It's rather funny that they love Soros so much yet demonize people who are exactly like him. Rofl @ loving a currency speculator.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,486
- 20,014
- 146
What's funny here is that the Tea Party has no leader. No director. It cannot be controlled. That cannot be said for the things Soros funds.
But that's neither here nor there. If someone wants to fund something they believe in, why is it suddenly some sordid thing??? Or is it only sordid when it's an org you disagree with???
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
When Soros does it for democrats , its rare and unusual, when other billionaires fund right wing causes and the GOP, it more typical and common.
But still, most political funding and funding raising professionals are not coming from in wealthy individuals, most funding comes from corporations through lobbyists.
But still, most political funding and funding raising professionals are not coming from in wealthy individuals, most funding comes from corporations through lobbyists.
What the FUCK are you talking about? Rare and unusual? Those are some SERIOUS blinders buddy.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,486
- 20,014
- 146
No shit. In fact, in 2006, the top nine wealthiest donors gave exculsively to leftist causes.
http://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/rich-truths-billionaires-not-bush
Not to mention Soros clearly said in 04 his mission was to destroy Bush and he would spend his entire fortune to do so. Sure he wasn't super active BEFORE 04, but since 04 the dude has given TONS of money to PRO Democrat orgs. Fucking Lemon Law is a moron.
False.
The tea party is trying to look like it has no leader, but Fox organizing early events, Fox people speaking about and for and at it, the oil industry funding it pushing an agenda not to get in their way, the Koch brothers funding it and pushing an agenda to not get in their way, leaders like Sarah Palin - they are trying to look like it 'has no leaders', because that helps them recruit people, while it's not organizing and funding itself - rather, recognizing the rebellion Republican screwups cause, it helps keep the rebellious from 'going rogue'.
Soros isn't funding some selfish agenda like the Kochs. Why don't you name 5 issues Soros is pushing (you probably can't) and then see which are primarily selfish (none).
Soros is funding democracy to oppose the abusive concentration of wealth in politics. He's a demon for the simple to give them an enemy and ignore the real enemy on the right.
How is the moveon.org agenda set? By Big oil? By Wall Street? By the Reverand Moon who publishes the Washington Times? No, it's set by democracy - members vote what to do.
And then there are the enemies of America - some selfish, some clueless - like you who attack the democratic groups and support the anti-democratic.
Oh yes Soros isn't on some selfish agenda at all. No sir.
Seriously Craig I'm sad for everyone who has to deal with an idiot like you in real life.
Seriously Craig I'm sad for everyone who has to deal with an idiot like you in real life.
You can't even define Soros' agenda, but you attack it anyway, because he's not on your team.
Try it- lay out his agenda and point out why you oppose it.
lol @ you assuming I'm on anyones team. I don't give a fuck if Soros gives his entire fortune to any org. I just think you guys are fucking idiots for thinking Soros is any better rofl. THE GUY IS A CURRENCY SPECULATOR! That should fucking tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about him.
Nice dodge and exhibition of willful blindness. Congratulations- you've passed the test of rightwing indoctrination.
Read what Soros has to say about derivatives-
http://www.georgesoros.com/articles-essays/entry/america_must_face_up_to_the_dangers_of_derivatives/
Which, I'm sure, runs entirely against the grain of all the free market self regulated banking Rah-rah that created our current economic straits....
manimal
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2007
- 13,559
- 8
- 0
Once again we argue semantics when we should be discussing the entire scope of campaign finance and how it influences the democracy.
We can argue the lesser evils of soros or the cock brothers or we can look at why the election cycle lasts so long and why it takes a multimillion dollar campaign with promises akin to indentured servitude to attain the top positions.
Local elections are won with energy and commitment. If we made the presidential campaign season much smaller with caps on spending and pools of money instead of coffers we would see immediate change to how our democracy works..
Sadly recently we lost a big proponent of campaign finance in Delaware. Mike Castle was really a old line fiscal conservative with brains, gumption and a realist pragmatist whose main positions included campaign finance reform and ethics in governance.
Recently CNN did a round table discussion with retiring members of the senate and the house from both parties. To a man they all cited the lack of campaign finance reform as the biggest threat to our democracy.
Can we all agree on something?
We can argue the lesser evils of soros or the cock brothers or we can look at why the election cycle lasts so long and why it takes a multimillion dollar campaign with promises akin to indentured servitude to attain the top positions.
Local elections are won with energy and commitment. If we made the presidential campaign season much smaller with caps on spending and pools of money instead of coffers we would see immediate change to how our democracy works..
Sadly recently we lost a big proponent of campaign finance in Delaware. Mike Castle was really a old line fiscal conservative with brains, gumption and a realist pragmatist whose main positions included campaign finance reform and ethics in governance.
Recently CNN did a round table discussion with retiring members of the senate and the house from both parties. To a man they all cited the lack of campaign finance reform as the biggest threat to our democracy.
Can we all agree on something?
Last edited:
manimal
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2007
- 13,559
- 8
- 0
omg lol yes, I had to translate and negotiate in three languages for twelve hours today and my mind is a goo filled mess...
will fix lol
It's probably one of the radical Republican whack jobs on here just donated a
$million dollars to SarahPAC and Tea Nuts.
