Forum Post: The Necessity of an Occupy Wall street Tea Party Alliance
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 8:10 p.m. EST by Jackofhearts
(36)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I posted these videos a while ago, where I outlined why the alliance was necessary, I think it is beginning to happen.
This is a tremendous opportunity to unite ordinary citizens (the 99%) around the issues that we agree on, rather than perpetuating the division & polarization that enables The Greedy Bastards to rob us while we are tooo busy fighting with each other to notice. People on the left, right and center agree that our government has been hijacked by lobyyists, campaign donors and other well-connected, well-financed special interests. We are all mad as hell about it, regardless of where we stand on other issues. Progressives alone do not have the massive numbers necessary to defeat the extremely powerful forces of greed and corruption that have so firmly embedded themselves in our political system. Purging such deeply ingrained corruption from our democracy going to take a majority of Americans and we must put aside our other differences and stand together to demand the reforms that we all agree are needed. Let's unite with those on the right and center to form one massive, unstoppable movement! We can discuss our differences later, AFTER, we've leveled the playing field for all.
Number one goal of the .01% - To make sure that everyone fits into the D/R voting bloc that they control.
Anything outside that would lead to real change, and they certainly dont want that.
if you are bright enough to see that the D/R bloc is a false dichotomy (and it is, and I commend you for recognizing it), then apply that same logic to the insanity of 1% vs 99%. I may not be a 1%er (not even close), but I sure as hell am not in the same class as people who simply do not give much of a shit about anything. people who, despite having no education and low earning potential still have 4 kids with 3 partners before they are 22 yrs old. people who are willfully ignorant. people who refuse to take any responsibility for themselves or their actions. people who game the system from the bottom. as far from the top 1% income earners as I may be, I think I have a lot more in common with them than the people I just described. how about you? point is, 1 vs 99 is just as much of a bullshit false dichotomy as D vs R.
People with no education, young people with no education especially, tend to make bad life decisions. And they game the system from the bottom. But guess what, those people have tagged along to every revolution or other sort of civil dissatisfaction that has ever existed, anywhere, at any time. Peasant rebellions in the medieval world were almost entirely composed of such individuals (our own word "villain" comes from "villein", French for a feudal peasant). Take away people's education, take away their future, and this is what happens to some of them. Given that, isn't it ironic for you to be talking about responsibility? You'd rather let things keep sliding, than associate with "those" people - and you call yourself "responsible"? I'm sorry, I don't buy that.
"People with no education, young people with no education especially, tend to make bad life decisions."
education is free. there is no excuse. my wife has one year of college and makes well over $100K a year. know how? hard work. totally self-made. so spare me the "no education" shit. what you mean is people squandered their chance to get an education. tough shit, that means you work a crappy job for a long time and maybe you'll grow up before you're 30, get serious, work hard, make good decisions and step up from shit jobs for shit money to something better.
"Take away people's education..."
take away? what the hell are you babbling about? for one, once an education has been attained, it CAN'T be taken away. you are either talking out your ass or not explaining yourself very well. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and stick with the latter. want to try again, because this makes no sense at all.
"You'd rather let things keep sliding, than associate with "those" people..."
wrong again. for one, it isn't a choice between the two (another false dichotomy from ows...will wonders ever cease?). two, I have my own ways of trying to stop the slide. seems in your mind anyone who isn't with ows is letting things slide (another false dichotomy, the third in this 3-message thread...a pattern?). so you missed the point entirely. maybe someone took your education? as for the people I described...are you going to explain what you have in common with them? or did I hit too close to home in the first place?
Education is free for everybody is it? There are lots of students who will be pretty happy today, or whenever this is supposed to happen. Where on Earth are you getting this idea? Did your parents pay your way through college and you just forgot about that part?
