My sister posts on a forum that has Republicans and Libertarians on it.

[Joanne98]

She's a Democrat and I don't know why she does it. She is fighting with them constantly. It seems like a complete waste of time to me. Anyway she told me last night that the all the Republicans are ecstatic about the Supreme Court ruling and all they can talk about is how much money they're going to get. But the interesting part of what she told me was there are some Libertarian Tea Party supporters that are furious about the ruling and are openly fighting with the conservatives.

Trouble in paradise maybe? We can hope.

[elleng]

1. Doesn't appear to me that Libertarians = Tea Partiers;

too much thinking involved in being true Libertarian, imo.

[Stevenmarc]

3. Actually, Teabaggers = Cliff Notes Libertarians

They can digest bumper sticker sized bits of BS and regurgitate them, usually with spelling errors.

[panzerfaust]

6. Morans they iz

[gkhouston]

40. I would have said that Teabaggers = PostIt Notes Libertarians.

Judging by their signs and sound bites on television and in the papers, the onboard RAM is very limited and they've suffered some lightning strikes without a surge protector. :crazy:

[Joanne98]

4. There seems to be two tea party movements. I don't see how they'll stay together.

Another problem area is the police state. Movement conservatives love throwing people in jail and the Libertarians hate it. I don't see how they can overcome that since conservatives have been driving around with their "Support your local police" bumper stickers for thirty years now.

They're already trying to lie about that but everybody knows that conservatives are solely responsible for building the police state.

[elleng]

8. So we've got Conservatives, Libertarians, Teabaggers and TeaPartiers?

Not exactly a unified mix, eh?

[abelenkpe]

7. Odd

because all the Libertarians I know were D students in school or out and out dropouts. Of course if tea partier signs are any indication of their intelligence you may be right.

[Posteritatis]

23. I don't know many self-described libertarians who are good at the "thinking" part. (nt)

[Tim01]

2. The only people happy about this are greedy people.

People who think it can increase their income, people who think capitalism causes everything to work itself out.

The libertarian types that I know, like me, just see it as a mechanism for rich people to squash the voice of everybody else.

[abelenkpe]

11. I thought the

austrian libertarian dream was to outsource everything and do nothing. Mish wrote that recently after bashing unions and government. Good luck selling that idea in this economy.

[Tim01]

14. I never went down and signed up as a libertarian.

It is a label that keeps getting stuck on me, probably just because I don't fit neatly into other categories. It seems I know a lot of people who find themselves in the same boat.

I'm not trying to sell anybody anything.

[abelenkpe]

15. That's cool

I'm just saying there's a lot of repugnant policies associated with that label. Labels should be avoided for the most part. Not fitting is indicative someone who thinks for themselves. Libertarians tend to think of themselves as individualists, but they aren't so many otherwise intelligent people are attracted to a concept that on closer examination is not what it seems.

Personally I find them more frightening than teabaggers.

[peacetalksforall]

21. I am an American, not a progressive, not a liberal - I value what I was taught and

believed and what was shown to me - a person willing to criticize its flaws, especially in relation to the unfairness and the lagging in Rights and Recognition of all the contribution of all its citizens. An American who never bought into the concept that a Northern European heritage was more worthy and deserving compared to other citizens in this country and citizens of other countries around the world. Call me an American, please. That's the label I want.

[Tim01]

30. You can't decide what you are, that's your problem.

I AM TOTALLY KIDDING!!!!

Some people are wrapped pretty tight about their labels, and labeling others.
"American" works just fine for me too. I think a lot of this labeling is more harmful than useful. Especially when so very many people have opinions that cross so very many of these labels.
The labels are mostly useful for giving people other people to be against.
Be well.

[peacetalksforall]

48. Communist worked for decades and tea-birthers have resurrected fascist and socialist, but

only from hearing the labels from others - not from studying.
Corporates have originated and maintained great hate.
Corporates are our shared enemy.
As much as I resent being called a progressive or bleeding heart liberal, I like corporates for a label. :O)))

We need a label for them because they have been and are continuing to fly under the radar for blame and attribution. The not-so-supreme court just took a grand leap into the limelight. They're really moving fast now.

[pscot]

52. They satisfy the tribal instinct

We all like to belong.

