Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform?

Posted 4 months ago on April 6, 2014, 10 a.m. EST by flip (6775)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

SPIEGEL: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform?

Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.

SPIEGEL: You exaggerate. In almost all vital questions -- from the taxation of the rich to nuclear energy -- there are different positions. At least on the issues of war and peace, the parties differ considerably. The Republicans want to fight in Iraq until victory, even if that takes a 100 years, according to McCain. The Democrats demand a withdrawal plan.

Chomsky: Let us look at the “differences” more closely, and we recognize how limited and cynical they are. The hawks say, if we continue we can win. The doves say, it is costing us too much. But try to find an American politician who says frankly that this aggression is a crime: the issue is not whether we win or not, whether it is expensive or not. Remember the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Did we have a debate whether the Russians can win the war or whether it is too expensive? This may have been the debate at the Kremlin, or in Pravda. But this is the kind of debate you would expect in a totalitarian society. If General Petraeus could achieve in Iraq what Putin achieved in Chechnya, he would be crowned king. The key question here is whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others.

SPIEGEL: Who prevents intellectuals from asking and critically answering these questions? You praised the freedom of speech in the United States.

Chomsky: The intellectual world is deeply conformist. Hans Morgenthau, who was a founder of realist international relations theory, once condemned what he called “the conformist subservience to power” on the part of the intellectuals. George Orwell wrote that nationalists, who are practically the whole intellectual class of a country, not only do not disapprove of the crimes of their own state, but have the remarkable capacity not even to see them. That is correct. We talk a lot about the crimes of others. When it comes to our own crimes, we are nationalists in the Orwellian sense.

99 Comments

99 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Here I am teacher. OK, what can I learn here? Chumpsky completely, totally and unequivocally forgetting something-the republican constituents. This is a weak debate. If Gore won, would we have done what Bush and Cheney did post 9/11 ? Answer: Not even fucking close. But, what can you say about an old fart that says Kennedy carpet bombed South Vietnam??? Hah!

[-] -1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

I am an old fart for sure - but you are stupid - I would rather be old than stupid. we probably disagree on that also. you are a teacher? and you do not know about the bombing of south Vietnam - what does that say about our system of education. do you know how to research - here are some sources - ny times 3/10/62 p a8 - "the pentagon papers senator gravel edition" vol 2 pp 656-658, 677 and finally "the u.s. government and the Vietnam war" part 2 pp 70-71. HAH! now read your assignment and get back to me.

[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Here we go with the insults again. I said I'm a teacher? Really? Can I check your reading comprehension scores? They must have sucked so bad that new more dramatic meaning needed to added to suck. Bad news shit-for-brains; vol. 2 ends at page 623. LOL! You need help. But what did I say, 'eh? What did I say?? and here it is: The Pentagon Papers Gravel Edition Volume 2 Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)

Summary

A formal planning and budgetary process for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam was begun amid the euphoria and optimism of July 1962, and was ended in the pessimism of March 1964. Initially, the specific objectives were: (1) to draw down U.S. military personnel then engaged in advisory, training, and support efforts from a FY 64 peak of 12,000 to a FY 68 bottoming out of 1,500 . The NY Times citation you'll have to point me to, because it doesn't exist without paying for it. The other book you mention, Kennedy is only mentioned on pp. 4-8. That book is also quite expensive. Given that there are no readily available sources with verifiable citations, your claims can't be substantiated. But, let me ask you, 'do you think it's a good idea to call someone stupid and berate education at the same time?' Hey listen, I'm an open-minded person. No need to get yourself in a stew.

[-] -2 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

do I think it is ok to call someone stupid and berate education at the same time - yes I do. if the shoe fits...... Einstein and john taylor gatto agree with that thought. I will check out the page numbers when I get time but any educated person should really know this fact. anyone who thinks jfk was a great liberal has not done their homework. "murder incorporated" (according to lbj) in cuba - installing Nazis in governments in south America and so on. more on this at the end. the u.s. government was bombing the south in 1962 as part of the strategic hamlet program - here is a bit on that (jfk is not mentioned by name but he was president in 1961 - right?)-.................. ....."Operation Ranch Hand was a U.S. military operation during the Vietnam War, lasting from 1962 until 1971. Largely inspired by the British use of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D (Agent Orange) during the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s, it was part of the overall herbicidal warfare program during the war called "Operation Trail Dust". Ranch Hand involved spraying an estimated 20 million U.S. gallons (76,000 m3) of defoliants and herbicides[1] over rural areas of South Vietnam in an attempt to deprive the Viet Cong of food and vegetation cover. Areas of Laos and Cambodia were also sprayed to a lesser extent. Nearly 20,000 sorties were flown between 1961 and 1971. The Vietnamese government estimates that 400,000 people were killed or maimed and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of this spraying of what were called by the Americans 'rainbow herbicides'.- off to work right now! but here is a piece on south America etc - note it includes the time of the Clinton administration - another great liberal?? ..........................................- "In 1962, John F. Kennedy in effect shifted the mission of the Latin American military from “hemispheric defense,” a residue of World War II, to “internal security,” a euphemism for war against the domestic population.

There were significant effects throughout Latin America. One consequence in Colombia, as Stokes reviews, was the official US recommendation to rely on paramilitary terror against “known Communist proponents.” The effects on Colombia were described by the president of the Colombian Permanent Committee for Human Rights, the distinguished diplomat Alfredo Vàzquez Carrizosa. Beyond the crimes that are institutionalized in the “dual structure of a prosperous minority and an impoverished, excluded majority, with great differences in wealth, income, and access to political participation," he wrote, the Kennedy initiatives led to an “exacerbation of violence by external factors,” as Washington “took great pains to transform our regular armies into counterinsurgency brigades, accepting the new strategy of the death squads," decisions that "ushered in what is known in Latin America as the National Security Doctrine.” This was not “defense against an external enemy, but a way to make the military establishment the masters of the game...[with] the right to combat the internal enemy, as set forth in the Brazilian doctrine, the Argentine doctrine, the Uruguayan doctrine, and the Colombian doctrine: it is the right to fight and to exterminate social workers, trade unionists, men and women who are not supportive of the establishment, and who are assumed to be communist extremists” – a term with wide coverage in CI lingo, including human rights activists, priests organizing peasants, labor leaders, others seeking to address the “dual structure” by non-violent democratic means, and of course the great mass of victims of the dual structure, if they dare to raise their heads.

The policy was certainly not new. The horrifying example of Guatemala is sufficient to show that. Nor was it restricted to Latin America. In many ways, the early postwar CI operations in Greece (with some 150,000 dead) and South Korea (with a death toll of 100,000) set the pattern long before. Apart from its Guatemala atrocities, the Eisenhower administration had overthrown the parliamentary government of Iran and restored the brutal rule of the Shah in order to bar Iran from taking control of its own resources, and in 1958, had carried out some of the most extreme postwar clandestine operations in its effort to undermine the parliamentary government of Indonesia, which was becoming dangerously democratic, and to split off the outer islands, where most of the resources were -- just to mention a few examples. But there was a qualitative change in the early 1960s.

In Latin America, the Kennedy administration orchestrated a military coup in Brazil, which took place shortly after Kennedy’s assassination, installing the first of the National Security States, complete with large-scale torture, destruction of popular organizations and any vestige of democracy, and intense repression. It was welcomed in Washington as a "democratic rebellion," "a great victory for free world," which prevented a "total loss to West of all South American Republics" and should "create a greatly improved climate for private investments." The democratic revolution carried out by the neo-Nazi generals was "the single most decisive victory of freedom in the mid-twentieth century," Kennedy’s Ambassador Lincoln Gordon held, "one of the major turning points in world history" in this period. Shortly after, the Indonesian problem was dealt with successfully as General Suharto took over in a military coup, with a “staggering mass slaughter,” as the New York Times described the outcome,“ “a gleam of light in Asia,” on the words of their leading liberal commentator, James Reston. As was known at once, the death toll was immense, perhaps half a million or many more, mostly landless peasants. The threat of excessive democracy that had troubled the Eisenhower administration was overcome, with the destruction of the major mass-based political party in the country, which “had won widespread support not as a revolutionary party [despite its name: PKI, Indonesian Communist Party] but as an organization defending the interests of the poor within the existing system," Australian Indonesia specialist Harold Crouch observes, developing a "mass base among the peasantry" through its "vigor in defending the interests of the...poor." Western euphoria was irrepressible, and continued as Suharto compiled one of the worst human rights records of the late 20th century, also invading East Timor and carrying out a near-genocidal slaughter, with firm support from the U.S. and U.K., among others, to the bloody end in late 1999. The gleam of light in Indonesia also eliminated one of the pillars of the hated non-aligned movement. A second was eliminated when Israel destroyed Nasser’s army in 1967, firmly establishing the U.S.-Israel alliance that has persisted since.

In Latin America, the Brazilian coup had a domino effect, as the National Security Doctrine spread throughout the continent with varying degrees of US initiative, but constant and decisive support, however terrible the consequences. One example is “the first 9-11,” in Chile, September 11, 1973, when General Pinochet’s forces bombed the Presidential palace and demolished Latin America’s oldest and most vibrant democracy, establishing a regime of torture and repression thanks primarily to the secret police organization DINA that US military intelligence compared to the KGB and the Gestapo – while Washington firmly supported the regime.

[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

If I'm that stupid, why give me this humongous bag of tripe? I'm an M.B.A., make it short and get to the point. I've listened to enough right-wing politicians, talking heads, and the rest of their ilk to know they are responsible for every embarrassing excursion inside and outside of this country. I could say 90%, but after listening to them beat the war drums on Sunday television for the last 50 years, I'm saying 100%. They have dragged this country from the number 1 country to the bottom of the industrialized world and worse. The historical record and the facts not only bear it out, I've lived it. There you go. Short & Sweet.

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

can we now agree that jfk bombed Vietnam? here is just some of the info- from guenter lewy "America in Vietnam." - by the end of 1962 the u.s. had deployed149 helicopters and 73 fixed wing aircraft which had carried out 2048 attack sorties - many areas declared "open zones." from roger hilsman "to move a nation" - the defoliation "was just too reminiscent of gas warfare" - "indiscriminate bombing ...... would turn people toward the viet cong." I could go on but that should help you find out about the u.s. involvement in Vietnam. I suggest you read Marilyn young's book - "the Vietnam wars" - very good history

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

first question is #1 in what - the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - your educated - mba - wow. you should know the quote - and maybe you could also find the year of that quote - still true today - sadly. now can you recount the crimes of "the land of the free and home of the brave" - invasions and such under liberal democratic presidents. maybe your life has been short. I can do it for you if you like. no doubt todays right wing gop is insane but who is murdering people all over the world right now - and probably listening in on my phone calls? who might that be - rand paul, bachman, cruze, or Rubio? no I don't think so. read just a bit about your sainted kennedy (above) and let me know what you think

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

If Kennedy was the bad guy you make him out to be, I think I've had heard it several times over the years. But you're citing quotes without references and the last citations you gave me where an obscure newspaper article and and one from a book with page numbers you told me you would verify. Doesn't that pretty much speak for itself? What is a known fact is that the right considered Kennedy completely above his position and showed him no respect. The CIA and Pentagon NEVER told him what they were up to, and usually when he found out, he was pissed. He made the quote that "I want to break the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind." What did he get? A bullet. Robert Kennedy said, "When I'm elected, war over." -bullet to the head. And then came Nixon, who promised to "end the war."- Then, he escalated it. Yes-the right-wing and their offshoot teabaggers rightfully deserve their term. In fact, Bush Sr. and his old buddies funded Hitler and even tried to start a coup against FDR. Case closed for me. There are several well-established citations to all of what I just said. Many...several. You gotta do better than a few that you can't even verify.

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

I have a few minutes and look what I found on wiki!....Cuban Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Mongoose The Cuban Project

Operation Mongoose Memorandum October 4, 1962 First page of a meeting report

The Cuban Project, also known as Special Group Augmented or Operation Mongoose (Spanish: Operación Mangosta), was a covert operation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) developed during the early years of President John F. Kennedy's administration. On November 30, 1961, aggressive covert operations against Fidel Castro's revolutionary government in Cuba were authorized by President Kennedy. The operation was led by U.S. Air Force General Edward Lansdale and went into effect after the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion.

Operation Mongoose was a secret program against Cuba aimed at removing the communists from power, which was a prime focus of the Kennedy administration according to Harvard historian Jorge Domínguez.[1] A document from the U.S. State Department confirms that the project aimed to "help Cuba overthrow the Communist regime", including its leader Fidel Castro, and it aimed "for a revolt which can take place in Cuba by October 1962". U.S. policymakers also wanted to see "a new government with which the United States can live in peace".[2] .............................................................Execution[edit]

The CIA operation was based in Miami, Florida and among its other aspects enlisted the aid of the Mafia (who were eager to regain their Cuban casino operations) to plot an assassination attempt against Castro; William Harvey was one of the CIA case officers who directly dealt with mafioso John Roselli.[7]

Professor of History Stephen Rabe writes that "scholars have understandably focused on…the Bay of Pigs invasion, the US campaign of terrorism and sabotage known as Operation Mongoose, the assassination plots against Fidel Castro, and, of course, the Cuban missile crisis. Less attention has been given to the state of US-Cuban relations in the aftermath of the missile crisis." Rabe writes that reports from the Church Committee reveal that from June 1963 onward, the Kennedy administration intensified its war against Cuba while the CIA integrated propaganda, "economic denial", and sabotage to attack the Cuban state as well as specific targets within.[8] One example cited is an incident where CIA agents, seeking to assassinate Castro, provided a Cuban official, Rolando Cubela Secades, with a ballpoint pen rigged with a poisonous hypodermic needle.[8] At this time, the CIA received authorization for 13 major operations in Cuba, including attacks on an electric power plant, an oil refinery, and a sugar mill.[8] Rabe has argued that the "Kennedy administration... showed no interest in Castro's repeated request that the United States cease its campaign of sabotage and terrorism against Cuba. Kennedy did not pursue a dual-track policy toward Cuba.... The United States would entertain only proposals of surrender." Rabe further documents how "Exile groups, such as Alpha 66 and the Second Front of Escambray, staged hit-and-run raids on the island... on ships transporting goods…purchased arms in the United States and launched...attacks from the Bahamas."[8]

Harvard Historian Jorge Domínguez states that Mongoose's scope included sabotage actions against a railway bridge, petroleum storage facilities, a molasses storage container, a petroleum refinery, a power plant, a sawmill, and a floating crane. Domínguez states that "only once in [the] thousand pages of documentation did a US official raise something that resembled a faint moral objection to US government sponsored terrorism."[1] Actions were subsequently carried out against a petroleum refinery, a power plant, a sawmill, and a floating crane in a Cuban harbour.

The Cuban Project was originally designed to culminate in October 1962 with an "open revolt and overthrow of the Communist regime." This was at the peak of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the U.S. and the USSR came alarmingly close to nuclear war over the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. The operation was suspended on October 30, 1962, but 3 of 10 six-man sabotage teams had already been deployed to Cuba.

Dominguez writes that Kennedy put a hold on Mongoose actions as the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated, but "returned to its policy of sponsoring terrorism against Cuba as the confrontation with the Soviet Union lessened."[1] However, Noam Chomsky has argued that "terrorist operations continued through the tensest moments of the missile crisis", remarking that "they were formally canceled on October 30, several days after the Kennedy and Khrushchev agreement, but went on nonetheless". Accordingly, "the Executive Committee of the National Security Council recommended various courses of action, "including ‘using selected Cuban exiles to sabotage key Cuban installations in such a manner that the action could plausibly be attributed to Cubans in Cuba’ as well as ‘sabotaging Cuban cargo and shipping, and [Soviet] Bloc cargo and shipping to Cuba."[9].... Assassination proposals[edit]

Many assassination ideas were floated by the CIA during Operation Mongoose.[10] The most infamous was the CIA's alleged plot to capitalize on Castro's well-known love of cigars by slipping into his supply a very real and lethal "exploding cigar."[11][12][13][14][15] While numerous sources state the exploding cigar plot as fact, at least one source asserts it to be simply a myth,[16] and another, mere supermarket tabloid fodder.[17] Another suggests that the story does have its origins in the CIA, but that it was never seriously proposed by them as a plot. Rather, the plot was made up by the CIA as an intentionally "silly" idea to feed to those questioning them about their plans for Castro, in order to deflect scrutiny from more serious areas of inquiry.[18]

Other plots to assassinate Castro that are ascribed to the CIA include, among others: poisoning his cigars[19] (a box of the lethal smokes was actually prepared and delivered to Havana[20]); exploding seashells to be planted at a scuba diving site;[21] a gift diving wetsuit impregnated with noxious bacteria[21] and mold spores,[22] or with lethal chemical agents; infecting Castro's scuba regulator apparatus with tuberculous bacilli; dousing his handkerchiefs, his tea, and his coffee with other lethal bacteria;[23] having a former lover slip him poison pills;[21][23] and exposing him to various other poisoned items such as a fountain pen and even ice cream.[10] The CIA even tried to embarrass Castro by attempting to sneak thallium salts, a potent depilatory, into Castro's shoes, causing "his beard, eyebrows, and pubic hair to fall out".[24] The US Senate's Church Committee of 1975 stated that it had confirmed at least eight separate CIA run plots to assassinate Castro.[25] Fabian Escalante, who was long tasked with protecting the life of Castro, contends that there have been 638 separate CIA assassination schemes or attempts on Castro's life.[23]

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Who Knew? It is unclear whether the Kennedys knew what was going on. There is evidence that John Kennedy opposed the assassination as policy. Bobby's biographer Evan Thomas concludes, "the Kennedys may have discussed the idea of assassination as a weapon of last resort. But they did not know the particulars of the Harvey-Rosselli operation -- or want to." --the plot to kill Castro was hatched by the CIA before Kennedy even got elected. What happened to carpet bombing South Vietnam? You haven't proved it. Your citations don't exist. So you and your buddy Chumpsky are still wrong.

