[R]apidly we painted an accurate picture of the groups training, leading, and organizing the “movement.” The movement is organized by anarchists, Code Pink, the American Communist movement, jihadists, anti-Israel, socialist, and anti-free enterprise interests. OWS folks are politically to the left of President Barack Obama.
October 22, 2011
"Lech Walesa Not Attending #OccupyWallStreet in New York After Discovering Hard-Left Organizers."
"Discovering" = hearing from Breitbart's Big Government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
121 comments:
My question is why anyone had to hear from Big Government things that should be generally reported. Isn't finding the sneaky, octopus like arms behind supposed grass roots movements how we ended up with a Koch in every conspiracy?
Lech knows communists when he sees them.
Walesa was a big get for OWS. This is a setback for them.
well, he wasn't going to hear it from the NY Times.
If Lech rejects OWS, then he rejects America! Because these people represent 99% of us. So fuck him!
Right?
Good for Big Government to jump on this!
IMO Obama is right in the middle of OWS.
That melieux is the briar patch Barry was born and bred in. ( somebody Alert Mick)
I see OWS as an operation started solely to support Obama's re-election campaign, or if wildly successful, then be the excuse for his decree of Martial Law to postpone the election.
We only see smoke now, but if/when the currency devaluation crisis hits, it will be like pouring gasoline of this smouldering fire.
If you have figured out that our government is dysfunctional,and the bankers who help create our economic disaster, except for one hedge fund manager, have essentially gone free, I don't think that makes you a hard-left person---more likely just a clear sighted ordinary citizen. Heck even that famous communist Mark Cuban has added to this movement by writing on his blog advice to the OWS people to figure out ways to to raise capital for growing business instead of a platform for financial engineers, among his many suggestions:blogmaverick.com/2011/10/14/my-soapbox-advice-to-the-ows-movement-and-then-some/
"OWS folks are politically to the left of President Barack Obama."
Anyone to the left of the local Rotary or Kiwanis clubs is to the left of President Obama.
Sounds to me like someone put pressure on Walesa not to visit and thereby lend his imprimatur to the OWS people...probably someone in the Obama administration, (Hillary Clinton, perhaps?).
Somehow I'm less surprised now than when I heard the original item.
I remember saying I didn't think he knew the context of the Occupation.
I read the masturbatory self-congratulatory article at Breitbart's site--a marginally more respectable "Atlas Shrugs" (Pamela Geller's nutty hate site)--and I see they're claiming credit for dissuading Walesa from attending. They "accurately" described for Walesa the evil spawn who make up OWS...hahahahahahaha! Could it be?
That would be like Phyllis Schlafly "accurately" describing the precepts of feminism to uninformed third parties or a blind man "accurately" describing Van Gogh's "Starry Night" to another blind man.
I wonder if they showed the Soviet flags, the Communist propaganda, or just the most famous image of the protestor: Man Relieves Self On Car.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams
Robert Cook, I was going to overlook you're obvious under-estimation of Lech Walesa but then I thought better to encourage you to get informed about him real quick. You're comments are foolish in the context of who this man was and is and infact, why he would have the courage to walk away. Your insinuation that he is "manipulated" by anyone, much less Breitbart is insulting, condescending,smuggly elite and 100% obnoxious...coming from someone who's most fearful moment was probably having a toe nail removed to someone who stood down evil and life threatening thuggery (the soviets use radiation poison remember) to save his country.
To the question of why you have to hear this from alternative media and see accurate reports...we all know the MSM agenda is to make this mole hill into a mountain. Just like they made sure the Tea Party mountain looked like a mole hill, until the 2010 votes were counted.
Van Jones left the WH for one reason and one reason only. Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart outed his communist associations...so he had to take his job outside the WH. He's been building this movement from outside, only because the spotlight was turned on him from the inside. Get educated about why Valorie Jarrett brought him on in the WH in the first place. Obama re-election is all over this and he will pay dearly...this is not 2008....we know who is now and the lengths his evasions and duplicitous and intellectual dishonest will take him as the means to the grand progressive end.
Robert Cook said...
I read the masturbatory self-congratulatory article at Breitbart's site--a marginally more respectable "Atlas Shrugs" (Pamela Geller's nutty hate site)--and I see they're claiming credit for dissuading Walesa from attending. They "accurately" described for Walesa the evil spawn who make up OWS...hahahahahahaha! Could it be?
Walesa actually lived under Communism. Cook, of course, has the Lefty's rose-colored view untarnished by stuff like bread lines and squalor.
But GodZero is doing his best to turn this country into a People's Paradise, so Cook may yet learn what Walesa knows.
That would be like Phyllis Schlafly "accurately" describing the precepts of feminism to uninformed third parties
Like the tape of Gloria Steinbrenner excusing Willie Whitewater for all his rapes and assaults on women because he advances the feminist agenda?
PS I notice the people here who indulge in hahaha a lot are the ones who make statements that come back to bite them.
Better he find out now than to show up and see all those Che flags and t-shirts.
Perhaps he was shown the fact that both the Nazis and the Communists were united behind OWS.
Good for Breitbart, even better for Walesa.
"PS I notice the people here who indulge in hahaha a lot are the ones who make statements that come back to bite them."
Like who?
Kookie the Commie goes ballistic!
Jesus, Kookie, you've got a lot of nerve commenting on what is "respectable."
Please explain how respectable should be interpreted by an old line Stalinist like you.
Atlas Shrugs is a very good site. I've met Pamela Geller. In addition to being a very beautiful woman, she's also a very tough and smart woman. I admire her.
A defender of Isreal would, of course, strike an old line Stalinist like you as objectionable.
You remain, Kookie, an absolutely reliable inverse indicator on all things political. If you're for it, it's evil as hell. If you're against it, it's probably a very good thing.
And, Kookie, please stop making a fool out of yourself by proclaiming that Obama is a centrist.
He's as leftist as you can be while remaining functional in U.S. politics.
Your old line Stalinism is not represented in U.S. politics because no sane person wants to be associated with it.
There is no difference in this regard between Nazi-ism and Stalinism.
You're politics are thoroughly reviled by 99% of all Americans. (See, I got in a reference to the 99%.)
Perhaps he was told about the anti-semites there or the ones advocating the execution of bankers. Just a guess.
When Obama was elected, I thought that he would one day have to be impeached and removed from office.
I'd hate to see this happen, because the racial strife that this would engender would be terrifying.
I still see it as a possibility. Obama either played a direct role in creating OWS, or he has embraced OWS for political reasons.
What we are seeing here is a first in my lifetime... government sanctioned mobs demanding revenge against the rich and the Jews.
This is not headed for a happy resolution.
Proves I'm a "moderate, centrist". To paraphrase, I never moved to the center, the center moved to me. Or, I never left the hard left, the hard left left me. I shall have another 4 years to catch up to them. They will provide me with a Sister Souljah Moment to show I am a toughy. I don't need to fool all the people all of the time, only need to fool enough stupid voters on a Nov morning. WallStreet will keep contributing, they know I'll give them more than a ten folds of return on their investment in me. Talk to Kaiser, $500 million was no chum change for his $50,000 contribution. The MSM will keep covering for me, that fatso Mao would have turned green with envy of my propaganda machine. The Repulsicans will have their chances in hell.
"Discovering" = hearing from Breitbart's Big Government.
Ah, shouldn't that be ". . . hearing from Breitbart's [indispensable] Big Goverment", sis? Let's not be stingy with the illuminating adjectives. We're recording things for History, these days.
I've hear Colonel Khadafi is available to attend OWS.
Not...too...shabby.
I read the masturbatory self-congratulatory article at Breitbart's site--a marginally more respectable "Atlas Shrugs"
That's a stretch. I bet you every dupe in those comments just bought it hook line and sinker without giving it even a second of critical thought. No statement from Walesa why he isn't coming, and I'm not sure there was a statement he ever was coming. It's all about ME ME ME!
garbage, the progressive stooge, bloviates on "critical thinking."
That's rich!
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
Flabby thinking might lead one to believe that this quote really fits the OWS gripes.
Except that the shrinking of liberty has been directly at the hands of the federal government, not the banks.
So, if the OWS-ies were camped in front of the White House and the Capital Building in CD, I'd be very sympathetic indeed.
But in front of commercial enterprises, when I can use or not use their products or services, and when I still have a vote, is vein and mistaken.
Cookie- using your own logic re Schafly & the blind man, you & Garbage & Alpha Liberal are uniquely unqualified to comment on anything but far left librul kookery.
Bloomberg's FAILURE!
Let's call the "chickens roosting" what it is. It's POLITICIANS who gave "variances" to property ... (Where, let's say the developer could build two extra floors over 20 floors.) And, the politicians took, in return for this variance ... "public park space ... open 24/7.
You're talking about half an acre!
And, it's the politicians who are ruling this half-acre! Making life miserable all around.
Your insinuation that he is "manipulated" by anyone, much less Breitbart is insulting, condescending,smuggly elite and 100% obnoxious...coming from someone who's most fearful moment was probably having a toe nail removed to someone who stood down evil and life threatening thuggery (the soviets use radiation poison remember) to save his country.
Well said !
We have little to fear from these pampered, well fed Marxists for the same reason.
Sure, there's a solution! Developers won't be so quick to sign away "space" ... in return for a variance. Which they can pick up with cold cash to politicians, anyway.
The second, off to the side, is to realize the head democrapic honcho ... who thought he'd be a "shoo-in" for Anthony Weiner's seat ... instead saw the "unusual." A GOP condendah, now going to our House of Representatives, elected instead.
The "solution?" It could be good to see some of these old time politicians getting tossed out on their asses, just like Welpren did.
And, you can see developers STUCK with buildings they can't re-sell ... because they "accepted" unacceptable terms.
So, something has come to an end, here. You just don't see it, yet.
Also, for those stuck with "public space." They're not gonna decorated it! And, if tent dwellers, and the homeless come ... it will take an architect to show you can can create "a park" that's much less accommodating.
I'm not an architect.
St. Paul's cathedral, in London, INVITED the tent dwellers to their lush grounds. Guess what happened?
St. Paul's cathredral was earning $23,000 POUNDS per month. With a going gift shop. And, a small restaurant. And, the SQUATTERS, who are now tent-to-tent, caused their businesses to fall off to zero.
So, St. Paul's cathedral has been closed to the public. (Not since the Blitz has this happened.) No toilets for those "occupiers" ... either.
Perhaps, Lech Walesa saw the greater picture, and he doesn't want the communists taking over America.
(They won't.) But getting rid of this "tent infestation" is gonna be hard work.
I wonder if the incompetent Tubbs will give out permits next summer for tent dwellers to take over the streets of Madison?
Will eggs fly, again?
Whatever one thinks of the protests, Geller's a ridiculous Randian clown-lady as is her lap dog Breitfart.
Walesa's fears of communism are somewhat understandable but not sufficient for rejecting the protesters' demands in full. Ie, opposing financial exploitation, usury and avarice does not entail supporting Stalin, except to like the Shouting Dimwits of the TP.
Who fucking cares?
It's the weekend.
Let's Dance!
You been bouncing those crack whores again, J?
The syphillis is flaring up today, huh?
And Byro Bendapen, official AH sockpup and racist, here with his 10 names of course along with his pal Carol Hobo, disrupting as usual. How the Net SHAITAN works.
J: When X=the one month libor solve the following:
X+Ybps+Usury.
Thanks
Sorry, J. =Usury.
X + Ybps= Usury.
What X?
Whats that Tommy tweek, scooter filth? You're the diseased bum here. Trying to write again, illiterate white trash scum? You were told to STFU
Yr party about over perp. got that punk?
J: What spread over LIBOR equals usury?
J: fyi, one month LIBOR is around 25 bps.
Prove what a totally stupid, demented fuck you are, J.
Come on, idiot, you can do it.
Threaten to come over to my house and beat the crap out of me.
That's the usual routine for you, fuckhead.
