Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Great Libertarian Con

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 2, 2012, 7:45 p.m. EST by shooz (17960)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Calling yourself a libertarian today is a lot like wearing a mullet back in the nineteen eighties. It sends a clear signal: business up front, party in the back.

Just a few words to the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" crowd.

You've been conned.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/libertarian-con-favorite-rebel-ideology-ruling-class

You're not really a rebel.

296 Comments

296 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

LoL! I can't believe I missed this -

child labor laws , the Civil Rights act , federal income tax , minimum wage laws , Social Security , Medicare , food safety —libertarians have accused all of them as infringements upon the free market that would lead to economic ruin. And over and over again, they’ve been proven wrong. Life goes on—a little less gruesomely—and society prospers.

“There is no such thing as a free-market,” economist Ha-Joon Chang has said repeatedly. “A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them.”

In other words, markets are social institutions, just as much under the thumb of politics and government as everything else. Which means they’re subject to democratic pressures, as they should be.

. . . .

Capitalism has always been a product of Big Government. Ever since the railroads of the nineteenth century, to Silicon Valley, Big Pharma and the banks, the Nanny State has been there all along, passing subsidies and tax breaks, and eating the costs the private sector doesn’t want.

So whenever a libertarian says that capitalism is at odds with the state, laugh at him. It’s like saying that the NFL is “at war” with football fields. To be a libertarian is to say that God or the universe marked up that field, squirted out the pigskins from the bowels of the earth and handed down the playbooks from Mt. Sinai.

.

LoL!

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Isn't it amazing how prescient and accurate the article is?

These are all things the (R)epelican'ts agree with.

It's why I always put the (R) in libe(R)tarian.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It was a great article.

  • Libe(R)tarian

It fumbles a little coming off of the fingers - I think I shall have to practice.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

It's worth the effort. It drives the conse(R)vatives up the wall.

They know it's insulting, but they can't quite figure out how.

So they accuse me using "cute" names.

Awww, they think it's cute.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

well, it is cute . . .

  • Libe(R)tarian

  • conse(R)vative

See how cute it is? I like it. It is subtle - generally I keep a three pound hammer in my truck - and claim to anyone who will listen that with it, you can fix anything.

But hey.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Thanks ZD........:)

Oh, I found this and thought about your "right out in parking lot" meme.

I'll post it here for you use any time you like............:)

http://drich13.newsvine.com/_news/2012/09/26/14110762-this-is-not-cool-video

Gosh darn scientists, they keep proving things.

It's worth it just for the time lapse of Ice running out of the Arctic.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'll have to refill my coffee and watch that.

What is interesting about the confusion of repeliccans with the term Libe(R)tarian is that they know it's a wing of the repeliccan party - they also understand it is a form of denial of that affiliation - the relationship is so obvious that the distinction - let alone the denial - becomes lost on them, and they don't know where they are in relationship to this deceit.

I'm not explaining it very well.

the point is Liars are easily lost among their own lies. This is just a shade of a lie, a different shade of an overall deceit -

never mind.

Coffee. Melting ice.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

What is it that causes you to dismiss Libertarians as a "wing of the Republican Party"? (I fixed the spelling for you.) A conspiracy theory about fund raising?

A lot of people on the right firmly believe that OWS is "a wing of the Democratic Party". There sure is a lot of evidence of that on this site. But that's the exact same flavor of oversimplification as dismissing all Libertarians for secretly being Republicans.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I keep saying that global warming is right out in the parking lot, and that as a result the repeliccan party is done.

I do believe that happens to be true - although I admit, it is a bit like telling someone they are on their death bed and then laughing . . . .

In any case, here is some source material for your perusal - use it however you see fit.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

It's not a dismissal, they really are a wing of the right.

What were those words from Mr. P again?

And I'm paraphrasing here, but it went something like this.

Libe(R)tarians are what (R)eplican'ts are supposed to be and why he"chose" to campaign with an (R) after his name..

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I love how you dismiss OWS and its partnership of Libertarians, Anarchists and Progressives all working together.

You should do the establishment a favor and post even MORE of your idiotic crap.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Actually YOU do that every single time you insult the 99%.

Every time you deny the truth about libe(R)tarians you make it even worse.

And lets not ever consider the lies and propaganda you pass off as truth around here.

The insults you toss at folks so easily.

Go back to your Bircher site bogus boy.

It's where you belong. then there's your erronious, (R)epeliacnt's

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

More idiotic liines with cute little pet names from the guy who is doing everything in his power to keep the status quo going. My, how shocking.

People who spew a bunch of bogus bullshit about Occupy should get insulted. Its insulting to those who are trying for change to see some fo this crap posted, by those who claim to understand whats going on.

You are locked into a divisive system, and you simply cannot imagine conversation that isnt a black vs white baseline.

Your childish names, and cute spellings, are very typical on interenet chat rooms, on both sides. It shows the immaturity of the people claiming to understand shit.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

For a guy that just minimized the Norquist pledge, apologized for Ryan and made the VERY TALL claim that voter purges are inconsequential.

You really don't have a lot of wiggle room left, do you?

The only one spinning BS here is you!

S'funny you know, I can't find a single one of the things you are constantly propagandizing about here.

http://www.occupiedmedia.com/

Nor do I see any activity from you in the threads here that actually do support these things.

Perhaps you should consider that it's not the 99% that are the asses.............It's you.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Congress is bought out, NONE of them serve you. Why is the norquist thing a suprise. Apparently this is above your level of understanding.

Making people register and not allowing felons to vote is a MUCH BIGGER suppression than the ID thing. Where is your outrage over that? Oh ya, the media isnt talking about it so you dont either. Shocking.

The only activity you have, period, is doing the same lame nonsense that has been done the last, well, Im not even sure how long, at least 40 years. Criticize one, ignore the other. Ignore the one you CLAIM to be part of, regardless of what they do.

You have been played. They are STILL playing you, assuming you live your life like your posts suggest.

Maybe you dont, maybe you just entertain yourself with the same tired MSM nonsense over and over and over,,,,,

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

A wedge issue from you that completely ignores everything I said?

How about an Ayn Rand quote next?

The only thing missing is one of your patented insults.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Aww........You really hate it when the euphemisms are true.

Would you prefer I just call them assholes?

That would be true too, however I do prefer the euphemisms.

The use of (R) is the most accurate of all.

Go back to your Bircher site. It's where you belong.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

See, thats the difference between most Occupiers and MSM pundits like yourself.

We realize the entire system is bought out, and dont get all caught up with the Grover nonsense like the rest of the people. But you do. Thats you. Thats your brand.

No one is worried about Ryan, because those two idiots dont have a prayers chance in heaven OR hell of winning anyways. Again, just more media to keep you playing the blame game.

I wonder what the news will focus on next to keep you distracted and thinking its only 50% that are the problem.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

You've been bought out, that's for damn sure.

All that's left is for you to explain how irrelevant the voter purges are.

Because everybody knows how accurate the Birch Society news letter is.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

People coming here because they are sick of the system are probably glad to see someone giving an establishment hack a good lesson on whats the real deal.

I come at you with truth. You repsond with your usual little pet names. That sums up the MSM perfectly. You were an easy brainwash. Well maybe not, but 50+ years finally got to ya.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Aw c'mon now.......Stick up for Norquist some more.

How about another apology for Ryan?

I'm sure everybody came here to hear you do that.

You're notoriety is increasing.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

(R)epelicant's....You are so immature and limited. I just wish you wouldnt post some much idiotic crap because it really gives the whole OWS a bad name.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Like you didn't??

Everybody's an ass but you?

I'm sure first time posters loved seeing that shit.

Have fun in your little tiny box.

"Right" hchc?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

:idiotic crap"? Please refrain from these childish attacks.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No, Im not going to stop calling people out who have no freakin clue what they are talking about, dont do shit to help, and basically get on sites and spew a bunch of misinformation that is only furthering the very problems we are fighting against.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You have no proof of that! I've watched Shooz engage with any number of offensive, insulting, closet republicans trying to co opt this site. That is a great effort on Shooz part.

Certainly I agree with Shooz but even if I didn't I couldn't judge what Shooz does outside of the site. And niether can you of course.

You disagree with Shooz, and as such you consistently resort to personal attacks.

I'm only asking, Why can't you make your point with civil, respectful, substantice debate.

When you resort to the name calling bullying you immediately make it clear your arguments are vacant.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Yet you don't have a problem with the names that Shooz calls people? As long as they're Republicans?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm not talkin about Shooz, I'm talkin about you.

I can't say for sure what you are. except offensive.

So maybe you are saying you are offensive because Shooz is effensive?

Kinda weak.

Do you think you will change peoples minds with insults, and bullying? Or do you know you cannot and do it just for pleasure.?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Dont act like Shooz isnt just as guilty as the usual internet bullshit.

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

What does Shooz have to do with you or Techies poor behavior?

I'm not talkin about Shooz. I'm talkin about you and techie!

We are all adults, some with kids. How often have we had to say, "it don't matter what the other guy does, you do what's right."?

You are trying to distract, yes?

[-] -1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

You? Refrain from insults????

Not gonna happen. It's you're bread and butter response.

While you pass off propaganda as fact.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Stop posting like you have a fifth grade knowledge of our current system and you may find less people correcting you.

It turns to insults because you should be old enough to understand this shit by now, but you just dig your heels in even further.

Lets hear some more junior high names for the politicians you dont like. Thats what this is all about. The same tired idiotic nonsense that has plagued people for a long, long time. Keep it going. You are a tremendous help.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Too much Bircher fun in Florida these day?? Awww. poor lying man.

Wake the fuck up........LOL

Look!!!!..........................over there!!!....Obama.

Don't mind the Bi(R)chers, they're just (closet?) Kochaholics.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/27/samuel-l-jackson-videos-tells-voters-to-wake-the-fck-up-in-rhyme/

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im going to say all four of the things you listed are useless. Your obsession with linking Occupiers who are out for change with the Republican party is very telling. Especially when the ones you speak of spent the majority of their lives as registered Dems.

Its very telling dude. I like to hope its just above your level of reasoning, but its probably just part of your scheme, whoever the hell you are.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

You get more confused with every post and use less reasoning too..

Keep it up.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So now we are going what a Hollywood actor says.

Your entire world of discourse when it comes to this stuff is exactly how they want you to speak/react.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Beats the hell out of believing what the Birchers tell you.

Beats the hell out of propagating the Rove line of reasoning.

Beats the hell out of Ayn Rand shit.

Beats the hell out of anything you've said so far.

So now there's someplace in your head that tells you an actor is somehow stupid.

That's a line I used to hear all the time from the Birchers I used to know.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

It's an adequate explanation.

You just have to factor in teabagge(R)s..................LOL another one that drives them nuts.

Enjoy the vid, as I'm sure you will.....................:)

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

whatever consolation the validation may provide seems completely outweighed by the stark reality presented by the movie.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Since the majority of Republicans concur with the majority of Democrats that global climate change is occurring, your blanket generalizations about Republicans not believing in global warming are more an expression of your prejudice than anything.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

The majority of repeliccans have engaged in a series of lies regarding global warming for at least the last two decades.

from opposingviews.com

During a radio interview with Voice of Christian Youth America, climate change denier Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) claimed that global warming could not exist because the bible disproves it (audio below).

Sen. Inhofe said: "Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.”

"My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

Sen Inhofe also plugged his book 'The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,' but failed to mention that he has received $1,352,523 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, which also claims global warming does not exist.

.

Did you catch that? Let me repeat:

.

.

I realize that I have cited only one repeliccan - but certainly we are both aware that I may find dozens, if not hundreds, more - and what is more, the banking industry is tied right into the fossil fuel industry - I've a link around here somewhere indicating

Goldman Sux - right there

has significant investments in coal for one.

take your repeliccan apologist bullshit somewhere else. I'm not interested.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Plenty of Democrats also didn't believe in global climate change two decades ago. Your argument seems to assume that a political party can never shift in opinion? Does that mean that all 2012 Democrats support slavery, since Democrats immediately renounced the Emancipation Proclamation?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

individual voters you mean? I haven't looked at your link - I'm not concerned with individual voters or their party identification.

They will all be looking for a new party soon enough.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Isn't sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing to believe whatever you want to believe one of those traits that you theoretically hate about the right? You're proud of not even glancing at the link. Last night you were proud to be attacking me in the middle of a conversation about cyber security regulations without even reading the original post that we were discussing. Isn't it hypocritical for you to condemn people for ignoring evidence when you're prone to doing that and being proud of it?

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

perhaps - one may argue that - the fact is that there is only so much time in the day and I have other things to do besides entertaining your

repeliccan apologist bullshit

Global warming is irrefutable.

those who have in the past voted for global warming deniers will soon cease their support.

Those of us who truly resent those past denials - who have watched them for decades, and been subject to vilification, harassment, and yes, even

will most certainly take this opportunity and use it to destroy the party. I for one, will not let this opportunity pass by. I'm positive I am not alone.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

The original post is about the GREAT libe(R)tarian con.

I could find some more stuff on the subject, however, no one has posted a single link to say it's not true.

Because there aren't any out there...........because it's true.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

The response to this message below from shooz is an example of the "Argument from Ignorance" logical fallacy. argumentum ad ignorantiam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I did not realize that researchers had a good handle on the ice thickness over time - the sources I have seen lately mentioned an uncertainty over that aspect of ice melt.

After reading both Monbiot and Gibbon

I came to the conclusion that we would be ice free at the Arctic within the decade. Looking at the movie that would seem to be a good guess.

  • fuck
[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

That's bad enough, but the real problem begins as the Antarctic begins to lose the ice on it's landmass...............and that's just beginning.

I now hear them extolling the mineral and gem deposits found in Greenland and the increasing ease of drilling for more oil in the Siberian.

Ain't that some sick shit?

Profit from destruction.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I haven't read this article, on oil exploration Shell's Chukchi Sea Drilling Halted For Safety Reasons - Huff.Post

But it may in fact be an indication that the oil industry, or at least some in Shell, are well aware of the possibility that events may out pace our ability to capitalize on the presumed benefits of an ice free polar region.

If they have considered that, and that accounts for their attempts to capitalize on it now -

even knowing that they already possess five times more oil reserves than can safely be used and remain below the 2 degree C limit on global temp rise

then indeed, that is some sick, cynical shit.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It is sick, but not new. What they fail to realize is that geologic evidence indicates that the oceans have been higher by about 320 meters -

that's about 400 feet.

Given the Arctic ice has deteriorated so much faster than anticipated, it seems reasonable to presume, that although the Antarctic ice sheets a moving more slowly, they too will out pace projections.

Even a 50 foot increase in sea level will be catastrophic - and I'm not positive but I think even that much lies outside the IPCC estimates.

From Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

Because the available models do not include all relevant processes, there is much uncertainty and no consensus about what dynamical changes could occur in the Antarctic Ice Sheet (see, e.g., Vaughan and Spouge, 2002; Alley et al., 2005a). One line of argument is to consider an analogy with palaeoclimate (see Box 4.1). Palaeoclimatic evidence that sea level was 4 to 6 m above present during the last interglacial may not all be explained by reduction in the Greenland Ice Sheet, implying a contribution from the Antarctic Ice Sheet (see Section 6.4.3). On this basis, using the limited available evidence, sustained global warming of 2°C (Oppenheimer and Alley, 2005) above present-day temperatures has been suggested as a threshold beyond which there will be a commitment to a large sea level contribution from the WAIS. The maximum rates of sea level rise during previous glacial terminations were of the order of 10 mm yr–1 (Church et al., 2001). We can be confident that future accelerated discharge from WAIS will not exceed this size, which is roughly an order of magnitude increase in present-day WAIS discharge, since no observed recent acceleration has exceeded a factor of ten.

I think they are vastly understating the possibilities here.

If I'm right - then the chaos created by rising sea will render the harvesting of natural resources from the polar regions completely impractical - if not impossible - from at the very least an economic perspective.

They've been hunting the Northwest Passage for centuries. Now it's here - and I don't believe we will be able to make much use of it.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

What will be the excuse from the deniers when all that shit hits the fan?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't know, but it will be an interesting sight.

North Carolina had a projection of around 1.5 meters rise in sea level,

this article indicates a one meter rise

and even that had to be revised - backwards

LoL!

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

They are legislators....damn it!

They don't don't need no stinkin' scientists telling them what the oceans gonna do!!!

You gotta wonder where ALEC is in all this shit.

ALEC or something like them.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Probably laughing at the ignorance they have facilitated.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Or working on casino permits, for land a mile from the coast, figuring it'll be ON the coast a decade or two after it's built, and the guys that built on today's coast will go belly up.

It's a win/win

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm not at all sure about that "win/win" thing - depends on how much land based ice melts

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

they will have stopped regulations against emissions

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Like they let that kind of thing actually bother them now.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I have to get smog check for my car every other year

since the check engine light is always on I always fail regardless of my emissions

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

They quit doing that years ago here in Michigan, but you can still get a pollution ticket if your car is smoking.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

bump

"With such a bleak economic forecast for the Millennials , it shouldn’t surprise anyone that our elites want to make “libertarianism” shorthand for “political disaffection.”"

It's as if the author has visited this forum.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Isn't it though?

Try and convince any of them who the real founders of modern libe(R)tarianism are, and they will squirm and deny and call them fascists, instead of what they are.

Neolibe(R)tarians.

You do realize I had to read between the lines on the walls and think outside all the boxes to come to that conclusion and coin and define that term.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I applaude you for your out-of-the-box thinking. You are really getting past the two-party trap, and identifying our common enemy; neoliza(R)darianism. How do you feel about my unorthodox use of the semi-colon? Do you see how I challenged conventional wisdom on punctuation?

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I must confess. I abuse punctuation all the time.

I didn't know wisdom applied...................................:)

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

That is a very funny observation! I have even described myself as fiscally conservative and socially...well... moderate. I don't agree with everything in the article, but I like your "50 words or less" summary.

Of course, I can't say that I have ever felt like a rebel...I'm too old for that :) Excellent post.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

what is fiscally conservative ?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Cut benefits for the poor, cut taxes for the rich!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

lol

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

U like that?. How about this.? "tinkle down economics" that's conservative fiscal policy in a nutshell.

[-] 1 points by Krypton (73) 1 year ago

That golden shower is not the abolition of fiat currency. It's urine.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

LMFAO. "open the spigot you cheap greedy bastards"

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1320) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

They lie, it's true. I think they often lie first to themselves and so believe they're telling the truth. Certainly, they're the fools of fools!

[-] 4 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

They may be a lot of things, but they are not fools.

They did not become World wide controllers by being fools.

It never pays to sell them short.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

They probably love to be thought of as fools - so much the better for people to underestimate them. CorpoRATists seem like they must be foolish as the things they support are so insane.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

That's part of a good con.

The "fool" as a distraction.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

More - smoke and mirrors. Don't look now......ack!.......Ooops ..well maybe you should have looked.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

They have enough think tanks and marketing/PR firms to convince folks of whatever they want.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

How does one ( greedy bastard ) spend a dollar well? Fooling the public that they are doing good for them while they ( public ) are being robbed and poisoned.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

One doesn't get filthy rich, giving anyone a good deal.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

In the mind of the Greedy. ( OH but then I guess that would be cleanly rich )

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (1320) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

They can't see that their greed and stupidity is destroying their world. Ultimately, they are fools! Though they may dominate us by peurile guile, cunning and brute strength, that speaks to our greater weakness and foolishness in tolerating the fools, not any real virtue of theirs. While I have no respect for hypocrits and less for fools, I don't underestimate the power of the cons who are both. I know when to be literal and when to be rhetorical.

[-] 3 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

They have conned many of the visitors to this site.

Or perhaps some of those "visitors" are the con.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I agree 100%. You got there number!

Libertarians simply want to eliminate any working/middle class programs and rely on states rights (kinda like the segregationists).

twinkle 4 u

Solidarity

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I will continue to post the truth about libe(R)tarians whenever I can.

I also feel that many ":believers" have been duped by this "philosophy", as I once was too.

This is why I often refer to the REAL libe(R)tarians as neolibe(R)tarians.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It is insidious.

Stay strong. You are inspiring.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Nice, alienate even more people. Some of the most ardent supporters are libertarians, you clown. If you ever got off your ass you would realize this.

Divide and conquer is your plan, keep working it. We will keep uniting against money in politics and the banking cartel.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

A Libertarian world is a race to the bottom. They may be supporters for overhauling the system, but the world they want to create offers nothing that I am interested in.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im not for deregulation everything, but I do think that when the multinationals can lobby for more regulations, that they dont have to follow, and hence drown out more competition, its a very bad thing.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I agree with that.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"clown"? You got some nerve.!

Have some respect for your betters.

WHY CAN'T YOU BEHAVE!

Is your position so weak you can only score points with insults. Must you put others down to lift yourself up?

STOP! BEHAVE! Or you will be sent to your room without any dinner.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

It's tough fighting against people who use facts to form their arguments i know....but try to remain calm.

[-] -1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Another insult from you hchc?

It's still what you do most often when your reality is called out.

The only one dividing and conquering is you.

And once again, you show that you didn't read the link, as your response has nothing to with it. Just another attack on me.

An attack that fails to include the many posts I've made against Wallstreet, while you play the look over there.....Obama game.

Just another false equivalency.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I could care less about Obama, he has no plans on fixing anything.

My concern is waking people up to how bad they are being played.

Apparently so is Occupy Burlington. I'll start posting all the stuff off of everyones page so we can see who is speaking the truth here and who is an establishment pawn.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=444680672238343&set=a.279969632042782.68987.262695307103548&type=1&theater

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

World wide controllers?? GIve me a break....when was the last time a libertarian was anywhere close to winning the presidency....most people don't even know what being libertarian is.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34876) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Correct the USA's definition of libertarian is the opposite of the rest of the worlds.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Apparently not..they're discussing Reason magazine and Nick Nick Gillespie in this article....that would be considered US libertarianism.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

They don't win it, they buy it.

They own WallStreet and pretty much everything else.

Did you buy into the con?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

This is worth a bump up.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Truth is always worth a bump.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

I like seeing good posts up top.

Thanks for your good posts

[-] 1 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Say hell NO motherfuckers!!!!!

Wake the fuck up!

I hope you caught this one too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypRW5qoraTw

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

The libe(R)tarians as you know them wouldn't exist without David and Charles.

You would never have heard of them.

I know this, because I used to be one.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Oh yes, because we all know,internet tests are the most accurate of all.

Orwell was a great writer., but he doesn't live in my world.

I just amazes me how much libe(R)_tarians try and separate themselves from the philosophies modern founders and funders.

Just amazing, the degree of denial.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I consider myself a libertarian and I would say that about 2/3 of the candidates that I have voted for since college have been Democrats. The other 1/3 have been a combination of Republicans and actual Libertarians.

Most libertarians can find a lot that they both agree and disagree with when it comes to the two major parties. These days at least, the Republicans stance on social issues scares me more than the Democrats on fiscal issues so for the past few years I have voted mostly Democrat, especially on the national level.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Another libe(R)tarian?

I wouldn't have guessed....LOL.

I used to be one.......voted similarly, at one time.

That must be why I come down so hard on you.

You need to accept the truth.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Haha big surprise right.

I am not a all government is bad type. I realize the need for a federal government and common sense regulations. I would probably be less of a libertarian if our current government wasn't so incompetent and wasteful.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Too bad for us our government has become inefficient because of the libe(R)tarians who have purchased it.

We're talkin' Ayn Rand distributing libertarians here.

The real deal. Not some States rights kid that wants pot legalized from down the street.

I think you've heard of them.......the Kochs?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I have. I am not a hardcore libertarian. I just think the government messes up nearly everything it touches.

I would like to see pot legalized though. Not so people can go get high all the time, but because it is a waste of taxpayer money to keep it illegal.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Silly. I gave up on them a while back. Took about 5 of 'em. It's like going to a political Madam Tousant's at the carnival, for your fortune.

Amusing, but not much more.

I'm a liberal damn it.

I don't need another online test to confirm that.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Freedom to do what?

I find corporations (which are run by real libe(R)tarians) are the biggest limiter to my liberty and freedom.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I'm so GD sick of this fucking STUPID argument over and over and over and over.

This has to be over 5 dozen times I've heard this same BS.

Take it over to CATO and push this crap all you like.

They'll love you.

I won't.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

And there it is folks!!

A "reformed" libertarian....hahaha

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

As opposed to you, who is unreformed, and still controlled by their propaganda. Hohohoho Hahahaha

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I never was, and I can tell you there is no such thing as a reformed libertarian. Thats your own belief, not mine. You used to be the disgusting piece of shit that you rail against now...no wonder you are so angry.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

That has to be one of the most assumptive, presumptive statements you've ever offered.

With an insult tossed in to boot.

Not surprising.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

The real problem with Libertarians is that they're completely ignorant of history. They think they're going to fix an institution that has been derailing and corrupt for over 200 years.

It's naive, but you've got to admire their gumption.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Perhaps not, but you could live out your dream here.

http://reality-based-world.org/2011/03/01/welcome-to-somalia-libertarian-paradise/

You did say you were leaving soon, "right"?

After all, it was your beloved libe(R)tarians that derailed it.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

It's not like that anymore, no ,no. It's not like that anymore.

It's a true libe(R)tarian dream now. The least amount of government governing the least amount it can.

Don't like that boat going by and ruining your view?

You can take care of it.

Wanna drive you personal, heavily gunned tank down the middle of the street on Sunday?

Yes you can.

Wanna buy your own militia?

Help yourself.

Or course you might want to beware of formulating any kind of States rights styled bigotry.

That could get you on the wrong end of those tanks.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'd like to have my own tank. It would be way more fun than a bull dozer . . . .

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

You might want to buy a gas station too. The gas mileage is measured in gallons to the mile.

But it will run over just about anything..............:)

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I've never driven a tank . . . couldn't we ditch the du armor and mount solar panels and give it a real Mad Max kind of appeal?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Tank?

I drove one. a 75 Catalina station wagon!!!

People would run into it and their cars would fall apart, while I drove on with scratch in my bumper.........................:)

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I had a 1974 Buick Century like that. I had the trunk loaded down with about a thousand pounds of tools, and tire chains I would put on in snow storms - I even towed a pick-up in the middle of a snow storm with that car. Up Hill.

The best off road rig I've ever driven has got to be hands down a 640 JD log skidder. Damn thing was unstoppable.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Ahhh yes.....those were the days.............:)

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Yes they were . . .

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I don't care how it fell.

I care how it is now, And now? it's perfect for the likes of you.

Take the Kochs with you.

You could finally have your fucking gulch, and leave my country alone.

Just fucking go already..

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

" Libertarians do believe in having a functioning government"?

Only in so far as they can purchase it out from under others.

I'm sure there's enough left over for them to buy.

And as I recall, there was NO government at all in the gulch.

Now that's why Somalia is your paradise.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

LOL

Party platform. OK.

Now take close look at the actions of the Kochs and get back to me.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

You sound just like the so called "conse(R)vatives", when told Bush was considered a conse(R)vative.

Why don't you do us a favor and point out some of the actions of the Kochs that you disapprove of?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Good for you.

I didn't think you'd want to do that.

Small government was never really on the libe(R)tarian table.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

An extremist position from you?

I would expect it.

http://www.alternet.org/dont-be-fooled-pot-loving-libertarian-gary-johnson-he-works-1?page=0%2C1

Like I've always said about libe(R)tarianism.

It's all shiny on the outside, yet rotten at it's core.

You wanna talk about making government smaller now?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The guy you are arguing with doesnt think. he's here to attack, and preserve the two party system. Best to keep walking.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Strange, I never have the urge to go over to the Ron Paul forum and call them Nazis. What makes you tick, young lizard?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

What if I see Jesus in my mashed potatoes? Can I report that to the Washington Post?

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Not only that.....they'll publish it!!!

Edit the pic and put it on the cover.

Murdock's like that.

[-] -1 points by HeatherL (-30) 1 year ago

In other related news!!!!!!!! Lawmakers 'suspicious' administration 'trying to hide' Libya attack details

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/lawmakers-uspicious-administration-trying-to-hide-libya-attack-details/#ixzz27jZ2nuNs

[-] 3 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

FLAKESnwes again?

You couldn't find anything on Breitbart?

You must be slipping.

At this point you might as well head on over to the "truth" tellers at prisonplanet.com

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

LoL!

prisonplanet

haha!

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I'm gonna start yelling Bigfoot the next time some idiot posts FLAKESnews crap.

Talk about conspiracy theories.

That's what pissed me off about threshy. He never ,,once called out those assholes posting FLAKESnews crap.No not him.

He was too busy chasing lizard men. the ass.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

He really was a bit confusing given his single mined obsession.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Well, I did enjoy chasing him around.

It was hard not too, with all the lies he told about posters and OWS in general.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

for the most part I tended to ignore him - I'm not sure why.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

He sure like to chase you and GF.

That pissed my off about him too.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Ad hominem. I'm going to lose what little respect I have for you if you're unable to effectively counter an idiot troll like that. You can do better.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Oh God not that BS ad hominem crap again.

FLAKESnews is a know, admitted, unapologetic propagator of misinformation, disinformation, lies and general bullshit.

Plus it's anything BUT fair and balanced.

I could provide reams worth of links to prove it, but you wouldn't believe them anyway. so why should I bother.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Attacking the source instead of the message is not a compelling argument. Either don't feed the troll or beat them decisively.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

FLAKESnews is a source??

Since when?

Look my good man. I don't have the time nor the access to entire research departments, and even the experts get tired of dealing with constant bullshit.

It's not worth the effort.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/27/ap-editor-there-wasnt-enough-time-and-space-to-debunk-bachmann-lies/

So take your equally bullshitty ad hominem bullshit and find some other bunch of bullshit to do with it.

FLAKESnews is for flakes and that's all there is to that.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I'm not arguing with you. (This time.) I'm providing constructive criticism. Discrediting the messenger instead of the message is a logical fallacy and therefore not a compelling counter argument. Either don't feed the troll or provide a compelling counter argument.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Whatever dood.

I'm sick of anyone at all posting FLAKESnews/Brietbart/Bircher/Beck. and/or any number of other purely bullshit propaganda crap.

Post some and try me

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Fox? Really?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Ad hominem. Don't let an idiot troll win just because you can't do better than ad hominem.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Is "Fox" really ad hominem now? I guess society is progressing.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

They dont like anyone that endorses this shadow system.

[-] 4 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Axis of Justice, Tom Morello's political website, opposes austerity: "Let’s start with the bad decisions: most of the leaders at the conference decided that they needed to cut back on government spending, to trim their budget deficits." http://axisofjustice.net/g20-more-lies-and-abuse/

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Yeah, I oppose the two-party system as well. That doesn't make me a libertarian. Simple minded shit dude.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Attacking the source instead of the message is called "ad hominem" and it's weak. Just trying to help. I don't agree with that troll and it seems like the best thing to do with a troll like that is to either not feed it, or provide a substantial counter-argument. Responding with a logical fallacy just fans the flame war.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Fox news is an unreliable source. Suggesting that a source is unreliable is different not an ad hominem attack. It would be ad hominem if said "Heather is a lizard, and lizards eat flies. I think eating flies is nasty, so therefore she can't be trusted".

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Sure it is, that's the definition of ad hominem. I'm just trying to help, man. All three of your came back with extremely non-compelling responses to that troll, which is worse than not replying at all.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I did not suggest that Heather was wrong about the situation in Libya. Therefore there is no logical fallacy.

If someone runs up to me on the street and says "Jesus Christ is your only hope for salvation!" and I say "Fuck You!", that is not an ad hominem.

Just trying to help.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you have got to be kidding. Faux.snooze?

oh, I get it - you are suffering withdrawl - you need to hear that repeliccan drum beat of fear emanating from DC - without it you're kinda lost.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Three responses and they were all ad hominem, which is disappointing. You're capable of a compelling response to that troll but that wasn't it.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

K. No prob. I just do this while I'm Forex day trading. I don't really need freedom of speech, I can just go to dlisted and read about chuck and blair.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Since I don't love libertarians, that's a weird thing to say to me.

You must have learned to talk like that from your mentor, "If you're not with us, you're against us."

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

He really does have a lot in common with Dubya. And he's totally oblivious to the irony.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

It has to be 'you're with us or against us'. That's the whole point of the 99% vs the 1%. Dubya can't be a part of OWS because it doesn't have leaders.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Once you realize it, it's hilarious. And then the more you think about it, it's sad.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Yeah I go through that exact same cycle every day that I talk to him. Same thing with ZenDog. Most everybody else seems to be relatively reasonable but they're the vocal minority that disrupt the whole forum.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Of course not, you just quote Mises and Lew Rockwell.

Those fishes swimming around in your brain must be hungry.

They're circling rather quickly.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

George W Bush would be proud of your adherance to partisanship, and clear denial of ideas and logic. You're a chip off the ol' block.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Would that be a false equivalency, an ad hominum, or a logical fallacy?

Or is it all three?

One thing it didn't do is explain the relevancy of your answer.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Haha thanks for playing, but you listed two logical fallacies and then "logical fallacy". Which makes no sense at all.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

That's highly illogical Jim..............................;)

Plus it made no sense. Just like Mr. 42..

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Do you prefer apples, oranges, or fruit?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I prefer tomatoes.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

So my advice is to call them out.

Ask them what their beef really is with the welfare state. First, they’ll talk about the deficit and say we just can’t afford entitlement programs. Well, that’s obviously a joke , so move on. Then they’ll say that it gives the government tyrannical power. Okay. Let me know when the Danes open a Guantánamo Bay in Greenland.

Here’s the real reason libertarians hate the idea. The welfare state is a check against servility towards the rich. A strong welfare state would give us the power to say Fuck You to our bosses—this is the power to say “I’m gonna work odd jobs for twenty hours a week while I work on my driftwood sculptures and play keyboards in my chillwave band. And I’ll still be able to go to the doctor and make rent.”

Sounds like freedom to me.

.

me too. hehehe

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

An odd post, welfare encourages servility to the govt. Who controls the govt? The rich. Stop letting yourself be played.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I guess you've never heard of corporate welfare?

wait - wait - what am I saying?

End the Welfare State!

hehehe

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 1 year ago

Hey white shooz! Looks like you actually posted something worth reading! Now if you could only get over your Obama crush, and get off the forum every once in a while you might become a decent human being!

Oh, wait. This article is about how Obama is so much better than Romney and the US Constitution is somehow bad? :(

I spoke to soon. You're still a horrible human being!

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Oh my!

You're completely off subject.

Do you make a habit of that?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Are you always insulting people?

bully much?

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 1 year ago

Thanks for the advice good cop. lol

You guys actually think you are fooling people on this forum? Your strategy for dominating the conversation is so transparent.

And now go to phase two where you deny it and call me crazy. Maybe another one of you Obama stooges will show up to give me a strong talking to.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You see conspiracies where there are none. I work for respectful civil debate all on my own. Many people of all political persuasions lose their patience with the high standards I suggest.

You are particularly guilty in your constant abuse. As if you come to this site just to abuse people.

Please refrain. Use the facts. Being good is it's own reward.

Peace

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 1 year ago

So obvious.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

That's a pretty good start.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

i'll bite into this for you shooz

honestly i am socially liberal i think we should take care of others to an extent. But fiscally conservative believing in the Darwin laws in the term of business. So i do fall under the class of a Libertarian on in a way.

