Libertarians Lurk Among the Occupy D.C. Protesters

Amy Kremer, chairwoman of the Tea Party Express, suggested to Politico today that the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators should protest against the government in the nation's capitol, rather than the corporations on Wall Street. She was a day late though, as yesterday a contingent of 99 percenters began their occupation of Freedom Plaza in the heart of Washington, D.C.

And lo and behold, spotted in the crowd were several Ron Paul 2012 signs and other indications that the Occupy D.C. mob might have a bit more of a libertarian streak than its New York counterpart.

Thomas Conway, a 41-year-old government employee from Alexandria, Virginia, was sporting a T-shirt emblazoned with "Ron Paul is my homeboy." He said he does not feel at odds with the other protesters. In fact, he believes that the desires of the Occupy Wall Street movement would actually be served best by the libertarian-leaning Republican:

"The people here and Ron Paul probably agree on 70 percent of all the issues."

Calls to end the wars overseas, corporate bailouts, and the Federal Reserve, along with other libertarian-friendly causes were in evidence as well.

These rays of hope were in no way the majority, of course. For every cardboard sign demanding justice in Guantanamo Bay, others asked for the government to pay back their student loans for them.

One young protester from Arkansas said the system was keeping him from fulfilling his dream, for example, because no one would pay for the surgery he needs on his shoulder. His dream? To become a journalist. (Writing can certainly be hard on the rotator cuff.)

While the 99 percenters seemed happy to allow Conway and his libertarian minority to march alongside them, fantasies of persuading the movement to espouse free market solutions are just that.

Read more about what Reason saw at Occupy D.C.

Comments

[Bingo]

Off topic but I seriously can't take the bullshit KULTUR WAR idiocy that I've recently seen in the comments about Steve Jobs:

I'm sure it did. I'm a very big believer in equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcome. I don't believe in equal outcome because unfortunately life's not like that. It would be a pretty boring place if it was.

The problem there of course is the unions. The unions are the worst thing that ever happened to education because it's not a meritocracy. It turns into a bureaucracy, which is exactly what has happened. The teachers can't teach and administrators run the place and nobody can be fired. It's terrible.

http://blog.learnboost.com/blo.....education/

Take your fucking culture war and shove it up your ass.

[ChrisO]

Huh?

[John Thacker]

What, you're referring to people not liking Jobs because of Apple's ad campaigns and attempt to associate using the product with being a certain type of person? And people disliking Jobs and/or Apple because they dislike those people?

I have other reasons I dislike Apple, mostly because their tendency to sue the hell out of people for "innovations" that Apple improved upon after stealing from others (going back to the "look and feel" lawsuit.) But if people want to use them, that's fine with me.

I do think that the ridiculous "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" are KULTUR WAR just as much, because it's still the same sort of "Us vs. Them, and We're better than Them" culture war sort of thing. But, hey, people always want to part of the in-crowd, and people always will dislike some other crowd.

Government makes it worse, since government tends to result in monopolies or in the majority enforcing its way with the minority.

[John Thacker]

For example, I'm pretty damn sure that some of our Kentucky residents aren't going to like Duke University, even though Ron and Rand Paul went there. No big deal.

[So?]

Nobody cares.

[Anonymous]

To recap Reason's position:

Right-wing, socially conservative, pro-war, Medicare-loving, mostly-elderly Tea Party protestors: natural allies and ripe for conversion to libertarianism!

Left-wing, socially liberal, anti-war, anti-corporatist, mostly student age Occupy Wall Street protestors: don't even try! They're all just a bunch of incoherent hippies!

[Apatheist]

Some of them are, most of them aren't. (This applies to both groups) And very nice of you to leave out pro-spending cuts in the tea party category and pro-big government in the OWS.

[Anonymous]

The Tea Party is not pro-spending cuts in any practical sense. Show me a poll that says a majority of Tea Party support cuts to defense, social security, and/or medicare. Because all I've seen is a bunch of empty sloganeering that pretends cutting foreign aid and public television will fix the deficit.

[Apatheist]

Herpity derp, both groups of people are full of hypocrits and statists. Reason routinely exposes both.

