The Absolute Truth About The Tea Party!

Originally posted by cushycrux
Beezer

You sound a kind of programed. I will not discuss with radicals, sorry. I am far away from you country, I am a very peaceful, neutral and open minded person. And as this person I must say that what I see from that Tea-Party is just an embarrassing Joke. Your placards show illiteracy and blind rage. They are primitive and untrue and so the words of this corporatist talkers that say stupid things you want to hear.

End of Statement.

edit on 23-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)

Haha, you crack me up.

The guy says he is for limited government and personal responsibility and this is your response? A form-letter response riddled with words like "primitive", "untrue", "corporatist", and "joke"? Those who are closed minded seem to be the first people to scream that everyone else is closed minded.

Unlike you, there exist people who don't believe that more laws, rules, statutes, regulations, licenses, fees, and taxes are the solution to whatever "problem" someone else identifies. But like he said, the tea party means different things to different people. It's no different than people who call themselves Republicans, Democrats, etc. But, isn't it easier to just clumsily paint other groups of people with a broad brush? So, please, if you want to see a closed minded specimen of the human race, stand in front of a mirror and look up.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I am well aware of the fact that Hitler imprisoned both Jews and Communists. This is just classic Hegelian left vs right, only both Socialism and Communism are factions of the Left, it's just that Socialism is a tad less violent. Fascism is a false right, in that Fascism is set up as the right wing of the communism vs fascism fight. Communism, Socialism and fascism are all facets of the left, it's just that fascism is a tad to the right of communism. That is all.

Facism and nazism are *national socialism*...in other words socialists with imperialistic goals. But one must remember england, france, spain, portugal, belgium, netherlands ALL were imperialsts of their own and germany and italy were left out of colonies and markets. They lost WW1 and were humiliated, then comes hitler with ambitions to set things straight for germany and mussolini to set things straight for italy. The only problem was hitler opened up too many fronts and was a jew hater.

Socialism is very far from communism and I could NOT care less what fabian socialists want. I could also NOT care less about hegelian dialect. All I know is that everything in the world is falling to "the elite" through treacherous and surreptitious means. I gave people PROOF that the american government itself is PRIVATE and you can verify that at the delaware state registry of corporations. You can also verify fbi, cia, irs, FED, dea, nsa, etc.

Under socialism and communism that would be an INSULT!!! People should not be treated as slaves!

Ok let's look at the definition of "incorporation"

"·cor·po·rate (n-kôrp-rt)
v. in·cor·po·rat·ed, in·cor·po·rat·ing, in·cor·po·rates
v.tr.
1. To unite (one thing) with something else already in existence: incorporated the letter into her diary.
2. To admit as a member to a corporation or similar organization.
3. To cause to merge or combine together into a united whole.
4. To cause to form into a legal corporation: incorporate a business.
5. To give substance or material form to; embody.
6. Linguistics To cause (a word, for example) to undergo noun incorporation.
v.intr.
1. To become united or combined into an organized body.
2. To become or form a legal corporation: San Antonio incorporated as a city in 1837.
3. Linguistics To be formed by or allow formation by noun incorporation.
adj. (-pr-t)
1. Combined into one united body; merged.
2. Formed into a legal corporation."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"
Noun 1. incorporation - consolidating two or more things; union in (or into) one body
consolidation, integration - the act of combining into an integral whole; "a consolidation of two corporations"; "after their consolidation the two bills were passed unanimously"; "the defendants asked for a consolidation of the actions against them"
2. incorporation - learning (of values or attitudes etc.) that is incorporated within yourself
internalisation, internalization
learning, acquisition - the cognitive process of acquiring skill or knowledge; "the child's acquisition of language"
introjection - (psychology) unconscious internalization of aspects of the world (especially aspects of persons) within the self in such a way that the internalized representation takes over the psychological functions of the external objects
introjection - (psychoanalysis) the internalization of the parent figures and their values; leads to the formation of the superego
3. incorporation - including by incorporating
inclusion - the act of including
annexation, appropriation - incorporation by joining or uniting"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

"
incorporation
noun merger, federation, blend, integration, unifying, inclusion, fusion, absorption, assimilation, amalgamation, coalescence the incorporation of two airlines into one
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

www.thefreedictionary.com...


Do you see the word "private" anywhere in those definitions? I didn't either.

As for Socialism and Communism being all that different from each other? I stated that Socialism is a bridge to Communism, and that the Communist Party states it so. What part of that do you not get?

Socialism is not a free society! Remember: USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialists Republic, the People’s Republic of China is a socialist country, North Vietnam is communist, Cuba is communist. Socialism is defined as the bridge from democracy to communism.

questioningwithboldness.wordpress.com...

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, Russian: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик, tr. Soyuz Sovietskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik IPA: [sɐˈjus sɐˈvʲetskʲɪx sətsɨəlʲɪˈstʲitɕɪskʲɪx rʲɪsˈpublʲɪk] ( listen), abbreviated СССР, SSSR), and commonly known as the Soviet Union (Russian: Советский Союз, tr. Sovietsky Soyuz) was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia between 1922 and 1991. A more informal name also used among its residents was the Union (Soyuz).The Soviet Union had a single-party political system dominated by the Communist Party until 1990.[1] Although the USSR was nominally a union of Soviet republics (15 in all after 1956) with the capital in Moscow, it was actually a highly centralized state with a planned economy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Comments on a Letter of V.M. Molotov Vijay Singh Readers of this journal are aware that Molotov had defended the views of Lenin in his conversations with the Soviet poet Feliks Chuyev.1 In his letter to Kommunist given below Molotov defends the stand of Lenin that the dictatorship of the proletariat must remain until such time as classes disappear. Lenin held that Soviet Russia had overthrown the landowners and capitalists in the October revolution but it had yet to abolish the difference between the factory worker and the peasant. Until all had become workers the abolition of classes could not take place under socialism. Socialism entailed the abolition of the commodity system: 'Socialism, as we know, means the abolition of the commodity economy.'2 Lenin's positions were maintained and defended by the CPSU(b) after his death. At the 18th Congress of the party in 1939 Molotov argued that the Third Five-Year Plan had to be linked to the task of completing the creation of a classless socialist society and the gradual transition to communism.3 Stalin defended Lenin's theses as well.
'Naturally, a classless society cannot come of its own accord, as it were. It has to be achieved and built by the efforts of all the working people, by strengthening the organs of the dictatorship, by intensifying the class struggle, by abolishing classes, by eliminating the remnants of the capitalist classes, and in battles with enemies, both internal and external.'9

www.revolutionarydemocracy.org...
www.marxists.org...

The origins of the Communist movement can be found in the left wing of the Socialist Party and in the alternative political and industrial movements that sometimes cooperated with and sometimes combated the Socialists. This radical spectrum of groups and individuals did not ultimately set Communist policies, especially after the first turbulent years, but they did provide the first wave of American Communists. Their struggles and disputes also underscore the complex native-born and immigrant roots of the new movement.Left disaffection with the SP had two large components. By emphasizing an electoral politics, Socialists alienated members of the Industrial Workers of the World and many other militants who believed the road to revolution lay through direct or “mass” action. The same critics generally upheld industrial unions as the primary means of organizing and preparing the masses for revolutionary activity.

Here is a quote from the CPUSA page by Sam Webb, National Chair of CPUSA

In less than three hundred years the American people should be able to "increment" their way to socialism if they learn to behave properly. If they are going to act obstreperously like the French and the Greeks; well, then it will take longer because the capitalists are not going to appreciate any disruptions in the flow of profits.Seeing Barack Obama standing in front of the American flag sends shivers down my spine and makes what little hair I have left on my head stand out... I just want to shout out: Yes we can! Sam Webb

cpusanationalboard.blogspot.com...

Quote from the CPUSA webpage

A better and peaceful world is possible — a world where people come before profits. That’s socialism. That’s our vision. We are the Communist Party USA.

3. The Socialist and Communist Stage of Social Development Marx and Engels discuss why capitalism leads to socialism and how socialism resolves the contradictions of capitalism. They also distinguish between utopian and scientific socialism and discuss the distinction between the first socialist transitional phase and the communist phase itself. Marx, Engels and Lenin discuss the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the transitional phase to communism proper. Lenin notes the universal and the particular in socialism in each country and he also discusses the relationship of radical democratization to socialism. Lenin also discusses concessions by the new socialist state to domestic and foreign capitalists. In the final articles before his death, his "last testament", Lenin discusses the importance of cooperatives. The Communist Manifesto. 1848, Marx & Engels (Excerpts) "The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

www.cpusa.org...

