Tea party leader in Mississippi controversy dies

the tea party is americas version of right wing glorification in europe, fortunately more people take in actual facts rather than rumours on message boards.

Was it one of those nail gun suicides?

originally posted by: BABYBULL24
Was it one of those nail gun suicides?

The authorities say his body was found next to a "large caliber revolver"...

a reply to: coastlinekid

The last thing anyone wants is libertarianism.

"Libertarianism == I got mine, screw you!" to most people, who can't see much of a meaningful difference between oligarchy, anarcho capitalism, and libertarianism. For most people there wouldn't be much of a difference.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: xuenchen


PS: if you want to compare voter dirty tricks, the Repubs win hands down. Everything from gerrymandering to running fake candidates to voter suppression has been in their bag of tricks. Just because Cochran got black voters to turn out for him, that's not a dirty trick, that's called campaigning.

Yeah, cause democrats never gerrymander, never suppress votes (Black Panthers), and never run fake candidates. Never!!

ROFL

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: coastlinekid

The last thing anyone wants is libertarianism.

"Libertarianism == I got mine, screw you!" to most people, who can't see much of a meaningful difference between oligarchy, anarcho capitalism, and libertarianism. For most people there wouldn't be much of a difference.

Actually, it's more like this:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, free) is a classification of political philosophies that uphold liberty as their principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2] While libertarians share a skepticism of authority, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or even to wholly dissolve pervasive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.

One could make just as damaging and inaccurate description of the Democrat Party, if not more so. Liberalism = "I got yours, screw you. I take from you, to support lazy a$$ me...too lazy to work but not too lazy to vote myself some of your hard earned income."

So many people associate BS ideals to Libertarianism without a clue as to what the real ideology actually is.

If you cannot tell the difference between "oligarchy, anarcho capitalism, and libertarianism" then you have some serious issues.

a reply to: bbracken677

I'm not refering to its technical definition.

I know what libertarianism is, and I think most of the people in support of it are either
A. corporate dupes who think that somehow large, privately controlled, concentrations of wealth(financial power) do not harm/risk the freedom of everyone else.

B.those private parties that control large amounts of concentraited wealth.

fortunately the realities of the present amount of income-inequality make this reality plainly apparent.

as the world stands now, life under libertarian policies would be indistinguishable from Oligarchy; for the average person. there'd still be an upper-class, made up of those who inherited their fortunes, the rich would get richer while the poor would stay poor, the middle-class would shrink down to a small sector of professionals, likely in the trades or other expertise.

This in part could be due to many advocates for libertarianism being advocates for further oligarchy/corporatism.. Frankly it seems to me troubling that you see the urban underclass, most of whome do work, and yet need government assistance in order to get by. You've bought up that reganite belief in "welfare queens", which while not entirely untrue, has been greatly exaggerated by corporate-owned media.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: bbracken677

I'm not refering to its technical definition.

You mean you're not refering to its actual definition, which doesn't fit your preconceptions about libertarianism and those who support it. Very inconvenient when that happens, gets in the way of the free flow of hate.

I know what libertarianism is, and I think most of the people in support of it are either
A. corporate dupes who think that somehow large, privately controlled, concentrations of wealth(financial power) do not harm/risk the freedom of everyone else.

B.those private parties that control large amounts of concentraited wealth.

fortunately the realities of the present amount of income-inequality make this reality plainly apparent.

First you say you're not talking about the "technical"(read: actual) definition of Libertarianism, then you claim you know
what Libertarianism is. However, it seems apparent that you don't have even the slightest understanding of it or its principles, nor any understanding of free market capitalism, or of the role of government in corporatisn and cronyism.

Nevertheless, I'm interested in your claims regarding "life under libertarian policies being indistinguishable from oligarchy."
How interesting. Which policies, exaclty, are you talking about? How would said policies result in an oligarchy?

The rest of your post is a tiresome display of ignorance coated in talking points that have no connection to reality. "Income inequality" is a perfect example; it implies the existence of a situation that does not exist, and proposals to "fix" the "problem" always involve bigger, more powerful, more invasive government.


"Corporate-owned media"....hilarious. Governments throughout history and in modern day routinely crush entire economies. Governments destroy corporations without even noticing. It's so easy they can do it by accident.
The list of corporations that have destroyed their government is vanishingly small...if such a thing has ever actually happened, which I doubt.
Corporations may have a lot of money, a lot of influence, in the business world. But government has money and influence as well...WAY more money, and WAY more influence, incidentally. Because they also have Power. They can make fundamental changes that devastate some corprations in favor of others, for instance. This makes corporations dance attendance on government, trying to curry favor by way of large bribes(lobbying) to keep government from wiping them out, and/or while possibly wiping out their competition. Government has no competition and is hardly worried about being crushed by some corp., because corporations have no Power.

So yeah, the media may be "corporate-owned", but it's "State-controlled".

a reply to: Tsurugi

"Income inequality" is a perfect example; it implies the existence of a situation that does not exist

you're joking right?.... I really hope you're joking/being sarcastic.