What Is Wrong with "Trickle Down Economics"?

[gturner]

I'm sure on your homeworld of Mars the Democrat's Trickie Dickblocking a Nixonian dictatorship, preventing launching genocidal total war against civilian populaces, and not advocating imprisoning millions of Muslim-Americans in internment camps might seem unreasonable and even treasonous, but here on modern day Earth, that kind of archaic warfare and authoritarian government goes by the technical term we in the know like to call "Batshit Crazy."

What could possibly be the problem with a Nixonian dictatorship? Everyone would benefit.

A) Hippies would've kept protesting even after the draft was ended, so folk music, protest songs, and Hendrix wouldn't have given way to the Bee Gee's. We could've been spared disco.

B) A Nixon dictatorship would've ended in a coup instead of a pardon.

C) With no Gerald Ford, there wouldn't have been a Betty Ford Clinic, and our favorite stars wouldn't have cleaned up and found Jesus, or whatever it is they do there. They'd stay trashed, like we like them.

D) With no Gerald Ford, there's no Jimmy Carter, which, counting their wives, would've freed up four seats in the nose bleed section of subsequent RNC and DNC conventions.

E) Inflation would've been whipped sooner, instead of dragging into the 1980's, because Nixon had a slogan to stop it.

F) Under Nixon, audio recording technology would've advanced much more rapidly, possibly jumping us from reel-to-reel directly to flash memory, skipping 8 track and cassette, because flash memory is a heck of a lot easier to erase.

G) Under Nixon, fashions would've stayed either edgy and rebellious (love beads, leather, boots, and mini-skirts) or extremely conservative, again, bypassing the entire leisure-suit, platform shoe, giant glasses, wide white belt disco period. Parent's wouldn't have spent their lives hiding high-school yearbook photos.

Do you have any reasons why a Nixon dictatorship would have a downside? Any reason at all?

 

[gturner]

Democrats have their favorite dictators too, mostly foreigners like Hugo Chavez and Castro. I wasn't a fan of the Watchmen, it was obviously a left wing propaganda piece in comic book form.

I don't know anybody who is oblivious of the economic malaise of the Castro regime and a friend of it.

Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Ed Asner, Danny Glover, off the top of my head.

Chavez gave millions of citizens access to political participation.

All Venezuelans already had the right to vote. That's how he got elected.

Sure, there are some authoritarian tendencies and he might even become second Castro but it is not like Venezuela was democratic before him.

Yes, it was. They've had direct elections for president since the 1950's.

Let's also not forget that the guy has been democratically elected whereas the reactionary forces tried to illegally oust him from office ten years ago.

Chavez, a military officer, started his political career by attempting to overthrow a directly elected president in a coup d'etat.

Sure, this is not stuff the average John De who merely consumes corporate American media which has a pretty severe bias when it comes to Chavez knows but reading or watching crap is no excuse. There is never an excuse for ignorance or having been fooled.

No, there's certainly not. We have the internet now. I'm amazed that Benito Mussolini's family hasn't sued Chavez for copyright infringement in his speeches.

In general the history of the right in South America which has been intertwined with North American imperialism is one of authoritarianism, not one of democracy.

The history of the left in Latin America is also one of authoritarianism. In fact, it's generally the same people from the same families that have run the place since the 1600's. So do you support the right-wing generalismo, or vote for the left-wing socialist revolutionary, who is the generalismo's brother? All they're doing is playing tag team.

You showed some posts ago that you belong to the same "fuck democracy as long as me and my buddies can do whatever the hell we want" school. On this side of the big pond we had a name for big business working together with the state: fascism.

And that's why we call GM "government motors", and why GM is trying to buy out the government ownership, saying it's badly damaging their brand.

One key problem in South America is the extreme form of land inequality. Joe Stiglitz has shown over 30 years ago (Incentives and Risk Sharing in Sharecropping) that land inequality can have a negative influence upon efficiency.

So the bit of land redistribution that some of the left governments in South America have achieved does not merely distribute the cake more equally but also makes it grow faster.

But to solve the land inequality problem you need to allow the peasants to actually own land. Most left-wing governments won't go that far, because they claim the peasants will be exploited by real-estate investors or big farms, which means the peasants can't actually profit from land ownership, they can just grow food for the big families' export business, pay tax for the privilege, and save the big families the bother of playing landlord.

Basically, the left set them up to run their own Indian reservations, not allowing them to conduct business outside of the limited system, whereas the right had claimed to own the reservation. They're still screwed.

