jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (34 posts)

Unification: The Tea Party & The Occupy Movement

  1. Josh Wolfson profile image60
    Josh Wolfsonposted 5 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6261362_f248.jpg
    There must be some way to get the change-desire movements together on things. What can we do? I need debate, issues, and civil discourse. Let's start!

    1. junkseller profile image88
      junksellerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The common ground is that they are both theoretically about individual liberty. The Tea Party wants to remove the yoke of authoritarianism placed on them by the government and the Occupy people want to remove the yoke of authoritarianism placed on them by corporations. I tend to think the are fighting the same hydra, just focused on different heads. And while Occupy maybe focuses on redistributing power and wealth after the fact and the Tea Party focuses on keeping power and wealth in the first place, they both essentially want the same thing: power and wealth located with and in the people. There will of course be disagreements about how much of a government there should in the end be, but still I think there could be some common ground there.

      The bigger roadblock to an alliance I think is the Tea Party. Their blind faith and obedience to free market Capitalism feeds the head the Occupy movement is fighting against. Being so hostile to government authority and giving a complete free pass to the authority of corporations is really bizarre to me.

      1. Josh Wolfson profile image60
        Josh Wolfsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, thank you, junkseller. That is much better. So what if we can convince the Tea Party that corporations are an enemy to both free market capitalism and the government is our enemy in its complicity?

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know how they could possibly find common ground, except for the fact that our government does some really shady things.  Occupy is abut helping PEOPLE.  They are concerned with living wages.  The Tea Party just wants lower taxes and less government, which will ensure the poor people are worse off, and without environmental regulations, also more pollution will be spewed into the air. 

      One side is filled with older people who have some questionable views about African Americans (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/ … ?mobile=nc),and the other side is a melting pot of a wide range of people.  The Tea Party is a reaction to a country that is changing demographically and politically.  It's a last stand of the racially resentful, paranoid John Birch types.

      1. lovemychris profile image82
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. smile

  2. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    For the Tea Party:

    1. Admit that Social Security and Medicare are gvt programs.
    2. Stop calling OWS a bunch of dirty hippies.
    3. Realize that all you had during your life-time has been stripped away from this generation.

  3. giocatore profile image91
    giocatoreposted 5 years ago

    I don't see much common ground between these two groups. To look at it simply, TP is about the right to keep what you've earned, and OWS is about taking it away. There's a huge gulf between those two positions.

    1. lovemychris profile image82
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There's a huge gulf between your understanding of the issues and mine.

      Therer-in Lies The Problem.

  4. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    They both have one thing in common.  They are not happy with the state of the union.  They both represent dissent with the current Government.  Anytime the people voice their grievances, they have my support.

    If they resort to violence then I turn my back on them!

    1. lovemychris profile image82
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How about if they suggest it with their signs and bringing guns?

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Signs are Freedom of Speech unless the sign is threatening.

        Those that have a legal right to carry firearms does not pose a problem unless of course they are using their firearms to threaten an individual.

  5. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    They did have threatening signs. And racist ones.
    And NOT ONE against Buscho...who made the TARP bail-outs in the first place!
    And obviously the guns were there to threaten...why else bring them?

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have seen plenty of derogatory signs concerning Bush. You have not seen any?


      http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/imheretokillbush.jpg

      So you feel that having an Officer present is a threat? After all most Officers carry guns.

      1. lovemychris profile image82
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you know why it says at the bottom, "shoot me"?

        It's because back in Bushco days, it was treasonous to disagree with him. There was this saying going around: "If you don't support the troops, feel free to stand in front of them"

        In other words: If you don't support Bush's war, kill yourself.


        What a difference a president makes. ALL of a sudden, R's hate war!

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "In other words: If you don't support Bush's war, kill yourself."

          WOW, that's a hell of a stretch.

          "If you don't support the troops, feel free to stand in front of them" to me means if you don't support the troops who are willing to die for us, perhaps you should save their lives by taking their place.

          Se the difference in interpretation? Just saying.

          "ALL of a sudden, R's hate war!"

          I didn't think we should have gone into Iraq. It was a needless war. Our involvement in Libya was needless as well. Two presidents. One R. One D. Two wars. Both needless.

          1. lovemychris profile image82
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            2 wars, 1 R.

            the rest.....who the h knows..I think it's all mob related myself. Or intelligence agency related.... Drug and slavery and arms and oil and power wars.

            Oh, and if you read the things that the Right said about Sheehan  and the anti-war movement when that saying came out....believe me--they meant kill yourself!

            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I always felt sorry for Sheehan. She lost her son which, I think, drove her over the edge. It would me. Then, on top of that, she was used by the media as a way to get at Bush.

              They all lost sight of a very important person - a mother struggling to cope with the loss of a child, something no parent should have to experience.

              1. lovemychris profile image82
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ummmm, she was demonized for questioning Bush!! THAT is the point!The media did not use her...SHE wanted answers!

                And the rah rah club called her anti-American for it.

                This is why I'm so angry LH.....you forget history, and act like Obama and the Dems are the devil incarnate.

                Forgetting completely what the world was like when you guys were in power.

  6. profile image0
    Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago

    Ok... Occupy is about protesting corporate financial control over the government and its elected officials as well as the fact that college and health insurance have basically become unaffordable, just because they can be, because it's making a few guys at the top a lot of money. Among other things that don't constitute a government and nation run by and for the people.

    The Tea Party is comprised of a bunch of technophobic rednecks with guns (sweeping generalisation ahoy, but it's an accurate one) who believe the government is attempting to control every aspect of their lives and want it gone completely: no government control over education, no social welfare programs, no taxes, etc. They're complete idiots. The streets they picket on with their lawn chairs and frequently misspelled signs are paid for with taxes, as are the signs and lights on them that keep traffic moving safely. If they want a place without even basic infrastructure, hospitals, schools and an organised central government, they should try living in Somalia and see how it goes.
    Also, the Koch Brothers and other megarich assholes created that group, taking advantage of the fearfulness and paranoia of such people over every aspect of the postmodern world they don't understand and successfully convincing them to vote against their own interests and do serious damage to the country.

    There is absolutely no common ground between the two and suggesting that there could be a united front of universal dissatisfaction with the current government and how it's run is a nice idea, but not when one group is too ignorant to realise that they're being puppet-mastered by the very people the other wants to take down.

    Also Occupy wants Obama to stand up to the corporations and act, and generally likes him; most of the Tea Party fervently hates him because he's black.

    1. lovemychris profile image82
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      +1

  7. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Except for the one with Iran...that's been gung-ho for a long time.

    Ohhhhhhhhh, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

  8. Josh Wolfson profile image60
    Josh Wolfsonposted 5 years ago

    What I'm suggesting is exactly the opposite of what you have all done (intentionally or not)...that we do not contain dissention, and/or all of the issues at hand to either movement. People do tend to groupthink...and that the major problem. But so is false dichotomies (i.e. a constructed US v. THEM mentality). There must be some individuals in the Tea Party movement (not its sponsors) who will defect to the Occupy movement, and those unsavory elements in the Occupy Movement who will fade away. Yes? Can we at least agree on the possibility of that?

    1. profile image0
      Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Anything is within the realm of possibility, but I can't imagine anyone drifting from one group to the other. I'm not sure what you're asking.

      1. Josh Wolfson profile image60
        Josh Wolfsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm asking for nothing less than pure revolution. And we can either sit in our armchairs and speak unkindly of each other or we can work toward common ground. I am asking for us to not throw up our hands in exasperation, but to get off our lazy butts and do something!

        1. profile image0
          Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's why this country is so great, though. We have such a comparatively high quality of life and most of us are so lazy and apathetic, there's no way we're going to have ourselves a good old fashioned pitchfork-and-Molotov-cocktail revolution. No one's going to take the NYSE Bastille-style. It's unthinkable. The police, the army, the media, the horrible consequences... Losing everything, going to prison. The people sitting at the top just keep screwing everyone else over more and more because they're getting away with it. Capitalism! Are we doing it right?

          1. Josh Wolfson profile image60
            Josh Wolfsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Revolutions aren't always won with violence, although the more primal side of me might enjoy the imagery of the NYSE being overtaken hostilely, I'm not really advocating that. There are other ways to end regimes. See Velvet Revolution.

  9. Greek One profile image77
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    I often have a Movement when I drink lots of Tea

  10. rlaframboise profile image61
    rlaframboiseposted 5 years ago

    There is a large segment of libertarianism in the Tea Party movement, in fact that was the initial group that pushed it. The problem is that the media on both sides ran agendra driven hit pieces on both the movements and focused on the outliers within the groups, effectively damaging the groups in main stream public opinion.

    There is much more than people would think in common between the movements. Namely a strong passionate dissapproval of  the government/ big business alliance,

    Capitalism is at the heart of what the tea party believes in however while Occupy definitely had an anti capitalist bend. Who knows what could happen if the right leader emerged to unify.

    1. profile image0
      Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with everything in the first paragraph and accept it as fact, but libertarians are just tomorrow's Republicans, and the only far left-leaning Occupiers who call themselves such are usually college kids who don't know what the hell they're talking about and just want weed to be legalised.

      I wish someone could unify, really. This nation is so sharply polarised right now, it's going to tear itself apart.

    2. Josh Wolfson profile image60
      Josh Wolfsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And what would this someone do, to unify, hypothetically?

  11. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago
    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The TPers and the "occupiers" are in different camps.

      1. lovemychris profile image82
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Like night and day!

    2. Josh Wolfson profile image60
      Josh Wolfsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I like the Justice Party page, lovemychris :-)

 
working