Forum Post: Of Nixon and Treason
Posted 11 years ago on Jan. 18, 2013, 12:46 p.m. EST by shoozTroll
(17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If these revelations don't turn the Viet Nam vets away from the lawlessness that IS the GOP, I don't suppose anything ever will.
An excerpt from the book, America's Stolen Narrative, by Robert Parry.
Between Johnson and the gulf of tonkin, and then this, its a wonder how they back anything.
Most of em Ive met just have an overwhelming distrust of the gov, seems how they got some first hand experience.
Throw in the fact that 1/4 to a 1/3 of all vets are homeless, and they have plenty reason to be mad.
Pretty good gloss over the Paris Peace Accords.
Is that also an excuse for what Reagan did?
Fuck em all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moUwd7Zax-0
That's always been your reaction to (R)epelican't malfeasance, even in your own State.
After speaking loudly of your HATE for rap music you link to it?
Hypocrisy in motion.
Hate? Ive always liked rap. I think its detrimental to society, but I like it. Im just as guilty as everyone in this crazy world, all of us in our own unique ways.
not all rap has messed up lyrical content.
This is my current fav
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqrtoFWglMY
My dad is a Vietnam vet and is so far away from the GOP it isn't even funny.
If he hasn't read about this by now, it's gonna really piss him off.
There's information about how Reagan did something similar with the Iran hostage situation, to seal his win over Carter in this book as well.
There is nothing so low that these people won't stoop to.
Reagan had more hands up his ass than Jeff Dunham's puppets.
Reagan was the front man of the full on corporate coup. And it's continued ever since he's been in office.
Reagan - Bush - Clinton - Bush Jr - Obama
All financed by Wall Street. All fully back corporatism. From deregulation to wars and bankster bailouts.
They should have let the banks fail.
Ain't neolibe(R)tarianism wonderfully profitable?
The banks. like the FED are just being used as fall guys for WallStreet.
That was why they bought them.
It works too.
The Fed and the Banks have been taken over by the elite and Wall Street speculators. They are systems of abuse and theft.
Nothing like belaboring the obvious and ignoring the neolibe(R)tarian elephant in the room.
That's just the way they like it.
HEY!!!! Look!! Over there!! A democrat!!
HEY!!!! Look!! Over there! A (R)epublican!!
Nope. It's been Ayn's boys all along.
Reforming monetary policy is one of the biggest issues at hand. It is not ignoring the obvious. It is the obvious.
Instead of giving trillions to corrupt banks and corporations, we could start up public banks, fund job creation, fund infrastructure, social programs, and step away from the systems of abuse as they are not necessary.
What exactly would you prefer me to talk about? You want me to just blame Ayn Rand and the boyz?
Blaming Ayn's boys is the correct thing to do.
Everything else is a distraction from that simple truth.
You won't be able to start up an effective public anything, until you bring that reality into your thinking.
It's Ayn's boys that are attempting to privatize everything in sight, and a few things that are hidden.
That is exactly what you need to be talking about.
Who are Ayn's boys in your view?
Does Clinton count? NAFTA and all?
You can't just say "blame Ayn's boys." You can do that, but you need to be more specific. Most people won't know what you're talking about.
There is an entire corporate takeover of our government happening. If you want to call the Ayn's boys instead of the frauds at Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citi, KBR, Koch, Boeing, etc etc, then that's your thing I guess.
Also the corporate takeover started before Ayn was even born. The early 1900's had us going to war for Wall Street.
" the frauds at Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citi, KBR, Koch, Boeing, etc etc, "
Ayn's boys 100%.
Here's some more of them having a et dream.
http://veracitystew.com/2013/01/20/the-business-roundtable-wolves-in-ceo-clothing-part-two/
Shooz where is your evidence though? Because you make a statement doesn't mean it's true. You may not like Ayn and what she stood for and that's fine....but to make stuff up is disingenuous and something your mortal enemies on the right (beck, hannity etc.) do all the time. Why stoop to their level?
If you actually read what Ayn wrote....she's very much against big government...because she believed that big government gets taken over by corporations which leads to people like us getting the shaft. Now you may disagree with that....but Goldman Sachs, Bank of America etc....are not Ayn's boys....they're about as far from it as it gets.
Just be truthful.
She might have been against "big government" but she had no problem with reigning private enterprise that screwed over and exploited the poor. She was more about selfishness than community.
What is weird about Ayn Rand, is she's a pretty hardcore atheist, but she is cherished by many hardcore christians and catholics.
I haven't read any of her books, but this is my understanding from short bio's and people who preach her work.
Am I wrong?
While I do think that her upbringing in Russia led her way to far towards the "every man for themself" routine, one thing she was adamant about was a government partnering with business is compeletely corrupt and unfair.
This is lost on most on the right and the left.
Chris Mathews said she's one of her favorite authors. The books are just too damn long for me :)
"She might have been against "big government" but she had no problem with reigning private enterprise that screwed over and exploited the poor. She was more about selfishness than community. Am I wrong?"
