The Tea Party Conspiracy?

reply to post by JDub297


The question is WHO is using the movement. Personally the fact that the monetary equation is obviously being downplayed by someone speaks alot, it automatically makes me think globalists, Why? Because it's the serious most important issue in this country and if the Federal Reserve was exposed for what they really are and what they are really doing then it would ruin everything for TPTB.

It's funny that most Americans still think that the Federal Reserve is actually a government entity and not a private one controlled by a small group of VERY rich people, something that in and of itself is UN-constitutional.


[edit on 9/13/2009 by Uniceft17]

Originally posted by Uniceft17
reply to post by GigaloCool

 

So you chose to ignore the message and instead just attack someone you don't agree with?

Why don't you start off better and actually have an honest debate and address the thread topic. Anyone can run from thread to thread throwing insults at someone they don't agree with.

[edit on 9/13/2009 by Uniceft17]

I sure can myself

This movement is about as pure as Millionaire prostitute





"Save the snuffleupagus hotline, Sara speaking..."

The tea party got tea bagged

[edit on 13-9-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by Uniceft17
reply to post by snusfanatic

 

The question is WHO is using the movement. Personally the fact that the monetary equation is obviously being downplayed by someone speaks alot, it automatically makes me think globalists, Why? Because it's the serious most important issue in this country and if the Federal Reserve was exposed for what they really are and what they are really doing then it would ruin everything for TPTB.

It's funny that most Americans still think that the Federal Reserve is actually a government entity and not a private one controlled by a small group of VERY rich people, something that in and of itself is UN-constitutional.

EASY

NOT COMPLEX

Sadly this has been happening for a long time, and it will probably continue to happen. Dissent groups in the 60s were infiltrated by both communist and U.S. government entities. The two were played against each other quite effectively as well, usually splintering or radicalizing what were originally quite benign and well-meaning groups.

In the case of the Tea Party movement, while I decry neither conservatives nor liberals (indeed I try to shy away from such categorizations,) what I found invigorating about them initially was their apparent inclusiveness, and the unity of purpose which appeared, at least at the time, to be the dangers of the Federal Reserve's extensive powers, and a desire for true, comprehensive reform in our government.

The Tea Party movement getting the most press, and which seems the most organized and well orchestrated, now is definitely appears to be more right leaning (and again, I am not condemning them or saying that they too don't have the right to protest and call themselves whatever they want) than its earlier, all-inclusive, centrist bent. It does at least strike me as somewhat suspicious. It would not be at all shocking to me to discover that infiltration or duplication has occurred. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the left has done or attempted to do the same as well.

This tactic is as old as politics.

reply to post by Uniceft17


I think you've missed Ace's point.

You presume that ONLY protesters against the fed's policy were the original members of the Tea Party movement.

I would suggest that the base was broader; and, that many disaffected felt enabled by the willingness of a few to actually organize and speak up.

No one in this thread said anything against protesting, if you can quote someone saying otherwise then by all means go ahead.

By implication you have. You take the position that a legitimate base of protest was somehow "de-legitimized"when the base broadened to include like-minded, but perhaps differently affected, protesters.

What you're essentially saying is that the "original" monetary protests should have limited event participation and membership to only those of like mind/motivation.

It does matter who is orchestrating these movements and it does matter why because one major problem has been taken out of this movement and that's monetary policy.

I see no reason to believe that monetary policy has been "taken out" of Tea Party protests. I've participated in Texas and Indiana, and the events I've been to definitely included a significant element whose focus was on the Federal Reserve's usurpation of fiscal policy and the Treasury's willingness to finance the debacle.

When you have 10,000 pissed off people, most of whom have been affected by the combination of skewed monetary policy and unfettered license to manipulate markets, some will be complaining about the effects, or the symptoms, rather than the root cause of the problem that motivated their participation.

If anything, the movement has benefitted from the "echoes" that prove the point of the "original" protesters. (Assuming you are correct, and that monetary policy was the SOLE impetus of the Tea Party protesters.)

I've also been a member from the "beginning" if you can actually pinpoint such a time. The people I'm going with have had different motivations from the start. Hell, one guy wants to be a documentarian, so he's been rather selfishly motivated all along - he just "goes for the show."

I'm all for protesting big government, I stated in the OP that I was apart of the original Tea Party movement and that was one of the reasons behind the protests. And you can't really protests government and not protest the federal reserve and monetary policy because they are virtually one in the same.

