Stanek Sunday funnies 1-18-15
Good morning, and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
Bok and McCoy’s in reference to the Obama administration’s embarrassing attempt to show belated solidarity with the French by having Secretary of State John Kerry bring James Taylor to Paris to sing, “You’ve Got a Friend”…
http://youtu.be/kuWEkUcS0lI
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
[polldaddy poll=8592156]
Jan.18, 2015 8:16 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
While I think Hillary would win, I’m interested to see if somebody like Bernie Sanders makes a serious play. Hillary is a bit too moderate – would be interested to see somebody with new ideas shake things up.
GOP is better off as the minority party – they simply are. Pro-lifers make WAY more gains when the white house is controlled by the Dems.
I’m voting for #5 because it’s nice to have a change from the Charlie Hebdo stuff.
We will not find our redemption from Washington, no matter which Party is in charge.
All the same, neither Party is a static entity. We can hope that both parties will come to their senses and support life in our nation.
We voted the Republicans out in 2008, because they were being fiscally irresponsible and failing to listen to us. We tsunamied the Democrats out, because they were even more arrogant. These new Republicans — we hope they will stick to the job that we sent them to do.
In the meantime, we are not going to vote for pro-abortion candidates in the hope of achieve more pro-life victories in spite of them. That would be dumb.
I voted for #2. It made me laugh. Obama’s self-referential narcissism and deference to the violent bullies…. Somehow, McCoy made it funny.
I voted for number 5 because I have played this game with loved ones while growing up and enjoy playing it now with children.
I have changed the game around a time or two though where the child that is left holding the Old Maid card is actually the winner of the game.
I think I will play it this way all the time from now on and rename the game and the last card the Eligible Maid.
Cartoon #3. What a national embarassment. Kerry apologizes in French for not attending the unity march, and brings some 70s retread to serenade the French.
Maybe our fearless leader hopes our enemies will laugh themselves to death?
I think you’re onto something there Praxedes, any democrat nominee can defeat any of the republican contenders.
Yes, Reality. We saw that last November.
Our job is to find a Democrat who represents Americans, including the children and pre-born children.
There wasn’t a presidential election last November Del.
Our job is to find a Democrat who represents Americans, including the children and pre-born children. – any democrat is still better than a republican if you want any real and meaningful outcome there. How about a republican who represents more than the vested interests of the rich and powerful, that might be useful.
I don’t know why you insist that only Republicans represent the rich.
Most Americans reckon that Democrats over-represent the elitist class — and that’s why we elected Republicans.
Two of the most powerful groups in politics are the Koch brothers and the NRA. Who do they back?
What is this ‘elitist’ class exactly?
Del: We will not find our redemption from Washington, no matter which Party is in charge.
This.
Reality,
Don’t forget George Soros.
http://humanevents.com/2011/04/02/top-10-reasons-george-soros-is-dangerous/
Reality,
Do you have a source to back the claim you made in your 9:58PM post?
Mary –
You’re looking for proof that the Koch brothers and the NRA spend a lot of money on GOP interests?
No,
Reality says they are two of the most powerful groups in politics. I would like a source for that.
I googled and found this.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=D&cycle=2014
You cite an ultra-conservative site owned by Salem Communications as a source re Soros?
Still not reading newspapers?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=R&cycle=2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/nra-congress/
http://other98.com/soros-vs-koch-infographic/
Since pre-born children of all classes and races are neither rich nor powerful (They don’t vote either), I can name plenty of Republicans who represent them.
How can they represent them when they can’t know what they want?
Now you are just being silly.
The pre-born have human rights which deserve to be protected by representation in government, just as you do. We do not need to know your opinions in order to protect your life, liberty, and property from those would harm you.
Reality,
LOLLLL. You are as predictable as the sunrise. You can’t dispute a source or you don’t like what it says, well easy enough. Just jump up and down and scream that you don’t like the source.
11:03PM You repost my link, which displays the multimillions given by any number of special interest groups to both parties.
11:15PM This link only shows that the Koch Bros are big players in American politics, which I did not dispute. My link shows that George Soros is no less so.
11:21PM According to this link, the NRA only spent about $650,000 dollars on campaign contributions in 2012. My link, which you reposted, clearly shows the NRA is definitely not in the big leagues when it comes to the multimillion dollar donations given to both parties by other special interests.
11:33PM While this link portrays Soros as being just this side of sainthood, it fails to disprove what my source said.
So Reality, while you certainly put your clicking finger to work, you failed to:
1. Prove my source about George Soros was wrong. Sorry, but jumping up and down and screaming you don’t like a source doesn’t cut it.
2. That the Koch Bros and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics”. On the contrary, your source showed how the NRA’s contributions are a pittance compared to other special interest groups.
Not at all silly Del. Some fetuses will grow up to be pro-choice. Anti-choice republican politicians aren’t exactly going to be representing them.
Mary, LOLLLL. You are as predictable as the sunrise. – LOL, it’s getting to the point where I could just about write your responses for you…..
