• 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!

Obama vs. Nixon

Who is the more sinister liar?

  • Total voters
    56
TurtleDude said:
Yeah to me a partisan hack would be one talking about Nixon given there was no loss of life and no one really suffered (save for the GOP). and Nixon was mainly a welfare socialist so the hawkishness comes from damning him because he was GOP rather than the fact his politics are something liberals should like
Click to expand...

How did the "You can keep your plan" kill anybody?

Oh, that's right, it didn't. Yeah, see my post about partisan hacks.
 
Perotista said:
That invasion had Lon Nol's approval and in fact he wanted it. When Lon Nol overthrew Sihanouk, the North Vietnamese didn't really care as long as he left their sanctuaries alone. But the Cambodian people had a hatred of the Vietnamese and wanted him to throw the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia. So to go along with U.S. wishes he closed the port of Sihanoukville and his troops marched east. That was the wrong thing to do if he wanted to remain in power. But these decisions were made by Lon Nol himself. I have no doubt Nixon made plenty of promises to Lon Nol he was unable to keep. But Nixon had about much to do with causing the Killing Fields of Pol Pot as Churchill had to do with causing the Holocaust and Hitlers attempt to exterminating the Jews
Click to expand...

Nixon promised to end the war in 1968 and instead he stepped it up. Collateral damage was not his concern when he bombed Hanoi and invaded Laos and Cambodia. His efforts to "win" an unwinnable war was the cause of millions of civilian casualties and 20,000 American deaths. Even you can see there is nothing there to be proud of.
 
TurtleDude said:
True, almost no one was HURT by Nixon's lies
Click to expand...

ALMOST no one.... except the 15,000 soldiers that died after he campaigned on "Peace with Honor"...
Or how about the MASSIVE increase of SS that he gave that is one of the root causes of the unsustainable debt that we see today? That debt is not hurting anyone... Yet


I am not an Obama fan by any stretch. But to say that Obama hurt more people than Nixon is pretty far fetched.
Even all of the Nobel Peace Prize Winner's UAV strikes cannot compare to damage done by the escalation of VietNam.
 
Chiefgator said:
I am not an Obama fan by any stretch. But to say that Obama hurt more people than Nixon is pretty far fetched.
Even all of the Nobel Peace Prize Winner's UAV strikes cannot compare to damage done by the escalation of VietNam.
Click to expand...

How about the estimated 2.5 million killed after the fall of South Vietnam? I still remember the refugees fleeing from South Vietnam, even though most seem to have forgotten them.
 
iguanaman said:
Nixon promised to end the war in 1968 and instead he stepped it up. Collateral damage was not his concern when he bombed Hanoi and invaded Laos and Cambodia. His efforts to "win" an unwinnable war was the cause of millions of civilian casualties and 20,000 American deaths. Even you can see there is nothing there to be proud of.
Click to expand...

Hmm. The war was winnable if we were willing to win it. The shame about Vietnam is when we first became involved, our goal was a stalemate, not winning. If those from JFK on had listened to Eisenhower and McArthur about getting into another land war in Asia, Vietnam would have never happened. Twice Eisenhower refused to involve our troops there during his tenure.

But you are wrong about Collateral Damage not being of concern, lots of valid military tagets in and around Hanoi and Haiphong were not attacked because of the concern of civilian casualities and collateral damage. In Cambodia even with Sihanouk in charge, Nixon asked for approval to bomb to eastern enclaves of the NVA. The North Vietnamese had always insisted they had no troops there. Sihanouk also knew that the NVA in that region had forced all Cambodians out of their areas of control, supply depots and sanctuaries. Sihanouk gave his tacit approval by saying something akin to, "How can you bomb something that is not there."

The meaning was since the NVA wasn't there, per the North Vietnamese, the bombing wouldn't be actually taking place since America wasn't bombing something that wasn't there.

Nixon never did invade Laos as he did with troops into Cambodia for those couple of months with the blessing of the then Cambodian president Lon Nol.
 
Oozlefinch said:
How about the estimated 2.5 million killed after the fall of South Vietnam? I still remember the refugees fleeing from South Vietnam, even though most seem to have forgotten them.
Click to expand...

