Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Would you like some tea? No Thanks, #OWS Drinks Coffee...

Posted 6 years ago on Oct. 5, 2011, 7:11 a.m. EST by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Comparisons to the tea party movement will be inevitable, but the two movements really couldn't be more different. Any similarity between the Tea Party's outrage and the rage of the #OWS ends decisively with anger at the bailout. For example, when the Tea Party protests took place, there was a lot of shouting, and then people took their incendiary placards back home after the rally. Not so with the #OWS. They're actually camped out on-site, in lower Manhattan, sleeping, eating donated pizza, and live streaming.

If anything, the #OWS protest is a diametrically opposite counterweight to the main message of the Tea Party, which is to basically cut all government spending (except defense, apparently) and eliminate all government regulation of (or involvement in) the economy and allow free market capitalism to run free and unfettered, while refusing any form of taxation, no matter how reasonable.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 6 years ago

Regardless of the fact that the heart of the Tea Party was hijacked by the establishment right, many Americans agree with the Tea Party's original principles, which called for a return to the Constitution and restoring the country to one with limited government.
The Tea Party is part of the 99%. You're going to need them too if you want to make any of these changes.
Give up the right-left paradigm - it is a false choice based on Coke vs. Pepsi. It is one of the primary ways corporations have been able to control the 99% up until now.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 6 years ago

Yeah, you have some good points, but I think that if you asked 99% of those in #OWS they would not be down with having Glenn Beck speak as a representative of their cause. And btw, corporations don't control everything just because there's conflict--people who aren't under corporate influence are fully capable of that themselves.

That said, people do need to work together, and I think that yeah, I'm still in that left/right paradigm. I'm not ready to say that gun ownership is sacred or that illegal aliens are here illegally. And I don't think that all government should be downsized--especially social services. Basically, the TP's beliefs do cross over, but they're not the same as #OWS, from my understanding, and yes, it's really hard to shake off left/right when you think that these are their key "non-negotiable" core beliefs:


  1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.
  2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
  3. Stronger Military Is Essential.
  4. Special Interests Eliminated.
  5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
  6. Government Must Be Downsized.
  7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.
  8. Deficit Spending Will End.
  9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
  10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
  11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.
  12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
  13. Intrusive Government Stopped.
  14. English As Core Language Is Required.
  15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

Source: http://www.teaparty.org/about.php

Read through their site and tell me that you're ready to invite them to the General Assembly...

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 6 years ago

First, Glenn Beck is only willing to say parts of the truth; I think he is a self-serving coward and he certainly doesn't represent me.
As for those 'CORE BELIEFS'; they are from the co-opted false Tea Party. I used to be a member of the Tea Party until I figured out that a bunch of neo-cons were running the show. The last nail in the coffin was that many of the so-called Tea Party candidates voted to continue the Patriot Act.

Each side - the left and the right - have partial pieces of the truth. I believe the real picture only comes in to focus when you realize that.

The war on terror is a sham to rob us of our liberties, and so is our monetary system.

In defense of guns - we were specifically given the right to bear arms so that we could rise up against a tyrannical government. I think a government that has a veritable army of NYPD out there on our dime, militarized, armed with surveillance towers, guns, clubs, and pepper spray ready to put down peaceful protestors has crossed the line into tyranny.

Thanks for your willingness to engage, a lot of people seem like they just want to insult people who have different views.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 6 years ago

Okay, I hear you; and I think at some point we all need to work together for the common good. I'm an unabashed progressive who uses facts to generate his opinions.

As for corporate backed Tea Party, I understand that there are divisions, but all are against any taxation on the wealthy--and taxes, in general, period. Makes no sense. I'm with Warren Buffett on this. I'm still in the 99%, but I make a pretty good money and live in a nice home, I just believe in sharing my good fortune with the less fortunate. It seems that (in general) the focus of the #OWS is "common good," whereas (in general) that's considered socialism by the tea party, whose focus is exaltation of "the individual."