[pscot]

5. I would love for some Republicon

to explain to me just how that corporate empowerment ruling by The Supremes benefits them. How is it in the interest of any American to give the corporations greater control over a government that is alledged to be of, for and by the "people".

[Frustratedlady]

9. I was about to ask the same question.

Unless they now have "corporations" posting as people.

How is that ruling a financial benefit to the little guy?

I had no idea so many people were so brainwashed.

[Tim01]

10. The idea is that this will cause less restrictions in the govt.

freeing up business and money to move around and warm up the economy. That's pretty much the idea. A more business friendly govt will mean more money for everybody.
I don't believe it, but there it is.

[abelenkpe]

19. Thats been the mantra of the past thirty years

deregulate, underfund and discredit the regulatory systems in place, put more business friendly people and laws in place and the wealth generated by freeing up business will trickle down to society. The idea being that government jobs reduce the manpower and workforce available to private sector jobs. Right now the only jobs being generated are government jobs and stimulus jobs. Every private business is looking to trim down to weather the economic storm. Or going out of business altogether.

How was our society rewarded for pursuing business friendly policies? Reducing taxes on business and corporations, failing to regulate markets? We've had years of off shoring, outsourcing, weakening unions, replacing sound pension plans with 401ks. The standard of living has gone down, wages have stagnated and the distribution of wealth has become seriously imbalanced with the top .1 percent gaining where everyone else has lost. So what do Libertarians champion? More globalisation, more union busting, more tax cuts for corporations, more deregulation. That prescription has already brought our society to the brink of collapse.

The desire to end wars, to audit the fed and pursue a sound money policy....that sounds sensible and what attracts so many on the left. But look closer at their beliefs, their adoration of Ayn Rand, their complete disdain for community, and the attraction quickly fades. At least for me.

[sendero]

29. It's the same sort of libertarian "thinking"..

... engaged in by Alan Greenspan who opened up the money spigot safe in his belief that business would do the right thing.

Why anyone would believe that is beyond me, it has never happened and it never will.

[Tim01]

35. That is the problem.

All these beliefs rely on people to do the right thing at some point. But people will do whatever they can get away with.

I own a parking lot down town. People will try to park in my lot without paying, until I prevent them from doing it.And some of them get real nasty with me over it. This type of thinking shows itself in our species all the way to the top. People will do whatever they can get away with unless somebody stops them.Period. Not all people, but certainly enough to fuck up everything.

[CoffeeCat]

17. It's part of the Fascist take-down of this country...

The corporations and the politicians figured that the right can be bamboozled better than the left can. They
needed a certain percentage of "We The People" on their side--to avoid a revolt.

So, they demonize the left and convince the right that siding with the corporations is in their best
interests. Do you see how moronic they are? They're buying into it...siding with a corporate takeover
of our country. Yet, they'll cry "Fascism!" and "Socialism!" when we try to get universal healthcare--a system that
the rest of the industrialized world has.

The right is stupid. They will lobby aggressively against their own interests. The cancer that is taking
over our government knows this.

They may come for us first--but after they're done stifling us into submission--they'll do the same thing to
the right. They're just too stupid to realize all of this.

The propaganda of Glen Beck is just too overpowering and mesmerizing for these dolts.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tim01]

39. Maybe I can talk to you before you get yourself banned.

You no longer have the choices to not buy products that you think you have. You WILL buy this stuff from some were. But it is going to be too hard for small businesses to compete with corporations. And most people are not terribly determined to do the right thing. Walmart has cheap stuff, and it looks good, has a good advertisement on TV, so they buy it. The local small businesses can't compete selling american goods to americans. So the local businesses fail. It is just that simple. It is actually happening. Walmart is the example. So is EXxon, and Microsoft, and Monsanto. Monsanto is currently destroying family farms with frivolous law suits to eliminate competition. They are successfully doing it right now. And Obama just put a former Monsanto lobbyist in a position with the FDA.

[CoffeeCat]

47. I missed the comments..what was said?

The message was deleted. What did it say?

I'm curious as to how ANYONE could defend the SCOTUS ruling and the moronic sheep-like behavior of those
on the right who cheerlead that decision--just because Glen Beck wants them to.

[Tim01]

49. He said

that the corporations rely on us to buy stuff from them. So we can just stop buying stuff from them if we don't like what they sell.

