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.

 

Why 'The Professional Left' Hates the Tea Party

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   


The progressive lefts stranglehold on Hollywood is even worse.

In the UK - it is wall to wall PC everywhere except for a couple of gatekeeper newspapers




Please, inform me. Tell me who in Hollywood? Who exactly is pushing this leftist belief? Where is all this leftist propaganda, politically correct brainwashing coming from? Can you name a person?

If here in America, we have "the one outlet", how come everyone world wide knows who they are? Who is their leftist "other half"? George Soros, someone hardly anyone heard of until Beck decided to rant against him? Who is not even a media personality? So who exactly are these leftist mouthpieces? Anderson Cooper, the former CIA agent? WHO?

Because I can name several, and already have, people providing right wing rhetoric that is walking a fine line of being blatant violent propaganda. Please name these leftists.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
The Tea party canard regarding small or smaller government can be a reasonable issue though in a modern age with a country of 300 million plus the question arises what can constitute a “small” or “smaller” government that can serve that amount of population.

Smaller means staying within a budget, getting rid of useless programs, turning more control to the states.


Recently in the East here there have been snow storms that caused serious problems when there were fewer workers to man the snow plows . . . then people were not complaining about smaller government when they couldn't get their cars off the street becasue they were buried under snow!


LOL But the unions still did a slow down causing deaths.



I think the greater issue is to foster an intelligent and honest government. This is something we can strive for and eliminate waste in government consumption.


Intelligent and honest government. Oxymorons.




But smaller government is a term that really has to be defined. Smaller then what? Where do we draw the line? How much does it take to serve the people?


Serve the people? How? By telling them what to eat, what to plant, how to drive, what electricity they can use?



What happens when after all the tax cuts for the rich and the budget cuts we no longer have good police work and our children are subject to child molesters or our wives raped. Then the firemen and ambulance stops showing up in a timely fashion and our houses burn down and grandpa dies of a heart attack because the ambulance is too late?


Keep the cops, firemen, ambulances. Loose the idiots in DC who rake in 6 figure salaries to do nothing.



What happens when the bridges and roads starts to fail such as the disaster in Minnesota.
The engineers have been warning us for decades that the infrastructure in America is near collapse.


Strawman argument.




So lets ask the Tea partiers who always complain about paying taxes and smaller government what happens when the above-like scenarios occur and we have cut government so much that you child is in jeopardy or your house burns down or your relative dies because there is no more money for services for the community.
I imagine then it becomes
Every man for himself
Then we have anarchy and worse


Nice. Control narritives much? Won't happen. You're mixing federal with state spending first off.
Second, this weak argument for raising taxes isn't justified with all the waste that federal spending has.
Is that what you want?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


Your list is totally b.s. It was the professional left that wouldn't vote for ant lynching laws. It was the professional left who wouldn't vote for womens right to vote. It was the professional left who wouldn't vote for black civil service jobs etc.

Liberals need to understand the liberal party of today started with JFK. Most democrats before then
Were from the south and completly racist. Look at what the presidents wouldn't vote on. Truman was the first liberal democrat to vote on any race based initiatives or civil rights.

Before that it was only republicans voting for civil rights for blacks and women. It came from the base of liberty. Not the same as today. Coolidge and Taft were huge civil rights actinides in a time when it was dangerous politically.

When JFK came into offices (he has a lot of what would be considered libertarian philosophies) he was the first democrat along and evidually with ford to do any civil rights legislating. Trueman just approved a republican made anti lynching law.

After Ford the racist democrats jumped ship (like strom Thurman) and joined Nixon and the new neocon party. Then we had a role reversal of attitudes towards minorities.

Now however we have two parties. One outrightly and one that likes to make groups and divide.

The old republicans (pre Eisenhower) used individual liberty to guide their philosophy that it doesn't matter what color you are. Your rights are god given because you exist and deserve the right to have personal liberty as an individual.

The new liberal philosophy is to give people rights based on their color. If you are a minority for Instance and do the same as a white boy you will get into college where the white boy may not. You could be ampoor white kid and not get the same aid as a poor black kid. Afirmative action should have included people of all races who had financial or social disadvantages. How is that not racist?
How is putting people in ethnic groups not racist?

How is treating people as unique individuals regardless of sexuality, religion, or skin tone racist?


