John F. Kennedy

Move Over, Oswald: Salon Says Tea Party Types Killed Kennedy

Wasn't Kennedy murdered by a self-described Marxist?

|

Kennedy
Wikimedia Commons

Salon (the "real" news website, not the hilarious parody Twitter account), published an infuriating piece on the Kennedy assassination that adds some unbelievably off-kilter context to the president's murder: It was all the fault of gun-toting right-wing proto-Tea Partiers.

That's the argument put forth by Heather Digby Parton, a progressive opinion blogger and winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis. Texas conservatives were very mad at President Kennedy, she writes, and then he was killed, and now we should be afraid that maybe conservatives are trying to hurt President Obama. What else are they going to do with their guns?

Read Digby's history lesson for yourself:

The morning of Nov. 22, the Dallas Morning News featured a full-page ad "welcoming" the president to Dallas.  After a preamble in which they proclaimed their fealty to the Constitution and defiantly asserted their right to be conservative, they demanded to be allowed to "address their grievances."  They posed a long series of "when did you stop beating your wife" questions asking why Kennedy was helping the Communist cause around the world. …

You get the drift. And you probably recognize the tone. The subject may have changed somewhat but the arrogant attitude combined with the aggrieved victimization is a hallmark of right-wing politics even today.

As we all know, later that day the president was gunned down in Dealey Plaza. The entire world was shocked and traumatized by that event and the course of history was changed.

So why bring this up today? That was a long time ago and we've moved on from those days, right?  The John Birch Society is a relic of another time.  Anti-communism is still a rallying cry on the right, but without the Soviet threat, it's lost much of its power.

Unfortunately, the venom, the incoherent conspiracy-mongering, the visceral loathing still exist.  In fact, in one of the most obliviously obtuse acts of sacrilege imaginable, Dealey Plaza is now the regular site of open-carry demonstrations.  That's right, a group of looney gun proliferation activists meet regularly on the site of one of the most notorious acts of gun violence in the nation's history to spout right-wing conspiracy theories about the president while ostentatiouslywaving around deadly weapons.

Emphasis added to highlight the part where maybe Digby missed something. I'm not sure—I'm not a Hillman Prize winner, or anything—but wasn't Kennedy murdered by a self-described Marxist and communist sympathizer who had attempted to defect to the Soviet Union?

Lest you think I'm exaggerating the extent to which Digby lays the blame for the Kennedy assassination on the right, she actually chides Second Amendment supporters for organizing at the site of the assassination, a place that "should be a monument to right-wing ignominy," according to Digby. (As if limited-government and gun-rights supporters had killed the president, rather than a Marxist assassin!)

Digby's false accusations call to mind the rush to blame Sarah Palin and right-wing "violent rhetoric" for the Gabby Giffords shooting, even though the would-be assassin turned out to be a weird conspiracy theorist with zero connection to Palin, Republicans, or any identifiable political ideology.

Not that that matters to Salon. If Michael Moore blew up the White House tomorrow, Digby and her ilk would express vindication that Tea Party activists had finally, violently risen up to take back their country.

NEXT: Impact of Colorado's Gun Background Check Law Was 'Vastly Overstated'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Once you realize these people are insane, it all makes sense. You can’t have a marxist kill kennedy, you just can’t.

    1. So much this; they’re absolutely psychotic. Kennedy wasn’t even one of these lunatics for crying out loud.

      1. Other presidents have been murdered, but people just lost it over Kennedy. It’s bee very bad for the country.

    2. You can. It just somehow all ties back to the tea party anyway.

  2. Is fist dead?

    1. I doubt it since he had the first post in AM links.

      1. Undead, udead, undead, undead

  3. Yay, me!

  4. Similarly, here’s the New York Times talking about the Netherlands recently, in the context of MH17:

    Yet, the Netherlands’ fame as an international “gidsland,” or guiding country, on moral issues has given way more recently, Mr. Mak said, to notoriety as a caldron of right-wing populist parties, political assassinations and a populist figurehead, the anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders.

    Would you guess from that paragraph that the political assassinations were all committed against those anti-Muslim “right-wing” populists? (Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh– “right wing” in quotes because they were anti-Muslim because of their pro-gay and pro-feminist beliefs, one murdered by a Muslim, one by a Left environmental and animal rights activist for being anti-Muslim.) Or is that paragraph meant to imply to the unaware that the right-wing populists are doing the murdering?

