A blog dedicated to the researchers who dyed a captured chimp's fur pink, then released it. The other chimps promptly tore it to pieces.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

I believe you've got a typo there, Thom.

Thom Hartmann:

The Real Boston Tea Party was Against the Wal-Mart of the 1770s

CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli called for a “Chicago Tea Party” on Feb 19th in protesting President Obama’s plan to help homeowners in trouble. Santelli’s call was answered by the right-wing group Freedomworks, which funds campaigns promoting big business interests, and is the opposite of what the real Boston Tea Party was. FreedomWorks was funded in 2004 by Dick Army (former Republican House Majority leader & lobbyist) . . .

Actually, the Dick Army is the group of people who showed up at the various Tea Party events across the country. Thom probably means Dick Armey.


  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger shem said…

    I don't know about the "Dick Army" being those who showed up at the tea parties. Many obviously were dicks, but it seemed to me that there were also a lot of people there who just want less government. Less government sounds much better than more government to me regardless of who is in power (but not as good as no government). We're not going to get any less government with Obama than we would have with McCain. So fuck both of them, but fuck Obama more since he won and has a better opportunity than McCain to screw us.

  • At 5:06 AM, Blogger Realist said…

    I don't have any problem with the ones who were there because they legitimately want smaller government - I want smaller government too. My problem is the people (and I think this describes the vast majority of teabaggers) who had no problem with anything George W. Bush did, but started screaming about fascism the minute Obama was elected. (many didn't even have the decency to wait until he'd actually taken office and done something worth criticizing)

    Obama wouldn't be able to pull half this shit if Dubya hadn't set him up with the ability to do so. So yeah, fuck him more than McCain, but less than the previous occupant of the Oval Office. Whatever his faults, he's still better than another Bush term. That's why I voted for him and would do so again even knowing what I know now. If McCain had won, I really doubt he'd have just turned down all those extra-legal Bush powers - he'd be using them even more than Obama is.

  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger shem said…

    I don't accept that Obama will be any better or any worse than Bush was or McCain would have been. Regardless of how much either of them think that they are doing what is in the best interes of America, they all believe in using coercion to shape society the way the want it to be. Which means that each of them are prepared, if necessary, to use deadly force to make other people follow their rules regarding right and wrong. Which is why we have the war on drugs, selective service, public education (indoctrination), compulsory taxation, and on and on. Reverend Wright was correct: Goddamn America!

  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Realist said…

    You're right - arguing about "shoulda, coulda, woulda" gets us nowhere. You're also right that none of them are trying to convince anybody - they all want their ideas enforced at gunpoint.

    I'm not sure what the solution is. My late mother used to say that people who actually WANT to run things should be prevented from doing so at all costs. Our leaders should be chosen at random (like Selective Service) from among those who have no interest in running other people's lives.

    Sounds crazy, huh? But at this point, I'm ready to try just about anything because it's pretty obvious what we're doing now isn't working.

  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger shem said…

    Realist, have you ever heard of panarchy? It's the idea that individuals should have a right to make their own choices, including the choice of governance. There's a fellow named Michael Rozeff who has written several articles at LewRockwell.com about panarchy. If you google Michael Rozeff and go to his archives you can find these articles. Try "A Foundation for Panarchy" or "On Extending Your Liberty Rightfully" or "Liberty In the Choice of Governance" to start.

    My mom said the same thing yours did. Is that a coincidence? And in my previous posting I should have said Wonko Damn America!

  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Realist said…

    It's an interesting concept. I did some reading on it today - not as much as I'd have liked, since I'm currently engaged in trying to find gainful employment. But enough to get the gist of it. I've bookmarked a number of sites for further reading.

    Yeah, I'm a big Wonko fan. It's one of the few things my conservative brother and I still agree on.

  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger shem said…

    I used to think I was a conservative. And a long time ago I thought the republicans were the party of limited government. Not no more. Not for at least the last ten years. Even after I knew the republicans weren't really the party of limited government, I though that, at least, they were better than the democrats. They aren't. Bush, Cheney, Armey, Dole, Lott and the rest showed a lot of us how wrong we were.

    Another panarchy article to read is "The Present State of Liberty" by Adam Knott. It's about 35 pages, but boy is it good. I highly recommend it. Have your brother read it. Maybe he will change his mind.

  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger James Clayton said…

    For more articles and essays about Panarchy, you might want to take a look at the following link:


Post a Comment

<< Home