American Spring - Spread the Word [-:

Washington Times - 13th May 2014:

A group of self-described revolutionary-style patriots with a million mobilized militia members are heading to downtown Washington, D.C., this week to bring a simple message to political leadership, from President Obama to House Speaker John Boehner: Get out.

They’re called the Operation American Spring — and they’re vowing to oust the likes of Mr. Obama, Mr. Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joseph R. Biden

'We are calling for [their] removal … as a start toward constitutional restoration,' said retired Army Col. Harry Riley, the leader of the group, Raw Story reported. 'They have all abandoned the U.S. Constitution, are unworthy to be retained in a position that calls for servant status.'

The aim of the group, too, is to influence those politicos who aren’t targeted for ouster to 'sponsor and pass very constitutionally crafted state legislation to dissolve the size, powers, scope and spending of the U.S. government by two-thirds,' the media outlet reported.

The group expects between 10 million and 30 million similarly thinking Americans to meet them in the capital on Friday for a rally that’s being billed as a sort of 'Arab Spring' for Americans.

Meanwhile, the group is holding another event on the same day in Bunerkville, Nev., near cattle rancher Cliven Bundy’s property and in support of his stand-off with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees.

The Friday event was promoted by Tea Party Nation.

Mr. Riley said he hopes the event will go forward peaceably, but that so far, peaceful protests haven’t brought citizens much luck. He also said that more than 1 million militia members have already mobilized for the event — and that projections of 10 million to attend aren't pie in the sky.

'For more than five years, 'we the people' have been writing, calling, faxing Congress, the media, screaming in town halls, marching, rallying, demonstrating, petitioning, all to no avail,' he said, Raw Story reported. 'Every branch of government looks at 'we the people' whom they have taken an oath to serve, as 'pests,' interfering with their political agenda, cramping their self-serving, greedy agendas. We have no faith in the ballot box any longer, as many believe this sacred secret box has been compromised.

***

For more info:

Constitutional Emergency

So wish I could go!!!

Sorry, but million? Seems incredibly unrealistic to me.

I would be surprised if they get 100,000.

So they're targeting the DNC, feeding the divide that disables us to affect change, and calling it American Spring. Riiiiight.

Actually I read the a little hastily, I noticed they're targeting all the majority and minority leaders. But they're trying to oust them rather than oust the lobbyists so I still don't understand what this is going to accomplish. How will ousting them reverse money = speech? How it will it stop the Koch Brothers? Politicians are just the stones in the temple, take one out and another falls in its place.

So, were talking armed militia? Anger and hatred these days has reached an all time high. I'm weary of supporting any protest involving guns (and im texan). MLK style of protesting is the only way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I would be surprised if they get 100,000.

---

I'll be amazed if they get 10,000, assuming the the Koch Bros and NRA can afford that many buses.

To reflect Juroara and speaking as one of the 300 million or so Americans who think these people are misguided at best (and at worst are pawns or a side-effect of a growing oligarchy who use Fox News and talk radio to rabble-rouse a few idiots who will believe anyone who says everything they've done wrong in life is not their fault), I really don't think a micro-minority of my country's population should be given such abundant attention, no matter how much a few billionaires spend to get it for them. I also think that comparing the noise of these few idiots to the (albeit attempted) significance of the Arab Spring is pathetic.

Most Americans are still fine with this country: we understand that the Constitution contains more than two Amendments; we understand that the government is not some alien nation forcefully occupying our cities, but is a democracy made up of, well, us; we understand that all those awful politicians were put there by us, and not some unseen hand; and we know that Obama has not done one damn thing to take away our guns.

We also know the place is a mess: Given that there are so many things in this country in desperate need of repair (ie, education, that re-empowered oligarchy mentioned above, our crumbling infrastructure, the need to find something for millions of us to do with our time), it is a real shame that these few get so much attention, and waste so much of their energy on wholly invented crises.

What do the Koch brothers have to do with this? Or is it just name-dropping because they're supposedly evil?

^^ Yep, pretty much name-dropping because they're supposedly evil; sorry for the bit of knee-jerking!

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Koch brothers were doing some financing here, because the same rabble that supports their campaigns to eliminate all opposition to anything that might impact their profits supports this "patriotic" movement.

