You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.
"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that", Jane Garvey, BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.
Thursday, April 16, 2009 at 07:37PM Oh my…CNN “reports” on the April 15th tea parties. The reporter states that the event is "anti-CNN" and "highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox." After interrupting the person she is interviewing, the reporter moves away, stating that the gathering is "not really family viewing."
The crowd disagrees and hilarity ensues.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (42)
"And that fifty billion comes with a fucking price tag lady"
Such appropriate language to use when holding a two year old in your arms.
Yes, Paul, it was inappropriate.
But, bear in mind that the guy, while being televised, actually kept his head despite being repeatedly interrupted by the paid, antagonistic reporter from the international "news" network, CNN.
He was being played, and in the end, he knew it. I'm sure his 2 year old will forgive his momentary lapse in appropriate vocabulary.
Could you have done better?
I think that I probably could have Patty.
If I knew that I was being played I'd like to think that I'd be savvy enough to keep a civil tongue in my head.
Then you're the better man, Paul.
a it shows the contemp of this journalist.
and Lincoln said no mans house should be torn down to raise another
What charming people.
Of course if anyone has video of what happened when MSNBC turned up, that would be worth watching.
The State of ... Lincoln? That's one dopey liberal bird.
Uninterested Obama might not know how many States there are in the Union, but even he hasn't made up new ones.
And what a magnificent turnout for a spontaneous rising of the people. All curtesy of Ron Paul, the only sane man in DC, whose idea it was. My heart is full of joy at the repeated sight of the Gadsden flag and the sure and steady realisation that tax is theft of private wealth and that the state is not your friend.
Stop arguing, commie trash. Your man's had the gig for three months and already patriots are on the streets.
More, please.
Stupid, fat, ill-educated white people - that about sums it up.
That stupid old woman at the end said that the federal Reserve is stealing all her money, but she will be getting a tax-cut.
It is just stupid, stupid fat people holding illeterate signs.
It is bloody funny though.
Guba - your sign comment suggests that you may have more in common with them than you think.
Pete - Magnificent turnout? Classic! And as spontaneous as a glacier.
The reporter states that the event is "anti-CNN" and "highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox."
And which bit of that statement is untrue?
realisation that tax is theft of private wealth...
Same old Pete, same old garbage.
Theft of private wealth is what the Nazis did to the Jews. You spoil your case (such as it is) with such ridiculous over-statement.
LOL -- I love the guy with the kid: all bluster, and then when challenged he was all "eh eh eh eh eh.... well..."
What a bunch of cabbages.
Tax is only theft if the govt taking the money was not elected by the populace who are taxed.
Colm -
You have no moral right to vote your way into my wallet.
I have no right today to take your property, I'd have no more right to take it if everyone but you voted for me.
My property is mine - clearly, unarguably, objectively mine and I give the state no permission to take a single piece of it.
No, 'democracy' changes nothing. Your argument is tosh, a silly, worthless justification for plain, objective theft.
Full moon, Pete?
"My property is mine - clearly, unarguably, objectively mine and I give the state no permission to take a single piece of it"
True Pete - unless you're Palestinian of course.
'You have no moral right to vote your way into my wallet. '
yes, one does. The 'free market' is fundamentaly and objectively unfair - Society has a moral right to attempt to redress the balance.
You, also, benefit from society and, therefore, you have to pay for it.
"Tax is only theft if the govt taking the money was not elected by the populace who are taxed."
Isn't it now true that more than 50% of the electorate doesn't pay income tax? (Or gets it all refunded)
"Theft of private wealth is what the Nazis did to the Jews."
Indeed they became notorious for their income tax policies.
Comments like this are why people laugh at you.
So the Nazis didn't take the private wealth of Jews?
Pete
If that really is your argument then the State should dismantle itself, there should be no government,national or local, no Defence forces, no statutory police forces, no statutory law structures or authorities , no prisons, no public land of any description , no public parks, all roads without exception privately owned etc etc etc. In short anarchy. Is that the way to the peaceful gentle land you dream of
Mark
There are good argument to be made about the general excesses of taxation and inefficiencies of govt. spending, but comparisons on modern US and UK govts tax policies with the hateful and vicious ethnic targeting of Jews by Nazis are as stupid and insulting as student demonstators shouting 'Gestapo' at the police just becasue they get stopped at a barrier.