You need to add 2-3 million Cambodian killed by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge out of a country of 7 million and another 500,000 Laotians killed by the Pathet Lao and their North Vietnamese helpers. Also the PL and NVA attempt to exterminate the Hmong tribe of northeaster Laos, genocide it is called. All ignored.
 
Chiefgator said:
ALMOST no one.... except the 15,000 soldiers that died after he campaigned on "Peace with Honor"...
Or how about the MASSIVE increase of SS that he gave that is one of the root causes of the unsustainable debt that we see today? That debt is not hurting anyone... Yet


I am not an Obama fan by any stretch. But to say that Obama hurt more people than Nixon is pretty far fetched.
Even all of the Nobel Peace Prize Winner's UAV strikes cannot compare to damage done by the escalation of VietNam.
Click to expand...

what lies are we talking about. Nixon didn't start the Vietnam war
 
Your Star said:
How did the "You can keep your plan" kill anybody?

Oh, that's right, it didn't. Yeah, see my post about partisan hacks.
Click to expand...

I thought his lies were covering up the death of our ambassador

losing one's plan sure affects more people than watergate did unless you want to blame him for four years of Carter incompetence
 
Your Star said:
How did the "You can keep your plan" kill anybody?

Oh, that's right, it didn't. Yeah, see my post about partisan hacks.
Click to expand...
I think this is a post quite indicative of the True Believer. Similar to the jackals that protected Damien in The Omen. Ferocious defense at all costs.

There were two parts to the OP concerning Obama; Benghazi and ObamaKare.

I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.
A Stage-4 Gallblader Cancer Survivor Says: I Am One of ObamaCare's Losers - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

There is much mental anguish from millions of Americans who are losing coverage and their Doctors. The Obama Death Panel will result in deaths and suffering. Government systems are ideal breeding grounds for it.

Obama's policies for the Embassy in Benghazi resulted in dead Americans; he lied about it. Americans died, Obama lied.

The (Sinister) One.
 
Last edited:
Cyrylek said:
A liar is a liar, but Nixon takes the cake in the "sinister" department.
Obama is just a smooth-talking mediocrity caught in the web of his party's unworkable policies.
Now, Nixon truly was a "transformational figure": from his disastrous economic policies to his cynical "Southern strategy", we are still living with dire consequences of his actions.
Click to expand...

You just described Obama, just leave out the "Southern strategy" stuff
 
Cyrylek said:
...Nixon truly was a "transformational figure"... we are still living with dire consequences of his actions.
Click to expand...

That is true. We have Nixon to thank for giving us Jimmy Carter.

Just think of all the great stuff that happened due to Jimmy's Iran policy! Jimmy Obama is on the verge of letting them have nukes!

Let's Party!

Can you say "Death to America"?

Jimmy the Great... Thankful Obama is an even bigger failure than he was, and to ensure the cellar position, is a pathological liar to boot!
zimmer-albums-obvious-collection-picture67110373-scan0036.jpg
 
If Obama truly believes he is helping people by lying , then he isn't as bad as Nixon. I however feel the reality of the situation is that Obama is going to hurt more people in the end.
 
Perotista said:
Hmm. The war was winnable if we were willing to win it. The shame about Vietnam is when we first became involved, our goal was a stalemate, not winning. If those from JFK on had listened to Eisenhower and McArthur about getting into another land war in Asia, Vietnam would have never happened. Twice Eisenhower refused to involve our troops there during his tenure.

But you are wrong about Collateral Damage not being of concern, lots of valid military tagets in and around Hanoi and Haiphong were not attacked because of the concern of civilian casualities and collateral damage. In Cambodia even with Sihanouk in charge, Nixon asked for approval to bomb to eastern enclaves of the NVA. The North Vietnamese had always insisted they had no troops there. Sihanouk also knew that the NVA in that region had forced all Cambodians out of their areas of control, supply depots and sanctuaries. Sihanouk gave his tacit approval by saying something akin to, "How can you bomb something that is not there."

The meaning was since the NVA wasn't there, per the North Vietnamese, the bombing wouldn't be actually taking place since America wasn't bombing something that wasn't there.

Nixon never did invade Laos as he did with troops into Cambodia for those couple of months with the blessing of the then Cambodian president Lon Nol.
Click to expand...

