Who is....
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
the tea party canidate?
the occupy wall streeet canidate?
just asking
thanks
the occupy wall streeet canidate?
just asking
thanks
81 is now off the air
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The Occupy-guy is already on the job.
These are just my opinions.
the occupy candidate would probably be ron paul ..
neither of these movements have put forth their own canidate?
ows is not a party and it is not a sub group of just the dems, so it is hard to know who they are even supporting. some of those guys are anti government, so some of them might even support paul, or no candidate at all....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'd say Ron Paul is probably the Tea Party candidate. Might be wrong here because this movement became more mainstream Republican.
I'd say the Occupy candidate is Obama - hence the reoccurring 1% vs. 99% theme both use.
The sad thing is both these movements did have some similarities, which Ron Paul brought to light.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Basically, OWS is about pointing out how big business is destroying the middle class via it current predatory practices with regard to homeowners/mortgages and it's 'employment' (or lack thereof) practices with regard to honest, hardworking American workers.
OWS has not endorsed a particular candidate, and I think that is a good thing - they are not a political party, but a movement against corruption, fraud and predatory business practices toward workers, homeowners, and former homeowners who have been defrauded and otherwise screwed over.
these are questions i been meaning to ask too.
i am confused to say the least
add politics to my already confused state
basically, i am screwed big-time
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Hypothetically:
Tea Party: Ted Nugent (Whom I fondly refer to as "Nougat" or "No-gent")
OWS: Micah M. White
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
however, i will give this one more go:
THE "TEA PARTY" EVOLVED OUT OF A MOVEMENT AROUND ***RON PAUL***
PERIOD.
There was no "Tea Party" lingo in modern American lexicon until December 16th, 2007, when 30,000 people DONATED OVER SIX MILLION DOLLARS TO RON PAUL IN ONE DAY, ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOSTON TEA PARTY!
From ***THIS*** groundswell and original feel-good moment of "OMG we've got so much grassroots support for OUR candidate" did the "TEA PARTY" start to evolve.
http://evangrogers.hubpages.com/hub/Tea-Party-Origins
http://www.dailypaul.com/143634/dont-th ... ty-origins
http://www.teaparty911.com/tea_party_movement.htm
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-lim ... tea-party/
From last source:
"Plenty of reporting from 2007 shows that the “Tea Party” in its most primitive form was a way for Paul supporters to gather. "
There was NO PARTY and NO PLATFORM outside of "Fed up with this bullshit" and "CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION" and also "DON'T TREAD ON ME" ... there was no official candidate as there was no official party ... and as everyone was FOR RON PAUL anyhow ... lol ...
ok.
partial rant over.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Im sorry this is how f'd up it is. Ooops.
btw in its early days I told them all not to support a candidate. reguardless what they felt ....to keep things clear and let things play out we all agreed and thought it was a good idea... I told them (GA) remain neutral its going to out every fucking crazy .... so FU Ron Paul.
how quickly people would want to take credit for anonymous after their nutbag circus show by tbaggers collapsed...besides its not a movement led by one person... its helping the masses to shape their world and wanting change and wanting the world to work in a better manner and armed with truth and peace.
you think if I was driving a Love Revolution Id f'ing want Ron Paul at the helm?
the tea party definitely has ... they've endorsed several candidates ... none of which have fared well against the GOP establishment ...
OWS is a different kind of movement in that there has been no visible leader representing them ... the movement is against the system rather than particular individuals or parties ... OWS is opposed to system that has been created by both democrats and republicans ...
The Tea Party does not have a leader. There is no national party or leadership group.
I am wondering how they are trying to co-opt OWS? I don't see that too many places. I must be honest, when a news story or report starts with OWS or the Tea Party I usually tune out the non-sense that follows.. This is an honest question. the Original Tea Party that Drifting describes and OWS have some goals in common, just talk about different solutions...
Yeah...FU Ron Paul....what an asshole...trying to hold the government to the rules it is supposed to govern by...crazy jerk...
How exactly has OWS helped the masses to shape their world? what are their accomplishments, other than a few protests...In my eyes they have accomplished slightly less than the co-opted tea party...that isn't saying much...
To answer the OP
tea party candidate isn't one person exactly...but it is more along the lines of anyone but President Obama...which makes it no different than any other Republican sect.
OWS doesn't have one specifically either...I thought I remembered reading that many didn't support Obama any more than other politicians...but most who actually vote will probably still vote for him...thus putting someone in power that isn't going to do anything to change the actual root cause of the problems they are protesting against.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Its a shame that OWS supporters fight corruption in business, but are in bed with the corrupt in government.
So ... the answer should be Ron Paul.
Occupy really has no canidate but I would think they would vote for Obama.
Read more here: http://www.bnd.com/2012/02/14/2058497/w ... rylink=cpy
Nothing but proof of what a "great" job the establishment did of "co-opting" the "tea party".
No Ron Paul supporter or real libertarian would EVER consider supporting Santorum.
His popularity with "the tea party" is just proof of how far it has fallen, nothing more.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
But based on what the tea part has been bastardized into, it seems to fit. Social issues seem to have a place at least with the most vocal of the tea party folks.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Tea Party and OWS are not so different, but the extreme versions of each movement creates a huge divide, as does past political association.
