On the surface, the differences between the Occupy movement and the TEA party movement are quite apparent. The OWS movement trashes parks and streets, commits violent acts against businesses, and all manner of degenerate behaviours. The TEA party movements, on the other hand, generally hold their protests with minimal litter, no known acts of vandalism(that I know of), are generally respectful of communities’ laws regarding assembling and protestation, including to those in the law enforcement community representing those communities. But describing the visual and audible differences is not my point, although those differences certainly play into it. That is, the biggest difference between the two movements has to do with freedom and liberty.
I believe that the two differing groups have vastly different ideas on how freedom and liberty are achieved, and, in essence, who has the responsibility for making a person’s freedom and liberty a reality.
The OWS movement in their own words;
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.
That is the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City.
Seems innocuous, doesn’t it? Until, of course, you get to their “solutions” to combat what they see as the problem.
Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.
These “demands” all have one thing in common. That is, the removal of responsibility to individuals over their own lives. Even the requests for spending money on “ecological restoration” removes their own responsibility over the environment they can affect, dumping it on someone else. To put it quite simply, in order to attain what the OWS movement sees as freedom and liberty, their demands only “liberate” themselves from personal responsibility.
Contrast this with the TEA party movement;
Core Principles of the Gateway Grassroots Initiative:
1. Free Market Economics. A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. As government can do nothing but distort the free expression of personal and economic liberty, we therefore support limited government.
2. Constitutionally Limited Government. We, members of the Gateway Grassroots Initative, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land. We believe it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth and stand in support of that intent, as enumerated in such documents as, the Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers. Like the founders, we are federalists, and support states rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
3. Fiscal Responsibility. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty must be fiscally responsible or it will place onerous burdens of taxation upon its citizenry, which unjustly restricts the very liberty it is designed to protect and abrogates the rights it is designed to secure.
• Limited federal government
• Individual freedoms
• Personal responsibility
• Free markets
• Returning political power to the states and the peopleLimited Government – As our Founding Fathers recognized, restraint of government is necessary to protect the liberties of the people.
Fiscal Responsibility – Government at all levels must learn to live within its means. To saddle future generations with the crushing burden of our excess spending is unconscionable.
Personal Responsibility – Liberty is unsustainable without responsibility. Each citizen must take responsibility for the consequences of his or her own actions while respecting the rights and dignity of others.
The Rule of Law – Consistent, independent and uniform application of the law is critical to a free and prosperous society.
National Sovereignty – We must maintain a strong national defense, effective security for our borders, and sole control over our land and our laws.
And they are much the same no matter which TEA party group site you wish to visit. The TEA party groups universally espouse Personal Responsibility over one’s own life. Which means, that when a TEA party member starts to talk about freedom and liberty, they are not talking about imposing upon another person to provide for that freedom and liberty, but rather, that each person take their own responsibility over their lives.
OWS wishes to “liberate”, but in fact, espouses slavery. The TEA party promotes freedom and liberty, and applies the responsibility for such on each individual. And that is the major difference between the groups, even thought the flashpoint of their anger and angst was essentially the same. The TEA party is populated by conservative minded people. The OWS is populated by those seeking government handouts. The TEA party supports the free man. The OWS supports the liberated man. The free man is accepting, and even demanding of personal responsibility. The liberated man is terrified of it. Having personal responsibility means accepting, and even taking the blame. Not having it leads to blaming others for one’s own mistakes and circumstances.
The OWS movement, at it’s core, demands liberation, which, inherently, requires the action of another to accomplish. And the action they require of others is to free them from that responsibility over their lives.
And that same basic idea, of personal responsibility(TEA party), or avoidance of it(OWS), is inherent within whatever issue is being discussed, whether it be economic or social. Indeed, it could be said that every issue is both economic and social, so that distinction shouldn’t matter at all for whatever particular issue one is talking about.
I know where I fall, regarding personal responsibility. What about you?
