Time for a real peoples protest group !!

I only see this:

First, the teaparty had good ideas but they allowed it to be taken over by special interest groups.

Which expresses a problem you have with the Tea Party, but I don't think it really answers my question. I suppose I'm asking for a bit more detail, instead of just accusing them of being taken over and then claiming you should start a group with (ostensibly) the exact same goals.

Greg, I'm trying to approach you respectfully on this, and I don't understand why you're being so evasive. I asked why these goals aren't covered by the Tea Party. You said that you had answered that question at the beginning of the article. So I pulled the only quote that deals directly with the Tea Party, from the beginning of the article, where you specified.

I wasn't claiming that was the only line I read. That wouldn't even make sense, because my entire initial question was about why your various goals wouldn't fit under the Tea Party banner. Even asking that question would be impossible if I hadn't read your entire (extremely short) article.

So, I'll ask again. The vast majority, if not all, of your goals are very similar to Tea Party goals. Why, exactly, do you feel a third group is necessary, and why do you feel the Tea party can't adequately encapsulate these goals?

Question: Could you explain why you feel the TP doesn't adequately encapsulate these views?

Answer: It's up there in the beginning of the article.

Follow-up: I only see this:

You referenced a part of the article as the answer to my question, so I pointed it out as a follow-up to show that it doesn't really answer my question. The line, "I only see this" was referring to how that was the only part of the article I see that references the Tea Party, and it doesn't answer my question.

This isn't that complicated, and I refuse to believe you're stupid enough to genuinely think that my follow-up meant I never read the article. Someone is approaching you with an honest question, and you're being childish.

If I meant that I had only read one line of the article, it wouldn't be in present-tense, and my initial question would be literally impossible to have asked. If you want to play silly games and dance around giving a straight answer, be my guest, but accusing me of not reading your article when my question was clearly based on knowledge of the article is just idiotic.

You know what I meant, Greg. I would wager that you knew from the start, but even if not, I've clarified the statement several times. You just don't want to answer the question.

I was genuinely curious in how you see this idea as different enough from the Tea Party to justify splintering from them completely. I asked politely. Since you're refusing to have a dialogue and finding more joy in this silly game, I'll move on to better uses of my time. Have a great day.

Feingold/McCain Law was signed but.......

Well, maybe NEXT TIME they should write a CONSTITUTIONAL version of the law. Look what the result of THAT ONE WAS!!!!

voted up, NG

post of the day northern girl.

voted way up

I'm really digging your perspective more and more, mountainfirefall!

Check.....well stated...better not run for office.

enjoying yours as well... one thing i give newsvine (and i don't give them much:)

is the opportunity i've had to make myself 'listen' to others, critical think it, and then stay rooted in the culture that is mine anyway.. chuckles.

I have stopped yelling at people. that's always good:)

however i reserve the right to return to the past time when it serves my good intentions!

Libertarian, you would be amazed at how many of my redneck friends here in Arizona have admitted that we hippies were right about government back in the 60's.

Hey, the hippies were dead on with some issues, that is a big 10-4, especially dealing with freedom and the power of government. Ah, the days that real liberals existed ...... Not so many of them left anymore. The ones in power today want to tell you what to do too!

There really weren't all that many true hippies to begin with. Much like the Tea Party, hippies became a cult, fashionable for many to be associated with. Most of the real liberals of the 60's are now considered right-wingers by the liberally socialist extremists of the left.

owlsviews.. been trying to share that same sentiment myself.

true hippies swung the exact opposite direction when fully matured:0

and the rest just faded on away.

Nothing wrong with peaceful protest.

I once said the same thing Greg. The meek might inherit the earth, but not until the not so meek are done with it. Looking back forty years later it seems to me that the peaceful protests of the 60's have actually cost us many of our freedoms.

It took violence to gain our freedom. It took violence to put an end to slavery. It took violence to form unions. It took violence to instill Prohibition. It took violence to repeal Prohibition. Things that take violence to achieve seem to last longer and have a greater effect than anything accomplished through peaceful protest.

Where are the flower children of the 60's? Where are the Black Panthers? What happened to equality? How long were we forced to endure Affirmative Action?

I have no desire for violence. I am just taking a hard look at history and what does and doesn't work.

History just repeats itself over and over.

Leather jackets and Brylcreem hair were once the hallmark of the "degenerate youth".

Then it was barefoot hippies with long hair.

Then skinheads and old army uniforms.

Now it's piercings and tattoos and pants that really need suspenders.

The guys who wore the leather jackets are now in nursing homes...with Brylcreem slicking back their few remaining hairs.

The long haired hippies are the "establishment" now.

The skinheads are selling used cars.

And I really hate to think of what that cute little unicorn tattoo on that young girl's butt is going to look like when she's sixty five.

I agree Owlsview. Peaceful protests hardly ever work. That is the exception, not the rule. And Greg, I agree with you as well when you state that you don't think violent protest would go very far today. Because with the powers that government has and the technology available any such protest would be squashed mercilessly. First demonize them through the media, then instill fear in the populous and finally then hunt them down. All within a matter of weeks. The government is much more powerful today thanks to technology, favorable laws permitting intrusion and sheer size. Perhaps the only thing too big to fail anymore is the government.

