The Tea Party is anti-democratic and guilty of abuse of power

reply to post by NoHierarchy


It is a Great Punk Band! Look them up.

All liberal links? Have anything from other sources?

Originally posted by fusionman
The Tea Party might be the last hope for saving America. The country has been high-jacked by a radical group of progressives that have slowly changed what we are as a country. They have slowly killed capitalism until we are a socialist country and we can all see how well that's working.
If we keep spending it all falls apart, I just hope the tea Party can hold their ground and get real change.

This is a clear case of cognitive dissonance.
Economics in America have been reshaped to a radical neoliberal rule by the rich and the corporate entities by the successive adminsitrations of Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2, and yes, even Clinton.
They are indeed a "radical group of progressives" - but their "progressiveness" does not mean any real progress for you and me, it does mean a higher income for the investor clubs though.

We are far from being a socialist country. When I moved to the US in eighties, I began to see many common negative elements between the logic of the Soviet Empire and the new corporate consumer world in the US. (Mind you, the Soviet system was called Socialism only by their own official propaganda - in reality, it was a brutal state-capitalistic dictatorship by an elite of Russia.)

reply to post by NoHierarchy


ad ho·mi·nem/ˈad ˈhämənəm/Adverb
1. (of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
2. Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

um now how did ones level of education pertain to the false premise that the democrat promotes itself on ?

It amazes me how anybody in their right mind these days can be affiliated with any political party to be honest. Calling yourself a Democrat or a Republican is purely insane(to me). ESPECIALLY given the fact that many of these people will hand their vote to a candidate purely because of the party affiliation and NOT to the most qualified. If you're not independent you lose a few points in my book.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by neo96

The reality you so stupidly see fit to ignore is that THE LIBERAL LEFT HAS BEEN THE CHAMPION OF THE PEOPLE, OF CIVIL LIBERTIES, ENVIRONMENTALISM, FREE SPEECH, FREE ASSEMBLY, ANTI-GOVERNMENT, ANTI-CAPITALIST, ANTI-COMMUNIST, ANTI-RACIST, ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN, PRO-HUMAN RIGHTS, PRO-WORKERS RIGHTS, PRO-CHOICE, PRO-SCIENCE, EQUALITY, PEACE, THE LIST GOES ON AND ON... while the right-wing? All they can figure out how to do is RAIL AGAINST THE LEFT any damn chance they get... their ideology consists mostly of being anti-everything-the-left-is. Get a clue, buddy.

this is one of the most priceless posts i have ever read and when i look at obama and the democrats that we all have to come to know and "love"

well i all can do is

Exactly, the liberal left has done nothing but attack the right of free speech by Tea Partiers and virtually anyone who disagrees with their agenda. They have deliberately vilified anyone who doesn't agree to Obama's version of Hope and Change. They have supported the gropes and pat downs of TSA and Janet Napolitano, or blamed everything on Bush (lol), they have allowed bombers on planes, spent money on machines that rearrange DNA using radiation while experts have said they are dangerous machines. They want more spending and more taxes. They have increased the number of "limited wars" we are actively engaged in, not stopped them. They have engaged in ATF scandals, SEIU labor scandals, and the Trumpkas of the world have actively engaged in revolutions in foreign countries, and admitted it openly. They have forced legislation on us that we don't want, and they have looked down their nose at the People. The Liberal Left believe that children must be brainwashed to accept their agendas. They believe they have exclusive right to do so. They are usually atheist, God-hating people. I have yet to see a liberal who didn't relate more to the ape as their ancestor than to Adam and Eve

See... this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you have EVER spoken to a liberal, listened to left-wing radio, been on liberal forums, been on far-left websites, been on center-left websites... they are ALL the first to be AGAINST those things you listed. AGAINST the TSA patdowns, allowing bombers on planes, airport scanners, the wars we're in, government scandals, corporate scandals, and have been very wary of our involvement in revolutions (though they are ultimately for the Arab Spring, as anybody should be). The entire government forces legislation that we don't want, and Obama is guilty of this and LIBERALS DON'T LIKE THIS EITHER, do you EVER talk to Liberals about their real thoughts on Obama? NOBODY I know is some lock-step follower of Obama... Liberals tend to QUESTION themselves and QUESTION others and QUESTION the status quo, right-wingers are just now getting into this (and in a very adolescent way I might add) and have the stupid nerve to pretend that Liberals aren't wary of the establishment. Gimme a break... lay off the Fox News, your mind is red/white/blue pudding.

