of rights to privacy without a warrant. What Nixon did is nothing compared to the digital surveillance of every American that is going on today.

As far as the EPA - so you think that there should be no government oversight to protect the environment? Nixon creating this agency showed that he was in many respects a man of reason unlike the Ideologues today that are at one extreme or another.

[RiverDog]

As far as the EPA - so you think that there should be no government oversight to protect the environment? Nixon creating this agency showed that he was in many respects a man of reason unlike the Ideologues today that are at one extreme or another.

I didn't say that. What I said is that Nixon created an agency that has gone far beyond the scope of what was sold to the public. What we were sold was that they were going to protect animals like bears, eagles, whales, et al, not insects, worms, and weeds.

My favorite example is that the EPA once put the Colorado Squawfish on the Endangered Species list, apparently not realizing that the reason it was endangered was because the State of Colorado had been trying for years to kill it and get it out of their lakes and streams as they competed with game fish.

I don't have a problem with common sense laws to protect some species, like eagles and bears. But I have no affection for centipedes and slugs, and had the American public been told how extensive this EPA was going to become, they'd never would had supported it.

[burrrton]

The EPA *has* gotten completely out of control, but:

1. Before they strayed from their original mission and started trying to control every puddle in the country (and taking up political causes), they had a dramatic and positive impact on the quality of our air and water.

2. The Endangered Species Act/List is overseen by the USFWS, isn't it?

[RiverDog]

The EPA *has* gotten completely out of control, but:

1. Before they strayed from their original mission and started trying to control every puddle in the country (and taking up political causes), they had a dramatic and positive impact on the quality of our air and water.

2. The Endangered Species Act/List is overseen by the USFWS, isn't it?

Yes, the EPA is part of the USFWS which is part of the Department of the Interior along with the National Park Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, and a whole s*** pile of other agencies.

Interestingly enough, there are two federal dam building/operating agencies in the US, the Bureau of Reclamation under the Interior Department and the US Army Corps of Engineers, under the Department of Defense. Grand Coulee Dam was built and operated by the Bureau, John Day Dam and all the lower Snake dams built by the Corps. Can somebody tell me why we need two separate federal agencies under completely different departments doing the same damn thing? Think of the amount of money that's been wasted over the decades because we have redundant tasks that are being done by the two separate entities.

Man, I could go on and on with my rant, but I'll stop there.

[burrrton]

Yes, the EPA is part of the USFWS

Huh. I thought they were separate. Ignore me.

Can somebody tell me why we need two separate federal agencies under completely different departments doing the same damn thing?

Because it's the US federal government, motto: "Why have one when you can have two for three times the price**?"

**(then moan and btch that they don't have enough money so need to jack taxes on someone)

[savvyman]

I didn't say that. What I said is that Nixon created an agency that has gone far beyond the scope of what was sold to the public. What we were sold was that they were going to protect animals like bears, eagles, whales, et al, not insects, worms, and weeds.

My favorite example is that the EPA once put the Colorado Squawfish on the Endangered Species list, apparently not realizing that the reason it was endangered was because the State of Colorado had been trying for years to kill it and get it out of their lakes and streams as they competed with game fish.

I don't have a problem with common sense laws to protect some species, like eagles and bears. But I have no affection for centipedes and slugs, and had the American public been told how extensive this EPA was going to become, they'd never would had supported it.

Fair enough - I have no love or much patience for Bureaucracy either.

[savvyman]

The EPA *has* gotten completely out of control, but:

1. Before they strayed from their original mission and started trying to control every puddle in the country (and taking up political causes), they had a dramatic and positive impact on the quality of our air and water.

2. The Endangered Species Act/List is overseen by the USFWS, isn't it?

I don't understand why when a new agency is established that safeguards to prevent too much growth and Bureaucracy are not established at the same time? There is a place for smart government though I agree in practice you don't see it a whole lot.

[RiverDog]

I don't understand why when a new agency is established that safeguards to prevent too much growth and Bureaucracy are not established at the same time? There is a place for smart government though I agree in practice you don't see it a whole lot.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? Government bureaucracy is the sole reason why I never have and never will vote for a Democrat for a federal office. They are friends of the bureaucrats.

What they ought to do when they decide something needs government oversight is to have a sunset clause that mandates an end point. Whether it's OSHA, the FDA, or the EPA, they should, after a prescribed period of years, turn the management of the program over to the states. There's no reason why we should have the USDA and WSDA, OSHA and WISHA, the EPA and the Washington State Department of Ecology, National Parks and State Parks. It's a colossal waste of money.

Oh, and can anyone explain to me why we need snail mail delivered to our doorsteps 6 days a week? Can anyone explain to me why we even need a USPS, why that is an essential function of government? Why is it a function of the federal government to provide us with passenger rail service that's not even a viable mode of transportation for the vast majority of the country?

[burrrton]

Why is it a function of the federal government to provide us with passenger rail service that's not even a viable mode of transportation for the vast majority of the country?

You ever tried taking Amtrak from here (TC) to, say, Portland? It's not even a viable mode of transportation for that unless you're fine with "We'll get there whenever and be back whenever."

[EmeraldBullet]

"I don't understand why when a new agency is established that safeguards to prevent too much growth and Bureaucracy "

So you want to create a new agency and hire more bureaucrats in an attempt to limit bureaucracy? Something tells me this has already been attempted and failed.

[burrrton]

So you want to create a new agency and hire more bureaucrats in an attempt to limit bureaucracy? Something tells me this has already been attempted and failed.

He's not advocating for a new agency- he's saying if you *are* going to create a new agency, you should also bake a sunset clause (or limits, or whatever) into the cake.

[RiverDog]

You ever tried taking Amtrak from here (TC) to, say, Portland? It's not even a viable mode of transportation for that unless you're fine with "We'll get there whenever and be back whenever."

Nope, I never have. It only runs a couple times a week and the last time I looked, the times were unfeasible. The only people that ride that thing, at least in this neck of the woods, are retired people that can adjust their schedule to that of the trains. The only area of the country where it's a viable mode of transportation is in the Northeast, the Boston-to-Washington (DC) corridor. I haven't checked recently, but the last time I looked, the Chicago-Seattle route had close to a $150 per passenger cost to the government. By the turn of the century, taxpayers have seen over $25 Billion... that's billion with a B...of their money thrown down that s*** hole. Who knows what that amount is up to today.

It is no longer a nation wide system and ought to be turned over to the few states that are populous enough and close enough together to where it makes sense. It was supposed to be self sufficient 10 years after it was created back in the '70's and has never come close to paying it's own way yet we still keep throwing good money after bad into the system. There's a reason why all of the private railroads dropped passenger service starting way back in the 60's.

Besides, IMO government should only be doing what the private sector cannot do for itself. Why should government be competing with private sector companies? Why should USPS be competing with Fed Ex and UPS, or Amtrak be competing with the airlines?

[burrrton]

The only people that ride that thing, at least in this neck of the woods, are retired people that can adjust their schedule to that of the trains.

Yep, and you almost always have to "adjust to their schedule" the day you're supposed to ride. My wife and daughters thought it would be a kick to take the train to Portland (summer vacation) to see her friend. I dropped her off at some ungodly hour like 6:30am for a 7:30 train- you know what time they finally left? ONE p.m.

Completely blew up my wife's schedule (and those of the people picking her up, waiting for her for dinner, etc).

[Hawktawk]

Yep, and you almost always have to "adjust to their schedule" the day you're supposed to ride. My wife and daughters thought it would be a kick to take the train to Portland (summer vacation) to see her friend. I dropped her off at some ungodly hour like 6:30am for a 7:30 train- you know what time they finally left? ONE p.m.

Completely blew up my wife's schedule (and those of the people picking her up, waiting for her for dinner, etc).[/quote

I rode Amtrak between Seattle and Portland quite a few times in the early 80's. I was being treated by a doctor in Vancouver for injuries suffered in a car accident and living in Seattle with my sister while I recovered.