[Bingo]

In what way was the Tea Party movement a movement against the government? Maybe it originally was (back in 2007 when it was nothing more than a barbecue at Ron Paul's house), but it certainly is not anymore. The Tea Party as it is now is very much interested in continuing the status-quo of the Welfare/Warfare state. At least the OWS protests are concerned about the system itself, even though they are misguided in their target.

[John Thacker]

The Tea Party as it is now is very much interested in continuing the status-quo of the Welfare/Warfare state.

Nope.

I wish that the Tea Party were more about cutting entitlements, but there's a huge significant difference, and a solid majority do say that cutting the deficit is more important than maintaining Social Security and Medicare.

In every poll Tea Party members are significantly more likely to want cuts to Medicare and Social Security than non-Tea Party supporters. It's true that those programs are so super-popular that even less support is still a lot of support. But you and others go too far in your claims.

I assume that this was just ignorance on your part, and not intentional bigotry.

[Bingo]

Please explain how "changes in entitlements" is effectively different than no change at all if they want "no change in benefits".

[John Thacker]

Please explain how "changes in entitlements" is effectively different than no change at all if they want "no change in benefits".

But they don't. You didn't read the poll I linked. I'm sorry, was I unclear?

Many Tea Partiers do support cutting benefits. They are much, much more likely to support that than non-Tea Partiers.

However, since any question around cutting benefits tends to be super unpopular with the population as a whole, even a 30% swing often doesn't make it a majority. (There are other polls showing that 90% of non-Tea Partiers are against benefit cuts vs. 60% of Tea Partiers, for example.)

The one poll linked does give a majority of Tea Partiers favoring cutting benefits to reduce the deficit, but I'm sure that a different poll wording would find something different.

[Apatheist]

Reading comprehension fail.

[SIV]

Awwwww! TEAM BLUE boy wet his diaper!

[John Thacker]

The Tea Party is not pro-spending cuts in any practical sense. Show me a poll that says a majority of Tea Party support cuts to defense, social security, and/or medicare.

I can show you polls that Tea Party supporters are significantly more likely than the average voter to support those cuts, but not a majority.

Actually, there is this poll showing that Tea Party members, by 57-35, think that reducing the deficit is "more important" than preserving Medicare and Social Security benefits.

The numbers for non Tea Party Republicans are 36-56 in favor of preserving Medicare and Social Security.

The number for Democrats are 23-71 in favor of preserving Medicare and Social Security.

Therefore I assume that you're going to completely change your rhetoric and admit that you're wrong on this issue, right?

[Anonymous]

No, because OWS supports cuts to defense. They win over the Tea Party 1-0. Your poll, like all Tea Party polls, shows vague sentiments in favor of deficit reduction, but chickens out whenever questions are phrased with specifics.

Also, OWS isn't congruent with the Democratic Party to the same degree that the Tea Party is congruent with the Republican Party. Most of them are disillusioned with Obama and consider him a corporatist in the same mold as Bush.

[Bingo]

And the ongoing state collusion with corporations is very much one of the key libertarian grievances with our current government. However, the corporations are not the problem, the fact that the government condones and enables the collusion is the problem.

If some small percentage of the protestors would look up "regulatory capture" they might start to get an inkling of who they should actually be protesting.

[Tony]

So that means you're for Dodd-Frank and similar measures?

Or are you in favor of every lobbyist-written giveaway there ever was, like most libertarians?

[#]

"So that means you're for Dodd-Frank and similar measures?"

Is tony seriously trying to argue that dodd frank REDUCES regulatory capture?

haha - thats a good one

Even the NYT had an article describing the law as the lawyers and consultants full employment act - lobbying has gone through the roof since its passage.

[John Thacker]

They win over the Tea Party 1-0.

I must have missed the actual poll you provided.

Also, OWS isn't congruent with the Democratic Party to the same degree that the Tea Party is congruent with the Republican Party. Most of them are disillusioned with Obama and consider him a corporatist in the same mold as Bush.

Disillusioned, perhaps, but they'll vote for him anyway. Just like the Bradley Manning protestors.

The protesters also serenaded Obama with: "We'll vote for you in 2012, yes that's true/Look at the Republicans -- what else can we do?/Even though we don't know if we'll retain our liberties."

I have to say, you seem a bit unfair and bigoted. You insist on detailed polls and then throwing them out when you don't like the questions, but then you make grand sweeping assertions about OWS.