On guns, I agree that's what the constitution intended--protection against a tyrannical government. But this is not the late 1700s, and the data conclude that we're actually less safe with firearms than then the rest of the industrialized world. The biggest threat to our safety isn't the US government (as the TP believes) or the NYPD, its we, ourselves. I think the Guardian says it better than I do:

"Why does (America) tolerate the sea of blood that flows from gun incidents, with about 100,000 people killed or injured every year? Why does it accept an annual murder rate by guns that is 13 times that of Germany and 44 times that of England and Wales? People tend to remember the low points, such as the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy in 1968. But do they know that since those two men hit the floor, more than a million people have been killed in the US from the barrel of a gun?" (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/us-gun-crime-gabrielle-giffords-jared-lee-loughner)

My last point on that: if everyone at #OWS had firearms last night, and was willing to use them, this would no longer be a nonviolent movement, but a mass day in memoriam for all the dead.

But it's good to engage without all caps yelling; I'm willing to talk about the big issues in a civilized way. That should be a platform plank for #OWS, I think, because this conversation is just getting started.


Groobiecat (http://groobiecat.blogspot.com)

[-] 1 points by PJ63 (48) from St Paul, MN 6 years ago

The per capita murder rate in all of America is only slightly higher than it is in all of Europe. If you take out the Mexican drug wars, it would probably be slightly less. So, if I am going to be murdered I think I would prefer to be shot rather than stabbed or bludgeoned to death. I really would like to see the data that shows that we would be safer without guns?

[-] 2 points by RP2012 (86) 6 years ago

Govt intervention is what caused us to be where we're at. When we bail out the banks (govt intervention) we reinforce the idea that banks can gamble and if they screw up the taxpayers will take care of it. If that was not there, they wouldn't have embarked on derivatives in the first place.

Same thing with the war. Our govt is too involved in policing the world. bring the troops home. stop spending money we don't have.

[-] 1 points by American (43) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Well, I believe we need govt regulation and protection.

It's like your neighborhood...you have to be aware of your environment to insure it's safety. We are not the only ones on this planet and some countries are hostile. We need to protect ourselves.

As far as regulation goes...corporate regulation worked until those regulations were removed. Once the corporate regulations were removed, corporate american was free to do whatever it pleased.

We need to reestablish corporate regulation and make them accountable.

And I don't want to hear...if that happens corporate america won't do business here or do any hiring. Because, frankly, they have had years of "breaks and bailouts" and have not contributed back into our society.

[-] 1 points by PJ63 (48) from St Paul, MN 6 years ago

The grass roots Tea Party had a good message until it went too far right. OWS has a good message, as long as it does not go too far left. Most of the 99%, I believe, are in the middle.

[-] 1 points by garvan (52) from North Bergen, NJ 6 years ago


[-] 0 points by johnbarber (39) from Altamonte Springs, FL 6 years ago

People like to compare, it gives them a baseline. For better or for worse, Teaparty was able to insert itself in the national debate which isn't bad if you look at the history of outside parties trying to gain a foothold. Take it with a grain of salt and know that their message is not this message.

[-] 0 points by American (43) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Thanx again johnbarber... Nice to hear the voice of reason :)

[-] 0 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 6 years ago

Good points. Ironically, the two started out very similarly. The libertarian Tea Party protests arose, ironically, like the #OccupyWallStreet (#OWS) protests, in part in response to a bailout of Wall Street. Equally ironic is the fact that the Tea Party was initiated in part by stock market insiders who were against the bailout of Wall Street. Initially, at some in the Tea Party appear to have had similar outrage as the #OWS movement.

I'm just trying to set the record clearly, before the MSM drives that particular narrative. OWS is for egalitarianism and reversing the trend toward our corporatocracy. the TP is for a corporatocracy--whether they know it or not. Corporations as people. Unlimited contributions to parties and candidates (as SCOTUS approved recently). Here's a list of their "non-negotiable" demands http://tinyurl.com/62mjoty

[-] 1 points by garvan (52) from North Bergen, NJ 6 years ago


No it isn't.

Congratulations at failing.

Congratulations at putting words into people's mouths.

Congratulations for misrepresenting all facts to push your agenda.



[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 6 years ago

? No, to, er, what--which part? This the TP's website (well, one of 'em):


You can read all about their non-negotiable points, or not. But using all caps doesn't make you any more coherent or persuasive, dude...