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 left needs it's own Tea Party

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Perhaps. But I don't see the communists or socialists (two different things, btw) agressively pushing the public discourse to the left in the same way the so-called tea party pushes the debate further to the right, abdicating responsibility from the Democrats from ever having to move towards any of those traditionally leftist ideals.


How old are you? The socialist and communist did openly push. They even took to violence many times. The name weather underground comes to mind. That didn’t work, so they abandoned the open agenda. They moved to more subversive methods. They worked at infiltrating the educational system and the new media.


What century are you in?

I'm living in 2011.




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
What century are you in?

I'm living in 2011.


Yes, it is 2011. What does that have to do with it?
I am talking about the actions that they took back then, and the effect that those actions have had on the modern society that now exist in the United States. They are perfectly relevant now, as they were back when they happened.

Just because it’s 2011, doesn’t mean that it is illegal to look at what happened several decades ago. The only way for everyone to find out how we got here is looking back at the past.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
What century are you in?

I'm living in 2011.


Yes, it is 2011. What does that have to do with it?
I am talking about the actions that they took back then, and the effect that those actions have had on the modern society that now exist in the United States. They are perfectly relevant now, as they were back when they happened.


My contention is that would imply that the public dialogue is in someway leaning towards the left in some discernible way. But it isn't. The vast majority of Americans would like to see the top 1% pay more taxes, for example, but that reality is kept out of the discussion of what is considered 'mainstream'.

This is because the media and both parties get to use the far right as an excuse to constantly move the debate further and further to the left. Even when the Democrats controlled congress with a freaking super-majority, it took them months to eke out a Milquetoast version of a health care bill that more closely resembled the plan offered by Republicans in the mid 90's than it did actual leftist reform.




edit on 30-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
What century are you in?

I'm living in 2011.


Yes, it is 2011. What does that have to do with it?
I am talking about the actions that they took back then, and the effect that those actions have had on the modern society that now exist in the United States. They are perfectly relevant now, as they were back when they happened.

Just because it’s 2011, doesn’t mean that it is illegal to look at what happened several decades ago. The only way for everyone to find out how we got here is looking back at the past.


Many people seem to find it impossible that a group or organization can plan in generations rather than the next election cycle.

What is pushed in the media today has a good chance of being acceptable as common place tomorrow.
just look at what paris hilton's sex tape did for the aspiring fame-whores everywhere.

That was a weak example I know in regards to this discussion but hey its plain as day to see.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Anyway, I think it would give the Democrats a chance to finally get around to all those lefty sort of things they pretend to fight for, instead of just using the Loony Wing of the Right as an excuse for never... quite.... delivering....


Liberalism: Ideas so great, they need to be mandatory.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


The problem with your contention is that the United States is not even moderately left wing. So if the 'communists and Socialists" were controlling the debate, then how come none of their tenets are represented in said debate?

You're too busy arguing social conservative issues to notice.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


It didn't have the financial or media backing of the Koch brothers.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReluctantBlossom
reply to post by 46ACE
 


It didn't have the financial or media backing of the Koch brothers.


Look real close at who all the banks/oil companies/ social media companies all donated to.
Al Gore serves on the board of directors for Apple so there is another big player for you. All Donated to Obama.

Trump? LoL didn't he donate to Rahm Emanuel (that guy that majored in DANCE and JOINED THE Israel Defense Force).

Don't pretend corruption is only on one side of the idle. This is way bigger than left/right republican/democrat.


And to the above post I am referring to the media who propagates beliefs to a vast number of people. Those are the types of people that try and steer society in such a manor. I think it is very clear what hollywood's view on America is. As they say politics is hollywood for ugly people.

edit on 30-7-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


The problem with your contention is that the United States is not even moderately left wing. So if the 'communists and Socialists" were controlling the debate, then how come none of their tenets are represented in said debate?

You're too busy arguing social conservative issues to notice.


I see, so why don't you go get a sign that says MORE TAXES and parade up and down the streets. I think that would be the liberal tea party right?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 

The current Tea Party is made up of democrats, republicans, conservatives, libertarians. Who's left to join "your" party? Progressives, liberals.

Liberal progressives already have most of the media and they follow a specific agenda. Which is more government. Bigger government. An intrusive government.

So I would imagine that this would be a government sponsored organization. Which would mean that tax dollars would be spent to build this group.
Sounds about right.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


The left has/had their own 'Party' it's called ACORN. (Not to mention ALL of the Unions)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
My contention is that would imply that the public dialogue is in someway leaning towards the left in some discernible way. But it isn't. The vast majority of Americans would like to see the top 1% pay more taxes, for example, but that reality is kept out of the discussion of what is considered 'mainstream'.


The media does lean to the left, but the general public dialog has never leaned to the left because they are not the majority. That is why their open confrontation tactics never worked. You base your ideas on what the media tells you. That is why you think what you do. Just a hint, the opinion of the general population is not even close to what the media portrays. And another hint… The general public is smart enough to know that you could take everything the top 1% owned, today, and it wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket to the debt we are racking up.

The top 1% tax is just a straw man. Its there to breed class envy. To make the general public want to pass laws to restrain the minority. The overachievers.

They try to present the idea that the public is behind it to push the squeamish/indecisive/group followers over to their side.



This is because the media and both parties get to use the far right as an excuse to constantly move the debate further and further to the left. Even when the Democrats controlled congress with a freaking super-majority, it took them months to eke out a Milquetoast version of a health care bill that more closely resembled the plan offered by Republicans in the mid 90's than it did actual leftist reform.


And they still got lambasted come election time. The reason why is the public was strongly against it, but the media did it’s best to hide the blowback. The people voting for the bill knew they was going to get their clocks cleaned by the public, even thought the media was doing their best to cover for them. . And give the impression that the majority of the people were actually behind them, when they was not. The actual fact is the people they are making fun of, as the “rabid right wingers” are actually the majority. They openly mock them to try to make young people shy away from that type of mindset because they have been told by the media that it is “un cool” to be a “right winger”

The open group method (aka tea party) can only work when the majority is behind you. The left tried it, and failed because they didn’t have public support. So they filled the ranks of the institutions to try to produce that public support by indoctrinating the youth. That activity has even backlashed on them to some extent. People have gotten sick and tired of the news media because of it’s left slant. They have gotten tired of Hollywood’s left slant. They have gotten tired of the educations system’s left slant.

Once the population becomes aware of the slant, then it is no longer effective because your mind will naturally filter out the twisted junk when you hear/see it. When you see a reporter taking a slanted approach to a story, you take note, and filter out the bias to try to see the real story they are not wanting to tell you.

That is the force behind the school voucher programs, the internet news media, and alternative entertainment media. People have figured out that the institutions have been subverted, so they are trying to find replacements

That is why the left reacts so negatively to such things. The existence of such things undercuts their plans and renders them mute.



The problem with your contention is that the United States is not even moderately left wing. So if the 'communists and Socialists" were controlling the debate, then how come none of their tenets are represented in said debate?



They have controlled the public debate as it presented by the media for a long time, but if they went straight out and stated their desired goals, then the “right wing” majority would instantly reject it and run them out of town, because they are 100% opposite of what this country was founded on. So they have to slowly shift public opinion by editing and twisting the debate. It’s like mission creep in a war. You start in for one thing, and before you know it, you are in a whole different mess.

The primary flaw in their system is they may control the public debate as presented by the media, but they don’t’ control the true public debate any more. With the advent of the internet, the public dialog can bypass the media. There methods may have worked in the non internet age, but they won’t work in the modern age.

So, you see where the media make fun of the “right wingers” but you don’t see that that is a deliberate attempt at to silence them by embarrassment and disgrace.. Even though they are the majority.

edit on 30-7-2011 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





Liberal progressives already have most of the media and they follow a specific agenda. Which is more government. Bigger government. An intrusive government.


Beezer. A person of progressive political perceptions looks at media in a very simple way.

They understand that the media is controlled by it's owners who by the power of their money, have the final say on what is reported. Hence since the major media is a profit driven business it cannot be anything but capitalist.
This, to a true communist, or socialist or even most progressives marks the major media as conservative.