Prove you're a complete fucking idiot.
Well, you've already done that, haven't you?
"Walesa's fears of communism"? Rather his completely justified loathing and contempt for communism. If he'd been afraid of it, he wouldn't have done so much to destroy it in his own country and (indirectly) in its home, the USSR.
wv: cluel - What some peopel around here really needl.
J: Hint #3. LIBOR is the london interbank offering rate.
Hint #4. bps= basis points
""I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...""" Jefferson. Maybe Walesa's should have thought of that guy instead of his old Red enemies.
Spare blogland more of your idiot-speak , crass insults,and fallacies, TomTom Tweek. This isn't your klan bunker, SHAITAN.
Anyone to the left of the local Rotary or Kiwanis clubs is to the left of President Obama.
Yes yes I know nobody is more left-wing then Robert Cook. He's more Communist then Hoe Chi Mhin + Stalin combined.
J. you are a complete idiot.
Quit embarrassing yourself here.
Commit suicide and do everybody a favor.
I suggest a shotgun to the mouth.
Why is "big media" not reporting this news? I call bullshit on this one, how does Brietbart have special access?
ST - J has to remember to point the shotgun upwards so that brain matter gets blown to bits.
Actually Mikey Schmutzenbothams I read the finance pages once in a while. Like say the crude and gold markets (an yr holy bonds), where a few ueber wealthy investors make millons merely by a few clicks up or down. Exactly what Jefferson and the anti-federalists opposed. AS did FDR. (did you know Mikey, there was no gold trading under FDR). The smarters protester hopefully realize that.
(yo Shouting KLan-queer the proof will be soon--when yr carried away to the mental hospital where you belong)
Hey Shouting Tweekqueer, uneducated, talentedless hick--I suggest you shut yr filthy wicca piehole, perp.
You got that, satanist?
Carol...Is "Dumber-crats" copy writed? I can use that one.
J: Nice deflection. Try again,
When X equals one month LIBOR and
Y=Number of bps over X
What is usury?
Thanks for playing puta.
Shorter Jefferson...
Neither a borrower nor a lender, be.
(Or was that Franklin.)
Owing money is being owned.
Banks lending money are a threat to liberty.
At no point does a single unwashed tantrum thrower want to lose the right to borrow money to get more stuff. They just don't want to be owned afterward.
Who is saying don't borrow money? Be financially responsible? Spend less?
Oh, right, the Tea Party.
Also Mikey--perhaps you recall BushCo's capital gains rate slash--one reason shyster-investors like you made can earn a living. Some protesters have demanded an increase back to Clinton levels. Probably should be 50% (70% under yr hero Nixon)
J: Ok, I understand you use the word usury without understanding its meaning.
Oh, and Shelby Foote did use the dash pretty liberally. You should read the books you claim to have read. It might bolster your otherwise wrong arguments.
So, has anybody noted the Occupy Obama 2012 in Iowa? Any more Occupy Obama groups are springing up. And these OOs are not affiliated with the "right" side. They're hacking at BO, now. Interesting...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/21-4?page=1
Do read the comments. They are po'd at BO and ready to throw him under the bus it would seem.
I wonder if BO's fanning of the "campfire" caused it to jum the pit and is setting the forest ablaze? And if so, planned? Or not... Biting the hand he thought was controlling them?
J: Capital gains rates were not 70$
@J:
""I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...""" Jefferson. Maybe Walesa's should have thought of that guy instead of his old Red enemies.
Not surprising TJ disliked banks. He lived his life in a constant state of debt.
TJ lived beyond his means, dying in a state of virtual penury. As a result, his slaves - including his progeny - were auctioned off to the four points of the compass at a location half a block from where I work. His property, both human and real estate, passed from his and his family's hands in order to pay the debts Jefferson racked up in life.
Jefferson was of the elite of his time, and like the elite of today, he felt entitled to have whatever he felt entitled to, whether it be books, the sexual favors of slaves, wonderful architecture and all the other trappings of someone adverse to personal responsibility.
So, by all means, J; keep on quoting Jefferson on banking.
