Just more isolated incidents of the OWS tolerating racism, right Fark?

Interesting. It seems like the Memphis Tea Party, at least, is everything they actually claim to be.

I still have doubt about the Tea Party on the national level, but hey, if they really do want to work to make this country better, I'm all for everybody demanding change.

optimistic_cynic: Yeah, that's my only concern is not being able bridge the divide on the solutions but agreeing that it is in fact broken is a good start. Especially if it can be done without both sides yelling at each other. I remember a time when compromise was common place in politics.

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

/oh if only we could go back to the day when each party would take the most disgusting piece of slop from each side's platform and smear it in our faces

mrshowrules: If nothing else, I would hope that Tea Partiers and OWS could agree on reducing corporate influence in DC.

but I would hope that there is probably a long ist of things they could agree on:

- ending tax loopholes on the rich (Buffet rule)
- ending military policing of the world
- no more bail-outs
- taking care of veterans

Yes, because the severity of our financial situation has anything to do with the actual bailouts.

Good luck deprogramming decades of "American Values" from those dolts.

Anti_illuminati: mrshowrules: If nothing else, I would hope that Tea Partiers and OWS could agree on reducing corporate influence in DC.

but I would hope that there is probably a long ist of things they could agree on:

- ending tax loopholes on the rich (Buffet rule)
- ending military policing of the world
- no more bail-outs
- taking care of veterans

Yes, because the severity of our financial situation has anything to do with the actual bailouts.

Protecting and maintaining "too big to fail" industries is a giant externality-laden government mistake that we continue to do. Bailouts are a big part of it.

optimistic_cynic: Yeah, that's my only concern is not being able bridge the divide on the solutions but agreeing that it is in fact broken is a good start. Especially if it can be done without both sides yelling at each other. I remember a time when compromise was common place in politics.

We all agree it's broken. But the tea party types tend to take it as a point of faith it can not be fixed. People have fundamentally irreconcilable world views about governance and economics and wishing we'd all just get along won't do anything. I expect partisan divides to get much worse.

Anti_illuminati: mrshowrules: If nothing else, I would hope that Tea Partiers and OWS could agree on reducing corporate influence in DC.

but I would hope that there is probably a long ist of things they could agree on:

- ending tax loopholes on the rich (Buffet rule)
- ending military policing of the world
- no more bail-outs
- taking care of veterans

Yes, because the severity of our financial situation has anything to do with the actual bailouts.

The bailouts were a sop to the rich to allow them to continue business as normal while the rest of us suffered for their poor decisions. That is why no more bailouts is important; whether it worsened the deficit or not, it definitely accelerated the growing wealth disparity.

optimistic_cynic: I was kind of hoping we'd already reached maximum divide...

They came unarmed... This time.

BloodySaxon: Anti_illuminati: mrshowrules: If nothing else, I would hope that Tea Partiers and OWS could agree on reducing corporate influence in DC.

but I would hope that there is probably a long ist of things they could agree on:

- ending tax loopholes on the rich (Buffet rule)
- ending military policing of the world
- no more bail-outs
- taking care of veterans

Yes, because the severity of our financial situation has anything to do with the actual bailouts.

Protecting and maintaining "too big to fail" industries is a giant externality-laden government mistake that we continue to do. Bailouts are a big part of it.

Those "too big to fail" entities must be cut down to a size where they can be allowed to fail.

I_C_Weener: Some of that is due to one side wanting bigger government to do more for them individually

Like what, exactly?

HeartBurnKid: Anti_illuminati: mrshowrules: If nothing else, I would hope that Tea Partiers and OWS could agree on reducing corporate influence in DC.

but I would hope that there is probably a long ist of things they could agree on:

- ending tax loopholes on the rich (Buffet rule)
- ending military policing of the world
- no more bail-outs
- taking care of veterans

Yes, because the severity of our financial situation has anything to do with the actual bailouts.

The bailouts were a sop to the rich to allow them to continue business as normal while the rest of us suffered for their poor decisions. That is why no more bailouts is important; whether it worsened the deficit or not, it definitely accelerated the growing wealth disparity.

Millions of people would have lost their jobs without TARP and the executives would have just 'retired' to affluence. Wealth disparity is due to bad neoliberal economic policies, not preventing systemic collapse of our banking and industry. That doesn't mean bail outs shouldn't come with reforms to minimize their use later.

DarnoKonrad: optimistic_cynic: Yeah, that's my only concern is not being able bridge the divide on the solutions but agreeing that it is in fact broken is a good start. Especially if it can be done without both sides yelling at each other. I remember a time when compromise was common place in politics.

We all agree it's broken. But the tea party types tend to take it as a point of faith it can not be fixed. People have fundamentally irreconcilable world views about governance and economics and wishing we'd all just get along won't do anything. I expect partisan divides to get much worse.

It's not the tea party types themselves as much as the monied interests who own their leadership and major mouthpieces.