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

It is a Great Punk Band! Look them up.

All liberal links? Have anything from other sources?

edit on 7/31/2011 by mugger because: (no reason given)

No I know they're a good band... that's why it baffles me that you're a right-winger... doesn't make sense.

All liberal links?? Just look at the facts... read the articles, they aren't all liberal links. Do you think I'm going to find information on Fox News about this? How about the NASA website? Nah, not gonna find it there.

Here's the snarky liberal left and theres one worse but it had vile language in it




more thug violence of the Left



More liberals at Tea parties

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

ad ho·mi·nem/ˈad ˈhämənəm/Adverb
1. (of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
2. Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

um now how did ones level of education pertain to the false premise that the democrat promotes itself on ?

Way to take the most vague definitions of the term without regard to how the phrase is actually commonly used.

Here:
"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[5]"

Please see a more thorough explanation:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Here's the snarky liberal left and theres one worse but it had vile language in it

PSH! GOOD!!

Palin was NOT welcome in Madison. She's an idiot for sticking her nose in the protests there. She's hardly a respectable politician, more so a puppet for untrustworthy forces. She's a joke/corporatist and deserves no respect.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Way to take the most vague definitions of the term without regard to how the phrase is actually commonly used.

alright then that definition of liberal and democrats by yours fits there more.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

ad ho·mi·nem/ˈad ˈhämənəm/Adverb
1. (of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
2. Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

Why is it that those who play the 'ad hom card are always the most guilty of it themselves?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I'm sorry, did you not see the words....
6.2 trillion in cuts

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Yes, well I could have posted the guy yelling obscenities at a 14 yr old Tea Party Patriot but I thought I might get reprimanded.
Maybe I should post the one where the Obama supporter bit off a T Partiers finger.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

It is a Great Punk Band! Look them up.

All liberal links? Have anything from other sources?

edit on 7/31/2011 by mugger because: (no reason given)

No I know they're a good band... that's why it baffles me that you're a right-winger... doesn't make sense.

All liberal links?? Just look at the facts... read the articles, they aren't all liberal links. Do you think I'm going to find information on Fox News about this? How about the NASA website? Nah, not gonna find it there.

Ok you cited NASA as a site, so are we talking about Climate Change now? NASA is part of the Big Govt machine anyway.

reply to post by inforeal

....A goodfriend of mine has been to Senegal, a true capitalist libertarian country, where the president a few years ago almost sold the entire country to Japan! That is true freedom, the kind coming to the US courtesy of the libertarians, and the conservative Republican Tea party

YES!

Let's Take Senegal as an example.

If we do a bit of a search we find that Senegal, FAR from being a true capitalist libertarian country, is acually a RAPE victim of a IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment Program (SAP.)


Pay attention Liberals because THIS is exactly what increased spending and no program cuts will lead to. The take over of the country by the blasted BANKERS.

Think Confessions of an Economic Hit Man or Mr. Budhoo's Bombshell: Public letter of resignation from the IMF

REPORT from the COUNCIL on FOREIGN RELATIONS:

The Political Economy Of Senegal Under Structural Adjustment

Senegal entered the 1990s battling against the familiar catalogue of ills that afflict African economies dependent on the export of primary products. More atypical in the political realm, the country has led the continent in turning from one-party rule to democratic pluralism...

In the current era of economic restructuring imposed by multilateral lending agencies, however, leaders must struggle to hold together a far less tractable coalition of urban and rural interests. The prefab prescriptions of structural adjustment programs-that smuggling must be curbed, industries privatized, etc.-threaten these fragile new political arrangements.

That is the "Official" view from the banker controlled Council on Foreign Relations.
...Its think tank, the David Rockefeller Studies Program, is composed of about fifty adjunct and full-time scholars... The earliest "origins" of the Council include "Colonel" Edward M. House, and Paul Warburg (writer of the Federal Reserve Act 0f 1913)...

Back to the SAPs.

Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and help them make debt repayments on the older debts owed to commercial banks, governments and the World Bank. Although SAPs are designed for individual countries but have common guiding principles and features...

Balancing national budgets can be done by raising taxes, which the IMF frowns upon, or by cutting government spending, which it definitely recommends. As a result, SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk. So SAPs hurt the poor most, because they depend heavily on these services and subsidies....

By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result.

The term "Structural Adjustment Program" has gained such a negative connotation that the World Bank and IMF launched a new initiative, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Initiative, and makes countries develop Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). While the name has changed, with PRSPs, the World Bank is still forcing countries to adopt the same types of policies as SAPs.
www.whirledbank.org...

Structural Adjustment—a Major Cause of Poverty

"Debt is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other peoples’ raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms. Dozens of countries must compete for shrinking export markets and can export only a limited range of products because of Northern protectionism and their lack of cash to invest in diversification. Market saturation ensues, reducing exporters’ income to a bare minimum while the North enjoys huge savings. The IMF cannot seem to understand that investing in … [a] healthy, well-fed, literate population … is the most intelligent economic choice a country can make."

— Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Debt, (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), pp. 143, 187, 235

Many developing nations are in debt and poverty partly due to the policies of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

Their programs have been heavily criticized for many years for resulting in poverty. In addition, for developing or third world countries, there has been an increased dependency on the richer nations. This is despite the IMF and World Bank’s claim that they will reduce poverty.... www.globalissues.org...

Do we WANT the WORLD BANK/IMF to make the US economic policies and the social program cuts are do we want to be in control of what cuts are made!

Those are the only two choices we now have left, so PLEASE WAKE-UP!

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I'm sorry, did you not see the words....
6.2 trillion in cuts

That's a pretty vague figure. Can you outline, specifically, which of those cuts you approve of and which you dont approre of and why?

Or did you not actually read your own source?

I will only say this: contracts agreed to under duress have traditionally been held by nearly all courts to be invalid. That's what the Tea Party is doing. Even if the Dems agree, most people who are not ignorant are going to view it as invalid for exactly that reason.

The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1960. 49 times under REPUBLICAN presidents; 29 under Democrat presidents. I am 55 years old and this is the first time in my life anyone has tried to use the debt ceiling to coerce concessions out of the other party.

I almost hope there is no agreement (though it's going to cost everyone if there isn't), because then maybe people will see what nonsense this is and how destructive the tea baggers are for the country.

This, BTW, is from the U.S. Treasury Department:

www.treasury.gov...

Originally posted by NoHierarchy






See... this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you have EVER spoken to a liberal, listened to left-wing radio, been on liberal forums, been on far-left websites, been on center-left websites... they are ALL the first to be AGAINST those things you listed. AGAINST the TSA patdowns, allowing bombers on planes, airport scanners, the wars we're in, government scandals, corporate scandals, and have been very wary of our involvement in revolutions (though they are ultimately for the Arab Spring, as anybody should be). The entire government forces legislation that we don't want, and Obama is guilty of this and LIBERALS DON'T LIKE THIS EITHER, do you EVER talk to Liberals about their real thoughts on Obama? NOBODY I know is some lock-step follower of Obama... Liberals tend to QUESTION themselves and QUESTION others and QUESTION the status quo, right-wingers are just now getting into this (and in a very adolescent way I might add) and have the stupid nerve to pretend that Liberals aren't wary of the establishment. Gimme a break... lay off the Fox News, your mind is red/white/blue pudding.

Obama is an actor. He is not moderate. That is only for the purpose of fooling the public. But if you truly understand the Hegelian dialectic, you will see that the synthesis of the conflict between left and right is neither right nor left but something in between. Perhaps it appears centrist to you. I know that the far left is mad at Obama for not stopping the wars. But what makes you think all conservatives want these wars? Incidentally, I have seen plenty of communist party websites where they say Obama is the best any candidate had to offer their agenda. Obama's agenda is far left, that is Marxists, Fabian, pro abortion, even pro partial birth abortion and leaving babies to die alone after surviving a botched abortion without any human consideration. I am sorry, but he is no moderate.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You say Obama does not represent most liberals because he is too centrist?
Well, then we shall see if liberals vote Obama out in 2012. This should be very interesting.

Vote him out? Please explain. He is being challenged from the right, not the left. Why would anyone that feels Obama is too far right vote for someone to the right of him?

Who would you replace him with?

Do you know how presidential elections work in the US?

Recently I saw two different teabaggers claim they voted Bush out of office. Now I think I know why they believe that.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Vague? how is 6.2 trillion vague. Is this better, six point two trillion. I know Ryan's plan, and I agree with most of it, especially about Medicare/Medicad.
Read the budget.
The entire proposal is there. Stop trying to get me to do your work for you. I refuse to let you cheat. Is that how you got through school, letting others do all the work for you?