It's organized by the Tea Party, of which the Koch Brothers are the supreme sponsor. Good to know the Koch Brothers can no longer rally people to stand against their own public interest or create a wash against the current push to protect net neutrality or overturn Citizens United.

The Tea Party was excellent when it was a libertarian movement. Then the theocratic interventionists who have no clue what small government is joined it, took it over, became the poster people for it, and ruined it. If the Koch brothers were behind the original Tea Party, I salute them.

I think the Democrats in Congress and the White House suck, and I don't know who these people are who genuinely support their policies because those politicians turned on their base so much, but I don't understand what the American Spring people think they are going to do pull off. Do they really think they are going to intimidate Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, and the other clowns to cram into a circus car and drive off to live in northern Canada for the rest of their lives? It's an absurd idea, and even if they could do that, they still would not be fixing the problem. The huge problem is the voting public. That is what has to be worked on. Pushing out the bad politicians of the era through Clint Eastwood tactics and expecting that to make everything okay would be like arresting the top drug dealers in the country and expecting that to mean the drug problem is over. It's guaranteed fail.

The turnout for this little shindig ended up being about 99.9999% of the expected number.

Sorry, got it backwards. It was 0.0001%. If that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Tea Party was excellent when it was a libertarian movement. Then the theocratic interventionists who have no clue what small government is joined it, took it over, became the poster people for it, and ruined it. If the Koch brothers were behind the original Tea Party, I salute them.

I think the Democrats in Congress and the White House suck, and I don't know who these people are who genuinely support their policies because those politicians turned on their base so much, but I don't understand what the American Spring people think they are going to do pull off. Do they really think they are going to intimidate Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, and the other clowns to cram into a circus car and drive off to live in northern Canada for the rest of their lives? It's an absurd idea, and even if they could do that, they still would not be fixing the problem. The huge problem is the voting public. That is what has to be worked on. Pushing out the bad politicians of the era through Clint Eastwood tactics and expecting that to make everything okay would be like arresting the top drug dealers in the country and expecting that to mean the drug problem is over. It's guaranteed fail.

---

Harry Reid is actually pushing to overturn Citizens United. The GOP is completely owned by the likes of the Koch Brothers, so libertarianism in this country has been hijacked by corporatist fascism. If the libertarians were to succeed, then in perfect newspeak irony the country would turn exactly into what they mislabel as socialism. Monopolistic interests by the elite would derail capitalism so they aren't subject to competition and the government would be, as it is now, nothing more than a shield and enabler for a corrupt elite class that pay themselves with american tax dollars.

That's why libertarians always target democrats, or as I like to call them, medium fascists, because they want to make it so the people have to struggle against themselves just to get a lighter version of the fascism than what the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party intend to implement.

Why else do libertarian parties always target minuscule social programs and ignore things like Citizens United? Why are they always looking to cut down any social safety net in their path but they ignore corporate welfare? Because they're not really libertarians, they're being fooled into acting against their best interest. They're vetting the new american fascist movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The turnout for this little shindig ended up being about 99.9999% of the expected number.

Sorry, got it backwards. It was 0.0001%. If that.

---

Is that good news or bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Harry Reid is actually pushing to overturn Citizens United. The GOP is completely owned by the likes of the Koch Brothers, so libertarianism in this country has been hijacked by corporatist fascism. If the libertarians were to succeed, then in perfect newspeak irony the country would turn exactly into what they mislabel as socialism. Monopolistic interests by the elite would derail capitalism so they aren't subject to competition and the government would be, as it is now, nothing more than a shield and enabler for a corrupt elite class that pay themselves with american tax dollars.

That's why libertarians always target democrats, or as I like to call them, medium fascists, because they want to make it so the people have to struggle against themselves just to get a lighter version of the fascism than what the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party intend to implement.

Why else do libertarian parties always target minuscule social programs and ignore things like Citizens United? Why are they always looking to cut down any social safety net in their path but they ignore corporate welfare? Because they're not really libertarians, they're being fooled into acting against their best interest. They're vetting the new american fascist movement.

