Repackaging Wingers
Cliff
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Tea_Baggers_Repackaging_America_s_Right_Wing_7700.html
"The Tea Baggers: Repackaging America�s Right Wing "
[
When the January 10 New York Times Magazine cover story described Florida�s
Republican Senate Marco Rubio as potentially �the first Senator from the Tea
Party,� it was clear that the nation�s far right has struck gold with its new
identity. But these newly minted populist teabaggers have a long history.
In the 1930�s, they opposed Social Security, promoted white supremacy, and
charged FDR with being a Communist. In the 1940�s, they passed anti-union laws
and used anti-communist attacks to break progressive unions. In the 1950�s, they
defeated civil rights legislation in the wake of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and
Brown v Board of Education. In the 1960�s and 70�s, today�s teabaggers fought
for �states rights� against federal civil rights, and fomented a racially
charged backlash against domestic spending and the War on Poverty. Teabagger
hero Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, and Jesse Helms and fellow
right wing Republicans won the U.S. Senate. Teabaggers then controlled the White
House under George W. Bush, and both houses of Congress from 2002-2006. Now, out
of power less than a year, the media has transformed these longtime right wing
reactionaries into populist forces out to reclaim the Constitution.
....
The Teabagger�s Anti-Populist Elitism
As much as the media wants to portray the teabaggers� as populist
(notwithstanding their funding by wealthy interests), their tax policies are
anti-working class and profoundly elitist. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly
benefited the wealthy at the expense of most Americans, yet these �grassroots�
anti-tax activists seek more of the same.
After imposing tax policies that derailed the economy and gave Democrats the
White House and Congress, the right wing hopes to mount a comeback by
repackaging and re-branding its failed agenda. Now, under the mantle of
�teabaggers,� the right-wing�s backing of record budget deficits, squandering of
the Clinton surplus, and reckless handling of the nation�s economy can be
forgotten -- or, even better, blamed on the Democrats.
....
]
Doug Miller
>
>http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Tea_Baggers_Repackaging_America_s_Right
>_Wing_7700.html
> "The Tea Baggers: Repackaging America�s Right Wing "
>[
>When the January 10 New York Times Magazine cover story described Florida�s
>Republican Senate Marco Rubio as potentially �the first Senator from the Tea
>Party,� it was clear that the nation�s far right has struck gold with its new
>identity. But these newly minted populist teabaggers have a long history.
>
>In the 1930�s, they opposed Social Security, promoted white supremacy,
Cliff, do you suppose you could possibly find a few articles to post that
contain actual *facts*? I realize you have only a passing familiarity with the
concept... but do a little historical research, willya? White supremacy is
mostly a Democrat idea, not Republican. The Republican party was formed for
the specific purpose of eliminating slavery -- it was the Democrats that
resisted it. It was Democrats that terrorized and murdered freed slaves after
the Civil War for trying to vote, not Republicans. It was Democrats who
opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not Republicans. The only sitting U.S.
Senator who is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan is a Democrat, not a
Republican.
Hawke
> In article <prkpk5ddjgn20n0p2...@4ax.com>, Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Tea_Baggers_Repackaging_America_s_Right
>> _Wing_7700.html
>> [
>> When the January 10 New York Times Magazine cover story described Florida�s
>> Republican Senate Marco Rubio as potentially �the first Senator from the Tea
>> Party,� it was clear that the nation�s far right has struck gold with its new
>> identity. But these newly minted populist teabaggers have a long history.
>>
>
> Cliff, do you suppose you could possibly find a few articles to post that
> contain actual *facts*? I realize you have only a passing familiarity with the
> concept... but do a little historical research, willya? White supremacy is
> mostly a Democrat idea, not Republican. The Republican party was formed for
> the specific purpose of eliminating slavery -- it was the Democrats that
> resisted it. It was Democrats that terrorized and murdered freed slaves after
> the Civil War for trying to vote, not Republicans. It was Democrats who
> opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not Republicans. The only sitting U.S.
> Senator who is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan is a Democrat, not a
> Republican.
Sorry Dougie, but I think it's you that needs to go back and dig out the
real history. Because the only thing you have right is the party labels,
not what they stand for and what their ideals were. The Democrats you
are critical of, me too by the way, were actually southern
conservatives. Those folks were Democrats in those days but things
changed and now they are republicans. Republicans used to be anti
slavery and the party of Lincoln, who today would be a Democrat. Today
the republicans are the party of right wing conservatism, a complete
reversal from the 1800s. So the members of the parties have switched but
the values of the parties have not. All the people today that are anti
minorities, Klanners, ultra nationalists, anti progressive, etc. are
republicans. While the people who are progressive, tolerant of others,
and support the public instead of the elites are Democrats. So the real
villains are the conservatives, whether they be the old fashioned ones
who called themselves Democrats or whether they are the modern ones who
call themselves republicans, the conservatives have been on the wrong
side of all the big issues for the last 200 years. Just look at the
major issues for the last 200 years and you'll see those on the wrong
side were always conservatives. Take your pick; slavery, civil rights,
social security, medicare, health care, the conservatives are always
fighting for the wrong thing. Party didn't matter. Now those are the facts.
Hawke
edi...@netpath.net
wrote:
> The Teabagger’s Anti-Populist Elitism
> As much as the media wants to portray the teabaggers’ as populist
> (notwithstanding their funding by wealthy interests), their tax policies are
> anti-working class and profoundly elitist. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly
> benefited the wealthy at the expense of most Americans, yet these “grassroots”
> anti-tax activists seek more of the same.
> After imposing tax policies that derailed the economy and gave Democrats the
> White House and Congress, the right wing hopes to mount a comeback by
> repackaging and re-branding its failed agenda. Now, under the mantle of
> “teabaggers,” the right-wing’s backing of record budget deficits, squandering of
> the Clinton surplus, and reckless handling of the nation’s economy can be
> forgotten -- or, even better, blamed on the Democrats.
Bullshit. Ever BEEN to a Tea Party? I have. Only "tax" issue on the
signs people brought was Obamacare's required health insurance.
It was the country-clubber wing of the Republican Party that obsessed
over tax cuts - because it was its golf buddies who actually had much
at stake in it.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Cliff
You never passed US history class , eh?
The rethugs USED to be the liberals & the dems the conservatives.
--
Cliff
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <prkpk5ddjgn20n0p2...@4ax.com>, Cliff
> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
> http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Tea_Baggers_Repackaging_America_s_Righ
>t
>>> _Wing_7700.html
>>> [
>>> When the January 10 New York Times Magazine cover story described Florida�s
>>> Republican Senate Marco Rubio as potentially �the first Senator from the Tea
>>> Party,� it was clear that the nation�s far right has struck gold with its
> new
>>> identity. But these newly minted populist teabaggers have a long history.
>>>
>>
>> Cliff, do you suppose you could possibly find a few articles to post that
>> contain actual *facts*? I realize you have only a passing familiarity with
> the
>> concept... but do a little historical research, willya? White supremacy is
>> mostly a Democrat idea, not Republican. The Republican party was formed for
>> the specific purpose of eliminating slavery -- it was the Democrats that
>> resisted it. It was Democrats that terrorized and murdered freed slaves after
>
>> the Civil War for trying to vote, not Republicans. It was Democrats who
>> opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not Republicans. The only sitting U.S.
>> Senator who is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan is a Democrat, not a
>> Republican.
>
>
>Sorry Dougie, but I think it's you that needs to go back and dig out the
>real history. Because the only thing you have right is the party labels,
>not what they stand for and what their ideals were.
No, Pigeon, you're the one that's mixed up. The night riders terrorizing black
voters in the 1870s and 1880s were Democrats -- and it was a Republican
President, Grant, who sent in Federal troops to stop it.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act had more support from Republicans than from
Democrats -- look it up.
The only sitting U.S. Senator who is or ever was a member of the Klan is a
Democrat -- Robert Byrd. Look it up.
Come back after you've learned the facts.
Doug Miller
Obviously I know it better than you do. Come back after you've learned the
facts.
Cliff
>The only sitting U.S. Senator who is or ever was a member of the Klan is a
>Democrat -- Robert Byrd. Look it up.
David Curtiss "Steve" Stephenson AKA D. C. Stephenson.
"American Grand Dragon (state leader) of the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S. state of
Indiana and 22 other Northern states."
[
Encouraged by his success, in September 1923, Stephenson severed his ties with
the existing national organization of the Ku Klux Klan, and formed a rival Ku
Klux Klan. Stephenson changed his affiliation from the Democratic to the
Republican Party. He notably supported Republican Edward L. Jackson when he ran
(successfully) for governor in 1924.
]
The Klan supports rethugs.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>The 1964 Civil Rights Act had more support from Republicans than from
>Democrats -- look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The original House version: ...
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
The Senate version:
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
Northern Democrats only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
Hence you are wrong.
Yet again.
--
Cliff
John R. Carroll
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> The Republican party was formed for
>> the specific purpose of eliminating slavery -- it was the Democrats
>> that resisted it. It was Democrats that terrorized and murdered
>> freed slaves after the Civil War for trying to vote, not
>> Republicans. It was Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of
>> 1964, not Republicans. The only sitting U.S. Senator who is a former
>> member of the Ku Klux Klan is a Democrat, not a Republican.
>
> like they are now.
It counts.
What also counts is that all of those old dems are today's Republicans.
Trent Lott is a perfect example. So is that cracker ass Zell Miller.
They don't only want to live in the past, they would like to recreate it.
--
John R. Carroll
Crossfire
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> the specific purpose of eliminating slavery -- it was the Democrats that
>> resisted it. It was Democrats that terrorized and murdered freed slaves
>> after the Civil War for trying to vote, not Republicans. It was
>> Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not Republicans. The
>> only sitting U.S. Senator who is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan is
>> a Democrat, not a Republican.
>
> they are now.
The Democrats have become known as the the party of corruption.
Doug Miller
Doug Miller
>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:22:48 GMT, spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>The 1964 Civil Rights Act had more support from Republicans than from
>>Democrats -- look it up.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Here's what it *actually* says. This is a direct copy-and-paste, not an edited
version like you provided -- and it proves what I said.
The original House version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[10]
* Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Doug Miller
>
>>The 1964 Civil Rights Act had more support from Republicans than from
>>Democrats -- look it up.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
> The original House version: ...
>Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
IOW, southern Democrats opposing the Civil Rights Act outnumbered southern
Republicans opposing it by a margin of nearly nine to one.
> The Senate version:
>Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
Yes, all ONE of him -- compared to TWENTY southern Democrats voting nay.
>Northern Democrats only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the
> measure
And of southern Republicans, only John Tower of Texas opposed it.
>HTH
Oh, yes, it helps a lot -- it exposes your dishonesty, by proving that you
very selectively edited the data to deliberately present a distorted picture
of the truth.
The TRUTH is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was supported by four-fifths of
the Republicans in Congress -- but less than two-thirds of the Democrats.
Doug Miller
Come back after you've learned the facts, Cliff -- take a look at my responses
to your lies about the Civil Rights Act. You *obviously* don't know the truth,
and you're willing to lie to cover that up, too.
Doug Miller
This isn't anything new. The Democrats have *always*been* the party of
corruption.
Doug Miller
>
No, it was too full of baloney -- like nearly everything else Pigeon writes.
Cliff
Explains perfectly all the rethuugs hiding from their wives' lawyers &
in jail.
Find those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The original House version: ...
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
The Senate version:
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
Northern Democrats only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure
]
Need reading lessons?
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <j33qk5lq14nas5jeh...@4ax.com>, Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:22:48 GMT, spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>>>The 1964 Civil Rights Act had more support from Republicans than from
>>>Democrats -- look it up.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
>> The original House version: ...
>>Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
>Yes, all ten of them -- whereas EIGHTY-SEVEN southern Democrats voted nay.
