• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More than 700 arrested in Wall Street protest

Boo Radley said:
Meaning you can't or won't answer him?
Click to expand...

No, meaning that he should re read what he commented on for comprehension...I thought that was clearly typed....

J, you over simplify and are actually using a minority to paint the whole both in using this article and how you paint those who oppose the Tea Party. Both sides have extremeists. Tea party memebers are more extremeist of the republican party, not that 100% of them are republican mine you. But those who join the tea party are LARGELY more extreme. Code pink is, for example, more extreme than you every day democrat or even the everyday liberal. Such groups tend to go too far. It is not partisan or sterotyping to say that.
Click to expand...

I see, so if we as conservatives don't agree with radical agenda's that have taken over, and co-opted the liberal left in government today, then we are the extremists....Nice how you do that so effortlessly.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No, meaning that he should re read what he commented on for comprehension...I thought that was clearly typed....
Click to expand...

As nothing he said showed he lacked comprehension, that statement made no sense, hence, one has to question what you were really doing.

I see, so if we as conservatives don't agree with radical agenda's that have taken over, and co-opted the liberal left in government today, then we are the extremists....Nice how you do that so effortlessly.

j-mac
Click to expand...

More, if you see radical everywhere, you are the radical.

But that really doesn't address what I said. have you read for cpmphrehension yet? ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
As nothing he said showed he lacked comprehension, that statement made no sense, hence, one has to question what you were really doing.



More, if you see radical everywhere, you are the radical.

But that really doesn't address what I said. have you read for cpmphrehension yet? ;)
Click to expand...

Here we go...Joe, when you start out disingenuous in posting, and have obviously lost what ever argument you were attempting within the second post to me, then sorry dude you are no longer worth the comment...Thanks for playin' though. Better luck next time.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I know, it was Bill Kristol running through the crowd, shouting 'we're not gonna take it....'

:roll:

j-mac
Click to expand...

You know, this is purely anecdotal, but I ran with the hippy, anti war crowd for a while.

I have questioned anarchist protesters about incidents like the vandalism at that WTO protest, as one protester to another in a friendly environment and been told by more than one on more than one occasion that nobody knew the kids who started the vandalism.

These kids are very tribal, they all know each other, they participate in radical actions, but didn't disavow what those kids did, as they did setting fire to developments for instance, but denied that those responsible were part of the group at all.

Agents provocateur is a genuine, historic tactic. It is disingenuous to pretend there's no sucha thing. Especially considering from a purely cost/benefit perspective.
 
j-mac said:
So because some anti capitalist, radical, buffoon says it, and you agree with that tripe that Street writes, then it must be true eh?
Click to expand...

Street's book is highly sourced. Paul even went to local Tea Party group meetings to see what it was about and, like Chomsky, had at that time false impressions that there was any sort of grassroots base to it.

Now, unless you can present some evidence which shows this grassroots nature - something nobody has ever been able to present - then go for it. But the fact that you have to whine about Paul's politics instead of addressing what we're talking about exposes the fact that you are wrong and just don't want to admit it.

what if...? said:
Can you give me a quick breakdown of what the author of the book posits?
Click to expand...

"The Tea Party portrayed in this book is not a social movement, but rather a loose conglomeration of partisan interest groups set on returning the Republican Party to power. Despite protestations to the contrary, the Tea Party is Astroturf and partisan Republican to the core. We find little to no evidence that it is a manifestation of local populism. It is not an "uprising" against a corrupt political system or against the established social order. Rather, it is a reactionary, top-down manifestation of that system, dressed up and sold as an outsider rebellion set on changing the rules in Washington. Far from being antiestablishment, the Tea Party is, we feel, a classic, right-wing, and fundamentally Republican epitomy of what the formerly left policial commentator Christopher Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics": "the manipulation of populism by elitism" (emphasis added)..."
Street, Paul and Dimaggio, Anthony. Crashing the Tea Party. p.10
 
Last edited:
Isn't civil nonviolent disobedience the tried and true method for effecting political change? I mean, agree or disagree with the protesters and their demands, but from a distance it would appear to be an effective demonstration. Were some of the protesters instigating unlawful behavior? Undoubtedly. Was the police response too aggresive? Perhaps - but predictable nonetheless.
 
This is spontaneous populism
alg_brooklyn-bridge-crowd.jpg


This is not
fox-20090408-opposition2.jpg
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Street's book is highly sourced. Paul even went to local Tea Party group meetings to see what it was about and, like Chomsky, had at that time false impressions that there was any sort of grassroots base to it.

Now, unless you can present some evidence which shows this grassroots nature - something nobody has ever been able to present - then go for it. But the fact that you have to whine about Paul's politics instead of addressing what we're talking about exposes the fact that you are wrong and just don't want to admit it.
Click to expand...