There is enough common ground for something positive to happen but there is no way the leftist radical element of OWS will be able to emulate the actual peaceful assembly that the Tea party showed. And because of that it won't be able to garner political representation even to the limited point the Tea party has.

The problem with the Tea Party is that is was very quickly subverted by corporate interests and became mired in social issues. Its members were also hideously misinformed by the very people they should have been rallying against. Consider that they were angry because of the financial collapse and what they felt was the government spending too much...o.k., well, why would you then ally yourself with the very people who made all that happen in the first place? That's like people angry with the Holocaust joining a Neo-Nazi movement. There was also, of course, a very heavy racist undertone to the Tea Party when it began. That's been toned down over time, but it certainly was there.

The Occupy movement is angry that corporations have too much power and gambled with things they never should have had their hands on. Unlike the Tea Party, they aren't siding with the folks who caused the problems - OWS doesn't much like Republicans or Democrats, though their social issues break left, so Dems tend to represent them in that way. Thing is, if they follow the same mold as the Tea Party, you'll see them start to do something very, very important - shifting the Democrats, who again are more their style on social issues, back towards the left from what has been a gradual march to the right. They have the opportunity to represent the counterbalance, to pull things back to the center at the very least, but we'll have to see if the core message, which clearly does resonate with people, can be focused into politics. If not...well, at least it changed the national dialog from an extreme right-wing view to a more centered view.

optimistic_cynic 2011-11-18 11:18:12 AM

Yeah, that's my only concern is not being able bridge the divide on the solutions but agreeing that it is in fact broken is a good start. Especially if it can be done without both sides yelling at each other. I remember a time when compromise was common place in politics.

Funny thing is, I dont really remember a time when compromise was common place in politics.

Jackson Herring: BloodySaxon: Just more isolated incidents of the OWS tolerating racism, right Fark?

Damn, this is a dumb post

At least it reached its target.

optimistic_cynic

The combining of these two groups will be needed if we ever want to see major change. I'm pretty sure the base of their complaints is one in the same

swing and a miss...one wants Wall Street out of government while government increases regulation of Wall Street, the other wants government out of EVERYTHING the constitution doesn't explicitly say it should be in

It's a small step, but a significant one... we need more talking and less dividing. If these groups can come together and discuss their common goals and work around their differences, perhaps other communities might start to do the same... and then the career politicians and their corporate masters would REALLY have a problem.

Here's hoping.

DarnoKonrad: HeartBurnKid: Anti_illuminati: mrshowrules: If nothing else, I would hope that Tea Partiers and OWS could agree on reducing corporate influence in DC.

but I would hope that there is probably a long ist of things they could agree on:

- ending tax loopholes on the rich (Buffet rule)
- ending military policing of the world
- no more bail-outs
- taking care of veterans

Yes, because the severity of our financial situation has anything to do with the actual bailouts.

The bailouts were a sop to the rich to allow them to continue business as normal while the rest of us suffered for their poor decisions. That is why no more bailouts is important; whether it worsened the deficit or not, it definitely accelerated the growing wealth disparity.

Millions of people would have lost their jobs without TARP and the executives would have just 'retired' to affluence. Wealth disparity is due to bad neoliberal economic policies, not preventing systemic collapse of our banking and industry. That doesn't mean bail outs shouldn't come with reforms to minimize their use later.

That's the real problem; they didn't.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: There is enough common ground for something positive to happen but there is no way the leftist radical element of OWS will be able to emulate the actual peaceful assembly that the Tea party showed. And because of that it won't be able to garner political representation even to the limited point the Tea party has.

I'm left wondering just how far the Tea Party would have made it, and how peaceful they would have remained, had they not gained corporate backing.

jcooli09: It's not the tea party types themselves as much as the monied interests who own their leadership and major mouthpieces

wait long enough, and monied interestes will adopt the OWS as well.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: There is enough common ground for something positive to happen but there is no way the leftist radical element of OWS will be able to emulate the actual peaceful assembly that the Tea party showed.

Protests should be party-backed and heavily scripted which is the lesson of the Tea Party.

GhostFish: I'm left wondering just how far the Tea Party would have made it, and how peaceful they would have remained, had they not gained corporate backing.

Most would have stayed home and listened to AM Talk Radio. The rest would be writing their blogs and shaking tiny fists at the Kenyan Usurper who has taken over the White House.

I love how the Tea Partiers say they want less government then urge the OWS people to go get people elected.

Have they no farking knowledge of civil protests in the past and their affect on legislation?

Oh yeah, they are Tea Partiers. So no. They just elect another bunch of ignorant assholes to the same government they want "back".

Look Occupy, the problem isnt massive handouts to rich corporations, it's small handouts to poor people with fancy rimmed cars.

Jackson Herring: BloodySaxon: Just more isolated incidents of the OWS tolerating racism, right Fark?

