The Beach Boys and Ronald Reagan???

[Bean Bag]

Ah, this seems like the place for this link 

http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/11/beach-boys-singer-bruce-johnston-barack-obama-socialist-ahole/

To be fair, he thinks both parties have schmucks running around. I think the kids today call that "real talk 

Right on Bruce!!  See, rockandroll...Bruce Johnston gets it!   

Bruce just shot up tremendously, in my book.  I'll be cranking Disney Girls, The Nearest Faraway Place and Tear in the Morning tonight!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Ah, this seems like the place for this link  

http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/11/beach-boys-singer-bruce-johnston-barack-obama-socialist-ahole/

To be fair, he thinks both parties have schmucks running around. I think the kids today call that "real talk  

Right on Bruce!!  See, rockandroll...Bruce Johnston gets it!  

Yeah, it's a shame he bases his opinion on flat-out false information. He calls an ultra-capitalist like Obama a socialist and in the same breath praises Reagan who was deeply committed to an enormous welfare state for the wealthy. I guess rigorous government intervention is okay for Bruce as long as the public is providing a safety net for concentrated wealth and power. But, of course, Bruce probably hasn't a clue as to how the economy actually works and he certainly demonstrates he doesn't know what socialism is.

Is this kind of ignorance what really constitutes "getting it" for you?

[GreatUrduPoet]

What in heaven's name is a "socialist libertarian"? Do they come from the same universe as the 'vegetarian carnivores' and the 'atheist fundamentalists'? How can you make a coherent argument when you throw out such gibberish terms?

Because I'm using the actual term "libertarian" rather than the perverted and bastardized version of the term that is en vogue in the US right now. The term itself  dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on the socialist and communist models without the dicatorship of the proletariat.

In the US, the term started being used in the 1950s but at that point in the US it was simply inconceivable to imagine the possibilities of that kind of a society - the ideology had already been shaped radically by the business-led ruling class. So the term meant something else - namely to let the business class do whatever it needs to do without the interference of government. Well, that of course, is nothing like what actual libertarianism is but it picked up enough steam that libertarian candidates started running on this bastardized interpretation in the 70s and this mischaracterization of real libertarianism has been sort of consistent like that ever since but only within the confines of the United States. Outside of the US, libertarianism is still understood for what it actually is - namely a sort of shade of of anarcho-socialism.

This wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of what I'm referring to, if only for this nugget: "The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

ALL 'real-world' Leftist/Socialist systems MUST be coercive on some level primarily because they involve human beings.

I really don't know what that's supposed to mean.

Actual 'large L' Libertarians are on the far Right of the political spectrum, as are the true Anarchists (as opposed to the Leftists/Socialists like Emma Goldman who erroneously referred to themselves as "Anarchists"). If you characterize Anarchists as 'Left wing' and Fascists as 'Right wing', you are being duped by an old Stalinist canard that dates back to the disillusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1941. Catch up, hoss...it's 2012 now.

Actually, the meaning of the terms I'm using date back well before Stalinism. Emma Goldman, who you mention, was a noted anarchist well before Stalin came along, and was herself extremely critical of the Leninist Soviet revolution for being exactly what it was - a right-wing deviation of Marxism. The facts are that both anarchism and libertarianism were indeed both born out of a left wing tradition, and continued with a left wing tradition. The central figures behind these movements (the aforementioned Dejacque, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin) all developed the philosophies of libertarianism and anarchism in the 19th century based on the principles of socialism and/or mutalism. This is the tradition of these movements, it is the tradition as it was understood by those who adopted the cause of these movements (like Goldman, and her associates, who were perfectly correct in using the term anarchism in its actual sense) and it is only a matter of fantasy to pretend as if these movements had anything to do with the right. As far as I know, they never had any associations of the sort and only after the principles behind these philosophies became grossly mischaracterized and distorted within the US, did you start to see the Right start to falsely claim some sort of association with them, but that was only well after the terms had been emptied of their real meanings and their traditional understanding. In much the same way, the Bolsheviks hijacked terms like socialism and Marxism to conceal their drive for authoritarian state power. So if catching up means to accept these gross mischarcterizations and perversions, I'm afraid I am not on board.

You have been effectively indoctrinated if you actually believe that ANY form of authoritarian state power is right wing.

