Given the Tea Party's claim that they're for "smaller government", they absolutely should be against this. The fact that so many of them aren't is telling about what the Tea Party's true motives are.
However it must be noted that currently the Left is far more into promoting statist ideals than the Right (which was body-checked by the Tea Party over this issue).
Statist ideas like controlling who can actually get married?
Furthermore, the Tea Party is promoting Corporatist ideas, which can be even more harmful, as there is absolutely no check on their power.
Yeah, no. Union leaders are elected by the very people they represent. Again, CEOs are not elected by the people who work for them, but by bankers and hedge fund managers.
There was no littering. The only way you can call it that is to ignore the fact that they were forcibly ejected from the camps, and not allowed to actually gather up their things. I could go to any campground in the country, force out the people who are camping, and then blame them for leaving their stuff there just as easily.
No, he called protesting wrong. There was no littering. The only way you can call it that is to ignore the fact that they were forcibly ejected from the camps, and not allowed to actually gather up their things. I could go to any campground in the country, force out the people who are camping, and then blame them for leaving their stuff there just as easily.
By claiming that they should have been able to be evicted like that, despite several judges saying they couldn't be, you clearly have an ignorance not only of recent events, but of Constitutional Freedoms.
Nope, sorry. The Tea Party was brought up as a wing of the Republican Party, as a way to try and capture anger with government, despite the fact that they were government.
Blah blah blah, I'm going to ignore the fact that one protest had many people carrying tools of violence and brandishing them menacingly, yet call the other protest violent.
If you're talking about the guy in Arizona, I don't think you can lump him in with the other Tea Partiers. He was a very disturbed individual, who would have snapped at a different point in time just as easily.
Except nothing in your little diatribe countered what I said. There is absolutely no reason why they should not have to release publicly what chemicals they are pumping into the ground. All your diatribe showed is that you think it's perfectly fine for business to do whatever they need to make profit, everyone else be damned.
Wall Street had a far, far larger hand in it. Or are you one of those people that somehow doesn't think that companies should be held accountable for their actions?
Oh fuck off. Because we live in a civilized country, where people are not thrown in jail for protesting (just sprayed with "food product" and put in prison for a few days), that makes the protest "less legitimate"?
Oh please. Find an Occupy site where the cops didn't just crash in, trash the entire place, lead the protesters out like cattle without giving them time to gather their things, and then bitch about what a mess was made, and you might have a point.
You might call him responsible for starting the Arab Spring, but that really does disservice to all the people who continued it. Not to mention all of the news about Greek and Italian protests, and then the Occupy protests. And this week there was news of a huge set of Russian protests. Whether you disagree with them or not, all of these protests were big news throughout the year, and to say only one of them was newsworthy is a disservice to the others.
The Tea Party has been quite the thorn in the political establishment.
Which is why they started as a wing of one of the major political parties, were constantly guided by that party, and ended up giving that party quite a bit of wins in the 2010 elections. Yup, major thorn, that group.
So, since you decided to just spout lies and propaganda, I'm going to assume that's your way of saying you have no actual rebuttal, and that Nimey is correct in his post.
Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees.
Next time you want to make this asinine comparison, why not back it up by showing an instance in which the leadership of a corporation was chosen by the employees that work for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the Tea Party's claim that they're for "smaller government", they absolutely should be against this. The fact that so many of them aren't is telling about what the Tea Party's true motives are.
Ummm, no. The right wants to increase the size of government just as much as the left. They just differ on where to do it.
Not to mention, the anarchists have typically been associated with the left.
However it must be noted that currently the Left is far more into promoting statist ideals than the Right (which was body-checked by the Tea Party over this issue).
Statist ideas like controlling who can actually get married?
Furthermore, the Tea Party is promoting Corporatist ideas, which can be even more harmful, as there is absolutely no check on their power.
I'm not going to cast a vote for a non-Republican unless the Republican candidate is similarly harmful
I find it cute that you somehow consider the Republican candidates "non-harmful"
Yeah, no. Union leaders are elected by the very people they represent. Again, CEOs are not elected by the people who work for them, but by bankers and hedge fund managers.
There was no littering. The only way you can call it that is to ignore the fact that they were forcibly ejected from the camps, and not allowed to actually gather up their things. I could go to any campground in the country, force out the people who are camping, and then blame them for leaving their stuff there just as easily.
No, he called protesting wrong. There was no littering. The only way you can call it that is to ignore the fact that they were forcibly ejected from the camps, and not allowed to actually gather up their things. I could go to any campground in the country, force out the people who are camping, and then blame them for leaving their stuff there just as easily.
By claiming that they should have been able to be evicted like that, despite several judges saying they couldn't be, you clearly have an ignorance not only of recent events, but of Constitutional Freedoms.
Nope, sorry. The Tea Party was brought up as a wing of the Republican Party, as a way to try and capture anger with government, despite the fact that they were government.
That's not evidence. That was always the call. Corporations aren't people, thus they shouldn't be able to donate.
Try again.
Blah blah blah, I'm going to ignore the fact that one protest had many people carrying tools of violence and brandishing them menacingly, yet call the other protest violent.
Yeah, that really makes sense.
If you're talking about the guy in Arizona, I don't think you can lump him in with the other Tea Partiers. He was a very disturbed individual, who would have snapped at a different point in time just as easily.
Except nothing in your little diatribe countered what I said. There is absolutely no reason why they should not have to release publicly what chemicals they are pumping into the ground. All your diatribe showed is that you think it's perfectly fine for business to do whatever they need to make profit, everyone else be damned.
No, that's the cover of Madden.
Yeah, when you don't understand what the hell the Person of the Year is supposed to represent, it's easy to spout bullshit like that.
Wall Street had a far, far larger hand in it. Or are you one of those people that somehow doesn't think that companies should be held accountable for their actions?
Oh fuck off. Because we live in a civilized country, where people are not thrown in jail for protesting (just sprayed with "food product" and put in prison for a few days), that makes the protest "less legitimate"?
The fact that you would call protesting a "wrong" shows how wrong you are.
Oh please. Find an Occupy site where the cops didn't just crash in, trash the entire place, lead the protesters out like cattle without giving them time to gather their things, and then bitch about what a mess was made, and you might have a point.
You might call him responsible for starting the Arab Spring, but that really does disservice to all the people who continued it. Not to mention all of the news about Greek and Italian protests, and then the Occupy protests. And this week there was news of a huge set of Russian protests. Whether you disagree with them or not, all of these protests were big news throughout the year, and to say only one of them was newsworthy is a disservice to the others.
And I'm sure none of that had to do with the financial crisis that Obama got handed. Nope, times were completely equivalent between the two.
A bunch of spoiled people demanding more free shit is the antitheses of what the tea party is about.
Actually, that's exactly what the Tea Party is about. They just want more shit for the rich.
The Tea Party has been quite the thorn in the political establishment.
Which is why they started as a wing of one of the major political parties, were constantly guided by that party, and ended up giving that party quite a bit of wins in the 2010 elections. Yup, major thorn, that group.
So, since you decided to just spout lies and propaganda, I'm going to assume that's your way of saying you have no actual rebuttal, and that Nimey is correct in his post.
Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees.
Next time you want to make this asinine comparison, why not back it up by showing an instance in which the leadership of a corporation was chosen by the employees that work for it.