OWS protestors Oakland CA Amazingly Ignorant

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And all of those are nuts? I doubt it. Were any members in a Tea Party rally spewing

hatred towards people walking to their jobs in NY? No. Those were the "Occupy" kids.

Maybe I missed a couple of reports on the news, but I never saw any reporting of any

violence associated with the Tea Party. The main difference between the two groups

is one is civil and the other isn't.

The pic from the Daily Kos is the first I've seen, and considering the source, I'd say it was

fabricated by them. The other one showing the man with the racial slur was probably taken

similarly, or he was being asked to get rid of the sign. Your Google doesn't really show much

more than someone's attempt at justifying a political action without substance. The Daily Kos,

HuffPo, etc are part of that propaganda machine. Please think about your sources before you

smear other ones. But I guess pictures must be proof, huh?

"They disagree with Tea Party on HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM." They don't have a clue what they

are doing. Anarchy is their goal and they don't even know it, except their organizers do.

"Last time I checked, dressing like a hippy, putting your hair in dreds, soaking yourself in patchouli

oil, and protesting in a park for a month isn't inherently illegal or a violation of my rights."

No, but it lends credibility, doesn't it?

"We have a Constitution and a political process to deal with the issues, and that is where the

arguments will end up."

We certainly do and a civil society rests on it. The "Occupy" crowd is trying to undermine that

civility by dumping capitalism for the Marxist crap that has ruined other countries.

There is no intelligent message coming from these kids, other than tyranny.

There may come a day when we could have to go to the streets, but I doubt it will be like the

"Occupy" crowd.

I'm not questioning your motives, ET, but rationalizing and/or justifying the "Occupy" kids actions

by comparing them to the Tea Party is just what their organizers intended.

At least it is obvious to me.

[East_TN_Patriot]

And all of those are nuts? I doubt it. Were any members in a Tea Party rally spewing

hatred towards people walking to their jobs in NY? No. Those were the "Occupy" kids.

Maybe I missed a couple of reports on the news, but I never saw any reporting of any

violence associated with the Tea Party. The main difference between the two groups

is one is civil and the other isn't.

The pic from the Daily Kos is the first I've seen, and considering the source, I'd say it was

fabricated by them. The other one showing the man with the racial slur was probably taken

similarly, or he was being asked to get rid of the sign. Your Google doesn't really show much

more than someone's attempt at justifying a political action without substance. The Daily Kos,

HuffPo, etc are part of that propaganda machine. Please think about your sources before you

smear other ones. But I guess pictures must be proof, huh?

"They disagree with Tea Party on HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM." They don't have a clue what they

are doing. Anarchy is their goal and they don't even know it, except their organizers do.

"Last time I checked, dressing like a hippy, putting your hair in dreds, soaking yourself in patchouli

oil, and protesting in a park for a month isn't inherently illegal or a violation of my rights."

No, but it lends credibility, doesn't it?

"We have a Constitution and a political process to deal with the issues, and that is where the

arguments will end up."

We certainly do and a civil society rests on it. The "Occupy" crowd is trying to undermine that

civility by dumping capitalism for the Marxist crap that has ruined other countries.

There is no intelligent message coming from these kids, other than tyranny.

There may come a day when we could have to go to the streets, but I doubt it will be like the

"Occupy" crowd.

I'm not questioning your motives, ET, but rationalizing and/or justifying the "Occupy" kids actions

by comparing them to the Tea Party is just what their organizers intended.

At least it is obvious to me.

So basically, you have made up your mind and no amount of information will change it. You just rationalize it away as being from "questionable sources" and "propaganda machines" not even remotely considering the fact that the political right also have their "questionable sources" and "propaganda machines" that report about the OWS movement. Each side has a political agenda to push, and they do it by trying to delegitimize the other side by cherry picking facts and portraying them as the whole. The "news" media is nothing more than a business that looks for sensational stories to fill airtime/print space in order to attract viewers/readers so they can make money selling advertizing. Fox News, Drudge, Blaze, I Hate teh Media, NewsBusters, etc. are biased to the right. Kos, MediaMatters, MSNBC, etc. are biased to the left. Those of us who are the intended consumers are left trying to figure out the truth of what's really going on within this mess of inaccurate reporting and commentary. There are media reports of some Tea Party violence on a small scale. There are media reports of OWS violence on a small scale. I agree that segments of the OWS movement tends to be more unruly than the Tea Party, and that's a tactic I don't agree with. Not all OWS events are like that and not all people participating engage in the unruly behavior. Take the Knoxville OWS protest. There was no unruly mob-like behavior at all. It looked just like the Knoxville Tea Party rally; normal folks protesting a corrupt political system that is in collusion with wealthy corporations and business interests.