You can’t dispute a source or you don’t like what it says, well easy enough. Just jump up and down and scream that you don’t like the source. – …..like this. You always try this one on. It’s not because I don’t ‘like’ the source, it’s because it is self-evidently biased and agenda driven. No jumping up and down screaming, just laughing.
11:03PM You repost my link, which displays the multimillions given by any number of special interest groups to both parties. – nope, I didn’t repost your link. You posted the one about democrats, I posted the one about the republicans. Did you miss that?
11:15PM This link only shows that the Koch Bros are big players in American politics, which I did not dispute. My link shows that George Soros is no less so. – and this proves or disproves what? I said “two of the most powerful groups” not ‘the two most powerful groups’. Nor did I dispute that Soros is a player.
11:21PM According to this link, the NRA only spent about $650,000 dollars on campaign contributions in 2012. My link, which you reposted, clearly shows the NRA is definitely not in the big leagues when it comes to the multimillion dollar donations given to both parties by other special interests. – I said “powerful”, not biggest spending.
11:33PM While this link portrays Soros as being just this side of sainthood, it fails to disprove what my source said. – and what did your link actually prove?
So Reality, while you certainly put your clicking finger to work, you failed to:
1. Prove my source about George Soros was wrong. Sorry, but jumping up and down and screaming you don’t like a source doesn’t cut it. – did I need to prove it was wrong? I was just pointing out that it was from a blatantly biased source. And again, laughing, not jumping.
2. That the Koch Bros and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics”. On the contrary, your source showed how the NRA’s contributions are a pittance compared to other special interest groups. – yes, I said “powerful”, not ‘financial contributor’.
Reality,
In fact it gets to the point where I can predict your responses. So YOU decide that since the source is “biased” and “agenda driven” it is irrelevant. I have noticed your determination that a source is “biased” and “agenda driven” usually coincides with your inability to dispute the source.
Look again Reality. One could go to my link and get all that information. Republican or Democrat, or a combination of the two.
You could only view one at a time. Did you miss that?
Reality, you said “two of the most powerful groups”. I pointed out Soros was a player and I’m glad you don’t dispute this. A source please for the Koch Brothers and the NRA being “two of the most powerful groups” in politics.
“I said “powerful”, not biggest spending” You’re being funny, right? What do you suppose makes the special interest groups powerful? Perhaps their willingness to spend millions? Too bad those other special interest groups spending multi millions don’t know they can be “powerful” by spending just a few hundred thousand.
My link proves Soros to be one very big player in American politics. How powerful is he in comparison to the Kochs? Who yields the most power?
You disregarded my source as biased and agenda driven. As such I would think you could provide a source to discredit mine. Please do.
“yes, I said “powerful”, not financial contributor”. Again, you’re not serious, right? If you want any power, you better be able to cough up the millions. Nothing talks like money.
In fact it gets to the point where I can predict your responses. – then maybe it’s time you said something different.
So YOU decide that since the source is “biased” and “agenda driven” it is irrelevant. – no, it decides for itself. Did you look at the source yourself? Do you know who and what Salem Communications are? It almost proudly informs us that they are biased and agenda driven.
I have noticed your determination that a source is “biased” and “agenda driven” usually coincides with your inability to dispute the source. – no you haven’t. You claim such when I point out that your source is biased and agenda driven.
Look again Reality. One could go to my link and get all that information. Republican or Democrat, or a combination of the two. You could only view one at a time. Did you miss that? – not at all, I saw the drop-down selection straight away. Did you? Why did you mistakenly claim I posted the same link as you?
Reality, you said “two of the most powerful groups”. I pointed out Soros was a player and I’m glad you don’t dispute this. A source please for the Koch Brothers and the NRA being “two of the most powerful groups” in politics. – read a newspaper, check the links I provided above. But hey, if you wish to announce that you don’t think the Koch’s and the NRA are two of the most powerful groups please be my guest.
“I said “powerful”, not biggest spending” You’re being funny, right? – no, are you?
What do you suppose makes the special interest groups powerful? Perhaps their willingness to spend millions? – that’d be one way they can be powerful – Too bad those other special interest groups spending multi millions don’t know they can be “powerful” by spending just a few hundred thousand. – it’s called ‘membership numbers’. The NRA claims to have 5 million members. You don’t think a group like that influences how its members vote and also leans on politicians with the threat of a campaign against them? Go on, please tell me it isn’t so.
My link proves Soros to be one very big player in American politics. – no it doesn’t. It claims such. It may be correct but it’d need to be a less biased source to be given any credence.
How powerful is he in comparison to the Kochs? Who yields the most power? – you tell me.
You disregarded my source as biased and agenda driven. – ‘is’, not ‘as’.
As such I would think you could provide a source to discredit mine. Please do. – why? It’s done that for itself.
“yes, I said “powerful”, not financial contributor”. Again, you’re not serious, right? If you want any power, you better be able to cough up the millions. Nothing talks like money. – wow, do you really want people to think you know so little about this? What happens when the call goes out across the anti-choice community to flood politicians with emails, letters etc. regarding how they’ll vote on legislation? Do they pay each anti-choicer $5 to do so?
