Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I predict this will be an easy cop-out for the teabaggers to blame the future embarrassing actions of their events on.
From this point forward, it will all be "liberal agitators".
Let's see if that sticks.
The people who put up that site shot themselves in the foot as far as credibility, for sure.
On the other hand, the usual suspects didn't exactly need an excuse. All they've done is create a reasonable doubt in the minds of more rational folks who happen to hear about it.
And in a way that's more destructive to the tea parties than anything, because they'll be more likely to ignore and make excuses for the extremists that do hang around the fringes and give them a black eye when most of the protesters aren't extreme.
(I know, I'm just pissing everybody off in this thread, aren't I?)
Not to be paranoid, but I smell a rat.
ABSOLUTE NONSENSE... A TOTAL, UNALDUTERATED LIE... It is PURE CONJECTURE, ad hoc reasoning on PARADE...
It simply finds an organization, ties that organization to a stalking horse and PRESTO: The Stalking HORSE put the organization up to protesting...
Here's how it went down... People began to read the bill... they then began to ask questions; the Leftists Legislators who were asked LIED IN THEIR RESPONSES; MISREPRESENTING WHAT WAS IN THE BILL; MADE ASSURANCES TO PEOPLE WHO HAD READ THE BILL AND WHO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RAIN AND SOMEONE PISSING ON THEIR SHOES...
Oddly enough, those people don't like to be lied to by their REPRESENTATIVES AND BECAME RATHER ANGRY AND ASSERTED THEIR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS TO HOLD THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY'RE BEING LIED TO...
Then they went home and told other people, with common and just as passionate interests... about what the Bill actually says and HOW THEIR REPRESENTATIVE LIED TO THEIR FACE... And THOSE PEOPLE SHOWED UP TO OTHER MEETINGS.
That those people have common interests and associations with Pharmecutical Companies; who FTR: are ALSO entitled to be represented HONESTLY; AND THE PEOPLE WHO COMPRISE THOSE COMPANIES HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO EXPECT THEY ARE BEING REPRESENTED HONESTLY... and to NOT BE TOLD IT'S RAINING WHEN THE LEFT IS PISSING ON THEIR SHOES.
More deceit, MORE FRAUD FROM THE SAME ANTI-AMERICAN MAINSTREAM PROGRESSIVES...
Knowing how passionate some people can be, it could go either way. For every fringer on the left willing to pull a stunt like this there's a fringer on the right wiling to make it up so they have another excuse to yell "Alinsky!"
But unlike SOME people, I tend to believe the most obvious answer is probably true until and unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Dick Armey is not the godfather bankrolling them - nor is Big Pharma.
I understand the relationship between Dick Armey and Freedomworks.
But they aren't behind the Tea Party Movement. They are riding its coattails.
Yep, because paying over $500,000 to various groups, holding various rallies, and giving resources to over 600 tea party events is just riding those coattails.
Do you have fun lying to yourself constantly?
Who else in the tea party movement has given $500,000 to fund events? Bueller? Bueller?
$500,000 is quite a large amount of money to be putting out there. Never mind a membership count of 600,000.
Peddle your George Soros conspiracy theories elsewhere.
Let's contrast that with the Stimulus package.
WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.
The size of the proposed tax cuts -- which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years -- is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending
The Obama tax-cut proposals, if enacted, could pack more punch in two years than either of President George W. Bush's tax cuts did in their first two years. Mr. Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, considered the largest in history, contained $174 billion of cuts during its first two full years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. The second-largest tax cut -- the 10-year, $350 billion package engineered by Mr. Bush in 2003 -- contained $231 billion in 2004 and 2005.
Let's contrast that with the Stimulus package.
Okay!
Obama Eyes $300 Billion Tax Cut - WSJ.com
WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.
The size of the proposed tax cuts -- which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years -- is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending
The Obama tax-cut proposals, if enacted, could pack more punch in two years than either of President George W. Bush's tax cuts did in their first two years. Mr. Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, considered the largest in history, contained $174 billion of cuts during its first two full years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. The second-largest tax cut -- the 10-year, $350 billion package engineered by Mr. Bush in 2003 -- contained $231 billion in 2004 and 2005.
Knowing how passionate some people can be, it could go either way. For every fringer on the left willing to pull a stunt like this there's a fringer on the right wiling to make it up so they have another excuse to yell "Alinsky!"
But unlike SOME people, I tend to believe the most obvious answer is probably true until and unless there is evidence to the contrary.
I'll go with Occam's razor too.
Still, we are talking about a lot of money here......
Dick Armey is not the godfather bankrolling them - nor is Big Pharma.
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. I am sure the insurance lobby fits in there somehow too. Just follow the dollars.
On that note, those white collar guys could at least be decent enough to pay you minimum wage for your time.
But then again, I guess that would kind of screw up the whole "grass-roots movement thing", huh?
He is not the leader of the movement.
There is no overall leader.
Those tax cuts haven't happened bub - get back to us if they do.
During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut.
Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama's statement True.
After reading this thread it is pretty clear that tps are not only liars but they are also cowards.
So, what's new?
BRILLIANT!
Those tax cuts haven't happened bub - get back to us if they do.
Okay!
..I'm back!
PolitiFact | Tax cut for 95 percent? The stimulus made it so
During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut.
Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama's statement True.
And he's raising taxes when the Bush tax cuts expire and adding the taxes and fines for ObamaCare - as well as driving the country into far deeper debt.
On balance, he is a tax increaser, not a decreaser.
Those tax cuts haven't happened bub - get back to us if they do.
Okay!
..I'm back!
PolitiFact | Tax cut for 95 percent? The stimulus made it so
During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut.
Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama's statement True.
Next week, thousands of local tea party groups are planning peaceful events on April 15th to protest excessive taxation, federal spending, deficits and debt, and ObamaCare.
An organization has been launched by people intent on smearing and discrediting the Tea Parties: Crash The Tea Party!
It's not surprising that there has been a great deal of commentary in the leftwing press and attacks by the Dems to call Tea Party members racists, terrorists and the like. If any racist or violent incidents happen next Thursday at the Tea Parties, they will most certainly be caused by these Alinsky-esque infiltrators.