To these people a profit driven media cannot be trusted. The big money cannot be trusted. So progressives have managed in another way. Listener supported media.

The first listener supported radio began in 1949 on the fm radio band before anyone even had fm radios. This was the only way they could afford a bandwidth. The AM dial was all sown up with profit driven media.
Along with programs, the sponsoring listeners were given an fm radio kit and instruction booklet on how to assemble it. This station was kpfa and made up of people who had little trust in the US government and less in faith in corporations.

This station expanded to a whopping 5 stations around the country and became The Pacifica Network. They are still listener sponsored. Out of Pacifica came the mainstays of two viewer supported tv stations, a program called Democracy Now. In the late 90's the Clinton administration was nearly successful in taking control of pacifica and turning it into something more conservative. Were it not for 3 weeks of heavy street protests by people fighting for free speech culminating in a citywide march of 10,000, this "progressive " radio network would be no more.

Democracy Now then became the mainstay of two progressive tv stations. One, Free Speech TV had is birth among the people in Seattle during the protests against the WTO in 1999. The other,Link TV came along soon after. Throw in a smattering of NPR and PBS and you have what progressives might consider progressive media. What many call liberal media , they call just a phony smile and hug from corporate media.
And Beezer, these people in no way want more, bigger and intrusive government.

Remember now the dividing line for how progressives see the media divide is where the money comes from. The corporate owners or the listener/viewers.
Can you explain the " liberal media" as opposed to a "conservative media"?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire

Beezer. A person of progressive political perceptions looks at media in a very simple way.

They understand that the media is controlled by it's owners who by the power of their money, have the final say on what is reported. Hence since the major media is a profit driven business it cannot be anything but capitalist.
This, to a true communist, or socialist or even most progressives marks the major media as conservative.


That doesn't explain the "White House mouth piece" on any number of stations. Espousing a party line appears to be the norm, regardless of a bottom line.



Remember now the dividing line for how progressives see the media divide is where the money comes from. The corporate owners or the listener/viewers.
Can you explain the " liberal media" as opposed to a "conservative media"?


My views on liberal vs conservative media?

Conservative media; radio, Fox is viewer driven. (Rating, polls would indicate this) and by extension, revenue driven by ads, marketing, consumerism.
Liberal media is more "corporate" driven. Meaning that it is used not as a generator for capital, but a write-off for other expenditures. Thus, freeing itself to promote, air, display a non-popular agenda. (ie, GE owned MSNBC)

At least, that's my take on it.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
The Secular Socialist already have their equivalent of the Tea Party- Acorn, SEIU, SDS, Greenpeace, Code Pink, The Democrat Party;How many more do you want to name?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by billyjack
The Secular Socialist already have their equivalent of the Tea Party- Acorn, SEIU, SDS, Greenpeace, Code Pink, The Democrat Party;How many more do you want to name?



None of those groups have seemed to provide an excuse for both parties to allow the direction of their policy to drift to the left in the way Tea Party allows the dialogue to drift to the Right.

Has code pink or SDS ended any of the wars? Nope.

As for your claims that 'the Democratic Party' are far left, well, I'd suggest you leave your house once in a while. And don't forget to wear a coat! Kleenex box shoes wont cut it.

No, the Lef needs it's own astroturf movement to counter the Tea PArty's effect on the national dialogue.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

The top 1% tax is just a straw man. Its there to breed class envy. To make the general public want to pass laws to restrain the minority. The overachievers.


LOL. If 'the left' really controlled the media, then why would there be more wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer people than EVER BEFORE in this country?

It's noteworthy that your baseless talking points contradict themselves to such a bold dregree, and yet you dont notice it.

Also, in your deeply rooted partisan vigor, you STILL havent seemed to grasp this thread is as critical of the Democrats as thew Republicans. You see, I am pointing out that DC uses the far right as an excuse to keep pushing the debate further to the right. Here we have a President people like you like to call a 'radical leftists', who has increased the defense department's budgets, sent MORE troops overseas, passed tax breaks for the richest of the rich, and threatened to cut Social Security benefits. F you think that is 'left' I'd suggest you crack a political textbook for the first time in your life.