WTF are you smoking?
It's led by Palin, Rush, Hannity, Levin, Murdock and the rest of the Republican America hating nuts.
Palin released a full length video today even detailing her PACs control of it.
That's some strong stuff you're smoking
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Yes.
Libertarians would argue that's the inherent problem with big government. Everyone starts vying for grants of descression, money and contracts, and pay any price for them.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
This whole line of discussion from Craig234 & Lemon Law (TEA Party funding and Koch etc) looks to be the current 'party line' espoused by Left groups and is now being parrotted over here. Nothing really wrong with that.
Instead, the problem is with the whole of thought - that the TEA Party is corrupted and held slave to some special interest.
The Left really doesn't know what to do with the TEA Party. The whole "they're all racists and bigots" line of attack hasn't worked, now they're on to this line of attack. Nothing more than scare tactics. Since we've never yet had any TEA Party candidate hold an elected office (excepting Brown perhaps, but what special interest 'owns' him?), we've never had any (real) example of the problem of the Left is claiming. It's hypothetical at best.
So, the Left doesn't know what to do and has decided to treat the TEA Party as if it's a regular poliotical party like Democratic or Republican. The glaring problem is that it is not. It is grassroots; it's a bunch of unaffliliated people from different political backrounds. The TEA Party has no official platform, no national officers, heck no state officiers even. Notice all those Dave lists above are non-politicians; they are 'talking heads'. They will never be sitting Congress writing bills, or whippping for votes on the floor of the House or senate etc.
If the TEA Party remains as it is now, a grassroots organization, pretty much by definition they will be immune from purchase as our regular political parties seem to be. Oh sure, they can lobbied if elected. When that happens their litmus test will be whether they can be lobbied to turn against the principals they ran on. Taking campaign funds etc from someone who supports your position is not corrupting any more than taking $5 donations from people who support you. Taking big money and having it influence you to go against your positions, or those of your constituents is.
It's not that I'm optimistic, people in office a long time always seem to become corrupted. But to wave your arms and shout about 'murky' donors behind the scenes buying Tea Party candidates at this point in time reeks of desperation.
Fern
Instead, the problem is with the whole of thought - that the TEA Party is corrupted and held slave to some special interest.
The Left really doesn't know what to do with the TEA Party. The whole "they're all racists and bigots" line of attack hasn't worked, now they're on to this line of attack. Nothing more than scare tactics. Since we've never yet had any TEA Party candidate hold an elected office (excepting Brown perhaps, but what special interest 'owns' him?), we've never had any (real) example of the problem of the Left is claiming. It's hypothetical at best.
So, the Left doesn't know what to do and has decided to treat the TEA Party as if it's a regular poliotical party like Democratic or Republican. The glaring problem is that it is not. It is grassroots; it's a bunch of unaffliliated people from different political backrounds. The TEA Party has no official platform, no national officers, heck no state officiers even. Notice all those Dave lists above are non-politicians; they are 'talking heads'. They will never be sitting Congress writing bills, or whippping for votes on the floor of the House or senate etc.
If the TEA Party remains as it is now, a grassroots organization, pretty much by definition they will be immune from purchase as our regular political parties seem to be. Oh sure, they can lobbied if elected. When that happens their litmus test will be whether they can be lobbied to turn against the principals they ran on. Taking campaign funds etc from someone who supports your position is not corrupting any more than taking $5 donations from people who support you. Taking big money and having it influence you to go against your positions, or those of your constituents is.
It's not that I'm optimistic, people in office a long time always seem to become corrupted. But to wave your arms and shout about 'murky' donors behind the scenes buying Tea Party candidates at this point in time reeks of desperation.
Fern
Last edited:
Don't try to spew BS about it being 'parroted'. There's nothing 'parroted'. If it's the truth, it's the truth. Don't make this response be harsher by repeating that nonsense.
You are pretty clearly little informed IMO about how political movements work. There are people trying to grow the tea party movement for their own purposes.
The tea party doesn't really have that clear of an agenda except 'get its people elected' and some vague opposition to taxes and some basic social spending.
But anyone in office will have votes on a wide set of issues, and there will be plenty of pressure for them to vote the way the people behind the curtains want on those.
It's not a big leap - like the John Birch Society, they have no problem with crazy votes.
It'll be a disaster for the country if these people get much power, they could be the 'swing votes' for Republicans to get more power.
I've mentioned the tea party's role as giving the people who the Republican party has a harder and harder time fooling an alternative place to go than to the Democrats.
It's a little like BP creating a chain called 'PB Oil' that markets itself as the place people who hate BP buy oil.
Or like the radio chains who have right-wing stations and left-wing stations whose position is 'we don't care what your opinions are, just listen to our shows.'
Just as Obama tapped into the vague hate of Bush with slogans of 'change' that did not mean anything specific, the tea party's the Republican version of 'change'.
It's unfortunate how many people get suckered into empty slogans of 'throw the bums out' voting out one group and putting a worse group in.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter