wall street protesters.

[Maddog]

Here are 3 near me. You tell me where they get their funding.

http://www.netarrantteaparty.com/

http://www.arlingtonteaparty.org/

http://dallasteaparty.org/

Also, what they believe is stated right there on their sites, and there is no need to have someone else tell you what they believe. Best to get your info directly from the horses mouth. It's less "modified" that way.

[Verum]

Do your own research.

Are you saying, so that we all can note for future reference, that the Tea Party receives no financial backing from big business? No weasel words or careful sentence constructions, YES or NO?

There are hundreds of local Tea Party chapters, and I don't know who the bigger contributors are to any of them. You are making the claim that "big business" (whatever that means) is bank rolling all or some of these chapters, and up to this point you have shown me nothing that suggests that. What you have said via Frank Rich is that if a group gets a donation, and that group has similar goals as the Tea Party, then that is the same as the Tea Party getting the contribution.

So that's a "no" then, fine.

[Guest]

Here are 3 near me. You tell me where they get their funding.

http://www.netarrantteaparty.com/

http://www.arlingtonteaparty.org/

http://dallasteaparty.org/

Also, what they believe is stated right there on their sites, and there is no need to have someone else tell you what they believe. Best to get your info directly from the horses mouth. It's less "modified" that way.

Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks fund many.

[Guest]

Here are 3 near me. You tell me where they get their funding.

http://www.netarrantteaparty.com/

http://www.arlingtonteaparty.org/

http://dallasteaparty.org/

Also, what they believe is stated right there on their sites, and there is no need to have someone else tell you what they believe. Best to get your info directly from the horses mouth. It's less "modified" that way.

Who do you think funds the Common Sense Citizens network?

[Guest]

Do your own research.

Are you saying, so that we all can note for future reference, that the Tea Party receives no financial backing from big business? No weasel words or careful sentence constructions, YES or NO?

There are hundreds of local Tea Party chapters, and I don't know who the bigger contributors are to any of them. You are making the claim that "big business" (whatever that means) is bank rolling all or some of these chapters, and up to this point you have shown me nothing that suggests that. What you have said via Frank Rich is that if a group gets a donation, and that group has similar goals as the Tea Party, then that is the same as the Tea Party getting the contribution.

So that's a "no" then, fine.

This made me laugh from the Arlington link. their mission statement says:

"We are tired of the pendulum swinging Right and then Left."

There has been no Left in Power, Sure to the Left of GWB doesn't mean everyone is a Socialist

To suggest Obama is Left is like saying American Football is like water polo.

[Guest]

Do you know what a Front group is maddog?

A front group typically has some (but not necessarily all) of the following characteristics:

Avoids mentioning its main sources of funding. Note that this does not necessarily mean absolute concealment of sponsorship. Some front groups do indeed go to great lengths to conceal their origins, funders and personnel links to sponsors. However, the likelihood that these will be exposed anyway, with embarrassing consequences for a group's credibility, has led many companies and their sponsored organizations to opt for a strategy of selective disclosure, in which funders are mentioned in an annual report or other obscure publication, but are not mentioned in the organization's most common communications that reach the largest audience.

Is set up by and/or operated by another organization, (particularly a public relations, grassroots campaigning, polling or surveying firm or consultancy)
Engages in actions that consistently and conspicuously benefit a third party, such as a company, industry or political candidate;
Effectively shields a third party from liability/responsibility/culpability
Re-focuses debate about an issue onto a new or suspiciously unrelated topic, (e.g., secondhand smoke as a property rights issue)

Has a misleading name that disguises its real agenda, such as the National Wetlands Coalition, which opposed policies to protect U.S. wetlands, or Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which purported to represent U.S. citizens but was actually funded almost entirely by the royal family of Kuwait. Sometimes a front group's name might seem to suggest academic or political neutrality ("Consumers' Research," "American Policy Center"), while in fact it consistently turns out opinions, research, surveys, reports, polls and other declarations that benefit the interests of a company, industry or political candidate.
Has the same address or phone number as a sponsoring corporation, or a similar group that has since disbanded, or been forced out of business by exposure, lawsuits, etc.

Consists of a group of vocal, "esteemed" academic "experts" who go on national tours, put on media events, give press conferences, seminars, workshops, and give editorial board meetings around the country, etc., who ordinarily would not seem to have the budget or financial means to carry out such events
Touts repeatedly in communications that it is "independent," "esteemed," "credible" etc.
Has a custom-painted, luxury bus that goes on highly-publicized, national tours

Has remarkably low, if any, individual membership fees. (Front groups are typically in need of individual members to bolster their claims of being a "grassroots" organization. They need these individuals' representation more than their money -- since they are already well-funded by corporations -- so individual dues will typically be very low, perhaps $5 or $10, while group or corporate dues are much higher.)

An organization that only has a few of these characteristics may not be a true front group. For example, the tobacco industry has given funding to youth organizations such as the Jaycees and w:4-H clubs, which serves a public relations goal by helping the industry cultivate an image of corporate responsibility. This PR tactic is an example of the third party technique, and organizations that trade their reputations for corporate funding may be naive, gullible or opportunistic, but this in itself would not make them a front group.

Front groups fund most of the Tea Party

[Guest]

For simplicity's sake, the list below includes some organizations (like the Tobacco Institute) that are not front groups per se but that engage in other deceptive activities.
(Some groups that have yet to be investigated are listed at Possible industry funded groups requiring investigation. If you would like to help document whether some of these groups belong in the list below, please feel free to start a profile on them.)
International examples

International Life Sciences Institute

US examples

60 Plus Association
Accuracy in Media
ActivistCash.com
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
Africa Fighting Malaria
African American Republican Leadership Council
AIDS Responsibility Project
Air Hygiene Foundation
Air Quality Standards Coalition
Alaska's Future
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy
Alliance for Better Foods
Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care
Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy
American Beverage Institute
American Council on Science and Health
American Industrial Health Council
American Policy Center
American Tort Reform Association
Americans for Balanced Energy Choices
Americans for Medical Progress
Americans for Tax Reform
America's Power Army
America's Wetland Foundation
Animal Welfare Council
A.N.S.W.E.R.
Association for Competitive Technology
Beverly Hills Restaurant Association
Black America's PAC
Business Tobacco Alliance
California Civil Rights Initiative
California Political Empowerment Committee
Californians for Statewide Smoking Restrictions
Campaign for Working Families
Capital Research Center
Center for Competitive Politics
Center for Consumer Freedom
Center for Economic and Entrepreneurial Literacy
Center for Union Facts
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Christian Coalition
Choose Black America
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
Citizens Against Unfair Health Care Taxes
Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy
Citizens for a Free Kuwait
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Citizens for Better Medicare
Citizens for Recycling First
Citizens for Sensible Control of Acid Rain
Citizens for Sensible Energy Choices
Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Clean Sites
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Coalition for Asbestos Resolution
Coalition for Equal Rights
Coalition for Health Insurance Choices
Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Reform
Coalition for Responsible Regulation
Coalition for Southern Africa
Coalition for Vehicle Choice
Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth
Community Financial Services Association of America
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Consumer Alert
Consumer Alliance for Energy Security
Consumer Credit Research Foundation
Consumer Data Industry Association
Consumer Distorts
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Rights Coalition
Consumers Alliance for Affordable Natural Gas
Consumers for World Trade
Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity
Consumers' Research
Contributions Watch
Council for Affordable Health Insurance
Council for Energy Independence
Council for Solid Waste Solutions
Council of American Muslims for Understanding
Democracy Watch
Employment Policies Institute
Employment Roundtable
Energy Citizens
Energy Stewardship Alliance
Environmental Issues Council
EPA Watch
FACES of Coal
Farmers for Clean Air and Water
Families Organized to Represent the Coal Economy FORCE
Foundation for Clean Air Progress
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Free Enterprise Coalition
FreedomWorks
George C. Marshall Institute
Global Climate Coalition
Global Climate Information Project
Global Warming Cost website
GreenFacts Foundation
Greening Earth Society
Guest Choice Network
Hands Off the Internet
Heidelberg Appeal
Health Benefits Coalition
Health Care America
Healthcare Leadership Council
Healthy Buildings International, major Philip Morris contractor
Heartland Institute
Hepatitis C Coalition
Hezbollah Hejaz
Independent Women's Forum
Institute for Regulatory Policy
International Freedom Foundation
International Food Information Council
Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain
JunkScience.com
Keep America Beautiful
Landmark Legal Foundation
Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Morton Blackwell Leadership Institute
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Mywireless.org
NAIA Trust
National Animal Interest Alliance
National Anxiety Center
National Center for Genome Resources
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Consumer Coalition
National Empowerment Television
National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition
National Endowment for Democracy
National Journalism Center
National Legal and Policy Center
National Legal Center for the Public Interest
National Wetlands Coalition
National Wilderness Institute
Non-Smoker Protection Committee
North American Coalition on Green Building
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Oregonians Against the Blank Check
Parents for Priorities
Political Economy Research Center
Progress & Freedom Foundation
Project Learning Tree
Project Protect
Public Interest Watch
Reason Foundation
Regular Folks United
Republicans for Clean Air
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment
Save Our Species Alliance
Shape the Debate
Smart Growth Madison
Social Issues Research Centre
Speaking of Research
Statistical Assessment Service
Susan B. Anthony List
Teacher Choice
The Energy Initiative
United Seniors Association
US Composting Council
Washington Legal Foundation
Water Environment Federation
Wise Use Movement

Now look at Tea Party funding and tell me NONE of these groups pay many thousands a year into Tea Party coffers.

[Guest]

Mmmm, that Koch ass taste good, don't it, Maddog?

I wouldn't know. I'm not a member of Freedom Works, or any other group that they contribute to, not would I care. Goldman Sachs gave money to Obama, but that does not mean Obama supporters are kissing the ass of Goldman Sachs now does it?

I'll take your word for it but you seem very intent on defending the Koch brothers for some reason. Or perhaps you think that if you say that the Tea Party isn't funded by big business enough times we will somehow believe you despite the overwhelming evidence on the internet and elsewhere to the contrary. Or perhaps you REALLY believe it yourself, you believe in supernatural beings after all so I guess you can believe anything you set your mind to.

And you seem very intent on attacking them based on your very limited knowledge of them, provided by an op-ed piece in the NY times, by a guy known for his hit pieces.

The Tea Party is comprised of hundreds of local chapters, funded by local members. There are National groups like Freedom Works, that will work with certain local groups on certain issues, but they are not funding the Tea Party group, but working with them towards a common goal.

Belief in a supernatural being as you put it, hardly discredits anyone, except by those that have some sort have hang up. You will find churches have plenty of doctors and scientists as members. Only an idiot would discredit someones intelligence based on their belief of a higher power.

Bollocks the Tea Party is known as astroturf.

[Maddog]

Mmmm, that Koch ass taste good, don't it, Maddog?

I wouldn't know. I'm not a member of Freedom Works, or any other group that they contribute to, not would I care. Goldman Sachs gave money to Obama, but that does not mean Obama supporters are kissing the ass of Goldman Sachs now does it?

I'll take your word for it but you seem very intent on defending the Koch brothers for some reason. Or perhaps you think that if you say that the Tea Party isn't funded by big business enough times we will somehow believe you despite the overwhelming evidence on the internet and elsewhere to the contrary. Or perhaps you REALLY believe it yourself, you believe in supernatural beings after all so I guess you can believe anything you set your mind to.

And you seem very intent on attacking them based on your very limited knowledge of them, provided by an op-ed piece in the NY times, by a guy known for his hit pieces.

The Tea Party is comprised of hundreds of local chapters, funded by local members. There are National groups like Freedom Works, that will work with certain local groups on certain issues, but they are not funding the Tea Party group, but working with them towards a common goal.

Belief in a supernatural being as you put it, hardly discredits anyone, except by those that have some sort have hang up. You will find churches have plenty of doctors and scientists as members. Only an idiot would discredit someones intelligence based on their belief of a higher power.

Bollocks the Tea Party is known as astroturf.

By it's detractors, yes. That does not make it true. They can called anything they like.

[Maddog]

Here are 3 near me. You tell me where they get their funding.

http://www.netarrantteaparty.com/

http://www.arlingtonteaparty.org/

http://dallasteaparty.org/

Also, what they believe is stated right there on their sites, and there is no need to have someone else tell you what they believe. Best to get your info directly from the horses mouth. It's less "modified" that way.

Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks fund many.

They don't fund them per se, but work together with them.I have already stated that on here about 5 times. They are different groups with similar agendas.

[Maddog]

Do you know what a Front group is maddog?

A front group typically has some (but not necessarily all) of the following characteristics:

Avoids mentioning its main sources of funding. Note that this does not necessarily mean absolute concealment of sponsorship. Some front groups do indeed go to great lengths to conceal their origins, funders and personnel links to sponsors. However, the likelihood that these will be exposed anyway, with embarrassing consequences for a group's credibility, has led many companies and their sponsored organizations to opt for a strategy of selective disclosure, in which funders are mentioned in an annual report or other obscure publication, but are not mentioned in the organization's most common communications that reach the largest audience.

