Moms for Liberty shows it's true colors

[laughing dog]

When I state quite clearly that the okay symbol isn't a white power symbol, why do you respond by saying I don't state my position?

Well, I suppose we could consider that a position, though I was actually talking about things that weren't quite as trite.

I think we all can mostly agree that the OK symbol used by white supremacists isn't a symbol for white supremacy. There is nuance there, which I understand can be confusing for some.

Woah, I think Jimmy just admitted I stated a position.

Mark this day as historic.

You do realize actually doing it once doesn't make it a retro-active habit, right?

So there is little chance that you will regularly admit it when I state positions.

That is an empirical question that requires data in the future. If you start to state an actual position on a regular basis, we can gather the data and perform an analysis.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Woah, I think Jimmy just admitted I stated a position.

Mark this day as historic.

You do realize actually doing it once doesn't make it a retro-active habit, right?

So there is little chance that you will regularly admit it when I state positions.

It would be a welcomed change of pace for me to be able to honestly state that you had.

 

[Jarhyn]

When I state quite clearly that the okay symbol isn't a white power symbol, why do you respond by saying I don't state my position?

Well, I suppose we could consider that a position, though I was actually talking about things that weren't quite as trite.

I think we all can mostly agree that the OK symbol used by white supremacists isn't a symbol for white supremacy. There is nuance there, which I understand can be confusing for some.

Woah, I think Jimmy just admitted I stated a position.

Mark this day as historic.

You do realize actually doing it once doesn't make it a retro-active habit, right?

So there is little chance that you will regularly admit it when I state positions.

That is an empirical question that requires data in the future. If you start to state an actual position on a regular basis, we can gather the data and perform an analysis.

Not to mention the position is taken over a false premise, that use of a symbol for a purpose does not make it a symbol for the purpose of the use within the context of the use.

Racists using the OK symbol to communicate racist things makes it a racist symbol in the context of its use. Context matters, and attempting to divorce the context from the conversation specifically about that context is clearly a dishonest tactic.

As previously stated, no symbol means any thing outside of context, or those things would not be "symbolic", but instead "directly effective"; we picked them as symbolic because of their arbitrariness!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Woah, I think Jimmy just admitted I stated a position.

Mark this day as historic.

You do realize actually doing it once doesn't make it a retro-active habit, right?

So there is little chance that you will regularly admit it when I state positions.

It would be a welcomed change of pace for me to be able to honestly state that you had.

You could have done so at any time, but as you said doing so once won't make your action a retro-active habit.

 

[Jarhyn]

Woah, I think Jimmy just admitted I stated a position.

Mark this day as historic.

You do realize actually doing it once doesn't make it a retro-active habit, right?

So there is little chance that you will regularly admit it when I state positions.

It would be a welcomed change of pace for me to be able to honestly state that you had.

You could have done so at any time, but as you said doing so once won't make your action a retro-active habit.

So you know, the ability of Jimmy to honestly state [Jason Harvestdancer] had is gated specifically on your behavior, not Jimmy's.

He could not have done so at any time you did not state actual positions. Since you do not tend towards stating your positions, it makes doing so literally impossible for the vast majority of the time.

The reason the habit is not retroactive is because your statement of your positions is absent in the retrospect.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Woah, I think Jimmy just admitted I stated a position.

Mark this day as historic.

You do realize actually doing it once doesn't make it a retro-active habit, right?

So there is little chance that you will regularly admit it when I state positions.

It would be a welcomed change of pace for me to be able to honestly state that you had.

You could have done so at any time, but as you said doing so once won't make your action a retro-active habit.

Do you have anything other than "I'm rubber and you're glue" for retorts?

 

[Swammerdami]

You do realize actually [stating a position] once doesn't make it a retro-active habit, right?

So there is little chance that you will regularly admit it when I state positions.

It would be a welcomed change of pace for me to be able to honestly state that you had.

It sounds like you guys have the same problem with Jason that I have. He wants to abolish the Fed but I've been waiting a year to learn what monetary system replaces it.

Recently I asked him if he approved of the "LP"'s FairTax (eliminate ALL income taxes, replace them with a 23% consumption tax). He wasn't sure how he felt about the FairTax, but felt mistreated that I cherry-picked this one minor(!) item from the "LP" agenda.

