Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The reluctance of white liberals and progressives to engage in serious criticism of Barack Obama

Posted 11 months ago on April 5, 2014, 8:29 a.m. EST by flip (7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

here is street's take on the power behind the throne - "......the Caucasian corporate, financial, and imperial establishment elements that seized on Obama as a perfect vehicle for carrying out their selfish and authoritarian agenda under the guise of progressive change and democratic hope in the wake of the long national Cheney-Bush nightmare. Ruling class members and operatives provided the money, connections, celebrity, and media attention and approval without which Obama’s rise was unimaginable. They did so only after subjecting Obama to a thorough vetting in which they found him highly amenable to the task of serving their narrow, undemocratic interests. [7] Assured of his deeply conservative, privilege-friendly, and “market”- (really corporate-) friendly essence, they found Obama’s technical Blackness, his brief stint as a “community organizer,” and his technically Muslim ethnic nomenclature nicely suited to the project of giving the American System a fake-democratic “brand makeover” at home and abroad. The re-branding was urgently required following George Dubya Bush’s all too transparently plutocratic, racist, and imperialist performance, scarred by the club-footed invasion of Iraq and the Katrina atrocity among other clumsy blunders.[8]

Along the way, the U.S. power elite has derived no small degree of “divide-and-rule” satisfaction as a first technically Black presidency has fed identity-based fissures in majority working class America and fueled racial and related partisan deadlock. The “deep state” financial and corporate elite continues to pillage society and the commons behind the scenes of the big business-financed and highly racial identity-politicized major party “marionette theater” that passes for democratic politics in Washington and across the nation’s fifty state capitols.[9]........................... now a piece from the article -

No Favor to Black America

By Paul Street

April 5, 2014

The reluctance of many white liberals and progressives to engage in serious criticism of U.S. President Barack Obama no matter how coldly corporate-neoliberal [1] and imperial [2] he shows himself to be, has been quite pronounced. Among the factors that explain that reluctance, one that deserves mention is certainly the fact that many of those whites think they are doing Black Americans some kind of benevolent favor by supporting the nation’s first technically Black (or first half-white) president.

White progressives and liberals should drop that presumption. The business-friendly and militaristic record of the Obama administration stands well to the right of progressive policy views that have long held strong majority support from Black Americans, the leftmost ethno-cultural segment of the U.S. electorate. At the same time, the president’s center-right policy record has inflicted disproportionate pain on the Black community, which has seen its wealth and income levels decline both absolutely and relative to white America across the Age of Obama. Along the way, finally, the Obama administration has proven to be a disaster for Black politics and consciousness and for the cause of racial equality.

Off the Table

For useful reflections on this last point, a good place to start is the Black Columbia University political scientist Frederick C. Harris’s important and engaging book The Price of the Ticket: Barack Obama and the Rise and Decline of Black Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014 [2012]), recently re-issued in paperback. Harris’ academic turf is modern U.S. Black politics. He covers key parts of that terrain with keen historical understanding, situating the Obama phenomenon and presidency in the context of the longstanding intra-Black debate about “whether Black voters should organize into a cohesive, independent bloc to promote both targeted and universal policies, or pursue a more race-neutral approach, working together with other racial minorities as well as like-minded whites.”

As Harris shows, Obama’s ascendancy represents the triumph of the “race-neutral” argument in the post-Civil Rights era. Obama has been careful to distance himself from the considerably more race-conscious Black activists and politicians whose past struggles paved the way for his success. In doing so, he has embraced a “de-racialized” white-pleasing political and policy rhetoric that “surrenders to the false notion of a color-blind society where race no longer matters” and to the related “idea that policies that help everyone – what is described by policymakers as universalism – will trickle down to meet the systematic needs of Black communities and that targeted policies toward minorities – which lack the political will of the majority – should be taken off the table” (Harris, Price of the Ticket, p. x).[3]

Ironically yet fittingly enough given these surrenders, the nation’s first technically Black president has “spoke[n] less on issues of race than any other Democratic president since 1961” (Harris, xii). By Harris’s account, “Obama’s ascendancy to the White House actually signals a decline of a politics aimed at challenging racial equality head-on”(Harris, xviii) – this even as Obama has taken risks to support minority constituencies on issues like LGBT and immigrant rights.

Obama’s race-neutral presidency has been consistent with his first and historic presidential campaign. As Jesse Jackson, Sr., observed at the height of the 2007-08 primary season, none of the Democratic Party contenders other than John Edwards raised issues of importance to minorities and the poor – a criticism that brought Jackson a public rebuke from his son, a post-Civil Rights Congressman in the race-neutral mode (Harris, 33). As Harris notes, “The housing foreclosure crisis that disproportionately hit communities of color, growing levels of Black unemployment, the persistence of the HIV-AIDS epidemic in the Black population, and the War on Drugs that sends large numbers of Blacks to prison for nonviolent offenses. These issues would not be substantially engaged by Obama or any of the other Democratic candidates, except John Edwards, whose campaign focused on economic inequality and racial justice” (Harris, 140).