So this article was just a rip on Generation Y and as i am from generation Y i'm used to being shit on like i was when i read this article. I heard countless time that we are the worst generation. But all of that is another story.

While most college kids i know are for being socially liberal. Most of us don't care about politics because we see through this bullshit of Red and Blue. I cant speak for all but i know a majority of the campus i am on is for more parties and would like to see both parties put away since both are out dated and away from their roots.

So no i'm not a rebel i'm an individual who has his own beliefs that do not align with any party so i stand where i stand

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

You're still being honest Dan, I can appreciate that.

I haven't heard that generation"Y" is the worst. Not sure who might be saying such a thing.

In my daughters case, it just seems they are more distracted. That's not all that surprising as there are many more distractions around.

She just thinks she's not political........I sit back and listen to her fire when she gets into it with a teabagge(R) we have for a neighbor........:)

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

thanks shooz i am what i am

it was some professor at some school i dont know when or who i just remember hearing that

yeah it seems like that for most of us we have so many things to do that we cant look back and see what we are doing.

thats how we all are just like her not we say we aren't political but argue every chance we get

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Man is a political animal, even though we like to deny it at times.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I believe all philosophers are just good at justifing the predispositions. Once you review the social climate and life styles of some of the world's greatest thinkers, you realize they could have never seen it any other way. When it comes to Rand, she could have had no other view about collective living, considering what trauma the collective brought upon her family and childhood.

Riches to rags, and only Communism to blame.

IF you review the lives of great thinkers, and not their philosophies, many of the philosophers of antiquity were not so much great thinkers, but were great at rationalization and articulation. But then again, maybe that is what real intelligence is.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Here's another clue about the con.

It was libe(R)tarains that co-opted the teabaggers, and backed and injected them into the (R)epelican't Party.

Can someone point out the forward thinking, pro OWS legislation this faction has introduced, or even backed?

They seem to exist, more for their distractionary, divisive legislation.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Has anyone else noticed that the con goes on unabated?

In spite of the truthful revelations this link has provided.

[-] 1 points by PaxUnus (1) 1 year ago

Sustainability coupled with technology can turn deserts to gardens. Everything is a choice. We create our reality by owning it. 5% flat tax feeding what we decide to create. We vote our voice and it becomes action and evident. We celebrate and educate with no work for two days every two months. Beyond that sustainability coupled with technology is a 180 on corporations. We only "work" 2-3 days a week. Education is a meeting ground and timing is up to each group of collective hearts much like a public library or park. Health care is funded when we stay well. The change is alive- happening- moving. The only thing that stays the same is change. What we want collectively is up to us. You create reallity by what you say and do.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

You only get 2 days off a month?

What's up with that?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Bump.

This must have hit pretty close to home.

I have news for you.

This IS the "private club" Carlin told you about.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

All I know for sure is that I don't want to pay for it, and libertarians don't have to pay taxes for anything they don't understand. And, I don't want it unless I am going to make use of it, personally. I don't even want to spend time thinking about the complexities of the world, because I already know that I don't care to pay for it. Even if I agreed with it, which maybe I don't. So, just deregulate it, and leave me alone, ok? Local groups will band together, and charity will take over if it's really so important, and then, maybe, if you kiss my ass, I'll consider making a donation to my local community. Remember: People will do the right thing because they WANT to do the right thing. That's as true for you and me as it is for the Corporations. See, it's all about local control-- don't you get it? The locals will be in control of their own rules, and they'll be able to focus on what the majority of them think is most important. Human nature will kick in, and society will actually improve because people will finally be free, for the first time, to be able to do what their conscience tells them is the right thing to do at the moment it arrives. See, all personal responsibility needs is a properly deregulated environment to thrive. And, can't you just imagine what a lovely sense of variety these freedoms will endow the American landscape? When you travel around, each place will actually feel like a totally different way of life than the previous place. Sure, there'll be a few hellholes out there, and some absolutely grand little pockets as well-- but, that's a choice the locals should be able to make for themselves. If they don't like how their community evolves, then they can just move. Simple!

Also, I want my currency to be worth it's weight in gold, because gold coins are things that I don't own, I can't put to practical use, and which are already controlled by rich people. Which, is ok, because the value of our currency isn't something that we want the government to regulate. If we just turn a blind eye long enough, then the markets will take care of themselves, and, whatever happens, we'll all be better off in the end. Besides, I can't remember a single time in my own lifetime that gold and silver actually lost their value-- which, is a good thing, because that would make my house, my car, my farm, and all the things I actually consider equity, almost worthless. That would be a disaster, and then I'd really be happy the rich people still had THEIR gold, and were thus able to provide me with an income that would allow me to bootstrap myself back up, in a generation or two. Because, as we all know, workers are who give the rich the money and power to make an economy grow.

Actually, the same thing goes for the rest of the world. True, we're gonna have to keep pouring money into the military industrial complex, because we need a strong army. But, what we want is an army that only fights defensively. So, we won't have any enemies in the world, because we will have the freedom to tell them to take care of their own problems. It'll be sure to boost our economic forecasts, because one thing we don't want is allies that depend on us for the timely delivery of our goods, services. And, nobody is going to try to take advantage of us, because we have the strongest peacetime defensive army force the world, plus, every American is armed to the teeth-- and so, we'll never have to worry about wasting tax dollars protecting the rest of the world from our Corporations, who should be deregulated like the banks. We're all about taking care of our own, and all wars for all reasons at all times in history are bad, even ones that protect our own interests in some wacky way. Except if we get invaded-- THEN we fight to win. Even the poor people. The days of the American empire are OVER! From now on, we're gonna be like a turtle in it's shell... Totally isolated and irresponsible to all the problems of the world.

Oh, and don't you dare tax those rich people, that would be unfair.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Snark?

I sure hope so.........:)

But that is it, in about as small a nut shell as possible.

I have seen people on this forum who claim be in support say many of these things.

Welcome to the great libe(R)tarian co-option of yet another grass roots movement.

This one, they want to render ineffectual.

[-] 2 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

Full-On Snark.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Whew. Good to know, snark still serves it's purpose......:)

The issue being, that IS pretty much their attitude.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1320) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

There's no sincerity or honesty in the cons. [conservatives] The conned Libertarians are the dupes of fools whose greed and stupidity is threatening the survival of the Human race. Cons and Randian idiots are the greatest enemy we've ever faced.

For more on dysfunctional economy and culture see: How Does That Work? https://www.createspace.com/3852916

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I find libe(R)tarians to be liars of the most insidious sort.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

Libertarianism is about the non initiation of force. Do you disagree? Do you think you have the right to use violence on peaceful people? If you are a peaceful person then you have to be a libertarian. Otherwise you advocate violence through govt.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I believe that libe(R)tarians use the "force" of contract to negate both.

They employ VERY specific "definitions" for those two terms in the first place.

All one has to do is watch the actions of libe(R)tarian leaders like the Kochs to see that ways to apply "force" are very much still used.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

OK, lets get down to definitions. Force means physical force as in your money or your life. No more of this verbal judo.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

So you would enforce your contracts with judo?

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

Just answer the original question, Do you think you have the right to use violence on peaceful people?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So libertarians are the ones who want the govt to limit their activity to military defense and nothing else right? No Social Security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance. All these great dem programs would go and taxes would be cut so the people can fend forthemselves. Right? A little economic darwinism, survival of the fittest and so forth. Throw in some states rights so that maybe they can institute the racist, anti women, anti LGBT, laws without concern that the feds will overturn.