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

"there are none so blind as those who will not see." you either choose to ignore or did not read what I sent about bombing - believe what you like but you should read "rethinking Camelot" if you have any interest in the truth. and as to calling me a Nazi I now understand your moniker. kind of like playing paintball and thinking you are a warrior. sad little boy - go find real Nazis - I can point them out if you need help. or maybe just change your id to - hidesbehindrocksandthrowsinsultsatrepublicans

[-] 0 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

I wish you would quit talking about yourself Nazi.

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

it just struck me - was that "I know you are but what am I"- my 6 year old grandchild does much the same - and how old are you?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 months ago

Wait? what?

This comment, from the guy who went.....

Na, na, na, na na...I can't hear you?

How old are you???

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

you, dogboy and shooz are not worth dealing with. so I am going to stop - thank god! keep your own little mainstream elite opinion - hold on to it tightly. may it keep you warm at night. but when the shit comes down - and it is coming, I hope your elite ruling class friends will take care of you. watch out for the ones with the pitchforks - that would be my people. poor irish and Sicilian peasants. they know what side they are on and what to do with the landlords and the rulers and those who shill for them - that would be you - just in case. oh, please vote this up - please. it makes me so proud. look up emma goldman and see what she says about voting - then remember she was an anarchist and this is an anarchist site.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

hey multiple id man - military school - that explains much

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

hmmm, I didn't respond to you so this must be one of your ids - figures. and you are a wasp - also figures

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

did you read what I sent about kennedy - do you still think he didn't bomb south Vietnam? did you read about south America - did you forget to mention the liberal dem lbj - I am old enough to have chanted "hey, hey lbj how kids you kill today" - some of what you say is true but so what. read what I sent and tell me kennedy was a hero - and check out the "god damn murder inc" quote of lbj and also duck and cover. he was no hero and no real lefty - read some real history

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

There's too much information that's contrary to what you provide. If I was that guy who was drowning and could have been another war statistic, there would be no question that he was a hero. That's the context in which I put it. You took it out of context. To satisfy your argument, let's say I got it all wrong, then the guy I thought I knew would have made a damned good president in my opinion. So, what is your point? Compared to Tricky Dick, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush, he's a stellar president. That was my original argument and it still stands. In fact let me put it this way. When you compare John F. Kennedy to Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush, he's a hero. He's a Stellar President. Most Excellent! Why spend so much time on this? If you don't know that's true, you are a Nazi. If you are a Nazi, I wouldn't blame you for trying to degrade him. So are you ready to admit you are a Nazi?

[-] -2 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

it is useful to remember that obamcare is a republican free market insurance plan. Nixon was much the same as kennedy and to the left of Obama for that matter. all three agree on foreign policy - we have the right to bomb and invade whoever we want. Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual income for all! - " Guaranteed income’s moment in the sun

Original Reporting | ByMike Alberti, Kevin C. Brown | Alternative models, History

Guaranteed Annual Income legislation

In August 1969, in the eighth month of his presidency, Richard Nixon delivered a speech proposing the replacement of AFDC with a program that would benefit “the working poor, as well as the nonworking; to families with dependent children headed by a father, as well as those headed by a mother.” In case the point was missed, he continued: “What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself — and wherever in America that family may live.”

Guaranteed annual income had arrived. From the margins of economic thought just a generation earlier, the GAI was now at the heart of President Nixon’s domestic policy agenda in the form of the “Family Assistance Plan” (FAP). Nixon was also the first one to propose Obama care -"In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today’s Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon’s plan all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?

Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare, and the two sides failed to agree.

Thirty years later a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, made Nixon’s plan the law in Massachusetts. Private insurers couldn’t have been happier although many Democrats in the state had hoped for a public system. When today’s Republicans rage against the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it’s useful to recall this was their idea as well.

In 1989, Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a plan that would “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”

Insurance companies loved Butler’s plan so much it found its way into several bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993. Among the supporters were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa (who now oppose the mandate under the Affordable Care Act). Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the House in 1995, was also a big proponent.

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

I'm sorry, I will not see...LOFL! .....

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

are you delirious - you answer the pre Nixon health care question with this?? There's nothing tried and true about laissez-faire.- and no surprise but nothing to say about Keynes and the economic problems of today - what was Kennedy's answer - tax cuts - like a good republican.

"Many liberals disliked Kennedy's plan on grounds of equity. Leon Keyserling, an economist who had served Harry Truman, lamented that the richest 12 percent of Americans would get 45 percent of the benefits. Michael Harrington, the scholar of poverty, called the plan "reactionary Keynesianism." The AFL-CIO came out against it.

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Nixon was a lying ass dog. No doubt. The other thing you bring up is an opinion. Inflation under Kennedy was low, debt was low, the budget was well maintained. His 'ask not' speech has been stolen and rw-written by the pugs. If you listen to what he says before he makes that statement, he's speaking directly to the rich, something that's clearly left out by the media. You just hate being wrong. Ignorance is when you can't admit it. So you go round and round in circles. You're big post 'there's very little difference between dem and pug' and then attack and attack the dems without so much as one bad word against the pugs. Why the reluctance to take them on?? You beat yourself, man. I didn't do it.

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

I did write it - did you miss this - " I don't think he knew much." for more on the topic here is my boy noam ( I know you don't like when I do this but as john stewart said "I'm not your monkey!") -" the Reagan era represents a significant advance in capitalist democracy. For eight years, the U.S. government functioned virtually without a chief executive. That is an important fact. It is quite unfair to assign to Ronald Reagan, the person, much responsibility for the policies enacted in his name. Despite the efforts of the educated classes to invest the proceedings with the required dignity, it was hardly a secret that Reagan had only the vaguest conception of the policies of his administration, and if not properly programmed by his staff, regularly produced statements that would have been an embarrassment, were anyone to have taken them seriously. The question that dominated the Iran-contra hearings -- did Reagan know, or remember, what the policy of his administration had been? -- was hardly a serious one. The pretense to the contrary was simply part of the cover-up operation; and the lack of public interest over revelations that Reagan was engaged in illegal aid to the contras during a period when, he later informed Congress, he knew nothing about it, betrays a certain realism.

Reagan's duty was to smile, to read from the teleprompter in a pleasant voice, tell a few jokes, and keep the audience properly bemused. His only qualification for the presidency was that he knew how to read the lines written for him by the rich folk, who pay well for the service. Reagan had been doing that for years.

He seemed to perform to the satisfaction of the paymasters, and to enjoy the experience. By all accounts, he spent many pleasant days enjoying the pomp and trappings of power and should have a fine time in the retirement quarters that his grateful benefactors have prepared for him. It is not really his business if the bosses left mounds of mutilated corpses in death squad dumping grounds in El Salvador or hundreds of thousands of homeless in the streets. One does not blame an actor for the content of the words that come from his mouth. When we speak of the policies of the Reagan administration, then, we are not referring to the figure set up to front for them by an administration whose major strength was in public relations. The construction of a symbolic figure by the PR industry is a contribution to solving one of the critical problems that must be faced in any society that combines concentrated power with formal mechanisms that in theory allow the general public to take part in running their own affairs, thus posing a threat to privilege.

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Are you joking??? I'm not even going to address this. Looks like Chump is addressing Ronnie's brain farts to cover up his own. Case closed.

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

yes Nixon lied as did kennedy, Reagan (well maybe not reagan, I don't think he knew much), bush, clinton and Obama - did I leave anyone out. since you are on an anarchist website I assumed you had some understand of history and possibly even read izzy stone. howard zinn is a great place to start - HOWARD ZINN: But the question is, how did they get away with it? What about the press? What about the media? Isn't it the job of the press, isn't it the job of the media, isn't it the job of journalism to expose what governments do? Don't journalists learn from I.F. Stone, who said, "Just remember two words," he said to young people who were studying journalism, he said, "Just remember two words: governments lie"?

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Here it is folks! The downplay ruise. Yes Nixon lied -AS DID KENNEDY. Reagan-well maybe not Reagan. (????) Really? REALLY??? Nixon did a lot worse than lie you retarded motherfucker. There's a whole lotta people out there who want to see his pal Henry on the end of a rope. I'll ya who lies-YOU!

[-] -1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

truth in humor?

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Nixon is responsible for the privatizing of healthcare. Yes, that which made it the non-envy of the world. There is an actual tape recording of him kissing ass with a newly formed HMO. Before that, there-were-NO-problems with healthcare. You say I will not see about Kennedy, complete oxymoron, I respond to your statement and then you go on about something totally unrelated. With the unrelated, you make my case 95%. But, then you turn and cling to the 5%. So, who is it that will not see? I asked you for citations. You give me a few obscure ones that don't even exist and when I ask for more, you skirt the issue. They call you flip for a reason don't they? You'll run in circles to win your argument. In the process, you make the other person's argument but, still argue your own. Who's the blind man? Oh yah, there's truth in humor.

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

Nixon privatized healthcare?? NO problems with healthcare before that. and what was that system - single payer national healthcare - you are delusional. could you rework this sentence - makes no sense - You say I will not see about Kennedy, complete oxymoron, I respond to your statement and then you go on about something totally unrelated - you made this statement - Compared to Tricky Dick, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush, he's a stellar president - and I countered with an enlightening piece about Nixon. if you are telling me he is better than Reagan and bush I might agree but not Nixon - Nixon was our last liberal president - Jan. 4, 1971. On that day, President Richard Nixon gave a joint interview to several television journalists. After the cameras were off, he made an offhand comment to Howard K. Smith of ABC News that he was “now a Keynesian in economics.” we could use a president who would say that now- Keynesian economics would get us out of this recession - our boy in the white house doesn't have the balls or the brains to see what is obvious to anyone with a brain - I give you jmk - (this is so obvious even you must agree on this the most important question of our day - why that little lackey of the 1% Obama can't see it is beyond me) If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

There's nothing tried and true about laissez-faire.

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

I read it. But, I haven't been able to verify it. I saw Chomsky speak as such of Kennedy, and I take issue with it. LBJ was a Southern Democrat. Back in his time, that was quite a bit different. But, if you want to bash LBJ, that's fine. You know what a chicken hawk is, right? Can't say that much about people on the left. Kennedy was definitely a hero. He had a chronic illness his whole life and he played a role in both the German and Japanese theaters. When his boat was torpedoed, he saved a guy from drowning. He took the heat for the Bay of Pigs which was planned under Eisenhower and done behind his back. He took on the status quo when he got on board and he paid for it with his life. There hasn't been one since. I think you have to give the guy at least a little credit when you look at all the jellyfish we've had since. The Republicans are the George Castanzas of warfare. When their boat gets hit, they grab the first life raft and all the food and say, 'Every man for himself.' That's exactly what Bush Sr. did on his FIRST flight. Yet, the righties think of him as a war hero. McCain, shot down on his FIRST flight. I think they should pay the taxpayers back for their planes if they suck that bad. If you were alive back then, then this country would still be the envy of the world, (with all it's faults). What happened? The Republican party is what. If you want to side both sides are corrupt, that's fine, they're playing the same game, again fine. Democrats were more-or-less forced into the game by the mind-deceased pugs. I'm not laying down my vote for any pug-ever.

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

on another front what do you know of nsc68 and the beginnings of the cold war?? we all know of the famous "missile gap"

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

we agree on republicans - todays anyway - some are really out there. kennedy is another story but no need to beat it to death. I do think he was killed by the cia or elements of it but that does not change my mind about how left he was. he said lots of good things but as Churchill said -"Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and few" - I look to his deeds and it is a pretty sorry record - from mlk to south America and cuba to the missile crisis. he did have some pretty sick characters around him - hoover and dulles. we can do more of this later if you like - both parties are corporate capitalist parties who defend the ruling class and throw crumbs to the peasants. even fdr - who did great things did it to save capitalism - as did Keynes. what do you know of Madison the one who designed this shit to work the way it does - protecting the "minority of the opulent"

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Sorry, I doubt we agree on much. Kennedy had very little time in the White House. Today is not 1960 and he had NOTHING in common with the dems of today, absolutely fucking NOTHING. Your reading of history is quite maligned. It's more in line with right-wing thinking, which I can hardly call thinking. It's more like meandering brain damage given a voice but incomprehensible otherwise. There is no agreeing to disagree-there's facts-and you got 'em all wrong chum.

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

jfk was a murdering dog - those are the facts - Vietnam is the tip of the iceberg - did you rewrite the history of the Cuban missile crisis also. was he a hero there as well as Vietnam. helping the poor Vietnamese reclaim their French colonial rulers. no he did not bomb and defoliate Vietnam. nope - did not mount a coup in brazil. no did not attack cuba and try (many times) to murder my hero fidel - no no no!

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

lol! you know, I was watching bill maher wilth a friend last night. we had a good laugh when he showed a poll that some americans thought ukraine was another planet. she says, 'that can't be true.' i thought of you and said you'd be surprised! when you die, donate your brain to science so we can look for the similarities to chickens. by then, we should be able to develop a microscope powerful enough to find it...maybe. lol! hey, i'll give you 5 bucks to trade sides. hah!

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

ah, the ratings - have I been stinkled - no please no! so that is your response to the murderous generals in brazil - that kennedy put in power. well at least it is better than "no it didn't happen" - by the way how is the memory hole - working well it seems. have I been voted down by those who loved the great jfk - oh dear me I will have to go to burger king. not much there for an old man on a paleo diet though.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 months ago

The murderous Governor of Florida must be given clemency though.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/09/3424629/florida-medicaid-charlene-dill/

After all, it doesn't fit in your agenda too well.

Oh, and if you have to take a leak, while waiting to vote for him?

Too bad.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/10/3425252/new-rule-prohibits-voters-in-miami-dade-county-from-using-the-restroom-no-matter-how-long-the-line/

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

ha ha ha - very well thought out response to kennedy mounting a coup in brazil and installing Nazi generals. no didn't happen - down the memory hole

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

I'd say judging by your responses and ratings,..... Well, never mind. Go to Burger King and have it your way. I insist!

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

OK. I checked this bag-o-shit tripe and it figures, your hero Chumpsky is the source. Oh, there's a second source-this very post! LOL! Wow! That backs your argument. Kennedy came into office after 12 successive years of republicans beating the war drums of the Cold War. It was in it's fever state at that point and both sides of the equation wanted the communists dealt with, especially in this hemisphere. And with nuclear missiles going to Cuba, he would've been hard pressed to sit there and go obla-di-obla-da. He relied on and was subsequently misled by the Washington military establishment. He was even misled by Johnson, who was a part of it. Go tell Chumpsky neither he or you would be around now to write and pump this sick perversion of the facts if it were up to either of you. Who needs facts when you got Chumpsky? Yes, Chumpsky has a lovely way of doing a Nazi thing I call labeling. You put a label on it and then proceed to poop. Any solutions? Hell no! Can't make $9000.00 for a little speech doing that. Get it? Anarchy? One of the biggest capitalists going making his living by denouncing capitalists? Chumpsky! Everoreee budduh now, chump! chump! Chumpsky!

[-] -2 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

first of all your hero is so often misled by everyone around him it seems that he must have been one stupid whoring bastard (and you do admit that he did plenty of whoring right). when the Russians put missiles in cuba (after kennedy invaded - yes planned under ike but jfk invaded - no other way to look at it sorry) we already had missiles in turkey aimed at the soviets. so it is ok for us but not for them - is there another way to look at this situation?? I will give you a small piece of an article from counterpunch (you can get the whole thing easily but I know you don't like to read long posts) - you have been reading too much mainstream elite opinion - remember you are on a site run by radicals (remember we are the 99% - you seem to only read what is written by the 1% or their quislings - is that because you are a quisling?)! here it is - Weekend Edition October 26-28, 2012

The Most Dangerous Moment in Human History

JFK’s Lunatic Priorities During the Cuban Missile Crisis

by JOSEPH RICHARDSON

London.

Reading the transcripts of Kennedy’s meetings with his advisers is an object lesson in the pernicious effects of secrecy on government policy. No doubt Kennedy, in taping these meetings, intended them as a day by day record from which he would later select favourable tidbits to burnish his image for posterity. Reviewing them in their entirety, the ineffaceable impression left is of a President whose recklessness very nearly precipitated a nuclear holocaust.

As Noam Chomsky brilliantly documents, the adulation that has been heaped on Kennedy for his handling of the Cuban missile crisis is, to say the least, unwarranted. Rather than evidence of his deft diplomacy and circumspect approach, the fact there was a crisis at all attests to the lunatic order of priorities of those in power. In effect, Kennedy’s government was prepared to risk a nuclear conflagration to safeguard US prestige. Secretary of State Dean Rusk jubilantly exclaimed after the first Soviet ships opted not to run the American blockade that ‘we’re eye ball to eye ball and I think the other fellow just blinked.’ Had the Soviets not blinked, it is likely Rusk would not have been around to give his reaction.

In the official history, the crisis started after the sighting of a missile base on Cuba by a U-2 reconnaissance plane. In actual fact, it began following the foolhardy decision to institute a blockade and transform the situation into a full-blown confrontation with the Soviet Union. For a full week before the announcement of this blockade – given the innocuous name of ‘quarantine’ – Kennedy and his trusted advisers debated the various military courses available to them. Insulated against public scrutiny, they evinced a blithe indifference to the threat of an impending cataclysm at odds with the measured façade they sought to present to the world. Had the public been apprised of the full truth, then it is probable the resultant uproar would have forced them to radically rethink their approach.

