Soro's goes after the Tea Party

[JustRalph]

http://www.infowars.com/globalist-soros-launches-frontal-assault-against-tea-party/

Globalist Soros Launches Frontal Assault Against Tea Party

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 3, 2010

Soros and the foundation left have launched a website designed to go after the growing Tea Party movement. Teapartytracker.org will post video interviews and blog entries gathered by folks on the false left who never grow weary of demonstrating their outrage over the very idea of a grassroots political effort overthrowing establishment Democrats and Republicans in the district of corporate criminals.

much much more at the link

[ArlJim78]

this tea party tracking effort is also sponsored by the NAACP. further proof that it is nothing more than a political wing of the democrat party.

its hilarious to see the reaction to the tea party movement. lots of tracking and investigating going on. i don't know what they expect to find.

[NJ Stinks]

http://www.infowars.com/globalist-soros-launches-frontal-assault-against-tea-party/

Globalist Soros Launches Frontal Assault Against Tea Party

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 3, 2010

Soros and the foundation left have launched a website designed to go after the growing Tea Party movement. Teapartytracker.org will post video interviews and blog entries gathered by folks on the false left who never grow weary of demonstrating their outrage over the very idea of a grassroots political effort overthrowing establishment Democrats and Republicans in the district of corporate criminals.

much much more at the link

Grassroots my ass. It's people who lost the last election plain and simple.

[highnote]

For democrats, the tea party is a godsend, I would think because it splits the republican party the same way Ross Perot split the party and allowed Clinton to defeat Bush.

I can't imagine why any democrat would do anything but support the tea party.

Maybe I'm wrong and a lot of dems are joining the tea partiers?

[PaceAdvantage]

Grassroots my ass. It's people who lost the last election plain and simple.You sound upset. Tough.

100 years of Democrat rule...remember that one? :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

For democrats, the tea party is a godsend,Ummmm....I would think not....and I don't think it's quite working the same as Ross Perot or some independent candidate...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most if not all Tea Party-backed candidates also Republicans? Usually a much more conservative Republican than we've seen in the past, but a Republican nonetheless.

[ArlJim78]

there is going to be an election wipeout of historic proportions in less than two months. the left has nothing to offer except threats and claiming bigotry.
there is a growing number of disaffected blacks speaking out now against the left and joining the tea party. of course we already know how the left thinks, that you cannot be black and not be a democrat. this is why the NAACP has nothing better to do than to track the tea party. the longstanding narrative is fracturing and failing and they're going to find that you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

[mostpost]

http://www.infowars.com/globalist-soros-launches-frontal-assault-against-tea-party/

Globalist Soros Launches Frontal Assault Against Tea Party

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 3, 2010

Soros and the foundation left have launched a website designed to go after the growing Tea Party movement. Teapartytracker.org will post video interviews and blog entries gathered by folks on the false left who never grow weary of demonstrating their outrage over the very idea of a grassroots political effort overthrowing establishment Democrats and Republicans in the district of corporate criminals.

much much more at the link
Thanks, Teapartytracker.org is going on my favorites list.

[mostpost]

Ummmm....I would think not....and I don't think it's quite working the same as Ross Perot or some independent candidate...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most if not all Tea Party-backed candidates also Republicans? Usually a much more conservative Republican than we've seen in the past, but a Republican nonetheless.
Yeah and that is working out so well in Nevada where Harry Reid was once down more than thirty points in the polls and is know leading Tea party whack job Sharron Angle. That's right. I said whack job. Sue me.
I predict that the Arizona governor's race is going to tighten up considerably after Jan Brewer's disaster in the recent debate.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah and that is working out so well in Nevada where Harry Reid was once down more than thirty points in the polls and is know leading Tea party whack job Sharron Angle. That's right. I said whack job. Sue me.
I predict that the Arizona governor's race is going to tighten up considerably after Jan Brewer's disaster in the recent debate.At least you can hang your hat on something...

[johnhannibalsmith]

...leading Tea party whack job Sharron Angle. That's right. I said whack job...

anyone?

[mostpost]

You sound upset. Tough.

100 years of Democrat rule...remember that one? :lol:
I keep reading this "100 years of democratic rule" here. Which Democrat said that? I googled 100 years of Democratic rule and in the eleven pages of results I looked at I found only one result relating to rule by the Democratic party in the United States. That one result was a statement by Will Breazeale the Republican Party candidate for Congress in North Carolina's seventh District. He was referring to the fact that the Seventh District congressional seat had been held by a Democrat for the previous 100 years.

I think the 100 years thing is another fabrication made up by the Republican smear machine to frighten its base. Naturally you guys fall hook, line and sinker.

[PaceAdvantage]

I keep reading this "100 years of democratic rule" here. Which Democrat said that? I googled 100 years of Democratic rule and in the eleven pages of results I looked at I found only one result relating to rule by the Democratic party in the United States. That one result was a statement by Will Breazeale the Republican Party candidate for Congress in North Carolina's seventh District. He was referring to the fact that the Seventh District congressional seat had been held by a Democrat for the previous 100 years.