>IOW, southern Democrats opposing the Civil Rights Act outnumbered southern
>Republicans opposing it by a margin of nearly nine to one.
THEN the Southern Democrats mostly became rethugs.
>> The Senate version:
>>Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
>Yes, all ONE of him -- compared to TWENTY southern Democrats voting nay.
"The original House version: ...
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay."
"The Senate version:
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay."
>>Northern Democrats only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the
>> measure
>And of southern Republicans, only John Tower of Texas opposed it.
And how did the rethugs gain Texas?
>>HTH
>
>Oh, yes, it helps a lot -- it exposes your dishonesty, by proving that you
>very selectively edited the data to deliberately present a distorted picture
>of the truth.
I stated what I stated. Exactly.
>The TRUTH is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was supported by four-fifths of
>the Republicans in Congress -- but less than two-thirds of the Democrats.
Then the southern dems mostly became rethugs .... who the Klan supports.
--
Cliff
Cliff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_2_July,_1964.jpg
"Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the guests behind
him is Martin Luther King, Jr."
Red States seem to be in the South, eh?
& full of rethugs.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> "The Tea Baggers: Repackaging America�s Right Wing "
>
>That seems to be exactly what you are trying to do - repackage. No
>one but the rabid socaialist wingers calls them tea baggers.
Why are you adding a space?
Palin can see the moon from her broom so she's a Space Cadet.
>I had to look it up. Yet you guys seem to be very familar with the
>term.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22tea+bagger%22+%22fox+news%22
HTH
--
Cliff
Doug Miller
Not me, Cliffie -- you do. You deliberately altered the data to present a
misleading picture. I provided the *true*unedited* data above.
Sorry you're having so much trouble with the truth.
Doug Miller
>On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:04:54 GMT, spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>In article <j33qk5lq14nas5jeh...@4ax.com>, Cliff
> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:22:48 GMT, spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The 1964 Civil Rights Act had more support from Republicans than from
>>>>Democrats -- look it up.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
>>> The original House version: ...
>>>Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
>>Yes, all ten of them -- whereas EIGHTY-SEVEN southern Democrats voted nay.
>>IOW, southern Democrats opposing the Civil Rights Act outnumbered southern
>>Republicans opposing it by a margin of nearly nine to one.
>
> THEN the Southern Democrats mostly became rethugs.
Whether they did or didn't -- and considering that you have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth, I'm *not* about to take your unsupported word for
it -- it doesn't change the facts: The percentage of Republicans who supported
the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a *lot* higher than the percentage of Democrats
who supported it.
>
>>> The Senate version:
>>>Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
>>Yes, all ONE of him -- compared to TWENTY southern Democrats voting nay.
>
> "The original House version: ...
>Southern Republicans: 100% Nay."
> "The Senate version:
>Southern Republicans: 100% Nay."
>
>>>Northern Democrats only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the
>>> measure
>>And of southern Republicans, only John Tower of Texas opposed it.
>
> And how did the rethugs gain Texas?
>
>>>HTH
>>
>>Oh, yes, it helps a lot -- it exposes your dishonesty, by proving that you
>>very selectively edited the data to deliberately present a distorted picture
>>of the truth.
>
> I stated what I stated. Exactly.
Yes, I know that -- you very selectively edited the data to deliberately
present a distorted picture of the truth.
>
>>The TRUTH is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was supported by four-fifths of
>>the Republicans in Congress -- but less than two-thirds of the Democrats.
>
> Then the southern dems mostly became rethugs .... who the Klan supports.
The only sitting member of the U.S. Congress who is, or was, a member of the
Klan is a DEMOCRAT, Cliff. Your inability to accept the facts does not make
them any less facts.
Doug Miller
Congressional Republican support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act: more than
fourh-fifths.
Congressional Democrat support for the same act: less than two-thirds.
Those are the facts, Cliff, whether you can understand them or not.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> The percentage of Republicans who supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> was a *lot* higher than the percentage of Democrats who supported it.
Very true. Those Dixicrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act then
moved to the Republican Party. Neither the Democrat or Republican party
represent today what they did in 1964.
--
Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose God Do You Kill For?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawke
The key words there are "sitting member". Check your history and you'll
find that there were lots of members of congress who were Klan members,
they're just all dead now. If Byrd wasn't 92 you wouldn't be able to use
him. Look at the state of Indiana, back in the 20s the state government
was full of Klanners and they were mainly conservatives. The party
didn't matter it was whether they were conservatives or not. You can
look at today's Klan and it's the same. You won't find any liberals in
the group but you will find lots of conservatives.
Hawke
Hawke
Why knock him for having trouble with the truth when you are the one who
isn't being honest? You don't seem to understand that prior to the 1960s
Democrats, mainly southern ones, were all what we today call right wing
conservatives? They moved en mass to the republican party when liberals
passed civil rights reforms. Your accusation about Democrats is based on
the past when the party was the home of extreme conservatives. Even you
know that the modern republican party is where the extreme conservatives
now reside. So you are trying to be way too slick when you try to hang
anti civil rights activity on the Democrats when it actually belongs on
conservatives. You don't want to admit that it's the conservatives who
are to blame for most of our problems so you seek to blame Democrats
instead. I would say it's clear that you do that for a good reason.
You're a conservative, aren't you?
Hawke
Hawke
>>> The 1964 Civil Rights Act had more support from Republicans than from
>>> Democrats -- look it up.
>>>
>>> The only sitting U.S. Senator who is or ever was a member of the Klan is
>>> a Democrat -- Robert Byrd. Look it up.
>>>
>>> Come back after you've learned the facts.
>> Come back when you can read. Or was Hawke's post to complicated for you?
>>
> No, it was too full of baloney -- like nearly everything else Pigeon writes.
>
> Come back after you've learned the facts.
I would like you to point out where anything I said was factually incorrect.
