It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Concerted effort by the Left to vilify the Tea Party

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Interesting take right here...and doesn't strike me as a whiny Lib...

The Tea Party movement has left the realm of a voluntarism and has succumbed to fundraising pond scum. www.thepoliticalcesspool.org...




Wow that sounds like about 99% of whats associated with the democratic party. Bottom feeders and pound scum.




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
The continual effort merely continues with Clinton's recent statements and Rachel Maddow is jumping on the band wagon with a new special that attempts to link McVeigh to the modern day "extremists"


"Nine years after his execution, we are left worrying that Timothy McVeigh's voice from the grave echoes in the new rising tide of American anti-government extremism,"


Read more: newsbusters.org...

Nice fear mongering and labeling Bill and Rachel.

Let's not forget how Clinton capitalized on the OKC bombing. He is throwing up his old rhetoric again.
How Clinton exploited Oklahoma City for political gain

[edit on 19-4-2010 by jibeho]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


The private security mercenaries are nothing but that, pay for hire goons, we the citizens can deal with them easily, but when we start seen our military in the streets, our sons, daughters, husbands and wives, that are a volunteer entity then that is going to be worst, because they will have to take sides, private mercenaries for hire takes only the side of money, I would not be surprised if they bring foreign security force to do the dirty job.

The tea party lost my respect the day that they allowed to be influenced by big corporate insurance companies that used them to kill the public option in the HCR.

Money is such a powerful thing and now that the big corporate insurance in America doesn't need them anymore, they are been turn by propaganda into an evil entity, if people doesn't see what is really happening in this nation I guess, we for ever be divided and conquered.



[edit on 19-4-2010 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I've been a Libertarian in opposition to the Tea Party Movement for as long as they have been raking the muck, so I have a few points to make in fairness (which is in short supply in human history).

1) The Tea Party movement has, does, and will have some very unsavory and dangerous elements in both action and ideology. Having a single issue movement is dangerous because while they may want less government involvement and lower taxes, the how tends to get messy and leaves everyone dissatisfied.

2) Despite having a fair amount of unsavory elements, I rarely heard much from the liberal sectors of the media when the anti-war fervor was going on. Bush as hitler signs, rampant illogical hatred and sanctioned bigotry, hate-laced protests.

"Bush derangement syndrome" as now been replaced with "Obama derangement syndrome".

Oddly, the anti-war sentiment (in it's former sense during the Bush years), has all but disappeared even though the same things are going on now as before. Little to no difference, but the attention, shouting, and protests have all but evaporated.

3) Protests, at this point, do no good. Voting, at this point, has very little chance of doing much good.

4) Do not underestimate people's ability to be terribly stupid, make fools of themselves, debase the causes they support, and/or generally not have an understanding or much knowledge other than what another has taught them (especially in the topics they are rallying for/against).

5) There are a good number of normal people in the movement, but that's true of most movements, as are the percentage of crazy, ignorant, stupid, foolish, and destructive ones.

6) This is a war, if you really want to change things. You won't get change without getting your hands dirty and breaking the law.

Simple as that, and no feelgood groundswell will change that.

7) I have extricated myself from the battle and choose to sit and watch. I have too much to lose to fight forces most underestimate to a serious degree.

They do not fight fair, they do not play nice, and they have resources so far beyond what any group could possibly hope to muster that if most people were confronted with it, they would be destroyed.

8) The establishment does not pick sides, they seek balance. Outside of balance means suffering the economic pitfalls of major upheaval, so they seem to try to absorb what they can, demonize what they must, and support what they need.

This includes the media, they are a business after all.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
That video from the last page absolutely destroys any argument you may have had. It is fascinating to see the crazies come out to protest taxes, big gov, and Obama with racist, stupid signs, then the tea partiers claim they were infiltrated by the left. Own your own Frankenstein! Until the crazy crap is condemned and booted out of your movement, you can't be taken seriously, or claim infiltration. Sorry, It doesn't work that way.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 

Interesting take right here...and doesn't strike me as a whiny Lib...

The Tea Party movement has left the realm of a voluntarism and has succumbed to fundraising pond scum. www.thepoliticalcesspool.org...

Wow that sounds like about 99% of whats associated with the democratic party. Bottom feeders and pound scum.


Speaking as a mere ignorant foreigner, I'd say the GOP has a pretty good handle on feeding off the bottom and scumming of the pond as well. Fact is the current political process, where two parties have all the marbles pretty much lends itself to that kind of scenario. My only point here is that there is more to the undermining of the Tea Parties than vilification by the Dems. Suborning by the GOP needs to be recognised as well.

What y'all need are pinkos and separatists with significant power as well. Things may not go any smoother, but they're a lot more entertaining.