Damn, this is a dumb post

No excrement. It made me stop scrolling and tilt my head to the side, wondering whether the poster or I was the moron, because I could not get it to seem relevant, let alone intelligent. So:

BloodySaxon Edit/Remove Favorite User (favorite: Thinks that people from opposing movements talking to each other = racism)

Now I'm ready for next time.

BTW, on topic, I am filled with genuine hope and warm fuzzies by TFA. Maybe the Tea Party loony tunes who want my kind destroyed really are just the embarrassing fringers. Lord knows my family has some of those--especially the lady who decided that if her dogs weren't allowed at the Christmas dinner table, then neither was she, and took her dinner into the garage to eat with her pooches.

Also, there was the time she decided that rather than eating the feast her sister-in-law had prepared, she would just have rice. Then she emptied a bottle of soya sauce over it and ate that. Then she threw up. Then she blamed her sister-in-law for cooking "all this funny foreign food". Because the Chinese are well-known for vomiting after every meal... or something.

There's enough common ground that the two entities should be able to form a 3rd party at least as dysfunctional as the Democrats, but as good at sloganeering as the Republicans. I guess their mascot would be a pushme-pullyou.

Bo Giggity: one wants Wall Street out of government while government increases regulation of Wall Street, the other wants government out of EVERYTHING the constitution doesn't explicitly say it should be in

Which is why they're called The ConsTEAtution Party, right? That's where "Tea Party"/"teabaggers" came from?

// at least OWS hasn't gone the Iraq War route of shifting goals/motivations
// the Tea Party has been retconned more times than Superman's home planet

GhostFish: I'm left wondering just how far the Tea Party would have made it, and how peaceful they would have remained, had they not gained corporate backing.

Without the support and backing of billionaires and large corporations, the Tea Partiers would have been pepper sprayed, beaten and arrested by the police, just like OWS protesters.

DirkValentine:
Oh yeah, they are Tea Partiers. So no. They just elect another bunch of ignorant assholes to the same government they want "back".

You're begging the question here. When the Teabaggers say "We have the same goal. We want our country back." What is being begged is "From whom do we want our country back?"

For OWS it's corporate monied interests. For the baggers, it's the darkie in the Whitehouse.

Helen_Arigby: Jackson Herring: BloodySaxon: Just more isolated incidents of the OWS tolerating racism, right Fark?

Damn, this is a dumb post

No excrement. It made me stop scrolling and tilt my head to the side, wondering whether the poster or I was the moron, because I could not get it to seem relevant, let alone intelligent. So:

BloodySaxon Edit/Remove Favorite User (favorite: Thinks that people from opposing movements talking to each other = racism)

Now I'm ready for next time.

BTW, on topic, I am filled with genuine hope and warm fuzzies by TFA. Maybe the Tea Party loony tunes who want my kind destroyed really are just the embarrassing fringers. Lord knows my family has some of those--especially the lady who decided that if her dogs weren't allowed at the Christmas dinner table, then neither was she, and took her dinner into the garage to eat with her pooches.

Also, there was the time she decided that rather than eating the feast her sister-in-law had prepared, she would just have rice. Then she emptied a bottle of soya sauce over it and ate that. Then she threw up. Then she blamed her sister-in-law for cooking "all this funny foreign food". Because the Chinese are well-known for vomiting after every meal... or something.

Just a little meta. We've seen the "isolated incidents" used to tear down either movement and a whole lot of animosity depending on where your politics settle. Just a comment on typical Fark dissonance. Certainly you're not being obtuse and pretending that was supposed to be a serious comment.

BloodySaxon: Anti_illuminati: mrshowrules: If nothing else, I would hope that Tea Partiers and OWS could agree on reducing corporate influence in DC.

but I would hope that there is probably a long ist of things they could agree on:

- ending tax loopholes on the rich (Buffet rule)
- ending military policing of the world
- no more bail-outs
- taking care of veterans

Yes, because the severity of our financial situation has anything to do with the actual bailouts.

Protecting and maintaining "too big to fail" industries is a giant externality-laden government mistake that we continue to do. Bailouts are a big part of it.

Well, sure. But bail-outs were just a by-product of economic inequality and too-big-to-fail entities. Simply by saying "no more bail-outs" doesn't improve economic disparity. You should cross out "no more bail-outs" and put in "no more too-big-to-fail entities".

Jackson Herring: BloodySaxon: At least it reached its target.

Dumb AND proud? Well that's a thing I guess

The projection is staggering!

Anti_illuminati: Well, sure. But bail-outs were just a by-product of economic inequality and too-big-to-fail entities. Simply by saying "no more bail-outs" doesn't improve economic disparity. You should cross out "no more bail-outs" and put in "no more too-big-to-fail entities".

I agree. I just took exception to the idea that "bailouts" have nothing to do with the situation. They maintain the problem.

I'm seeing a small glimmer of hope for this country.

I'm sure it will be extinguished soon