Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Soros Factor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    [Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Your #8 was vague and implied that "the tea party"(generic and as a whole) was funded by "rich guys";
    I replied that the LOCAL TEA Party I was a member of wasn't funded by "rich guys(or gals)" and most other local TEA Parties I knew of also weren't funded by "the rich". When I ask for you to prove/document that claim, you sidestepped and dodge with a small and limited case of "one example".
    You start with a broad brush then CYA with focus on a single brushstroke ...

    Then somehow you run this into hypocrisy on "deficits" when there was no funding from guv'mint sources ...
    ... and rich people is all of what capitalism and free enterprise are about and for.

    BTW, it's "better than I".

    You employ not only sloppy language, but also sloppy logic.


    Yes, funded by rich guys and I gave an example which you did not refute. I did not say that your LOCAL Tea party was funded by such guys. Nor did I say that ALL local organizations were funded. What do you expect me to do? To start a project to go over every tea party organization in the country? I used the same standards people on the right use when they argue that Soros funds decentralized organizations like the Black Lives Matters movement as I showed in the FOX link I posted earlier. If you have problem with that logic, do not blame me. I just keep the right-wing posters honest by using their standards! The point I make is simple: If one wants to find connections between super-rich guys and popular movements, he can find such links. It does not matter if the movement is called Tea Party or BLM!

    p.s. The hypocrisy on deficits is obvious when Tea Party members like you stay silent when deficits under Trump go up at a time when the economy is actually strong enough to reduce the total deficit instead of farther increasing it!

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/econo...cit/index.html

    US deficit rises 17% to the highest level since 2012

    The deficit rose to $779 billion in fiscal year 2018, up 17% from last year, according to final figures released Monday by the Treasury Department. That's the largest number since 2012, when the country was still spending massively to stimulate an economy struggling to recover.


    Where are the Tea Party activists like you today?

    Here is one of your leaders talking about the big debt in 2011

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?300818...ce-debt-debate

    Hypocrites!
    Last edited by pamak; 26 Oct 18, 14:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Consider reviewing your post #8 on this thread, which I initially responded to, and maybe become a bit more precise in YOUR use of English.

    We've learned our "double standards" from whack-job seditionists and Alynskites of the Left.


    I reviewed it and reads like this...

    Originally posted by pamak
    I do not hear liberals being so obsessed with the rich guys on the right who DID fund the tea party (that was when hypocrites on your side were complaining about the deficits).

    I gave the evidence and you did not refute them. So, now you try to gain an advantage by claiming that you speak your native language better than me...

    Congratulations for your accomplishment!
    Your #8 was vague and implied that "the tea party"(generic and as a whole) was funded by "rich guys";
    I replied that the LOCAL TEA Party I was a member of wasn't funded by "rich guys(or gals)" and most other local TEA Parties I knew of also weren't funded by "the rich". When I ask for you to prove/document that claim, you sidestepped and dodge with a small and limited case of "one example".
    You start with a broad brush then CYA with focus on a single brushstroke ...

    Then somehow you run this into hypocrisy on "deficits" when there was no funding from guv'mint sources ...
    ... and rich people is all of what capitalism and free enterprise are about and for.

    BTW, it's "better than I".

    You employ not only sloppy language, but also sloppy logic.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    No, the Soros "boogyman" is based on two things: The groups to which he gives, and the fact that the vast majority of those are 527's so his spending is "dark money." The Koch brothers mostly spend on lobbying that has to be disclosed in full.
    The groups Soros spends on also are pro-illegal immigration (including shielding illegals from law enforcement), open borders, anti-Semitic (lots of those), pro-Palestinian terrorist, tied to radical environmentalism, and / or racist. I'm not saying Soros is "hijacking" any of the organizations, he isn't. But, he shovels money at causes that promote racism, hate, misandrogyny, Communism, Internationalism, violence, and the like.