The immediate assessment of Kennedy and his group of top officials – known as EXCOMM – was that the stationing of Soviet missiles in Cuba changed very little. During their first meeting on the 16th of October, they frankly admitted that, strategically, the threat of a nuclear strike against the United States had not increased. Indeed, Kennedy aptly encapsulated this conclusion when he candidly stated: ‘You may say it doesn’t make any difference if you get blown up by an ICBM flying from the Soviet Union or one from 90 miles away. Geography doesn’t mean that much…’ His most senior officials concurred, with defence secretary Robert McNamara bluntly stating in response to a question from Bundy as to how much the situation had altered: ‘In my personal view: not at all.’ Marshall Carter, deputy director of the CIA, even opined that the reason the intelligence community had been wrongfooted by the discovery of missile bases was because such a move had been considered futile, since it ‘doesn’t improve anything’ in the strategic balance. The real threat was of a far less grave character, and consisted, according to Kennedy’s advisers, in the ‘psychological factor’ - or the perceived affront of a small country thinking it was entitled to act in a manner normally reserved to the world’s most powerful nation. By permitting the Soviet Union to station missiles 90 miles off the American mainland, Cuba, in the words of Kennedy, was creating the impression that ‘they’re co-equal with us.’ Assistant Secretary of State Edwin Martin,

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

You should never seek an active role in any kind of decision-making process. You refuse to admit when you're wrong. This is singular tripe, (Chumpsky), against a mountain. It's more than obvious that Johnson and Nixon are given a pass by this ass. How could we go from a handful dead to 58000 after 1963? You think it's possible your drinking one guy's koolaid a little too much? It's almost laughable to say Kennedy just kept the nice tidbits of his recordings. And all of Johnson's and Nixon's that proved what monsters they were behind the scenes are there because they wanted to show what monsters they were?? In speech after speech, Kennedy's words differ so much than what you're stating that he would be the world's biggest hypocrite if it were true.. Kennedy did not invade Cuba. The FOIA proved that he was blindsided by the bay of pigs and subsequently would offer no air support or american boots on the ground. When you learned how sloppy the CIA was getting, he told Hoover to go find the CIA training camps for the rebels and shut them down. It was a public embarrassment for him which is why he backtracked on it. He accepted responsibility for it and backed off. Documented. He eventually was totally at odds with the CIA over that. Isn't it funny how anything that had anything to do with Cuba stopped the day he died? Documentation retrieved after te breakup of the Soviet Union revealed that the missiles were armed and there was every intention of using them. Oops! Drives a big hole in your bud's story up there. And isn't it curious just how much of a pass he gives Johnson by excluding him? I smell agenda! CIA feeds a few lies to Johnson, hey, 'Let's go get 'em.' Full-scale war! Yet, Chumpsky gives him a pass? I don't think Kennedy was a choir boy. I think being a Senator got him sucked into the Washington establishment. On the other hand, from I've seen from a variety of sources, he was not a deviant or warmonger. He tried to change things from the inside.

[-] -3 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

i notice you speak only of the numbers of dead American soldiers. very typical of the ruling eltie - how many Vietnamese did each president murder. mostly simple very poor innocent peasants. you might include the ongoing birth defects from your boys defoliation program. and didn't i send you something from Churchill about words being easy and many. who cares what he says - Obama sounds good also - watch what he does - that is the key. kennedy was a .01%er ruling for his class. i doubt you are in the .01% so that makes you a quisling

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

OK, OK, I get it. You hate Kennedy. It's not the truth you're after, you hate Kennedy. Any Nazi would. You try to confuse the topic to take the stink off yourself. But you're a Nazi. Nixon lover. Lover of LBJ's full scale attacks and Nixon's carpet bombings, and other unspeakable shenanigans, like surely fucking over the democracy. When did all the special interests start flooding Washington? I know! When Kennedy was president, right???? Being wrong sucks for ignorant people and they will never admit it. The truth hurts for the ignorant. I'm sorry, but wouldn't you rather be right than ignorant? Scratch that. Who am I kidding? The Nixon-lover who won't take on the right and says he's not a Nazi? Who supported Nixon earlier in his career,, Surprise! Grandaddy Bush and Harriman. Both implicated by Hoover for being Nazis and the latter for funding a Nazi coup against FDR. This is your hero? You thought you could deflect with your Ukrainian crap. Another sandbag effort by Chumpsky to capitalize on with a few speeches that do nothing to progress the debate in a positive manner. A shameless capitalist for your anarchy. It's a typical thing on the right. They sling so many labels, they all fall into one another. Neoliberalism? Bullshit! Nazi!-That's you !!!!!!! You can't hide it !!!!!!!!!! Nazi. Nazi. Nazi.. You are a Nazi. Heil Hitler!

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

I keep forgetting how ignorant you are - you must have gone to a "good school" to be so uneducated. read orwell's "homage to catalonia" to start - here is your ruling class at work - A major factor contributing to this conspicuously long period of non-confrontation is the fact that FDR and U.S. leaders in general viewed the rise of fascism sympathetically. The extreme nationalism characteristic of fascist regimes welcomed Western economic penetration and persecuted labor and the political left to the point of eradication, an agenda that U.S. state managers and wealthy American investors found to be a proper antidote to "excessive democracy," that is, almost any democracy at all. For his part, FDR preferred fascism to any variety of socialism or robust social democracy, largely equating these social forms with Bolshevik heresy. Therefore, it is not really surprising that for years he approved Hitler as a "moderate" who represented order, anti-Communism, and a favorable investment climate, a welcome obstacle to any possibility of radicalization of the allegedly unthinking masses.

FDR’s preference for Hitler, rather than the radical left, was shared by the U.S. corporate class in general. This is evidenced by the fact that U.S. investment shot up in Germany while the Nazis rose to power, despite the Depression and Germany's default on nearly all of its commercial and government loans. Commerce Department reports indicate that U.S. investment in Germany increased 48.5% between 1929 and 1940, while declining sharply everywhere else on the continent. Moreover, many U.S. companies traded with Germany right through the war years - with Washington's support - even when slave labor was involved. Allied pilots were instructed not to bomb factories in Germany owned by U.S. firms, a policy that in at least one case provided a convenient bomb shelter for German civilians.

U.S. Ambassador to Germany William Dodd's repeated warnings that Hitler's munitions factories were booming on the strength of U.S. raw materials shipments went unheeded. Dodd's loathing of the Third Reich only led to his replacement by Hugh Wilson in 1938, a man much more acceptable to Nazi leaders. Both FDR and his close confidant Sumner Welles praised the Munich capitulation that allowed Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia, with Welles waxing optimistic about the prospects for a just international order that the accords presumably opened up. Furthermore, official U.S. belief in Hitler's benign intentions continued post-Munich. Writing of Sumner Welles' diplomatic tour of Europe in February 1940, British Permanent Under-Secretary of State Alexander Cadogan wrote: "We had the distinct impression that Welles had in mind an outline for peace which would not require elimination of Herr Hitler's Nazi regime." In April 1941 - nineteen months after the German invasion of Poland - George Kennan wrote from his diplomatic post in Berlin that the Nazis had no desire to "see other people suffer under German rule," and were "most anxious that their new subjects should be happy in their care."

U.S. support for Italian fascism was even more enthusiastic. As the Depression provoked massive civil and political unrest in Europe, Mussolini became a hero in the U.S. for straitjacketing class conflict with armed Blackshirt terrorism while erecting a highly authoritarian investor's paradise. With loans pouring in from the House of Morgan, the Italian dictator increased public debt, slashed social welfare spending, abolished unions, strikes, and the 8-hour day, boosted unemployment and bankruptcy, weakened the lira, and kept Italian wages among the lowest in Europe. As these policies were being carried out, FDR praised Mussolini (in a letter to a friend) as "that admirable Italian gentleman."

Meanwhile, FDR’s Ambassador to Italy William Philips was "greatly impressed by the efforts of Mussolini to improve the condition of the masses" and found "much evidence" to support the Fascist conviction that "they represent a true democracy in as much as the welfare of the people is their principal objective." Philips regarded Mussolini's achievements as "astounding . . . a source of constant amazement," and sang hosannas to his "great human qualities." The Roosevelt State Department hailed his "magnificent" attainments in conquering Ethiopia and praised Fascism for having "brought order out of chaos, discipline out of license, and solvency out of bankruptcy." As late as 1939 FDR rated Italian fascism "of great importance to the world [although] still in the experimental stage

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Can you speak for yourself? Why keep digging up someone else's tripe, which is 'opinion' while you espouse 'facts.' Your logic sucks. Your ignorance is monolithic. You dodge the reality. You're no anarchist -- you're a Nazi. Maybe you're trying to fight it. You don't want to admit it. Just come out of the closet. The rest of us can already see it. Maybe not Reagan?????? Really???? It that's not a dead giveaway, I don't know what is. In fact, I like that you hate Kennedy. I wouldn't want anyone who is so considerate to Reagan to talk nice about Kennedy. You come out with full-scale admissions and then say you don't like either side. I know it's not easy. Go find a mirror and look in it a good long time. Really?????? Maybe not Reagan??????????????????????????????????????????? U sure?

