Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party (speech, 9/11, ratings)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll read the OWS charter right after the OWS members do since they clearly aren't following it if they did read it.
All of the points that have been raised here are 100% valid, you just don't like them.
The premise of this thread was to compare the Tea Party to OWS and the FACTS show that they're very different types of movements, the Tea Party was non-violent and OWS has been a very violent movement with violent incidences taking place all over this country.
Well, the OWS needs not read their charter as they wrote it. Kinda' redundant, wouldn't you say?
I have taken the points, one by one, and with clear evidence addressed each one in turn. Some, I have agreed with and voiced this by stating "Good Point". It is not that you say I don't like them, it is that you don't care for the evidence given negating the validity of your points.
On another note, what point is it that the two movements have in common that you so vehemently refuse to acknowledge? Is it getting money out of politics or the ending of corporate welfare, for example? Are you so frustrated by the impotence of the so-called Tea Party contrasted with the effectiveness of OWS that it closes all hope of unity? OWS is effective because their activity prompted boehner's lobbyists to fabricate an "assault team" to shut down OWS. Again, money in politics which does not represent the constituent mass but the interests of the few, i.e. the 1%.
Further, do not forget the violence perpetrated by the UC Davis police against peaceful protest. The pepper spray trigger man and his supervisor were both placed on suspension by the Chancellor of UC Davis.
Again, the writers of our Constitution intentionally did NOT specify ANY qualifications as to exercising 1st. Amendment rights. This was not an oversight nor a dementia moment. This was intentional.
Further, you seem to dwell upon the violent behavior of OWS. I don't agree with you and perhaps some independent reading on your own would help. There were times in our history where the masses did in fact threaten real violence. Read about it here: Why Bankers Should Be Grateful For Occupy Wall Street
You did not respond to my illustration previous re our colonists. So, I shall pose yet another example to you. Recall Rosa Parks who refused to sit in the back of the bus (property). Ms. Parks was peaceful yet steadfast. She was "assaulted" by police for exercising her rights of peaceful protest and was arrested.
Yet another: Recall the Woolworth Lunch Counter Sit-In in which peaceful protest occupied the lunch counter (property) for refusal of service. Service was refused and the protesters refused to be unseated. This created a business stoppage.
In all protests, ultimately and unfortunately violence ensues. In the Civil Rights movement, the violence eventually led to the Civil Rights Act.
So, to say OWS is violent after the evidence given you is a moot point. History shows that any worthwhile protest will become violent (unfortunately) to effect the change. It is the human condition.
Defacation
An unfortunate occurrence, quite possibly fringe element. Fair point.
These are not fair points. Occupy Oakland (and I believe other OWS groups as well) tried to have Porta-Pottys delivered to their camp site. The police turned them away.
Why? Obviously, if they allowed Porta-Pottys to be delivered, the camps would be cleaned up. The police would lose there moral ground for shutting the camps down for health reasons.
If the Government really cared about health, they would provide the Porta-Potties, and use city sanitation workers to pick up trash from the camps. That would cost a fraction of what the police overtime costs, to suppress the demonstrators.
As for the remainder of your points, I agree 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromekitty
Personal liberty
Exactly what OWS desires. Moot point.
Property rights
Gray area. Constitution does not qualify. Government takeover by eminent domain? Weak point.
Corporate Welfare
OWS wants this stopped. United point.
US Constitution
OWS is demanding recognition of 1st. Amendment and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. United point.
Race
OWS is made up of all races, creeds, and religions. United point.
Income/Education
OWS welcomes all income levels and educational accomplishments. United point.
Marches impeding traffic
All peaceful protests throughout history have used this tactic. Inconvenient yes, but effective. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the ill.
Property vandalism
OWS does not advocate nor encourage this behavior. Fringe elements and rogue operatives. Invalid point.
Business stoppage
A consequential but unavoidable result of a large protest mass. Moot point.
Banning homeless
I have heard this but question its veracity. For all intent and purposes, all OWS participants are homeless therefore how does one differentiate one from another? Unsubstantiated point.
Economic division
OWS does group the 99 and the 1%. Does not the Tea Party practice the same? Glass house point.
These are not fair points. Occupy Oakland (and I believe other OWS groups as well) tried to have Porta-Pottys delivered to their camp site. The police turned them away.