And so basically, everything will be great because a company will go broke if we don't like them.

[Quantess]

51. That's all? He must have said something worse.

Gee, let me guess...did he say something along the lines of: OBAMA IS A FASCIST MUSLIN!!! IT ISNT THE 1960s ANYMORE YOU COMMIE LIBS!!!
:rofl:

[Tim01]

55. Not really.

It was more along the lines of how stupid everybody is for not understanding that the corporations answer to us, so they have to keep us happy.

[newspeak]

43. actually, it is in the best interest of the country to assist it's citizens

The reason we have social security and medicare is because of the devastating effects of economic climates, some of the climate was brought about because of greedy industrialists and deregulation. Even Thomas Paine, after seeing his mother and father suffering as they got older, believed that the government should take care of the elderly.

Maybe you should read some books about how the playing field is actually gamed to help the most socially bankrupt strong against others in society. I believe it's called social darwinism--and about how some made their profits.

Many small businesses today can't even make it to the first year and big businesses like Starbucks, WalMart eat up smaller businesses--so please don't talk about free markets. What I see one day is a feeding frenzy amongst the "too big to fail" and we'll wind up with just few banks, a few restaurant chains, and hell, who do ya think will win Pepsi or Coke?

When citizens in a town to lure big business and that business demands even more--just so the town can survive--then the corporation defaults, thus leaving the citizens holding the bag, I have little sympathy for such corporations. Maybe you can open your eyes and look at the economic devastation bankrupting and leaving some towns like third world ghettos--because of corporations wanting cheaper, slave labor and environmental free for all. Look at what some of our so-called US companies (who supposedly know better but not care) did in Mexico?

"pull yourself up by your bootstraps" so much BS. Ya know they had the becks and the limpballs telling people on the radio that during the depression. Telling people that if they really wanted a job it was out there, while some people are lazy and blamed it on the Mexicans-yeah, it's the mexicans. But don't blame unregulated capitalism or some of the greediest industrialists. Industrialists that had no problem financing Mussolini and Hitler--cause ya know that was their kind of guys.

[newspeak]

22. yeah, let me get this straight

the repukes are happy about the ruling. Yeah, our team is going to win!!!!! Don't they realize
that any corporation can BRIBE (and have been bribing) or threaten their team player into doing what THE CORPORATION WANTS OVER THEIR INTERESTS!!!

Are they really that stupid or do they have "fear daddy syndrome" that as long as it's their repuke congresscritter, they can abuse them anyway they want.

And basically, the repukes are admitting that they are the party of whoring, monied interests-who cares if they suffer as long as their leaders get to win. Yippppeeeeeee, we're number one, we're number one!!! They admit that their party is owned, lock stock and barrel by corporate interests--well, those repukes must all be millionaires.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[akforme]

41. Do you think Fox News should have more rights than you?

Because with the bill they could say things on air right up to an election that you and I couldn't unless we could get invited onto fox news.

The law gave certain corps more rights than you and I. A blogger has just as much right to speak out a Murdock.

I never liked this law because it protected the incumbents, and media. Notice those are the two groups making the biggest stink about this? Do some research away from MSM and you may find this ruling isn't as bad as you think.

[MrsCorleone]

50. You might get a kick out of the heated discussion on this right winger board.

The owner of this blog (Karl or "Genesis") is a proud two time Bush supporter. He's also one of two 2009 recipients of the Conservative Political Action Conference's (CPAC) Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award.

Probably safe to assume he's bought & paid for. Either that or he's still woefully naive. My money is on the former.

Here are his thoughts on the SC Ruling:

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1888-Freedom-Of-Speech-How-Quaint.html

Here's his forum members' reaction to his SC ruling opinion:

http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=125556

There are a lot of hardcore Limbuagh/Beck types but some members are smart enough to push back.

[vicdoc]

53. Why the hate on corporations?

Corporations are many, not just the few mega corps. Your mom and pop stores, professionals like accountants, lawyers, and most doctors are corporations. There are millions of small corps. I have 2 of them myself, I'm proud to say. Instead of using my own cash I will use my corps cash. It all ends up coming from the same pot. We don't like Nazi skin heads saying what they say, but they have the right to speak. People will have to figure out for themselves what speech is worth weighing and listening to. You don't listen to the NRA, right? Well, they are one of the Corps who were affected but the ban. You would discount anything they say. Me, I already know my stance on many issues and I am not so stupid to listen to a 30 second TV ad to tell me what I believe in or who to vote for.