---

The GOP is not about libertarianism, and neither is the new line up of the Tea Party. Both are about hypocrisy and theocracy. Harry Reid might promote some good things, but he promotes a great deal of bad things. The way to make corporate money worthless in government is to make the government so small that there is nothing to buy off. If the people would grow brains and balls, we could completely control the problem by refusing to vote for any politician who becomes a corporate shill. It's in our hands. The answer to corrupt government is not more government. It is less government. With power comes corruption.

I know it's not real libertarianism, Ron Paul was a real libertarian and if pressed he'd admit his principles don't fall in line with social programs but his rhetoric revolved around subverting the government-corporatist collusion such as the military industrial complex. And all those don't-tread-on-me fags are still focused on social programs, acting like the poor asking for handouts is the problem, not the rich subverting the system to avoid taxes and pay themselves with our tax money.

Libertarianism is a philosophy that looks good on paper and doesn't actually work, just like Communism. If the labor owned the product, I might get on board but since they don't they need to be properly compensated by the ones that do own the product. That was the whole spirit behind Capitalism, to have people control the capital and then reinvest it in their society, including social programs. Without social programs, capitalism is no longer adhering to its own philosophy.

But what we see being masqueraded as libertarianism, such as the Koch Brothers' Tea Party, is merely supply-biased economics. The deliberately shift of balance toward the supply-side is somehow passed off as how economics would work naturally without a bloated federal government intervening. Supply-biased intervention is given the illusion of natural capitalism just as capitalism is given the illusion of natural economics.

And the result is we have massive corporations threatening to crash the economy or disrupt the infrastructure if they aren't catered to. That's where democracy ceases to exist, really. If this fucking cable merger doesn't go through they're threatening to stop working, to crash the network. They're holding the network hostage so that they can override net neutrality and hold total, monopolistic power over the system. And it's not the government doing this, this is capitalism, this is a company doing everything in their power to siphon every cent they can off people no matter what the cost. That's what capitalism leads to, extortion.

You seem to agree that real libertarians, such as me and Ron Paul, do not support government interventions into capitalism, aside from enforcing laws against theft and other victimizations. The New Tea Party makes my blood boil because they destroyed a great thing. I think there are Democrat shills all over the place posing as "conservatives" and saying outrageous stuff to make conservatives movements look ridiculous. I am highly suspicious of Sarah Palin.

Capitalism does not lead to monopoly and extortion unless the system has been tampered with by the government so much that favoritism, corporate welfare, and stifled economy warp it. Capitalism in its natural form does not result in monopolies. It takes a screwed up economy and/or major screwing with an economy for them to exist. Otherwise, the abundance of competition makes sure monopolies do not exist.

I don't use Comcast or the other companies involved in the net neutrality conflict, so I am confused on how it is supposed to have everybody by the balls. If people don't like those companies and their political interferences, people can switch companies. If companies want to censor websites, that is their right as long as they don't tamper with other companies' internet systems against their will. If Comcast wants to take Fix News or PMSNBC off its television line up, that is their choice too. Who are we to tell them they can't? Would you go to a radio station and tell them they have to play your band's music?

I have a question for you about socialism. It is what I have been getting at for a while, but maybe I never was clear enough about it. Let's say somebody puts up a ton of money and works really hard at organizing consensual business arrangements to get a factory built on his land, in the way that you might get a pool house built in your back yard. How does ownership of the factory go from him to the factory workers without force?

You sound like just as blind a conservative as ever. The Koch brothers are employing the shills that derail libertarianism and turn it into corporatism, not the democrats. And so long as wealth provides influence over government, the wealthy will tamper with the government, that's how capitalism naturally leads to extortion. You act as though because you don't use Comcast, you're safe from the extortion taking place, let's see how that works out for you when you can't stream videos from websites that couldn't afford to pay for the fast lane, when you can't download independently developed software with an emphasis on privacy because the independent developer can't afford the fast lane. We're paying 3 times for internet in the US because we're extorted. If you were really free from monopoly, you'd be paying a truly competitive price for internet along with the rest of the world. You'd be paying a competitive price for healthcare, too, instead of being extorted by the medical industry.

