Speculation: Conspiracy or Corincidence?

reply to post by Justin Oldham

On Nixon, it seems clear (now) that Tricky Dick's underlings made some very broad assumptions about the "yield" of Intel from the Watergate break-in. The number one reason why the did it, according to G. Gordon Liddy, was to plant listening devices so they could spy on the DNC over the long term.

I guess for openers I’d have to admit opinions are a lot like ***holes: everybody has one. In the late ‘90s when I grew oh so weary of music radio, I turned to talk radio. That was long before Rush Limbaugh signed his $250 million 10 years contract. Even then Limbaugh - a/k/a Rash Lameballs - was the semi-literate loud blabber-mouth compared to the refined and more sophisticated George Gordon Liddy. Him an ex-convict. A felon. Now a rich right wing felon. A lover of fast cars especially Corvettes with LS3+ engines.

You don’t have to be overly smart to know what either of them will say on any topical talking point after you’ve heard them a week or two. Both will completely exhaust any semblance of reliance on facts or reasonableness in opinions in that time. From then on it is pure diatribes, always followed by endless ideological palaver. Repeated. Repeated. Repeated. Hey, real RWs can't tell the difference.

Limbaugh’s drug habit nearly got him 10 years to life in the Federal pen, but his top level GOP contact - Bush43's own slick younger brother Jeb - saved his sorry ***. It's good for Limbaugh he wasn't black. He'd be history. Don'cha know, in the Bush43 government, US Attorneys work for the White House and not for America! Liddy OTOH, has to his good credit found a job and remained employed after his release from the penitentiary. Fortunately for G. Gordon, lying on the job is not a parole violation.

Why Watergate? Liddy put out the story that Larry O’Brien kept a “Little Black Book” that contained a list of high end prostitutes available for visiting Democratic “firemen.” Presidential Counselor John Dean’s new wife’s name and phone number was supposedly in that book. He and Liddy concocted the Watergate break-ins to recover what they claimed was the potentially embarrassing little black book. On its face a super stretch if not a patent lie. What conceivable harm could come to Nixon by the revelation that one of his staff had married a former prostitute? That’s back page news at best. To my knowledge, Liddy has stuck with that story. I don't think Dean ever told it.

But a big YES on bugging or wire tapping O’Brien’s telephone. But why do that? That was 1972. South Dakota Senator George McGovern - a nice guy - was the throwaway Democratic nominee. Humphrey had edged McGovern in the primary vote total. At the convention, he failed to get a majority of delegates and ultimately, McGovern who had received almost as many primary votes as Humphrey, was settled on.

1972 Election. Things went from gloomy to dark for McGovern. His first VP choice, Senator Tom Eagleton from MO, failed to reveal that he had undergone electric shock therapy for depression. When this surfaced, he resigned the nomination. McGovern then turned to R. Sargent Shriver, JFK’s brother-in-law who had headed the War on Poverty, as his VP nominee, and the rest as they say, is history.

Polls gave McGovern a high of 41% but by election day, he had fallen to 24%. Nixon received 620 electoral votes from 49 states. McGovern carried MA and DC for 17. 1 electoral vote from VA went astray to a Libertarian. The popular vote was not quite that one-sided, 47 million to 29 million. 60.7% to 37.5%.

My Argument. Nixon was disappointed by 1960's razor thin election in which he polled 34,108,157 votes to lose to JFK’s winning 34,220,984 votes. And him (Nixon), a good Protestant boy losing to a Catholic! JFK’s wining plurality in popular votes, 112,827, was said to be less than ONE vote per precinct in the US! On Nixon's return to national politics in 1968, his wining 31,783,783 votes were just enough to beat Humphrey’s 31,271,839 votes. But For the Vietnam War, I have no doubt Nixon would have LOST that one too.

I believe Nixon realized he would be very close to carrying ALL 50 states, a feat not equaled since George Washington carried all 10 states that voted in 1789's first election. See Note 1. To this end, Nixon - the tapes confirm that the break-ins were planned inside the Oval Office by Richard Nixon - wanted to know what O’Brien knew so he could become the EQUAL of George Washington and carry ALL the states! EGO! Pay-back time!


Note 1. But see James Monroe and 1820. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 05/05/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

The Constitution makes it clear that government should play a role in simple regulation. It's not there to run the economy, but it is there to make sure that we trade honestly and avoid poisoning ourselves. We're always going to debate just exactly WHAT the national interest is, but we'll always agree that good government is benevolent. [(1) well meaning and kindly. (2) charitable rather than profit making.]