The main difference between the Tea Party and OWS—barring all platitudinous exposition of differences—is that the former is composed primarily of old people (and I feel comfortable speaking of people as aged, being the I’m almost 69 myself), while the latter is youth oriented.
Liberal pile of #2, no one cares what you think about the Tea Party. It’s because you know less than zero about your own “beliefs” let alone ours.
The OWS want to be liberated from having to work for a living and capitalism. We want freedom from liberal fascists like OWS and you.
Actually, #10 is not a bad idea. Just think of all the illegal democrat votes that would no longer be counted!
@Liberal1 (objectivity): What’s your point with respect to age of the Party Members?? Are y0u saying the OWS group is naive, young, and stupid??
Thanks John Very well written and sourced. I am in agreement with majority of G.G.I. PRINCIPLES AS WRITTEN.
My suggestion as a moderate Dem and I think I speak for a majority of Indies as well. Be clear that the social values espoused by the Evangelical Right are NOT your core principles.
Rightly or wrongly you are PERCEIVED this way by Dems and Indies and leave you the voice of no more than 25-30% of the electorate ie the choir you are preaching to at this site.
If not you’ll continue a minority voice frustratingly unable to effect the changes you so ARDENTLY desire.
If (AND IT’S A BIG IF) you’ll clearly do this your influence will exponentially increase.
Both TEA Party gatherings I attended were during work and school hours.
A number of people there (including me) could have had more family there had that not been the case.
To claim TEA Parties are only comprised of old people is a myth built on the basis of snapshot comparisons between one of those workday meetups VS Occupy with its promises of free tuition, food and forgiven credit card and bank debt.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
I believe you are applying your own prejudices to the two groups concerning their ages, Lib1.
In a 2010 study, Gallup attempted an exposition on the demographics of TEA party members. And guess what they found? When it comes to age, the TEA party membership closely mirrors the national overall age groups. Hardly the “primarily” old people you suggest, particularly as 50% are under the age of 49.
Info can be found here;
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx
As for OWS demographics, the only study I found was accomplished using visits to the online site of occupywallst.org. In that survey, 64% of respondents were under 35 while 20% were over 45.
So, the conclusion? You are half right, but then again, anyone could plainly see the OWS movement is made up primarily of younger people. However, since you characterized the TEA party age demographics wrong, your “main difference” is hardly what you make it out to be.
Your description to the contrary, the “demands” of the OWS illustrate my point better than any words I could ever come up with. When a group “demands”, of everyone else, a “liberation” from any financial burden whatsoever, the basic idea they espouse is one of “liberation” from personal responsibility. You can describe the conclusion however you want, but the truth is the truth.
@Richard Wheeler:
Thanks, Rich. I would state that the “idea” that conservatism in general aligns with the evangelical right is a made up theme, designed by liberal/progressive campaigners to paint an entire group of economically like-minded people as being “extreme” in their social viewpoints.
@johngalt:
I agree with your assessment.
J.G Well said. 1) Can we agree the Tea Party is composed overwhelmingly of economic Conservatives who believe in a strong defense. Great.
2) The sticking point with me and a large percentage of American voters are the social issues.
3) Can we agree that Rick Santorum has virtually no chance of beating ANY Dem nominee.
Do we agree on 1-3. If so I’ll continue.
If not. Thanks again for your article.
@Richard Wheeler:
I would agree with all of them, even if your 3) is somewhat more of an opinion(shared by some conservatives too).
As for this one;
Forgetting for a moment any individual, or particular, social issue, this happens to be an integral part of my point in my article, Rich. And, as well, it is also an important Constitutional issue. As in, does the federal government have the right to implement social engineering legislation per the Constitution. And, does that social engineering provide social “equality”, or does it, as I contend, remove personal responsibility, which, in the end, leads to dependence and that dependence as a lifestyle rather than a “get back on your feet” episode in a person’s life.