    1. What is it with the Left’s love affair with militant Islamism?

      1. It’s much less a love of militant islam than it is extreme self-loathing and guilt complex.

        1. This. You’d think the Left would be repelled by the misogyny and gay-bashing in Islam, but you’d be wrong. To the Leftist mind, those are minor details that can be overlooked for the sake of the immediate goal, which is tearing down our Eurocentric society, which lefties believe to be irreparably corrupted by a legacy of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia. They haven’t really stopped to think how their strategy is supposed to work in the long run. Maybe they figure that once the militant Muslims have served their purpose of destroying the white power structure, they will magically be persuaded of the awesomeness of religious tolerance (oh, heck, of dropping religion altogether), egalitarianism, and indie music.

      2. They don’t love Islam, it’s just an opportunity to smear the REAL enemy as racist.

      3. Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

        The Left hates the “Western values” that obtain from the Enlightenment, especially individual liberty.

        The Islamists hate the “Western values” that obtain from the Enlightenment, especially individual liberty.

        The Left aligns with the Islamists.

        It’s pretty much that simple. Among simpleminded Leftists, which is a significant majority, there’s also a sentimental siding with the underdog. The Israelis have handed the Arabs their asses so many times that it’s hard for them to resist the tugs of their heartstrings … even if they are vaguely aware that the Islamists would exterminate Jews, crucify Christians, stone sexual deviants, treat women as chattel, etc.

        1. The Left hates the “Western values” that obtain from the Enlightenment, especially individual liberty.

          ^THIS

          The left hates discrimination only to the extent that someone might be free to discriminate. They are not concerned with the lack of freedom of the downtrodden, but with the freedom to make choices beyond those sanctioned by the elite.

      4. Islamism is to religion what Nazism was to race, what Communism was to class, and what Progressivism is to ideology. So, kindred spirits.

        It could also be that there’s a lot of anti-Semitism in progressivism; surprisingly, for a movement largely bankrolled by a former Nazi.

      5. Anti-racism. Most muslims are “brown” people, and therefore accredited victims.

  5. Unfortunately, the venom, the incoherent conspiracy-mongering, the visceral loathing still exist.

    Said with no sense of irony.

    1. Yeah exactly, talk about projection

    2. the visceral loathing

      Nice band name.

      1. Rather than a band name, it makes for a better banned pro-wrestling move.

    3. The subject may have changed somewhat but the arrogant attitude combined with the aggrieved victimization is a hallmark of right-wing politics even today.

      Is there a word or phrase for something that goes far beyond projection? If not, we might need to come up with one.

      1. How about “Digbying?”

      2. The right simply adopted a tactic the left had been using for decades. This plays a lot less believably from the right, and they fail to realize that.

    4. incoherent conspiracy-mongering

      Lol. I didn’t realize that Oliver Stone was a tea-bagger.

      1. He just needs to say the wrong thing, and voila!

  6. Kennedy is dead? No more interrupting? Wow, I may have to give The Independents another try.

    1. You’d need silver bullets to stop her.

      1. I thought you needed to take the hoops earrings to the fires of Mt. Doom to ensure she doesn’t come back.

        1. What powers do the earrings give her?

        2. That or drop her off at Warty’s

          1. I thought Warty’s was Mt. Doom? Oh wait, that’s Mt. Doomcock, nevermind.

            1. Mt. Doomcock would be a great porn name.

              1. It would be an even better national park namne

                1. *Goes to petitions.whitehouse.gove to start petition to rename Devil’s Tower*

  7. but wasn’t Kennedy murdered by a self-described Marxist and communist sympathizer who had attempted to defect to the Soviet Union?

    This is the part that people like Digby can hang their “right-wing conspiracy theories” on. I won’t go into the full explanation because it is kind of lengthy but this is the Cliff Notes version. Oswald was indeed a Marxist but he quickly became disillusioned with Soviet-style communism which is why he returned to the US.

    However, he did NOT renounce his Marxist views as people who think like Digby allege. Instead, he transferred his allegiance to the Castro-Che Guevara version. This was actually pretty common for a lot of western Marxists – Christopher Hitchens, for example, was one of a number of people who spent time in Cuba chasing that pipe dream.

    Oswald was well aware that the Kennedy administration was trying to kill Castro and his murder of JFK was an attempt to protect Castro. Several weeks prior to the assassination, he had tried to kill a right-wing general who lived in Dallas.

    1. Bingo.

    2. Like Mao in China, Castro was a chance for those disillusioned with the Soviet Union to hope for a better version of Communism.

      1. Definitely. It was a long road of “well, this person will get communism right” for a lot of Marxists in the 50s & 60s. But at least some of them made the journey. Hungary in 1956 was what got a lot them soured on the USSR. Although not all: there was a very famous British Marxist historian (can’t remember which one right now) who refused to denounce the crushing of the uprising.

        But people like Hitchens did go Khruschev, Castro, Mao and then finally realized it was all a crock.

        1. Are you thinking of Hobsbawm? He did denounce it, but unusually stayed in the Party

          1. Maybe; I was reading about a string of British Marxist historians last semester. He was one of them, but there were others so I’m not sure if it might have been one of them. But, you could well be correct and my memory is faulty.

          2. Hobsbawm still defends Stalin, though.

            1. Well, not actively though:

              http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19786929

        2. Or, in the case of Robert Scheer, Kim Il Sung.

          Think of that – a cheerleader for Kim Il motherfucking Sung still gets published by HuffPo.

      2. If not for Kennedy, Castro would have been a good little capitalist.

        1. And Che was just a disaffected doctor who really wanted to help people.

          1. Che was nothing more than a psychotic thug.

            1. “Hatred is the central element of our struggle! Hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him a violent and cold-blooded killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus.”

              “The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!”

        2. Better yet, if he could have hit a big league curve ball.

          1. “Lots of enthusiasm, not much of an arm. Suggest he go into another business.”

    3. Fair Play for Salon.com Committee.

    4. However, he did NOT renounce his Marxist views as people who think like Digby allege.

      People like Digby will never admit it out loud, but their belief that Oswald rejected communism and allegedely became a right wing anti-communist is what really makes him double-plus bad in their eyes. It isn’t just that he killed their first “messiah” or that he was allegedely some right wing nut, it’s that according to their fucked up version of history he turned his back on the One True Faith. IOW, he was a heretic.

      They’ll never admit it out loud because that would require them to admit to being commies themseleves.

  8. Hello darkness my old friend…

  9. As much as I like @Salondotcom and am glad it’s back, Salon truly cannot be parodied.

    Are we sure it hasn’t been bought out by The Onion?

    1. The Onion has more serious articles than Salon, that’s how you tell the difference.

  10. The Tea Party were the ones who actually crucified Jesus. Everyone knows that. This is why the Christian Tealiban re-wrote some old book to pin it on the Romans and the Jooos, but NO, the baggers did it!

    1. And how dare they gather at the site of Jesus crucifixion, as if in celebration? They are happy they killed Jesus! I know it! I just know it!
      Those bastards are celebrating Jesus’s death!

      1. I’ve been told that many of the teabaggers actually engage in rituals wherein they pretend to engage in cannibalism of Jesus to celebrate!

        It’s scandalous, but many actually believe that they eating his body and drinking his blood.

  11. History is malleable. It is whatever progressives feel it is if it serves their purposes at the time.

    1. True, did you know that General George Washington, the guy who became our first president, was actually a gay black transgendered socialist? Most people don’t know that, cause the teabaggers wrote their own version of history to serve the patriarchy and fool us about these things

  12. Derp derp derpity derp. Like I posted the other day. I killed JFK.

    1. I shouted out, “Who killed the Kennedys?!”
      When after all, it was you and me

      1. Good times. Good times. Great tune. Now I almost feel bad about my comment below about the Stones super bowl performance.

      2. Pleased to meet you.

      3. Damn it

  13. Seriously. How stupid, high, or insane are these people?

    I see the left is moving from the shallow end into the wild eyed insane nutjob deep end of the fascist swimming pool.

    1. You can probably leave drugs out of the equation. There aren’t any drugs that can make someone that stupid, it has to be natural.

      1. K thru college brainwashing.

        1. The soften them up with anti- capitalist “green” propaganda in elementry school, rewrite history in high school, never are they taught to think for themselves which sets them up perfectly to be turned into mindless leftest parrots in college.

        2. ^ THIS!

    2. Insane, retarded and vehement communist views plus lots of progressive buzzwords (correctly or incorrectly used) equal literary awards. The Derpier the better. The further into the imaginary you go, the more likely your success in the acedemia, journalist, media world. How does anyone even pay attention to anything they say?

  14. I blame Bush.

    1. Daddy Bush was in Dallas at the time.

  15. The logic is something like this:

    Right wingers hated Kennedy.
    Kennedy got killed at location X.
    Therefore, right-wingers are FOREVER FORBIDDEN from doing ANYTHING in location X.

    This is like saying that Marxists should be forever forbidden from gathering at the site of 9/11, because Marxists hate America, and America was attacked there.

    1. Also, the first WTC attack was using bombs, and leftists prefer to use bombs for their acts of terrorism.

  16. obliviously obtuse acts of sacrilege imaginable

    Sacrilege, huh? I suspect the implications of using that term are last on the author.

    1. Oh, no one is more santimonious, self-rightous or “religous” than these people. The live to claim the highest moral ground on every issue, no matter how trivial. If you speak against or even question their religous beliefs they don’t just excommunicate. They seek to destroy.

      1. It’s kind of neat actually, if you were a bad person you weren’t a leftist.

  17. The comments over at Salon are actually pretty balanced.

      1. Of course by balanced, I mean a lot of people call out the author for her bullshit.

        1. I couldn’t tell. Seems like most of the comments are from people going “OMG! I can’t believe how much I hate right-wingers!”

  18. in a hundred years Mick Jagger will be considered worse than Hitler.

    1. and in a thousand years neither will be much remembered.

      1. If there’s one thing history is great at remembering, it’s the names of genocidal warmongers. Hitler is immortal.

        1. And people wonder why politicians love war.

        2. Nah…history if full of Hitlers and people barely remember any of ’em. In the end people remember explorers, and to a lesser extent scientists.

          1. Tamerlane and Genghis Khan would like a word.

            1. The Iranians are still pissed at Alex.

            2. Tamerlane was only 650 years ago and is already mostly forgotten by the masses. Definitely more obscure than Dante or Chaucer.

              Genghis Khan, who died about 800 years ago, is somebody most people have heard of, but I doubt that 90% of people could tell you much about him, although a lot of those people could tell you about Marco Polo.

              1. What you’re really saying is that Europeans remember Europeans. I’m willing to bet that your average Chinese knows more about Genghis Khan than Dante or Chaucer (sidenote: I hate how I can’t use Chinaman; using Chinese in its place creates aesthetically hideous sentences). I’d also bet that both those writers are likely far less known by the general Western population than you’re implying.

                1. Maybe. My point is that history is full of horrible, genocidal thugs and for the most part, they are largely forgotten. In a thousand years the one person from the 20th century who will, guaranteed, still be a well known name will be Neil Armstrong. Anybody else would be impossible to predict.

    2. The one thing I can give Hitler is that he never fucked up a Super Bowl halftime:)

  19. Salon: Click-baiters gonna bait.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled masturbation.

    1. We now return you to your regularly scheduled masturbation.

      “Go away! ‘Batin’!”

      1. +1 Brawndo With Electrolytes

  20. Lots of derp in the comments but not entirely derp.

    I hate being click-baited, especially by Salon but just had to see what the echo-chamber was capable of this time.

  21. …”It was all the fault of gun-toting right-wing proto-Tea Partiers.”…

    Well, if it isn’t BOOOOOOOOOOOSH, who else would it be?

  22. Riiiight, it’s not like Oswald was confirmed communist who was pissed off over how Kennedy handled Cuba. And as for Obama, if he gets taken out, my bet is on some disaffected far left loon pissed off over him not taking the country full commie.

    Read Digby’s history lesson for yourself:

    I’d rather get a prostate exam from Wolverine.

  23. when Obama is right, he’s right. we should be paying for Heather Digby Parton’s birth control.

    1. I’d even be willing to pay for her mom to have an extremely late term abortion.

  24. The subject may have changed somewhat but the arrogant attitude combined with the aggrieved victimization is a hallmark of right-wing politics even today.

    *stutters like Porky Pig*

    1. “aggrieved victimization is a hallmark of right-wing politics”

      I am speechless. Seriously.

  25. Napolitano’s retarded progressive cousin is in the comments:

    I was waiting for a deluge of smug comments insisting that the homicidal, borderline-treasonous right-wing rage against Kennedy didn’t matter because his assassin was a pro-Castro Marxist. I wasn’t disappointed.

    I wonder how many of the people who blithely accept the 2014 media consensus that the Warren Commission got everything right in 1964 have ever bothered to read the original report? I wonder how many of them have bothered to read the best books available on the assassination? How many of them have ever asked why Oswald, a former Marine who had very publicly defected to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, was permitted to return home, no questions asked? How any of them realize that the Birchers’ rage against JFK was mirrored in the halls of the Pentagon? How many realize that the military-industrial establishment truly loathed Kennedy and all he stood for?

    1. I wonder how many of the people who blithely accept the 2014 media consensus that the Warren Commission got everything right in 1964 have ever bothered to read the original report?

      What, if any, facts or conclusions, were in error in the Warren Report?

      I wonder how many of them have bothered to read the best books available on the assassination?

      And what are the “best books” available about the Kennedy assassination? What makes them the best? Are there some books about the Kennedy assassination that are the best, but are unavailable?

      How many of them have ever asked why Oswald, a former Marine who had very publicly defected to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, was permitted to return home, no questions asked?

      Because he was still a U.S. citizen whose “defection” consisted mainly of him making radios in Belarus?

      How any of them realize that the Birchers’ rage against JFK was mirrored in the halls of the Pentagon?

      Citation?


      How many realize that the military-industrial establishment truly loathed Kennedy and all he stood for?

      The same JFK who escalated the Vietnam War with more troops and helicopters, and personally gave the green light to the coup that plunged Vietnam further into chaos?

      1. How any of them realize that the Birchers’ rage against JFK was mirrored in the halls of the Pentagon?

        I’ll give him Curtis LeMay. But LeMay was a very special kind of nuts.

    2. I wonder how many of them have bothered to read the best books available on the assassination?

      Ooh, the best books! TOP MEN! You have to have gone to college to say something so stupid.

  26. In fairness, when I heard about the assassination, I was in public wearing a Goldwater button. I immediately took it off, worried that right wing extremists had done the deed. There was a huge collective sigh of relief in the conservative community when Oswald was revealed as a Marxist. Those who didn’t believe it was Oswald, were pretty convinced that the slimy LBJ may have been behind it.

    1. The whole game was instigated by Gerald Ford; JFK was the first domino to fall on his ascendancy to the Presidency, and he used his position on the Warren commission to hide his involvement. If it wasn’t for our hero Carter stopping him in 1976, Ford would have given himself emergency powers following the Iran hostage crisis and named himself President for life.

    2. Coming soon: LBJ, the original teabagger!

    3. And, in fairness, Jackie Kennedy, at least as an immediate reaction, said she thought Johnson and his cronies were behind the assassination.

      1. LBJ was incredibly sleazy, even by DC standards.

      2. To this very day my aged mother thinks LBJ was behind it.

  27. Salon is basically trolling the right.

    DFTT

  28. I’m gonna have to take points off for her not working the Koch Brothers in there. Especially, when she had already brought up the John Birch Society.

    1. Good catch.

      1. So Enya’s band dumped her huh.

    2. Damn it again.

  29. in one of the most obliviously obtuse acts of sacrilege imaginable,

    This may be the most absurdly pretentious clause ever written.

  30. arrogant attitude combined with the aggrieved victimization

    Ahem.

  31. Michael Moore isn’t going to blow up the White House, silly. He’s going to blow up Mount Rushmore.

    1. I thought he was just going to blow up

      1. +1 “Thin chocalate waifer.”

        1. “Nah, fuck off, I’m full”

        2. You spelled “waffer” wrong.

  32. …but wasn’t Kennedy murdered by a self-described Marxist and communist sympathizer who had attempted to defect to the Soviet Union?

    Was it over for Digby when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

    /forget it; she’s on a roll

  33. …but wasn’t Kennedy murdered by a self-described Marxist and communist sympathizer who had attempted to defect to the Soviet Union?

    He did not just attempt “to defect to the Soviet Union”, he succeeded. Then for whatever reasons, he was allowed to not only return, but to bring with him a wife who was the daughter (if memory serves) of a mid-rank Soviet official.

    I’m actually surprised that there is not more conspiracy chat about what kind of malfeasance allowed that to happen. Also, that there is not more talk on the right about Oswald being an agent with the full backing of the Soviet Union, rather than just a lone leftwing nutbird.

    1. HazelMeade|7.25.14 @ 10:01AM|#

      The logic is something like this:

      Right wingers hated Kennedy.
      Kennedy got killed at location X.
      Therefore, right-wingers are FOREVER FORBIDDEN from doing ANYTHING in location X.

      One of the problems with the left wing narrative is that right wingers (they didn’t even need to be full-fledged Birchers) hated Eisenhower and Nixon too.