But whom am I talking to, if you call Marx who has been one of the most important thinkers of the late 19th century a bastard you merely reveal your right-wing anti-intellectualism. And no, reading Marx doesn't imply that you become a Marxist, it implies that you become educated, that you know what you actually speak about.

Um, no. Marx never held a job, so he's not really someone who would know about working. What he wrote was so incoherent that Engel's had to try and edit it into something that sort of made sense, if you didn't think about it very hard. His great insight, the labor theory of value, can't explain a baseball card. He never had a clue what capital was, and just churned out a conspiracy theory that makes L. Ron Hubbard look like someone grounded in reality.

Much of Marx's theory was based on reports by Engels about the American experiments being carried out by industrialist Robert Owens, but Robert Ownes was lying his ass off. All his socialist experiments were utter disasters, collapsing withing two years. By the late 1800's many leftist thinkers were having to abandon most of what Marx wrote because its predictions were utterly failing. Their necessary revisions led pretty directly to Fascism and Nazism.

The trick Marx used to hook his followers is to cast his babblings as a big, big secret that's been kept hidden from the working class, so that when people read it they think they're gaining some sort of revolutionary insight. They're not. It might as well be about the Knight's Templar and the Bilderbergs, or Thetans and Xenu.

 

[horatio83]

By the way, why is Nixon disliked so much? Sure, he was a crook but so were Kennedy and Johnson and it is not like he implemented such horrible politics. Not because he wanted them but because of public pressure but this is irrelevant IMO as I think that one should measure leaders always by their output and not by their words, ideas or their character.

Google something called Watergate.

I am not saying this is excusable, in any decent world a President who does something like this should land behind bars. Not that Watergate was the worst stuff he did but that's another issue.
I think that there are 20th century American presidents who have done equally worse things, the only difference being that their crimes haven't been out in the open that much, that they didn't ensue a cultural shock like Watergate.

I hinted more at the issue of looking at the policies instead of the person and here Nixon did fine, he did not undo the progressive measures of the previous two administrations.
For the very same reason I have problems with Blair or Clinton, via not undoing the changes of Thatcher or Reagan they gave them legitimacy (only Nixon could go to China, only a right-wing politician can implement a left-wing policy and vice versa, only a right-wing politician can give the left-wing measures of the previous government legitimacy and vice versa).

 

[horatio83]

Um, no. Marx never held a job, so he's not really someone who would know about working. What he wrote was so incoherent that Engel's had to try and edit it into something that sort of made sense, if you didn't think about it very hard. His great insight, the labor theory of value, can't explain a baseball card. He never had a clue what capital was, and just churned out a conspiracy theory that makes L. Ron Hubbard look like someone grounded in reality.

Much of Marx's theory was based on reports by Engels about the American experiments being carried out by industrialist Robert Owens, but Robert Ownes was lying his ass off. All his socialist experiments were utter disasters, collapsing withing two years. By the late 1800's many leftist thinkers were having to abandon most of what Marx wrote because its predictions were utterly failing. Their necessary revisions led pretty directly to Fascism and Nazism.

The trick Marx used to hook his followers is to cast his babblings as a big, big secret that's been kept hidden from the working class, so that when people read it they think they're gaining some sort of revolutionary insight. They're not. It might as well be about the Knight's Templar and the Bilderbergs, or Thetans and Xenu.

Obviously you never read Marx but derive your "knowledge" from listening to Glenn Beck or some other semi-debile radio host.
I read some stuff of Marx as a kid and while his economic theories are of little merit he actually read economic texts while being in London. He did not, as you falsely claimed, base his work upon what Mr.Owens has done or said.

About your very first line, Marx was indeed not employed regularly but he has worked and probably much harder than you will ever do. He was a theoretician and so were all the economists from the 19th century he read and criticized.
By your line of "reasoning" any self-employed person has no right to talk about labour which is of course non-sensical. Don't right-wingers always pretend that Mitt Romney has economic expertise because he has been at the helm of a job-destroying company once?

And to repeat the old mantra, just because one reads and respects Karl Marx doesn't imply that one becomes a Marxist. Same with Keynes. Many people use his name but if you actually ask people or better economists whether they have actually read the General Theory or some parts of they grow silent. Ignorance is bliss, it is much easier to say what somebody else has once said because he read something about what somebody else claims the thinker XYZ might have written than to read XYZ yourself.