Reality,
Rather than continually going in circles, let’s make this simple.
Post a source that says the link I posted concerning George Soros is wrong. Since you consider the source “biased” and “agenda driven”, then you should have no trouble posting a source that discredits mine.
Post a source that backs your claim that “two of the most powerful groups in politics are the Koch Brothers and the NRA”.
Post a source that says the link I posted concerning George Soros is wrong. Since you consider the source “biased” and “agenda driven”, then you should have no trouble posting a source that discredits mine. – http://humanevents.com/2011/04/02/top-10-reasons-george-soros-is-dangerous/
Post a source that backs your claim that “two of the most powerful groups in politics are the Koch Brothers and the NRA”. – I already have. How could you miss them?
Of course it’s also interesting that Soros supports things such as democratization and social equity while the Koch’s support oil spills, dangerous chemicals being a positive and such like.
Instead of just posing questions to me perhaps you might consider answering some of those I ask you. That’d be different.
Reality,
So you are unable to discredit my source.
You have posted no sources backing your claim that the Koch brothers and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics.”
So you are unable to discredit my source. – I didn’t need to. I told you such remember. It did so all by itself.
You have posted no sources backing your claim that the Koch brothers and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics.” – I guess I can lead a horse to water but I can’t make it drink.
Reality,
No, you just decided a source wasn’t valid. Doesn’t wash Reality.
Please post a source to back up your claim about the Koch Brothers and the NRA.
No, you just decided a source wasn’t valid. – No, I didn’t just decide it wasn’t valid, it demonstrated itself to be. Have you looked into Salem Communications? Apparently not.
Doesn’t wash Reality. – well I suppose you could consider it a ‘soiled’ source.
Please post a source to back up your claim about the Koch Brothers and the NRA. – I already have. How could you miss them? I guess I can lead a horse to water but I can’t make it drink. What is it that causes you to refuse to acknowledge answers to your questions?
Reality,
So prove my source wrong.
No, your sources proved nothing, other than the Koch Brothers are big players, along with George Soros, and the NRA donates a pittance compared to other special interests.
In case you hadn’t noticed, your source claimed that Soros is ‘dangerous’, not ‘powerful’.
No, your sources proved nothing, other than the Koch Brothers are big players, along with George Soros, – go on then, show us how long a list of more powerful players you can confirm so as to push the Koch’s and the NRA so far down it they don’t register as amongst the most powerful.
and the NRA donates a pittance compared to other special interests. – what, you still don’t understand how groups can be powerful other than through megabucks? Even with the examples? Oh dear.
Reality,
So what do you suppose makes Soros dangerous? Maybe his immense wealth and the power that comes with it?
Doesn’t work that way Reality. You made the claim, you back it up.
What, you don’t understand that for special interest groups to be powerful, they better cough up the big bucks?
Nothing makes Soros dangerous. He seems ‘dangerous’ to an ultra-conservative group. “Gives billions to left-wing causes” they claim – with no evidence regarding these ‘billions’. “Environmental extremism”?
Well I did provide sources. I note you haven’t provided conflicting sources.
What, you don’t understand that for special interest groups to be powerful, they better cough up the big bucks? – ROFLMBO, how sweet. And naďve.
Still waiting for your source Reality.
Provided. Your problem.
Is this actually a question still?
I keep thinking about unsubscribing to this thread, but I enjoy the crazy back and forth.
I don’t know how anybody could deny that the NRA and the Koch Brothers are two of the most powerful groups when it comes to political lobbying. Somebody could split hairs on the word ‘powerful’ – I read some assessments that the NRA actually had a tough election cycle – so you could argue they spent a ton and didn’t get much – but in terms of spending and political influence on candidates, they are two of the biggest players in town – and if anybody denied that, I’d question what sort of planet they were on.
EGV,
According to Reality’s source it’s obvious the NRA didn’t spend a “ton”, if anything it was pocket change compared to the other powerful interest groups.
Also in Reality’s 8:59PM post, he can’t give me as straight answer as to who is more powerful, the Kochs or Soros.
So you see EGV, Reality’s own source points out the fact the NRA is in the minor leagues when it comes to shelling out the money. Sorry, but that’s what makes the politicians listen, not anyone’s cause. Would certainly explain why, as you posted, the NRA “actually had a tough election cycle.” This despite the fact they are supposedly so powerful?
Now, if you’re going to make the claim these are two of the most powerful groups in politics, which is questionable, then a source would be most helpful. Otherwise you are doing little more than expressing a personal opinion.
Oh and when someone provides a source, jumping up and down and screaming you don’t like the source is not how you discredit the source or prove it wrong.
According to Reality’s source it’s obvious the NRA didn’t spend a “ton”, if anything it was pocket change compared to the other powerful interest groups. – so you still can’t fathom how a group with a large membership, which will vote according to what the leadership advises, can be powerful without spending megabucks? Wow. How many billions does the anti-choice movement spend to get people to send messages to politicians and to vote a certain way? Or should they give up because they don’t have the Koch’s sort of money?