You could have done so at any time, but as you said doing so once won't make your action a retro-active habit.

For every post where he states a position expect two or three dozen posts where he discusses his putative failure to state positions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Woah, I think Jimmy just admitted I stated a position.

Mark this day as historic.

You do realize actually doing it once doesn't make it a retro-active habit, right?

So there is little chance that you will regularly admit it when I state positions.

It would be a welcomed change of pace for me to be able to honestly state that you had.

You could have done so at any time, but as you said doing so once won't make your action a retro-active habit.

So you know, the ability of Jimmy to honestly state [Jason Harvestdancer] had is gated specifically on your behavior, not Jimmy's.

He could not have done so at any time you did not state actual positions. Since you do not tend towards stating your positions, it makes doing so literally impossible for the vast majority of the time.

The reason the habit is not retroactive is because your statement of your positions is absent in the retrospect.

Incorrect in every detail, a new record for you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Who Are the ‘Moms’ for Liberty?

The Moms for Liberty (M4L) webpage states, “Our founders are Tiffany and Tina, moms on a mission to stoke the fires of liberty.” But in truth, the

www.counterpunch.org

Wow. There's a lot of stuff in here about the founders.

This is just one of many interesting tidbits:

Jenkins continued, describing how M4L members were massing at school board meetings and threatening her at her home:

“Young children, accompanied by their parents, shouted into megaphones, ‘Don’t touch me, pedophiles!’ LGBTQ students tried to speak while adults chanted ‘Shame!’”

...

“By April, protesters had begun to gather not just at board meetings but also in front of my house. A group of about 15 shouted ‘Pedophiles!’ as my neighbors walked their dogs, pushing their infants in strollers. ‘We’re coming for you,’ they yelled, mistaking friends standing on my porch for me and my husband. ‘We’re coming at you like a freight train! We are going to make you beg for mercy. If you thought January 6 was bad, wait until you see what we have for you!’”

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is incredible what you can get people to do when you dehumanize the opponents. Alt-right'ers will believe anything about liberals/progressives/moderates because they have been demonized for decades on cable and radio.

For instance, just listen to one program on Fox or AM Radio and mentally replace the word liberal/Democrat/progressive with "Jew".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Recently I asked him if he approved of the "LP"'s FairTax (eliminate ALL income taxes, replace them with a 23% consumption tax). He wasn't sure how he felt about the FairTax, but felt mistreated that I cherry-picked this one minor(!) item from the "LP" agenda.

If we had ever discussed the "Fair Tax" you would have known that I oppose every aspect of it, both in general and in the particulars. I believe that those on the liberty side of the spectrum (nobody you associate with) who support it have been duped or conned by those who actually support it even more.

 

[Swammerdami]

Recently I asked him if he approved of the "LP"'s FairTax (eliminate ALL income taxes, replace them with a 23% consumption tax). He wasn't sure how he felt about the FairTax, but felt mistreated that I cherry-picked this one minor(!) item from the "LP" agenda.

If we had ever discussed the "Fair Tax" you would have known that I oppose every aspect of it, both in general and in the particulars. I believe that those on the liberty side of the spectrum (nobody you associate with) who support it have been duped or conned by those who actually support it even more.

Well! I am pleased and relieved to learn that you despise the FairTax which Johnson embraces. But I must ask: Do you consider the FairTax to be a minor "plank" in Johnson's "platform"? Or would such a PROFOUND change to taxation be one of the most major changes to government policy in our lifetimes?

I DO take issue with the tone of your reply. Two objections:

(1) You write "liberty .. nobody you associate with." What utter insolence! The Democrats don't stoop to saying Republicans don't support "democracy" -- that word forms the blue party's name, but not the red's. Similarly, it is just ignorant insolence and nastiness to claim that the "LP" is the bastion of "liberty" just because it's in your name! In fact, the LP's preoccupation with property rights -- especially the rights of the very rich -- often makes them LESS of a pro-liberty party, given the way progressives with humanitarian values view the whole concept of human liberty and the Rights of Man.

(2) If you ever mentioned FairTax I missed it. What I did NOT miss is your actual dialog.

