The OWS crowd owes the Tea Party an apology.

Why should OWS supporters apologize to the Tea Party?

The Tea Party is a fringe Republican group set up and financed by the billionaire Koch brothers.

The OWS is a spontaneous expression of outrage at the twisted mess fascism has made of our country.

The Tea Party is a bunch of spoiled brats who don't understand how to compromise, how to govern, or what personal responsibility really means.

From what I gather, they don't really want smaller government, they want freedom from regulations that prevent them from selling shoddy products, crapping on the environment, and paying slave wages.

If they truly believed in personal responsibility, the first thing, the very first thing they would have done in Congress would have been to hold those who caused this mess personally responsible for the damage they caused through fraud, bribery, and corruption.

If they understood and accepted personal responsibility, they would have accepted an end to tax breaks for the wealthy and made corporations behave responsibly in the economic marketplace. They would have been working on making BP restore the Gulf.

But that isn't what they did, now is it?

Tea Partiers want a free ride, the ability to use shared resources without paying for them.

Sorry, but the Tea Party owes the US an apology for being a bunch of selfish, childish brats who support corruption wholeheartedly so long as they get their free ride.

The Tea Party stands for personal responsibility?

Don't make me laugh.

Originally posted by apacheman
Why should OWS supporters apologize to the Tea Party?

The Tea Party is a fringe Republican group set up and financed by the billionaire Koch brothers.

The OWS is a spontaneous expression of outrage at the twisted mess fascism has made of our country.

The Tea Party is a bunch of spoiled brats who don't understand how to compromise, how to govern, or what personal responsibility really means.

From what I gather, they don't really want smaller government, they want freedom from regulations that prevent them from selling shoddy products, crapping on the environment, and paying slave wages.

If they truly believed in personal responsibility, the first thing, the very first thing they would have done in Congress would have been to hold those who caused this mess personally responsible for the damage they caused through fraud, bribery, and corruption.

If they understood and accepted personal responsibility, they would have accepted an end to tax breaks for the wealthy and made corporations behave responsibly in the economic marketplace. They would have been working on making BP restore the Gulf.

But that isn't what they did, now is it?

Tea Partiers want a free ride, the ability to use shared resources without paying for them.

Sorry, but the Tea Party owes the US an apology for being a bunch of selfish, childish brats who support corruption wholeheartedly so long as they get their free ride.

The Tea Party stands for personal responsibility?

Don't make me laugh.

edit on 19-10-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

Prove it. You say that about the tea party, but I can say the same thing about the OWS. There is visual evidence about the OWS and their involvement with the Obama campaign, socialists, racists, nazis, communists. All of what you just said was speculation. Not saying that I agree or disagree with your speculation, just saying it is not proven fact, it is your opinion. The apology refered to was for OWS to apologise to the tea party for spouting off, basically what you just said, while doing the same exact thing, which makes them hypocrites. Which, if you look at from an unbiased standpoint, they are being hypocrites.

Originally posted by apacheman
Why should OWS supporters apologize to the Tea Party?

The Tea Party is a fringe Republican group set up and financed by the billionaire Koch brothers.

The OWS is a spontaneous expression of outrage at the twisted mess fascism has made of our country.

The Tea Party is a bunch of spoiled brats who don't understand how to compromise, how to govern, or what personal responsibility really means.

From what I gather, they don't really want smaller government, they want freedom from regulations that prevent them from selling shoddy products, crapping on the environment, and paying slave wages.

If they truly believed in personal responsibility, the first thing, the very first thing they would have done in Congress would have been to hold those who caused this mess personally responsible for the damage they caused through fraud, bribery, and corruption.

If they understood and accepted personal responsibility, they would have accepted an end to tax breaks for the wealthy and made corporations behave responsibly in the economic marketplace. They would have been working on making BP restore the Gulf.

But that isn't what they did, now is it?

Tea Partiers want a free ride, the ability to use shared resources without paying for them.

Sorry, but the Tea Party owes the US an apology for being a bunch of selfish, childish brats who support corruption wholeheartedly so long as they get their free ride.

The Tea Party stands for personal responsibility?

Don't make me laugh.

edit on 19-10-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

What an odd way to apologise.
I'd replace Tea Party with OWS but you wouldn't appreciate the irony of your own post.

reply to post by SM2


Where have you been the past few months?

The proof is in the pudding: the behavior of the elected Tea Partiers.