Also in Reality’s 8:59PM post, he can’t give me as straight answer as to who is more powerful, the Kochs or Soros. – who cares. I said that the Koch’s and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups”, not “the two most powerful groups”. It’s quite clear.
So you see EGV, Reality’s own source points out the fact the NRA is in the minor leagues when it comes to shelling out the money. Sorry, but that’s what makes the politicians listen, not anyone’s cause. Would certainly explain why, as you posted, the NRA “actually had a tough election cycle.” This despite the fact they are supposedly so powerful? – I actually hope you are being disingenuous about not recognizing power isn’t always about vast sums of money. Otherwise…..
Now, if you’re going to make the claim these are two of the most powerful groups in politics, which is questionable, then a source would be most helpful. Otherwise you are doing little more than expressing a personal opinion. – indeed it would. Which is why I provided them. Oh look, and here’s a couple more for you to chew on –
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/2014-elections-koch-brothers-super-pac-107926.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-brothers-ted-cruz-rand-paul-marco-rubio-scott-walker-2016-elections-114386.html
Oh and when someone provides a source, jumping up and down and screaming you don’t like the source is not how you discredit the source or prove it wrong. – I agree. Which is why there was no jumping up and down and screaming isn’t what I did. I demonstrated that the source ‘outed’ itself.
Ex was obviously right about the planet stuff…..
Mary –
It’s completely dependent on how you term “powerful”. In terms of money, the NRA spends a few million in lobbying (they have people who live and work in Washington, under their dime, influencing politicians) – and in the 2014 election, they wrote checks for around $30 million.
Is that powerful? To me it is. In comparison to some others, maybe not?
A lot of their power rests in that they have a lot of members, so they can mobilize support rather quickly – so if you define powerful as number of members, they have a lot – 5 million or so. 5 million is a lot – AARP has 37 million or so – so again, depends on what you say is powerful.
This whole conversation though started with Del saying that the ‘elitist’ class supports Democrats more. Again – we’d need to define elitist before we could get much further.
I think it’s pretty darn clear that the Dems over emphasize the poor, and the GOP cater to the rich. I’d take on anybody who disagreed with that statement. There are exceptions – I won’t deny that many hollywood rich people like the dems, and many poor people like the GOP – but I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that on policies that affect the poor, the Dems are most interested in funneling money that way, and the GOP is more interested in funneling money towards the rich.
Reality,
Your source points out the fact that the NRA spent a pittance compared to other special interest groups. You also provide no source as to how “powerful” the NRA supposedly is and if it even qualified as one of two of the most powerful groups.
So you can’t say for certain then that the Kochs and the NRA are the two of the most powerful groups. Soros may be more powerful?
Power doesn’t always equal vast sums of money? Well, even EGV admits the NRA didn’t have a good election cycle this time. Really? And they’re so powerful?
Your sources are interesting. Now tell me who is more powerful, the Kochs or George Soros? None of your sources back your claim that the Kochs and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics”.
Reality you resort to your usual childish antics, I call it jumping up and down and screaming, when you can’t dispute a source or don’t like what it says. The fact one don’t like a source doesn’t make it wrong. That a source may be “biased” and “agenda driven” doesn’t make it wrong. Also what is “biased” and “agenda driven” is purely subjective. The fact you declare a source invalid doesn’t wash.
EGV,
The link I am posting shows that while the NRA may donate generously, there are many groups that donate even more. more.https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082
So please, a source from either you or Reality that the NRA is one of the “two most powerful groups in politics”.
Good point about the AARP. They have the members and members donate. That’s what politicians look at.
Honestly EGV, I don’t want to get into any class warfare discussions. Its nothing but a tool of Democrats and liberals to create divisiveness, class envy, and victimhood.
Your source points out the fact that the NRA spent a pittance compared to other special interest groups. You also provide no source as to how “powerful” the NRA supposedly is and if it even qualified as one of two of the most powerful groups. – please feel free to keep demonstrating your lack of understanding that money isn’t the only means whereby volume can bring power.
So you can’t say for certain then that the Kochs and the NRA are the two of the most powerful groups. Soros may be more powerful? – even if Soros is more powerful it still wouldn’t preclude the Kochs and the NRA being two of the most powerful groups.
Power doesn’t always equal vast sums of money? Well, even EGV admits the NRA didn’t have a good election cycle this time. Really? And they’re so powerful? – wow, one election cycle. Remember Sandy Hook? Did you read the sources I provided?
Your sources are interesting. Now tell me who is more powerful, the Kochs or George Soros? – who cares. I said that the Koch’s and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups”, not “the two most powerful groups”. Why do you struggle with such a basic concept?
None of your sources back your claim that the Kochs and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics”. – four leading contenders come a runnin’ when the Kochs come a callin’.
Reality you resort to your usual childish antics, I call it jumping up and down and screaming, when you can’t dispute a source or don’t like what it says. – pointing out that a source demonstrates for itself that it is biased and agenda driven does not equate to jumping up and down and screaming. That’d be what you are demonstrating.
The fact one don’t like a source doesn’t make it wrong. – no, it doesn’t. The reasons I outlined are what make it wrong.
