It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by whaaa
At one time I had great hopes that the TPM might be a compassionate, inclusive and reasonable alternative to the Republicans and Democrats....then I saw this.

Those people are liberals in disguise like Bush was after I voted for him two times

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by EssenSieMich

So, you are pissed that white people, who have been in charge for the last 2000 years have finally lost their tight grip on the world??

C'mon, its high time for "whitey" to step down and let the rest of us try our hand at running the world. It had to happen eventually...

maybe now white people will see the errors of their ways. I look white, but because I forgot to take of my star of david while living in a town where I was the ONLY jew not living on the college campus I couldn't get a job. Everyone just starred at my neck and it wasn't until the last place I checked for a job the idiot kid behind the counter asked me where my horns where, if I had them surgically removed.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:09 PM
Funny thing is...

The Tea Party is simply another illusion of choice that has been given to you. Divide and Conquer is the game.


"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to beLIEve it"
- Rabbi George Carlin

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by Janky Red

You know all these idiots in DC had to do was read a little history. The Glass-Steagall Act and McFadden Act were put in place to PREVENT another Great Depression!

The leveraged buyouts of the 1980's should have been stopped cold. Again history showed leveraged buyouts were part of the 1929 crash.

As far as the Corporate Cartels go, we HAVE anti-monoploy laws. Isn't it time we use them when we only have FIVE international corporations buying our beef and less then ten corporation controling 80% of the worlds food supply?

I should not be reading a Purdue University paper titled THE GLOBALIZATION OF CORPORATE CRIME: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CARTELS OF THE 1990s - March 1, 2003

And I certainly should not read Clinton's Trade negotiator for the World Trade Organization is Dan Amstutz, VP of Cargill. Or that Robert B. Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto, Director of Citigroup and Sequus Pharmaceuticals, VP of Searle is Senior trade Advisor to Clinton. Dan Amstutz, by the way is the one who wrote the Agreement on Ag that has resulted in the flood of unsafe food across our borders.

No wonder Clinton ratified the World Trade Organization with those men plus Mike Kantor and others Monsanto puppets as negotiators!

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:36 PM
reply to post by inforeal

I know we're not supposed to give 1 line replies saying 'I agree'. But nevertheless, "I agree"! Excellent post...

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:31 PM
There is no Tea Party movement. It's just billionaire Koch, Fox News, and the constant propaganda cycle of Corporate America.

Tea Party started out as Karl Denninger's righteous protest against Tarp - something that every Republican voted for!

It was co-opted by Fox News and then bankrolled by the Koch's.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:56 PM

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
WellI have to largely agree with OP - those who have swallowed the leftist paradigm unreservedly, (mostly the young naive and stupid) are unbelievably easy to dupe - they get to feel special, moraly superior, educated etc - by their own self definition their viewpoint is 'moraly right' - there are no valid alternative viewpoints.

This is the same con trick that TPTP have allways used to enlist the services of countless dupes - a sort of mini-pact with the devil, when religion went out of fashion in the West - no problem just devise a whole new array of mental traps for the stupid masses.

I do have a problem with using the term Zionist - if you mean Jews just say so, if you don't then don't use a Jewish term to describe them!

I know that many jews have been placed front and centre of TPTB operations - you need to look see who it is that are pulling the strings at the back of the stage though and why it is that they want the jews to be seen as the villains of the piece.

I said 'Rothschild Zionist' - The Rothschild Zionists are composed of many races of people of many different religions. The average Jewish person has no more to do with 'Rothschild Zionism' then the average person of any other race or religion.

In fact I should add that it was precisely the 'Rothschild Zionists' that financed and profited off of the actions of the Third Reich. Hardly the friends of the Jewish people. Read the truth link below if you want all of that explained as well as what really happened with 9/11.

edit on 17-1-2011 by EssenSieMich because: add

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:00 AM

Originally posted by whatukno

Do you not see that the party that is supposed to be for less government and more freedom don't actually want a lot of people to have freedoms?