So, if we had "won" in Vietnam, what exactly would we have gotten to know that we accomplished something?

From what I can see, Vietnam is making a lot of progress, they are a major sub-contractor for China, they're poor but improving and the think Americans are terrific (I can't get it but I'm sure there is a reasona obscura). So, if we had just never set foot in there knowing how bad the French got their asses kicked, and let it be Vietnam. How does their "capitalist communism" hurt us?

Nixon gets credit for opening up China to normalization and that alone is a great credit. Obama gets credit for Gay Rights, and that might not be as dramatically important, it's still a huge leap forward.

All Presidents do good and bad. Obama is an annoying disappointment to me. He;s a poor manager. He doesn't keep an eye on his appointees, which is why there are so many "scandals". You may think I'm full of crap, but if I were in charge at BATFE, there would never be a "Fast & Furious" or Benghazis. These are from piss-poor management (that seem to be political rewards) and it hurts him over and over. He never stops politicking and he's totally gotten on my nerves.

Don't worry, I have plenty of criticisms of his predecessors, just staying on topic sort of.
 
zimmer said:
Who is the more sinister liar?

OBAMA
Obama has been caught in multiple lies about ObamaKare. He lied about keeping your plan, and he lied about lying about keeping your plan. He lied about cost reduction, he lied and lied and lied. He's sorry. Awwwwwwwwwwww...

Obama lied about Benghazi. Americans died, Obama/Clinton lied.

NIXON
Nixon lied about a 3rd-rate break-in he did not orchestrate. He lied, and left office.

Nobody died from Nixon's lies.
Nixon didn't lie in order to thieve 6% of the economy for his party's political purposes.
Nixon also did not run guns to Mexico in an attempt to slash the 2nd Amendment... but let's stick to the two Whoppers Obama lied about and even Demokrats have heard about.

Who is the more sinister liar?
Obama wins hands down.
To associate Obama with Nixon is an insult to Nixon. Obama is a liar in a league of his own. He even out does Felonious Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

Compared to Obama Nixon is and Angel.
 
zimmer said:
I think this is a post quite indicative of the True Believer. Similar to the jackals that protected Damien in The Omen. Ferocious defense at all costs.
Click to expand...

Kinda like this...

139748_600.jpg


I always find it funny that the Democrats constantly screamed about "Nixon's Enemies List", then just yawn and scream "fake scandal" when the current administration does the exact same thing with the IRS. I look at the "Fake IRS Scandal", and see nothing but the hated "Enemies List II", but this one acceptable to Democrats.

So if one was an "Ultimate Evil", then how can the other simply be ignored and swept under the rug? Unless your only concern is that it is used by your side instead of against it?

And much the same with other incidents. Libya is another example, if this kind of cover-up had been done by President Bush, we would already be in Impeachment Hearings. But it is the Anointed One, so it is another "Fake Scandal".

I realize that the President like all before him is only human. And as such, he and his advisors sometimes make bad calls. Benghazi is such a bad call. However, trying to sweep it under the rug and screaming "fake scandal" is not the way you handle such an event, you admit mistakes were made, promise to not make them again, make changes so it will not happen again, and move on. Do not lie to the American People about a protest that never happened, and ignore the people on the ground who say that the protection needs to be increased instead of decreased.
 
Gipper said:
He's not even in the top 10%, YS. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and jailed dissentors. Harding essentially made himself available to the highest bidder (Teapot Dome). There are presidents out there who did much worse than Nixon, but he's everyone's favorite scapegoat. He was guilty of excessive ambition and turning a blind eye.
Click to expand...

Nixon's cover up and Watergate were something that never needed to happen.......Nixon had a smashing victory over McGovern in 1972 was a rout and no one died under Nixon..........Obama and Hillary both lied to the American people and 4 good men died and the worse part of all is these liars won't admit it or own up to any wrong doing.
 
specklebang said:
So, if we had "won" in Vietnam, what exactly would we have gotten to know that we accomplished something?

From what I can see, Vietnam is making a lot of progress, they are a major sub-contractor for China, they're poor but improving and the think Americans are terrific (I can't get it but I'm sure there is a reasona obscura). So, if we had just never set foot in there knowing how bad the French got their asses kicked, and let it be Vietnam. How does their "capitalist communism" hurt us?

