Robert F. Kennedy Jr. exposes neocons as phony conservatives watch!
youtube.com — The truth is so simple.......
ileen4justice- 1751 diggs
- digg it
- ileen4justice, on 06/20/2008, -17/+170Robert F. Kennedy Jr. rips the right-wing fascist Neocons an ....... The criminals who have torn the "conserve out of conservatism," they love capitalism for the poor and cartels, social welfare, and monopolies for the rich. They HATE the constitution.
- PabloMac, on 06/20/2008, -16/+8Applying a blanket generalization to all so-called "conservatives" like he does diminishes his credibility. He doesn't acknowledge the many so-called "liberals" who embrace many of the outrageous positions outlined in this great speech.
Not all who think of themselves as conservatives or liberals stand up for every "conservative" or "liberal" issue, respectively. Many of us prefer to think and decide for ourselves, and resist the tendency others seem to have to automatically jump on board with their group's agenda item of the day.
It isn't about "liberal" vs. "conservative" positions. It's about perpetually seeking truth, and acting on what you know and believe as truth, plain and simple. Name-calling and generalizing tactics hurt that process greatly.- BDOUG, on 06/20/2008, -4/+18Your response ignores the fact that the neocons have been in power for a while now, wrecking all kinds of destruction, and despite the damage they've done there is still a diehard squad of cheerleader dittoheads out there for them. I agree that the real debate isn't "liberal" vs "conservative" anymore. As Jim Webb points out in his book "Time to Fight", most left-v-right social issues in the media that past several years have just been a smokescreen...or more like a circus to distract us from "boring" but much more important issues that are going on behind the scenes in government. IMO, the real debate is libertarian vs authoritarian and most anti-neo-cons seem to understand this quite thoroughly, regardless of what they call it or which party they happen to prefer.
- Emelius, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Yes, BDOUG has it right. On one boat you have people who claim to be conservative, who like to spend money on defense department, who like to give out tax breaks to big corporations and wag their tails to their lobbyist friends, then on the other boat you have traditional republicans, people with respect. People who have followed traditions of american conservatism since the founding of our great nation. The neocons took what the Republican party stood for and ripped it apart
I have an anecdote: when i was in high school my US History teacher was teaching us about the values of the Republican Party, which were way on par with how I thought, but I never considered myself republican because all the values and decisions of the current republican party(bush) at that time were nowhere near on par with what traditional Republicans would do. I asked my teacher "are you sure that's republican party", because I was very confused. He then talked about the direction of neoconservatism etc. etc.
Which is why we need more people like Ron Paul (blah blah, dont hate me) who know that the Republican Party is here to keep things stable, to keep things normal and respectful, not to have two parties that want to "change". Only one party should ever embrace change so that we dont have two virbrating waves that will collide into each other and create soem sort of universe (m-theory)
- Emelius, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Yes, BDOUG has it right. On one boat you have people who claim to be conservative, who like to spend money on defense department, who like to give out tax breaks to big corporations and wag their tails to their lobbyist friends, then on the other boat you have traditional republicans, people with respect. People who have followed traditions of american conservatism since the founding of our great nation. The neocons took what the Republican party stood for and ripped it apart
- swrostmore, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7Confining the discussion to just the "liberals" and "Conservatives" in Congress, it is absolutely accurate to speak of "conservatives" in blanket generalization, because they vote unanimously or near-unanimously on every issue.
- PabloMac, on 06/20/2008, -5/+2The "liberals" in Congress also vote unanimously or near-unanimously on every issue.
- swrostmore, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6That is not a true statement at all, and I suspect you know it. Lets examine today's FISA vote, as it is higly representative of a historical pattern:
188 Republicans voted yes, 1 voted no.
105 Democrats voted yes, 128 voted no. - snassiri, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2I bet I know who that 1 Republican "No" vote was.
- swrostmore, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3You're wrong. Ron Paul was not present to cast a vote.
- diggduggjoe, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3He seems to give a positive reference to true conservatives when he mentioned Goldwater. NeoCons are not traditional conservatives.
- gn0stik, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Goldwater called himself a Neo-Conservative. The term was stolen by the globalists who pander to the republican base that remember Barry Goldwater. Same with Reagan. Both of them are likely rolling in their graves at the current state of their party.
- Tomchei, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I'll take a liberal over a neocon any day of the week. And I'll eat pork in front of them too.
- benecere, on 06/20/2008, -3/+4Neocons are as far away from conservatism as Rush Limbaugh is from classy guy. That's the point of this speech. It's why Kennedy mentioned Goldwater, who'd HATE what's going on under the guise of conservatism. You know, --- I'm a liberal; I'm a democrat, but I always respected Goldwater. He stood for what the believed and not simply for a party regardless of its stance or decline. I used to watch "Firing Line" because I respected the views of George Will and William F Buckley. I listened to what they had to say. I bought Will's book a few months ago; he's a smart man. I don't often agree with him, but I always take him seriously. Rush Limbaugh and the rest of today's ilk are all pretense and show and aren't worth the airwaves they pollute with their home-spun blather and make-believe logic.
- BDOUG, on 06/20/2008, -4/+18Your response ignores the fact that the neocons have been in power for a while now, wrecking all kinds of destruction, and despite the damage they've done there is still a diehard squad of cheerleader dittoheads out there for them. I agree that the real debate isn't "liberal" vs "conservative" anymore. As Jim Webb points out in his book "Time to Fight", most left-v-right social issues in the media that past several years have just been a smokescreen...or more like a circus to distract us from "boring" but much more important issues that are going on behind the scenes in government. IMO, the real debate is libertarian vs authoritarian and most anti-neo-cons seem to understand this quite thoroughly, regardless of what they call it or which party they happen to prefer.
- metric7, on 06/20/2008, -3/+8So this is the same guy who is such an
environmentalist that he opposed a wind
farm off the coast of Cape Cod. It would've
ruined the view from his mansion.
/CHOWDAH - gn0stik, on 06/20/2008, -1/+18Just posted this in another thread. Seems to fit better here.
Let's explore the history of the words Neo-Con, and Liberal, and Fascist for a moment. Just to see where it takes us.
The word Neo-Con used to be a good word, as did the word Liberal. Both were Hijacked, by party members the respective parties that were neither Neo-Cons or Liberals. Corporatist Globalists, and Extreme Left Socialists, respectively.
Originally, Liberals were socially progressive, and fiscally conservative. They believed in localized social programs, and the Rights of the individuals to choose (on everything, not just today's buzzwords like abortion, and marriage), not massive federal run social programs, that unevenly distribute the burden of the needy few, on the self-sufficient many. This is classic liberalism. SOCIAL liberalism is big government, as they support state run social programs. Social liberals also support Free Trade agreements, etc. It is sometimes called "new liberalism" or NEO-LIBERALISM.
Originally, Neo-Cons were guys like Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. It was a term used to define people who came from the left side of the aisle, and were "new conservatives." These were old school liberals who believed in the classic liberalism outlined above, and thought their party had lost it's way, and were moving toward social liberalism. Most of this started happening in the 70's, the move was primed by the fact that several dems had already switched sides in the 60's, during the civil right's movement. Their claimed philosophy is that foreign policy is of paramount importance.
So you see, Neo-Cons were originally Classic Liberals, who lost interest in their parties, or people who they influenced. Not so anymore.
Compare the philosophy of Ronald Reagan who believed he could end the cold war through a diplomacy, and that of Cheney, Rove, etc.
These people are Globalists, and they are on both sides of the Aisle.
The new bunch are NOT NEO CONSERVATIVE!!. They have hijacked the word. Most liberals don't understand that when they call someone a neo-con, they are calling them a liberal.
Now compare the philosophies of guys like JFK, to that of dems like Pelosi, who is blocking the Impeachment of Bush, and Cheney.
Fascism is so commonly misused, that it's become redefined. Fascism was originally a term for a form of govt that stressed unity, and the control of the magistrates for the common good of the people. The state comes first, or the good of the people relies on the good of the state. Fascism, by definition, is totalitarian LEFTIST ideology. However, it can occur on either side. Mussolini coined the term, a socialist. However you don't have to be a socialist to be a fascist.
For example. Sparta was fascist, and socialist. Rome was fascist, and democratic.
Also, it should be noted, that Fascism is not by definition evil. If it's forced totalitarianism, against the will of the people, and regardless of the good of the people it is evil. And this is usually the end result, regardless of how it started. Fascist governments typically become too power hungry, and destroy themselves, however.
Now, I ask you... What's worse? A Neo-Liberal, Or a Neo-Con?
Answer: NEITHER!!!!! Shocker, they are practically the same thing.
Both are globalists, neither are conservative, and both whittle our rights away.
The neo-cons take away our privacy, and neo-libs take away our social choices.. Left two terms, right two terms. The globalist shuffle.
At any rate, all these terms have morphed so much that the current definitions aren't even close to what they originally meant. However, following the history of these terms is quite revealing as to the condition we are in today.
We've lost our representative government people. All we have is bastards with brand recognition.- Becca4RonPaul, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Thank you for that well thought out post.
- moffie, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2I commend you on your ability and inclination to thinking, unlike so many others. You've got a good point: most people just echo brand names that they hear dumbass #1 call dumbass #2 on the tv/radio/etc. instead of actually studying and understanding terms and ideologies and making their own decisions about what's what.
Regardless of what a person claims, if the person doesn't even understand what (s)he's claiming - (s)he's not thinking autonomously. Hence, (s)he's not really a person. After all - isn't living through a serious of autonomously made decisions what seperates a person from, say a sheep, or a robot?
- Iztikeit, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0We need another real conservative.....Why doesn't he just do it himself?
- PabloMac, on 06/20/2008, -16/+8Applying a blanket generalization to all so-called "conservatives" like he does diminishes his credibility. He doesn't acknowledge the many so-called "liberals" who embrace many of the outrageous positions outlined in this great speech.
- allowners, on 06/20/2008, -14/+75Great post, thanks.
- michaeltime, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3Seconded.
- alapoet, on 06/20/2008, -13/+76RFK Jr tells it like it is!
- donte, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Apparently I've slipped fallen and landed in a parallel dimension. I found myself not only agreeing with something that a Kennedy said, but actively excited about it. I need to go sit down.
- Fangsinmybeard, on 06/20/2008, -20/+33This video was on heavy rotation at Free speech TV for months and it just now gets attention from Digg?
- ileen4justice, on 06/20/2008, -2/+25And the problem with that is..........
- endofnite, on 06/20/2008, -1/+25You were holding out on us, Fang? :P
- R1ng00, on 06/20/2008, -0/+8what up fang? post it next time ....
- Yage2006, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Well Actually it was already on digg a few months ago.
I would normally bury it as a dupe but more people should hear it. - eltrev, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4uh, who cares? Contribute to the conversation, or shush.
- JekJob, on 06/20/2008, -12/+79He's so right, these people aren't real conservatives nowadays. They're mental patients. Conservatives from a few hundred years ago up to even to a few decades ago would be appalled at how the "conservatives" are acting today. The new brand of conservatism would be completely unrecognizable to them.
Strange, RFK, Jr. has the same mannerisms as his father, like fixing his hair during the applause.- sphira, on 06/20/2008, -0/+14Great you point out that distinction
Seems to be lost on a number of people -
neo = newborn (from "neonate")
This is not your fathers oligarchy - NonLeftistDiggr, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3Conservatives now also, I might add.... as displayed in the 2006 congressional elections and the republican primary turnout.
- sphira, on 06/20/2008, -0/+14Great you point out that distinction
- MarkEarhart, on 06/20/2008, -8/+26Sage words we would do well to consider and act upon.
- britt48, on 06/20/2008, -7/+27He is right on. Even though these words were spoken months ago, they must continue to be passed on.
- jgtg32a, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Decades?
- ThePenrod, on 06/20/2008, -42/+21And RFK jr. is a phony liberal environmentalist, as he and his family has been key in crushing the wind farm project on Nantucket Sound. Saving the environment is great for the little guy, just keep it away from the family's six acre waterfront compound. I hate this guy, and I'm not even a conservative.
- treehugger87, on 06/20/2008, -14/+12You're right, you're not a conservative. You're a neocon.
- ThePenrod, on 06/20/2008, -3/+7Nope, ardent socialist libertarian, actually.
- ThePenrod, on 06/20/2008, -4/+5If you're confused what that means google Noam Chomsky.
- ThePenrod, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2Plus, shouldn't you be more pissed about the Cape Wind project, "Treehuger87"?
- treehugger87, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I've taken a few days to think about this, and so I hope you see this response. I owe you an apology. I was clearly in an antogonistic state of mind when I posted this reply. I consider myself an ardent social libertarian as well, was honored to meet Noam Chomsky in the 1990s and have been a big fan of his since.
I read your reply and took the time to research the Kennedys and the Cape Wind project. I would prefer to think that there are "heros" in politics, and that someone is fighting for what is right for our WHOLE society than see the truth sometimes. Thanks for your patient replies. Consider me a fan.
- The_Wallbanger, on 06/20/2008, -2/+6Penrod: You're using the 2nd lowest classification of disagreement according to the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. You'd be better served addressing the issue rather than the messanger's so-called short-comings.
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-st ...- ThePenrod, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I dugg you up for utilizing Graham's Hierachy of Disagreement. However, I would like to point out that there is a great possibility that I am a sophist. I also note that while I do not disagree with Kennedy's sentiments in this video, I find it hypocritical of him to feel that he is the best representative in suggesting their are "phony" members within a political party. I also find it illogical to suggest that the majority of a political party, however in the wrong they may be, is in someway not true members/representatives of said party. That would seem to suggest the need for redefinition.
- Yage2006, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2So instead of counter his argument you do a add homonym attack on him.
- ThePenrod, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2There are so many grammatical errors to that statement I don't think I really can address them all.
I want to point out that my issue is not with his argument, it is with the man himself (see previous statement for closure). Though (as stated previously) I find it pretentious to say the majority of a political body isn't correctly representing the spirit of that political body, my problem is that I find RFK jr. to be a hypocrite (see my response to The_Wallbanger's statement).
- ThePenrod, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2There are so many grammatical errors to that statement I don't think I really can address them all.
- treehugger87, on 06/20/2008, -14/+12You're right, you're not a conservative. You're a neocon.
- sk11, on 06/20/2008, -5/+52Another excellent talk by the same man on why the American media has failed Americans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWZMOQcDnyk- relic180, on 06/20/2008, -0/+20Holy *****, that vid is even better than the originally posted one. That video actually increased my respect for Bobbie Jr.
- YukosEyes, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Wow! I don't know about anybody here, but I never had a week or even a day of my high school history class to the History of Media in the US. It is not only important for understanding our comprehensive history, but I think it could reinvigorate history classes since so many young people know there's a problem with the media and it's already a meaningful theme of inquiry for them.
If there is anyone on this forum in high school, PLEASE speak up in your classes and talk to your teachers about your interest in the History of the Media and any other historical theme of inquiry.
- dsa202, on 06/20/2008, -24/+5What do you call a 1 foot king?
A ruler! - diggiscrapola, on 06/20/2008, -30/+11More hot air from yet another Kennedy in politics. So sick of this left vs. right crap. Get over it you simpletons.
- TheLoneHoot, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
- Hillsfar, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1From a look at your comments, you're exactly the neo-con we're being warned against.
- km6847, on 06/20/2008, -36/+17Oh, yes, let's all take the ultra-liberal nut job environmentalist's word as gospel. Look at your source people.
- screamingjoker, on 06/20/2008, -5/+21the source isn't the issue, every point he makes is provable. Typical phony-con tactic, attack the messenger because his message hits home.
- km6847, on 06/20/2008, -8/+3The source isn't the issue? Sure, go with that... your sheep will follow, I'm sure.
- SocialPoison, on 06/20/2008, -1/+9Looks like km6847 could use a refresher course in fallacy and Ad Hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem- km6847, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1Your mom is a whore so you must be a retard. How's that for a lesson?
- SuperVepr308, on 06/20/2008, -7/+4Is he one of the 8 or 9 Kennedys either charged with or convicted of rape? They all look alike to me.
- kosser, on 06/20/2008, -8/+2neo-cons are ultra liberals. people dont understand that...every issue he has spoken of is an ultra liberal stance.
- screamingjoker, on 06/20/2008, -5/+21the source isn't the issue, every point he makes is provable. Typical phony-con tactic, attack the messenger because his message hits home.
- lajaw, on 06/20/2008, -28/+17And now everyone should know that todays liberals are not "classical liberals". They are socialists with an affinity towards communism. Seems both groups have gravitated far left. True conservatives are the "classical liberals" of yesteryear. That is, liberal with your Liberties.
- SocialPoison, on 06/20/2008, -3/+7Bzzzzrrt... Nice try! Would you like to go for the bonus round, where your lame trolls get twice as many negative diggs?
- lajaw, on 06/20/2008, -6/+3Bring it on there Socialist! Can't argue with my statement can you?
- MalumProhibitum, on 06/20/2008, -4/+3Hes actually right. Just because a commie is correct in his criticism of a neocon doesnt make him any less a commie.
- BDOUG, on 06/20/2008, -3/+11Capitalism is NOT socialism, no matter how many times you try to reinvent the word. Most modern liberals I know simply want to return us to actual capitalism vs corporate welfare/Reagonomics. Artificially supressing worker wages with "trickle down economics" in favor of the rich is not capitalism. It's called fracking us over.
- MalumProhibitum, on 06/20/2008, -3/+4I agree that the corporate welfare/managed economy has to go, but a true 'liberal' would be just as concerned with crushing taxes and income redistribution programs. THAT'S SOCIALISM.
- BDOUG, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1There is a broad spectrum of liberalism (just as there is a broad spectrum of conservatism) but I don't think it's up to the opposition to define what "true liberalism" is. That's a straw man argument. There are a number of socialized things in the USA that we'd be better off keeping (libraries, fire departments, public schools, etc). As a progressive, I do NOT see the government as the solution to every problem. However, I do think that if you take care of the poor and middle class (within reason, not rampant free-for-all welfare) this helps the over all economy and "lifts all boats". We waste a FORTUNE on the penal system, which is mostly our "conservative" way of dealing with the poor and disenfranchised. It's inefficient and inhumane. And no, that does not mean I think we should open the prisons and let them all go. It means the system needs a huge overhaul.
- MalumProhibitum, on 06/20/2008, -3/+4I agree that the corporate welfare/managed economy has to go, but a true 'liberal' would be just as concerned with crushing taxes and income redistribution programs. THAT'S SOCIALISM.
- veijeri, on 06/20/2008, -4/+4Globally speaking, American liberals are centrist. 'Far left' and 'communism' are gross inaccuracies. Our center is slightly to the right, and our conservatives are far right.
- MalumProhibitum, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3you dont know what the hell you are talking about.
- SocialPoison, on 06/20/2008, -3/+7Bzzzzrrt... Nice try! Would you like to go for the bonus round, where your lame trolls get twice as many negative diggs?
- Thrilltone, on 06/20/2008, -1/+19It's hard to imagine how devastating the Civil War must have been.
600,000 killed out of a population 1/10 the size of the U.S. today.- veijeri, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7And every casualty is American, regardless of side.
- SharpEye, on 06/20/2008, -18/+5Where was this speech given? Seems a little phony with the fixed camera, tight shot, and continuous flashes, but maybe just the way it was captured. Just curious...
- screamingjoker, on 06/20/2008, -2/+9doesn't matter if it's a set up, every point he makes is provable.
- pintomp3, on 06/20/2008, -2/+10did you even listen to what he was saying? or is your only criticism about the cinematography?
- borez, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3Who gives a rats ass... it's the words that matter.
- MalumProhibitum, on 06/20/2008, -11/+42Holy Crap! I voted Republican my whole life until the Iraq invasion. Id vote for this guy. He gets it.
- jgtg32a, on 06/21/2008, -4/+2That was before the democrats were socialists
- ErrorF002, on 06/20/2008, -8/+29Try to debunk him for his family name, try to debunk him for being too liberal, but.....
I don't think anyone can argue against this words. I don't agree with Ron Paul on all he says, but when his right on, I have the intelligence to separate the man from the words. The same should be done here. Neo-cons are mostly base pandering puppets. Some have integrity to their morals and faith and are consistent to them. I won't agree with all they say, but at least they have my respect and I will listen to their position.
I hope we can all do the same.- Hillsfar, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1That's the thing. They can't attack what he's saying. So they attack him. It's the last argument of every moron.
- Eggzb, on 06/20/2008, -8/+28RFK Jr. is a brilliant man. I wish there were a thousand of him.
- wertach, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3No, He is a Dick Head.
- nycmac247, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1please keep you sexual fantasies out of this
- wertach, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3No, He is a Dick Head.
- screamingjoker, on 06/20/2008, -5/+28Every point he makes is true. Neo-Cons have invented their own idology based on immediate gratification, they are entitlement bitches, who want their way and will manipulate what ever is in their way to get it.
- iloveliberals, on 06/20/2008, -5/+2"entitlement bitches?" You must be one of those enlightened, tolerant liberals I hear so much about.
- screamingjoker, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4Tolerant Liberals, is like saying "accountable republicans". Ha Ha. Liberals love to hate as much as everyone else. I'm no liberal. I am a 230 pounds of gun loving, ***** calling, capital punishment supporting, vegetarian, kung fu fun. And I hate ***** talkers above all. And Neo-Cons talk so much *****, their breath smells like ass.
- ileen4justice, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1So the word "bitches" offends you. HOW ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF INNOCENT BABIES, WOMEN, AND ADULTS WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED AND RAPED BY THE EVIL EMPIRE (OH YEAH, AND DESTROYED THE EARTH TOO) -- NOW THAT IS OFFENSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep the First Amendment Alive fellow Diggers!! ~ in memory of George Carlin...
- iloveliberals, on 06/20/2008, -5/+2"entitlement bitches?" You must be one of those enlightened, tolerant liberals I hear so much about.
- snoobies, on 06/20/2008, -9/+26Go Ron Paul and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. !!!!
- jgtg32a, on 06/21/2008, -2/+2You do know he was killed 40 years ago?
- Pfkninenines, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy
Born November 20, 1925(1925-11-20)
Brookline, MA
Died June 6, 1968 (aged 42)
Los Angeles, CA
RIP, another great Kennedy.
- screamingjoker, on 06/20/2008, -6/+11Don't forget to digg this story.
- headzoo, on 06/20/2008, -6/+57Story from my 8th grade history teacher:
When German POWs were brought to American camps, they sat down for their first meal as a prisoner, and the meals were big and lavish. They were served with real silverware, nice plates, etc. Many of them thought they were about to be executed, and were being served their final meal, because there was no way a prisoner would get such a nice meal.
Of course they weren't executed, and all their meals were like that. In fact they were treated very well as prisoners in American POW camps, and many of them moved their families to America after the war. Why? Because they figured if American prisoners were treated so well, it must be the great to actually live in America as a citizen.
So there you have it. We went from turning the enemy to our side through fair treatment, to creating more and more terrorist through torture and unfair imprisonment. Thank you "conservatives".- Number23, on 06/20/2008, -14/+6You know these same Germans were kept in US POW camps without any right to appeal their POW status and weren't released until the war ended?
- headzoo, on 06/20/2008, -3/+13Um, that's pretty much what it means to be a POW. Didn't you ever watch Hogan's Heroes?
I'm kidding. But that's how it works as a POW. At least they were given the rights guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. The same can't be said for the men at Guantanamo Bay. - BDOUG, on 06/20/2008, -4/+8You know that the Germans wore uniforms and there was no question they were enemy combatants but people arrested as "terrorists" could be darn near anybody, including your grandmother?
- DavidYeah, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2These folks are just incapable of telling the difference between so called "terrorists" and actual prisoners of war.
The people being held in offshore prisons by the American government are not a part of any government that we are at war with; many of them are sheep herders that were sold out by neighbors who were pissed off at them and looking for revenge and a few thousand bucks reward.