If you still need further proof that Socialism is an incremental stage toward communism, let me know and I will find more for you.

And for the record, since you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about, all workers are slaves of the State under Socialism and Communism. Nazism is but a version of Socialism.

Originally posted by meeneecat
reply to post by TKDRL

 

This is exactly what I mean by people misrepresenting what others say. I never said that ALL tea party groups got Koch funding. But a large amount of Tea Party activities, to the matter of $18 million has come from Koch bros/ Koch industries. Keep in mind, this doesn't count the millions more that come from other large corporations and wealthy families.

What 3 groups were you a part of?

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Koch would support the Tea Party. He runs a business, sees the impact that taxes and regulation have on his business (and the economy, which is comprised of businesses .. a fact many seem to forget), and wants to help people who have goals similar to his. Have you ever given donation for a cause to which you felt sympathetic? So, what's the problem? Who funds the democratic party? Trade unions and law associations. You think these are better than businesses? Show me a working economy that runs purely on union workers and lawyers without private business.

Anyway.

Apparently the only party we should vote for is one that is supported only by people who are destitute. Class warfare has entrenched itself so deeply in human psychii. Amazing what jealousy will breed.

Nice to know there's at least one business man not bought by George Soros!

Also, it goes to show that there's Libertarian influence within the Tea Party movement. Wikipedia says that David Koch was Libertarian until 1984, and apparently switch to the Republican Party, but he apparently has Libertarian ideals. Andf the same thing with Ron Paul, he was Libertarian before he was Republican.

Here are some of the organizations he has donated to:
"Among other charities, he has contributed to Lincoln Center, Sloan Kettering, a fertility clinic at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the American Museum of Natural History's David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing.[9] The New York State Theater at Lincoln Center, home of the New York City Opera and New York City Ballet was renamed the David H. Koch Theater in 2008 following a gift of 100 million dollars for the renovation of the theater. "

en.wikipedia.org...

Sounds good to me. I love the ballet!

A most common fallacy is mistaking capitalism with corporatism. All entities act in their best interest, and for this they cannot be blamed. Businesses may find it in their best interest to suppress competition. When government is blessed with unlimited power, those powers will be wielded to the benefit of the business. Sometimes this benefits overall economic efficiency, however it generally does not. Follow the logic, and it is the power wielded by government which is the ultimate culprit.

It seems to me that most people would have had cars banned for fear of putting horse and buggy drivers out of work. I recall a recurrent theme in Ray Bradbury books where automation had put everyone out of work in the future. Such a silly idea when you look back on it, but you see shades of this reasoning every day .. and being pushed by some very "educated" people.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

If you still need further proof that Socialism is an incremental stage toward communism, let me know and I will find more for you.

And for the record, since you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about, all workers are slaves of the State under Socialism and Communism. Nazism is but a version of Socialism.

edit on 25-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

You took 24 hours to reply to my post about what socialism and communism is....obviously you needed to do research to get a clue so you could answer me. I understand! Thanks. I never stated that socialism can not be the precursor to communism, and indeed for all communists it is, but the point I have been trying to make all along is that you can have socialism without the thirst for communism.

Many people have experienced communism first hand and hate it. I don't blame them. Its not a free society, although it does guarantee many things both capitalism and socialism cannot guarantee. Further I have NO IDEA why some people INCESSANTELY try to magically combine the two for? Maybe disinfo? Yeah!

[snip]

Finely delineating the differences between socialism and communism is like arguing about whether one would rather be shot in the heart or the head.

reply to post by Guidance.Is.Internal


FIne. Go to denmark which has the best economic model in the world with mild socialism and tell them that socialism is almost identical to communism. I guarantee they will either laugh at you hysterically or punch you in the face. I guess their reaction will depend on wether they are sober or drunk............

Seriously, I hate to be rude but some things are plain as day, especially if you live in europe...as I do! Western europe has had socialism for 60 years(actually 40) so don't you think they know more about socialism then americans? Think about it!!!!!

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by meeneecat

 

Not all tea parties have fancy names and websites etc. Not sure what kind of answer you are looking for here....
I attended protests, there were no speeches... Just a bunch of us holding up piffy signs and making up some funny chants.