One of the biggest complaints I hear is that people get out of college with such a huge debt, they would've been further ahead to have just spent those years earning money and never acquiring debt in the first place. And that's what many people are doing, because in many cases they are further ahead. Your cute anecdote about your wife notwithstanding, not everyone comes out of college making $100k. We would have nothing to wear and nothing to eat, if the economy was made up entirely of journalists and lawyers and accountants, and nobody actually working, would we? I mean you only have to look at tuition vs income in real dollars, 40 years ago to now, to know things are vastly different. If you think they are anything remotely similar, you are not living in the real world.
I'm not OWS, actually, just kind of bored and signed up here this evening to have a look around. You know what they say about ASSumptions.
The false dichotomy you mention is not actually false at all. You never addressed any actual reason for not supporting OWS other than that they are all 22 year olds with 3 or 4 kids by different parents, or something along those lines, the broad brush was slopping around so furiously it was a bit hard to tell what stereotype you were trying to paint with it, but that was your reason, its right there in black and white. Your post was, well, completely devoid of any discussion of issues. It was just a diatribe against the Great Unwashed.
"Education is free for everybody is it?"
of course it is. all children get 13 years of eduction tuition-free. if this is news to you, I'm not sure what to tell you.
"college" - oh, college. is that what you meant? it's certainly not what you said. try to be more clear.
isn't that something, that some people have different experiences than others regarding college and debt and finishing college or not? I mean, it's just so fascinating!
"not everyone comes out of college making $100k" - when did I say that? oh, right. I didn't. I like how you refuted that point I never made. great work! then you did it again! awesome stuff, Edge. way to stay focused!
"The false dichotomy you mention is not actually false at all."
I don't suspect you're ever going to explain why, are you?
"You never addressed any actual reason for not supporting OWS other than that they are all 22 year olds with 3 or 4 kids by different parents, or something along those lines,"
holy shit, you have reading comprehension problems. I did not say that at all. go back and read it slowly. if you're stoned (not a bad thing to me, btw) go slow, maybe read it twice, and try to get it rather than completely misunderstand nearly everything written.
"but that was your reason"
wrong again. I was talking about the entire "99%," not ows in particular.
best of luck to you, son.
all children get 13 years of eduction tuition-free.
And that's enough to get more than a shit job, is it? That was a pretty critical part of your argument. And here we look into it just a little bit and it falls flat on its face because it isn't even slightly logical.
I've read it again, and I'm sorry, but I still don't see a coherent argument in your original post. Just a broad brush and stereotypes. If you'd like to point out where you may have made a logical or coherent argument, be my guest. Just making vague claims that all the participants are irresponsible ne'er-do-wells is NOT a coherent argument, it is just an attempt at stereotyping. If there's anything more in there, I don't see it. So get to it - rationalize away. I deal with quite a bit of denial in my line of work, and boy, you stink of it. Complete with cheap personal insinuations about drug abuse and "what you have in common with them? or did I hit too close to home", liberal use of patronizing phrases etc. You do know this just highlights the poverty of your argument, right?
"And that's enough to get more than a shit job, is it?"
sure, why not? do you expect a great paying job the day your education ends? where do you get such laughable expectations? me and most people I know graduated from college, made shit money for a while, and worked our way up. now we don't make shit money anymore. not even close. is this concept foreign to you? do you expect to be paid good money with zero accomplishments under your belt? if not, explain what you do expect.
"I still don't see a coherent argument in your original post. Just a broad brush and stereotypes."
then you have no business going to college. still, trade school is nothing to be ashamed of. I have a cousin who is an electrician. he makes a lot more than me and my wife combined!
the rest of your crap is a waste of time. not interested.
sure, why not? do you expect a great paying job the day your education ends? where do you get such laughable expectations? me and most people I know graduated from college
So we're back to college. Round and round we go on slizzo's magical merry-go-round here. The kind of education that will earn you any sort of decent money isn't free. Shall we return to the starting point now with you talking about elementary education, or can we get off yet?
is this concept foreign to you? do you expect to be paid good money with zero accomplishments under your belt? if not, explain what you do expect.
