Cheesey
14 years ago
I don't know if they say we bombed our own selves. I know some are pushing that rumor out there to try to plant seeds in people's minds. To destroy what they don't like.
As far as oil goes......there are plenty of democrats that own pieces of big oil too. But they try to keep it under covers, so that they can yell how the "rich republicans" only want to remain rich off of the "evil oil".
They depend on no one bringing out that fact. They feed on the fears of the poor. But when they get in office, they really don't help the poor as much as they said they would. They do it just to get in office.
I KNOW that there are republicans that do that too. And that's sad. But to single out the reps for having rich people back them is as fair as singling out all the rich dems that do so also. ALL of them are looking out for their own best interests.
The kennedy family owns plenty of stock in oil companies. So do the Clintons.
Does that make them "evil?" I think not. I just don't like that they arn't forthcoming that they DO own and profit off of oil.
I wish there WAS an alternative that would get us out of the "same stuff, different day" crap that BOTH sides have been laying on us for decades.

As far as "going back to the 1950's". I think that wouldn't be a bad idea. I KNOW that they do NOT mean as far as civil rights go. But some latch onto that and TRY to make it seem like that is what they mean. And it's NOT true.
UserPostedImage
Rockmolder
14 years ago

I don't know if they say we bombed our own selves. I know some are pushing that rumor out there to try to plant seeds in people's minds. To destroy what they don't like.
As far as oil goes......there are plenty of democrats that own pieces of big oil too. But they try to keep it under covers, so that they can yell how the "rich republicans" only want to remain rich off of the "evil oil".
They depend on no one bringing out that fact. They feed on the fears of the poor. But when they get in office, they really don't help the poor as much as they said they would. They do it just to get in office.
I KNOW that there are republicans that do that too. And that's sad. But to single out the reps for having rich people back them is as fair as singling out all the rich dems that do so also. ALL of them are looking out for their own best interests.
The kennedy family owns plenty of stock in oil companies. So do the Clintons.
Does that make them "evil?" I think not. I just don't like that they arn't forthcoming that they DO own and profit off of oil.
I wish there WAS an alternative that would get us out of the "same stuff, different day" crap that BOTH sides have been laying on us for decades.

As far as "going back to the 1950's". I think that wouldn't be a bad idea. I KNOW that they do NOT mean as far as civil rights go. But some latch onto that and TRY to make it seem like that is what they mean. And it's NOT true.

"Cheesey" wrote:



I don't think that anyone is surprised or doesn't expect democrat presidents to have a lot of money.

Being a democrat or left on the political spectrum doesn't mean you want the rich to get poor or anything. It's just a different distribution of wealth. Something that hits those presidents themselves, as well.
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
I do not know what happened on 9/11 -- and I watched it live on TV the same as the rest of you. I do know the government-sponsored conspiracy theory (for that is what it is) makes no more sense than most of the other conspiracy theories circulating around that day. One only has to read a few pages of the 9/11 commission's report to realize it's a laughable work of fiction. There are too many unanswered questions and inconsistencies and even self-contradictions.

The report would have us believe that the towers imploded at the speed of gravitational freefall, which defies all known laws of physics. The report would have us believe that the steel girders melted melted under the heat of a kerosene fire, which has never happened before and which is believed to be impossible. The report would have us believe that an uncontrolled collision somehow caused the towers to neatly implode without toppling over and causing significant damage to nearby city blocks -- in other words, that it behaved exactly like a controlled demolition. Television footage would have us believe that the planes could have penetrated the towers without shearing off their wings, which as anyone who's seen footage of collisions before knows, is impossible (the wings always come off instantly). Somehow we're even supposed to believe that this kerosene fire could have caused a lingering heat so intense it was melting rescuers' boots 100 days later (as a number of rescuers were pointing out incredulously on live TV).

And these are just some of the nonsensical ideas purveyed to us.

Given the fact that by the FBI's own admission, at least 5 of the supposed hijackers were later found alive and well, how can we trust anything the feds told us about that day?

The insurance company for the Trade Center complex was so suspicious of the circumstances (the owner of the complex had taken out billions in new insurance just six weeks prior to 9/11) that the case was wrapped in litigation for years and may well still be.

I don't know what happened that day. Maintaining a healthy skepticism doesn't make me a kook. It means I have a critical mind.
UserPostedImage
4PackGirl
14 years ago
i heard beck with my own two ears on his show say our gov't sent the planes into the WTC - period. being critical is one thing, nsd - going on national tv & stating something you believe as a FACT to people who want to believe every bit of what you're saying - is quite another.
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
I don't personally believe that's what happened, but is it really such a stretch to believe something like that could have occurred?

The government would never take us into a war on false pretenses, then change the rationale for the war every time the current justification was proven false. Oh, wait, they did that in Iraq.

The government would never murder an unarmed mother standing in the door of her cabin with a baby in arms. Oh, wait, they did that at Ruby Ridge.

The government would never incinerate scores of women and children in their own homes. Oh, wait, they did that at Waco.

The government would never advise all the employees of a local BATF branch not to come into work one day, just hours before a federal office building exploded. Oh, wait, they did that at Oklahoma City.

They government would never imprison thousands of U.S. citizens, simply because they happened to be of foreign ancestry. Oh, wait, they did that to the Japanese in World War II.

Why do we continue to think the government has our best interests at heart?

