ACORN, HuffPo Organizing Efforts to Infiltrate Tax Day Tea Parties

[red states rule]

Don't you love it when the left shows their true colors? Libs love to raise our taxes, yet they do not want to hear anyone protest those tax increases



ACORN, HuffPo Organizing Efforts to Infiltrate Tax Day Tea Parties

FNC's Cavuto says efforts underway to make protests appear as 'fringe-group efforts' and in some cases as 'racist undertakings.'


Acts of protest tend to be synonymous with the left and are usually considered unsurprising on the right. However, when conservatives demonstrate – liberals take notice in a big way.

On Fox News Channel’s April 7 “Your World,” host Neil Cavuto reported that the Tax Day tea party protests on April 15 will be “infiltrated” by their political opponents and led by left-wing activist organizations. He specifically named Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

“Only eight days before a nationwide tea party, some over-caffeinated crashers aiming to lay waste to it,” Cavuto said. “Reports of very well-organized infiltrators trying to mix in and rain on this parade. Talk about taxing.”

One organizer, Mark Meckler of the Sacramento Tea Party, dismissed the counter efforts and said they were to be expected.

“We don’t take them seriously at all, and I’ll tell you why,” “It’s not that they don’t exist – we expect people to attempt to infiltrate,” Meckler said. “We expect people to attempt to disturb what we are doing, but the reality is that this is a very broad-based grassroots movement. There is no leader at the top. There is no individual event that they can disturb that would cause us a problem nationwide.”

Meckler explained that everyone was invited – even if they come to promote a philosophy that runs counter to what the tea party movement is attempting to convey.

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090407185054.aspx


<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=ydSU8znz2G" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=ydSU8znz2G" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[glockmail]

Thanks for the notice I'll make sure I bring a spray bottle full of urine with me on the 15th.

[red states rule]

Thanks for the notice I'll make sure I bring a spray bottle full of urine with me on the 15th.

It will be easy to tell who the libs are at the tea party. They will be the ones yelling how meanspirited and selfish you are for wanting to keep more of the money you earn

[Joe Steel]

Thanks for the notice I'll make sure I bring a spray bottle full of urine with me on the 15th.

Wouldn't that make you a terrorist with a biological weapon?

[Joe Steel]

Don't you love it when the left shows their true colors? Libs love to raise our taxes, yet they do not want to hear anyone protest those tax increases

Maybe they just find whining wingnut losers too tedious to endure.

[glockmail]

Wouldn't that make you a terrorist with a biological weapon?
Urine is sterile. http://www.medhelp.org/forums/urology/archive/1382.html

[Joe Steel]

Urine is sterile. http://www.medhelp.org/forums/urology/archive/1382.html

True but it's an excellent medium for growing bacteria and can easily be contaminated.

[red states rule]

Maybe they just find whining wingnut losers too tedious to endure.

Only big government tax and spend liberals would call people nuts for wanting to keep more the moeny they earn

Both you and Obama should remember one thing - socialism is great until to run out of other peoples money to spend

[glockmail]

True but it's an excellent medium for growing bacteria and can easily be contaminated. So isn't food. Are restaurants now terrorists organizations?

[red states rule]

Will Obama call out the National Guard, or Allah forbid, the Civilian Defense Force, next week, on April 15th, to stop the tea parties?

After all, the chosen one is very thin skined and does not like anyone speaking out against his policies

[Agnapostate]

Both you and Obama should remember one thing - socialism is great until to run out of other peoples money to spend

Socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. In many ways, Obama's liberal democratic capitalism has more relation to the "rightist" Anglo-Saxon model than the "leftist" social democratic model (or related Rhenish models). To call him a "socialist" is a misapplication of political economy.

[Mr. P]

Socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. In many ways, Obama's liberal democratic capitalism has more relation to the "rightist" Anglo-Saxon model than the "leftist" social democratic model (or related Rhenish models). To call him a "socialist" is a misapplication of political economy.

No it doesn't. Ownership is only one aspect of many in the socialism doctrine.

[Trigg]

Maybe they just find whining wingnut losers too tedious to endure.