And isn't that the same party which has presided over the greatest expansion of the Federal Government in US history? Isn't that the same party which brought us the USA Patriot Act, did away with Habeas Corpus, support corporations with tax breaks who send our best jobs overseas never to return?

And you people on the right who are so quick to parrot the right-wing mantra that progressives are socialists and communists need to read what amounts to the conservative manifesto and ask yourself who the communists really are.

The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement

edit on 17-1-2011 by Lilitu because: Fixed broken link.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by EssenSieMich

I think AMERICANS need to *wake up* and realize that we are all AMERICANS FIRST, Tea-freaking-Party idiots second, demo-freaking-crat idiots second, republi-freaking-can idiots second.

AMERICANS FIRST. Party affiliations second.

Why can't we simply COLLABORATE (now there's a freaking word?) and come up with the best people, the best ideas? Sure, it's freaking idealistic, right, to want the best ideas promoted by the best people? Easier said than done, right? But why can't we just do it, like Nike tells us?

Too many extremists trying to get re-elected with profoundly blatant claims trying to SCARE PEOPLE INTO VOTING FOR THEM. Sure, when all else fails, "motivate" the elderly by telling them that healthcare legislation is going to send death squads (thanks Sarah) to yank grandparents out of their beds. Really? REALLY? I don't think so.

Sure, that might help your party, might raise money, might stop an agenda that is merely trying to get healthcare for everyone in the country, but it won't actually bring AMERICA together. It won't make AMERICA a better place.

Ever hear of the addage: BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION, NOT THE PROBLEM? Well advocates of Rush's highly successful (yet bad for America) strategy of "I HOPE YOU FAIL" are a part of the problem. It's EASY to stop people from making America a better place, and it gets a LOT of votes. People get fed up and vote for change. Yet it DOESN'T MAKE OUR COUNTRY STRONGER. More likely, it causes psychologically compromised individuals to shoot politicians.

When did we stop seeing ourselves as AMERICANS first? When did we start seeing ourselves as republicans, democrats, independents and/or tea party first? Do we need an external threat to unite us? Why? Why can't we just unite without such a threat? The very nature of our FRACTURED society begs for some external threat to remind us that we are AMERICANS first, ---everything else second.

African Americans. Native Americans. Spanish Americans. Asian Americans. Is that what we are? Or are we


Alloys are strongest when comprised of different kinds of materials. That's why samurai swords are the best in the world. They are rigid yet flexible. They possess a resilience like none other BECAUSE THEY ARE MADE UP OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS. That's the secret strength of AMERICA and AMERICANS ---if we so choose to employ it. Yet lately, we seem determined to undo this.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by EssenSieMich

Sorry, i see enough propaganda on the news every day.. I dont need it here, and i dont need someones opinion to make up my mind. I think every person here can do that themselves without the help of propaganda artists from either side.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:44 AM
I Hate Tea Parties too..

It's a real Gay English activity and would rather be at the pub..!!


I'll shut up now

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:26 AM
reply to post by GhostLancer

I'll probably write something about that soon. As you can see in allot of these posts the majority of people are terrified when you start to expose their control systems. Conflict and rage are the energies that the powers that be thrive on left or right, they need to divide in order to conquer. The one thing they can't deal with is being ignored - when people decide not to cooperate their game is over.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:30 AM
reply to post by inforeal

You better check your history because it was the LEFT who put the rich bankers in power and brought most of the problems you mentioned...

It was another PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT President who in 1913 signed in the Federal Reserve Act giving power over the U.S. economy and the destiny of the United States to a centralized group of rich elites, and it has been that same group of elites who made the problems and then offered a solution "from the left" as well as Americans kept being indoctrinated "on the marvels of socialism"...

So the same people who offered you the solutions are the very same people that caused the problems, but someone like you will never understand this...

BTW, your claim that it was the left which brought freedom to blacks can EASILY be debunked if you actually know about U.S. history...

Perhaps YOU, and a few others are ignorant of this but it was a REPUBLICAN President, Abraham Lincoln, who put this country at war to end slavery.