 

[horatio83]

And that's why we call GM "government motors", and why GM is trying to buy out the government ownership, saying it's badly damaging their brand.

Basic economics tells you that a government should never prevent the bankruptcy of a company but it becomes more complex when they are network effects aka externalities. In this instance these are the long production chains, the fact that there isn't merely GM but an entire sub-industry which produces car parts and delivers them to car companies like GM.

Just take a look at the map of your country, industry isn't evenly spread but has concentrated on the East coast and around the big lakes precisely because, as Paul Krugman has shown in his Nobel Prize winning research, there isn't perfect competition, big companies are more efficient than smaller ones.
When you have such industrial agglomerations the bankruptcy of one company can impact the other companies, i.e. you have a negative externality. Of course these are not as severe as on the inter-banking market so you cannot say per se tell whether bail-outs make sense or not, this is ultimately an empirical question. But theory (economic theory that acknowledges the complexities of the real world, not neoliberalism which is pure ideology and not science) tells you that bail-outs can make sense.

Plus from a purely political point of view I don't see the problem of some mild forms of industrial protectionism. We massively subsidize our food at the cost of the Third World so let's undo this kind of agricultural protectionism first before we bitch about measures that give the American worker an advantage in the competition with Chinese slave labour.

 

[Mars]

By the way, why is Nixon disliked so much? Sure, he was a crook but so were Kennedy and Johnson and it is not like he implemented such horrible politics. Not because he wanted them but because of public pressure but this is irrelevant IMO as I think that one should measure leaders always by their output and not by their words, ideas or their character.

Nixon was a prosecutor who prosecuted Alger Hiss for being a Communist spy, that's one reason, the other was that he was a Republican and tried to get away with the same stuff the Democrats were doing, and the Media said, "Hey, you can't do that! Your not a Democrat! Only Democrats are allowed to do breakins and wiretaps for their opposition research!"

That said, Nixon is not one of my favorite Republicans, he was a bit of a big government Republican Moderate, but he is not quite as villainous as the people who wrote the Watchmen wanted to portray him. One of his villainous acts in the comic books was to win the Vietnam War and get reelected too many times. Do I feel sorry for the North Vietnamese? Nope.

 

[Mars]

Um, no. Marx never held a job, so he's not really someone who would know about working. What he wrote was so incoherent that Engel's had to try and edit it into something that sort of made sense, if you didn't think about it very hard. His great insight, the labor theory of value, can't explain a baseball card. He never had a clue what capital was, and just churned out a conspiracy theory that makes L. Ron Hubbard look like someone grounded in reality.

Much of Marx's theory was based on reports by Engels about the American experiments being carried out by industrialist Robert Owens, but Robert Ownes was lying his ass off. All his socialist experiments were utter disasters, collapsing withing two years. By the late 1800's many leftist thinkers were having to abandon most of what Marx wrote because its predictions were utterly failing. Their necessary revisions led pretty directly to Fascism and Nazism.

The trick Marx used to hook his followers is to cast his babblings as a big, big secret that's been kept hidden from the working class, so that when people read it they think they're gaining some sort of revolutionary insight. They're not. It might as well be about the Knight's Templar and the Bilderbergs, or Thetans and Xenu.

Obviously you never read Marx but derive your "knowledge" from listening to Glenn Beck or some other semi-debile radio host.
I read some stuff of Marx as a kid and while his economic theories are of little merit he actually read economic texts while being in London. He did not, as you falsely claimed, base his work upon what Mr.Owens has done or said.

About your very first line, Marx was indeed not employed regularly but he has worked and probably much harder than you will ever do. He was a theoretician and so were all the economists from the 19th century he read and criticized.
By your line of "reasoning" any self-employed person has no right to talk about labour which is of course non-sensical. Don't right-wingers always pretend that Mitt Romney has economic expertise because he has been at the helm of a job-destroying company once?

And to repeat the old mantra, just because one reads and respects Karl Marx doesn't imply that one becomes a Marxist. Same with Keynes. Many people use his name but if you actually ask people or better economists whether they have actually read the General Theory or some parts of they grow silent. Ignorance is bliss, it is much easier to say what somebody else has once said because he read something about what somebody else claims the thinker XYZ might have written than to read XYZ yourself.

Well Karl Marx was not funny, and what he did to the Modern World wasn't funny either, it was his economic theories that resulted in nuclear missiles being pointed at the United States, and for that I cannot forgive him!

