Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Didn't really see any, just saw people expressing their opinions. May not have agreed with them... but, ok how dare they say things you don't like or the way you think they should.
|
Opinions can be stupid, but it's not an opinion to say that one is being taxed without representation when the individual is, in fact, represented. That can be verified as being factually incorrect very easily, and it's the ease by which one can verify how incorrect that statement is that I use to judge the ignorance of the individual. I see no fault in my conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Sorry was trying to add humor... gess I is just eegg nor ant, how dare I add some political sarcasm. Why that was just juvenile.
|
It came off like you were trying to make fun of me as a red herring. If it was intended simply as jest, then I apologize for misreading it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I admitted there were people there whose messages I din't agree with. But they had the right to show their opinion. I had the right to ignore it. I just believe you had your mind made up, went looking for whatever it is your bias wanted you to find and you ignored whatever your bias didn't want you to see.
|
I take no issue with disagreement, pan, which is why I was hoping that this movement was libertarian. I'm not libertarian and am fundamentally opposed to most of the ideologies of the modern American libertarian movement, but I oppose those ideologies respectfully because at least there is an attempt at contributing positively to society. Libertarians believe that they're doing what's best and they have a consistent set of ideologies and principles. The neoconservatives are contrarians with no tangible set of principles and ideologies other than what they're told to have by their leadership. It's that leadership that seeks to exploit and does so often by fostering or reinforcing ignorance. Without that leadership, as I said before, these Tea Parties would not have been anywhere near as big or stupid as they were.
I honestly didn't ignore anything because I went purposefully looking for libertarians. I went looking for people that knew about Ayn Rand or Ron Paul or Ludwig von Mises. I went looking for people like you and Dunedan and dk; principled libertarians. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I found none. Not one in the 60 or so people I spoke to. The closest thing to a libertarian I found was a man in his 60s with a "Don't tread on me" sign, but he didn't feel like talking.
Let me ask you this: have you ever met a libertarian that was unwilling to share his or her political philosophy? And if so, do you think this is the kind of person who will spend 4 hours on a weekday protesting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I think it shows your elitism and bias calling people who showed their opinions and took advantage of their right to assemble and have free speech as idiots and crazies and ignorant. I see that more as a problem than anything that was said or from my own experience done at these parties. But like them, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.
|
"Elitism" used to mean something to me, as a negative. It doesn't anymore. I reserve the right as an educated and intelligent individual to use my intellect and education as a tool to judge whether a person is or isn't correct and even is or isn't stupid. When an individual uses some of the language from the Boston Tea Party in a modern Tea Party that has nothing to do with taxation without representation, it's not unreasonable for me to conclude this person has actively refused to learn about American history or current evens, not to mention the English language and basic government. Making that statement lacked intelligence and common sense, fitting the very definition of stupid.
My question is, why are you unwilling to admit that someone saying "no taxation without representation" while clearly having representatives is stupid or at the very least incorrect?