Three Cheers! Hip Hip Hurrah! Hip Hip Hurrah! Hip Hip Hurrah! I lay claim to TWO important points! First. I made good arguments. Second. I had an honest listener. I hereby ADOPT the above statement of purpose as MY own!

In the years to come, Federal agencies will come to dominate the U.S. economy. It'll become "managed" in much the same way that the Europeans handle theirs. I'm not thrilled about that, but its what I see coming. Civil service will expand and we'll no doubt be getting a few new agencies. It'll be a far cry from what I was brought up to believe in, so I'll be speaking out against it when I see injustice.

Well said!

[edit on 05/05/2008 by donwhite]

Good citizenship is not Republican or Democrat. Nobody owns the franchise on good government. Our Best Interest requires constant defending, by all of us.

I found this a while back, and I thought that it would be interesting to interject into this discussion. Unfortunately, Americans have little understanding of economics (this is difficult for me to follow, too). However, the more understanding we have, the better citizens we can be.

There Is No Gas Shortage

What do you think about trading in foreign currency? While I see the benefits in comparison to stocks right now, it feels somewhat traitorous to me. I have a student writing about it right now, and I wondered what all of you might think of that as an option for hedging one's bets in this recession/depression?

I can see how you might think that speculating in foriegn currency is not patriotic. If it helps, you might consdier that what you do with your profits may say a lot about you, and your degree of faith in the U.S. economy. If I made money by speculating in the currency markets, and then...I used that money to do "stuff" outside the U.S., you might say that I'm being anti-American.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Nobody owns the franchise on good government. Our Best Interest requires constant defending, by all of us.

Last week, Wednesday I believe, I watched a hearing on the price of gasoline held by the DEMOCRATS in the House. The single anti-oil witness - there were 2 oil co reps - said NON OIL SPECULATORS ADDED 70 CENTS TO THE PRICE OF A GALLON OF GAS. (Then $3.79 avg).

reply to post by scarlett1125

What do you think about trading in foreign currency? While I see the benefits in comparison to stocks right now, it feels somewhat traitorous to me. I have a student writing about it right now, and I wondered what all of you might think of that as an option for hedging one's bets in this recession/depression?

1) I used to argue that betting on the horses was more certain than putting money in the NYSE. In a horse race, there is always one winner. At the NYSE, all your choices can go DOWN.
2) The NYSE - all stock exchanges - are nothing more than a RICH man’s gambling club.
3) It’s my opinion that if anything can happen it will. Therefore, insider trader is routine and anyone outside that inner circle is a sucker.
4) They are called brokers for good reason! You will be broker after dealing with them.
5) Why is it that smart people who are able to make money doing something they know well will give their money over to someone who probably knows less than they do? And in many cases could not hold a job at McDonalds.
6) For every seller who thinks his stock has peaked, there is a buyer who thinks it has more to grow! Wow!
7) Trading in foreign currencies is a fools game. Much akin to futures. There is not 1 person in 10,000 who has access to enough reliable info to make intelligent and informed choices.

[edit on 05/05/2008 by donwhite]

What reforms do you think are necessary to the current banking and finance system? It occurrs to me that speculators have unintentionally done too much damage. Can you imagine this happening in the 1970's?

reply to post by Justin Oldham

What reforms do you think are necessary to the current banking and finance system? It occurs to me that speculators have unintentionally done too much damage. Can you imagine this happening in the 1970's?

No. However, the threat was always there. It had been damped down by the failure of 1929 but they never gave up. The Rich and Powerful do not go into the night quietly. They do reform however as evidenced by the Rockefeller descendants urging ExxonMobil to act more responsibly.

The failure of our government in the 1973-74 Watergate episode strengthened those who may be labeled as Bilderbergers. The curbs imposed on them by the New Deal have effectively been reversed or abandoned. We are fast running backwards to a re-run of the laissez faire Gilded Age of Fisk and Gould! Which must be read with caveat emptor.

I’m not too optimistic about the immediate future. Our system of government ingeniously devised in the late 18th century to deal with real issues then, is so far outdated that it often looks hopeless. All we can do today is apply band-aids to the fastest bleeding spots. I call it AD HOC government. I offer the 2006 election as evidence. Congress cannot regain not its supremacy but an equal status until one party has 60 senators. It is not expected that will happen in ‘08 despite the public disaffection with the GOP. Perhaps the adage, “it must get worse before it can get better” is applicable?

I’m scared to call for a THIRD 1787 Convention. Yet France is now into Number Five and seems to get better with each metamorphosis. KY did that in 1889-90 and excluded the Bill of Rights from consideration. Constitution No. 4 became law in 1891. Perhaps I’d feel better if we did it that way today, and for sure, let’s hold it in Philadelphia! It has been like magic for us.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

What reforms do you think are necessary to the current banking and finance system? It occurs to me that speculators have unintentionally done too much damage. Can you imagine this happening in the 1970's?