How many Tea Party members in the House have introduced legislation to hold the banksters accountable for the obvious frauds they perpetrated?

Sorry, I just hear crickets.

see you misunderstand me, I am not saying that the tea party is innocent of your stated charges. They very well may be guilty. But to use the OWS defense, you can not hold the whole accountable for a few fringe elements. The OWS is the other side of the coin from the tea party, and just as guilty of the things they ripped the tea party for is what i am saying. Just because a couple of people stand up and say it isnt so, does not make it so. If you do not see that, then I am sorry, but it is there, if you look from a unbiased viewpoint.

reply to post by MentalGiant

Originally posted by MentalGiant
reply to post by SM2

 

I am not a communist or socialist...Sometimes people need a little help. I choose to replace "people" with "kids". Sometimes KIDS need a little help. For me, paying $200 out of my pocket for a kid to learn, say 6 months of "Kung Fu" at a friends school, builds up self esteem, confidence, goal building, self worth, and all sorts of good internal strengths, so he/she will grow up a fighter and not a quitter. Also they learn self worth...just cause a kids parents are POS, doesnt mean the kid needs to be. Im trying to break the cycle of dirt bags in my community PERSONALLY. (yes Im pretty selfish)

DOING THE RIGHT THING IS EASY FOR ANYONE TO DO.
[...]

I applaud your point of view on this

I don't get how something like this can be confused with Communism or Socialism... I would just call it human.
I share your Idea of a positive influence on society... helping people help themselves, especially the young ones!

reply to post by SM2


So far, the OWS has simply presented the clearly stated grievances as depicted by the cartoon, so I fail to see the connections you do.

The OWS is very obviously a true cross section of America: young, middle-aged, old, employed, unemployed, retired, every ethnicity and gender, they are rich, middle-class, and poor: they don't want a free ride, they just want a fair system and an even break.

That's pretty much opposite of the Tea Party, but certainly not the same coin.

Here's what it boils down to:

When I say it about your group it's true.

When you say it about my group it's false.

When this ows show comes to curtain call will the ideals hold up to reality? Probably not. As with any movement the people are the ones to bring them down. The high mindedness of some of the ows just comes off wrong. There will be repercussions but not in the way people think. Not from the banks nor the gov't but from some of the 99% that got trampled on by the protesters. Also I love this world wide movement cry I have been hearing. Really world wide? That sounds very propogandaish. A attempt to romaniticize the movement. Last I checked the US was different from all the other countries, ie we were just plain bad. The only reason I can see why DC hasn't been heavily targeted is that some one is out campaigning again.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SM2

 

I agree with you. But, I'd like to see the OWS refocus on DC, personally.

Since DC is controlled by Wall Street.

Why not cut out the middle man?

Hey Beez, don't you know?

Just as Libs can never be accused of racism, OWS can never be accused of hypocrisy!

Haven't you noticed yet?

well i think that is pretty obvious. As mentioned above...someone is out campaigning again, and as much as some of the people believe with all their heart that this movement is not political and is for everyone..well, the proof is in the pudding. All the presidential shout outs, support by democrat politicians, support of democrat campaigns, well kinda is self evident aint it? If it truly is not about them at the core...then why hasnt that support and contributions been spurned officially?

I see people talking about "the clear message" of OWS. The only clear message I have seen are the dozens of progressive, socialist and liberal groups and politicians ranting about this or that and claiming to represent the 99%...well if the 1% is the uber rich, then i fall into the 99% and they do not represent me at all. As far as the hand out thing. I guess we will h ave to agree to disagree. As I see it, and there are hundreds, maybe thousands at these protests that want free this or that because they fell they deserve it. That my friend is a hand out. Any entitlement is a hand out. So, if they do not want a hand out, why are they protesting for more hand outs? Or maybe the portion of the group that wants to confiscate private property and businesses and nationalize them (that would be the socialists, and yes they are there too).

i can get on board with going after the banks to make them follow reasonable regulations and stop their theft. i can agree the fed needs to be done away with. However, that is all I have seen from the OWS that is something I can agree on.

So it is ok that their are people at the OWS that are openly racist, openly violent because those people do not represent the whole? Ok, I cn agree with you there, that is true. It wasnt that long ago that the people that are now saying this are the same ones calling the tea party racist and violent, but did not accept the same reasoning. You can not have your cake and eat it too ya know.

reply to post by Jezus



You know what I am trying to understand is why OWS wants to keep socialism for the people while saying socialism for corporations is bad? Only certain kinds of socialism are accepted? Would you mind explaining that to me?

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SM2

 

I agree with you. But, I'd like to see the OWS refocus on DC, personally.

Since DC is controlled by Wall Street.

Why not cut out the middle man?

Because cutting out the middle man leaves the head of the hydra intact....

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by SM2

 

Where have you been the past few months?

The proof is in the pudding: the behavior of the elected Tea Partiers.

How many Tea Party members in the House have introduced legislation to hold the banksters accountable for the obvious frauds they perpetrated?

Sorry, I just hear crickets.

They have been mostly working on deficit concerns really, as we just went through all that crisis recently. Cutting spending has always been a big focus of the Tea Party. I was never for the baillouts, not for the banks or Wall Street or auto or any of them. Remember Lehman got baillouts, and so did AIG, and someone posted a vid suggesting that some of the OWS protesters are actually family members of AIG execs and other financial 1 % ers. Being that Soros Tides funded the original organizers, it should follow that the base of the protest is really the banksters and financial giants....

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SM2

 

I agree with you. But, I'd like to see the OWS refocus on DC, personally.

Since DC is controlled by Wall Street.

Why not cut out the middle man?

Because cutting out the middle man leaves the head of the hydra intact....

...

That's the point...they are going after the "head", Wall Street

I think you may have a point beezer. There is a double standard when it comes to what is acceptable fact when it's "my group vs. your group".

I don't think I have ever made such claims about the TP, other than they have been co-opted by the Republicans and birthers. If I am wrong, I apologize.

The OWS people have my support until such time as they are co-opted by the socialist/communist Nazi's or they support one political party over the other. I supported the TP movement until they were overtaken by the fringe fascists within the Republican party, and then they supported one party over the other.

That's the big difference IMO. OWS still remains independent and non-partisan. Unfortunately the TP cannot say that.

reply to post by beezzer

Just a quick thought here, Beezzer. The Tea Party CANNOT bring the change it wants, alone. The OWS movement CANNOT bring the change IT wants, alone. Either side needs the sympathy if not support of a fair % of the other since the two sides of our nation's political spectrum seem to occupy around 49% each. Now we can all bicker and shout while the Titanic sinks beneath us and takes us all down together, or we can cooperate and give mutual support to achieve some serious change. Those two movements TOGETHER would scare politicians right to the top of their pointy little heads and could pretty much dictate terms by sheer people power alone once it was realized this wasn't a joke or some prank....they'd REALLY merged efforts.

There will be plenty of time once the first major barriers are crossed toward peaceful but MAJOR change to sort out ideology. Perhaps by then, individuals will have had time to learn the other side really isn't Satan incarnate after all and finding that middle ground won't be the battle it would be today. We can sure hope...because right now, we're all our own worst enemy as that 1% keeps laughing hysterically at both of us.

Big day tomorrow.

The OWS wants to go global and take over the world.

Too bad the tea party was only concerned about america.

Damn those evil capitalist bastards, only caring for themselves and their families.

reply to post by beezzer


Huh. How did I miss this one before?

Short answer: no.

Long answer? From day one, the "tea party" was nothing but a campaign effort to elect politicians seeking to add more stab wounds to my nation. I don't care if you were "into it before it was cool," and screaming for Ron Paul, or if you "joined hte bandwagon" and screamed for Sarah Palin. The policies you were supporting were the same, regardless of whose face was on your T-shirt.

"Screw the poor, liberate business from any legal culpability, privatize everything, give myself a tax break, then retire."

People like Beezzer claim the tea party was "co-opted" or "hijacked" by the Republican party and its attendant sychophantic press, such as FOX news. There is perhaps a grain of validity to this, but there's a rub - they were co-opted easily because they let it happen, because there was absolutely no fundamental difference between these organizations. That is to say the tea party was easily and smoothly co-opted by the Republican party because they already agreed on everything. it wasn't so much getting co-opted as finding bigger financers for the same BS.

Whatever hte wheedling excuse, the facts are in - the few accomplishments made by the tea party actually made life in this nation worse. Their politicians were bigger sellouts. Their agendas curbed more rights, and their rhtoric was self-destructive, with its demands to punish the poor for the betterment of the rich.

So no, I'm not going to apologize to any teabagger. They can get bent.