Smoot Point Really Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Two words: George Soros... Another 2: who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 So am I to understand that you believe that the tea party movement is being manipulated through funding driving the agenda as so many claim Soros does on the Left? This is the exact reason I don't follow the hardcore Right or Left. someone will laugh at the idea that I'm not hardcore Left, but that will only prove that they do not know me as well as they think they do. Oh it probably is. Who really knows anymore?Nice Ninja text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Oh it probably is. Who really knows anymore? See this is what honestly confuses me. In another thread about Fox News there were three conservatives who are regular Fox viewers who near the end of the thread agreed that Fox manipulates the news and takes advantage of their viewers and yet they would not condemn Fox News. In the same right people will agree much like you have here and still not condemn it or at the very least publicly challenge them to be better. Nice Ninja text. Yeah, that was a necessary precaution against the trolls. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Billionaires controlling politics? I am stunned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 However, when the movement's leadership is revealed to be what it is (billionaires with particular agendas) then it becomes hard to think that the whole thing is anything less than an attempt at a massive manipulation of genuine people.Someone once said on this thread that one of the greatest dangers is the fact that we often convince ourselves that we cannot be manipulated. Now wait a durn minute...I thought Palin/Beck were the leadership? I'm so confused. btw did ya attempt a little manipulation today slacker? Or have ya given up on the hardhearted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Now wait a durn minute...I thought Palin/Beck were the leadership?I'm so confused. They're just the mouth pieces. btw did ya attempt a little manipulation today slacker?Or have ya given up on the hardhearted? LOL, manipulation is not the same thing as delivering the good news, and saying so does not make it any more true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Two words: George Soros...Another 2: who cares? Can you be any more predictable and cliched? George Soros? To be honest, I am surprised you didn't say ACORN. Also, why wouldn't you care? Isn't the Tea Party movement supposed to be "grass roots"? Isn't it supposed to represent some sort of backlash against corporate interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 They're just the mouth pieces.LOL, manipulation is not the same thing as delivering the good news, and saying so does not make it any more true. Both depend on the eyes ,ears and hearts of the beholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Can you be any more predictable and cliched? George Soros? To be honest, I am surprised you didn't say ACORN. Also, why wouldn't you care? Isn't the Tea Party movement supposed to be "grass roots"? Isn't it supposed to represent some sort of backlash against corporate interests? That is a liberal concern... There is nothing wrong with profit or using your money to gather influence. The fact that those ideas have grown out of a movement of the people and has gathered investors doesn't bother me. I think Soros is sketchy, but it doesn't concern methat he backs sheep who want to be enslaved by the system of Government because he makes more money under more predictable circumstances created by Governmental controls. These men make more money without Government controls, Soros makes more with it. It doesn't bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 I'm not saying that many of the people who agree with the tea party talking points aren't genuine, and no matter how hard you try you can't make my post say that. However, when the movement's leadership is revealed to be what it is (billionaires with particular agendas) then it becomes hard to think that the whole thing is anything less than an attempt at a massive manipulation of genuine people.Someone once said on this thread that one of the greatest dangers is the fact that we often convince ourselves that we cannot be manipulated. Show me exactly where the billionaires are in charge of the agenda. I've posted the for and against articles of said billionaires... 4 or 5 of said teaparties have been outed already as being controlled. By other teaparties that are not.. See how that works. As its supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 That is a liberal concern... There is nothing wrong with profit or using your money to gather influence. Really? Do you think Ron Paul is a liberal? Because Paul, and many libertarians, are concerned about corporate power unduly influencing government. We all should be concerned about it -- you should be as well. Really, I fail to see how the subject of monied interests and financial money trails is a liberal concern -- especially since (1) you already brought up George Soros, who is a right-wing, Emmanuel Goldstein-like bogeyman, and (2) the right-wing often rails against the supposed backers of liberal causes, which would discount your original supposition. And especially since this is the sort of stuff that is the bread and butter of Beck's chalkboard, when it comes to liberal and "socialist" organizations, that is. The fact that those ideas have grown out of a movement of the people and has gathered investors doesn't bother me. I think Soros is sketchy, but it doesn't concern methat he backs sheep who want to be enslaved by the system of Government because he makes more money under more predictable circumstances created by Governmental