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.

 

When do the Tea Party go after military spending, agricultural subsidies, etc?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


The Tea Party has been taken over by big money, and big money knows full well how to profit from war just like their GOP Corporate supporters. I doubt that the entity that used to be the grassroots TPM even exists, except in the mind of a few old white guys, that have as their main rallying point..."hate for Obama"

theweek.com...




posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Ace High
 


You can follow the money all day and it doesn't change the fact that there are not enough sides on an issue for a third party to be relevant. It's been this way since the the Articles of the Confederation were written long before corporations were interfering.



I'm sorry but you are wrong. The Republican and Democratic parties are supposed to be polar opposites but once in power they represent almost the same thing. Voting for one or the other results in no difference!!!

You could have a party that believes in complete isolationism, one that is for intervention, and another party that believes that we should defend only our allies. You could have parties that favor following a religious doctrine, another party for limited taxes etc. I could go on for days......

Instead we have too matching parties.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Ace High
 


And how will this change with a third party or a fourth or fifth? They will run on a different platform but once they get into office it will be the same as it is today. How are you implying that a third party would be different once elected than the democrats or republicans?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I'm speaking of free parties not tied to doctrine determined by TPTB.

I know probably impossible in the world we live in.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vikus
Which Tea Party?

The Ron Paul Tea Party will go after the military hardcore and disband just about every base around the world.

The Sean Hannity Tea Party is actually the Republican Party so let us not get thrown into confusion.


The problem is the 'ron paul' tea party is essentially nonexistent these days, taken over years ago by teh FOX crowd.

They still all 'pretend' they are ron paul types, but if you see what they actually say and do, they expose themsleves as the FOX crowd. Social Conservatives who only scream about 'fiscal responsibility' when it comes to social infrastructure.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
There are many in the Tea Party who want these cuts. You must remember that the Tea Party is made up of tons of people with just a basic belief in the same thing. They don't have just 1 platform all the members adhere too.
They aren't like the Democrats or Republicans in that they all get behind one idea and follow it. You have many branching paths with reduced spending their main focus.


I believe there are many who CLAIM to want these cuts, but if they voted for the Republicans cloaked in tea party rhetoric, and expected substantive cuts the the military they are idiots.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
There are many in the Tea Party who want these cuts. You must remember that the Tea Party is made up of tons of people with just a basic belief in the same thing. They don't have just 1 platform all the members adhere too.
They aren't like the Democrats or Republicans in that they all get behind one idea and follow it. You have many branching paths with reduced spending their main focus.


You contradict yourself here:


Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Mr Objectivity
 


There is not room for a third party that is different enough on the issues to validate itself. The current issues of the day are pretty well covered by either the dems on one side or the republicans on the other. I don't know how a third party can be different enough on the majority of issues to distinguish itself to be legitamate contender. It would end up like the Tea Party, pretty much republican with a few differences.


So which is it? IS the tea party a real alternative, or are they just republicans?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth


I think the most you know about the tea party is what the media has fed you. I'm very active with the tea party, at home and nationally, all but a handful of the the people I associate with at those events are anti-war.


Really? Then why did they elect a bunch of 'tea party' Republicans who have yet to mention substantive cuts to the military and other corporate welfare. OR, at the very least, why dont we see them actiely PROTESTING these 'tea party Republicans' bastardizing their good name


Which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for the "left". What happened to those guys? they used to be so principled... do they just sit around bitching about people that make more money than their lazy asses now? I never see them protesting anything.....


Actually, the 'left' has been very anti war for years. Your critique is just social conservative nonsense.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Ace High
 


And how will this change with a third party or a fourth or fifth? They will run on a different platform but once they get into office it will be the same as it is today. How are you implying that a third party would be different once elected than the democrats or republicans?


So you are saying that we should just accept that the only 'choice' we have is D or R?

Didnt you previously claim the tea party werent Republicans in hiding?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixDown
 




As others said: Ron Paul would cut spending on the military establishment by bringing troops home and reducing some of the unnecessary international bases we have.

The problem though on all sides is that no one debates the merit of the ideas but instead bash groups based on their ideology regardless if it is correct or not. This is not a sign of the enlightened society we should be.


From what I can see it all started with the Ron Paul campaign in 2008. Ron Paul is called the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party philosophy.