Remember back in Sept. 2011 when Ralph Nader was doing all he could to get a Dem to take up a challenge to Obama?
Should Democrats Challenge Obama in a Presidential Primary?
By January 2012 Nader was supporting Ron Paul, having given up on trying to get a Dem to take up a challenge to Obama.
No Dem has come forward because, if anyone of them even LOOKS like he/she might, they either get bought off or threatened off.
Obama is all you got.
He will make sure of that.
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2012-01-08/white-house-threats-halt-democratic-challengers-obama#.T1E3lPXfPTo
Nan G. I’ m not suggesting anyone will challenge BHO. I’ m suggesting Santorum can’t beat Obama primarily because of his Evangelical social positions which the majority of American voters will never support no matter the economic issues.
J.G. With acceptance of 1-3 above would you say primary reason T.P’ ers support Rick over Ron is 1)his pro-defense,2)his electability3)his social Conservatism —4) other or unknown Thanks
BTW Can we agree that Ron is at least as fiscally Conservative as Rick? More Conservative in his adherance to the Constitution?
@Richard Wheeler:
I can’t stand Santorum. First, he is not conservative. Ron Paul called him out on that in the debate by calling him a phony. It’s true, he’s a phony. He may well be a social conservative. As a Catholic, I agree with many of his social stances, but it is not the role of the federal government to legislate those stances from either the left or right.
As a matter of fact, the Constitution does not have one right that the federal government gives the people. The rights in the Constitution are our inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. You can decide who that Creator is. If people believe we were created by nature, then that is their creator. The Constitution lays out the the limits on the federal government’s role to infringe upon our rights.
I think Ron Paul understands this better than the other idiots in the primary, including the idiot in the democrat primary. I just wish he could back off of his isolationist stances.
@Aqua:
That is a point that our liberal friends do not understand, Aqua.
Any Tea Party near any of the OWS protests should have a rally of their own after they leave. It should be done without notifying the city or applying for any permits or paying for anything. If they would be refused, couldn’t they sue the city for unequal treatment? We have to pay to have a rally. Not only do the liberals get to do it for free, they are also alAny Tea Party near any of the OWS protests should have a rally of their own after they leave. It should be done without notifying the city or applying for any permits or paying for anything. If they would be refused, couldn’t they sue the city for unequal treatment? We have to pay to have a rally. Not only do the liberals get to do it for free, they are also allowed to live there.
In my opinion, most of the OWS people are paid unemployed and liberal organizers. I remember one protest several years ago. People were getting ready for the protest and a reporter asked a protester what he was protesting. He answered, “I don’t know yet. They haven’t told us.”
Let’s have a system of government where we each choose the type of government we want. There would be any number of possible types of choices, starting with the government not having anything to do with an individual as far as retirement, medical, unemployment, etc., clear to the individual choosing to give their entire paycheck to the government and let them take care of the individual.
You would be taxed by how much it costs to run the agencies that you choose to be a part of. The less you ask from the government, the less it will cost you. If I wasn’t retired, and if I were MANY years younger, I would choose the, “I WILL TAKE CARE OF MYSELF” category.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): #1
Before you comment on us Tea Partiers, you should at least go to some of the rallies. You always show your bias when you ridicule something you know nothing about.
I have hundreds of pictures of most of the Tea Party rallies in Washington DC that I myself attended, and other places, and there are ages from babies to older people in those pictures. There are whites, blacks, brown, yellow, and any other color of race there is at the rallies. These are people who want the government to just take care of the Federal issues that they should and let “We The People” take it from there.
We ALWAYS left the places CLEANER than they were before we got there. Show me ONE clean place after your people left. If any of us visited you at your house, it would be cleaner than when we got there. What would it look like if your buddies stayed a few days?
Obumbles loves them and so does Pelosi and that ilk – Useful Idiots… Liberal Brainwashed social misfits, malcontents… [I]have a solution for them – Go start your OWN ‘OWS’ COUNTRY!! (See how far you get) – leave the rest of us out of it!