 

[Mars]

By the way, why is Nixon disliked so much?

You know he didn't just say elect Nixon, right? He said we should have installed Nixon as a dictator so he could wage unlimited warfare on the Vietnamese (over and above the existing bombings campaigns). The objection was to the dictatorship and total warfare part more than to Nixon himself.

It was a hypothetical to show the Democrats part in losing the Vietnam war by their undermining the popular support for it, and also playing the Watergate card so as to undermine the War effort, the people who paid the greatest price for Watergate was the South Vietnamese.

 

[horatio83]

Well Karl Marx was not funny, and what he did to the Modern World wasn't funny either, it was his economic theories that resulted in nuclear missiles being pointed at the United States, and for that I cannot forgive him!

You on the other hand definitely are funny.
By the way, who is responsible for nuclear missiles being pointed at the Soviet Union? Max Weber, Adam Smith? Or do we have to go further back and blame George Washington himself?

It was a hypothetical to show the Democrats part in losing the Vietnam war by their undermining the popular support for it, and also playing the Watergate card so as to undermine the War effort, the people who paid the greatest price for Watergate was the South Vietnamese.

Having been murdered, raped or crippled by agent orange they did indeed pay a price.
Nothing against your total annihilation fantasies, it is surely healthy to get them out of your system. But I have a far stronger desire for peace and in matters of war I rather listen to people who have actually experienced one; be it the generation of my grandparents, Eisenhower or veterans who have transformed their experiences into art like Erich Maria Remarque or Oliver Stone.
Every gun-ho right-winger should fight the war he desires so direly. But I forgot, like kings back in the days they do not fight their wars themselves.

 

[Nerys Myk]

By the way, why is Nixon disliked so much? Sure, he was a crook but so were Kennedy and Johnson and it is not like he implemented such horrible politics. Not because he wanted them but because of public pressure but this is irrelevant IMO as I think that one should measure leaders always by their output and not by their words, ideas or their character.

Nixon was a prosecutor who prosecuted Alger Hiss for being a Communist spy, that's one reason, the other was that he was a Republican and tried to get away with the same stuff the Democrats were doing, and the Media said, "Hey, you can't do that! Your not a Democrat! Only Democrats are allowed to do breakins and wiretaps for their opposition research!"

.

Uh, he was a Congressman on the House Un-american Activities Committee that was investigating Hiss, not a prosecutor.

Nixon's real problem was he was sloppy and got caught. The "media" is just as happy to catch Democrats doing stuff that was wrong.

 

[horatio83]

It depends. The stuff with Clinton was of course preposterous but JFK probably got elected with the assistance of the mob and LBJ might even be responsible for the death of his predecessor.
In my opinion the kind of shady business stuff which guys like Nixon, Johnson or Bush have done in the sixties has been far worse than Watergate.

Watergate was a shock because it made what basically everybody knew public. You could call it the Wikileaks effect, people cannot pretend to not know anymore. I know too little about the subject but I guess that the religion-ification of politics is partly due to Watergate. The Clinton affair which reflected the obsession with the personal integrity of the POTUS is also not imaginable in the pre-Watergate times.

 

[Mars]

By the way, why is Nixon disliked so much? Sure, he was a crook but so were Kennedy and Johnson and it is not like he implemented such horrible politics. Not because he wanted them but because of public pressure but this is irrelevant IMO as I think that one should measure leaders always by their output and not by their words, ideas or their character.

Nixon was a prosecutor who prosecuted Alger Hiss for being a Communist spy, that's one reason, the other was that he was a Republican and tried to get away with the same stuff the Democrats were doing, and the Media said, "Hey, you can't do that! Your not a Democrat! Only Democrats are allowed to do breakins and wiretaps for their opposition research!"

.

Uh, he was a Congressman on the House Un-american Activities Committee that was investigating Hiss, not a prosecutor.

Nixon's real problem was he was sloppy and got caught. The "media" is just as happy to catch Democrats doing stuff that was wrong.

Not the way I see it operating now. Maybe the Media operated differently back then, I was a child so I can't say much differently, but now I see the media look the other way in a big way when it comes to Obama and the Democrats, perhaps the Media was more balanced in the 1970s than it is now. Obama's been doing a lot more than what Nixon almost got impeached for.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I know of, well,.... very few people who even slightly support the Japanese internment camps during WWII.

FDR did, that is one person, Americans were more racist in those days and to them with the stories they heard about their behavior towards out troops and the natives they conquered, they seemed as monsters, and then someone tells them that those "monsters" live amongst them, it was hard to reconcile their brutal behavior with them being human, but I guess Asian standards are different from American ones, and acts that were incomprehensible to American GIs and their families were quite comprehensible in Asia, the continent where Genghis Khan was born.

This is one of the most appallingly bigoted and racist comments I've ever read out in the open here on this board. And I've read a lot of crap in my years. I mean, whoa.

Well Karl Marx was not funny, and what he did to the Modern World wasn't funny either, it was his economic theories that resulted in nuclear missiles being pointed at the United States, and for that I cannot forgive him!

I suppose you are much more forgiving about the US aiming nuclear warheads at various other countries, not to mention using them to obliterate two cities. But I guess they were just Japaneses, and it's hard to reconcile them being human, so it's ok.

 

[Mars]

Well Karl Marx was not funny, and what he did to the Modern World wasn't funny either, it was his economic theories that resulted in nuclear missiles being pointed at the United States, and for that I cannot forgive him!

You on the other hand definitely are funny.
By the way, who is responsible for nuclear missiles being pointed at the Soviet Union? Max Weber, Adam Smith? Or do we have to go further back and blame George Washington himself?

It was a hypothetical to show the Democrats part in losing the Vietnam war by their undermining the popular support for it, and also playing the Watergate card so as to undermine the War effort, the people who paid the greatest price for Watergate was the South Vietnamese.

Having been murdered, raped or crippled by agent orange they did indeed pay a price.
Nothing against your total annihilation fantasies, it is surely healthy to get them out of your system. But I have a far stronger desire for peace and in matters of war I rather listen to people who have actually experienced one; be it the generation of my grandparents, Eisenhower or veterans who have transformed their experiences into art like Erich Maria Remarque or Oliver Stone.
Every gun-ho right-winger should fight the war he desires so direly. But I forgot, like kings back in the days they do not fight their wars themselves.

Agent Orange was the result of not having an agreement by the North Vietnamese not to make use of vegetation to hide themselves when they ambushed American soldiers. Agent Orange was a defoliant to denude forests so enemy troops can't hide, if there were side effect, well a bullet fired from a well concealed spot behind vegetation can also be deadly. I think those veterans complaining about Agent Orange should consider the alternative, namely a bullet between the eyes.

As for the native South Vietnamese, they could have done more of the fighting and complained less about how US troops were fighting for them. Like for instance when North Vietnamese guerrillas are sneaking around in their villages, they could have been more helpful to US troops and maybe then they wouldn't need to use Agent Orange so much. The typical pattern with Third World people on our side is to sit back and let the US troops do the fighting and then complain when a stray bullet kills or injures a noncombatant. Perhaps they ought to have woken up and realized that it was their nation and their freedom that we were fighting for, and many of those people who did fight on our side ended up immigrating to the US, if they could have gotten out of their country at all, some ended up as boat people without a country, as they didn't help us out when it would have made a difference. Tough for them, too bad they only realized this after they lost their country.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nixon was a prosecutor who prosecuted Alger Hiss for being a Communist spy, that's one reason, the other was that he was a Republican and tried to get away with the same stuff the Democrats were doing, and the Media said, "Hey, you can't do that! Your not a Democrat! Only Democrats are allowed to do breakins and wiretaps for their opposition research!"

.

Uh, he was a Congressman on the House Un-american Activities Committee that was investigating Hiss, not a prosecutor.

Nixon's real problem was he was sloppy and got caught. The "media" is just as happy to catch Democrats doing stuff that was wrong.

Not the way I see it operating now. Maybe the Media operated differently back then, I was a child so I can't say much differently, but now I see the media look the other way in a big way when it comes to Obama and the Democrats, perhaps the Media was more balanced in the 1970s than it is now. Obama's been doing a lot more than what Nixon almost got impeached for.

Then perhaps you should get someone to investigate. FOX News would probably love to get hold of this information you have about the President's illegal activities. From what I hear they are a very popular media outlet and do not seem to be a fan of the President. Surely the most watched and trusted news source in the nation could break this story.

 

[Mars]

I know of, well,.... very few people who even slightly support the Japanese internment camps during WWII.