If I haven't made it

[Smith]

I thought most of us here were old enough to know the difference between idealism, reality, and practical application. This is the problem with government bureaucracies filled with college trained "intellectuals".

Just because someone has "some" truth in their thinking doesn't mean they have anything worth while to say. Marx had some good ideas, in a juvenile theory, but the problem is they were couched in a horribly wrong world view. Thus skewing the good and the bad. Reacting to the moment is never a good way to fix a long term problem. These "protesters" are reacting to the moment and have no regard to history, perspective outside themselves and their own lives, or an understanding of human events past or present. Context is everything. This is the difference between Tea Party protest and these folks.

I won't legitimize a group of people who are using 10% truth to destroy the other 90% truth.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Smith

[mav]

There is one major difference between the Tea Party and the OWS. The Occupy Wall Street has lasted around a month, whereas most of the Tea Party rallies lasted at most a day. Why? The Tea Party folks had to go back to work to pay their bills and continue financing the government with their taxes.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Tends to be isn't close. Their message, like

Smith said contains maybe 10% truth and

90% nonsense socialist marketing. I guess

that 10% makes them credible, huh?

More cake, please.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest uofmeet]

[TMF]

... to mean that you would like to see anarchy so "people like you" could kill "these people" you don't agree with. If you didn't mean it that way, I can only take your word for it, but I still think it is bad form to even remotely tie together the idea of killing anyone at all with the criticism of people we don't agree with, especially in a public forum related to gun ownership. It sends a bad message, and if a pro-gun conservative Libertarian can interpret it that way, I am very certain anti-gun liberals would as well.

Gotcha, but the wording was meant to suggest that these pro-anarchy hippies would not last because they would be culled by people like me for their resources once they get their wish. It's not a matter of saying they should die for their political opinion, it's more a statement poetic irony that if they got their wish they would be the ones to suffer most from it. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with their point of view, I just find it ironic they support a society in which people like me would survive and they wouldn't.

[Guest uofmeet]

here is some more for your viewing pleasure.

[TMF]

That's awesome. I saw one during the Terry Shivo (sp?) case where one of the protesters had a sign that said "We are all crazy" with arrows pointing down toward the protesters around him.

[china coaster]

I watch people at tea party rallys being interviewed and some of them sound like fools. I watch those at a occupy somewhere rally and they all sound like fools. A comment from my very liberal, Obama voting wife on watching an occupy crowd was " if those people would get a job they would have no time to occupy anything" I am a 1%er, have been a 53%er and for much of my working carreer was a 5%er (in the upper 5 percent of income earners) and when off the job and home I would be pulling calves, vacinating cows, cleaning fence rows, working on my house, and putting up hay. These occupy people don't realize that when they do away with the capitalist they starve or are shot as they are no longer needed.

[zgunbear]

Also ows has had at least 1000 arrests and has destroyed the park, they are living in filth

Tea parties no arrests and left the areas cleaner then when they were there.

May not mean much but to me it displays and entitlement mentality on the part of the ows sheeple.

[Guest uzzi]

I don't understand how the left criticizes the Tea Party, calls it illegitmate then wants to compare the OWS movement to the Tea Party. The Tea Party rallies are nothing like the OWS. First, there was no violence at the Tea Pary rally, nor was their any litter or mess. Can't say that about the OWS people. No one with a microphone at any Tea Party rally advocated violence. Can't say that about OWS. There is no comparison.

[Guest uofmeet]

Don't know if anyone listens to Dave Ramsey, but right now he is asking OWS supporters to call and is pwning them. I think it is pretty funny.

