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
    packerfanoutwest (9m) : Sources: Packers QB Jordan Love expected back vs. Vikings
    Zero2Cool (17m) : The NFL fined #Packers RB Josh Jacobs a whopping $45,020 for unnecessary roughness/use of helmet last week
    Zero2Cool (27-Sep) : Packers Final Injury Report: Jordan Love questionable vs. Vikings
    Zero2Cool (27-Sep) : We are hosed. Not practicing Friday: CB Jaire Alexander, CB Carrington Valentine, G/T Jordan Morgan.
    Zero2Cool (26-Sep) : rude
    Mucky Tundra (26-Sep) : RIP Frank Ragnow
    Mucky Tundra (26-Sep) : @E_Woodyard #Lions HC Dan Campbell says they're gonna put Frank Ragnow down this week. "We've got to be smart," Campbell said.
    bboystyle (25-Sep) : Favre using the pitty card during that hearing for his criminal acts
    Zero2Cool (24-Sep) : Former Packers QB Brett Favre recently announced he was diagnosed with Parkinson's.
    Zero2Cool (24-Sep) : The only QBs this season with 0 turnover-worthy plays according to PFF (minimum 30 dropbacks) Aaron Rodgers Malik Willis Justin Fields
    Mucky Tundra (23-Sep) : @DavidBearmanPFN · 18h Vegas has watched Will Levis for 3 weeks and installed them as a 1-point favorite in Miami next week. Let that sink
    Mucky Tundra (23-Sep) : Martha, they did play much better with Dalton yesterday
    Zero2Cool (23-Sep) : Test results on Sam Darnold’s knee showed a knee bruise and no structural damage. He is not expected to miss any time.
    Martha Careful (23-Sep) : Not with Dalton apparently
    Mucky Tundra (23-Sep) : Not sure what to make of the NFC South so far this season (outside of the Panthers being a dumpster fire)
    Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : of course I say that and then they overturn that play that put them on the 49ers 2 yard line
    Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : *without
    Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : Even with Nacua and Kupp out, Rams looking fiesty on offense
    Martha Careful (22-Sep) : Tim Boyle is playing for the Dolphins
    Martha Careful (22-Sep) : I love seeing Dallas lose
    Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : The Red Rifle is on fire in Las Vegas! 3 TDs in the first half!
    Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : @mattschneidman · 2m The fire alarm is going off inside the Packers locker room here in Nashville.
    Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : Gonna need a drink after looking at my picks for the early games in Pick'em
    Zero2Cool (22-Sep) : James Jones. Y’all must not know, Dr. Mackenzie🤣 he was not going to let Jordan love play today.
    Zero2Cool (22-Sep) : Malik to start. Love inactive. Per report. Let's go!!
    buckeyepackfan (22-Sep) : I think J-10VE will be inactive, a little twist that could be put in is run a wildcat with Wicks at qb. Have him as emergency qb if needed.
    Zero2Cool (21-Sep) : I think that's how it works.
    Zero2Cool (21-Sep) : I'd go 3 QB regardless this game.
    Zero2Cool (21-Sep) : Clifford was elevated, not activated. He doesn't play, it doesn't count.
    hardrocker950 (21-Sep) : If Clifford is active, not likely to see Jordan play this weekend
    Mucky Tundra (21-Sep) : QB Sean Clifford and CB Robert Rochell elevated from the PS for the Titans game
    Zero2Cool (20-Sep) : Love questionable. Morgan is out. Valentine is doubtful
    Martha Careful (20-Sep) : Rodgers and Lazard off to a very strong start
    Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Josh Jacobs. Limited.
    Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Can't find anything on Jacobs :(
    wpr (19-Sep) : Do you know if they gave Jacobs an extra day off? I hope so.
    Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : WR Jayden Reed (calf) and G Elgton Jenkins (illness/glute) returned after sitting out Wednesday.
    Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Packers are in pads and so is Jordan Love. Second straight day of practice for QB1.
    bboystyle (18-Sep) : If Love comes back, we win in a blow out
    Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Jordan Love just spoke with reporters and said he’s giving himself the week but hopeful to play Sunday against the Titans.
    Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Practicing is Jordan Love!
    Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Packers are signing WR Cornelius Johnson to the Practice Squad per sources. Johnson was a 7th round pick this year.
    Zero2Cool (17-Sep) : Packers placed RB MarShawn Lloyd on injured reserve.
    Zero2Cool (16-Sep) : Rams won’t have Cooper Kupp or Puka Nacua when they host the Packers in Week 5.
    Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : Or is that the Rusty Red Rifle because of his age?
    Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : The Red Rifle Returns!
    Zero2Cool (16-Sep) : Panthers are benching former No. 1 overall pick Bryce Young and starting veteran Andy Dalton beginning this week.
    Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : bears still have slim chance here
    Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : and there's another one!
    Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : oh crap macbob has the Texans K and he keeps hitting these long FGs
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    11h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    22h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

    27-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    27-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    27-Sep / Random Babble / wpr

    26-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    25-Sep / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    25-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    25-Sep / GameDay Threads / wpr

    24-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    23-Sep / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

    23-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    23-Sep / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    23-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.