And why do you think that is? It's because we know, we Ab-So-Fucking-Lutely know that any changes, any policy, any amendments, any anything, that does not stop congress from embezzling the fund will do nothing to help the budget problem. You can change the age from 66 to 166. Slash the payout in half. It will just give them more money to steal from the working class to finance the corporatist when they get their tit in a ringer. STOP STEALING THE FUCKING MONEY!!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why does Rupert Murdoch not like Ron Paul?
- Thread starter MarketMasher
- Start date
And why do you think that is? It's because we know, we Ab-So-Fucking-Lutely know that any changes, any policy, any amendments, any anything, that does not stop congress from embezzling the fund will do nothing to help the budget problem. You can change the age from 66 to 166. Slash the payout in half. It will just give them more money to steal from the working class to finance the corporatist when they get their tit in a ringer. STOP STEALING THE FUCKING MONEY!!!
Quote from Maverick74:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The tea party is a populist movement. There is no "agenda" and there is no "leadership". It's just a collective of people. That is what all populist movements are. There is no grand conspiracy here. Most them sadly actually like big government and they love their entitlements. They want your hands off their social security checks!
Does the Tea Party support what Paul says about shrinking government? Isn't that the main rallying cry?
If it is - why are they silent on the media's treatment of Paul? Do they agree with the censorship? They've been vocal enough to make their displeasure known about government spending, and Paul had spoken out about as much in the debates. Why are they silent about him and the treatment he is getting?
Quote from MarketMasher:
Does the Tea Party support what Paul says about shrinking government? Isn't that the main rallying cry?
If it is - why are they silent on the media's treatment of Paul? Do they agree with the censorship? They've been vocal enough to make their displeasure known about government spending, and Paul had spoken out about as much in the debates. Why are they silent about him and the treatment he is getting?
First of all, the tea party is not one party. It's a movement, a populist movement with 100's of chapters. The tea party of Chicago is not the same as the tea party of Phoenix. The tea parties in the north are not the same as the tea parties in the south. Some tea parties are hard core Ron Paul groups. Some are just disenfranchised republicans. Some are more independent. So you can't ask a broad question like that and apply it across the entire spectrum.
I also think you are mixing up your phrases. I'm not sure the average tea party guy wants a small government per se, just a less powerful one. There is a difference. A less powerful one is one that still provides services and entitlements but is less imposing on the avg citizen. This does not necessarily mean government will spend less. There is a nuance there between spending and government reach that draws a line that most tea parties want drawn.
So the issue as you can see is not as black and white as you want to make it out to be. Politics is like that. It's complicated.
Quote from Maverick74:
First of all, the tea party is not one party. It's a movement, a populist movement with 100's of chapters. The tea party of Chicago is not the same as the tea party of Phoenix. The tea parties in the north are not the same as the tea parties in the south. Some tea parties are hard core Ron Paul groups. Some are just disenfranchised republicans. Some are more independent. So you can't ask a broad question like that and apply it across the entire spectrum.
I also think you are mixing up your phrases. I'm not sure the average tea party guy wants a small government per se, just a less powerful one. There is a difference. A less powerful one is one that still provides services and entitlements but is less imposing on the avg citizen. This does not necessarily mean government will spend less. There is a nuance there between spending and government reach that draws a line that most tea parties want drawn.
So the issue as you can see is not as black and white as you want to make it out to be. Politics is like that. It's complicated.
Ok. When you used the word "movement", I was looking for a unifying theme amongst the Tea Party. I get a vague sense of "government intrusiveness" which brings to mind impinging on individuals like with airport screenings and perhaps repealing the Patriot Act.
Are these the type of things you refer to? I don't recall any specific items like that brought up by Tea Party members as crucial issues and emphasized as a platform - only the deficit spending issue.
Also, I think "gov't over-reach" is also something Paul is against, so at least on that I would think he was aligned with TP sentiments.
I just find it somewhat odd that a Jon Stewart would have to be the one that points out how Paul is being dealt with in the press. Were TP's in Congress content to just let it slide?
Ron Paul probably has a proportionally greater media presence in the UK and Europe than the US particularly in the thinking persons press. He reminds me of a libertarian version of Tony Benn in the sense that you might not agree with what he has to say but you know its largely true.