• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walter Cronkite, Iconic Anchorman, Dies

Really, you're opinion was so great and important that you needed to come in here where people are paying their respects to just basically at like a jerk and crap up the thread. Sure, not everyones gotta have a good opinion of Cronkite, but you couldn't possibly allow people to have a thread to pay respects and start a new one attacking the man?

Last I checked, this is a debate forum. Perhaps the staff should consider the creation of a funeral forum where death announcements can be posted, without worry of someone expressing their viewpoint about how that person was a huge piece of ****? Just a thought. As long as it's posted in the open debate venue, then it's fair game, per the rules.

Would you have posted this statement if someone had called James Earl Ray a piece of ****? Be honest.
 
I have a Walter Cronkite story.
In 1980 I drove a cab in Manhattan for six months. One day I was tearing around Grand Central Station when a man darted into the street in front of me. I slammed on the brakes, and he froze and put his hands on the hood of the car in terror. We looked at each other. It was Walter Cronkite.
 
Walter Cronkite was a two-bit liberal propagandist. All this sorely misguided reverence for him is less than surprising, but nauseating all the same. I can't stomach it for another second without pointing out his utter partisan butchery of every U.S. military endeavor from the Tet Offensive to Iraq.

Good riddance. :bon_voyag
 
Last edited:
RIP to a throwback to a time during which the media was useful.

-NC
 
As long as it's posted in the open debate venue, then it's fair game, per the rules.

Pretty sure I said zero in regards to the rules or it being against them, and also pretty sure I spoke as a poster and not inside a mod box. I wasn't saying it was wrong as a mod, I was saying it was ****ty from the view point of a poster. There's no laws for having tact, doesn't change the fact people can call others out and state their lack of respect for the person due to their lack of tact
 
Pretty sure I said zero in regards to the rules or it being against them, and also pretty sure I spoke as a poster and not inside a mod box. I wasn't saying it was wrong as a mod, I was saying it was ****ty from the view point of a poster. There's no laws for having tact, doesn't change the fact people can call others out and state their lack of respect for the person due to their lack of tact

Ok, well, from the viewpoint of a poster, if someone started an RIP thread about James Earl Ray, or Sirhan Sirhan and another posted said they were a piece of ****. Would you feel the same way?

Does it have to do with speaking ill of the dead, or with you disagreeing with me that Cronkite was a defeatest piece of ****?

Cronkite's reporting during the Vetinam war, as has been proven, cost American lives. That purdy much makes him a piece of ****.
 
Last edited:
Ok, well, from the viewpoint of a poster, if someone started an RIP thread about James Earl Ray, or Sirhan Sirhan and another posted said they were a piece of ****. Would you feel the same way?

Does it have to do with speaking ill of the dead, or with you disagreeing with me that Cronkite was a defeatest piece of ****?

Cronkite's reporting during the Vetinam war, as has been proven, cost American lives. That purdy much makes him a piece of ****.
There's a lot of "what if's" in your line of questioning there. The fact remains, you did what you did and Zyph called you out for it. Can't change the facts, maybe you should stay on topic.
 
We won the Vitenam War militarily while we were there.After we left ARVN lost it becasue ARVN AND THE vIETNAMESE goernment didn't havethe support of the Vietnamese people.

Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam
By Melvin R. Laird

From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005

MELVIN R. LAIRD was Secretary of Defense from 1969 to 1973, Counselor to the President for Domestic Affairs from 1973 to 1974, and a member of the House of Representatives from 1952 to 1969. He currently serves as Senior Counselor for National and International Affairs at the Reader's Digest Association.

The truth about Vietnam that revisionist historians conveniently forget is that the United States had not lost when we withdrew in 1973. In fact, we grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory two years later when Congress cut off the funding for South Vietnam that had allowed it to continue to fight on its own.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051...ird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html
 
Ok, well, from the viewpoint of a poster, if someone started an RIP thread about James Earl Ray, or Sirhan Sirhan and another posted said they were a piece of ****. Would you feel the same way?

Does it have to do with speaking ill of the dead, or with you disagreeing with me that Cronkite was a defeatest piece of ****?

Cronkite's reporting during the Vetinam war, as has been proven, cost American lives. That purdy much makes him a piece of ****.

Cronkite was a ditto-head for the Vietnam War until 1968, when he finally realized it could not be won. And you still disagree? There's always one guy that doesn't get the word.
 
Ok, well, from the viewpoint of a poster, if someone started an RIP thread about James Earl Ray, or Sirhan Sirhan and another posted said they were a piece of ****. Would you feel the same way?

If the first 10 posts were all people sharing condolences and saying words of respect, probably. However, its unlikely to happen with them, and the fact you're comparing Cronkite to James Earl Ray shows the partisan hack you and the worth of your opinions.

Does it have to do with speaking ill of the dead, or with you disagreeing with me that Cronkite was a defeatest piece of ****?

It has to do with you exhibiting zero tact and basically disrespecting your fellow posters here imho.

WillRockwell said:
Cronkite was a ditto-head for the Vietnam War until 1968, when he finally realized it could not be won. And you still disagree? There's always one guy that doesn't get the word.

Funny, didn't realize Rush Limbaugh was broadcasting during the Vietman war, or are you just letting your hyper partisan liberal show by reaching to try and use a degrading term because everythings gotta be insulting to the other side for you?
 
Last edited:
Cronkite was a ditto-head for the Vietnam War until 1968, when he finally realized it could not be won. And you still disagree? There's always one guy that doesn't get the word.

Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, the record overwhelmingly demonstrates the exact opposite of everything you've just said. :sarcasticclap

Cronkite was relentlessly biased against the war, and even flat-out lied to undermine it. And it is a matter of record that Republicans were in fact finally starting to win this war Democrats got us into and utterly botched. Democrats pulling funding out from under our troops at the last second (a.k.a., treason--their specialty) is literally the only reason the North went on to win.

Thanks to the liberal misinformation machine (Hollywood, academia, the news media, elected Democrats), and the easily-led sheep who swallow everything they're spoon-fed, there ARE plenty of people who didn't "get the word."

Thanks for demonstrating. :bravo:

Here's a novel idea: try actually refuting what he posted, rather than attacking him personally (have you noticed it's a debate site?).
 
Last edited:
Funny, didn't realize Rush Limbaugh was broadcasting during the Vietman war, or are you just letting your hyper partisan liberal show by reaching to try and use a degrading term because everythings gotta be insulting to the other side for you?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I though the term "ditto head" was given out to those who simply swallow whatever information that was given out the them without questioning. I realize it originated from people who listen to Rush, but I have seen the term used elsewhere.
 
Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, the record overwhelmingly demonstrates the exact opposite of everything you've just said. :sarcasticclap

Cronkite was relentlessly biased against the war, and even flat-out lied to undermine it. And it is a matter of record that Republicans were in fact finally starting to win this war Democrats got us into and utterly botched. Democrats pulling funding out from under our troops at the last second (a.k.a., treason--their specialty) is literally the only reason the North went on to win.

Thanks to Hollywood, academia, the news media, elected Democrats, and the easily-led sheep who swallow everything they're spoon-fed, there ARE plenty of people who didn't "get the word."

Thanks for demonstrating. :bravo:

Here's a novel idea: try actually refuting what he posted, rather than attacking him personally (have you noticed it's a debate site?).

Hate to break it you, Aquapub, but Will is correct. Walter did indeed change his stance after going there and seeing first-hand what was going on.

He certainly reported it like it was.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I though the term "ditto head" was given out to those who simply swallow whatever information that was given out the them without questioning. I realize it originated from people who listen to Rush, but I have seen the term used elsewhere.

I'm almost positive that it was coined for followers of the Rush Limbaugh Show, but I admit I may be wrong with that.
 
I'm almost positive that it was coined for followers of the Rush Limbaugh Show, but I admit I may be wrong with that.

You are correct it was coined for Limbaugh's droids, but the image is so iconic it can be used to identify any political cult-like behavior, even from pre-Rush times.
 
Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, the record overwhelmingly demonstrates the exact opposite of everything you've just said. :sarcasticclap

Cronkite was relentlessly biased against the war, and even flat-out lied to undermine it.