That a source may be “biased” and “agenda driven” doesn’t make it wrong. – when a short investigation into it shows that it is excessively so, it does.
Also what is “biased” and “agenda driven” is purely subjective. – LOL! Didn’t you read their raison d’etre? And that of Salem Communications?
The fact you declare a source invalid doesn’t wash. – which is why I was pleased that it did so itself.
How’s that planet?
Mary –
Define what you deem as powerful in your next post.
Otherwise, I get to define it, and I”ll meet my criteria.
Mary
And on class warfare, it’s also just a tool for conservatives to keep an elite structure in place.
Reality,
Again, rather than going in circles,
Show me a valid source that states the the Kochs and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics”.
My goodness here are a few more power players.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/05/billionaires-battle-over-media-influence-koch-bros-murdoch-vs-sorosbuffettge/2/
Your work is really cut out for you Reality.
How’s that planet? You’d know better than anyone.
EGV,
Sure, define power however you want. But if Reality is going to make the claim that the NRA is one of the “two most powerful groups in politics”, a source backing this claim would be most helpful.
No EGV, the purpose of class warfare is to turn people against each other and promote victimhood and envy.
Power is the ability to impact elections.
I’ll simply use this article as proof enough – http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-lobbying-money-national-rifle-association-washington-2012-12
They spend a lot of money, they lobby, and they have a strong base of folks that are very vocal on gun issues. If you don’t believe me still – look at bumper stickers for a day or two.
The elite don’t want to talk about class warfare because they are clearly winning. When you’ve got a President that wants to give help to middle class families, and it is a no go because politicians want to protect weird loopholes that benefit the extremely wealthy – don’t go talking about Democrats being the only ones involved in class warfare. The rich and conservatives are all in on warfare against the middle class and the poor – and then every time somebody says “hey, maybe this isn’t fair” – then people go whining about ‘class warfare’. It’s BS. The rich and the GOP have been waging class warfare for years – they’ve dialed it up big time in the last few years.
When you have politicians working hard to cut food stamps to poor people, yet they’ll draw a firm line in not even discussing fairly taxing stocks that are inherited – that’s class warfare.
EGV,
But didn’t you say the NRA didn’t do very well in these past elections? Also, it looks like the NRA has a little competition for power and influence.
http://www.businesspundit.com/10-of-the-biggest-lobbies-in-washington/
EGV, I have told you why I don’t want to get into any of this class warfare claptrap.
Sure – they didn’t do as well as they have – but either did Planned Parenthood and a person would be an idiot if they didn’t see PP as a powerful lobby.
Look, Democrats didn’t do well in the last election, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t a powerful party. There are ups and downs for all sorts of interests.
If you don’t believe the NRA is a powerful interest group, remember that a man walked into a school, shot a bunch of 5 and 6 year olds, and there wasn’t even serious conversation about actual gun reforms. That’s one powerful lobby.
Again, rather than going in circles, Show me a valid source that states the the Kochs and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics”. – the only reason anyone’s going in circles is because you insist on repeating the question after it’s been well and truly answered.
Your work is really cut out for you Reality. – maybe it is while you persist with feigned ignorance.
How’s that planet? You’d know better than anyone. – it’s quite lovely here on planet Earth. I don’t know about the one you’re on. You are welcome to rejoin us whenever you wish.
EGV,
They may be powerful, like any number of lobbies, but obviously they are not one of “two of the most powerful”.
Reality,
I see that you still have no source that specifically says the Kochs and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics”. It does look like they both have a lot of competition for that title.
You’re obviously confused. I really don’t think EGV was referring to planet earth.
I see that you still have no source that specifically says the Kochs and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics”. It does look like they both have a lot of competition for that title. – still can’t discern between “two of the most powerful” and “the two most powerful” Mary? You’re obviously confused.
I really don’t think EGV was referring to planet earth. – in regards to people who deny the status of the Kochs and the NRA, no, he wasn’t.
Reality,
I can discern just fine. I would just like to see your source.
Well Reality, you can’t back your claim about the status of the Kochs and the NRA, now can you?
Mary –
Top two? Tough to say – tough to define what counts as a lobbying interest.
AARP and the Pentagon could be the top two – though most probably wouldn’t consider the Pentagon as a lobbying group.
I wouldn’t argue too loudly if somebody put NRA in the top 2.
I can discern just fine. I would just like to see your source. – then look at it.
Well Reality, you can’t back your claim about the status of the Kochs and the NRA, now can you? – I have done. Your refusal to peruse is your problem, not mine.
…..the Kochs and the NRA are “two of the most powerful groups in politics”. It does look like they both have a lot of competition for that title. – how? “two of the most powerful” doesn’t mean there are only two powerful groups. The others may well be on the “most powerful” list. We could say that the Kochs, the NRA, Group X and Group Y are four of the most powerful groups. What ever would you do then.
EGV,
Well you can argue, but you’ll have to find the evidence to support it. My 8:46PM link shows there are definitely more powerful and influential lobbies.
