Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumOakenshield
(614 posts)I might agree with him on some things, but in the end he's a libertarian kook.
Quixote1818
(29,144 posts)He also supported Occupy Wall Street.
Oakenshield
(614 posts)Quixote1818
(29,144 posts)he is full of shit. Just because he likes Ron Paul doesn't mean he doesn't have anything intelligent to say on some subjects.
Oakenshield
(614 posts)Titonwan
(785 posts)Just because I like what Edward Snowden's done to unveil unconstitutional secrecy and invasion of privacy doesn't mean I like Rand Paul- even though Paul and me agree on one subject. ONE subject. Shit, Hitler liked dogs and so do I. Doesn't mean I'm a fuckin' nazi.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)we disagree with them on many, even major, issues.
But they demand that we ignore anyone who disagrees with them on even one issue: especially, if it's trade, war, or generally sucking up to Wall Street.
The double hypocrisy is corporate Democrats overlook disagreements Democratic VOTERS have with conservative ideas and "reach across the aisle" to pass "bipartisan" legislation that we didn't vote for (and often many Republicans voters didn't vote for either).
DAngelo136
(265 posts)"A broken clock may be right twice a day, but it's still wrong 22 out of 24 hours a day". Why do we support Ron Paul so much when Dennis Kucinich says the same things and is more in line with progressive views than Ron Paul? Why is Kucinich pushed out by politics but Ron Paul not only given a chance to retire with dignity but also foists on us Rand Paul? What am I missing here?
Larry Ogg
(1,474 posts)However, as a consequence to rampant corruption, and no accountably within our rigged two party pretend democracy, a huge majority of misinformed and misguided, magical thinking, psychologically impoverished dumbfucks, will try to fix something that they don't have a clue about, and that is why we have a very corrupt, broken, dysfunctional, corporately owned government in the first place.
So it's only a matter of time until the worst of right wing extremist crazy lunatics like Bush, Bachmann, Paylin or Paul gets in the White House. Well maybe not Paul, because he wants to take the Banks away from the banksters and let all the narcissistic sycophants in Congress control the money supply; not that we would be better off; that is simple not going to happen.
As to the video, I have a good understanding of history, as well as the psychology of politics gone wrong, and for what it's worth, I think the video is 100% spot on, but then, I taught my brain to not reject what I see and hear just because I want the truth to be something that it is not.
That's just my opinion.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)put a flag in a music video and millions of fools will follow.
@ 2:10-2:25
Titonwan
(785 posts)and you have the Weak Tea Party. Fools will vote against their own damned interests and yee hawin' while they're doin' it! Sheesh.
20score
(4,769 posts)Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)This message describes people as being "really dumb", and that is false.
If "the problem with X" is that "people are really dumb", then X hasn't a solution. So the premise, that "people are really dumb", is itself part of the problem -- whatever the problem is.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... first, I don't lump JFK into the war machine business. TPTB killed him because he wanted peace. And on the Tower 7 business, there's no way to prove any of that. It damn sure looked like a controlled collapse, but that is one thing that will never get any traction, because TPTB will be sure it goes nowhere.
delrem
(9,688 posts)There is no evidence whatsoever that the TPTB (whoever they are) killed JFK because "he wanted peace". That's a myth as well corroborated as the Bible-like myth of George Washington chopping down some cherry tree.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... not a myth. I sincerely and respectfully disagree with you. I've read many JFK books down through the decades, seen every film, and the only thing that ran 100% totally true is this fact. Read JFK and the Unspeakable. Just read it, from front to back, and see if you feel the same way when finished.
delrem
(9,688 posts)So I have no idea about what you think you're "giving me a break" for.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)What are you smoking? It's like you are a totally different person than the one who first replied to me above.
This concludes our "discussion."
delrem
(9,688 posts)happening decades apart. Am I supposed to make the connection for you, so you can go forward with your "discussion"?
Titonwan
(785 posts)1) He wanted to withdraw from Viet Nam.
2) He signed EO 11110*
3) He wanted to heavily reduce the CIA's power/influence.
Basically he pissed off the MIC, the banksters and the spooks. Any one an ample reason to put a cap in him.
*On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve.
http://www.rense.com/general44/exec.htm
Incidentally President Johnson immediately struck this down returning power to the FED RES. Gee... that's odd.
As far as No# 7? Not buyin' none of it. This is just another travesty in a long history of black flags in this country. I knew about Operation Northwoods long ago. It doesn't take much imagination to connect the dots. (We've had drones since the 1920's)
delrem
(9,688 posts)No he didn't. He escalated US involvement in Vietnam - in fact helped initiate it.
He was a cold-war warrior who believed in a "domino theory".
Read his brother's statements re. JFK and Vietnam.
He gave the go-ahead for the Bay of Pigs.
He promised his defeated BoP mercenary troops that they would someday soon enter a "Free Cuba".
He was not at all the counterfactual creature of a rewritten history that says he was somehow a "man of peace".
eta: see e.g.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/kennedy_vietnam.htm
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)'if you give the people the ability to not work, they are going to take it'
sorry, but when someone makes a statement like that.. that implies people on welfare are just lazy .. I stop listening to ya.
id imagine joe also thinks that people on welfare always vote for the person who is going to give it to them too (without looking at welfare statistics to see a lot of poor white people take assistance but don't want anyone else to have it)..
Titonwan
(785 posts)Spot on. My main man, Smedley Butler was trying to warn folks back in the 20's about this war machine gone mad-
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." -- USMC Maj.Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
I'm a liberal and civil libertarian and war really is a racket.
BrianRReynolds
(5 posts)this is what liberatarians fail to see. Bush started the wars obama ended them. Give him some fucking credit for that at the very least. Also comical is that these libertarians arent such liberatarians when a wingnut is in the white house, but when the black dem gets there its a travesty that we have wars. Fuck libertarians, they are hypocritical animals.
TBF
(32,220 posts)welcome to DU. I hope you like it here!