I think the 100 years thing is another fabrication made up by the Republican smear machine to frighten its base. Naturally you guys fall hook, line and sinker.It was stated right here in off-topic by a prominent (at the time...may have since stopped posting) "left-leaner."

[redshift1]

http://www.infowars.com/globalist-soros-launches-frontal-assault-against-tea-party/

Globalist Soros Launches Frontal Assault Against Tea Party

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 3, 2010

Soros and the foundation left have launched a website designed to go after the growing Tea Party movement. Teapartytracker.org will post video interviews and blog entries gathered by folks on the false left who never grow weary of demonstrating their outrage over the very idea of a grassroots political effort overthrowing establishment Democrats and Republicans in the district of corporate criminals.

much much more at the link

I found some more as well .... would this be a fair reflection of Mr Jones'
beliefs....

The criminal government is just one of many conspiracy theories Jones espouses -- although he thinks that term belittles his reporting. He also believes that the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center were an inside job, that President Barack Obama is an "unconstitutional criminal" and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) runs concentration camps.

"They [FEMA] have designation sports stadiums," he said matter-of-factly, "They have designated fields, they have designated closed down prisoner of war camps for the American people during a civil uprising."

[ArlJim78]

As far as changing the subject goes, I've seen smoother transitions than that.

[ArlJim78]

How's that coffeeparty thing working out? I remember earlier in the year this was going to be the new movement from progressives to rival the tea party. I hope it didn't grind to a bitter halt.:lol:

never fear though, now we have teapartytracker.org on the job. another case of if you can't beat them, do your best to disparage them. Dr. King would be so proud of the NAACP if he only knew what they have become.

[woodtoo]

Soro's where ever he throws his money at......lets get him to bet the ponies :D :D :D

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

How's that coffeeparty thing working out? I remember earlier in the year this was going to be the new movement from progressives to rival the tea party. I hope it didn't grind to a bitter halt.:lol:

never fear though, now we have teapartytracker.org on the job. another case of if you can't beat them, do your best to disparage them. Dr. King would be so proud of the NAACP if he only knew what they have become.

It appears that the left made a huge mistake...they awakened the silent majority of this country...watch out!

[jballscalls]

It appears that the left made a huge mistake...they awakened the silent majority of this country...watch out!

Bush awakened the left with his reign, now Obama awakens the "silent majority" and he'll be gone. then whoever the tea party anoints will awaken and reinvigorate the left, and then so on and so on and so on.

[Tom]

For democrats, the tea party is a godsend, I would think because it splits the republican party the same way Ross Perot split the party and allowed Clinton to defeat Bush.

I can't imagine why any democrat would do anything but support the tea party.

Maybe I'm wrong and a lot of dems are joining the tea partiers?

No it will not. It will clean up the party and offer legit candidates. Ones real Americans will support, unlike the slime-slate the dems will offer. The party that gave us Pelosi, Reid and Obama can't be trusted.

[alytim]

No it will not. It will clean up the party and offer legit candidates. Ones real Americans will support, unlike the slime-slate the dems will offer. The party that gave us Pelosi, Reid and Obama can't be trusted.

Let me finish your sentence. The party that gave us Pelosi, Reid and Obama can't be trusted to find the weapons of mass destruction.

[Tom]

Tired....try stepping into 2010.
You last talking point is stale.

[boxcar]

Tired....try stepping into 2010.
You last talking point is stale.

Not to mention pathetic. He can't find anything good to say about the Unholy Trinity from Hell in the present.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

Grassroots my ass.



I've seen remedies for that on late night television. Sea kelp, I urge you.

[skate]

there is going to be an election wipeout of historic proportions in less than two months. the left has nothing to offer except threats and claiming bigotry.
there is a growing number of disaffected blacks speaking out now against the left and joining the tea party. of course we already know how the left thinks, that you cannot be black and not be a democrat. this is why the NAACP has nothing better to do than to track the tea party. the longstanding narrative is fracturing and failing and they're going to find that you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

1980/81 Time Mag put a Picture of a dead Driver on the Cover. And went on to insinuate that Tax Protesters had caused the Killing of the driver.

To this day, no killer has been located.

But Time Mag was able to sway public opinion. It only takes a few Lies, which is what the Left has going for it.

[redshift1]

As far as changing the subject goes, I've seen smoother transitions than that.

Nimmo writes for Jones's website, hardly a bastion of reliable news. Its not as convoluted a segue as you might think.

[ArlJim78]

Nimmo writes for Jones's website, hardly a bastion of reliable news. Its not as convoluted a segue as you might think.
you tried to make it about Jones, by calling in to question his reliability. problem is, it's being reported everywhere. and furthermore, the website exists. you can check it out for yourself.

also covering the story;
Washinton post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090306120.html)

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/03/naacp-monitors-tea-party-_n_704699.html)

The Atlanta Post (http://atlantapost.com/2010/09/06/naacp-monitors-tea-party-racism-and-other-forms-of-extremism/)

[Tom]

RIF

and limited, too.