      The Birchers believed that Eisenhower
      (and Nixon by extension) was every bit as guilty of Communist appeasement as Kennedy was. And with good reason; Kennedy was all “fight every battle, pay any price” while Nixon was all “peaceful coexistance.”

      And if anyone was the candidate of the “military-industrial complex”, it was Kennedy who ran partly on the ‘missile gap” and Eisenhower’s “soft on Cuba” policy (Knowing full well about the Bay of Pigs planning, having been briefed on it).

      Anyone who views 1950s-70s politics in the context of today’s politics is playing a mug’s game.

    2. Also, if you want to blow your prog friends’ minds, remind them that the road to the low marginal tax rates that Americans enjoy today started with JFK’s promise to lower the top rate from 91% to 70%.

      President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%.

      Republicans, especially the Goldwater wing, opposed the cuts unless substantial spending cuts were made. Johnson responded by proposing to spend less than he wanted to.

      Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy’s goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965.

      1. budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965.

        Only $100 billion? How quaint.

        1. Pretty incredible isn’t it? The spending has gone up by a factor of nearly 40 in 50 years, or almost a factor per year.

          1. Leaving aside the scandalous devaluation of the dollar:

            What cost $100000000 in 1965 would cost $729021026.39 in 2013.

            So it’s more like a factor of 6 in constant dolars, while the population has has not even doubled (increase actually a factor of about 1.6).

            Of course, given that the “Inflation Calculator” uses government numbers, it really only gives a sort of “big picture” view. But it’s still an interesting (and disturbing) picture.

            1. I suppose it’s actually a toss-up between whether the ravages of real spending growth are worse than the ravages of inflation. Of course, the one is related to the other.

              Naturally the connected suffer less harm (in fact, many of them benefit) from either.

              Which makes one want to ask liberals (whose policies are essentially responsible for both phenomena), “Why do you hate poor people?”

              1. Why do you hate poor people?

                Because there aren’t enough of them yet?

  34. The morning of Nov. 22, the Dallas Morning News featured a full-page ad “welcoming” the president to Dallas. After a preamble in which they proclaimed their fealty to the Constitution and defiantly asserted their right to be conservative, they demanded to be allowed to “address their grievances.”

    Essentially a HELP WANTED: ASSASSIN ad, then.

    1. After a preamble in which they proclaimed their fealty to the Constitution…

      Oh dear, “fealty to the Constitution”, why that’s a sure sign of right wing extremism.

  35. they demanded to be allowed to “address their grievances.”

    What, they couldn’t wait until Festivus?

  36. What’s next for Slate, blaming RFK’s death on Zionists?

    1. Er, Salon. Whatever.

      1. Same difference.

    2. Don’t give them any ideas.

  37. Hmm, the Koch BROTHERS, the Kennedy BROTHERS…. it’s all starting to make sense

  38. Actually, we all know it was you and me who killed the Kennedys

    1. It was Joe Dimaggio, in revenge for the way Marilyn was treated. He never got over her, you know. 🙂

  39. What’s up with the resurgence of mentions of the John Birch Society in the last six or seven years anyway? I thought they had more or less dwindled out of existence decades ago, along with the McCarthyites. And what is their supposed connection with racism – I’d always read that they were just anti-communist and conspiracy types.

    1. Why are libertarians hostile to environmentalism? The prevalence of watermelons (e.g., “greens” using the movement to advance a red agenda) is surely a large part of it.

      I’m guessing that the entanglement of the civil rights movement with the economic left not only soured the existing members on both, but also made JBS more attractive to people who objected more to the former than the latter.

  40. Yes people were shocked by the event, but they were not traumatized, people went on with their lives. The left and the democrats act as though the world came to a stand still.

    1. The left and the democrats act as though the world came to a stand still.

      As I recall they did so at the time as well.

  41. To the tune of “Batman”

    NANA NANA NANA NANA
    NANA NANA NANA NANA

    CLICK BAIT!!!

    (Bow! Piff!)

    NANA NANA NANA NANA
    NANA NANA NANA NANA

    CLICK BAIT!!

    (Kzakt! Zurk!)

    There are times I actually enjoy reading Salon to savor the delicious combination of “Sneering Cultural Superiority” with “Teenage-Girl Snarling Hissyfits”

    1. Srsly. Why does Reason even dignify this obvious click bait with a blog post? (Yes, I know, I clicked on the Reason post, BUT THAT’S THE LAST TIME!)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.