Seems to me that OWS is as disorganized and composed of many different groups and people with different ideas as the Tea Party. How can I possibly agree with you about what they definitely support at this juncture?

How can you possibly believe that without a poll?

[Bingo]

Which strikes me that our approach, like with the Tea Partiers, shouldn't be hate or blowing them off but try to keep an open mind and educate them.

In my opinion, the Tea Party has repeatedly demonstrated that the vast majority want no effective change in the system. Obviously you think differently, and that's fine.

[Anonymous]

Right.

The Tea Party has been around for two years. They had their chance to show that they were going to be a force for change. With the sole exception of Rand Paul, they elected the same kind of lip-service-paying shitbag Republicans we had in 1994.

OWS has been around for maybe a few weeks, but people are acting like because a Jaywalking routine revealed some dumb hippies saying dumb things, that they'll be intractably hopeless.

Given the age and attitudes of the protestors, I think OWS has a better chance of moving things in a pro-liberty direction. Not necessarily a chance I'd bet on, but shorter odds than the Tea Party for sure, since they won't be as easily co-opted.

[John Thacker]

With the sole exception of Rand Paul, they elected the same kind of lip-service-paying shitbag Republicans we had in 1994.

I happen to think that 1994-2000, for all its faults, was far better government than we had in the years since. Perhaps you disagree.

I also think that Mike Lee is a big improvement over many, and Justin Amash, and some others.

Given the age and attitudes of the protestors, I think OWS has a better chance of moving things in a pro-liberty direction.

Given the age and attitudes of the protestors, I think the reverse, but I'll keep an open mind. I think that it's far from a unified movement at this point.

You, however, seem like an exceptionally closed minded individual intent on fighting a culture war, just like Bingo, and just like all the idiots who started immediately slamming the OWS or supporting the cops because they thought the protestors were hipsters or whatever.

To me, it seems like you ignore any data you dislike, and leap to conclusions based on your cultural preferences. Of course, many right-leaning libertarians do the same, as witnessed on threads.

[John Thacker]

In my opinion, the Tea Party has repeatedly demonstrated that the vast majority want no effective change in the system.

OTOH, even if you think that, you must admit they're the largest group that comes closest to supporting the change that you claim to want. If you merely take the subsection of that chaotic movement that actually does want effective change, it would be larger than, e.g., the percentage of people who actually vote Libertarian. Therefore, no matter what, they remain one of your best targets for educating.

If you actually keep an open mind, that is.

The OWS group is indeed worthy of keeping an open mind about; I doubt there's any sort of unanimity at this point. I also expect that the professional politicos will be coming in to take control and channel their energy in the conventional direction.

[Anonymous]

In what universe are you living where it's easier to persuade old people to change their minds about social issues than it is to persuade young people to change their minds about economic issues? The Tea Party is kinda sorta close on economic issues, but those aren't the only issues. They're not even the most important issues, not to me at least. Let's not pretend that the Tea Party is a bunch of anti-war social liberals, now. If they were, Ron Paul would be leading the polls, not Perry or Bachman.

[SIV]

If they were, Ron Paul would be leading the polls, not Perry or Bachman.

C+
(on your overall performance, not just the above comment)

[John Thacker]

In what universe are you living where it's easier to persuade old people to change their minds about social issues than it is to persuade young people to change their minds about economic issues?

In what universe are you in where old people don't die? Attractive in some ways, I must admit, the universe where we've achieved immortality, but the social issues are largely being won by the passage of time.

Hell, young evangelicals are 50-50 on gay marriage, for example.

The only possible exceptions to some libertarians are issues like abortion or animal rights, but those are exceptions that prove the rule, since they're much easier to frame in a libertarian way about rights (and extending the right of personhood to a larger group-- which is libertarian in a way too since libertarians extend personhood to foreigners more than the average people) than things like gay marriage.

[John Thacker]

Obamacare (and Medicare Part D and TARP) are far more dramatic changes than anything to social issues. The government moves slow on social issues, it's largely controlled by slow changes in public opinion. The changes from changes in party or politicians is very minor compared to changes based on shifts in public opinion.

Now, when you complain about war, you're on much firmer ground. That is something that is dramatic that elections affect more so than public opinion.