Why? Obviously, if they allowed Porta-Pottys to be delivered, the camps would be cleaned up. The police would lose there moral ground for shutting the camps down for health reasons.
If the Government really cared about health, they would provide the Porta-Potties, and use city sanitation workers to pick up trash from the camps. That would cost a fraction of what the police overtime costs, to suppress the demonstrators.
As for the remainder of your points, I agree 100%.
Kaboom,
I was NOT aware OWS requested porta-potties. Thanks for the heads up. It shows OWS was thinking of sanitation.
I truly believe the alleged defecation was isolated to one incident and one individual. Again, I believe that was a fringe participant or rogue operative. So, I can see your point.
Kaboom,
I was NOT aware OWS requested porta-potties. Thanks for the heads up. It shows OWS was thinking of sanitation.
I truly believe the alleged defecation was isolated to one incident and one individual. Again, I believe that was a fringe participant or rogue operative. So, I can see your point.
I don't know if you have been down at the financial district after dark in NYC, but there is literally no bathrooms available.
Kaboom,
I was NOT aware OWS requested porta-potties. Thanks for the heads up. It shows OWS was thinking of sanitation.
I truly believe the alleged defecation was isolated to one incident and one individual. Again, I believe that was a fringe participant or rogue operative. So, I can see your point.
At least in Oakland they didn't "request" porta-potties. Occupy Oakland ordered the porta-potties. The OPD blacked the truck form making the delivery. So yeah, any issues with sanitation, are the result of restrictions put on the demonstrators by the police.
On another note, what point is it that the two movements have in common that you so vehemently refuse to acknowledge? Is it getting money out of politics or the ending of corporate welfare, for example? Are you so frustrated by the impotence of the so-called Tea Party contrasted with the effectiveness of OWS that it closes all hope of unity? OWS is effective because their activity prompted boehner's lobbyists to fabricate an "assault team" to shut down OWS. Again, money in politics which does not represent the constituent mass but the interests of the few, i.e. the 1%.
The Tea Party was partly responsible for one of the largest shifts in power due to election in the US in decades, what has the OWS movement actually accomplished? Nothing.
You claim it's effective, effective at what besides destroying public property, breaking laws and inciting violence?
These are not fair points. Occupy Oakland (and I believe other OWS groups as well) tried to have Porta-Pottys delivered to their camp site. The police turned them away.
Why? Obviously, if they allowed Porta-Pottys to be delivered, the camps would be cleaned up. The police would lose there moral ground for shutting the camps down for health reasons.
If the Government really cared about health, they would provide the Porta-Potties, and use city sanitation workers to pick up trash from the camps. That would cost a fraction of what the police overtime costs, to suppress the demonstrators.
As for the remainder of your points, I agree 100%.
Their "camp site" is public property, you can't have portable toilets delivered to city hall and expect things to work out. The OWS fools don't understand property rights and laws, we have laws in this country against people moving in and creating camps in parks because it limits other people's rights to use that park and because it creates a sanitation nightmare. OWS nut jobs have been arrested all over the country for breaking the law, not for protesting.
At least in Oakland they didn't "request" porta-potties. Occupy Oakland ordered the porta-potties. The OPD blacked the truck form making the delivery. So yeah, any issues with sanitation, are the result of restrictions put on the demonstrators by the police.
Did Occupy Oakland have a permit to hold an endless protest in a public park? Of course not. That's why the delivery was denied, you have to get a sanitation permit to have portable toilets delivered to any event on public property.
The Tea Party was partly responsible for one of the largest shifts in power due to election in the US in decades, what has the OWS movement actually accomplished? Nothing.
You claim it's effective, effective at what besides destroying public property, breaking laws and inciting violence?
Shifts in power? There were no shifts in power. The tea party is now bought and paid for just like the rest of them. It didn't take them long to take the cash.
It is funny how you can drag OWS through the mud after the very things they are doing and working for, I have given you wonderful examples of people in history that did the very same thing and their actions too also resulted in changes.
You really need to stop touting the fact that ONE city got a permit and that was an epic fail as that particular tea party is being audited. And now that their are being audited other "ralliers" across the country are discussing how the two groups ARE IN FACT much alike.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