Communists, socialists, European social democrats, fascist dictatorships, Nazis (who WERE socialists, by the way), religious fundamentalists (of all denominations), welfare state liberals (most of the current U.S. Democrat Party membership), Bush/Cheney "patriot Act" neo-cons, Rick Santorum-type social issues "conservatives" (ha ha!) Obama/Bush-style crony capitalist enablers, even the so-called "religious right" AND the so-called "religious left" (from Pat Robertson to Father Pfleger...and both the Medieval Catholic Church and the Ottoman Muslim Caliphate...were/are ALL supportive of some physical form of authoritarian state/church power over the individual...hence they are all philosophically left-wing. I really don't care how Emma Goldman, Stalin, etc. have defined themselves. Their words cloud your thinking.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Ah, this seems like the place for this link 

http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/11/beach-boys-singer-bruce-johnston-barack-obama-socialist-ahole/

To be fair, he thinks both parties have schmucks running around. I think the kids today call that "real talk 

Right on Bruce!!  See, rockandroll...Bruce Johnston gets it!   

Bruce just shot up tremendously, in my book.  I'll be cranking Disney Girls, The Nearest Faraway Place and Tear in the Morning tonight!

My new favorite Beach Boy...

[rab2591]

Ah, this seems like the place for this link  

http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/11/beach-boys-singer-bruce-johnston-barack-obama-socialist-ahole/

To be fair, he thinks both parties have schmucks running around. I think the kids today call that "real talk  

Right on Bruce!!  See, rockandroll...Bruce Johnston gets it!  

Yeah, it's a shame he bases his opinion on flat-out false information. He calls an ultra-capitalist like Obama a socialist and in the same breath praises Reagan who was deeply committed to an enormous welfare state for the wealthy. I guess rigorous government intervention is okay for Bruce as long as the public is providing a safety net for concentrated wealth and power. But, of course, Bruce probably hasn't a clue as to how the economy actually works and he certainly demonstrates he doesn't know what socialism is.

Is this kind of ignorance what really constitutes "getting it" for you?

I gotta say, RockandRoll, you and The Real Beach Boy really changed my outlook on politics. It's bullshit to say that debating politics on a message board is a waste of time (as some have said here): for someone like me who was incredibly ignorant to the workings of the economic/political structures of the world it was a real eye-opener to read a lot of what you all have been talking about.

I still can't understand much of it, but I'm far more keen to listen now rather than blabber off about something I know nothing about

That being said, I'm happy that Bruce opened his mouth against the government....even when done in ignorance I'm happy when someone in the entertainment industry lashes out at the guy on top.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You have been effectively indoctrinated if you actually believe that ANY form of authoritarian state power is right wing.

Communists, socialists, European social democrats, fascist dictatorships, Nazis (who WERE socialists, by the way), religious fundamentalists (of all denominations), welfare state liberals (most of the current U.S. Democrat Party membership), Bush/Cheney "patriot Act" neo-cons, Rick Santorum-type social issues "conservatives" (ha ha!) Obama/Bush-style crony capitalist enablers, even the so-called "religious right" AND the so-called "religious left" (from Pat Robertson to Father Pfleger...and both the Medieval Catholic Church and the Ottoman Muslim Caliphate...were/are ALL supportive of some physical form of authoritarian state/church power over the individual...hence they are all philosophically left-wing. I really don't care how Emma Goldman, Stalin, etc. have defined themselves. Their words cloud your thinking.

What you don't care for, plainly, are the facts, which is probably why you ignored every single point that I raised, including the ample documentary and historical evidence that I gave in order to interrogate your claims about libertarianism - claims that you have now, apparently, dropped in order shift the goal posts and have some discussion about authoritarian state power.

Now, let's actually get to the facts. There can be authoritarian state power on the left, but, for the most part if it does exist then it's not a genuine reflection of leftist principles. After all, the Marxist political system, which constitutes a large part of the left, suggests that a properly functioning socialist society is one that has no political power. In other words, in a socialist system, if it is a genuine socialist system, there should not be any state power - whether authoritarian or minimal. Anarchism draws on socialist values and, in fact, takes them a step further. Marx suggested that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, which ultimately meant, rule by roughly 90% of the population, since that was about the number that made up the proletariat in Germany at the time. One of the key differences between anarchism and socialism is this notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, a much more genuine reflection of a non-hierarchal system in a society with no political power.

This has nothing to with how Emma Goldman or Stalin or whoever defines themselves. Rather it has to do with understanding what these terms mean - what are the political philosophies saying, what were the central tenets of the philosophers or economists who established the philosophy or economic system? These questions are crucial if we are going to talk about the subject with any kind of clarity or seriousness. Once we understand the answer to these questions, then we can then judge whether people appropriately or inappropriately use the term.

And just to clear up another misconception - the Nazis were not socialists. For one, they most definitely believed not only in political power, but overt political power. They had no interest in putting the means of production solely into the hands of the workers. Hitler hated the socialists so much that he had the German socialist party purged in 1934, ultimately executing the leader of the left wing movement Ernst Rohm, because of Rohm's desire to "redistribute wealth" and impose a socialist platform.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Ah, this seems like the place for this link  

http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/11/beach-boys-singer-bruce-johnston-barack-obama-socialist-ahole/

To be fair, he thinks both parties have schmucks running around. I think the kids today call that "real talk  

Right on Bruce!!  See, rockandroll...Bruce Johnston gets it!  

Yeah, it's a shame he bases his opinion on flat-out false information. He calls an ultra-capitalist like Obama a socialist and in the same breath praises Reagan who was deeply committed to an enormous welfare state for the wealthy. I guess rigorous government intervention is okay for Bruce as long as the public is providing a safety net for concentrated wealth and power. But, of course, Bruce probably hasn't a clue as to how the economy actually works and he certainly demonstrates he doesn't know what socialism is.

Is this kind of ignorance what really constitutes "getting it" for you?

I gotta say, RockandRoll, you and The Real Beach Boy really changed my outlook on politics. It's bullsh*t to say that debating politics on a message board is a waste of time (as some have said here): for someone like me who was incredibly ignorant to the workings of the economic/political structures of the world it was a real eye-opener to read a lot of what you all have been talking about.

I still can't understand much of it, but I'm far more keen to listen now rather than blabber off about something I know nothing about

That being said, I'm happy that Bruce opened his mouth against the government....even when done in ignorance I'm happy when someone in the entertainment industry lashes out at the guy on top.

Thanks, Rab! I encourage you to participate as well. I feel like we all learn more, the more points of view we have.

[guitarfool2002]

So the American Left, as it were, most publicly represented by the Democratic Party for right or wrong reasons, should be criticized here as well. Yet I see more of the criticism throughout this thread which I have followed and contributed several long posts to, relegated to criticizing Ron Paul, the Republican Party, capitalism, etc. I'm all for exposing the problems, and criticizing them where necessary - I have no allegiance or no love lost with either Ron Paul or the GOP, but doesn't it feel like the criticism is being directed away from the Democratic Party when some of their most prominent and public members are equally responsible for doing the same things which are being called out in this thread?

Again, I say fair is fair, and in the case of American politics, I don't have too many positives about any of the lot, the D's, the R's, or the I's because they have all disappointed me...but for a fair assessment of the issues, that criticism should at least be directed somewhat in both political directions, shouldn't it?

[Wirestone]

So the American Left, as it were, most publicly represented by the Democratic Party for right or wrong reasons, should be criticized here as well. Yet I see more of the criticism throughout this thread which I have followed and contributed several long posts to, relegated to criticizing Ron Paul, the Republican Party, capitalism, etc. I'm all for exposing the problems, and criticizing them where necessary - I have no allegiance or no love lost with either Ron Paul or the GOP, but doesn't it feel like the criticism is being directed away from the Democratic Party when some of their most prominent and public members are equally responsible for doing the same things which are being called out in this thread?

Again, I say fair is fair, and in the case of American politics, I don't have too many positives about any of the lot, the D's, the R's, or the I's because they have all disappointed me...but for a fair assessment of the issues, that criticism should at least be directed somewhat in both political directions, shouldn't it?

Not if one side is more responsible for the problems than the other side.

This is a piece authored by both a liberal and a conservative: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

[Chocolate Shake Man]

So the American Left, as it were, most publicly represented by the Democratic Party for right or wrong reasons, should be criticized here as well. Yet I see more of the criticism throughout this thread which I have followed and contributed several long posts to, relegated to criticizing Ron Paul, the Republican Party, capitalism, etc. I'm all for exposing the problems, and criticizing them where necessary - I have no allegiance or no love lost with either Ron Paul or the GOP, but doesn't it feel like the criticism is being directed away from the Democratic Party when some of their most prominent and public members are equally responsible for doing the same things which are being called out in this thread?

Again, I say fair is fair, and in the case of American politics, I don't have too many positives about any of the lot, the D's, the R's, or the I's because they have all disappointed me...but for a fair assessment of the issues, that criticism should at least be directed somewhat in both political directions, shouldn't it?

The Democratic Party is not the "American Left". Plus there is no such thing as an "American" left. That's like saying, the "American blue" or the "American biology" or the "American Christianity". The left is the left. Now there has been historically an American left, and historically, they have been disenfranchised, marginalized, and de-legitimized to the point where it is virtually impossible for anyone on the left to seriously participate in the American political process. The Democratic party often are given the distinction of being "on the left" because they are as left as you can legitimately go and still hold office or speak with any authority about political issues. This is the farce that is American politics - the only country in the industrialized world without a mainstream party representing labor.

[guitarfool2002]

So the American Left, as it were, most publicly represented by the Democratic Party for right or wrong reasons, should be criticized here as well. Yet I see more of the criticism throughout this thread which I have followed and contributed several long posts to, relegated to criticizing Ron Paul, the Republican Party, capitalism, etc. I'm all for exposing the problems, and criticizing them where necessary - I have no allegiance or no love lost with either Ron Paul or the GOP, but doesn't it feel like the criticism is being directed away from the Democratic Party when some of their most prominent and public members are equally responsible for doing the same things which are being called out in this thread?

Again, I say fair is fair, and in the case of American politics, I don't have too many positives about any of the lot, the D's, the R's, or the I's because they have all disappointed me...but for a fair assessment of the issues, that criticism should at least be directed somewhat in both political directions, shouldn't it?

The Democratic Party is not the "American Left". Plus there is no such thing as an "American" left. That's like saying, the "American blue" or the "American biology" or the "American Christianity". The left is the left. Now there has been historically an American left, and historically, they have been disenfranchised, marginalized, and de-legitimized to the point where it is virtually impossible for anyone on the left to seriously participate in the American political process. The Democratic party often are given the distinction of being "on the left" because they are as left as you can legitimately go and still hold office or speak with any authority about political issues. This is the farce that is American politics - the only country in the industrialized world without a mainstream party representing labor.

Right, so I ask why does the Democratic Party get the distinction of being the party of labor, or the party of the working man, if it isn't true as you describe and define it? Labor leadership is beholden to the Democratic party, at least publicly, and the overwhelming majority of their contributions go to Democratic candidates. Yet the assertion in the last sentence is that no mainstream party represents labor? That memo should go to the various labor groups before they spend tens of millions again this year on funding the DNC.

[guitarfool2002]

Not if one side is more responsible for the problems than the other side.

This is a piece authored by both a liberal and a conservative: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

The flawed notion that "one side" is more responsible than another is exactly the problem, and that is exactly what certain politicians depend on voters to think and accept when they go to the polls. The hidden message would appear to be this: One side is more responsible for our problems, therefore vote for the other side. Then who do we blame when things are *still* problematic, even after putting another side in power?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Right, so I ask why does the Democratic Party get the distinction of being the party of labor, or the party of the working man, if it isn't true as you describe and define it?

Because the American system can only function through ideological indoctrination. We've been through this before - it's the same reason why we are supposed to condemn socialism because of Stalin but not condemn capitalism because of Suharto. Remember that the media has a very crucial role in shaping public opinion and the media represent the interests of concentrated wealth and power and naturally to them, the Democrats are the party of labor because they show slightly more interest in labor than the Republican party does (and it is this slight, marginal difference, incidentally, that also accounts for the Democrats getting labor support -- after all, who else are they going to support?). Surely, the Democrats themselves probably quite laughably consider themselves to be an emblem of labor rights.  But this is a consequence of a very heavily indoctrinated society. In reality, the Democrats have always represented the interests of big business and concentrated wealth - in fact, they have a much longer history of doing this than the Republicans!

[PongHit]

He sounds drunk to me, anyone agree?

[GreatUrduPoet]

So the American Left, as it were, most publicly represented by the Democratic Party for right or wrong reasons, should be criticized here as well. Yet I see more of the criticism throughout this thread which I have followed and contributed several long posts to, relegated to criticizing Ron Paul, the Republican Party, capitalism, etc. I'm all for exposing the problems, and criticizing them where necessary - I have no allegiance or no love lost with either Ron Paul or the GOP, but doesn't it feel like the criticism is being directed away from the Democratic Party when some of their most prominent and public members are equally responsible for doing the same things which are being called out in this thread?

