Forum Post: Why is the Tea Party Less Popular than Obama?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 5:14 p.m. EST by groobiecat2
(746)
from Brattleboro, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"The tea party is really, really unpopular. One of the least popular political forces in American life, actually. Dave Weigel notes that the latest Time magazine poll found that only 27 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the tea party, while 54 percent approve of Occupy Wall Street. Ouch. But it’s par for the course. The tea party posts lower favorability numbers than President Obama (44 percent), the Democratic Party (44 percent) or the Republican Party (39 percent)."
Time Magazine Poll: http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/
because the tea party is for the elites, for the corporations and is against people, against fairness, against sanity, against the truth.
wow. Nice way to describe a group of people as a monolithic block. Are they also all like Hitler?
the tea party. the members are dupes. no, they are more like sheeple. the organizers of the tea party might be, but i never use the ad hitlerium argument. nice bait tho
But the OWS people aren't right?
Tea party - dupes
OWS - wise individualists
Got it.
er. no. so far the OWS is also an astroturfed bunch of ignorant dupes without a game plan. Who have not done their homework. Here in SB they are epic failing to run consensus process and instead are running a pack psychology delphi process. For instance.
Sheep and wolves exist in every pack, constantly moving or following the herd. No different for the Tea Party than OWS. We won't know who your wolves are until you congeal, get political, start sponsoring politicians, and make formal demands.
So far, your demands list looks pretty weak. Reinstate Glass-Steagal? Is that really going to level the playing field?
Try getting serious. Break up every bank/firm that had to take a bailout to survive. BofA. Citi. Goldman. We supposedly bailed them out because they were too big to fail. Fine. Run with that. Lets call the bailouts a necessary evil we had to do to keep our financial markets from collapsing. We are past that now, so one at a time, those companies need to be disassembled a'la Ma-Bell style and auctioned off to make way for smaller more innovative companies. Without the bailout they would have died anyway. With the bailout they are bigger and more prone to failure. Changing your demand to something that can easily be explained to the sheep as making an obvious difference gains widespread support.
My suspicion is, you won't see political action come out of OWS because many of it's new found friends have political pet pigs to protect.
LOL. No. But they like to compare sitting presidents to Hitler:
http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/10/tea-party-vs-occupywallstreet-party.html
I was wondering how long it would take for the wheels to come off OWS as a "non-partisan" organization. Better to do it now than wait until winter sets in on New York, right?
Well, look, be honest--those signs aren't not something you'd see in lower Manhattan. If anything, they completely undermined your movement with the middle. People don't like that kind of radicalism--or the "If Brown can't do it, my Browning can" bullshit.
Nothing to do with partisanship--that shit's scary and kookoo.
People who own guns don't scare me. People who want to take guns away, on the other hand, scare the hell out of me.
Well, with Obama you're in luck! All those folks who stocked up on ammo were wasting time, seems to me.
Not so sure about that. Feds are busting every last pot dispensary in California, bringing the full force of the EPA, IRS, and FBI on pot smokers. They are making it illegal for anyone with a Pot card to own a gun. More of something you would imagine happening under a Republican president, no?
All that aside, OWS is a symptom of a much bigger problem. unemployment gets too much worse for too much longer, and you will see real civil unrest in this country. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say tanks in the streets, but it could happen.
" More of something you would imagine happening under a Republican president, no?"
Right, one would think. But with the exception of healthcare, Obama has by and large continued Bush's policies.
As for civil unrest, oh yes, that's a definite possibility. Riots are very likely if something isn't done. Even if something could help alleviate unemployment in the short term. This is why a jobs bill--that was partially funded by, say, those folks who got bailed out?--would help out a lot. Something has to be done, and--partisan alert--it's not gonna come from Cantor and company, because it's against the rules. At least Obama, for all my disappointment in him, is offering a bill to put people back to work doing infrastructure. Even if passed, it probably wouldn't be enough though....
Funny, but I have a hard time imagining Bush busting pot growers. Obama is to the fascist side on that one.