Then why complain? Or suspect you've been co-opted? I'm old enough to recall, and to have participated in, the anti-war efforts of the'70s. We WELCOMED people who may have had other grievances, but whose presence made us more visible, and added to the synergy of spreading disaffection in general.

What's wrong with that?

Just because you don't like the fact that there appears to be a conspiracy theory behind the movement doesn't mean that anyone should ignore the facts.

"Appearances" do not equate to "facts".

If the crowds have grown larger, you have to speak louder. If you want to maintain the impetus, get others on board!

Where are your "monetary policy" threads on here?

As John Kay once said: "Come on, speak up, let me hear ya."

Stick with it and "take back your movement."

jw

[edit on 13-9-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by Uniceft17


If I could throw in my 2 cents, and call in Occam's Razor.

I agree that the movement might have changed priorities. But could it be something just as simple as the ideas that they are protesting are easier to understand to the average american who wants to join?

I'm not calling americans stupid, but with any growing organization, it takes on an "organic" appearance and that it might have grown to adopt an easier to understand approach.

Just sayin'

reply to post by Sundancer


Sundancer you have to let go of the anger, they have you where they want you.....right vs left, divide and conquer. We all have to put this Red & Blue crap behind us...mix the two colors together and you get Black! We have to stand together against TPTB....there is no difference between the two parties, it's just a smoke and mirror show.
We all need to stand United on the only issue worth fighting for, restore our constitional government.....get the theiving bastards out.....expose them for who they are. Washington DC is just center stage for the show, the players are not even there, so far behind the curtain.
I honestly believe that the people are waking up....but it maybe to late to resolve this in a civil manner. I think that the time of peaceful marches are coming to an end, they are getting no serious attention. The MSM only cover what they chose to cover, and if they must cover something like the Tea Parties or individual supporters, they generally mock them.
Sorry to say this, but I have been watching this country erode away the past 20 years, with it picking up speed the last 8 years. I wish only one thing....that the people would have listened to us 10 years ago and started the waking process then....
So in closing, I ask you again, Sundancer let it go and stand United, we may only have a slim chance at winning, but at least we will standing together, United in the end.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Uniceft17

 

I think you've missed Ace's point.

You presume that ONLY protesters against the fed's policy were the original members of the Tea Party movement.

No, I gave plenty of ideals for the original movement.

Earlier:

based on the principals of smaller governement, anti-taxation, abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve, a sweeping change on monetary policy, ending the wars and non-interventionist foreign policy.

Source

By implication you have. You take the position that a legitimate base of protest was somehow "de-legitimized"when the base broadened to include like-minded, but perhaps differently affected, protesters.

I don't hold to the belief that it was de-legitamized for that reason, it was de-legitamized when conservative special interests groups started sponsoring them, when right wing politicians started speaking at the protests when the original protests were against the very likes of these politicians. It was de-legitamized when the so called tea-party express put out there priorities. Which doesn't include 2 KEY points: monetary policy, and foreign policy. The organizors behind this movement seem to be fixated on government spending and as i've said many many times that's the least of our problems.

What you're essentially saying is that the "original" monetary protests should have limited event participation and membership to only those of like mind/motivation.

No again, I'm pointing out the fact that the tea party movement has moved away from a major issue that needs to be addressed. I hear alot of people, even on ATS talking about government spending WAY more than I hear them talking about the Feds on ATS, and that translates to the Tea Parties as well.

I see no reason to believe that monetary policy has been "taken out" of Tea Party protests. I've participated in Texas and Indiana, and the events I've been to definitely included a significant element whose focus was on the Federal Reserve's usurpation of fiscal poicy and the Treasury's willingness to finance the debacle.

It HAS been taken out, yeah there are some out there in the Tea Pary movement who are still protesting on the original ideals I can't deny that and I haven't, just an hour ago I seen abolish the Fed signs from the DC protests, but it isn't nearly as mainstream as the other skin deep initiatives the tea partyers are putting in place.

But you say it hasn't been taken out of the protests, Can you find anything that relates to the Federal Reserve in the sense i'm speaking of on the Tea Party Express site? or any of it's sponsors? The link is in the OT and I can't find anything.

When you have 10,000 pissed off people, most of whom have been affected by the combination of skewed monetary polcy and unfettered license to manipulate markets, some will be complaining about the effects, or the symptoms, rather than the root cause of the problem that motivated their participation.

I don't understand that at all, should the movement or country have to suffer from there ignorance? These skin deep issues aren't getting anywhere and the so called organizers aren't doing very well to inform them on issues like this. I wonder why? Purposely in my opinion, I can't think of another reason why. Can you?

Source.
And all of there sponsors are at the bottom.

If anything, the movement has benefitted from the "echoes" that prove the point of the "original" protesters. (Assuming you are correct, and that monetary policy was the SOLE impetus of the Tea Party protesters.)

I'm not saying it's the SOLE impetus, but it was one of the top two reasons for the movement, Ron Paul the man said it himself, monetary policy ties in with every policy and affects every policy in the country, you can't really talk policy without talking monetary policy. He said it perfectly in the debates.

I've also been a member from the "beginning" if you can actually pinpoint such a time. The people I'm going with have had different motivations from the start. Hell, one guy wants to be a documentarian, so he's been rather selfishly motivated all along - he just "goes for the show."

What were your motivations then. Mine were getting to the core of all of our issues, and monetary policy is pretty much the core of every issue in our country. But like I said the movement isn't largely about that anymore, which is why I am OUT. And the fact that we had neo-con politicians speaking at these events like they actually agree with us, sorry but you had your chance.

Then why complain? Or suspect you've been co-opted? I'm old enough to recall, and to have participated in, the anti-war efforts of the'70s. We WELCOMED people who may have had other grievances, but whose presence made us more visible, and added to the synergy of spreading disaffection in general.

What's wrong with that?

Because the movement isn't portrayed as it used to be, the media and TPTB have gotten there dirty hands on it and are now playing there political games with it. I just choose not to be apart of it and used as there tool, I can protest without being apart of this hijacked organization. There is no way this can be compared to that time in our history though, 2 completely different times, 2 completely different situations.

"Appearances" do not equate to "facts".

If the crowds have grown larger, you have to speak louder. If you want to maintain the impetus, get others on board!

Where are your "mometary policy" threads on here?

As John Kay once said: "Come on, speak up, let me hear ya."

Stick with it and "take back your movement."

jw

You got me, but the appearance of this does equate to a conspiracy IMO.

I don't have any monetary threads previously posted, it would be pointless to post one as the issue has been talked to death on ATS and I don't think I could really add anything new to the subject, everything is already pretty much out there, all people have to do is read. The reason i'm talking about monetary policy in this thread is because it hasn't been talked about in this light. Why?

[edit on 9/13/2009 by Uniceft17]

[edit on 9/13/2009 by Uniceft17]

Well, first of all, this last weekend was not a Tea Party per say.

This was 912. It was started by Glenn Beck 6 months ago. It is a movement to clean up the Coruption in DC and that does include the Fed Res.
The Tea Parties did get involved and the group just let it flow to wake up the most people possible.

Hopefully, Glenn Beck will pick up the End the Fed. fight at the right time in the next couple of weeks when it can be up for a vote.

In the meantime, the movement is spending time with the Czars, and the Apollo Alliance including ACORN. They need to be stopped before they take hold and get things really moving in the wrong direction.

So, you are right to a degree, but wrong. There are two problems that everyone agrees on. The banking cartel with the Fed Res must go, and the Govt must be cut down to control it.

All other problems can be fixed with these.

Originally posted by mikerussellus

I agree that the movement might have changed priorities. But could it be something just as simple as the ideas that they are protesting are easier to understand to the average american who wants to join?

That would make since if they were describing to the average American how the Fed screws up EVERYTHING, but they aren't.

Hell, I dropped out in 10th grade and the education system here in Alabama sucks, but monetary policy on this scale is even easy for me to understand. So I doubt that they aren't talking about it for that reason.

I'm afraid the reason for the Fed not being brought into the Tea party equation is much more sinister.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by Uniceft17

 

If I could throw in my 2 cents, and call in Occam's Razor.

I agree that the movement might have changed priorities. But could it be something just as simple as the ideas that they are protesting are easier to understand to the average american who wants to join?

I'm not calling americans stupid, but with any growing organization, it takes on an "organic" appearance and that it might have grown to adopt an easier to understand approach.

Just sayin'

Hey man!

You know you're my favorite Republican on here, right?

So please don't take this the wrong way, but the tea parties are now being sponsored by Republicans and Republican funded "think tanks", and in the allowance of that this ceases to be bi-partisan and will become polarized all too quickly. If people continue to allow Fox to hijack it you will see a lot of support that you could have had from people like me and other Ron Paul supporters disappear, and this will turn into a "Mc-Tea-Party" instead of a real grassroots organization.

You will start to see the Tea Parties show up in correspondence with Republican votes and Republican led standoffs on the floor, instead of those coming after and by the will of the people.

Mark my words, give this six months and it will be 99% standard Neocon.

How do I know? In the beginning members of my family would not have been caught dead going to one of these, but now they are going to the tea party right before the Trace Atkins concert.

Yep, Mc-Tea-Party.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Conservative. Not republican. Conservative.

And if you are correct, then it will be the death knell for the Tea Party movement. I enjoy watching it because it brings such a wide diversity to the arena. But if it does get co-opted by one party, then we can write this off.

-sigh-

If ONLY I could trust the republican party again. . .

reply to post by mental modulator

It's funny that most Americans still think that the Federal Reserve is actually a government entity and not a private one controlled by a small group of VERY rich people, something that in and of itself is UN-constitutional.

Funny?

I hear MSM liberals every day refer to the Fed as part of the government. NPR reports constantly do this. Listen to "Morning Edition" for a day or two. It WILL come up.

Intentional confusion? Disinformation?

Who gains from the confusion?

Deny ignorance!

jw

reply to post by mikerussellus


If Republicans were more like Teddy Roosevelt and Democrats were more like Franklin Roosevelt, I think the whole country would get along much better.

It's just become so polarized that there is no longer any middle ground.

I liked the Ron Paul movement because he was someone for "me". I could no more vote for McCain-Palin then I could vote for Hugo Chavez. In fact, after he made that comment at the UN about Bush smelling of sulfur...I'd rather vote for Hugo Chavez.

reply to post by Uniceft17


You've got the wrong attitude.

Take back your fight. What you sound like is the sore little kid who wants to take his ball home because the other kids from the neighborhood want to play a different game with HIS ball.

I don't understand that at all, should the movement or country have to suffer from there ignorance?

We ALL suffer "from their ignorance!" Don't you see that the ignorance is what empowers TPTB?

Ask anyone at random what America's biggest problem is. 9 out of ten WILL NOT say "the Fed." If your message has become lost in the noise, speak louder.

These skin deep issues aren't getting anywhere and the so called organizers aren't doing very well to inform them on issues like this.

Trust me, issues like "big government" and "out of control spending" and "governemnt indifference" are NOT "skin deep." These are heartfelt.

They may not be resolvable through mass demonstrations, alone, but they serve as a "common ground" to bring in the disenfranchised and give them a network within which to feel safe in voicing their own, more personal, complaints or fears. I've even seen "disclosure" people at these things.

My reaction is, "Hell Yeah!"

So often we see that the MSM go out of their way to marginalize and isolate the (formerly) "silent majority." If you've built the "soap box," why not make room for others to use it too?

I wonder why? Purposely in my opinion, I can't think of another reason why. Can you?

Safety in numbers. The courage of anonymity. There are many reasons for "Johnny come lately" participation. Not all, or even most, are nefarious.

The anti-war movement took the disinfo people in and called them out. Why run away, or hide, when you have the strength of 10 others to follow your lead.

You are starting to make this sound more like a witch hunt than a movement.

We know who the Fed villains are. Point it out. Shine the light of day on it, but don't start making unfounded accusations that can be turned against you and make you seem reactionary and possessive of the momentum building as a result of the seeds planted by Ron Paul and the anti-Fed protesters.

jw

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

If Republicans were more like Teddy Roosevelt and Democrats were more like Franklin Roosevelt, I think the whole country would get along much better.

It's just become so polarized that there is no longer any middle ground.

I liked the Ron Paul movement because he was someone for "me". I could no more vote for McCain-Palin then I could vote for Hugo Chavez. In fact, after he made that comment at the UN about Bush smelling of sulfur...I'd rather vote for Hugo Chavez.

I think that one of the problems we have now, is that the dems ARE like FDR.

Not my most favorite president.

reply to post by mikerussellus


You know what I like about him, though, he realized he was not the smartest guy on the block and put together think tanks. I don't have to agree with the outcomes, but I agree with the methodology. I had to teach about FDR (long story, I taught for a year) and had to do some research on him. Half of his programs were conservative, half were liberal. It was like he was handed this recession and kept trying and trying to fix it by throwing the best and brightest in a room and had them go to town.

He knew he wasn't smart enough to figure it out, but he wanted to provide America with the best ideas that he could. We don't always succeed in life, so my respect goes out to those that keep trying. What Roosevelt experienced was unprecedented for America and created from the policies preceeding him. Sherman Anti-trust, the Clayton Act, the establishment of the Fed, etc. these things took a while to boil over and unfortunately, he was up to bat.

I've said this of Obama, too. What a craptacular time to be President. You are handed a problem and if you can't solve it fast enough people forget that the problem existed before you. I would never want to walk a mile in either Roosevelt's or Obama's shoes.

BTW, FDR was also a man concerned with the morality of America. Now, morality is a dirty word, but that is another issue for another thread...

reply to post by A Fortiori

By that reasoning, you must have admired Reagan. He stated that he didn't have to know everything. Just surround himself with people that did.

Originally posted by jdub297

Trust me, issues like "big government" and "out of control spending" and "governemnt indifference" are NOT "skin deep." These are heartfelt.

I've explained what I meant by 'skin deep' plenty of times throughout this thread so i'm not going to explain it again.

If you've built the "soap box," why not make room for others to use it too?

Give it up, you already tried this argument in your last reply to me:

What you're essentially saying is that the "original" monetary protests should have limited event participation and membership to only those of like mind/motivation.

And I responded with this:

No again, I'm pointing out the fact that the tea party movement has moved away from a major issue that needs to be addressed. I hear alot of people, even on ATS talking about government spending WAY more than I hear them talking about the Feds on ATS, and that translates to the Tea Parties as well.

Safety in numbers. The courage of anonymity. There are many reasons for "Johnny come lately" participation. Not all, or even most, are nefarious.

What does this have to do with what you quoted me saying?

You just replied that to this statement:

"These skin deep issues aren't getting anywhere and the so called organizers aren't doing very well to inform them on issues like this. I wonder why? Purposely in my opinion, I can't think of another reason why. Can you?"
I was talking about the fact that the Tea Party express has done nothing to address the fed. and they haven't like you said they did.

The anti-war movement took the disinfo people in and called them out. Why run away, or hide, when you have the strength of 10 others to follow your lead.

I've already stated in this thread that I wasn't hiding and i'll continue my protests, just not with the hijacked tea party movement. Is that so hard to understand?

You are starting to make this sound more like a witch hunt than a movement.

Why? Because I want to find out who is behind the blatant hijacking? Because I want to find out why the organizers are leaving the Fed out of the protests(because it's definately not on there website, and I haven't really heard much about it at all from this new so called movement)? Call it whatever you want, but as far as i'm concerned there is something much bigger at play here, you can choose to believe it or not.

We know who the Fed villains are. Point it out. Shine the light of day on it

As i've said. I will.

but don't start making unfounded accusations

Haha. Me? What unfounded accusations have I made?
Let's take a look back in your history on this thread:

You presume that ONLY protesters against the fed's policy were the original members of the Tea Party movement.

Putting words in my mouth? Debunked.

You take the position that a legitimate base of protest was somehow "de-legitimized"when the base broadened to include like-minded, but perhaps differently affected, protesters.

Again putting words in my mouth? Debunked.

What you're essentially saying is that the "original" monetary protests should have limited event participation and membership to only those of like mind/motivation.

Surprise Surprise, putting words in my mouth! Debunked.

(Assuming you are correct, and that monetary policy was the SOLE impetus of the Tea Party protesters.)

Wow! Once again putting words in my mouth, can't find a place on the thread when I said that. How about you look at the OP and you can see in the first paragraph the reasons for the tea party movement. Debunked.

I see no reason to believe that monetary policy has been "taken out" of Tea Party protests.

And I'm still waiting on you to back up this statement, it's not registering on any of the Tea Party Express site or any of the Republican sponsor sites. Strangely you ignored the question.

I'll give you the link again, all the sponsors are at the bottom.
Source

momentum building as a result of the seeds planted by Ron Paul and the anti-Fed protesters.

And i'm ashamed, If I would have known that the tea party protests would have been hijacked and turned into a partisan side show to further certain political interests then I would have made an extreme effort to dis-associate this movement from the right and left even more so in the beginning. I guess all good things come to an end.

You also seem to be implying and assuming and making statements like so what your saying, and pretty much trying to twist everything I say into what you think i've been saying. My statements couldn't have been anymore clear throughout this thread, just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can twist them into your weird interpretation of what you THINK I said.

[edit on 9/13/2009 by Uniceft17]

[edit on 9/13/2009 by Uniceft17]

Originally posted by jdub297

Funny?

I hear MSM liberals every day refer to the Fed as part of the government. NPR reports constantly do this. Listen to "Morning Edition" for a day or two. It WILL come up.

Intentional confusion? Disinformation?

Who gains from the confusion?

Deny ignorance!

jw

Nice deflection.

You care to discuss the topic instead of tossing liberal at statements you don't like?