patrick.net

CaptainShuddup says

Grassroots = A well funded and planned political organization, that asks a few disinterested college kids what are their thoughts on politics. Then enlist those fools, not to champion the thoughts that they expressed, but the actions of those heavy financial backers.

For once I partially agree with you, except substitute your use of "college kids" with any average American.

CaptainShuddup says

OWS = Occupy Wall Street aka Out of sight out of mind. Hey go somewhere it doesn't count and protest.

OWS was probably closer to a true "grass roots" movement. Its also ironically sad that it failed in the end, and in some ways and to even perhaps contradict myself, partially did so because it didn't receive the enormous financial contribution the Tea Party has. The BIG difference is that in the case of OWS, the one financial backer ( Ben and Jerrys), made it clear that they were supporting the movement. Totally different than the otherwise invisible and purposely hidden backers of the Tea Party.

edvard2 says

Also understand that I have no doubt that you and others probably have genuine passions and interests in the Tea Party. I am not trying to belittle that by any means. But the overall Tea Party movement more or less exists under the guise of being a grass roots movement while serving totally different purposes.

I would argue that yes, today it serves many different purposes than what I originally signed up for (and which is why I'm no longer a part of it).

We can go back and forth on the foundation of it, but my experience was just a couple of local guys and gals who decided to meet up on the beach and make some noise about fiscal responsibility, limited government and lower taxes; however you'd like to twist that to suit your narrative is just fine with me.

edvard2 says

The BIG difference is that in the case of OWS, the one financial backer ( Ben and Jerrys)

I was working from home though out the whole OWS timeline, and had Fox Business on the whole time during the day.

OWS failed the second day it started, when someone anonymously sent them a considerable chunk of cash delivered to OWS movement. The problem was, there was no official OWS movement. So what did they have to do next, walk into the same bank they were protesting and fill out official papers, make an official organization, and put money in the same banks they despised. Then the waring factions between the tents started, over who was the official OWS spokes person, and who and how should the money be spent, and how could use that money to raise more money. Once money entered the picture the whole movement was corrupted and diminished.

And then that my friends was THAT!

CMY says

We can go back and forth on the foundation of it, but my experience was just a couple of local guys and gals who decided to meet up on the beach and make some noise about fiscal responsibility, limited government and lower taxes; however you'd like to twist that to suit your narrative is just fine with me.

I wasn't talking about your personal experience. I was referring to the origins and actual underlying reasons the Tea Party came into existence in the first place. As mentioned before I am not doubting that you personally did not experience a genuine sense of involvement.

CaptainShuddup says

The problem was, there was no official OWS movement.

OWS could have succeeded had they decided to broaden their approach. They for too long stuck to the single idea of "Occupying".... something. Once the tent cities were shut down that was basically the end of it because those who had some influence didn't do much with it afterwards. Interesting because at the time a majority of Americans actually agreed with their premise.

edvard2 says

OWS could have succeeded had they decided to broaden their approach.

They did, raising money.

What do you think those monkey see monkey do sons of bitches were doing in tents in Bayfront park in down town Miami. We certainly aren't a financial hub.

I don't think they did. They failed to broaden their narrative beyond simply hanging around physical locations as a form of protest. Had they instead "matured" the movement by making it less dependent on occupation, then they might have had a better go at it.

You do realize that the OWS movement didn't produce one single person who challenged to debate one single politician, that would suggest their only message was their tents.

edvard2 says

Had they instead "matured" the movement by making it less dependent on occupation, then they might have had a better go at it.

Or maybe worked on that whole rape-sexual-assault-arrest-drug-use-public-urination-defecation-theivery thing.

No. The OWS was about addressing what was perceived to be unfair practices by financial and corporate institutions, which is appropriate seeing as due to the influence that lobbys, the decision that corporations count as private citizens, corporate political contributions, and of course the various astroturf political groups aforementioned, seems like a more direct approach to changing politics: Get to the source. So a totally different, and perhaps could have been more effective.

You mean to tell me, that none of these guys were Political majors, or were their degrees not worth the paper they were printed on, or were all of the good ones already working for the MAN (1%)?

