BOYCOTT GEICO!!!

[Valkyrie]

The information I have is that the Koch brothers launched the tea party. Rick might have been the one recruited to make the announcement, though.

Funny thing is . . . when GW Bush borrowed $600 billion from China to finance an unneccessary and illegal war, Rick did not complain- even though it was the first war in history financed entirely by borrowed funds.

When Congress raised the debt limit 19 times during the Bush administration, Rick sat by quietly. Nobody said a word when GW used the first half of the $700 billion stimulus either.

Astoundingly, one month after President Obama took office- conservatives suddenly decide to be frugal. That sounds really suspicious to me- it's okay to bankrupt the country chasing an insane (and innocent) dictator, but once the economy is in trouble we should never borrow money to fix it?

This is what makes me think that bankrupting the U.S. economy was the plan all along.

 

[Cruella]

I never even heard of the Koch brothers until this year. The grass roots tea party, were self organized. So are these Koch boys the left's boogy man?

 

[GenSeneca]

The information I have is that the Koch brothers launched the tea party.

That's just as ridiculous as claiming Soros launched the Coffee Party...

once the economy is in trouble we should never borrow money to fix it?

No, we shouldn't... Central planning doesn't work.

Astoundingly, one month after President Obama took office- conservatives suddenly decide to be frugal.

Many of us complained about Bush's spending but it wasn't until the announcement of the bailouts, stimulus, and the resultant trillion dollar deficits that we took to the streets to demand the spending inferno be stopped. Astoundingly, the Left - who were incredibly vocal about GW's reckless spending - suddenly stopped complaining about debts and deficits once Bush was out of office. Weird.

This is what makes me think that bankrupting the U.S. economy was the plan all along.

Interesting conspiracy theory... Exactly who would benefit from such a "plan"?

 

[GenSeneca]

So are these Koch boys the left's boogy man?

Yes. When the Koch brothers spend money to support causes they agree with, it's a subversion of "Democracy!" but when Soros spends money on causes he agrees with, it's a public service for the betterment of all mankind.

It's kind of like when a Republican says Obama is a nice guy who's in over his head the Left calls it "Romney's Dog Whistle Racism" but it's totally cool for Leftists to bash a Black Conservative as a "sell-out" to the "right wing hate machine," before accusing her of being exploited "like the House N----- she truly is." - That's totally not racist (as long as the racial slurs are coming from a leftist). If you're still confused, refer to the "Bobs a racist" video that someone kindly posted. The same concept applies to rich people that spend money on causes and politicians they support.

 

[steveox]

Again im not a liberal. Im a republican. Democrats have lied to us so many times. If Democrats are for me then how come the raise taxes on everyone? Just like Bill Clinton promised to raise taxes folks making $200,000 and more. When he got elected you know what he did? He Raised Taxes on,,,

Communications 10%= Telephone, Satelite and Cable TV
Alcohol and Tabbaco 10% = Cigars,Cigarettes and Beer
Energy taxes 10% on our electric bills and forcing us paying a disposal fee on tires and oil recycling.
Medicare Tax 10% on our paychecks
And 5 cents a gallon more on gas tax.

Now who does that hurt? IT DOESNT HURT THE WEALTHY!!! It hurts people like you and me the little guy.

 

[Valkyrie]

I never even heard of the Koch brothers until this year. The grass roots tea party, were self organized. So are these Koch boys the left's boogy man?

"Since the 1980s, the Koch foundations have given more than $100 million to conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the United States.[5], including think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, and more recently Americans for Prosperity.[7] Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are Koch-linked organizations that have been linked to the Tea Party movement.[8][9]"

Any political movement financed by oil billionaires is not a "grass roots" movement.

I noticed you avoided the rest of my post:


"Funny thing is . . . when GW Bush borrowed $600 billion from China to finance an unneccessary and illegal war, Rick did not complain- even though it was the first war in history financed entirely by borrowed funds.

When Congress raised the debt limit 19 times during the Bush administration, Rick sat by quietly. Nobody said a word when GW used the first half of the $700 billion stimulus either.

Astoundingly, one month after President Obama took office- conservatives suddenly decide to be frugal. That sounds really suspicious to me- it's okay to bankrupt the country chasing an insane (and innocent) dictator, but once the economy is in trouble we should never borrow money to fix it?"

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Valkyrie]

Im a Tea Party voter. I believe in our founding fathers and our consitution.

So, is it safe to assume that you and the tea party are against the Patriot Act- which violates the very first Constitutional amendment?

 

[Valkyrie]

. . . Many of us complained about Bush's spending but it wasn't until the announcement of the bailouts, stimulus, and the resultant trillion dollar deficits that we took to the streets to demand the spending inferno be stopped.

The "bank bailouts" were introduced as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008." It was introduced on March 9, 2007. It was signed by President Bush on October 3, 2008. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr1424

Do you dispute this date?

Astoundingly, the Left - who were incredibly vocal about GW's reckless spending - suddenly stopped complaining about debts and deficits once Bush was out of office. Weird.

Not really. "The left" is still complaining. But nowadays, it's referred to as "blaming."



Also, the left seems to know when to spend (in order to stimulate the economy) and when not to spend (pursuing an insane but innocent dictator). The left doesn't complain as much when spending is the proper course of action.

 

[Cruella]

Any political movement financed by oil billionaires is not a "grass roots" movement.

Wrong again. I followed the tea parties in my area when they first organized. There were absolutely no billionaires involved during the time they first organized. If these groups like the Heritage Foundation came on board later I do not know, and so what if they did. Even the Koch Industries spokesman said that they have never directly supported or were even approached by the Tea Party. Believe what you want. Demonizing patriots for wanting smaller government and for them to STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE AND TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION is a typical tactic of the left.

