Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:John F. Kennedy

2007-11-29T23:37:39Z

Byronyork2:

"crisis" should read "Cuban Missile Crisis", please.

== Not Fair ==
It is not entirely fair to lay the blame of the failure of the Bay of Pigs squarely at JFK's feet. There was a lot of urging from the CIA and the military NOT to go ahead with American military itervention on behalf of the insurgents. Considering the atmosphere of the world at that time, I can't say listening to them was a horrible idea. Regrettable that the operation was botched, but the reasons why it was botched are not 100% of JFK's doing.

And it's quite interesting that the hawks in his administration that urged him NOT to intervene in Bay of Pigs are the ones who the author of this article quite cleverly insinuates are the reason why Kennedy kept us safe through the Cuban Missle Crisis, as if without them Kennedy would have been inept. If you're looking for the slightest reasons to praise the hawks in his administration, even if it is to just lessen JFK's abilities as an individual, you could have made mention of the hawks being the driving force behind not intervening in Bay of Pigs, and thus applauded them for it in the process (when keeping in mind that not risking such a blatant and overt challenge to the USSR that would not have been necesary and risked TERRIBLE reprecussions...). But it looks like the author of this article was too concerned with finding anything to blame on Kennedy, and thus missed their opportunity to render more praise unto the conservative hawks. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:To add to the Bay of Pigs discussion, the CIA under Eisenhower actually made the plan, it was recomended to Kennedy once he took office. The way this page reads is as though he is 100% totally at fault for everything. I think he was a do-nothing president that is only popular because he was assasinated, but seriously folks, lets calm down the rhetoric. ALSO: I changed the reference about him being the "youngest president". He was the youngest person ever ELECTED president, but Teddy Roosevelt was actually a year or two younger than Kennedy when he took office. I didn't want to re-write the whole section, but I figured I'd throw in a minor correction. [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 18:54, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

something really should be mentioned about Kennedy embodying the optimism of the US at the time.

Watergate

2007-11-29T23:32:17Z

Byronyork2: Added Frost interview

The '''Watergate Affair''' was a political scandal leading to [[President of the United States|President]] [[Richard Nixon|Richard M. Nixon's]] resignation. It began when members of the campaign to reelect Richard Nixon broke into the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] National Committee headquarters in the [[Watergate Hotel]] during the 1972 presidential election campaign. Nixon had no prior knowledge of the burglary plans, nor gave consent to the escapade, yet his loyalty to subordinates led to Nixon consenting to cover up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay for the legal defense of those who were involved. Nixon resigned when it became clear he had lost support within his own party and [[Congress]] was likely to [[impeach]] him for [[obstruction of justice.]]

==The Watergate Break-In==
On June 17, 1972, five men were caught breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex in [[Washington, D.C.]] The burglars included [[James W. McCord]], a former [[CIA]] employee, and several [[Cuba|Cuban]] expatriates with ties to the CIA. The subsequent investigation of the break-in revealed that the intruders were acting on behalf of the [[Committee to Reelect the President]] (also known as CRP or CREEP). They, along with accomplices [[E. Howard Hunt]] and [[G. Gordon Liddy]], were convicted of burglary and wiretapping in Jan. 1973.

==From Burglary to Political Scandal==
Evidence that emerged at the burglary trial suggested that the break-in had the approval of higher-level government officials who were attempting to cover up their involvement. This possibility was aggressively pursued by investigative [[reporter|reporters]] in the print [[media]], with [[Washington Post]] reporters [[Carl Bernstein]] and [[Bob Woodward]] playing particularly critical roles. Woodward and Bernstein, as well as others, discovered evidence that the break-in was only part of a wider effort of political "dirty tricks" designed to discredit Democratic candidates. They also uncovered the existence of a secret [[slush fund]] used to finance these activities<ref>Bernstein, Carl and Woodward, Bob. ''All The President's Men''</ref>.

==Senate Investigation==
In April 1973, with a [[Senate]] investigation underway, several top Nixon aides, including [[H. R. Haldeman]] and [[John D. Ehrlichman]], resigned over the scandal, and White House counsel John Dean III was fired. Dean subsequently testified during televised hearings beginning in May, exposing Nixon's participation in the Watergate cover-up and massive illegalities in Republican fundraising in 1972.

The hearings also revealed that since 1971 Nixon had recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. The president, however, refused to turn the tapes over to the Senate Watergate committee, citing executive privilege. In Oct. 1973 Nixon ordered [[Elliot Richardson]], the attorney general, to fire [[Archibald Cox]], the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson chose to resign instead. Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was himself fired. Finally, it was the solicitor general, Robert Bork, who fired Cox. The incident, which became known as the "[[Saturday Night Massacre]]," led to widespread calls for Nixon's [[impeach|impeachment]].

The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. But the damage was done; President Nixon's behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—and the erosion of the public's confidence in his administration, led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power.

"In all of this," the articles of impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on [[Aug. 9, 1974]].

Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by [[Vice President]] [[Gerald R. Ford]], who a month later issued a full pardon to Nixon for any crimes he might have committed in office, thus eliminating the possibility of future prosecution. A number of other administration officials served time in prison for their offenses, including former attorney general John Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean, and [[G. Gordon Liddy]], a former FBI agent who helped plan the Watergate break-in.

==The Tapes==
Nixon was caught by a recording system whose installation he had himself ordered. It transpired during the course of the investigation that all conversations in the President's office had been secretly recorded for years, as an historical record.<ref>Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson also made secret recordings: [http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+and+Museum/News+and+Press/JFK+Library+and+Museum+to+Host+Presidential+Tapes+Conference+in+February.htm JFK Library and Museum to Host Presidential Tapes Conference], JFK Library, February, 2003</ref> During the investigation the White House was forced to release transcripts of Watergate-related tapes. These transcripts showed that at the very least Nixon was participating in near-daily, ongoing discussions of how to manage the spreading Watergate scandal. Many dubious actions, such as the payment of "hush money" to the defendants, were openly discussed and, seemingly, considered.

Tension was heightened when a tape with a key conversation, recorded a week after the burglary, turned out to have an eighteen-minute gap. To date the gap has not been explained, nor has anyone managed to recover the erased material. White House chief Alexander Haig provoked derision by a suggestion that the erasure had been caused by "some sinister force." Nixon's secretary Rose Mary Woods told the press that she could have erased the tape by accident while talking on the phone; when the press asked her to demonstrate, it became clear that this explanation was literally a long stretch.<ref>[http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page=a&zoom=2 Rosemary Woods demonstrating how she may have erased tape recordings].</ref> Later analysis by acoustics firm Bolt, Baranek and Newman concluded that the gap was the result of at least five separate erasures; since the tape recorder had a two-button interlock to prevent accidental erasure, the conclusion was that it must have been a deliberate action.<ref>[http://foi.missouri.edu/destructiondocs/natarchives.html National Archives Has Given Up on Filling the Nixon Tape Gap], New York Times, 2003</ref> If the conversation had involved Watergate, then it might have proved that Nixon learned of the burglary earlier than he had admitted.

==David Frost interview==
In 1977, Nixon had an interview with British journalist David Frost. In it, he admitted his guilt in the watergate break-in. The event is recounted in Peter Morgan's play [[Frost/Nixon]]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==See also==

*[[Carl Bernstein]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-11-29T23:26:34Z

Byronyork2:

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
<br />

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
<br />


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

I think the cartoon should be moved to the bottom of the page. It is not fact but parody, and belongs at the bottom