Tea Party

[Nihil Obstat]

Ignore if you don't like off-topic posts.
[spoiler][img]http://www.hung-truong.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/anoobindicator.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' date='06 April 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1270591862' post='2087946']
In other words Tea Party-ers are worse off then I thought.
[/quote]
Well played.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 April 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1270592593' post='2087957']
Ignore if you don't like off-topic posts.
[spoiler][img]http://www.hung-truong.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/anoobindicator.jpg[/img][/spoiler]
[/quote]
I loves the off-topic posts. I'm leanings towards denying the possibility of an off-topic post. I believe that the content of all posts defines the topic. If you posit some kind of immutable topic you'll be faced with insurmountable hermeneutic difficulties. Yes, I deny the existence of an objective topic that we can all know and verify. No interpretation of "the topic" can be more valid than another, and a static conception of 'topic' is illusory and absurd. On the interwebs a "topic" is something in-process, something that is dynamically created, it unfolds. The "topic" is ever-changing, being enriched and disclosed with every post. Topic is about the fecundity of possibility, not the deluded arrogance of objectivity. We all define the topic and we all interpret what the topic means for us. WE ARE TOPIC!

Now let us go and be topic together. All are welcome.

[Hilde]

Sounds like hippie talk

[Winchester]

[i]Space[/i]hippie talk.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' date='06 April 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1270594251' post='2087969']
[i]Space[/i]hippie talk.
[/quote]
Thank you but NO! Spacehippies are more awesomer then that. I was fun making at ppl who say "we are church" kind of things. If I were being a serious space hippie I would have posted something more epic. please beleive me.

P.S. yes, I type bad just to annoy u winchester.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='06 April 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1270594455' post='2087971']
P.S. yes, I type bad just to annoy u winchester.
[/quote]
It's okay. I don't read your posts, anyway.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='06 April 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1270594024' post='2087967']
I loves the off-topic posts. I'm leanings towards denying the possibility of an off-topic post. I believe that the content of all posts defines the topic. If you posit some kind of immutable topic you'll be faced with insurmountable hermeneutic difficulties. Yes, I deny the existence of an objective topic that we can all know and verify. No interpretation of "the topic" can be more valid than another, and a static conception of 'topic' is illusory and absurd. On the interwebs a "topic" is something in-process, something that is dynamically created, it unfolds. The "topic" is ever-changing, being enriched and disclosed with every post. Topic is about the fecundity of possibility, not the deluded arrogance of objectivity. We all define the topic and we all interpret what the topic means for us. WE ARE TOPIC!

Now let us go and be topic together. All are welcome.
[/quote]
I can watusi to this groove.

[Guest Ephesian]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='27 February 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1267318308' post='2064012']
Not a fan, no. I consider it a privilege to live in a democracy and pay taxes.
[/quote]

First off, we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic. Big difference. I don't consider taxes a 'privilege', but I do consider them a necessary evil. Oh well, 'Render unto Caesar...'

[Socrates]

[quote]http:// www.nytimes.c...n/05brooks.html
The Wal-Mart Hippies

About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.


Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.

There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.

But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Johnsonville brat Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left.

These days the same people who are buying Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” on Amazon.com are, according to the company’s software, also buying books like “Liberal Fascism,” “Rules for Conservative Radicals,” “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” and “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.” Those last two books were written by David Horowitz, who was a leading New Left polemicist in the 1960s and is now a leading polemicist on the right.

But the core commonality is this: Members of both movements believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” is how Rousseau put it.

Because of this assumption, members of both movements go in big for conspiracy theories. The ’60s left developed elaborate theories of how world history was being manipulated by shadowy corporatist/imperialist networks — theories that live on in the works of Noam Chomsky. In its short life, the Tea Party movement has developed a dizzying array of conspiracy theories involving the Fed, the F.B.I., the big banks and corporations and black helicopters.

Because of this assumption, members of the Tea Party right, like the members of the New Left, spend a lot of time worrying about being co-opted. They worry that the corrupt forces of the establishment are perpetually trying to infiltrate the purity of their ranks.

Because of this assumption, members of both movements have a problem with authority. Both have a mostly negative agenda: destroy the corrupt structures; defeat the establishment. Like the New Left, the Tea Party movement has no clear set of plans for what to do beyond the golden moment of personal liberation, when the federal leviathan is brought low.

Recently a piece in Salon astutely compared Glenn Beck to Abbie Hoffman. In it, Michael Lind pointed out that the conservatives in the 1960s and 1970s built a counter-establishment — a network of think tanks, activist groups, academic associations and political leaders who would form conservative cadres, promoting conservative ideas and policies.

But the Tea Partiers are closer to the New Left. They don’t seek to form a counter-establishment because they don’t believe in establishments or in authority structures. They believe in the spontaneous uprising of participatory democracy. They believe in mass action and the politics of barricades, not in structure and organization. As one activist put it recently on a Tea Party blog: “We reject the idea that the Tea Party Movement is ‘led’ by anyone other than the millions of average citizens who make it up.”

For this reason, both the New Left and the Tea Party movement are radically anticonservative. Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.

That idea was rejected in the 1960s by people who put their faith in unrestrained passion and zealotry. The New Left then, like the Tea Partiers now, had a legitimate point about the failure of the ruling class. But they ruined it through their own imprudence, self-righteousness and naïve radicalism. The Tea Partiers will not take over the G.O.P., but it seems as though the ’60s political style will always be with us — first on the left, now the right.
[/quote]
All hail The Establishment!

Edited April 6, 2010 by Socrates

[Socrates]

(error)

Edited April 6, 2010 by Socrates

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Ephesian' date='06 April 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1270595917' post='2087980']
Oh well, 'Render unto Caesar...'
[/quote]

[url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html"]That's not an argument for taxes....[/url]

[Jesus_lol]

this looks like it is shaping up to another thread on anarchy...
[spoiler][img]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r267/diablo_man/abandonthread.gif[/img][/spoiler]

[cruciatacara]

I like tea. I don't think they should throw it into the harbor. Send it to me instead.

[Saint Therese]

that is the best graphic.Ever.