If Mega Tool corp advertises that Rep Dumbass needs to be kicked out because he wants to put Mega Tool under a lot of regulations, and you now know it is Mega Tool Corp running the ad, instead of some obscure loophole group, then you know who is advertising and you weigh that. You might vote for the guy because of the ad. A car company might have something legitimate to say about legislation or a candidate, and you would weigh that. Having some government pin head political appointed bureaucrat saying what is or not allowed in any media such as books, not just a movie as was litigated in this case, is simply not right. We should be wary of a government that can ban a book because it simply mentions a candidate, and throw you in jail or prosecute you as a felon. This guy makes a movie about Hillary, and he can go to jail??? How would you like it if the FEC says Michael Moore should go to jail because of his movies? That's what we're talking about.

Who do you work for? Do they have a right to protect their interests, and your job?

People make up corporations, and it seems to me they have the right to speech too. Like 527 groups do.

[newspeak]

54. he wouldn't go to jail, the networks just wouldn't run it

Of course, the networks are corporate owned--and there have been ads from progressive groups that they wouldn't allow on the networks, even though they were paying.

The ruling didn't just rule in favor of a corporations' first amendment rights (even though I don't believe a corporation should be considered a person), but extended the ruling to include that corporations can pour as much money as they want in promoting or not promoting a candidate--even though their ad campaigns may be total lies. And, to see how gullible the American public can be, all we have to look at is the smearing of John Kerry when the swiftboat liars went after him, a decorated soldier, and the corporate media was more than willing to give more access to the swiftboaters than the men who actually served with Kerry. They created the lie and promoted it, as a gullible public ate it up.

Mom and Pop can't compete with mega corporations, or with corporations where foreign entities (like SA) have vested interests in said corporations. Hell, unions can't compete with megacorporations. So, let's say Halliburton, who's enjoying their war profiteering taxpayer's windfall hears a candidate is going to run on getting our troops out of Afghanistan--well, that bodes ill for Halliburton-so they go to the candidate and coerce him or her to change his mind or they threaten to put all of their money into PR to smear his/her good name. Now what they will be putting on the networks could be total lies-but they have the money and the access to air it 24/7, thus making the candidate unelectable. Do you actually realize how damaging that power is to a democratic republic? Where money coming from corporate interest overrides money from mere citizens?

[newspeak]

56. I believe that you, as an individual

have the right to campaign and donate to your favored candidate--I really don't believe that your corporation has a right to donate or threaten his employees to donate to your candidate. The intentional mistake of amending to allow corporations to have the same rights of individuals, to me is a major error. Of course, the big industrialists were at play at the time so no one should be surprised of the (ahem) error. What I see today is corporations given the advantages of a person, but seem to shirk the responsibilities of a person. Apparently, some of them don't take responsibility of the deaths caused by their defective products or when they poison a community's drinking water or if they intentionally bypass safety for their workers so they can make an extra buck. When they knowingly sell defective products or poison someone's food and water, there may be a lawsuit from the victim's families-but if someone murdered your family, they'd be legally charged--a corporation may have to pay out (of course, they'd probably pay for the lawyers to fight it), but they are not held responsible to those families. Those families no longer have their loved ones--so, when was the last time you saw a ceo or a board be charged with murder? They are given more of a free pass than an individual, and believe me, some of them have harmed a hell of a lot more people and ruined lives than some individuals that are in prison today.

Now in california there once was a law that allowed the state to disband a corporation if they harmed a community or people. If they do no good for the general public, and they cause more harm than good, why should a bad corporation be allowed to exist? But, they've been given personhood, even though they can't vote--it is a thing not a person. Now those within the corporation are individuals, as such, they should have rights like the rest of us, but not in the name of a corporation.

[zeemike]

12. Just like here at DU they have their party loyalist.

And so no matter how hypocritical, or downright stupid the loyalist must express their approval of what ever is done in the name of the party.
And I imagine that some of the libertarians are saying WTF is this....how can I say this is promoting liberty.