I'm asking for the names and the rallies that you attended so I can verify your claim that they weren't funded by any corporations/business interests/etc. as per the claim you made.

none of the 3 groups I was part of got any outside funding at all

I'm not the person who just blindly believes what I am told, or just "takes someone's word for it". I like to do the research so I can discover the truth for myself. That is what this site is all about. So, again, the rallies you attended had to have had a location, a date, a speaker, etc? Which groups were you associated with? Which rallies did you attend?

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
It shouldn't surprise anyone that Koch would support the Tea Party. He runs a business, sees the impact that taxes and regulation have on his business (and the economy, which is comprised of businesses .. a fact many seem to forget), and wants to help people who have goals similar to his. Have you ever given donation for a cause to which you felt sympathetic? So, what's the problem?

Actually, no. I don't donate to political parties because IMO most are full of corruption, and to the extend that I have donated any money to groups, it's been for things like so the local high school basketball team can buy new uniforms or very local non-political stuff like that. I don't give to large charities because most of the money gets used for overhead and people's salaries, not for the people in need. I'd rather just give some food, a sandwich or something (which I have done), directly too a homeless person, rather than funneling it through some middle man. Still, I don't have a problem with people who do donate to political groups. But it's also perfectly legitimate for citizens to investigate/question who is funding certain political parties / candidates, and what conflict of interests / ethical implications this could have.

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.InternalWho funds the democratic party? Trade unions and law associations. You think these are better than businesses? Show me a working economy that runs purely on union workers and lawyers without private business.

This thread is about the Tea Party in particular. Why do you bring up things like the democratic party, trade unions, law associations, as if it has any relevance here. What are you trying to imply? And why do some people always assume that if a person criticizes or questions one "side" that they are automatically "sympathetic to" or "for" the other side. I don't support either the democrat or republican parties, but for some reason on this site some people seem to think that if you criticize one side, that you are automatically sympathetic to the other side. Just because someone is critical of Tea Party funding does not automatically mean that they are not also critical of funding for other organizations or other political parties. Not everyone views the world through this false dichotomy of "left v. right", "democrat v. republican"...so don't try and imply that I would automatically give a pass to other political parties simply because I criticize the Tea Party's corporate funding. This thread is about the Tea Party. If you want to talk about any of those other groups you mention, you are perfectly free to start a thread about it and I will gladly criticize all their corporate/big industry funding too. Again, this is just another intellectually dishonest logical fallacy you are using here to distract from the issues I originally brought up and I'm not falling for it.

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
Apparently the only party we should vote for is one that is supported only by people who are destitute. Class warfare has entrenched itself so deeply in human psychii. Amazing what jealousy will breed.

You are again making assumptions and casting aspersions that are just as disgusting and dishonest as the ones you made above. Criticizing the corporate funding and oil industry donations given to a political party does not mean one is "for" class warfare. Criticizing the corporate funding and big industry donations to a political party does not mean one is "breeding jealousy".

I already posted the facts. Seems those who don't like these facts or don't want to examine the implications of these facts (for whatever reason) just want to continue to make blind assumptions and misrepresent what others have said. Doesn't anyone want to have an honest and mature conversation about this?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
If you still need further proof that Socialism is an incremental stage toward communism, let me know and I will find more for you.

edit on 25-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

You took 24 hours to reply to my post about what socialism and communism is....obviously you needed to do research to get a clue so you could answer me.

The sad thing is, Third Eye takes a few extreme examples, and assumes that is the "norm", that socialism leads to communism...and completely ignores the fact, as you already pointed out, that western Europe has had a socialistic government for decades and they are doing much better than the U.S. in most arenas of the world (i.e. education, health, happiness of citizens, standard of living, less debt, etc.)

Also notice where this person is getting all their "information" regarding "socialism". They are all highly biased (again, you can tell just from the language that they use to frame the debate). I often wonder if the definition of "Socialism" on wikipedia is one of the reasons that conservatives went off and started "conservapedia". It just goes to show you the little bubble that many live in, with a refusal to look at ideas, especially facts, that don't fit in with their standard world view. I mean, this is not really controversial stuff. We're talking definitions of words that the majority of people have a common understanding about (as you said, those in Europe would most likely laugh in the face of what some Americans think socialism to be) Now just for the record, here's the wiki entry:

As an economic system, socialism is the direct allocation of capital goods (means of production) to meet economic demands so that production is oriented toward use and accounting is based on some physical magnitude, such as physical quantities or a direct measure of labour time.[6][7] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.[8]

Hmm....lets see: "allocation of goods(supply) based on demand", "goods and services distributed through markets", "income based on individual merit and individual contribution" You see what I mean? I mean if that isn't the exact definition of "Tyranny" than I don't know what is!