Fascinating article.
Remind me (seriously) why did Lech refuse to see Obama?
Your usual pointless Ad Hominem Cheffie. Yes, Jeff. had financial problems--mainly brought about by his nemesis Hamilton. (until Burr took care of that) Where's the Sally Hemmings? Extra credit for that,fleshed out.
Mikey--look at the gold moveslast few years..Thats a form of usury (or the mortgage market prior 08). As is compound interest. You're too stupid to understand it. And yeah I know how bonds work, unlike you. Deep pockets don't usually fuck with bonds anyway.
Foote wrote a 3-part narrative about the Civil war. I read one. Interesting and moving but not a technical history anyway--no footnotes/cited material. A fortiori, his dashes show his dilettante status. Maybe start wih Bruce Catton, Einswine.
Why all the back-and-forth chit-chat over a true hero of liberty turning down an invitation to speak to a crowd of dirty, idiot hippies who never built anything useful in their entire collective lives?
I suppose, for gullible Obama-voters, this is newsworthy, but really now, for the rest of us, it's baseline, expected behavior. Does anyone really think Walesa was going to dirty up his reputation speaking to those idiots?
Just finished my coffee - time to mow my lawn - before the wind kicks up. Out.
Joker addresses OWS crowd
""I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..."""Jefferson
And yet, when Jefferson wanted to finance the Louisiana Purchase, he turned to the two biggest investment banks in Europe, Hopes of Amsterdam and Barings of London.
Reality constrains bullshit in the world of action. In the world of internet commentary, not so much.
Moreover, Ayn Rand--Gellers' hero, and most of the Teabugs'-- wasn't one of the Founders.Didn't sign the US-Con. Not on Mt Rushmore. Yet.
The FF's may not have been socialists but opposed dynasties and great accumulations of wealth (including by banks). Estate taxes were in place early on . (there was no "Wall Street" or big capitalists--until after CW)
Compound interest is a form of usury???
Um..wow.
Yr usual non sequitur Chippie, and deceptive. The US Govt. paid Napoleon's govt. 3 million in gold for the LP (and other problems since France did not technically even own it--Spain did, but they were too weak to do anything). Anyway that Jefferson made use of big banks to underwrite the Louisiana Purchase (a great deal for that matter) in no way implies he approved of said banks or even capitalism, does it Chippster. The quote still stands, however general. Most of us use Windows XP. Doesn't mean one approves of Microsoft. Maybe stick to the cezanne, CS.
J: Hilarious. If the movement upwards in the price of gold equals usury what is its corollary? There are laws against usury by the by.
But only yesterday you said that Foote did not write with dashes and that his three volume work on the CW was an opus without equal. Did you change your mind when you discovered you were wrong about books you had not read? Yesterday Foote was a genius that commenters could not fathom, today a dilettante.
Took you long enough to google "Louisiana Purchase," J. Non sequitur? Don't be a dumbass. I even spelled out the point just for you in the 3rd paragraph.
Louisiana cost a lot more than the $3 million in gold you mention. Total price was $15 million, of which $3.75 million was financed by cancelling French gov't debt to US and the balance through new US debt issue.
This is all readily available information. Since you knew about the $3 million in gold, you surely knew about the rest of it.
yer just a typical lyin' meth-addict, hijo de puta cochina.
yes, the LP did involve cancelling of debt to France. Did that involve a bank or loan? No,except for paperwork. Your basic point that somehow the LP implies Jefferson was pro-capitalist ..just wrong. Doesn't negate his other views (had you read some actual history or even a bio you'd note TJ was a mercantilist and opposed the Federalists' banking schemes). Now, granted Jefferson was a hypocrite--maybe a scoundrel. But his writings and ideas (he kept a bust of Voltaire in his library) are not the same as his political policies and actions.
There aren't many dashes in Foote's CW narrative .Mikey,And its a trivial, if not irrelevant point. Your usual fare. Foote was a novelist and skilled writer but not an academic historian. Many CW historians don't care for his massive narrative. But then I doubt you know the details of any major CW battle from..... yr shofar. Heh heh
Yesterday Foote was a genius that commenters could not fathom, today a dilettante.
I did not say that, so you're lying as usual. ANyway Foote was a genius of sorts but not an academic historian, so dilettante in that regard. And that is the case--Foote's writing would be far too much for your new stoner-troll pal Mr Bendapensn and for you..Sort of like ..Faulkner's writing (one of Foote's influences) would be too much for most A-tards, ah suspect, including you. Yokels should not start with Foote's Faulknerian writing, they start with..Bruce Catton, other normal CW histories to get the facts. OR maybe at the wikis. Whoop
They did get poor crazy Slavoj Zizek who argued that the crowd could have anything it wants: even sex with animals, so why couldn't they have the end of capitalism! It was one of the weirdest speeches yet:
"The change is possible. So, what do we consider today possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand in technology and sexuality everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon. You can become immortal by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals or whatever. But look at the fields of society and economy. There almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes a little bit for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible, we lose competitivitiy. You want more money for healthcare: they tell you impossible, this means a totalitarian state. There is something wrong in the world where you are promised to be immortal but cannot spend a little bit more for health care. Maybe that ??? set our priorities straight here. We don’t want higher standards of living. We want better standards of living. The only sense in which we are communists is that we care for the commons. The commons of nature. The commons of what is privatized by intellectual property. The commons of biogenetics. For this and only for this we should fight."
Parts of the speech are sensible. But he is basically arguing that Americans can have anything they desire. They just have to demand it.
It's like a tantrum thrown by a two year old.
Jefferson was an admirer of the philosophe DeStutt de Tracy, who wrote the then-well-known Commentary and Review of Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws, going so far as to call it "the best elementary book on the principles of government and as equally sound and corrective in political economy."
Follow the first link and you'll find Tracy citing Adam Smith quite favorably.
The claim that Jefferson was a mercantilist is utterly absurd. Read some history written by someone other than Howard Zinn.
J: Bruce Catton is, like you, a lightweight. And by the way, you can scroll up here and see what you wrote and look at the post yesterday so I am not lying.
So now you bring up Faulkner. Excellent. Just as you have not read Foote I suspect you have not read Faulkner. Having grown up in that part of the world I was reading Faulkner long before you and studied his writing both as a graduate student and an undergraduate. I am sure that your California perspective would be much appreciated. Can you give me your favorite work?
J: "There aren't many dashes in Foote's CW narrative .Mikey,And its a trivial, if not irrelevant point."
"Foote used dashes? BS. Sparingly at best-. Another writer you never read, Byro-Richie, the stoner wicca troll. Foote 's massive opus on the CW would be far too much for your illiterate druggie brain."
Odd, the internet, how what you write sticks around, eh puta?
J: Took a stroll up Kennesaw Mountain this morning. You are likely an expert on that melee are you not? Famous man named after it.
J: Further to CW battles I have found mini balls in my back yard. You?
Stumbled across this "Occupy Cincinnati" photo earlier today: http://ideasandpixels.com/photography/oc/corporations_are_not_people.jpg
Why do people persist in feeding the troll who cannot call people by their proper names; cannot write a passable sentence; cannot write without betraying tourette-like symptoms?
Is anything possibly gained by this waste of time? Does anyone think him/her/it remotely persuadable? Does anyone think he/she/it makes even a small fraction of a point in argument against anything more cogent writers express? Does anyone think him/her/it remotely shamed by being constantly proved wrong? Isn't life too short for dealing with this kind of trash?
Out.
Tim: I find it interesting to try and draw out some coherence. It occasionally emerges. Otherwise it amuses me as it does a few others. Fundamentally you are right and on one level I shame myself by participating. But I am human and often cannot resist what I know is the wrong thing to do.
On the upside Walesa said Ann could still vote for Obama, so she's OK...
"Anyone to the left of the local Rotary or Kiwanis clubs is to the left of President Obama. "
O dear Lord, here comes the "Obama is not leftist ENOUGH" trope...
Kirby O beatnik for capitalism lying and misrepresenting people as usual. Zizek said no such thing. But he did stand with the protesters.