[CoffeeCat]

13. I'm glad you mentioned this...

...because I have been wondering if these "tea partiers" and the "conservatives" would be true patriots and
defenders of the Constitution on this SCOTUS ruling---or will they behave like the shiftless hypocrite morons
that they've always been.

I really had hope. I really did.

Glen Beck--Have you listened to this guy? Crying about how he "wants his country back" and constantly invoking
the ghosts of "the Founders". All day long, Beck talks up the Constitution, how the corporations are taking over
and how Obama is leading us into Fascism.

My problem with Beck was---where the hell was Beck when Bush was dismantling the Constitution, our democracy and our
civil rights? That's right...he was defending him! When Obama governs---he's making the Founders turn over in his
grave, but when Bush illegally wiretaps us or strips Habeas Corpus---nothing to see here folks!

This SCOTUS ruling is the big test. Are these right-wing hacks, really hacks? Do they really care about the Constitution
and the country--or is it just all about politics and hate for them?

If they are FOR this ruling---then we can see the hypocricy glaring--and it's not pretty.

[haele]

16. Those who "want their country back", want their childhood back.

They never really saw or understood what their mothers and fathers suffered to get them their carefree childhood and into college or the halfway-decent paying jobs.

They saw what their babysitter TV showed them. The fairy tales about "good hard work on the family farm", on "never taking a dime" or never taking charity and using their bootstraps to their advantages - never hearing about how their parents went through rationing and war or most of their grandparent's property and jobs were saved by the New Deal, whether or not the family was directly affected by the 25% chronic and desperate unemployment during the Depression.
Government intervention - regulations and "handouts" - saved the United States for the middle and lower middle working classes from 1900 through the late 1940's. But not according to "Spin and Marty", "Andy Hardy" and "The Little Rascals". It was all carefree and innocent, even if you were poor.
Since in their childhood, most of the loudmouths like Beck and the other Teabaggers only had to worry about their social pecking order on the playground, who was the bully that would steal the ice-cream money, and whether Mommy and Daddy "loved them more than anyone else" - that's the country they want back.

That country never existed. No wonder they're always angry. The world is going to make them grow up, and they don't want to.
(Thanks to the Daily Show, who nailed this a couple weeks ago)

Haele

[Richard Steele]

18. Very well said. nm

[CrownPrinceBandar]

20. Short-sighted fools.............

that are due their "Oh Shit!" moment once the candidate from Citgo or Shell goes up against their person. These are the people that can't be reached. Let them have their faux schadenfreude moment, and then pass them a paper towel when they discover the egg on their faces.

[fascisthunter]

25. yup...

and what they don't realize, yet, is that fascism strangles a free market.

[fascisthunter]

24. those ecstatic are fascists, not conservatives

most active members in the GOP were never conservative to begin with... the same is true about the Democrats not all being progressive or liberal. In fact there are members of the democratic party that are in agreement with these submissive losers.

[blm]

26. exactly...there is nothing conservative about FASCISM. Goldwater would be leading a revolution

against his own party's fascists today.

[fascisthunter]

31. if we make this distinction we can form a very strong alliance

to regain our democracy.

[glitch]

34. Agreed. However

That is the last thing the Fascists want and they will target that action first.

[glitch]

33. Thank you. We shouldn't let them call themselves Conservatives, whatever their party.

The only people for expanding corporate power are Fascists.

[southernyankeebelle]

27. I have respect for the true Libertarians because they really are neither republican or democratics.

[anonymous171]

28. I have no respect for them because they are greedy immoral pricks. nt

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anonymous171]

42. If you truly believe in (capitalist) libertarianism, then you are indeed immoral and greedy

If you aren't greedy and do have some kind of moral code (that does not involve profit), then why do you support a political ideology that supports those things?

[Lex]

44. It's "moran" and welcome to DU.

Enjoy your stay.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

45. But their ideas fail as soon as they are exposed to reality.

The primary flaw is their assumption that the individual can excel on their own. The idea fails to acknowledge or dismisses the idea of Thom Hartmann's "Commons", without which nothing beyond bare subsistence is possible.

[Betty Karlson]

46. Recruit the libertarians now.

Really, they can find themselves on our side if the candidates are fiscally responsable (that's not the same as fiscal conservative).