And you blame it on government fucking tampering? The industry is tampering with the government. They will always tamper with the government so long as they have the finances to do so.

Now, as far as the investment side of anarcho-syndicalism, the idea is that when hiring out labor, a wage contract is replaced by contract granting temporary stock in the product. This means the labor isn't paid a wage, but rather receives a dividend. Investors still get a return on their investment for providing all the risk, but the labor actually collectively owns the majority of the company. The entire share system would need to be adjusted so if an employee leaves the company, they're shares dissolve back into the labor and they're bought out. Likewise, the investors, if they aren't actually contributing to the company, should be bought out as well. The labor force forms a community and this community collectively enriches itself from its production, so if you're building a factory, you're doing it to enrich your community, not just yourself. This community is not some centralized, abstract idea though, it's your neighbors.

And by the way, the land that the investor buys to put a factory on is also technically won by force, as the ownership itself is only validated through the society that legitimizes it, and they ultimately legitimize it using guns and uniforms. That's why I say capitalism isn't actually natural. It's forced upon us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is that good news or bad?

---

Depends on which side you're on. Personally I didn't expect their protest to amount to much, certainly not anywhere near 30 million (or even 3 million, or 300,000) in terms of actual turnout. I'm not sure how effectively they would convey their message either. Dressing up with tricornes and waving Gadsden flags is a little overdone. Makes them look more loony than serious.

So if their beliefs are anything like mine, it's good news that this failed miserably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You sound like just as blind a conservative as ever. The Koch brothers are employing the shills that derail libertarianism and turn it into corporatism, not the democrats. And so long as wealth provides influence over government, the wealthy will tamper with the government, that's how capitalism naturally leads to extortion. You act as though because you don't use Comcast, you're safe from the extortion taking place, let's see how that works out for you when you can't stream videos from websites that couldn't afford to pay for the fast lane, when you can't download independently developed software with an emphasis on privacy because the independent developer can't afford the fast lane. We're paying 3 times for internet in the US because we're extorted. If you were really free from monopoly, you'd be paying a truly competitive price for internet along with the rest of the world. You'd be paying a competitive price for healthcare, too, instead of being extorted by the medical industry.

---

Do you have proof that the Koch Brothers are derailing libertarianism with imposters? I know it's happening, but how do you know it's the Koch Brothers? I believe Sarah Palin might be working for the Democrats because it's the Republican Party she represented and hurt severely. She cost John McCain the 2008 election. She hurt the Tea Party too, but a lot of Republicans support it, especially now that it's pro-theocratic and pro-war.

I didn't say internet companies that pull the internet shenanigans aren't assholes. I just said that what they are trying to do is fair game because they are manipulating their own property. Hopefully they will lose tons of customers over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Now, as far as the investment side of anarcho-syndicalism, the idea is that when hiring out labor, a wage contract is replaced by contract granting temporary stock in the product. This means the labor isn't paid a wage, but rather receives a dividend. Investors still get a return on their investment for providing all the risk, but the labor actually collectively owns the majority of the company. The entire share system would need to be adjusted so if an employee leaves the company, they're shares dissolve back into the labor and they're bought out. Likewise, the investors, if they aren't actually contributing to the company, should be bought out as well. The labor force forms a community and this community collectively enriches itself from its production, so if you're building a factory, you're doing it to enrich your community, not just yourself. This community is not some centralized, abstract idea though, it's your neighbors.

And by the way, the land that the investor buys to put a factory on is also technically won by force, as the ownership itself is only validated through the society that legitimizes it, and they ultimately legitimize it using guns and uniforms. That's why I say capitalism isn't actually natural. It's forced upon us.

---

I am all for the use of force to defend your own property. You say you believe workers should own the means of production, so you believe in ownership. What's wrong with owning land if it's paid for in a mutually agreed upon deal? That's completely fair. It is theft that is not fair.