#1 How much of their $20.00 Living Wage [ regardless of employment ??? ] will be taken away from them to [ pay ] for all of their [ Trillions of dollars ] in “Demands” ???? I mean seriously… where do they think the money will come from?? – Instead of taking courses on “Gender differences” perhaps they should think about taking Economics 101 ….
Do they Seriously think we shit money?
#7 “One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.”
This is quite puzzling considering [they] TRASH EVERY PLACE THEY HAVE BEEN.... and will ever be…. quite disgusting….
How in the World can these people be taken seriously….???
There is no comparison with ows and the Tea Party so, I wish people would stop trying to do the comparing….Tea Party have better education…and can actually think [rationally] for themselves…without the Government’s help…
@johngalt:
Unfortunately JG it is hard for conservatives and libertarians to frame the debate. It is very easy to be on the left. All you have to do is argue with your feelings. “How can you not be for free insert your product here for the insert your oppressed group here”. Freedom and liberty are hard. It can be a scary thought to wake up every morning and know the only person you and your family can depend on for food and shelter are you.
It makes us sound cold and uncaring. The thing I can never seem to get across is that things need to be done at the local level. I think I have used this argument before. We have (had) a Blue Law in Georgia. It was overturned this year….at the State level. Before it was overturned, you could not buy alcohol in stores on Sunday. You could go to a “restaurant” and drink to your hearts content. If a bar has food sales that total over 50% of total sales, it is considered a restaurant. Since the law has been overturned, it is now up to the counties. Some counties have lifted the law, others have not. Even within some of the counties, some communities have not overturned the law. And even better still, if you as an individual believe it is wrong to purchase alcohol on Sunday, no one will make you do it.
I believe this is the way our republic is supposed to work. The left looks at this as destructive. If one group is not doing what they consider to be the “right thing,” the federal government needs to step in and make them. And there are people on the right that feel the same what, but from the other side of the spectrum. The only thing that keeps the right from doing it to the extent of the left, are the States Rights conservatives and libertarians that step in to call them out on it.
John,
Good post. You frame an interesting debate. I think most moderates would disagree with the particulars of many of the OWS demands, but appreciate the simple fact that they’re raising issues that need to be addressed. I don’t think most reasonable people have a problem with the concept of a living wage, or example. As for the Tea Party, I personally believe that many people tuned them out when it became clear that they’re not willing to put their money where their mouths are (i.e., raise taxes). They want something, but only as far as it can be achieved painlessly for them. Whereas the OWS participants come across as passionately “life or death” in their approach, the Tea Party seem like weekend hobbyists (if complaining without offering workable solutions were a hobby) by comparison.
An editorial aside: I’m curious why you find it necessary to compromise your comparison of the movements with negative rhetoric about OWS participants like “all manner of degenerate behaviours”? How can you expect your readers to take you intellectual comparison seriously when, our of the gate, you’ve already revealed your personal biases by disparaging one side in a superficially cartoonish manner?
@Tom:
That is a fair question, Tom. I stated it how I did based on knowledge of what has happened at the OWS protests. Things like crapping on police cars, smashing local businesses’ windows, rapes in the “tent cities”, selling drugs like heroin in those cities, “tagging” businesses with graffiti, setting fire to all manner of things including non-protesters’ private property, public masturbation, murder, child molestation, and others are included within that statement of “all manner of degenerate behaviours”.
