DHS: Recession fueling right-wing extremism - Page 5

On April 16 2009 05:51 Jibba wrote:
All parts of what you said are true, but I think that's especially important since we always like to compare it to Europe, where the warring states created much of the drive for discovery.

Science is science. If there were no competition at all, this might be true, but there are still other forms of competition such as in between states. The USSR and China were both able to develop atomic energy, and it wasn't because of the economic systems or just by stealing secrets.

On April 16 2009 06:06 HeadBangaa wrote:
And yes, I agree with your definition of liberalism. Confusingly, the factions in this country that label themselves as "liberals" stand for the exact opposite. I term these folks as "neolibs".

On April 16 2009 04:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Such well meaning protests they are to.

Despite what media talking points saying that the protests are not political it's plainly obviosu that they are especially when you have Political scheduled to speak at some events. As well as funding said events.

RT @BreakingNews: The suspicious package at the White House has been cleared. AP reports it appears to be a box of tea bags.

Emergency services at the White House to investigate suspicious package: http://adjix.com/wtsp

Parts of WH in lockdown after tea bags thrown over gate. Protestors yelling death to president. #teaparty

MSNBC: White House lawn evacuated bc someone threw a tea bag over the fence.

On April 16 2009 06:13 Excalibur_Z wrote:




There are several things wrong with your analysis:

1) The important thing to note here is that fringe elements will emerge at any large-scale gathering. This should be expected.

2) Media outlets with an agenda will feature only the wacky "anti-government" or "partisan" signholders in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole. CIP: your "thinkprogress.org" image links. This should also be expected.

3) The underlying and unifying message of the tea parties is one of anti-spending, not anti-government and not partisan. What you also need to realize is that these tea parties were also all independently coordinated, which means different secondary messages may also emerge. This is where you're seeing the anti-Democrat, the anti-Obama, etc. signs. There are also tea parties with 9/11 Truthers. We may not agree on everything, but don't distort the issue: the core reason for the event is massive government spending.

4) While this is primarily a grassroots movement, that shouldn't necessarily prevent some politicians from speaking. I don't agree with it, because it gives them an opportunity to grandstand, but their presence is at the discretion of the tea party organizer. For example, I wouldn't let Newt Gingrich speak at my tea party if I were hosting one, but I also wouldn't allow signs, particularly ones that construe a partisan message.

Media outlets with an agenda will feature only the wacky "anti-government" or "partisan" signholders in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole. CIP: your "thinkprogress.org" image links. This should also be expected.

On April 16 2009 06:12 Mindcrime wrote:


Neoliberalism is synonymous with free markets and globalization; Reagan and Thatcher were "neolibs." Modern American "liberalism," however, can rightfully be referred to as "new liberalism."

On April 16 2009 06:13 Excalibur_Z wrote:


You posted the same image three times.

There are several things wrong with your analysis:

1) The important thing to note here is that fringe elements will emerge at any large-scale gathering. This should be expected.

2) Media outlets with an agenda will feature only the wacky "anti-government" or "partisan" signholders in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole. CIP: your "thinkprogress.org" image links. This should also be expected.

3) The underlying and unifying message of the tea parties is one of anti-spending, not anti-government and not partisan. What you also need to realize is that these tea parties were also all independently coordinated, which means different secondary messages may also emerge. This is where you're seeing the anti-Democrat, the anti-Obama, etc. signs. There are also tea parties with 9/11 Truthers. We may not agree on everything, but don't distort the issue: the core reason for the event is massive government spending.

4) While this is primarily a grassroots movement, that shouldn't necessarily prevent some politicians from speaking. I don't agree with it, because it gives them an opportunity to grandstand, but their presence is at the discretion of the tea party organizer. For example, I wouldn't let Newt Gingrich speak at my tea party if I were hosting one, but I also wouldn't allow signs, particularly ones that construe a partisan message.

On April 16 2009 06:45 HeadBangaa wrote:

I am referring to the modern American left when I say neolib. That is a valid usage.

It is confusing, the constant redefinitions. Depending on the temporal context, the same words mean different things.

On April 16 2009 06:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This isn't a grassroots movement.

Anti-spending see the other link I posted where were they for the past 8 years then? It's political and you know it.

On April 16 2009 04:28 Savio wrote:


That is hilarious since capitalism (or free market or whatever) is the best/most stable political advancement in millenia (perhaps since the dawn of time?).

Chew on this quote for a few seconds:

"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman"

On April 16 2009 06:53 Mindcrime wrote:


These terms are pretty well-established. I don't see why you feel the need to redefine them.

Neoliberalism is a late-twentieth-century philosophy, actually a continuance and redefinition of classical liberalism, influenced by the neoclassical theories of economics. The term is most often applied by critics of the doctrine, to the point where one commentator remarked "the concept itself has become an imprecise exhortation in much of the literature, often describing any tendency deemed to be undesirable".[1] The central principle of neoliberal policy is free markets and free trade. The prime global advocate[citation needed] is the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, whose self-defined trade and commerce mandate is

to break down barriers to international trade and investment so that all countries can benefit from improved living standards through increased trade and investment flows.[2]

In the United States, neoliberalism can also refer to a political movement in which members of the American left (such as Michael Kinsley, Robert Kaus, Mickey Kaus, and Randall Rothenberg) endorsed some free market positions, such as free market economics and welfare reform.[3][4] This term should not be confused with new liberalism, which is also used in the United States.

On April 16 2009 06:53 Mindcrime wrote:

These terms are pretty well-established. I don't see why you feel the need to redefine them.

On April 16 2009 07:03 TanGeng wrote:


The terms are confusing unless you live only in the little world of American politics.

Liberal historically (19th century) was associated with freedom and minimal government interference. Then a bunch of socialists hijacked the label by selling everyone on the idea that people should also be "free of economic wants". Liberal has taken on many divergent political definitions since.

I am referring to the modern American left when I say neolib. That is a valid usage.