It's a scary world. It will never come to pass. People would certainly rise up then.

Great post. Thx

[-] 0 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Never say never.

It's much closer to reality than you think.

It will take several readings to get it all to sink in, but the more I read it, the more I see it all around me.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We need to be alert, and active, but I must avoid fear. (it's the only thing we have to fear)

I'm with you.

I'm tryin.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

It's OK to be afraid. It's an honest emotion.

Just don't let it paralyze you into inaction......

The neo libe(R)tarians really have co-opted political systems all over the World.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yes. there is much inaction for many reasons. Only now with OWS is any action beginning. And I agree fear is natural and a great motivator as well.

I still avoid it. but I do not ignore it.

Peace

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

"The welfare state is a check against servility towards the rich. A strong welfare state would give us the power to say Fuck You to our bosses—this is the power to say “I’m gonna work odd jobs for twenty hours a week while I work on my driftwood sculptures and play keyboards in my chillwave band."

Ha ha...Bwah ha ha ha ha ha! he sounds like your kind of idiot shooz.

[-] 4 points by flip (5207) 1 year ago

did that quote come from the article? what a great summation of why the right hate the welfare state - am i to understand that you do not recognize the truth of that statement?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

but libertarians don't care about their fellow citizens. Isn't that immoral?

[-] 1 points by flip (5207) 1 year ago

which type of libertarians - the ron paul type or the chomsky type

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The kind that thinks the govt should be responsible for nothing except military.

I never saw Chomsky as a libertarian. In what way is he libertarian?

Are you a libertarian?

[-] 1 points by flip (5207) 1 year ago

yes - from wiki - Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property[5]. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[6] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[7][8] or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[1][2][9]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well that sounds wonderful. I do support worker owned businesses. So that sounds similar.

"opposed to coercive forms of social organizations"? Can you explain that? Please sir.

[-] 1 points by flip (5207) 1 year ago

look it up

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Thanks Curt you've been real helpful.

[-] 1 points by flip (5207) 1 year ago

welcome - i have things to do - and you?

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

No, I'm not big on the idea of a welfare state that exists to give people time to work on their driftwood scultures.

[-] 2 points by flip (5207) 1 year ago

and where did the quote come from - it is a accurate description of the nature of things don't you think? good - work harder and don't spend time with family or friends - make lots of money and continue the mindless use of finite resources - climate change is not real and god has given us all the oil we will ever need to run our play things until the end of time.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Another libe(R)tarian makin' stuff up?

Doesn't surprise me, I've been here for a while and heard most of their clap trap crap.

[-] -1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

making stuff up? what stuff? the quote?.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Aww, you look so cute when you're playing coy.

Not!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

did you make it through the entire article? it's the last paragraph.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Are you familiar with the term, "taken out of context'?

It's ploy FLAKESnews, for one, uses all the time, to tell lies.

It's also what you just did.

Why shouldn't someone working 20hrs a week be able to afford rent and go to the doctor?

[-] -1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

if you choose to work 20 hrs a week and spend the rest of your time goofing off, you don't get rewarded or taken care of. welfare is for people who need it. it's not there so you can tell the world they owe you a good time.

and quoting an article is not making stuff up. what you did is lie.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Who decides what is goofing off?

You?

I know folks that can barely get 20hrs a week.

You still don't know what 'taken out of context" means, do you?

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Better me than you. You think volunterring is goofing off and not worth the time.

and yes, I know what it is. it's what your doing right now. He didn't say if I'm struggling and can only find 20 hrs a week of employment I'll be able to get by thanks to government assistance. He's saying how great it would be to only need a couple of part time jobs because everyone else is paying your bills.

"Here’s the real reason libertarians hate the idea. The welfare state is a check against servility towards the rich. A strong welfare state would give us the power to say Fuck You to our bosses—this is the power to say “I’m gonna work odd jobs for twenty hours a week while I work on my driftwood sculptures and play keyboards in my chillwave band. And I’ll still be able to go to the doctor and make rent.”

[-] 2 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

You still haven't answered, why not?

So far you're proving the author correct.

[-] -1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Why shouldn't they? They should. You should. I should be able to work 20's a week and get by. I also should be playing middle linebacker for the Giants. Too bad the real world doesn't allow it, so welfare has to go to those who need it.

Do you have homeless people in MI? They should have as much as you. Why shouldn't they? I think you should go find one and make sure they have more. Help pay their rent or doctor bills. Why shouldn't you do that?

why should you have more than somebody else?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Too bad the real world doesn't allow it

Thats one of the funniest things I've seen written. Who decided what the 'real world' is or should be?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

LOOK!!!!

Football reference and no actual answer to the question.

Problems with comprehension?

I think so.

Perhaps it's the "real World" that limits your comprehension, and prevents you from answering the simplest of questions.

Why should he not have a place to live and access to health care?

Leave football out of it.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Rats got your tongue?

You still haven't answered.

You just poked fun at the concept, proving the author correct, once again..

[-] -1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

You asked why shouldn't someone working 20 hrs a week be able to afford rent and a doctor. I answered. You asked if I knew what taken out of context was. I answered. You asked who decides what goofing off is. I answered.

Answer my questions now. Make something up if you have to.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I already informed you, football references don't count.

Yet you use another.

You have still not answered the question. You've used nothing but evasion.

You've done nothing except prove the author correct in his description of libe(R)tarians.

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Do you know how to read? You're proving me correct in my description of (D)imbulbcrats.

Don't worry about my question. You don't have the guts to answer it.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I'm sorry.

Football references don't count.

Please try again.

[-] -1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

I forgot. Detroit doesn't understand how to play football.

But my answers stands. Why shouldn't they? They should be able to. Why they can't is a different story.

Now, why DON'T or why WON'T you go help a homeless person pay for a doctor?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"Fuck you to our bosses" sounds pretty good. Wouldn't a drift wood sculpture constitute your own business? Thats sounds like a good thing. Even the band would be entrepeneural no?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Maybe the most insidious form of liza(R)darian around here, is the anti-bank type. To arguments that they use:

1) "Deficit spending somehow enriches elites, through the banking system."

2) "Until we totally restructure the Federal Reserve, which funnels money directly to elites, any other attempt to combat inequality is futile".

I haven't had time to research these questions. Does anyone here have more experience with monetary issues?

Edit: The are the most insidious because their "anti-bank" stance makes it harder to root them out.

Warning: Do not let the lizards derail this post!

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

You have nailed it my man. Good Job. Damn good work.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

There were all types of "anti-bank" and "anti-elite" conspiracy theories going around in Weimar Germany.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Why am I not surprised . . . .

let me guess, not one of them ever mentioned prescott bush and george herbert walker

I did have a better source, but seem to have lost the link at the moment.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Haha nope WASPs were not usually at the root of the conspiracy, it was usually the jewish money-lender stereotype.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Yeah - I guessed that. Not sure, but I suddenly suspect that those old conspiracy theories remain with us still . . .

and if true, I find it rather spooky

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Just a little more subtle on the anti-semetic stuff. The Federal Reserve conspiracy theories have been around for decades, basically since it was founded.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13624) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I was thinking of the Rothschild and Bildebergers nonsense.

why do I feel like just saying it is apt to bring an avalanche of lawn rauls . . .

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Don't forget about Jekyll Island, haha.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

The most insidious?

No, that would still be ALEC. Never forget about them.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Most insidious within occupy.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Got it.

I've been saying the same thing for a while now.

Most pretend not to hear it

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

As opposed to the progressive lie? It's hard to keep them all straight

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

I'm sorry, they can't hold a candle to the crap put out by the libe(R)tarians.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-is-libertarianism.html

http://ronpaulsupporters.com/

and I won't even go into all the bigoted groups that support that shit.

[-] -3 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

They not only hold a candle to them they surpass them. There lots of bigots in the progressive movement. It's like jumping out of frying pan into the fire

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

Really?

Based on what?

I did provide facts to back up my statement.

Links I'm sure you didn't bother to read even if you followed them.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Those links are not even close to proving that they ade diff. You belive that libs (progressives) are different than reps they jut out chains on people a different way.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

OK, but then, neither did you.

Welcome back to square one.

Enjoy your stay.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Square one is the only square around here.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

That's only because you live in a pod and expect (R)epelican'ts and LOL conse(R)vatives ( as if there's a difference.) to make sense.

They don't.

Have fun in your teeny tiny little box.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

What's sad is my tiny box is still vastly larger than the little space between your ears!

[-] 1 points by shooz (17960) 1 year ago

That's only because you painted some crappy imitation clouds on the walls.

Go back to sleep now.

You can make some more stuff up later.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Are you impaired in some way I'm not aware of? A mental deficit ? That would explain your childlike responses.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You got a problem with progressives too?

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

I have a problem with anyone who thinks they can tell me how to live my life. I don't gov. Holding my hand.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Like seat belts, & pollution controls?

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Seatbelts are my business since I don't dump Toxic waste into water systems that point is well pointless. Gov. Has a job in this country but it has gone way beyond what it is supposed to do.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think they haven't done enough! Fallen down on the job regarding wall street crime, domestic terror groups, efforts at voter suppression, air pollution, military waste/fraud/abuse, food safety.

We need govt to do these things no? Who is gonna do it if not the govt? And if the govt does it aren't they acting on our behalf, and doing what the people want.

I would like the govt to stop doing so much................................................ for the 1% corp plutocrats!

Less govt for the 1% plutocrats. Can we agree on that?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Yes. But coming together to change the system that makes our government beholden to the 1% plutocrats appears to be beyond our capacity because we're all too busy playing the distracting partisan game.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Who is being partisan? I took out all the "right wing wacko" epithets.

Would say my comment is anti republican? Why?

And..

If you think we're too distracted by partisanship what should we do.?

Give up? Time to corner crawl?

Can't we find common ground on domestic terror, voter suppression, air/food safety, Mil waste?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I wasn't referring to your comment specifically or even to you specifically. Or even to you at all. I'm starting to be convinced by all of the people telling me that as a society we're just not capable of focusing on common interests.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well you certainly have avoided MY questions regarding common ground.

Feel free to answer at your leisure.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I would have thought so, until my experiences her taught me otherwise. It kind of blew my mind when somebody here contorted themselves into supporting corporate lobbying in Washington, out of an uncontrollable urge to take the opposite position from me simply because they knew that I'm a Republican.

My overall conclusion is that just like the anarchists had an easier job of preventing organization within OWS than the organizers had, that the obstructionists at the extremes on both sides will always have an easier job than the people seeking common ground. It's just so much easier and more entertaining to accuse John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam service, or to accuse Paul Ryan of believing that it's immoral to help other people, than to constructively collaborate on issues in the common interest. Entropy always wins in the end. Sad but true.

EDIT: Right after I posted this message, the very next reply notification that I clicked on was a guy trying to perpetuate the idea that Paul Ryan thinks that altruism is immoral. [sigh]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well Paul Ryan IS running for VP so what he believes does matter.

I think the Catholic Bishops Along with most other religious denominations were highly critical of Ryans budget as immoral because of it's lack of comapassion in cutting service for the poorest among us.

That is pretty damning criticism!

We should be able to find common ground in the belief that we MUST care for the weakest among us. No?

And what about the other issues I asked about? domestic terror, voter suppression, air/food safety, Mil waste? Are you interested in finding common ground or defending Paul Ryan against his critics.?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I've never been interested in defending any politician but a lot of the exaggerated attacks only make us all stupider and that's why I'm against them. I've seen somebody on this site trying to tie Mitt Romney directly to Salvadoran death squads. It's the kind of thing that makes you realize that rational conversation might not be possible after all.

You're one of the people who makes me lose faith in the whole idea of common ground. Because you're a relatively reasonable person, yet every time you try to discuss it you bring up a list of issues that you know are not points of agreement. Air quality regulations? I probably agree with you on most of the issues that you brought up, but none of those are unifying issues in general. If a reasonable guy like you struggles to find common ground then I'm absolutely certain that the people who are trying as hard as possible to NOT find common ground will dominate.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I ain't struggling. We all need clean air/food. Why would anyone say they are against eliminating waist in the military budget? And support suppressing votes?

you apparently can't say we share these concerns but there's nothing wrong with suggesting issues we might agree on.

How can we find the common ground you claim you want if we don't discuss various issues.

How aboutcaring for the weakest among us? do you agree that we should care for them, like the religious denominations. Or do you agree with Ryans budget?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Your efforts are admirable, but look at that last paragraph. In a political context (which is where the phrase "Ryan's budget" puts it) you're basically talking about socialism. Obviously a wedge issue.

See how hard this is? The people who want to just hate everybody from the 'other' side have it so much easier that I'm starting to lose hope in centrism.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I ain't talkin about socialism! Certainly didn't mention socialism. I think it is better to avoid the labels.

We can help the weakest among us without engaging in socialism. Which why I didn't use that label.

If you want to avoid the partisanship maybe YOU should avoid useing the labels.

Just discuss the issues. Take a stand!

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

I know gov. Should do list of things (list is to long to go into now) . I just don't trust anyone who claims to know what's best for me the old saying a gov. Big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything from you (or something like that). I come from a very independent family we take care of our own, I know sometimes people need a hand up not a hand out. I got off on weird rant but yes I do agree with you gov is supposed to protect the people I just get nervous when the line gets blurred

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are justified to be suspicious.

I kinda look at it like the people should protect ourselves, and USE the govt to do that when the power against us is too great to handle as individuals.

Like other countries that are hostile.We need a military. We expect the police (local Gov) to protect us (serve us) from criminals. Certainly I see huge multinational corps as too big to handle without using the power of THE PEOPLES govt.

But when govt is not working for the people as is the case now. We MUST work together and take our govt back!

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Elections were supposed to handle that…supposed to

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Elections are critical, but can't do it all. People must join growing protest movements.

The people can't be apathetic. We must register more if not all voters. We have to wake the fuck up like Sam L Jackson said.!

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Get out the vote!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yes. get out the vote!

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Yes but I'm tried of the two parties crumbs, while they get all the pie (make no mistake dems and reps are the same) and I like his book go the fuck to sleep better :)

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm tired of crumbs for so many but the parties are vastly different.

Nothing will change without massive protests.