War declared on Tea Party

Go further into the TP

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Have you gone further into the T party or are you just spewing the leftist slop from Huffpo and Media matters, both Soros orgs.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by Ghost375

 

It's not an insult, it's a fact. Follow the money. The only reason people are against the Tea Party is because they're afraid someone is going to take their "gubment" check. Here's a clue, I already pay enough taxes. I'm taxed at 35%. I think me wanting to keep 65% of the money I've worked for is more than fair for you and your spend happy buddies.

What buddies? I'm buddies with no politician. You shouldn't trust any of them, Ron Paul included.
But really, where should our money go?
To the poor people who don't have an opportunity to get a job because the corporations sent the jobs overseas?
or to the military to "protect" us from a threat that we are responsible for in the first place?
(We were operating in the middle east long before Al Qaeda was ever formed. That's why al qaeda was formed, not because they "hate our freedom." Assuming you don't believe in the CT.)

Practice what you preach: follow the money...

Side note: You really don't understand the definition of 'fact,' do you?

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by Ghost375

 

It's not an insult, it's a fact. Follow the money. The only reason people are against the Tea Party is because they're afraid someone is going to take their "gubment" check. Here's a clue, I already pay enough taxes. I'm taxed at 35%. I think me wanting to keep 65% of the money I've worked for is more than fair for you and your spend happy buddies.

Do you support Corporate welfare, The banks are getting ? Do you support Fema Camps or wire Taps without a warrant. All these things are real, Do you real want more of this.. The Tax rate is small potatoes compared to these socialist polices.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Obama loves and respects all cultures...
Tea Partiers hate anyone that isn't christian...

Who's the real christian?

what a lie obama doesnt think very much of the gop or rich and maintains the classwarfare and bigotry for those who have more.


not very christian like

reply to post by beezzer


Good post. S&F. The progressives, as you call them, want the people to be completely reliant on them so they can secure more future votes. They do this by telling those people that they don't need to work for their money, or their food, or their cars or large screen TV's, they don't need to pay taxes, all they need is good ol' government to keep sending them that self-entitled check because they are oh-so worth it.. and don't worry.. the progressives will tax everyone else to pay for it.. but even half of that is going to their pockets.. as long as you don't have to do a damn thing, you'll be fine.

I detest that logic.

reply to post by Ghost375

It's clear you don't comprehend what you're talking about...

It is clearly you who does not know about Marxism and Socialism. Of course that would be the difference between you and a true Marxist.

sigh
en.wikipedia.org...

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), who coined the term socialisme, advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[7] Saint-Simon, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production that results in instability and cyclical crises of overproduction.[8][9]

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism,[citation needed] combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[10]

www.economictheories.org...

The terms socialism and communism have no exact meaning as they are used today, but in the Marxian system they refer to stages that will occur in the historical process. Socialism, a set of relations of production that will follow capitalism, contains some vestiges of capitalism, according to Marx. One of the chief characteristics of capitalism, he said, is that the means of production, capital, are not owned or controlled by the proletariat. The major change that occurs in the transition from capitalism to socialism is that the expropriators are expropriated—the proletariat now owns the means of production. However, under socialism, a remaining vestige of capitalism is that economic activity is still basically organized through the use of incentive systems: rewards must still be given in order to induce people to labor.

Communism, as the concept was used by Marx, will emerge from the socialist economies. A communist economy would be quite different from a socialist economy. People would no longer be motivated to work by monetary or material incentives, and the social classes that existed under capitalism, and to a lesser extent under socialism, would disappear. Communism is a classless society in which the state has withered away. Under socialism, each person contributes to the economic process according to his or her ability and receives an income according to his or her contribution; under communism, each contributes according to his or her ability but consumes according to his or her needs.

Now I can find more stuff including actual quotes from Karl Marx, but why should i unless you are willing to honestly look at this from an intellectually honest viewpoint?

reply to post by Ghost375


As an extra little goodie for you Ghost, here is some background from the leftist blogger Arianna

Huffington was born Arianna Stassinopoulos on May 15, 1950 in Athens, Greece. Her mother Elli was active in the Communist-led Greek resistance movement during World War II. Her journalist father Constantine edited the resistance newspaper Paron, survived internment in a Nazi concentration camp, and after the war became a publisher

In England Arianna attended Cambridge University, where she studied Keynesian economics at Girton College and one of her tutors was the Maoist economist Joan Robinson. At Cambridge she became the first foreign-born female president of the famed debating society the Cambridge Union and an outspoken Tory. She graduated in 1972 with a master’s degree in economics.