Interesting link. Maybe the Kochs aren’t as powerful as Reality thinks, for that matter neither is Soros.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/02/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20121003
Your 8:46PM link includes the NRA in their top 10. It also includes industries the Kochs are heavily involved in. Thank you.
From that source – “Much of the NRA’s power, however, seems to lie less in its spending and more in its ability to mobilize its members” – now can you understand the concept?
From your latest source – “His particular targets are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which he calls “entitlement” programs and which he wants to cut back in a manner that would strike deeply at the middle class.” – hm, now which party does that sound most like.
Even if Peterson is the most powerful it still doesn’t preclude the Kochs and the NRA from being two of the most powerful. Or are you still getting confused between “two of the most” and “the two most”?
Reality,
Looks like old George is involved in a little lobbying himself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/soros-group-triples-its-lobbying-spending/2014/02/23/c9af9f8e-9a33-11e3-b88d-f36c07223d88_story.html
Nice try. Top 10, but the bottom of the list. That isn’t to say its not powerful. Obviously the NRA is not among the most powerful, other lobbies definitely supercede it.
Doesn’t prove any concept. They depend less on spending…that doesn’t mean they don’t spend millions. The politicians’ palms still have to be greased. They are small and have to depend on the generosity of their members as well as getting their members to the polls.
Not the point Reality what party he prefers.
No confusion at all. The NRA may be powerful, but one of “two of the most? A source please. As for the Kochs, are you willing to admit Soros is also “one of the most”.
Yes, Soros does some lobbying. So what. I didn’t say he didn’t.
So top 10 doesn’t register as powerful with you? Where’s the cut off point? Nine? Six? You might also have noted your source (the one that says “Corporations, special-interest groups, unions, and single-interest groups like the NRA”) is titled “10 of the biggest lobbies”, not “The 10 biggest lobbies”.
“Al Gore, for example, lost the 2000 election in his own home state of Tennessee, primarily because of his pro gun-control stance. Even now, fear of reprisals from the NRA is holding up a bill from the Bureau on Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that would stem gun-trafficking to Mexico, in the hopes of alleviating the current drug war.” – yeah, not powerful at all, LOL.
as well as getting their members to the polls. – hark! Is that the groaning of the cart wheels as you come to acknowledge money isn’t the only form of power?
No confusion at all. The NRA may be powerful, but one of “two of the most? A source please. – oh dear, it would appear that you still can’t discern between “two of the most” and “the two most”.
As for the Kochs, are you willing to admit Soros is also “one of the most”. – I did so some time back. Therefore we could say that the Kochs, the NRA, Soros and Peterson are four of the most powerful groups. If we only mentioned Soros and Peterson we could say two of the most powerful. Gee, that sounds familiar. That’d be like saying that the Kochs and the NRA are two of the most powerful.
Reality,
Well, I figured if you pointed out the fact the Koch’s industries were on the lobby list then we should point out Soros’ lobbying as well.
The NRA is at the bottom of the list and obviously other lobbies are more influential and powerful. The situation with Gore is anecdotal. Please provide a source.
You will notice I preceded “as well as getting members to the polls” with “have to depend on the generosity of the members… So you see Reality, money is still the most important factor. The politicians’ palms must be greased.
I told you I discern fine. Please give a source for the NRA being one of “two of the most influential groups in politics”.
No Reality. We will agree the Kochs, Soros, and Peterson, to name a few, are among the most powerful influences, but you still need a source for the NRA.
Well, I figured if you pointed out the fact the Koch’s industries were on the lobby list then we should point out Soros’ lobbying as well. – I don’t have an issue with that. They are obviously amongst the most powerful. Or do you dispute that?
The NRA is at the bottom of the list and obviously other lobbies are more influential and powerful. The situation with Gore is anecdotal. Please provide a source. – I think you’ll find the list isn’t necessarily in order. You want me to provide a source to support what your source says?!? You don’t believe your own source?!?
You will notice I preceded “as well as getting members to the polls” with “have to depend on the generosity of the members… So you see Reality, money is still the most important factor. – you have not demonstrated this to be true. Your source also told us “Much of the NRA’s power, however, seems to lie less in its spending and more in its ability to mobilize its members, who are 4 million strong and well-versed in grassroots campaigning.” Don’t you like your source any more?
I told you I discern fine. Please give a source for the NRA being one of “two of the most influential groups in politics”. – I provided some and now you seem to be doing an even better job of it for me. Thanks.
No Reality. We will agree the Kochs, Soros, and Peterson, to name a few, are among the most powerful influences, but you still need a source for the NRA. – despite all the evidence you’ve provided? Oh dear.
Reality,
Well since you thanked me for listing Koch industries that lobby, I assumed this was of importance to you and I should in turn point out Soros as well. Absolutely, the are amongst the most powerful.
No, I’d like a source that supports your claim the NRA is amongst the most powerful. Any number of lobbies are powerful, some more than others. If anything the NRA may be given more credit than it deserves.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/13/424213/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-ii-overrated-endorsements/
I couldn’t find Part 1 but you can link to it in the article.
