One of the things I’ve found interesting about this movement is the call from outsiders to have the movement define its actual motivations and explain what it’s about (which I think the base call to get moneyed interests out of politics seems clear enough). However, there’s not a similar call for established political forces to define themselves and actually stick true to those established ideals.
Ha! Fair point.
I think it's also disingenuous for parties to cry "they're so disorganized" and then claim that the whole movement should be held accountable for the acts of a few. If they were organized then this argument might hold water.
Director of Narrative
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they were organized then this argument might hold water.
This statement could be be similar to saying. "If they were moneyed...", which is kinda the problem. ;)
One of the things I’ve found interesting about this movement is the call from outsiders to have the movement define its actual motivations and explain what it’s about
I don't think these calls are particularly genuine on the part of the mdia. It took me 20 minutes of watching the news and reading signs to come up with the list on the first page, and what i said there has agreed with most in depth coverage of the movement.
|
I'll post where I like until someone that draws a paycheck with a golem on it asks me not to, thank you.Yes, you will. And it'll remain a very non-interesting discussion.
Trust me, "Oh, those hippies changed the world, and didn't have to stop traffic to do it!" is far from interesting. It's the blathering of someone who wasn't there buying into a legend that grew well after the fact. Was Woodstock peaceful? Sure. Were the bands pretty awesome? Again, sure. Did it end Vietnam and turn the U.S. into some liberal freedom loving unconventional nation? Not. Even. Close.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ding! Ding! And now for Round Two!
One of the things I’ve found interesting about this movement is the call from outsiders to have the movement define its actual motivations and explain what it’s about.
In order to buy someone off, you must first know what they want. :P
One of the things I’ve found interesting about this movement is the call from outsiders to have the movement define its actual motivations and explain what it’s about.In order to buy someone off, you must first know what they want. :P
Too cynical? :P
|
|
Too cynical? :POne of the things I’ve found interesting about this movement is the call from outsiders to have the movement define its actual motivations and explain what it’s about.In order to buy someone off, you must first know what they want. :P
Not at all. Just about the right amount, I'd say. ;-)
|
Director of Narrative
|
Not at all. Just about the right amount, I'd say. ;-)Too cynical? :POne of the things I’ve found interesting about this movement is the call from outsiders to have the movement define its actual motivations and explain what it’s about.In order to buy someone off, you must first know what they want. :P
Agreed.
LOL!
It's amazing how control-y the states and police agencies are getting these days.
Woops! In my haste to actually find a Boston-connected source for the article, I chose one that makes no mention of the video they put up which was, according to other sources that I didn't link, KRS-One.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, look, this thread never got closed.
The Constiutional Crimes of Barack Obama by Dave Lindorff
Choice bits:
"As we slog towards another vapid, largely meaningless exercise in pretend democracy with the selection of a new president and Congress this November, it is time to make it clear that the current president, elected four years ago by so many people with such inflated expectations four years ago (myself included, as I had hoped, vainly it turned out, that those who elected him would then press him to act in progressive ways), is not only a betrayer of those hopes, but is a serial violator of his oath of office. He is, in truth, a war criminal easily the equal of his predecessor, George W. Bush, and perhaps even of Bush’s regent, former Vice President Dick Cheney."
---
"I have no illusions that the current even more craven and spineless Congress, even with the House in the hands of Republicans, would seek to impeach this president. Indeed, many of the crimes listed above involve activities that the Republicans in Congress themselves actively support and are thus also guilty of, such as threatening Iran with war, supporting the ongoing theft of the nation’s wealth by the financial industry, or ignoring the threat of climate change.
It is nonetheless important, I believe, to publicly announce this bill of particulars, so that it is clear that we continue in the United States to be led by a gang of thieves and sociopaths."
Hee hee!
It is nonetheless important, I believe, to publicly announce this bill of particulars, so that it is clear that we continue in the United States to be led by a gang of thieves and sociopaths."
Right. We need to go back to the core principles of this country, when it was founded on the morally superior beings who enslaved blacks to grow tobacco and cotton and killed indians to take their land for the slaves to grow the tobacco and cotton on.
I don't endorse everything in either article, but I do endorse the Obama hate!
Vive le Galt!
I don't endorse everything in either article, but I do endorse the Obama hate!
Vive le Galt!
I never expected much "hope and change" from Obama. He made that clear with his cabinet appointments and his inaction on things like Wisconsin and the Florida voter purge, and a host of other things. Mostly, though, he just doesn't try very hard to please the "left" because he doesn't have to. Who will they vote for? Romney? Rosanne Barr?
I think he wants to lose.
Hm.
I don't endorse everything in either article, but I do endorse the Obama hate!
Vive le Galt!
In all seriousness, the article about Afghanistan made me cry.
I would have posted them in Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread, but that thread has lately been taken over by Libertarians and declared a "fake politroll" thread.
F!##ing Libertarians.
In all seriousness, the article about Afghanistan made me cry.
It was eerily close to what I told my wife last night, when explaining why I didn't plan on voting for Obama or Romney.
Rosanne Barr?
Dude no one told me she was running. I'd totally vote for her.
Rosanne Barr?Dude no one told me she was running. I'd totally vote for her.
The liberal media doesn't want you to know.Rosanne Barr?Dude no one told me she was running. I'd totally vote for her.
How about a Ron Paul/Roseanne Barr dream ticket?
How about a Ron Paul/Roseanne Barr dream ticket?The liberal media doesn't want you to know.Rosanne Barr?Dude no one told me she was running. I'd totally vote for her.
I don't think she's down with his views on women.