I have an education and a good job, thanks. I know how it works just fine. How do I expect it to work? Simple: like it did for you and I. If you work hard, you should get ahead. But the economy is much different than when we went to school. Again, if you can't see that, you aren't living in the real world.
I have a cousin who is an electrician. he makes a lot more than me and my wife combined!
I have no doubt he does - mediocre intellect doesn't go far in professional careers.
if you can't keep up, just stop responding and stop embarassing yourself.
the point was, even AFTER college we made shit money. is that really too complicated to grasp? wow.
"The kind of education that will earn you any sort of decent money isn't free"
not true. there are 100s of 1000s of salesmen in this country with no college degree who make 6 figures with ease. that's just one profession. I could go on, but you don't want reality, you want to whine and cry gimme gimme gimme.
We can't all be salesman; we have to have something to sell. Now if you're done with all the one-upmanship rather than valid points, maybe we can actually have a discussion instead of this childish sniping and trying to characterize people and make personal attacks, as a substitute for having any actual ideas that hold up. Have you got any? Or are you just going to tell me I'm whining and smoking marijuana and blah blah blah, because you haven't actually got a point at all?
"We can't all be salesman"
never said you could, it was ONE example that proved your gloom and doom crybaby shit wrong.
"if you're done with all the one-upmanship rather than valid points"
so if they prove you wrong, they aren't valid points? did you learn that from people who put your delicate self-esteem above everything else, including right vs. wrong and reality?
pathetic.
I'm not gloom and doom. And no, calling someone names doesn't prove anything wrong and it isn't a valid argument: it is precisely the lack of one. You STILL haven't come up with one, it's just yet more pretentious ad hominems as a substitute for any actual point - because you know as well as I do, that you don't have one that will stand up. Without your baiting and ad hominems, you have exactly nothing that will hold up. I've challenged you on that, and you can't come up with anything else apparently. So I can only conclude you don't really have any valid points, your views are irrational and emotional rather than logically valid. I'm satisfied here, you are a typical representative of the sort of views you hold, all emotion and no logic.
You want it to be otherwise? Then do it. Make a rational point. Just one. And that means not arguing from a conclusion. Can you? I have a little hope that you can, but not a great deal.
you said this:
"The kind of education that will earn you any sort of decent money isn't free"
I proved that statement wrong. many salesmen positions that pay excellent money do not need a college education. that is the valid point you cannot accept because it proved you wrong. most people like you cannot accept you were ever wrong about anything and so here we are, 4 messages later, and you STILL can't accept it.
you are the personification of the ows stereotype. coddled kids who can't accept reality.
and still you say I've made no point. pitiful.
No you didn't. The debate doesn't just stop when you say so. Basically put, your idea that everyone can do well with a 13 yo's education is completely absurd. Yes, there are a few jobs that pay well even without an education, but not everyone is suited to those jobs, and the vast majority of jobs that need to be filled and don't require more education than that, pay miserably. You know that. You said it yourself - your hypothetical 22 year old had no education and therefore poor earning potential.
You make points, but they don't hold up. That's what I said. And you're still unable to get out of your addiction to ad hominems to try and shore them up. Pitiful? I think pathetic is a more accurate description of your habitual behaviours here (especially if we consider the Greek root of the word, pathos). Not you. Unlike you I don't pretend to know you, all I know is what you're writing. I don't indulge in magical thinking.
I think that we need all the help we can get to overthrown the current system. If we reject the Tea Party it will be a shortsighted mistake.
Are you kidding me?!! The primary bank rollers of the tea party are the billionaire Koch brothers! Enough said!
What a dumb idea. The tea party is a co-opted subsidiary of the GOP. The GOP is inimical to everything that the OWS is.
We've posted videos of compilations
here
http://youtu.be/MqDapwC1bBc
Watch the video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ZNFlJVWPw
This may be a future poll question at www.TheWallStreetProtest.com
By definition the Tea Party is part of the 99% So, all we nned to do now is reach out to them to participate...
Too many diverging goals between the two. Tea Party concentrates on corrupt government. OWS concentrates on corrupt business. Ideally both would be the focus but I doubt that would happen.
in particular http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/12/the-possibility-of-a-tea-party
The Tea Party will never join up as long as OWS allows the radical marxists and anarchists to speak as leader of the movement. OWS needs to decide whether or not to keep following these people, or to break off and kick them to the curb will determine whether the rest of America will get behind the movement. Letting people like Van Jones or Angela Davis be spokespeople for OWS is a death sentence.
They arent spokespersons. And that would be like me judging the Tea from some of the nazi tatoos Ive seen at some.
Fringe is fringe. Its up to the people to look past the divisive media.
dude you have the nazi party donating to OWS so
When they get up and say they are speaking on behalf of the movement, a la Van Jones (who seems to think he created it), and Angela Davis who was featured on the livestream speaking to the New York crowd, it pretty much speaks for itself rather than needing the media to say anything about it. You get in bed with dogs and you will come up with fleas.
I'm not sure if OWS decides who the media dubs as 'ows spokespeople' there has to be some grassroots way of opposing that.
OW wants the people to get behind the movement, a good idea that is happening and that takes time and patience. You want the movement to get behind the least aware and least compassionate of the people. Not a good idea.
Assuming that Michael Moore isn't lying here is what a "vision statement" of OW says: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/where-does-occupy-wall-street-go-here November 22nd, 2011 1:51 PM Where Does Occupy Wall Street Go From Here?
By Michael Moore
This past weekend I participated in a four-hour meeting of Occupy Wall Street activists whose job it is to come up with the vision and goals of the movement. It was attended by 40+ people and the discussion was both inspiring and invigorating. Here is what we ended up proposing as the movement's "vision statement" to the General Assembly of Occupy Wall Street:
We Envision: [1] a truly free, democratic, and just society; [2] where we, the people, come together and solve our problems by consensus; [3] where people are encouraged to take personal and collective responsibility and participate in decision making; [4] where we learn to live in harmony and embrace principles of toleration and respect for diversity and the differing views of others; [5] where we secure the civil and human rights of all from violation by tyrannical forces and unjust governments; [6] where political and economic institutions work to benefit all, not just the privileged few; [7] where we provide full and free education to everyone, not merely to get jobs but to grow and flourish as human beings; [8] where we value human needs over monetary gain, to ensure decent standards of living without which effective democracy is impossible; [9] where we work together to protect the global environment to ensure that future generations will have safe and clean air, water and food supplies, and will be able to enjoy the beauty and bounty of nature that past generations have enjoyed.
This warm fuzzy shades of grey sounds too much like the statements that come from the clueless politicians. "we've made tremendous progress and we will continue to work together blahblahblah. Who's got time for this right now, besides MM?
OWS beats the drum of the 1st Amendment right of the people peaceably to assemble but yet when you mention the 1st Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances I hear that that is not what OWS stands for, it's heirarchical, it's treasonous, or simply it's impossible. I appreciate that drafting that list is going to be a difficult task but I don't see how OWS is going to actually change anything if people don't use the right to petition as strongly as they've used the right to peaceably assemble.
It was petitions that were ignored that led to the Suffolk Resolves in 1774 that led to the Declaration Of Independence.
I think had OW started with a petition on Sept. 17 no one would even remember it today. I also think that there has to be a "next step" I just don't know what it is or how to get there.
The next step is the National General Assembly. Philadelphia is easy to find ; )
NGA NOW all roads lead to Philadelphia https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
Is Michael a 1%er? How do we decide who is/isn't a 99%er? There has to be some definition. I thought it was strictly by income/wealth. If a 1% professes to be part of us, how do we keep out banksters who also say they are part of us?