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

I thought I said - well maybe not Reagan since he did not know what was going on - the implication was that he was too stupid to be blamed. if I didn't explain that well then I am sorry but I think I wrote that - did you miss it or did I fan. I notice you don't respond to what is put up about fdr (and the ruling class in general - you know about henry ford and the Nazis right?) - more history that you are not aware of??

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Oh, too stupid to be blamed. Again, busted, since you didn't show that consideration to Kennedy. Oh wait! You said something to the effect of maybe he wasn't in the know. Well, well. Your arguments have come full-circle haven't they? This is why ignorance perpetuates, you see. You are, uh, how can I say it?? WRONG! and you just...won't....admit....further pushing your propaganda. The future hasn't a chance.

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

you give lots of opinions but not much else - shocking! I disagree with you - on almost everything - I don't think you are a Nazi hater really - just a jkf and elite ruling class loving boy

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

JFK wasn't perfect. No one is. Both Cuba and 'Nam were started under Ike. Even if they didn't have names yet. You totally ignore that. Why? The Bay of Pigs was early into Kennedy's acknowledgment of it. After he knew, he wanted no involvement of US forces, however he was under incredible repug, (your lover boy's), pressure to do something. In the wake of Pigs, the only casualties of the whole affair really were a few crazy Cubans who totally looking for it. So fuck 'em really, know what I mean? Too bad, I thought you'd tell me about the carpet bombing but that didn't exist. Then you and your pug friends want to create trouble in Cuba and South America, but you try to blame Kennedy. Nothing doing repugnicon, most foul of the species.murdering scum. Here's what we call FACTS chump:The stated goal of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were met to some degree by the tax cut.[4] Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966.[4][5] Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.[4][6] However, under your budro bush, the same didn't happen. Why is that repug boy??? Ok, so they helped the poor as opposed to the elite, so you're uh, how shall we say WRONG! They wouldn't have even been called for if your boy Ike didn't totally fuck the economy. Do you like to drink Long Trail. I was drinking a Long Trail Mostly Cloudy IPA and I was thinking of your brain. Did I say brain? What brain? Hahh! You loooooose. You see, I'm just looking for the truth, but when I look.....you looooose! loser!

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

you mean you're baiting me and I'm not biting. That's why it's YOU who continually goes on about Kennedy. It's funny, just a while ago, you said we agreed on everything, I just didn't know it. You know what babies do? I'll tell, they talk in circles. Meaningless goo goo guh guh. That's you. FACT: JFK pushed a tax break to ease the unemployment during a state of the union address. But, he didn't actually do anything about it. Johnson did! So you are, how shall we say,,uh,uh, WRONG! Why do you keep trying? Because you are a pug lover, there's no one on this site more partisan than you. A true repug goes on and on about the other side as if their's didn't exist. That's you-Nazi, Pug lover. Playing' their same tired games. Pug and repug got in the boat, pug got out who was left? You, you silly bastard.

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

I agree completely - kennedy was wonderful and all of your thinking is absolutely correct. now please leave me alone since I am awaiting the rapture

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

lies are not worth addressing - you can't really so you just go on and on and on - boring. according to you kennedy was either stupid or ??? continually misled by the likes of the dulles brothers - those bastions of the socialist left. what did bush say - "fool me once........" your logic is amazing. how about this - take the last shot - make all sorts of assumptions about what I think then call me names and tell me how stupid I am and then leave it. respond to others who will read what you write and care what you think. how about that?

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Dulles, bastions of the socialist left?? Really? Where are you getting this completely retarded propaganda?? I need citations. Where does it say Dulles was a socialist? No need to get upset. You just seem to think it more believable that Reagan could be misled for eight years and not Kennedy for 2? Um, quite telling that is. Our black population? r u serious? Oh, you must be right wing to the maxi mus! For Christ's sake, He had to have the whole fucking army stand behind a black girl just so she could go to school! With Wallace and his police and the whole fucking state of Alabama ready to lynch her, you talk shit. Complete shit. I don't need to think Kennedy stupid. You haven't substantiated any of your bullshit. You said an awful lot, but can't substantiate any of it. See, that's called talking out your ass. I saw the video of Chumpsky's speech. Now, note my consistence here, that which you lack; I heard it and red flags were going up everywhere. Why? Because I know a whole lot about the Vietnam War, and to leave his followers out of the equation was very telling. What was my analogy? It would be like if I stepped on your toes, and then two other guys came up mutilated you and all you could focus on was the toes. There it is. That's the logic. Your response to that was retarded. You agreed and then continued to shit on Kennedy. It is what it is. Isn't it? How could I say anything other than I dealing with a joker at that point? Chomsky is an opportunist. Again and again, I point out your use of labels, which is indeed partisan. It is indeed picking sides. That has nothing to do with logic. Did you hear Kennedy's whole 'Ask not..' speech? What is completed missed by the mainstream media is what he says exactly before it; he IS talking to the elite there. What he does over and over again on tape, on film, and factually do not add up to what you CLAIM with your faulty sources. Show me the courtesy of being consistent. Where is the tape where he says, 'Hey that was a great carpet bombing campaign against our own side!' Now, let me shit on the black people and go kill some Brazilians!" I mean, the media and my, (everyone's), own eyes and ears must have betrayed thousands of times over. But, Nixon wasn't so bad, right? Is that what you're saying? Really? I mean, how can I address such nonsense? Especially since you can't verify it. I ask for sources on this carpet bombing shit and you gave non-existent sources. I would think if he did that, there should be SUBSTANTIAL sources, wouldn't you? Is that a fair assumption? Then, you call Dulles a socialist? You see, this is what the right wing does exactly, if their side doesn't do what they like, they call him names like socialist. Right wing all the way to the bank. Scary tactics. Yet the liberals scare you? OK, so Reagan was oblivious for 8 years but Kennedy was completely in the know? It doesn't matter what I think-you need to line your shit up with facts. As Bill Maher said, there pesky things but they seem to be unavoidable. You don't get to disagree with them. See?

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

if you are trying to make the argument that kennedy was continuously misled then you must think he was pretty stupid. I don't think he was stupid just a thug of a man - towards women, our black population and south America (for starters at least). if you want to make the case that Reagan was also smart and a thug - go ahead - you may find it more difficult though. you know the reagan joke about alzheimers - when it was announced he had it the reporter asked - how can you tell?

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Your lies aren't worth addressing. Your whole approach is right wing. You are, without a doubt, a lame-brained, stupid, ignorant, asinine, home-schooled, southern baptshit, senseless, crack-brained, moronic, imbecilic, dense, bovine, inane, unbalanced, addlepated, dim-witted, irrational, balmy, vacuous, pixilated, light-minded, obtuse, loutish, daft, unbalanced, unthinking, unreasoning, incoherent, bloviating screwball blowing in the dense fog of his own vacuum. That would be the best way I could describe you, in short. The long version is much worse but I'm trying to be nice.

[-] -1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

No I don't hate. And I wouldn't know

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

You don't hate! Hah! laughing my ass off!! That's good!

[-] -1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

you're boring- and stupid but boring is the worst - wouldn't you agree? one can be stupid and interesting and entertaining but boring is the worst. I do have to say that boring and stupid is a really bad combination. do you notice that you keep making assertions - like -"my beloved kennedy was so wonderful - he instituted socialism and broke the rule of the corporate moneyed classes, ended jim crow and the cold war, and smashed the cia - if only he had lived we would all be free and have all the women we want just like he did - I heard that was his dying wish that the congress pass laws so that all men could have the women kennedy had. it's true - I read it on the ollies blog - must be true right? such a sweet man - what was I thinking. I agree kennedy is my new hero! he is great - there I have converted! I feel wonderful now I think I will go to my room and await the rapture - that is next right?

[-] 0 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

You fucking hateful Nazi. No, I think ignorant is the worst. You're the very epitome of the word. Don't fucking twist my words. That pisses me off Nazi. Your ignorant pug scum. Sucks to be wrong. Doesn't it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, pug.

[-] -1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

sorry I thought the sarcasm about the dulles brothers was obvious. reagan was an idiot or didn't you know that. kennedy was no idiot. this is from paul street's article - The “New JFK”: Nothing Great to Be - you can get the whole thing easily and if you are interested in the truth you will. if you care to counter the points made in the article I will be more than happy to respond -otherwise leave it alone and find someone else - “The role played by twentieth-century Presidents,” political scientist Bruce Mirroff noted 37 years ago, “has been characteristically conservative. ‘Liberal’ as well as ‘conservative’ Presidents…have bent their strongest efforts, not to alter, but to preserve America’s dominant institutions. Whatever their professed sympathies, their actions have served, not to redistribute wealth and power, but to perpetuate existing inequalities… [serving as] central figures in the maintenance of established [hierarchical] socioeconomic arrangements.”