As for this contract and stock system for factory workers, how does it end up happening if the creator and land owner of the factory does not want it? If he says, "I own this land, I own the parts that were used to put the factory together, I paid to have the factory built through consensual contracts with builders, and I will pay $10 to $20 per hour to people who work in the factory. Come in for an interview if you want to make the deal," what makes it where that has to be called off and he has to make stock contracts with the employees instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Depends on which side you're on. Personally I didn't expect their protest to amount to much, certainly not anywhere near 30 million (or even 3 million, or 300,000) in terms of actual turnout. I'm not sure how effectively they would convey their message either. Dressing up with tricornes and waving Gadsden flags is a little overdone. Makes them look more loony than serious.

So if their beliefs are anything like mine, it's good news that this failed miserably.

---

I was asking what side you are on. All I ever see you posting in regard to opposing big government are insults against the people who oppose it. What do you support, and how do you think it could be achieved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was asking what side you are on. All I ever see you posting in regard to opposing big government are insults against the people who oppose it. What do you support, and how do you think it could be achieved?

---

We should be most critical of ourselves. I highly identify with the Bastiat quote in my signature. I know what "the opposition" will argue for in most cases, so recently I've been more interested in how "our side" presents itself.

Anyway, I didn't read it as you specifically asking me, but I answered it that way at the end of my post anyway ("So if their beliefs are anything like mine, it's good news that this failed miserably.").

I'm not a practicing activist, so I'm not in the business of active marketing, but I have some friends in D.C. who are. I'm confident most of them would agree with me that this mock American Revolution style of activism ("BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION" language, the flags, the militiamen outfits, etc.) probably isn't as effective as these protestors think it is, and that trying to educate others in a reasoned manner while working in policy changes through the political process is more effective in producing real change.

So that's what I support. A mature, reasoned stance in producing maximal freedom, with minimal theatrics. Read less Lew Rockwell, more Steve Horwitz. More Bleeding Heart Libertarians. More Reason Mag. More Cato.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you have proof that the Koch Brothers are derailing libertarianism with imposters? I know it's happening, but how do you know it's the Koch Brothers? I believe Sarah Palin might be working for the Democrats because it's the Republican Party she represented and hurt severely. She cost John McCain the 2008 election. She hurt the Tea Party too, but a lot of Republicans support it, especially now that it's pro-theocratic and pro-war.

I didn't say internet companies that pull the internet shenanigans aren't assholes. I just said that what they are trying to do is fair game because they are manipulating their own property. Hopefully they will lose tons of customers over it.



I am all for the use of force to defend your own property. You say you believe workers should own the means of production, so you believe in ownership. What's wrong with owning land if it's paid for in a mutually agreed upon deal? That's completely fair. It is theft that is not fair.

As for this contract and stock system for factory workers, how does it end up happening if the creator and land owner of the factory does not want it? If he says, "I own this land, I own the parts that were used to put the factory together, I paid to have the factory built through consensual contracts with builders, and I will pay $10 to $20 per hour to people who work in the factory. Come in for an interview if you want to make the deal," what makes it where that has to be called off and he has to make stock contracts with the employees instead?



I was asking what side you are on. All I ever see you posting in regard to opposing big government are insults against the people who oppose it. What do you support, and how do you think it could be achieved?

---

Sarah Palin is what you'd call a strong fascist. Currently, the democrats are medium fascists, and the reason they're medium fascists is because it's become the new center in American politics, so any left leaning people are forced to support medium fascism in order to defend themselves against strong fascism like Sarah Palin and the entire republican party. The republicans are throwing all their chips in with corporatism, the democrats, while compromised, are still at least bringing up legislation to overturn Citizens United and keeping it on the agenda and in the conversation. Your belief the democrats are trying to destroy the republican party by employing extremist shill is not only unfounded but reveals just how unreasonable your level of thinking is. In fact, it practically renders reasonable conversation with you impossible because you're not capable of looking at the reality of the situation. You seem stuck on your principles, perhaps inherited by reading too much Ayn Rand, that sit in natural conflict with reality. Any evidence that contradicts these principles, such as that it's corporate tampering which has twisted the Tea Party, not DNC tampering, can't compute to you because unregulated corporations can apparently do no wrong and the system, from your perspective, does not appear inherently designed for those with influence to use that influence to deregulate themselves and exploit others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

We should be most critical of ourselves. I highly identify with the Bastiat quote in my signature. I know what "the opposition" will argue for in most cases, so recently I've been more interested in how "our side" presents itself.

