The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party· Page 3

Cheesey
Preferred Member

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.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

14 years ago

#22

"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
Preferred Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#23

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.

4PackGirl
Registered

14 years ago

#24

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
Preferred Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#25

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.

4PackGirl
Registered

14 years ago

#26

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

how bout them billionaires & the tea party???

porky88
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#27

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/

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

14 years ago

#28

porky, can I have a 1/4 of your brain to double my IQ, k thx

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#29

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. 😛

Wade
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#30

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)

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (5h) : He probably plays DB.

Zero2Cool (5h) : I don't even know who that Don is

packerfanoutwest (5h) : What position does Lemon play ?

dfosterf (6h) : I read this am that Don Lemon quit x, so there's that

Zero2Cool (13-Nov) : Seems some are flocking to BlueSky and leaving Tweeter. I wonder if BlueSky allows embeded lists

beast (12-Nov) : He's a review guy

Zero2Cool (12-Nov) : Jordy Nelson is still in the NFL.

Zero2Cool (11-Nov) : Ok, will do.

wpr (11-Nov) : Kevin, donate it to a local food pantry or whatever she wants to do with it. Thanks

wpr (11-Nov) : Kevin,

Zero2Cool (11-Nov) : Wayne, got your girl scout order.

dfosterf (11-Nov) : I believe Zero was being sarcastic

dfosterf (11-Nov) : Due to that rookie kicker Jake Bates that Zero said "he didn't want anyway". 58 yarder to tie the game, 52 yarder to win it. In fairness,

Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Lions escape with a win

Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : and now Goff looking better

Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Goff with ANOTHER INT

Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : and now Stroud throwing INTs

Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Goff having an ATROCIOUS game

wpr (11-Nov) : Happy birthday Corps. Ever faithful. Thanks dfosterf.

Mucky Tundra (10-Nov) : stiff armed by Baker Mayfield for about 5-7 yards and still managed to get a pass off

Mucky Tundra (10-Nov) : Nick Bosa

wpr (8-Nov) : Jets are Packers (L)East

Zero2Cool (8-Nov) : Jets released K Riley Patterson and signed K Anders Carlson to the practice squad.

wpr (8-Nov) : Thanks guys

Mucky Tundra (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday wpr!

Zero2Cool (7-Nov) : Anders Carlson ... released by 49ers

dfosterf (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday!😊😊😊

wpr (7-Nov) : Thanks Kevin.

Zero2Cool (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday, Wayne! 🎉🎂🥳

beast (7-Nov) : Edge Rushers is the same... it's not the 4-3 vs 3-4 change, it's the Hafley's version of the 4-3... as all 32 teams are actually 4-2

Zero2Cool (6-Nov) : OLB to DE and player requests trade. Yet folks say they are same.

beast (5-Nov) : In other news, the Green Bay Packers have signed Zero2Cool to update their website 😋 jk

beast (5-Nov) : Might just re-sign the kicker we got

beast (5-Nov) : Are there any kickers worth drafting next year?

Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Preston Smith for Malik Willis

Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Getting a 7th rounder from the Stillers

Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : At least we get 7th round pick now!! HELLO NEW KICKER

Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Steelers getting a premier lockdown corner!

Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Packers are trading edge rusher Preston Smith to the Pittsburgh Steelers, per sources.

Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Preston Smith traded to the Steelers!!!!

Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : CB Marshon Lattimore to Commanders

Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Bears are sending RB Khalil Herbert to the Bengals, per sources.

Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : ZaDarius Smith continues his "north" tour.

Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Let the Chiefs trade a 5th for him

Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Nearing 30, large contract, nope.

Martha Careful (5-Nov) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?

Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?

Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe

hardrocker950 (4-Nov) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell

Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years

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

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

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