Regarding who will accomplish something to prevent the riots, you've been duped. Obama's bill is a failure for many reasons
so sad.
ows from start has been democratic and all republicans do nothing but demonize the movement read the signs listen to the people and see tax rich get money out of politics end wars have never been backed by republicans tax cuts for middle class modernize roads and bridges invest in middle class not banking class by raising minimum wage thats the occupy wall street message
What, you are saying that your group is filled with staunch supporters of the party in power? You re saying everything the people in the media is saying about OWS is true? What a surprise!
go back to to the tea party troll stop trying to divide ows we do not support republican views
How can you compare a group of people to one president? That question doesn't even make sense to me.
If the Tea party is so unpopular then why are the Democrats and Republican "Elite" so afraid of them? If the OWS folk were a responsible group, then why does the city of New York have to clean up after them? At virtually every Tea Party function held on public property, they cleaned up after themselves and left the spot cleaner than they found it. The Tea Party simply wants the goverment out of the way of the free market. They believe that the average American knows how to spend his money better than the goverment. They want to maintain the right to life, liberty and property. They embrace freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Most Americans beleive in these tenents. If we lose liberty in America, there will be no place to run to. Ask yourself this, at what point does one become accountable for his actions?
LOL. I don't think anyone's afraid of the Tea Party. But really, which Tea Party? The TEACON folks? The other folks? You guys need an org chart. Box A shows the co-opted Tea Party. Box B shows the "true Tea Party," while Box C....
But hey, I'm glad that the Tea Party was orderly. All those "Impeach Obama" and "Obama is Hitler" sighs littering the ground. A+ on cleanliness!!
To answer your question: we are all accountable for our actions. Some people think that defining what that means is a black and white issue--end of discussion. Some think that's where the discussion begins.
But what I've found with the RP supporters is this: There's no discussion, just right and wrong (according to them), and others who "don't get it." I also find that they're pretty mean-spirited and use a lot of ad hominem attacks to tear down those they disagree with. Not all, but many.
It's not simple. Live is complicated. The way we lived in 1900 is not appropriate for how we live today. Your list of items--the bullet points that are continually offered up as obvious truths--are not shared by everyone.
I have stated that if RP had been president in WWII, we'd be speaking German, because he wouldn't have retooled the "free market" economy into the war machine it needed to be. I think that's true. And not one person on this board has offered a response other than to call me names.
As for the free market--that's what got us into trouble leading up to 2008; derivatives and the free trade of mortgage backed securities were completely unregulated. Government has a role. Corporations have a role. Today, they're too intertwined.
You guys want to be taken seriously? Start by being more humble and less condescending to those you agree with. I've yet to hear more than one or two of the hundreds I've interacted with seek common ground with me and identify that common ground. Most say "Tell us why we should come with you." Heres the truth: it's the other way around....
What got us in the mortgage mess was the Affordable Housing Act sponsored by Chris Dodd (D) and Barney Frank(D) and Fannie May / Freddie Mac. This piece of legeslation would penalize and go after banks and other lending institutions who denied home loans to those who failed to prove that they could afford to pay back the money.
Roosevelt allowed England to suffer attacks from Germany and would have stayed out of WW2 had we not been attacked. A Conservative president would have helped its allie much sooner.
You mistake conservatism with fascism. Conservatives want to perserve America and its constitution in a manner that the founder fathers had set it up as. It was based on vitue (that's morals and principles for you who live in Reolinda). Virtue is just as important today as it was in the founding of this nation. What principles and morals do the OWS folk stand for? We know what you are against, but what do you stand for?
With Fascism, you have system led by a dictator and emphasising agressive nationalism, and often racism. The TEA Party is niether and oh bh the way, the news media reported the TEA party left their respective ralley locations cleaner than they left them (check the NBC archives).
You folk really need to look in your own hearts and minds and ask why are you doing this demonstration?. Is it good for America? What positive outcome is most likely to occur? Currently, you folks are being reported as abusing bathroom facilties and power outlets in bussinesses you don't buy anything in. You are defecating and urinating in the park. You are smoking dope in the evenings and having clashes with the police. So, are your actions something to be proud of? What would your parents think of you? What would your children think of you? Are you really doing the right thing? At what point does one become accountable for the actions?
No. What got us into this mess was deregulation of the banking industry starting in the Reagan administration with the Ayn Rand lovin' Alan Greenspan. Eliminating the line between wall street gambling and home finance was a MASSIVE mistake. Clinton kept Greenspan and had Rubin and Summers--also laissez faireans. The rest is unregulated history.
A conservative president would have helped much sooner in WWII? Really? You mean, like Ron Paul? No one knows what would have happened with a different president. But I will say this: FDR commandeered the economy and thank god he did. I'm not so sure a republican would have done the same.
God, please, no, not the constitution again. Really? Look, this is not about the constitution. It really isn't. It's about priorities as a country and allocating resources and determining what we as a people believe are rights. The constitution is a guide--but it's a living guide--not a policy paper. Finland and Germany are incredibly successful capitalism countries. They have very very robust social programs and the government is very involved in running them. They're not socialist. They're not marxists. They just made choices on what to do with their wealth and how to share it, okay?
Why is this so incredibly difficult for you guys to understand? The #OWS gets it: it's not about ideology or rigid orthodoxy to the constitution and interpreting it in as laissez faire and pro free market way as possible: it's about equitable distribution of scarce resources, and making the country a little flatter, and less top down. And it's about preventing corporations from corrupting the system--and that means regulating them better. Who's going to do that? NGOs?
We "folk" have looked into our hearts and minds and know exactly why we're "demonstrating. The problem is that you folks don't understand it--and that's fine. But don't condescend and talk down to us. Conservatives had their chance and helped destroy the economy from 2000 to 2008--and so did the democrats, to a lesser extent.
No one said fascism here, that's a word I don't tend to use lightly.
You focus on defecating and urinating in the park. That offends you. Okay. But it's not the point. You say you're about the constitution, but not, what, its amendments? Like, say, the first one?
Doing the right thing? Oh, good lord, the more I read posts like yours, the more I'm 100% sure we're doing the right thing. And my daughter is. And many of her friends are. And their parents. And really, this isn't about people who don't have access to facilities because they're being denied them by the city (you did know that, right? It's not like anyone wants to urinate publicly). It's about improving the country. The people in the park didn't screw up the economy--the idiots on Wall Street did, w/ help from a lazy faire government.
What would my parents think of me? You mean, my 85 and 83 year old mom and dad? Those people? Look, you're arrogant. You think you know everything. You think you can look down your nose at me with your incredibly pedantic attitude and what's that supposed to do? Get me to agree with you? I'm 52. I live in a really nice expensive house. I make LOTS of money. I'm set for retirement. I'm not who you think I am--and neither is this movement. The good news is that we really are making a difference, because people like you are scared. That's a good thing.
I have been around 53 years and have to agree with your statements100%. for those who feel this movement is about the demands of a bunch of pot smoking lazy young people, you need to wake up and take a look at what's really going on in this country.a whole lot of people my age and older agree with the vast majority of what the OWS is about and are willing to do whatever is necessary to bring about real change to a broken system, that if left to continue on it's present path, will lead to anarchy in your neighborhood and mine.we need government interested in the people, not influenced by special interests of corporations and banks.
Thanks for the note. This movement really is much bigger than the standard definitions of left and right; it's about the priorities of this country and about standards of right and wrong, ultimately. Do we believe in Ayn Rand's / Alan Greenspan's world in which corporations can be as rapacious as they wanna be, or do we believe that we all contribute to the success of the country and that are strength lies in helping the majority, without exclusively aggrandizing the least vulnerable.
The trick will be to unwash the brains of so many...
Ok guy, I spent 22 and 1/2 years in the active army defending freedoms frontier and your right to assemble and demonstrate against ourthe American way of life. Sure, there are folks in the bussiness community who have used unethical practices (many are ethical in their bussiness practices) and if you think Germany is so geat (I spent 3 tours stationed there) then go live there. I've german friends who have bitched about chancelors Schmidt. Kolh, and Merkler. All they have seen is an increase in their taxes and a decrease to their standard of living. I too am over 50 years old and though I was born at night, I was not born last night.
You served your country? That's honorable. But that doesn't give you the right to talk down to me or anyone, really. You want to be heard? Treat people with respect. Being ex-military doesn't mean you get to not treat people with decency, just because you disagree with them. Have some mutual respect and humility, and your words will not fall on deaf ears.
