Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Barney Frank: "Tea Party Was More Effective Than Occupy"

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 16, 2012, 3:11 p.m. EST by airplaneradio (50)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


I have to agree about the emotional standpoint. Everything whether win or lose is called a victory. It's almost like a rabid sedation. What does Occupy think? Or is he just 1% rabble. I don't think you should call everyone on the left your friends and supporters. A lot of people talk out of both sides of their mouths.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by ARod1993 (2420) 6 years ago

Here's the thing; from the perspective of power Frank got it right. The Tea Party was able to do what it did because of an incredibly disciplined multifaceted approach that involved a fair amount of popular hell-raising in the beginning to let people know that they existed and that they were mad as hell, but they hardly restrained themselves to just that. These days if you look at where the Tea Party is, it's now in the House of Representatives to a very significant extent, in the Senate to a lesser extent, and in the halls of K Street to a rather disquieting extent. While I don't agree with a fair amount of the policies they're fond of, I have to admire their tactics and I would like to see OWS adopt those tactics.

Here's the thing; I don't like nor trust nor agree with the Tea Party most of the time, and I do have a nagging suspicion that they were a bit too efficient. Even if that's true, however, that's no reason to discount them; if anything that means we need to be studying them all the more intensely. In the world of tactics there may still be right and wrong, and that doesn't change, but there is also what works, and ignoring what works in a situation like this where so much is at stake is a grievous sin.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

I am so sad that he is 100% correct - based on my own experience
I have been to dozens of WGs - hundreds of meetings.
I have never encountered such a brilliant group of people -
wasting their time.

[ 2 big exceptions - OWS woke up America & occupy homes really did something very important ]

The vast majority are writing documents, arguing over trivia, punctuation, how many minutes someone can speak, marching, making signs - intellectually and emotionally having fun. The kochs' tp has a ton of money and a bunch of robotic lemmings - who took over and destroyed a major political party.
Maybe its because we are so smart and creative ( we are ) -
we know the truth and we want to persuade everyone else we are right.

Look at the huge percent on this forum ( and any WG you may have been to )
I would estimate 20%-30% of the people won't vote for BHO
[I am furious at many things he has not done - but I vote ]

I would estimate 20%-30% of the people are so angry at government,
they want to ( and think they can ) start from scratch

How many OWS candidates do we have running?



[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

Occupy Is Not Done

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Well, Barney, there were some reasons they were effective. Lets' examine what really happened

It was effectively the end of the GOP (and maybe all parties) because the TP is a myth. What really took over was the G(ee whiz) Oligarchy Party. The Koch brothers, and a few of their close personal friends, decided to buy elections wholesale rather than retail (through the parties). The traditional parties manipulate the donors and the candidates and the message and scrape off enough money to enrich themselves and to try to make a blended message that will be just palatable enough to get some marginal candidates elected along with the more attractive ones. The Oligarchs realize that to get the economic, tax and regulatory machinery dismantled or bent to serve serve their desires they have to have tools who will do their bidding at a lower cost than outright bribery so they pick and support people who have a warped social agenda who will serve them at discount rates to push the combined agendas.

They primary the less "conservative" GOP candidates and knock them off with those I just described. And the turn the more "conservative" GOP candidates who can get elected because of these positions unless they have a lot of money to spend. The G(ee whiz) Oligarchy Party then runs these candidates with GOP labels on them and when they win, they owe NO allegiance to the GOP and can't be managed by the GOP leadership. This is exactly what we are seeing today. The Koch's have pledged $60 million and their friends will round that up to $100 million. Thank you Citizens United and Supreme Court.

We could do the same thing, if I were George Soros and a few of his friends. But, I am not GS. Alternatively, we must get an amendment passed to get money out of politics AND governance. Barney, it wasn't the message. And it wasn't the lack of an identified leader. It was the MONEY!!!!! A hundred million reasons. Some people talk out of both sides of their wallets.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 6 years ago

A lot of money behind Tea Party.....

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 6 years ago

The tea party has been more effective in getting people elected and affecting laws because they have been willing to compromise. For example Rand Paul. The tea party got him elected to senate. They don't like his foreign policy (which are similar to his fathers) but they liked his economic policies. So they compromised.

I don't see anyone in occupy willing to make a compromise. For occupy wallstreet to get anyone elected that supports the 99% on economic policies, they have to be willing to accept that maybe the guy is pro life, or opposes gay marriage, or is pro war or supports some other thing that occupy opposes. If occupy keeps trying to get everything, they might end up with nothing.