Nixon gets credit for opening up China to normalization and that alone is a great credit. Obama gets credit for Gay Rights, and that might not be as dramatically important, it's still a huge leap forward.

All Presidents do good and bad. Obama is an annoying disappointment to me. He;s a poor manager. He doesn't keep an eye on his appointees, which is why there are so many "scandals". You may think I'm full of crap, but if I were in charge at BATFE, there would never be a "Fast & Furious" or Benghazis. These are from piss-poor management (that seem to be political rewards) and it hurts him over and over. He never stops politicking and he's totally gotten on my nerves.

Don't worry, I have plenty of criticisms of his predecessors, just staying on topic sort of.
Click to expand...

Strange isn't, both Vietnam and China moving towards Capitalism and we toward Socialism or more government control of business. Military wise, we are becoming closer and closer and may soon have the rights to use Cam Ranh Bay for our Pacific ships. I agree on the gay rights and don't forget, he did get the Start Treaty, disengaged us from Iraq and is about to, I hope from Afghanistan. So as to his foreign policy, I haven't been too disappointed.

Now the ACA has been a sore spot with me, not so much as to what he was trying to do, but for the way it was pushed through congress. As a leader, he does seem to leave a lot to be desired. The first two years of his administration, he let Pelosi and Reid run his domestic policy. He let Biden negotiate and make the deal with McConnell over the first debt ceiling debate. I have stopped listening to him when he give speeches as they are nothing more than campaign speeches.

I really haven't seen much difference between him and Bush II. Both either left or leaves much to be desired. I go back to Eisenhower as presidents I can personally remember their policies and how it affect us and the nation. I would only rank Nixon, Ford and Carter below Bush II and Obama. So I am not impressed with either.
 
Born Free said:
You just described Obama, just leave out the "Southern strategy" stuff
Click to expand...

The problem is that most people really do not understand the "Southern Strategy", and it has been blasted for decades.

The "Southern Strategy" is typically labeled incorrectly as the Republicans trying to use race to win the South. Of course, you also had people scream that the 2000 election was like returning Reconstruction.

In the 1960's, the South was hopelessly held in the hands of a corrupt Democratic Party. Bull Connors, George Wallace, Henry Loeb, Bufford Ellington, and all of the rest of the "Good Old Boy" network that had a stranglehold on Southern Politics for over a century. These racist SOBs and those like them were eventually voted out of office as a younger generation realized that the Republican Party were the only ones that could remove this scum, the Democrats were unable to do so (more interested in the status quo and keeping power then real Civil Rights)

But yet we have another irony, that the winning strategy that actually broke the back of Segregationists and Jim Crowe in the South is now said to be "Racist".

I would love for them to try and tell us that keeping Democrats in power as they had been before would make the south even better then it is today.
 
TurtleDude said:
what lies are we talking about. Nixon didn't start the Vietnam war
Click to expand...

I never said he did.

Nixon campaigned on a quick peaceful end to VietNam. "Peace with honor".... From the time he took offce, over 15,000 soldiers were killed in action.
He said he was going to stop the war and did not.
 
Chiefgator said:
I never said he did.

Nixon campaigned on a quick peaceful end to VietNam. "Peace with honor".... From the time he took offce, over 15,000 soldiers were killed in action.
He said he was going to stop the war and did not.
Click to expand...

and what would have happened if HHH had won
 
Hatuey said:
There's nothing to deflect - you're so desperate you're try to bring Obama to the lowest level of American politics by comparing him to Republican scum. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not so. To compare Obama to the very lowest of Republican scum would involve elevating him to a far more lofty place than he credibly belongs.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah people dying including an ambassador being sodomized and then murdered isn't nearly as bad as Nixon trying to cover up a break in that did not change the election
Click to expand...

Good lord, BenGHAZEEEE!

What a load of crap.

You don't know your Nixon Nam History. Do ya?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not so. To compare Obama to the very lowest of Republican scum would involve elevating him to a far more lofty place than he credibly belongs.
Click to expand...

Sure, because he's a Democrat and you don't like him. Spare me the partisanship. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom