Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.
But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left...
I don't see why any person or group exercising their constitutional rights to assembly and free speech is controversial at all.
I don't see why any person or group exercising their constitutional rights to assembly and free speech is controversial at all.
It's not the exercising of the rights to free speech, it's the fundamental belief in anarchy that both groups share.
In other words, it's not the actions, so much as the motivations.
At least, that's what I got out of it.
This was an interesting Op-Ed from conservative columnist David Brooks the other day. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
In it, he compares the "Tea Party" to 60's radical anarchists.
(excerpt from Op-Ed Columnist - The Wal-Mart Hippies - NYTimes.com )
About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.
But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left...
This was an interesting Op-Ed from conservative columnist David Brooks the other day. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
In it, he compares the "Tea Party" to 60's radical anarchists.
(excerpt from Op-Ed Columnist - The Wal-Mart Hippies - NYTimes.com )
About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.
But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left...
I don't see why any person or group exercising their constitutional rights to assembly and free speech is controversial at all.
It's not the exercising of the rights to free speech, it's the fundamental belief in anarchy that both groups share.
In other words, it's not the actions, so much as the motivations.
At least, that's what I got out of it.
This was an interesting Op-Ed from conservative columnist David Brooks the other day. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
In it, he compares the "Tea Party" to 60's radical anarchists.
(excerpt from Op-Ed Columnist - The Wal-Mart Hippies - NYTimes.com )
About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.
But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left...
David Brooks - Dickipedia - A Wiki of Dicks
You really need to look at who you post from before you do it.
This dickhead is a pretend conservative that panders to the times crowd.
You labeled Brooks a conservative columnist. You're kidding - right?
His description of the tea party movement isn't even close.
There are two kinds of people who think David Brooks is a conservative: leftists and everyone else who's severely retarded.
This was an interesting Op-Ed from conservative columnist David Brooks the other day. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
In it, he compares the "Tea Party" to 60's radical anarchists.
(excerpt from Op-Ed Columnist - The Wal-Mart Hippies - NYTimes.com )
About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.
But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left...
Interesting assessment, that is One Man's view.
This statement sort of derails the train for Me personally. ....
But the core commonality is this: Members of both movements believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains, is how Rousseau put it.
Off track. Man is Imperfect, that is partly why We have Laws and Government. Most Religions teach that. We have measure of both Virtue and Vise, that ain't going to be changing anytime soon. I support the efforts of Anyone compelled to act non-violently, on Their Civic concerns, Right, Center, or Left, If You have something to say, say it, It builds spine.
You know.....that part you hilighted is really interesting. Why? Because the tea party movement believes that mankind is ANYTHING BUT innocent. If they believed in innocence, why do they use such disgusting signs to make their point? Why would they do some of the crap they've done?
By the way.......did you hear about the dude with Alzheimer's who showed up at a healthcare rally? Know what they did to him? Ridiculed and humiliated him.
Yeah.....right.......the tea partiers are hippies and Hitler was a humane person.
This was an interesting Op-Ed from conservative columnist David Brooks the other day. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
In it, he compares the "Tea Party" to 60's radical anarchists.
(excerpt from Op-Ed Columnist - The Wal-Mart Hippies - NYTimes.com )
Interesting assessment, that is One Man's view.
This statement sort of derails the train for Me personally. ....
But the core commonality is this: Members of both movements believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains, is how Rousseau put it.
Off track. Man is Imperfect, that is partly why We have Laws and Government. Most Religions teach that. We have measure of both Virtue and Vise, that ain't going to be changing anytime soon. I support the efforts of Anyone compelled to act non-violently, on Their Civic concerns, Right, Center, or Left, If You have something to say, say it, It builds spine.
You know.....that part you hilighted is really interesting. Why? Because the tea party movement believes that mankind is ANYTHING BUT innocent. If they believed in innocence, why do they use such disgusting signs to make their point? Why would they do some of the crap they've done?
By the way.......did you hear about the dude with Alzheimer's who showed up at a healthcare rally? Know what they did to him? Ridiculed and humiliated him.
Yeah.....right.......the tea partiers are hippies and Hitler was a humane person.