When he lost the 2008 primary in June of 2008, he used his remaining campaign funds to start the "Campaign for Liberty"

For the elite, backing both sides of a two party system, there were a few alarming things about Ron Paul.
1. He received the most money from the armed services of any candidate.

2. Of the Republicans, he had the most support from African-Americans.

3. He set two fund raising records:
3A. the largest single day donation total among Republicans.
3B. He twice receiving the most money received via the Internet in a single day by any presidential candidate in American history.

4.Of any candidate, Paul received the most contributions from individuals - ninety-seven percent.
SOURCE


WORSE a real nightmare for the Elite was Paul's Supporters did not go back to sleep as most Americans do after an election.

Therefore the Elite had to act quickly to diffuse the situation.
One of the ways was to "organize" the Ron Paul supporters. (Remember Paul ALREADY had the Campaign for Liberty in June of 2008!)

MARK MECKLER and buddies did this.

The Patriots are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization formed in March 2009 to recruit, train, network with and support individuals and organizations who identify themselves with the tea party movement....

Today, we are the largest national tea party organization in the nation, with more than 3,500 chapters and millions of members nationwide....

The TPP does not speak for the movement at large. In interviews TPP’s national coordinators make it clear that they do not speak for the “tea party.” They do their best to simply reflect what they hear in the movement....

Meckler explains about HIS Tea Party


Now remember the Ron Paul 2008 campaign had BLACK supporters, more than the rest of the republicans. But the Tea Party is characterized as "Racists" in the press. (A really good way to make sure no blacks bother to check out what they are saying)

The origins of "Racism"
The Blair-Rockefeller
poll by a DEMOCRAT Think Tank using biased questions wrote a report:
Tea Party Distinguished by Racial Views and Fear of the Future
The questions about race start with "Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure...." Give me a break the Tea Party is about DOWN SIZING the federal government and returning power to the states where it belongs.
I do not care WHAT comes after that start to a question, the answer will most likely be a resounding NO!


Another step the Elite made to diffuse Ron Paul supporters was to install one of their puppets as an alternative. This was Sara Palin, a nobody boosted to governor and then running mate of McCain.

If you think about it Palin did EXACTLY what she was supposed to do split the focus and derail the grass roots movement now calledt the Tea Party.

First Palin, who was not a seasoned politician or speaker left herself open to lots of ridicule by the banker owned media.

Second she SPLIT the Ron Paul following into splitter groups. Look at the polls and you will see Palin did EXACTLY what she was supposed.


..But when Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, none who is an announced candidate, are added to the list, Romney's lead drops to 2 points, 17-15 over Perry. Palin takes 12 percent and Giuliani and Bachmann take 11 points. Paul drops to 8 percent.... www.foxnews.com...


edit on 27-7-2011 by crimvelvet because: fix bad sentence



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by croweboy
 





Why should the government decide what is economically viable via agricultural subsidies?


Ag Subsidies are for COMMODITY products. That is the stuff the grain cartel buys and the stuff Monsanto sells seeds for. Corn, Rice, Wheat, Soya Beans, Cotton....

The American (and EU) tax payer pays the farmers wage so he can produce at below operating cost. The commodities are sold in the world market at BELOW operating cost prices. This BANKRUPTS third world farmers.

There are no subsidies for fruits and veggies... SURPRIZE!


HERE is how the US government really works



DAN AMSTUTZ and the REVOLVING DOOR
Dan Amstutz was CEO of Cargill and President and CEO of the North American Export Grain Association. Before joining government, Amstutz was a general partner of Goldman, Sachs and Company, the New York investment bank, where he initiated the firm’s commodities trading and futures brokerage businesses.

In 1995, Amstutz as a senior trade negotiator under Clinton, wrote the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture. It got rid of tariffs, opened borders and with the aid of the United Nations (OIE and FAO), the WTO WROTE the regulations for farming to be implemented worldwide. Amstutz was also part of the Reagan Administration for 6 years first as under secretary of agriculture for international affairs and commodity programs (1983-1987) and then as ambassador and chief negotiator for agriculture in the GATT Uruguay Round trade negotiations leading up to the WTO.

Republican or Democrat the Ag Cartel/Banker agenda was carried forward.