Anyway, I didn't read it as you specifically asking me, but I answered it that way at the end of my post anyway ("So if their beliefs are anything like mine, it's good news that this failed miserably.").

I'm not a practicing activist, so I'm not in the business of active marketing, but I have some friends in D.C. who are. I'm confident most of them would agree with me that this mock American Revolution style of activism ("BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION" language, the flags, the militiamen outfits, etc.) probably isn't as effective as these protestors think it is, and that trying to educate others in a reasoned manner while working in policy changes through the political process is more effective in producing real change.

So that's what I support. A mature, reasoned stance in producing maximal freedom, with minimal theatrics. Read less Lew Rockwell, more Steve Horwitz. More Bleeding Heart Libertarians. More Reason Mag. More Cato.

---

Wow, you're a lot of help. Thank you for putting your energy into trying to make us look bad instead of big government. Hmmm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Sarah Palin is what you'd call a strong fascist. Currently, the democrats are medium fascists, and the reason they're medium fascists is because it's become the new center in American politics, so any left leaning people are forced to support medium fascism in order to defend themselves against strong fascism like Sarah Palin and the entire republican party. The republicans are throwing all their chips in with corporatism, the democrats, while compromised, are still at least bringing up legislation to overturn Citizens United and keeping it on the agenda and in the conversation. Your belief the democrats are trying to destroy the republican party by employing extremist shill is not only unfounded but reveals just how unreasonable your level of thinking is. In fact, it practically renders reasonable conversation with you impossible because you're not capable of looking at the reality of the situation. You seem stuck on your principles, perhaps inherited by reading too much Ayn Rand, that sit in natural conflict with reality. Any evidence that contradicts these principles, such as that it's corporate tampering which has twisted the Tea Party, not DNC tampering, can't compute to you because unregulated corporations can apparently do no wrong and the system, from your perspective, does not appear inherently designed for those with influence to use that influence to deregulate themselves and exploit others.

---

Aw, are my points upsetting your feelings? You are lashing out personally like a little school boy once again.

Your idea that fascism must be fought with fascism is hysterical. There is no excuse for fascism. Stop drinking your hate cult's Kool-Aid. You are drunk on it.

All major organizations have shills. It's too much a disadvantage not to have them. You can identify who is sending them by who the goof nut characters are helping. Sarah Palin seems like she came straight out of a comic book about an idiot with super political powers, and it is the Democratic Party that she has helped tremendously. I am not positive that Palin is a shill, but as I said, I am very suspicious. You can save your butt hurt cream money.

I have a piece of information that you need to make either a mantra or koan for yourself. It has not penetrated your mind yet. I think there should be laws against victimization, even for corporations. Did you catch it that time? Now stop lashing out at people for being successful. If success means so much to you, go get some for yourself. Have you ever thought about that?

I think an 'American Spring' not only is a bad idea but an idea which will never happen.

Bad idea because such a large protest would spiral into a chaotic violent protest and violence is the last thing that needs to occur before the federal government steps in and cracks down heavily and the consequence of that would be a country even more tyrannical then it already is currently.

I think it will also never happen because most Americans are so busy up to their necks in work and bills and taxes that they do not even have the capacity to spare a few dimes to travel to d.c. and stand outside and chant and yell for what? The politicians will just shut their shades and go about another day of business.


In my opinion protests do not accomplish very much, the only thing it can realistically accomplish is raising awareness over a certain issue, but even if 10 million people did show up and protest about the direction of the nation, will that influence any decisions being made inside the rooms and halls of government? I think not.

I do admit my view is quite pessimistic and possibly flawed but that is how i feel, I believe the best revolution is a revolution of intelligence and a revolution of non-compliance, if you do not buy what they are selling they will stop selling it imo.

Same goes for corporations, if they are selling gmo, do not buy it, hit them where it hurts in their purse/wallet, if we all could stop funding everything wrong with the country they would dry up and panic.

I see all wings of government as corrupt at this stage of things, I do not believe any party or candidate or senator or congressman/congresswoman has anything left to offer for us the people other then lies.