I have a feeling you weren't alive in the 60's. Cronkite was never against the war, the troops, the generals, the strategy, until 1968. That's why his conversion was such a big deal. As LBJ said "if I've lost Cronkite I've lost middle America" and he withdrew from the campaign.
 
If the first 10 posts were all people sharing condolences and saying words of respect, probably. However, its unlikely to happen with them, and the fact you're comparing Cronkite to James Earl Ray shows the partisan hack you and the worth of your opinions.

I'm not going to pretend to like someone after they die, when I didn't like him when he was alive.

Just like I don't expect you to understand my point of view, as most people aren't historical literate enough to understand what I'm saying. Most people still think that the North Vietnamese defeated the American army on the battlefield, in Vietnam. Therefore, those same people aren't going to understand why I believe that Cronkite is a defeatest piece of ****.

Why most folks choose to remain historically uninformed, I don't know, but it's the path that they take. It's my job to correct the false information they spew out to others who just as uninformed and will hang every word.
 
I'm not going to pretend to like someone after they die, when I didn't like him when he was alive.

Just like I don't expect you to understand my point of view, as most people aren't historical literate enough to understand what I'm saying. Most people still think that the North Vietnamese defeated the American army on the battlefield, in Vietnam. Therefore, those same people aren't going to understand why I believe that Cronkite is a defeatest piece of ****.

Why most folks choose to remain historically uninformed, I don't know, but it's the path that they take. It's my job to correct the false information they spew out to others who just as uninformed and will hang every word.

You seem to feel that if you keep repeating the words "Cronkite is a defeatest piece of ****" people will eventually believe them. I challenge you to provide one instance of Cronkite criticizing the Vietnam War before his famous reversal in 1968.
 
You seem to feel that if you keep repeating the words "Cronkite is a defeatest piece of ****" people will eventually believe them. I challenge you to provide one instance of Cronkite criticizing the Vietnam War before his famous reversal in 1968.

His, "famous reversal", in 1968 is the defeatism I'm talking about. He said that the war couldn't be won, while we had soldiers on the battlefield. That's defeatism, in every sense of the word. He encouraged the enemy to keep fighting.

Shall I post Giap's quote, again?
 
His, "famous reversal", in 1968 is the defeatism I'm talking about. He said that the war couldn't be won, while we had soldiers on the battlefield. That's defeatism, in every sense of the word. He encouraged the enemy to keep fighting.

Shall I post Giap's quote, again?

"Defeatism" is not a medical condition, and "winning" is not achieved by ignoring the "defeatists". We would have lost Vietnam sooner or later, and if you had your way it would have been much later, with much higher loss of life. And no, we could not "bomb the VietCong back to the Stone Age", even with nuclear weapons the country is too large, the enemy too dispersed. Your charge of "defeatism" therefore is naive, reckless, and mindless of the safety of our armed forces.
 
"Defeatism" is not a medical condition, and "winning" is not achieved by ignoring the "defeatists". We would have lost Vietnam sooner or later, and if you had your way it would have been much later, with much higher loss of life. And no, we could not "bomb the VietCong back to the Stone Age", even with nuclear weapons the country is too large, the enemy too dispersed. Your charge of "defeatism" therefore is naive, reckless, and mindless of the safety of our armed forces.

It's funny you should mention the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong, as a fighting force, was destroyed during the Tet Offensive. So, obviously it was possible to defeat them.
 
It's funny you should mention the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong, as a fighting force, was destroyed during the Tet Offensive. So, obviously it was possible to defeat them.

Oh? So who were we fighting for the remaining 7 years of the war?
 
Oh? So who were we fighting for the remaining 7 years of the war?


Well, first off, we weren't there for another 7 years. We were gone by the spring of '73. Secondly, we were fighting the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), or their official name, The People's Army of Vietnam.

After the Tet Offensive in 1968, the Viet Cong were rendered combat ineffective. The local force units were disbanded and the main force units were absorbed into the NVA.

You are aware that the Tet Offensive was a huge failure for the Communists?
 
Back
Top Bottom