I mention Germany not because I want to live there--but because it's an example of a country that balances economic success with social services and assistance for the most vulnerable. We should at least consider how that works. And btw, you don't get to tell anyone where to go to live, "guy." Because it's my right--as an American--to live wherever I damn well please. Or are you for abrogating individual rights?
I wouldn't have burned up the keyboard with rejoinders to you points if you hadn't assumed I was a lesser human being who was too dumb to wipe his ass. But unless you treat others with respect, why would you expect the same to be returned to you?
I've met many people on this board--some have really not liked what I had to say but they didn't condescend or confuse the issues with nonsense. I tried to develop common ground. But you have to change your assumptions--and maybe, just maybe--acknowledge that people may not share your definitions of "right" and "wrong."
The people in Washington? They screwed up. The people on Wall Street? They screwed up. The folks whose boots are on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan? They got screwed by Washington, and that's a damn shame.
Peace.
Interesting. Please inform us why the US should have been involved in WWII Europe, a war that had nothing to do with us. Do you know who pimped for our getting involved? How about that bombing of Desden?! Good times for the empire!!!
Hello, Rember Pearl Harbor! You Had the AXIS Powers working together Hitler, Emporer Herohito, and Mussalini (fashist leader of Italy) that were on a world conquest. Did you take world history? Or, do they still teach that in our schools.
Why should we care?
Keep your eye on the ball - the banksters - and all of those who voted for the bailouts.
You should care because if you pay no attention to history then you are bound to repeat it. Look at Greece for example, they instituted great social programs, 4 day work weeks, a great welfare program Universal Health Care and all was good until what?. All the working class went on the goverment dole and the tax revenue dried up and their country is on the verge of collapse. Pay Attention, when you demonize those with money, you forget these are the same people who create jobs. If the goverment continues to encourage unenployment (though extension of u.e. benefits and more stimulas) then we follow the same path that Greece has.
Well, you raise a good point. Why should we care about how popular the tea party is? But the truth of the matter is that there are deep differences that need to be addressed. I'm trying, I really am. But I keep getting attacked by folks who only want to discuss what we have in common.
Oh, and I got tired of getting beaten up constantly by RP supporters and called names, so I thought I'd let them know that #OWS doesn't need to come to them, they need to come to #OWS. And thus far, I hear a lot about how much we have in common, but about the only thing I keep hearing, EndTheFedNow is how we should end the fed now, and that's not the main #OWS priority at the moment...
We shouldn't care about the popularity, or lack thereof, of any group. If the founders had worried about that, this would still be a British colony, as the majority, back then, like now, just wanted to go along with the status quo.
On the issue of the Fed: It is the central mechanism whereby the wealth of the many (the People) is transferred to the few (the uber rich banking dynasties). The reason "end the Fed" is a marginal issue with OWS is because so few are educated about what the Fed is and what it does. It's a learning curve and people have to be willing to invest the time, which most are not (preferring to have someone else define the issues for them).
Some of the critical issues that seemingly disparate groups have in common are ending the corporate-government nexus; getting the money out of politics; ending corporate socialism (public risk for private profit, i.e, bailouts and corporate subsidies); ending the wars of aggression; slashing the amount of tax dollars going to the military-industrial complex; repeal of the draconian, totalitarian police state laws, especially the PATRIOT Act, and prosecuting the thieves who have looted us. Imagine if we set aside differences and concentrated on just those commonalities. We could win. Instead, though, ideologues work over time to keep us divided and accomplishing nothing. That's exactly how the sociopaths in power want it to be - fighting amongst ourselves - while they continue to concentrate power in an ever growing, global, dictatorship of the rich.
You raise some good points. I'd avoid calling people stupid, lazy, or otherwise "lesser" than you. That is, if you really want to start a dialogue, including referring to people as sociopaths. The people in government aren't demons. They shouldn't be demonized; no one should.
But this i the first effort I've seen to outline areas of similarity. That's a start.
Peace.
I didn't call anyone stupid, lazy, or less than. I said that most are not willing to take the time to learn about the Fed.
I do mean sociopaths. The banking dynasties made their fortunes funding wars. Politicians and bureaucrats who support the mass slaughter of innocents for conquest and profit most certainly are sociopaths and we should not mince words about it.
Oh, those people. Agreed. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al? All ought to be in prison. I thought you meant government employees. eh.
Yes, those people and a whole lot more. I'm adding the war crimes against the Libyan people to this, now. Oh, and the drone attacks in Africa. And, the criminal activities of the banks.
I never ends and it just gets worse.
ETA: And Fast and Furious.
Because though they started with some good ideas , they soon proved themselves pawns and tools in the God/Guns/Gays game.
Lol..i..was informed by FOX, and the Republican party...they represent the majority....of americans.
tea party was hijacked by neocons.
enjoy your popularity, OWS. it is only a matter of time until this happens to you as well.
Yeah, no, this is the prevailing myth that I have not seen supported by any evidence. Neocons were in the original TP movement. This is revisionist history. The Tea Party always focused on republican policies (with a few exceptions regarding war) and republican candidates--from its inception.
Basically, the Tea Party co-opted itself.
tea party was a movement demanding a return to constitutionalism, which is hardly in line with modern republicanism
Only in name. In point of fact, the Tea Party only supports republican candidates. Exclusively. Take each "issue" of the Tea Party and you can see that they reflect very closely the republican platform. Ultimately, it's not about the constitution as much as it is about the constitution redefined as neo-liberalism--which is what the TP and republicans both believe in.
As for not being "in line with modern republicanism," are you saying that the head of the TP caucus in the house, Michele Bachmann, doesn't fit both definitions? She's but one example, of course, but a good one.
tea party people that i know do not support bachmann
maybe they are ex-conservatives on their way to libertarianism
Well, you raise a good point: which Tea Party?
2010 mid-term elections. Enough said.
In just the first couple of months (early 2009) of his new administration , voted in with a populist's mandate, the new President Obama audaciously warned CEOs of the 13 largest banks that, given the fact taxpayers had bailed them out, their refusal to scale back on their Texas-sized bonuses put him in an awkward position, because "My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks." But in fact, he was left like Custer looking for reinforcements at Little Big Horn, when the outrage from the people with pitchforks never materialized. The Tea Partiers, meanwhile (appropriately dressed like tea party Indians) then entered the scene on the side of bankers against Obama's supposed mandate. Since then, Obama, to keep his scalp, has had to eat humble pie and to do some smoking of the peace-pipe. For example, he recently appointed business friendly William Daily as his chief adviser to demonstrate his new business-friendly leanings. My belief is that at the last moment -- finally motivated by total frustration and pain -- the pitchfork brigade in the form of the Occupy Wall Street movement, has finally reached Little Big Horn.
Its probably because they mix social issues with fiscal issues.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&pli=1&formkey=dFlNNHJTRlZwMWs5ZjlhTWN0NlZReHc6MQ#gid=0
Congress should investigate links between our "commander and chief community organizer and OWS. If proven to be one (in an effort to create that "crisis that he sees as an opportunity and dosn't want to waste) then begin impeachment proceedings. Is there a link?
Yeah. Again, your agenda is showing. First, that's an insane suggestion because it's based on what? More gut feelings?
Second, it was started by a Canadian activist organization that called people to protest on Wall Street. I don't know if you've noticed, but Obama is pretty freaking mainstream. He's almost as conservative as Bush!
Third, aside from the sheer paranoid fantasy that this represents, let's say that, yeah, i'ts a HUGE conspiracy and you're right. What then? That wouldn't be illegal anyway. Would it? No. It wouldn't.
Impeachment proceedings. Did you call for impeachment proceedings when Bush doubled the national debt and killed tens of thousands of Americans in Iraq--and over a million more non-Americans?
No? Then really, you know you're waaay out there, right?
You're clearly a troll here trying to undermine #OWS. But hey, good luck. You only make us stronger...
Presidents do not control the taxpayers money sir, Congress does. The spending during the second term of the Bush administration was controlled by Nancy Pelowsi, Harry Ried and the Democratic controlled congress who handed the Obama administration the 6oo Billion Dollar Deficiet (sorry to confuse you with facts). Up until the recent 2010 elections the Democrats have run our deficiet into the trillions and they want to spend more and tax more.