I do however believe that things will change, and slowly are and that people will not put up with it forever, bad times do not last forever as good times do not last forever either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wow, you're a lot of help. Thank you for putting your energy into trying to make us look bad instead of big government. Hmmm...



Aw, are my points upsetting your feelings? You are lashing out personally like a little school boy once again.

Your idea that fascism must be fought with fascism is hysterical. There is no excuse for fascism. Stop drinking your hate cult's Kool-Aid. You are drunk on it.

All major organizations have shills. It's too much a disadvantage not to have them. You can identify who is sending them by who the goof nut characters are helping. Sarah Palin seems like she came straight out of a comic book about an idiot with super political powers, and it is the Democratic Party that she has helped tremendously. I am not positive that Palin is a shill, but as I said, I am very suspicious. You can save your butt hurt cream money.

I have a piece of information that you need to make either a mantra or koan for yourself. It has not penetrated your mind yet. I think there should be laws against victimization, even for corporations. Did you catch it that time? Now stop lashing out at people for being successful. If success means so much to you, go get some for yourself. Have you ever thought about that?

---

If your reading comprehension skills serve as an example for the intelligence level of your political peer group, then no wonder they actively act against their own interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

I think an 'American Spring' not only is a bad idea but an idea which will never happen.

Bad idea because such a large protest would spiral into a chaotic violent protest and violence is the last thing that needs to occur before the federal government steps in and cracks down heavily and the consequence of that would be a country even more tyrannical then it already is currently.

I think it will also never happen because most Americans are so busy up to their necks in work and bills and taxes that they do not even have the capacity to spare a few dimes to travel to d.c. and stand outside and chant and yell for what? The politicians will just shut their shades and go about another day of business.


In my opinion protests do not accomplish very much, the only thing it can realistically accomplish is raising awareness over a certain issue, but even if 10 million people did show up and protest about the direction of the nation, will that influence any decisions being made inside the rooms and halls of government? I think not.

I do admit my view is quite pessimistic and possibly flawed but that is how i feel, I believe the best revolution is a revolution of intelligence and a revolution of non-compliance, if you do not buy what they are selling they will stop selling it imo.

Same goes for corporations, if they are selling gmo, do not buy it, hit them where it hurts in their purse/wallet, if we all could stop funding everything wrong with the country they would dry up and panic.

I see all wings of government as corrupt at this stage of things, I do not believe any party or candidate or senator or congressman/congresswoman has anything left to offer for us the people other then lies.

I do however believe that things will change, and slowly are and that people will not put up with it forever, bad times do not last forever as good times do not last forever either.

---

I agree to some extent, but I believe voting with your labor is also important, it's what thrust the United States into the progressive era, though violent revolt was also a big part of it. In fact, the whole idea behind a union is that labor leverages the only power they have, whether or not to work. It would take more than a boycott, especially with the monopolization of infrastructure (such as cable and internet) currently taking place. You can't exactly choose to simply not use the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wow, you're a lot of help. Thank you for putting your energy into trying to make us look bad instead of big government. Hmmm...

---

Not sure how you managed to glean that out of my post; in fact my message is the opposite. I want us to look better, more attractive, both in outward style and in the actual message we send. I think people already hold a generally negative view of the government, even if they aren't libertarians. I also think that the general public does a face-value comparison when looking at two groups. I think if they see a net negative message coming from people dressed up like a Continental Congressman (something about our impending economic doom, the constitution being shred to pieces, etc.), they'll ignore it, maybe even call it crazy. The government may look better in comparison to them. That is not what we want.

A few hundred people is all they got apparently. I think that kind of proves how out of touch with reality those sort of people are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

If your reading comprehension skills serve as an example for the intelligence level of your political peer group, then no wonder they actively act against their own interests.

---

Your ability to retort tends to drift toward nothingness as our discussions proceed in any thread where socialism is a topic.

Please use whatever minor fumes of reasoning may still be left in your near empty tank and finally answer my question about how ownership of a factory goes to the workers against the creator's will without government force. If you dodge again, I will just declare checkmate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Not sure how you managed to glean that out of my post; in fact my message is the opposite. I want us to look better, more attractive, both in outward style and in the actual message we send. I think people already hold a generally negative view of the government, even if they aren't libertarians. I also think that the general public does a face-value comparison when looking at two groups. I think if they see a net negative message coming from people dressed up like a Continental Congressman (something about our impending economic doom, the constitution being shred to pieces, etc.), they'll ignore it, maybe even call it crazy. The government may look better in comparison to them. That is not what we want.

