"given this rape culture we live in"

What bullshit, you've been reading too much Salon. This isn't the 1960's. No one, outside of the very rightest of the right wing, is going around slut-shaming rape victims.

Regimes supported

Juan Vicente Gomez, Venezuela, 1908-1935.
Jorge Ubico, Guatemala, 1931-1944.
Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959.
Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960.
Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic, 1930-1961.[citation needed]
Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran, 1953-1979.
Anastasio Somoza Garcia, Nicaragua, 1967-1979.
Military Junta in Guatemala, 1954-1982.
Military Junta in Bolivia, 1964-1982.[citation needed]
Military Junta in Argentina, 1976-1983.
Brazilian military government, 1964-1985.
François Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986.[citation needed]
Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay, 1954-1989.[citation needed]
Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines, 1965-1986.[8][9]
General Manuel Noriega, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989.
General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 1973-1990.
Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1982-1990.
General (military), Suharto Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995.
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire/Congo, 1965-1997.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt, 1981-2011.
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Kingdom of Bahrain, 2012.
Saudi royal family, 2012.
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan, 1991-2012.[10]
Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia, 1995-2012.[11]
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea, 2006-2012.[12]

This Merican reality show is so 1960's and stale.

found this too:

In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.
Based on data from 1980 and 2008, males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males (11.6 per 100,000) was 3 times higher than the rate for females (3.4 per 100,000). The offending rate for males (15.1 per 100,000) was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females (1.7 per 100,000).
The average age of both offenders and victims increased slightly in recent years, yet remained lower than they were prior to the late 1980s.

Not neccesarally relevent but it's interesting that the overall crime rate is down. (In Canada too) But the US has sold more that 12 million guns since Newtown.

soooooo not sure what it all means.... First sentence is a key one though



and this:

The FBI has released their 2007-2011 “Murder Victims by Weapon” report. The results are contradictory to anti-gun industry claims that relaxing the ban on assault weapons will cause more crime.

The report indicates you are more likely to be killed by hands or feet than by a rifle or shotgun.

Since 2007 there has been a 16.2% decline in murders committed with personal weapons which are defined as “hands, fists, feet etc.” The number of murders of this type in 2011 totaled 728.


While gun ownership has dramatically increased since 2007, murders for both the shotgun and rifle categories have seen declines faster than the rate of personal weapons related crime.

The rates of decline for the shotgun and rifle categories are 22.1% and 28.7% respectively. In 2011 there were 356 shotgun murders and 323 rifle murders for a total of 679 murders.

Total murders by hands and feet in 2011 exceed the total number of murders by shotgun and rifle. Does that mean gloves and shoes need regulation because they are concealing deadly weapons? No, but it does mean that there is no need for any further regulation of long arms.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/27/fbi-crime-stats-you-are-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-hands-and-feet-than-by-a-shotgun-or-rifle/#ixzz2ZGab74Pq

NOT saying this last is a great source but hey it's there.

SO it seems that there are more killings with hands and feet than with all shotguns and (dreaded ar 15) rifles total.

Wow, you really are the poster child for the low information voter, nothing in your drivel disproves my claims.

Take a look at http://www.270towin.com/

start going back through each of the elections, you'll notice that with very few exceptions, the south is always red.

That is until say...oh...1960. Hrm, I wonder what sort of racial event happened around that time...hrmmmmmm.

From: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/jun/10/stephen-martin/state-sen-stephen-martin-says-democratic-party-cre/

"Martin (Virginia State Sen. Stephen Martin) said the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. He acknowledged he was wrong.

Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there’s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.

It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today."

Hrm, that's two Republicans now that have admitted they were wrong in regards to claims you also are making.

Do yourself a favor bob, and do some of them book learn'ns You've got a lot of catching up to do if you want to join this century.

You need to learn how to read a story. that is not what it said or implied.

The Republican party can only tale a back seat to Democrats on playing the race card.

Your 2005 article indicates:
"Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South."

Now where did it say Republican party courted racist for their vote. If that was the case They would have gotten Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson to join the Republican.

As you said "appealing to racists to boost their vote" and exploited racial strife are not the same.

The article went on to say:
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

The root of the Southern Strategy"
"Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.



To sum this up: Nixon Blamed Democrats for the racial mess of the mid late 60's in order to pull some white voters to switch from Democrat to Republican in order to gain votes.

And for that you call Republican Raciest??? Don't you really mean Democrats ?

After all Democrats were the south. Democrats kept the plantations. Democrats wanted to keep the salve system in place. Democrats started the KKK to keep blacks and whites from voting Republican.


I am sorry that if for some small amount to years that Republicans used race/ race baiting/ raciest to gain more Republican white votes is it is nothing to what Democrats have done. AT least they did not whip/ chain/ rape/ murder/ or lynch any one to gain or keep their vote.

Its true and YOU know it.

Ahh, but you ignore the idea that the "stricter" gun control most likely to pass does not make more rules, it simply requires that the existing rules be effective EVERYWHERE.
To reuse the auto analogy, the no background check at gun shows is like saying you don't need a license to drive if you start your drive on toll roads because they are "private" roads. This loophole exists no where because it's ridiculous, dangerous, and impossible to enforce.

To your second point, freedom would only be a good teacher if every crime committed was successfully prosecuted. Because most crimes go unsolved, freedom becomes a disinterested substitute teacher showing a 1960's film strip.

