PDA

View Full Version : Tea Party Leader / CEO comments on the Bernie Sanders 8-hour filibuster



Wei Wu Wei
12-11-2010, 07:25 PM
Karl Denninger - Let me say directly, this man is a conservative. He took part in forming the original Tea Party protests, and he's worked as a former CEO.

This man is not a Socialist, but he commented on Bernie Sanders, who is. Sanders spoke all day yesterday in an old-school style Filibuster.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=174718


Bernie Sanders, American Hero

Seriously.

Here's all eight and a half hours of his filibuster - a real one - archived by CSPAN.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Unfortunately, CSPAN does not permit embedding. Boo hiss.

Mr. Sanders is a die-hard socialist. But he believes in what he puts forward, which makes him very different than the other clowns in Washington DC.

While I cannot endorse much of what Mr. Sanders wants as solutions, you can't find much in the way to argue with when it comes to the cause of the problems. In fact, a large part of his missive sounds like it was a filibuster that I'd deliver on the floor of the Senate were I elected to the position.

You have to give a man credit for walking the talk. Filibusters in recent years have become all threat and no talk. All you've had to do is threaten to engage in one and it's as if you did. This was different - Mr. Sanders actually rose and spoke for eight and a half hours straight.

In those eight and a half hours Mr. Sanders hit on literally everything. He called a spade a spade. He said we can't afford to keep spending money we don't have, and he called out those in the banking and financial industry who have created this crisis. He wasn't afraid to use the blunt language that has to be used - he laid it all out.

Banks with 63% of GDP in alleged "assets", he quoted Simon Johnson, and he gave you a prescription to end this crap - "BREAK THEM UP."

Then he added to it: the people who did this on Wall Street "need to go to jail."

"Outsourcing"? You mean employing slave labor and environmental arbitrage, destroying our job base and making a mockery of our laws that allegedly "protect" workers and environment, right? All under the corporate umbrella of "profit"?

Profit..... for whom?

If our laws on environmental damage and labor rates are just, then they are - everywhere. If they're not, they're not - everywhere. What's wrong is allowing this sort of arbitrage to take place; you get your cheap trinkets, our manufacturing job base is destroyed, and all we do is shift WHERE the slavery happens and the environment is destroyed - not whether it occurs!

Conservatives? Jim DeMint, for instance?

Where the hell are those traitorous cowards who claim to be "Conservatives"?

Bernie Sanders, an admitted and in fact proud far-left Socialist, has to rise in The Senate and lecture the party that claims to be for "The Rule Of Law" on how the banks swindled the entire nation out of trillions of dollars of wealth AND STILL ARE DOING IT TODAY?

Mr. Sanders, my hat's off to you.

I disagree with your prescriptions for a fix, but I'll be damned if you didn't just take the so-called "Free Market" folks out back, beat them within an inch of their lives and then assault 'em in the back door for good measure.

A free market - or capitalist society - isn't one where you use the government to enact laws that promote and protect your looting of the people.

Those who claim to be "for free markets" and "for the rule of law" are supposed to use the law to put a stop to that crap by prosecuting and locking up the crooks, clawing back the illicit profits and returning them to the people they were stolen from instead of passing more laws and regulations that enable further looting of the people.

If my choice is between being sold socialism that is straight-up what it is, and alleged "capitalism" that in point of fact is, has been, and continues to be fascist Nazi-style mayhem and theft using the power of government to shield those who do wrong from facing the just punishment for their crimes......

Hell hath indeed frozen over.


Hit the Nail on the Head, spoken by a Tea Party conservative and Successful Capitalist


If you didn't get to catch the Bernie Sanders filibuster, here it is in full. Let me just say I've never seen 8 hours of substance spoken on the floor of the senate and I've watched plenty of CSPAN in my time.


Part 1 (http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/12/11/HP/R/41812/Sen+Sanders+Holds+8+12+hour+Tax+Cut+Filibuster.asp x)
Part 2 (http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/12/11/HP/R/41813/Sen+Sanders+Holds+8+12+hour+Tax+Cut+Filibuster.asp x)
Part 3 (http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/12/11/HP/R/41814/Sen+Sanders+Holds+8+12+hour+Tax+Cut+Filibuster.asp x)

lacarnut
12-11-2010, 08:29 PM
When he post on Huffingpost, he is no longer a conservative. He blasts Palin and Newt. So that makes him an ex Tea Party liberal plant.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-11-2010, 09:10 PM
When he post on Huffingpost, he is no longer a conservative. He blasts Palin and Newt. So that makes him an ex Tea Party liberal plant.