Alinsky's Rule 12: Destroy the Individual

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
​

 

[GenSeneca]

The "bank bailouts" were introduced as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008." It was introduced on March 9, 2007. It was signed by President Bush on October 3, 2008. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr1424

Do you dispute this date?

Are you trying to point to the creation of the Tea Party after Obama's election as "proof" that all opposition to Obama is based on racism, or did you actually have a valid point to make? BTW, Rick Santelli is credited as the Godfather of the Tea Party because of the remarks he made on Feb. 19, 2009, (after Obama was elected) the Koch brothers are given no such credit for the creation of the Tea Party - they merely offered their support after its creation.

Now, if charges of racism and hypocrisy are all you have, you have nothing. The use of ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies are not logically valid arguments.

 

[Gipper]

The "bank bailouts" were introduced as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008." It was introduced on March 9, 2007. It was signed by President Bush on October 3, 2008. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr1424

Do you dispute this date?

Not really. "The left" is still complaining. But nowadays, it's referred to as "blaming."



Also, the left seems to know when to spend (in order to stimulate the economy) and when not to spend (pursuing an insane but innocent dictator). The left doesn't complain as much when spending is the proper course of action.

Hey Valkyrie, you need one of these....they are so cool...

 

[Valkyrie]

Wrong again. I followed the tea parties in my area when they first organized. There were absolutely no billionaires involved during the time they first organized. If these groups like the Heritage Foundation came on board later I do not know, and so what if they did. Even the Koch Industries spokesman said that they have never directly supported or were even approached by the Tea Party. Believe what you want. Demonizing patriots for wanting smaller government and for them to STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE AND TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION is a typical tactic of the left.

The tea party was organized by the Koch Brothers. Part of the plan was to call it a "grass roots" movement in order to fool people into supporting it (read your defense of the oil billionaires above).

Now, please answer my question: Does the tea party oppose the Patriot Act? If they do not, then they have no interest in the Constitution other than how they can use it to rile up self-proclaimed "patriots," and manipulate them into supporting a fascist government.

Alinsky's Rule 12: Destroy the Individual

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.​

​

​

Is this from "How to Lose an Argument?"​

​

​

 

[Valkyrie]

Are you trying to point to the creation of the Tea Party after Obama's election as "proof" that all opposition to Obama is based on racism, or did you actually have a valid point to make? BTW, Rick Santelli is credited as the Godfather of the Tea Party because of the remarks he made on Feb. 19, 2009, (after Obama was elected) the Koch brothers are given no such credit for the creation of the Tea Party - they merely offered their support after its creation.

Now, if charges of racism and hypocrisy are all you have, you have nothing. The use of ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies are not logically valid arguments.

Are you trying to muddy up the topic, or is it really that hard for you to follow a discussion? If you can find any evidence that I was trying to play the race card or prove anything regarding racism in the following post (the one you quoted), I'd like to see it:

The information I have is that the Koch brothers launched the tea party. Rick might have been the one recruited to make the announcement, though.

Funny thing is . . . when GW Bush borrowed $600 billion from China to finance an unneccessary and illegal war, Rick did not complain- even though it was the first war in history financed entirely by borrowed funds.

When Congress raised the debt limit 19 times during the Bush administration, Rick sat by quietly. Nobody said a word when GW used the first half of the $700 billion stimulus either.

Astoundingly, one month after President Obama took office- conservatives suddenly decide to be frugal. That sounds really suspicious to me- it's okay to bankrupt the country chasing an insane (and innocent) dictator, but once the economy is in trouble we should never borrow money to fix it?

This is what makes me think that bankrupting the U.S. economy was the plan all along.

I'll remind you: "The use of ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies are not logically valid arguments."

Sigh. I was just starting to like you, too.

 

[Texas_tea]

The tea party was organized by the Koch Brothers. Part of the plan was to call it a "grass roots" movement in order to fool people into supporting it (read your defense of the oil billionaires above).

The TEA Party was founded as a grassroots movement in December of 2007, originally as the "Tax Enough Already Party" while George W. Bush was still in office. The Koch brothers had nothing to do with this grassroots movement initially.

The Koch brothers have for a long time donated money to many conservative candidates and organizations. However, only a disease liberal mind would find fault in a successful capitalist company donating to conservative capitalist candidates and organizations, while at the same time being OK with Unions forcing employees to pay Union dues that are donated to socialist/communist candidates and causes.

Now, please answer my question: Does the tea party oppose the Patriot Act?

House rejects measure that would extend key Patriot Act provisions through December

A measure to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act counterterrorism surveillance law through December failed the House Tuesday night, with more than two-dozen Republicans bucking their party to oppose the measure.

The vote came as several tea party-aligned members of the new freshman class had been expressing doubts about the measure.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/ahead-of-patriot-act-vote-some.html

And, keep in mind, B. Hussein Obama signed to keep and expand the Patriot Act.

Is this from "How to Lose an Argument?

No, my anti-American liberal friend .... this is how YOU loose and argument.

 

[dogtowner]

The tea party was organized by the Koch Brothers. Part of the plan was to call it a "grass roots" movement in order to fool people into supporting it (read your defense of the oil billionaires above).

assertions without documentation is just piffle Val.

Now, please answer my question: Does the tea party oppose the Patriot Act? If they do not, then they have no interest in the Constitution other than how they can use it to rile up self-proclaimed "patriots," and manipulate them into supporting a fascist government.

sounds like an opinion more than a query

​

​

Is this from "How to Lose an Argument?"

​

​

huh ? it explains much of Obama's strategy.