We were attacked on 9/11 and even though we did not find WMD, Sadam Hussain violated 11 U.N. resouloutions. He posed a threat and was paying $50,000 to the families of suicide bombers. When you are the only super power in the world there are responsibilities. You may not understand this if you have never laced up a pair of combat boots. There will always be war so long as there are haves and have nots. One will always try and take from the other. Just look at OWS.
The president submits a budget, sir, every year. That's how the fiscal process works--you knew that, right? That's not confusing. I worked on Capitol Hill. I'm familiar with the process. Here are some, straight from the treasury: Under Bush, the national debt went from $6.2 to $11.9 trillion. And btw, it's not "our deficit" that gets run into the trillions, it's our debt. The deficit is what happens to the fiscal budget every year--and goes into the overall national debt that the country owes. You knew that, right? But don't just say "trillions" and then ignore it. Use specifics. You know that Bush doubled the national debt, right? It was on his watch. And Iraq and Afganistan accounted for at least $2 trillion of that. He was the first president to submit a trillion dollar budget deficit--in history. He lied about the Iraq war and its costs--as did the war criminals Rumsfeld and Cheney. If you think that's not the case, well, you should look up the facts.
"We were attacked on 9/11 and even though we did not find WMD, Sadam Hussain violated 11 U.N. resouloutions."
Wow, impressive. You're defending getting into the Iraq war. Truly amazing. I worked in Washington, DC for 25 years. I worked in Congress and in the Federal government. I know exactly how the place works--and lacing up boots rarely has anything to do with knowing how policy gets made. Colin Powell made spurious accusation after spurious accusation, in effect, lying to the UN. Truly surreal that there are people defending this war, which is a national shame, and which led to the deaths of over 1 million people. Shame on you.
Sadadm was paying 50 grand to whom? Which suicide bombers? Where? Yes. More unbacked statements.
I have a question for you, and it's a simple one:
How many republican presidents have gotten us into war in the last 50 years vs. Democratic ones? If a Democrat had gone into Iraq based on that bullshit "data," we'd never hear the end of it from you people.
Ugh.
Go to the Tea Party board where you belong. Here? You're just a troll. Don't know what that is? Look it up.
The debt may of occurred under Bush, as well as the wars. However, you negate the fact that it was a Democratic congress that handed the debt to Obama and the Democratically controlled congress up to the recent elections have dramatically increased this debt. Talk about disrespect? I'm a troll? Where's that title sir?
A troll is someone who comes to a site to basically spread chaos, and not offer anything productive. Usually has a contrary agenda to the site's main aim.
As for the budget process, I will only say that it's proposed by the president, and budget deficits and national debt are the province of presidents--not congress. Congress passes the president's budget (the so-called purse strings) with various amendments, but it is the president's responsibility--as is the welfare of the country. The welfare of the country at the end of Bush's term was, at best, in a hellish handbasket.
I do think that I can contribute to the discussion and you seem to be a person of some experiance (a different experiance from mine). I don't understand why the OWS folks don't have their protest and at the end of the permit go home. It seems as though there agenda is to disrupt comerce wherever they occupy, test the police resolve, and I feel they will grdually ratchet up in to eventual anarchy. Is this a pipe dream or the game plan?
And how do you assess countries welfare under the the 1st 3 years of Obama?
After inheriting the worst possible economic scenario and two years of intractable war? Compare to what? How do you assess Bush's job? You ask questions, but you never answer any--have you noticed that?
Under the circumstances, I think it's unreasonable to expect him to clean up 8 years of incredible incompetence in a short couple of years. And I also think that he has been held to a much higher standard than the liar and war criminal Bush.
That's what I think.
It's more popular because it's still new. When the tea party first formed they were over 50% popular as well.
Once a cohesive message gets out OWS will fall just as low or lower. If a cohesive message never comes out, OWS will dwindle away because no progress will be made.
The tea party is still around because they have a cohesive message and solutions to achieve them.
It's growing beyond our borders. Many of the donations are from people around the world. Can you say the same of the Tea Party? No? No.
The Tea Party fractured itself--and certainly that could happen here. But it has become the far right arm of the republican party. Sorry, but that's the truth. Name me one democrat--just one--that the TP has supported. Nope. They're all republicans.
We can talk all we want, but that truth is, and the specifics behind broader goals, add up to serious challenges for any kind of integration. At a bare minimum.
If you want to go that route, name one democrat, that is for a small federal government, that believes the majority of power lies with the states or the people themselves?
What, no, there isn't one? That why you don't see any supported democrats.
Thought so. But everyone says TP isn't republican. You just proved my point that it is, in fact, a republican arm.
Why are you on this board??
I'm a constitutionalist, not a republican. Name a democrat that wants to follow what the founding fathers vision for this country? Which is limited federal government, not federal entitlement programs, and majority of power lies within the states and individuals?
Why am I on these boards? Could ask you the same. I came here to learn what the message of this group was and see if it's something I could get behind.
I found it a incoherent babble fear of communist, marxist ideas that would cause more harm to a free people than what is going on right now.
The best way to deceive OWS is they're a bunch of spoiled children that want everything handed to them on a silver platter by the people who actually do something and earn it.
Try to discredit what I just said but read these board and you see people asking for:
Free healthcare paid by the taxpayers(government) A guaranteed job given to the by the taxpayers(government) Put a cap on how much money an individual can earn Put a limit on how much money a company can make Change to monetary system back to a system based on gold & silver or some othe precious metal. Limit political contributions by individuals and companies.
Out of that whole list I could only support the last two. Everything else would hurt all Americans and take away the ability for hard working individuals to change their own financial status.
"Why am I on these boards? Could ask you the same."
I know what the message is. I'm propagating the message--that's what I'm doing on these boards. So, now you know that your views aren't shared by most of the people in this movement, what is your goal here? You found out what we're about, now, just what do you want? What do you think will happen with your tirades? People will somehow "listen" to you? You're angry and fearful of what this movement is, now that you know there's no common ground, why not go spend time with your own ilk on some laissez fairean site, and leave the dialogue to people who don't troll around looking to spout apocryphal nonsense, eh?
"I found it a incoherent babble fear of communist, marxist ideas that would cause more harm to a free people than what is going on right now."
This, itself, is an incoherent sentence.
"The best way to deceive OWS is they're a bunch of spoiled children that want everything handed to them on a silver platter by the people who actually do something and earn it."
More incoherent nonsense. Makes no sentence grammatically or thematically. Your clauses are contradictory and chaotic and make no logical sense: "The best way to deceive OWS is they're a bunch of spoiled children ...etc." LOL, what?
"Try to discredit what I just said but read these board and you see people asking for:"
Hahaha, you're kidding, right? What you just said was incoherent nonsense. Nothing personal, but these words sound like they were written by someone who was drunk or angry or both. Grammatically incorrect, and conceptually, well, odd...
"Free healthcare paid by the taxpayers(government) A guaranteed job given to the by the taxpayers(government) Put a cap on how much money an individual can earn Put a limit on how much money a company can make Change to monetary system back to a system based on gold & silver or some othe precious metal. Limit political contributions by individuals and companies."
This is not what this movement is about. You don't understand #OWS. Again, moire weirdness. This is no the list of #OWS demands.
Lastly, while #OWS is open to all, people who are angry and want to see the movement fail or don't patently understand or want to understand what the movement is about need not apply. Although, I'm guessing you weren't applying--just trolling. Like so many of your buddies on this board.
That Time poll is not scientific. It doesn't mention confidence or margin of error.
Yeah. Sadly, it doesn't matter. The Tea Party, in general, has lost a lot of its juice, has been assumed (correctly) to be behind the near derailing of government, and was co-opted by the Koch brothers. So, when people talk about getting corporate money out of our political system, it's kinda hard to take the TP seriously...
Thats the thing - there isn't a "the tea party". The Tea Party still remains a largely independent bunch of small groups. The Tea Party Express and some Tea Parties were created and designed to co-opt the movement and misrepresent and steer perception and policy with the Tea Party itself. They succeeded with the first and partially with the second as some local Tea Parties have become clones of the Tea Party Express.
