Study Done On Tea Party Signs.
OnTheEdge
Posts: 1,300
HUH, don't really know what to say about this except..........In your face Olbermann and Matthews!!! 
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... party.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... party.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
MSNBC audience.......YOUR NETWORK THINKS YOU ARE STUPID!!!
some college students project makes it all so much clearer.
a question i've asked plenty on here....where were the teabaggers when Bush was in office?
now they want answers? after $1 trillion wasted in iraq and about that in afghasnistan, entire branches of government created, laws passed to cripple freedom(patriot act), but now spending and freedom are a concern?
is it because he's got a D in front of his name, his race, what?
:?
At work
Easy, Jason P. You need to stop defending those right-wing racists, bigots, and wackos...
Oh wait, they are going to hold seats in Congress after the midterms, huh?
shocking...and intern for the cato institute conducted a "study" of signs...
I wonder what her methodology was...
So 5% of the signs are based on race/religion......and this is a good thing? Still seems high to me :crazy: :wtf:
I got a laugh out of the title to this. Sorry...but it is ALL they will show you.
Your dollar amounts that you believe we have spent on the war really shows the level of your ignorance. hmmmm, where have I heard that before. :think:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/ ... s_not.html
the articles are written in such a condescending tone...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I gotta say....I expected a more profesional response from you Gimmie. How about something to show this is not true. This was first posted by msn.com. Which makes me believe it even more....seeing how it goes against their logic.
eh, iraq was close, i was off on afghanstan. the total is over $1 trillion though and that was my point.
tha'ts how much these wars cost, we could fund education/ healthcare/ public transportation, any number of things you and I living in this country could benefit from, instead of on murder and haliburton.
and considering logic, that killing a people doesn't lesson their motive for killing you, quite the opposite, and fiscal responsibility, (large corporations saw a big part of that money), if you're going to pretend to care about americans, starting with foreign wars might be a good place to start.
mass murdering tens of thousands of innocent people...as long as you had a job, well, it was all good?
once they took ur job, then it was on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-PII2rSLVo
Commy, in a way i agree with you. It seems so low to talk about how much the war has cost us( money wise) . It's like putting a dollar amount on human life. But you know where I stand on the Iraqi war. I thank god and bless our fallen troops for giving their lives to get rid of a human Lucifer that was dictating his people on our planet by means of mass murder and chemical genicide. I believe that anyone against the Iraqi war didn't really know what Sadaam Hussien was really about.
there are more people in iraqi prisons now than there were under saddam, held without trial, representation, rights. many are being tortured terribly, as pepe has shown. he's posted many links of iraq security forces pulling fingernails out, genital electrocution, just terrible things. we didn't save them from a goddamn thing.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i still stand by my assertion that americanstinker.com is a right wing hack propaganda site...
i want to know what the methodology of this study was before i say anything. i want to see some numbers and some statistical analysis before i say anything else. because there are certain tests to prove legitimacy of the study, and if those were not run, it brings into question the legitimacy of the findings...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Sounds like the Jewish state of Israel..... :x
"With our thoughts we make the world"
The Tea Party, initially, was an amorphous and generalized uprising against the modern welfare/warfare state. It was libertarian in nature and fairly specific about its point of view. Today, that specificity has been mislaid (perhaps the movement is too big for one point of view) and the mythmaking has begun. Thus the Murdoch-controlled Wall Street Journal provides a vast platform for the appropriate tale. And Dick Armey provides it. (In fact Murdoch's media organization is also publisher of a book that Armey has written – "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.")
Here is the insider's insider, a man who served as Majority Leader of the House of Representatives for a number of years and then as a US$750,000 per annum lobbyist (a berth he has now vacated). Yet Armey, by dint of his connections, ability to raise funds and incessant ambition to shape the political horizon to his liking, has attempted to remake himself as political "outsider" and in the process has seemingly launched a takeover of the inchoate Tea Party. (He denies this of course and regularly emphasizes the Tea Party has no leadership – but certainly he is available to help.)
Not only has he somehow become a high profile, de facto leader of a movement and a definer of the history of a movement that deliberately has no organizational core, he has somehow managed to link himself to a Contract From America that many so-called Tea Party political candidates have "signed." The idea is that the Contract From America emerged out of the inchoate opinions of thousands of Tea Party activists and then were codified by Armey and his staff a the Tea-Party oriented Freedomworks, which he founded in the mid 2000s. Here is the Contract From America in its entirety:
The Contract from America
August 11, 2010
We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.
1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above" Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes
We certainly have some problems with this contract, just as we have trouble envisioning Dick Armey leading a radical political thought-revolution. Our biggest problem is that it does not mention getting rid of mercantilist central banking (that has so debased US currency) and that it makes no mention of the incessant warring of the military-industrial complex. Since the Pentagon alone admitted (just before 9/11) that it had somehow mislaid, apparently, US$2 TRILLION, this oversight seems fairly significant. The military-industrial complex is one of the largest appendages of the modern American warfare-welfare state. The lack of inclusion of central banking and military expenditures makes this Contract From America fairly useless in our humble opinion.
In fact, from our perspective, this article grants the opportunity to see clearly how a power elite dominant social theme is shaped in modern times. Murdoch provides the platform. Dick Armey poses as a radical Libertarian and rewrites history to his liking. In this article, therefore we have the spectacle of a career politician posing as a libertarian outsider while promoting an essentially meaningless set of limited government objectives.
Conclusion: The power elite will go to any lengths to co-opt sociopolitical movements it cannot control, and perhaps it has enlisted Dick Armey to do so. But as we have pointed out before, the 21st century is unlike the 20th and "control" is an increasingly contentious issue. It is difficult to co-opt a movement that is essentially amorphous and driven by the accelerating failure of the system itself rather than by populism or personalities.
for full article go here:
http://www.thedailybell.com/1301/Dick-A ... -Coup.html
The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party
ANOTHER weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where they jeered the “ground zero mosque.” This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to “reclaim the civil rights movement” (Beck’s words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.
Vive la révolution!
There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.
Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might.
All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.
Only the fat cats change — not their methods and not their pet bugaboos (taxes, corporate regulation, organized labor, and government “handouts” to the poor, unemployed, ill and elderly). Even the sources of their fortunes remain fairly constant. Koch Industries began with oil in the 1930s and now also spews an array of industrial products, from Dixie cups to Lycra, not unlike DuPont’s portfolio of paint and plastics. Sometimes the biological DNA persists as well. The Koch brothers’ father, Fred, was among the select group chosen to serve on the Birch Society’s top governing body. In a recorded 1963 speech that survives in a University of Michigan archive, he can be heard warning of “a takeover” of America in which Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the president is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.” That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today.
Last week the Kochs were shoved unwillingly into the spotlight by the most comprehensive journalistic portrait of them yet, written by Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. Her article caused a stir among those in Manhattan’s liberal elite who didn’t know that David Koch, widely celebrated for his cultural philanthropy, is not merely another rich conservative Republican but the founder of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which, as Mayer writes with some understatement, “has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception.” To New Yorkers who associate the David H. Koch Theater at Lincoln Center with the New York City Ballet, it’s startling to learn that the Texas branch of that foundation’s political arm, known simply as Americans for Prosperity, gave its Blogger of the Year Award to an activist who had called President Obama “cokehead in chief.”
The other major sponsor of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, which, like Americans for Prosperity, is promoting events in Washington this weekend. Under its original name, Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks received $12 million of its own from Koch family foundations. Using tax records, Mayer found that Koch-controlled foundations gave out $196 million from 1998 to 2008, much of it to conservative causes and institutions. That figure doesn’t include $50 million in Koch Industries lobbying and $4.8 million in campaign contributions by its political action committee, putting it first among energy company peers like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Since tax law permits anonymous personal donations to nonprofit political groups, these figures may understate the case. The Kochs surely match the in-kind donations the Tea Party receives in free promotion 24/7 from Murdoch’s Fox News, where both Beck and Palin are on the payroll.
The New Yorker article stirred up the right, too. Some of Mayer’s blogging detractors unwittingly upheld the premise of her article (titled “Covert Operations”) by conceding that they have been Koch grantees. None of them found any factual errors in her 10,000 words. Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes.
This is hardly true of the Kochs. When David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes. He hasn’t changed. As Mayer details, Koch-supported lobbyists, foundations and political operatives are at the center of climate-science denial — a cause that forestalls threats to Koch Industries’ vast fossil fuel business. While Koch foundations donate to cancer hospitals like Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York, Koch Industries has been lobbying to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from classifying another product important to its bottom line, formaldehyde, as a “known carcinogen” in humans (which it is).
Tea Partiers may share the Kochs’ detestation of taxes, big government and Obama. But there’s a difference between mainstream conservatism and a fringe agenda that tilts completely toward big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety and the subsistence of the elderly.
Yet inexorably the Koch agenda is morphing into the G.O.P. agenda, as articulated by current Republican members of Congress, including the putative next speaker of the House, John Boehner, and Tea Party Senate candidates like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, and the new kid on the block, Alaska’s anti-Medicaid, anti-unemployment insurance Palin protégé, Joe Miller. Their program opposes a federal deficit, but has no objection to running up trillions in red ink in tax cuts to corporations and the superrich; apologizes to corporate malefactors like BP and derides money put in escrow for oil spill victims as a “slush fund”; opposes the extension of unemployment benefits; and calls for a freeze on federal regulations in an era when abuses in the oil, financial, mining, pharmaceutical and even egg industries (among others) have been outrageous.
The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” Last week on “Fox and Friends,” the Bush administration flacks Dan Senor and Dana Perino attacked a supposedly terrorism-tainted Saudi prince whose foundation might contribute to the Islamic center. But as “The Daily Show” keeps pointing out, these Fox bloviators never acknowledge that the evil prince they’re bashing, Walid bin Talal, is not only the biggest non-Murdoch shareholder in Fox News’s parent company (he owns 7 percent of News Corporation) and the recipient of Murdoch mammoth investments in Saudi Arabia but also the subject of lionization elsewhere on Fox.
No less a Murdoch factotum than Neil Cavuto slobbered over bin Talal in a Fox Business Channel interview as recently as January, with nary a question about his supposed terrorist ties. Instead, bin Talal praised Obama’s stance on terrorism and even endorsed the Democrats’ goal of universal health insurance. Do any of the Fox-watching protestors at the “ground zero mosque” know that Fox’s profits are flowing to a Obama-sympathizing Saudi billionaire in bed with Murdoch? As Jon Stewart summed it up, the protestors who want “to cut off funding to the ‘terror mosque’ ” are aiding that funding by watching Fox and enhancing bin Talal’s News Corp. holdings.
When wolves of Murdoch’s ingenuity and the Kochs’ stealth have been at the door of our democracy in the past, Democrats have fought back fiercely. Franklin Roosevelt’s triumphant 1936 re-election campaign pummeled the Liberty League as a Republican ally eager to “squeeze the worker dry in his old age and cast him like an orange rind into the refuse pail.” When John Kennedy’s patriotism was assailed by Birchers calling for impeachment, he gave a major speech denouncing their “crusades of suspicion.”
And Obama? So far, sadly, this question answers itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
+1