GOP Empire's Plan to Crush Tea Party Rebels

atlantic wire ^ | 10-12-11 | Elspeth Reeve

[WOBBLY BOB]

Step 1: The first rule of the establishment is: Do not admit you are part of the establishment! Step 2: Disarm them with praise Step 3: Moderate whoever they pick as the 2012 nominee. Step 4: Teach them about compromise. Step 5: Never forget reality

[Deb]

Take your obnoxious, patronizing BS and ram where its dark and stinky, dear.

Meanwhile bring me name of any candidate who is not a RINO or a "Judas Horse" Do you mean Judas Goat or Trojan Horse? Judas Horse is a band. Maybe Perry is a band that will lead you into a corral and make you listen to bad rock music. I say...don't go.

I'll wait for the name your candidate and I'm sure he/she will be viable and pure and none dare call him RINO.

[Deb]

I guess we’ll just have to do like they say and purge all them RINOs. So who does that leave us with? Wait, does that mean them RINOs have to be purged from the party or purged from the candidates or elected officials or from earth? Oh, well, we’ll still have our principles.

[Deb]

Yeah, thats right, they’re all in this together and we must rid the party of all who would disagree with anything we say! Tell us where to meet so we may accomplish this holy mission. I await further orders.

[hocndoc]

No, when one person is connected, or even a former member of the group is connected to abortion and eugenics, then it would be wrong to say that the group is connected.

However, when there are eugenicists like Paul Ehrlich or Richard Lamm, when several of the advisors and the founder were also founders of Earth Day, and when several current Directors and Advisors are also on boards of Planned Parenthood, then you need to look more closely at the purpose of the group.

When NumbersUSA publishes “Why I am an Environmentalist on its own blog, when it links to article after article decrying the effect of immigrants on global warming, then there’s more than an agenda focused on border security.

[MestaMachine]

You need to reread my post. The HELL with the ‘party’.

[Deb]

Oh, right, no party. Sorry. Just a bunch of people wandering around demanding purity. What was on that purity check list again? I lost mine. And who is our candidate?

[Scythian]

I find your lack of RINO disturbing ...

[MestaMachine]

Wearing your hipboots, I take it. lol

[MestaMachine]

“And who is our candidate?”

I don’t know who YOUR candidate is. But here’s a hint on who mine isn’t. He/she doesn’t have a mansion is California and PRETEND to be a conservative. Nor does he/she tell me illegals should be educated by state subsidies for jobs they can’t LEGALLY hold either.

So how do you feel about Rubio’s team being the driving force behind moving FLA’s primary up so romney would have the best shot at winning FLA?

Crickets.

[Finny]

Since you ask, Deb, here you go -- I'm sure a lot of us are interested to know what YOU are willing to sacrifice in terms of purity. You accuse many here of being purists, which must mean that you are NOT one. So it is entirely reasonable to ask you, and I'd think you'd be happy to share, your terms of not being a purist.

Please post the impurities you are willing to tolerate in a GOP presidential candidate:
-- Weak on 2nd amendment?
-- Believes in global warming and need for carbon emissions regulation?
-- Thinks Roe v. Wade should stand?
-- Thinks we should drop Israel as an ally?
-- Supports government intrusion in our health insurance and health care choices?
-- Wants to see gay marriage made legal across the U.S.?
-- Supports open homosexuality in the U.S. military?
-- Thinks government can "create jobs" by involving itself in the marketplace using taxpayer dollars?
-- Thinks illegal aliens have a right to services funded by legal American taxpayers?

Come ON, Deb. Show me HOW and WHERE the rest of us can be "non purists"? And show us the candidate YOU will tolerate, what issues YOU will compromise, in terms of "impurity"?

You have angrily told me to "shut up," while I do the opposite for you -- I respectfully invite you share your opinion ON THE ISSUES here. It would be really nice if you could do it without hostility and personal attack. :^)

[Pelham]

I do look at the purpose of those groups. It’s in their mission statements and is reflected in the concerns of their members.