No. Not in the 1970s. However, the threat has always been there. Sudden wealth without work will always provide a powerful lure. It had been damped down by the failure of 1929 but they never gave up. The Rich and Powerful do not go into the night quietly. On an upward note, the rich are susceptible of reform however as evidenced by the Rockefeller descendants urging ExxonMobil to act more responsibly. And I still think Bill Gates is a Democrat.

The failure of our government in the 1973-74 Watergate episode no doubt strengthened those who may be labeled as the Bilderbergers. The curbs imposed on them by the New Deal have effectively been reversed or largely abandoned. We are fast running backwards to a re-run of the laissez faire Gilded Age of Fisk and Gould! Which must be read alongside caveat emptor.

I’m not too optimistic about the immediate future. Our system of government ingeniously devised in the late 18th century to deal with real issues then, is so far outdated that it often looks hopeless. All we can do today is apply band-aids to the fastest bleeding spots. I call it AD HOC government. I offer the 2006 election as evidence. The people voted to end the Iraq War. The president ignored them. The Congress is too closely divided to be capable of taking decisive action. (The Senate is 51 to 49 and Joe Lieberman is one of the 51. VP Cheney of 'perpetual war' mindset is just itching to break a tie vote).

Congress likely cannot ever regain the supremacy it enjoyed prior to 1933. That may not be desirable anyway. I'm thinking of the loss of party discipline. Congress could work towards an equal status with the presidency. But in neither case can it do either until one party has 60 senators. That is not expected to happen in ‘08 despite great public disaffection with the GOP. Perhaps the adage, “it must get worse before it can get better” is applicable?

I’m scared to call for a THIRD 1787 type Convention. Yet France is now into Number Five and seems to get better with each metamorphosis. KY did that in 1889-90 and excluded the Bill of Rights from consideration. See Note 1. Constitution No. 4 became law in 1891. Perhaps I’d feel better if we did it that way today, and for sure, let’s hold it in Philadelphia! It has been like magic for us.


Note 1. For example, see KY Con. Section 5. Freedom of Religion.
No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

[edit on 05/05/2008 by donwhite]

You may have to wait for the dust to settle to get your wish. I don't see a convention like that taking place until some time after a revolt or prolonged period of social unrest.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I don't see a convention like that taking place until some time after a revolt or prolonged period of social unrest.

Well, you are probably right about waiting for violent times before a Convention could be called. It is hard to imagine the powers that be in W-DC would “vote” themselves out of office. Incredulous is a better word.

Any resistance by force of arms in the US would of course, first be labeled TERRORISM and or CRIMINALS and or FRINGES to the public. The corporate media would applaud the White House for its “determined and decisive resistance to mob rule!” The Armed Forces - Army and Marine Corps - would respond as they have in Basra and Sadr City. Their violence trumped by MORE of our violence. With the KH12s or the successors “parked” over the domestic “hot spots” and sitting in the underground Fuhrer Bunker below the White House, the president could watch 16 feet wide by 9 feet tall tv screens showing the REBELLION in real time!

Using Apache and Comanche helicopters the Armed Forces could swoop down on small bands of rebels and OBLITERATE them in short order. The 30 mm chain gun would cut then down so fast you could not count the flying body parts! All this to the cheers of the champagne drinking caviar tasting White House National Stability Council and its staff operating under a SECRET Executive Order! Come Quick Sweet Jesus!

Originally posted by donwhite
Using Apache and Comanche helicopters the Armed Forces could swoop down on small bands of rebels and OBLITERATE them in short order. The 30 mm chain gun would cut then down so fast you could not count the flying body parts! All this to the cheers of the champagne drinking caviar tasting White House National Stability Council and its staff operating under a SECRET Executive Order! Come Quick Sweet Jesus!

As we have seen in many war zones, the tech advantage will only get you so far. It's true that our next insurrection will have a different anatomy to it, but one thing will stil be a constant. Insurgency will still be much harder to squash than the politicians will realize.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I'm rushing through here today. Sorry. On the Nixon point, it seems clear (now) that Tricky Dick's underlings made some very broad assumptions about the "yield" of Intel from the Watergate break-in. The number one reason why the did it, according to G. Gordon Liddy, was to plant listening devices so they could spy on the DNC over the long term. I am inclined to agree with Liddy's admission. I refer you to the 1974 film, "The Conversation," starring a young Gene Hackman. Even now, both parties do spy on each other, using the most elaborate means.

