by ceebee4 » Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:49 pm
by The Mad Zeppelineer » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:37 pm
by StCapps » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:25 pm
by Dr. Strangelove » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:02 pm
by t-spoon » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:50 pm
by Smitty-48 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:56 pm
by nmoore63 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:09 pm
by AverageJoe » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:03 am
Smitty-48 wrote:People... stop bothering Dan about 'leading a movement'. None of you Twats agree on anything. There's no 'movement'. Dan is doing his thing and it's what he likes to do.
Just go with Kucinich, Nader or Paul and leave Dan out of it. He's not a frickkin politician and I wouldn't want him to be.
Enough with the mewling, FFS.
by ceolfrin » Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:41 am
FWIW, Dan, they're right about Cenk Uygur and his audience. I'm a long-time member of the Young Turks, recent listener to your show, and the overlap is striking.
by miasma » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:44 am
by Dr. Strangelove » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:50 am
by ceebee4 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:27 am
ceolfrin wrote:Ceebee4 said:FWIW, Dan, they're right about Cenk Uygur and his audience. I'm a long-time member of the Young Turks, recent listener to your show, and the overlap is striking.
I have contacted TYT a couple of times trying to get them to have Dan on the show, I've yet to receive a response. I do hope that these voices can eventually unite enough to consistently put out in the ether the idea of a non-corruption party. Politicians are whores, they are beholden to their donors because they fear damage to their career, they will comply all the same if that fear for their career comes from angry constituents or anti-corruption being in the ether so much that they cannot ignore it.
by P. Ami » Tue May 03, 2011 10:25 am
GoldenEagle wrote:Do it. Dan, you can lead us. The mood of the country is right. If you look back on this moment 100 years from now, you'd say this moment was when change could happen. The people longed for it. Now we're just waiting for the great man to come and effect the country. It's all you Dan.
In a way, I consider myself a utopian. There’s a book I’ve started to write — I’m not sure I’m ever going to finish it — about the historical tension between messianism and utopianism. And it is an attack on messianism. Because I would argue that too many problems of the last two thousand years or so are due to messianism. A messiah has a great vision, usually of redemption. Messianism requires following a leader. It requires pulling everybody into the scheme of a leader. Whereas utopianism basically consists in co-opting people to build things together. There is no overall, overarching scheme.
by Okeefenokee » Mon May 09, 2011 4:35 am
by Dr. Strangelove » Mon May 09, 2011 4:37 am