Perhaps YOU, and a few others have been too brainwashed to do due diligence in research but it was rich wealthy DEMOCRATS who were pro-slavery such as James Henry Hammond who among other wealthy DEMOCRATS was pro slavery...

Hammond graduated from South Carolina College in 1825, going on to teach school, write for a newspaper and study law. He was admitted to the bar in 1828 and started a practice in Columbia, South Carolina. He established a newspaper in South Carolina in support of nullification and was also a planter. He served in the United States House of Representatives as a member of the Nullifier Party from 1835 until his resignation the next year due to ill health. After spending two years in Europe, he returned to South Carolina and engaged in agricultural pursuits. He served as Governor of South Carolina from 1842 to 1844 and in the United States Senate, following the death of Andrew P. Butler, from 1857 until his resignation in 1860 in light of South Carolina's secession from the Union.

A Democrat, Hammond was perhaps best known during his lifetime as an outspoken defender of slavery and states' rights. It was Hammond who popularized the phrase that "Cotton is King" in an 1858 speech to the Senate.

In 1839, he purchased a young female slave, Sally Johnson, with her infant daughter, Louisa. He took Sally Johnson as his mistress and fathered several of her children before replacing her with her twelve-year-old daughter, Louisa, with whom he fathered several more children.[2] His other slaves fared no better. It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his chattel died in a ten-year period.

Let me give you an example of what USED to be common knowledge before the "leftist revisionists of history" started brainwashing the American people such as yourself...

The following is a section of a diary of a young American DEMOCRAT girl to her father. It was written in 1860.

daughter of a southern plantation owner

-1860-, Tuesday

Dear Diary,
I’m worried, papa said that that ole Lincoln is gonna destroy everything the south has come to be. See Lincoln has been runnin' for President and papa's afraid that he may win. He said that the Northern Democrats have split up so they have to choose different people to run for president. The Northern Democrats chose Stephen Douglas, the Southern Democrats chose John Breckinridge. The Whig party chose John Bell, and the Republicans chose Lincoln. Papa says that the Northern Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. Makin' such a big fuss, just because the Southern party wanted the party to support slavery in the territories. What a shame he always tells me. Papa just tells us all to pray that Lincoln don’t win! I’m prayin' but I really don’t like the idea of slavery either. But I could never tell papa that. He’d beat me ta DEALTH!!

You see...something Americans like you have been indoctrinated into forgetting is the fact that the Republican Party was for a very long time fighting the fights that you, and other brainwashed Americans and others around the world like to now claim have been eredicated "because of Democrats, or Progressives, or even socialists/communists"...

But you see, in order to "eradicate" the REPUBLIC, and it's ideals the elites had to slowly eradicate Republicanism through the indoctrination of the American people through decades, and decades of indoctrination.

So what wouldn't we have today in the U.S. if Democrats, and much less Progressive Democrats didn't gain power?...

We wouldn't have The Feds in power, and a few corporations in control in the U.S. There wouldn't have been a need for the unions since it was the Feds and the centralization of the U.S. economy that caused bad salaries, bad working conditions, etc, etc.

Oh and BTW, today's Republican Party is but a shadow of what the Republican Party used to be, and SHOULD be...

One of the few Republicans who to this day still represents what a Republican Senator used to be, and should be is Ron Paul.

edit on 17-1-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by EssenSieMich
I'll probably write something about that soon. As you can see in allot of these posts the majority of people are terrified when you start to expose their control systems. Conflict and rage are the energies that the powers that be thrive on left or right, they need to divide in order to conquer. The one thing they can't deal with is being ignored - when people decide not to cooperate their game is over.

Their control scheme is not to divide, but to make Americans FORGET.

The elites were the ones to create the problems and they are the ones offering you the solutions to this day through "progress"...

Something many if not most Americans don't know is that the word "progress" as used by the left is not meant as "technological" progress, or any other sort of progress except "political" progress/change, a change into a leftist, more centralized system.

You actually think that giving the government more control over everything is going to give the people any more power?...

edit on 17-1-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:59 AM
I'm part of the "professional left" and quite frankly, this thread is insulting with all of the assumptions made.