If you had been paying attention you would realize that these tea parties are bipartisan. An interesting fact about the one in my town........it is being organized by a black man who is Democrat.


These demonstrations are being organized by people who are tired of gov. overspending and to much taxation. It doesn't matter what political group you belong to.

[Kathianne]

If you had been paying attention you would realize that these tea parties are bipartisan. An interesting fact about the one in my town........it is being organized by a black man who is Democrat.


These demonstrations are being organized by people who are tired of gov. overspending and to much taxation. It doesn't matter what political group you belong to.

Hey Trigg, right you are! If I can make one of the parties around here on the 15th I'm going to. I can't miss school, just back from break this Monday, we're off Friday and Monday-too much time away from the kids.

IF I do find one after 3 or so, I'll go. You will probably find the 'infiltrators' being 'over the top' messages. Something racist or way anarchist in message.

[Agnapostate]

No it doesn't. Ownership is only one aspect of many in the socialism doctrine.

Yes, it does. Some wish to make inappropriate economic comment about mixed-market capitalism (the only variety that has ever existed), in claiming that it has some relation to "socialism," but government intervention in an economic system is a necessary component of capitalism; the state must act as a stabilizing agent.

For instance, consider the odd disparagement of a welfare state as capitalism. In reality, welfare upholds the productivity level of capitalism by ensuring the physical efficiency of workers. Unemployment benefit, for instance, aids in the prevention of underemployment by ensuring that the frictionally unemployed are able to conduct a thorough job search and thus guarantee appropriate skills set matches.

A similar analysis could be made regarding the use of strategic trade policy in the way of protection of the development of infant industries. By ensuring that infant industries "grow up," such government intervention thus maximizes dynamic comparative advantage in the long-term by fostering market exchange and activity between relatively competitive industries.

[red states rule]

I am womdering where the libs are denying their side would be involved in smearing those who attend the Tea Parties

After all, ACORN and Al Sharpton are going openly going after Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his efforts to enforce violations of the law and immigration laws

Libs must silence any and all dissent to push their agenda

[5stringJeff]

Socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production.

Which must be why Obama has been increasing the government's share of AIG, GM, Bank of America, etc.

[Trigg]

My sister, who voted for bambam, is going to the tea party this Saturday.

There are actually two scheduled this week, one tomorrow, which I won't be able to attend, and one on Sat that I'm taking my two oldest to.

[emmett]

I am womdering where the libs are denying their side would be involved in smearing those who attend the Tea Parties

After all, ACORN and Al Sharpton are going openly going after Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his efforts to enforce violations of the law and immigration laws

Libs must silence any and all dissent to push their agenda


Shaprton might want to consider this....

Supporting efforts to sidetrack folks like Arpaio works against his own people. The more immigrants there are, the less there is available for poor people in our country. Dah! Sharpton is a trader to his own people.

[sgtdmski]

I was reading on the Daily Kos how a couple plan to attend a Sacremento Tea Party posing as a cameraman and anchor for a fictious news organization, interviewing the protesters to see if they can catch them in stupid, racist or other hatred so they can make a youtube video about it.

Such cowards. Why not admit what they are, and that they want the government to spend all the money and confront the protestors directly, just like we conservatives do with them. Oh that's right, their arguments usually rely on calling people names so they really don't have any.

dmk

[red states rule]

I was reading on the Daily Kos how a couple plan to attend a Sacremento Tea Party posing as a cameraman and anchor for a fictious news organization, interviewing the protesters to see if they can catch them in stupid, racist or other hatred so they can make a youtube video about it.

Such cowards. Why not admit what they are, and that they want the government to spend all the money and confront the protestors directly, just like we conservatives do with them. Oh that's right, their arguments usually rely on calling people names so they really don't have any.

dmk

That is how liberals operate. They can never tell you who they really are or what they really stand for. If they did, nobody would listen to talk to, or more importanly, vote for them

[Agnapostate]

Which must be why Obama has been increasing the government's share of AIG, GM, Bank of America, etc.