[JG55]

Don't know if anyone listens to Dave Ramsey, but right now he is asking OWS supporters to call and is pwning them. I think it is pretty funny.

Been listening it's hilarious!!! wish I had a copy of the program to post..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't understand how the left criticizes the Tea Party, calls it illegitmate then wants to compare the OWS movement to the Tea Party. The Tea Party rallies are nothing like the OWS. First, there was no violence at the Tea Pary rally, nor was their any litter or mess. Can't say that about the OWS people. No one with a microphone at any Tea Party rally advocated violence. Can't say that about OWS. There is no comparison.

That's how the new left works. Spend a little time reading up on the October Revolution and you might

see some similarities. This is communism inspired. Anyone trying to attach reason to the OWS fools needs

to go there to understand it. If George Soros and Van Jones are involved, along with the labor unions, it

starts to become apparent.

I agree with your assessment.

Whenever something doesn't pass the smell test, at first glance, look at other motives. Obama has been in

campaign mode since he was elected, and this is part of it:to discredit and diffuse the Tea Party.

[Mark@Sea]

The OWS group ( I won't call it a movement, because it isn't ) is a fully owned and operated subsidiary of Soros and unions. Comparing plants at Tea Party events to the overwhelming majority of the OWS crowd is worse than dishonest.

How many Tea Party folks were paid to attend a rally? How many were bussed in by unions, or hired through craigslist, or given extra credit to attend? How many MSM talking heads reported on Tea Party rallies while simultaneously coaching speakers?

OWS has three purposes - attempt to appear as a credible counterpoint to the Tea Party, push the boundaries of accepted socialist political behavior under the guise of free speech, and be the stick in the carrot and stick game of democrats soliciting campaign donations.

Call it an acceptable exercise of free speech if you want to. You can call a goat a duck, but it won't lay eggs.

By the way, socialism isn't merely some noble thought experiment conducted by a philosopher, it has proven itself again and again to be an efficient machine for turning people into corpses. If someone seriously espouses violence in support of it, I regard shooting them to be a logical response. That's what the second amendment is there for, no point in ignoring the truth.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Mark@Sea

[Guest 6.8 AR]

OK, here is a brief sample of examples from a quick Google search:

[/img]

San Francisco Tea Party for 9/11 Truth

WARNING AMERICA CHRISLAM IS COMING - Tea Party Nation

Rand Paul Throws A Play Soldier Dress Up Party For Obese White Men | The Liberty Lamp

Blah, blah, blah... it goes on and on.

Any form of non-violent political dissent is legitimate in my mind, and the First Amendment of the US Constitution backs me up. Indeed, the left has said virtually the same thing about the Tea Party movement, except their description basically reads:

"They are nothing more than a mob being incited by Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, and their kind. Did you not see Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin stoking the crowd in DC?"

The only difference is you agree with the views of the Tea Party over the views of OWS. Nothing more.

Yes, some are, most are not. Just like in the Tea Party, some are for violent revolution and/or secession while most are not.

Well, he did not personally, but some of his ideas did. His ideas spawned the calls for improved labor laws and better working conditions, public education, and very insightful methods for examining society. People reduce his ideas as only being reflected in the Communist Manifesto, which was a reflection of his political activism. He wrote literally thousands of pages evaluating and discussing European history and society. He pioneered the concept of dialectics that stresses examining society from a very complex and multi-level perspective. I have made it clear that I strongly disagree with Marx's political ideas, many of which I think are criminal and vile, but this doesn't mean his other contributions lack any usefulness.

Interesting... many of the OWS supporters I have talked to in my area actually want to team up with the Tea Party and join forces to deal with the issues both movements agree on. Take this statement pulled from a website:

After reading that, tell me, are these OWS "talking points" as one other post here suggests? No, they are from the home page of the Knoxville Tea Party website. Read that again, and go back and re-read my original post. Do my words sound like Marxist BS? Or is it maybe that both sides of this issue are onto something here? If you don't believe me, here is the link:

The Unofficial Website of the Knoxville Tea Party | Tea and Crumpets Anyone?