[edit on 19-4-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Those that disagree with the OP seem to always bring up the political parties, as if that is the division in the US. In actuality, the REAL division is between those who want a socialist, nanny state, versus those who feel that the government should do very little. The fact that many Republicans fall into the second category leads those on the left to believe that the Republican PARTY is behind the Tea Party movement. That is not true. Again, I guess that I need to remind those on the left that it was your left-wing NBC owned CNBC network and Santilli that actually put forth the idea of a tea party. He believed, and I think rightly so, that the government was getting too involved in things they should stay out of.
The left seems hell-bent on repeating the sins of the past, by attempting to lead the US into a National Socialist State, along the lines of Germany in the 1930's. Of course, the left jumps up and down as soon as anyone compares the current administration to Nazi Germany. Too bad. If the shoe fits, wear it!
Those that fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat those mistakes. I fear that is the way this country is headed.

Tyranny knows no party. In order to be a tyrant, you need political AND military power. The Administration has that. The Tea Party does not. So who is the tyrant?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 





The tea party lost my respect the day that they allowed to be influenced by big corporate insurance companies that used them to kill the public option in the HCR.

Marg, if you really believe that they killed the public option, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. In actuality, the way ObamaCare is written, it is 100% rigged to institute the public option soon after its' full implementation. You'll get your public option, sooner than you think. As that great ATS'er TheRedneck has said, "Be careful what you ask for. You just may get it."
You may think you want the public option, but when it comes, it won't be the great program you wished for, but rather a way for the government to LIMIT what health care you can get. Mark my words.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


A very good post .
Essentially The Tea Party is a bunch of angry people who have no coherent message . In effect you are seeing shades of post WW1 Germany people that angry and/or in economic dire straights are susceptible to the extremes of the political spectrum . In Germany the far right prevailed because it was better organised .

Will the same thing happen in the USA ?
Its possible I can't go into greater detail without going off topic .



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
centers of power hate being challenged. Whether it's hippies, black panthers, KKK, environmental party, tea party, or whatever, they will be quashed by established power.


The Left is trying to demonize the tea party, comparing them to extremists and terrorists; the Right is trying to hijack the tea party, using their tried and true method of propaganda which worked pretty well in 2000-2007 (right before their economic polices sunk the world's economies).


It's looking like the Right wing has the better method for controlling this new union of angered americans (and we all hate unions -- even the tea "party") so I think the Right will probably prevail, in the end. Maybe I have personal bias here, but I like their model of propaganda more than I like the left's.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
All this "Left" and Right " garbage is nothing more than a control mechanism, that BOTH sides of the political criminal cabal use to keep people apart.
They know very well that if the people actually united in their anger at the government, they'd be toast. So, they'll have federal agencies infiltrate any movement, have their cyber boys hitting the web and their bought and paid for TV and radio shills work to spread dissent among the populace. This of course is all aimed at deflecting attention away from themselves.

The Tea Party movement is a prime example of that. It was a grass roots movement opposed to both sides, but they have turned it into another pointless Left v Right fiasco. Crazy thing is, so many people fall for it every time, it would be funny if it were not so tragically predictable.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


They can't be held responsible for a few fringe crazies that identify with them and claim to be part of the party... I don't think they even have a defined goal, yet... no central leadership, either.. are they even technically a "party," in the same sense the democrats/republicans are parties?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


what do you have to be angry about at the government?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


I know it's American, but it is the same here in the UK. What do we have to be angry about?

Lets start with decades of incompetence, fraud, theft and lying. This costs the taxpayers £/$Billions every year as the government, lobbied and thus bought and paid for by big business and outside interests, ignores what is right and good for the people and the country. That in itself is NOT what they are supposed to be in power for, and flies in the face of the whole supposedly democratic process.
When we have two main parties, each funded and lobbied by the same big interests, and each having the same network of senior "civil servants" behind them pulling strings, then is that really choice?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


Why are you mad at your government, instead of the big business lobbies which are taking control of the levers of power?


If, say, China sent diplomats over to your country, and slowly lobbied their way into the inner most workings of the govt, then used their influence to establish laws and policies favorable towards their interests, would you continue to be mad at your government, or what you be mad at the foreign powers who have wrested control from your hands?

What's the difference here? Big business takes over, so you get mad at the government? That makes no sense.. how bout focusing your efforts on taking back the government, rather than blaming the government for the take over by concentrated business interests?


Btw, I saw part of last weeks prime minister debate.. Glad to know our presidential debates are just as horrible and uninformative as yours
(at least America isn't alone on this front)

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Kaytagg]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Kaytagg]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


The trouble is, the government are far from blameless.

With absolutely no oversight or acountability, they use (or abuse) their positions of responsibility to sell out to the highest bidder, to enrich themselves. That is not what they are supposed to be in office for.

So yes, big business and outside interests are partly to blame, but the biggest portion of blame has to be with the politicians who allow it to happen, in return for cold hard cash and influence. That's why the present system of government needs replacing, or at the very least some system of outside scrutiny and oversight, just to make sure everything is above board and which can hold them accountable for their actions.

The current situation with the SEC scrutinising Goldman Sachs is a case in point. Strange timing maybe and perhaps a sign that some in power are getting nervous. But, people have been calling them, and others in the financial community out on dodgy dealings for a long time, but they have just carried on regardless, protected by their paid political buddies while the rest of us pick up the pieces - and worse, are expected to bail them out if they get into difficulties.

So, in summary, after that little rant - I think people have every right to be angry at the government and the politicians who have allowed all this to happen, rather than the recipients of the political favours.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by Britguy
 


Why are you mad at your government, instead of the big business lobbies which are taking control of the levers of power?


If, say, China sent diplomats over to your country, and slowly lobbied their way into the inner most workings of the govt, then used their influence to establish laws and policies favorable towards their interests, would you continue to be mad at your government, or what you be mad at the foreign powers who have wrested control from your hands?



Big business is supposed to be greedy and self centered.

Politicians are supposed to protect their people from that.

The ones that are both in the position to stop it and at the same time allowing it are most certainly the ones to blame.

I would not blame a lion for eating me but if someone let it into my house, you can bet I would blame them.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Being mad at politics is not the same as being mad at the government, in my understanding. Politicians administrate the government, but the government is not the politicians..


If you're mad at politicians, I fully understand that, but that is an entirely separate issue from being mad at the government, imo.




Similarly, I'm mad at big business, but not necessarily mad at the people who run those businesses -- because, as you said, businesses are suppose to be greedy. It's an institutional role (more like a systemic problem).



About politicians: These people keep getting elected; how do you explain that? If american's are so fed up with them, then why do american's keep voting them in, democratically?

As far as the president goes, I voted for Nader.. too bad nobody else did.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Being mad at politics is not the same as being mad at the government, in my understanding. Politicians administrate the government, but the government is not the politicians..


If you're mad at politicians, I fully understand that, but that is an entirely separate issue from being mad at the government, imo.


That is your opinion. Mine is that yours makes little sense. It is some cheap word parsing parlor trick. The politicians are the government. I can not see how you can see it any other way. Maybe you can clarify.





Similarly, I'm mad at big business, but not necessarily mad at the people who run those businesses -- because, as you said, businesses are suppose to be greedy. It's an institutional role (more like a systemic problem).


Yeah, that also makes no sense. Apparently you are looking at "government" and "big business" as abstract ideas free from action. Sorry, it does not work that way. Big business does not make bad decisions that harm people. THE PEOPLE RUNNING THOSE BUSINESSES DO.

What are you mad at? The logo? Company letterhead? How can the blame lie anywhere besides with the thing making the decisions? Government does not make decisions. Big business does not make decisions. PEOPLE DO.





About politicians: These people keep getting elected; how do you explain that? If american's are so fed up with them, then why do american's keep voting them in, democratically?


Not sure why you are asking me. I never said Americans were fed up. Ask them. I did not vote for any incumbants so you are trying to get me with someone else's problem.


As far as the president goes, I voted for Nader.. too bad nobody else did.


Let me change this. I read something wrong and it changes all that, sorry.

Well, I am not sure what to say to that. Not sure how it applies anyway but ok.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


The politicians are the government. I can not see how you can see it any other way. Maybe you can clarify.


The government is an institution -- it's role is to facilitate certain programs (like welfare, as well as war) on behalf of and for the people. It has an agenda, and a purpose, outlined in the constitution, etc.

Politicians are elected administrators to run/modify/tweak the government, on behalf of, and for the people. Any changes they make are expected to be carried on by the next politician, unless that politician decides to change it. This is where the institution and the person diverge; to give you an example, look at the any of the amendments in the constitution. They were written in there by politicians, quite a long time ago -- yet, they are still upheld to this day. They are not upheld by the dead politicians who wrote them, but rather by the institution which those politicians established, tweaked, and ran.

Also, not everybody working in the government is a politician. The govt is MOSTLY composed of grunts hired by the administrators which we elect.




Yeah, that also makes no sense. Apparently you are looking at "government" and "big business" as abstract ideas free from action. Sorry, it does not work that way. Big business does not make bad decisions that harm people. THE PEOPLE RUNNING THOSE BUSINESSES DO.

What are you mad at? The logo? Company letterhead? How can the blame lie anywhere besides with the thing making the decisions? Government does not make decisions. Big business does not make decisions. PEOPLE DO.


In the case of big business, there is no choice but to make (what you and I probably consider) bad decisions. Of course, the irony is that they are making good (great) decisions for their shareholders -- and that's where the issue gets sticky. It is these shareholders who facilitate and uphold the institutional role of big business, which is to ignore externalities (like inequality, poverty, and pollution), and instead focus on maximizing profits. Not only does a business administrator have to answer to his shareholders, but he also has to answer to the competition. In other words, if he doesn't do it, somebody else will. Big business administrators will reach a mutual equilibrium of immorality because of the nature of how the system is designed to facilitate competition and progress. It can not be stopped by any one single business admin.

That is the difference between the person running the company, and the company itself.



new topics




 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join