Anyway, it doesn't make much difference. My magic 8-ball already told me that Mitt was going to get the GOP nod five months ago. It has been foreseen.
Correct...they can take the name "tea party" and change it to whatever they want, but they will never take my support for someone with the character and record of Rick Santorum.
and someone saying they support the tea party doesn't mean anything to me..."tea party" has morphed into basically just a short hand way for the MSM to express a larger government philosophy that a lot of folks on the right share. It probably is supported by most fiscal conservatives...that doesn't mean that those fiscal conservatives aren't also social conservatives or neo-conservative war mongers or libertarians...for many, their tea party support doesn't define what is the most important issue to them...even though they "support" it...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
And this fits my perception of what category tea people generally fit into: they want to bitch and moan about taxes, the "direction" of the country, and they want to "take it back". They support Santorum because they think he'll legislate their moral agenda and cut funding to social programs, because, of course they are the ones destroying our country.
I don't get the comparisons with the tea party and ows.
The only thing that differs is past political association. Tea Party members cannot admit to shrinking government that affects them and O.W.S. doesn't want the government to shrink even though they admit government is in bed with the corporations.
We are our own worst collective enemy.
then you are trying hard not to see it
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think it would be IMPOSSIBLE for ANYone to "see it", IF their notion of the "Tea Party" is based SOLEY on what it IS NOW, and not what it WAS THEN.
The CURRENT tea party is a SHIT Republican FREAK SHOW of social conservative half-wits.
The DEFUNCT, Ron Paul inspired NON-PARTY, NON-PARTISAN "Tea Party" was VERY VERY SIMILAR to Occupy Wall Street in their sentiment\discontent and generalized message.
In terms of their "policy aims", i think, even though NEITHER really has\had written agendas, The Tea Party (of YORE) and the OWS movement probably have little to nothing in common. The '07-'09 era Tea Party folks wanted constitutionally limited government, and absolute respect for personal liberties... while it seems to me the OWS movement has relatively little respect for the concept of constitutional limitations, or for the constitution in general for that matter ... and with reference to whatever their collective policy aims may be (OWS, that is) I reckon they would be willing to trample ALL OVER personal liberties for the sake of the collective good.
Also,
fundamentally,
i think the original Tea Party constituents recognized that the problems with the system were inherently based on falsifications\distortions of the market born out of bad\unconstitutional fiscal policy (the fed, inflation, "free" money for banks, rigged interest rates, etc) and want to get the money out of the hands of the corporations by restricting the ability of the government to influence that process ... on the other side of the fence, you have the OWS people who seem to have little understanding of that process -- or otherwise disbelieve that a fiscal policy run by private banks for private banks is the problem -- and are more than willing to legislate over more\all\the rest of their\your rights to the government in order to allow government to "solve" the problem ... ostensibly by penalizing or "taking away from" big business, or big business owners, or anyone else they deem to have "too much money".
In essence, the old school tea party \ ron paul folks seem to recognize that most of the troubles of the middle and lower class come from government imposed distortions on the markets, while OWS folks seem to have this somewhat "communist" notion that THE MARKETS THEMSELVES are the problem. :( :( :(
Thats just the way i see it, though.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
CNN's Michigan exit poll had a nugget of information that caught my eye: Republican voters who "strongly supported" the Tea Party favored Rick Santorum -- 45 percent of that subgroup cast a ballot for the former Pennsylvania senator. Mitt Romney came in second place, winning 37 percent of strong Tea Party supporters, Newt Gingrich won 11 percent of their vote, and Ron Paul finished last with 6 percent.
These results underscore the chasm that separates what Tea Partiers say they care about and their revealed preferences. Visit some of the Web sites for regional Tea Party-affiliated groups in the state. The Southwest Michigan Patriots are typical. The "core principles" they list: Limited government, separation of powers, protection of individual rights, fiscal responsibility and transparency, free trade and commerce, and taxes. Or look at the core principles listed by the Tea Party of West Michigan:
1. To preserve the economic future for our children.
2. To work for a return to the principles of our governing constitution.
3. To demand limited government.
4. To promote the free market that made our country the leader of the world.
5. To give support for individual rights, and property rights.
6. To provide a platform for giving like-minded people a voice.
And the voters who say they support these principles have chosen, as their preferred 2012 nominee, Rick Santorum, the social conservative who says he voted contrary to his beliefs in order to be a "team player" during the big-spending, federal-government-expanding Bush Administration. Their least favorite is Ron Paul, the most consistent champion of all the issues they say that they care about most. It's almost a joke. If they prefer an interventionist foreign policy or don't think there's any chance for Paul to beat President Obama, fine: no one is obligated to vote for a principled advocate of small government. But if they wind up supporting Santorum what's the point of having a Tea Party at all?
As if to underscore the incoherence of the Republican Party these days, Santorum won not only the voters who most strongly supported the Tea Party -- he also won the voters that most strongly oppose it:
Both groups can't be right!
Also confounding: the 18 percent of Michigan Republicans who strongly oppose the Tea Party and voted for Ron Paul. Results like this make it difficult to believe that the Michigan Tea Party is a coherent expression of anything, and those who strongly support it shouldn't be regarded as reliable allies for people who actually prioritize small government, the separation of powers, or constitutionalism.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... um/253769/
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln