• 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!

Owners of Zuccotti Park Say Conditions Unsanitary From Wall Street Protests

Fox News can actually create mass delusions. You refuse to believe the Tea Party is corporate funded.

What does FOX News have to do with this story? Nothing, that's a swing and a miss.

Fun Fact - The Tea Party is a movement and it isn't funded by corporations. That's another swing and a miss.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?
 
Fun Fact - The Tea Party is a movement and it isn't funded by corporations. That's another swing and a miss.

The Tea Party was funded by Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and the Tea Party Express. The Koch Brothers gave massive contributions to those organizations once the Tea Party began to take form and unabashedly admit that they are trying to channel the populist uprising toward procorporate policies. The fact that you are denying this shows that you are uninformed. Nobody in the Tea Party movement is denying that it is corporately funded, because being corporately funded is not against the tenets of the Tea Party.

If the idea that the Tea Party is corporately funded is really an indefensible position for you, then you might want to reconsider why you are in the Tea Party. Also, if the millions of dollars that financed the Tea Party and the Tea Party candidates in the midterm elections did not come from corporations, where the heck do you think they came from? Without providing any rational for this, you come out sounding like you are in denial or you are being deliberately factious.
 
Last edited:
The Tea Party was funded by Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and the Tea Party Express. The Koch Brothers gave massive contributions to those organizations once the Tea Party began to take form and unabashedly admit that they are trying to channel the populist uprising toward procorporate policies. The fact that you are denying this shows that you are uninformed. Nobody in the Tea Party movement is denying that it is corporately funded, because being corporately funded is not against the tenets of the Tea Party.

If the idea that the Tea Party is corporately funded is really an indefensible position for you, then you might want to reconsider why you are in the Tea Party. Also, if the millions of dollars that financed the Tea Party and the Tea Party candidates in the midterm elections did not come from corporations, where the heck do you think they came from? Without providing any rational for this, you come out sounding like you are in denial or you are being deliberately factious.

Are there Tea Party groups like the Tea Party Express and Tea Party Patriots who are funded by corporations? Of course there are, but the movement is not funded by anything other than average every day people who support the goal of the movement itself. Maybe you could do some research on the beginnings of the Tea Party before spouting off half-truths and innuendo? Even wikipedia pretty much shoots down your theory - Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Yesterday was John Lennon's birthday and I bet if he were still alive? He would be protesting too:)
 
What does FOX News have to do with this story? Nothing, that's a swing and a miss.

Fun Fact - The Tea Party is a movement and it isn't funded by corporations. That's another swing and a miss.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

That is total B.S. This reminds me of how everyone on the TeaParty Train in threads were defending their hate signs and saying it was just a small few doing those things and blah, blah, blah. Funny how it is fine for the TeaParty to do anything but not these folks. Pot and kettle and all that mess.
 
That is total B.S. This reminds me of how everyone on the TeaParty Train in threads were defending their hate signs and saying it was just a small few doing those things and blah, blah, blah. Funny how it is fine for the TeaParty to do anything but not these folks. Pot and kettle and all that mess.

When the Tea Party protesters are being arrested en masse like these folks, get back to me. Until then, you're spinning everything as usual and ignoring the facts.
 
When the Tea Party protesters are being arrested en masse like these folks, get back to me. Until then, you're spinning everything as usual and ignoring the facts.

And you are just embracing authoritarianism and jumping to conclusions that the arrests are warranted long before any investigation or trial and whatnot. All from a guy who has an avatar that says "Don't tread on me". The irony is fantastic.
 
And you are just embracing authoritarianism and jumping to conclusions that the arrests are warranted long before any investigation or trial and whatnot. All from a guy who has an avatar that says "Don't tread on me". The irony is fantastic.

Have you seen the videos? If so, you couldn't be more dishonest...
 
Have you seen the videos? If so, you couldn't be more dishonest...

Yes. And without the right-wing spin on it too. Like how the police set up nets to cordon off advancing protesters who abided then pepper sprayed them. How dare they put their faces in the way of that innocent police spray.
 
Yes. And without the right-wing spin on it too. Like how the police set up nets to cordon off advancing protesters who abided then pepper sprayed them. How dare they put their faces in the way of that innocent police spray.

I'm not justifying every act by the police, nor am I justifying that every arrest was warranted, but do you see this stuff at Tea Party protests or do you see this stuff at "I hate America" protests like this one?
 
Are there Tea Party groups like the Tea Party Express and Tea Party Patriots who are funded by corporations? Of course there are, but the movement is not funded by anything other than average every day people who support the goal of the movement itself. Maybe you could do some research on the beginnings of the Tea Party before spouting off half-truths and innuendo? Even wikipedia pretty much shoots down your theory - Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you should look into a "grassroots" movement called "Citizens for a Sound Economy" that existed from 1984 to 1993. I would say that it is easily the predecessor to the modern Tea Party movement. I recognize that you feel obligated to the protect the image of the Tea Party movement as some sort group of "average every day people" but that is a lie. You can tell it to yourself and other people all you want, but it doesn't change the reality. The Tea Party is funded by the Koch brothers and it exists for the sole purpose of serving the interests of the Koch Brothers; namely attacking environmental regulation, reducing corporate taxation, and eliminating social services. You are nothing but a tool used by a couple oil barons. Sorry if that doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but its the truth.

Now why can't ya be a man about it and just admit that the tenets of the Tea Party do not conflict with being a corporately funded movement?
 
Last edited:
I'm not justifying every act by the police, nor am I justifying that every arrest was warranted, but do you see this stuff at Tea Party protests or do you see this stuff at "I hate America" protests like this one?

Tea party is conservatives. modern conservatives love authority not to mention that what threat does a police officer see in a 70+ year old riding a rascal scooter vs the youth? I'll concede that this movement is much younger and youth has their silliness about pushing boundaries but I've yet to see mass arrests that made any sense other than "you didn't have a permit to declare a free speech zone for you to stand in." I kind of dismiss those kinds of arrests as too stupid to hold against someone.
 
Maybe you should look into a "grassroots" movement called "Citizens for a Sound Economy" that existed from 1984 to 1993. I would say that it is easily the predecessor to the modern Tea Party movement. I recognize that you feel obligated to the protect the image of the Tea Party movement as some sort group of "average every day people" but that is a lie. You can tell it to yourself and other people all you want, but it doesn't change the reality. The Tea Party is funded by the Koch brothers and it exists for the sole purpose of serving the interests of the Koch Brothers; namely attacking environmental regulation, reducing corporate taxation, and eliminating social services. You are nothing but a tool used by a oil barons. Sorry if that doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but its the truth.

Now why can't ya be a man about it and just admit that the tenets of the Tea Party do not conflict with being a corporately funded movement?

I don't think you and the truth are very close friends.
 
I don't think you and the truth are very close friends.

And you base this on your completely unsubstantiated and ill informed assumptions I presume?

I'll bet you don't know crap about the Koch brothers or how they have ran their business the last 4 decades. In fact, I will bet your words are simply an emotional reaction because you are too lazy to actually look into my arguments.
 
I entirely agree, and in my opinion, and I assume yours, they need to figure out some way to organize themselves better so people know what the hell they are trying to get at. Starting with some clear leadership, someone who can "speak for" the group, some clear grievances that they all or mostly agree on, and some solutions to go along with. I know that the whole "This is grassroots! By the People for the People! We all are hear for one thing!" sounds real nice but in reality its entirely impractical and ultimately going to be self defeating because the entire purpose of this event is to get a message across, but without a clear target for that message as well as a clear message, there's really no value in gathering. So really my opinion of the whole Occupy Wall Street is pretty dismissive, because I don't know why the hell they are there.

One thing the Tea Party knew about itself, I imagine it was partly due to many Republicans who joined up, was to how to organize, and present a fairly consistent message with fairly consistent leaders.

They need to remain as they are, leaderless, as there may very well be people trying to co-opt the OWS movement (Could Occupy Wall Street be infiltrated by political groups? - YouTube) (Against the Institution: A Warning for ‘Occupy Wall Street’ « Andrew Gavin Marshall). If that were to occur, you'd see the entire movement join up with the traditional machinations of the system (mainly the Democratic Party) and there would be no radical change, rather there would only be slight reforms to the system that didn't get at the heart of the problems.
 
They need to remain as they are, leaderless, as there may very well be people trying to co-opt the OWS movement (Could Occupy Wall Street be infiltrated by political groups? - YouTube) (Against the Institution: A Warning for ‘Occupy Wall Street’ « Andrew Gavin Marshall). If that were to occur, you'd see the entire movement join up with the traditional machinations of the system (mainly the Democratic Party) and there would be no radical change, rather there would only be slight reforms to the system that didn't get at the heart of the problems.

Or, you will see it become politically irrelevant because it would have few mechanisms for being able to work within the machinery and come to solid policy recommendations. The Tea Party had to learn that lesson right away. Many libertarians complained about the Tea Party being co-opted by the more well-known populist Republicans who share some, but little of their ideology. It turned out to be the best thing for them. Make solid connections with the Democratic party, and you have a shot to impact policy. Don't, and you are merely complaining and refusing to work with the system to achieve anything you desire.

Perhaps because it is a leaderless faction, it will be co-opted anyway. Again, the Tea Party.
 
Last edited:
I'm not justifying every act by the police, nor am I justifying that every arrest was warranted, but do you see this stuff at Tea Party protests or do you see this stuff at "I hate America" protests like this one?
In my opinion, this is less a reflection of the people and more indicative of their ideology base. While both Tea Party and OWS claim diversity, what you see is the Tea Party membership is a majority of middle aged and older members of society who have a traditional liberal (read: centrist) to Conservative viewpoint. The OWS crowd in contrast is much younger, more urban and are liberal - progressive-socialist in viewpoint. Inherent in a traditionalist / Conservative view point is a more nationalistic view, in the Progressive-Socialist there is little national pride and they have no problem becoming physically violent for their cause, which is why hundreds (or maybe it's now over a thousand) have been arrested. It's probably seen as a way to show solidarity and unity to "fight the power" which they struggle against.

The two ideologies are very different in the way they address wanting a change, how they go about it, how they act, and what they deem effective. I think historically we've seen the more liberal / progressive strain of protests to be more physically violent, to have more arrests, and just more "in your face". The Conservative version (of which there isn't as much history) is less confrontational with less arrests, and more focus on making changes from within the system, than attacking it from outside. Both groups use very different methods, tactics, etc...
 
Maybe you should look into a "grassroots" movement called "Citizens for a Sound Economy" that existed from 1984 to 1993. I would say that it is easily the predecessor to the modern Tea Party movement. I recognize that you feel obligated to the protect the image of the Tea Party movement as some sort group of "average every day people" but that is a lie. You can tell it to yourself and other people all you want, but it doesn't change the reality. The Tea Party is funded by the Koch brothers and it exists for the sole purpose of serving the interests of the Koch Brothers; namely attacking environmental regulation, reducing corporate taxation, and eliminating social services. You are nothing but a tool used by a couple oil barons. Sorry if that doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but its the truth.

Now why can't ya be a man about it and just admit that the tenets of the Tea Party do not conflict with being a corporately funded movement?

You may attribute lots of things to the Tea Party which are negative as it fits your view - or doesn't. However, the Tea Party movement - the modern one, started with Ron Paul in 2007. I've already linked this in other threads but you simply need to go to Youtube and type in the search "Ron Paul Tea Party 2007". It has obviously changed and splintered from Ron Paul's specific message since then and there are now 800 or so groups using the title Tea Party - not all of which share similar views, wants, needs or focus. You're BS about the Koch brothers means you've bought into the liberal / progressive diatribe undercutting a grass roots group who's focus is on smaller government and fiscal conservative spending - YOU sir, are an embarrassment to call yourself a Libertarian on those grounds. Whether or not the Tea Party's views do or do not conflict with corporate funded movement is irrelevant and is a red herring.

Accusations of Soros injected money, links to Adbusters and Van Jones the former White House cabinet member... all not good from an accusation perspective. I'm hoping more facts come out that either verify or categorically deny such things. However, the anti-semetic and Marxist elements along with the violence and arrests do the OWS no benefit. If they want to be taken seriously, they have to focus their message to something resembling coherence.
 
The two ideologies are very different in the way they address wanting a change, how they go about it, how they act, and what they deem effective. I think historically we've seen the more liberal / progressive strain of protests to be more physically violent, to have more arrests, and just more "in your face". The Conservative version (of which there isn't as much history) is less confrontational with less arrests, and more focus on making changes from within the system, than attacking it from outside. Both groups use very different methods, tactics, etc...

I disagree....I think you had it right earlier in your post where you pointed out demographic differences. The people in the Wall Street protests are younger and the Tea Parties average age is like 55. There is nothing inherently more violent in leftists movement than reactionary movements on the right.
 
I disagree....I think you had it right earlier in your post where you pointed out demographic differences. The people in the Wall Street protests are younger and the Tea Parties average age is like 55. There is nothing inherently more violent in leftists movement than reactionary movements on the right.

I think if you compare the arrests between the two groups, you'd find facts do not support your assertion.
 
I think if you compare the arrests between the two groups, you'd find facts do not support your assertion.

the OWS is actually the reactionary movement.
 
Labor unions, communists, “community organizers,” socialists, and anti-capitalist agitators have all joined together to “Occupy Wall Street” and protest against “greed,” corporations, and bankers. But despite efforts to portray the movement as “leaderless” or “grassroots,” it is becoming obvious that there is much more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye.

Billionaire financier George Soros’ fingerprints, for example, have been all over the anti-Wall Street campaign from the very beginning. And this week, the infamous hedge-fund boss publicly announced his sympathy for the protesters and their complaints about bailouts — despite the fact that he lobbied for even greater unconstitutional handouts to bankers in 2009.

“Actually I can understand their sentiment, frankly,” he told reporters while announcing a large donation to the United Nations. “I can sympathize with their grievances.”

But Soros’ support for the protesters goes far beyond his tepid public statements. In fact, the original call to “Occupy Wall Street” came from the magazine AdBusters, an “anti-consumerist” publication financed by, among other sources, the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.

Big Soros Money Linked to

Only the working class—mobilized in a mass socialist movement—has the power to put an end to social inequality and reorganize economic life to meet the needs of the majority of society, rather than further enrich the top one percent.

Capitalism has failed. The burning need now is to prepare the revolutionary struggle of the American and international working class for socialism. We urge all those who want to fight Wall Street to join and build the Socialist Equality Party.

Occupy Wall Street and the Democratic Party

The Working Families Party, the recently formed Rockland Socialist Club, the local chapter of MoveOn.org and the International Socialist Organization all backed Sunday's demonstration.

Nyack protesters, as Occupy Wall Street, demand fairness | The Journal News | LoHud.com | LoHud.com



Anyone who has eyes, anyone who has ears to hear, anyone who in sentient enough to add two and two, sees this OWS for what it is. remember the axiom, whatever the left accuses of the Tea Party is exactly what this is.

This unrest was planned, and put into place by not only Socialist movements across the country, but implemented and called for by no less than Obama, and Van Jones themselves.


j-mac
 
I think if you compare the arrests between the two groups, you'd find facts do not support your assertion.

Being arrested does not mean being violent. You can be arrested for not having a permit to protest. You can be arrested for walking on the road. It seems like you're making an assumption that all arrests were violent in nature.

I was also speaking of reactionary movements compared to radical movements. In your statement basically trying to tar the left you threw in Marxists revolutionaries and every brand of radical movement. The opposite of radical movements is reactionary and they are just as violent.
 
Back
Top Bottom