I’m listening to a rather short-ish book, “Conservatives Without Conscience” by John W. Dean, 2006, on RC63177. Dean gets going after the first 50 pages of self-serving tripe, and is now offering some interesting insights into the evangelical involvement in the GOP. He names names and cites references.

As for laying off Watergate on any of Nixon’s aides, I say just listening to the Oval Office tapes convinced me that the break-ins were Nixon’s own idea from the beginning. I do think he did not consider it a crime but more as “fair game” in the art of politics.

Dean is now into the RWA theory - Right Wing Authority - and he has some very useful insights into that which makes the book a good reference tool for your home library.

I am ordering the movie on NetFlix for my perusal. I prefer to use the world “monitor” rather than “spying” which has more sinister overtones.

HOW FAR can the price of oil go before our government or some government around the world does something like SUSPEND the Futures markets? One consumer advocate said 70 cents per gallon was attributable to speculators but that was before oil crossed the $120 bbl price. If half our 20 million barrels per day consumption is used for gasoline for cars, that is 420 million gallons a day. At 70 cents that is $300 million a day for the speculators. From the US alone! How can any one mortal STOP a machine fed by $10 billion a month in unanticipated revenues?

All speculations in humanity's 2 essentials - food and fuel - should be outlawed ASAP! Where are You GOD when Your creation needs You?

My Prayer: May all speculators die and go straight to hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

May we be not so far behind for letting them do this to us! Say Hello Reagan Revolution! Words of HIS wisdom: "Government is the problem, not the solution." Tell me more.

[edit on 5/25/2008 by donwhite]

I noe with some interest that neitehr Congress nor the oil companies are taking about the need to fix the rules for building new refingeries. they are broken. Today's well finnanced environmentalist movement can fight the oil companies in court...to such an extent...that nobody wantsto undergo the expense of attempting to build new refineries.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I note with some interest that neither Congress nor the oil companies are talking about the need to fix the rules for building new refineries. they are broken.

I am not prepared to admit this betrayal of our national interests is due to “broken rules.” Breaking of rules, yes. But until I am better informed what rules it is the R&Fs don’t like, I’ll stick with the old rules on the general rule grounds that if the ANTI environmentalists don’t like something it just might be a good rule for me!

Today's well financed environmentalist movement can fight the oil companies in court ... to such an extent ... that nobody wants to undergo the expense of attempting to build new refineries.

Two objections. 1) If ExxonMobil - $40,000,000,000.00 annual profits - can get away with NOT paying a $6 b. judgment to Alaskans who had their livelihood destroyed by the Exxon Valdez, since 1989, I’d be more inclined to think it is No. 2 that "prevents" us from getting new refineries rather than RICH environmentalists. 2) High demand plus tight supplies equals WORLD’S LARGEST PROFITS into the indefinite future.

OR, who makes more than ExxonMobil?

[edit on 5/26/2008 by donwhite]

National interest will not prevail until things get verybad. Wait for asline to excede six dollar a gallon, and we may start to see some movement on teh issue of refineries. As of now, the firms that make up big oil have no reason or incentive to incresae refining capacity. If and when eh political climate turns ugly, they'll move to improve their image and ask for some of those reforms.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

National interest will not prevail until things get verybad. Wait for asline to excede six dollar a gallon, and we may start to see some movement on teh issue of refineries. As of now, the firms that make up big oil have no reason or incentive to incresae refining capacity. If and when eh political climate turns ugly, they'll move to improve their image and ask for some of those reforms.

It is more sinister than RULES.

Suppose the US Congress on the request of Pres. Obama appropriates $15 b. to build THREE refineries. One on the Atlantic coast, one on the Gulf coast and one on the West coast. Suppose the same law required all commercial interests downstream from the new refineries would be compelled by law to accept the output of the 3 new refineries on the exact same terms as product from any refinery. Well, you see where this is going . . .

OR

We can continue to submit as lambs being led to the slaughter.

[edit on 5/26/2008 by donwhite]

I think it would be a mistake to nationalize the oil industry, or any part of it. I would be up for legal reforms. Today's environmentalist can stop the development of any business with just one piece of paper. This is a problem that we in Alaska are particularly sensetive to. Outside interests interfere with local infrastructure development every day.

Instread of giving the oil industry subsidies (as we do now), we could be giving them tax breaks. No taxpayer dollars would have to change hands. Tax breaks and legal reforms are a government's best tools to incentivize any business. These things, together with social pressure, would be enough to turn this around in about ten years.

We could do these things without growing the size of the Federal bureaucracy.