As Miroff demonstrated in his forgotten classic Pragmatic Illusions: The Presidential Politics of John F. Kennedy(1976), the liberal icon JFK was no exception to the rule. He lined up consistently on the conservative, that is, power-friendly side of each of what Dr. King called “the triple evils that are interrelated”: racism (deeply and institutionally understood), economic exploitation (capitalism), and U.S. militarism.

More than a decade before neoliberal Democrats emerged to explicitly steer the Democratic Party to the corporate center, JFK’s frequently declared sympathies for the poor and working class took a back seat in his White house to “the real determinants of policy: political calculation and economic doctrine.” As Mirroff explained, political calculation “led Kennedy to appease the corporate giants and their allies in government.” Economic doctrine “told him that the key to the expansion and health of the economy was the health and expansion of those same corporate giants. The architects of Kennedy’s ‘New Economics’ liked to portray it as the technically sophisticated and politically neutral management of a modern industrial economy. It is more accurately portrayed as a pragmatic liberalism in the service of corporate capitalism” (Miroff, 1976) Further:

“His wage guidelines, and other efforts at terminating labor-management conflict over the distribution of income, fit neatly with business’s longstanding objective of holding wage costs steady. His liberalization of depreciation allowances furnished business with a tax break which it had sought unsuccessfully from the Eisenhower administration. His proposed reduction in corporate income and personal income taxes in the higher brackets approached tax reductions earlier proposed by the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Corporate executives may not have had Kennedy’s ear, but the functional result was not so different than if they had. Economic doctrine and political calculation were enough to make him respond more often to business desires than to those of the economic constituencies that actually supported him” (Miroff, 1976).

The regressive nature of JFK’s “New Economics’ was cloaked by his recurrent, much-publicized spats with certain members of the business community (the executives of U.S. Steel above all), his repeated statements of concern for labor and the poor, and his claim to advance a purely “technical” and “pragmatic” economic agenda that elevated “practical management” and administrative expertise above the “grand warfare of ideologies” (Miroff, 1976).

Caucasian-Friendly Caution and Calculation

JFK inhabited the same centrist, cautious, cunning, and “pragmatic” place on racism, the first of Dr. King’s “triple evils.: He found it politically useful to intervene on Dr. Martin Luther King’s behalf during the latter’s jailing in the election year of 1960 and, later, to wrap himself in the aura of racial progress and equality by offering some partial and belated federal protections to the Civil Rights Movement (CRM). But the Kennedy administration worked hard to divide and dilute the CRM, seeking to channel it into to staid and narrow legal and electoral grooves. It gave some elementary shelter to activists and southern blacks only when John Kennedy and his brother and Attorney General Bobby Kennedy calculated that rabid white southern reaction was undermining their ability to sell the United States’ capitalist and imperial concept of “democracy” in Washington Cold War contest with the Soviet Union for the allegiances of the predominantly non-white Third World.

Subsequent silly and elitist “Mississippi Burning” revisionism notwithstanding, the Kennedy administration was no great friend of the struggle for black equality. Its response to the Freedom Movement was dominated by the tension between two competing political calculations: (i) the threat of politically alienating white Americans, above all traditionally Democratic white Southerners; (ii) the risk of losing Third World hearts and minds in the supposed U.S. struggle to advance “freedom and democracy,” falsely conflated with capitalism and subjugation to U.S. influence, against supposed Soviet-sponsored “communism” (national independence and social justice in the “developing world”). The experience and struggles of black Americans were not an especially relevant concern. When southern racist authorities managed to defeat the black struggle for equality without politically problematic and embarrassing violence (as in Albany Georgia, in 1962), the Kennedy administration was happy to withhold protection from King and his fellow activists. Along the way, the Kennedy brothers were inordinately obsessed with alleged Communist connections to King and the CRM and approved racist FBI director J. Edgar Hoover’s regular and relentless police state surveillance, smearing, and infiltration of the movement. (Sitkoff, 1981; Garrow, 1986)

[-] 0 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

The regressive nature of JFK’s “New Economics>opinion and commentary not backed by facts. Such is the nature of ALL of this. I'll take issue with it when I can find some time. The stuff about Mississippi Burning is someone having delusions..It's a movie. who gives a shit. If not for JFK who would've even touched MLK. He wasn't exactly a saint. Hoover hated MLK and pretty much blackmailed both JFK and MLK. Unless this guy was sleeping, there was quite a communist fervor, thanks to McCarthy, (evil repug scum). Ike let the economy tank during his last term, leaving unemployment at it's highest since the New Deal. He ran up the debt. Your guy lacks a knowledge of the period. Southern democrats were, essentially today's version of Republicans. The South tried to infiltrate both parties after the Civil War so they could get their beloved slavery back. They put a different spin on it to make it sound better. Wilson, Truman and Ike were these types. So, you may call it centrist because the democrats weren't much of real party given that Southern dems, in my opinion, and trom living there, were not dems at all. Yet, JFK needed one to get elected. So, yah, politics were played, no doubt. But the stuff about just giving lip service to the poor is dead wrong. Also, there is an embedded government that doesn't give a shit about presidents. Hoover, the evil cross-dressing pug scum blackmailing a president while he's sucking another man's dick. But these folks don't scare you. Thanks to him and his ilk, JFK was forced to walk a fine line with both the CRM and King in general. King had strong communist ties according to several on the right, the beautiful right that you think the lesser evil. MLK thought he was a superstar. He didn't bother working with Kennedy either. What? You want Kennedy should suck his dick? He got the ball started on CRM, Nixon woulda said fuck that-and you know it. Nixon, the nazi panzi you love so much. JFK wanted to give a tax cut across the board, mostly to the top, because he thought it would spur job growth. That was not a known quantity at that time. But, as Bush jr. proved, giving rich people tax breaks only spurred them to get even greedier. If the elites back then were the same as they are today, then Kennedy would have been wrong. I say big deal to that. The irony is that he set in motion a series of minimum wage increases that did spur job growth and benefit the poor, so bull that comment. He put up a bill to ease wage disparity, and plenty more from the CBO to social security. I'm a little tired right now and the person in your article seems to be disappointed with the dems for being too centrist. No disagreement there. It's very disappointing. The embedded government is Nazi and pug, that's the problem right there. the guys you're ok with. But the idea that Kennedy was all pretense is an opinion, LBJ's base hated his liberal politics, but they loved the money they brought in; lots of oil and military business. Texas a big center for both. But, if the pug politicians weren't enough, their base was just as radical. Today, they're even more radical. I lived in Georgia for 10 years. Georgia is the sunburn of the red states. They HATE Kennedy down there. You know what that tell me? He must have done something right. There is no 99 percent to those people. They believe the elite are their saviours. You can get rid of the democrats if you want. But, when they're gone, don't start dissing the elite with your new crowd. That would be a grave mistake. You said you're old, then you should be old enough to know-the 60s tried to change the status quo. It failed. A whole lotta those people turned into pugs, (or Reagan democrats, whatever), They got it wrong. Their arguments about the left all similar to yours. How's that working? Every election won by dems is , 9 times out 10, by slim margin Obama had a nice strong win against Mccain, He had some leverage in the critical early months and he didn't use it. I was pissed like everybody, but as we learned from, skipping the mid terms only emboldened the right They've managed to stop Obama and the House in their tracks. How's that working? A lot of dems know the reality. They're not thinking they're gonna get anything from Obama. They're just more worried what happens if they don't keep voting dem. You want another round of Dick and Dub? Don't think for a second that couldn't happen.again. Dick is still a regular on Fox, as is his daughter, both beating the war drums.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

not worth talking to! that would be you - oh, I am still talking to you - not anymore......

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 months ago
[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 months ago
[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Now, you're touching a nerve. I wouldn't doubt this ignoramus is from Mississippi. Is that where they vote for people who believe a woman can stop a pregnancy in the womb? It would be funny if it were sooo sad and yet this moe-ron says there's no difference.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 months ago

the problem with their thinking, is this.

We're all Bozos on this bus, politicians and forum posters included.

But like I said, some are much bigger Bozos than others.

above, you can see an example.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 months ago

http://www.occupy.com/article/tipping-point-how-oust-congressman-election-season

Yeah, they're all the same. Some are just worse than others.

[-] -2 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

some are much worse than others - see we agree on much!

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Seems quite pointless after this study.

http://roarmag.org/2014/04/gilens-page-us-oligarchy-elite/

The conclusion sounds like it could have come straight out of a general assembly or drum circle at Zuccotti Park, but the authors of the paper in question — two Professors of Politics at Princeton and Northwestern University — aren’t quite of the radical dreadlocked variety. No, like Piketty’s book, this article is real “science”. It’s even got numbers in it! Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University took a dataset of 1,779 policy issues, ran a bunch of regressions, and basically found that the United States is not a democracy after all:

[-] 2 points by cordoba (21) from West Point, NY 4 months ago

It is only "pointless" when you have lost hope. There were a multitude of people before us in history who persevered when faced with similar circumstances, and so should we.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

I am shocked! the rich rule - do they think the dems work for the rich also

[-] 1 points by emerson (4) 4 months ago

Systemic change will not happen through either of the two parties. It is only when the oligarchs are threatened with losing most of what they have will anything meaningful be gained.

