So if the long march of progress makes a fast food drive-thru a site of civic participation, well, that’s surreal—but it’s democracy in action.
I wonder if this guy is aware that "long march" almost always refers to the "long march through the institutions", which is essentially a Marxist plan to subvert society. (When it's not referring to the original "long march" by Mao's forces.) I'm guessing he is. It reminds me of the old commie-styled Mozilla red star logo. Was that an accident? What's with these people? At any rate, if you ever want to donate to any political cause, make sure it's 100 percent anonymous. That includes supporters of gay marriage. When the worm turns, you might get the same as you gave.
I can get behind anonymous donations. After all, we vote anonymously, anonymous speech is protected speech, so why shouldn't anonymous donations be protected as well? In the marketplace of ideas, shouldn't it be the ideas that are judged and not who said them or who paid for the ad?
At the level of donation in this example, that probably works. Consider though a donation of say, $1 million. Is it important to know who donates that amount and thus potentially exerting a great deal of influence?
Maybe the notable difference is that while votes are anonymous, every vote is equal.
I wonder if this guy is aware that "long march" almost always refers to the "long march through the institutions", which is essentially a Marxist plan to subvert society. (When it's not referring to the original "long march" by Mao's forces.) I'm guessing he is. It reminds me of the old commie-styled Mozilla red star logo. Was that an accident? What's with these people? At any rate, if you ever want to donate to any political cause, make sure it's 100 percent anonymous. That includes supporters of gay marriage. When the worm turns, you might get the same as you gave.