Should I have listed a complete(as complete as I could research) list of the behaviours instead of characterizing them as “degenerate”? Maybe. But that was up to me, wasn’t it? And anyone who denied that such behaviour went on at the OWS protests could certainly do so, albeit with the mountain of evidence against them. The following is just a partial list of online publications and sites detailing the behaviours I listed above, amongst others. And note that I use “liberal” leaning sites as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/occupy-oakland-violence-_n_1073325.html
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-10-worst-crimes-committed-at-ows-non-protests/question-2268459/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-guest-on-ows-violence-word-at-rikers-island-is-that-the-protest-is-a-party/
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/occupy-protesters-shut-down-port-oakland/nFTLQ/
http://redstate.com/tags/tag/ows/
http://urbangrounds.com/2011/10/ows-vs-tea-party/
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/9747-ows-rap-sheet-growing-and-growing
@johngalt:
I don’t deny that any particular incident took place. What I challenge is applying the behavior of individuals associated with a group to characterize the group as a whole. At best it’s simplistic; at worst, dishonest. Do you truly believe all members of the OWS movement are degenerates?
If someone told you all Conservatives are ignorant, racist rednecks, and then provided links to specific incidents of behavior to prove it, would you agree with that characterization and that methodology? Moreover, how much stock would you put in anything that person wrote or said about Conservatives, knowing that such a simplistic bias was at the heart of his or her thinking?
@Tom:
There is an old Aesop’s fable called The Ass and his Purchaser to which the moral “A man is known by the company he keeps” is generally attributed to, although there are many instances of famous people quoting something along those lines. In the case of the OWS and TEA party membership, this moral is apt. And, as well, I applied the description to the OWS movement in general, and fairly or not, that is the general sense one gets of the movement as a whole when a person hears or reads about the behaviours present at the different rallies.
The fact is that I don’t put any stock into anything written by a liberal showing bias towards conservatives. It is also a fact that liberals are not my target audience here, although they are certainly welcome to comment and join the discussion. It is a piece written so as to extend an understanding of the philosophical viewpoint differences between the two movements, on a conservative leaning site. Is it my opinion? Sure. However, I stand by what I have said and what I believe and it is born out by the linked passages from the OWS “demands” and the TEA party mission statements.
Lastly;
No, I don’t. However, whether I did or not has no bearing on my conclusion regarding the OWS movement’s “demands” in contrast with the TEA party mission statements. The OWS movement exhibits the idea that “liberation” from personal responsibility of one’s own life is the goal. The degenerate behaviours I mentioned in the article, and listed in particular in my previous comment, exemplify, to the extreme, that exact desire, which is the precisely the purpose of why I mentioned it.
@Smorgasbord:
Army of the Republic by Stuart Archer Cohen describes protest organization, particularly on the liberal front, in detail. Of course, the book is a fictional work, but the methods described are taken from real life examples of how some protests were organized.
ya gotta be joking me… this from the guy who said:
Or perhaps @also said this above:
Now what was that stuff about being “dishonest” again? LOL
Hypocrisy, thy name is Tom.
As to the welcomed johngalt original post, I’d say that most Americans on both side of the political aisle genuinely see similar problems. What has been the notable political differences since the beginning of this nation is the solutions offered up for those problems. It comes down to the simplicity of government being the answers, and “there oughta be a law” mentality demonstrated by progressives, liberals and the OWS types.
@MataHarley:
And that, as I attempted to state in my piece, can be simplified, down to a basic premise, that those who truly espouse freedom and liberty, welcome the responsibility, and particularly, the personal responsibility that comes with it. Meanwhile, those on the liberal/progressive side want to be “liberated” from any responsibility, and, again in particular, personal responsibility, choosing instead to place that burden on someone else. And in order to do so, they do as you suggest, by crying “there ought to be a law”, and demand that government use it’s force to make someone else carry their burdens.
@johngalt:
Is that really precisely why you mentioned it? I ask, because it seems fairly commonplace within anything written on OWS from a Conservative perspective to focus on the behavior of the members rather than their message or what precipitated the movement. One might even conclude the one is focused on to deflect attention away from the other. In the case of your post, I commend you for drawing attention to message, which is why I found it odd that you’d trot out the smears. It almost seemed like you did from a sense of duty, like this is what is expected from a Conservative commentator at this point when confronting OWS.
@johngalt:
That is only one possible explanation for the liberal/progressive perspective, and not the one that would explain why many if not most liberals feel the way they do. Let’s face it, John, there are many progressives who are not, in fact, hoping for something for nothing, or a handout, or to take your hard earned dollar and put it in their pocket. They are trying to fix problems, just not in a way that you agree with. Obviously, I doubt that you believe that children should be allowed to work 60 hours a week in factories rather than going to school, so I know that there is some level of government regulation that you must agree with. The question, of course, is how much it too much. I think you’re on very solid ground when you focus your arguments in that direction, on the difference between how liberals and conservatives choose to solve problems. Where I think you are misguided is in your assumption that liberals are looking for some sort of short-cut, or a shirking of responsibility. Do you not know one liberal who is professionally successful and wouldn’t actually benefit personally from the kinds of programs that you seem to assume all liberals support for reasons of shirking personal responsibility? Practically every liberal I know is in that situation. Whether right or wrong, they are not supporting things like extending unemployment benefits or health care for the poor because it’s going to help them personally or because they need it. People support these things because they feel it’s better for society as a whole and it’s the right thing to do.
@johngalt – To quote Bruce Willis from the first Die Hard movie, “Welcome to the party!”
Great piece!
@Mata: Great bit of research – nicely done!
The tea part really had no agenda once they were co-opted by Dick Army and other corporatists. All they really had was shallow rhetoric like ‘the founding fathers…this and that.’ If they had any brains and weren’t such haters, racists and sheep, they’d see the OWS movement is what they should have been protesting all along. But by now they’ve been hood winked enough to hate those out to help the middle class.
Where do you get these wild ideas? TEA parties are not Nation wide unified party unlike the OWS. Dick Army has nothing to do with the TEA groups. You have little knowledge of our own leaders.
Then again, you live in ignorance and stupidity and make random acquistions on those you rail against in malaice. People like you who defend the OWS and its violent behavior are helping polarize and prepare a whole new civil strife between American Citizens that could, hopefully not, spill into a Civil War. TEA members have constantly been attacked by Liberal groups that YOU support liberal1, constantly assault by Union groups, and constantly assaulted by the Media for things we are not. But you groups keep pushing and ultimately spill our blood in anger , then you will know why we call ourselves TEA partiers. Then again you don’t know your history or what goes on truly infront of your own eyes.
@Tom:
So….the Taxed Enough Already Party should put their money where their mouths are (i.e., raise taxes)?
I’ll just let that sit out there for a while.
Back to my soap box.
Folks, please stop feeding the trolls. Liberalmann & liberal(objectivity) just post these stupid drive-by comments just to get a rise out of us and get us to waste time responding to them. They don’t read our comments and probably don’t even read the original posts. Let’s stop wasting our time on them – we have enough lefties who come here looking for honest conversation.
Occupiers are more of a moveable crime wave than a liberal counter to the TEA Party movement.
Like this week.
Three Occupiers surrounded a woman in Oakland.
They hit her, took her Obama pin, took her wallet and slurred her sexuality.
Two of them are black, a man and a woman; the other is a white male.
Police arrested all three because they helpfully videoed their assault and posted it on You Tube!
Only a blog has the mug shots, so here’s that link:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/oakland-occupiers-charged-in-robbery-hate-crime.php
The victim was hardly one of the ”1%.”
To the Occupiers her ”crime” had been disagreeing with them about their filthy movement.
@johngalt: #24
The president of the new Tea Party I belong to suggested that we go and clean up after the OWS people leave their area, film it, and post it on YouTube.
I though it was a great idea, depending on how big a group there is in a city. Our’s isn’t that big. I suggested coming up with a slogan that goes along with the conservatives having to clean up after the liberals. Anyone else belonging to a Tea Party group could suggest cleaning up after an OWS event and film it and post it to YouTube or other video sight, and also to the local media. The local media might even show it. A good catchy slogan would help.
@Brother Bob: #33
I too was wondering how long they wanted to wrestle the pig in the mud, but I figured if the contestants enjoyed the event, that was their right. I have mentioned before that I have wondered if these liberals get together and have bets on how many comments they can get.
Most of the time, if I see the same people commenting about something, I don’t read comments by those people any more. This is the USA, and we all have the right to comment on anything we want.
@Aqua: You said in regards to Rick Santorum:
In the interest of full disclosure, I am supporting Newt in this primary. However, I would just say in response to your comment above that Santorum doesn’t have a record as trying to legislate his social stances, when he was in the Senate or the House. Not that I know of, anyway, I could be wrong. I mean it has happened. 😛
.
.
Not quite true about Santorum’s record, anticsrocks. GovTrack is the best source for looking up sponsored legislation by particular candidates. Throwing the social agenda legislation, plus a few others that may leave you gasping about this “conservative”.
Senate legislation:
105th session:
S6 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
S. 2403: Health Care Entity Protection Act, keeping federal cash flowing to health care entities even if they refuse to perform or cover abortions
S. 3432: Project Safe Childhood Act, increased federal authority and funds for preventing child exploitation via internet, etc
106th session:
S1695, Partial Birth Abortion Ban: actually passed both chambers, but differences not resolved
S3127, Born Alive Infants Protection Act
S. 1545: Neighborhood Children’s Internet Protection Act (requiring blocks and filters on internet surfing in schools for federal assistance… and gives the authority of what is “appropriate” to the schools or board)
S928, another Partial Birth Abortion Ban bill
S. 1605: Women and Children’s Resources Act, requires HHS to make grants to States for programs designed to provide alternative-to-abortion services to eligible individuals
107th
S 1050: Born Alive Infants Protection Act
Also in the 107th, he sponsored S. 1558: Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act, providing for certificates guaranteeing in full benefits, and with an accurate annual cost-of-living adjustment.
108th
S. 2830: Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood Act: Repeals the bonus to States for reduction in illegitmacy ratio, replacing it with healthy marriage promotion grants. Amends SSA title IV to add a new part C (Responsible Fatherhood Program) under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall award grants to States to conduct demonstration programs promoting responsible fatherhood.
S3: another Partial Birth Abortion Ban bill… he finally got that one enacted in the 2003 session.
109th
S. 1139: Pet Animal Welfare Statute, attempting to increase the regulation power of the Dept of Agriculture over the pet industry
S 1750, another SS Guarantee Act with annual increases
S. 1868: GAS Act, where the feds were to regulate/price control gasoline prices (ouch…) and define “gouging”
S. 1983: Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which was to allow for federal funds to still flow to health care entities that refused to provide or perform abortions
S. 3504: Fetus Farming Prohibition Act… he got that passed and enacted as well
S. 6: Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act (similar to S2830 mentioned above)
S. 3432: Project Safe Childhood Act, another version of internet control and access via kids
Now you may, or may not agree with some or all of the above (certainly not everything he attempted in his Congressional career). And also one might want to consider just what the Constitutional authority is for some of these internet control proposals, except that it relates to whether an entity gets money or not.
But there is no doubt that Santorum often and regularly has a record of attempting to legislate his social agenda as it affects abortion and child/internet controls. Other than some revamping of buildings, he has only gotten two notable bills enacted into law… and both of them have to do with abortion or fetus farming.
And that is something that endears him to those that share his views. But it certainly runs contrary to whether you think he attempted to foist his social agenda into federal laws and controls.
@Tom:
Yes, Tom, it is. Remember, you are the one who chose to focus on behaviour of their protesters. I only mentioned it in passing, as well as specifically stating this;
If you recall, and it’s easy to do since my article can be read again, I focused on their “demands” and my conclusion stems from that.
