Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The new Tea Party movement is a corporate sham and an elaborate PR campaign

35 posts in this topic

Posted

don't try to match me at an intellectual level while trying to insult me at the same time; you're good at neither.

if you just want to dodge away from answering my question, then I'm fine with this being your last post in the thread and won't press you to back up what you say again.

:shocked:

don't pull a muscle patting yourself on your back.

Soros. Ok. So he as always been upfront in all his agenda's and who he funds?

No political fencing operations by him at an level? Straight ahead Soros.

His books are open? He himself doesn't ride the fence when it comes to terrorists or agencies that are anti American or dangerous? Lynne Stewart anyone?

I gave up trying to overcompensate my intellect a long time ago.

You are so wrapped up in yourself you wouldn't know an insult from an attaboy if it ran over you in a Prius.

Don't lean too long looking into the pond(I'm sure that is another reference you will get off the bat oh oracle of smarts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

:shocked:

don't pull a muscle patting yourself on your back.

Soros. Ok. So he as always been upfront in all his agenda's and who he funds?

No political fencing operations by him at an level? Straight ahead Soros.

His books are open? He himself doesn't ride the fence when it comes to terrorists or agencies that are anti American or dangerous? Lynne Stewart anyone?

your debate tactics of rhetorical questions reeks of someone who reads time magazine, and certainly don't illustrate you know what you are talking about.

soros donated money to Lynne Stewart's defense fund because the Government used wire taps to spy on her and her client, which is a pretty obvious violation of attorney-client privilege. I'd say that his concern about the lengths the bush administration would go for their idea of security are prescient in retrospect, wouldn't you?

you responded to my request for something well written and meaty with a few pointless, vague questions, and the only specific thing you mentioned demonstrated a marked misunderstanding of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

your debate tactics of rhetorical questions reeks of someone who reads time magazine, and certainly don't illustrate you know what you are talking about.

soros donated money to Lynne Stewart's defense fund because the Government used wire taps to spy on her and her client, which is a pretty obvious violation of attorney-client privilege. I'd say that his concern about the lengths the bush administration would go for their idea of security are prescient in retrospect, wouldn't you?

you responded to my request for something well written and meaty with a few pointless, vague questions, and the only specific thing you mentioned demonstrated a marked misunderstanding of the issue.

if you call typing while doing things at home and not having copious hours to surf the net and find items to back up my claims as "debate tatics" then guilty as charged.

Never read Time. And don't hang your hat on the wire tap as the end all.

Let me guess though. I go post a link and then you will make sure to link it with something conservative.

And the time it took for you to pass off your retort as something of your own is about the time it would take to google just enough to respond.

Talk about sham.

I mean you really want to jump in to the big boy seat we can just have a debate that is taped and its either what you know or not. We can give proceeds to Toys for Tots.

No search engine to hide behind. No looking at the bookshelf of Books a Million while you type.

Keep in mind I am CURRENTLY reading a George Soros book. Now think about that. You are trying to challenge me on this guy, you try to paint a picture of me as a Time reader(lazy mans informer to some degree) as if I'm not on the ball.

I'm not doing a school project on Soros. I bought the book out of a increasing desire to understand what makes him tick and I do think he has a great mind for finance.

So I can quote something and it will NOT be google worthy. That can make your responses very difficult when it comes time to cut and paste.

I don't respond to threads to reconfirm my worth in this world. :svengo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

if you call typing while doing things at home and not having copious hours to surf the net and find items to back up my claims as "debate tatics" then guilty as charged.

then perhaps you shouldn't get pissy when I call you on your laziness.

Let me guess though. I go post a link and then you will make sure to link it with something conservative.

no, i will read the article, i will think about it, then i will respond. if you provide something obviously biased and uninformed (like the ridiculous crap SCP likes to post) then I will point that out.

considering sources is rather important don't you think?

And the time it took for you to pass off your retort as something of your own is about the time it would take to google just enough to respond.

Talk about sham.

in your own post you 1. pass off your inability to formulate anything worth reading on what you're doing in your house and 2. take any delay from me as evidence that i'm simply stealing my ideas off google. wow, that's an amazing new height of cognitive dissonance.

if you must know, I've been reading this article on and off all night, and find it far more entertaining than dragging you around.

it's pretty dense so i have to give it a lot of focus and reread sections

I mean you really want to jump in to the big boy seat we can just have a debate that is taped and its either what you know or not. We can give proceeds to Toys for Tots.

No search engine to hide behind. No looking at the bookshelf of Books a Million while you type.

oh yeah okay let me get right on that.

Keep in mind I am CURRENTLY reading a George Soros book. Now think about that. You are trying to challenge me on this guy, you try to paint a picture of me as a Time reader(lazy mans informer to some degree) as if I'm not on the ball.

well you certainly haven't shown you are besides repeating the fact that you're reading a soros book which you freely admitt isn't related to the issue at hand, which is apparently his support of anti americanism and terrorist lawyer defenders, which of course you haven't provided any evidence of.

the only person i've ever seen you reference, besides this mythical soros book, is thomas friedman, who is the criticism you levied against Time magazine down to a T. if you started posting kathryn jean lopez or bill kristol, then i'd call you on that as well. however, you strike me as the kind of guy that prefers the bland, centrist, relatively uneducated types that are easy to read.

So I can quote something and it will NOT be google worthy. That can make your responses very difficult when it comes time to cut and paste.

lol again this is great.

i take time with my responses. things like links, grammar, spacing.

I don't respond to threads to reconfirm my worth in this world. :svengo:

what the f*ck does this even mean

you honest to god are either functionally retarded or terrible at synthesizing your thoughts into something readable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

then perhaps you shouldn't get pissy when I call you on your laziness.

no, i will read the article, i will think about it, then i will respond. if you provide something obviously biased and uninformed (like the ridiculous crap SCP likes to post) then I will point that out.

considering sources is rather important don't you think?

in your own post you 1. pass off your inability to formulate anything worth reading on what you're doing in your house and 2. take any delay from me as evidence that i'm simply stealing my ideas off google. wow, that's an amazing new height of cognitive dissonance.

if you must know, I've been reading this article on and off all night, and find it far more entertaining than dragging you around.

it's pretty dense so i have to give it a lot of focus and reread sections

oh yeah okay let me get right on that.

well you certainly haven't shown you are besides repeating the fact that you're reading a soros book which you freely admitt isn't related to the issue at hand, which is apparently his support of anti americanism and terrorist lawyer defenders, which of course you haven't provided any evidence of.

the only person i've ever seen you reference, besides this mythical soros book, is thomas friedman, who is the criticism you levied against Time magazine down to a T. if you started posting kathryn jean lopez or bill kristol, then i'd call you on that as well. however, you strike me as the kind of guy that prefers the bland, centrist, relatively uneducated types that are easy to read.

lol again this is great.

i take time with my responses. things like links, grammar, spacing.

what the f*ck does this even mean

you honest to god are either functionally retarded or terrible at synthesizing your thoughts into something readable

Oh boy.

So you mentioning Bill Kristol or Lopez isn't atypical either?

So now I have to have a running tab of sources dropped to be in contention?

I didn't know the huddle was like Facebook where I get to unlock authors and pundits after I send a super cocktail to someone else.

And the functional retard comment. Classy and out of the box coming from you. I don't think you have used that one in at least a week.

The contex of this thread, or so my 5th grade mind thought, was on transparency of an alleged movement.

One dude mentioned Soros and it fit the bill. You go all Bill Mahr.

I reply. You go uber Bill Mahr.

I asked about Soros being up front and no reply.

Here is an article from the Wall St Journal. Sorry I don't know the name of the Editor or who owns it or the list of columnists. So I hope I still get to play.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004282

Again. In the frame of what you started with. The openess and the real reason behind various movements.

One other link I think you might find useful.

http://www.gap.com/browse/division.do?cid=6344&tid=gpvan001 :hurray:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you know it'd be really considerate of you, since im spending time wading through your word vomit, to parse your responses to me. highlight what you want to respond to, press the button to make a quote, then start typing immediately after the

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And now I have to jump thru the mulit quote hoop. You are high maint.

BTW. Murdoch didn't buy WSJ till 07. My link was 03 but thanks for the insight.

http://www.aim.org/special-report/journalists-exposed-on-the-un-payroll-george-soros-ted-turner-pay-for-journ/

Soros paid for a journalists to spin something. Pro UN. But whats the biggie on that?

The book is pro-U.N. to the point of ignoring Annan’s documented role in the failure to prevent the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

But since he is open.

Wurst, who works for the Ted Turner-funded U.N. Wire and Global Security Newswire, did not provide any more details about Turner or Soros grants to UNCA. However, UNCA documents on the group’s website indicate that the two groups have provided at least $20,000 to underwrite the awarding of journalism prizes for covering the U.N. Wurst, Jenkins and Williams say the money doesn’t have any influence. “We owe allegiance to no one and nothing but good, hard, critical―but fact based-reporting,” they said. “We are a proud, feisty and independent association of journalists.” But one journalist who submitted articles for consideration for a prize from UNCA said they were rejected because they were considered too critical of the U.N. He was told they should be “more positive” about the U.N.‘s efforts to fix problems.

I have ref Chomsky many times before. Even your love child Krugman. Do you drop Andrew Sullivan?

Did you know Soros had his hand in the McCain-Feingold Act?

IANSA? Sure his Open Source Institute is a fiancier. We all know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Crap. I nearly forgot your Steely Dan proclamation.

I may have to bow out now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I just thought I'd make this in response to Venom's thread. While I'm pretty sure he's just a fakeposter, there's no doubt that there are people that actually believe this sh*t is organic, and that these people are acting in their interests.

Read the full article here. I'm going to post the most intriguing excerpts.

so you believed all this? you were caught up in the fervor? you think something financed by one of the richest men in america is in your, the lowly commoner's interest?

congrats you're a corporate shill

dude youre an idiot. youre so completely blind to reality. who cares who it was financed by, obviously the man is trying to make a real difference, while helping to spread the word against obama, his socialist ideals, and his law-breaking cronies in the cabinet. corporate america/business owners are what keeps this country afloat. without corporate america, the people have no power in this country and the government rules all. why is this so hard to understand?? its common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

don't try to match me at an intellectual level while trying to insult me at the same time; you're good at neither.

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

BTW. Murdoch didn't buy WSJ till 07. My link was 03 but thanks for the insight.

im aware of this and if you'd read you'd have picked up on that. i stated

the WSJ is now owned by Rupert Murdoch.

then later identified the article as a line from the WSJ in 2003. I mean....do you think this is a burn?

Soros paid for a journalists to spin something. Pro UN. But whats the biggie on that?

The book is pro-U.N. to the point of ignoring Annan’s documented role in the failure to prevent the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

where in the world does it say he paid a journalist to spin something?

But one journalist who submitted articles for consideration for a prize from UNCA said they were rejected because they were considered too critical of the U.N. He was told they should be “more positive” about the U.N.‘s efforts to fix problems.

so a guy is pissed he didn't win an award and says it's political?

Do you drop Andrew Sullivan?

i'd drop him from a cliff if i had the chance

Did you know Soros had his hand in the McCain-Feingold Act?

IANSA?

do you have a problem with campaign finance or anti-gun violence? he's an outspoken supporter of both of these things. i don't know how you could say he is anything but open about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

anti-gun violence?

What is that? And please be gentle oh merciful one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites