2012 Conventions; Tampa & Charlotte

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

Me too. But not even because of Mitt 'Snake Oil' Romney.

But because having a Republican President empowers those goons from the Tea Party.
They will control the whole show. Divided Government (balance of power) is one thing we need that we can accomplish (or simply maintain). The congressional Republicans will have no choice but to play a little ball (see: Clinton's 2nd term).

And I say this as someone that is somewhat fiscally conservative.
So really, I think it's not such a bad thing to lose the congress to Republicans. What we don't need is rubber stamping lunacy via Romney pacifying those those Tea Party clowns.

I"m one of the "goon/clowns" who believes in adherence to the U.S.
Constitution, reduce government spending. reduce the national debt,
and more of a libertarian attitude.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

That sounds like some schmaltz straight out of Twilight, all we need are the long silent blank stares.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I"m one of the "goon/clowns" who believes in adherence to the U.S.
Constitution, reduce government spending. reduce the national debt,
and more of a libertarian attitude.

You realise his goons/clowns epithet was applied to Tea Partiers specifically?

You realise the entire Tea Party movement is essentially the result of a billionaire's plan to corrupt the political system - as if it's not corrupted enough already?

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by financeguy

You realise his goons/clowns epithet was applied to Tea Partiers specifically?

You realise the entire Tea Party movement is essentially the result of a billionaire's plan to corrupt the political system - as if it's not corrupted enough already?

If you can send me (or post here) info on what you say, I will read it.

I still believe what I posted about government and liberty.

Thanks

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

If you can send me (or post here) info on what you say, I will read it.

I still believe what I posted about government and liberty.

Thanks

It has been discussed and researched time and time again. I'm not prepared to do your homework for you, I'm afraid.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

If you can send me (or post here) info on what you say, I will read it.

I still believe what I posted about government and liberty.

Thanks

The Billionaire Koch Brothers’ War Against Obama : The New Yorker

Please read and respond.

[financeguy]

^ Yes, that.

Note, I entirely agree with Iron Horse on libertarianism, limited government, and going back to adherence to the US constitution - but the Tea Party is a bad vehicle to advance those very legitimate and worthy viewpoints, in my view.

Ron Paul's campaign is much better - they have been around for longer and didn't come out of nowhere all of a sudden around three years ago with a suspect tv presenter fronting for them.

[PhilsFan]

Libertarianism the concept has been obfuscated by people who call themselves Libertarians.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Libertarianism the concept has been obfuscated by people who call themselves Libertarians.

Anyone can call themselves a libertarian if they sign up to the precepts - but some in the Tea Party movement are motivated by prejudice, i.e., they don't want a black guy around the place, or base careerist motives, such as those of certain tv presenters.

I can't trust the judgement or motives of anyone that was shilling for Bush/Cheney and their illegal wars and massive expansion of government powers in 2004 and all of a sudden is a libertarian in 2010 - that's not consistent. I don't include Iron Horse in that, as he has never advocated neo-conservatism - but the broader Tea Party movement is highly suspect, IMO.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by financeguy

^ Yes, that.

Note, I entirely agree with Iron Horse on libertarianism, limited government, and going back to adherence to the US constitution - but the Tea Party is a bad vehicle to advance those very legitimate and worthy viewpoints, in my view.

Ron Paul's campaign is much better - they have been around for longer and didn't come out of nowhere all of a sudden around three years ago with a suspect tv presenter fronting for them.

I read the link PhilsFan posted and did a search.
Yeah, there is a connection.


My first thought is that we live in a world of politcal mess.


And can I add this:

How much money has George Soros given to the left?

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I read the link PhilsFan posted and did a search.
Yeah, there is a connection.


My first thought is that we live in a world of politcal mess.

Agreed on this. It's a complicated world and sometimes the people shilling for various ideologies are doing so for cynical motives.

Originally Posted by the iron horse

And can I add this:

How much money has George Soros given to the left?

George Soros is a hedge fund trader and capitalist. I'm aware of him financing various Democrat causes, but not particularly far left ones, I would have thought.

A poster here, Anitram, who originally hails from Eastern Europe, has commented postively on his financing of freedom and pro-democracy movements in Eastern Europe, at a time when this was not a particularly politically popular thing to do. It would be extremely curious if Soros was secretly financing communistic or socialistic causes - though, I suppose, stranger things have happened.

That said, I take your point - wealthy private interests of uncertain motivation bankrolling political movements is something to be wary of.

Incidentally, here in Ireland, we are forced to pay for political party campaigns by taxes, as private sector donations above a certain limit were deemed corrupt - I assume this would not be to your satisfaction as a libertarian - it certainly isn't to mine.

[anitram]

Aside from my own anecdote (Soros provided funding to a family member of mine, who is an economist, in the 1980s before the fall of the Iron Curtain), it isn't hard to find information on his anti-communist philanthropy - just go to Wikipedia.

According to Waldemar A. Nielsen, an authority on American philanthropy,[62] "[Soros] has undertaken ... nothing less than to open up the once-closed Communist societies of Eastern Europe to a free flow of ideas and scientific knowledge from the ouside world".[63] From 1979, as an advocate of 'open societies', Soros financially supported dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union.[46] In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary with a budget of $3 million.[64] Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Soros' funding has continued to play an important role in the former Soviet sphere. His funding of pro-democratic programs in Georgia was considered by Russian and Western observers to be crucial to the success of the Rose Revolution, although Soros has said that his role has been "greatly exaggerated".[65] Alexander Lomaia, Secretary of the Georgian Security Council and former Minister of Education and Science, is a former Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation (Soros Foundation), overseeing a staff of 50 and a budget of $2,500,000.[66]

Former Georgian Foreign Minister Salomé Zourabichvili wrote that institutions like the Soros Foundation were the cradle of democratisation and that all the NGOs which gravitated around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution. She opines that after the revolution the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power.[67]

Some Soros-backed pro-democracy initiatives have been banned in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.[68] Ercis Kurtulus, head of the Social Transparency Movement Association (TSHD) in Turkey, said in an interview that "Soros carried out his will in Ukraine and Georgia by using these NGOs ... Last year Russia passed a special law prohibiting NGOs from taking money from foreigners. I think this should be banned in Turkey as well."[69] In 1997, Soros had to close his foundation in Belarus after it was fined $3 million by the government for "tax and currency violations". According to The New York Times, the Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko has been widely criticized in the West and in Russia for his efforts to control the Belarus Soros Foundation and other independent NGOs and to suppress civil and human rights. Soros called the fines part of a campaign to "destroy independent society".[70]

In June 2009, Soros donated $100m to Central Europe and Eastern Europe to counter the impact of the economic crisis on the poor, voluntary groups and non-government organisations.[71]

Does he support Democratic over Republican causes? Sure, but to imply he's in bed with the far left (what I assume to be socialists/communists) is seriously absurd given what he's essentially devoted his life to.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by anitram

Does he support Democratic over Republican causes? Sure, but to imply he's in bed with the far left (what I assume to be socialists/communists) is seriously absurd give what he's essentially devoted his life to.

Too bad, the paranoid right-wingers believe he is a communist looking to get FOX News off the air. After all, that's what Glen Beck says.

[financeguy]

Yes. But much as I hate to quote myself:

Originally Posted by financeguy

That said, I take your point - wealthy private interests of uncertain motivation bankrolling political movements is something to be wary of.

[anitram]

I agree, and I'd say it's worse than just something to be wary of. When wealthy private interests bankroll politicians the way they do now, we are in a plutocracy and democracy is dead. It should be plainly obvious to anyone paying attention.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by anitram

I agree, and I'd say it's worse than just something to be wary of. When wealthy private interests bankroll politicians the way they do now, we are in a plutocracy and democracy is dead. It should be plainly obvious to anyone paying attention.

The recent Supreme Court decision regarding corporations as people has to be one of the worst things that's ever happened to this country.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by anitram

I agree, and I'd say it's worse than just something to be wary of. When wealthy private interests bankroll politicians the way they do now, we are in a plutocracy and democracy is dead. It should be plainly obvious to anyone paying attention.

Your PM is telling me it's full?

[mobvok]

John Thune gave a surprisingly decent speech. Rob Portman can literally imitate human speech, but the words are mashed together out of a dictionary.

Why are they so obsessed with aping Obama campaign slogans? Even a snide reference to "hope and change" in a stump speech is fine and cute and whatever, but it appears the RNC has designed the whole convention around tweaking it.

Every speech must have an immigrant and a small business story.

edit - oh, of course, "We Built This City" plays

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

The recent Supreme Court decision regarding corporations as people has to be one of the worst things that's ever happened to this country.

It's fairly unsurprising though, no? That's the way things have been trending.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Anyone can call themselves a libertarian if they sign up to the precepts - but some in the Tea Party movement are motivated by prejudice, i.e., they don't want a black guy around the place, or base careerist motives, such as those of certain tv presenters.

I can't trust the judgement or motives of anyone that was shilling for Bush/Cheney and their illegal wars and massive expansion of government powers in 2004 and all of a sudden is a libertarian in 2010 - that's not consistent. I don't include Iron Horse in that, as he has never advocated neo-conservatism - but the broader Tea Party movement is highly suspect, IMO.

The Tea Party Movement is still neoconservative on foreign policy.