"Right" and "wrong" are relative. In the good ol' days, it was considered "right" to own slaves, "right" to beat your wife and children, or "right" to force Native Americans from their land at gunpoint. It was "wrong" to let women vote or own property, "wrong" to let black people drink from the same drinking fountain as whites, and "wrong" to socialize with people not like you. Am I saying that all issues of morality are social constructions and totally abstract? No, not at all. I believe there are very fundamental values of right and wrong, one of which includes respecting the right of people to freely express their political and social ideas, ESPECIALLY the ones I don't agree with.

As far as being normal or just about what Marx wrote, ask yourself if you have ever actually read anything he wrote at all. Most people haven't even read the Communist Manifesto, much less any of his thousands of pages of writing. Until you have read a broad sample of his work, you can't make that judgement of his ideas as a whole.

I can tell the difference between the two groups; many of the differences are obvious and I made that clear in my first post. They disagree with Tea Party on HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Many of their complaints are very similar. We just tend to disagree on the solutions in pretty dramatic ways. You, and many others, seem to be wrapping their value as human beings and American citizens with their political ideas, which is a very un-American idea. We are a society based on tolerance, free thought, and liberty to live our lives as we choose as long as we are not doing direct harm to someone else. Last time I checked, dressing like a hippy, putting your hair in dreds, soaking yourself in patchouli oil, and protesting in a park for a month isn't inherently illegal or a violation of my rights. We have a Constitution and a political process to deal with the issues, and that is where the arguments will end up.

I paid closer attention to where you got the information from and had the time to digest it.

My conclusion is you think I cannot be a free thinker, by being a conservative or "right winger",

since I like to watch and gather information from sources other than yours. That is patently

absurd. If you think a free thinker has to be some kind of academic and use bits and pieces

from your own selection of links and no other information is allowed, then by definition you're

not one yourself.

In other words, don't draw assumption on me because I may not agree with you. That's

stupid.

For the sake of it, I'll draw an assumption on you. You wrote a paper for a class and you are

proud of it. Likewise, I would be, too. Regardless of the content, your paper was done as an

assignment, and if it were me, I would do the assignment for the grade and would probably have

done something similar. That doesn't mean I would have agreed with it, but I still would have

done it.

Now, throwing some pictures up here and using that as some kind of evidence to support your

side of an argument doesn't effectively succeed. Where those pictures and links came from tell

more about your attempt to bias your side. Sometimes we do that, but it doesn't get the job

done. It just goes to show that ego can sometimes get in the way of a discussion.

I stated my opinion. It was my opinion and I'm comfortable with it. You based your assumption of

me(in a latter post) incorrectly. I'm sorry to have seen that, too. When you did that, you actually

made my argument for me. Anyone can be a free thinker. They don't have to be from the academic

world, and they don't have to use propaganda sources to make their case.

I look at a lot of sources and decide on my own if they are credible, to begin with, as I'm certain

a lot of other folks around here do, also. I don't try to pet my ego with what I write and my opinion

is only mine. So, the next time you wish to disarm my mind by saying I'm biased and maybe not

some kind of free thinker, consider that you don't hold any claim or expertise on that title.

I wish you would put up that paper so I could read it. I would definitely read it with more of an

open mind than you could imagine and I might even praise it for your contribution, even if I disagreed

with the content.

I submit that "right minded individuals" can be and and are probably more "free thinking" than

most academic types, with few exceptions. Thomas Soule is one that comes to mind, right off

the top of my right leaning head. And I also submit that I am not infected with Marx's writings,

or Hitler's, for that matter.

BTW, I've read most of what you mention. Do I have to draw your conclusions? Or, am I just

close-minded?

[Mark@Sea]

Spouting BS to put the opposition on the defensive to give them less time to attack your argument is right out of Alinskys' rules for radicals. An excellent example is the many, many uses of the accusation of racism when in fact race has nothing to do with it.

The best defense that comes to mind is to call a spade a spade, refuse to apologize for acknowledging the facts, and move on.

Like the 60's peace protests, financed and directed by KGB, OWS protests are staged and financed by organizations who have no interest in financial accountability (or free speech, for that matter). Just a sideshow, with more clowns than usual.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Exactly, and the premise one starts with usually gives that away.