    While people may disparage and even hate the Koch brothers I doubt you'll find them bankrolling similar groups on the Right.
    Your belief about Soros is not supported by your source. Also, the premise that he is spending more in "dark money" is illogical since "dark money" by definition does not allow comparisons between Soros and Koch. You can characterize Soros's beliefs in whatever negative light you wish. It does not change the fact that a leftist can do the same about Koch's funding for groups that for the left are supporting pro-poverty wages, anti-worker laws, illegal Israeli occupation, racism, misogyny or whatever. The point I make is that leftists are less prone to simplify the real world and see a single businessman as a boogeyman behind every wrong that the left sees in this world.
    Last edited by pamak; 26 Oct 18, 13:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    So, the Soros boogeyman is simply based on the fact that he does not spend on candidates or causes who/which your beliefs. But of course, such admission shows the difference in mentality between the right and the left. A leftist could also say the same thing about Kohn, but still the leftists are way less prone to demonize a single billionaire, even when the latter may fund causes and candidates who/which do not support leftist ideas. It shows hoe easily the right can be duped by demagogues who create boogeymen to arouse the republican base when reality is way too complex to be explained by the deeds of a single billionaire.

    As for the union, you did not show that the unions far outspend billionaires because you compared 18 unions to ONE billionaire!
    No, the Soros "boogyman" is based on two things: The groups to which he gives, and the fact that the vast majority of those are 527's so his spending is "dark money." The Koch brothers mostly spend on lobbying that has to be disclosed in full.
    The groups Soros spends on also are pro-illegal immigration (including shielding illegals from law enforcement), open borders, anti-Semitic (lots of those), pro-Palestinian terrorist, tied to radical environmentalism, and / or racist. I'm not saying Soros is "hijacking" any of the organizations, he isn't. But, he shovels money at causes that promote racism, hate, misandrogyny, Communism, Internationalism, violence, and the like.

    While people may disparage and even hate the Koch brothers I doubt you'll find them bankrolling similar groups on the Right.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Consider reviewing your post #8 on this thread, which I initially responded to, and maybe become a bit more precise in YOUR use of English.

    We've learned our "double standards" from whack-job seditionists and Alynskites of the Left.


    I reviewed it and reads like this...

    Originally posted by pamak
    I do not hear liberals being so obsessed with the rich guys on the right who DID fund the tea party (that was when hypocrites on your side were complaining about the deficits).

    I gave the evidence and you did not refute them. So, now you try to gain an advantage by claiming that you speak your native language better than me...

    Congratulations for your accomplishment!
    You mean the International Language of the World.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Consider reviewing your post #8 on this thread, which I initially responded to, and maybe become a bit more precise in YOUR use of English.

    We've learned our "double standards" from whack-job seditionists and Alynskites of the Left.


    I reviewed it and reads like this...

    Originally posted by pamak
    I do not hear liberals being so obsessed with the rich guys on the right who DID fund the tea party (that was when hypocrites on your side were complaining about the deficits).

    I gave the evidence and you did not refute them. So, now you try to gain an advantage by claiming that you speak your native language better than me...

    Congratulations for your accomplishment!

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    That was way back and I likely did, and noticed the same problem~error~delusion then as you show now. BTW, I pointed that out then and you failed to grasp it then, apparently.

    "The TEA* Party" was a spontaneous and nationwide grassroots MOVEMENT, but not a Nationally centrally structured organization like the RNC or the DNC. There is no national headquarters or organization that one HAS TO join to claim to be a TEA Party. No official membership card to carry or annual dues expected. Often rather limited linkage and association with other "TEA Parties" in other counties or across a given state.

    I realize you Lefty-Loonies often have a mindset expecting some sort of central control, a "polit-bureau" of sorts that sets policy and goals, instructs, controls actions, etc. Goes with the more power and larger guv'mint ideals you pursue and the overall statist mindset you have. It's hard for liberal-lefties to grasp that people can be self organizing, self-controling, self-motivating, and don't need "experts" in higher authority to inform and direct them. This mob mentality common to the left-liberals is why so many of you are totally clueless about the TEA Party, what it really is, or how it functions.

    Sorry komrade, we are nothing at all like your Commitern ....
    Communist International - Wikipedia

    Also, "The TEA Party" IS NOT a political party or organization like the Republicans(RNC) or Democrats(DNC). Think more along lines of a local citizens advocacy organization like a local business club, or Chamber of Commerce, or Lions Club, etc. However, once again, not organized or structured on a regional or national level. While most LOCAL TEA Parties were non-partisan, many shared a common set of principles. In the case of my county TEA Party such were expressed in our mission statement;

    " To reverse deficit spending and the concentration of power in central government, in order to preserve states' rights and individual liberty for future generations. "




    Unfortunately, you weren't.



    Of course you use a Liberal ".org" as a source ...



    And this "just one PAC" is rather small and localized in it's role and effect with regard to the nationwide TEA Party movement. Divide that near $4 million among tens of millions of citizens nationwide involved in TEA Party locals and it ain't going far ...
    BTW, you could have included a link to the PAC that (not so)"Opensecrets" showed;

    https://www.teapartypatriots.org/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Pa..._Citizens_Fund

    * = TEA = Taxed Enough Already

    You see?

    You still refuse to read what I post. You also refuse to see the actual GOVERNMENT documents from the FEC reports which are linked to the source I posted.
    You also do not understand what I am saying. I did not claim that the Tea Party was a central organization. Nor is it necessary to have a central organization in order to fund it or even subvert it.
    Also, I used the same standards people who accuse Soros use. When they find any activity of his funding any organization, they see immediately manipulation and subversion. Then, they do not care if the funds go to a centralized organization or to a local chapter.

    BLM is not a centralized organization, but this does not stop people accusing Soros of highjacking it

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...sheriff-clarke

    Black Lives Matter has been hijacked by George Soros: Sheriff Clarke

    Feel free to use double standards when you analyze the impact of donations from the left and the right and examine the structure of decentralized movements only when it fits you...
    Consider reviewing your post #8 on this thread, which I initially responded to, and maybe become a bit more precise in YOUR use of English.

    We've learned our "double standards" from whack-job seditionists and Alynskites of the Left.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Who was exhorting to kill Trump, who was exhorting to put his son in a cell with a pedophile, who is exhorting to attack GOP politicians in restaurants, who was trying to kill a GOP congressman,.......?
    That's why the rest of America cannot be civil with the Democrats .
    Exactly!

    Started back in 1968 - Chicago.

    The Left has taken over the Democratic party and is all about sedition and unraveling the Constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    As you know times change. Democrats were once the party of racist, but today can we still call them that citing evidence from decades past? They're not sending a bomb to CNN and Obama, you know very well that makes absolutely no sense.
    Of course these weren't racist Democrats ...

    Black Republican Threatened With Gun While Volunteering At Polls
    https://www.teaparty.org/black-repub...-polls-330064/

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    I didn't take it as hyperbole at all. An exaggeration, maybe. But, with the later the figure was so wrong it needed pointing out. The original post was making an attempt to defend Soros' payouts while denigrating the Koch brothers. I already knew that both are running about equal-- give or take-- in political spending, so they're equally bad in that respect.
    However, I think Soros because of how and on whom he spends, is the far worse of the two.

    I threw in unions simply for comparison purposes to show they far outspend billionaires and unlike billionaires where their money is personal, unions are using OPM who often disagree, sometimes vehemently, with the political choices of their union. That is particularly egregious when the person that disagrees is being forced to pay union dues.
    Having been a union member in the past (I.A.M.), I'm with you on the massive spending from unions for political candidates and causes, largely of the left leaning sort. I noticed that the rank-n-file workers rarely attend meetings of the union's Locals, and those few whom do, and in essense run things, tend to lean Left~socialist in their politics. The paid leadership/officials are even more so, often having been less efficient and productive as workers, they opted to get involved in "union politics" and often get paid better than when working members "on the floor" and pursue agendas that are better for the "Union" than for the workers.

    SEIU tends to be the worse offender in political funding of socialist agendas and candidates.

    Fortunately my State is joining those with legislation and court rulings tearing down mandatory union membership.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    That was way back and I likely did, and noticed the same problem~error~delusion then as you show now. BTW, I pointed that out then and you failed to grasp it then, apparently.