Liberals have it backwards usually because their history stops at Kennedy.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


I'm not lefty or righty, but criticizing one side without pointing out the wrong of the other side seems like you'v taken a side. the left does listen to the media so does the right. No one in ether side thinks for themselves its always some popular face, like( Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and so forth that brings up an argument and pushes it like a the big red button. Its as if all these guys have a secret meeting on what to attack next. i listen to all these guys, and i also listen to the left and what i figured out is that our society is a propaganda state.
people can't make up there own minds, we are like baby's soaking up all this propaganda. I know lots of Left/Right wingers, when something goes wrong they blame the other side literally.

If a left wing president does something right or wrong he gets bashed.
If a right wing president does something right or wrong he gets bashed.

!!REALLY!!

No one wants government in our lives, but when push comes to shove who do we call?
Natural disaster, HELP!
My lights went out HELP!
To much snow in NY clean it yourself.

IM INDEPENDENT



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by what no
reply to post by beezzer
 


The problem is, when you have a group of people who are consistently spouting rhetoric, that is violent, bigoted, hate filled, it makes everyone associated with that group look bad.



No, we have (at least) two groups doing it.

There has been post after post showing the left also spewing hate and advocating violence. Where is your outrage over those? Please post examples of your dislike for the left also doing it - to avoid a hypocrisy label.

Stepping back, what has either side doing it accompished?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles


The progressive lefts stranglehold on Hollywood is even worse.

In the UK - it is wall to wall PC everywhere except for a couple of gatekeeper newspapers




Please, inform me. Tell me who in Hollywood? Who exactly is pushing this leftist belief? Where is all this leftist propaganda, politically correct brainwashing coming from? Can you name a person?





For starters ...

• Susan Sarandon
• The Dixie Chicks (Natalie Maines)
• Tim Robbins (Mr. Susan Sarandon)
• Michael Moore
• Janeane Garofalo
• Martin Sheen
• Robert Altman
• Alec Baldwin
• Sean Penn
• Jessica Lange
• Ed Asner
• Danny Glover
• Chrissie Hynde
• Madonna
• Heath Ledger
• Woody Harrelson
• George Carlin
• Richard Gere
• Harry Belafonte
• Jane Fonda
• Bruce Springsteen
• Barbra Streisand

Enough examples to get the picture, or need any more?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


There is as long a list of Hollywood right wingers and some very influential ones when it comes to promoting patriotism and war. My time in the entertainment industry has taught me that the industry as a whole is about one thing...money. If the political trends showed a Teaparty voodoo priest coalition; there would be a plethora of movies, TV shows about the lives and romance in the Teaparty voodoo world.

cons-lie.com...


edit on 16-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by centurion1211
 


There is as long a list of Hollywood rightwingers.

cons-lie.com...



Whaaa, Whaa, Whaa ...


But no one asked for that list in this thread did they?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   




Great. How many of these people have televsion shows where they talk about nothing about politics? Oh thats right, ZERO. Also, some of them are DEAD.

Pushing that elitist leftist agenda from beyond the grave, eh? Spooky.
edit on 16-1-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Really?

FOX "news" is number 1 and kills in the ratings. It is all right wing opinion with a little news.
AM Radio is 90% right wing talk in this country.

The last time I saw Susan Sarandon was in a skit on MAD TV.
The Dixie Chicks are even still around? Doing what? Left wing fiddling?

What a stretch.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I am having trouble finding where to hear Barbara Streisand's daily 3 hour radio show and daily hourly tv show on "news" stations. Am I the only one?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   




Do you think that maybe if they're number 1 that they might be right? I mean, you have CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS. . . but FOX beats them all.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 





The progressive left despite being only about 20% at most has acquired almost complete cultural hegemony in education and the media among others - you don't suppose that for all of your life - you have been marinaded in the images, feelings and ideas that they wish you to have!? - no of course not, they have done their job so well that it simply seems self-evident to you!

They have done exactly the same here in the UK - only more so!


No one has bothered to ask WHO is the professional left. And if they are "professional" (that means receiving a salary) who is bankrolling them.

Here is the answer:

As G. Edward Griffin said the bankers literally have a river of unearned wealth flowing in from the Federal Reserve and all their other counterfeit loans, so What are the bankers DOING with this HUGH river of wealth?

...You are led to the question of where is this river flowing? ...They're not accumulating it at all. What are they spending it for? The answer may surprise you..... When a person has all the wealth that you could possibly want for the material pleasures of life, what is left? Power. They are using this river of wealth to acquire power over you and me and our children.