“Personal Failure, Not Societal Barriers”

Along the way, Obama has shown himself more than willing to reinforce the notion that poor Blacks are the victims less of societal oppression than of their own supposed bad values, behavior and culture. He has shamed many Blacks for their failure to take advantage of the great opportunities supposedly afforded them in “this magical place called America,” where Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s racial anger is supposedly now inappropriate and ungrateful. Harris gives an example (one of many that could be cited) from a speech Obama gave before a predominantly Black audience in Beaumont, Texas in February of 2008 – a speech in which the future president from Hawaii and Harvard Law went into mock southern-Black dialect to blame parents for making their children fat and lethargic with poor nutrition choices (“Popeye’s [fried chicken] for breakfast”). As Harris notes:

“During Obama’s jousting with the audience, the candidate neglected to mention social and economic barriers that may account for parents’ allegedly poor decisions – limited food choices in Black poor and working-class neighborhoods and the high price of fresh food compared with the cheap cost of fast food. Nor [did] Obama mention the difficulties of single parents working full time and short on time to prepare meals or the oversaturation and marketing of fast foods in minority neighborhoods. To Obama, bad eating habits….are a reflection of personal failings, not societal barriers” (Harris, 100-101)

“The Real Audience is White”

Harris could have mentioned numerous other moments before and since the future president’s Popeye’s Speech when Obama felt compelled to scold Black people on their own supposed personal responsibility for their own poverty. “It’s obvious by now,” Ishmael Reed noted in 2008, “that Barack Obama is treating Black Americans like one treats a demented uncle, brought out from his room to be ridiculed and scolded before company from time to time.” [4]

Last Spring, Obama spoke to the graduates of historically Black Morehouse College, the alma mater of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As the left Black writer Margaret Kimberly noted at the indispensable Black radical zine Black Agenda Report: “The poor graduates were not only forced to sit in a driving rain but were also insulted by …president [who] felt compelled to point out that there are Black people who make excuses, and don’t take care of their kids, and make bad choices…As in 2008, the Black people in the audience were part of the stage setting for the real audience, which was totally white.”

When Obama talks down to Black people [5], Kimberly notes, “the audience in his presence [may be]…Black,” but “the real audience [is] white. The political slang is ‘dog whistling.’ Just as there are sounds which can be heard only by the canine ear, there are messages tailor made for specific constituencies, though they appear to be made for others.” [6]



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

What Obama wants that the puppet masters don't like: A substantial hike in the minimum wage. What Republicans-The Overwhelming Benefactors Of The Puppet Masters do want: Slave wages and a slave economy. Case Closed.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

to be read slowly and carefully - 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.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

yes and he favors gay marriage and a womans right to choose - but that is not case closed - sorry to burst your bubble. where does he stand on the right to bomb the world or funnel money to the ruling class - read up an the tpp and get back to me - you should have no trouble finding out about it even though it is secret!

[-] 5 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

I agree. That's the shadow government-the Pentagon and Military have always had their way-Democrat or Republican. Hence, the term Republican Lite. So, what's at stake? We've been told the Republicans will win big on the mid terms, hence the endless parade of stalemates. Is the game rigged? The economy is hurting-it certainly is no benefit to the elite to raise the minimum wage. What I'm saying is-Right now, that's more important. I'm not saying your premise is wrong.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

very good response - I am a bit shocked. ok, we can agree that with the narrow range of what we have to vote for and what is possible right now the dems are the best bet. I am hoping we can also agree that much more radical reforms must be made or the country is in big trouble - and that Obama and the dnc will not make those reforms - lizzie warren might!

[-] -3 points by JGriff99mph (507) 10 months ago

Further endorsing what they are doing is going to accomplish the exact opposite of what you are saying. Its going to further enable the behavior as opposed to correcting it.

What do politicians respond to most? What gets their attention the most?

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Again, I agree. But, as the saying goes 'Rome wasn't built in a day.' The republicans, we have already been told, will win big in November. IF the left, the anarchists, and whoever show up in mass and the pugs still win-I will concede my argument. It's a first step. It's making a statement; I'm showing up to punch a hole in your predictions that are never wrong. Of course, you and I know the game is rigged, but that would prove it. It would prove it for all the world to see. Sometimes, to get what you want, you have to beat the opponent at his own game-and then change the rules. I think Obama was trying to do that and had a huge anchor thrown in there in 2010. In the last half century, the biggest thing that ever happened for the betterment of this country was the ACA. I know because I've been around. You can't vote in one election and then say, 'ok. let's see what happens.' As the pugs showed, it doesn't work that way. What if you convinced us all we just shouldn't vote and none of us did? I'll tell you what would happen; we'd all be fucked. Why? Because we are reasonable enough to even listen to you. The people you have to convince are over at breitbart.com. They are radicals. How many respond to comments on this website? maybe 100, if it's a good post. Go to breitbart, every single post has thousands and thousands of posts-all radical, all maniacal, all insane. Your premise that things would change for the better should no democrats vote-I believe-would lead to much worse pain. It would be at that point that the Kochs step in and announce themselves President and VP. Consider it.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 months ago

"I'm not kidding you, you put him on a balcony in a military uniform, this guy is a full-fledged dictator...He's a sociopath!" —

Glenn Beck on President Obama

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Glenn Beck is a shameless ass wipe. Or should I call him professor? What an actor. What an act. Shameless. I'd take Jesse Ventura in spades before I'd take this guy.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

I agree beck is a sick man but what I want to know is who pays him to do his act on tv and radio. it is some respectable man at the head of some respectable corporation - most likely giving money to both parties. beck is not the problem - those that pay him are!

[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Microsoft gives more to the Democrats. The top 10 corporate contributors give overwhelmingly to the pugs. But, yes Democrats take money also...in the two-party sham, it's either that or there's only one party. You need take issue with the ones who are never taken to issue on this even though they are the biggest collectors of corporate cash and handouts, and their lunatic constituency never takes them to task. Get rid of the pug contributions and there would be none on the left. I'm sure you recently heard about the "Conservative" Court's ruling on corporate cash and contributions? See, I think why you're meeting with some resentment here is because someone punched you in the face, bloody nose, not much. Another guy broke your leg and castrated you. You're taking issue with the guy who punched your face like your missing dick doesn't matter. Hah! that was good. I gotta write that down.