    "The TEA* Party" was a spontaneous and nationwide grassroots MOVEMENT, but not a Nationally centrally structured organization like the RNC or the DNC. There is no national headquarters or organization that one HAS TO join to claim to be a TEA Party. No official membership card to carry or annual dues expected. Often rather limited linkage and association with other "TEA Parties" in other counties or across a given state.

    I realize you Lefty-Loonies often have a mindset expecting some sort of central control, a "polit-bureau" of sorts that sets policy and goals, instructs, controls actions, etc. Goes with the more power and larger guv'mint ideals you pursue and the overall statist mindset you have. It's hard for liberal-lefties to grasp that people can be self organizing, self-controling, self-motivating, and don't need "experts" in higher authority to inform and direct them. This mob mentality common to the left-liberals is why so many of you are totally clueless about the TEA Party, what it really is, or how it functions.

    Sorry komrade, we are nothing at all like your Commitern ....
    Communist International - Wikipedia

    Also, "The TEA Party" IS NOT a political party or organization like the Republicans(RNC) or Democrats(DNC). Think more along lines of a local citizens advocacy organization like a local business club, or Chamber of Commerce, or Lions Club, etc. However, once again, not organized or structured on a regional or national level. While most LOCAL TEA Parties were non-partisan, many shared a common set of principles. In the case of my county TEA Party such were expressed in our mission statement;

    " To reverse deficit spending and the concentration of power in central government, in order to preserve states' rights and individual liberty for future generations. "




    Unfortunately, you weren't.



    Of course you use a Liberal ".org" as a source ...



    And this "just one PAC" is rather small and localized in it's role and effect with regard to the nationwide TEA Party movement. Divide that near $4 million among tens of millions of citizens nationwide involved in TEA Party locals and it ain't going far ...
    BTW, you could have included a link to the PAC that (not so)"Opensecrets" showed;

    https://www.teapartypatriots.org/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Pa..._Citizens_Fund

    * = TEA = Taxed Enough Already

    You see?

    You still refuse to read what I post. You also refuse to see the actual GOVERNMENT documents from the FEC reports which are linked to the source I posted.
    You also do not understand what I am saying. I did not claim that the Tea Party was a central organization. Nor is it necessary to have a central organization in order to fund it or even subvert it.
    Also, I used the same standards people who accuse Soros use. When they find any activity of his funding any organization, they see immediately manipulation and subversion. Then, they do not care if the funds go to a centralized organization or to a local chapter.

    BLM is not a centralized organization, but this does not stop people accusing Soros of highjacking it

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...sheriff-clarke

    Black Lives Matter has been hijacked by George Soros: Sheriff Clarke

    Feel free to use double standards when you analyze the impact of donations from the left and the right and examine the structure of decentralized movements only when it fits you...

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I actually gave some links but you did not read them apparently


    That was way back and I likely did, and noticed the same problem~error~delusion then as you show now. BTW, I pointed that out then and you failed to grasp it then, apparently.

    "The TEA* Party" was a spontaneous and nationwide grassroots MOVEMENT, but not a Nationally centrally structured organization like the RNC or the DNC. There is no national headquarters or organization that one HAS TO join to claim to be a TEA Party. No official membership card to carry or annual dues expected. Often rather limited linkage and association with other "TEA Parties" in other counties or across a given state.

    I realize you Lefty-Loonies often have a mindset expecting some sort of central control, a "polit-bureau" of sorts that sets policy and goals, instructs, controls actions, etc. Goes with the more power and larger guv'mint ideals you pursue and the overall statist mindset you have. It's hard for liberal-lefties to grasp that people can be self organizing, self-controling, self-motivating, and don't need "experts" in higher authority to inform and direct them. This mob mentality common to the left-liberals is why so many of you are totally clueless about the TEA Party, what it really is, or how it functions.

    Sorry komrade, we are nothing at all like your Commitern .... Communist International - Wikipedia

    Also, "The TEA Party" IS NOT a political party or organization like the Republicans(RNC) or Democrats(DNC). Think more along lines of a local citizens advocacy organization like a local business club, or Chamber of Commerce, or Lions Club, etc. However, once again, not organized or structured on a regional or national level. While most LOCAL TEA Parties were non-partisan, many shared a common set of principles. In the case of my county TEA Party such were expressed in our mission statement;

    " To reverse deficit spending and the concentration of power in central government, in order to preserve states' rights and individual liberty for future generations. "


    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Anyway, I will be more analytical
    Unfortunately, you weren't.

    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Meet
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    UIHLEIN, RICHARD, one of the mega-donors in the conservative field

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Uihlein

    Richard Ellis Uihlein (born 1945) is an American businessman, founder of Uline, conservative donor, and heir.


    Let' see just one PAC related to Tea Party activists

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/loo...trID=C00540898
    Of course you use a Liberal ".org" as a source ...

    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    ,,, edit for brevity ....


    So, without complicated calculations one can see that for the 2018 period our of the $2,722,455 that were received, $2,000,000 came from Richard Uihlen...

    p.s. the total receipts from the first link are
    Total Receipts $3,796,843
    This counts contributions which are quite small and are not itemized in the report.
    Still, even if we count total receipts, it is obvious that the contribution of this wealthy donor as a percentage is huge

    Notice that the site has the links for you to see the actual filing reports....
    And this "just one PAC" is rather small and localized in it's role and effect with regard to the nationwide TEA Party movement. Divide that near $4 million among tens of millions of citizens nationwide involved in TEA Party locals and it ain't going far ...
    BTW, you could have included a link to the PAC that (not so)"Opensecrets" showed;
    https://www.teapartypatriots.org/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Pa..._Citizens_Fund

    * = TEA = Taxed Enough Already

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I didn't take it as hyperbole at all. An exaggeration, maybe. But, with the later the figure was so wrong it needed pointing out. The original post was making an attempt to defend Soros' payouts while denigrating the Koch brothers. I already knew that both are running about equal-- give or take-- in political spending, so they're equally bad in that respect.
    However, I think Soros because of how and on whom he spends, is the far worse of the two.

    I threw in unions simply for comparison purposes to show they far outspend billionaires and unlike billionaires where their money is personal, unions are using OPM who often disagree, sometimes vehemently, with the political choices of their union. That is particularly egregious when the person that disagrees is being forced to pay union dues.


    So, the Soros boogeyman is simply based on the fact that he does not spend on candidates or causes who/which your beliefs. But of course, such admission shows the difference in mentality between the right and the left. A leftist could also say the same thing about Kohn, but still the leftists are way less prone to demonize a single billionaire, even when the latter may fund causes and candidates who/which do not support leftist ideas. It shows hoe easily the right can be duped by demagogues who create boogeymen to arouse the republican base when reality is way too complex to be explained by the deeds of a single billionaire.

    As for the union, you did not show that the unions far outspend billionaires because you compared 18 unions to ONE billionaire!

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I understood what you addressed! It is just that you did not understand my comment.

    In your attempt to refute an obvious hyperbole that Kohn spends 100x more than Soros, you brought a link which actually told us that Kohn spends more than Soros...

    Feel free to consider this a victory....
    And try again in a future thread to bring the boogeyman of Soros into the conversation. This thread which YOU helped create will hunt you....

    p.s. and your statistics about the unions have nothing to do with my comment that it does not make sense to compare the contributions of a SINGLE rich individual to those of hundreds of thousands of union members from 18 different unions. Plus, If you actually read the article, you will notice that Kohn as an individual donates as much to his causes as a whole union.
    I didn't take it as hyperbole at all. An exaggeration, maybe. But, with the later the figure was so wrong it needed pointing out. The original post was making an attempt to defend Soros' payouts while denigrating the Koch brothers. I already knew that both are running about equal-- give or take-- in political spending, so they're equally bad in that respect.
    However, I think Soros because of how and on whom he spends, is the far worse of the two.

    I threw in unions simply for comparison purposes to show they far outspend billionaires and unlike billionaires where their money is personal, unions are using OPM who often disagree, sometimes vehemently, with the political choices of their union. That is particularly egregious when the person that disagrees is being forced to pay union dues.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    n.p
    and yes, it is "talk"

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X