If you phrase it around war being #1 important, then it's much easier to make a case to go after the left-leaners. Not, sadly, that Obama turned out to be against war or make a difference on that score.

[cynical]

They're opposed to deficits and opposed to raising taxes. You do the math.

[DB]

Pro cut spending in everything except my Medicare, Social Security and defense.

[Apatheist]

While I'm at it, you are arguing so dishonestly that noone is going to take you seriously. Picking out all the negative aspects of the Tea Party and all the positive aspects of the OWS isn't going to convince anybody who isn't functionally retarded.

Furthermore, there are many people who come on here and argue the exact opposite: that Reason is too friendly to liberals and shunning of conservatives. All of you are full of shit.

[Anonymous]

Take your South Park "oh both sides are equally bad" analysis and shove it directly up your ass. OWS is protesting the military-industrial complex and the cronyism of Wall Street. The Tea Party was protesting a potential 4.6% rise in the highest marginal tax bracket and the transition from one statist health-care clusterfuck to a different statist health-care clusterfuck.

Hell, the OWS movement automatically gets more credit in my eyes for springing up during a Democratic administration. Where was the tea Party when Bush was shoveling cash out the door? (Yeah, there were a couple of Ron Paul events that had a Tea Party theme. But it didn't pick up steam until after it was co-opted.)

[Episiarch]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

U MAD, BRO?

[Anonymous]

The maddest.

Madder than Mad Max.

Mayor of Maddington.

[Episiarch]

That's pretty mad.

Both sides are equally bad. They both want the shit they want and they want it taken from others (Tea Partiers who say "don't touch my Medicaire"; OWS who want their student loans repaid by someone else).

They're all fucking parasites, for the most part.

[Apatheist]

Yep, smelly parasites (hippies and old people).

[Anonymous]

If every dollar of student loan debt was paid off by the government it still wouldn't equal what's been given to major companies through TARP and the unilateral Fed bailouts. Even assuming the OWS sentiment is unanimously simplified to "pay my student loans" it is still in no mathematical sense "equally bad."

[Episiarch]

I don't give a rat's ass about them being mathematically equal. They're still two groups who want other people's money to pay for their own stupid choices (don't save for retirement, run up massive school loan debt for a useless degree; these are just examples so spare me the pointless mathematical comparison this time).

They're both fucking parasites. You can equivocate and squirm about the details, but it doesn't change that fact. Sorry.

[John Thacker]

Epi, that's fucking retarded. Your rhetoric makes it sound like the Tea Partiers are more likely the average person to be a parisite about Medicare and Social Security. It's quite the opposite. The Tea Partiers aren't, on average, what I'd like, but they're far less likely to say "don't touch my Medicare" than non-Tea Partiers.

Sure, they're still parasites, but they're definitely less parasitical than non-Tea Partiers by that definition. Whereas some of the OWS group appear to be more parasitical than average. Hard to say at this point for sure, it's chaotic.

The characterization of the Tea Partiers as a group that says "Don't Touch My Medicare" is casuistry and calumny. It's the logic I would expect to hear it from a partisan of one TEAM or another, or from a politician. Sad.

[John Thacker]

If every dollar of student loan debt was paid off by the government it still wouldn't equal what's been given to major companies through TARP and the unilateral Fed bailouts. Even assuming the OWS sentiment is unanimously simplified to "pay my student loans" it is still in no mathematical sense "equally bad."

Huh? Wasn't the "equally bad" in reference to the Tea Partiers? In what sense are the Tea Partiers pro-TARP and pro-bailout? I would think that those might be issues where the Tea Partiers and the OWS agree.

I also strongly bet that the average OWSer is much more supportive of "preserve Social Security and Medicare" than the average Tea Partier.

So of course it's not in any mathematical sense "equally bad," because you're not even comparing the same thing.

[Anonymous]

In the sense that they elected Republicans, the party that pushed and passed the TARP bailout and appointed Bernanke. Or are we going to do the usual song-and-dance of pretend Bush didn't have the support of 90% of these Tea Party assholes when TEAM RED owned the government?

[John Thacker]

In the sense that they elected Republicans, the party that pushed and passed the TARP bailout

The TARP bailout that a far higher percentage of Democrats voted for in the House and Senate than the Republicans? That a majority of House Republicans voted against?

Even if you say it was all a bipartisan charade and it would have passed somehow, which has a lot of truth to it, it doesn't seem to me that supporting Republicans is any worse than Democrats when it comes to TARP. (Arguably better, but again, maybe a charade.)

You do also realize that the Senate had Democratic control then, right? TEAM RED didn't own the government any more than TEAM BLUE owns it completely now.
But you seem like some culture warrior who wants to pick his affiliations based on whether people are like you or not.

[Anonymous]

And again, you're making an assumption that's not true. The Tea Party has proved itself to be a movement interested primarily in enabling Republicans, not voicing an independent critique. OWS has not yet proved itself to be a Democratic sockpuppet. If it turns out that all of these protestors are really interested in re-electing Obama, I'll bash them just as hard.

[John Thacker]

The House was, of course, also under Democratic control then.

So I'm entirely confused by your claim that the Republicans "passed" TARP. True, if the House Republicans had unanimously voted against it it might have failed (but in reality, there would have been whipping), and I'm not disagreeing that the bipartisan leadership was full of shit and statists, but I'm confused how you can look at that and think that the GOP and Republican voters were more responsible for it.

[John Thacker]

I'm certainly still willing to keep an open mind about the OWS crew, though I still say it's far too early to say that they're definitely for or against anything.

However, I must say that it doesn't fill me with confidence about your views when you have such odd interpretations of the facts, like TARP.

Even if TARP was a bipartisan charade that our "betters" would have passed anyway, the House GOP initially sunk it and more House GOP members voted against because the Republican voters hated TARP somewhat more than Democratic voters.

In the 2010 elections, TARP did seem to contribute to Republicans getting knocked off in primaries, but not Democrats.

The Republicans and Republican leadership deserve much blame for TARP, but I don't think you can claim that Republican voters elected Republicans hoping that they'd do something like TARP.

Just as they didn't hope that GWB would push anything pro-immigration, as the average Republican voter is much less pro-immigration than the Republican leadership. (To take an issue where I dislike the average Republican voter's position compared to the leadership.)

[SIV]

"Anonymous" is trolling. Quite effectively it seems.

[Bolsheviks among us]

People who call other people parasites have a tendency to make the small leap to "exterminate the parasites." Garden variety mix of stupidity and arrogance. Epi's never asked the question, though, that if he owes nothing to anyone past or present, if he is god-like, then why does he have such a tiny dick?

[Bradley]

Anonymous is actually making points now and then, which is something I've never seen you do.

[Apatheist]

Picking out all the negative aspects of the Tea Party and all the positive aspects of the OWS isn't going to convince anybody who isn't functionally retarded.

[Anonymous]

What positive aspects does the Tea Party have aside from some gaseous opposition to spending that disappears completely whenever actual math is on the table?

[Apatheist]

The Tea Party is made up of a bunch of individuals with varying degrees of consistancy on spending issues. Of course the same can be said about OWS. Which gets me to my other reply to you:

Herpity derp, both groups of people are full of hypocrits and statists. Reason routinely exposes both.

[marlok]

Rand Paul proposed a real budget, unlike your man in the white house. I bet you whined hard about the Paul budget, shaking your fist at the TV tuned into MSNBC.

[Mr. FIFY]

That nickel-on-the-dollar tax hike won't do Jack Shit, Anon.

Why wasn't MoveOn around before it existed?

[Max]

Gee, maybe Ron Paul could start hawking back issues of his racist newsletters at Occupy Wall Street demos. Who knows, maybe neo-Nazis are lurking there too.

You libertoid asshole should stick with the Tea party.

[mAXIpAD?]

How many Black Africans has Obama slaughtered and how many Blacks of any continent has Paul slaughtered?

And the ugly odor of Fascism? -- it is emanating from the Obama White House, not Paul's house.

Go vote for your pro-war, economy wrecking pals, no one is stopping you.

arf, arf arf yipppppp

[Max]

What about those newsletters, you sucker of Ron Paul's racist cock?

[Episiarch]

I think Edward sat on his balls again, like Mr. Belvedere. He does that a lot.

[Bingo]

Edward has balls?

[Mr. FIFY]

Paul didn't write them.

Maybe YOU wrote them, Max, and now you feel guilty.

[LIttle miss Maxxie]

gets panties smelly when Idol Obama gets called out....

[Max E Pad]

That's me, sopping up bloody semen, and enjoying it.

[sloopyinca]

Why does every thread have to end up being about Santorum?

[Apatheist]

Alright I think thats enough pot and hippie stories for one day.

[kilroy]

Don't look at the next one then.

[Apatheist]

God damn

[Jim W]

Well no kidding. Where you been Reason? There have been Libertarians and Ron Paul people involved in these protests since day 1. Not just waking around carrying signs, chanting slogans either. Who do you think's been protesting against the Federal Reserve in Chicago San Fran and Boston etc

[Bingo]

No dude, it's hippies and hipsters on their iPhones and that ad hominem argument automatically disqualifies any legitimate grievances that we may have in common with the protesters.

[Anonymous]

I really would like to see one of those smug blog posts actually attempt to define the term "hippie" or "hipster," because the right seems to think the definition is "anyone younger than 40 who isn't in a shirt and tie."

[Brother Wolf]

Do you really not know what a hippie or hipster is?

[Bingo]

By their definition, I am a hippie/hipster. Glad to know that my macbook-owning, fixie-riding ass is apparently not worthy of the libertarian movement.

[Episiarch]

You ride a fixed-gear bike?

Never talk to me again, unless it's to scream as I run you over.

[Bingo]

It's all about, like, the zen of riding, brah...

[Episiarch]

So you're essentially the land equivalent of surfers, then?

(revs engine)

[MWG]

Epi, don't ever change. LMAO...

[Hah,,,,]

I've been riding a single gear, coaster-braked, cheap piece-o-shit Chinese Huffy for a few years. Every time I go over a bump too hard the chain falls off. That ain't Zen.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

that is fucking funny.

[Gojira]

I'm completely in favor of kicking macbook-owning, fixed-gear bike riding people out of the Libertarian Club.

I'll need you to black out your tattoos, and turn in your decoder ring, please. Those belong to the club, not to the individual.

[Amakudari]

Nothing wrong with owning Apple products. There is something wrong with owning them and railing against capitalism, as their products don't have s chance in hell of existing if the government babysat the industry, or corporatism, as they also lean on the court system to prevent other companies from using patented processes that represented only marginal improvements. Or China, as that's where many iThings are manufactured.

If folks want to be rebels against capitalism, there are several free, solid, better-than-Windows-at-least Linux distros out there, plus independent hardware. Personal computers are the easiest product in the world to wrest from the clutches of capitalism, and it says a lot when someone organizes anti-capitalist protests from his MacBook, something like the Tea Partier's demand for the government to take its hands off his Medicare, writ larger.

[Bingo]

Also, I remember seeing a commenter applauding the police beating one of the protesters because "OMG HIPPIES!".

Gotta love a libertarian cheering on a monopolized state institution initiating violence against a peaceful protest.

[Episiarch]

Yup, saw that too, which is why I've pretty much ignored most of these threads.

I knew it was going to be all KULTUR WAR bullshit.

[Citizen Nothing]

You miss all the fun.

[Episiarch]

Yes, I'm sure I do. There's nothing more fun than seeing alleged libertarians condoning cop violence when it's directed at people they don't like, or the defense of the shitheads who got bailout money when they're being protested by people they don't like.

[Citizen Nothing]

There's nothing but alleged libertarians all the way down.

[John Thacker]

Reason editorially has had quite a few takes on this, many interesting and balanced.

Commenters being assholes is unsurprising, though.

[T]

Commenters being assholes is unsurprising completely expected, though.

I think that's a bit more accurate.

[imhotep]

You must realise Epi is the only one of all you bitches not to have sold out.

[Ok,,,]

somehow they haven't made it into the news. that's the first Paul sign I've seen so far. that's good.

[hope that lone Paul supporter]

doesn't get his stuff up-ended by some Obama zealot.

[Mr. FIFY]

I'm hoping the union-thug infusion brings out their true primal nature, and violence starts springing up from people other than cops. Show the true colors of the Teamsters and other criminals.

[Brother Wolf]

I don't know man.. I've seen way more communist and socialist themes than libertarian. You may be able to find unique individuals, but the events are characterized by naive statism.

anti-corporation
anti-finance industry

pro-socialized medicine
Pro- "free" post-secondary education
pro-raised minimum wage (even for unemployed)

Have you been paying attention?

[Bingo]

Prime candidates for education considering that one of the recent targets of the Left's Two Minutes Hate was an ex-hippie who ran a food co-op. (John Mackey)

[Overt]

Keep flogging this point, but you aren't going to make it real.

This isn't some kid who doesn't understand economics and so doesn't understand that rent control causes shortages. It is a person who has thought this shit through and finds "Social Justice" to be more important than liberty.

If you think otherwise, you are either deluding yourself or you are more interested in a counterbalance to the right than libertarian values.

[tarran]

OK, I have no idea what you are saying, because that is some opaque shit:

This isn't some kid who doesn't understand economics...

Who is 'this'? Are you referring to yourself in the third person? Or are you referring to someone else? If so, who?

Secondly, what to fuck does that have to do with Bingo's post about the 2 minute hate Mackey received when he wrote an editorial to be part of the dialogue Obama called for on health-care reform?

Your reply is one heck of a non-sequitur.

[SIV]

Who do you think's been protesting against the Federal Reserve in Chicago San Fran and Boston etc

From what I heard on the radio, dumb bitches who want Congress to "over-ride" the Fed and print until we have full employment.They all think the Fed is being stingy with the free money.

[Max]

Occupy Wall Street is to right-wing libertarianism as a good steak is to a pile of dog shit.

[Woof arf nip yap snap]

[Max E Pad]

I sometimes have turf and turd for dinner. I know!

[Tacos mmm...]

Or vice versa.

[marlok]

I bet your verbal score on the SAT really sucked balls.

[capitol l]

So you're wolfin' down right-wing libertarianism for breakfast?

[AA]

Fucking Libertarians. How do they work?

[Citizen Nothing]

Wait. I thought comostarians were hippies.
Has the fucking zeitgeist changed again?
Well, fuck. The Kochtopus needs to put out a new guidebook.
(And it's my experience that libertarians seem to make up about 1.5% of any group.)

[Tonio]

One young protester...said the system was keeping him from fulfilling his dream...because no one would pay for the surgery he needs on his shoulder. His dream? To become a journalist. (Writing can certainly be hard on the rotator cuff.)

Oh, snap.

Don't be a print-media snob, Seth. Camera equipment is heavy, particularly professional ENG (television) cameras.

Not defending his alleged right to free healthcare, but Seth's remark was completely inappropriate, and factually challenged.

[dont trust anyone over 80]

[ChrisO]

Well, I guess we know what happened to all the liberaltarians.

[Colin]

Yeah, sure, they'll let the libertarians march alongside them for now. But when the time comes they'll be the first marched off to the camps.

[cynical]

Nah. Unlike the humanities majors, we not only know useful skills but will actually work hard to use them. Any leftists that aren't actively fighting or working are going to be the first to the camps.

[Torontonian]

Colder weather will separate the die-hards from the posers.

Poll those who are still occupying Wall Street in December and you'll get a more distilled version of their core message, with far less dilution from fringe movement hangers-on.

[imhotep]

Time come when the OWS types and the Tea Party may no longer be divided by the borg. That would be the signal.

[tlaloc]

tea party infiltrated by pro-war neo-cons, OWS will be infiltrated by stalinist neo-progs.

[Apocalitarian]

It's time for a new constitutional convention, federal state and local

[cynical]

Why? The government doesn't follow the one we have now, what exactly is a different piece of paper going to do?

[Jim W]

Freedom Watch - Shattering the Left Right Paradeim in Occupy Wall Street Oct 6, 2011 http://lonestarwatchdog.blogsp.....right.html

[Tulpa]

That guy can't even handle filling in all the little white gaps in the blue portion of his Fox News sign, and he's still probably slept with more chicks this week than I have in my life.

[A fan]

No one wants an impotent smelly fishhead.

[canada goose clothing]

Thank you for sharing this information, hope you can often see after the information, get more people to useful things.

[Brian from Texas]

There was an Occupy Dallas here this week as well. Sure, it had its predominately leftist element, but it also had its share of libertarians and Ron Paul conservatives.