This explains a whole lot.
Some of us are AWAKE
If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.
I can see cultural marxist, atheistic marxist, democratic socialist...I am surprised they still use the term.
I thought we were going to stop this petty squabble. Remember when a bunch of neo-nazis donated to Ron Paul how the press tried to play the same card that you're playing right now. You hate everybody at OWS. We get it. The world is black and white and everybody in a group thinks exactly the same way. Anybody who tries to convert the more moderate people in the Occupy movement is a Commie and everybody who hates them is a true American. Move along.
This is why Ron doesn't just completely endorse OWS. We can't keep trying to put people in groups based on labels and try to gain the entire group's endorsement. Some OWS members are anti-FED liberty minded people. Some are straight up communists. Some Tea Partiers are small government constitutionalists. Some are right wing nut jobs. The biggest mistake Ron could make is to blindly endorse these groups despite the diversity of their members. This would leave him open to guilt by association attacks from the talking heads in the media. As it is, Ron has been great about these things. He always speaks about these groups in a manner that reveals their complexity, and only endorses the liberty minded folks in the movements, while offering dialogue and education to the others. His stance on these issues can be a model for us all. Very simple, treat people as individuals, not as a group you lump them into.
Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).
I thought Libertarians didn't believe in any left-right paradigm.
We don't like it, but being realists we acknowledge the reality of it's existence and use as a politically divisive tool. Affiliation is real. Political action groups are real. Large groups of individuals working together to promote their interests over yours are also real.
what does it explain? i guess i don't get the point.
As a comment coming from one of the biggest OWS cheerleaders here, I suppose the point might escape you.
I suppose any amount of nuance has escaped you.
I'm not unfamiliar with your posts, so spare the self-righteousness.
I'm happy you're familiar with my posts. However, that is irrelevant to the conflation here. If you're afraid of elaborating any further, then it's not that hard to avoid disambiguation all together by not pressing enter.
The AdBusters and Communist Party connections are self-explanatory and illustrative of the OWS origins and drivers. It's all quite clear.
How many high-profile socialists or communists are you aware of that also endorse Ron?
well, i suppose i can work with what little explanation you have provided. "communists and socialists" = huge bogeymen of which is yet another conflation with a magazine, then a movement which many ron paul supporters are involved. coalitions are a good thing. that is an elementary lesson in activism, divide-and-conquer, another one.
I've been reading Adbusters for years and have never seen anything vaguely "communist" in it.
It's mission is socialist and anti-capitalist.
I repeat: How many high-profile socialists or communists are you aware of that also endorse Ron?
It's a magazine, its in business to make a profit and it does so because it puts together a lot of well-written articles with many different shades of opinion, exactly what the mainstream media do not do.
Anyone who is prepared to stand against the violence of the state should be our allies, no matter their beliefs or what colour underwear they are wearing.
“We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society.”
So any one who is not for Ron Paul is either a socialist or a fascist?
You are typical of those on here who have essentially a religious mindset and see anyone outside their way of thinking as some sort of heretic. If we could wave a magic wand and convert the whole country to the teachings of Von Mises that would be great, however until that magic moment arrives we will have to work with those we might not always agree with.
You're pulling that trite old tactic on someone who's well known here for supporting not only Ron but Gary Johnson? That's weak tea, pal. Weak.
1. Abolition of property in land.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of property.
5. Central national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Central control of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Factories and instruments of production owned by the State and run under a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work in industrial armies.
9. More equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children only in public schools.
FDR New Deal Rights
8 The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
2 The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
1 The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
7 The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
4 The right of every family to a decent home;
3 The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
9 The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
10 The right to a good education.
5 [Central bank established 1913]
6 [ICC, FTC, FCC establish]
Free includes debt-free!
Guilt by association? They also agreed with Dr. Paul about the Iraq war. Who cares what the communist party of America says anyway? I can't imagine a more irrelevent group.