I wrote:

Gary Johnson is a cross between a pro-rich right-winger and a nut-cake. He supports the "FairTax", an oxymoronic program that rational thinkers would call an Unfair Tax. Since the effect of FairTax would be to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, Johnson might be treated as a "fellow traveler" of right-wing fascism, whether he personally detests Donald Trump or not.

During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to an anti-tax policy, setting state and national records for the number of times he used his veto power: more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together.

Johnson has advocated the FairTax as a template for tax reform. This proposal would abolish all federal income, corporate and capital gains taxes, and replace them with a 23% tax on consumption of all non-essential goods, while providing a regressive rebate to households according to household size, regardless of income level.

And you replied:

Ah yes, reducing the entire platform to two points. That certainly is the best way to give a thorough analysis to the question as a whole.

(Lots of babbling about Gary Johnson snipped)

I think I discussed more than just "two" points but, yes, my emphasis was the FairTax. Now you seem to agree that the LP's FairTax is a very bad idea. I will give you credit and assume you realize it is a MAJOR change that would have profound and adverse effects on U.S. economy and society.

Yet you did not mention your opposition to FairTax in the previous "conversation." Instead you write "Ah yes, reducing the entire platform to two points." Am I to conclude that you didn't even know what the FairTax was until I repeated my query, and then finally Googled it? The contrary possibility makes even less sense.

By the way, when I quoted you as writing "(Lots of babbling about Gary Johnson snipped)", That is what YOU actually wrote! If I were snipping from your quote I'd have used brackets, not parens. I wrote about the FairTax; you responded by calling that "babbling" and nothing more! (Now, finally, you deign to mention Johnson's FairTax?)

Meanwhile, YOU asked ME, TWICE to start a thread discussing the LP's alternative to the Federal Reserve System as the mechanism to define and influence U.S. money. I have started that thread, per YOUR request. But we have yet to hear from you in that thread!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If we had ever discussed the "Fair Tax" you would have known that I oppose every aspect of it, both in general and in the particulars. I believe that those on the liberty side of the spectrum (nobody you associate with) who support it have been duped or conned by those who actually support it even more.

Well! I am pleased and relieved to learn that you despise the FairTax which Johnson embraces. But I must ask: Do you consider the FairTax to be a minor "plank" in Johnson's "platform"? Or would such a PROFOUND change to taxation be one of the most major changes to government policy in our lifetimes?

I DO take issue with the tone of your reply. Two objections:

(1) You write "liberty .. nobody you associate with." What utter insolence! The Democrats don't stoop to saying Republicans don't support "democracy" -- that word forms the blue party's name, but not the red's. Similarly, it is just ignorant insolence and nastiness to claim that the "LP" is the bastion of "liberty" just because it's in your name! In fact, the LP's preoccupation with property rights -- especially the rights of the very rich -- often makes them LESS of a pro-liberty party, given the way progressives with humanitarian values view the whole concept of human liberty and the Rights of Man.

So you're saying those evil Republicans and evil Libertarians make sweeping generalizations about people they disagree with, unlike sensible Democrats. Good one. You might want to look at Elixir's posts some time. While you're at it, ask him why he is afraid of gas ovens. It has been over 3 months (I've lost count) and he still hasn't answered that one. Strangely, nobody who falsely accuses me of not answering questions has said word one to him about that.

I think I'll go find a deplorable Trump supporter clinging to his Bible and his guns if the Democrats ever make sweeping generalizations.

The fact that you seem to only know of me and Gary Johnson as Libertarians indicates a general lack of acquaintance with the LP or the larger liberty movement. I think I was on to something.

Meanwhile, YOU asked ME, TWICE to start a thread discussing the LP's alternative to the Federal Reserve System as the mechanism to define and influence U.S. money. I have started that thread, per YOUR request. But we have yet to hear from you in that thread!

Bully for you. I'll have to look for it so that we can discuss the entire philosophy and history of money and banking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For instance, just listen to one program on Fox or AM Radio and mentally replace the word liberal/Democrat/progressive with "Jew".

This makes a good test in general.

If you substitute the word "Jew" and it both makes sense and is anti-semitic it's probably hate.