Sure, there is no need to speak in terms of civil war. Unless you're one of these guntoting, armed to the teeth nutjobs who think it would be a good idea. You know, the kind of people who buy an *assault rifle* for self defense.
However, no matter how well trained your riot police is, their less than lethal tactics are only useful up to a certain amount of people, they can become rather useless if the crowds get too big to contain or simply too violent themselves. That's when it gets interesting, that is when protest can turn into riots.
When the cops face huge, somewhat peacful crowds, they might enter Tiananmen Square. At what point would american cops or military personnel start thinking that it's unwise or inhuman to start firing into the crowd? Before the first shot? After the second magazine? On day three?
It's not the 1960s anymore but the sixties are not forgotten. Not by those who faced police officers willing to fire into the crowd. You know, black people. The kind of people whose parents and grandparents are still alive to tell them about their fight against oppression. This is still alive in the american concious, it shaped your country and it won't go away soon. Just ask Barak about his birth certificate.
Civil unrest is part of your recent history, the seed is there. Even under a President Stalin all you'd need go from isolated, contained riots to complete and irreversible shitstorm is a Martyr, a Neda Agha Soltan or a Treyvon Martin. No matter what ethnicity (although african american would be nice), that would present a tipping point.
Your police can bring out the tanks on Times Square if they want but if half of NY shows up, these guys inside the tanks might want to get out ASAP.
The Erich Honecker regime of the German Democratic Republic was basically brought down by somewhat peaceful demonstrations of people shouting "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" in east german accents.
The StaSi, the Ministry of State Security, who was efficient enough to make *every* citizen a potential informant in the eyes of their opposition, ran from the protesters like little girls. They used to imprison and torture people who spoke up.
The east german border used to be the most secure in the entire world. It was protected by minefields and guards who shot and killed anyone who tried to cross it. Before David Hasselhoff even had a chance to put on his illuminated leather jacket the government caved and just fucking opened it. People just strolled through Checkpoint Charlie and bought Bananas as if it was Christmas.
This was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. You know, the guys who lost over 20 Million people in WW2 and still kicked the Nazis in the nuts.
Nobody brought a gun. All the east germans had was shitty cars and lots of anger. They tore down not just a dictatorship, they tore down the iron curtain.
And they didn't even have a Nelson Mandela. Or Lech Walesa.
I still stand by my point: strength in numbers, not caliber.

Sorry, but Ching is right. There is no need to talk about this in terms of civil war, especially since that isn't even close to what this was showing.

A crowd, in particular because of its size, has its own weaknesses. It is naive to assume that large numbers mean that the police can not control or influence a protest. In fact, that is exactly what riot police train for: leveraging their small numbers and sophisticated weaponry against unprepared and untrained masses in order to achieve their objective. A successful protest and/or revolutionary group must know how to counteract the intimidation and violence of security services and their weaponry.

This is not 1920s India or 1960s USA. Pure nonviolent resistance does not spark moral outrage or wider, sustained support among the public nor does it create shame within the police and army that attack these movements. This is the 21st century, the neoliberal project is much more entrenched and will fight harder to hold on to that power. As I've learned from experience, it is ineffective and irresponsible to participate in peaceful protests and movements without considering the reaction of the state and preparing for it through training and equipment.

Perhaps you've gone out on a march once or sat in a park hearing some people talking about big ideas, but until you spend days, weeks and months actively resisting the powers that be, you don't really understand what happens in the streets.

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

Let's look at what happened the last few times society was brought crashing down in the US. Well there was that whole slavery thing, I mean rap is terrible now but on the whole, net gain we've got our dream teams.

1920 women get the right to VOTE! Sadly it caused the great depression and they keep voting for stupid men in the senate so I'd say that's a loss, sorry chicks.

1960s Huge upheaval of culture, suddenly there's all these women and minorities in colleges instead of just white people. Led to the feminist movement the environmental movement and other causes. Also we don't invade countries and destroy them nearly as bad as we used to after that. Ultimately a Civilizing effect that it had on the entire society, good deal.

Hey two out of three if I'm counting correctly, looks like we're about due. These movements don't come just themselves other things happen around them and with their changes such as Occupy. So we could have some real changes coming up. I say women better get to it because I'm a white man and I'm sure not gonna help them eliminate my birthright of domination.

More about this ultimate snow fort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm

"Project Iceworm was the code name for a top secret US Army program during the Cold War to build a network of mobile nuclear missile launch sites under the Greenland ice sheet. The ultimate objective of placing medium-range missiles under the ice - close enough to Moscow to strike targets within the Soviet Union - was kept secret from the Danish government. To study the feasibility of working under the ice, a highly publicized "cover" project, known as "Camp Century" was launched in 1960. However, unsteady ice conditions within the ice sheet caused the project to be cancelled in 1966."

They were a middle of the road English band trying to sound west coast. The 1960s had MANY MANY experimental/progressive rock bands. Beatles of course were the most popular. This does not make them pioneers at all.
The ENGINEERS at London's Abbey Road Studios helped perfect the 4 track recording process. THAT'S IT.

Implying music and other artists wouldn't exist today is plainly beatle fever.

The 1960s was a "revolution" for everything. Lots were changing. The beatles were just on the pop charts / teenage magazines.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy their work, and grew up with lots of their 45s and 33s playing in my house.

Hell even the kid at the beginning of the clip said it right.
"you can't really hate the beatles, or like you'll ..... get killed"

a hippy english pop group from the 1960s =/= revolution pioneers

Pretty damn impressive for 1960.

The "Gandhi with young girls" part is not new at all. In fact if I remember correctly Arthur Koestler mentioned it in one of his books ("The Lotus And The Robot" I think) during the 1960s.