*promote
Cuba has a saying that no evil lasts 100 years, Kissinger proved them wrong by living to 100.5 years old.
Rest in hell you lying bastard. May every soldier whose death you caused for political power haunt you for eternity.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/henry-kissinger-war-criminal-dead-1234804748/

"... no one could have predicted"

Treating nations like pawns in a Kissinger style cold and callous power game does tend towards endless war though.

i agree that, generally speaking, the best way to deal with stupidity is to let it expose and screw itself. but there is definitely a limit to that, a point where the stupid becomes too big to stop, and you have to take a stand before its too late.

I dont think that was the case here (though all I know of peterson is what was in the CBC article). But I would definitely protest if my university was paying an idiot a ton of money to give a speech where they could make themselves look smart; and lets not be naive, for all the calls for "free speech" and "debate", usually these speakers take few questions and dodge anything critical with the host moderators protecting them from embarrassment. So if my university wants to pay kissinger or hillary hundreds of thousands of dollars to talk about human rights or ethics, yes I would protest that...

this guy is small fry and is basically looking for it to validate his position, as the article stated other speakers declined precisely because they could foresee that the free speech vs political correctness summit having a speaker whose contribution to the discussion is: "[he] does not recognize another person's right to determine what pronouns he uses to address them." I dont care what whose beliefs are, if you dont want to call someone how they want to be called, you are looking for a fight. and if the other person does not recognize your right to self determine how to address them?! Wow, so deep. this is really what university is for!

my response also comes from a recent discussion elsewhere, regarding the pervasiveness/frequency of the "safe space, snowflake, trigger warning" phenomena that occasionally comes up in videos like these. how many people actually have personal experiences, even indirectly, with professors giving trigger warnings or of a safe space? i have several professors in my circle of friends and family and none have ever witnessed it.

@newtboy,

No, it's about law. Warren Jeffries people did all that, on a smaller scale. They weren't their own country, even though they got away with it for decades. Law.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with him, but your telling me he (on a smaller scale than Texas), stopped paying taxes, and instead collecting them. Started up his own legal and justice system. He created his own borders within which the police would not dare set foot because it would be a death sentence for them. And after he'd done all this the US military itself failed to remove him as well?

Or are you meaning not just scale, but severity and all the other rather meaningful extremes of sovereignty that the Taliban and Al Qaida achieved? It's the same then in the sense that me punching you is violent just me killing ten people is violent, but in another sense they are nothing alike...

No, but they couldn't indiscriminately bomb Houston and any large gatherings either....not even if Spencer might be there. The first American civilian they kill will start a war...a real, legitimate war.

Your not embracing the analogy. Spencer's terrorists are still killing American civilians every week, outside of Texas borders. The American military is just corrupt enough that as long as its democrats/republicans dying,(whomever we choose to not be in power) they let it slide because it shows the need for the military to 'protect' the country.

You need to take a harder look at Pakistani politics to see just how powerful Al Qaida and the Taliban's control over the tribal areas has been.

More over, all of the above definitions of state within a state violence and jihad doesn't require war as the response to acts of war. To invade Afghanistan to prevent another 9/11 is dubious at best. Even the Kissinger's of the world wouldn't count the value of that trade off, losing a couple thousand Americans to an attack each decade or so is 'acceptable' loses.
Call it the price of freedom and carry on. The real trick was that if the Taliban and Al Qaida were so tight with Pakistan's military and intelligence services, how concerned should America be that the Pakistani proxies in their tribal regions and Afghanistan are so keen to target Americans. That lead directly to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being a big enough concern with that pairing that maybe it was time to tell Pakistan they had to end their little dance with terrorists hitting Americans and they had better make a choice who they are going to side with in the Jihad that was already being waged for 2 decades.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

He looks like an angry toucan funded by Shillary - and a young Henry Kissinger, and adult Millhouse. Feel the Bern™.

Hey, man, just wait before you start writing his obituary, okay? :-) I mean, if a man as corrupt as Henry Kissinger can make it to 92 years of age, there's a chance Chomsky can leave him in the dust.

saved me a lot of typing! Just want to add, that while I do think speakers should just speak regardless of hecklers, as i understand it speakers get paid quite handsomely. While it would be interesting and noteworthy to hear Kissinger give a speech, I would not be happy at all if he were being paid 250,000 dollars of community money for it. And hecklers have rights too. Seems to me that speakers will only go where they're paid and pampered.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'll take those odds - that's definitely he of the graying temples next to Kissinger.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Oh, Mark Hamill and Henry Kissinger – inspired.

Who did you see on the list?

Kareem Abdul-Jabar
JJ Abrams
Alan Alda
Christiane Amanpour
Jon Batiste
Big Bird
Cory Booker
Tom Brokaw
Ken Burns
Bill Clinton
Andy Cohen
Francis Collins
Cookie Monster
Bob Costas
Katie Couric
Bryan Cranston
Mark Cuban
Jeff Daniels
Bill DeBlasio
Maureen Dowd
James Franco
Thomas Friedman
Vince Gilligan
Doris Kearns Goodwin
David Gregory
Terry Gross
Mike Huckabee
Arianna Huffington
Dean Kamen
Toby Keith
Henry Kissinger
Nicholas Kristof
Paul Krugman
Alexi Lalas
Cyndi Lauper
David Leonhardt
George Lucas
Yo Yo Ma
Barry Manilow
Senator Claire McCaskill
Tim Meadows
Willie Nelson
Randy Newman
Grover Norquist
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ric Ocasek
Keith Olbermann
Mandy Patinkin
Stone Phillips
Samantha Power
Pussy Riot
Charlie Rose
Dan Savage
Smaug
Shane Smith
Eliot Spitzer
Gloria Steinem
Jon Stewart
Patrick Stewart
Michael Stipe
Andrew Sullivan
Matt Taibbi
Jeff Tweedy
Neil Degrasse Tyson
Sam Waterston
Elijah Wood

(http://www.vox.com/2014/12/19/7419893/colbert-finale-song)

*promote the master!
welcome back @blankfist
ya'all need to start taking notes.

this guy was super entertaining,i thought he was gonna have an embolism at the halfway mark.

hiiiiilarious!!!

look,no matter which direction you approach this situation the REAL dynamic is simply:power vs powerlessness.

we also should establish which form of libertarianism we are speaking.cultofdusty criticizes the bastardized american version and this dude come from a more classic libertarian (sans the unbridled capitalism).so there should be no surprise they are at odds in their opinion.this man is defending a libertarianism that cultofdusty may not even be aware of at all.

libertarianism has little or nothing in common with the republican party.

so when this dude posits that the corporation is the fault of government,while not entirely accurate,it is also not entirely wrong.corporations in the distant past were temporary alliances of companies,with the blessing of the people (government) to achieve a specific job or project and once that project was complete,the corporation was dissolved.

it was a cadre of clever lawyers,representing powerful interests who convinced the supreme court that corporations were people and hence began the long road leading us to where we are now.

so it was partly the government that fascillitated the birth of the corporation.

i do take issue with this mans assessment of public education.his commentary is the height of ignorance.while i would agree that what we have now can hardly be called 'education".his blanket and broad statements in regards to public education TOTALLY ignores the incredible benefits that come from an educated public.he ignores the history of public education,as if this system has been unchanging for 100 years.

that is just flat out...stupid..or more likely just lazy,regurgitating the maniacal rants of his heroes without ever once giving that 100 years some critical study.

so let me point to the the late 50's and 60's here in the USA where our public education was bar-none the best in the world.what were the consequences of this stellar public education?
well,...civil rights marches,anti-war movement,womens rights movement and a whole generation that not only questioned authority and the entrenched power structures but openly DEFIED those structures.

this absolutely petrified the powered elite.
during the height of the anti-war movement nixon was forced to baricade the white house with school buses and was quoted as saying to kissinger " henry,they are coming for me".

again,the fundamental premise is,and has always been -power vs powerlessness.

so over the nest few decades public education was manipulated and transformed into a subtle indoctrination to teach young minds to tacitly submit to authority.

which this man addresses and i agree,i just disagree with his overly generalized non-historically accurate puke-vomit.

my final point,and its always the point where libertarians lose their shit on me like an offended westboro baptist acolyte (its actually two points) is this:
1.if we can blame the government for much of the problems in regards to concentrated power and the abuse that goes with that power,then we MUST also address the abusive (and corrosive) power of the corporation.many libertarians i discuss with seem to be under the impression that if we take away the symbiotic relationship between corporations and government that somehow..miraculously..the corporation will all of a sudden become the benign and productive member of society.

this is utter fiction.
this is magical thinking.
many corporations have a larger GDP than many nation states.this is about POWER and there is ZERO evidence any corporation will be willing to relinquish that power just because there is no government to influence,manipulate or corrupt.

which brings me to point number 2:
my libertarian friends.
you live in a thing called a society.
a community where other people also live.
so please stop with this rabid individualism as somehow being the pinnacle of human endeavour.im all for personal responsibility but nobody lives in a vacuum and nobody rides this train alone.the world does not revolve around YOU.