[redshift1]

you tried to make it about Jones, by calling in to question his reliability. problem is, it's being reported everywhere. and furthermore, the website exists. you can check it out for yourself.

also covering the story;
Washinton post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090306120.html)

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/03/naacp-monitors-tea-party-_n_704699.html)

The Atlanta Post (http://atlantapost.com/2010/09/06/naacp-monitors-tea-party-racism-and-other-forms-of-extremism/)

I read the Nimmo article and Its a linking of premises based on syllogistic inaccuracies.

Money is green

Trees are green

Then Money must grow on trees


The articles you cited do not mention a "Soros Attack"

[jelly]

1980/81 Time Mag put a Picture of a dead Driver on the Cover. And went on to insinuate that Tax Protesters had caused the Killing of the driver.

To this day, no killer has been located.

But Time Mag was able to sway public opinion. It only takes a few Lies, which is what the Left has going for it.




The good news is that they couldn't get away with that today,and probably won't be around in 5 years. :D

[bigmack]

I read the Nimmo article and Its a linking of premises based on syllogistic inaccuracies.
The articles you cited do not mention a "Soros Attack"
What part of the story would you like to disprove instead of working with minutia & semantics?

[redshift1]

What part of the story would you like to disprove instead of working with minutia & semantics?


The Author fails to establish Soros as the force behind the website except through innuendo. Soros made a donation = Soros funds anti Tea party Website.

Some Muslims are terrorists

Muslims own stock in Newscorp

Newscorp supports terrorism


That's makes as much sense as Soros passing out racist signs to anarchists at TP rallies.

[mostpost]

What part of the story would you like to disprove instead of working with minutia & semantics?
George Soros funds website in opposition Tea party/
Rupert Murdoch funds "News" channel in opposition to Democratic Party.
Explain the difference.

[bks]

ArlJim78 wrote:

this tea party tracking effort is also sponsored by the NAACP. further proof that it is nothing more than a political wing of the democrat party.


Jim, the Tea Party was essentially dreamed up by, and is sponsored by, the Koch Brothers through one or more of their fronts (American For Prosperity), so would that make it nothing more than the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party?

This is the sad part to*me. To paraphrase a wise commentator on the subject, the Tea Party is basically a medium-sized group of turkeys marching to save Thanksgiving. All of this anger at the government is of course appropriate, but not because its "socialist" or some such bullshit.

The Tea Party sponsors are at the top of the list of the people destroying the country. They want complete corporate dominion over society, and the Tea Party is doing its bidding, wittingly or not. They are billionaires and are open advocates for 'corporate self-interest'. None of this is remotely in dispute.

The Kochs’ subsidization of a pro-corporate movement fulfills, in many ways, the vision laid out in a secret 1971 memo that Lewis Powell, then a Virginia attorney, wrote two months before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. The antiwar movement had turned its anger on defense contractors, such as Dow Chemical, and Ralph Nader was leading a public-interest crusade against corporations. Powell, writing a report for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, urged American companies to fight back. The greatest threat to free enterprise, he warned, was not Communism or the New Left but, rather, “respectable elements of society”—intellectuals, journalists, and scientists. To defeat them, he wrote, business leaders needed to wage a long-term, unified campaign to change public opinion.


The Tea Party is the latest manifestation of that campaign.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all#ixzz0yonVDCjw

[bigmack]

George Soros funds website in opposition Tea party/
Rupert Murdoch funds "News" channel in opposition to Democratic Party.
Explain the difference.
At least you're willing to see the Soros funding connection, unlike this redshift character. Began by attacking the author and is now unclear who funds MoveOn, ThinkProgress & MediaMatters.

As for your 'news' line, it's a tired act. Name one cable outlet or network less biased than Fox.

[boxcar]

The Author fails to establish Soros as the force behind the website except through innuendo. Soros made a donation = Soros funds anti Tea party Website.

Some Muslims are terrorists

Muslims own stock in Newscorp

Newscorp supports terrorism


That's makes as much sense as Soros passing out racist signs to anarchists at TP rallies.

It makes a heck of a lot more sense than the syllogistic drivel you just posted. There is no such thing as Some Soros. Soros is Soros, Einstein. If Soros himself made a direct donation, then, yes, he funds the anti-Tea Party website.

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

George Soros funds website in opposition Tea party/
Rupert Murdoch funds "News" channel in opposition to Democratic Party.
Explain the difference.
The difference is that Fox News usually has guests on their talk shows that represent both sides of an issue - that is when Dems show up which they are often afraid of doing because they don't have a leg to stand on usually. I doubt that Soros's website will allow any fair and balanced dialog. Why do you think MSNBC is in the toilet? It's because their one hour talk shows are a thinly velied campaign commercial for the Democratic party. Is Olbermann still doing Buusssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhed?

[mostpost]

At least you're willing to see the Soros funding connection, unlike this redshift character. Began by attacking the author and is now unclear who funds MoveOn, ThinkProgress & MediaMatters.

As for your 'news' line, it's a tired act. Name one cable outlet or network less biased than Fox.
CNN, MSNBC, Pravda. :lol: :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

... MSNBC...

Oh boy...


you're too old and she likes girls... I think... layoff that snobby twit a few days Mr. McFeeley.

[bigmack]

CNN, MSNBC, Pravda.
Ya see when it's turned around all you geeks that pimp Fox can't come up with any organization less biased. Thing is, ALL the rest are biased left, yet whiners like you & others talk about 'faux' news. It furthers the fact of you being out of touch with reality.

[Mike at A+]

Libs and Dems hate Fox because there is so much video out there that makes them look bad and Fox plays it while the others don't. The left continues to harp on things like a "Mission Accomplished" banner or a Senator sending inappropriate text messages to a page while ignoring bribe money stashed away in a freezer, a slew of Obama appointees who have cheated on their tax returns and a gay prostitution service run out of the home of a Congressman paid for with our taxes. If Fox didn't report these stories, no one would.

[mostpost]

Libs and Dems hate Fox because there is so much video out there that makes them look bad and Fox plays it while the others don't. The left continues to harp on things like a "Mission Accomplished" banner or a Senator sending inappropriate text messages to a page while ignoring bribe money stashed away in a freezer, a slew of Obama appointees who have cheated on their tax returns and a gay prostitution service run out of the home of a Congressman paid for with our taxes. If Fox didn't report these stories, no one would.
Are you referring to the video of Shirley Sherrod where it was made to appear she was making racist remarks, but when you saw the whole video, you realized she was using the incident to show how she had gotten beyond her original opinion and how she had grown from the events of that day.
Or are you referring to the video in the Acorn office where the ACORN official is portrayed as very willing to help in bringing underage girls into the country to work as prostitutes. But when you learn the rest of the story, you find out that the first thing he did after the two scumbags left his office was to call his cousin who is a police official in Mexico City and they alerted the SanDiego police department.
These followups have been all over the news, the real news and yet you insist on treating the original, discredited stories as gospel truth. It says a lot about your lack of objectivity.

I just did a quick Google on Rep. William Jefferson and found stories on his conviction on CNN, Huffington Post, LA Times, ABC News, MSNBC, and the Washington Post. I frequently watch MSNBC and I recall a number of stories on the "freezer cash". In none of them do I recall any of the MSNBC hosts defending Jefferson or suggesting he was being treated unfairly.

All of what you call tax cheating by the Obama nominees, was a case of misunderstanding or misinterpretation of a very complicated tax code. Or in one case a failure to pay $298 in unemployment over a brief period of time. An oversight. All of the back taxes were paid. All of the interest was paid. All of the penalties were paid. In none of the cases did the IRS even consider criminal actions, which they would have done if they felt there was criminal intent.

The Barney Frank thing is beyond ridiculous. It happened more than twenty five years ago. There is no credible evidence that Frank knew about it beyond the word of a man who was looking to write and sell a book.

[skate]

It appears that the left made a huge mistake...they awakened the silent majority of this country...watch out!


i'll believe, when i see...

we've got a really nice circle, for the jerks. So get out and vote everybody:rolleyes:

[skate]

Let me finish your sentence. The party that gave us Pelosi, Reid and Obama can't be trusted to find the weapons of mass destruction.


Daaaa...Libya or sumtin like dats.

Or might they suppose to be just where you and everyone else thought they'd be?

Just askin. hate to see someone dangle.

[bigmack]

I frequently watch MSNBC
Shocking.

Nice, you getting info from the best in the biz. They dig deeper than anyone to get to the bottom (of the barrel) to every hand-picked story.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/nose_picking.jpg

[skate]

The good news is that they couldn't get away with that today,and probably won't be around in 5 years. :D


well yah, i agree, but it's the process that's still here, along with a Really Really really costive, pussified ladies and gents needed to suck up the crap.

that's what hurts

If they dont use Time, they'll use something else, i thinkith.;)

[skate]

George Soros funds website in opposition Tea party/
Rupert Murdoch funds "News" channel in opposition to Democratic Party.
Explain the difference.

he owns it, no deceit.:)

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
I frequently watch MSNBC


Do they ever call you and ask if you are ready to watch a show?
Have they ever held one up a few minutes for you? Or does the other viewer have seniority? :lol:

When you go to bed, their ratings drop by half. :lol:

[Mike at A+]

Are you referring to the video of Shirley Sherrod where it was made to appear she was making racist remarks, but when you saw the whole video, you realized she was using the incident to show how she had gotten beyond her original opinion and how she had grown from the events of that day.
Or are you referring to the video in the Acorn office where the ACORN official is portrayed as very willing to help in bringing underage girls into the country to work as prostitutes. But when you learn the rest of the story, you find out that the first thing he did after the two scumbags left his office was to call his cousin who is a police official in Mexico City and they alerted the SanDiego police department.
These followups have been all over the news, the real news and yet you insist on treating the original, discredited stories as gospel truth. It says a lot about your lack of objectivity.

