The Difference Between the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement.

Some think because the Tea Party is not out every year making noise and destroying property like the occupy movement that it has failed. The opposite is true.

In one year the Tea Party organized resistance and ended up replacing around 30 Congressional seats in Congress turning the movement into real power. They still meet.

This year the Occupy movement is going to repeat what they did last year expecting a different result. The definition of insanity.

 

The Tea Party is RINO hunting in Indiana.

That is too time consuming to allow them to dump on police cars or blow up bridges.

 

NONE. unless you listen to the BS springing up from the establishment media, WHO BY THE WAY also want us to believe that the tea party can be represented by an ex fed named Herman Cain, who on January 24th of 2012, on CNN, FOXNEWS, and MSNBC gave a tea party response to Obamas state of the union address.

 

So I suppose quantum physicists are insane as well.....?

The problem with the Occupy movement is that they are disorganized and do not have a clear goal.

 

Exactly. It's just a bunch of people running around spouting off protest-based one-liners as though they're actual points. There is no coherent message nor consistency. Apparently debt is slavery. Well to get out of debt you just go earn money right? Nope because working is slavery. Where do we go from here?

As for the TEA party they seemed to be successful, but I think that success is going to work against them. The TEA party has pulled the right further to the social/religious end. The social right basically overtook a libertarian movement and turned it into an even more hard-core social right version of the Republican Party. I believe it was the wrong direction for the right to go and I believe time will show that. If they had stuck with their libertarian roots they could have pulled in much of the youth; people who want to be left alone and allowed to live. Instead they pandered to the elderly; a constituency which is slowly going away.

 

The TEA Party is no longer focused primarily on rallying. The left perceives this as the TEA Party has dwindled and disappeared. I guess it is an advantage they perceive it as such, however it is far from the truth.

From the NYT, March 2012.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/tea-party-movement-takes-the-long-view/

The article is meh...interesting. Some early victories already, getting some people replaced, who are sincere about fiscal reform, small government etc. The last line of the article says it all...about where, and what, the TEA Party has been, and is, doing. Precinct level, committee level, basically ground level changing the game.

 

And yet Romney still managed to lock up the nomination.

Good job on that one "Tea Party"... lol.

 

The TEA Party wants Obama out. He is the clear and present danger. That belief is not exclusive to the TEA Party, nor just conservatives as a whole. I think with just a little honest analysis, you will see a fair amount of Dems and Indys of the same opnion.

With that being said, the TEA Party(s) are first off united on getting Obama out as the clear and present danger (so if it's Romney, so be it) but repeatedly have cited the long range goals of expanding the movement for fiscal reform, and small government with nominees being selected with fiscal reform, small government as the basis of their goals.

If 2010 was not enough of sampling, of how serious this huge amount of dedicated Americans is, and how deeply committed they are to basically waking up the government to a simple truth of...remember who actually works for who, (R) or (D).

 

Question, doesn't OWS and the Tea party stand for the same thing?

 

You're kidding, right?

 

It was a serious question.

 

No. OWS doesn't know what they stand for and the TEA party stands for social conservatism.

 

You are aware that insanity quote came from Einstein, aren't you?

 

It was badly phrased. Let me try again. Don't they have the same roots?

 

The difference between the tea party and OWS?

How about 1000+ arrests?

 

In the sense of government being corrupted by corporations possibly, but past there no. It's hard to say with the TEA party having been taken over by social conservatives, but from what I saw of the original message they were for less government as a solution to many problems, where as OWS is for more government.

 

exactly

tea party = conservatives
OWS = anyone from the 99%

 

MMM, the problem of Occupy is not the disorganization, they are organized. The problem is that they try to be global, try to include many ideologies, many incompatible. That is the problem. And looks that there is no goal. Because there will have revolutionary people with a goal, and reformists with a different goal, however they can share some goal, aren't the same in any way.

 

It is easy to explain:

OWS : dangerous for the system
Tea Party: serves to the system, is useful to keep the status quo

Then, if you are a menace for the system, wanting a real change, the system will start to protect itself with violence if it is necessary, and here we have the more than 1000 arrests.

With the Tea Party why does the system have to react? Tea Party is defending the system, the foundations of the system, then there is no necessity to try to criminalize it, even the media can give support to it.

 

Social conservatism = big government.

 

The difference?

Loud, obnoxious "Gimme, gimme, gimme" children...

versus

Organized and methodical "Sorry, we've given enough" adults....

 

Actually, the TEA party is about FISCAL conservatism, not social conservatism. The two ideals overlap somewhat, especially when considering government welfare programs, but the TEA party doesn't push government control over lifestyles like social conservatives do - this control requires a big government thus runs contrary to the TEA movement. Instead they simply focus on reducing government spending and cutting taxes.

 

Tea Party is a bunch of conservative, neoconservative or specifically social conservative, if you want to be more specific.

Just you have to take a look on the "supposed" leaders of the tea party, are more close to "social conservatism" than anything else. Ultrarreligious and nationalist, conservative or fascist in all the light.

In this forum there are supposed people that call themselves members of the tea party, and they are the perfect example of what I've said in the previous paragraph, they are nationalist, ultrarreligious, homophobs, racists, xenophobists, perfectly fit in the definition of a fascist.

 

But to describe a movement you have to base it on the overlap of beliefs of the entire group, not the individual beliefs of a number of members.

Using your reasoning, it is completely valid to claim that Muslims are a bunch of violent, aggressive, backward people who want to spread their beliefs by force. This is a valid description of some Muslims, but isn't a valid description of Muslims as an overall group because a large number of Muslims don't fit this description.

Likewise the fact that a large number of social conservatives are drawn to the TEA party doesn't mean that the party stands for social conservatism. There are quite a few Libertarians (social liberals but fiscal conservatives) that are also part of the TEA party. The central theme of the tea party is fiscal conservatism and anyone - whether social liberal or conservative, whether big government or small, whether federalist or anti-federalist - is a welcome and legitimate member of the party, so long as they support and promote the philosophy of fiscal conservatism.

 

I would say that the minority are libertarians. The most part of the members of the Tea Party are social conservative, or for me conservative. And the most important, you must check who are the supposed leaders of that group, and the leaders are conservative.