Town Halls - A Momentous Change in the Socio-Political Lands
Moderator: Super Moderators
Also -- I've tried raising this point before and no one ever seems to get it, but I'm sure you will. State control of the human body is the essence of the Brave New World scenario. That book is well worth reading again. Once they've got that, they've got everything, which is why I believe they're pushing for it so hard, and why Obama has proclaimed he'd sacrifice a second term for it.
HB3 wrote:
Also, unfortunately, it's not running contrary to corporate interests and profits, since Huffpost revealed last week Obama made a back-room deal with the drug companies not to bargain for lower drug prices, which would be of ACTUAL benefit to people, in exchange for, guess what? Campaign money.
If this is true, I would expect ot see a decline in the intensity/frequency of the "protests".
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
I agree with Squid on this, It seems like the tired old Conservs latching onto a Ron Paul movement that was respected when Paul started it, but when you get talk radio involved and Faux news the same people who didn't want to add any of RP's polling data during debates and not even want him in it. Now all of a sudden they are big supporters.
I disagree a lot with Ron Paul, but I respect him. I do not respect these tea baggers who now jump on the bandwagon because their team lost, the second the previous Prez left all of a sudden they are "worried about the future because of over spending". Paul to his credit talked against the over spending on Iraq, but have to ask the Consevs who are now trying to take over this movement, where were they on that? I have seen a lot of anti-war protests, and I saw a lot of different groups, from vets against wars to your expected hippie sightings. But strangely I never saw the "Fiscal Conservs against unnessesary war" marching along with the hippies and grieving moms.
I haven't heard much on Ron Paul on this or his opinion on this tea bag movement, I hope he rejects it because it's a bastardized version of what he stands for. I can see the consevs using this as they used religions, the Conservs don't give a crap about religion but they know they could minipulate it for their advantage. I think they are now trying to do the same with the libertarian movement.
I disagree a lot with Ron Paul, but I respect him. I do not respect these tea baggers who now jump on the bandwagon because their team lost, the second the previous Prez left all of a sudden they are "worried about the future because of over spending". Paul to his credit talked against the over spending on Iraq, but have to ask the Consevs who are now trying to take over this movement, where were they on that? I have seen a lot of anti-war protests, and I saw a lot of different groups, from vets against wars to your expected hippie sightings. But strangely I never saw the "Fiscal Conservs against unnessesary war" marching along with the hippies and grieving moms.
I haven't heard much on Ron Paul on this or his opinion on this tea bag movement, I hope he rejects it because it's a bastardized version of what he stands for. I can see the consevs using this as they used religions, the Conservs don't give a crap about religion but they know they could minipulate it for their advantage. I think they are now trying to do the same with the libertarian movement.
This is somewhat convoluted. First, I think Bush's numbers were bad for every group, even self-identified conservatives, by the end. If anything, their flaw was believing what their party told them about the nature of the war. Second, when you speak of "Conservs" that are simply manipulating religion and now libertarianism, you're not distinguishing between the cynical, super-rich manipulators of the neocon elite and the "common folk" at the rallies. The latter aren't appropriating anything. The real question is: do they have a legitimate grievance?
HB - Linda has a valid point. Re-post your article in P&G if you wish. Is is not appropriate in this thread. Again, here is a refresh of the posting policies here. The Pirates & Skeptics Thread has a different tack than the standard P&G area:
showthread.php?s=&threadid=40864
*NB Also: Articles posted in entirety are not appropriate in this new thread.
Thanks!
showthread.php?s=&threadid=40864
*NB Also: Articles posted in entirety are not appropriate in this new thread.
Thanks!
Originally posted by HB3
Sorry. All I was saying in effect was, "Here's this refreshing and hopeful statement by Feingold."
Thanks, HB. I really hate to be a 'nanny' moderator here. Really hate it - ya know. But - in the interests of having this thread and the breathing room I hope it provides for discussion without all the partisan hoopla - I guess it's worth it.
My thinking is, it is appropriate for you to summarize what the Feingold meeting was about, according to your point of view - and to even quote some of the article. His statements were quite interesting, seeing as how he is a 'liberal' Democrat in the Senate. I believe it is quite possible to discuss all of that in a non-partisan way.
The 'problem' is in posting the entire article, in the 'style' of the P&G section here - which is more in the tradition of that thread, and is like tossing out red meat.
Sorry you did not see the 'rule' here about posting entire articles in this thread. It was added after the initial post up about the 'new' thread here.
I hope you can see the distinction? It is kind of a fine line. There will also be discussions here which will not please those with more partisan views - and those discussions will be appropriate here. The entire articles, not so much - as they are like red flags (tradition in the P&G thread).
HB3 wrote: Thereby "proving" the existence of the conspiracy, right? Pretty sneaky.
Wait...
Are you saying I am sneaky, for trying to "prove" a "conspiracy" where there is none?
Or, that the conspirators are sneaky?
Last edited by SquidInk on 08-27-2009 08:58 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
The shocking thing that I perceive from a distance --- now that I have retired from politics --- is the extent to which the Amerikan people have opposed Obama's attempts to reform health care, utterly pathetic as those attempts are.
As far as I can tell, it's simply a matter of those who have holding on to what they have as much as they can as long as they can. The 95% of the Amerikan people on the bottom are fighting one another for survival, while the ruling class 5% laughs.
I no longer believe that true political, social and economic reform is possible in contemporary Amerika. The entire system has to crash to the ground --- and will crash to the ground within the next ten or fifteen years --- before any true change is possible.
And this is coming from somebody who is a true cultural conservative (at least I was until Bush's coup d'etat in 2000, which was also the time that I joined The Fantastic Forum)...
Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out...
As far as I can tell, it's simply a matter of those who have holding on to what they have as much as they can as long as they can. The 95% of the Amerikan people on the bottom are fighting one another for survival, while the ruling class 5% laughs.
I no longer believe that true political, social and economic reform is possible in contemporary Amerika. The entire system has to crash to the ground --- and will crash to the ground within the next ten or fifteen years --- before any true change is possible.
And this is coming from somebody who is a true cultural conservative (at least I was until Bush's coup d'etat in 2000, which was also the time that I joined The Fantastic Forum)...
Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out...
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"
Originally posted by joequinn
As far as I can tell, it's simply a matter of those who have holding on to what they have as much as they can as long as they can. The 95% of the Amerikan people on the bottom are fighting one another for survival, while the ruling class 5% laughs.
I no longer believe that true political, social and economic reform is possible in contemporary Amerika. The entire system has to crash to the ground --- and will crash to the ground within the next ten or fifteen years --- before any true change is possible.
This is undoubtably true, Joe - your point that much of the protest can be attributed to just that - those who 'have' something trying to hold onto it. There may also be a bit more - a realization at a gut level - that what they 'have and have not' is actually being ruthlessly determined by the elites through a government enthralled and a people enslaved. You know, a rude glimmer here and there. A dawning light, perhaps?
If this is so, we might begin to see small fires igniting into larger ones - and the true beginnings of change. Has there ever been a crash without a parallel emergence of a new system? At this point - of even more concern - might be what is emerging.
HB3 wrote: This is somewhat convoluted. First, I think Bush's numbers were bad for every group, even self-identified conservatives, by the end. If anything, their flaw was believing what their party told them about the nature of the war.
The underline part really says it all, yes after the mid-turn of the second turm all these Conserv talkers all of a sudden found so much fault on a guy that for half a decade that they pandered and promoted as faultless. After the former Prez became a lame duck all the rats left the sinking ship and claim that Concer ideas wasn't the problem but he was.
Second, when you speak of "Conservs" that are simply manipulating religion and now libertarianism, you're not distinguishing between the cynical, super-rich manipulators of the neocon elite and the "common folk" at the rallies. The latter aren't appropriating anything. The real question is: do they have a legitimate grievance?
That is actually a good quesiton, and you are correct even though not a big fan of the word neocon but that is obviously the group pulling the strings. As for the common folk, I think it's a mixed bag.
This will open a can of worms and be controversal but here it goes. For a couple of decades now national syndicated talk radio has been doing their best to brain wash a major section of the population. When you have such a wide spread media like syndicated radio telling people not to listen to more legit sources and just listen to them (thats' the definition of brain washing). Fill them with tons of misinformatoin and they just accept it without any critical thinking or going around to other sources to confirm. Seeing the town hall really shows the fruits of talk radio labor, people being so angry on something they are so ill-informed in. Hearing from someone on the other side, fine. Hearing someone who yelling and freaking out and being angry on soemthing that's not even happening and it's not an isolated incident it's on every hall meeting, I can't think of another reason for this happening.
Some is racism (I know HB, you hate when that is brought up, and I'm not even saying it's a large percentage of it, but there are people out there who just won't trust somebody who looks different than them in position of power), some are just sore losers (who thinks a democracy is a single power ruling and when it doesn't can't accept it) and JQ makes a interesting point along with Linn. It does seem like the ruling class has made it so everone else fights among themselves instead instead of trying to better the nation as a whole. We have become nothing more than a couple of hobos pulling and fighting for the single loaf of bread.