Colm, agreed, which is why I pointed out an obviously incorrect remark by Mr Sands. I did not intend to enter the larger discussion.
Mark
Yes i think there was some confusion on my part as to how that comment arrived on this thread. I thought it had been mentioned as a comparison with what Obama/Brown are doing. It wasn't. Looking back on the thread it was clearly raised by Peter to show how Pete Moore's suggestion of 'theft' was hyperbolic in comparison to real evil state thefts.
In Scotland, only about 100,000 people make a net contribution to the nation's finances. When that state of affairs exists, the country is probably beyond saving. I reckon that "no taxation without representation" should be inverted.
BTW, that was one helluva bitch that CNN sent out.
That man should not have brought that toddler with him to an event like this.
Guba
yes, one does. The 'free market' is fundamentaly and objectively unfair - Society has a moral right to attempt to redress the balance.
Spoken like a true Marxist Guba it's people like you that represent the true danger to mankind
Pete Moore posted:
You have no moral right to vote your way into my wallet.
So no government. That makes you an anarchist my friend.
Of course it doesn't. Order, civilisation and justice does not flow from government. It ought to be clear by now that government is the enemy of individual liberty and civil institutions.
'Spoken like a true Marxist Guba'
No, like a true Capitalist. I'm a social Democrat - the most succesful form of Capitalism that has ever existed.
Guba,
You are, and by your own words, most definitly not a capitalist. You are a statist by any definition, and don't you see that the name 'social Democrat' is a contradiction of terms...you can be one, or the other, but not both at the same time...
You are a statist by any definition
Err, how is social democracy statist? It is the most representative form of democracy. And is extremly sucessful in most of Europe. Lassaiz Faire Capitalist democracy is, on the other hand, very unrepresentative and very Statist. It has to be both, because the majority of people would simply reject it given a choice.
don't you see that the name 'social Democrat' is a contradiction of terms...you can be one, or the other, but not both at the same time...
Its not, and you can. Obviously. Ofcourse denial that social democracy actually exists, or that it can even exist at all, is maybe part of the problem (here in the UK).
Nationalise the Bank of England !!!
DT,
As ever, big on the Straw man argument, but very small on the intellectual definitions.
The State has to have some degee of inclusion in any walk of society, if only from the justice and legal need.
It does not have any excuse for inclusion in running the detail or otherwise micromanageing of any business or sphere of commercial activity.
What you appear to be espousing is fascism, plain and simple...
As ever, big on the Straw man argument, but very small on the intellectual definitions.
Im not sure I see any straw men in my argument, but then again, I do have a roaring (wedding) hangover. Also, I dont need to 'intellectually define' social democracy. Its a simple enough concept that even school kids manage to grasp.
The State has to have some degee of inclusion in any walk of society, if only from the justice and legal need.
So its only a difference of degrees then. Thats progress. I notice though that you seem to see the state as merely an enforcer. I imagine you wanted to include defence in there too.
It does not have any excuse for inclusion in running the detail or otherwise micromanageing of any business or sphere of commercial activity.
I agree that regulations that function poorly should be reviewed (or scrapped), but I think many would agree that people need protecting from all sorts of ill effects from business and commercial activity. Not everyone in the world thinks that making a profit supercedes the rights or health of any individual.
What you appear to be espousing is fascism, plain and simple
Ernest, fascism is as good a definition as any for what we already have.
DT,
"I think many would agree that people need protecting from all sorts of ill effects from business and commercial activity."
Only in the generality, not in the detail. Socialist governments tend to get overly carried away with their own importance, and are always, and only, interested in aquiring power.
If government did the job of providing a decent unbiased and non-political education for its constituents, then there would be less need for all those regulations 'to protect' an uneductaed and illiterate population. Like most modern governments, they tend to create the problem and then attempt to find the cure, usually in a very inferior fashion, but, of course that way they do aquire more power over us proles.
"Not everyone in the world thinks that making a profit supercedes the rights or health of any individual."
I quite agree, which as I mentioned, is where government should wield what little expertise it has, in defining basic rules of interaction between members of society, it should not be active in defining the actual way any enterprise conducts its activities, that will always be controlled by individual decision, it's what makes the free market work efficiently, the good surviving and the bad 'going to the wall'.
Government and commerce are like washing your hands - each needs the other, and the arrangement works, as long as there is a balance between the two. When imbalance occurs we get problems, as with the current crisis.
"fascism is as good a definition as any for what we already have."
Agreed, but as with all things, it is a matter of degree, what we have is a fledgling version, - it will get far worse!
Even Mussolini's version was considered a 'good version' by many people, until being corrupted by the Hitler version. and we don't even have a 'good version', - if there is such a thing, - to begin with!
Social democracy is the most successful form of Capitalism that has ever been tried.
Capitalism needs consumers - it needs as many people to buy as much as possible. Therefore, taking money off the rich and giving it to the poor is very good for wealth creation, as it increases the number of consumers. History bears that out.
So, it is fair and good for the economy. We have tried the alternative often enough, let's not repeat a failed experiment.
Social democracy and Communism are completely different - one is capitalist; the other is marxist.
Guba your really are crazy arent you? For one thing america is a Republic not a Democracy
and the US has been the most successful economic society the world has ever scene.
Redistribution of wealth has never worked. point to one country that it has.
'For one thing america is a Republic not a Democracy'
I must be crazy, i never knew that they were mutually exclusive.
'and the US has been the most successful economic society the world has ever scene.'
Yes, when was it at its greatest?
'Redistribution of wealth has never worked. point to one country that it has'
ah ... The United States.
Guba,
It is the way the wealth is redistributed.
If done through hard work and personal endeavour, then that's fine, but redistribution by way of welfare is a disaster - especially for those that are the recipients of said 'welfare'.
While I may well agree that I am, on occasion, my brother's helper, I do not subscribe to the other, 'progressive' version that I am, by obligation, my Brother's keeper...
Only in the generality, not in the detail.
How on earth does a government protect those it represents with generalities? And even if that was the case, what incentive for private business to anything less than vague in its responsibilities.
Socialist governments tend to get overly carried away with their own importance, and are always, and only, interested in aquiring power.
Socialist goverments hardly hold the monoply on the desire for power.
I quite agree, which as I mentioned, is where government should wield what little expertise it has, in defining basic rules of interaction between members of society, it should not be active in defining the actual way any enterprise conducts its activities, that will always be controlled by individual decision, it's what makes the free market work efficiently, the good surviving and the bad 'going to the wall'.
Surely we have just seen a clear (global) demonstration of why some individual decisions should be tempered severely. Id also point out that I was all for letting the bad (banks) go to the wall. Id personally have gone straight to the source ane nationalised the BoE.
Government and commerce are like washing your hands - each needs the other, and the arrangement works, as long as there is a balance between the two. When imbalance occurs we get problems, as with the current crisis.
I agree, but I would suggest that the imbalance of today is very much weighted towards private business. Or more specifically, the financial domain. Even a cursory glance at the last ten years indicates this very clearly. In just over a decade, the fully privatised central bank of the UK has pretty much destroyed the British economy. Note also that it was an alleged left wing government that privatised the BoE and further released finance from what can be now seen to be a much needed leash.
Agreed, but as with all things, it is a matter of degree, what we have is a fledgling version, - it will get far worse!
Well, I've been saying that for years. Now the right has suddenly realised, esp in the US, when faced with coming to terms with just what our governments have been up to for the last number of years.
Even Mussolini's version was considered a 'good version' by many people, until being corrupted by the Hitler version. and we don't even have a 'good version', - if there is such a thing, - to begin with!
Im not sure there is any good form of Oligarchic Corporate Kleptocracy. I mean we have been laughing at russian thug billionaires for years but few seem to have noticed we have plenty of our own, and they run the show here too.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6116023.ece
"And that fifty billion comes with a fucking price tag lady"
Such appropriate language to use when holding a two year old in your arms.
Excuse me? Isn't the two-year-old the product of fucking?