kalm wrote:native wrote:
I don't believe Lerner and his cronies will succeed in their endeavors, kalm, but I believe he said what he said and meant it, that he served as an SEIU executive, that he was most likely the Lerner who visited the White House, and that his expressed thoughts accurately represent the feelings of many of the looney left and some who post here.
And yes, I really do believe that D1B is what he represents himself to be.
Why did you bring up Beck? I did not post any references to him, and I do not recall any references to Beck in the posted links. Are you trying to distract attention from Lerner and his embarrassing acceptance in your left wing circles?
Politics
Revealed — The Left’s Economic Terrorism Playbook: The Chase Campaign by a Coalition of Unions, Community Groups, Lawmakers and Students to Take Down US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth & Power
So you post a link to businessinsider.com which cites a "news" report and tape produced by the Blaze which describes some dude I've never heard who use to be an official of a union that represented part of 10% of the labor force speaking at some school I've never heard of about his secrect plan to go all "Fight Club" on the financial sector and I'm supposed to grab my powder and gun?
1) If a bunch of wealth was redistributed upwards during the crisis, wouldn't returning it to it's rightful owners be the same as tax cuts giving us back our money?
2) Have you or anyone else ever met a community organizer? If so, what do they look like?
3) He was a white house visitor? So were the Green Bay Packers. Did you know they were in on this conspiracy?
3b) And George H.W. Bush was having breakfast on the morning of 9/11 with a Bin Laden.
I give you credit for trying hard, kalm, but your attempt throw sh!t on the wall to see what sticks in an effort to establish a non-existent moral equivalency is an epic fail. I realize that language is not as precise as math, but if there were substance to your arguments you could do a lot better in achieving symmetry, balance and relevance.
If you have not heard of Stephen Lerner you have not paid attention. He has been a prominent leftie and union executive for years, outspoken on many issues, and received plenty of attention in the media, including MSNBC, CNBC and the Huffington Post. Do you doubt that Stephen Lerner was an SEIU executive or that he said what he said?
I know why the Green Bay Packers were invited to the White House. Why do you think Stephen Lerner was invited to the White House? Does it matter to you? Do you think people invited to the White House should be screened? Do you think everyone named bin Laden is guilty of the sins of their relative Osama? I do not recall tapes of GW making booster speeches at Al Qaida meetings.
What are you really trying to say? That you are embarrassed by Lerner, recognize the political danger he represents for Democrats, and will do eveything possible to obfuscate the issues and change the subject, or that you embrace Lerner and his ideas? All of the above?
Here is what I am trying to say: Lerner is more dangerous than the kook who got locked up for making Ron Paul coins. Lerner brings disrepute to unionism, Obama, the SEIU, the left and Democrats. What I am not trying to say is that you should grab your powder and gun. You made that part up.
You ask "What am I supposed to do?" In my opinion, what you are supposed to do is to acknowledge the truth that Stephen Lerner accurately represents the views of much of union and Democrat leadership (not rank and file), that his point of view enjoys far too much credence in the Obama administration, and that you disavow Lerner and his ilk.
But I do not think you will do what you are supposed to do.
You are intellectually comfortable with communists. I am not.
You do not fear the slippery slope. I do.
You do not have a vision for the future based on the libertarian essence of the Constitution. I do.
I get all that.