[-] -3 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

first of all what is with the bipolar thing - some responses are sane (like this one) and others - well let's just say they are not! and give up the nazihunter line - if you ran into one of those Ukrainian Nazis you would run like a little girl. did you see the video from the tv office in Ukraine - what would you do in that situation? I guess I agree with the story the way you set it up - I would be complaining to the guy who cut me but I would create a different story. let's say a guy (big respectable guy - dressed in a nice suit) stole your wallet and he is saying he is doing it for your own good. he knows what to do with the money better than you - and he is pointing to a little girl in the distance. he is telling you - look out for her - she is coming to get you! rush Limbaugh and the like have very little power - those that pay them do - notice how quickly he was thrown out of football - notice who he backed in the primaries - he has no clout and neither do the others really. they serve to make our right wing president look like a lefty. those crazy right wing nut jobs are setting us up to have our social security cut by the democrats - and they will do it for our own good!

[-] 0 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

OK. It's at this point I say you're delusional. I have tried not to insult you but that's all you've tried to do me. Can't win by argument then insult=right-wing strategy. Bad, bad analogy BTW, If that doesn't flush you out as a right-winger, I don't what does. The right-winger has no clout but he's setting us up to have our social security cut? Do you know what an oxymoron is-moron! You and Nazi friend get the fuck off this site. The Nazi Hunter exposes another!! Get the fuck out of here. I'll show you what running like a little girl is.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

oh dear aren't we brave - over the INTERNET! did kennedy carpet bomb Vietnamese peasants - simple question - i doubt i will get an answer. please prove m wrong - again. go to Ukraine to find real Nazis - please

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

you: education means nothing. me: in the absence of all else, it's important. you: noam has phd. (first bipolar). me: that's good, (consistent). you: noam does not have phd. (bipolar). go to breitbart, you've been flushed out, Nazi.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

noam's own words about his education After my first year of college, each course I took in every field was so boring that I didn’t even go to the classes. I was quite interested in chemistry, but the way I passed the chemistry course was because I had a friend, a young woman about my age, who took extremely meticulous notes…she lent me her notes so I didn’t have to go to class and I could pass the exams.”

As a result, Chomsky declares that he “never really had an undergraduate degree.”

So how does a slacker become a Professor Emeritus at MIT?

I started taking mainly a scattering of graduate courses without much background, I then was lucky enough to get a 4-year graduate fellowship…did my own work, essentially I never had much of a formal education.

…And then I was very lucky, to get to M.I.T., which was a research institution, they didn’t care about credentials. You could work on what you wanted to, and it turned out very well. It’s just a series of accidents I think. Very few people are lucky enough to have an experience like that.

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Good for him. I know a few people who went to M.I.T. Usually, it's because you're a whole lot smarter than everyone else. But, it's a big wide world of sports out there filled with ordinary people. Within that world, I can pick out the older people without degrees just by listening to them talk for a while. If you're as smart as Chomsky, you're a dope for not going because it would probably be a duck walk. I think you're wishing your post did better. In a world without republicans, it would have. You know, as you age, you learn you were wrong about a whole lotta shit. That's everyone. Don't take it so personal.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

hoping my post did better - in what way? it seems to have stirred the pot and possibly educated some. that is all I hoped for. and where was I wrong - did I miss something. oh, yes probably Chomsky has a phd - an honorary degree or some such - ok, wrong technically but not really. yea I am old - seen too much. when is your flight? lots of Nazis over there - real ones in positions of power. in the Ukraine you could really do some good in the world - at the very least expose them and those who are promoting them. you don't have to go face to face - that would be frightening. they are big and mean.

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

You funny !! Hahh! Learn?? From you???????? That would be comical if it weren't sad. I thought you called ZenDog 'old dog'? So, now it's you that's old, is it?? OK, I'll give you points for stirring the pot. When you engage smart people with your stupidity and ignorance and try to piss them off in the process, your bound to stir the pot--which is why u r a Nazi. As for learning??????? That's a joke right?? Hahhhh!!!! Hahhhh!! Oh, man, do you really believe that? I can't stop laughing. Thanks, man. You made my day. BTW-what was the point of this regurgitated right wing post? Hahhh! Nevermind!!!!!!! This is a great act! You mean ur older??? LOL! I wouldn't admit that if I were you. Fucking sap!

[-] -2 points by JGriff99mph (507) 10 months ago

" those crazy right wing nut jobs are setting us up to have our social security cut by the democrats - and they will do it for our own good!"

Good point. I especially loved their solution of taking the cash and investing it into Wall St a few years back. That was a real gem.

[-] -1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

How is that a good point? The pugs are looking to cut it quite openly. Quite openly, they are doing it for our own good. So, one, (who went to school), would ask, 'Why would they bother with such tactics?' The Wall St. thing was Bush's and Hank's idea. What do you not understand about that? Maybe you forgot the mid-night vote in which the republicans said "fuck our constituency, let's give the banks money. In fact, let's force it on them!" It was a done deal. You see, 'a little' thinking doesn't cut it., oh yes! unless you're a republican.

[-] 2 points by JGriff99mph (507) 10 months ago

We are in a time of qe infinity. If you don't understand what that says of the entire situation, your schooling was worse than mine.

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

your argument is best had on breitbart.com.