But this is all way, way off topic, so I'd rather divert this conversation back to the subject of the thread, which is the Tea Party and its billionaire backers.
UserPostedImage
4PackGirl
14 years ago
lol @nsd - your own thread & you helped take it off topic - gotta love it!! :D

how bout them billionaires & the tea party???
porky88
14 years ago

As far as oil goes......there are plenty of democrats that own pieces of big oil too. But they try to keep it under covers, so that they can yell how the "rich republicans" only want to remain rich off of the "evil oil".
They depend on no one bringing out that fact. They feed on the fears of the poor. But when they get in office, they really don't help the poor as much as they said they would. They do it just to get in office.
I KNOW that there are republicans that do that too. And that's sad. But to single out the reps for having rich people back them is as fair as singling out all the rich dems that do so also. ALL of them are looking out for their own best interests.
The kennedy family owns plenty of stock in oil companies. So do the Clintons.
Does that make them "evil?" I think not. I just don't like that they arn't forthcoming that they DO own and profit off of oil.
I wish there WAS an alternative that would get us out of the "same stuff, different day" crap that BOTH sides have been laying on us for decades.

As far as "going back to the 1950's". I think that wouldn't be a bad idea. I KNOW that they do NOT mean as far as civil rights go. But some latch onto that and TRY to make it seem like that is what they mean. And it's NOT true.

"Cheesey" wrote:



You're absolutely correct about both parties being in bed with oil.

However, Republicans who ran for president last time around received 70% of the donations from oil companies. Democrats just 30%. I'm doing some rounding here by the way. Now, 30% is a big number, but it's obviously quite a bit smaller than 70%.

I believe Obama receive just under 900K from oil companies. McCalin led the way with just under 2.5 million dollars. More than doubled what Obama received or maybe earned pending what you think there.

Hillary actually received under 400K in donations. I'm sure had she been the nominee, that number would've been higher, but it wouldn't of rivaled McCain.

In all, Democrats running for office received about 10M in donations from oil and gas. Republcians received about 25M.

Again, about 70%.

I think it's worth noting that one party does receive a much larger portion of support from oil companies than the other. That is my point by telling you the data. There is nothing wrong with that because it's within the rights of those companies to support whomever they want, but it's just worth noting.
http://www.row12.com/ 
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
porky, can I have a 1/4 of your brain to double my IQ, k thx
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

lol @nsd - your own thread & you helped take it off topic - gotta love it!! :D

"4PackGirl" wrote:



Dammit, woman! You caught me! You're supposed to discreetly overlook my manly indiscretions. 😛
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago

Well, first, I have to ask "what does the tea party believe in?"

They have a 10 point plan here:
1 - Identify Constitutionality of every new law. I like that and totally support that.
2 - Reject Emissions trading. Don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion.
3 - Demand a federal balanced budget. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Bill Clinton trying to do this?
4 - Simplify the tax system. Why do I have to buy $100 software in order to do taxes (no, in my case, the cheap versions don't work)? It's too complex as is.
5 - Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality. Cool.
6 - Limit annual growth of federal spending. Honestly, your kids deserve to put you in the worst possible nursing home for what you left them and it's partly because of our spending problems.
7 - Repeal the health care legislation. I still don't have an informed enough opinion on this to not sound stupid if I took a side.
8 - Pass an "all-of-the-above" energy policy to limit our dependence on foreign oil. Been saying this for years.
9 - Reduce "earmarks." Cool.
10 - Reduce taxes. Very cool. I pay too much in tax. So do you.

So if I thought the Tea Party movement was those 10 things, I'd probably support it.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



I probably wouldn't. To my mind, the ones I've marked in green are consistent with what I call "valuable tea party ideals." The ideals of Samuel Adams and company, that is. The ones in red, however, are not. The ones in red are the influence of the people who want "government to do X, Y, and Z to us instead of doing A, B, and C. While I might agree in principle with those in red -- in fact I do -- that is still politics as usual.

And the tea party was about something else. It was about limiting the realm of political action (i.e. government and lawmaking). It wasn't about deciding which lawmaking was good for us and which was not.

The reason I don't mind if billionaires are involved in tea party type stuff is that the rich have just as much right as the rest of us to say "leave us the fuck alone". And if they want to put their money behind "leave us the fuck alone", more power to them. Because rich as Koch and the others are, their wealth is dwarfed by the wealth that the Congress and the Executive get to control -- there's not a private individual in the world who gets to play with a multiple trillion dollar budget!

Now if the billionaires are just on their personal policy-making hobby horses (see stimulus bailouts, see rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq, see etc etc etc), well then they're just committing the sins of Republicans and/or Democrats in a bit different way.

The original tea party was about partying-as-activity. It wasn't a proper noun. The Tea Party looks to be just another political organization with a catchy name. I believe in (some) republican ideals. I am not interested in being a Republican. I believe in (some) democratic ideals. I am not interested in being a Democrat. I believe in tea party ideals, a lot. I am not interested in joining a political party called The Tea Party.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
    Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
    dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
    Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
    Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
    Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
    Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
    Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
    Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
    dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
    dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
    wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
    Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
    Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
    Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
    Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
    Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
    beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
    Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
    Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
    Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
    Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
    Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
    Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
    dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
    dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
    dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
    Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
    Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
    wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
    Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
    Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
    Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
    Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

    1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

    23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

    14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.