Hawke
Hawke
> In article <gmosk55ioms87semi...@4ax.com>, Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:05:58 GMT, spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <jd3qk55p4iu96nmt9...@4ax.com>, Cliff
>> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:23:30 GMT, spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <vrspk59p5hqg9u0gt...@4ax.com>, Cliff
>>>> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:19:44 GMT, spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <prkpk5ddjgn20n0p2...@4ax.com>, Cliff
>>>>>> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Tea_Baggers_Repackaging_America_s
>> _R
>>>> ig
>>>>>> ht
>>>>>>>> _Wing_7700.html
>>>>>>>> [
>>>>>>>> When the January 10 New York Times Magazine cover story described
>>>>>>>> Republican Senate Marco Rubio as potentially �the first Senator from the
>>>> Tea
>>>>>>>> Party,� it was clear that the nation�s far right has struck gold with its
>>>> new
>>>>>>>> identity. But these newly minted populist teabaggers have a long history.
Are you just unaware or are you pretending not to know? You are trying
to use statistics to prove a point when the facts are not on your side.
The percentages on which each party voted are pretty meaningless. You're
trying to use the stats to make it look one way when it's actually the
other.
The point is it was liberals who were trying to pass the civil rights
act and other reforms. Their opponents were the conservatives. As you
have been informed already, the conservatives used to be Democrats so
you would expect it was them who voted against the reforms, and many of
them did. But it's not the party that mattered it was whether you were a
liberal or conservative that did. You know that the conservatives were
once Democrats and you know that the republican party is now the place
you find the conservatives. So using statistics to prove that it was the
Democrats who were against civil rights is a red herring. It was always
the conservatives who were against it just like it's conservatives who
now are against health care reform. You are just trying to use numbers
to indict the Democratic party when the party today and they party then
are pretty much opposites. That's not being honest. So are you doing
that on purpose or is it accidental?
Hawke
Cliff
It says exactly what I posted.
I altered NO "data".
>Sorry you're having so much trouble with the truth.
Hence you are in error yet again. Or lying like a winger.
You a southern rethug?
--
Cliff
Cliff
He must really hate others having rights.
Typical of a winger.
>
>Hawke
--
Cliff
Cliff
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The original House version: ...
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
The Senate version:
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
Northern Democrats only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure
]
Need reading lessons?
>>
>>>The TRUTH is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was supported by four-fifths of
>>>the Republicans in Congress -- but less than two-thirds of the Democrats.
>>
>> Then the southern dems mostly became rethugs .... who the Klan supports.
>
>The only sitting member of the U.S. Congress who is, or was, a member of the
>Klan is a DEMOCRAT, Cliff.
OTOH You do NOT know that.
They like to keep secrets. Such as this.
>Your inability to accept the facts does not make
>them any less facts.
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The original House version: ...
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
The Senate version:
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
Northern Democrats only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure
]
Need reading lessons?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>>Oh, yes, it helps a lot -- it exposes your dishonesty, by proving that you
>>>very selectively edited the data to deliberately present a distorted picture
>>>of the truth.
>>
>> I stated what I stated. Exactly.
>
>Yes, I know that -- you very selectively edited the data to deliberately
>present a distorted picture of the truth.
So Wick is lying?
Have any proof?
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The original House version: ...
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
The Senate version:
Southern Republicans: 100% Nay.
Northern Democrats only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure
Cliff
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_2_Ju
>>ly,_1964.jpg
>> "Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the guests
>> behind
>>him is Martin Luther King, Jr."
CLUE: Johnson was a dem.
I don't know about his dog.
Was it a smart dog?
If not it was no doubt a rethug (or would be today).
>> Red States seem to be in the South, eh?
>> & full of rethugs.
>
>Congressional Republican support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act: more than
>fourh-fifths.
"fourh-fifths" ? Did they drink the rest?
>
>Congressional Democrat support for the same act: less than two-thirds.
>
>Those are the facts, Cliff, whether you can understand them or not.
[
Cliff
>I've heard/read that the Klan is targeting tea parties for
>recruitment.
The Neo-Nazis too. And Faux is looking for
a few good idiots too.
>Even they realize that a lot of the people attending are
>easy targets for recruitment. Hell, some of the sites are even
>listing when and where the tea parties are being held as a public
>service for private benefit.
Where do you get a bus? Who pays?
--
Cliff
Cliff
He cannot but he can lie like a winger.
>Hawke
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Not me, Cliffie -- you do. You deliberately altered the data to present a
>misleading picture. I provided the *true*unedited* data above.
>
>Sorry you're having so much trouble with the truth.
Why should you care?
You are a winger & wingers love lies.
So probably you are lying .....
--
Cliff
Ed Huntress
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:gc74l5tc1hbdhavrq...@4ax.com...
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:06:30 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>wrote:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The Tea Baggers: Repackaging America's Right Wing "
>>>
>>>That seems to be exactly what you are trying to do - repackage. No
>>>one but the rabid socaialist wingers calls them tea baggers.
>>
>> Why are you adding a space?
>
>
>> Palin
>
> Has nothing to do with my question. Skip the red herrings. Answer
> the question.
>
>>>I had to look it up. Yet you guys seem to be very familar with the
>>>term.
>
> useless links to google. Like that's some kind of answer to my
> question.
>
> Stick to the question. Why are the socialist left the only ones using
> the term and how are they are so familiar with an obscure homosexual
> practice?
First, it's not necessarily homosexual. Its origins as a sex-related term
probably are heterosexual.
Second, its origin as a political term is entirely separate. In fact, it was
a runner-up for the New Oxford American Dictionary's "Word of the Year":
"It should be noted that the term "teabagger" appears on Oxford's list
because of the usage cited on that list, not because of any other meaning.
Citations for the political sense were found in a number of legitimate
sources throughout the year. As a reference to members of the currently
active Tea Party, the word has been used in speech and print by both
liberals and conservatives. In this context, the term "teabagger" is a
reasonably conceived informal name for an affiliate of the Tea Party, and as
a word in the news, it earned a mention for the year 2009.
"Having deliberated carefully over the word-usage evidence, Oxford's
lexicographers are confident in their judgment that "teabagger" the
political term stands distinctly apart from "teabagger" the vulgar term."
Conservatives were using it regularly until someone pointed out to them the
previous, salacious use of the term. Then they started blaming the left for
popularizing it.
It's made for quite a controversy among those who claim to have coined it in
the political sense:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/teabagger-added-to-oxford_n_362504.html
"When David Shuster refers to teabaggers and their "Dick Armey," he's only
talking politics, and teabaggers aren't allowed to get mad about it."
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
All you have to do is some research before you spew this stuff, Winston.
>
>>Second, its origin as a political term is entirely separate. In fact, it
>>was
>>a runner-up for the New Oxford American Dictionary's "Word of the Year":
>
> Because it has come into common usage. It IS in common usage because
> the socialist left like to use it as a derogatory term. The Tea Bag
> Party calls themselves just that.
As the Oxford lexicographers said, they were considering the word before the
salacious meaning became widespread. I remember hearing it from the
protesters themselves, before late in the year, when the right-wing
blogosphere caught wind of the sexual use of the term.
>
> None of which answers why Cliff likes homosexual references so much.
You'll have to ask him. If you asked me, I'd point out that it's not a
homosexual reference. It's a salacious, general sexual reference when used
in that context.
The thing that got the right so upset about it is that it *can* be a
homosexual reference. And by focusing on that, they've made it so.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> I bow to your superior knowledge of what's homosexual and what's not.
>
>>Second, its origin as a political term is entirely separate. In fact, it
>>was a runner-up for the New Oxford American Dictionary's "Word of the
>>Year":
>
> Because it has come into common usage. It IS in common usage because
> the socialist left like to use it as a derogatory term. The Tea Bag
> Party calls themselves just that.
>
> None of which answers why Cliff likes homosexual references so much.
Actually it was Glen Beck who re-coined the term "Tea Baggers" to
describe the protesters.
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote i
>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>>> useless links to google. Like that's some kind of answer to my
>>>>> question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stick to the question. Why are the socialist left the only ones using
>>>>> the term and how are they are so familiar with an obscure homosexual
>>>>> practice?
>>>>
>>>>First, it's not necessarily homosexual. Its origins as a sex-related
>>>>term
>>>>probably are heterosexual.
>>>
>>> I bow to your superior knowledge of what's homosexual and what's not.
>>
>>All you have to do is some research before you spew this stuff, Winston.
>
> the context he meant to put on the term. But that doesn't fit what
> you want to put out there.
All I want is to keep the conversation honest. The history of it is not
actually as you described it, you've drawn selective bits from your
"research."
Certainly it's become a slur. The left picked up on the possibilities and
the right played right into their hands. Homophobia shot them in their own
feet.
The whole "tea bag" label is inherently dishonest to begin with. The Boston
Tea Party was not a protest against taxes; it was a protest against taxation
without REPRESENTATION. The colonists did not throw the tea into the water
because they didn't like their elected government. They threw it into the
water because they were being ruled by a government they didn't elect.
So the government they didn't elect passed the Coercive Acts to show the
colonists would continue to be coerced by the government didn't elect, which
led to more protests, which led to the Revolution...through which we got our
own government elected by us, designed with our consent, and with provisions
to change it any way we want, any time we want.
But like children who asked for a toy for Christmas, and got it, the Tea
Partiers have evoked that very different motivation and circumstance to
justify their all-purpose malcontentedness, and they're yelling that they
really wanted a different toy, after all.
I understand their frustration and anger. From their point of view, it's
well justified. And "Tea Party" is a catchy idea, which evokes a kind of
righteous protest in which they want to enshroud and justify themselves.
It's good PR. But it's a twisted version of the truth.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>
>>actually as you described it, you've drawn selective bits from your
>>"research."
>
> it here it is meant to be a slur to discredit.
>
> All this, of course, is to avoid talking about issues embarrassing to
> the leftists.
Well, you might try doing what I do: I don't read the posts from either of
them. You won't miss anything.
Why you want to talk about issues embarrassing to the leftists is something
that I couldn't fathom. But if you want to embarrass someone, you're in the
right place. That seems to be the primary sport here lately.
The Tea Party should have picked a symbol that didn't consist of a little
paper thing with a string on it. It conjures up several possibilities. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Why you want to talk about issues embarrassing to the leftists is
>>something
>>that I couldn't fathom. But if you want to embarrass someone, you're in
>>the
>>right place. That seems to be the primary sport here lately.
>
>
> The left finds themselves embarrassed by their positions and by the
> results of their actions/inactions on many current issues of the day.
You'll have to ask them. I don't see much embarrassment, only frustration.
I think you're projecting -- not your own embarrassment, but rather how you
would feel if you were them.
But you aren't them.
>
> Their trick is to divert discussion from them to things like Palin's
> new fingernail polish. I can't imagine you don't see this so I must
> assume you are party to it albeit you take a low key tone about it.
You can't imagine what I see because you aren't me. The silliness you're
describing, to me, looks like it's coming from both sides.
From the right, there's Tom, talking about "President Wee-Wee"; there's the
overt racism that's appeared from Steve B and some others; jokes about Sarah
Palin being descended from Adam and Eve, while Michelle Obama is descended
from monkeys. From the right and the left both, it's cut-and-paste slices of
news stories, bits of bloviation from bloggers and pundits, and other
third-party crap, as if it has more import if someone else says it and can
be quoted.
There's nothing wrong with making jokes about politicians, or some ordinary
political banter. It's a good way to relieve some frustration and anxiety.
But it's now endless, and really bitter. To a centrist like me, it looks
like half the people here have reverted to their childhood.
You said something about talking about "issues." I haven't seen much of that
here -- not anything I'd call a conversation, anyway. If you're really
interested in talking about issues realistically and objectively, I'll bet
you'd find some takers. But I don't think you can avoid someone interjecting
something obnoxious. If you can't ignore them, that's how the "conversation"
is going to go.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
There is no doubt that the tone around here is not very civil these
days. So what is causing it? I think it has to do with the Democrats
being in power and most of the guys in here are strongly right wing in
their politics. The fact that they lost the last election and their side
is now pretty much powerless has them very pissed off. They don't get to
call the shots anymore and to make things worse Obama is doing things
exactly the opposite of how they would do them. Remember when we heard
from the right wing crowd all the time how much we "hated" Bush, and
that we had Bush Derangement Syndrome? Well, I think the shoe is on the
other foot now and the right wing crowd absolutely hates Obama and the
Democrats. They're livid that they have to accept that whatever the
"left" wants to do is what is going to happen. So the hate they accused
others of has now come out in them, only worse. They hate the left so
much that they simply can't control themselves from constantly adding
invective and derogatory language to every post. My prediction is that
they will keep it up until another right winger is elected president.
Don't forget that they started in on Clinton on day one and never let up
throughout his entire two terms. I'm sure they will do the same thing
with Obama. So this is going to be the norm for a long time to come.
Hawke
Ed Huntress
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hj0s13$fuj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
That's probably accurate for about half of the group, or a little more.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>There is no doubt that the tone around here is not very civil these
>>days. So what is causing it? I think it has to do with the Democrats
>>being in power and most of the guys in here are strongly right wing in
>>their politics. The fact that they lost the last election and their side
>>is now pretty much powerless has them very pissed off. They don't get to
>>call the shots anymore and to make things worse Obama is doing things
>>exactly the opposite of how they would do them.
>
But...but...the wingers were *for* the wars!
> Guantanamo still open.
Wingers LOVE Guantanamo, and want to keep it open!
> More raids on the treasury to pay off the banksters.
NO! The banksters raided the Treasury under the last president. They haven't
gotten more than the initial $700 billion since. (In fact, I saw the
estimate today that the cost to us was actually $117 billion, of which Obama
is trying to recover $90 billion).
> Increase the debt limit some more.
That's the price of a stimulus. If you aren't going to run a stimulus
deficit in a downturn -- all presidents have since the 1930s, including
Reagan -- what in the hell is your magic solution to a declining economy and
rising unemployment? Cut taxes? <ggg>
> Ignore open borders.
Hell, we've ignored them under five or six presidents. If a Republican won't
do it, why do you expect a Democrat to do it?
> Exclude the other party from deliberations.
Oh, that's supposed to be something new?
>
> Yeah, right, big change. George Walker 0bama is in his third term.
He didn't start the polarization. And he isn't going to let the Republicans
exploit his efforts so they can push a minority agenda. No one in his right
mind would do so.
>
>>My prediction is that
>>they will keep it up until another right winger is elected president.
>
> Is it fair to say another left winger has been elected president?
No, it's a foolish thing to say.
>
> Where is the difference?
An effort to reform health care; to bring Guantanamo prisoners into the US
prison system; and to regulate non-bank-banks and to re-regulate commercial
bank/investment bank combinations.
And what have the Republicans done? Resisted every step of the way, with the
help of a few conservative Democrats.
This Congress sucks worse than most, and the Democrats in Congress suck
plenty. But the irrational, ideological and political resistance to some
needed changes goes beyond stupidity. It's reprehensible politicization of
the country's well-being. The stupidity of it is beyond belief.
--
Ed Huntress
Mark Rand
wrote:
>An effort to reform health care; to bring Guantanamo prisoners into the US
>prison system; and to regulate non-bank-banks and to re-regulate commercial
>bank/investment bank combinations.
>
>And what have the Republicans done? Resisted every step of the way, with the
>help of a few conservative Democrats.
>
>This Congress sucks worse than most, and the Democrats in Congress suck
>plenty. But the irrational, ideological and political resistance to some
>needed changes goes beyond stupidity. It's reprehensible politicization of
>the country's well-being. The stupidity of it is beyond belief.
America, the land of the free, where anything/one can be bought for enough
money ;-)
Mark Rand
RTFM
Ed Huntress
"Mark Rand" <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vr8hl55c6a4fb4fkt...@4ax.com...
Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and unions
can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising, and
so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own
ticket.
We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is
great. You can see Russia from here!
--
Ed Huntress
Von
news:4b58a571$0$22546$607e...@cv.net:
I guess I just don't understand why unions and corporations have all
the rights as people and it seems more. Where is it in the
Constitution that gives them this right? Not being a constitutional
scolar I would really like to know what the rational is for this.
The news report I saw also postulated that soon the Supreme court
will give them the right to contribute directly to political
candidates, something that hasn't been allowed for over a hundred
years.
Yes I do believe you are right, in the next couple of election cycles
our goverenment will be truly bought and paid for by corporations and
we (the USA) will become a corporate state run by and for
corporations.
Von
Ed Huntress
"Von" <m...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D079A7BB4...@216.196.97.142...
It's a debatable point, which is why we got a 5:4 decision. An "originalist"
(conservative) would say they have the right under the 1st Amendment. A
normal person would say that treating corporations or unions as "people" is
absurd. The legal "person" status of corporations was established solely to
limit their liability, to make it easier for them to attract investors.
Originally, it was a strictly commercial decision.
The people in the corporations already have the right to contribute to
whomever they want to.
>
> The news report I saw also postulated that soon the Supreme court
> will give them the right to contribute directly to political
> candidates, something that hasn't been allowed for over a hundred
> years.
Maybe. I haven't read the decision. It may be limited to advertising and
other promotion. But I've read two contradictory accounts of that point so
far.
However, the power they have now, under PACs, is not to be sneezed at. It
was already too much, IMO.
>
> Yes I do believe you are right, in the next couple of election cycles
> our goverenment will be truly bought and paid for by corporations and
> we (the USA) will become a corporate state run by and for
> corporations.
>
> Von
The corporatism is starting to look alarming. It appears that the Supreme
Court has decided that the Constitution *is* a suicide pact, after all.
You'll know for sure if the motto on the dollar bill is changed from "In God
We Trust" to "Always Low Prices." Wal-Mart gave it up as a slogan so it may
be available.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and unions
> can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising, and
> so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own
> ticket.
>
> We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is
> great. You can see Russia from here!
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Ye of little faith. Corporations can spend as much money on
advertising for products as they want . Yet somehow people manage to
think for themselves and don't blindly buy things because a company
spent a bunch of money advertising. The same applies to politics.
Advertising is not a magic potion. It does make people aware of
things, but it does not control their minds.
It is called a "free market place of ideas". The good ideas will
prevail. Look at the last election. Hillary had all the money in the
beginning, but did not get the votes.
Obama got elected, but will only get re-elected if he does well.
Dan
Hawke
>> America, the land of the free, where anything/one can be bought for enough
>> money ;-)
>>
>>
>> Mark Rand
>> RTFM
>
> Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and unions
> can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising, and
> so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own
> ticket.
>
> We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is
> great. You can see Russia from here!
>
There's your right wing, free market fundamentalist court at work again.
This is a perfect example of how the policies and people that a
president put in place has effects that go on far after the president
has left office. This decision is what only a right wing court would do.
They have basically said that corporations have the right to put as much
money into the electoral system as they want. The joke of it is that
they are trying to pass off simple bribery as "free speech". Just chalk
up one more Supreme Court decision that stinks to high heavens and gives
the corporations even more ability to run the country. I sure hope a
couple of right wing justices die in the next three years so Obama can
load up the court with left wingers. Turn about is fair play.
Hawke
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:a68db0bc-9ac1-48b2...@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 7:05 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Well, pard', the Supreme Court made it official today: Businesses and
> unions
> can spend as much as they want to for political campaigns, advertising,
> and
> so on. Any Congressman who makes a deal with them now can write his own
> ticket.
>
> We're for sale! How much money ya' got? We're not cheap, but the view is
> great. You can see Russia from here!
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>Ye of little faith. Corporations can spend as much money on
>advertising for products as they want . Yet somehow people manage to
>think for themselves and don't blindly buy things because a company
>spent a bunch of money advertising. The same applies to politics.
>Advertising is not a magic potion. It does make people aware of
>things, but it does not control their minds.
Dan, for around 15 years I lived with the LAP (McGraw-Hill), CARR (Cahner's)
and PIM (MIT/Harvard) advertising reports. You want to know how market share
relates to advertising expenditures? On the whole, it's a rising curve that
starts as a parabola, then straightens out, and finally tops out with a
plateau and then a sharp curve downward. Mostly it's a straight line, within
normal limits of expenditure. The correlation coefficient is over 0.7. In
some product categories, the plateau is reached at around $100 million/year.
And there's amazing consistency across product categories.
That's why US ad spending in 2007 was $279.6 Billion -- 2% of the US GDP.
>It is called a "free market place of ideas". The good ideas will prevail.
Thanks. Were you a civics teacher? <g> It's called a propaganda machine; the
ideas pressed with the most money win.
>Look at the last election. Hillary had all the money in the beginning,
>but did not get the votes. Obama got elected, but will only get re-elected
>if he does well.
As I said, the CC is over 0.7. If you want something meaningful, look at the
advertising spending of the winners versus the losers in a large number of
elections over a few election years.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> Thanks. Were you a civics teacher? <g> It's called a propaganda machine; the
> ideas pressed with the most money win.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
No, but I took civics, did you? <g> You just have no faith in the
public.
So you think that Obama should have accepted campaign limits? You
think that Obama won because he raised the most money? So you are
against the free market place of ideas? So you want censorship?
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:0d86993c-7c69-456c...@x9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 1:53 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Thanks. Were you a civics teacher? <g> It's called a propaganda machine;
> the
> ideas pressed with the most money win.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>No, but I took civics, did you? <g> You just have no faith in the
>public.
I have faith in the public. I also have faith in the power of propaganda. It
used to pay my bills.
Like investment banking, it's something that has to be regulated and
controlled, or they'll run all over you. Advertising is a positive and
useful force that, left on its own, will transmogrify into a cancer.
>
>So you think that Obama should have accepted campaign limits? You
>think that Obama won because he raised the most money? So you are
>against the free market place of ideas? So you want censorship?
That's quite a string of non-sequiturs, Dan. d8-)
Yes, I think the candidates in 2008 should have stuck to campaign limits.
Obama harnessed a new way of accumulating money that sounded like it was all
sweetness and light -- tens of millions in the form of little contributions
gathered through the Internet -- but it's still a hammer that beats down
fair debate, no matter where the money comes from.
Whether he won because of the money is questionable. Anecdotes are not very
useful for analysis. It's the difference between a correlation coefficient
of 0.7 and a coefficient of 1.0. It doesn't work all the time. It just works
*enough* of the time that advertisers spend a couple of hundred billion
dollars per year on it.
The free marketplace of ideas and advertising, in the real world, have
little to do with each other.
Censorship is controlling what can be said. Campaign limits are for avoiding
having our representative democracy become a plutocracy.
Advertising works. It's an important element of the golden rule: The one
with the gold, rules.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> The free marketplace of ideas and advertising, in the real world, have
> little to do with each other.
> Ed Huntress
But in the real world of politics you don't have just one side
presenting ideas. So even with advertising you have a free
marketplace of ideas.
Sit back and relax. You are going to see just how little this changes
things. The political advertisements just before elections already
consume all the time available for advertising. And the public gets
sick of the adds.
Dan
Mark Rand
wrote:
>
>"Von" <m...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9D079A7BB4...@216.196.97.142...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:4b58a571$0$22546$607e...@cv.net:
>>
>>
>> I guess I just don't understand why unions and corporations have all
>> the rights as people and it seems more. Where is it in the
>> Constitution that gives them this right? Not being a constitutional
>> scolar I would really like to know what the rational is for this.
>
>It's a debatable point, which is why we got a 5:4 decision. An "originalist"
>(conservative) would say they have the right under the 1st Amendment. A
>normal person would say that treating corporations or unions as "people" is
>absurd. The legal "person" status of corporations was established solely to
>limit their liability, to make it easier for them to attract investors.