I just did a quick Google on Rep. William Jefferson and found stories on his conviction on CNN, Huffington Post, LA Times, ABC News, MSNBC, and the Washington Post. I frequently watch MSNBC and I recall a number of stories on the "freezer cash". In none of them do I recall any of the MSNBC hosts defending Jefferson or suggesting he was being treated unfairly.

All of what you call tax cheating by the Obama nominees, was a case of misunderstanding or misinterpretation of a very complicated tax code. Or in one case a failure to pay $298 in unemployment over a brief period of time. An oversight. All of the back taxes were paid. All of the interest was paid. All of the penalties were paid. In none of the cases did the IRS even consider criminal actions, which they would have done if they felt there was criminal intent.

The Barney Frank thing is beyond ridiculous. It happened more than twenty five years ago. There is no credible evidence that Frank knew about it beyond the word of a man who was looking to write and sell a book.
She still said what she said and Fox played what the had. She used to be a racist and was appointed to a position that shouldn't have been given to a former racist. Just like a reformed child molestor shouldn't be allowed to babysit.

Regarding Acorn, whatever you say doesn't change the fact that they were ready and willing to help someone break the law.

Regarding Jefferson, sure they're reporting it NOW that he has been convicted. But when it was discovered they spent more time on a meaningless banner.

Regarding all the tax cheats, I don't care if they paid their penalties. They don't belong in any government positions that can punish taxpayers for making the same mistakes they allegedly made.

And with Frank, if your excuse is that the story is 25 years old, why do liberals still bash Reagan like it was yesterday? It's 2010, Obama has been in power for 20 months and he's done more damage in that short time than any president in US history. And 2011 doesn't hold much promise for any improvement. You called the Republican Party the "party of no". In 2011 when Obama uses the veto pen until it runs out of ink, what will you say then? I'll call him the "nitwit of no".

[NJ Stinks]

Regarding all the tax cheats, I don't care if they paid their penalties. They don't belong in any government positions that can punish taxpayers for making the same mistakes they allegedly made.



Judge Mike, people who see no gray areas worry me.

Anybody who did what they did would face the same punishment -i.e. pay the back taxes due and the related interest and penalties. End of story.

[Mike at A+]

Judge Mike, people who see no gray areas worry me.

Anybody who did what they did would face the same punishment -i.e. pay the back taxes due and the related interest and penalties. End of story.
That brings me back to my original statement. Would YOU allow a "reformed" child molestor to babysit for your kid? Be honest.

[delayjf]

The Tea Party sponsors are at the top of the list of the people destroying the country. They want complete corporate dominion over society, and the Tea Party is doing its bidding, wittingly or not. They are billionaires and are open advocates for 'corporate self-interest'. None of this is remotely in dispute.

Is it safe to assume you are a "progressive". This country was not founded on nor did it accend to it's current status by adherance to progressive dogma. The Tea Party is a threat to the progressive movement - I for one applaud and support them. Where do you get the idea that the Tea Party wants a country dominated by corprorations??

[JustRalph]

It fits their narrative, that's where the idea comes from. You know, like the one that says tea partiers are racist. It's a forced meme

[ArlJim78]

they'll use whatever they can. last summer they called tea partiers insurance company shills. then it was the racist meme that took over.

frankly its all different attempts to spin the media, searching desperately for a bigoted slam that the media can make stick. they will throw everything up against the wall to see how it plays.

it doesn't even matter much anymore because nobody is listening to the media anymore except for entertainment.

the jig is up, and its time to pay the piper for all of these failed ideas that the progressives have hatched over the past many years.

[bks]

You didn't read the article, did you, delay? You didn't either, did you, Ralph? If you want to take issue with anything it says, I'm right here. But show the respect of actually reading what is a fair, yet damning, history of the Tea Party's funding and background politics.

Is it safe to assume you are a "progressive". This country was not founded on nor did it accend to it's current status by adherance to progressive dogma.

I am left of progressive, for the record. And Obama is not progressive, nor is he a socialist. Progressives hate Obama for "abandoning" them, which is a silly position for the progressives to take, since he was never with them in the first place. Visit a place like Democratic Underground if you want to get a sense of how the 'left' part of the Democratic party feels about Obama.

Obama is a corporate democrat with liberal leanings, and lacks balls. That's the essence of the man. He negotiated for 14 months with republicans on his ridiculous health care bill, and still got none of them to sign on. NONE. He could have rammed a truly leftist single-payer bill through and STILL gotten no Republican votes! But he didn't, because he isn't a leftist or even a progressive. Nothing makes it more obvious than this.

But just so we're sure we're not speaking past each other, what is it about the 'progressive dogma' you object to? Social positions? Economic positions? Both? These labels often obscure more than they reveal.

My views are clear and out front. No multinational business should have disproportionate access to or influence on government at any level. Period. Government's role should be to serve the interest of working people, period. A safety net should be available for those who fall on hard times, of course including complete health coverage, funded by the taxes of working people and businesses, and regulations should be in place that actually ensure that workplace environments are not harmful or unhealthy. I want a tax structure that does not give breaks to the wealthy and a criminal justice system that simply does not tolerate efforts by the powerful to game the system.

Want an end to the immigration problem in this country? Very easy to do. Start throwing employers in jail forr avoiding tax and regulatory requirements by hiring undocumented workers. Yet it's funny how I don't hear the supposedly anti-corporate, pro law-and-order Tea Party leaders ever suggesting such a thing? Instead, they favor a law like Arizona's which will of course encourage racial profiling and punish minorities for "looking like" they are from another country.

Allowing employers to hire cheap labor of all kinds ensures a race to the bottom for all working people. Either you are for that, or you stand firmly against it.

Where do you get the idea that the Tea Party wants a country dominated by corprorations??

Don't play with words. The Tea Party's leadership is funded by Americas For Prosperity, a libertarian front group for the 'corporate self-interest' movement. The "Tea Party" idea has been in circulation for 40+ years. Again, none of this is in dispute. Please read the article, and we can discuss it if you think there are problems with it.

I am sure that many Tea Partiers are not remotely in favor of the kind of political platform their backers favor. Which is both their problem and mine, to some degree. But movements for change that purport to be "of the people, by the people and for the people" should not be funded by people like the Koch Brothers (whose family ironically amassed part of its fortune thanks to none other than that champion of capitalism Josef Stalin. Read the article).


nor did it accend to it's current status

What status is that? The US is $14 trillion in debt, a large part of which is related to a criminal bailout of the financial sector engineered by GWB in September 2008 and then continued by BO up to the present day. Both parties supported it and still support it. You cannot find a single knowledgeable person on the left or right who believes the debt will ever be paid off.

We make nothing here anymore. The only thing we export is imperialism, with military bases in 140 countries around the world and an unbelievable $1 trillion a year military budget, virtually all of it funded by the deficit!

Do you favor this? It's funny: there's no larger item in the discretionary federal budget than military spending. Yet we don't hear a PEEP out of Republicans or Democrats or Tea Partiers about this.

[boxcar]

Hey, BKS...is a "corporate democrat" someone who has designs on controlling the private sector? For example, dictating to executives how much money they can make? Or seizing control of an entire industry such as health care? Or forcing banks to take stimulus money, they don't want, etc.? Doesn't increased state control of the private sector smack a wee bit of communism?

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Government's role should be to serve the interest of working people, period.
There ain't no doubt about it, you is a progressive.

Tell tale signs include a complexity of thought similar to the writings on the back of a cereal box.

Visualize world peace.

[boxcar]

Do you favor this? It's funny: there's no larger item in the discretionary federal budget than military spending. Yet we don't hear a PEEP out of Republicans or Democrats or Tea Partiers about this.

No! You're clueless since you think it's funny that no one makes a peep? For starters, BO has slashed military spending. Secondly, military spending is constitutional and necessary in an evil world. Maybe you think you've died and gone on to your utopia but to the rest of us who have both feet touching the planet, we know differently.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

There ain't no doubt about it, you is a progressive.

Tell tale signs include a complexity of thought similar to the writings on the back of a cereal box.

Visualize world peace.

In fact, he sounds pretty Marxist to me. For one thing, no human being with a healthy self-esteem and a high sense of self-worth would want anyone watching over them. And for another, such people value their individual freedoms too much to give those up to a self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, knows-it-all, power-hungry Nanny State who feigns interest for the people. Only people with serious moral deficiencies expect others to take care of them or "look after them" for their entire lives.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

That brings me back to my original statement. Would YOU allow a "reformed" child molestor to babysit for your kid? Be honest.
There is no such thing as a "reformed" child molester. A person does not molest a child because he does not understand the laws on child molestation. He does it because of a very deep seated and uncontrollable psycological urge. That does not mean we should forgive his actions. It is the reason we must keep such people away from our children, for even if they have a sincere desire to reform they are not capable of doing so.

However, no one has a deep seated psychological urge to cheat the IRS. It is entirely possible for a person to not understand a very complex tax system or to make an honest error and to atone for that error, and then be fully acceptable in a position of trust. This is in no way akin to a child molester.

[GaryG]

There is no such thing as a "reformed" child molester. A person does not molest a child because he does not understand the laws on child molestation. He does it because of a very deep seated and uncontrollable psycological urge. That does not mean we should forgive his actions. It is the reason we must keep such people away from our children, for even if they have a sincere desire to reform they are not capable of doing so. I believe the current admin has a child molester as the "Safe School Czar"...is that not true?

[Robert Goren]

Reagan is the gift that never stops giving for liberals. Today when ever we hear some ecomonic statistics on what ever it is followed the line. "The worst since 1982."