Now lets look at the "conservapedia" definition:

Socialism is a liberal economic system with state ownership or control of the all the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.[4] Socialism is the economic system imposed by Communism, but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) which was headed by the evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler.

Now isn't it strange that the wikipedia entry doesn't even mention "Hitler" or "nazis" in their writeup on Socialism? Just goes to show you the disconnect between some people and REALITY. The fact that Nazi-ism had very little to do with either true Communism or Socialism means nothing to these people because it doesn't support their beliefs or world views (so they just ignore it, or twist the truth/lie and assign their own definitions to words). Nazism was authoritarian fascism, which is antithetical to the anti-hierarchical, anti-bureaucratic nature of both communism and socialism. Now lets see what the wiki entry for "Nazi-ism" is.

Nazism was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany. It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics. The Nazis believed in the supremacy of an Aryan master race and claimed that Germans represent the most pure Aryan nation.[12] They argued that Germany's survival as a modern great nation required it to create a New Order — an empire in Europe that would give the German nation the necessary land mass, resources, and expansion of population needed to be able to economically and militarily compete with other powers.

Hmmm....Interesting, Nazi-ism is a form of "far right" politics. Again, what I said, authoritarian and fascist in nature.

Well now that I posted that, I'll patiently wait to get flamed and of course accused of being an evil-nazi-commie-socialist-anti-christ.

Wow I cant believe someone not posting for 24 hours is a crime around here. Like going to work or having a family and/or other obligations other than posting on ATS is a sign of ignorance. LOL Looks to me like this thread is taking a nose dive to the toilet if this is where things are going.

reply to post by cushycrux

The Tea Party just sounds like the republican party under a different name to me. I don't like political parties, wish they do away with them. They just for sheep who can't think for themselves and for show. The both parties work for the same people.

reply to post by meeneecat


You might want to reread the first quote you quoted.... My groups attended protests, not any huge rallies, there were no famous speakers.... I don't keep a date book, I don't remember the exact dates, except one of them was on tax day, protesting income taxes.... I told you, we never got any money from anyone but the people in the group. We all chipped in for expenses, such as our signs, and the gas money.

Originally posted by meeneecat

The sad thing is, Third Eye takes a few extreme examples, and assumes that is the "norm", that socialism leads to communism...and completely ignores the fact, as you already pointed out, that western Europe has had a socialistic government for decades and they are doing much better than the U.S. in most arenas of the world (i.e. education, health, happiness of citizens, standard of living, less debt, etc.)

Exactly! Only thing is that europe has been slowely abandoning true socialism for capitalism since 20-30 years ago and you can see that through the privatisation of national industries. Airlines, railroads, electricity, telephone are mostly private if not 100% private. The only thing europe is holding strong to, at least for now, is the welfare state, but even that is erroding through EU membership and the Euro. The central bank of europe in germany yields too much control over brussels and member "states" and I for one resent that!

We have already seen what a private BP(USED to PROUDLY stand for British Petroleum and now turned to "beyond petroleum"...what a disgrace!!!!) and private TEXCO(Tokyo Electric Power Company) did to the enviroment, how they continue to this day to manipulate governments, water down or completly ignore legislation, bribe, take financial shortcuts, etc....all for the all-mighty dollar sign.

Governments have become nothing but utter puppets to the elite and we can see how the elite think of the masses through the eyes of ayn rand..."parasites"..."useless eaters"...disgusting is an understatement!!!

Now lets look at the "conservapedia" definition:

Socialism is a liberal economic system with state ownership or control of the all the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.[4] Socialism is the economic system imposed by Communism, but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) which was headed by the evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler.

Now isn't it strange that the wikipedia entry doesn't even mention "Hitler" or "nazis" in their writeup on Socialism? Just goes to show you the disconnect between some people and REALITY. The fact that Nazi-ism had very little to do with either true Communism or Socialism means nothing to these people because it doesn't support their beliefs or world views (so they just ignore it, or twist the truth/lie and assign their own definitions to words). Nazism was authoritarian fascism, which is antithetical to the anti-hierarchical, anti-bureaucratic nature of both communism and socialism. Now lets see what the wiki entry for "Nazi-ism" is.

Yeah, the best way to discredit your opponent is to use discredited/controversial extremes(strawman arguements) in an attempt to *poison the well* and make all socialists look like hitler and all communists look like stalin.

I can use ronald reagan(I really hate the guy) and the two george bushes to claim ALL CAPITALISM IS FROUGHT WITH CORRUPTION TO THE CORE! See how easy that is? Oh by the way it is true with some exaggeration of course But whats wrong with exaggerating if the "enemy" does it as well???

Hitler and stalin killed millions ratherly quickly, while capitalism has been killing millions(if not billions) over the course of 200 years since the beginning of the renaisance with abhorent working conditions, minimum pay, long work hours, no benefits, no respect...nothing, while the elite prosper at the masses will and then call us names and make fun of us. People are dying africa, asia and south america because they don't have enough money to cure aids and other diseases, because the wealthy elite and big pharma will not give them a chance to live with dignity.

Nazism was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany. It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics. The Nazis believed in the supremacy of an Aryan master race and claimed that Germans represent the most pure Aryan nation.[12] They argued that Germany's survival as a modern great nation required it to create a New Order — an empire in Europe that would give the German nation the necessary land mass, resources, and expansion of population needed to be able to economically and militarily compete with other powers.

Hmmm....Interesting, Nazi-ism is a form of "far right" politics. Again, what I said, authoritarian and fascist in nature.

Well now that I posted that, I'll patiently wait to get flamed and of course accused of being an evil-nazi-commie-socialist-anti-christ.

I will never flame you my friend. The only thing I will disagree with you is that socialism and communism are *anti-hierarchical* and *anti-bureaucratic* in nature. Nothing can be that way because greed is a human trait and some people will always try to "get one up on the competition". Leaders are necessary for any political system as is hierarchy.

reply to post by TKDRL


Well AFP and Freedom works were two of the major sponsors of the tax-day protests. I find it kinda funny that you make a claim that neither any of your groups nor any of the protests you went to didn't receive any outside funding / corporate sponsorship...but then you also conveniently "don't remember" which protests or groups you attended...Unless you are all just a group of college buddies meeting in someone's basement and protesting on your front lawn...again, very "convenient"...I like to be able to verify the claims people make, and until then, it's just unsubstantiated. So while you can't give me the name of any of these "unfunded" tea party groups that you attended, (and, don't get me wrong, I'm sure they exist, as there's probably several that are grassroots funded and don't take corporate money) However compare that to the VAST MAJORITY that are NOT grassroots, but corporate funded, and again, I can point out dozens, if not hundreds that have been sponsored by both AFP, Freedom works, (again both Koch Industry funded groups) as well as Fox news among others.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I will never flame you my friend. The only thing I will disagree with you is that socialism and communism are *anti-hierarchical* and *anti-bureaucratic* in nature. Nothing can be that way because greed is a human trait and some people will always try to "get one up on the competition". Leaders are necessary for any political system as is hierarchy.

Yes, I would agree with you here, that in practice that human greed will always lead to each other trying to get a "one up" on each other. I guess when I think of "communism" in it's purest sense, I think of it on a smaller scale, as in tribal communities, families, worker owned collectives (like what they are starting to do in some places in South America) etc. which generally don't have hierarchies/bureaucracies in the sense that we do in our modern governments. Obviously this is something that cannot be transferred to a larger scale (i.e. entire countries) and so generally governments work best by taking philosophies from various different disciplines and combining the best parts of each, i.e. part socialism, part capitalism which, is in general, what all modern western democracies are.

reply to post by meeneecat


Whatever you say dude, people wanted to hear about the absolute truth about tea partiers, and when some of us tell you our absolute truths you dismiss it because you can't show a paper trail. I am out, have fun with the thread.

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Koch would support the Tea Party. He runs a business, sees the impact that taxes and regulation have on his business (and the economy, which is comprised of businesses .. a fact many seem to forget), and wants to help people who have goals similar to his.

That's right, Internal Guide...

The only issue I have with libertarians (Koch among them) is that they're dismantling a whole set of rules ("regulation") that was put together to avoid things like the Great Depression and black lung disease. It completely ignores a whole body of knowledge about things like the "tragedy of the commons" problem that individual actors cannot solve.