I think Newt is probably on our team, too. He considers FDR the greatest president of the 20th century.

m00
12-11-2010, 11:53 PM
When he post on Huffingpost, he is no longer a conservative. He blasts Palin and Newt. So that makes him an ex Tea Party liberal plant.

You think blasting Palin and Gingrich is incompatible with Tea Party values?

NJCardFan
12-12-2010, 12:42 AM
Bernie Sanders, American Hero

Credibility= 0

Constitutionally Speaking
12-12-2010, 05:32 AM
I did not hear the filibuster speech, but judging from the quip you quoted, the author did not agree with the Senator on the remedy. But there is a larger point.




A free market - or capitalist society - isn't one where you use the government to enact laws that promote and protect your looting of the people.



What you are missing here Wie ( and many of the commentators here) is that this sentence is the KEY to everything.

This is EXACTLY what the liberals have done when they use the interstate commerce clause to undermine the 10th amendment. This is EXACTLY what the liberals have done when they use "General Welfare" COMPLETELY out of context in order to justify actions and laws that run contrary to the original intent.

The government our founders envisioned, COULD NOT enact a such laws, it is only because of the complete bastardization of the Constitution and the illegal expansion of government that bastardization has enabled, that such things are possible.

lacarnut
12-12-2010, 06:27 AM
You think blasting Palin and Gingrich is incompatible with Tea Party values?

Palin believes in smaller government, lower taxes and less spending. If I am not mistaken, that is what the Tea Party is all about. As far as this other nut, I have never heard of him. Plus, when you have to go to liberal blogs like Huffingpost to get your message out, you are not a conservative.

BTW, Palin has walked that walk of smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, reducing corruption and God forbid giving refunds out from oil revenues.

Wei Wu Wei
12-12-2010, 10:53 AM
BTW, Palin has walked that walk of smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, reducing corruption and God forbid giving refunds out from oil revenues.

lmao redistributing oil profits to working citizens is easily the most Socialist thing any of the 4 2008 candidates have done.

Rockntractor
12-12-2010, 10:57 AM
lmao redistributing oil profits to working citizens is easily the most Socialist thing any of the 4 2008 candidates have done.

Are you complaining, she didn't take the wealth from one Alaskan and give it to another, she shared the taxes from the oil with the owners of the land, Alaskans. Most of Alaska is owned by the government, and that is not by her decision.

Wei Wu Wei
12-12-2010, 11:08 AM
Are you complaining, she didn't take the wealth from one Alaskan and give it to another,

uhhhhh


she shared the taxes from the oil with the owners of the land, Alaskans.

But I thought taxation = theft and giving that money to other people = income distribution which = Socialism?

That she took oil money from major corporations and gave it out to working families, lmao that's what Hugo Chavez does too. Sure he takes it much further but it's basically the same idea.

Rockntractor
12-12-2010, 11:17 AM
uhhhhh



But I thought taxation = theft and giving that money to other people = income distribution which = Socialism?

That she took oil money from major corporations and gave it out to working families, lmao that's what Hugo Chavez does too. Sure he takes it much further but it's basically the same idea.

I pump five oil leases in Oklahoma here part of the profit goes to the owner of the mineral rights which is often the land owner, another part goes to my customer the lease owner, it is then sold to the oil company that transports and refines it making another profit. In Alaska most of the land and mineral rights are owned by the government and Indian tribes. The government there is still considered an agent of the people and splits the money up among the owners of Alaska. You are smart and understand this, you just think you have another gotcha talking point.

m00
12-12-2010, 11:18 AM
uhhhhh



But I thought taxation = theft and giving that money to other people = income distribution which = Socialism?

That she took oil money from major corporations and gave it out to working families, lmao that's what Hugo Chavez does too. Sure he takes it much further but it's basically the same idea.

Well, I had planned on getting you a copy of "Building Strawmen, for Dummies" but it looks like you don't be needing it. :D

Constitutionally Speaking
12-12-2010, 11:24 AM
lmao redistributing oil profits to working citizens is easily the most Socialist thing any of the 4 2008 candidates have done.


Hate to agree with you Wei, but you ARE correct on this one. This is one of the reservations I have with Palin.

I have not looked deeply into the details of this, but it sets off my spidey sense.