But America is stuck in a sustained state of fear. Sure, a few hundred or maybe a few thousand people are being held without chargers and, until recently, without the right to find out what they're being charged with, but we haven't concerned ourselves with that because of endess "what if" scenarios.
"What if a bomb was dropped on a major American city? Surely imprisoning a few thousand people that aren't might not be guilty of anything is worth it if we can prevent that bomb from being dropped. We could save millions of lives if we just torture these people!" - Number23, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Right and the Taliban types we're NOT wearing uniforms so they could (and should) have been summarily shot.
So granting them POW status is result of American largess.
- DavidYeah, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2These folks are just incapable of telling the difference between so called "terrorists" and actual prisoners of war.
- headzoo, on 06/20/2008, -3/+13Um, that's pretty much what it means to be a POW. Didn't you ever watch Hogan's Heroes?
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/20/2008, -3/+6Would you say that these Nazis were treated fairly as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Seyss-Inquart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Sauckel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keitel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Kaltenbrunner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Frick- had3l, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Yes. They received a "fair" trial and were well treated until their execution.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2The military commission at Gitmo was more 'fair' than Neuremberg. Among the rights available to detainees at Gitmo were:
- The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence
- The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. As Robert’s pointed out, some 38 detainees have been released as result of this process.
- The right, before the tribunal, to testify, introduce evidence, including exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, cross examine the government witnesses and secure release if and when appropriate.
- The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before the tribunal.
- The right to have the government search for and disclose to the detainee any evidence reasonably available to it tending to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.
- The right to appeal an adverse decision from the tribunal to the Federal DC Circuit Court along with the right to employ counsel and secure release if entitled to it.
- The right to petition the DC Circuit to remand a detainee’s case for new tribunal consideration if the petitioner comes up with newly discovered evidence
The right to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a yearly review of the status of each prisoner including the right to have the Secretary of Defense review any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.
- As a part of that yearly review, the opportunity for the detainee to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States, which could lead to his release.
The DC Circuit can order release of the prisoner, and the head of the DOD Administrative Review Boards can, at the recommendation of those panels, order release upon an appropriate showing.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2The military commission at Gitmo was more 'fair' than Neuremberg. Among the rights available to detainees at Gitmo were:
- had3l, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Yes. They received a "fair" trial and were well treated until their execution.
- trispear, on 06/20/2008, -4/+1Three of my family members died of starvation in US POW camps because of Eisenhower's treatment after the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_and_German ...
So I know first hand. I'm not saying who is better or worse, war is hell and a lot of atrocities committed on all sides and the Americans were better than most (heros given the Berlin Airlift). But I know that history classes teach a lot of BS as well (I went to highschool in America and had one hell of a nutty history teacher who pulled facts from his behind). - VitriolAndAngst, on 06/20/2008, -3/+5The truth is that BushCo doesn't want the "occupation" wars to end in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they torture, and cheat and switch to join whichever side is winning. Yes, treating people well and fairly is an amazing way to build allies. But it's more profitable for Carlysle, KBR and Haliburton if they don't.
- Number23, on 06/20/2008, -14/+6You know these same Germans were kept in US POW camps without any right to appeal their POW status and weren't released until the war ended?
- ericjohnson0, on 06/20/2008, -15/+8Its very interesting, they things the Kennedys do.
http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2007/2/17/2745 ...
http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/5/17/3695 ...- jer.williams, on 06/20/2008, -4/+5How about responding to the video? Do you disagree with what RFK said?
- Number23, on 06/20/2008, -30/+24Ok, I get confused by all the Kennedys
Is this Kennedy that made his fortune bootlegging and abandoned his retarded daughter to a lobotomy and an insane asylum? Or
Is this the Kennedy that crashed his car off a bridge while driving drunk and left a girl to drown while he waited hours to call for help? Or
Is this the Kennedy that had sex with his 14 year old baby sitter? Or
Is this the Kennedy that raped a girl on a Florida beach? Or
Is this the Kennedy that beat a girl to death with a golf club and nearly got away with it? Or
Is this the Kennedy that drove drunk into a Capital auto barrier and used his position as a congressman to avoid a DUI? Or
Is this the Kennedy that sent the FBI to try to smear MLK Or
Is this the Kennedy that was expelled from Harvard after he was caught cheating on a Spanish exam? Or
Is this the Kennedy that failed the NY bar three times and then crashed his plane flying in conditions he had no training for?- pjr12345, on 06/20/2008, -7/+16You forgot,
"Is this the Kennedy that sits in judgment over our nation, and makes laws based his personal beliefs rather than on the Constitution as originally intended?"- screamingjoker, on 06/20/2008, -13/+9This is the Kennedy that calls ***** on the knuckle-dragging phony-con's that have spread their pig virus across our land.
- 4wheel, on 06/20/2008, -3/+2Since "Neo-Cons" or "New Conservatives" are has been liberals, you're probably right.
- screamingjoker, on 06/20/2008, -13/+9This is the Kennedy that calls ***** on the knuckle-dragging phony-con's that have spread their pig virus across our land.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 06/20/2008, -3/+17Nice work.... and it's all real.
- SuperVepr308, on 06/20/2008, -4/+16Nice! Don't forget Ol' Joe had quite the affinity for Nazi policies as well. Jew-hating booze-runner who had a bunch of ***** up kids. Way to go.
- minox, on 06/20/2008, -4/+13No, this is the Kennedy that was arrested for heroin. You can't make this stuff up. They're the gift that keeps on giving. He's also the Kennedy that is an ardent environmentalist but opposes a wind farm near Nantucket, because it would ruin his view from his estate. He'd rather just stick it in "fly over" country.
- greenm1981, on 06/20/2008, -10/+8What does that have to do with his arguments? If Charles Manson says 2 + 2 =4 it still equals 4. The same logic applies regardless of the merit of the person making an argument. RFK Jr. makes sound arguments based on evidence, which stand on their own....irrespective of the character of the man making them.
- ericjohnson0, on 06/20/2008, -7/+7Because Kennedys, by and large, are ALL scumbags. Attention Whores and Liars. The country would be better off without them.
