Who is....

blackredyellow

Jason P wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

I think Santorum is the tea-party canidate more so because of his social issues.

That is exactly why he cannot be the tea party candidate.

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.

Jason P

blackredyellow wrote:

Jason P wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

I think Santorum is the tea-party canidate more so because of his social issues.

That is exactly why he cannot be the tea party candidate.

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.

The most vocal are using the Tea Party message to their political and economical advantage, such as Michelle Bachman. In reality, she is a used car salesperson.

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.

mikepegg44

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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.

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...

Go Beavers

shadowcast wrote:

Jason P wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

I think Santorum is the tea-party canidate more so because of his social issues.

That is exactly why he cannot be the tea party candidate.

In a nationwide poll taken last Wednesday through Sunday, Pew found that among Republican and GOP-leaning voters, 42 percent of tea party backers preferred Santorum. Rival Mitt Romney was far behind at 23 percent.

Read more here: http://www.bnd.com/2012/02/14/2058497/w ... rylink=cpy

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.

Jason P

Go Beavers wrote:

I don't get the comparisons with the tea party and ows.

That's because each group looks at the other with disgust without realizing they are fighting the same dragon. Both groups are in fear of the loss of the American dream and the middle class. Both are in fear of the Government / Corporations / Special Interests taking precedence over them.

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.

SweetChildofMine

I said 3-4 years back everyone wants change, just going about it in the proper way is going to be tough, everyone has an agenda , and not necessarily any which one %100 correct. However, I do think that the "liberals" have been mighty kind in accepting this knowledge and keeping themselves open but I do feel this political hospitality and extension of faith onto others has been taken advantage of.

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

I don't get the comparisons with the tea party and ows.

then you are trying hard not to see it

DriftingByTheStorm

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I don't get the comparisons with the tea party and ows.

then you are trying hard not to see it

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.

SweetChildofMine

In a nutshell. Any model of civilization you use there with always be some prick bending the rules to make it work in their favor. There is nothing wrong with the basic constitution. The laws that have been written around it since have caused a fundamental paradox. Democracy works when the people of a democracy are actually involved. However, the mix of mega capilitalism and democracy do not work together. We have thus created new hierachies relying on "them capitalist" to provide jobs, welfare of employees and etc... which is not happening. So now they have cut of your voice to what need to be done with the country let alone fucking starved you out as an employee of which "the job creators" promised they would do. Its a fucking lie. Trickle down this. So yah lets cut humanitiarian funding on top THIS: when your are giving your time and your life to an employer who is not even taking care of you. BAD SLAVE OWNERS.

blackredyellow

The Most Fervent Tea Partiers in Michigan Backed Santorum

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/

SweetChildofMine

This is why we hate you...

http://nashua.patch.com/articles/occupy ... er-protest

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

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?

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

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