And that purpose is demanding enforcement of our immigration laws, deportation of illegals and addressing similar problems that are the result of an unholy alliance between the leadership of both Democrats and and Republicans and the various interest groups that benefit from mass immigration whether legal or illegal.

The major immigration control groups aren’t about eugenics and abortion, despite whatever interests some of their founders had in that direction.

I’ve challenged you to provide evidence that these groups support eugenics or abortion and even white nationalism, as one of your more irresponsible pals was charging.

But you never do produce any quotes from their sites advocating eugenics and abortion. No surprise since that’s not what the members are concerned with.

Instead of providing smoking gun quotes you just bury us in links and resort to a litany of guilt by association reasoning and genetic fallacy arguments.

Funny to see you admitting in your post that it is wrong to blame a group for what certain members or even founders might believe since that is what you have been doing all along.

Some of your posts contain phrases that are word for word what the SPLC writes. Do you therefore share the worldview of the SPLC? It’s a fair question of someone who argues that association equals agreement.

We’ve seen repeatedly your opinion of FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA. But you haven’t commented on the SPLC, which so often resembles your own writing. What is your opinion of the SPLC? Is that particular hard left organization one that you ally yourself with when the subject is immigration?

[b9]

What a list!

C’mon, Deb. You’ve got an audience. Show us you’re made of more than squish and goober.

[lentulusgracchus]

Take your obnoxious, patronizing BS and ram where its dark and stinky, dear.

But ... but ... but .... I was only imitating your own posting style, dear. Flattery. Sincerest form. Etc.

Meanwhile bring me name of any candidate who is not a RINO or a "Judas Horse" [emphasis supplied]

Okay. Rick Santorum.

Do you mean Judas Goat or Trojan Horse? Judas Horse is a band.

No. Judas horse. You don't have horses and corrals and roundups in California? Google Alan Keyes and Sarah Palin in FR thread title. From last March or April.

I'll wait for the name your candidate and I'm sure he/she will be viable and pure and none dare call him RINO.

Well, Rick is certainly pure, but if he isn't viable that's because of the handiwork of Karl Rove, your god.

"Viable" is a weasel-word and RiNOspeak for "one of ours" = "cleared waivers at the RNC, Business Roundtable, Bohemian Club, CFR, and Bilderberg Conference Executive Board (aka Masters of the Universe and Lords Ordainers of Planet Earth)."

I'm also supporting Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, for the moment. I also want Sarah to walk onto the floor of a brokered, busted convention and drive the RiNOs mad with fear. I want to see them lose their water on primetime national television.

Other than that, nothing special.

[hocndoc]

You brought it up, Sir.

Look at these featured articles on the “Issues” pages on NumbersUSA.

Federal Commissions on Immigration
NumbersUSA’s mission to investigate and educate the public on immigration’s impact on U.S. population growth, the environment, labor market and local communities is not a new concept. Over the past three decades, many federal commissions have called for U.S.

Read Full Articlehttps://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/overpopulation/federal-commissions-immigration.html

Call for Population Stabilization (1970s)
Sen. Gaylord Nelson, Earth Day founder
Around 1970, U.S. population and environmental issues were widely and publicly linked.

Read Full Article https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/environment/call-population-stabilization-1970s.html

And yes, “zero population growth,” “sustainability,” and “urban sprawl” are all eugenic themes.

[Yosemitest]

You've said much that I agreed with.
HOWEVER ...

"if Romney (or possibly Perry ... haven't vetted him enough yet) gets the presidential nomination,
my vote will go to a non-Dem and non-Rep candidate
if only to do my part to make sure whichever party wins the election lacks a mandate."

I understand your frustration.
But for me, I'd do a write in, if the conservative is not the nominee.
I believe that people do study these votes.
Therefore to vote for someone who doesn't support most of my values is sending the wrong message.
The message must be clear, uncompromised, and loud. I will NOT leave that choice on the ballot, blank.
The "Establishment Republican" era is over.
Hello, Tea Party.
Hello, Palin, Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich.