What do you call a bunch of college kids camping?
A jamband festival at the burning man.

I think those kids in the "AT&T It's not complicated" commercial campaigns could have better served occupying Wall street.

at least they want more more more more more, if they don't get it, they'll turn into a werewolf and have to stay in side saying "rah rah rah"...

I'm not really seeing your connection here. Their premise was never about addressing politicians directly, and so your argument sort of falls flat here. And demeaning the actions of college kids is not relevant either seeing as how historically its this age group that is more active at drawing attention to things and getting shit done versus sitting around and merely complaining.

FYI: I didn't have anything to do with OWS. But I found their cause not without reason either.

Don't think for one minute that I've not been a member of that club, back since when it was called the "Down with the man" movement.
Now of course all we ever did was sit on our ass and prognosticate about the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.
My generation never had anything to protest about. Well we did, we just never were able to muster up the will to bitch about the man.
I mean how far would we have gotten. Don't forget that 90% of Americans belived in a totally Freemarket system. And to complain about the status quoa would have been considered un American.
The idea was, if you don't like your job then be your own boss. It was easier to do until at least the year 2000. I wouldn't dare blame one politician for that. I'd blame technology as much as any single politician for the diminishing small business climate in this country. It takes billions of dollars for R&D, and dust free factories to make the products, and a whole litany of regulation rules to be compliant with to even make a product that modern society would even be interested in buying. So software and food are the only two options for self starters in this day and age. There aren't more options.

BUT!! Had our generation had been called on to pitch a stink about Reagan, Bush Sr., or Clinton. I think we would have came armed with more than our tents and sleeping bags.

Reagan would have called the Pinkertons in a minute on our asses.

My Dad started his own small business for about $5,000 and as of now makes probably close to 100k a year doing it. Its not a tech nor manufacturing type of business either.So I still believe that there are many opportunities for those who want to strike out on their own.

As far as the income gap, well that's a difficult thing to quantify. On one hand its not practical to say " Oh, I am soooo upset that that person has more money than me!" Sorry, but that's the way its always been. The fact that there are some really wealthy people isn't the problem. Wealthy people usually have upper positions at either corporations or business, and as cliche' as it is, they do indeed serve as the country's employers. So complaining about the rich for the sake of complaining that they are simply rich is pointless.

But there is something to complain about and be concerned with if that wealthy person or corporation attained their wealth by not playing by the rules the way they should have.If a person or business gains their wealth by basically cheating the system or finding sneaky loopholes, then that to me is not right and deserves a second look. There is a LOT of that happening now. Not that this is anything new. But that also doesn't mean we should merely accept it and remain complacent either.

Dude use the return key, it's right there.
Don't be afraid, and put some ass into it, and create some paragraphs.

What with you being the grammar expert and all, geesh.

edvard2 says

My Dad started his own small business for about $5,000 and as of now makes probably close to 100k a year doing it. Its not a tech nor manufacturing type of business either

Not to undermine your old man's accomplishments, because that's some fine grass roots spirit going on there; but frankly, 100K ain't dick these days. I think that's a big part the problem...

My friends from Lebanon, Egypt, Afghanistan love Bush and blame his finding Hussien in a foxhole as a "dictator over-throwing optimism" moment.

The most devout and outspoken Republican I have met is a Afghani women escaped from the tribal nation.

JodyChunder says

edvard2 says

My Dad started his own small business for about $5,000 and as of now makes probably close to 100k a year doing it. Its not a tech nor manufacturing type of business either

Not to undermine your old man's accomplishments, because that's some fine grass roots spirit going on there; but frankly, 100K ain't dick these days. I think that's a big part the problem...

Yeah there was that city official in Alameda county , who retired with a 300k pension.

zzyzzx says

Bush More Popular than Obama

Another sore loser.

pointless. they both steal your money.

edvard2 says

OWS could have succeeded had they decided to broaden their approach. They for too long stuck to the single idea of "Occupying".... something.

Anytime you feel nostalgic about the OWS, just visit Telegraph Ave near UCB...
They were there 20 years ago.. they will be there 20 years from now... still brain dead.