They are spending it to acquire control over the power centers of society. The power centers are those groups and institutions through which individuals live and act and rely on for their information. They are literally buying up the world but not the real estate and the hardware, they're buying control over the organizations, the groups and institutions that control people. In other words, to be specific, they are buying control over politicians, political parties, television networks, cable networks, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, wire services, motion picture studios, universities, labor unions, church organizations, trade associations, tax-exempt foundations, multi-national corporations, boy scouts, girl scouts, you name it. Make your own list of organizations and you will find that this is where those people have been for many decades spending this river of wealth to acquire operational control particularly over those institutions and individuals, those organizations that represent opposition to themselves. That's a critical area for expenditure on their part... www.bigeye.com...


Is there any proof that Mr Griffin is correct? YES!

U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...

JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...

Just look at the four Rockefeller Foundations!
Sourcewatch

Activist Cash #1
Activist Cash #2
Activist Cash #3
Activist Cash #4
Activist Cash- J. P. Morgan Charitable Trust

Here is a Chart of the banking Families. You can use activistcash.com and sourcewatch.org to see for yourself if Mr. Griffin is correct.

Oh and remember the much hated Monsanto? Guess what 85% of the stock is voted by financial interests because 85% is held by mutual funds and Institutional (financial) Holders. For example Divisions of Fidelity hold 7.15%. The Johnson family controls most of Fidelity. Edward C Johnson 3rd is chairman of the group. Remember investors in mutual funds and pension funds are not the people who VOTE the stock the financiers controlling those funds ARE!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


With all due respect Beezer you really didn’t intelligently answer any of my points.

It’s not a straw man to talk about the infrastructure because the national engineering group has warned us that we are in trouble because we are not tending to the infrastructure and bridges are falling.


With all due respect Beezer you really didn’t intelligently answer any of my points.

That’s an allegation that has not been proven

With all due respect Beezer you really didn’t intelligently answer any of my points.

So should we strive to have an ignorant and dishonest government?

With all due respect Beezer you really didn’t intelligently answer any of my points.

No one tells me what to eat when to drive or how much electricity I can use, that statement you make is a straw man argument or the words of a libertarian ideologue


With all due respect Beezer you really didn’t intelligently answer any of my points..


That’s your personal strange craving most human beings need and want these services

Nice. Control narritives much? Won't happen. You're mixing federal with state spending first off.
Second, this weak argument for raising taxes isn't justified with all the waste that federal spending has.
Is that what you want?


That’s something the tea party people should complain and fight for—that is better and more efficient government, not no government where taxes are on the burden of the middle class who need services unlike the rich who don’t need them as much


Your argument is based on illogic, selfishness and emotionalism IMO.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Do you think that maybe if they're number 1 that they might be right? I mean, you have CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS. . . but FOX beats them all.


If that's the case, the truest image of a typical American family is The Simpsons.

FOX, and all the rest of those 24/7 news channels are 90% entertainment and talk show.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer



Do you think that maybe if they're number 1 that they might be right? I mean, you have CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS. . . but FOX beats them all.


Fox is brilliant in their marketing strategy. Look at the graphics, the whoosh and clang. Who is that designed to attract? Look at the advertising; another indication. Brilliant.

Even Fox isn't about news or opinion; it's only a vehicle to hang ads on for a targeted demographic, to sell gold, Depends, Viagra, diet plans, slice and dice trinkets, etc.
There are rooms full of MBAs counting beans, trying to increase the mkt share and ratings. It's commerce.

Schools out....now go play
edit on 16-1-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


Then provde facts, not rhetoric.

Obama raised the EPA budget 30% his first year in office. Do we really need that?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by momoney

Originally posted by beezzer
Do you think that maybe if they're number 1 that they might be right? I mean, you have CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS. . . but FOX beats them all.


If that's the case, the truest image of a typical American family is The Simpsons.

FOX, and all the rest of those 24/7 news channels are 90% entertainment and talk show.


Truth. But I was focusing on viewer demographics. Not on their entertainment division.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Do you think that maybe if they're number 1 that they might be right? I mean, you have CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS. . . but FOX beats them all.


If FOX was "right" they would not have fought in court for and won the right to force their "reporters" to report proven and known lies. Yet, they did.

Things in the US are not populare because they are "right." Dancing with the Stars, Pizza Hut, Paris Hilton, ETC. We have terrible taste and an insatiable need to be entertained.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by inforeal
 


Then provde facts, not rhetoric.

Obama raised the EPA budget 30% his first year in office. Do we really need that?


Im not sure....I sort of like not choking on chemicals when I breathe air.

Obama also cut taxes for most Americans. its been proved, and happening for years. But our friends who provide facts either wont talk about it, or lie.
edit on 16-1-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join