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.

 

Washington Post: "Americans favor Occupy Wall Street far more than Tea Party"

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I believe this poll. But it's because the idea of what OWS is about hasn't had a chance to crystallize. The Tea Party began more popular, and the more defined it became, the less it was liked. This percentage who like this probably just like the idea of a protest against the status quo.




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by cassandranova
 


The Tea party lacked anything resembling appeal, except to a relatively small, hate-filled quadrant of the American population. See, the basic premise was that these people felt they were "taxed enough already" and so they went out to protest a tax plan... that would have reduced their taxation levels. Then, directed by their corporate sponsors, they began railing against health care reform, because goldurnit, they LIKE buying antibiotics from the aquarium store becuase it costs too damn much to get with their insurance.

Basically it was a bunch of angry, over-privileged, under-educated people who were pissed that their team - which, depending on the tea partier was either "Republicans" or "white people" - didn't win in 2008.

In other words, it had no actual agenda aside from "What Would Koch Brothers do?" and was about as charismatic as a Klansman with leprosy.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 





Know why Time readership leans left? because the right is largely illiterate. Ba-dum-TISH!


oh yeah that was a knee slapper hear me laughing? obviously not same old song from you.




The magazine itself has a political bias like Jerry Seinfeld has a sense of humor. That is, it doesn't; it's not even stalwartly objective. It's just... blah. Media oatmeal. They (and Newsweek) try so, so hard to not take a stand that it's not even worth reading. Seriously, read a Time magazine. Then read, Oh I dunno, Mother Jones. You'll see a massive difference (especially since Mother Jones doesn't give George Will the closing word)


did you have a point there didnt see one and according to you im illiterate so how would i ever know.




Yeah, poll conservative, and you'll find a bunch of people who want to increase their own tax burden so that the rich pay less. You'll find people who don't want to send their kids to school because those kids might accidentally learn something not found in Leviticus. Poll conservative Americans, and you'll find them rampant with fear of the government getting involved in their Medicare. So yes, go ahead and poll conservative Americans. Just be sure to include a poll result that covers incoherent prattle about gay Muslim Mexicans.


yeah from what i have seen school has taught alot of people nothing but indoctrination to be good little democrats.

Medicare you mean that medicare that automatically gets deducted from millions of ameircans social security checks to pay for a half ass healthcare program one government check paying the government back yeah thats what your talking about.

Muslim gay mexican conversely poll any liberal what they think of god and you wouldnt hear anything nice being said.




I don't know too many conservatives that understand that Western text is read from the left to the right, from top of page to bottom.


you think but there are conservatives out there that know eastern languages are read from right to left top to bottom and speak 4 different languages but pay no nevermind to that.

have at your typical ad homenim left wing liberal "im smarter than everyone else" rants.

nothing said there i havent heard before and the real world always proves to be false but hey feel free to think your better than everyone else when your not even close.

and the pot calling the kettle black there with the hatred remark all i have seen from you and your postings prove that there is nothing but hatred coming from you hence the personal insults so common place.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Brash tongue in cheek rarely gets the point across....

I am unsure how you can say that the magazine has no political bent and then claim they "aren't stalwartly objective".... which is it?

I am not picking on you, just caught my eye.

As for the poll, it isn't Time's per se. They may have commissioned it, but the research company that conducted owns the poll. So even if Time doesn't have a slanted view, they could have commissioned the research firm to only poll from a OWS crowd or a heavily Democratic district.

Those details are left out for a reason as it would shed complete transparency upon polls such as these. It is why no matter the media outlet, polls should be taken lightly and with as much truth as that of the Onion.

I agree with a previous poster though; how does 1001 adult American's represent a cross-section of the entire nation? Even then, only 600 or so of those people were used to conclude that the OWS movement is more favorable than the Tea Party.

The criteria of the base that was asked those questions was that they "knew of the Tea Party". Further questions would have to be asked to ascertain the complete picture. Of those 600 or so people, where do they know the Tea Party from? Where do you receive most of your news and information from? Etc, etc.

The poll itself is meant to drive numbers to the site and/or increase readership. It is a media company that survives by pushing those numbers upward. Anyone that believes polls such as these or any other sponsored poll by a media company is woefully being led around by two fingers.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You really have no clue what the tea party was or what they stood for. I guess you just laughed along with the Daily Show and took it as legit news.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I don't agree with that at all, and you sound like someone who is just talking about something you never personally experienced. When the Tea Party movement began, it was started because of anger over the bailout program began by Bush and continued by Obama, people who were mad their wealth was being used to pay for entities who had made reckless decisions.

In my town, original events included a great many Democrats, union members, minorities, and other people who very much did not subscribe to a Republican, conservative, or regressive world view.

Thanks to an influx of money, and the questionable motives of leaders who came into power, I agree it has become a bunch of Republican shills, but to say it began like that just isn't factually accurate. Your reasoning is the same hateful mindset the right is currently taking of OWS, and if their movement fails, it will be for the same basic reason the Tea Party failed.

The ugly truth of American politics is each side really enjoys not liking the other side, and though they don't like to consciously admit, they'll often choose to hurt the other party even if it is to the detriment of the entire country.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
the tea party should be there too hell 3 quarters of the entire country should be there, but no ows is just another sorry excuse for a crackdown.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The one and only reason the OWS groups are getting more positive reviews by the public is that journalists are biased towards being democrats, and the OWS group lean democrat. In 2009 when the TP movement started the only thing journalists did was make up smears about the protesters, and the public was STUPID enough to buy into the lies.

None the less, OWS will most certainly be hijacked and smeared into submission by the mainstream media just like the Tea Party was. People are fools to have a negative opinion of TP but positive on OWS and here is why: The tea party movement started as exactly the same thing: a broad group of americans with a long list of complaints, with the biggest complaint being the bank bailouts. If there was one universal complaint by the TP movement it was not the government but rather the banker bailouts. So, yes, the TP movement can join OWS on that common ground in protest of the Federal Reserve Bank and the bailouts they create.

It was months after the movement took off that it took for the TP to be taken over. It will also take months for OWS to be taken over by politicians. Give it three more months for the Occupy Wall Street Express to totally destroy the movement. The Tea Party Express was the most disgusting thing I've ever seen, and so will the Occupy Wall Street Express.
edit on 14-10-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
Show me a totally unbiased poll, then we can talk, ok? Cause I haven't seen any real unbiased proof that Americans are favoring them.


So really.. let's be honest here.

You won't believe a poll unless it agrees with your world view, right? That's what you mean when you say you "haven't seen any real unbiased proof", right?


This is clearly a really hard bit of truth for the tea party die hards to accept.



Look at the way the MSM already lied in the way they portray the Tea Party as a bunch of uneducated racist rednecks.


Oh please, they did that well enough on their own.




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I guess we will just have to see in next election, who's side the American people are on: the Tea party, or the drunken/jobless/spoiled college party. How's Ron Paul doing in the polls by the way?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by Chance321
Show me a totally unbiased poll, then we can talk, ok? Cause I haven't seen any real unbiased proof that Americans are favoring them.


So really.. let's be honest here.

You won't believe a poll unless it agrees with your world view, right? That's what you mean when you say you "haven't seen any real unbiased proof", right?


This is clearly a really hard bit of truth for the tea party die hards to accept.



Look at the way the MSM already lied in the way they portray the Tea Party as a bunch of uneducated racist rednecks.


Oh please, they did that well enough on their own.





A person’s world view is just that. Their world view.

As for painting a a bad picture of the OWS, there are plenty of vids out there that put them in a bad light as well.

But there are those of us out there who despite our Conservative or Liberal leanings try to look at both sides of the coin.

THAT is why I have litle faith in polls.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by Chance321
Show me a totally unbiased poll, then we can talk, ok? Cause I haven't seen any real unbiased proof that Americans are favoring them.


So really.. let's be honest here.

You won't believe a poll unless it agrees with your world view, right? That's what you mean when you say you "haven't seen any real unbiased proof", right?


This is clearly a really hard bit of truth for the tea party die hards to accept.



Look at the way the MSM already lied in the way they portray the Tea Party as a bunch of uneducated racist rednecks.


Oh please, they did that well enough on their own.






Wow, I guess this would fall under the heading of "The pot calling the kettle". I mean to be honest look at yourself, your all puffed up with this left leaning poll, but you get someone that disagrees with it and you get defensive. All I asked for is an unbiased poll, Time and the Washington Post are far from being unbiased, they print what their handlers tell them to print.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Lot of venom being sPit on this thread. It's a promising poll in my opinion, but it does come with bias. I doubt if you polled fairly the results would be the same. Alot of people believe in reform, but that doesn't make them socialists. I like OWS so far, but watch them. They aren't just angry Americans these days. An agenda is being formed. The question will end up being who foot the bill for the press coverage. Still, if the objectives remain sound, I don't care if it's not grassroots.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
Wow, I guess this would fall under the heading of "The pot calling the kettle". I mean to be honest look at yourself, your all puffed up with this left leaning poll, but you get someone that disagrees with it and you get defensive. All I asked for is an unbiased poll, Time and the Washington Post are far from being unbiased, they print what their handlers tell them to print.


Hah! Nice try, but you're misreading snark for defensiveness


Since you expertly dodged the question, why don't you go ahead and share with us all some sources *you* feel are unbiased.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 


Depends on whose pollers you ask, his or everyone else's. Your great white hope is a political ghost. He's just haunting the news hoping someone gets spooked and says something that makes him feel like a real candidate. We all saw it with Nader and Perot. The only difference here is Paul's name won't even see the presidential ticket. I do like him though. Beats all the other hands down for integrity and problem solving. Prolly why he's DOA.
edit on 14-10-2011 by VivaDiscordia because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Gee, let me think...

* The Tea Party said, they wanted the voice of the individual heard-- and were branded in MSM as "racist."
* The Tea Party said they wanted state rights returned from the federal government and they were portrayed by the MSM as ignorant hillbillies.
* A black lawmaker claims someone spit on him and used the N-word, and the claim of racism is "confirmed" although the video and audio recording suggest it did not happen.
* And how does one reconcile Republicans stereotyped as ignorant hillbillies and at the same time the rich oppressors?

* The Occupy Wall Street says they want free college, and the MSM branded them as passionate youth.
* The Occupy Wall Street says they want the government to guarantee jobs at a moderately high wage and the MSM brands them as "grass roots"
* The Occupy Wall Street say they are communist and anti-capitalist and the MSM brands them as "concerned"
* An OWS members is on tape yelling at an elderly man wearing a yarmulke, "You f-n Jew!" and the media says, "tensions can be high."
* And how does one reconcile Democrats stereotyped as uneducated communist hippies, and at the same time the intellectual elite?

The film crews and editors choose the worst voice of a view contrary to their own and choose the most eloquent voice of the group closest to their own views, or they cast what they see with their own editorializing-- because it works. You expect more from the press-- but you won't get it.

Both groups expect more from the government, but won't get it, because while they actually want many of the same things, only one side will truly be heard-- or both sides used to cancel out the other.

My point is that what is not inflammatory can be (and has been) presented as inflammatory and what may be alarming to many can be (and has been) portrayed as "Don't worry, be happy." The difference is whether the political ideology matches that of the MSM.

So for every person who knows that FOX is biased to the political conservative, there is a person who knows that CNN, MSNBC, CNS and ABC are biased toward the political liberal. Newspapers and mainstream new magazines are almost all politically liberal.

And when group is silenced or misportrayed so that the message is deemed hateful-- violence is the historic result.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Tea Party == Yugo to Hell

Occupy Wall Street == Going Ford!



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccupyPlanet
Tea Party == Yugo to Hell

Occupy Wall Street == Going Ford!


Maybe you can be a bit more constructive to the discussion. ATS is faltering and slipping into the abyss of the Internet with fools like you that cannot put together a full paragraph explaining exactly what you meant above and why it might be a persuasive argument.

Catchy, yet falls on its face.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I'm sorry Neo but you're so clearly grasping at straws here.




Q25A. IF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY AND THE CANDIDATES WERE (BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRAT), AND (MITT ROMNEY, THE REPUBLICAN), AND YOU HAD TO CHOOSE, FOR WHOM WOULD YOU VOTE?
BASE: LIKELY VOTERS (838)
BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRAT 46%
MITT ROMNEY, THE REPUBLICAN 43%
OTHER/NEITHER 3%
WOULD NOT VOTE IN ELECTION 1%
UNDECIDED/DON’T KNOW/NO ANSWER 7%
Read more: swampland.time.com...


Looks like a fairly random sampling to me... If this poll had overwhelming numbers of democrats/liberals you wouldn't see this much support for Mitt. Also, why are you resisting even considering that this poll may be accurate? Is it possible that you are infected with confirmation bias? You clearly are.

But don't worry, the liberty you'll gain as a result of the success of this movement will be much more than you could have hoped to have gained from supporting the Tea Party.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 



Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by Chance321
 


I'm sure you're the first to speak up any time a hard right leaning source is used to start a thread... right?

Back on topic - Do you not have any constructive input on the subject of Americans favoring OWS to the tea party?


Tell me how comparing two popular mass protest movements is "constructive". This thread's point is extremely divisive and does little to solve anything. Both movements feel government has ignored the vast majority of residents of this country and I think both have highlighted the fact that more and more people are waking up and getting more involved in trying to change the system.

You on the other hand want sow the seeds of division and belittle opposing viewpoints....not exactly one of the most thought-provoking threads I've read.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join