All Forums > The Pit > The Pit > JOHN KERRY DEFENDS TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER SWAMP
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
2/27/2013 10:24 PM
He should know.  He is from Massachusetts!
2/28/2013 10:11 AM
So who fits the Kerry mold better...

Me or University of Texas Professor Robert Jensen? Who is more "Disconnected"?
2/28/2013 5:21 PM
Boy, Prof. Jensen really gets under your skin...you can't stand, or face the reality, that his views are on the mark.  He doesn't have to be in the mainstream for his views to have validity.  He points out what is wrong with race in America, and right-wingers fly off the handle and froth at the mouth.
2/28/2013 5:52 PM
I encourage everyone to get a Robert Jensen book and see just how far off the beam this guy is. He has become my poster child for the radical left professor that is much farther from the center than Bachmann ever could be, but no one ever points out his insanity.

Commenting on the 9/11 attacks he tries to put them in scope by talking aobut..."...the massive acts of terrorism – the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes – that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime."

Talking about race he said..“We're all in the race game, so to speak, either consciously or unconsciously. We can overtly support white-supremacist racial projects. We can reject white supremacy and support racial projects aimed at a democratic distibution of power and a just distribution of resources. Or we can claim to not be interested in race, in which case we almost certainly will end up tacitly supporting white supremacy by virtue of our unwillingness to confront it. In a society in which white supremacy has structured every aspect of our world, there can be no claim to neutrality.”

And about adult entertainment he claims that all pornography should be banned because we live in a "Rape Culture" and calls for all men to become feminists!


2/28/2013 6:41 PM
How dare we not put the same amount of criticism on someone that no one has heard of, to that of a member of the United States Congress.
2/28/2013 8:00 PM
Commenting on the 9/11 attacks he tries to put them in scope by talking aobut..."...the massive acts of terrorism – the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes – that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime."

Since you took this little part out of context, here is the excerpt you pulled it from:

"But this act was no more despicable as the massive acts of terrorism -- the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes -- that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime. For more than five decades throughout the Third World, the United States has deliberately targeted civilians or engaged in violence so indiscriminate that there is no other way to understand it except as terrorism. And it has supported similar acts of terrorism by client states."

Reading the excerpt, is he wrong?  Because he points out briefly, in the next paragraph, the targets of American imperialism and terrorism where the US was directly or indirectly involved.

"If that statement seems outrageous, ask the people of Vietnam. Or Cambodia and Laos. Or Indonesia and East Timor. Or Chile. Or Central America. Or Iraq, or Palestine. The list of countries and peoples who have felt the violence of this country is long. Vietnamese civilians bombed by the United States. Timorese civilians killed by a U.S. ally with U.S.-supplied weapons. Nicaraguan civilians killed by a U.S. proxy army of terrorists. Iraqi civilians killed by the deliberate bombing of an entire country’s infrastructure."

Of course, most Americans won't take the time to actually dig deeper into the motives of American involvement in the countries listed above.  It is much easier to be whipped up in a xenophobic frenzy, led by a tough talking, morally bankrupt President and a compliant media.


"As I monitored television during the day, the talk of retaliation was in the air; in the voices of some of the national-security “experts” there was a hunger for retaliation. Even the journalists couldn’t resist; speculating on a military strike that might come, Peter Jennings of ABC News said that “the response is going to have to be massive” if it is to be effective.

Let us not forget that a “massive response” will kill people, and if the pattern of past U.S. actions holds, it will kill innocents. Innocent people, just like the ones in the towers in New York and the ones on the airplanes that were hijacked. To borrow from President Bush, “mother and fathers, friends and neighbors” will surely die in a massive response."


And then wraps it up with a message of hope that all men and women should take pause and think about. But not you and your might is right motto and total disregard for people of color.

"If we are truly going to claim to be decent people, our tears must flow not only for those of our own country. People are people, and grief that is limited to those within a specific political boundary denies the humanity of others.

And if we are to be decent people, we all must demand of our government -- the government that a great man of peace, Martin Luther King Jr., once described as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world” -- that the insanity stop here. "



Jensen as a left-wing counterpart to Bachmann?  Ha, you wish she had a quarter of the intelligence of Jensen. 





3/1/2013 1:25 PM
This is exactly what bothers me.

The United States goes out of its way to be as precise and leave the least collateral damage possible. We do everything we can to follow the rules of war.

Our enemies often dont. Terrorists are not a civilized people.

To compare the actions of the United States and terrorists shows a deep seated hatred for who and what we are as a nation.

And he is not doing this in a clinical what if scenario way. He believes this.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/1/2013 4:32 PM
You lose again.

Operation Olympic would have left over a million people dead.

The A-Bomb ended the war before it got more ugly.
3/1/2013 4:52 PM
And I would hope everyone gives a massive global war that could end in global domination for evil Dictators a little more wiggle room from a moral standpoint.
3/1/2013 6:38 PM
It is either moral or it isn't there is no wiggle room. 
3/1/2013 10:33 PM
Do you have a special place where you order your rose colored glasses?

What would all you lefties do if it wasnt for the right taking the flack for keeping the world safe?
3/2/2013 3:12 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/1/2013 4:32:00 PM (view original):
You lose again.

Operation Olympic would have left over a million people dead.

The A-Bomb ended the war before it got more ugly.
Operation Olympic estimates is just wild speculation by genocidal apologists like yourself.

The Japanese were done before the bombs were dropped, they were looking for a way to save the Emperor.

3/2/2013 3:59 AM
They started the war.  They could have ended the war at anytime.  You're saying they sacrificed another 100k Japanese lives in the last month of war  just for the emperor, and yet we're the bad guys.  
We sacrifice lives and resources to save the Chinese, the Filipinos, and the Koreans, yet we're genocidal maniacs.
Got it.   America sucks.  I understand now why you left here long ago.  
of 4
All Forums > The Pit > The Pit > JOHN KERRY DEFENDS TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER SWAMP

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.