GOP To Shift Tone On Obamacare

Outerlimits wrote:If you really knew anything about the Tea Party or spent any time with a person with Tea Party beliefs, you would know they don’t take it marching orders from anyone.  

Financial contributors do not and cannot control a decentralized movement that purposefully does not have a leader.   It you really knew anything about the Tea Party you wouldn’t know they aren’t a bunch or red-neck hicks as you try to make them out to be.  Your callus superiority complexes aside; most Tea Party members completely understand what they are supporting and they are not puppets.  They don’t need political strategists and talking points to give them “marching orders”
.
If you really knew the difference between little” r” republican and big “R” Republican, you would know the Tea Party is not for government subsidies to corporations.

But you clearly stated otherwise.

You are either completely ignorant on the subject, or you are deliberately trying to mislead.

LOL...thanks for confirming my beliefs. I continue to point out that TEA party members are completely misinformed puppets of the super-wealthy who are destroying our democracy. I notice in your attempt to respond, you didn't answer why the Tea party politicians all must answer to the Koch Brothers and when they don't, they are "primaried" (Eric Cantor is the most recent)?
Try to get past your anger and just answer that one question...

Oh I answered it. The Tea Party does not answer to anyone. The premise of your question was completely flawed.

Chris Matthews stated the other night:

“They (Tea Party) have a message, they're as American as any liberal is, and they're really angry about the failure of the system.
I was over covering eastern Europe when the wall came down.

The thing people didn't like, it wasn't the philosophy of communism they didn't like, it was the complete corruption of it, the failure of it to deliver to working people.

And that's what this system's doing right now. We can't control the deficit, we can't control the debt, we can't control the border. What is government good at? And that's the question that's happened on every issue we've covered on our show. “

I guess the tingle is wearing off.

Maybe the Democrats and establishment Republicans should stop looking down their noses at the principles that make up the foundation of the TEA party movement.

For too many years the left has ridiculed the TEA party movement, and created an absurdly cartoonish version of the movement, by claiming the views of every freak, nut job, or kook was the embodiment of the movement, in order to dismiss it.

There is no TEA “Party”, there is just a national movement which favors fiscal responsibility, and our constitutional rights and freedoms.
Of course the far left extremists are scared to death by the TEA Party. They want the Federal Government to control everything. They believe Healthcare, housing, retirement and a living wage is a right and believe the Progressive Democrats will deliver.

Yep, all rosy rhetoric but you didn't answer my question...I continue to ask but you & WHL never answer that one. BTW quoting Chris Mathews does nothing for me....he's just another guy with an opinion.

why the Tea party politicians all must answer to the Koch Brothers and when they don't, they are "primaried" (Eric Cantor is the most recent)?

I'll grant you the idea that the TEA party may have started out as a "noble" cause but I'll continue to point out that it has been pre-empted by big $$$$...now it's your burden to prove me wrong. Why was Cantor and other TEA party darlings "primaried"  and who funded it?

Nice job at parsing language.

Once again, the TEA party does not answer to the Koch Brothers. Cantor was primaried because he did not properly represent his constituents and they called for it. This is the foundation of the TEA Party; proper representation.

Go ahead and try to prove the Koch brothers arranged this. You can’t.

Brat had a war chest of 200K so it’s kind of hard to say he was financed by the Koch brothers & Wall Street.

The TEA Party along with Libertarians and Conservatives are disgusted with establishment politicians Left and Right. If you truly believe any of your occupy 1% crap, so would you.

Try and find a TEA Party member the supports Boehner, Cantor, Graham or McConnell.

News Pigeon wrote:and it's easy to imagine that the rich will never be made to pay too much, even in a democracy.

I love quotes like this.

So if 51% of people get together, they can vote to make the other 49% pay up.

This is why the country was not set up to be a democracy.

Too bad that is no longer the case.

News Pigeon wrote:

why the Tea party politicians all must answer to the Koch Brothers and when they don't, they are "primaried" (Eric Cantor is the most recent)?

Dave Brat was funded by guys like me.

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

why the Tea party politicians all must answer to the Koch Brothers and when they don't, they are "primaried" (Eric Cantor is the most recent)?

Dave Brat was funded by guys like me.

I don't think so...

The Dark Money Machine That Beat Eric Cantor
Wednesday, 11 June 2014 1

This was a shocking upset, one that no one saw coming. So ever since news broke about Cantor's defeat at roughly around 8 P.M. last night, the Beltway media has been trying to get to the bottom of just why exactly someone like him, someone so well-connected and established, lost to someone like David Brat, who spent less on his campaign than Cantor spent on steaks.

The official narrative is that Cantor lost because he was too "moderate" (from a Republican point of view, at least) on immigration, that he didn't spend enough time in his district, and that the conservative base was sick and tired of someone it saw as a sellout.

And while there is a lot of truth to that narrative - just check out any right wing blog and you'll see what I mean - it misses the bigger picture of what's really going on here.

One of the reasons - if not the biggest reason - Eric Cantor lost was that he totally underestimated the dark money machine that was the real force behind David Brat's campaign.

The media is making it seem like Brat was some sort of underdog, but in reality, he's strapped to the hilt with billionaire support and billionaire money.

In fact, you could argue that he pretty much owes his job to people like the Koch brothers and their cronies. John Allison, the former CEO of BB&T bank and the current head of the Koch-founded Cato Institute, gave Brat's college a $500,000 fellowship back in 2010 so he could teach Ayn Rand and libertarianism at Randolph Macon University. Like hundreds of other college professors across the country these days, David Brat is really just a bought-and-paid-for shill of Charles and David Koch and their buddies.

But the connections between Brat and the dark money machine don't stop there. He was also the hand-picked candidate of the Koch-backed world of right-wing media.

But have no fear NB and NP and folks like them...

Brat will probably lose the general and you'll pick up a seat for Your Team.

Because, and even though Brat is not a "perfect" liberty candidate and he is better than the NSA supporting Cantor, most people do not have any desire to upset the apple cart too much.

In spite of all the bitching, people are pretty much content they way things are.

They do not want freedom and independence, that's too much hard work.

They want to be fed, and entertained, and have the ability to boss their fellow man around, or vote to take his stuff from him, in order to vote themselves more "free" shit.

The welfare state, and the warfare state, and the police state...they have no real objection to any of them.

News Pigeon wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

why the Tea party politicians all must answer to the Koch Brothers and when they don't, they are "primaried" (Eric Cantor is the most recent)?

Dave Brat was funded by guys like me.

I don't think so...

The Dark Money Machine That Beat Eric Cantor
Wednesday, 11 June 2014 1

   This was a shocking upset, one that no one saw coming. So ever since news broke about Cantor's defeat at roughly around 8 P.M. last night, the Beltway media has been trying to get to the bottom of just why exactly someone like him, someone so well-connected and established, lost to someone like David Brat, who spent less on his campaign than Cantor spent on steaks.

Source link please.

And even your story admits Brat spent next to nothing.

John Allison, the former CEO of BB&T bank and the current head of the Koch-founded Cato Institute, gave Brat's college a $500,000 fellowship back in 2010 so he could teach Ayn Rand and libertarianism at Randolph Macon University.

This is a problem why?

Billionaires like Bloomberg, and Soros and Gates and Buffet donate many times that amount to various "left wing" causes.

I don't see you complaining about that.

Nor am I...their money, they can do what they want with it.

How typical....when you say things like this:

They do not want freedom and independence, that's too much hard work.
They want to be fed, and entertained, and have the ability to boss their fellow man around, or vote to take his stuff from him, in order to vote themselves more "free" shit.
The welfare state, and the warfare state, and the police state...they have no real objection to any of them

You just prove that you have nothing to offer but ad hominen attacks to distract from the facts.

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

why the Tea party politicians all must answer to the Koch Brothers and when they don't, they are "primaried" (Eric Cantor is the most recent)?

Dave Brat was funded by guys like me.

I don't think so...

The Dark Money Machine That Beat Eric Cantor
Wednesday, 11 June 2014 1

   This was a shocking upset, one that no one saw coming. So ever since news broke about Cantor's defeat at roughly around 8 P.M. last night, the Beltway media has been trying to get to the bottom of just why exactly someone like him, someone so well-connected and established, lost to someone like David Brat, who spent less on his campaign than Cantor spent on steaks.

Source link please.

And even your story admits Brat spent next to nothing.

Do you not understand the meaning of "dark money"? Just because Brat's campaign didn't spend much doesn't mean that there wasn't a lot of money spent by organizations such as the Cato Institute to boost his appeal.

News Pigeon wrote:How typical....when you say things like this:

They do not want freedom and independence, that's too much hard work.
They want to be fed, and entertained, and have the ability to boss their fellow man around, or vote to take his stuff from him, in order to vote themselves more "free" shit.
The welfare state, and the warfare state, and the police state...they have no real objection to any of them

You just prove that you have nothing to offer but  ad hominen attacks to distract from the facts.

But it's fact, validated by your own faith in "democracy".

Congress has a re-election rate greater than the old Soviet Politburo.

An no great revelation anyway...this has been the state of humanity for millenarian now.

The Roman Caesars understood this.

News Pigeon wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

why the Tea party politicians all must answer to the Koch Brothers and when they don't, they are "primaried" (Eric Cantor is the most recent)?

Dave Brat was funded by guys like me.

I don't think so...

The Dark Money Machine That Beat Eric Cantor
Wednesday, 11 June 2014 1

   This was a shocking upset, one that no one saw coming. So ever since news broke about Cantor's defeat at roughly around 8 P.M. last night, the Beltway media has been trying to get to the bottom of just why exactly someone like him, someone so well-connected and established, lost to someone like David Brat, who spent less on his campaign than Cantor spent on steaks.

Source link please.

And even your story admits Brat spent next to nothing.

Do you not understand the meaning of "dark money"? Just because Brat's campaign didn't spend much doesn't mean that there  wasn't a lot of money spent by organizations such as the Cato Institute to boost his appeal.

So...you're not going to provide the source link then?

And I'm afraid you're not going to have much success convincing me, when I am so "out there" that I consider (St)ato to be "too moderate".

That said, why is this a problem?

Isn't that how things are supposed to work in a "democracy", convince as many people as possible to vote for "your guy"?

Anti Federalist wrote:...Brat will probably lose the general and you'll pick up a seat for Your Team.

I wouldn't give up that seat just yet. That district is very small "r" republican.

The general consensus from what I have heard so far is that Brat will win.

NP complains because ONE college course out of probably 6000 or maybe 60,000 is not liberal.  What a joke.

Anti Federalist wrote:




So...you're not going to provide the source link then?

And I'm afraid you're not going to have much success convincing me, when I am so "out there" that I consider (St)ato to be "too moderate".

That said, why is this a problem?

Isn't that how things are supposed to work in a "democracy", convince as many people as possible to vote for "your guy"?

Sure, I'll provide the source link
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24300-the-dark-money-machine-that-beat-eric-cantor
Now I'll expect you to attack the source, rather than research the info within the article and offer debate.
Here's a revelation for you...most people are sick to death of politics and politicians but I'm sure we'll all continue to think "our guy" is the best one to do the job.

You ask why it's a problem to involve big $$ interests in elections, are you serious? Why must we allow our politicians to be bought?

WHL wrote:The general consensus from what I have heard so far is that Brat will win.

NP complains because ONE college course out of probably 6000 or maybe 60,000 is not liberal.  What a joke.

Just where do you come up with this shit? I'd love to see you prove I said anything close to that....stop nipping at my heels and present a full fledged rebuttal, just once, it would redeem my opinion of you.

News Pigeon wrote:
Sure, I'll provide the source link
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24300-the-dark-money-machine-that-beat-eric-cantor
Now I'll expect you to attack the source, rather than research the info within the article and offer debate.
Here's a revelation for you...most people are sick to death of politics and politicians but I'm sure we'll all continue to think "our guy" is the best one to do the job.

You ask why it's a problem to involve big $$ interests in elections, are you serious? Why must we allow our politicians to be bought?

Your “Dark Money” theory is just that, a theory and an opinion.

But here is a FACT: Although David Brat embraced many TEA Party ideas, he was never endorsed by the TEA Party. He relentlessly attacked Cantor for being a Wall Street stooge, Washington insider and opposed Cantor’s stance on immigration reform.

That kinda shoots a big ol’ hole in your Tea Party theory now doesn’t it?

Maybe the Democrats did some funding for Brat. After all, the guy has opened his mouth a couple of times and he is a good example of the Democrat's dream candidate.  

News Buzzard wrote:Maybe the Democrats did some funding for Brat. After all, the guy has opened his mouth a couple of times and he is a good example of the Democrat's dream candidate.  

LOL.....it's like a gift that just keeps giving!

Outerlimits wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:
Sure, I'll provide the source link
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24300-the-dark-money-machine-that-beat-eric-cantor
Now I'll expect you to attack the source, rather than research the info within the article and offer debate.
Here's a revelation for you...most people are sick to death of politics and politicians but I'm sure we'll all continue to think "our guy" is the best one to do the job.

You ask why it's a problem to involve big $$ interests in elections, are you serious? Why must we allow our politicians to be bought?

Your “Dark Money” theory is just that, a theory and an opinion.

But here is a FACT: Although David Brat embraced many TEA Party ideas, he was never endorsed by the TEA Party.  He relentlessly attacked Cantor for being a Wall Street stooge, Washington insider and opposed Cantor’s stance on immigration reform.

That kinda shoots a big ol’ hole in your Tea Party theory now doesn’t it?

LOL...from your preferred Washington Post...

Brat was backed by the tea party. In addition to being backed by prominent conservatives (Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham), Brat was backed by grass-roots tea party groups as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/10/david-brat-just-beat-eric-cantor-who-is-he/

Dave is an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College, who also attended Princeton Seminary. He regularly speaks to business associations, government officials, and conservative organizations, including Tea Party groups. Considered an extremely viable candidate by many analysts, including those at the National Review, Brat represents a serious challenge to House Majority Leader Cantor, who has helped sink Congress to a mere 6% approval rating. Already, some are framing this campaign as a “true conservative” taking on the “Establishment GOP.
http://www.richmondteaparty.com/dave-brat-announces-challenge-to-cantor/

News Pigeon wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:




So...you're not going to provide the source link then?

And I'm afraid you're not going to have much success convincing me, when I am so "out there" that I consider (St)ato to be "too moderate".

That said, why is this a problem?

Isn't that how things are supposed to work in a "democracy", convince as many people as possible to vote for "your guy"?

Sure, I'll provide the source link
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24300-the-dark-money-machine-that-beat-eric-cantor
Now I'll expect you to attack the source, rather than research the info within the article and offer debate.
Here's a revelation for you...most people are sick to death of politics and politicians but I'm sure we'll all continue to think "our guy" is the best one to do the job.

You ask why it's a problem to involve big $$ interests in elections, are you serious? Why must we allow our politicians to be bought?

Because in a free society, people can spend their money as they see fit.

If government was limited, as it was set up, the power that politicians hold over all of us would be limited and of little consequence.

News Buzzard wrote:Maybe the Democrats did some funding for Brat. After all, the guy has opened his mouth a couple of times and he is a good example of the Democrat's dream candidate.  

I've seen this around a number of places.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Anti Federalist wrote:But have no fear NB and NP and folks like them...

Brat will probably lose the general and you'll pick up a seat for Your Team.

Because, and even though Brat is not a "perfect" liberty candidate and he is better than the NSA supporting Cantor, most people do not have any desire to upset the apple cart too much.

In spite of all the bitching, people are pretty much content they way things are.

They do not want freedom and independence, that's too much hard work.

They want to be fed, and entertained, and have the ability to boss their fellow man around, or vote to take his stuff from him, in order to vote themselves more "free" shit.

The welfare state, and the warfare state, and the police state...they have no real objection to any of them.

Does anybody honestly deny this to be true?