Chipster--Jefferson and the FF's opposed British mercantilists. One reason was to ...replace British trading with..America's itself. There were other mercantile aspects to early America-- Tarriffs for one. Which Jeff. supported (agreeing with Hamilton at least). As much as he praised the small farmer and artisans, TJ and other southerners had big plantations, exported goods (ie tobacco,etc) and....depended on cheap labor--slaves--mercantilist practice more or less. . Jeff. does at times mention Adam Smith as well. But Smith IIRC doesn't reject mercantilism per se..He points out what he took to be flaws (some say..incorrectly). Not an either-or but a spectrum. Something you won't get.
Chipster---stick to the AynRand, chandala, ouija boards or whatever it is you're into. Some of us completed real college history courses, year ago.
You're just another lying,corrupt wannabe Meyer Lansky.The ..Alt-tard usual
That's why I recommended Catton to you Mikey the Lightweight. You don't know fuck about history, or Foote for that matter. So you start with Catton .Like big print maybe.
You're the lightweight here-- Ayn Rand material all the way, Mikey Chandala, like the rest of the A-tards, wannabe meyer lanskys of blogdom
If you have figured out that our government is dysfunctional,and the bankers who help create our economic disaster, except for one hedge fund manager, have essentially gone free, I don't think that makes you a hard-left person
Of course not. The Tea Party was saying this stuff two years ago but liberal assholes just called them racists.
Sounds to me like someone put pressure on Walesa not to visit and thereby lend his imprimatur to the OWS people
No, I think he actually took a good look at the morons banging drums and demanding FREE everything and simply realized they were nothing more than spoiled children who probably never worked a day in their life and have no intention of doing so.
Walesa's fears of communism are somewhat understandable but not sufficient for rejecting the protesters' demands in full.
This really has to be one of the stupidest comments you have ever made.
I wish leftwing fucks like you actually would go live in a worker's paradise for a few years and see how it really is.
I bet wingers are as confused as a goat on astroturf about Lech Walesa. On one hand he fought for workers [BOOOOO!] and may be the biggest union organizing thug the world has ever seen. [YOOYANS BAD BOOOOOOO!] But he fought against communists. [COMMIES BAD YAAAAAAY!].
gm seems to want to revive an argument that was obviously stupid when Walesa was first in the news: how can American conservatives support Polish unions while opposing American unions?
That's easy. It's impossible to calculate a number, but back in the Reagan administration American unions were 10, 20, 30 times more powerful than Polish unions. There is no contradiction in thinking that American unions had way too much power, while Polish unions had way too little. It's what any sensible person was likely to conclude, unless he was blinded by kneejerk pro- or anti-union prejudice, in which case he wasn't a sensible person, was he?
Neither country was anywhere near the Golden Mean of union power, and American conservatives had no problem at all supporting Walesa, just as they have no problem at all supporting the Teheran bus drivers union against the mullahs today, while opposing the ridiculous demands of (e.g.) teachers' unions in the U.S.
P.S.
In my last paragraph I should have written "American conservatives had no problem at all supporting Walesa while opposing PATCO".
Hoosier channeling Ayn Rand's corpse-snatch like the rest of the A-tards. existence...ughhgehuehmugggheggg exists
You don't even know what the protests are about, demons of...zion.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
You don't even know what the protests are about, demons of...zion
Demons of Zion??? MY Heaven...I am really. Really saddened for you.
Moneyrunner said
Perhaps he was shown the fact that both the Nazis and the Communists were united behind OWS.
+++
Why is it so strange that both national and international socialists would agree?
They are really on the same side on most things other than whether socialism can take place in 1 country or must be worldwide.
Seems like their disagreement would be more unusual.
John Henry
You been bouncing those crack whores again, J?
"Bouncing them"?
She is one. The problem with the OWS people is that they would have no money to pay her.
So how will you make a living J, when there is no money left?
You can't live on bananas, you know.
John Henry
J has told us that she is a woman.
She speaks Spanish as a Honduran.
She sounds about as logical as a crack whore.
I just realized, perhaps she is really Deborah Frisch. Dr Frisch, I thought you were enjoined from accessing the Internet. Isn't your posting here in violation of the court order?
For those who do not know the good doctor, start http://debfrischtimeline.blogspot.com/
I have had the rather unusual experience of corresponding with her as well as being corresponded at by her.
John Henry
Heh.
I think that Ayn Rand was right about the stuff she was right about because she agrees with me, not because I agree with her.
But really, "OMG Ayn Rand had the same idea," isn't going to send people running for the cootie spray. So why bring it up?
"Hey, Cook, does your endorsement of Noam Chomsky (on a previous thread) extend to Chomsky and Herman's strenuous apologetics for the Khmer Rouge?"
What "strenuous apologetics for the Khmer Rouge" would that be?
"O dear Lord, here comes the 'Obama is not leftist ENOUGH' trope..."
Well, first he'd have to be leftist at all before one could even begin to disdain him because he's "not leftist enough," so that's a criticism that will never have to be made.
Hoosier channeling Ayn Rand's corpse-snatch like the rest of the A-tards.
Fuck off and die nazi.
I bet wingers are as confused as a goat on astroturf about Lech Walesa.
Not really. Its moronic liberals like you that can't reconcile Lech and was about freedom for Poland and to break from Soviet dominance and not about cradle to grave welfare benefits.
But then you're a dumbass so I can't expect you to ever figure it out. Seriously, why don't you move to Cuba? It seems to have the kind of government you want and has better weather than the shithole you live in.
I have not read Chomsky extensively, and am unfamiliar with those works. I believe I have heard him refer to the "atrocities" of the Khmer Rouge in interviews, but I will try to learn more about what he may have written at the time.
Assuming what he wrote at the time can be fairly characterized as an "apologetic" for the KM, do you know whether he has ever revisited or revised those views subsequently, with the benefit of documentation of the conditions in Cambodia during the KM regime which has come to light after the fact?
I don't trust their coverage. There was an extremely misleading headline there yesterday along the lines of "OccupyLA won't disavow anti-semitic remarks."
So I watched the video. One was with a black woman who had made the remarks. She said she wasn't an OccupyLA representative, she just migrated wherever she could make her views heard.
The next was with "pj" an OccupyLA organizer. She specifically said the exact opposite of the headline, but would only speak as an individual, as OccupyLA doesn't get into the gotcha game of disavowing any individual in their midst utilizing Free Speech.
The reporter kept trying to do a "gotcha", pj stood her ground well, until the guy behind the camera urged the reporter to give it up.
And they STILL did the misleading headline. After that, I'm going to pass on their coverage.
As I say, I will see what I can find. It's indisputable the Khmer Rouge committed grotesque mass murder of their countrymen, with the number of victims in the millions. I don't know how well known that was at the time and perhaps Chomsky and Herman were writing based on what was known then. I would be very surprised if Chomsky did not revise his views as later information came to light--assuming his statements then were, in fact, an apologia for the KM--but perhaps he has not. I certainly cannot and would not agree with any such apologia.
Isn't Chomsky funded mainly by the Pentagon?
I don't pay much attention to a loon who thinks he can simultaneously claim to be an anarchist and a socialist.
Anarchism requires an absence of government.
Socialism requires an extremely detailed govt in everything we do.
Pick one. You can't have both.
I think he also claims to be a "libertarian socialist" What the heck is that? Another oxymoron.
And this from a guy who is famous as a linguist?
Words do matter, Noam. Use them appropriately to illuminate, not obfuscate.
John Henry
I would be very surprised if Chomsky did not revise his views as later information came to light--assuming his statements then were, in fact, an apologia for the KM--but perhaps he has not. I certainly cannot and would not agree with any such apologia.
Chomsky has not withdrawn his Khmer Rouge apologia to this day, and if you look at the amount of support Chomsky gets among leftists it's striking.
Any chance of getting a footnote or citation regarding the assertion that Jefferson was a Mercantilist. Yeah, didn't think so.
Post a Comment