The future Arianna Huffington also became a disciple of the Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult practiced open sexual intercourse among its members, and with its leader, as a central sacrament of their faith. This cult later moved to America’s West Coast and attempted to take over an Oregon town. Bhagwan devotees were directed to purchase what eventually became 139 white Rolls Royces for their leader. As Judith Miller and two other New York Times investigative reporters recounted in their 2001 book Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War, the Rajneesh cult spread potentially lethal Salmonella bacteria in this town. Rajneesh cult members did this as a way of infecting and incapacitating town residents on election day so that cult voters could win control of the local government. The Bhagwan died in 1990.

While visiting California she met the man who remains her spiritual guide to this day, John-Roger (Hinkins), founder of a New Age church apparently spun off from the ECKANKAR cult teachings of Paul Twitchell. John-Roger’s Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness (MSIA) is a faith based on “the Mystical Traveler, a spiritual consciousness that exists throughout all levels of God’s creation.”

www.discoverthenetworks.org...


She was admittedly Republican at one time, which is more like saying she hadn't quite found herself yet.

reply to post by Ghost375


Why do you keep telling people they don't understand things? Is that a bit of intellectual snobbery I detect?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I am ignorant of the Statist agenda you continually refer to. Can I get a primer? Thanks.

CJ

Originally posted by ErgoSphere
reply to post by beezzer

 

Good post. S&F. The progressives, as you call them, want the people to be completely reliant on them so they can secure more future votes. They do this by telling those people that they don't need to work for their money, or their food, or their cars or large screen TV's, they don't need to pay taxes, all they need is good ol' government to keep sending them that self-entitled check because they are oh-so worth it.. and don't worry.. the progressives will tax everyone else to pay for it.. but even half of that is going to their pockets.. as long as you don't have to do a damn thing, you'll be fine.

I detest that logic.

The logiic I don't understand is you never mention corporate entitlement. You are so fixed on middle class entitlement. Don't you know its Corp America BofA and company's like that operate without impunity, Don't you see that, There above the law, That is where the big problems are. the average Joe can't use leverage. like a Bank or GE, Sorry to say its a straw man your fighting. Corp welfare is 1000 times bigger then the Joe six pack argument.. I dare you start talking about the corp welfare. The billions in hand outs these company's get. start talking about that and see what happens.

reply to post by beezzer


I qualify for food stamps even though I am employed nearly full time. I will not apply for them.

However at the same time employers dodge this and that by holding people to just under the 40 hour mark per week. Of course this is smart business, but it also poops on those who are making an effort, and offers no incentive to the employees other than self discipline. It was not always this way, and it should not be this way now.

Those who do want to work and do for themselves are hamstrung through no fault of their own.

I work in a small independent grocery store, and the owner acts like he has no clue that the poop might hit the fan. If and when it does my sharpshooting butt will remember how I was held back and the only defense I will concern myself with is my own. I sure will hate it for him, but life is choices, and he made his.

reply to post by beezzer


In my opinion the blacks and the blacks alone are keeping racism alive. Cheered on by progressives to buy their vote. Your analogy is actually more complicated than it needs to be. A simpler one is the "fish" analogy; give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Progressives want their ilk to become dependent upon them for the fish and every time they hand out another fish they ask for a vote. The sad part is, the people consuming the government fish are too stupid to see that they are being used and kept down. They are putting themselves at the will of the progressives.

Poor Americans have taken billions in government hand-outs over the last 50 years and guess what? They're still poor. Just as planned.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I am ignorant of the Statist agenda you continually refer to. Can I get a primer? Thanks.

CJ

www.thefreedictionary.com...

stat·ism (sttzm) The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy
Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government

aynrandlexicon.com...

A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.

reply to post by axslinger


The blacks and the blacks alone keep racism alive? What about all those racists out there? None?

CJ

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Appreciated on the info, I wasn't aware of it's usage as a political talking point today. So are you for or against statists? It seems that they want a more stong state as opposed to federal govt - I am all for that -

the support of the sovereignty of the state. — statist, n., adj.

freedictionairy

CJ

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by beezzer

 

I qualify for food stamps even though I am employed nearly full time. I will not apply for them.

However at the same time employers dodge this and that by holding people to just under the 40 hour mark per week. Of course this is smart business, but it also poops on those who are making an effort, and offers no incentive to the employees other than self discipline. It was not always this way, and it should not be this way now.

Those who do want to work and do for themselves are hamstrung through no fault of their own.

I work in a small independent grocery store, and the owner acts like he has no clue that the poop might hit the fan. If and when it does my sharpshooting butt will remember how I was held back and the only defense I will concern myself with is my own. I sure will hate it for him, but life is choices, and he made his.

Companies that abuse laws meant to protect people should be punished. Either by punative means or by people just using their wallets. The Better Business Beureau also should have a list. People will abuse the system. And while it's easy to say "find another job" in this market, that's not always an option.
Have you tried talking to the boss?

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Appreciated on the info, I wasn't aware of it's usage as a political talking point today. So are you for or against statists? It seems that they want a more stong state as opposed to federal govt - I am all for that -

the support of the sovereignty of the state. — statist, n., adj.

freedictionairy

CJ

I am against Statism, but that does not mean I am against all govt. I am for limited govt because to not have govt would result in chaos and anarchy. Our Founding Fathers espoused limited govt with an emphasis on individual liberty. You could say I am on the libertarian side of republicans, or on the conservative side of Libertarian.
Anything which emphasizes control of the State over individual liberties would be considered Statism. This is why, when speaking about Marxism and Socialism, we consider these political ideals to be based out of Statism, because they promote collectivism. The Hitler and Mussolini brand of Statism employed "nationalism" but nevertheless are still really systems of the left political scale. If we look closely at what is happening today in American govt, we see an increasing dependence on the State or govt. In other words, Socialism in increments. This is referred to as Fabian Socialism. The truth is that on the communist party websites, they say that socialism is a bridge to communism, and Karl Marx also said it. So, communism is the end. Corporations can and are being used to prop up socialism. This can be very confusing because we tend to think of corporations as part of the Capitalist structure, but think of it, untill the end as communism is achieved, Capital is still used to achieve the goal.
Antony Sutton wrote a good many books on how wealthy bankers and industrialists propped up communist and fascist movements. Rockefellers financed the Bolsheviks.
Some of Sutton's titles were:
Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler
Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution
National Suicide:Military Aid to the Soviet Union
Wall Streeet and FDR
How The Order Creates War and Revolution
and many more.

The communist empire of the Soviet Union was built up by bankers and wealthy industrialists, but the empire fell due to the fact that the system of communism does not work and is a failed system. Centralized planning is quite flawed. A centralized govt which tries to control all the means of production fails.

People who subscribe to the Marxist ideology actively rail against corporations and Capitalism in general. Just read any of Karl Marx's material and you will see this.
I suspect that many Democrats and liberals hear the rhetoric and don't know where it originated and thus just take it at face value as a Democrat talking point against Republicans or conservatives. Seasoned Marxists do know exactly where that rhetoric originated.


OH yes, and to clear up a point on the State.
When Ron Paul talks about States rights he is talking about individual States in the Union, as opposed to the Federal Govt
Our Founding Fathers did not want to give too much power to a central govt, and therefore in constructing the Constitution, they sought to preserve the rights of individual States to make their own rules, but some things stay on a Federal level.
What we want to do is go back to an emphasis on the individual States and less centralized planning. But we do not want too much centralized planning even on the State level or it defeats the purpose.
When you have a State and local centrally planned agenda, it still allows heavy Statist control. Just look at the volume of videos on ATS that discuss police brutality, etc.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by axslinger

 

The blacks and the blacks alone keep racism alive? What about all those racists out there? None?

CJ

not near as many but they have all been called out on it.


no one knows they are stupid till it's pointed out to them and even still!



can you convince an idiot he is an idiot?

see what i mean?

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Obama loves and respects all cultures...
Tea Partiers hate anyone that isn't christian...

Who's the real christian?

what a lie obama doesnt think very much of the gop or rich and maintains the classwarfare and bigotry for those who have more.


not very christian like

That is the stupidest thing I have read in a long time.
Um...actually that is EXACTLY Christian like. Where do you get the Idea Christ favors the rich?