Rockntractor
12-12-2010, 11:26 AM
Well, I had planned on getting you a copy of "Building Strawmen, for Dummies" but it looks like you don't be needing it. :D

He would like for the money to go to a labor union like Obama does.

Rockntractor
12-12-2010, 11:30 AM
Hate to agree with you Wei, but you ARE correct on this one. This is one of the reservations I have with Palin.

I have not looked deeply into the details of this, but it sets off my spidey sense.

Palin didn't set up the situation where Indian tribes and government own the mineral rights and most of the land, Nevada, Utah are two other states with this, it should be sold to private land owners and used to pay debts but as long as the government owns the mineral rights what is wrong with sharing their part of the profits with the people.

Wei Wu Wei
12-12-2010, 11:32 AM
I pump five oil leases in Oklahoma here part of the profit goes to the owner of the mineral rights which is often the land owner, another part goes to my customer the lease owner, it is then sold to the oil company that transports and refines it making another profit. In Alaska most of the land and mineral rights are owned by the government and Indian tribes. The government there is still considered an agent of the people and splits the money up among the owners of Alaska. You are smart and understand this, you just think you have another gotcha talking point.

The government works as an agent of the people? I like that idea.

Rockntractor
12-12-2010, 11:40 AM
The government works as an agent of the people? I like that idea.

What do you think a Republic is, we vote for them they Represent and serve us, they should not rule like in Obama and your mind.

m00
12-12-2010, 11:41 AM
He would like for the money to go to a labor union like Obama does.

I think he just wants to play 'gotcha games.' I would be surprised if he actually had an opinion on this issue.

Rockntractor
12-12-2010, 11:44 AM
I think he just wants to play 'gotcha games.' I would be surprised if he actually had an opinion on this issue.

I have said it many times and most don't agree with me but i think he works for Acorn or whatever it is called now, he is an agent of the left, his talking points are just too cliché and polished to be his own.

lacarnut
12-12-2010, 01:02 PM
Hate to agree with you Wei, but you ARE correct on this one. This is one of the reservations I have with Palin.

I have not looked deeply into the details of this, but it sets off my spidey sense.

Wrong. You do not understand the oil market. The states receives revenues from the production/royalties/taxes of oil. When the price pops up to $140 a barrel, the state of AK is swimming in extra revenues. Note, all of the money goes in the general fund and is intermingled with sales taxes, property taxes, etc. No legislator can accurately predict what the price of oil is going to be from one quarter to the next much less over the entire year. That is not the case with EVERY OTHER TAX the state collects as those remain at a fairly constant basis. If they could make that determination, they could offset the additional revenues by a decrease in other taxes. Consequently, the refund that Palin authorized came as a result of the overall revenues collected for a certain period.

AK is having financial woes like most other states. I do not think those refunds are taking place now. Would it not be nice if every state and the Federal Government went into the black every year. Bitching about the government giving back money that is not theirs seems odd to me.

The people of AK own the land. Therefore, they are getting a return on their rightfull ownership. This is NOT socialism by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone that thinks so is sorely misinformed.

PoliCon
12-12-2010, 01:08 PM
Wrong. You do not understand the oil market. The states receives revenues from the production/royalties/taxes of oil. When the price pops up to $140 a barrel, the state of AK is swimming in extra revenues. Note, all of the money goes in the general fund and is intermingled with sales taxes, property taxes, etc. No legislator can accurately predict what the price of oil is going to be from one quarter to the next much less over the entire year. That is not the case with EVERY OTHER TAX the state collects as those remain at a fairly constant basis. If they could make that determination, they could offset the additional revenues by a decrease in other taxes. Consequently, the refund that Palin authorized came as a result of the overall revenues collected for a certain period.

AK is having financial woes like most other states. I do not think those refunds are taking place now. Would it not be nice if every state and the Federal Government went into the black every year. Bitching about the government giving back money that is not theirs seems odd to me.

:mad: how dare you refute a good meme with facts!! :mad:

Constitutionally Speaking
12-12-2010, 01:18 PM
Wrong. You do not understand the oil market. The states receives revenues from the production/royalties/taxes of oil. When the price pops up to $140 a barrel, the state of AK is swimming in extra revenues. Note, all of the money goes in the general fund and is intermingled with sales taxes, property taxes, etc. No legislator can accurately predict what the price of oil is going to be from one quarter to the next much less over the entire year. That is not the case with EVERY OTHER TAX the state collects as those remain at a fairly constant basis. If they could make that determination, they could offset the additional revenues by a decrease in other taxes. Consequently, the refund that Palin authorized came as a result of the overall revenues collected for a certain period.

AK is having financial woes like most other states. I do not think those refunds are taking place now. Would it not be nice if every state and the Federal Government went into the black every year. Bitching about the government giving back money that is not theirs seems odd to me.

The people of AK own the land. Therefore, they are getting a return on their rightfull ownership. This is NOT socialism by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone that thinks so is sorely misinformed.

I understand the oil market just fine. What I don't understand are the specifics of the deal that was made in Alaska.

Rockntractor
12-12-2010, 01:21 PM
I understand the oil market just fine. What I don't understand are the specifics of the deal that was made in Alaska.

Dig into it and tel us what you find.

djones520
12-12-2010, 01:27 PM
I understand the oil market just fine. What I don't understand are the specifics of the deal that was made in Alaska.

It's Wiki, but it's a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

lacarnut
12-12-2010, 01:33 PM
I understand the oil market just fine. What I don't understand are the specifics of the deal that was made in Alaska.

Here is a simple explanation. I own 40 acres and also the mineral rights of property in Delhi, LA. Denbury is injecting CO2 into these old wells and recovering deposits of oil. The government takes taxes of out my monthly check. If the government took too much out and refunded it back to me, how and the world would you get Socialism out of that scenario? The state of AK is not taking money out of the pockets of its citizens and distributing it to others. That would be socialism but that is not what the state is doing. WEE WEE is full of SHIT.

m00
12-12-2010, 01:41 PM
IF anything, this is like Alaska being a corporation which pays dividends on good years, and the people of Alaska as shareholders.

Wei Wu Wei
12-12-2010, 01:44 PM
A state where the government functions as one giant corporation? Interesting....

m00
12-12-2010, 01:47 PM
A state where the government functions as one giant corporation? Interesting....

See, this is why it's impossible to have an adult conversation with you.

I did not say the government "functions as one giant corporation," I said in this instance the closest comparison we have to what is going on in Alaska is a corporation paying dividends. There is more than a world of difference between the words I am typing, and the words you are implying I have typed.

Are you intentionally being childish, or are you merely a child?

lacarnut
12-12-2010, 01:48 PM
IF anything, this is like Alaska being a corporation which pays dividends on good years, and the people of Alaska as shareholders.

Right. Just more Palin bashing. I can not believe anyone would fall for liberal smear tactics when ALL Alaskans are benefiting. Not one dime is being taken away from one person to give to another.

Wei Wu Wei
12-12-2010, 02:04 PM
See, this is why it's impossible to have an adult conversation with you.

I did not say the government "functions as one giant corporation," I said in this instance the closest comparison we have to what is going on in Alaska is a corporation paying dividends. There is more than a world of difference between the words I am typing, and the words you are implying I have typed.

Are you intentionally being childish, or are you merely a child?

intentionally


alright so let's be real again, you seem to know a bit about this, perhaps you can explain the parts I'm confused about.




Here is a simple explanation. I own 40 acres and also the mineral rights of property in Delhi, LA. Denbury is injecting CO2 into these old wells and recovering deposits of oil. The government takes taxes of out my monthly check. If the government took too much out and refunded it back to me, how and the world would you get Socialism out of that scenario? The state of AK is not taking money out of the pockets of its citizens and distributing it to others. That would be socialism but that is not what the state is doing. WEE WEE is full of SHIT.

in this scenario the tax refund is going to you, because the tax is on the profits you make from your mineral rights, correct?

this is far from socialism, you are right about that.



Right. Just more Palin bashing. I can not believe anyone would fall for liberal smear tactics when ALL Alaskans are benefiting. Not one dime is being taken away from one person to give to another.

This I don't understand, and some of the previous posts too.

Does the money go to all of the citizens of Alaska? All of the residents of Alaska? or is it just to the people who own the land that is being drilled for oil?

I'm confused about who is getting the money, and from what source that tax money is collected.


edit: from what I can understand from the wiki page it is indeed all residents of Alaska not just land owners, it also seems that the money comes from a tax on mineral sales.

This seems like, unless i'm misunderstanding it, a deal where taxes on mineral profits are redistributed to everyone. maybe you don't want to call that socialism but it's certainly a pro-worker, pro-middle class move.