Amstutz's role in trade negotiations was just part of the agenda. His next step was to introduce the "Freedom to Farm" legislation of 1996. A seven-year farm program pressuring the US government to move away from its farmer support programs. This end of the US policy of buying and stockpiling grain reserves. The resulting over production of grain flooded the market, causing plunging farm prices. The effects on independent farmers was devastating. U.S. Farmers made up 3.4% of the labor force in 1980 and dropped to 1.9 % by 2002 despite 90% of farmers having outside jobs.

The super cheap grain produced by the new "Farm Policy" was bought up by the Ag cartel and exported to third world countries where it was sold at below production costs. This bankrupted third world farmers and lead to worldwide factory farms like the one in Mexico of Swine flu fame.

However the Ag cartel wasn't finished with their manipulations.

Next was the Biofuel law (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ) and Archer Daniels Midland cleans up big time in the government susidized biofuel business. link and link

This new use of grain caused grain prices to rise but that was only part of the manipulation. Back to our good friend Dan Amstutz and his OTHER employer, Goldman Sachs.


Gramm, head of the CFTC, helped firms such as Goldman Sachs gain influence over the commodity markets. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly. Wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent.


...Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.” Through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations [controlling agricultural futures contracts] were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof....” www.independent.co.uk...



...Today three companies, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Bunge control the world’s grain trade. Chemical giant Monsanto controls three-fifths of seed production. Unsurprisingly, in the last quarter of 2007, even as the world food crisis was breaking, Archer Daniels Midland’s profits jumped 20%, Monsanto 45%, and Cargill 60%. Recent speculation with food commodities has created another dangerous “boom.” After buying up grains and grain futures, traders are hoarding, withholding stocks and further inflating prices....” www.globalissues.org...

AND children starved to death....




posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 




There is not room for a third party that is different enough on the issues to validate itself. The current issues of the day are pretty well covered by either the dems on one side or the republicans on the other. I don't know how a third party can be different enough on the majority of issues to distinguish itself to be legitamate contender.


Are you for real????

How about getting rid of the leech called the FED???

How about getting RID of K street and FOREIGNERS and INTERNATIONAL Corporations having more influence than voters???

How about getting us out of the job exporting "Free Trade Agreements" ???

How about keeping American blood being shed in wars to protect INTERNATIONAL bankers???


Do me a favor.

Read Days of Infamy and The Creature from Jekyll Island, The Federal Reserve, talk by Griffin



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 




You may have noticed that we've had 3rd party's on the ticket for a long time and yet they never get much of the vote. Why do you think that is?


Ever hear of the diebold voting machines???

GOOGLE it! along with the words voter FRAUD



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





....Free your mind man and look at facts.


The MSM, propaganda tool of the bankers has been controlling opinion for a century!


...With the control of the money came the control of the news media.

Kent Cooper, head of the Associated Press, writes in his autobiography, Barriers Down, "International bankers under the House of Rothschild acquired an interest in the three leading European agencies."



Thus the Rothschilds bought control of Reuters International News Agency, based in London, Havas of France, and Wolf in Germany, which controlled the dissemination of all news in Europe....
www.apfn.org...


other evidence (of the takeover of the 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. 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...

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership: www.globalissues.org...

Who controls the media www.nowfoundation.org...


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:
www.fair.org...




.....The iron grip of the "London Connection" on the media was exposed in a recent book by Bagdikian documents that the media monopoly is steadily closing down more newspapers....He cites a study from the 1982 World Press Encyclopaedia that the United States is at the bottom of industrial nations in the number of daily newspapers sold per 1,000 population. Sweden leads the list with 572, the United States is at the bottom with 287. There is universal distrust of the media by Americans, because of their notorious monopoly and bias. The media unanimously urge higher taxes on working people, more government spending, a welfare state with totalitarian powers, close relations with Russia, and a rabid denunciation of anyone who opposes Communism. This is the program of "the London Connection." It flaunts a maniacal racism, and has as its motto the dictum of its high priestess, Susan Sontag, that "The white race is the cancer of history." Everyone should be against cancer. The media monopoly deals with its opponents in one of two ways; either frontal assault of libel which the average person cannot afford to litigate, or an iron curtain of silence, the standard treatment for any work which exposes its clandestine activities.....
www.apfn.org...

www.apfn.org...



