# The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Never have gotten a job from a poor man!!!!!!! Something the left tax and tax some more socialists cannot understand! The fact that 1 trillion in stimulus has not dropped the unemployment rate is due in large part to the fact that more taxes where levied against those rich people and that nothing has been done regarding the Bush cuts which are scheduled to expire. Business people and those who have done well are not foolish. Nor are they likely to sit on the side and allow people like NObama run this country into a third world economy!!!!


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

capitalism beats Marxism and Muslim extremists any day...case closed. :bop:


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

So, tell me this, which political party with any semblance of national standing isn't bankrolled by millionaires/billionaires?

And, if you are a millionaire/billionaire does that automatically make you "EVIL" or have no rights to support any political movement at all?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think I smell an ocean breeze blowing in from the west not a prairiewind.

I know people going to Tea Party events and they are going on their own dime. I also know that the local organizers get no outside help. 
I think the article was a little off the wall. One of those things you can't prove but believe or don't believe depending on your political leaning and if you want to believe it or not. You apparently want to believe it. That's your choice.
I see money bothers you. Do the rich radical liberals bother you? Does insane George Soros bother you?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

ah, a new liberal has joined the forum, this should be fun, assuming....?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I hit submit and my post went to lala land.

Anyway, my comment about ocean breeze was because you reminded me of a liberal from the left coast. He complained about credibility then totally blew his on Palin posts.

Anyway, does George Soros bother you? You must understand that the really rich are mostly liberals. The poor have been voting democrat for 50 years and they are still poor. What's with that? You know democrats had control of congress for 40 years, lost it for a half dozen then regained it, but everything is Bush's fault. They hypocrite knows no bounds.

As far as rich people sponsoring Tea Parties I'm not sure, but there is no money coming locally that I know of it's all on their dime. Also, for every conservative billionaire there are two liberals ones. I remember about 20 years ago when they listed the ten richest senators. Nine were democrats. I was so impressed that I never forgot that. I didn't care one way or the other about the money, I was impressed with the hypocrisy.

My attitude about the rich is I begrudge no man anything he has worked for. Heck I wish I was one of them. I also face the reality that they employ many people. Bill Gates is very liberal and very rich. Good for him. He came up with some good ideas, and evidently knows how to run a business. He employs many people, some parents, and with that money they take care of their homes and their children. I hope he does well in the future also. I just hope he isn't so liberal he destroys other people's opportunity to succeed.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Not quite labor Day and we have a Ryan replacement from some liberal group paying some smuck to champion there cause! Plain and simple, both Rep and Dem have high rollers that do influence things. MoveOn.org is funded by WHOM? So instead of making statements like you have here, just educate yourself first or you will be beaten bloody even with the talking points they send you to reply with!!!!

I was at another site earlier and this was posted on their Political forum and the response to comments where almost word for word to yours!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So we have another one of those guys. I understand that one of our past liberals was also getting paid to post on outdoor websites.


> The problem with your statement above is that it is touted as a talking point for the Republican party, that since they are the wealthy,


How is it you can understand nuance, but you can't understand straight forward points. My point was the democrats call the republicans wealthy, but the democrats are the wealthy. That's why I said nine of the ten richest senators were democrat. One jerk a couple of years ago gave a billion dollars to the United Nations a worthless American hating organization.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

welcome back...rhino, i distinctly recognize the verbage.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I know it's long, but well worth the read.

"The Money Speech" from Atlas Shrgged.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor - your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions - and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made - before it can be looted or mooched - made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss - the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery - that you must offer them values, not wounds - that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade - with reason, not force, as their final arbiter - it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability - and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality - the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth - the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money - and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another - their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich - will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt - and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the double standard - the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money - the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law - men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims - then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood - money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves - slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers - as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money - and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being - the self-made man - the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose - because it contains all the others - the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity - to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide - as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns - or dollars. Take your choice - there is no other - and your time is running out."


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

PW....



> 2. The point was that those liberal Billionaires don't try hiding their participation in their pet causes on the whole, as compared to conservative Billionaires who hide behind corporate entities or other name hiding tactics. Often times liberal wealthy donors support causes that benefit social causes, often to the detriment of their own wealth.


Maybe these billionaires hide, as you say, who they really are because they don't want to be in the spot light?

My question to you.....how can a tax deductible "donation" to a social cause is detriment of their own wealth? Please explain that to me?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the second quote in my signature line explains the liberal problem with who funds the Tea Party.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

The middle class is the only people who suffer from liberal programs. Have to take our money to give to the worthless people who think they deserve a good life but are not willing to bust there *** to get it.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Where did he go?

I want to hear his definition of who or what he thinks the tea party "movement" is and how big money could be buying the interest of all those excited about getting conservative thinking back into politics.

George Soros (by the way, good point Plainsman :thumb: ) can spend money, but the only movement he's leading is his own (when he's not buying washed-out comedians a political office), and it kinda resembles a bowel movement :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> No Soros does not bother me. I am not even sure I know exactly who he is.


He should bother you, along with Bloomberg, Pelosi, Menino, and others looking to push their agenda on you. An agenda that directly conflicts with the constitution. They have forgotten what the job of the federal government is, not that republicans are that much better but at least they are up front about it. Do whatever you want, but I would read up on the guy.


> Often times liberal wealthy donors support causes that benefit social causes, often to the detriment of their own wealth.


There are a lot on both sides who do this. The issue that I have with the liberals, not necessarily all democrats is the fact that they continue to introduce programs that encourage laziness and freeloading. The strategy is simple, make more and more people dependent on the federal government and continue to increase the federal government's size and spending. It is a path to nowhere. Take a look at who keeps introducing legislation that involves more and more litigation. People need to wake and realize that we are going to litigate ourselves into a third world country. We have a serious problem with a lack of innovation, motivation, and direction. A lot of this is due to all the foolish lawsuits, insurance regulations, and government regulations.


> they will stamp their foot on the ground and refuse to hire more people/expand their business.


 Do you really think that businessmen are refusing to make more money for retribution? The reason is confidence not retribution, you can't add employees, make capital purchases, and add markets when you have no clue what other bonehead plan is going to come from Washington. Healthcare, cap and tax, stimulus that helped only the biggest, jobs bills, and other forms of government interference that will take forever and a day to get figured out, voted on, and then put into law in 2050 like the HC bill do not help business confidence. If you have watched or listened to the news lately consumer confidence isn't exactly through the roof right now either.

I will agree that way too much money is in too few hands, actually a lot of it is gone overseas for good. That however is not an excuse to increase the size and spending of our corrupt federal government and push more socialistic type agendas on us.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

thought this tag was needed to educate poor Prairie!

http://www.infowars.com/globalist-soros ... tea-party/


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

If you are a hunter or gun owner and you dont know about George Soros, you are very ignorant.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

Old Hunter said:


> If you are a hunter or gun owner and you dont know about George Soros, you are very ignorant.


AMEN :beer:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Did we just witness another liberal "drive-by"?

Typical tactic. They drive past in their Prius (with leather seats :wink: ), roll down the window and shout how much smarter they are than everyone else, but never stick around to explain why :eyeroll:


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

I started to post earlier about what I thought but decided to wait and see what came up! :beer: Great going guys, this type of thing is what I see happening all over the U.S. I believe the Dragon has been awakened! :beer: :beer: :thumb:


----------

