Title: Film of DC rally (How many does it look like to you?) Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Sep 14, 2009 Author:. Post Date:2009-09-14 12:37:53 by christine Keywords:None Views:1292 Comments:117
The march Saturday was called "Taxpayer March on Washington" and was organized by FreedomWorks Foundation and a coalition of other groups such as The National Taxpayers Union and The Teaparty Patriots. I think your assumption that every attendee there was a republican (McCain voter) and that the "RP Revolution has been hijacked by the forces of evil" is premature.
Also, how do you know that it wasn't Ron Paul's decision to be in Alvin, Texas this weekend rather than at the DC rally?
So what do you suggest? That Obama gets his way without a fight?
What kind of retarded logic would make you conclude that from me showing the teabaggers are being led by republicans and not Paul supporters?
Did you ever think that we need allies in this fight and that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Not when the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy. If you think people like Army, or Beck actually want to change anything you are mistaken. Its political theater.
As for me, I'll take a victory anyway I can get one
Electing republicans instead of democrats isn't victory any way you frame it.
Many have tried voting for Ron Paul, or Libertarians, or "take your pick". They voted, then they voted again, and voted voted voted voted. And here we are. So much for voting. Now what? What are your ideas? Do you even want there to be ideas or resistance (not a leading question, I'm being genuine)?
You offer criticism, which is fine, but do you have more to give than that? If so, what?
Many have tried voting for Ron Paul, or Libertarians, or "take your pick". They voted, then they voted again, and voted voted voted voted. And here we are. So much for voting. Now what? What are your ideas? Do you even want there to be ideas or resistance (not a leading question, I'm being genuine)?
You offer criticism, which is fine, but do you have more to give than that? If so, what?
The campaign for liberty is actually a good plan. It just shouldn't allow itself to be co-opted by people who clearly are only pretending to agree.
A movement filled with intelligent people making rational arguments will eventually grow.
At that point the republicans or democrats will change their policy to gain there votes.
Right now you guys are putting out on a mere promise of a chance in policy. A change that will not occur.
Though the probable outcome is that nothing changes. The republican party has 10 retards for every intelligent conservative.
And what do you suggest? A 20 page ideological purity pre-entrance examination for everybody showing up at protests?
Seriously, there's no way to filter, regardless of the group in question.
We're not trying to create another debate club, like the Libertarian party. And they did kinda try the whole 'purist' mode, and it kept them marginalized.
What we're seeing now, or at least I am, are people accepting more libertarian ideas fully, straight out of libertarian theory, and growing in their views and scope of political awareness. Yes yes, hangers on and flag planting wannabes are here trying to co-opt, but it's not taking. Not yet anyway.
There is no way to get purity of ideas AND have a mass movement capable of changing the course of a society. Even the statists cannot achieve this, there is plenty of disagreement in their ranks, however, they are able to put up a unified front (albeit well directed and full of Strongmen Wannabes issuing orders) when they want something done.
Right now our push is to stop the push by Obama and the progressives/fascists. That seems to be the only real goal that everybody agrees on. With that agreement in mind, we're achieving just that. Obama's term thus far has been an utter train wreck, precisely at a time in history when he should be able to line up every plank of the socialist party/fascist party and get them passed without opposition.
Something to think about. We can stop him and his lackeys now, or we can perform anal examinations on each incoming person wanting to help, testing for ideological purity.
What we're seeing now, or at least I am, are people accepting more libertarian ideas fully, straight out of libertarian theory, and growing in their views and scope of political awareness.
No but they aren't. They are using libertarian talking points on certain issues, but entirely disregard it everywhere else. This is how Glen Beck republicans can claim liberty for stock brokers, and health care, yet call for tyranny on the 4th amendment, terrorism, or war.
Right now our push is to stop the push by Obama and the progressives/fascists.
The closest thing to fascists in our political spectrum are people like Glenn Beck. Progressives are socialists. Progressives aren't fascists. They may both be tyrannical but that is just about where their similarities end.
These new republican allies still support a police state, still support a military state, they just want corporations to profit it from it more.
Ok, we're all unthinking dupes and only you see it right. Government direction and policy dictation of the means of production while private hands hold deeds is now socialism and not fascism like it's always been in the past.
Ok, we're all unthinking dupes and only you see it right.
Most of you are unthinking dupes yes.
Government direction and policy dictation of the means of production while private hands hold deeds is now socialism and not fascism like it's always been in the past.
That is not the definition of fascism. Facism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology, that is economic policy is corporatism.
Some republicans are fascists, but the leaders aren't really. They lack the nationalism. They are merely corporatists. But people like Glen Beck are (or most accurately pretend to be, Glen Beck is an actor) fascists.
Socialism has a historical definition and a more common definition. The historical definition is government control of the means of production and egalitarian distribution of wealth. Under that definition the democrats are not socialists, and neither is Europe. The second more commonly used definition of socialism, is a mixed economy, with a welfare state. This is the type of socialists democrats are. And every industrialized nation is socialized, according to this definition, to varying degrees.