No see, unlike you whom have probably never attended an actual Tea Party event, instead taking the word of dumbasses like Chomsky, or Street, who have their own agenda, I have been, and see nothing of the sort that you describe.

The thing that get's you people that are against the Tea Party is that you have no real way to discredit it because of its un organized nature and true grassroots beginnings, just scares the hell out of real astroturf nuts like those created, and manipulated by the leftist thugs that want to destroy this country in favor of failed social constructs like communism, and socialism....Remember, your tactics are exposed now, we see you.

j-mac
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Street's book is highly sourced. Paul even went to local Tea Party group meetings to see what it was about and, like Chomsky, had at that time false impressions that there was any sort of grassroots base to it.

Now, unless you can present some evidence which shows this grassroots nature - something nobody has ever been able to present - then go for it. But the fact that you have to whine about Paul's politics instead of addressing what we're talking about exposes the fact that you are wrong and just don't want to admit it.



"The Tea Party portrayed in this book is not a social movement, but rather a loose conglomeration of partisan interest groups set on returning the Republican Party to power. Despite protestations to the contrary, the Tea Party is Astroturf and partisan Republican to the core. We find little to no evidence that it is a manifestation of local populism. It is not an "uprising" against a corrupt political system or against the established social order. Rather, it is a reactionary, top-down manifestation of that system, dressed up and sold as an outsider rebellion set on changing the rules in Washington. Far from being antiestablishment, the Tea Party is, we feel, a classic, right-wing, and fundamentally Republican epitomy of what the formerly left policial commentator Christopher Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics": "the manipulation of populism by elitism" (emphasis added)..."
Street, Paul and Dimaggio, Anthony. Crashing the Tea Party. p.10
Click to expand...

I didn't whine about anybodys politics, I think you have me mixed up or misunderstood.

What you quoted isn't that far from my purely observational assessment.

There are artificial aspects, but there is an element of the group at present NOT behaving in a manner those who did the original astroturfing intended.

Hence my "Kochensteins Monster" reference.

My claims as to a prior existence are based on info posted here, and the fact that existing groups were co-opted, which your quote says as well.

We're on the same side here. I actually think I'm FARTHER on your side than you are and we're just failing to communicate.
 
nijato said:
Isn't civil nonviolent disobedience the tried and true method for effecting political change? I mean, agree or disagree with the protesters and their demands, but from a distance it would appear to be an effective demonstration. Were some of the protesters instigating unlawful behavior? Undoubtedly. Was the police response too aggresive? Perhaps - but predictable nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I saw no billy clubs, no one injured, just those refusing to follow the orders of the Police being arrested after several warnings, and issued a summons to appear in court...Wow, that is harsh.....:roll:

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No see, unlike you whom have probably never attended an actual Tea Party event, instead taking the word of dumbasses like Chomsky, or Street, who have their own agenda, I have been, and see nothing of the sort that you describe.
Click to expand...

I've been to a few Tea Party events, including attending some local meetings. They're extremely top-down and hierarchical.

The thing that get's you people that are against the Tea Party is that you have no real way to discredit it because of its un organized nature and true grassroots beginnings
Click to expand...

This statement has already been discredited.

what if...? said:
I didn't whine about anybodys politics, I think you have me mixed up or misunderstood.
Click to expand...

I was quoting j-mac there.

My claims as to a prior existence are based on info posted here, and the fact that existing groups were co-opted, which your quote says as well.

We're on the same side here. I actually think I'm FARTHER on your side than you are and we're just failing to communicate.
Click to expand...

Right wing groups existed. The Tea Party did not; it was manufactured from the top down by corporate interests and the media (including the liberal media - NYT and MSNBC played a huge role in its creation), and perhaps absorbed other pre-existing groups that were, however, not the Tea Party. But there was never any grassroots base to it.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
I've been to a few Tea Party events, including attending some local meetings. They're extremely top-down and hierarchical.



This statement has already been discredited.



I was quoting j-mac there.



Right wing groups existed. The Tea Party did not; it was manufactured from the top down by corporate interests and the media (including the liberal media - NYT and MSNBC played a huge role in its creation), and perhaps absorbed other pre-existing groups that were, however, not the Tea Party. But there was never any grassroots base to it.
Click to expand...

And the only proof you have is other radical leftists saying such...Yeah, now there is real proof.....pfft....You're discredited.

j-mac
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Right wing groups existed. The Tea Party did not; it was manufactured from the top down by corporate interests and the media (including the liberal media - NYT and MSNBC played a huge role in its creation), and perhaps absorbed other pre-existing groups that were, however, not the Tea Party. But there was never any grassroots base to it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it started that way. I think the Tea Party did start as an honest, grass roots campaign against large government. However, I think it was very quickly captured by the body politic and now is nothing more than a propaganda machine.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I've been to a few Tea Party events, including attending some local meetings. They're extremely top-down and hierarchical.



This statement has already been discredited.



I was quoting j-mac there.