There is a Tea Party near me who I go to and they are just older everyday people who are worried about bailouts and government prodding in their lives like people here. They just happen to be a mostly older crowd and do things in ways that are comfortable for them (sitting down and talking, writing letters to editors and congress critters, running for office) as opposed to what young people like to do (protest, use the internet, stand around with hand painted signs, yell in public).
You raise a good point about the different "Tea Parties." But understand that this division doesn't help the legitimate aims of the "small town" Tea Party folks, because you're making others do the "work" of figuring out who's real and who's in the Koch's pockets.
Peace.
Groobiecat
[ There's an #OWS election process here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/come-to-the-nyc-general-assembly-on-10-15-12-to-st/ ]
[ There's a draft Declaration here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ ]
I think the movement is open to all, as long as they're decent, non-violent folks. But people who say "If Brown can't do it, my Browning can" I dont' think that those folks will receive a warm welcome...
Because the Tea Party just wants to obstruct. At least Obama is trying.
Not everyone likes tea and I blame the brits. We should be the coffee party.
This needs to be about the issues that unite the 99%. We want the Tea Party to join us. If I was a Tea Party minded individual, posts like this would drive me away. It's an interesting question, and I certainly have some thoughts, but this isn't the place.
Well, it's good to know that we finally have a forum leader! I don't think "we" want the Tea Party to join us, per se, or "any" party, for that matter. I think "we" want people to unaffilate themselves from all parties and shift to a new paradigm where civil discourse and dialogue is undertaken. Where left/right gives way to priorities and fair allocation of resources.
That's what I think "we" want...
I stand corrected and will be more careful about putting words in our collective mouth. The point is that "I" believe it's counterproductive to drive folks off. It doesn't do any good to say you represent the 99% if you really just want the ones that agree with you.
Well, that cuts both ways. People need to engage in civil discourse, and no ad hominem attacks. The RP folks need to do this, period, end of story, regardless of ideology.
You don't have to agree with that; that's my view.
Because you are reading Ezra Klein, who has his head permanently shoved up his ass. Tea party was the single most driving force in 2010 elections. Probably will be next year too.
Ahhh, there we go. I was just writing a comment that the TP defenders are aggressive and unable to engage in civil discourse. Thanks for proving me so wrong! :D
One's thing is a near certainty: Ron Paul will not be in the White House at the end of January 2013.
Probably not with the ZioNazis in control. If he did get the nomination, they'd put a stop to that, eh?
yeah, because conspiracies like that are easy to keep under wraps? no. you give far too much credit to people--let alone the mysterious "them" who silence their enemies. people are just not that competent.
and if ron paul doesn't make it to the oval office, well, that's more or less on him; no one else.
but "zionazis" is a new one. that kind of thinking leads me to think that RP followers and #OWS will never be sympatico. it's mainly the money people who are in control...
I've lived through the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Sadat, and other attempted assassinations. Conspiracies DO happen.
ZioNazis are fascist Zionists. They're the warmongers and they HATE Ron Paul because his anti war stance. If you can't get with being anti war, you have a problem. And, those "money people" - they fund the wars and reap the profits.
I'm against war. I was against Bush during the Iraq lies. But I'm against most of the other platforms of Ron Paul's candidacy. I worked in Congress and the Federal government and corporations. I also believe that there are a lot fewer enemies than there are potential allies...
I considered it more of a statement of fact.
Regarding Ron Paul, I'm glad you have a crystal ball that predicts the future. Good job working to defend the status quo. 99% my ass.
:D
Ron Paul in 1900!
Oh go on, just say Obama 2012. You know you want to :D
LOL. that was actually funny--dude, at least you have a sense of humor.
:D
Peace.
It's easy to grin, when your ship comes in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man worthwhile, Is the man who can smile, when his shorts are too tight in the seat.
ows from start has been democratic and all republicans do nothing but demonize the movement read the signs listen to the people and see tax rich get money out of politics end wars have never been backed by republicans tax cuts for middle class modernize roads and bridges invest in middle class not banking class by raising minimum wage thats the occupy wall street message