I'm not going to defend Ayn...she had many views and much of it was controversial. But i do think that saying she reigned private enterprise she would consider not true. In her view, private enterprise only gets to be monopolistic with government help....be it a subsidy, cornering of the market through regulations, false market incentives etc. It wasn't her view that we should let private companies rule the world...it was her view that with government intervention private companies end up ruling the world because of the hybrid that comes out of the pairing of the two (private and government coming together). She argued that the very thing you were trying to mitigate with the intervention...you were actually creating by doing so.
Paul holds a similar view about antitrust....although differs with her on many other things. Video that goes into this in a little bit of detail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qmwAqf_D_M
Dominick (professor here) has a few books out....read them quite awhile ago. They did persuade me in that direction however.
Tell that to the slaves in the past.
"Private Enterprise" can also become monopolistic and exploitative and deadly without regulation and without the role of government.
Sorry but everything I've heard from Ayn is at best distortion of truth, and at worst blatantly false and exploitative.
""Private Enterprise" can also become monopolistic and exploitative and deadly without regulation and without the role of government."
I'm back and forth on this....if you really study the big monopolies everyone hears about in the past it doesn't really seem to be true....most became monopolistic because of government involvement. railraods...big banks etc. Even today....look at AIG or goldman sachs or whatever other financial institution that was propt up during the crisis that should have gone under....they would have been destroyed a couple years ago had it not been for government involvement. The corrupt get bailed out and the people are left to squander what they can without any help.
But then i go back and forth...i wonder without regulation would companies completely destroy the environment? There's no incentive there for them to work for the people.....why not just toss your toxic waste in the stream behind the manufacturing plant.
I'm back and forth...i get both sides of the argument.
"Sorry but everything I've heard from Ayn is at best distortion of truth, and at worst blatantly false and exploitative."
LIke i said...i'm not gonna sit and defend Ayn....there was a lot about her i didn't care for at all.
Nope not wrong - she and her followers are pretty messed up.
She was not even true to her beliefs - she collected social security - that goes against her tenants of the individual.
Rand was not insured. She was ill with cancer, and Soc. Sec. allowed healthcare for her. Not as wealthy as some would think, when she died. She was a Pioneer in so many ways, on so many levels. A Progressive of her day.. and by some standards, lead the way in giving voice for Change ..by the People.
(Good Afternoon, DK)
That's a good thought. Thinking about those times.. The F. Scott Fitzgerald's, Kellogg, even Tallulah Bankhead.. Those Times were a Blaze in progressive thoughts and actions. .. Not so different as today. With Occupy and Human Rights.. Fighting the once accepted, under the rug Corruption in our Economy and our Capital. Invigorating , and hopefully.. Constructive.
Detest? No - pity - yep.
After all as you correctly say she grew up very abused by the society she was born into.
I think she could have benefited by psycho-therapy - to deal with past abuse issues.
Intelligent? Yes I would have to say she was that.
I wonder who she might have been if her early life had not been so nasty.
[-] 1 points by Marlow (1046) 0 minutes ago
eewww.. you so detest her, i can see that. I just see a woman with strong views. ..Quite ahead of her time in many ways.. and yes, naive in some ways as well. I dont agree with many of her views, but i cant help but see a self made person.. who detested communism, and supported gay rights when she didnt approve of it. .. That has some Ethical notes to it.. agree? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
eewww.. you so detest her, i can see that. I just see a woman with strong views. ..Quite ahead of her time in many ways.. and yes, naive in some ways as well. I dont agree with many of her views, but i cant help but see a self made person.. who detested communism, and supported gay rights when she didnt approve of it. .. That has some Ethical notes to it.. agree?
Laffn.. you went for the throat! .. What she would think of m today.. utter speculation.. as she would have had a chance to view the War on Women this last campaign .. ( Dk=2, M=4) ;^)
If you are Referring to 'Atlas Shrugged'.. Her naivety of the Wealthy in power was grossly obvious. She was raised in a Hierarchy, thereby trusted those in power with money could not be corrupted. (Alex Hamilton, believed the Aristocracy should rule, for the Same reason) Rand .. caught up in her own idea that to take them out of the equation, would cause those who had no place in society.. would be leaderless..
THAT, is so Wrong.. but that is not a reason to call her Messed up in totality. ..
Finally, we find something to debate.. (told ya it was going to be a fun day! ) xo
DK, if you went thru the Crimean War as a Teen, Your Family lost all their money an had to flee the Country. You Taught yourself to read and Write, and had an incredible imaginative and inspired mind.. Raised on Russian Methods.. i think maybe YOU TOO might be a tad.. 'Different'. 'Messed Up ' .. is such a Relative Term. ..Stephen Hawking is one messed up dude . But that's just me. If you could live in her times.. i dont think you would call her Messed up.. You would call Wallace Simpson one messed up Dame.