but i do understand,and agree,that the heart of the libertarian argument is more power to the people.i also understand their arguments against governments,which directly and oftimes indirectly disempowers people.

i get that.its a good argument..
BUT...for fucks sake please admit that the corporation in its current state has GOT TO FUCKING GO!

because if you dont then ultimately you are trading one tyrant for another and in my humble opinion,ill stick with the one i can at least vote on or protest.

there aint nothing democratic about a multi-national corporation.they are,by design,dictatorships.

so i will agree to wittle the government down and restrict its powers to defense (NOT war),law and fraud police,if you agree to dismantle and restructure the seven headed leviathan that is todays corporation.

deal?

The vast majority of people never have contact with police officers.

The vast majority of people who HAVE contact with police officers are treated civilly and go on with their lives.

The vast majority of people know that you don't give a bunch of shit to police officers. If you do, you take a chance on an outcome that won't make you happy.

The vast majority of people who are arrested on a weekly basis know that they will pay a small fine, or do a couple of days in jail, and take it as a cost of doing business.

A small number of police contacts end up with someone being treated for a bruise or cut, or a loose tooth, or pepper spray in the eyes.

A small number of police contacts end up dead and the vast majority of them instigated the violence.

You people expect cops to act perfectly, have the negotiating skills of Henry Kissinger, the compassion of Mother Theresa and the patience of Job, the martial skill of a UFC fighter, and the targeting skill of Annie Oakley, when what you should be doing is looking at your own behavior and seeing how that leads to your own fate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_s
tory.html

The Syrian moderates have given up on getting any help from the outside world, they are faced with fighting Assad's army and his use of Chemical Weapons alone, or with the assistance of Al Qaida fighters. As America and the rest of the world are all choosing to just continue to do nothing it is just reinforcing the desperation of the Syrian opposition in it's search for allies that will do anything to help them.

The only real meaningful assistance the outside world can give Assad's opposition is the implementation of a no-fly zone. That would be an act of war though, so the majority of the world has been railing in opposition to it, doubly so if America might be involved because it's fun to hate the empire. The Russians and Iranians don't want it because Assad is their man and they will oppose anything that evens the playing field. Even America's war hawk Kissinger crowd are against a no fly zone because because as bobknight33 observed seeing anti-american forces fight and kill anti-american forces is hardly something they want to slow down.

No the only people who want to a no-fly zone implemented over Syria are the Syrian opposition themselves and the very, very few of us who care about them and believe it would be to their benefit. It'll unfortunately take a landslide shift in public opinion to get enough of push for any nation to actually step up and provide meaningful help. I'm afraid the reality is we get to watch either a slide into Somalia like anarchy, or a continued escalation of ruthless repression from Assad that his chemical weapon attack was a precursor to.

Hello again,

Just commented to a video and later noticed it was one of yours. Would've just commented to you instead had I noticed first. I have to say I still don't entirely understand where you come from in all this. Plainly and rightly you mistrust any American claims of humanitarian concern. However, in my view you seem to be misreading Obama's cues. If anything he's appeared very reluctant to go into Syria, as it'd be domestically very unpopular. As far as the Kissinger type pushers in America go, seeing Al Qaida sponsored rebels bleeding themselves out against Russian and Iranian backed Syrian military forces and even Hezbollah forces seems like a dream come true. I can hardly see cold hearted long game analysts in America wanting anything but to just grab popcorn and enjoy the show as their enemies mop each other up. I also see Obama's reluctant attitude as exactly what is being read by Assad and Putin in their responses and almost willful scorn for Obama's red line and apparent giddy eagerness to abandon the threats he'd tied to it. I just don't see the eagerness and enthusiasm for a march to war from America that you do. With an agreement to remove chemical weapons from the area, America is freed of the only possible concern it had about anything happening in the area. That seems evidenced by America's seemingly eager acceptance of it, and tacit recognition of Assad's control of the country out into 2014 in order to implement the agreement.

As for the angle I care about, what is your assessment of the UN inspection and their report? Unless you count them to be on the take of Western powers, or duped and stooged within the war zone where somehow America managed to influence them more than Assad I don't see any ambiguity to the findings. Samples from rockets, soil, and victims alike all tested positive for Sarin gas. The rockets found with Sarin on them had Russian engravings and the craters they could project trajectories from pointed towards a Syrian military base. I'm not sure how you reject all of that by pointing at 'counter evidence' gathered and presented solely by Syrian and Iranian sources.