It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Occupy Wall Street movement the new Tea Party or actually the old Tea Party?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
neither one

what they want is more government control over wall street

they are the ones who beleive that wealth should and must be legislated and controlled

so no they are neither the tea party or the old tea party they are your progressive liberals

everyones a winner everyones gets their free cash.

and people need to realize something that this country would not exist without wall street

the wealth and success of this country would not exist.

they sit up there and run their mouths acting like the smartest kid in the room

but every single one of them are clueless and everyone who supports that ideology

or should i say comrade,marxists,socialists. thats what they are.




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You got it back-ass-words. Wall Street controls government, NOT government wanting more control of wall street. How can you control something "more" if you NEVER controlled it in the first place? My god the irony in your posts is killing me one post at a time.


And no one is really arguing if we should substitute capitalism for communism because overall capitalism is a better system, provided there are basic rules and regulations that get followed. This is especially true with banking, as the repealing of the glass-steagal act was the main reason for the need for corporate bailouts. Banks branched out to become investment companies and they speculated like crazy.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Blame Wall Street, blame the White House, blame Hollywood, blame Congress, blame the “Illuminati”, and blame everyone else but the one thing that actually deserves the blame: our culture. None of this would be occurring if we were held responsible for our actions rather than pretend like all is good. People want to say Wall Street is corrupt, well look in the mirror. The people on Wall Street grew up alongside us, they are us, and there corruption to this degree exists because society does not hold itself responsible for anything. What is the answer? Regulate them, more top-down approach trying to pretend like people are machines.

Tell me this; are we any better now than we were in 1950? I mean without the whole equality part of it, are we as a society, a civilization even, better now as a whole than we were in 1950? No we are not. Our people have degraded to the lowest common denominator on the moral/ethical food chain. Is it any wonder why capitalism has run amok? Our answer to the corruption is – Regulate – so tell me, has the regulation stopped anything? Have we changed Washington or Wall Street by adding more taxes or regulations? No because they are unethical.

Business has always been an unethical game but even in our past they had standards by which to play the game. Today the only standard is – make as much money for yourself at all costs. Is it any wonder? We complain about them but they are just playing the game baby, society was taught that whatever the individual felt was right is good, ignore the consequences and live for the moment.

Go ahead, have a revolution hang every person in Wall Street, Washington, etc… but guess what, when it ends we are back at the beginning again. The cycle restarts and the game repeats itself. Why does this happen? Because a revolution changes our surroundings but it does not change us on the inside; we must evolve rather than revolt. Nothing is more threatening to the powers that hold control over our world than us changing our own attitudes.

Abandon consumerism, do what makes you feel good individualism, stop treating everyone’s ideas like they have equal worth, and do not try to justify unjustifiable actions in the name of liberty. This is not just my view of the world, at least if you will not listen to me listen to the sages of old.

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.” – John Adams, Letter to Zabdiel Adams (21 June 1776)

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” – Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)

“There are persons who constantly clamor. They complain of oppression, speculation, and pernicious influence of wealth. They cry out loudly against all banks and corporations, and a means by which small capitalists become united in order to produce important and beneficial results. They carry on mad hostility against all established institutions. They would choke the fountain of industry and dry all streams.” – Daniel Webster, Speech in the Senate (12 March 1838)

“We perceive that a great breach has been made in the moral and physical systems by the introduction of moral and physical evil; how or why, we know not; so, however, it is, and it certainly seems proper that this breach should be closed and order restored. For this purpose only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation. In this plan I have full faith. Man, in his present state, appears to be a degraded creature; his best gold is mixed with dross, and his best motives are very far from being pure and free from earth and impurity.” – John Jay, Letter to Lindley Murray (22 August 1774)


edit on 10/1/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Sir, you again seem to be the master just sitting in that chair, telling everyone why "it wont work", "their not going about it the right way"

Please, for once be a part of the solution, instead of always being part of the problem.

heres a quote for you...............from my grandma........."If you cant say anything nice, then dont say anything at all."

Parker
MTUBY



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


So I assume your idea of taking action is to what… protest? Call for the heads of Wall Street executives? That does nothing. The path I have chosen to follow for change is to change myself and use that as a demonstration for those around me. People care more about the messenger than the message, if I can prove to people that my path is the preferable one than my job is accomplished. No signs, no scapegoating, nothing like that. I address the issue, explain my criticisms or my reasoning for support, and live a life that is virtuous as I can achieve.