Looking at the presidential race, the 2 guys who support the 99% the most are Obama and Ron Paul. Both guys support is good amount of what occupy wants but both have baggage. With Obama you have to accept patriot act, NDAA, and more world policing. With Paul you have to accept that he's pro life, pro deregulation, and supports shutting depts like EPA, and DOE. I think occupy won't get anything done until they accept that noone is perfect and decide what issues are the most important.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 6 years ago

So I ask you what has more of an impact on this country - Obamas Patriot Act, NDAA and more world policing or Ron Pauls Pro life, Pro deregulation and shutting down the epa and doe?

Seems to me Obama wants more government control - why is that good?

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago

"Obama's Patriot Act"


"The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the "Patriot Act") is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001."

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

the government would be the peoples if people control the government

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 6 years ago

personally I'm a ron paul supporter. I'd much rather have him than have Obama. I see obama as mostly a 3rd bush term. But the point is, obama seems to support some of what I hear occupy say they want.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Nader gave us the Iraq war – deregulation – halliburton - alito - roberts etc etc etc etc
Just think of the fun America will have if you vote for another third party candidate!
President Bain Romney ! ……… and more scalia clones like thomas

You gotta believe –
………….the only ones who don’t want you to vote Democratic-
…………………………………………………………………….are the tea potty !

You remember “George-yellowcake”.
You remember “ Dick-Iam not a crook”.
You remember “Ronnie-I don’t remember my treasonous acts”.
Now we have “Ron-I don’t remember my disgusting newletters”.

@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Another Paul newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;

@--> In 1990 one of Ron Paul’s publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading. { you gotta believe the doctor }

@--> The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

@--> Ron Paul SIGNED 1993 appeal for funds letter: "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," warned of a "race war" and said there was a gay-led cover up of AIDS. The letter suggests, that new $100 bills distributed by the Treasury and ostensibly aimed at tracking drug money were instead aimed at keeping track of all citizens. "I held the ugly new bills in my hands," the letter says. "I can tell you -- they made my skin crawl!" Then "my training as a physician helps me see through" what he calls the "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." The letter warns of a "coming race war in our big cities"

@--> Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…”
About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."

And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that deregulating-Ron would not want

a regulating Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of your food or meds
[ if you are poisoned, you or your estate can sue ],
a regulating Environmental Protection Agency
[ if your land is poisoned by a fracker – move ],
a regulating Federal Aviation Administration
[ if you are a scardy cat, take the train ],
a regulating Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ ? ],
a regulating National Transportation and Safety Board
[ you know how to safety and crash test your car, don’t you? ],
a regulating Securities and Exchange Commission
[ you always pick honest corporate leaders, right ? ]
a nuclear bomb free Iran [ don’t all maniacs need one ? ]
a democratic ally in the middle east - like Israel
[ "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica" – RP ]

Four years ago, Ron Paul generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, This time, they seem proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some revealing comments:
Ron Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,
praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe - Kayser recently authored a paper arguing for
criminalizing homosexuality and advocated imposing the death penalty
against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law: “As we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”
Has Ron Paul repudiated this endorsement?

My guess is that just like
Ron Paul tried to shove the
Ron Paul Newsletters under the carpet,
Ron Paul will try to shove his
Ron Paul endorser there too

It is fascinating how, despite the fact that fox hates Ron Paul, he uses the same tactics of deceit and obfuscation.

Please note – I’m not saying Ron is 100% nuts – just 99.4% pure

just a tiny fun fact - do you know who Ron named his senator son after?

google the libertarian queen’s name together with the name “William Hickman”

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 6 years ago

There is no solid proof that he wrote the racist passages in the newsletters. It is well known that multiple people wrote articles in the newsletters. Also just because someone supports him, doesn't mean he believes everything they believe. I'm atheist and I support him. That doesn't make him atheist.

Actually the deregulation is an issue where I disagree with Ron Paul. I think all those agencies should exist but I also people should be allowed to buy things that haven't been tested as long as they are over 21 and sign legal documents stating that they understand the risk.

But I'm not going to get into another Ron Paul debate on this board. I know that occupy doesn't like him. That's fine. Back to my original point, is occupy willing to take the good with the bad. There are issues where I strongly disagree with Ron Paul. But I am willing to accept the parts of him that I don't like, in order to get the parts that I do like.