Depending less on spending doesn’t mean it will not have to spend..and a lot. It only has around 4 million members as compared to the AARP, which has 38 million. Obviously the NRA won’t have the equal financial resources of other lobbies so it will need to depend more on its members to be willing to do more, like get to the polls, donate as needed, run fundraisers, support candidates, etc.
I have seen sources that the NRA is powerful, but one of the most? That’s questionable. I have provided a source that says their power may be overrated. So unless you have a solid source that says they are among the most powerful…..
Sounds like you need to decide which of the sources you’ve provided you like the most. Or the least. But anyway, thanks again.
Mary –
No, I don’t have to have further evidence to support it – you let me define the terms of it – I did – and I put forth what I believe to be sufficient evidence.
It’s a stupid argument anyway – it’s clear that the NRA is a massively powerful lobbying group. You can order the top few how you want.
EFV,
And you can think what you want whatever the evidence to the contrary.
I find it um, interesting, that you suddenly want to give more credence to a liberal source than to the source you provided earlier Mary, how does that sit with you?
Reality,
As I told you, whether or not one likes the source is irrelevant, that doesn’t prove it wrong.
My earlier source didn’t prove the NRA was all that powerful either. Certainly a number of special interest lobbies are considerably more powerful.
As I told you, whether or not one likes the source is irrelevant, that doesn’t prove it wrong. – and as I told you, that is not the basis on which it is dismissed.
My earlier source didn’t prove the NRA was all that powerful either. – no? Yet you think the others on the same list are? Why did you post that link?
Certainly a number of special interest lobbies are considerably more powerful – ‘a number’. What number? Who are they?
I wish I could find a shovel as durable as yours ;-)
Reality,
Where did you say “that is not the basis on which it is dismissed”?
The NRA was on the bottom of the list, other lobbies spend millions more, and are considerably more influential. Let’s see, there’s the pro Israeli lobby that gets 3 billion a year sent to Israel. There’s AARP with its 38million members spent 22 millions and is one of the largest lobbies in Washington. My link shows the lobbies that are more powerful. I assume you can read it.
Speaking of shovels, have you dug up a source yet that supports your claim about the NRA?
Where did you say “that is not the basis on which it is dismissed”? – good grief Mary, can’t you even understand paraphrasing now? If you can’t figure out that terms like “no, it decides for itself. Did you look at the source yourself? Do you know who and what Salem Communications are? It almost proudly informs us that they are biased and agenda driven.”, “It did so all by itself.”, “No, I didn’t just decide it wasn’t valid, it demonstrated itself to be.”, “I demonstrated that the source ‘outed’ itself.” and “pointing out that a source demonstrates for itself that it is biased and agenda driven does not equate to jumping up and down and screaming.” equate to saying that ‘cos you don’t like them’ isn’t the basis on which your source was dismissed then what can I say.
The NRA was on the bottom of the list, – there is nothing to indicate that the list was in any sort of order.
other lobbies spend millions more, and are considerably more influential. – you’re still stuck on the ‘money is the only means of influence’ wagon are you?!?
Let’s see, there’s the pro Israeli lobby that gets 3 billion a year sent to Israel. There’s AARP with its 38million members spent 22 millions and is one of the largest lobbies in Washington. My link shows the lobbies that are more powerful. I assume you can read it. – goodness me Mary, just because there are others who may be more powerful doesn’t mean the Kochs and the NRA aren’t amongst the most powerful.
Speaking of shovels, have you dug up a source yet that supports your claim about the NRA? – you and I have both done so, I don’t see why I should have to keep thanking you for your contribution. Isn’t twice enough?
My goodness Reality, don’t get so huffy.
You say you said something to me, then point out where you said it.
Again, the fact you don’t like a source doesn’t prove its wrong, only that you are biased against it. Now, did you see me discredit a liberal source? No. I practice what I preach.
Sure there was. Look at expenditures and membership by each lobby. It starts from the most and goes downward from there.
No not just money, but membership as well. But let’s face it, the more politicians’ palms you can grease, the better.
You haven’t demonstrated the NRA are amongst the more powerful. My liberal source, and I would think if anything liberals would want to make strawmen of the NRA, demonstrates that NRA influence and power may well be overstated. If they can back what they say, I don’t dispute them because they’re liberal.
I’m still waiting for your source. Good grief its like pulling teeth.
My goodness Reality, don’t get so huffy. – how cute.
You say you said something to me, then point out where you said it. – what I was quite clearly stating was that I did not dismiss your source because I didn’t like it. If you struggle with that concept well….
Again, the fact you don’t like a source doesn’t prove its wrong, only that you are biased against it. – and again, as I have told you eleventy times, I did not dismiss it because I didn’t like it or because I am biased against it. I dismissed it because it quite self-evidently is biased and agenda driven. It demonstrates that for itself.
Now, did you see me discredit a liberal source? No. I practice what I preach. – yes, I’m still intrigued by that. Fancy you clinging desperately to a liberal source when you discover your first source went against you.