That is my protest.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


so, your protests only concern your well being.................no others???

I find that so hard to believe, that someone of your stature would only be concerned about themselves...........hard to glean that from your posts.

keep up the good work



Parker
MTUBY



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


nah you dont understand what he said at all

his goal is the betterment of society through non destructive means

and not more of the same



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
you know what, they are near a harbor......



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Hey good to see you back......................you disappeared in that other thread as soon as you got called out while bashing ex-military..................soon as someone asked what have you done to serve??

So, what is your plan again??...................the one that is not self centered, but designed for the betterment of all??

Parker
MTUBY


edit on 1-10-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


1. was dealing with other issues and as to called out? not hardly

2. any real change comes from within and not at the behest of others and their idealism or their govennment.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


Do not get mad at me for your failed comprehension of what I was trying to explain. To put it in the simplest terms possible: “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” – Mahatma Gandhi



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TDawgRex
 
The "occupy Wall Street" crowd is being led by the nose.
Sure, the banks/Wall Street ae culpable. But it's the spineless pols in DC that make the laws that the bankers abuse.

This is a White House sponsored event to place blame away from those in power.

Just my humble opine.


edit on 1-10-2011 by beezzer because: spellling


I think you are looking at it the wrong way. The banks buy the politicians, pay for the campaigns and pay
for the policy. This has been on the lefts mind for some time...

The only way that banks buy the pols is because the pols are spineless cowards with no integrity. What we need are political leaders with backbones and a sense of duty.


No, the system is BROKEN. If a pol stands up for what he believes in, he doesn't get re-elected.

Would you like the know how?

I'll bet you would.

Let me see if I can sum this up. And if anyone can refute this, then by all means, please try.


If a politician betrays his voters, it's not that big of a deal. If you're a republican you ARE NOT going to vote democrat no matter what. And the independents that do switch hit are fickle and can sway back and forth on a whim. Betraying voters barely puts a dent in one's political career.

If a politician betrays the wishes of his donors, especially the likes of Goldman Sachs, his career is OVER. You won't get the funds for your next election, and you probably won't get them ever again. Not only will the betrayed donor never donate again, but all potential donors WILL NOT donate because they know that you don't play ball.

You think lobbyists don't write laws, or wouldn't know how? Most of them are ex-politicians. (that's what happens when a politician is a really good boy, he gets to be a 7 figure lobbyist)

The social issues tend to be a distraction. Don't ask don't tell, whatever, they don't really care either way. It keeps the electorate happy to bicker about this nonsense. And if you don't have an opinion, Hannity will give you one. The social issues are the one thing the asshats in DC can give you.
But when it comes to fiscal policy, holy crap, look at how fast Obama became GWB part 2. More spending, more war, and more Sachs pinning the country down on a pinball machine.

I could go on forever, but if you didn't get the pernt by now then you're just being intentionally obtuse.

And by the way, my spell check didn't flag Goldman Sachs. "SACHS" AIN'T A WORD


Maybe protesting in Washington DC would be a better idea. I don't know. But I do know that the laws regarding campaign funds are not going to change regardless because the donors write the laws, and they don't want to stop doing so, so they would never write a law banning themselves from writing laws.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

While I could see this as a viable plot in a movie, it doesn't seem to be playing out that way. First of all, it is being ignored by left-wing and right-wing media. The only ones who are giving it any positive light are the comedy central personalities (and Lawrence O'Donnell did a cool piece about the police abuses). If this were a government-driven event, wouldn't you think it would be fully supported by the media?

I agree that if we stopped voting for corrupt politicians, there would be no corrupt politicians. But that's like saying Justin Beiber will go away if we just stop listening to him. Sure, some of us would stop but there is still that huge pop music money machine that will cram it so far down the rest of the country's throats that he'll never go away.

Wall Street is that machine. As long as it exists in current form, media will be bought. Politicians will be bought. PACs will be bought. Unions will be bought. Government will be bought. And our option between the two candidates we have every four years will always belong to them. Why do you think RP is never supported (again, with the exception of Lawrence O'Donnell and the Comedy Central crowd... strange now that I think of it)...


Everyone talks about the arm-chair quarterbacking being done here. That we are not doing anything. WE need to start runing for office. WE need to start making change. Protests, revolutions are fast.
And they don't always work.
(Personally, I need to decide if I want to give up my dual citizenship. Brit or yank?)
Cameron or Obama?
Hell, I'm better off starting my own country.