Right wing groups existed. The Tea Party did not; it was manufactured from the top down by corporate interests and the media (including the liberal media - NYT and MSNBC played a huge role in its creation), and perhaps absorbed other pre-existing groups that were, however, not the Tea Party. But there was never any grassroots base to it.
Click to expand...

OK.

There's enough evidence of artificiality for this to be the case.

Do you see the phenomenon I'm referring to where the tea party is causing problems for the very entities resposible for their existence?

I've NEVER seen a significant divide in the GOP before.

I think the existence od the tea party could COST the Republicans the next election.

By alienating the independents elections swing on.
 
j-mac said:
Here we go...Joe, when you start out disingenuous in posting, and have obviously lost what ever argument you were attempting within the second post to me, then sorry dude you are no longer worth the comment...Thanks for playin' though. Better luck next time.

j-mac
Click to expand...

J, you're just hiding again. You did not address what I said, you leaped all over the place, you see radicals everywhere. I'm sorry j, but the problem here is you, not me.
 
j-mac said:
I used to look at crap like this and use it as validation that my theory of, what ever libs accuse conservatives of is in fact what they do. Remember, how libs in the media, and in here tried, and continue to try and paint Tea Partiers as "extreme", "Violent", or worse?

Well, I don't recall any stories of 700 Tea Partiers being arrested...We'd better be prepared, these leftists, and libs, could very well bring violence when Barry is booted from the WH, after Obama's is done stoking the division campaign he is starting now.


j-mac
Click to expand...
Why is it assumed that these liberals (or, more relevantly, actually violent liberals) are the same ones who scolded conservatives for their use of dangerous rhetoric? By that logic, I can discredit your entire post with reference to the (largely conservative) KKK, which has undoubtedly committed vastly more violent atrocities than occupying the Brooklyn Bridge.

This is the problem with demonizing people by broad generalization. Both sides do it way too much.
 
Ikari said:
I don't think it started that way. I think the Tea Party did start as an honest, grass roots campaign against large government. However, I think it was very quickly captured by the body politic and now is nothing more than a propaganda machine.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you could name the grass roots organizations involved in this Tea Party campaign that existed prior to its corporate, hierarchical control.

what if...? said:
Do you see the phenomenon I'm referring to where the tea party is causing problems for the very entities resposible for their existence?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. In order to maintain a populist movement (pseudo or otherwise) the movement has to be broad. The Tea Party movement mobilized the broad right-wing, which included crazies that are now sort of spoiling the whole bunch.

I think the existence od the tea party could COST the Republicans the next election.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, really. I mean the real right-wingers are psycho, but they hate the democrats way more than a Mitt Romney.
 
So when Protesters march in the streets that is a crime?
Man the civil rights movement and their protests must of caused a bunch of crimes i tell ya...
 
j-mac said:
I saw no billy clubs, no one injured, just those refusing to follow the orders of the Police being arrested after several warnings, and issued a summons to appear in court...Wow, that is harsh.....:roll:

j-mac
Click to expand...

Pepper spray... that's what I'm talking about. And note that I didn't have some knee-jerk reaction. Maybe the police were justified, maybe not. If you block the Brooklyn Bridge, you should do so with the full expectation of a facefull of pepper spray.

And some unsolicited advice: if your intention is to have people consider what you have to say seriously, you would do well to lose the sarcastic condescending tone and insults. If your intention is to be widely reviled, carry on.
 
BBC News - George Soros' sympathy for Wall Street protesters
Billionaire investor George Soros says he can sympathise with the ongoing protests on Wall Street, which have spread to other US cities.

He said he understood the anger at the use of taxpayers' cash to prop up stricken banks, allowing them to earn huge profits.

A large rally is planned for Wednesday in New York City, with backing from union groups.

More than 700 protesters were arrested on Saturday on Brooklyn Bridge.

The demonstrations - based at Zuccotti Park, near Wall Street and the Federal Reserve - are now entering their third week.

Answering questions during a news conference at UN headquarters on Monday, Mr Soros said: "The decision not to inject capital into the banks, but to effectively relieve them of their bad assets and then allow them to earn their way out of a hole leaves the banks bumper profits and then allows them to pay bumper bonuses."
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
This is a vile comment, and what it says about you is glaring.
Click to expand...

What because I hate the fringe, mostly white, male, racist, xenophobic right? Yes, it does say a lot about me, and I'm proud of it.

Soros said:
Answering questions during a news conference at UN headquarters on Monday, Mr Soros said: "The decision not to inject capital into the banks, but to effectively relieve them of their bad assets and then allow them to earn their way out of a hole leaves the banks bumper profits and then allows them to pay bumper bonuses."
Click to expand...

Except this occupation goes much further then that, for the most part identifying the problems as systemic. Soros and his liberal corporate buddies are of course going to try to coopt this movement and corral it into a narrower course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom