"Tea Party Founded and Funded By The Kochs."

Tagged:  

25 arrested in California as hundreds protest at gathering of conservative strategists
http://www.newser.com/article/d9l33nag0/25-arrested-in-california-as-hun...
Tea Party funders (brothers David and Charles Koch) held a strategy session of conservative political donors at a resort near Palm Springs.
Quote from article:
"The group did not say who was attending the conference, and reporters were not allowed inside the resort, but the strategy sessions in years past have included radio talkers Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, according to The New York Times."

No votes yet

It's that goddamn freedom to peacefully assemble again....

Libtards HATE that too....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Unless of course, that "peaceful" assembly is filled with hateful speach and racial degradation.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

So

this article was just show that protesters of a peaceful, conservative meeting were arrested because they decided to tresspass and interrupt a meeting? Or was it to confirm the Koch's have funded the tea party? Nothing new here...

because we all know that his selective memory tends to fail him more often than not.

To Zeitgeist's point, liberals really do hate freedom of assembly (and freedom of speech) unless it suits their ideology. An easy example of that basic difference between conservatives and liberals couldn't have been more evident than it was in the statements from the spokespeople of both groups.

  • Spokesperson for Protesters: Organizer Samantha Corbin told City News Service the protesters were there to "voice opposition to the Koches' funding of climate denial groups, far-right political candidates and anti-health care reform efforts."
  • Spokesperson for Koch Industries: "We respect all Americans' rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble," she said in a written statement. "It is disappointing that some members of the group protesting today made the choice to not be respectful of the community or of our right to meet."

But if that didn't quite make the point, allow me to present this;
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45260.html

And just in case you don't feel like reading through the whole piece, this article highlights a meeting of the Democracy Alliance; a group of weathly, politically active liberals, with influential Democratic party figures. Hmmm...I don't recall hearing or seeing anything about protestors at this meeting. And I don't think that's an oversight because the national media would have had a field day if there were.

So what do you say wolfman...we're all aware of your antipathy towards the Koch brothers, Chamber of Commerce, etc. for their financial backing of various conservative groups. But why no vitriol towards those rich, fat-cat liberals and unions for their financial backing (including stolen money in some cases) of varions re(pro)gressive groups?

Top ‘08 political donors tighter in 2010
The Washington Times Online Edition
October 3, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/3/top-08-political-donors-t...
Quote from article:
"Secret donors spent at least $138 million on the midterm elections, according to the latest figures, and 80 percent of that secret money supported Republican candidates. What will those donors get for their money, and who will they get it from?"

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

I opened the article, read it twice and NOWHERE is there a "Quote from article"
"Secret donors spent at least $138 million on the midterm elections, according to the latest figures, and 80 percent of that secret money supported Republican candidates. What will those donors get for their money, and who will they get it from?" Once again, Wolfman proves what a lying sack of $hit, union owned, George Soros puppet parrot he is.

What the article leads me to believe is that people who donated big money to Obama in 2008 ARE SO DISAPPOINTED IN THE EMPTY SUIT BASTARD CHILD big eared Socialist moron in chief that the donated HEAVELY to Republicans in 2010 because they realized that voting for Odumba was almost as big a mistake as Wolfmans mommy not having an abortion.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

as to why you have no problem castigating those on the right for their political contributions, but suddenly become silent when asked about the contributions (some less than reputable) from those on the left.

What the Secret Donors Want
New York Times
Published: November 22, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/opinion/22mon1.html
Quote from article:
"Secret donors spent at least $138 million on the midterm elections, according to the latest figures, and 80 percent of that secret money supported Republican candidates. What will those donors get for their money, and who will they get it from?"

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

By omitting this one little disclaimer.

"What the Secret Donors Want" is a letter in the Editorial section, NOT a news article.

Like when the Toledo Blabe puts "News Analysis" in the front page and hopes the mindless masses like Wolfboy read it and actually believe it is unbiased news and facts instead of some liberal reporters opinion.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Secret campaign money
The Washington Post
Tuesday, October 12, 2010

THE GUSHER OF secret money pouring into the coming election is alarming. It should be plugged for future campaigns -- and could be, with the switch of a Senate vote or two. But the rhetoric about this development, from President Obama on down, is irresponsibly alarmist. And the popular understanding of how this mess arose -- generated by the president and other Democrats and abetted in part by media reports -- is ill-informed. The fundamental problem is not the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, although that reflected wrongheaded judicial activism. The real problem lies in a tax code that permits too much political activity to take place in secrecy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR201010...

FOXLEAKS: Bill Sammon's October Surprise
February 01, 2011 1:22 pm ET by Eric Hananoki

During the final days of the 2008 presidential race, Bill Sammon used his position as a top Fox News editor to engage in a campaign to link then-Sen. Barack Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism," internal Fox documents and a review of his televised appearances show. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102010022

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Take a look at what the article the "Boy Who Cries Wolf" really looks like.
Notice nowhere in his cute little SB post does he mention this "article" was printed as an editorial in the editorial section?
The Useful Tool Wolfboy wants you to just believe what he vomits up without question. No wonder this mindless idiot voted for Obama. He just swallows the George Soros/MediaMatters/Moveon.org loads like a cheap hooker.
Look for yourselves. Here is the link BoyWhoCriesWolf gives to his "facts" > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR201010...

____________________________________________________

Secret campaign money

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 



THE GUSHER OF secret money pouring into the coming election is alarming. It should be plugged for future campaigns -- and could be, with the switch of a Senate vote or two. But the rhetoric about this development, from President Obama on down, is irresponsibly alarmist. And the popular understanding of how this mess arose -- generated by the president and other Democrats and abetted in part by media reports -- is ill-informed. The fundamental problem is not the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, although that reflected wrongheaded judicial activism. The real problem lies in a tax code that permits too much political activity to take place in secrecy.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.