Again, I say fair is fair, and in the case of American politics, I don't have too many positives about any of the lot, the D's, the R's, or the I's because they have all disappointed me...but for a fair assessment of the issues, that criticism should at least be directed somewhat in both political directions, shouldn't it?

The Democratic Party is not the "American Left". Plus there is no such thing as an "American" left. That's like saying, the "American blue" or the "American biology" or the "American Christianity". The left is the left. Now there has been historically an American left, and historically, they have been disenfranchised, marginalized, and de-legitimized to the point where it is virtually impossible for anyone on the left to seriously participate in the American political process. The Democratic party often are given the distinction of being "on the left" because they are as left as you can legitimately go and still hold office or speak with any authority about political issues. This is the farce that is American politics - the only country in the industrialized world without a mainstream party representing labor.

Thank God for small blessings. The last thing in the world we need is ANOTHER special interest political party! Just out of curiosity, are you a Canadian citizen, a public-employee union member or a currently enrolled student at a University? I don't hear your kind of argument coming from any other segment of the American (working) population these days. I am an employed registered Democrat in a Blue State.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Thank God for small blessings. The last thing in the world we need is ANOTHER special interest political party!

Of course, the only two mainstream parties we have are both special interest parties for the wealthy. What we need is a party that represents the special interests of the population, not just the small percentage of concentrated power and wealth.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Thank God for small blessings. The last thing in the world we need is ANOTHER special interest political party!

Of course, the only two mainstream parties we have are both special interest parties for the wealthy. What we need is a party that represents the special interests of the population, not just the small percentage of concentrated power and wealth.

You must have slept through the rise of the Tea Party movement and the (early) Occupy Wall Street protests.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Thank God for small blessings. The last thing in the world we need is ANOTHER special interest political party!

Of course, the only two mainstream parties we have are both special interest parties for the wealthy. What we need is a party that represents the special interests of the population, not just the small percentage of concentrated power and wealth.

You must have slept through the rise of the Tea Party movement and the (early) Occupy Wall Street protests.

The Tea Party movement from the beginning has been under control of concentrated power and wealth. The Occupy Wall Street movement is grassroots but it's not a political party you can vote for. It is however a real step in the right direction if any real change is going to happen in the U.S.

[guitarfool2002]

Thank God for small blessings. The last thing in the world we need is ANOTHER special interest political party!

Of course, the only two mainstream parties we have are both special interest parties for the wealthy. What we need is a party that represents the special interests of the population, not just the small percentage of concentrated power and wealth.

You must have slept through the rise of the Tea Party movement and the (early) Occupy Wall Street protests.

The Tea Party movement from the beginning has been under control of concentrated power and wealth. The Occupy Wall Street movement is grassroots but it's not a political party you can vote for. It is however a real step in the right direction if any real change is going to happen in the U.S.

This is incorrect on both sides, and we've been over it previously.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Thank God for small blessings. The last thing in the world we need is ANOTHER special interest political party!

Of course, the only two mainstream parties we have are both special interest parties for the wealthy. What we need is a party that represents the special interests of the population, not just the small percentage of concentrated power and wealth.

You must have slept through the rise of the Tea Party movement and the (early) Occupy Wall Street protests.

The Tea Party movement from the beginning has been under control of concentrated power and wealth. The Occupy Wall Street movement is grassroots but it's not a political party you can vote for. It is however a real step in the right direction if any real change is going to happen in the U.S.

This is incorrect on both sides, and we've been over it previously.

What we went over were precisely the facts that proved my point. To repeat, in the weeks before the first Tea Party Tax Day protests, the David Koch-run Americans for Prosperity was hosting a website for offering talking points to protestors. This is at the very beginning of 2009. And, in fact, according to a New Yorker investigation from 2010, a Republican campaign consultant noted of the Tea Party that "The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it."

On the other hand, I have yet to find a shred of evidence to suggest that Occupy was controlled by any corporate interests.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Thank God for small blessings. The last thing in the world we need is ANOTHER special interest political party!

Of course, the only two mainstream parties we have are both special interest parties for the wealthy. What we need is a party that represents the special interests of the population, not just the small percentage of concentrated power and wealth.

You must have slept through the rise of the Tea Party movement and the (early) Occupy Wall Street protests.

The Tea Party movement from the beginning has been under control of concentrated power and wealth. The Occupy Wall Street movement is grassroots but it's not a political party you can vote for. It is however a real step in the right direction if any real change is going to happen in the U.S.

