I don't get the comparisons with the tea party and ows.
then you are trying hard not to see it
I've looked for it, but maybe we see the tea party as different things. It seems to have started as a group making a statement for lower taxes and fiscal conservatism. I've heard little reference to wall street or corporations from the tea party supporters, other than the hot air while on stage about the government just needing to "get out of the way" of business. To me, their stance on corporations is that they are shackled by government, and if set free, they would generate more wealth, which of course will trickle down to the masses.
Their main platform seems like a veil to me, and behind it is fear. There would be no tea party if we didn't have a black, Kenyan Marxist as president. This is supported by the fact that there wasn't a tea party under Bush and also how they present their fear dialogue. Bush Jr. was one of them, a good ol' boy who meant well and acted on their concerns. If McCain was elected, but spent the same as Obama, it would be the same thing. McCain would be seen as one of their own.
Any sort of agenda about big government is just ancillary, but a good way to wrap fear into the package. The tea party wasn't presenting concerns about the Bush admin wiping their rear with the Constitution, so I don't buy it now. "Big government" needs to the target because if you want the budget cut, you have to say it's big. But the only thing they want cut is what they don't like. My case is also supported by them voting for Santorum. If the tea party was anything close to ows, most would be voting for Ron Paul. Saying their taxes are a concern is pretty ridiculous, too. Do they realize that most of them are paying less in taxes?
I don't get the comparisons with the tea party and ows.
then you are trying hard not to see it
I've looked for it, but maybe we see the tea party as different things. It seems to have started as a group making a statement for lower taxes and fiscal conservatism. I've heard little reference to wall street or corporations from the tea party supporters, other than the hot air while on stage about the government just needing to "get out of the way" of business. To me, their stance on corporations is that they are shackled by government, and if set free, they would generate more wealth, which of course will trickle down to the masses.
Their main platform seems like a veil to me, and behind it is fear. There would be no tea party if we didn't have a black, Kenyan Marxist as president. This is supported by the fact that there wasn't a tea party under Bush and also how they present their fear dialogue. Bush Jr. was one of them, a good ol' boy who meant well and acted on their concerns. If McCain was elected, but spent the same as Obama, it would be the same thing. McCain would be seen as one of their own.
Any sort of agenda about big government is just ancillary, but a good way to wrap fear into the package. The tea party wasn't presenting concerns about the Bush admin wiping their rear with the Constitution, so I don't buy it now. "Big government" needs to the target because if you want the budget cut, you have to say it's big. But the only thing they want cut is what they don't like. My case is also supported by them voting for Santorum. If the tea party was anything close to ows, most would be voting for Ron Paul. Saying their taxes are a concern is pretty ridiculous, too. Do they realize that most of them are paying less in taxes?
well attributing the name tea party to every conservative is what causes the problem. so we do look at it differently. I still view it for what is was supposed to be. It hasn't always had a name, but it always was there...Ron Paul didn't get elected for the first time in 08. More people paid attention when he raised more money in one day than any politician had previously done. Neo-cons began aligning themselves with the "tea-party" feeling...calling it grass roots and claiming it for their own.
But in any regard for what it has been, I think both sides can agree that the corruption lies in the unholy union of big business, lobbyists, and politicians who benefit. the steps both groups want to take towards a solution may be different, but they both want an end to that cronyism that bleeds the capitalist system dry of what it could be.
Also, I look at the tea party for what it started out as...and as I have said before...why should I change, they are the ones who suck...But fiscal conservatism never was and never will be the main tenants of the neo-con voting block. Ever. They may "support" the tea party ideas, but that does not make them akin to the original movement.
OWS is lucky it disappeared from the national discussion for the most part...otherwise it to would have suffered the same fate.
the neo-con infusion doesn't take away from the original message in my mind...it just makes me more hopeful that people will begin to see the differences between what they say they want and what they really do want.
Republicans talk about getting back to the constitution, but when faced with a candidate who will do just that, they run from him and call him crazy. it is sad
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
http://nashua.patch.com/articles/occupy ... er-protest
I've looked for it, but maybe we see the tea party as different things. It seems to have started as a group making a statement for lower taxes and fiscal conservatism. I've heard little reference to wall street or corporations from the tea party supporters, other than the hot air while on stage about the government just needing to "get out of the way" of business. To me, their stance on corporations is that they are shackled by government, and if set free, they would generate more wealth, which of course will trickle down to the masses.
Their main platform seems like a veil to me, and behind it is fear. There would be no tea party if we didn't have a black, Kenyan Marxist as president. This is supported by the fact that there wasn't a tea party under Bush and also how they present their fear dialogue. Bush Jr. was one of them, a good ol' boy who meant well and acted on their concerns. If McCain was elected, but spent the same as Obama, it would be the same thing. McCain would be seen as one of their own.
Any sort of agenda about big government is just ancillary, but a good way to wrap fear into the package. The tea party wasn't presenting concerns about the Bush admin wiping their rear with the Constitution, so I don't buy it now. "Big government" needs to the target because if you want the budget cut, you have to say it's big. But the only thing they want cut is what they don't like. My case is also supported by them voting for Santorum. If the tea party was anything close to ows, most would be voting for Ron Paul. Saying their taxes are a concern is pretty ridiculous, too. Do they realize that most of them are paying less in taxes?
well attributing the name tea party to every conservative is what causes the problem. so we do look at it differently. I still view it for what is was supposed to be. It hasn't always had a name, but it always was there...Ron Paul didn't get elected for the first time in 08. More people paid attention when he raised more money in one day than any politician had previously done. Neo-cons began aligning themselves with the "tea-party" feeling...calling it grass roots and claiming it for their own.
But in any regard for what it has been, I think both sides can agree that the corruption lies in the unholy union of big business, lobbyists, and politicians who benefit. the steps both groups want to take towards a solution may be different, but they both want an end to that cronyism that bleeds the capitalist system dry of what it could be.
Also, I look at the tea party for what it started out as...and as I have said before...why should I change, they are the ones who suck...But fiscal conservatism never was and never will be the main tenants of the neo-con voting block. Ever. They may "support" the tea party ideas, but that does not make them akin to the original movement.
OWS is lucky it disappeared from the national discussion for the most part...otherwise it to would have suffered the same fate.
the neo-con infusion doesn't take away from the original message in my mind...it just makes me more hopeful that people will begin to see the differences between what they say they want and what they really do want.
Republicans talk about getting back to the constitution, but when faced with a candidate who will do just that, they run from him and call him crazy. it is sad
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan