I don't agree that there's only a single prescribed method that everyone should attempt to emulate. This method was incisive and memorable. It drove the point home very effectively. She brought real world examples instead of just hypothetical fears. Her sarcastic delivery implied that the council's position was gleefully evil and comfortable with authoritarian abuses, which should give them pause and make them consider at least how they're being perceived, much less what their actual motivations are. And she offered real world consequences by mentioning their reelection. Greta can do it her way. This woman should continue being herself.
The fact that the council won't likely be swayed by her alone isn't her problem. Her wit and the virality can bring other pressure beyond her own delivery.
And the pacing is likely attributable to the fact that public commentary is limited to a time constraint in these meetings. She had a lot to say and not a lot of time to say it in.
Yeah, but that doesn't apply here since he was drinking Miller Lite, not beer.
Thatcher was being disingenuous because socialism involves "our money," in which everyone works together for mutual benefit. Capitalism can't function without other people's labor being exploited and under-compensated. I want my taxes to help pay for a portion of things I couldn't afford by myself and for it to benefit others because then I'm not being price gouged by others who are only demanding more because more is being demanded of them by the greediest among us.
How so?
Apparently even actual war crimes aren't war crimes if you just call it a military operation. We've always never been at war with the genetic cilantro soapers.
When asked about the concerns by KOIN reporters, PBOT spokesperson Dylan Rivera acknowledged the shortage of parking in the Goose Hollow area. “That’s why we need to get more people biking and walking, as much as possible. And that’s what a project like this is part of,” he said.
The problem with this approach is the assumption that everyone can just switch to biking and walking. The city makes decisions that functionally encourage alternative transportation by making driving more difficult. It's like a vice tax except with physical frustrations rather than added financial costs. But some people have to drive for work. And some people can't walk or bike long distances. And as the article points out, some people are caring for elderly relatives who can't walk or bike. And some buildings aren't close enough to grocery stores and shopping centers. And some people who walk or bike will still also drive cars that will need parking. And not everyone has the extra hours in the day to take longer to get everywhere.
It wasn't just "don't bow to a king" but also "taxes are a legitimate method of funding the public welfare," which directly contradicts the right wing libertarian ethos. It was also saying that more permanent safety was an achievable goal without having to give up freedom. He wasn't saying that freedom (to regulate and tax as a representative body) and safety were always mutually exclusive. So to use such an example to say that people need the freedom to endanger multiple lives even though the safety provided by the regulation isn't just temporary is an absurd misappropriation. Dying in a car accident because a selfish asshole decides not to wear a seatbelt or removes the seatbelts from his vehicle isn't very free.
It's not an interpretation. You're ignoring the verifiable context of the quote and the speaker. You're actively choosing to misrepresent it for your propaganda. This undermines your narrative and marks you as transparently untrustworthy. If you don't care about that, then nothing you say has value.
The irony is that you don't need to be dishonest to undermine your propaganda. You've already been doing that with your honest enthusiasm for deregulation as if everyone thinks seatbelt laws are oppressive government overreach.
Except it's not a subjective topic like which flavor of ice cream is better. We can actually see whether the speaker of the quote would agree with your positions. You're not agreeing to disagree. You're saying you don't care about verifiable facts because you're not interested in intellectual honesty. You're saying you don't care what he actually thought and just want to use him to push your propaganda.
And that doesn't contradict the fact that the quote was used to support the right of the legislature to tax the wealthy and property owners for the greater good of all citizens, including their long term (not short term) safety. The point still stands. The quote is not in defense of right wing libertarian philosophy and is being used out of context.
If you're just going to transparently use unrelated quotes for your propaganda, you might as well just make up the quotes.
I love it when libertarians quote this out of context, not realizing that it often contradicts their positions.
The quote is backing the right of the state legislature to levy taxes on wealthy assholes who want the benefit of property ownership and political power but who don't want to contribute to the welfare of society.
view more:
next ›