- greenm1981, on 06/20/2008, -6/+4Again, you fail to address the arguments. Nice try though.
- iloveliberals, on 06/20/2008, -4/+3Because if you judge others, you stand to be judged yourself. Glass houses, and all that.
- ericjohnson0, on 06/20/2008, -7/+7Because Kennedys, by and large, are ALL scumbags. Attention Whores and Liars. The country would be better off without them.
- isparadiselost, on 06/20/2008, -2/+6It's a shame to see factual statements dugg down. I guess that's what democracy is all about. That's probably why our FF made this country a Republic rather than a Democracy.
- DavidYeah, on 06/20/2008, -6/+4Buried for ad hom.
- ArgusDrake, on 06/20/2008, -5/+3I'm sure that if you provided me with your last name, I could dig up dirt and find a handful of wrongful acts done by people who share your surname.
Buried for attacking a man and his family, because you couldn't dent his argument.- NonLeftistDiggr, on 06/20/2008, -3/+4yeah right, you kennedy addicts just can't cope with the facts that they are corrupt and immoral as hell. My family has done bad stuff too, but look at that FKing list and stop trying to compare your average joe to those professional conmen.
- ArgusDrake, on 06/20/2008, -2/+4I'm hardly a "Kennedy addict." I don't care about the Kennedy family or the conspiracies surrounding them. In fact, I can't name a single Kennedy that I thought highly of.
However, In this case, Robert F Kennedy Jr made a statement I strongly agree with, and that I believe to be undeniable. Yet, we have diggers here pissing all over it, simply because it came from this man's mouth, as if it somehow debunks what he has to say. To be honest, it kind of pisses me off. No one's word is infallible, and statements must be taken at face value and the evidence supporting them evaluated, not simply disregarded based on the integrity of the speaker.
Attacking the messenger is just another way of trying to continue to argue when you can't debunk the argument presented. It's only one step above attacking your opponent's spelling, grammar and syntax, in my opinion.
- ArgusDrake, on 06/20/2008, -2/+4I'm hardly a "Kennedy addict." I don't care about the Kennedy family or the conspiracies surrounding them. In fact, I can't name a single Kennedy that I thought highly of.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 06/20/2008, -3/+4yeah right, you kennedy addicts just can't cope with the facts that they are corrupt and immoral as hell. My family has done bad stuff too, but look at that FKing list and stop trying to compare your average joe to those professional conmen.
- jgtg32a, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2He's the one who wiretapped MLK
- pjr12345, on 06/20/2008, -7/+16You forgot,
- kitsua, on 06/20/2008, -6/+15That was outstanding.
- ShaoKahn, on 06/20/2008, -9/+24***** neocons!
- chronically420, on 06/20/2008, -6/+17why doesnt stuff like this get reported by the media? oh right they claim they report everything but they lie just like the bush admin.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 06/20/2008, -6/+5Yeah, but did you need to hear him "expose" this? 8 years of witnessing these policies in action wasn't obvious enough? Did you see the poll turnout for the republicans?? yeah, plenty of conservatives have knonw for a while "neocons" are as conservative as Al Franken.
- borez, on 06/20/2008, -6/+14Good for him. Republican or Democrat, Labour or Conservative (UK) they're all the same and switch sides as and when it suits, they're not in control and have become puppets for a higher unelected government.
I think it's time we got rid of those controlling Bankers and their, senseless, narcissistic, terrifying controlling agendas. We didn't get this far to become slaves to a few tossers with money. - Knabber, on 06/20/2008, -9/+2Sadly, with his name, he too is susceptible to the Kennedy Curse, and probably will be targeted for these statements...
- afromon11, on 06/20/2008, -2/+22As a Conservative I can whole-heartedly agree with him, having a name with Conservative in it gives a bad name to us all.
- Judasmac, on 06/20/2008, -11/+4Orwell's Two Minutes of Hate. This one, three minutes. And in place of Emmanuel Goldstein, we get "neocons."
I'm not aware of any neocons hating free markets or wanting to dismantle separate of church and state. Is he confusing neocons with social conservative? He's confused, anyway. (By the way, Lincoln DID suspend habeas corpus. And for US citizens on US soil!)- Number23, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2He also arrested the MD assembly to prevent them from voting on secession.
- LoneRanger85, on 06/20/2008, -11/+5Soooo, he's FOR all these things? I would think he'd be HAPPY that liberals are posing as conservatives. What's his beef?
- Ne007, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3NeoCons are not only the worst of the Liberal, but the worst of the Conservative. None of the good of either.
- Qtip42, on 06/20/2008, -10/+4***** ya! Time to smack the ***** out of so-called neoconservative radical nationalists. *****'em all.
- durden0, on 06/20/2008, -3/+10I'm a conservative and I agree with this guy almost 100%. Only thing I would say is that we didn't do as shiny of a job with those things as he says we did in world war 2. After all, we rounded up all Japanese-Americans into interment camps.
- PolishLogic, on 06/20/2008, -2/+21Not for nothing, but could we quit using the label conservative when discussing these people? It gives us true conservatives a bad name, considering their values and actions don't represent anything close conservative.
Nothing irks me more than when I say I'm conservative and people immediately accuse me of being in lock-step with the policies of the Bush Administration. This administration and it's followers couldn't even begin to comprehend the definition of the word.- iloveliberals, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3Meh, it makes about as much sense as associating liberals with liberty.
- Infidelcastr0, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberali ...
- Ne007, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2NeoCons they are.
- iloveliberals, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3Meh, it makes about as much sense as associating liberals with liberty.
- DavidYeah, on 06/20/2008, -10/+5When I read "neoconservative" I generally read it as "contempt for the republic." If you call yourself a conservative but you aren't for entirely selling out and privatizing the entire American government, why do you call youself a conservative?
I don't think the term conservative has any meaning beyond taking control of the government further away from its democratic underpinnings and repinning it underneath established corporations and the dominant religion, and calling the monstrous results "small government".- durden0, on 06/20/2008, -3/+5You seem to be kinda confused about definitions of conservative, democracy and republic.
Democracy is simply the oppression of the many over the few. The republic representative form of government we have is there to keep democracy in check with the rule of law(constitution).
Conservatives simply want to reduce the many(government)'s power to forcibly take from one group of people and give to another. That means in any form, corporatism(collusion of government and business) or welfare (government and special interest).- DavidYeah, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1"Democracy is simply the oppression of the many over the few. Conservatives simply want to reduce the many(government)'s power to forcibly take from one group of people and give to another."
Your explination of what I think conservatism is is entirely consistent with my explanation.
Conservatives want to destroy democracy and replace it with an economics based aristocracy. Tell me the difference.
Democrats (small d) understand that in America, money is power. If enough money is consolidated in the hands of the wealthy, we'd have the exact opposite of democracy, we'd have what I'm sure you wouldn't call "tyranny of the minority."
Even Thomas Jefferson talked about reducing the power of this upper class.- LastVisibleDog, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1DavidYeah - clearly you are democRAT sock-puppet. You are not even trying to understand.
Your definition is pure ***** - you are not even close.
Conservative for the most part means to conserve? Conserve what? Conserve the government and philosophy of our founders - this translates into more freedom and less government.
Democrats and/or Liberals see the state as Mommy. Mommy needs to take care of the people and the people need to take care of Mommy government (send her money, lots of money). Philosophically Democrats are pretty much opposite to Conservatives and the founders of this country. Truth is, where the rubber meets the road, there is not a dimes worth of difference between the actions of the Republicans and Democrats because they have become the ruling elite with very little connection to the core principles of the parties.
It goes like this (and Ben Franklin understood this):
Liberals will destroy this country - "Democracies cannot be permanent because the people learn that they vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury causing fiscal collapse". Liberals may sometimes have good intentions, nevertheless liberals see the public treasury are a source to do good deeds (or just deeds)
Conservatives are the only hope for the salvation of this country
Currently there are very few if any conservatives in the Republican Party
The Democrat party is full of moonbat liberals - sugared up on 8 years of seething hate for Bush and nut-job 911 conspiracy theories eager to take back control so once again they can be the one's spending like a drunken sailor. And it looks like the Democrats are about to control everything - we are screwed.
Our only hope is Obama will quickly crash and burn like Carter (Obama is Carter II) and from the ashes of our current two parties, something conservative will emerge.
- LastVisibleDog, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1DavidYeah - clearly you are democRAT sock-puppet. You are not even trying to understand.
- DavidYeah, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1"Democracy is simply the oppression of the many over the few. Conservatives simply want to reduce the many(government)'s power to forcibly take from one group of people and give to another."
- ciphex, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5DavidYeah,
That is one of the most uneducated comments I have seen on digg today. Congratulations.
Your definition of the term "conservative" is both ludicrous and ignorant.
Please do read the comment by durden0 and your other peers that take the time to explain that conservatism is not about favoring one group, religion, race, or creed above any other, in fact quite the opposite. It is not about taking power from the people but giving it back to them.
The conservative philosophy places responsibility for the health and well-being of our great country solidly in the hands of we, the people, and not to the whims of bureaucracy. The individual is the origin of power and law and on his or her shoulders sits the right, the honor and the duty to uphold justice and ensure tranquility.
We are honor-bound, you see, to protect our common unalienable rights as men and women of a free society. The only way to protect these rights is to cheque the ever encroaching and over-reaching powers of central government, purveyed by the establishment in both parties.
George W. Bush should be impeached for his treasonous acts, as Clinton should have before him. The democrat-controlled congress has sat for years and played along with nearly every whim of George W., just as the Republican Congress before them, in truth, played along with Clinton.
The republican and Democratic "parties" exist only in name, to bolster the grande facade of a people in control of their own country. The sooner we all wake up to this, the sooner we can begin to take our nation back.- DavidYeah, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1First of all, you play the "I'm not partisan, I just love freedom!" part pretty well.
Second, you make no differentiation between democratic government and totalitarian government. I argue that if you have the same "democracy is the tyranny of the majority" point of view, that you don't even see a difference between democratic culture and a totalitarian bureaucracy/dictatorship.
"Your definition of the term "conservative" is both ludicrous and ignorant."
I think the only thing you find ludicrous is the very notion that anyone would analyze conservatism. Why does liberalism, democracy, progressivism, get to be analyzed from front to back, but conservatism is simply "freedom?"
I don't think conservatism is as simple as you say it is. That's like me saying that liberal democracy simply wants to help the poor. *****; we both know that in order for democracy to help the poor, it needs to tax in order to fund institutions. We are going to disagree as to whether or not democracy should help those in need, but we both know that taxes are involved in doing so.
Just like how there's more to liberal democracy than just helping the poor, there's more to conservatism than just "diminishing the power of democratic government." There's ramifications, and even if my analysis isn't perfect, it's damned close, and conservatism deserves such scrutiny.
"The republican and Democratic "parties" exist only in name, to bolster the grande facade of a people in control of their own country. The sooner we all wake up to this, the sooner we can begin to take our nation back."
I disagree again. Americans do need to wake up, but we need to wake up in the ballot boxes and voting for the creation of more and better democratic institutions instead of burning congress like you seem to want to do.
(Single payer healthcare in the form of expanded medicaid is less than a generation away, by the way.)
- DavidYeah, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1First of all, you play the "I'm not partisan, I just love freedom!" part pretty well.
- korvan504521, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Because liberals want to tell me how to live my life, take my guns, tax me to death, and give my hard earned money to the slacker bums who sleep till noon.
Both parties suck.
- durden0, on 06/20/2008, -3/+5You seem to be kinda confused about definitions of conservative, democracy and republic.
- rthakidn, on 06/20/2008, -7/+8On October 10, 1963, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy committed what is widely viewed as one of the most ignominious acts in modern American history: he authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin wiretapping the telephones of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. There was no spying! Indeed.
- ShaoKahn, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5They did not care about black people back then.
Now they dont care about anyone. - funkyloki, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3But it wasn't warrantless. It was authorized as a legal wire-tap, and it was the right decision because MLK was closely associating himself with Levinson and O'Dell, both known Communists. Both JFK and RFK were worried that Levinson and O'Dell were influencing King, and that this would affect his civil rights cause.
As an attorney general, RFK would have been derelict in his duties had he not authorized the wiretap. That doesn't excuse the other actions of the FBI. But the difference between then and now, is that now they can wiretap without warrants, which flies in the face of civil rights. - exomni, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Most ignominious acts in modern American history? Are you kidding me? MLK Jr. was associating himself with known enemies of the United States. MLK Jr. is a hero, but the wiretapping was warranted in every sense of the word.
Not to mention the attorney general serves under the president, which, in October 1963, was republican Eisenhower. Though I'd say Eisenhower was one of our greatest presidents, and the last decent Republican one.- rthakidn, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Hey pal, get a history book. RFK was AG for his brother then LBJ after Kennedy's assasination and RFK authorized the tapping. It never made it before a judge.
- ShaoKahn, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5They did not care about black people back then.
- ancientshoes, on 06/20/2008, -10/+3a neo-liberal calling neo-conservatives not conservative enough...thats a new one. Since when do liberals define what is conservative and whats not?
- durden0, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3Regardless of his political leanings, he's right.
- SwordofKahless, on 06/20/2008, -2/+10I may not agree with RFK on everything but as Conservative who hates the policies of neo-conservatives we can agree on many points.
- diggitydad, on 06/20/2008, -8/+2Oh and by the way, if you don't agree with him on climate change, RFK Jr thinks you are a traitor. Isn't that all warm and fuzzy.
- Becca4RonPaul, on 06/21/2008, -3/+1Yeah, he also promotes the fairness doctrine... Not cool.
- rlh1, on 06/20/2008, -8/+5If Robert F. Kennedy Jr.exposes the right-wing fascist Neocons as Phony Conservatives........Does that mean that they are really Democrats ??/
- R1ng00, on 06/20/2008, -6/+4I wonder why he hasn't backed Obama yet .. things that make u go Hmmmmmmm.
- Yage2006, on 06/20/2008, -2/+5Funny how not one of the negative comments on this thread counter what he says but instead launches into personal attacks on him and his family.
So very very typical. - ciphex, on 06/20/2008, -2/+6i'm no huge fan of RFKJ but he hit the nail on the head here in saying that the neocon establishment ( which has hijacked the Republican party through lies and the deceit, betraying their constituency ) is bastardizing the principles of true conservatism in America.
Hopefully someday we will see people wake up to the fact that conservatism is not George W. Bush.- jj2me, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0"betraying their constituency..."
Perhaps they have a few types of constituencies, one of which is way more important than the others.
Following the money...
- The RNC coffers are full. Much moreso than the DNC's.
- That RNC money will fuel winning political campaigns.
- The RNC gets most of its big money donations from corporations. This is in trade for corporate-friendly policies.
- Thus, we see these new Republicans constantly making policies for their primary constituency: corporations. (Exhibit A: Medicare Part D, where they legislated *not* to negotiate drug prices with big Pharma.)
- jj2me, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0"betraying their constituency..."
- wertach, on 06/20/2008, -12/+4He is a Dick Head, He would be a nobody if he had to make it on his own.
- Princeamor, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1You're just jealous!
- exomni, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1"He would be a nobody if he had to make it on his own." Just like McCain and George W. Bush, only RFK Jr. isn't an idiot; and is actually eloquent, patriotic, and well-informed.
- AgainstObama, on 06/20/2008, -15/+7Digg is center stage for any stupid liberal rhetoric.
- tufftugg, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3 Or Neocons who justify running up the National Debt, passing laws so they are exempt from War Crimes.
- Ne007, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2Rush? Bill Crystal? Fox News?
Is that you.....? Ahhh....I knew it...it WAS you....haha. - lawofbob, on 06/20/2008, -6/+2you're going to get buried in Digg for speaking the truth. Sad really.
- eltrev, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5hehe - what truth? He, nor you, have any actual reply (read: specific disagreement) with the points RFK Jr was making about neocons. Do you disagree? Can you counter his points with anything intelligent?
No. Didn't think so, *****.
- eltrev, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5hehe - what truth? He, nor you, have any actual reply (read: specific disagreement) with the points RFK Jr was making about neocons. Do you disagree? Can you counter his points with anything intelligent?
- eltrev, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6everything he said was both true and crystal clear. Rhetoric is repeated, this was organically delivered and again - true.
you are too stupid to recognize that, and to have any real reply to the actual content. - jgtg32a, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2While I 100% agree with what you've said, its not true in this case.
- Tyrghast, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Your name and icon led me to do a little research on the Americans Against Obama group, and what I found was shockingly unAmerican of any group to be part of. Why do you feel it's necessary to attack a fellow citizen's candidate of choice? Isn't that slightly immature? I am for Obama, but that doesn't mean I was against Clinton. It means I preferred Obama to Clinton. I agree she ran a sloppy campaign and I disagree on some of her personal and political standings, but I'm not going to go out and join an activist group that participates in slander/libel towards said candidate. Just because you may not like Obama or Paul or McCain does not give you adequate reason to participate in such a hate-mongering attitude.
- PhotoShap, on 06/20/2008, -8/+2Where does he actually say neocon? Neocon has been a term used by anti-semites to refer to Jews. He says allot about them, but when did them become someone specific?
- Ne007, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2NeoCons Jews? WTF are you talking about?
The MAIN NeoCons aren't jewish! Bush, Cheney, McCain, Ghouliani, Romney, etc...
Your post gets me sick with disgust for your ignorance.
Just because American citizens say that the U.S. should come before Israel and that Israel shouldn't get a free pass for the atrocities they commit DOESN'T mean they are anti-semites!
- Ne007, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2NeoCons Jews? WTF are you talking about?
- burton3660, on 06/20/2008, -7/+1He makes a good point but i dont hear anything about neocons
- Number23, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Moxley
Michael Skakel claimed that he had been window-peeping and masturbating in a tree beside the Moxley property from 11:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. Two former students of a drug rehab center, which Michael Skakel attended in 1978, testified that they heard Skakel confess to killing Moxley with a golf club after she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. He then bragged, *****"I'm going to get away with murder. I'm a Kennedy."*****
And he almost did. -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by