Back in 2007 - IN 2007! - he was saying that municipal governments in American cities are going to start getting bankrupt and will not be able to pay all the public sector workers there, while the cities slowly start emptying out and become deserted.
And every now and then, articles in this year 2010, tell about New York running out of funds, and cities like LA also starting to show this situation. We already know what happened in Detroit.
This man's analysis is really good.
Prateek Sanjay: Back in 2007 - IN 2007! - he was saying that municipal governments in American cities are going to start getting bankrupt and will not be able to pay all the public sector workers there, while the cities slowly start emptying out and become deserted. And every now and then, articles in this year 2010, tell about New York running out of funds, and cities like LA also starting to show this situation. We already know what happened in Detroit. This man's analysis is really good.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
What's the Tea Party movement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
The best comment I heard about predictions like this is that it doesn't take smarts to know this is going to happen, it just takes the courage to look at the reality of the situation.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Smiling Dave: Prateek Sanjay: Back in 2007 - IN 2007! - he was saying that municipal governments in American cities are going to start getting bankrupt and will not be able to pay all the public sector workers there, while the cities slowly start emptying out and become deserted. And every now and then, articles in this year 2010, tell about New York running out of funds, and cities like LA also starting to show this situation. We already know what happened in Detroit. This man's analysis is really good. yeah, I like his stuff too. Did you see that he said the tea party movement is gonna be really big?
To be perfectly honest, I'm starting to suspect that the "Progressive Libertarian" party he anticipated the rise of might eventually be the Tea Parties, especially if you look at how they using similar tactics that the New Left of the 1960's utilized. What irony, since the 1960's Left finally won with Obama, & now they are the system to rebelled against
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict:To be perfectly honest, I'm starting to suspect that the "Progressive Libertarian" party he anticipated the rise of might eventually be the Tea Parties, especially if you look at how they using similar tactics that the New Left of the 1960's utilized. What irony, since the 1960's Left finally won with Obama, & now they are the system to rebelled against
I think I saw in a video of his that he based his prediction of a proggy libby party by looking at the tea parties
Wasnt the new left of the 60s mostly about anti war? You might call them the welfare/anti- warfare movement., So I guess Obama gave em half
Nitroadict: To be perfectly honest, I'm starting to suspect that the "Progressive Libertarian" party he anticipated the rise of might eventually be the Tea Parties, especially if you look at how they using similar tactics that the New Left of the 1960's utilized. What irony, since the 1960's Left finally won with Obama, & now they are the system to rebelled against
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't a "Progressive Libertarian" an oxymoron? Or was that the point.
Smiling Dave: Nitroadict:To be perfectly honest, I'm starting to suspect that the "Progressive Libertarian" party he anticipated the rise of might eventually be the Tea Parties, especially if you look at how they using similar tactics that the New Left of the 1960's utilized. What irony, since the 1960's Left finally won with Obama, & now they are the system to rebelled against I think I saw in a video of his that he based his prediction of a proggy libby party by looking at the tea parties Wasnt the new left of the 60s mostly about anti war? You might call them the welfare/anti- warfare movement., So I guess Obama gave em half
A lot of people involved in the tea parties are not purley anti-war, but most of them would agree to the Jefforosnian interpretation of when war is necessary. You must remember that the Tea Parties emerged after a certain amount of people where influenced by Ron Paul felt like they should take action further. The tea parties inevitably become diluted as more people who were not previously influenced by ron paul become involved. Only time will tell if these late adopters actually develop further or just become easy agents for co-option by current political parties (Neo-cons, etc.). So far, it seems a little bit of both.
Orthogonal: Nitroadict: To be perfectly honest, I'm starting to suspect that the "Progressive Libertarian" party he anticipated the rise of might eventually be the Tea Parties, especially if you look at how they using similar tactics that the New Left of the 1960's utilized. What irony, since the 1960's Left finally won with Obama, & now they are the system to rebelled against Pardon my ignorance, but isn't a "Progressive Libertarian" an oxymoron? Or was that the point.
From a purely libertarian or progressive point of view, yes. But I think his general point was that increasingly worsening economic & political situations will allow a temporary syncretic alliance between the two, in terms of trying to reduce damage already previously done, to emerge as a possible option. To Gerland's credit, he is not wrong. Many progressive friends of mine have been re-thinking their statist-corporate enabling thinking & have been looking at libertarianism with a sympathetic eye. Even "supporters" of the 196-'s left triumph that is Obama cannot ignore his Bush-lite dismal record, & can't help but feel they were hood winked by yet another skillful politician & political party.
Nitro, I find that a good portion (it's impossible to actually tell) of the TPs are just NeoCon statists. I mean you have guys like Mark Levin (one of the biggest offenders, if not the biggest) giving speeches at rallies.
I actually find it funny that the NeoCons have actually attempted to infiltrate the movement, as if people won't recognize where they actually stand. But, most of the NeoCons don't even attempt to go back a few steps and slide into the libertarian ranks. Most of them just present their views right out in the open, which makes it easy for us to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Nitroadict: Orthogonal: Nitroadict: To be perfectly honest, I'm starting to suspect that the "Progressive Libertarian" party he anticipated the rise of might eventually be the Tea Parties, especially if you look at how they using similar tactics that the New Left of the 1960's utilized. What irony, since the 1960's Left finally won with Obama, & now they are the system to rebelled against Pardon my ignorance, but isn't a "Progressive Libertarian" an oxymoron? Or was that the point. From a purely libertarian or progressive point of view, yes. But I think his general point was that increasingly worsening economic & political situations will allow a temporary syncretic alliance between the two, in terms of trying to reduce damage already previously done, to emerge as a possible option. To Gerland's credit, he is not wrong. Many progressive friends of mine have been re-thinking their statist-corporate enabling thinking & have been looking at libertarianism with a sympathetic eye. Even "supporters" of the 196-'s left triumph that is Obama cannot ignore his Bush-lite dismal record, & can't help but feel they were hood winked by yet another skillful politician & political party.
I've found that many "liberals" actually go through all the motions to defend Obama.
Suddenly large military budgets, the NSA, staying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and participating on all the other fronts becomes absolutely fine.
What's funny in my opinion is, you actually have pundits like Hannity and Limbaugh saying the man isn't doing enough.
Well, sorry we're not spending 4 trillion on the military a year!
LvMIenthusiast:What's funny in my opinion is, you actually have pundits like Hannity and Limbaugh saying the man isn't doing enough.
Because Obama has ordered more assassinations in his first year in office than Bush ever did in his entire term.
Obama has a surprisingly amoral approach in quietly making signing orders to eliminate certain Taliban personalities all over Pakistan and Afghanistan, in drone attacks which kill several civilians within the range immediately, down to the women and children. He makes Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon look tame, because they at least deeply apologise in public every time adult and children civilians are killed in their attacks and operations.
I hope, at least, that Obama is indeed being amoral about it, because I imagine he would have his hairs greying and mind unnerving every time he has to put his signature in another attack which will leave several children dead.
LvMIenthusiast: Nitro, I find that a good portion (it's impossible to actually tell) of the TPs are just NeoCon statists. I mean you have guys like Mark Levin (one of the biggest offenders, if not the biggest) giving speeches at rallies. I actually find it funny that the NeoCons have actually attempted to infiltrate the movement, as if people won't recognize where they actually stand. But, most of the NeoCons don't even attempt to go back a few steps and slide into the libertarian ranks. Most of them just present their views right out in the open, which makes it easy for us to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
I think that any kind of "infiltration" into this movement will be a failure to dismantle the movement. It's actually looking more like an idealogical revolution, and not just some "we don't like Obama" group. It's easy for a neocon to say they're a "tea partier" but what has fundamentally changed about them? I'd wager nothing. Even though this stuff started before the current president got into the white house, the neocons are trying to make some of the tea party people look like their whole philosophy is just "anti-obama" in it's entirety. They don't realize that people are trying to use the republican party as a vehicle to realize this movement. It's not about banding with the establishment republicans, but booting them out.