Hey Marlow - still morning for another 1/2 hour here {:-]) - so good morning to you - still working on my 1st coffee. Sorry to ever disagree with you but - Ayn was messed-up ( mentally ).
She had no belief in love - only in mutual benefit ( if there was to be any type of agreed upon partnership of any kind ) - what can you do for me was her view on marriage.
She would find your fight against corruption/crime on wallstreet funny ( if not perhaps appalling ) - as to her those who are stealing or otherwise taking other peoples money unfairly - would after all be looking out for their own best interests.
[-] 1 points by Marlow (1046) 0 minutes ago
If you are Referring to 'Atlas Shrugged'.. Her naivety of the Wealthy in power was grossly obvious. She was raised in a Hierarchy, thereby trusted those in power with money could not be corrupted. (Alex Hamilton, believed the Aristocracy should rule, for the Same reason) Rand .. caught up in her own idea that to take them out of the equation, would cause those who had no place in society.. would be leaderless..
THAT, is so Wrong.. but that is not a reason to call her Messed up in totality. ..
Finally, we find something to debate.. (told ya it was going to be a fun day! ) xo ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
( no reply button - so )
By her own reasoning - she would not care one least little bit about all of the poor and homeless in this country today nor the growing numbers of such.
By her own reasoning she should not have been given social security - her reasoning put forth that if she could not make it on her own - that society should have put her on the street ( sink or swim ).
But apparently her thinking only applied to others - not to her self.
[-] 1 points by Marlow (1042) 0 minutes ago
DK, if you went thru the Crimean War as a Teen, Your Family lost all their money an had to flee the Country. You Taught yourself to read and Write, and had an incredible imaginative and inspired mind.. Raised on Russian Methods.. i think maybe YOU TOO might be a tad.. 'Different'. 'Messed Up ' .. is such a Relative Term. ..Stephen Hawking is one messed up dude . But that's just me. If you could live in her times.. i dont think you would call her Messed up.. You would call Wallace Simpson one messed up Dame. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
LOL - ( Dk=2, M=4) .
BTW - went for the throat? sorry did not mean to go there.
Her view on the war on women? I don't know what she would really think but if one were to follow her reasoning one very well might think she would not be personally invested in it - as it would not concern her - it would concern others.
[-] 1 points by Marlow (1046) 0 minutes ago
Laffn.. you went for the throat! .. What she would think of m today.. utter speculation.. as she would have had a chance to view the War on Women this last campaign .. ( Dk=2, M=4) ;^) ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Yes.
Just be truthful.
You've never accepted one word of evidence that says libe(R)tarians aren't what you believe them to be.
Explain to me the enigma of the Kochs.
Dyed in the wool libe(R)tarians, that distribute Ayn's work, yet they create MORE government whenever it profits them to do so.
Oh, and by the by, their daddy founded the John Birch Society.
While you're at it, 'splain that one too.
Shooz...you talk a lot...but don't really know what you're talking about. You don't know the difference between libertarians...republicans...neocons...and "paulites".
Like you always tie the Koch's in with ron paul...without knowing that you shouldn't....the Koch's had a huge falling out with Pauls hero, Rothbard, decades ago.....these aren't the same....the chicago boys, kochs, mises, rothbard, paul, the CATO institute....these people aren't on the same team. Do your research before saying stuff.
They are ALL on the same corporate team.
The profit team.
Every last one of 'em, neolibe(R)tarians.
You ignored every thread on it, and many of them did bubble back to the top.
So yes, PLEASE do some research that doesn't consist of press releases.
It does get old.
Try thinking for yourself.
lol...i give up
they cant be truthful, it 's counter to their agenda.
You're a counter.
Have you ever heard of TARP or Henry Paulson?
yes, i have.
And you still don't understand how Bush is a fraud?
bush is not in office, hasnt been for awhile. BARRY is, and has been very busy wrecking the country.
Doesn;t matter how long Obama is POTUS, everything bad that happens now and forever is Bush's fault, don;t you KNOW that?
Having played Bioshock and seeing firsthand the results of Ayn Rand running unchecked, I have to agree with you. Do we want to end up in an underwater city fighting genetically altered monsters? Well... I do, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the norm. We must stand firm!
The World as a video game.
Good call.
That should serve you well.
Yes by all means to your play in under belly for all monsters whom you speak for No need stay here for WE have much brighter party plan and regardless who comes how to say what it is a done deal Game On!
If you think that Libertarians are terrorists because of that guy from the book, wait till you see the shenanigans Andrew Ryan gets up to in Bioshock. You'll never leave your house.
Libertarians = genetic monster makers run amok !
I've played it. It's a game.
That's all it is.
That's what they want you to think.
John Galt = terrorist Andrew Ryan = megalomaniacal monster maker Libertarians = megalomaniacal monster making terrorists
it's right there, plain as day. how do we stop these animals?
Find all the little sisters.
I thought you knew?
nice! :)
Reagan sure did. October Surprise. Then turned around and sent a Bible.