Oh Sarah, you tease!

reply to post by Janky Red


Im sorry Jank, but saying she does not have the mental capacity does not cut it here.That's just the mantra of the Left It's not going to work with me.
But if you want to go there, I could say that Obama's mantra of "Yes we can" was nothing more than a rally ruse designed to get people to think you are doing something on their behalf. Frankly, I don't think his divisive behavior is doing much to heal the nation either.


And really, let us come and reason together....if Sarah is so NEOCON, how come its the Tea Parties and not the NEOCONS who are backing her? How come the GOP has distanced itself from her?

this is getting ridiculous, she obviously is using tactics to gain more fame.

An idiot is a Genius to another idiot!

reply to post by dannotz


Nothing like a veiled pesonal attack.

reply to post by dannotz


No, Sarah is just the willing participant, the interest that runs our nation, is playing with Americas minds, taking into consideration that they have been selling and robbing this nation blind, they push the first African American president when they needed to have the tax payer bail them out and their wealth, now they want to ofuscate the tax payers again with another novelty, a Women presidential candidate, no that we have not have them before, but this time the population is more willing.

Whenever I see Sarah or hear her say something, I think of deep empty space. Vacuums. Black holes. The Badlands. Fallout3. Stuff like that

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Thank you for your post. I think it was very nicely thought out and eloquently written. It has a lot of substance in my view. And I agree with really everything you say. While I reserve that there are still differences in the socialism vs capitalism models, both the left and the right do seem to be veering towards a collective control of the populace. It is Statism which I abhor so deeply. I am not an anarchist by any means. I believe in limited govt, like most of the Tea Partiers. That is why I am Tea Party, because I am just as mad (amost) at repubs as I am democrats. I also feel that it is the elites vs us. Thanks for that. Sarah Palin did mention in that CSpan vid that the elites seem to always become wealthy after entering the political sphere in Washington. She called it "Crony Capitalism". The difference though between her view and a leftist view is that leftists hate Capitalism in general, while conservatives view cronyism as an abuse of the free market.

edit on 4-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Don't get me wrong, there ARE differences, it's just that from my perspective those differences are mostly cosmetic.

Centralization is the killer, what you term here as "statism", which it usually turns out to be. Centralization - of economic power, of political power, of social dictates - is the problem. When you combine all three of those together, and centralize the whole, you have REAL problems. It doesn't matter if that centralization of power hangs to the right or to the left, the end result for all us peons is the same.

I'm all for decentralizing, starting by separating economics, politics, and social dictates in the aggregate one from another, then further decentralizing those within their own respective spheres. people from Southern California and western Pennsylvania, for example, have different wants, needs, and outlooks. There is no logical reason that the entirety of their lives should be micromanaged from either Washington DC or Wall Street.

My problems with Palin didn't start when she walked off the job as Governor of Alaska, they started out slow, wondering why she hitched her wagon to the star of an obvious shill like McCain, but the alarms REALLY started going off when she spoke to a Tea Party rally towards of the beginning of the Neocon efforts to co-opt the Tea Party and assimilate it, and she urged the Tea Partiers to vote Republican. You can't change the system by re-installing the same old same old, and voting along party lines won't get that done. It makes Republicans out of the Tea Party, and the republicans have become just as bad as the democrats for squelching liberty, so they've got to GO. Why have a Tea party faction at all if they're just going to toe the same old tired Party line?

No, I think DC needs to be torn down and rebuilt by first firing EVERYONE there, good and bad alike, and replacing them, then making sure that those new folks understand that business as usual is going to result in swift and certain recall elections until the politicians get with the program of the People they are alleged to serve.

An unstable government is preferable to one that is stably chaining you up.

reply to post by deadmessiah


That is how I feel with any of the political candidates we have this days, they are nothing but willing manufacture figure heads to say anything that appeal to the voters but catering to the special interest they serve.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

The difference though between her view and a leftist view is that leftists hate Capitalism in general, while conservatives view cronyism as an abuse of the free market.

You're always typing some bs like this. If what you say is true then why are conservatives always the biggest distorters of the market?

