reply to post by beezzer
"Does the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement best represent the interests of social justice and economic recovery in America?"
i too would like to point out that both groups ultimately wants what's best for america and by proxie the world.
Occupy stands for 1 law for all, and that corporations are not people and money is not free speech,
and that the government no longer represents the will of the people and instead represents the corporations. the principals that america was founded
on, all are created equal in life liberty justice and happiness
a government for the people by the people, responsive to the civil society's need for just laws that are applied equally regardless of wealth or
as both the tea party and Occupy agree,
the bank bailouts are antithetical to a free market economy and a democracy.
taking tax dollars destined to flow through the larger economy and sending directly to the banks instead is the very worst thing you could do for an
note we do not stand for bigger government, as suggested by beezer,
except for a few key areas, we want more police and better services for veterans and for government to issue money not an unelected private
corporation (federal reserve)
no american can succeed financially without other people to conduct commerce with,
the first amendment of the bill of rights states,
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to
so in the very first amendment is the recipe for occupy,
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect
the natural rights of liberty and property
it is my belief that the founders of the constitution knew what would protect liberty and property and they included them as instructions for future
generations to use when tyranny showed its ugly head.
it is their idea that when a government becomes odious to the well being of the people,
it is the duty of the population to stand together in unity and peacefully assemble for redress in public where all are free to speak and all are free
to come and go as they see fit. where all people are equal regardless of wealth or status.
in matters of health care, it makes no sense to pay insurers over and over again for the same services that could be built and owned by the states
education is the future, as are the children who need it,
every person is an individual, but we live in a society, and without the society no individual could succeed
the idea beezer has about occupy removing individuality is incorrect.
we have managed to get the support from the largest cross section of the population,
every race, every nationality, and nearly every political persuasion has come to call Occupy their own movement.
we see the need for "collective action" but this should not be confused with collectivism
The top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.
remember capitalism is predicated on capital flows IN the economy and at the point where all the money sits in a bank account, no one has money to use
as a medium of exchange.
i have no problem with being successful,
or working hard for what you desire, as this is the basis for capitalism,
but our belief is that corporations only exist to serve us,
not the other way around.
Beezers claim of occupy removing of the individuality of people is redundant thinking,
there are over one hundred different occupy groups worldwide and ALL of them are self determining,
they democratically decide their own way forward.
the bit beezer missed is democracy is by participation, not excluding any one group.
we are truly all equal and ANY individual can offer an idea or direction.
in times of great need unity of spirit and of intent is needed,
Occupy as a movement consists of millions of individuals doing what their direct interest is but under one united banner.
the problem of the tea party is simply are attacking occupy with main street news narratives and buzz words,
like communists or hippies. and i find it hard to reconcile corporate sponsorship to fix the problem of unwanted undue corporate influence on elected
we accept no corporate money,
and still succeed
we believe that banking malfeasance combined with corporate person hood,
means we as an entire movement are being decimated by a structure of greed.
break up the to big to fail banks like the monopoly "standard oil" because no corporation is greater or more important than our big american brother
we have started a revolution in state banking to remove some of the undue influence of the largest banks,
and to directly provide for state infrastructure, whose profits benefit the state they operate in.