Occupy seems to mainly be about the economy. I strongly believe that Ron Pauls economic policies benefit the 99% a lot more than the 1%. The 1% HATES Ron Paul. There are no greedy billionaires backing him, there are big banks backing him. Each person has to decide what is more important.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Thank you for the sane disagreement
RP may not have written this stuff - put he printed it

And this sounds like RP is very pro-billionaire Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…” About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 6 years ago

If he is pro billionaire then why do they all hate him.

Romney is pro billionaire and he gets a lot of campaign money from billionaires. Gingrich is pro billionaire and gets a lot of money from billionaires, the same goes for santorum. So if Ron Paul is pro billionaire why doesn't he get support from them?

As for your examples, all he is saying is that you have the right to do what you want with your money. Just because you disagree with how they spend their money, isn't enough reason to take that right away.

The trade off on freedom and liberty is that you accept that some people will use their freedom to do things that you don't like. For example freedom of speech. The 1st amendment allows occupy groups to have protests and spread their message. That same law allows the westboro baptist church to have protests and spread their message.

They have decided to spend their money to make as much more money as possible. I don't like it but until they violate the constitution there isn't a whole lot that can be done. They buy off politicians to get them to make laws in their favor but Ron Paul is one that they haven't been able to buy off. Romney, obama, and gingrich have all been bought off. Ron Paul hasn't been.

[-] -1 points by gosso920 (-24) 6 years ago

You remember "Barack -I didn't hear Rev. Wright's sermon." You remember "Bill -I can't find those Rose Law Firm records."

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Can you cite the document that you are quoting? Or are you an Rs ?

[-] 0 points by gosso920 (-24) 6 years ago

You remember "Jimmy -Help! I'm being attacked by a killer rabbit!"

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

I cited the source of the RP quotes
Can you cite the document that you are quoting? Or are you an Rs ?
And did you use tp to clean yourself after you "obtained" these quotes?

[-] -1 points by gosso920 (-24) 6 years ago

You remember "Lyndon -I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."

[-] 0 points by airplaneradio (50) 6 years ago

This is the greatest post I have ever read on this forum. Oh my god I could not stop laughing.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 6 years ago

I am sure you realize that this country can't stand much more debt. I know a lot of younger people think it's the governments responsibility to provide free college along with a lot of other benefits they think are free.

When the money runs out they will be rioting in the streets like they are presently doing in Greece.

The money has to come from somewhere and it's only a matter of time before the larger corporations will say "to hell with it" and shut down.

What todays younger generation doesn't understand is that they have to have persistence to succede - a lot have been taught not to but to depend on someone else for their benefits.

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 6 years ago

You don't have to convince me. 15trillion is more than enough debt. That's one of the reasons I support Ron Paul. Cut a trillion in spending the first year. I was just making a point about if occupy will compromise and how the tea party has.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 6 years ago

Recently, on the Charlie Rose's show, Barney Frank made it perfectly clear he is a capitalist.

I do not consider him, nor liberals, the left.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

What definition best fits the left?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 6 years ago

The left is by definition non-capitalists. The capitalists are on the right; the left is all other types of cooperative economic systems.

The left is also non-authoritarian, which is why I have always described the Soviet system as State-Capitalism, and much closer to liberalism. Just as the Nazi co-opted the term socialism, i.e. National Socialist Party, the Bolsheviks coup created a system they called Communism, which they believed would lead to Socialism.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

Is there a nation that can be identified as having a strictly left government and economic system?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 6 years ago


I cannot think of any modern governments that are not market orientated. Not one, however, some are not as oppressive to labor as others.

In my opinion, history will define the 20th century as the zenith of market economics. Communism, in its 20th century version, was simply an experiment, which the West learned well, in the complete oppression of labor.


[-] 0 points by WooHoo (15) 6 years ago

Although he's right, I wouldn't trust Barney Frank to look at his watch and tell the truth if you asked him what time it is. Means nothing from him.

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Barney Frank is just reflecting on things from the standpoint of someone who's been in congress for so long, he's completely detached from what or how average people think. In his view, and the view of the establishment in general, you can only get things done by crawling on your knees before our completely corrupt and broken political system.

In short, he just doesn't get it. Moreover, crawling to Washington, getting a few new congressmen elected, only earns you scraps from the table; whereas "real change" can only come from outside pressure (and aligning ourselves with any political party, would guarantee our demise and eventual marginalization).

[-] 0 points by Progression (143) 6 years ago

Not sure I agree with how he measures "effectiveness".

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

Why am I supposed to care what this Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tool thinks?

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 6 years ago

my thoughts exactly

Barney frank is one of the most vile corrupt shills for fannie and freddie out there. I would be very very surprised if he had anything good to say about OWS