From bailouts, to forced credit expansion, protectionism, monetary stimulus, govt work programs [wars], more regulations, increasing the size of govt and its spending, etc.

It seems to me that conservatives don't support the free market at all, but rather they only support big business.......

edit on 4-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

You can't be serious! Trivia question: WHO was the last to do those things? Hint: They're still in the capitols.

Obam-ites are no different from Bush-ites. Neither should be confused with "conservatives" or "liberals".

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Im sorry Jank, but saying she does not have the mental capacity does not cut it here.That's just the mantra of the Left It's not going to work with me.
But if you want to go there, I could say that Obama's mantra of "Yes we can" was nothing more than a rally ruse designed to get people to think you are doing something on their behalf. Frankly, I don't think his divisive behavior is doing much to heal the nation either.


And really, let us come and reason together....if Sarah is so NEOCON, how come its the Tea Parties and not the NEOCONS who are backing her? How come the GOP has distanced itself from her?

edit on 4-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I am telling you my personal opinion, Palin is the only contender I would cite as being too unintelligent for the
job of POTUS. I would be making completely different arguments about other contenders, less the common corporatist thread I see in most.

I think you would be right about "Yes we can", it was a tag line and an excellent piece of marketing,
probably the only good marketing BO has been able to sell.

I will be happy to reason with you about Sarah Neoconservative tendencies. She is all for using the state to
actively "fight" terrorism, including domestic and foreign intervention and meddling. Sarah things the state
should way in on Abortion and Gay Marriage as well as the role of religion in the commons. Palin is very
pro Israel which is another key component of neoconservative doctrine.

To be 100% honest with you, as I always try to be, I think the TEA PARTY devolved into a rebranding effort
for the GOP. The TEA PARTY were initially LIBERTARIANS, a group founded by Ron Paulites... The
current TEA PARTY is hardly a libertarian movement, it is infested with religious operatives and the same
large swath of statists who claim that their version of statism is Okay, because they are against
they are, in principle, against the state.

Please, specifically tell me what is the difference between GOP and TEA

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

From bailouts, to forced credit expansion, protectionism, monetary stimulus, govt work programs [wars], more regulations, increasing the size of govt and its spending, etc.

You are likening the military to govt work programs? Maybe you just got that impression from the tv ads we saw years ago promoting the armed forces and college programs for military recruits. While the military is a paid job, and it is govt, it is not classified in the sense of just making up jobs to put people to work, as FDR did during the Great Depression. Obama was the one promoting "shovel ready jobs" and well, not many roads are getting fixed. Instead, the admin changed the focus to "green jobs", but oh wait, his green jobs czar was a professed communist. lol
So I dunno maybe you are getting the parties mixed up?
Also, our Founding Fathers suggested that it was the responsibility of govt "to provide for the common defence". That is the legitimate function of govt.
Here is a good article from the Heritage Foundation
www.heritage.org...

Now, althugh Bush presided over the first baillout(with a Democrat controlled Congress), Obama presided over the Stimulus package, and the Democrats have long been the poster children for Draconian regulations.

reply to post by Janky Red


When the Tea Party started it started with a good reason, a great base and an appeal to the working class.

But it got too big for its own good and became infiltrated by those that were pushing their own agendas, when a movement gets too big two things will happen, if it becomes a treat to the status quo the government will squash the movement in no time, but in this instance it was taken by the Conservative party to push the anti Obama health care.

Now is been financed by two groups, the billionaire brothers David Koch and Charles Koch, owners of Koch Industries and Freedom works.

They are the biggest donors to the Tea party cause.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Neo Conservatives have thus far initiated TWO wars into oil rich nations to secure oil reserves for
corporations, using tax payer money, Trillions worth...

I'm no friend of the neocons, so I'm asking you to state publicly, and for the record, which TWO "oil rich nations" have he neocons initiated war in?

reply to post by marg6043


And what problem do you have with opposing Obamacare? Ron Paul was the original Tea Partier and he opposes Obamacare and tends to be on the conservative side.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Did I say that I was opposed or in favor of Obama care? actually if you go back to the many threads that we made during the time that Obamacare was been pushed you will find my very strong stance in the matter.

Some of us kept on top of what was going on during that time in congress.

Still the Tea party was infiltrated to push very misguided information about the health care reform at the time, at the end the insurance companies benefited very well with the obfuscation and misinformation the Tea party was giving.

Now we are stuck with a health care reform that will end up in the supreme court do to its constitutionality.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Janky Red

Neo Conservatives have thus far initiated TWO wars into oil rich nations to secure oil reserves for
corporations, using tax payer money, Trillions worth...

I'm no friend of the neocons, so I'm asking you to state publicly, and for the record, which TWO "oil rich nations" have he neocons initiated war in?

TWO wars into oil rich nations

which TWO "oil rich nations"

Gulf I which included several oil rich nations, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the current war in Iraq

Afganistan also holds oil, but more importantly it has long been discussed as a strategic conduit
to deliver oil to Afghani neighbors, via western controlled sources in the middle East.

What point of contention are you trying to illuminate?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Janky Red

Neo Conservatives have thus far initiated TWO wars into oil rich nations to secure oil reserves for
corporations, using tax payer money, Trillions worth...

I'm no friend of the neocons, so I'm asking you to state publicly, and for the record, which TWO "oil rich nations" have he neocons initiated war in?

You know, I don't understand the leftist fascination with the concept of attacking "oil rich" nations to steal their oil, when big oil domestic production is being stifled by the same left? And it seems that they have overlooked the simple fact that China and other foreign countries have gotten the oil contracts from Iraq. Yet when Sarah comes along and wants to promote domestic oil drilling, she is demonized. Truth be told, the liberals want us to just have wind turbines and solar panels. Also nuclear is now out due to the Fukushima thing( I have my theory about that too) although France has used many nuclear generators as a cleans source, and now I have just heard that OBama and the EPA has just levied the highest ever fine against the coal industry. Thus that is one promise I guess he is making good on, shutting down the coal mines.

reply to post by Janky Red


You forgot now Libya, destabilizing Libya and opening the doors to western base oil operations will benefit the few as usual.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Janky Red

 

You forgot now Libya, destabilizing Libya and opening the doors to western base oil operations will benefit the few as usual.

He said it was NEOCONS doing that. Last I heard it was Obama going along with NATO without Congressional approval.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Janky Red

 

When the Tea Party started it started with a good reason, a great base and an appeal to the working class.

If you are talking post B.O then I respectfully disagree. The TEA PARTY served as a psychological
method to rinse conservatives of the shame they felt and had affixed to them by the Bush legacy.
The party was very lost if you recall, Conservation did not have much traction besides creating a
legend of pure Islamic, Illegal Alien, Socialist mashings of Darth Obama and the progressive evil.
I saw it here on ATS, Libertarian swept in here and made their case against statism, while typical
Palin conservatives did not dare to speak their minds, or even participate to any large degree. The TEA
PARTY was a way to convince people that the GOP/CONSERVATISM changed, was new and completely
victimized by evil communists marching all across Americas bones.

In short the TEA PARTY is

REBRANDING

en.wikipedia.org...

Rebranding is the creation of a new name, term, symbol, design, or a combination of them for an established brand with the intention of developing a differentiated (new) position in the mind of stakeholders and competitors.[1][2]
Far from just a change of visual identity, rebranding should be part of an overall brand strategy for a product or service.[3]

But it got too big for its own good and became infiltrated by those that were pushing their own agendas, when a movement gets too big two things will happen, if it becomes a treat to the status quo the government will squash the movement in no time, but in this instance it was taken by the Conservative party to push the anti Obama health care.

The TEA PARTY is what you would call controlled opposition, ATS members cannot seem to fathom that
the policies will be enacted by POLITICIANS, who are in turn funded by private, corporate money,
not 65 year olds with "OBAMIE THE COMMIE" signs

Now is been financed by two groups, the billionaire brothers David Koch and Charles Koch, owners of Koch Industries and Freedom works.

They are the biggest donors to the Tea party cause.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Janky Red

 

You forgot now Libya, destabilizing Libya and opening the doors to western base oil operations will benefit the few as usual.

This is true

Obama is a Neocon I guess