No, 'both' Parties (a fallacy you obviously buy into, i do not) allow the FAR RIGHT to be an excuse to pull this country further and further to the right, no matter which 'party' is calling the shots. Too bad you have yet to grasp this very, very simple concept, in favor of your partisan foolishness based on assumption and certainly not the bulk of the OP.

Your reading comprehension=FAIL



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



That doesn't explain the "White House mouth piece" on any number of stations. Espousing a party line appears to be the norm, regardless of a bottom line.


You're right. It doesn't. But the WH mouth piece has a long history in electronic media. Was there no White House mouth piece on all commercial stations during Bush II?. Sure there was. Even msnbc in the beginning. They didn't seem to become the liberal mouth piece they are today until Olberman started giving voice to all the dissension questions about Afghanistan and Iraq. His show began drawing increased viewers and they ran with it.

And Clinton? Yes there was. White House mouth piece. Bush I and Reagan? You bettcha. The WH learned decades ago that all they had to do was to put out press releases and the media would gobble it up, pass it on to the consumer and THEY would gobble it up to.

Potus-d and potus-r both have historically had the White House mouth piece in the media. " the presidential honeymoon. The he's our president. The we need to stick together in time of war behind the commander-in-chief. All easy excuses to not rock the boat and keep those happy consumer dollars flowing .

The modern consumer ( I distinguish consumer from citizen ) wants to believe the president. That makes life easier. And we must not forget that commercial media is primarily geared at consumers, not citizens.


Conservative media; radio, Fox is viewer driven. (Rating, polls would indicate this) and by extension, revenue driven by ads, marketing, consumerism.

This makes my point. Consumers. Fox found a market for a conservative message and exploited it. And the consumer must be made happy. Sell this group what it wants. Conservative rhetoric from both barrels.

Murdoch is a big time conservative. His New York Post is the 13th oldest paper in the country. He has run it in the red for years just to use it as a spin machine in the beltway market.
And now he owns the Wall Street Journal. News Corp (fox) follows Murdoch's agenda. Corporatism.

Now this does not mean that the "liberal" media is not corporate driven.




Liberal media is more "corporate" driven. Meaning that it is used not as a generator for capital, but a write-off for other expenditures. Thus, freeing itself to promote, air, display a non-popular agenda. (ie, GE owned MSNBC)


Back to my first reply, liberal and conservative media are both corporate driven. Profit machines unless used as a propaganda write-off like the NY Post. Granted, msnbc spins the liberal message. It is the liberal consumer message. Fox spins the conservative consumer message.

That message is always the same for both. Consume. Sit there and absorb these expensive, psychologically designed morsels of purchasing propaganda and we will entertain you with whichever flavor of political circus you prefer. Do you ever hear commercial stations EVER questioning the sanctity of commercialism?

But I'm straying from your last comment. "Thus, freeing itself to promote, air, display a non-popular agenda. (ie, GE owned MSNBC) "

Non-popular? Gore won the popular vote. That popular? Obama won the popular vote. That one? Where does this non-popular concept come from? The liberal corporate media? Nope. The conservative corporate media.

What I see Beez, is we have come so far down the road of consumer, commercial, corporate, consciousness that consumers of MSM no longer have information about anything other thanCCCC. The appearance of left and right is a false image. It is all CCCC. Yesterdays conservative is today's ravening liberal. Consumers both.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TerryMcGuire
 


Beezer's entire premise is false. The claims that a station like MSNBC (owned by war profiteers GE) are 'liberal' is EXACTLY the sort of drifting to the right I am describing in the OP. Obama gets called a 'radical leftist' despite all actual sane and logical evidence to the contrary. This is ACCEPTED by both parties as an excuse to drag this entire country further to the Right. Both Parties play along with this charade.
edit on 31-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


The left has/had their own 'Party' it's called ACORN. (Not to mention ALL of the Unions)


LOL. "ACORN". I bet you couldn't list one substantive way they have effected the national debate by puling it to the left.

I also bet, based on the vapidity of your post, that you didn't read past the headline. Does reading hurt?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join