Retelling An Old Lie

[Flanders]

Right, so the mission failed. Thus, what mission were we "accomplishing"?

To sambino510: I, too, can go around in circles. See my answer in #15 permalink.

And who are these American communists that single-handedly brought down the war effort?

To sambino510: Demonstration organizers, politicians who gave the North Vietnamese hope for a political victory, Socialists who had infiltrated the media and government, and the usual assortment of haters who see communism as a way to avenge every imagined slight.

Just because someone didn't support the Vietnam War (many Americans at the time) doesn't brand them Communists.

To sambino510: Whether or not you realize it you’re talking about sign-carriers who show up at every protest. They always have a half-assed belief in whatever cause they demonstrate for or against. Demonstration organizers took all the best of it in the anti-Vietnam War protests. Fools were easily convinced that they were demonstrating against an unjust war, while demonstrating for their country. That’s where the lie about Thomas Jefferson, etc. originated. In reality, most sign-carriers never realized they were demonstrating for communism which logically meant defeat for their country.

Sorry, the Diems were indeed Catholics. Should have been more specific. That's interesting that you were at Saigon. I can't say your wrong about what you personally heard, but since the regime was overthrown at that exact time I'd be curious to know how there could be so little unrest and then all of the sudden they overthrow him and his family and kill them in an alleyway. I suppose you would cite a Communist insurrection, which I guess is possible but I still have serious doubts that any Vietnamese citizens had a particular love for the leaders.

To sambino510: The majority of Vietnamese stood to lose everything under communism in addition to whatever freedoms they had; so Diem’s regime was overthrown by a military coup not by the people. It was clear that the military thought Diem & Company were not strong enough to deal with the Communist threat Ho Chi Minh offered.

Also I'm curious, what does "Taqiyya" mean?

To sambino510: Look it up.

As in why do you replace Barack Obama's last name with that?

To sambino510: See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/298288-name-change.html

It's interesting to me that you cite Muslim and Communist mass murderers but ignore a long history of Christian violence.

To sambino510: Today’s Christians are not threatening me or my country. Muslims and Communists are.

An ideology does not become violent until a violent person interprets it in that way; the seed has to have already been planted. The Qur'an does not say in any particular phrase "go out and kill all Christians" or "go and wipe out the developed world" or anything of that nature. It promotes violence no more than the Bible or the Torah. However, for the record, I do not sympathize with mass murderers of any particular religion or background.

To sambino510: I don’t care what the Qur'an says. Muslims are killing non-believers throughout the Muslim world not to mention their sworn goal of eliminating every Jew on Earth.

Incidentally, the primary cause of religious unrest came from the Diem regime discriminating against Buddhists. Buddhists monks protested by setting themselves on fire with gasoline. Communists played it for all it was worth in the world press, while wags at the time called them “Barbecued Buddhists.”

The wheel does come around. See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/297753-send-for-the-dalai-lama.html

As for Communists, there has never existed a true Communist country.

To sambino510: That’s the excuse given for every failed ideology. The beauty is that after enough time goes by the bums who only want to save the world don’t have to come up with an original idea. After they come up with a twist or two and new terminology —— BINGO —— the same old crapola Plato warned against is up and running again.

The people always have some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. . . . This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.

The idea of Communism is utopian, and therefore unrealistic as a way of running a nation. Countries may claim that their government runs that way, like China, Vietnam, whatever, but it's by name alone. It's not the Communism ideology itself that is "evil", however much you might disagree with the ideas of redistribution of wealth and property and all that. It's the dictators that have adopted it throughout the past seventy years that have given it a bad name.

To sambino510: Anyone who believes that nonsense is a fool who also believes that a benign totalitarian government is possible.

For want of a better word communism is inherently “evil.” Redistribution of wealth and abolishing private property are but two tenets of an evil religion lacking a single saving grace. Communism destroys the spirit on earth while it ridicules the promise of life in the hereafter.

You might separate run of the mill dictators from communism’s priesthood in order to determine which is more evil.

 

[Toronado3800]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam.

To Auteur: Stopping Communist expansion was the right thing to do. Going through the United Nations was the first mistake Truman made in Korea. The second mistake was fighting a Peace Without Victory war. The second mistake was repeated in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

That was long so I will go with the snip, sorry.

I am curious what you wish Truman would have done differently. I see avoiding the war and fighting another total war as the other two choices.

 

[jasonnfree]

Judi McLeod over at Canada Free Press wrote:

Move over Jane Fonda, President Barack Obama has all but toppled you from that iconic anti-aircraft gun perch as as America’s top Communist Viet Nam booster.

Talking to reporters as he stood beside Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang yesterday, Obama told his biggest whopper to date:...”we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.” (Fox News, July 25, 2013)

Facts, Barack Obama style, are more like something made up as Obama goes along surrounded by a mainstream media who let him away with it.

Truth is Ho Chi Minh was about as inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson as Obama is.

Obama claims Ho Chi Minh was fan of Founding Fathers
By Judi McLeod
Friday, July 26, 2013

Obama claims Ho Chi Minh was fan of Founding Fathers

One thing hit me about Barack Taqiyya’s latest lie. The media promoted the same lie rank & file Communists were telling when the Vietnam War was raging. To understand why Barack Taqiyya dredged up an old lie is not that difficult. The US military fighting against communism has always been a major thorn in the Left’s side. They will never rest easy until they are certain it never happens again. Placing the US military under United Nations command is the guarantee they have been seeking since 1945.

Retelling an old lie also gives traitor John Kerry some cover. After all, how could Kerry betray the country when he was on the side of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson.

Also, most Americans under forty years of age probably never heard the lie; so a retelling was an important objective to the liar —— get as many young Americans to quote the lie as is possible. If as many people swallow the lie this time as they did the first time the backlash is worth it to the America-haters.

On the plus side the Internet will help sink the lie this time out.

Question: How come the Left hates all of those dead white guys who made this country, but suddenly a leading America-hater cites Thomas Jefferson, and the Constitution he has been trying to abolish?

NOTE: The Korean War makes American Communists see red (pun intended) but they have to keep quiet about it because Korea was a United Nations war. Even if American Communists had a lie as effective as the lie about Thomas Jefferson you would never hear Socialists/Communists say it. They would bite their tongues off before they rail against the Korean War even though both wars were fought for the same reason —— stop Communist expansion.

Liberals lie about why the Vietnam Was fought. More importantly, they lie about why they opposed it to the point of bringing defeat to their own country; so permit me to cite a forgotten truth about communism’s military expansion. Stop it in Asia or stop it in California.

Finally, I seldom read blogs, websites, articles, etc. written by Lefties. While looking around for more analyses of Barack Taqiyya retelling the Vietnam War lie, I stumbled upon a video connected to a MEDIAMATTERS piece. I could not find the same video on Youtube; so if you’re interested you’ll have to click on the link to hear Oliver North and Ralph Peters tell the truth about Ho Chi Minh:

Fox Ignores Facts To Declare Obama's Vietnam Remarks "Stupid" | Blog | Media Matters for America

John Kerry wore the uniform of his country and served under fire while bush hid her worthless ass stateside cuz her dad was a senator.

 

[jasonnfree]

'
I appreciate what you are saying, Auteur, but Americans have an immense blind-spot about all this.

The war was not at all "absurd" from a basic point of view.

To a large extent the war was started, and almost entirely kept going for such a long time, BY PEOPLE WHO WERE MAKING MONEY OFF THE WAR!!

If an American really wants to understand USA history since the Second World War, every morning they should stand in front of a mirror and repeat 100 times,

WAR PROFITEER, WAR PROFITEER, WAR PROFITEER......

.

That's what I tell people. I put my time in the Navy rather than get drafted. Involuntary servitude actually. We made the world a safe place for corporate america to operate in. This is the part of welfare for corporations that the cons don't understand. They're too worried about Ophelia buying ding dongs and potato chips with her food stamps.

 

[Mushroom]

Judi McLeod over at Canada Free Press wrote:

Talking to reporters as he stood beside Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang yesterday, Obama told his biggest whopper to date:...”we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.” (Fox News, July 25, 2013)

Also, most Americans under forty years of age probably never heard the lie; so a retelling was an important objective to the liar —— get as many young Americans to quote the lie as is possible. If as many people swallow the lie this time as they did the first time the backlash is worth it to the America-haters.

Sorry Flanders, but that is not a lie. It is a fact, if you like it or not.

On 2 September 1945, Uncle Ho marched into Saigon to claim the capitol of French Indochina, and at his side were several United States OSS agents who had been his advisors during his war against the Japanese.

And the first thing he did in his "Victory Speech" was read from the Declaration of Independence, and proclaim that the United States were his lifelong friends.

Of course, to bad that President Truman made some boneheaded decisions, like support the French in regaining their former colony, and allowing Ho Chi Minh to be arrested and sent to prison in China where he was then freed by Mao.

I am over 40, and am well aware that it is not a lie. Uncle Ho was a Socialist with some Marxist ideas, but it was the United States throwing him under a bus that caused him to get into bed with Mao and become a radical Marxist.

But feel free to read his speech for yourself. And then kindly tell me it is a lie.

Vietnam Declaration of Independence

 

[Survivalist]

There is similarity not only with Vietnam and the American Revolution but between Vietnam and the American Civil War. A country divided and one side trying to win a military victory to reunite. Also the fact that a major power was thinking of giving support to one side, but, and this is one of the differences, that support never arrived, however, because one side issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

I agree with one of the posters that it was our fear of communism that crippled us from using our brain power to create a solution to Vietnam that benefited our own best interests.

The wars in Vietnam from 1945-1975 have almost nothing in common with our Revolutionary War or Civil War.

What the conflicts in Vietnam are most similar are too now are the political/ideological fighting we have now in America. A neo-communist regime under liberal democrats like Obama is trying to bring all of America under its control.

Like Ho Chi Mihn, Obama uses policies of ethnic cleansing to bring about absolute control.
Although Ho Chi Mihn was more brutal, killing and torturing his enemies, the capitalists, Cathholics, Montagnard people, and so on---Obama uses more insidious means against his enemies, Whites, conservatives and Christians.

First, Propaganda. With some 80% of the major media controlled by neo-communists, most Americans have been slowly brainswashed over the years into supporting progressive leaders and policies.

Second, Education. One of the fundamentals of Marxism is government control of all education. Control the youth and control the future.

Third, and most important, Ethnic cleansing. Using large urban areas as powerbases, like Uncle Ho did in Hanoi and other cities in the north, Obama and the neo-communists fill these centers with their political allies, and let them spread out from there. Detroit, Washington DC and Birmingham are all mostly progressive Blacks. Once an area becomes around 20% Black, the White exodus will begin. Larger areas in nation are filled with legal and illegal immigrants from socialist coutries, primarily Hispanics and Chinese. As individual states have their majorities of Whites eliminated, political control nationwide will be realized.

 

[sambino510]

There is similarity not only with Vietnam and the American Revolution but between Vietnam and the American Civil War. A country divided and one side trying to win a military victory to reunite. Also the fact that a major power was thinking of giving support to one side, but, and this is one of the differences, that support never arrived, however, because one side issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

I agree with one of the posters that it was our fear of communism that crippled us from using our brain power to create a solution to Vietnam that benefited our own best interests.

The wars in Vietnam from 1945-1975 have almost nothing in common with our Revolutionary War or Civil War.

What the conflicts in Vietnam are most similar are too now are the political/ideological fighting we have now in America. A neo-communist regime under liberal democrats like Obama is trying to bring all of America under its control.

Like Ho Chi Mihn, Obama uses policies of ethnic cleansing to bring about absolute control.
Although Ho Chi Mihn was more brutal, killing and torturing his enemies, the capitalists, Cathholics, Montagnard people, and so on---Obama uses more insidious means against his enemies, Whites, conservatives and Christians.

First, Propaganda. With some 80% of the major media controlled by neo-communists, most Americans have been slowly brainswashed over the years into supporting progressive leaders and policies.

Second, Education. One of the fundamentals of Marxism is government control of all education. Control the youth and control the future.

Third, and most important, Ethnic cleansing. Using large urban areas as powerbases, like Uncle Ho did in Hanoi and other cities in the north, Obama and the neo-communists fill these centers with their political allies, and let them spread out from there. Detroit, Washington DC and Birmingham are all mostly progressive Blacks. Once an area becomes around 20% Black, the White exodus will begin. Larger areas in nation are filled with legal and illegal immigrants from socialist coutries, primarily Hispanics and Chinese. As individual states have their majorities of Whites eliminated, political control nationwide will be realized.

What is wrong with "progression"? Last I checked that's a typical goal of all humanity, to "progress" towards a better future and not just wallow in the failures of the past. Progress is what has built our country into what it is today.

Woah woah now, let's not even put "Barack Obama" and "ethnic cleansing" in the same sentence. Ho Chi Minh and the president are not comparable in any way. You can't just put mass killings in the same category as racial diffusion and say they're both ethnic cleansing. You're giving Obama way, way too much credit; he's an empty suit. You really think they're just filling boats full of "neo-communists" and throwing them into the urban cities of our country? Do you think the average black, Asian, or Hispanic youth even knows what neo-Communism is?

How is Obama controlling education? What did I learn in my time in high school that was so evil and wrong?

I believe you're far too paranoid about the racial minorities dominating the white majority. Even if they do, what is wrong with that? We've dominated them for their entire existence in this country. As a "nation of immigrants", we must accept that the white majority can one day become the minority.

Also, Obama will be out of office in three years. You think he can accomplish the crazy acts you've just mentioned in just a few years time? I doubt it.

 

[Flanders]

I am curious what you wish Truman would have done differently. I see avoiding the war and fighting another total war as the other two choices.

To Toronado3800: Declare war on North Korea and to hell with the United Nations.

The Korean War began in June 1950. The Soviets tested their first bomb in August 1949. So for all practical purposes America was the only country that had the atomic bomb along with delivery capabilities. There is not a chance Stalin would have risked war with US over North Korea. So I’m convinced Kim II-sung would have backed off.

NOTE: Stalin backed down in Afghanistan at the end of WWII. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan and planned on staying. Truman gave Stalin 48 hours to get out. Stalin was outta there lickety-split.

Also, North Korea’s military knew that America would call up all of those well-trained veterans who won WWII. In addition, America’s industrial might was still intact. Important factors in an all-out war in the eyes of military thinkers.

Parenthetically, the biggest mistake the government ever made was NOT maintaining absolute ownership of nuclear weapons. Yes, that meant protecting America’s intellectual property by bombing the facilities of any country trying to develop nuclear bombs. Unfortunately, Communists had infiltrated the highest levels of government as far back as the 1930s so retaining control was probably impossible.

After American Communists shifted into high gear nuclear proliferation was a certainty. Aside from traitors giving nuclear technology to Stalin, American Communists came up with the most successful slogan of all: If everybody has the bomb nobody will use it.

At the risk of sounding like a Monday morning quarter back, had America retained absolute ownership the touchy-feely freaks who never stop whining about stopping nuclear proliferation would have gotten exactly what they want, and the world would be safer for it. The worst of it is: Useful idiots now whine for treaties like New START that only makes enemies stronger and America weaker.

John Kerry wore the uniform of his country and served under fire while bush hid her worthless ass stateside cuz her dad was a senator.

To jasonnfree: It’s not about Bush the Younger. It’s about a man who actively betrayed his country.

You might want to read the obituary of an extraordinary hero. This is what he said about John Kerry:

Day was active in McCain's failed 2000 and 2008 Republican presidential bids and in 2004 campaigned against fellow Vietnam veteran John Kerry. Day called Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, a turncoat who lied to Congress in 1971 about alleged war atrocities.

"I draw a direct comparison to General Benedict Arnold of the Revolutionary War to Lt. John Kerry," Day said in 2004. "Both went off to war, fought, and then turned against their country."

July 28, 2013, 1:57 PM
Col. George "Bud" Day, Medal of Honor recipient, dies at 88

Col. George "Bud" Day, Medal of Honor recipient, dies at 88 - CBS News

Sorry Flanders, but that is not a lie. It is a fact, if you like it or not.

To Mushroom: It was a lie when Ho Chi Minh said it. The president lied when he gave it credibility.

Basically, only naive fools believe that a Communist could be inspired by limited government and individual liberties; the very things Thomas Jefferson advocated, and the Constitution guaranteed.

Latching on to the US Constitution is SOP for Communists. Hillary Clinton’s hero, Saul Alinsky, could not say Communists played a part in making this country; so he said “radicals” meaning Communists. Barack Taqiyya learned community organizing from Alinsky’s teachings.

I’m sure nothing I say matters to people who have their minds set on believing Barack Taqiyya’s lies. Forget the lie the president told, and listen to Oliver North debunk Ho Chi Minh’s lie:

Fox Ignores Facts To Declare Obama's Vietnam Remarks "Stupid" | Blog | Media Matters for America

What is wrong with "progression"? Last I checked that's a typical goal of all humanity, to "progress" towards a better future and not just wallow in the failures of the past.
Progress is what has built our country into what it is today.

To samboni510: Get real. America’s limited government was the first and last political step forward in thousands of years. Communism/socialism is going backwards to all of the totalitarian governments in the past.

Individual liberties and property Rights built this country. In plain English, totalitarian government could not have built this country. Note that all of the countries in the past were built by slaves or near-slaves to benefit ruling classes.

 

[Mushroom]

To Mushroom: It was a lie when Ho Chi Minh said it. The president lied when he gave it credibility.

Ohhh, I see. It is true, but it is a lie.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Your politically charged rants and attacks are often funny to watch, because you seem to mostly make something up and then run with it, the only thing that is consistent is the attacks.

 

[sambino510]

I am curious what you wish Truman would have done differently. I see avoiding the war and fighting another total war as the other two choices.

To Toronado3800: Declare war on North Korea and to hell with the United Nations.

The Korean War began in June 1950. The Soviets tested their first bomb in August 1949. So for all practical purposes America was the only country that had the atomic bomb along with delivery capabilities. There is not a chance Stalin would have risked war with US over North Korea. So I’m convinced Kim II-sung would have backed off.

NOTE: Stalin backed down in Afghanistan at the end of WWII. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan and planned on staying. Truman gave Stalin 48 hours to get out. Stalin was outta there lickety-split.

Also, North Korea’s military knew that America would call up all of those well-trained veterans who won WWII. In addition, America’s industrial might was still intact. Important factors in an all-out war in the eyes of military thinkers.

Parenthetically, the biggest mistake the government ever made was NOT maintaining absolute ownership of nuclear weapons. Yes, that meant protecting America’s intellectual property by bombing the facilities of any country trying to develop nuclear bombs. Unfortunately, Communists had infiltrated the highest levels of government as far back as the 1930s so retaining control was probably impossible.

After American Communists shifted into high gear nuclear proliferation was a certainty. Aside from traitors giving nuclear technology to Stalin, American Communists came up with the most successful slogan of all: If everybody has the bomb nobody will use it.

At the risk of sounding like a Monday morning quarter back, had America retained absolute ownership the touchy-feely freaks who never stop whining about stopping nuclear proliferation would have gotten exactly what they want, and the world would be safer for it. The worst of it is: Useful idiots now whine for treaties like New START that only makes enemies stronger and America weaker.

John Kerry wore the uniform of his country and served under fire while bush hid her worthless ass stateside cuz her dad was a senator.

To jasonnfree: It’s not about Bush the Younger. It’s about a man who actively betrayed his country.

You might want to read the obituary of an extraordinary hero. This is what he said about John Kerry:





To Mushroom: It was a lie when Ho Chi Minh said it. The president lied when he gave it credibility.

Basically, only naive fools believe that a Communist could be inspired by limited government and individual liberties; the very things Thomas Jefferson advocated, and the Constitution guaranteed.

Latching on to the US Constitution is SOP for Communists. Hillary Clinton’s hero, Saul Alinsky, could not say Communists played a part in making this country; so he said “radicals” meaning Communists. Barack Taqiyya learned community organizing from Alinsky’s teachings.

I’m sure nothing I say matters to people who have their minds set on believing Barack Taqiyya’s lies. Forget the lie the president told, and listen to Oliver North debunk Ho Chi Minh’s lie:

Fox Ignores Facts To Declare Obama's Vietnam Remarks "Stupid" | Blog | Media Matters for America

What is wrong with "progression"? Last I checked that's a typical goal of all humanity, to "progress" towards a better future and not just wallow in the failures of the past.
Progress is what has built our country into what it is today.

To samboni510: Get real. America’s limited government was the first and last political step forward in thousands of years. Communism/socialism is going backwards to all of the totalitarian governments in the past.

Individual liberties and property Rights built this country. In plain English, totalitarian government could not have built this country. Note that all of the countries in the past were built by slaves or near-slaves to benefit ruling classes.

My only point about progress was that without it we would be exactly the same as we were when we declared independence. The Civil War was progress. Women's suffrage was progress. The Civil Rights movement was progress. Things like that are what made us who we are today. I know that much of our nation was built off the backs of slaves and cheap labor and nefarious things like that, but our laws are the way they are BECAUSE of progressives. I'd rather support progression than remain stagnant.

 

[Survivalist]

There is similarity not only with Vietnam and the American Revolution but between Vietnam and the American Civil War. A country divided and one side trying to win a military victory to reunite. Also the fact that a major power was thinking of giving support to one side, but, and this is one of the differences, that support never arrived, however, because one side issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

I agree with one of the posters that it was our fear of communism that crippled us from using our brain power to create a solution to Vietnam that benefited our own best interests.