>Originally, it was a strictly commercial decision.
>
So when a company gets prosecuted for causing one or more deaths, can the
company be shut down for 25-to-life?
Mark Rand
RTFM
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:4edd49c7-63d0-4f6d...@d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 3:18 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> The free marketplace of ideas and advertising, in the real world, have
> little to do with each other.
> Ed Huntress
>But in the real world of politics you don't have just one side
>presenting ideas. So even with advertising you have a free
>marketplace of ideas.
But it ain't free. The majority of it goes to those with the most money.
>
>Sit back and relax. You are going to see just how little this changes
>things. The political advertisements just before elections already
>consume all the time available for advertising. And the public gets
>sick of the adds.
40 CEO's from major companies just sent a letter to Congress today, telling
them to lay off and not to use this as an excuse to call them for money even
more than they already do. They anticipate a flood of solicitations.
Who knows? Lobbies are already gearing up for much higher volumes of work,
as of yesterday.
We'll be pledging allegience to the United States, and to the plutocracy for
which it stands...
Maybe Alexander Hamilton was right. He called this new system of government
a "Commercial Republic."
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
That's the point. Under the law, corporations are "people" in only a limited
sense.
You ought to know that. We got the idea from Britain. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
I think the point is that advertising works. Why else would companies
spend so much money on it? They know it works. So does propaganda, which
is why governments use it. The only thing you can have faith about the
public is that they don't know what they are doing and they change their
minds every other day. A good example of this distrust of the public is
the Founding Fathers themselves who had a great fear of the "mob", which
is what they called the public. That's why they did not allow public
election of senators or allow anyone but property owners to vote. They
distrusted the public as does anyone who understands the fickleness and
unpredictability of it. Ed is right, follow the money. In almost every
case the side with the most money prevails. Except of course, when you
are talking about electing women to office. Americans are still
reluctant to elect women to high office. They passed on Hillary for
president and they just passed on Coakley for the senate. Don't
underestimate the gender factor in the outcome of some of these
elections. Women still have a hard time getting elected despite money
advantages. Women make up over half the public but how many of them are
senators? That's the public at work. Even other women would rather vote
for a man. I don't trust the public and I don't trust a jury either. The
old saying, the masses are asses, has a lot of truth. I for one am real
glad we don't have the public calling the shots. We'd be even worse off
than we are now.
Hawke
Cliff
wrote:
>
>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>news:k9h4l55i71oattbae...@4ax.com...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>All I want is to keep the conversation honest. The history of it is not
>>>actually as you described it, you've drawn selective bits from your
>>>"research."
>>
>> All I want is to keep the conversation honest. As Cliff and TMT use
>> it here it is meant to be a slur to discredit.
>>
>> All this, of course, is to avoid talking about issues embarrassing to
>> the leftists.
>
>Well, you might try doing what I do: I don't read the posts from either of
>them. You won't miss anything.
>
>Why you want to talk about issues embarrassing to the leftists is something
>that I couldn't fathom. But if you want to embarrass someone, you're in the
>right place. That seems to be the primary sport here lately.
>
>The Tea Party should have picked a symbol that didn't consist of a little
>paper thing with a string on it. It conjures up several possibilities. <g>
Indeed <G>.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Why you want to talk about issues embarrassing to the leftists is something
>>that I couldn't fathom. But if you want to embarrass someone, you're in the
>>right place. That seems to be the primary sport here lately.
>
>You are not stupid. Stop playing stupid.
>
>The left finds themselves embarrassed by their positions and by the
>results of their actions/inactions on many current issues of the day.
The "left" did not create the problems nor promise you all
that "free money".
>Their trick is to divert discussion from them to things like Palin's
>new fingernail polish.
IS it new?
DiD the $150,000 makeup jpb & lessons cover it or
is it extra?
>I can't imagine you don't see this so I must
>assume you are party to it albeit you take a low key tone about it.
Palin is good for years of humor it seems !
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>You said something about talking about "issues." I haven't seen much of that
>here --
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978036226
"Sarah Palin Reads Cheat Notes Off Her Hand:"
[
This would be funny if it weren't also pretty sad:
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/sarah-palin-reads-cheat-notes-on-her-hand/
She had to do this, despite only accepting pre-approved questions. And there
are actually human beings walking around who think she should be President.
Wow...E
]
Cliff
>Ignore open borders.
Gee, trying to close the Mexican border only made things worse.
People used to come to the US for jobs Americans
did not want to do, make some money & go home to their
families, ready to come back next season.
Now they have to bring their familes & stay.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:52:45 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Second, its origin as a political term is entirely separate. In fact, it
>>>>was a runner-up for the New Oxford American Dictionary's "Word of the
>>>>Year":
>>>
>>> Because it has come into common usage. It IS in common usage because
>>> the socialist left like to use it as a derogatory term. The Tea Bag
>>> Party calls themselves just that.
>>>
>>> None of which answers why Cliff likes homosexual references so much.
>>
>>Actually it was Glen Beck who re-coined the term "Tea Baggers" to
>>describe the protesters.
>
>Almost beside the point. It took our gay socialists to recognize that
>it could be turned into a slur. And they do it every chance they get.
>
>Typical winger tactic. They attack the messenger by spurious
>inferences before the message can be delivered. Much less before it
>can be stated completely and adequately and then debated to a
>conclusion. When they are busy destroying and looting the world, the
>last thing they want is someone coming along with truth and logic to
>call their practices and policies into question. Hence they go for
>the cheap shot.
Teabaggers get led by the nose. seem uneducated & utterly
lacking in history or government backgrounds.
Probably not 1 in 1000 ever heard of Locke or Rousseau.
Not readers either.
Palin is a mental giant among them.
Even if she cannot name a newspaper or news magazine.
OTOH She CAN read cribbed notes written on her hand ...
probably a holdover from cheating her way thru
basketball exams in college.
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery good. Gays bad. Snakes talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------