Monday, January 24, 2011

I Stand Up for Bill Ayers

One of the inevitable responses of right wingers when we try to talk about their incessant provocation of violence is to talk about the Weatherman and the few other acts of violence that occurred during the Vietnam war era.

Now first let me make a statement that I think virtually no other person online can make:  I stood up to Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and the Weathermen at the time.  I openly stood against the formation of the Weatherman as it was being created, not in some newspaper article or vapid essay, but at the meetings where the Weatherman was born, and in full view of Ayers, Dohrn and their followers.  I openly opposed their intent to resort to violence; and what became of them fully justified the position of those I stood with.

Now on to one of the worst examples of false equivalence between left and right.  The Vietnam "war" was an unprovoked aggression by the United States against a foreign country in which, by all estimates, between two and four million Vietnamese civilians were murdered by our military.  There is no argument with these figures, except on the planet where there is no global warming, where torture is okay, and where anything a rich person does is perfectly okay.

In opposing the war, we were fighting to stop that slaughter, and eventually succeeded.  In the outrage over the couple of American civilians killed, where can you find a shred of sympathy for the millions that we murdered?  How many more millions might have died if we had not done whatever we could think of to stop our government's aggression?  And until an expression of horror of equal proportion is expressed about those millions of dead Vietnamese, I cannot take seriously the right's wails of anguish over a couple of dead Americans.

The teabaggers, on the other hand, are threatening, and rapidly turning to, violence in order to get their taxes cut.

There is a big difference between the means appropriate to an effort to stop the slaughter of millions, and those acceptable to get someone to cut your taxes.  It's time the right and the media figure that out.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

No it's people not wanting to pass on big debt to future generations and leaving them without by adding more entitlement programs to the unsustainable ones we are facing now. Maybe if you listened to them instead of hateful hate mongers at MSNBC you would know that.
And here I thought liberals were all about "the children"

Dave Dubya said...

If rich conservatives cared half a fart about future generations, they'd be willing and happy to pay Reagan era taxes to reduce the debt. But, Noooo! "Conservatism" is all about greed and the Golden Rule, those with the gold make the rules. The very debt these hypocrites denounce is further expanded by the tax breaks for the economic elite. Everyone else, including future generations, are on their own.

At least the protests of the '60's were rooted in self-defense. We were forced by the draft to slaughter and die in a corporate war. The Tea Cult are nothing but fat, spoiled, greedy, white crybabies.

Poll P. said...

@Dave...I like 'Tea Cult' as an apt descriptor. I protested the protests one day, and the fat, white, greedy crybabies were 'marching' a) in lawnchairs, and b)while wearing more expensive jewelry and handbags than I'll ever own in my whole life.

Anonymous said...

that's where you couldn't be wrong DD. The Tea Party are not rich white conservatives. Ours also has quite a few veterans new and old pus many unemployed people.
The Tea Party started in objection to the bailouts.
If you took the time to stop labeling them as rich,white racists
you would know they are mostly working class struggling people with families who are tired of Washington Business as usual politics wasting money and having the household sector bailing out the banking sector and other sectors of unworthiness.
Maybe you should be thanking them or even joining them instead of taking the side of big bloated government.
Unless you prefer your taxes to continue to go to big bank bailouts.

Anonymous said...

while wearing more expensive jewelry and handbags than I'll ever own in my whole life.


what a load of horse manuer.

Dave Dubya said...

The Tea Cult was started because a Black Democrat won the White House. Big Money corporate fatcats like the Koch Brothers, Dick Armey and FOX(R)fascists like Beck promoted and defined it. The banksters cheered all the way to the vault when the Tea Cult helped Republicans take the House. Now Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who will lead the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to more than 150 companies and other organizations asking them to identify regulations that they would like to see eliminated. The Republican attitude is clearly summed up here: "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.” - Congressman Spencer Bachus, Republican Alabama.

As Russ Feingold says, "Washington—has become a corporate playground. Since I’ve been here, this place has gone from a government town to a giant corporate headquarters...Gilded Age on steroids.”

Oh, to be ignorant of the corporatocracy. "Washington Business as usual politics" will continue.

Green Eagle said...

Anonymous, people like you don't give a damn about future generations.

Anonymous said...

oh yes I can see it took you guys 24 hours to come up with a response. What did you have to o scour the Huffpo for your talking points?

Green Eagle said...

"oh yes I can see it took you guys 24 hours to come up with a response. What did you have to o scour the Huffpo for your talking points?"

Do you think we are on this planet for the purpose of instantly responding to your garbage? We'll get around to it if, and when, we feel like it.

By the way, I love your attitude. It doesn't take any time at all to respond to things by lying your ass off, which is your only response to anything I have to say. It takes a little while to find the information necessary to be sure that what you are saying is true; that, however, is a concept with which you would have no familiarity.