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





And how will this change with a third party or a fourth or fifth? They will run on a different platform but once they get into office it will be the same as it is today. How are you implying that a third party would be different once elected than the democrats or republicans?


By changing STATE laws so we can repeal their butts!


.... Recall can provide more accountability in between elections and put office holders on notice that they are being watched. Recall is now available to constituents in 18 states. Another 13 states have initiative procedures whereby petitioners could put recall measures on the ballot. RecallTheRogues.org provides each state’s relevant laws, plus updated news and commentary on recall efforts around the nation.

Welcome to the new American Revolution.
www.recalltherogues.org...


By passing STATE laws that REQUIRE Judges to inform juries of their RIGHT to judge both the case AND the law. JURIES can NULLIFY LAWS! That is what "Case Law" the third method of making laws is all about. Common law and legislated law are the others.
Fully Informed Jury Association » Jury Nullification



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I support cuts to everything. So has everyone else I've heard talk about. Who has told you otherwise? Liberal news?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I support cuts to everything. So has everyone else I've heard talk about. Who has told you otherwise? Liberal news?


Really? The how come NONE of those 'tea party candidates' have offered ANY substantive cuts to the Military budget?

The 'liberal media' are to blame for these guys not makign the cuts they claimed they would make?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
"Tea Party Caucus":

Members, 112th Congress

The caucus chairman is Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. As of March 31, 2011 the committee has 60 members, all Republicans.[16]

Sandy Adams, Florida
Robert Aderholt, Alabama
Todd Akin, Missouri
Rodney Alexander, Louisiana
Michele Bachmann, Minnesota, Chairman
Roscoe Bartlett, Maryland
Joe Barton, Texas
Gus Bilirakis, Florida
Rob Bishop, Utah
Diane Black, Tennessee
Michael C. Burgess, Texas
Paul Broun, Georgia
Dan Burton, Indiana
John Carter, Texas
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Howard Coble, North Carolina
Mike Coffman, Colorado
Ander Crenshaw, Florida
John Culberson, Texas
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Stephen Fincher, Tennessee
John Fleming, Louisiana
Trent Franks, Arizona
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Vicky Hartzler, Missouri
Wally Herger, California
Tim Huelskamp, Kansas
Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
Steve King, Iowa
Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Jeff Landry, Louisiana
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
Kenny Marchant, Texas
Tom McClintock, California
David McKinley, West Virginia
Gary Miller, California
Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Rich Nugent, Florida
Steve Pearce, New Mexico
Mike Pence, Indiana
Ted Poe, Texas
Tom Price, Georgia
Denny Rehberg, Montana
Phil Roe, Tennessee
Dennis Ross, Florida
Ed Royce, California
Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Tim Scott, South Carolina
Pete Sessions, Texas
Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Lamar Smith, Texas
Cliff Stearns, Florida
Tim Walberg, Michigan
Joe Walsh, Illinois
Allen West, Florida
Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina

[edit] Members of Senate Caucus

Jim DeMint (South Carolina)[6]
Mike Lee (Utah)[6]
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)[6]



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Rep. Michele Bachmann on the Defense for Defense Spending



All the liberties enjoyed by the citizens of a nation depend on, and stem from, the security of that nation. We are a nation at war, pitted against terrorists who are bent on destroying our nation and our very way of life. The enemy is adapting, evolving and plotting further attacks. We must be informed and always one step ahead. The security of America and the survival of her people rely heavily upon our ability to prosecute and win these wars. Investing in manpower, equipment and technology is a necessary part of that equation.


blog.heritage.org...

It's funny to me that she thinks she's for fiscal conservatism, when she is just spouting social conservative talking points.THIS is why no one takes the so-called 'tea party' seriously. Because it sounds EXACTLY like the GOP pro-war claptrap from the past 3 decades.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I support cuts to everything. So has everyone else I've heard talk about. Who has told you otherwise? Liberal news?


Really? The how come NONE of those 'tea party candidates' have offered ANY substantive cuts to the Military budget?

The 'liberal media' are to blame for these guys not makign the cuts they claimed they would make?


The problem with Military spending, it is one of the few things constitutionally provided for. There is way too many other things to go after rather than something the government is supposed to be doing. Perhaps your question should be, "Why can't the Tea Party be hypocritical?", which I would respond the Liberals already have locked down.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join