Is set up by and/or operated by another organization, (particularly a public relations, grassroots campaigning, polling or surveying firm or consultancy)
Engages in actions that consistently and conspicuously benefit a third party, such as a company, industry or political candidate;
Effectively shields a third party from liability/responsibility/culpability
Re-focuses debate about an issue onto a new or suspiciously unrelated topic, (e.g., secondhand smoke as a property rights issue)

Has a misleading name that disguises its real agenda, such as the National Wetlands Coalition, which opposed policies to protect U.S. wetlands, or Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which purported to represent U.S. citizens but was actually funded almost entirely by the royal family of Kuwait. Sometimes a front group's name might seem to suggest academic or political neutrality ("Consumers' Research," "American Policy Center"), while in fact it consistently turns out opinions, research, surveys, reports, polls and other declarations that benefit the interests of a company, industry or political candidate.
Has the same address or phone number as a sponsoring corporation, or a similar group that has since disbanded, or been forced out of business by exposure, lawsuits, etc.

Consists of a group of vocal, "esteemed" academic "experts" who go on national tours, put on media events, give press conferences, seminars, workshops, and give editorial board meetings around the country, etc., who ordinarily would not seem to have the budget or financial means to carry out such events
Touts repeatedly in communications that it is "independent," "esteemed," "credible" etc.
Has a custom-painted, luxury bus that goes on highly-publicized, national tours

Has remarkably low, if any, individual membership fees. (Front groups are typically in need of individual members to bolster their claims of being a "grassroots" organization. They need these individuals' representation more than their money -- since they are already well-funded by corporations -- so individual dues will typically be very low, perhaps $5 or $10, while group or corporate dues are much higher.)

An organization that only has a few of these characteristics may not be a true front group. For example, the tobacco industry has given funding to youth organizations such as the Jaycees and w:4-H clubs, which serves a public relations goal by helping the industry cultivate an image of corporate responsibility. This PR tactic is an example of the third party technique, and organizations that trade their reputations for corporate funding may be naive, gullible or opportunistic, but this in itself would not make them a front group.

Front groups fund most of the Tea Party

They fund which Tea Party? I know exactly what front groups are, and have never said that they are not funded by people that share their beliefs. I bet you will also find that some very wealthy people give to those groups. So what?

[Guest]

Here are 3 near me. You tell me where they get their funding.

http://www.netarrantteaparty.com/

http://www.arlingtonteaparty.org/

http://dallasteaparty.org/

Also, what they believe is stated right there on their sites, and there is no need to have someone else tell you what they believe. Best to get your info directly from the horses mouth. It's less "modified" that way.

Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks fund many.

They don't fund them per se, but work together with them.I have already stated that on here about 5 times. They are different groups with similar agendas.

Who funds AfP and FW?

[Maddog]

Here are 3 near me. You tell me where they get their funding.

http://www.netarrantteaparty.com/

http://www.arlingtonteaparty.org/

http://dallasteaparty.org/

Also, what they believe is stated right there on their sites, and there is no need to have someone else tell you what they believe. Best to get your info directly from the horses mouth. It's less "modified" that way.

Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks fund many.

They don't fund them per se, but work together with them.I have already stated that on here about 5 times. They are different groups with similar agendas.

Who funds AfP and FW?

People that agree with their political agenda. Who funds any of these groups? Who funded the Obama and McCain campaigns? Who funds the NRA? Who funds the Shriner Hospitals?

[Guest]

Here are 3 near me. You tell me where they get their funding.

http://www.netarrantteaparty.com/

http://www.arlingtonteaparty.org/

http://dallasteaparty.org/

Also, what they believe is stated right there on their sites, and there is no need to have someone else tell you what they believe. Best to get your info directly from the horses mouth. It's less "modified" that way.

Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks fund many.

They don't fund them per se, but work together with them.I have already stated that on here about 5 times. They are different groups with similar agendas.

Who funds AfP and FW?

People that agree with their political agenda. Who funds any of these groups? Who funded the Obama and McCain campaigns? Who funds the NRA? Who funds the Shriner Hospitals?

Not just people. Huge multinational corporations, the Koch brothers etc etc. These are the people who fund these front groups. That's why they call these groups Astroturf groups. The myth is that they are *cough* *cough* grass roots when they are in reality manufactured by big business.

[Stooo]

Since Occupy Wall Street began, American police officers have arrested thousands of people for exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest. On Monday or Tuesday, the US Senate will vote on a bill that would give the President the ability to order the military to arrest and imprison American citizens anywhere in the world for an indefinite period of time.

A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent or not, without charge or trial. In other words, if this bill passes and the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested and indefinitely locked up by the military without the guaranteed right to due process or a speedy trial.

This bill was written in secret and approved by committee without a single hearing. Senate Republicans support the bill and enough Democrats support it to give it a great chance of passing. This provision does have opponents. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill and even Ron Paul is concerned enough to bring it up during one of the GOP debates. An amendment called the Udall Amendment has been offered by Democratic Senator Mark Udall that would delete the dangerous provision.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/26 ... efinitely/