Sure there was. Look at expenditures and membership by each lobby. It starts from the most and goes downward from there. – and now you can’t even research your own source?!? It tells us that agribusiness and big oil spend more than the tech lobby yet they’re further down the list. And we aren’t even provided with a number for the defense industry. Nor do they enunciate ‘membership’ in all cases. And you’re still stuck on the ‘money is the only means of influence’ wagon.
No not just money, but membership as well. But let’s face it, the more politicians’ palms you can grease, the better. – tell that to the anti-choice lobby.
You haven’t demonstrated the NRA are amongst the more powerful. – we both did.
My liberal source, and I would think if anything liberals would want to make strawmen of the NRA, demonstrates that NRA influence and power may well be overstated. If they can back what they say, I don’t dispute them because they’re liberal. – so you wish to withdraw your earlier source? The one that you, incorrectly, cite yet again a few sentences above?
I’m still waiting for your source. – just look up the page. They’re not just in my responses, they’re in yours as well.
Good grief its like pulling teeth. – yes, the same ones over and over again. So why do you keep serving up the same rot?
Reality,
Reality, a source isn’t wrong or invalid because you so decree.
Neither of my sources went against me. I think they both backed my argument.
Yes, and they both spent considerably more than the NRA. Was there any lobby there that spent less? Oh yes, the pro Israel lobby did, a few million less. However, the entire pro Israel lobby can get the gov’t to send 3 billion a year to Israel. Too bad the NRA can’t bilk the gov’t out of that kind of money. Apparently its because the US public is sympathetic to Israel, certainly much more so than to the NRA.
Nope, I like both my sources thank you. I don’t care to withdraw either.
Again Reality, still waiting for your source.
Reality, you may want to read this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/democrats-wealth_n_5062088.html
Reality, a source isn’t wrong or invalid because you so decree. – so you keep saying. Why? Why do I need to tell you – yet again – that it invalidated itself. It didn’t need any ‘decree’ from me.
Neither of my sources went against me. I think they both backed my argument. – are you kidding? Your sources contradict each other. And you couldn’t even correctly tell us what the first one said. You got it wrong! But don’t feel too disheartened about the liberal source you cited. Despite what the author is trying to tell us, what the article really tells us is that the NRA don’t need to back very many new runners because they’ve already got a good squad sewn up. And they don’t need to spend a lot of money on the candidates they support because those candidates know that if they don’t toe the line, then the NRA will spend, to destroy them. More stick than carrot.
Yes, and they both spent considerably more than the NRA. Was there any lobby there that spent less? Oh yes, the pro Israel lobby did, a few million less. However, the entire pro Israel lobby can get the gov’t to send 3 billion a year to Israel. Too bad the NRA can’t bilk the gov’t out of that kind of money. Apparently its because the US public is sympathetic to Israel, certainly much more so than to the NRA. – still stuck in that “only money can bring power” paradigm I see.
Nope, I like both my sources thank you. I don’t care to withdraw either. – oh well, I suppose that isn’t all that surprising given that you think the first one says things that it doesn’t and the second tries to contradict the first.
Again Reality, still waiting for your source. – sources provided by both of us and you claim you can’t see them?
Reality,
Oh excuse me, you decree that it “invalidated itself”.
Oh come on Reality, you’re just huffing and puffing because you can’t provide a source to back what you said. If you did, this discussion would be over.
No, I didn’t ‘decree’ that it invalidates itself. I explained how it invalidated itself.
I provided a source. You provided a source. Then when you realized your source supported my argument not yours you found a liberal source which appeared to contradict your first source – not very convincingly though, as I have explained. Then you seriously misrepresented what your first source said. So I’m quite happy for you to keep huffing and puffing, you built the edifice :-)
Reality,
Like I said, you decreed it invalidated itself.
Yadayadayada. Whatever Reality.
Like I said, you decreed it invalidated itself. – quite obviously it is not like you said.
Yadayadayada. – well that’s a bit of a giveaway. You said Look at expenditures and membership by each lobby. It starts from the most and goes downward from there yet the list tells us that the first on the list spent over $120M, the second spent nearly $100M over three years, the fourth spent upwards of $150M each year and the fifth nearly $150M. We don’t even get a figure for the third one on the list. Nor a total for the sixth. Need I go on.
And for the NRA it tells us “Much of the NRA’s power, however, seems to lie less in its spending and more in its ability to mobilize its members, who are 4 million strong and well-versed in grassroots campaigning.”
So, whatever right back atchya.
LOL Reality,
Just show a source and put this whole thing to rest.
You and I have both shown the sources Mary. And you haven’t even correctly outlined what they say. You can put it to rest anytime you like. Me, I’m happy to see what you come up with next :-)
Reality,
So you can’t post a source? Fine.
Yes I can.
Yes I did.
You did too.
Then you found it negated your claim.
Then you misrepresented it.
If bluff and bluster is all you have, fine.
Reality,
LOL
I’ve been laughing for days Mary!
You cite a source you claim shows the NRA aren’t powerful only to find them on the list.
You then find a liberal source which claims the NRA isn’t powerful but just shows that the NRA are so powerful they basically don’t need to do anything new.
Then you claim your original source is in descending order of spend when it self-evidently isn’t.
Yeah, LOL.