I tend to agree, but it's worth pointing out that the Tea Party seems to be among the strongest social warriors of the right, to the point where their nominal cause will be neglected if a gay marriage or an abortion looms in sight. To that extent they seem much like the Occupy movement - they may have the occasional valid points, but being the respective party's most extreme tends to obfuscate them.lol
Rubbish article is rubbish
And you believe that most Muslims are terrorists as well? Or is this kind of logic somehow different?
Some people love to broadly demonized others who think differently than themselves and use isolated racist shit like Newell Steamer posted to rationalize their hatred. Think ffs.No, but there's a reason that the term "radical Islam" is used. Radical Islamists are the ones who are terrorists. Tea Party is just the "radical Islam" of the Republican party. So, much like all Muslims are not radical, not all Republicans are Tea Party. But yes, they are both the extremes of their groups and are despicable monsters.
Pay attention to what recently happened with the budget...a paradigm shift has occurred in the Republican party. The Tea Party is dying now, Republican moderates are giving them the finger and are now courting moderate Democrats to get things done...they now recognize that the Tea Party is insane. However, the Tea Party was never about Obama being black as you imply...but I somehow doubt that you will ever get this.
I tend to agree, but it's worth pointing out that the Tea Party seems to be among the strongest social warriors of the right, to the point where their nominal cause will be neglected if a gay marriage or an abortion looms in sight. To that extent they seem much like the Occupy movement - they may have the occasional valid points, but being the respective party's most extreme tends to obfuscate them.
I disagree. Occupy Wall Street was organized from the top down by Kalle Lasn (who registered OccupyWallSt.org months before the first actual protest), Micah White, and Bill Smaltz of Adbusters. These are hard core Marxists, and to a large extent that's why they operated so far behind the scenes - they are toxic to the great majority of Americans. Groups like the SEIU gained a lot of power over it, since they were needed to provide the required number of people, and after a few months the transsexual anarchists took control, but it was planned centrally for months before it occurred.the thing that the TEA party had, that Occupy never had, is organization...and at last one or two supposed cohesive complaints.
Occupy could have been a non-partisan movement, as their chief complaints were everyone's: The banks fucked up our economy and every single asshole in Washington gave them a promotion, made things worse in the long run, and sold out the country.
Thing is, they were populated by idealist dirty hippies that feared organization and literally refused to define themselves as a real group--for fear, I suppose, of limiting themselves to "not enough outrages!"
I disagree. Occupy Wall Street was organized from the top down by Kalle Lasn (who registered OccupyWallSt.org months before the first actual protest), Micah White, and Bill Smaltz of Adbusters. These are hard core Marxists, and to a large extent that's why they operated so far behind the scenes - they are toxic to the great majority of Americans. Groups like the SEIU gained a lot of power over it, since they were needed to provide the required number of people, and after a few months the transsexual anarchists took control, but it was planned centrally for months before it occurred.
I for one commend you for typing out a response when you are obviously so very far from evolving opposable thumbs or frontal lobes. That can't be easy, and it provides such comic relief I almost feel guilty for laughing.Once again, you re-define "Marxist" to suit your purposes. At this point, you use it to describe anybody not among the Teatard Faithful. The rest follows in your usual propagandizing vein.
Oh God! The SEIU and Marxists! Organized Plebes! Does this mean they won't hold the door anymore at my posh Fifth Avenue apartment? The Horror!
Transsexual anarchists? Is that some new code phrase?
The fact that you'd even use such a pitch indicates total contempt for your audience.
Origins
The original protest was initiated by Kalle Lasn and Micah White of Adbusters, a Canadian anti-consumerist publication, who conceived of a September 17 occupation in lower Manhattan. Lasn registered the OccupyWallStreet.org
web address on June 9.[11] That same month, Adbusters emailed its subscribers saying America needs its own Tahrir. White said the reception of the idea "snowballed from there".[11][12] In a blog post on July 13, 2011,[13] Adbusters proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, the lack of legal consequences for those who brought about the global crisis of monetary insolvency, and an increasing disparity in wealth.[12] The protest was promoted with an image featuring a dancer atop Wall Street's iconic Charging Bull statue.[14][15][16]
Lasn always speaks of two concepts, killing capitalism and a new economy built around "people's needs". Yet without capitalism, the only two ways people's needs can be met are for people to need nothing they or their commune cannot supply themselves, or for government to own and control everything. That's much more Marxism than anarchy. Wealth distribution also requires government, for in anarchy the very wealthy can always afford men and weapons to protect their wealth. Only government can (and will) assemble overwhelming force to take a wealthy man's possessions. (Which of course explains why wealthy men spend so much time and treasure courting government leaders.)Lasn is sixty-nine years old and lives with his wife on a five-acre farm outside Vancouver. He has thinning white hair and the small eyes of a bulldog. In a lilting voice, he speaks of a dark age coming for humanity and of killing capitalism, alternating gusts of passion with gentle laughter. He has learned not to let premonitions of apocalypse spoil his good mood.
Transsexual anarchists = transgender anarchists. Which is amusing since without an organized government, transsexuals (as opposed to simple transvestites) couldn't even exist.White watched as the e-mails proposal raced around Twitter and Reddit. Normal campaigns are lots of drudgery and not much payoff, like rolling a snowball up a hill, he said. This was the reverse. Fifteen minutes after Lasn sent the e-mail, Justine Tunney, a twenty-six-year-old in Philadelphia, read it on her RSS feed. The next day, she registered OccupyWallSt.org, which soon became the movements online headquarters. She began operating the site with a small team, most of whose members were, like her, transgender anarchists. (They jokingly call themselves Trans World Order.)
Is he really hesitant, or just smart enough to wait for a good opportunity?I've mentioned it before I guess, I've met Jeb in passing and liked the guy.
I'd rather he was in the POTUS spot over Dubya at the time, but I think that time has passed.
Elections are still a long way off of course.
He's been hedging on the running thing for so long I'd almost vote for him because of that.
Sometimes the people that really are hesitant to go there are the best ones, they know what kind of shit is going to land on them, vs "I want to be a War President" Dubya brother.
I doubt I would though.
CNN: 7 things to know about Jeb Bush
I know an eight thing. I'd never vote for the guy.
Is he really hesitant, or just smart enough to wait for a good opportunity?
Bush is probably the only Republican who if Hillary is the other choice, I wouldn't much care who won.
I disagree. Occupy Wall Street was organized from the top down by Kalle Lasn (who registered OccupyWallSt.org months before the first actual protest), Micah White, and Bill Smaltz of Adbusters. These are hard core Marxists, and to a large extent that's why they operated so far behind the scenes - they are toxic to the great majority of Americans. Groups like the SEIU gained a lot of power over it, since they were needed to provide the required number of people, and after a few months the transsexual anarchists took control, but it was planned centrally for months before it occurred.
"I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that's kind of where we are" said the former Florida Governor. I think it changes when we get to the general election. I hope.
I have Jeb's campaign slogan ready to roll:
BUSH 2016: Third Times A Charm!
No it's not.
I for one commend you for typing out a response when you are obviously so very far from evolving opposable thumbs or frontal lobes. That can't be easy, and it provides such comic relief I almost feel guilty for laughing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/pre-occupied
Lasn always speaks of two concepts, killing capitalism and a new economy built around "people's needs". Yet without capitalism, the only two ways people's needs can be met are for people to need nothing they or their commune cannot supply themselves, or for government to own and control everything. That's much more Marxism than anarchy. Wealth distribution also requires government, for in anarchy the very wealthy can always afford men and weapons to protect their wealth. Only government can (and will) assemble overwhelming force to take a wealthy man's possessions. (Which of course explains why wealthy men spend so much time and treasure courting government leaders.)
Transsexual anarchists = transgender anarchists. Which is amusing since without an organized government, transsexuals (as opposed to simple transvestites) couldn't even exist.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...chist-who-hijacked-occupy-s-twitter-feed.html
About Justine Tunney, the transwoman who made Lasn's vision a reality - and who later assumed control of it, with her inner circle of transsexual anarchists.
tl/dr: Dumbass.
I wouldn't say the Tea Party was created to "destroy America as we know it". Their changes are about reducing government's reach, power and cost. That's a much more modest goal than Obama's of "fundamentally transforming America." Certainly they were more coordinated than Occupy - Lasn's goal was originally the "Robin Hood" tax, where government takes a tiny amount (less than 1%) from every Wall Street transaction, indeed every financial action. And maybe on the wealthiest's bank accounts. And maybe on landlords' real property. And maybe on . . . But once it got started, it devolved into every desired entitlement and punishment the left cherishes. Instead of Lasn's laser focus on the big wealth grab, it became an ineffective shotgun approach, a platform for every entitled upper middle class white loser to complain about society's lack of values (meaning their own degrees in anthropology, sociology and women's studies mostly) and most of all, a place to score some and nail young chicks not into bathing.True.
But they never had a real platform. They never had candidates. No one was a legitimate spokesperson that could ever deliver a cohesive message about their actual goals beyond "Everything is bad!"
If I recall, the original calls regarding Occupy from Adbusters and the primary organization mostly amounted to a large communal protest movement. The TEA party was formed explicitly to establish a political party with goals and real motivation, and real money (it was, after all, purely a Koch joint), to create laws and, essentially, destroy America as we know it--but legally.
All right, I'll bite. Say you succeed in abolishing capitalism. People still need housing, food, medicine, clothing, and Beany Babies. How do they get these things? Can't buy them, that's capitalism. Can't trade for most of them, as someone with a apartment previously renting for a grand a month probably doesn't need that much of anything anyone can furnish. And food - why would a farmer produce more food than he needs for his immediate family, friends and associates? The vast majority of Americans produce nothing of any particular benefit, use or interest to farmers. Should all Americans simply take as much land as they wish and grow their own food? Or if they are entitled to "enough land", can they similarly just take enough of the farmer's food and save themselves the effort?Heh. I enjoy how you're reduced to personal attack so easily. None of what you offer supports the Marxist! label, a standard right wing propaganda smear technique.
Lasn et al are not Marxists. You acknowledge that in a backhanded way, now allege that they're merely more like Marxists than your Capitalist leaders. That's also most of America, unsurprisingly. Nor does it follow that minus capitalism as currently defined that all power would fall to the State. That's also a standard rhetorical shift of right wing propaganda.
Occupy is something that Authoritarians don't understand, because it's not about power in terms they understand. Unlike the Tea Party, nobody controls Occupy. It's not a shell organization built on billionaire's money. It's not directed from the top down, with every soundbite & slogan promulgated by highly paid shills, pundits & mouthpieces.
It's not Fox News astroturf.
Jeb Bush or somebody like him will be rather shortly. He said he'd audition for the role. We'll see if the producers of the Right Wing Propaganda Machine put him in the star slot.
I wouldn't say the Tea Party was created to "destroy America as we know it". Their changes are about reducing government's reach, power and cost. That's a much more modest goal than Obama's of "fundamentally transforming America." Certainly they were more coordinated than Occupy - Lasn's goal was originally the "Robin Hood" tax, where government takes a tiny amount (less than 1%) from every Wall Street transaction, indeed every financial action. And maybe on the wealthiest's bank accounts. And maybe on landlords' real property. And maybe on . . . But once it got started, it devolved into every desired entitlement and punishment the left cherishes. Instead of Lasn's laser focus on the big wealth grab, it became an ineffective shotgun approach, a platform for every entitled upper middle class white loser to complain about society's lack of values (meaning their own degrees in anthropology, sociology and women's studies mostly) and most of all, a place to score some and nail young chicks not into bathing.
All right, I'll bite. Say you succeed in abolishing capitalism. People still need housing, food, medicine, clothing, and Beany Babies. How do they get these things? Can't buy them, that's capitalism. Can't trade for most of them, as someone with a apartment previously renting for a grand a month probably doesn't need that much of anything anyone can furnish. And food - why would a farmer produce more food than he needs for his immediate family, friends and associates? The vast majority of Americans produce nothing of any particular benefit, use or interest to farmers. Should all Americans simply take as much land as they wish and grow their own food? Or if they are entitled to "enough land", can they similarly just take enough of the farmer's food and save themselves the effort?