You've got it ass-backwards (unless for some reason you consider American small business owners the evil "power & wealth" cabal). Both movements have authentic grassroots credibility, but OWS was co-opted early on by the labor unions and Trotskyite leftist groups. Most teabaggers couldn't even tell you who the Koch brothers are, and did not have all their expenses paid by outsiders like the larger OWS encampments did. I doubt that you've been "on the ground" talking to people participating in the events held by these groups like I have, or you would not parrot the Left's pathetic "talking points" so glibly. I was right about you being in academia, right? Perhaps you need to start occupying 'reality street'.

[guitarfool2002]

Thank God for small blessings. The last thing in the world we need is ANOTHER special interest political party!

Of course, the only two mainstream parties we have are both special interest parties for the wealthy. What we need is a party that represents the special interests of the population, not just the small percentage of concentrated power and wealth.

You must have slept through the rise of the Tea Party movement and the (early) Occupy Wall Street protests.

The Tea Party movement from the beginning has been under control of concentrated power and wealth. The Occupy Wall Street movement is grassroots but it's not a political party you can vote for. It is however a real step in the right direction if any real change is going to happen in the U.S.

This is incorrect on both sides, and we've been over it previously.

What we went over were precisely the facts that proved my point. To repeat, in the weeks before the first Tea Party Tax Day protests, the David Koch-run Americans for Prosperity was hosting a website for offering talking points to protestors. This is at the very beginning of 2009. And, in fact, according to a New Yorker investigation from 2010, a Republican campaign consultant noted of the Tea Party that "The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it."

On the other hand, I have yet to find a shred of evidence to suggest that Occupy was controlled by any corporate interests.

Then I'd suggest re-reading that thread where I listed not only the names but also the corporate interests and companies connected to the ad man who coined the "Occupy Wall Street" phrase as well as the man who was the first to send that phrase on Twitter. To say that man is a political activist would be an understatement, and to say he is grassroots or somehow disconnected from a larger political machine is an outright lie.

My memory is sharp on those things, I'll gladly repost to remind anyone who may have forgotten in the past month.

[Bean Bag]

I don't think you as a conspiracy theorist.

In that case, why did you call me a Flat Earther?

[/quote]

Two reasons.

1.  You're preaching hokum.  Don't hold your breath, expecting to sail off the edge of the map, into Utopia.  You'll be endlessly circumnavigating the globe with that flat map of yours.  It is also telling that you associate "Flat Earth" with conspiracy theories.  I associate Flat Earthin' with holding onto an idea that just ain't so.  Hold on to principles, if fine -- but leave the fairytales to poets.

2.  Secondly, it's import to use a Leftist's own language against them.  I can't stress this enough.  In the case of Global Warming, why would they call a skeptic a flat earther?  That's illogical.  Skeptics proved the world was round not flat.  By calling people flat earthers -- they were hoping to end debate.  Without even knowing it, the Global Warming Nazis showed their cards.  They were simply attempting to deceive the whole time.  If they weren't, they'd welcome challenge. 

Pretty basic stuff. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Then I'd suggest re-reading that thread where I listed not only the names but also the corporate interests and companies connected to the ad man who coined the "Occupy Wall Street" phrase as well as the man who was the first to send that phrase on Twitter. To say that man is a political activist would be an understatement, and to say he is grassroots or somehow disconnected from a larger political machine is an outright lie.

My memory is sharp on those things, I'll gladly repost to remind anyone who may have forgotten in the past month.

I remember what you wrote. Neither Ad Busters nor The Tides Foundation are funding or controlling OWS. That was a media fabrication. Yes, some figures in Ad Busters suggested some actions like Occupy, but they really had no control over it. And even if they did, Ad Busters is not a corporation, nor is it run by anyone from the corporate elite. At any rate, Occupy decisions are ultimately made in participatory meetings which are open to everyone.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Two reasons.

1.  You're preaching hokum.

In that case, demonstrate it. Don't just tell me I'm "preaching hokum", show me. Anyone could just say "You're preaching hokum" - that's simple. But that's not proving anything. If this is what you believe, then provide a quotation of mine and demonstrate with evidence how I'm wrong. Until you do that, you are in no position to make these cheap shots.

Secondly, it's import to use a Leftist's own language against them.  [/color]

In that case, please demonstrate where I used the term before you did. Or is this just another groundless generalization?