You are the one who chose a passing mention of their behaviour, chose to focus on that, and then projected that focus onto me. And even as you “commended” me for “drawing attention” to their message, you still felt it necessary to focus more on the behaviour that I mentioned.
Sorry, Tom, but that is the conclusion I come up with. Too many of the “solutions” that liberal/progressives suggest lead to the federal government taking on more of the responsibility of the people. And where does that responsibility come from? The people. Their own personal lives. And liberal/progressives support these “solutions”. How else can one characterize it but as the “liberation” from personal responsibility?
Granted, the OWS takes it towards the extreme from the average liberal/progressive standpoint. But then, the OWS is what the article concentrated on.
@Aqua: Lest you forget how the teabaggers were screaming about taxes going up at exaclty the time Obama was lowering them.
@Smorgasbord: Great metaphor. The teabaggers can only clean up after the real protestors fight for the middle class like they should have. Got for it and tell me when it’s up on YouTube!
@liberalmann: #40
Why do you use the worst possible word when referring to us Tea Partiers? That is one thing I have noticed about you liberals. I can’t have a civil conversation with any of you without you going into a rant and using the worst language imaginable.
I had never heard of the word you use to refer to us, and wish I didn’t know what it means now. Anyone with ANY moral values, please don’t find out what the word means. Someone told what it meant and I wish I wouldn’t have heard him tell about it.
The language you use is one way we can tell about your character, or, in your case, the lack of. I am just curious about something. Can you remember the last time you had a conversation with ANYBODY and didn’t throw in a bunch of gutter language in it? Please try to come out of the gutter far enough that you at least are just on the curb and not quite in the gutter.
@Smorgasbord:
He won’t debate you, so there really is no need to respond to him. Larry, Rich, Greg, and Tom will actually debate. Liberal 1(Objectivity) has even debated a few times. But you’re wasting your time responding to liberalmann. If you do a Google Search on liberalmann, the second page will show you exactly how many blogs he does the drive-by on. I don’t even read his posts any more.
@liberalmann: #41
It will be brought up at our next meeting. I don’t know how it will go. We are in the idea stage. If your people in the parks and in congress would do things the way they should be, we wouldn’t have to clean up after you anywhere.
@Aqua: #43
I don’t use any of Google’s stuff. They are too liberal and edit their content to fit their agenda. They didn’t decorate their home page for Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day like they did for the other holidays until the conservative blogs complained about it. If the ones who went “Over There” so that we didn’t fight over here know about this, I don’t understand why they help support Google’s anti-military agenda.
I don’t wrestle with pigs in the mud. I do if their comment is directed to me, but sometimes they will say something to someone else I want to refer to. Most of the time, if the comments are just going back and forth, I quit reading when the same two show up in the email notifications.
@MataHarley: Well I said that could be wrong – and in that, it seems I was right. 😛
@liberalmann:
You mean like the following taxes Obama has “lowered”?
Add on to that Obama’s promised tax increases on income for those making >$250k(family) or >$200k(single person) that haven’t quite been realized yet, and his record is not one of “lowering” taxes, but rather, increasing them every chance he gets.
Here are more differences between the two.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/03/three-occupy-oakland-protesters-charged-with-hate-crimes/
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/03/ex-black-panther-leader-urges-occupy-oakland-to-arm-themselves/
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/04/seiu-teams-up-with-occupy-wall-street-to-abolish-capitalism/
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/04/occupy-aipac-expel-all-5th-column-zionist-agent-scum/
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/04/occupy-oakland-to-protest-war-criminal-israeli-president-shimon-peres/
yet more proof of what OWS really is
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/05/occupy-aipac-graffiti-victory-to-the-taliban-victory-to-hamas/
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/05/occupy-louisville-protester-arrested-for-failing-to-register-as-a-sex-offender/
@ Johngalt: Loved this piece – I’m citing your main points in a post that just went up on my blog and that I just submitted to Curt. Great to have you posting!