[Pelham]

“And yes, “zero population growth,” “sustainability,” and “urban sprawl” are all eugenic themes”

According to you, I suppose, using yet more fallacious logic.

Using your argument no one but eugenicists could possibly be concerned with urban sprawl or sustainable resources, therefore anyone discussing them must be a eugenicist.

It’s a fine example of Begging the Question, where you assume your conclusion in your premise.

But you have another problem which is that zero population growth isn’t discussed in either of those two links in your post.

Once again you make charges, then instead of providing some quotes as evidence you post links as if the links contain what you imply is there.

Now that technique may pass muster with the hard left at the SPLC, an outfit whose attacks on FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA sound remarkably like your own; but the SPLC deals in propaganda, not truth. It’s misleading and dishonest.

Now I did ask you for your comment on the SPLC. I’m sure you are familiar with them. Your material is much too similar to them to be sheer coincidence.

You’re not shy about accusing FAIR et al of all sorts of unsavory motives.

Let’s hear what you have to say about the SPLC.

[Finny]

Excellent plan! Good thinking.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Maybe yours, I’d done with that kind of quiet acquiescence.”

So we go through the primaries and let’s say Romney is the candidate. Then what?

[hocndoc]

You use the exact tactics that you accuse me of using. I’ve never quoted or referred to the SPLC site in our discussions.

BTW, Mr. Beck admits that the organization promotes “zero population growth”: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/april-22-2011/were-dallas-earth-day-biggest-event-country-us-population-also-biggest.
“10:15 a.m. — A woman came by and asked if we were working for zero population growth.
“I said, “Yes, we work on the immigration part that is keeping us from a stable population in the U.S.”
“She responded that she couldn’t go along with limiting immigration but she was for zero population growth. I said that if she looked at our wall chart she could see what she wants isn’t possible.
‘The woman then said she was for zero population growth of the world but not the U.S.””

[Pelham]

“You use the exact tactics that you accuse me of using. I’ve never quoted or referred to the SPLC site in our discussions.”

No, I haven’t used the tactics I think that you are using.

I haven’t definitively stated that you are using SPLC’s material. I don’t toss in other unfounded charges.

What I have done is point out how closely your charges against FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA echo SPLC’s propaganda. Sometimes word-for-word when Tanton is the subject. And I’ve asked you if the SPLC is the source for some of your accusations.

So far you haven’t given a definitive answer denying that SPLC’s material is your source. Just now for example you say “I’ve never quoted or referred to the SPLC site”.

But you don’t have to be quoting them directly or referring to their site in order to be using their material. I can parse a sentence as well as Bill Clinton, to cite an expert at obfuscation. You don’t have to be citing them for them to be a primary source. If you intend to deny ever using SPLC’s material as a source for your charges against FAIR, CIS, and/or NumbersUSA then do so clearly.

Oh, and there is one other question that I have asked you that you haven’t decided to answer. Is there any immigration control organization that you do endorse? I’m trying to learn if you have a bias against immigration control per se, or whether the subject itself constitutes “eugenics” by your definition.

“BTW, Mr. Beck admits that the organization promotes “zero population growth”

Lol. You are incredible. Really, in the sense that you lack credibility.

The very quote that you offer up to “prove” that Beck promotes zero population growth shows that it was a woman asking him a question who used that phrase.

And in answering Beck said CIS was for the immigration part of maintaining a stable US population. He didn’t say he was for abortion. He didn’t say he was for eugenics. He didn’t say he promoted a stable world population. He said he was for limiting immigration and the zpg woman wasn’t happy with that.

So nice try, but as with every previous claim that you have made that CIS et al are for zero population growth, abortion, and eugenics you never do come up the evidence to support your accusations.

You imply that it’s there. You find other organizations which the members belong to that support these things. You even find people that ask about these things. But oddly enough these immigration organizations seemed to be concerned with immigration. Despite your repeated charges that they are fronts for eugenics and abortion. And white power was another charge one of your pals made IIRC.