[Mike at A+]

However, no one has a deep seated psychological urge to cheat the IRS.
I guess you never heard of Charlie Rangel?

[bks]

Bigmack: you picked a strange site if you favor complexity of thought.

And yeah, I'm familiar with your brand of pick-one-line-and-ignore-the-rest dismissals. Makes it easier to for you to stay stupid that way.

Guess you bought the story about the $1 trillion per annum needed to fight stateless terrorists in caves.

Boxcar wrote:

Hey, BKS...is a "corporate democrat" someone who has designs on controlling the private sector? For example, dictating to executives how much money they can make? Or seizing control of an entire industry such as health care? Or forcing banks to take stimulus money, they don't want, etc.? Doesn't increased state control of the private sector smack a wee bit of communism?

Now here's a chance for me to learn something. In what possible sense did this happen? The health care bill recently passed, far from "seizing" anything, required citizens to purchase health care from private companies instead of those citizens having a chance to purchase state-sponsored coverage (the "public option"). It's estimated that this will produce 30 million new customers for "health care" companies.

So in what sense did government seize control of the health care industry?

[Mike at A+]

Now here's a chance for me to learn something. In what possible sense did this happen? The health care bill recently passed, far from "seizing" anything, required citizens to purchase health care from private companies instead of those citizens having a chance to purchase state-sponsored coverage (the "public option"). It's estimated that this will produce 30 million new customers for "health care" companies.

So in what sense did government seize control of the health care industry?
To put it bluntly, those 30 million "new customers" aren't the best of risks for insurers. Add in some of the new government mandates and insurers lose more of their profits. That results in job losses. And by not implementing tort reform, you're not attracting any new doctors as they pay through the nose for malpractice insurance alreay. This results in rationing of health care and longer waiting time to see a doctor.

[mostpost]

Is it safe to assume you are a "progressive". This country was not founded on nor did it accend to it's current status by adherance to progressive dogma. The Tea Party is a threat to the progressive movement - I for one applaud and support them. Where do you get the idea that the Tea Party wants a country dominated by corprorations??
The founding fathers were absolutely progressives. They advocated representative democracy and self determination at a time when most countries in the world were either moanarchies or colonies of countries which were monarchies. France was ruled by a king. Spain had a king. Prussia was ruled by the Kaiser. The Austro-Hungarian empire controlled must of central europe. Russia was ruled by the Czar. or the Tsar.
They believed in freedom of and from religion at a time when most countries had a national church.
For their time, their belief in who should have the right to vote was extremely progressive. Many of the principles in the Bill of Rights, while based on English common law were raised to new levels.

All of the major strides which this country has taken were due to Progressive initiative.
The status quo would have said "Don't free the slaves". Conservatives would not have passed the 14th Amendment. In fact they now want to repeal it.
If Teddy Roosevelt had not busted the trusts we would have had a corporate control of America. Progressives gave women the right to vote. Progressives gave us Social Security so the elderly can have a chance to live their remaining years in some comfort. Progressives gave civil rights to people of color. Progressives gave the working man a level playing field in negotiations with his employer. Progressives gave the working man a safe place to work.
Every good thing in this country was acccomplished by Progressives. Every good thing in this country was opposed by Conservatives.

I believe the statement was Tea Party sponsors want a country dominated by corporations, referring to men like the Koch Brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife and others of that ilk. The Tea Party members you see at those rallies are being duped, they are being played for fools.
Watch the video on the Teapartytracker.org website. The interviewer does not debate with the subjects, he does not ridicule them. He lets them speak. Their lack of understanding, their belief in things that are not true, their memories of an America that never existed, all condemn them and their philosophy.

[bigmack]

And yeah, I'm familiar with your brand of pick-one-line-and-ignore-the-rest dismissals. Makes it easier to for you to stay stupid that way
Oh goodie, we've got another "I get it and you all are ignorant" types spouting the same garden variety ThinkProgress talking points. Much the same type that used to read 'alternative' news sources and get the inside scoop way beyond the regular folk.

Pulease:

- Punish minorities for "looking like" they are from another country.
- I want a tax structure that does not give breaks to the wealthy
- Government's role should be to serve the interest of working people, period.

Sean Penn ain't got nothin' on you. I also dig how often you and your comrades are so punchy with your ideas. "I want"... "Governments role...period" It's so absolute and totalitarian. That's neat. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

Bigmack: you picked a strange site if you favor complexity of thought.

And yeah, I'm familiar with your brand of pick-one-line-and-ignore-the-rest dismissals. Makes it easier to for you to stay stupid that way.

Guess you bought the story about the $1 trillion per annum needed to fight stateless terrorists in caves.



Now here's a chance for me to learn something. In what possible sense did this happen? The health care bill recently passed, far from "seizing" anything, required citizens to purchase health care from private companies instead of those citizens having a chance to purchase state-sponsored coverage (the "public option"). It's estimated that this will produce 30 million new customers for "health care" companies.