At the time I found it to be pretty enjoyable. Too enjoyable a few times as a 21 year old wild man trying to party 80s style on a train. Maybe it was the pain meds

The train was slower than driving by a couple of hours but it was always on time in my memory. Of course there has been 36 years since then for the government to run it into the ground so Ill take your word for it. 6 years ago I had to drop off my daughter and grandson at midnight in Ephrata to get them to Portland.Only time available. Its no wonder people are pissed off at most anything government.

[burrrton]

Of course there has been 36 years since then for the government to run it into the ground so Ill take your word for it.

I'm glad to hear our mileage may vary, but when my wife said "NOON?!? Are you kidding?", they told her it was completely normal to be at least a couple hours late, and that they even have a system set up to tell you *how* late the train's going to be (you go there site, give them your email address, and they'll email you with current estimates).

To their credit, when my wife did check her emails later, they had emailed saying it would be late, but that was an hour before the original departure time (we were already gone), and it estimated it would depart only an hour late.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't know what train you guy's are talking about (no idea where "TC" is) but the California Zephyr that runs from Chicago to LA and back is almost always on time in my experience (and when it hasn't it's been a matter of minutes, not hours). I've ridden it several times in both directions: from Denver to LA and the reverse. I'd often drive from the plant I was contracting at in LA to SLC to visit my parents and leave the car there and take the Zephyr from SLC to Denver and back (the most beautiful train ride in the world!) and never had the problems you guys seem to have had.

I love travelling by rail and quite agree that the rail service in the US is a disgrace when compared to other parts of the world, but it's not as bad as all that.

[burrrton]

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+zephyr+late

no idea where "TC" is

That's OK- RD does.

[EmeraldBullet]

I am all for a slow mode of transportation that allows me to get drunk and play a game on my laptop or watch a movie. Travel isn't just about being at the destination, it's about getting there in comfort. I am a huge fan of trains, boats, and planes. Cars will be great once they are equipped with autodriving, a built in keggerator, and hot tub seating.

Now I agree that the gov (especially the fed gov) should not be subsidizing this stuff.

[RiverDog]

I don't know what train you guy's are talking about (no idea where "TC" is) but the California Zephyr that runs from Chicago to LA and back is almost always on time in my experience (and when it hasn't it's been a matter of minutes, not hours). I've ridden it several times in both directions: from Denver to LA and the reverse. I'd often drive from the plant I was contracting at in LA to SLC to visit my parents and leave the car there and take the Zephyr from SLC to Denver and back (the most beautiful train ride in the world!) and never had the problems you guys seem to have had.

I love travelling by rail and quite agree that the rail service in the US is a disgrace when compared to other parts of the world, but it's not as bad as all that.

That's fine, Cbob, I'm glad you're pleased with the service. But do it on your own dime. In 1997, the average per passenger federal subsidy for a round trip from Denver to Chicago was $650, and I doubt that it's changed much in the past 20 years.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... n-railroad

"TC" stands for Tri-Cities... Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland. We have a route, the Empire Builder, that comes through here. It's a stop on the Chicago-Portland run. One westbound train stops here each day of the week, at 5:35am, and one eastbound, at 8:57 pm. We were going to send our two grandsons back to Spokane once last summer. The price was reasonable, around $25, but the schedule was horrible as they would have arrived in Spokane after midnight, so we put them on the bus even though it would have been fun for them to ride on a train.

That's what we meant about it not being a viable mode of transportation as you have to fit your schedule with that of the train's, and about the only people with that kind of flexibility are retired or on an extended vacation where time is not an issue. It's not a mode of transportation as much as it is a poor man's cruise ship. It's not viable in this country do to the population per square mile..less the northeast corridor..compared to places like Japan and western Europe.

[savvyman]

Here another Red pill for your viewing pleasure:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3fYc5tQbNQ