---

If I think a libertarian group or action is ridiculous, I put a lot of focus on how the philosophy itself is great although the action is absurd. I never just put down the action and leave it at that.

American Spring is outlandish, and their idea of driving major politicians out of Washington through physical intimidation is a true facepalm, but the politicians they want to drive out do suck. They just need to be driven out through votes.

Do you see how I did that?

Another problem is this so called American Spring decided to protest on capital hill. That's like, BORING. People protest over there on a daily basis. It sure as hell doesn't disrupt daily life in any way. And it certainly doesn't disrupt the politicians from doing their work. Out of sight out of mind!

The truth is, in this day and age where policy and money are in bed, the only demonstrations that have any chance at accomplishing anything or those that disrupt daily life. And disrupting daily life means disrupting OUR lives. Occupy aimed to walk down that controversial path. At one point Occupy had something like 100k to 200k people on a bridge, completely disrupting traffic which disrupts commerce. (i can't remember but im pretty sure that was cali). Occupy controversially disrupted people from entering their own banks, and aimed to stop truckers from trucking goods. (and simultaneously you had Anon. shutting down internet business)

Of course those activities pissed people off. People blamed Occupy for targeting the wrong people, us! They claimed Occupy disrupted local business and local economies. The media started to call Occupy "violent". Not because it was physically violent, but because it was politically violent. And all the while, tea party'rs were rolling their eyes and griping that Occupy should leave the streets and join them on...Capital Hill.

Yeah, I get it. Stopping a people from entering a bank is "violent" and would piss off anyone! And it did seem like they were targeting the wrong people.

But that was kinda the point.

Americans are hypocrites and delusional. On one hand the VAST MAJORITY of americans have no faith in voting or writing letters to congress to create change. So....how do they expect change to happen? ? ? Oh wait they dont. They're just apathetic. And to make it worse, those same americans expect a demonstration to be SMALL and out of sight and out of mind. Oh sure, protesting is okay if doesn't bother anyone therefore nobody has to care about it.

Well, a demonstration can never work that way. A demonstration has to be in your face and unavoidable! It has to take civil disobedience to the extreme and be in your way! Only then does the white house get scared and react some how.

What was the response Occupy elicited from the white house? As the white house (wallstreet) decided to militantly shut it down, they also passed a law making it legal to indefinitely detain a citizen without due process. Most people haven't realized this connection yet. We got a horrific taste at how our government aims to respond to mass protest - take away our constitutional rights!

This is when Occupy goes severely wrong. People got scared. The movement died shortly after that law was passed. The White House won. Our constitutional rights loss.

The next time a popular movement elicits the government to thwart a constitutional right, THEN THAT POPULAR MOVEMENT NEEDS TO DOUBLE, OR TRIPLE OR QUADRUPLE IN NUMBERS. Come on america, get your demonstrating right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If I think a libertarian group or action is ridiculous, I put a lot of focus on how the philosophy itself is great although the action is absurd. I never just put down the action and leave it at that.

American Spring is outlandish, and their idea of driving major politicians out of Washington through physical intimidation is a true facepalm, but the politicians they want to drive out do suck. They just need to be driven out through votes.

Do you see how I did that?

---

Yes. I'm glad we're in agreement.

juroara, I agree with most of that, but I don't agree with stopping traffic. That stops ambulances, fire trucks, legitimate police business, and emotional rescuer parents too. It prevents good people from getting to work, meetings, job interviews, etc. I also don't agree with going after the wrong businesses or their innocent customers. Demonstrations can be peaceful and still get lots of attention. When protestors make bad guys of themselves, it hurts their ability to persuade the masses in good directions.

The original Tea Party and Occupy had a lot of the same goals. They were both saying that government has gotten too big, powerful, and out of hand. Both movements were ruined, but in different ways. Plotting them against each other also seemed to be really effective.