So in what sense did government seize control of the health care industry?

And yeah, I'm familiar with your brand of pick-one-line-and-ignore-the-rest dismissals. Makes it easier to for you to stay stupid that way.

You should take your own advice, you hypocrite. You take one of my items in my post and ignore the rest!

Regarding, health care, however -- for all practical intents and purpose it is a takeover because ObamaCare, in its current form (which very many people are still grappling with to find out what it is specifically), is the backdoor into
a one-payer system in the foreseeable future This has been discussed previously on this forum quite often, so no need to repeat here.

Boxcar

[bks]

Mike wrote:

To put it bluntly, those 30 million "new customers" aren't the best of risks for insurers. Add in some of the new government mandates and insurers lose more of their profits. That results in job losses. And by not implementing tort reform, you're not attracting any new doctors as they pay through the nose for malpractice insurance alreay. This results in rationing of health care and longer waiting time to see a doctor.

Many of the 30 million will be young, healthy people that don't have insurance now because it's too expensive. Far less will be the 'expensive' type of customer they don't want. Chronically ill people tend to prioritize insurance and typically do everything they can to keep it once they have it.

Oh goodie, we've got another "I get it and you all are ignorant" types spouting the same garden variety ThinkProgress talking points. Much the same type that used to read 'alternative' news sources and get the inside scoop way beyond the regular folk.

Pulease:
- Punish minorities for "looking like" they are from another country.
- I want a tax structure that does not give breaks to the wealthy
- Government's role should be to serve the interest of working people, period.

Sean Penn ain't got nothin' on you. I also dig how often you and your comrades are so punchy with your ideas. "I want"... "Governments role...period" It's so absolute and totalitarian. That's neat.


Again, nothing substantive to say.

Your concern for the fortunes of the wealthy is touching, though, if misplaced. You know how a lot of wealthy people got wealthy? Because they're good at overcoming obstacles in their path, particularly little ones. They're innovative and know how to deal effectively with problems in front of them.

They certainly can overcome a requirement to pay a fair amount of taxes on the money they earned from the privilege of running a business. You do understand that running a business is a PRIVILEGE, and not a right, don't you Bigmack? A privilege. Says so right here on the form I have to pay each year to run my small business: "business privilege tax".

[ArlJim78]

So in what sense did government seize control of the health care industry?
By mandating what benefits insurers have to offer and to whom and at what profit margin. For starters. The rest you can figure out from this simple flow chart.


http://www.tomllewis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-15-healthcare-organizational-chart-1024x786.jpg

[mostpost]

No! You're clueless since you think it's funny that no one makes a peep? For starters, BO has slashed military spending. Secondly, military spending is constitutional and necessary in an evil world. Maybe you think you've died and gone on to your utopia but to the rest of us who have both feet touching the planet, we know differently.

Boxcar
2010 military budget:
Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%
Explain how an increase of 3% is slashing military spending.

Proposed 2011 Military Budget:
Defense-related expenditure 2011 Budget request & Mandatory spending
DOD spending $721.3 billion
$721.3B is more than $685.1B. It is 5.3% more. How does that equate to "Obama slashed military spending." ????

[boxcar]

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Mr. Obama said.

This is precious. He said that in the context of cutting military spending. You would not hear these words come out of his mouth or any other lib's in the context of social welfare programs. When it comes to these, the sky is the limit.

Obama budget cuts target military funding

To answer your question, Mosty, it's simple. I used liberal logic. He drastically cut military spending at a very dangerous time in the world.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/08/obama-budget-cuts-target-military-funding/

Boxcar

[mostpost]

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Mr. Obama said.

This is precious. He said that in the context of cutting military spending. You would not hear these words come out of his mouth or any other lib's in the context of social welfare programs. When it comes to these, the sky is the limit.

Obama budget cuts target military funding

To answer your question, Mosty, it's simple. I used liberal logic. He drastically cut military spending at a very dangerous time in the world.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/08/obama-budget-cuts-target-military-funding/

Boxcar
Here's what I said:
$721.3B (2011 military budget) is more than $685.1B. (2010 military Budget)
Here is what you said.
He drastically cut military spending at a very dangerous time in the world.
According to the link you provided:
The Defense Department will take a $9.4 billion hit,
$9.4B is 1.3% of the Defense Department budget. Not what I consider a drastic cut.
I just took a closer look at the link you provided. The story is from May of 2009 and is about the 2010 budget. The second page of the story, which I should have read to begin with, states that the DOD budget would actually increase by 4% over 2009. So what happened was $9.4B in items that were not critical or outdated were cut.

[delayjf]

The founding fathers were absolutely progressives.
Only in that they advocated change - that being a Democratic government as opposed to the socialist model favored by todays progessives. If that's the definition you want to apply then Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pot were also progessives - you have to take the good with the bad.

While today's progressives might not like to admit it, it was Christians who took the lead in both the end of slavery and the Civil Rights movement.

[Tom]

Republican Christians.