|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
How about if they suggest it with their signs and bringing guns?
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?
I have seen plenty of derogatory signs concerning Bush. You have not seen any?
So you feel that having an Officer present is a threat? After all most Officers carry guns.
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!
"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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Except for the one with Iran...that's been gung-ho for a long time.
Ohhhhhhhhh, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
And what would this someone do, to unify, hypothetically?
by S.P. Kelly4 years ago
What did the "Occupy" Movements accomplish?It was a major event in NY, spreading like fire all over the country. But did it achieve anything for it's supporters? If yes, what? If no, why not?
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 years ago
Do you think that the Occupy Wall Street and other occupy movements were totally constructive or were totally an utter waste of time and energy?
by nikki_m6 years ago
Does the Occupy Wall Street movement really share common ground with the Tea Party?
by Joan Whetzel5 years ago
Wwhat is the occupy movement all about?I can't figure out what the want or what they really hope to accomplish.
by yellowstone87506 years ago
Opinion on the Occupy Movement.
by Joanne Kathleen Farrell6 years ago
What do you think of the Occupy Movement?Occupy Albany, NY is totally a peace movement.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.