The only protest that will work is at the ballot box. And not just on election day; we need to select the right people to vote for in the first place.

And that is the biggest obstacle; getting someone that doesn't take the secret oath to one of the two major parties. :)

Look a little harder owlsview..... its there.

greg

Thaks for the feedback

Varyl

Does wall street controlthe elected officials in Washington or is it the corporations and fat cat CEO's?

I know I have heard that the CEO's of the global corporations are the evil masters of the elected government right here on newsvine

:-o)

Yes

Caryl

So either yo do not know or it is whichever supports the argument you happen to be making at the time, because the two groups are clearly totally separate and different entities.

Thanks for sharing

congress and tort... (corporate benefited)

for one. there are many more that illuminate the 'relationship between congress and corporate money power and what gets legislated and what doesn't

but it will require you to pay attention, read, and even check the way your reps vote.

Wall Street are corporations with fat cat CEO's.

So again, Yes.

iyo:)

That's the solution. When the government wants to start a new entitlement program, force them to tax everyone (and I do mean everyone) to pay for it.

I don't want a balanced budget amendment. It would be nothing less than carte blanche is increase taxes ALL THE TIME

Flat tax and balanced budget amendment simultaneously.

99% of Americans already know the truth, while the remaining 1% do not want to admit it.

Foster,

It really gets me when people like you try to speak for me. I'm not one of the rich but I have no problem with them making money because as long as they can that means I have the chance to also. Are you a union member because you are using their slogan?

If you are please explain why you got bailouts across the board and the rest of these 92 percent you say you represent didn't?You do understand you are only about 18 percent of the work force(union).

skokie57

1st statement, Who bought the Presidency, Union andwall street. Goldman sacks to be to the point. Who hangs out there like it their second home?

2nd statement, Lack of regulation is correct, Who decided to change the mortgage requirement so people who can't afford a home gets one anyway. Who cares if they can pay for it,they deserve it.

3rd statement, Who do you want to rule the poor. It should be a balance of power from both sides. Not the Unions that think they are more important than everyone else.

4 th statement, Can you prove it want. Spending hasn't done to well has it? It only save the union temporarily.

5 th statement, The System worked great until the Democrats started screwing it up to buy votes. But I will admit there was some Republicans on the band wagon too.

6 th statement, So what's your point that you think they should give you some just because? Why not figure out how to do the same thing they did and make your own? But that would mean you have to work and take responsibility for yourself. That's against union rules.

So were is the real truth? Union propaganda or taking responsibility for your own actions?

how about the bankers take responsiblity for their actions... instead of being rewarded and thinking they can hold out their hands to the citizen when the y@!$%# up.

How does a banker F you? Do you have to use a bank? Are all banks bad to you or just a few? Pay cash for everything, If you did then they would lower there fees. But it is easier to complain how everyone is robbing you . But I will agree to hold banker responsible for their reactions when you hold Congress ,The President ,and Unions responsible for theirs.

I would have more respect for these fruit-loops if they were out there protesting "The Man" in their birthday suits. Rallying against "Big Business" but using all the product "Big Business" supplies from clothes to electronics makes them sound like a bunch of phonies. Thats like a member of PETA protesting while wearing leather shoes.

don't forget the expensive video cameras they need to put their protests on YouTube

Where did they get them, Hell that's easy ! Not to much gray matter for that one but they better be careful I don't think they are going to get bailed out again.

They are running scared because they know how much money Corp. America is sitting on and the time is coming close.

Lol, true. If the protesters camp out on those roads and bridges, then the companies that supply them with all of their 'goodies' could seriously cramp the protester's style if they can't get to their warehouses. ;)

I wonder how the people that live and work around this crowd feel about their rights being violated by this sleep over.

That's a very good point. I live in the Capitol City of my state, and when protests are in progress, the messes and inconveniences, congestion, noise, etc.. are not too close to where people live, and limits the burden to mostly state workers (mostly from out of the area). If the protest was happening in the direct business districts, as this one, it would seem to be an irritant to those that work or live in high-rises nearby ...Hmm.., maybe that's part of their strategy? Anger more of the citizens to get more attention. OTOH, those 'others' are probably realizing that cutting off their hand to spite their arm.. might not be in their best interests. lol

(Just to note, I have many Liberals on my list. I am 'not' a liberal spy! hahaha.. The '08 elections were happening when I joined, so the libs must have squelched and buried most of the 'others' 'cause there sure weren't many others to be found. Fortunately, there were a few. :)

Oh, I'm sorry that you had to lose a buddy that added some fun and enjoyment to being here. Many of the flexible Column-owners don't mind the 'chat' once the initial discussion of the article has passed, and those chats are often just as enlightening as the article's topic, imo.

I try to honor whatever the Author wants for their discussion section, as far as I understand or interpret what it is they want. lol.. Geesh, that can sometimes be a challenge. What's on-topic to one, could be off-topic to another. Anyway, I'm sorry for your loss. (Jets-Patriots - that's a tough one - I like them both. I guess I have to go with an edge over to the Patriots side. :)