The Occupy Movement Vis A Vis The Tea Partiers - Minus The Violence

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[dairygirl4u2c]

there is something to be said about those who want to get by, and such, versus those who simply want their taxes cut.... in regards to why one movement has violence etc and the other one tends not to.
im sure many here, and conservatives, think it's because all those liberal quacks are just misinformed not just economically, but spiritually, etc, and it all goes hand in hand, necessarily ish, or something.

[southern california guy]

I see both movements as similar because in both cases you have big groups of people getting together and complaining about very real problems -- but not really offering any solutions or plans to achieve those solutions.

I find it a bit disallusioning when the Tea Party members start supporting candidates like Mitt Romney -- rather than Ron Paul. In the end it seems that you end up with the same Republican group that existed before the Tea Party. And more of the same old stuff..

And the same thing with the Occupy movement...

I'm pretty cynical.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1322485662' post='2341555']
I see both movements as similar because in both cases you have big groups of people getting together and complaining about very real problems -- but not really offering any solutions or plans to achieve those solutions.

I find it a bit disallusioning when the Tea Party members start supporting candidates like Mitt Romney -- rather than Ron Paul. In the end it seems that you end up with the same Republican group that existed before the Tea Party. And more of the same old stuff..

And the same thing with the Occupy movement...

I'm pretty cynical.
[/quote]
Ugh, and freakin' Herman Cain. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Yeah, let's all support this guy because once in a while he hits the right talking points. No worries that he'll support exactly the same policies that created and maintained this whole stupid mess. That applies to Cain and Romney, and probably every candidate besides Paul. Gary Johnson also talks a good game (not as good as Ron Paul's), although I'm not nearly as familiar with him.

[BG45]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1322498345' post='2341621']
Ugh, and freakin' Herman Cain. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Yeah, let's all support this guy because once in a while he hits the right talking points. No worries that he'll support exactly the same policies that created and maintained this whole stupid mess. That applies to Cain and Romney, and probably every candidate besides Paul. Gary Johnson also talks a good game (not as good as Ron Paul's), although I'm not nearly as familiar with him.
[/quote]

You know, I disagree with some of Ron Paul's stuff, but I'll give it to the man that I actually believe he's the most honest man running. He never changes his tune. I respect him more than anyone else of either of the main parties.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1322518078' post='2341845']

You know, I disagree with some of Ron Paul's stuff, but I'll give it to the man that I actually believe he's the most honest man running. He never changes his tune. I respect him more than anyone else of either of the main parties.
[/quote]
Absolutely, he's stayed true to his principles from the very very start, and he actually backs up those principles with action as well.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Ed Normile]

Ron Psul is too honest to ever be elected, he is in many ways an enigma politically. He is conservative on the constitution, considers himself a staunch pro-life candidate, but, beleives that abortion legislation should be left up to the individual state. He does not believe the goverernment should define marriage, and he feels that same sex unions are okay as long as they do not try to enforce their views on others? Militarily he is a pacifist, he believes we can defend our country with no more than a few submarines, and consistantly votes against any aggression by the U.S. no matter what is happening in the world. He voted against the patriot act, he believes the Civil rights act of 1964 violated the U.S. Constitution.

He really appeals to the kiddies and the especially the druggies as he is against drug prohibition and wants to end the war on drugs as he feels it should be an individuals right to act responsibly, but offers that the individual states should be free to enact their own laws as the constitution provides for. All in all he has some good ideas as anyone who is open to all sides can be, which also lends his views to some insanity too. I bet if he were to ever undergo a pyschiatric evaluation they would classify him as a DID, or Dissociative identity disorder as his views are all over the board. He has been polled as both the most conservative and most liberal politician on many of his stances, which tends to make me think he would not be very stable as leader of our republic, but then again I thought Obama would be too liberal and inexperienced to lead the country....

ed

Edited November 29, 2011 by Ed Normile

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1322530395' post='2341939']
Ron Psul is too honest to ever be elected, he is in many ways an enigma politically. He is conservative on the constitution, considers himself a staunch pro-life candidate, but, beleives that abortion legislation should be left up to the individual state. He does not believe the goverernment should define marriage, and he feels that same sex unions are okay as long as they do not try to enforce their views on others? Militarily he is a pacifist, he believes we can defend our country with no more than a few submarines, and consistantly votes against any aggression by the U.S. no matter what is happening in the world. He voted against the patriot act, he believes the Civil rights act of 1964 violated the U.S. Constitution.[/quote]

He believes in these things because the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to define marriage, go to war without a declaration, interfere in the affairs of other countries, or spy on American citizens without a warrant. There's nothing wrong with being a strict constructionist.

[quote]All in all he has some good ideas as anyone who is open to all sides can be,[/quote]

He's more of a libertarian than a moderate, but I can see where you'd get that impression.

[quote]which also lends his views to some insanity too. I bet if he were to ever undergo a pyschiatric evaluation they would classify him as a DID, or Dissociative identity disorder as his views are all over the board.[/quote]

Huh?

[quote]He has been polled as both the most conservative and most liberal politician on many of his stances, which tends to make me think he would not be very stable as leader of our republic, but then again I thought Obama would be too liberal and inexperienced to lead the country....
[/quote]

He has voted consistently for the past few decades. What's so unstable about him?

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1322530395' post='2341939']
Ron Psul is too honest to ever be elected, he is in many ways an enigma politically. He is conservative on the constitution, considers himself a staunch pro-life candidate, but, beleives that abortion legislation should be left up to the individual state. He does not believe the goverernment should define marriage, and he feels that same sex unions are okay as long as they do not try to enforce their views on others? Militarily he is a pacifist, he believes we can defend our country with no more than a few submarines, and consistantly votes against any aggression by the U.S. no matter what is happening in the world. He voted against the patriot act, he believes the Civil rights act of 1964 violated the U.S. Constitution.

He really appeals to the kiddies and the especially the druggies as he is against drug prohibition and wants to end the war on drugs as he feels it should be an individuals right to act responsibly, but offers that the individual states should be free to enact their own laws as the constitution provides for. All in all he has some good ideas as anyone who is open to all sides can be, which also lends his views to some insanity too. I bet if he were to ever undergo a pyschiatric evaluation they would classify him as a DID, or Dissociative identity disorder as his views are all over the board. He has been polled as both the most conservative and most liberal politician on many of his stances, which tends to make me think he would not be very stable as leader of our republic, but then again I thought Obama would be too liberal and inexperienced to lead the country....

ed
[/quote]

I believe that I detect an air of sarcasm in your post.

If defense of Ron Paul I would argue that your are absurdly exaggerating some of positions -- like your statement: "...he believes we can defend our country with no more than a few submarines.." Why do you respond that way?

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1322530395' post='2341939']

He really appeals to the kiddies and the especially the druggies as he is against drug prohibition and wants to end the war on drugs as he feels it should be an individuals right to act responsibly, but offers that the individual states should be free to enact their own laws as the constitution provides for. All in all he has some good ideas as anyone who is open to all sides can be, which also lends his views to some insanity too. I bet if he were to ever undergo a pyschiatric evaluation they would classify him as a DID, or Dissociative identity disorder as his views are all over the board. He has been polled as both the most conservative and most liberal politician on many of his stances, which tends to make me think he would not be very stable as leader of our republic, but then again I thought Obama would be too liberal and inexperienced to lead the country....

ed
[/quote]

So because he doesn't tow the line of either major party he's unstable? To me that does seem honest. That's a shiitake mushroom argument mi amigo. No disrespect but it always bothers me that republicans and democrats have to fill some per-prescribed role rather than finding new and creative approaches to solve problems.

That's what leads to the new boss same as the old boss problem.

[Nihil Obstat]

Not to mention the 'common wisdom' that anyone not on the Clinton-Romney spectrum is an 'extremist'...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1322530395' post='2341939']
He is conservative on the constitution, considers himself a staunch pro-life candidate, but, beleives that abortion legislation should be left up to the individual state.
[/quote]

Thats the big problem I have with Paul. The most fundmental duty of all government is to protect innocent life. Like it or lump it this includes the Federal government. His stance shows me he is not actually 100% pro-life, no more than a man would be if he stated he was pro-freedom and then stated that enslavement of persons should be left up to the states.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1322620914' post='2342429']

Thats the big problem I have with Paul. The most fundmental duty of all government is to protect innocent life. Like it or lump it this includes the Federal government. His stance shows me he is not actually 100% pro-life, no more than a man would be if he stated he was pro-freedom and then stated that enslavement of persons should be left up to the states.
[/quote]

You know if you left it up to the individual states some of the states would ban abortion. As it is right now... they can't!

Edited November 30, 2011 by southern california guy

[Norseman82]

The problem with anyone who does not bend on any of his principles is that if taken to the logical extreme, it can lead to some very dangerous things. For example, with regards to his noninterventionism, in one debate, Ron Paul saw no problem with Iran having nuclear weapons (see starting at 1:05:45):

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDSs_XFmacc[/media]

Of course, in the last debate, he also said we should not stop Israel from bombing Iran, although he qualified that it would not be a good military decision (if I can find thaton You Tube later I will post it).

I think that it is not only important to know what are a candidate's basic bedrock beliefs are, but also what would cause a candidate to "bend" those principles and how far.

[Jesus_lol]

why do you think America should be the world's police force? isnt that pretty arrogant?