The wars in Vietnam from 1945-1975 have almost nothing in common with our Revolutionary War or Civil War.

What the conflicts in Vietnam are most similar are too now are the political/ideological fighting we have now in America. A neo-communist regime under liberal democrats like Obama is trying to bring all of America under its control.

Like Ho Chi Mihn, Obama uses policies of ethnic cleansing to bring about absolute control.
Although Ho Chi Mihn was more brutal, killing and torturing his enemies, the capitalists, Cathholics, Montagnard people, and so on---Obama uses more insidious means against his enemies, Whites, conservatives and Christians.

First, Propaganda. With some 80% of the major media controlled by neo-communists, most Americans have been slowly brainswashed over the years into supporting progressive leaders and policies.

Second, Education. One of the fundamentals of Marxism is government control of all education. Control the youth and control the future.

Third, and most important, Ethnic cleansing. Using large urban areas as powerbases, like Uncle Ho did in Hanoi and other cities in the north, Obama and the neo-communists fill these centers with their political allies, and let them spread out from there. Detroit, Washington DC and Birmingham are all mostly progressive Blacks. Once an area becomes around 20% Black, the White exodus will begin. Larger areas in nation are filled with legal and illegal immigrants from socialist coutries, primarily Hispanics and Chinese. As individual states have their majorities of Whites eliminated, political control nationwide will be realized.

What is wrong with "progression"? Last I checked that's a typical goal of all humanity, to "progress" towards a better future and not just wallow in the failures of the past. Progress is what has built our country into what it is today.

Woah woah now, let's not even put "Barack Obama" and "ethnic cleansing" in the same sentence. Ho Chi Minh and the president are not comparable in any way. You can't just put mass killings in the same category as racial diffusion and say they're both ethnic cleansing. You're giving Obama way, way too much credit; he's an empty suit. You really think they're just filling boats full of "neo-communists" and throwing them into the urban cities of our country? Do you think the average black, Asian, or Hispanic youth even knows what neo-Communism is?

How is Obama controlling education? What did I learn in my time in high school that was so evil and wrong?

I believe you're far too paranoid about the racial minorities dominating the white majority. Even if they do, what is wrong with that? We've dominated them for their entire existence in this country. As a "nation of immigrants", we must accept that the white majority can one day become the minority.

Also, Obama will be out of office in three years. You think he can accomplish the crazy acts you've just mentioned in just a few years time? I doubt it.

What you deem as "progression" isn't the same as what most realists would see it as. I'm not seeing a better future for anyone but the freeloaders. American society reached its zenith in the mid-1960's. After that, it has declined in about every meaningful category.

Education spending went way up over last 60 years, but test scores remain low and dropout rates are no better. Basically, federal educational spending has been a complete waste.

All schools accepting federal aid are under their ultimate control. In many parts of the South, no school can even expand its classroom without the oversight of a federal judge.


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...ato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-20.pdf

Much fewer people are working as jobs have left for overseas. Whole areas of the country have had their manufacturing base eliminated. You must not have noticed this, or think this is "building this country." More people on foodstamps. More people on welfare.

Economic security among whites in America on the decline, figures show | The Daily Times | delmarvanow.com

All this has been going on years before Obama took office, but he is the most powerful "progressive" advocate the neo-commies have had in America. My point was to show that Obama is more like Ho Chi Mihn than George Washington.

I don't know what you want America to look like in 50 years. It already is looking like Brazil, with large areas of slums next to more prosporus areas---generally a Brown "diffuse" population. Welfare and Social Security are just Ponzi schemes. They are unstainable, and the debt that keeps them afloat will someday reach its limit. I think America in 100 years will be a violent, poverty-stricken mess. A broken mixture of South Africa, Mexico and SE Asia.

 

[namvet]

get over it. same ole same ole

 

[numan]

Individual liberties and property Rights built this country.

What a load of hooey!!

America's swindling rulers kept the blacks as slaves and cheated the Native People out of their lands !!

That"s how much America's so-called "liberties" and "property Rights" are worth!!

Just a lot of phony-baloney, hot air crap.

.

 

[numan]

I appreciate what you are saying, Auteur, but Americans have an immense blind-spot about all this.

The war was not at all "absurd" from a basic point of view.

To a large extent the war was started, and almost entirely kept going for such a long time, BY PEOPLE WHO WERE MAKING MONEY OFF THE WAR!!

If an American really wants to understand USA history since the Second World War, every morning they should stand in front of a mirror and repeat 100 times,

WAR PROFITEER, WAR PROFITEER, WAR PROFITEER......

That's what I tell people. I put my time in the Navy rather than get drafted. Involuntary servitude actually. We made the world a safe place for corporate america to operate in. This is the part of welfare for corporations that the cons don't understand. They're too worried about Ophelia buying ding dongs and potato chips with her food stamps.

They really are stupid, aren't they?

Sorry about your involuntary slavery, but it did allow you to see the devil-beast of militarism up close and personal.

.

 

[Flanders]

My only point about progress was that without it we would be exactly the same as we were when we declared independence.

To sambino510: A combination of free enterprise technology and individual liberties up until the progressive movement in the early part of the twentieth century made America the envy of the world. Had that combination not been discarded by progressives America would be so far ahead of every country they would be scrambling to imitate limited government. Instead, socialism/communism gave the country equal distribution of poverty.

The Civil War was progress.

To sambino510: No it wasn’t. The South had the constitutional Right to secede. Lincoln’s war laid the foundation for today’s tyrannical government. That’s not progress.

Incidentally, setting long-term progress in cement is not that easy. It takes years, decades, and sometimes centuries to see unintended consequences. In the same vain, Americans are now getting the bill for the damage done in Woodrow Wilson’s era; the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and long-serving senators to name the unholy trinity.

Women's suffrage was progress.

To sambino510: Not if you look at the Democrat women in Congress and running federal bureaucracies. No one can make the argument that the country is better off because of such women.

The Civil Rights movement was progress.

To sambino510: No it wasn’t. The Civil Rights Movement quickly degenerated into taking Rights from one group and giving special privileges to another group flying the Equal Rights banner. That’s exactly what you have today.

Things like that are what made us who we are today.

To sambino510: You got that right. What Americans are today is nothing to be proud of.

I know that much of our nation was built off the backs of slaves

To sambino510: I agree that a small part of America was built by slaves before the War Between the States began.

and cheap labor and nefarious things like that,

To sambino510: The welfare state is a failed attempt to abolish cheap labor. Now, parasites live on the backs of those who work including those who work at the lowest economic level. That’s my definition of nefarious.

but our laws are the way they are BECAUSE of progressives.

To sambino510: Right again. Socialist laws tell us what we must do rather then tell us what we must not do. See the Eric Hoffer quote following my signature.

I'd rather support progression than remain stagnant.

To sambino510: You won’t know the meaning of stagnation until Barack Taqiyya & Company turn this country into a full-blown Communist country.

 

[Flanders]

And who are these American communists that single-handedly brought down the war effort?

To sambino510: So far I have not mentioned the Soviet Union’s hand in the anti-Vietnam War Movement. Demonstration organizers did not need any help tearing down their country. These excerpts cover how Soviet Communists manipulated useful idiots and sign-carriers with the Ho Chi Minh lie:

Obama’s surprising pronouncement, praising the leader against whom America’s soldiers fought during the Vietnam War, is right in sync with Soviet KGB “disinformation campaigns” of the past, created specifically to paint America in a bad light and its enemies in a good one.

XXXXX​

Pacepa – as an eyewitness and former participant at the highest levels of the communist espionage world – explains how the Soviet KGB, the Romanian DIE (the national intelligence organization he ran) and other Soviet bloc spy agencies both praised America’s enemies as courageous freedom-fighters and slandered her soldiers as drug-crazed monsters that daily committed atrocities on innocents. In his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry famously echoed a KGB disinformation campaign of the time.

The highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence official ever to defect to America during the Cold War, Pacepa says that particular disinformation campaign, codenamed “Ares,” was the brainchild of longtime KGB chief Yuri Andropov:

Andropov was convinced that the war in Vietnam provided a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make Europe fear America’s military terror and instill discord between the Old Continent and its own leader at that time, the United States. Therefore, Andropov made Operation Ares a foremost priority from almost the first days of the Vietnam War.

Part of this deception was the creation of the American antiwar movement, says Pacepa, who writes in “Disinformation”:

The general perception in the United States is that America’s antiwar movement has been a homegrown product. In reality, it is the result of a still very secret dezinformatsiya operation ignited by the KGB during the Vietnam War for the dual purpose of counteracting American efforts to protect the world against communist expansion, and of creating doubt around the world about American power, judgment and credibility. Unfortunately, it has fulfilled both aims.​

At U.S. peace demonstrations during the Vietnam War was, in addition to ubiquitous calls to “Stop the War,” it was common to see signs and hear chants praising Ho Chi Minh as a noble freedom fighter, against whom the U.S. was unjustly fighting.

Describing one disinformation vehicle, the KGB-created “Stockholm Conference on Vietnam” – fully staffed with undercover KGB officers – Pacepa and Rychlak explain how the wily Andropov organized and funded the “peace movement”:

During the five years of its existence, it spread around the world countless vitriolic dezinformatsiya articles and photographs supposedly depicting the debaucheries committed by the Genghis Khan–style American military against Vietnamese civilians. All these materials were produced by the KGB’s disinformation department and contained basically fabricated descriptions of American atrocities committed against civilians in Vietnam, as well as counterfeited pictures supporting the allegations.​

“In 1972,” recalls Pacepa, “I had a long discussion with Andropov about Operation Ares”:

“It turned America against her own government,” Andropov started off in his soft voice. It damaged America’s foreign policy consensus, poisoned her domestic debate, and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion that was wide and deep. It also transformed the world’s leftists into deadly enemies of American “imperialism.” Now all we had to do was to continue planting the seeds of “Ares” and water them day after day after day. Eventually, American leftists would seize upon our Ares and would start pursuing it of their own accord. In the end, our original involvement would be forgotten and Ares would take on a life of its own.​

Obama Ho Chi Minh comment echoes KGB 'disinformation'
Said communist mass-murderer 'inspired' by U.S. founding documents
Published: 16 hours ago

Obama Ho Chi Minh comment echoes KGB ?disinformation?

 

[sambino510]

Just as a side note to you Flanders, though I agree with many things you say, I would strongly suggest you do not cite Oliver North as a credible source. The man was responsible for the Iran-Contra scheme, which in my mind was one of the most controversial policies our government has ever had. Officially, we were supporting Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis with satellite images and chemical weapons, while secretly we were selling supplies to Iran to fund a radical group in Nicaragua? Whoever spear-headed something that ridiculous deserves no attention or credibility. Anyways, you can obviously cite whoever you like, I just don't think Oliver North is a good source.

 

[Mushroom]

Just as a side note to you Flanders, though I agree with many things you say, I would strongly suggest you do not cite Oliver North as a credible source. The man was responsible for the Iran-Contra scheme, which in my mind was one of the most controversial policies our government has ever had. Officially, we were supporting Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis with satellite images and chemical weapons, while secretly we were selling supplies to Iran to fund a radical group in Nicaragua? Whoever spear-headed something that ridiculous deserves no attention or credibility. Anyways, you can obviously cite whoever you like, I just don't think Oliver North is a good source.

Actually, it is a bit more complicated then that.

The sale of weapons to Iran was to buy their influence over the radicals in Lebanon that were holding a great many people hostage. It was a simple quid pro quo arrangement. We sell them weapons, they get the people holding US citizens and Europeans as hostages to let them go.

And because it is illegal to make a profit on a "black op", the funds had to be shuffled to somewhere, so the conflict in Nicaragua was picked as the recipient.

But the goal of the arms deal had nothing to do with either Iran or Iraq, it was to buy their influence. Nothing more.

The scandal began as an operation to free seven American hostages being held by a group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.

Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also like the lines about this in the movie "The Lord of War", when Nicholas Cage asked the Israeli arms dealer who brokered the agreement how he could justify selling arms to Iraq, then turn right around and sell them to Iran.

Simeon Weisz: I don't think you and I are in the same business. You think I just sell guns, don't you? I don't. I take sides.
Yuri: But in the Iran-Iraq War, you sold guns to both sides.
Simeon Weisz: Did you ever consider that I wanted both sides to lose? Bullets change governments far surer than votes. You're in the wrong place, my young friend; this is no place for amateurs.

I also think that was very much in the interest of the US at the time. As long as Iran and Iraq were at each other's throats, they were not a threat to other countries. A lot of the issues in the region only started to become big problems when their war ended.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We elected a radical fringe lunatic to the Oval Office

 

[Mushroom]

We elected a radical fringe lunatic to the Oval Office

Actually, I see our President as an extremist, but not quite "radical fringe" category to be honest.

There are a great many who are far more radical and fringe then he is.