ETA; cheers to Misoir, didn't mean to parrot.
edit on 2-10-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
There is one major difference that distinguishes the Occupy Movement from the Tea Movement, make no mistake about this one :

The Tea's were deadset against the banks but have since embraced them fully while allowing their "enemy' to rise to become their No. 1 contributor while The Occupy movement won't take money from any corporation.

The Tea's sold out America while The Occupy's are for America and all she stands for and just because the unions are now backing the Occupy movement shall not be a negative reflection upon the Occupy movement. With the Tea's there was only 1 socio economical background represented, Upper class suburbia while the Occupy movement welcomes all and does not tell it's supporters or contingents how or what to think. Common sense based in reality, logic is the order not that of the Tea's of "It's the way we tell you or don't bother". The Tea tells you how to think while the Occupy allows you to think for yourself and represents a much broader cross section of America. If you don't fall in lockstep with the Tea's you are labeled instantly as being Anti American and the fact the Tea's bring guns to their gatherings tells me that "If you don't do what we say, how we say, we are going to shoot and kill you".

Ask yourself this, how many rights worker groups support the Tea's and how many support the Occupy? None support the Tea's.

This will only grow and it will be like this, "Either join us or get out of the way!". Fundamental international change is afoot, either get behind it or get out of it's way. There is no second option!
edit on 2-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


nah you dont understand what he said at all

his goal is the betterment of society through non destructive means

and not more of the same


This has always been and will forever be the mantra of the Occupy movement. They do not believe in intimidation, bringing live ammunition to rallies. Revolution through non violent and peaceful action.

One clear fact remains and that is the Tea's bring guns to their gatherings tells me that "If you don't do what we say, how we say, we are going to shoot and kill you" and you will not see one firearm on display at any of the Occupy movement's gatherings.
edit on 2-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You both have got it wrong. "Free markets" need to be differentiated from "capitalism," with capitalism being the joint term for the state-industrial complex that has existed since the Industrial Revolution. There has never been a separation between the two; government is a body established to protect and maintain the system that can be personified in Wall Street (attacked by the left) and DC (attacked by the right). Why does this complex Wall Street-DC exist?

1) Government grants corporate charters.
2) Government bestows 'property rights.'
3) Government enforces monopolies via patents and trademark and copyright laws, allowing for monopolies to establish to maintain a level of artificial scarcity so there is perpetual demand for goods.
4) Government protects the boss/worker dichotomy through the existence of the welfare state - unemployment becomes a manageable place that is always existing, ensuring that there will always be somebody to fill any given position. Thus, employees do not challenge their bosses for greater gains due to potential job loss. Management becomes a prerequisite.
5) Big business creates wealth, and creates power.
6) Power forms an elite, capable of enacting public policy across a broad spectrum that comes from above, not below.

What would happen if the state withered away, and was replaced by true democracy and the elusive free market?

1) The property owning class would cease to exist.
2) Scarcity would cease to exist, resulting in goods that would be readily available to due to their lack of exchange-value.
3) The destruction of exchange-value would render wealth accumulation obsolete, leading to even wealth distribution.
4) With the 'leveling of the wealth playing field,' we would no longer depend on the wealthy to create jobs.
5) Workers would gain a greater say in their production, rendering the worker/boss dichotomy a thing of the past.

In short, democratic free markets are the direct road to socialism.

Forget the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street; they are prime examples of Gramscian Hegemony, with the prevailing order absorbing the system's contradictions into itself. We need market democracy now!



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
The Tea Party opposes big government and is influenced by the founding fathers.

Occupy Wall St. opposes big corporations and is influenced by the Arab Srping revolutions.

One is right-wing, one is left-wing.

You can see in this thread and many others, the Tea Partiers won't join the Occupiers because they believe the problem to be with those elected, not their financial backers.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The message is apparently concise and quite clear and it is growing. 10 cities throughout the nation now online or online sometime this week. This is real.

Something is about to pop off I can feel it. The vibe from my region is hard to read.

Ain't no Tea'r ever staged a multi-week sit-in/occupation.
edit on 3-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Dissention on both tells you that something needs to change and needed to happen yesterday is what both groups are in a odd unanimous agreement on but needs to be able to put both differences aside and just do the right thing by coming together.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


The day neo96 and I agree to something will be...unlikely to occur.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join