Government subsidies are not sufficient for any form of "collective" or "public" ownership, considering the lack of public managerial control over the means of production (and only GM fully qualifies for that category, incidentally), which is inconsistent with the participatory nature of socialism.

[5stringJeff]

Government subsidies are not sufficient for any form of "collective" or "public" ownership, considering the lack of public managerial control over the means of production (and only GM fully qualifies for that category, incidentally), which is inconsistent with the participatory nature of socialism.

The federal government is using its TARP loans as leverage over the way the companies operate. While this may not fall under the umbrella of socialism per se, it certainly falls under the purview of fascism.

[Agnapostate]

The federal government is using its TARP loans as leverage over the way the companies operate. While this may not fall under the umbrella of socialism per se, it certainly falls under the purview of fascism.

That is a rather excessive exaggeration. (Incidentally, it also undermines your previous reference to socialism, since socialist and fascist political economy are rather divergent, and in many cases, in conflict.) There is no significant increase in authoritarian management when government intervention occurs, considering that hierarchical private management already provides a basis for such authoritarianism itself. The only distinction would seem to be that government officials can at least be voted out of office, unlike members of the financial and coordinating classes.

[5stringJeff]

That is a rather excessive exaggeration. (Incidentally, it also undermines your previous reference to socialism, since socialist and fascist political economy are rather divergent, and in many cases, in conflict.) There is no significant increase in authoritarian management when government intervention occurs, considering that hierarchical private management already provides a basis for such authoritarianism itself. The only distinction would seem to be that government officials can at least be voted out of office, unlike members of the financial and coordinating classes.

First of all, governmental control over businesses was exactly the type of economic control Mussolini favored. Second of all, government adds an extra layer of bureaucracy over businesses, which the businesses cannot intervene in. However, businesses can, and do, fire unproductive members within their own hierarchies, based on the employee's profitability, making them much more efficient than the government, which almost never fires anyone and is notoriously inefficient.

[Agnapostate]

First of all, governmental control over businesses was exactly the type of economic control Mussolini favored.

This is rather crude. Since the nature of Mussolini's rule was itself profoundly anti-democratic, parallel comparisons can't effectively be made. We can thus revert back to what I've previously mentioned. There is no significant difference between government ownership (which isn't even present), of such businesses and ownership by the financial class, except for the fact that government officials are at least subject to election loss. You've thus only considered the "authoritarian" nature of government without considering the more authoritarian nature of elite private ownership, to say nothing of the inefficient nature of such ownership arrangements.


Second of all, government adds an extra layer of bureaucracy over businesses, which the businesses cannot intervene in.

The government functions as a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy. As I've previously mentioned, the welfare programs that you disavow, for instance, play a critical role in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce and thus maintaining capitalism. To consider the other expansions of capitalism facilitated by government intervention, we might consider a study such as Yu's A New Perspective on the Role of Government in Economic Development (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=2992FE1E2420415E240A E274834D0201?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=847649). This excerpt is particularly noteworthy:


[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organisation, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).

More than that, study into the role of the state in class creation and its continued protection of private property (which serves to legitimize the exploitation of wage labor and extraction of surplus value that occurs in a capitalist economy), is a critical element in illustrating the fact that rather than being a foe of capitalism, the state is a fundamental element of its existence and perpetuation.


However, businesses can, and do, fire unproductive members within their own hierarchies, based on the employee's profitability, making them much more efficient than the government, which almost never fires anyone and is notoriously inefficient.

This is based on a utopian conception of the labor market and the internal functioning of the capitalist firm. We can consider several factors related to the prevalence of asymmetric information in these markets that necessarily undermine such a utopian conception of efficiency. The most obvious one would be the principal-agent problem and the related agency costs of adverse selection and moral hazard.

Legitimate socialism, by contrast (as opposed to the liberalism that you inaccurately identify as socialism), is able to minimize these problems due to egalitarian distribution of ownership and management, which accounts for the increased efficiency levels of worker-owned enterprises for instance. Hence, complete autogestion is thus able to maximize productivity levels more than the traditional capitalist firm ever could.