Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
34 replies to this topic

#16 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 10:27 PM

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

Edited by Fiz, 01 March 2009 - 10:30 PM.


#17 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,081 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 10:48 PM

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.opinionjo...ml?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/b...44&tid=gpvan001 :hurray:

#18 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 11:03 PM

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 [/QUOTE].

it's the least you can do
[quote name='pstall']
So you mentioning Bill Kristol or Lopez isn't atypical either?[/quote]
well you're certainly not going to be referencing chomsky or klein any time soon.
[quote]So now I have to have a running tab of sources dropped to be in contention?[/quote]
what are you talking about
[quote]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.[/quote]
what are you talking about.
[quote]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.[/quote]
i've never used the term functional retard here. most of the people aren't functional.
[quote]The contex of this thread, or so my 5th grade mind thought, was on transparency of an alleged movement.[/quote]
well yes, but you've hardly mentioned that at all, seeming content to just dance around little side quips that you don't show any understanding of at all.
[quote]One dude mentioned Soros and it fit the bill. You go all Bill Mahr.
I reply. You go uber Bill Mahr.[/quote]
what are you talking about.
[quote]I asked about Soros being up front and no reply.[/quote]
up front about what
[quote]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.opinionjo...ml?id=110004282[/quote]
the WSJ is now owned by Rupert Murdoch.

I think that's a very interesting article, and not especially outrageous or controversial, except to people who would find trying to get bush out of office or legalizing marijuana shocking. but with regards to his political affiliations, he's always seemed pretty open about it. i mean unlike you i'm not reading a book about his economic theories, but what would you say is his big hidden political agenda?

i mean, who would read this today and disregard it?
[quote name='WSJ in 2003'] Other flavorful Soros descriptions of current U.S. policy include "imperialist vision" and "Orwellian doublespeak" and something that "cannot be reconciled with the idea of an open society."[/quote]
[quote]Again. In the frame of what you started with. The openess and the real reason behind various movements.[/quote]
again, he's pretty damn open.

are you going to say anything specific at all?

#19 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,081 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 11:58 PM

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/s...-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.

#20 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,081 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 12:00 AM

Crap. I nearly forgot your Steely Dan proclamation.
I may have to bow out now...

#21 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,911 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 12:21 AM

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.

#22 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    You Paid A Dollar For This?

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,519 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 12:25 AM

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:

#23 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 12:30 AM

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.

Edited by Fiz, 02 March 2009 - 12:38 AM.


#24 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,976 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:24 AM

anti-gun violence?

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

#25 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,583 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:33 AM

*pops some popcorn..*

#26 Scrumtrilescent

Scrumtrilescent

    I aim to misbehave.

  • Administrators
  • 8,682 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 10:02 AM

How about we debate/yell/get pissy at each other sans the name calling?

#27 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,081 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 02:18 PM

I added Andrew Sullivan to fiz's Chomsky.
Can using mythological names calling be grounds for bant? Ie my reference for fiz to avoid staring at the pond too long?

#28 dimbee

dimbee

    Rabble Rouser

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,915 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 03:19 PM

This forum needs an enema

#29 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,312 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 11:08 PM

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.


Glad I can play a part in your little fantasy world. Makes me feel all tingly inside.

#30 dimbee

dimbee

    Rabble Rouser

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,915 posts

Posted 03 March 2009 - 12:30 PM

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


Posted Image


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com