[-] -2 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

I agree - that is the way it has always been

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by JGriff99mph (507) 4 months ago

"The intellectual world is deeply conformist"

Pretty much. Good point on coming out and calling a crime a crime. All over the nation there are Democrats parading around as liberals, turning a blind eye to the strength and aggression of a government that is simply OUT OF CONTROL at this point.

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Isn't Chomsky an intellectual? What is he doing about it? Liberals and Democrats are more than well aware of disjoint between themselves and those they elect. Obama has been called out by his own House, the liberal talking heads and a good deal of the voters. If you look at some my old posts or comments I refer to the Liberals as Republican Lite. There is NO DISSENT on the right. NONE. Heil Hitler, gung ho all the way. That's a very distinct difference right there. Hence, why I say go look at some of the right wing sites. So, what is it you'd have liberals do? I mean, I'm curious. What's your answer? You want us to step aside. boycott the vote while the pugs are voting? If that's what you want. If we're that scary, you need to be a republican. I'm not taking a shot here. That's the reality.

[-] -2 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

Chomsky is not considered an intellectual since he is not conformist. that is a truism. do a bit of research and see how often he is in mainstream intellectual publications. he is a dissident and a radical and you cannot be considered and intellectual if that is the case. I would like liberals to do what they did during the civil rights movement - look it up teacher

[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

liberals lost the civil rights movement because the radical right wing of America, (RRWA), sabotaged it, like they do everything that is good in this world. I didn't ask if Chomsky is a mainstream intellectual, I asked if he was an intellectual. Oh, you're sounding all cynical and emotional again. I thought you were talking logic. OK. So, you say repeat what didn't work. I say not an option.

[-] -3 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

liberals went to the south and got their heads broken to get voting rights etc. as to why we have been backsliding that is another matter. are you are teacher - of what. my car mechanic is an intellectual but not in mainstream discourse. by your definition - yes, Chomsky is an intellectual - so am I - you do not seem to be! when is your flight - I pointed to the Nazis - now go get them!

[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

ur an intellectual?????? LOL! u funny! You can wallow around in the insults. Insults are fine. Let's go swimming in insults. But, to give a complement, particularly a complement from oneself to oneself, well...., that's just wrong dontcha see?

[-] -1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

well it was not really a compliment - to me or anyone else. didn't you read earlier that I said my car mechanic is an intellectual - anyone who uses his mind is but that is not the mainstream definition. so how would you like to play this - do you want to go by normal standards of discourse then noam is not considered an intellectual. or something more like what really exists -then he is but so are many. or would you like to change definitions depending on how you want to twist an argument. is that called sophistry? you seem to want to confuse everything or you are just not as educated as you think. you don't know much about the early 60's with bloodied heads and bombed peasant villages - willful ignorance perhaps. is jfk one of your heroes? did you read about what he did in south America - would you like info on how he almost singlehandedly blew up the world - for some macho reaction. he had young school children "ducking and covering" under their desks! and is declared a hero in the liberal media for it - would you like info or do you already know what I am talking about?

[-] -2 points by JGriff99mph (507) 4 months ago

The right is in a state of disarray and decay as well, the entire system is breaking down. The NSA is spying on the Intelligence Community, corruption is being exposed like never before, the monetary system is in full blown attack by the banks, and the people's ability to communicate is better than ever.

The thing is, they keep us occupied with nonsense very well, keeping us from really getting active and managing our communities ourselves, dependent on politicians to get even the most minuscule things done.

I saw rapid attacks on the right on the libertarians and Gary Johnson this past election. The special election here was full of it, a libertarian guy ran, the Republicans were all up in arms about stealing votes.

Ron Paul- regardless of what you say about his policies- took a chunk out of that party that leaves the entire system of duopoly left to gerrymander to keep it even.

Trust me, neither party wants to have total control, because then its all eyes on them and no more excuses.

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

On the last statement, do you mean the existence of one party or two parties with essentially one party control? Don't give people that much credit. As long as there was another party around, the pugs would have no problem taking complete control. They'd just blame all the dems when shit starts rolling. I think you're drastically underestimating the pugs. They get way more corporate cash than the dems.. Ron Paul is good, but he's one man. When it comes to the national stage, his own party stifles him. As it gets closer to November, watch how they all get in lockstep. the dems are the sleeping giant. more of them don't vote than do. A vast amount of folks are fed up to the point of not caring. The pugs all vote. They're better organize. And if you beat them down, they have lots of cash to get right back in. But, your right, with only one party remaining, it would be much easier to change or replace the current system. The way to do that would be to have one party raise it voter rolls by 10% and every 2 years continually vote to one side. If you could maintain that through 4 complete election cycles, then one of the parties would start to lose their funding to the point of extinction. For me that would be the republicans. The right would fill and control that void quickly Their constituency would be beside themselves with joy and would have no intention of disbanding their party. The powers2b would create another party as their Manchurian party and blame their fiascoes on their new dummy party. If you think the party to vote into extinction is the democrats., you'd be in for a very rude awakening. That's not a fact, it's an opinion. But, I'd put any amount of money on it.

[-] -2 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

during my lifetime it is the liberal's who have been the most frightening

[-] 5 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

I looked at those Ukrainian Nazis that the pugs on all the Sunday news shows take shot after shot at Obama because he hasn't got involved enough with air raids and weapons and boots on the ground. Our pugs are scarier than the Ukrainian ones any day of the week. If you're not afraid of them, you just a danged fool.

[-] -3 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

we agree that those guys are pugs (not the word I would use) and we have many of them. I don't think they have much power so I am not afraid of them - not now anyway. I would like to see one run for president - maybe they would carry ole miss. the Ukrainians are the real deal - followers of bandera - here is Stephan cohen - One other point: These right-wing people, whom Anton thinks are not significant, all reports—and I don’t know when he was in Ukraine, maybe it was long ago and things have gone—but the reports that are coming out of Ukraine are the following. One, the moderates—that’s the former heavyweight champion boxer, Vitali Klitschko, and others—have lost control of the street. They’ve asked the people who have been attacking the police with Molotov cocktails, and to vacate the buildings they’ve occupied, to stop. And the street will not stop, partly because—I’d say largely because—the street in Kiev is now controlled by these right-wing extremists. And that extremism has spread to western Ukraine, where these people are occupying government buildings. So, in fact, you have a political civil war underway.

What is the face of these people, this right wing? A, they hate Europe as much as they hate Russia. Their official statement is: Europe is homosexuals, Jews and the decay of the Ukrainian state. They want nothing to do with Europe. They want nothing to do with Russia. I’m talking about this—it’s not a fringe, but this very right-wing thing. What does their political activity include? It includes writing on buildings in western Ukraine, "Jews live here." That’s exactly what the Nazis wrote on the homes of Jews when they occupied Ukraine. A priest who represents part of the political movement in western Ukraine—Putin quoted this, but it doesn’t make it false. It doesn’t make it false; it’s been verified. A western Ukrainian priest said, "We, Ukraine, will not be governed by Negroes, Jews or Russians." So, these people have now come to the fore.

The first victims of any revolution—I don’t know if this is a revolution, but the first victims of any revolution are the moderates. And the moderates have lost control of what they created, helped by the European Union and the American government back in November. And so, now anything is possible, including two Ukraines.

[-] 5 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

Well, there you have it. the right wing is the wrong wing. so, bombing the shit out of iraq is less violent than molotov cocktails? Nope.

[-] 0 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

lots of countries have attacked and bombed others - they are not all considered Nazis (in mainstream discourse). now if you want me the say that the bush admin has more blood on it's hands than the supporters of bandera - ok I agree. and they are horrific thugs. but you said you hunt Nazis - they are in Ukraine! some fun quotes from non Nazis (in mainstream discourse - not my opinion) - David Lloyd George's comment, "We reserve the right to bomb the niggers" - ...........a War Office minute of 12 May, 1919, shows, in which Winston Churchill argued

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."[1].............and one more - you can look up the author to see if they qualify as a Nazi - "The task of felling trees and Indians and of rounding out their natural boundaries"

[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 4 months ago

The right wing constituency is the 4th Reich. Their leaders are worse. Down with the Repugs. OK, you don't want me to call 'em Nazis? How about the Height of Hypocrisy? Nah, I can't. They're both.

[-] -1 points by flip (6775) 4 months ago

I am really with you here - they are really off the wall . I understand the use of the term but I think it is not helpful when talking to some "average American" - there are real Nazis out there but the right wing Christians are not quite there - yet. just my opinion