Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Nonetheless, I think the main lesson here is, again, that the Tea Party and its leaders are no different now than the Republican Party and Bush was then. The only major difference I see between Bush and Palin, in fact, was that Palin's a woman whose dad wasn't president. Other than that they're the same - supposedly charismatic according to the media, from big oil states that they whose governments they fucked up as governor, funded by corporate interests, totally unaware of the larger nuances of world geopolitics and market failures.
Just don't be fooled into expecting a Tea Party official to behave even the slightest bit differently than a Republican Party official. They're the same candidates, and they'll support the same failed and stupid policies if they win elections.
newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/03/07090…;
You really need to learn to read before you decide to comment.
Now it's Stalin?
What's next? Pol Pot? Saddam Hussein?
How many dictators as synecdoches are possible?
But I really don't think the people who support this astroturf Tea Party movement care. They're not supporting the movement because it's not connected to Stalin, and the sudden discovery that it is a corporatist enterprise, is funded by profiteering from Communism, or whatever else isn't going to change their mind.
In other words, we're deep in the era of post-truth politics in America, and investigative reporting, transparency, actual cold hard facts count for very little when all a Frank Luntz has to do is come up with some brilliant phrase like "[strengthening financial regulation] institutionalizes endless bailouts," or "[reforming health insurance to reduce fraud and waste] is a government takeover of medicine." Facts do still matter, but what people think are facts now matter much, much more.
Made-up information is easy to believe if it's phrased in a way that sounds convincing, and that is, in fact, scientifically designed to persuade people.
Like it is possible to say that the Bush family made their money doing business with the Nazis, pretty clear link, if that is what one is saying.
If what you are saying is true then is shouldn't be too hard to summarize the actual direct financial link between Stalinist Russia and the founders of the John Birch society.
The relationship between Koch and teabagging is more clear.
"The Koch family, America’s biggest pushers of the free-market Tea Party revolution, would not be the billionaires they are today were it not for the whim of one of Stalin’s comrades."
What comrade of Stalin had anything to do with the Koch's or their newspaper? Their wealth dates back to Stalin times? This is not explained. I am happy to believe it if it is true, I expected to find out they had an ancestor high up in the communist party under Stalin who stole lots of money later the descendants came to America....or something. But no. Nothing. Zero zip nada, there's no connection to Stalin. Instead, just this:
"The Exiled originally was an English-language alt-weekly based in Moscow. Putin threw them out of the country for their excellent reporting. They are a must-read, now that their attentions are focused on our crumbling empire."
Ahhh, you see the link is "Stalin = Soverity Union = Russia = Putin. Aha! PUTIN IS THE COMRADE OF STALIN.
Excuse me but this is historical illiteracy and ignorance on about the same level as a tea partier. Putin is not a colelage of Stalin. For your information, since apparealy you didn't ever go to school, Stalin was an evil dictator who did bad things in the 30s and who helped beat the nazis but was like really bad, man, and I don't just mean with nationalized health care or forced taxes to pay for transit, I mean like with starving people, killilng all his subordinates, enslaving people in gulags. It's called a reign of terror. Putin, in contrast, is of a different time, and oh! by the way he was elected because the USSR isn't the democratic Russie we have today. didja know that?
so with all these like differences 'n' stuff it's about as stooopid to say Putin is a comrade of Stalin as it is for a tea bagger to say Obama is a communist.
It's pure sensationalism...tehe deliberately ignorant statement designed to get readers and attention.
Just like what the tea baggers do!
There, you're welcome.
The patriarch of the Koch family fortune was a chemist who figured out a better way of chemically converting crude oil into valuable products. The oil barrons in the (libertarian paradise) 1920's viewed this more efficient process as a threat to their monopolies, and blocked his product from being used.
Koch then went to the 1930's Soviet Union, where his technique and company's products were widely used. Stalin himself promoted Koch industries.
Get it? There is irony here. It isn't even Alanis irony; this is the real deal. The biggest bankrollers of libertarian free-for-all made their fortunes because of the most planned economy ever devised--the only environment that allowed their family's better industrial technique to thrive.
But anyway, thanks again for the link. It certainly is interesting information.