controls. Oh, the irony for you to say that Soros "backs sheep who want to be enslaved by the system of Government," considering you just said, "There is nothing wrong with profit or using your money to gather influence," and that unduly corporate influence is only a "liberal concern." I mean, for real -- do you read what you say from paragraph to paragraph, or do you just wing it, saying, "To hell with any sort of consistency!" You just don't like liberal causes: it's that simple. And if someone is on your side, then hey, good, who cares where the money comes from, right? These men make more money without Government controls, Soros makes more with it. It doesn't bother me. For some reason, I don't think you're being completely honest. Anyway, I have no idea why you wouldn't care, unless you really are that apathetic, or you're simply drank too much corporate kool-aid. "Whatever is good for them, is good for me!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 The really sketchy people are those who use other people's money to gather influence... Which is the modern liberal in the US.... Or congressmen... Most politicians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 The really sketchy people are those who use other people's money to gather influence... Which is the modern liberal in the US.... Or congressmen... Most politicians... ROFL. Really? "The modern liberal." Yep, because right-wingers certainly aren't influenced by their corporate backers. When they oppose corporate, financial, and health care reform, they certainly aren't doing it due to the money they receive in kickbacks, right? But hey, go back to your slumber: This is all a liberal concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Baculus, did Ron Paul support McCain-Feingold? We're talking about private donations to influence people... Not money directed at politicians for favors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 ROFL. Really? "The modern liberal." Yep, because right-wingers certainly aren't influenced by their corporate backers. When they oppose corporate, financial, and health care reform, they certainly aren't doing it due to the money they receive in kickbacks, right? But hey, go back to your slumber: This is all a liberal concern. It is a liberal concern because only a modern liberal would be concerned about someone using their own money to influence policy... Corporate shareholders shouldn't be allowed to put their own "skin in the game"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 It is a liberal concern because only a modern liberal would be concerned about someone using their own money to influence policy... Corporate shareholders shouldn't be allowed to put their own "skin in the game"? Or unions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 30, 2010 Author Share Posted August 30, 2010 Is this kind of like how George Soros funds liberal political groups and shape the political landscape also? Nah, that's just right-wing nutter conspiracy talk. The article actually mentions Soros: Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 I am so tired of talking about the Tea Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 I am so tired of talking about the Tea Party. I imagine so ....just wait,it will get worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes. This by the way exposed the writer as a hack and a partisan. Plenty of people would beg to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Frank Rich is really one of the greatest examples of a lying waste of flesh and a general hateful person. He's generally a shill for the extreme left wing of the Democratic party. A little digging into his past statements roots this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Rich Rich dismissed the historical-drama film The Passion of the Christ (2004), directed by Mel Gibson, as "nothing so much as a porn movie, replete with slo-mo climaxes and pounding music for the money shots", and praised Christopher Hitchens's description of it as "a homoerotic 'exercise in lurid sadomasochism' for those who 'like seeing handsome young men stripped and flayed alive over a long period of time.'"[5]A July 2009 column focused on what Rich believes is the bigoted nature of the U.S. president's detractors.[6] On the Tea Party movement, which emerged in 2009, Rich opined that at one of their rallies they were "kowtowing to secessionists". He also wrote that the death threats and a brick thrown through a congressman's window were a "small-scale mimicry of "Kristallnacht" (or "night of broken glass", the November 1938 anti-Jewish pogrom in Nazi Germany and Austria).[7] And his OpEd gets rebutted quite effectively here: http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=330911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Both depend on the eyes ,ears and hearts of the beholders. No it doesn't and you saying so does not make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Show me exactly where the billionaires are in charge of the agenda. Yeah, billionaire funders have no say in the direction and message....whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Yeah, billionaire funders have no say in the direction and message....whatever. If your going to make the claim: Please try harder than that as a response. I'll make it easier: Lets start with Georgia: There are 3 teaparties in GA: Who is financing each one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 If your going to make the claim: Please try harder than that as a response.I'll make it easier: Lets start with Georgia: There are 3 teaparties in GA: Who is financing each one. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer Here ya go, some material for you to read...or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.