The Absolute Truth About The Tea Party!

reply to post by cushycrux


Tea party, tea standing for taxed enough already.

reply to post by bruji76


big deal how much went to gm and the united autoworkers?

how much of the stimulus when to big unions and lawyers.

please man

change your rap its getting old

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by DougWood3

 

Like I pointed in a previous post, i have been involved/created corporations.
And, I should point out, corporations can be created for reasons other than making money for shareholders.

In fact, I can create a corporation to educate the ignorant.

The point that I tried to make, and apparently failed, is this.

Corporations are NOT the enemy. Stupid is...Uneducated is...worthless is....

and I am happy that you agree with me on the stupid part.

Cheers.

The enemy are CAPITALIST MONOPOLY CORPORATIONS.
Other kind of corporations have nothing to do with what we are talking here. Sorry if it was not clear for you.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by bruji76

 

big deal how much went to gm and the united autoworkers?

how much of the stimulus when to big unions and lawyers.

please man

change your rap its getting old

Problem is you think you get taxed to help poor people, when actually most of your taxes go to make rich people richer.
And that's just the taxes you see. There are also hidden taxes that get poor people money and give it to the riches via interests and inflation.
A little video for you:
www.youtube.com...

1. Any U.S. based political party which enjoys the financial support of members of the corporate hegemony and the media platform of a Murdoch produced network stands to be subjected to close scrutiny as to their origins and objectives.

2. My opinion is that the Tea Party was molded into a dumping ground for independent elements who may have genuine grievances with the federal government and legitimate political stances. However, the way they are portrayed both by Fox News and other media outlets is heavily skewed toward presenting the loonier and less literate members as representing the majority. Thus rendering the independent voter (even moreso than voting machines and electoral colleges) impotent within the societal body.

3. The name itself invites some very unsavory puns. Perhaps T-P'ers should consider reforming as Whigs?

reply to post by bruji76


tell that to the 50 million people on welfare and the other 20 million of umemployment.

tell that to the half of this country that finances the other half


please on its youtube!!!!!!!!!!!! from the sages of wisdom from the 5 minute of fame crowd. i am not worthy!

Originally posted by bruji76

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by bruji76

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by bruji76
reply to post by neo96

 

I am still waiting for you to explain how is it?
Who does get rich in capitalist society?
Creative people or lucky manipulative coiners?

Hey, Starbucks on every corner, and they donate to "sustainable" causes.

WTF? I think you missed completely my point.

Did I? Starbucks had a creative answer to the needs of a busy society who had lots of people in the workforce and have busy lives running around doing all sorts of things and needed coffee on the run. Are you mad because the people who froth up the milk don't make 80 dollars an hour? My point is that Starbucks is a creative venture and lot's of people have jobs because of it, because of the marketplace. You do know that in the Communist system, there is still an Elite that gets wealthy through the labor of the proletariat. Did you really think the elders of the Politburo didn't get a payoff? Look how Obama does things. He does it the way the Politburo did it. Giving payoffs and jobs to his friends. It's who you know isn't it! I was listening to the radio one day, and a guy called in saying that he does IT for the govt, and that the Obama admin hired a bunch of new IT people to do new jobs, instead of giving these jobs to those who had seniority. This means Team Obama gave all the newly created jobs to their friends and not to people who were already there who had the technical capabilities and experience.

edit on 23-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Real communism has not elites, countries who failed to became really socialist did. And please Obama could be anything you want, but thinking he is a socialist/comunist it's the most bizarre idea I ever heard. Obama is 100% pro-capitalist, at service of big corporations, like most of politicians those days, anyways.

No, Obama is busy giving handouts to his friends while nationalizing entire segments of the marketplace.

reply to post by neo96


Read this instead:
www.margritkennedy.de...

It explains why interests of bank loans lead to inflation, and how all that money go straight from the pocket of poor and middle class people direct to the pocket of rich people.

Corporations want you to think your problems are because of poor people, because they don't want workers to organize, "divide and rule" as Maquiavelo said.

Originally posted by beezzer
*yawn*
Great. Anoter thread telling me what I'm supposed to be believing in. What persons are programming my robot brain. What I am supposed to be thinking.

Tell me, Oh Wise And Brilliant progs, if you know so much about what we think and what we know and what we believe, what number am I thinking of now?


Do you get the Tea Party disinfo packets straight from the Obama campaign or is it filtered through your individual unions?

*yawn*
again.

What does ANY of that have to do with the information in the OP's videos? I that the best response you can come up with in the face of overwhelming evidence/ Petty insults?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by bruji76

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by bruji76

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by bruji76
reply to post by neo96

 

I am still waiting for you to explain how is it?
Who does get rich in capitalist society?
Creative people or lucky manipulative coiners?