[-] 2 points by JGriff99mph (507) 10 months ago

Its an anti-wall st argument I am making. Are you not informed?

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Oh! Shit! You mean it's an anti-wall st. argument? How did I not know? Very brief synopsis-Republicans-overwhelming recipients of corporate cash. Hank Paulson-Republican-bailed out the banks and even forced them to take it. Now, do you now what Dodd-Frank is all about? How about H.R. 992? I'm trying to help you. Nothing worthwhile is achieved suddenly or easily. You and your friend are incredibly naive. When you're wrong, you're wrong. Why can't you admit it? On the other hand, bring your argument over to breitbart.com, once again, that's breitbart.com. Tell them you want corporations out of government, in particular, the Koch Industries would be a good start. Then point me to all the positive responses you get. I'll concede that I'm an idiot and whatever else you're inferring. If you read-I never disagreed with the basis of your argument. Let's say everyone overwhelmingly agreed. Then what? Then the pugs would swoop right in and let the banks just take your savings. The pugs would fill the vacuum in a heartbeat and The Fourth Reich would make the Third look like child's play. If your starting point is here, it's a bad game plan. Real bad. And why should I prove anything? This is your buddy's post. I say aahhhht!, bad plan! Go to breitbart, tell them the Koch's buying elections is baaaad. See, if you can't buy it, you can then promote candidates who aren't sellouts. If that's not reasonable to you, then I say 'God love the banks that give cash to Obama.' You can call me stupid or whatever you want, it matters not. I'm not here to be right. I'm not claiming to be a genius. This is just rhetoric we're spewing here. So, what's your plan? Just not vote? It's your argument. You have to give "substance." Not me. My voting card is ready--and every democrat gets cart blanch from me. In fact, I'm going over to Franken's website now to give him a contribution against the Koch-suckers.

[-] 0 points by JGriff99mph (507) 10 months ago

Tell Franken to cut the bullshit and start pushing MTA's platform instead of the watered down garbage he is peddling under his own name.

FYI your votes are counted in secret, the polling and media determine who is what, primaries are corporate sponsored and getting in the club is more important to candidates than serving the public.

[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Fox & Murdoch fund him. Now he tries to re-spin conspiracy theories like it's all the left. And he uses a chalkboard and uses his pointer and moves his glasses down. This asshole doesn't even have a degree in anything. And he wants to educate the public?? As to the corporate shit, everyone on the left already knows this. It's the right that doesn't own up. Now we have to suspect you of being a plant. We know it's a choice of Republican or Republican Lite. Given the ideology and fanaticism of the Republican, I'll choose Republican Lite every time.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

fox and Murdoch do not fund him from what I can see. clear channel gave him big $ - and who owns them - they fund both parties as I said. you suspect me of being a plant - why? because I pointed out an obvious fact - that he who pays the piper calls the tune. and who are those who pay the pipers - the funders of both parties - is that why I might be a plant. and planted by whom? please, please do not say libeRublicans (or whatever that silliness is). and as an aside - the idea that one must have a degree is childish - this is a radical and at least somewhat anarchist website. the idea that one must have a degree from a ruling class institution is part of how they maintain control. do you think the populists were educated by those with degrees - how about those sitting in lunch counters and being beaten for opposing the Vietnam war. come nazihunter (and what the fuck is up with that name??) - maybe you are the plant - planted by the dnc to co opt ows - I give you noam on your idea of qualifications to speak and educate - ........."the qualifications that I have to speak on world affairs are exactly the same ones Henry Kissinger has, and Walt Rostow has, or anybody in the Political Science Department, professional historians—none, none that you don't have. The only difference is, I don't pretend to have qualifications, nor do I pretend that qualifications are needed. I mean, if somebody were to ask me to give a talk on quantum physics, I'd refuse—because I don't understand enough. But world affairs are trivial: there's nothing in the social sciences or history or whatever that is beyond the intellectual capacities of an ordinary fifteen-year-old. You have to do a little work, you have to do some reading, you have to be able to think but there's nothing deep—if there are any theories around that require some special kind of training to understand, then they've been kept a carefully guarded secret.”

― Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

BTW-Can you tell why Ryan's budget would be a distaster

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

don't know his budget in any detail but he is not someone I worry about. I do agree that ryan, rand paul, cruze and the like are out in space somewhere and should not be given the time of day!

[-] 2 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

I am the Nazi hunter. I smell out the trolls and call them on their bullshit. Why ask who funds Beck if you know? Beck started on Fox. Beck is frequent guest on Fox. Murdoch and Fox are one in the same....So cut the bullshit. Chomsky has been dead wrong on Vietnam. I hate people who try to lecture me with lies. Perhaps you don't. People who have blackboards and pointers and try to play the smart guy in the room better have some sort of qualifications or I don't give a shit what he says, he's talking out his ass and I can't waste my time. You're in here trying to educate people with other people's shit and we already know better. I am the nazihunter. I smell out the shit. No more time need be wasted with you.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

you are a nazi hunter - and a troll hunter but you can't find out who writes glen beck's paycheck. ha! and where was noam off base on Vietnam? I imagine I will not get an answer on that one - Nazi hunter - boy are you a sad sack. sounds like you listen to someone based on the letters after their name instead of the logic of their argument ( like phd just in case you couldn't figure that one out) - figures - Nazi hunter - have you found any yet??

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Glenn Beck achieved popularity through his show on Fox. He also had radio show through Fox. That his insanity might have even caused a problem for them may be why he is not prominent there any longer. He still is called on by them. He is still taking a check from them. Chomsky continually cites Kennedy for escalating the war which is just bullshit. He did drastically up the number of advisers to 16,000. However, Kennedy was not respected by the military community nor did he respect them. He was continually misled by the Pentagon and Cabot Lodge. Noam doesn't ever mention he inherited that shit from Ike, who was also misled. He is both on tape and film stating it wasn't a worthy cause and he was going to withdraw the majority of advisers. Low and behold, he's dead and LBJ takes over, doubles Kennedy's numbers and engages the US in actual combat. If you want blame, it goes to Johnson. Chomsky is fucking dead wrong. These are facts. I'm also disappointed in Noam if he said that crap below. Yes, everybody can talk politics out their ass. But, to talk about it intelligently and truthfully..you need to do your homework. Taxes and budgets. homework. Cause and Effect. Inflation and Employment.. Or, you can shoot out your ass like Beck. You don't need a degree, but you need to show competence and experience. A degree seems to be the standard. I don't many high school graduates teaching college. They need to show competence and, if they don't have it, they won't last long. But this guy, going on TV before millions with his scholarly looks and his blackboard and a few morons to back him up, acting as if he were a supreme authority? If you have excellent credentials or, at the very least, established experience. But, if you have neither and you don't even have, at the very, very, very least, a degree, you're not only a charlatan, you're a disgrace, an insult to the whole nation, an abomination. But if you can act like a fanatical ideologue, Fox will still take you on. So, what Noam is saying is what's currently going on. It's the reality. It's not working working out very well is it. I'm sure Noam is a smart guy, and his Phd. means I will give him the time of day over Beck any day of the week. Sometimes an education is very worth while, when you actually earn it. You don't play politics, you don't kiss ass, you don't cheat and you don't send mommy in to complain for you. If you're smart enough, you can sift the elite's shit out of it. I don't know about Clear Channel. I just know there is NO mainstream media that can be trusted anymore. And why Nazi hunter? Because today's Republicans are ALL radical in my view. I believe they'd make Hitler blush. You'll tell me they're not that bad. The're pretty bad. Wherever the Democrats are, they are the ones who brought us to the brink in the collective sense. They were the first corporate kiss-asses. They still get the majority of corporate funding. I looked at Ryan's budget in detail and I found it quite scary. Most of those speaking about it had no clue. But, there is still some knowledgeable people out there who exposed it, and thank your lucky stars. That's part of the reason he and Romney lost. His plan was insane, even for his puppet masters. So, why flip then?

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

the right wing of the gop is insane - no disagreement - making hitler blush - way out of line. as to noam - he has no real phd and he would agree with doing homework. maybe you missed this part - when he said "You have to do a little work, you have to do some reading, you have to be able to think but there's nothing deep" - so we disagree on the phd nonsense! as to jfk - I think he was killed by the cia or some such but have you read "rethinking Camelot." where noam lays out in detail why he thinks jfk was NOT removing troops from Vietnam. are you aware of Kennedy's attack on south Vietnam? once again here is noam - "Consider the following facts. In 1962, the United States attacked South Vietnam. In that year, President John F. Kennedy sent the U.S. Air Force to attack rural South Vietnam, where more than 80 percent of the population lived. This was part of a program intended to drive several million people into concentration camps (called "strategic hamlets") where they would be surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. This would "protect" these people from the guerrillas whom, we conceded, they were largely supporting."

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Go to breitbart. If that isn't good enough, go to one of Fox's or go to the Reason Foundation, (Reason?). Notice how much commentary and notice how angry and vitriolic it all is. Thousands and thousands and thousands of comments. What's tops for this site? 100? Way out of line? Not! But, this is opinion. I'm not trying to win an argument with you. I myself will go and vote to try to at least slow down these maniacs. That's what they are. I'm sure everyone who went to school did a little thinking. Chomsky is not only over simplifying here, he's covering his ass because he has no degree in political science and his actual degree doesn't seem to be something he's active in nowadays. Pick up a guitar and learn to play it well. Then put it down for several months. You'll be learning a lot of things over again. If you have an engineering degree but you're not an engineer-then you can say you're an engineer but I'll take an a real engineer over that guy anyday. Education-reading comprehension-I said Kennedy stated it as his intentions-both on film and tape-I didn't say that he did withdraw. What part did I miss? There is overwhelming abundance of information as to where we are and why we are here. A little thinking won't cut it. An education does is a starting point and if you continue in that vein then it proves to be worth something. I didn't say 'a little homework.' You're taking Chomsky's word on Kennedy? Point proved. Case closed. Has no phd? You're the one who said he had it! What are you playing word games? The CIA killed Kennedy? Why would they do that? You're taking one guy's word on things as fact? So, you're saying one source is all you need? Yes, that is 'a little thinking.'-it's just not enough. That's tenth grade thinking. I live in the real world. Perhaps you'd like to have Joe the plumber do your next heart surgery.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

not taking anyone's word - the facts are what they are - kennedy did not order the carpet bombing of the peasants of Vietnam - is that your contention? i understand you thinking about degrees and such but disagree with it totally. i consider what someone says and the logic of their argument - the facts they present and the truth of what they say. not where they went to school - does young mr bush have a degree from yale? and john Kerry - who said such nonsense about Ukraine. you have proved nothing except your ignorance - you belong on some other site - anarchist have too much understanding of history and politics to pay attention to you. nazihunter - what a joke. they are right in front of you - supported by your liberal democrats. they are right on the front pages - in the Ukraine - go there and hunt them - do your duty - your self proclaimed duty - go - please go and hunt them down. you would whimper like a little girl when faced with those followers of bandera - like a little girl.

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Fuck off Nazi. Name the time and place.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

Ukraine - today - tough guy - you have no place here. the place for a real Nazi hunter is right now in the Ukraine- go! ask for stepan bandera

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

Guess who wants to arm them to the teeth: the republicans.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 10 months ago

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to President Obama. He’s in Mexico for the big Mexico-Canada-U.S. summit talking about Ukraine.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: With regard to Ukraine, along with our European partners, we will continue to engage all sides. And we continue to stress to President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian government that they have the primary responsibility to prevent the kind of terrible violence that we’ve seen, to withdraw riot police, to work with the opposition to restore security and human dignity, and move the country forward. And this includes progress towards a multi-party, technical government that can work with the international community on a support package and adopt reforms necessary for free and fair elections next year. Ukrainians are a proud and resilient people who have overcome extraordinary challenges in their history, and that’s a pride and strength that I hope they draw on now.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama in Mexico, Professor Cohen.

STEPHEN COHEN: What are you asking me to comment on?

AMY GOODMAN: Your response to his response.

STEPHEN COHEN: To what he just said? Shame. Shame. He is saying that the responsibility for restoring peace is on the Ukrainian government, and it should withdraw its security forces from the streets. But let me ask you, if in Washington people throwing Molotov cocktails are marching on Congress—and these people are headed for the Ukrainian Congress—if these people have barricaded entrance to the White House and are throwing rocks at the White House security guard, would President Obama withdraw his security forces? This is—this is—and do you know what this does? And let’s escape partisanship here. I mean, lives are at stake. This incites, these kinds of statement that Obama made. It rationalizes what the killers in the streets are doing. It gives them Western license, because he’s not saying to the people in the streets, "Stop this, stop shooting policemen, stop attacking government buildings, sit down and talk." And the guy you had on just before, a so-called moderate leader, what did he just tell you? "We have lost control of the situation." That’s what I just told you. He just confirmed that.

So what Obama needs to say is, "We deplore what the people in the streets are doing when they attack the police, the law enforcement official. And we also don’t like the people who are writing on buildings 'Jews live here,'" because these forces, these quasi-fascist forces—let’s address this issue, because the last time I was on your broadcast, you found some guy somewhere who said there was none of this there. All right. What percent are the quasi-fascists of the opposition? Let’s say they’re 5 percent. I think they’re more, but let’s give them the break, 5 percent. But we know from history that when the moderates lose control of the situation, they don’t know what to do. The country descends in chaos. Five percent of a population that’s tough, resolute, ruthless, armed, well funded, and knows what it wants, can make history. We’ve seen it through Europe. We’ve seen it through Asia. This is reality. And where Washington and Brussels are on this issue, they won’t step up and take the responsibility.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

well now I would not go that far. shooz I am surprised that you agree with geln beck - I thought you liked Obama and the corporate capitalist policies he pushes. the policies that benefit the 1% at the expense of the rest of us. i thought you liked the expansion of our military bases (is it over 1000 by now?) and the murdering of bin laden ( as he lay helpless on the ground!) and the dumping of his body into the sea. I thought you liked the drones bombing wedding parties and American citizens. then, of course, we have the tpp - you know what that is right? you support that don't you? quoting glen beck to make your point - wow what has ows become.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

another well thought out response - countering each and every point made. I respectfully suggest that you read the rules - you seem to be off topic. I am going to refer this to the moderator!




[-] -3 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

well even if you believe that nader lost the election for the 1%er al gore (and I do not blame nader for that - I blame gore and the neo con Clinton - nafta come to mind?) that doesn't make his prediction any less correct. how are you on logic?

[-] -2 points by JGriff99mph (507) 10 months ago

With this guy's obsession with Republicans and admiration for Democrats, you'd think it would really love the libertarians that "steal" votes from the Republicans.

But it just can't seem to grasp that.


[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 months ago


It's your fascination that is completely out of place.

Long before and long after he's gone the Kochs and their power will remain, if only because you've ignored what they've done.


[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

another opinion - maybe correct. certainly we need to get money out of politics. the fact that the Koch brothers and the like have too much power does not change what I have posted and written. Jamie diamond and the boys at goldman have plenty of money and power - and who are they behind? so are you rooting for the goldman faction over the Koch faction or do you want them both out of positions of power and control. did Obama set records for fund raising - where did that money come from? zuccotti park and the 99% - doubtful. ok he got some from us but how many $50k a plate dinners did you go to? and what exactly would you like me to say about gish galloping - sorry if you cannot handle two questions in one response. can you answer the questions - just say no if you can't

[-] -3 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

try to stay on topic or I will have to report you to the moderator. was this supposed to counter my point or answer my questions? it did not! does it have something to do with Obama and who funded his campaigns - "Under the Obama Administration, in 2009 alone, Goldman Sachs took more than $20 billion in taxpayer cash through bailouts, payments and backstops; and then turned around and paid out $16.2 B as 2009 bonuses, plus an additional $5 B more in bonuses in 2010 [Without Obama Administration's "help" Goldman's bonuses would have been zip, zero, ziltch.] .....- and here is a list of goldman sachs people in the Obama admin (through l only - if you would like the rest I can get it for you) -

Goldman Sachs Personnel in the Barack Obama White House

Lael Brainard: Brainard is the United States Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in the administration of Obama.

Gregory Craig: Former White House Counsel, Recently hired by Goldman Sachs.

Thomas Donilon: Deputy National Security Adviser (despite having a career that is mostly involved with domestic politics). Donilon was a lawyer at O’Melveny and Myers and made almost $4 million representing meltdown clients including Penny Pritzker (of Chicago) and Goldman Sachs.

William C. Dudley: President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, partner and managing director at Goldman Sachs and was the firm’s chief U.S. economist for a decade.

Douglas Elmendorf: Obama Director of the Congressional Budget Office in January 2009, replaced Furman as Director of the Hamilton Project (Note that the Hamilton Project was funded by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs).

Rahm Emanuel: Obama Chief of Staff, on the payroll of Goldman Sachs receiving $3,000 per month from the firm to “introduce us to people", in the words of one Goldman Sachs partner at the time.

Dianna Farrell: Obama Administration: Deputy Director, National Economic Council. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Financial Analyst.

Stephen Friedman: Obama Administration: Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman 1990-94; Director 2005).

Michael Frohman: Robert Rubin’s Chief of Staff while Rubin served as Secretary of the Treasury and an Obama “head hunter” according to “Rubin Proteges Change Their Tune as They Join Obama’s Team” in the New York Times.

Anne Fudge: Appointed to Obama budget deficit reduction committee. Fudge has been the PR craftsman for some of America’s largest corporations. She sits, according to the Washington Post, as a Trustee of the Brookings Institution within which the Hamilton Project is embedded.

Jason Furman: Directed economic policy for the Obama Presidential Campaign, served as the second Director of the Hamilton Project after Peter Orszag’s departure for the Obama administration.

Mark Gallogly: Sits on the Hamilton Project’s advisory council. He is also, according to Wikipedia, currently a member of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Timothy Geithner: Secretary of the Treasury, former President of the New York Fed. a former managing director of Goldman Sachs.

Gary Gensler: Obama Administration: Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance.

Michael Greenstone: The 4th Director of the Hamilton Project. Just as attorney Craig went from advising Obama to defending Goldman Sachs against the SEC complaint, Greenstone has used the revolving door to go from an Obama economic adviser position to one of the Goldman Sachs outlets - in this case its think tank embedded in the Brookings Institution and funded by Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin. All 3 previous Directors of the Hamilton Project work in the Obama administration.

Robert Hormats: Obama Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group.

Neel Kashkari: Served under Treasury Secretary Paulson (a former Goldman Sachs CEO) and was kept on by Obama after his inauguration for a limited period to work on TARP oversight. Former Vice President of Goldman Sachs in San Francisco where he led Goldman’s Information Technology Security Investment Banking practice.

Karen Kornbluh: (Sometimes called "Obama’s brain") Obama Ambassador to the OECD. Was Deputy Chief of Staff to 'Mr. Goldman Sachs', Robert Rubin.

Jacob "Jack" Lew: The United States Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. According to Wikipedia, Lew sits on the Brookings-Rubin funded Hamilton Project Advisory Board. He also served with Robert Rubin in Bill Clinton’s cabinet as Director of OMB.

David Lipton: Now on Obama’s National Economic Council and the National Security Council. Lipton worked with Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner on the US response to the Asian financial crisis of the 1990’s. MergeFoundations reports that Lipton worked closely with Robert Rubin.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 months ago


You should stop plagiarizing.

You should stop now.

I know you can't think straight without a leader.

That's unfortunate, but you need to stop plagiarizing now.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

do you mean I should stop copying things off the internet and putting them in my responses to you - is that what you mean by plagiarizing?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 months ago


You can stop pretending now too.

If you don't know the meaning of that word, you don't much of anything else, but then, that would explain your need for a leader.


[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

You noticed that too? Be on the look out for plants.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 months ago

So OWS should be struggling to keep ''the centre'' where it is ?!!! This ''centre'' which is so faar to the fkn right in the first place after 40 years of Corporate Neoliberalism at home and Corporate-MIC Old Con and Neocon Empire abroad ?!! So the ''stupid bastards from the right'' are pushing left to isolate this hallowed ''centre'' are they ?! Are you and your foul mouthed, conservative doublespeak - actually for real ?

Consider : ''The true nature of US government won't change until the American people radically change the fundamental nature of their country's politics and economics, beginning with kicking out the two-party plutocrats of big business.'' from :

“We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” (Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis)

ad iudicium ...

[-] 4 points by nazihunter (215) 10 months ago

I wouldn't say they're pushing left exactly. I'd say they are taking all the bad, bad shit they're responsible for and trying to make it look like a left thing. Like the left is responsible for a corporatocracy...like the left is responsible for domestic surveillance...like the left is responsible for the Patriot Act...like the left is responsible for privatizing government to aid the corporation in it's takeover. All now coming up just before a mid-term? I agree with you, but all we have right now is band-aids, and we need them! At least Obama is pushing for something more closely resembling a good wage. So, I would say; Now is not the time. Come on, I know you Anonymous guys were smarter than that.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 months ago

Sorry to say that ''the left'' in the US, are mainly variations on the theme of 'liberals' and mainly just not as 'bat-shit-crazy' as either the standard or extreme right-wing. So 'the left' is more of a relative term for the 'not quite as lunatic and compassionless'.

In a two horse, electoral race between wannabe goose-steppers and basically decent minded people but 'MSM Mind-Managed', there is no real option but to exercise any vote for the 'not-quite-as-lunatic' - BUT there has to be more to democracy than choosing between tweedledumb and tweedleloony & also fyi :

Also : '' little is gained from sterile debates over whether program or organization is the "more" important object for activists. The point is that disorganization is now a major weakness. The United States left fell victim to recurring repressive demonizations of programs, individuals and especially organizations with anti-business and anti-capitalist objectives. To revive left protest on a scale comparable to the 1930s would require rebuilding the multiple, complex layers of connection among diverse components of the left (including those with such objectives).'' from :

ad iudicium ...