FDR did, that is one person, Americans were more racist in those days and to them with the stories they heard about their behavior towards out troops and the natives they conquered, they seemed as monsters, and then someone tells them that those "monsters" live amongst them, it was hard to reconcile their brutal behavior with them being human, but I guess Asian standards are different from American ones, and acts that were incomprehensible to American GIs and their families were quite comprehensible in Asia, the continent where Genghis Khan was born.

This is one of the most appallingly bigoted and racist comments I've ever read out in the open here on this board. And I've read a lot of crap in my years. I mean, whoa.

Well Karl Marx was not funny, and what he did to the Modern World wasn't funny either, it was his economic theories that resulted in nuclear missiles being pointed at the United States, and for that I cannot forgive him!

I suppose you are much more forgiving about the US aiming nuclear warheads at various other countries, not to mention using them to obliterate two cities. But I guess they were just Japaneses, and it's hard to reconcile them being human, so it's ok.

I'm sorry but the Japanese were racist and brutal towards American troops, they weren't innocents as you seem to be implying. Have you never heard of the Bataan Death March, they way they beaten and starved captured US troops. Have you never heard of the Bonzai attacks the ruse when Japanese troops surrender only to blow themselves ups and kill us troops, and on Okinawa, when they wired Civilians up with explosives and sent them over to American lines to blow themselves up and kill us troops. Believe me, the Japanese did much to dehumanize themselves in their conduct of the War, and it was not me who imprisoned Japanese-American, it was FDR, it is he who was the racist that you are referring to, not me, I'm just reminding you of what happened and who did it, and you go and "shoot the messenger" because you don't like what you hear.

 

[Mars]

Uh, he was a Congressman on the House Un-american Activities Committee that was investigating Hiss, not a prosecutor.

Nixon's real problem was he was sloppy and got caught. The "media" is just as happy to catch Democrats doing stuff that was wrong.

Not the way I see it operating now. Maybe the Media operated differently back then, I was a child so I can't say much differently, but now I see the media look the other way in a big way when it comes to Obama and the Democrats, perhaps the Media was more balanced in the 1970s than it is now. Obama's been doing a lot more than what Nixon almost got impeached for.

Then perhaps you should get someone to investigate. FOX News would probably love to get hold of this information you have about the President's illegal activities. From what I hear they are a very popular media outlet and do not seem to be a fan of the President. Surely the most watched and trusted news source in the nation could break this story.

You mean like not enforcing laws he doesn't like and going around congress with EPA regulations when Congress doesn't pass environmental laws that he asks for?

 

[gturner]

Obviously you never read Marx but derive your "knowledge" from listening to Glenn Beck or some other semi-debile radio host.

No, I derive it from reading books written by communists about the history of communism, who dig past what was claimed about it and try to figure out what really happened.

I read some stuff of Marx as a kid and while his economic theories are of little merit he actually read economic texts while being in London. He did not, as you falsely claimed, base his work upon what Mr.Owens has done or said.

Yes, he did. Robert Owens would read "sermons" at his socialist "church" in England, where Engels was member. Engels was constantly corresponding with Marx, and though intially very sceptical, it was Owens' faked reports about his American experiments that convinced him Marx was on the right track.

About your very first line, Marx was indeed not employed regularly but he has worked and probably much harder than you will ever do. He was a theoretician and so were all the economists from the 19th century he read and criticized.

He kept having Engels (who had been forced to take a job working for his father) send him money. He kept pestering Engels for more and more money so his wife and daughters could live a style appropriate to their upbringing, a burden Engels continued to bear even after Marx died.

Marx, and Marxism, made a lot of predictions (the whole "this is science!" thing). Almost all of them failed. In science, that would mean the theory is disconfirmed.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Have you never heard of the Bonzai attacks

Is that when they throw carefully-pruned little trees at US battleships?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Not the way I see it operating now. Maybe the Media operated differently back then, I was a child so I can't say much differently, but now I see the media look the other way in a big way when it comes to Obama and the Democrats, perhaps the Media was more balanced in the 1970s than it is now. Obama's been doing a lot more than what Nixon almost got impeached for.

Then perhaps you should get someone to investigate. FOX News would probably love to get hold of this information you have about the President's illegal activities. From what I hear they are a very popular media outlet and do not seem to be a fan of the President. Surely the most watched and trusted news source in the nation could break this story.

You mean like not enforcing laws he doesn't like and going around congress with EPA regulations when Congress doesn't pass environmental laws that he asks for?

Wow. I thought you said worse than Watergate, not "stuff no one cares about."