Hey, Starbucks on every corner, and they donate to "sustainable" causes.

WTF? I think you missed completely my point.

Did I? Starbucks had a creative answer to the needs of a busy society who had lots of people in the workforce and have busy lives running around doing all sorts of things and needed coffee on the run. Are you mad because the people who froth up the milk don't make 80 dollars an hour? My point is that Starbucks is a creative venture and lot's of people have jobs because of it, because of the marketplace. You do know that in the Communist system, there is still an Elite that gets wealthy through the labor of the proletariat. Did you really think the elders of the Politburo didn't get a payoff? Look how Obama does things. He does it the way the Politburo did it. Giving payoffs and jobs to his friends. It's who you know isn't it! I was listening to the radio one day, and a guy called in saying that he does IT for the govt, and that the Obama admin hired a bunch of new IT people to do new jobs, instead of giving these jobs to those who had seniority. This means Team Obama gave all the newly created jobs to their friends and not to people who were already there who had the technical capabilities and experience.

edit on 23-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Real communism has not elites, countries who failed to became really socialist did. And please Obama could be anything you want, but thinking he is a socialist/comunist it's the most bizarre idea I ever heard. Obama is 100% pro-capitalist, at service of big corporations, like most of politicians those days, anyways.

No, Obama is busy giving handouts to his friends while nationalizing entire segments of the marketplace.

Probably you are right, it must be a coincidence that his friends happen to be the CEOs of the corporations who rule the government and pay politician campaigns. But that's not only Obama, most of politician both in the democrat and republican parties are the same.

reply to post by mistermonculous


The first Tea Partiers were born on the aniversary to the boston tea party, assembled and protested on the same grounds. Against taxation without representation. Just because some immature retarded liberals like to call us teabagers, does not mean we should change our "title".

reply to post by bruji76


ok i am suppose to read something written by a non economist okayyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!

right on it!

reply to post by neo96


Why not just refute the several claims made int he videos instead of your vague and off-topic banter if you are so convinced the videos are bunk?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


There is no "information" in the OP videos....
It is propaganda, nothing more.

Originally posted by neo96
how much of the stimulus when to big unions and lawyers.

How much of the stimulus was in tax cuts?

before you answer based on feelings...google it. You may feel a bit silly.

now, compare that amount with your intangable union and lawyers amount


next...on entitlement programs, how much of that number went to medicare/ss?
aka, the thing people pay into their whole life that they are due back...

I look forward to your factual numbers to the above question (sourced of course).

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


try reading the full 19 pages of a thread before claiming someone is off topic.

reply to post by neo96


Have you ever read something written by an economist?
Please, tell me who did you read!
BTW; Marx was an economist, (as were Smith and Ricardo) but since when was Ayn Rand an economist?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

There is no "information" in the OP videos....
It is propaganda, nothing more.

Yep

Well, except for all the information of course (the koch brothers creating a stream of fake "grassroots" movements to achieve their corporatist takeover.

But ya, besides the information...I mean, if you just removed the information, then what is left is no information, and that shows how uninformative it is. Therefore, its all propaganda and colors, music, and some sounds..

just like life.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I see nothing wrong with belonging to a party just because it will be infiltrated by powerful interest groups. This ALWAYS HAPPENS and is inevitable! What I do not understand is why the green party, socialist party, libertarian party, constitutional party collectively get less than 1% of the total vote.

I understand mainstream media does not give them the appropriate air time but still one would assume much more people would know about them and vote for them. If nothing else it breaks the two party monopoly of washington.

People have the chance to peacefully resist by voting appropriately yet we keep voting the same parties and expect different results as though they will somehow learn from their past mistakes and not repeat them. That is a perfect example of insanity as far as I am concernced. If you ask why they say "why waste a vote to someone who will not get elected" then multiply that attitude by 300 million and we have ourselves to blame!

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by mistermonculous

 

The first Tea Partiers were born on the aniversary to the boston tea party, assembled and protested on the same grounds. Against taxation without representation. Just because some immature retarded liberals like to call us teabagers, does not mean we should change our "title".

Actually, the term 'teabagger' was one adopted by tea party members themselves. They referred to themselves as such after sending in tea bags to congress after several of the bailouts.How can you claim to know about the history of the tea party and not know this?

www.salon.com...

In addition, Tea Party Maverick Sara Palin has expressed concern with the callous use of the term 'retarded' as a pejorative. Perhaps you missed the memo.