The "Tea Party" in it's founding, was a movement that i supported, because it was a grassroots movement, however as it has matured and grown, that focus has changed. The tea party today stands is nothing more than the re-branding of the neo-conservative movement, and has been hijacked by those whom have much to gain by continuing to push the propaganda, lies, and corruption that infests our government. This is made blatantly apparent when one follows the money trails that are funding the "tea party" movement -- not to mention the "figure heads" involved are the same-ol bobble-heads that have been the voice of the neo-cons for the last 15 years.

This is the same MO as Blackwater changing their name to XE -- new name, same junk.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:36 AM
I agree OP. I was a young liberal, and now I'm a still-relatively-young conservative. I've seen both sides, and all shades imbetween. However, as a self-confessed 'conservative', I do not consider myself right-wing. I reject the left-right paradigm. Conservatism, to me, is simply the active preservation of the knowledge and tradition developed by our forebears through trial-and-error. Liberalism often tends to represent the discarding of old wisdoms in favour of new, untested ones. Furthermore, conservatism - TRUE conservatism - actually requires a healthy dose of both liberalism and what are deemed typically 'left-wing' ideals. For example, environmentalism, though often associated with 'the left' is conservatism; Long hair and tattoos, though often construed as the marks of a liberal, can be a preserving of pre-industrial tribal styles; and true liberalism is small, inobtrusive government and freedom of discrimination. It always makes me laugh how we've demonised the ability to discriminate, when it is discrimination (AKA observation-based judgement) which has allowed the human race to even survive and flourish.

It also makes me laugh when hordes of young 'liberals' take to the streets and protest against the freedom of groups that they deem to be 'unsavoury' to even exist. No bigger hypocrisy exists. I believe it was Winston Churchill who once said that the fascists of the future will call themselves 'anti-fascists'.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:43 AM
reply to post by GhostLancer

When did we stop seeing ourselves as AMERICANS first? When did we start seeing ourselves as republicans, democrats, independents and/or tea party first? Do we need an external threat to unite us? Why? Why can't we just unite without such a threat? The very nature of our FRACTURED society begs for some external threat to remind us that we are AMERICANS first, ---everything else second.

Nicole Johnson has a very well researched article that answers that question. It also shows the mechanism used to remove control of the USA from Americans. It shows WHO pulls the strings of our politicians and how.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:47 AM
The argument about the "professional left" is balanced by the reality of a "professional right" which is equally as powerful(perhaps more so) and just as off the wall. Go to any bookseller and note the large sections of right-wing authors who make lots of money dashing the left. And I would love to argue that the American media is left-biased. I can make a solid argument that that is false.
The author obviously hates the left, but within the context of what the author is writing is the idea that somehow if all "real Americans" got together and got rid of the left, America would be a better place. My theory is the left exists because the right is also so off the wall and out of touch with things. "Govmint" as one President called it, is a two-headed ax. Regardless of who is swinging it, it cuts a little more of our freedoms. The right never acknowledges that during the Bush Administration II more of our personal freedoms were lost than in any other Presidency, including his father's. Half of the hated "govmint" spending goes to the military. Factor in the money for the intelligence agencies and Homeland Security and you have a monstrous "govmint" organization. Yet precious little is ever talked on the right about being efficient with our spending in military, intelligence and Homeland Security. A balanced approach dictates not wasting money anywhere, something the right will never agree to, thus making the author's initial topic bordering on humorous.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by Evil_Santa

The "Tea Party" in it's founding, was a movement that i supported, because it was a grassroots movement, however as it has matured and grown, that focus has changed. The tea party today stands is nothing more than the re-branding of the neo-conservative movement, and has been hijacked....

I will agree with that.

As I said earlier, I was hoping the Tea Party would be a place that moderate lefts and moderate rights and us GDIs could meet and agree on at least some things. STOP the wars, get rid of the Patriot Act and get Rid of the Fed, get rid of the international HACCP regs, help small business...

You are also correct that the movement was hijacked.

However part of that hijacking was the "liberal media" branding the Tea Party as a neo-conservative movement. This of course was to make sure the divide between the left and the right remained solid.

When you speak of the "professional left" I immediately think of the "liberal media"

So WHO owns the liberal media???
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.

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

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership:

Who controls the media

Interlocking Directorates
Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. This list shows board interlocks for the following major media interests:

What about the organizations like WWF and Greenpeace?

A rather interesting article is Prince Bernard-Bilderberger/Nazi and The WWF

We certainly know Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is a promanent Bilderberger. What a lot of people are unaware of is the up to 25% of Royal Dutch Shell is a major portion of the Royal Family's wealth. Or that Shell Oil and BP FUNDED CRU of Climategate fame.

So what happens when you keep digging? we find the WWF was funded by the 1001 club and the membership list is kept secret.

The 1001 club was brainchild of Anton Rupert, the richest man in South Africa, owner of Rothmans International tobacco company, the foundation of the Rembrandt Group and Dunhill and Cartier.
members include:
August A Busch, Jr, of the beer company;

Henry Ford II; President of the Ford Motor Company

Peter Grace; President and CEO of W. R. Grace and Company

Nelson Bunker Hunt, the silver trader;

Mrs Geoffrey Kent, of Abercrombie & Kent;

Robert S. McNamara; President of the World Bank

Cyril Magnin; CEO of the Joseph Magnin Company, one of the four who made up "The Green Machine" so called by career politicians for the "greenback" donations they made to the Democratic party throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

Lew Wasserman, of MCA;

Thomas Watson, of IBM

Zaire's President Mobutu

Sese Seko, one of the most corrupt leaders in Africa

Daniel K Ludwig, the reclusive American billionaire, whose companies destroyed thousands of miles of the Amazon rain forest; He was a US shipping magnate, diversified into oil, banking, cattle ranching, insurance, various mining and exploration projects in Americas, Africa, Australia and the Middle East, and created a chain of luxury hotels in Mexico, Bermuda and the Bahamas.

Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI);

Robert Vesco, the financier who fled the United States in the 1970s to escape trial on charges of fraud, embezzlement and obstruction of justice;

Tibor Rosenbaum, founder of a Swiss bank that laundered billions of dollars of organised crime money and who was accused of embezzling Israeli deposits in the bank;

Thomas Jones, who was forced out as chief executive of Northrop after it was revealed that the company paid $30 million in bribes to government officials and agents around the world in exchange for contracts;

Lord Kagan, a British businessman convicted of theft and conspiracy to defraud the British tax service;

a Norwegian shipowner convicted of taking a £1 million bribe; an individual who was the conduit for the money from Lockheed to Prince Bernhard.

And at least sixty individuals were from South Africa. The man who has run WWF since 1977 is another from South Africa, Charles de Haesa former salesman for Rothmans International tobacco company, It seems Anton Rupert the owner of that company continues to pay his salary.

It is also real interesting to see who else continues to donate to WWF from the Banker/Financier world:
Bank of America Foundation
Citigroup Foundation
J. P. Morgan Charitable Trust
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Family Fund
Rockefeller Foundation
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Vanguard Public Foundation

Max & Victoria Dreyfus Foundation donate to Greenpeace

A major Bush Foundation donation goes to the Sierra Club
And the EPA and U.S. National Science Foundation are giving money to Tides foundation lient=firefox-a

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:42 AM
reply to post by EssenSieMich

I am from the professional left, and I would like to state that I actually like the Tea Party. I don't agree with all of their cultural ideologies, but I am impressed by their ability to mobilize and organize. They have valid reasons for being concerned about the way our government is spending money. As Noam Chomsky stated, most of the Tea Party protests were against the Wall Street "bail-outs" which have made them more powerful than they were before. I am proud of them for doing this. However, where I differ is that I don't believe immigrants and social services are the cause, I believe it is the ridiculous amount of money we spend on our military that deserves to be investigated. I encourage anyone in the Tea Party to contribute their ideas to this discussion.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in