[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 months ago

''It is bad enough that the President, Congress and the Courts serve the interests of a minority that is so tiny that it is almost microscopic. What is even worse, is WHO that elite constituency is. It is exclusively THE BIGS: Big banks, Big corporations, Big agriculture, Big energy, Big pharmaceuticals, Big health care, Big high tech and the BIGGEST of them all - the military-industrial complex.'' from :

Genuine ''democracy vaporized, its putrid carcass is used against the ordinary person for whom it was initially conceived. Our demagogues give stirring speeches applauding our inalienable rights and the freedoms that our constitution protects. But at the same time, they barely whimper when a whistle blower reveals that the surveillance grid that is monitoring our behavior is beyond the wildest imaginings of Orwell or Huxley.''

Your simplistic dualism and investing the word ''libertarian'' with every manner of evil you can imagine, has led you down a psycho-spiritual and socio-political dead end. Stop wearing your ass as a hat dude and come into the light.

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

this is what you really think? - Obama attempted something that could have placed the U.S. at the head of the developed world in terms of health care policy - either you cannot read or cannot think - maybe both. you do realize that Obama/Romney care came out of the heritage foundation don't you? do you know what that is? two points - first, the best in the world??? here - The United States spends more than $8,000 a person per year on health care, well more than twice what Sweden spends. Yet health outcomes are far better in Sweden along virtually every dimension. Its infant mortality rate, for example, was recently less than half that of the United States. And males aged 15 to 60 are almost twice as likely to die in any given year in the United States than in Sweden.............. - second - The stock price of UnitedHealth Group Inc., America’s largest health care company, is up +263% since ObamaCare was signed into law just over four years ago on March 23, 2010. Over the ten years period prior to ObamaCare, UnitedHealth stock was down by 10%. ..........you are dumber than I thought and that is quite an accomplishment!


[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

your murdering, corporate capitalist president said this about Romney care - "we built the Affordable Care Act on this template" - sorry but no time to read your link. I will acknowledge that there are differences that are important. Medicaid expansion is one that is huge. having said that I will give you a bit more of your man (corporate shill that he is) speaking about his health care plan! maybe you should eat his words ... President Barack Obama points to the success of Massachusetts’ health reform as evidence that, despite a rocky start, the law will work to provide near universal coverage to the citizens of the nation.

“…the worst predictions about health care reform in Massachusetts never came true. They’re the same arguments that you’re hearing now… and it’s because you guys had a proven model that we built the Affordable Care Act on this template of proven, bipartisan success. Your law was the model for the nation’s law.” – President Barack Obama speaking at Faneuil Hall in Boston on October 30, 2013


[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

if you don't give a shit why do you keep responding in such a nasty way. it makes it seem like you do give a shit. I should leave you alone - for once you are right. the fact remains that Obama himself states that his plan is based on Romney's and that came out of the heritage foundation. it is obvious from the stock price of ins companies who benefits from this plan - as with all of Obama's policies the 1% benefit. that is why he was put in power - did you read the post?


[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

while you may be right about the Koch's that does not make what I said any less true. the fact is that according to Obama his plan was built on the template of Romney care and that plan came from the heritage foundation. the fact that the Koch's do not like it does not change the FACT of it's origin! now you seem to care - which is it? I would like to know - I am also wondering about your feelings towards women and sex - you seem to be obsessed.


[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

ok, good now you are making some sense. you don't care if I choke - got it. you might work on writing skills since this statement by you - "You really should just leave me the fuk alone - because a) I really don't give a shit" - implies that you don't give a shit about the topic not about my choking. and thanks for finally creating an insult that is not sexual or sexist. I congratulate you - and one more thing - thanks for moving my post to the top of the list - AGAIN!

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

your response to the dog boy is so much better than mine - nice job

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 months ago

Thanx but the geezer is off his rocker and probably also needs a ========##~~' imho ;-) & also fyi :

fiat lux ...

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

still the worst care in the developed world at twice the cost. who benefits from this state of affairs - the health ins companies and those investors who knew what Obama care would do to the stock price. 50 million new customers - subsidized by the middle class. no wonder Romney liked it!

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 months ago

The ''US Healthcare Industry'' is a profit centred ; dividend and astronomic salary paying ; 'extractive enterprise' - where far too much money is being made by special interests and where the collective, shared risk principles of universal, public healthcare is seen as anathema by The Corporations.+ fyi :

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] 4 points by Nevada1 (4946) 11 months ago

Corporate Imperialism

[-] 0 points by JGriff99mph (507) 11 months ago

The most corrupted acts in the country will have defenders in a divide and conquer system...

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 11 months ago

shadz is, as usual, on the money with his comment. ows is not about the center - or maybe you disagree. especially not the center that mainstream political opinion wants to sell us. we will never know what you think will we - silly me. everything pisses you off no? well maybe not the deep insights from shooz - those seem to send you into some weird state of male bonding bliss. ok, so a serious question - do you have any women in your obscenity loaded life? won't get an answer to that either right? well dog boy you should just go away but you are not bright enough to figure that out are you? now - go ahead give me the best you got - let's see what that might be - an intelligent clear critique of paul street - or an stream of obscenity. I can guess - - prove me wrong - please (see how polite I am?)