He is a one percenter who says he is sympathetic to the movement. I don't know if he is or is not, but he is reporting a resolution (vision statement) that was approved by an OW General Assembly. If his report is true then at least for now, it's the sentiment of occupy Wall Street.
Should he divest some of his wealth to the movement? That would clear it up...
Whether or not Moore is an honest OW supporter isn't and wasn't my point. The vision statement he reports on is my point.
Democracy is a way for 51% of the people to take away the rights of the 49%. Ill give you an example. Mr. Moore's item 9. What might be acceptable levels of 'clean' are subjective. Under a democracy it could go either way. If conservatives who want low regulations are the majority then liberals are going to be upset (FYI there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in America), and if the liberals win out the argument, then they are going to be ruling over the other percentage of people irrespective of their rights. You can not justify behavior that is 'in the best interest of everyone' when that is subjective, while denying the rights of some Americans. Democracy is very dangerous and almost every single one of our great American leaders in the past have warned against it. I honestly don't want the masses of uneducated American's making decisions about my future. Why don't we just start with Item 3 and see if Mr. Moore and his group can instill personal responsibility in people. Historically Mr. moore and people who support him have screamed at the top of their lungs that conservatives are evil for expecting people to take responsibility for their own lives. Isn't he being hypocritical all of a sudden?
American revolutionaries ran Torries out of town on a rail, and tarred and feathered them. Those who survived founded Ontario.
http://askville.amazon.com/expression-tar-feather/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2060241
The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins lists the following origins under the entry for "run out of town on a rail": At Salem, on September 7, 1768, an informer named Robert Wood ’was stripped, tarred and feathered and placed on a hogshead under the Tree of Liberty on the Common.’ This is the first record of the term ’tarred and feathered’ in America. Tarring and feathering was a cruel punishment where hot pine tar was applied from head to toe on a person and goose feathers were stuck into the tar. The person was then ignited and RIDDEN OUT OF TOWN ON A RAIL (tied to a splintery rail), beaten with sticks and stoned all the while. A man’s skin often came off when he removed the tar. It was a common practice to tar and feather Tories who refused to join the revolutionary cause, one much associated with the Liberty Boys, but the practice was known here long before the Revolution. In fact, it dates back even before the first English record of tarring and feathering, an 1189 statute made under Richard the Lionhearted directing that any thief voyaging with the Crusaders ’shal have his head shorne and boyling pitch powred upon his head, and feathers or downe strewn upon the same, whereby he may be known, and so at the first landing place they shal come to, there to be cast up.’ Though few have been tarred and feathered or ridden out of town on a rail in recent years, the expression remains to describe anyone subjected to indignity and infamy."
While twice as many Americans call themselves conservative as do call themselves liberal when questioned on many issues the majority lines up with the left. That's a problem the movement grapples with.
It wouldn't be too hard to have the masses of Americans well educated and informed. Just enforce the law against Corrupt Foreign Practices on Fox and Murdoch, tax the rich and finance decent education.
Wouldn't be hard to have the masses of Americans educated and informed? You must be joking. Our educational system is crashing, the skills sets of Americans are diminishing at an alarming rate, and in case you didn't notice the last Presidential election, there were scores of people who had no idea why they were voting. The last thing we will ever be able to do is educate the masses. They care more about Kim Kardasian, Nascar, or American Idol than they do about politics, government, or the economy.
If I had my ruthers, I'd close most of the MSM. Still and all, the majority, when asked, do support the OW agenda. (I don't represent OW in any way).
I agree the majority support ending the corruption between Wall Street and Washington. That is not what OWS is really doing though.
OW is putting it on the agenda and getting the idea into people's heads that something can be done. It is going to be a long hard road with twists, turns and obstacles.
Better get their act together well before the next election, because if the next election comes and goes without some sort of proposals on the ballot to end the corruption the movement is dusted. If they can even make it through the winter. I will be curious to see how many OWSers will ditch the movement to campaign for some candidate or issue.
No guarantee of success. That's for certain.