Damn you. How dare you interrupt me laughing my ass off by making me yawn. Is this really the best you can do? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
The bankers who brought the world economy to its knees with unfettered greed, and then got their salaries and bonuses out of our tax money, are at it again. Their bonuses are going up again. Their economy is fine. The message it sends is they find the people irrelevant. They do not care . Fuck you people, I want mine.
I thought that was pretty creative way of getting around the municipal ban on amplified sound systems. Of course, Tea Partiers can just turn their hearing aids up to eleven, so thinking outside the box may be foreign to them.
The sound of two brain cells misfiring.
Well, better. Not great, but better. Keep it up.
If their goal is to come off as more annoying and even more childish, then I’d say it was a pretty creative way to accomplish those goals.
So, that’s what makes you laugh? You are a strange little man.
The tea partiers in my hometown were VERY silly. Just as disorganized, just as retarded, just as frankly dirty as the Occupy$Street guys. Signs were vaguely racist instead of vaguely socialist, but it was basically the same thing. I mean, I was near one of the ground zeroes–Pat Toomey came up 45 minutes from my current town. It was my impression that they started basically silly, then got bought into by a bunch of old money interests and built into the personal pit bulls of a few old guard neocons.
I expect the same is about to happen with OccupyWhatever and the current mainstream Dems. Give it two months.
That’s not how I remember it. While there was some degree of disorganization and stupidity, as their is bound to be, I remember being surprised that they seemed so…boring almost. They wanted smaller government, etc. But you’re right, time will tell whether this turns into anything meaningful.
I’d say that if the sight of a bunch of adults who have to repeat everything in unison like a bunch of preschoolers and wiggling their fingers in lieu of applause doesn’t make you laugh, that you are the strange little man.
Why, because it’s friggin hilarious! Made even more hilarious by telling John Lewis to come back, because, well, what they had to say to each other—and repeat in unison—and wiggle their fingers about was so much more important. I’d like to take that video and place it around every one of those idiots’ necks on an iPad playing a loop that they have to wear their whole lives. Because if you were part of that stupidity and can’t prove that someone was holding a gun to your head the whole time, you should be marked as someone for the sane to avoid.
Mind you, and I think this is the strength of the Republican party in general, the dawning Tea Party protests went from “dirty redneck libertarians outside the post office with fifteen different messages” to “College Republicans in polo shirts with professionally printed signs at the campus gates” in less than two weeks.
Spoken like someone who’s never been in a culture with an alternative form of applause–ten years gone my band days are, and I STILL habitually scrape my feet on the floor to applaud a good musical performance instead of clapping.
This I can understand–if it’s part of your ethos that everyone’s voice is as important as everyone else’s, John Lewis can be respected for what he’s accomplished without the desire to give him a special platform from which to speak. Mr. Lewis seemed to understand that motivation himself.
I get your point. But I don’t think that the beginnings of the Tea Party differed nearly as much from the end game as you portray. Yes, in the early stages a lot of the imagery showed what you describe, but much of that aligned with the network that was showing it. the Mainstream network and MSNBC tried mightily to portray them as fakes and charlatans…astro-turfers.
I’m only speaking here of the guys I personally eyeballed.
Many things aren’t odd if you’re living in a particular culture. Outside of it, it is odd.
Well, what’s he gonna do? Act mad and pout, “Oh they wouldn’t let me speak.” And how about that tall guy who seemed to understand what bad form it was and tried to apologize, until he was shouted over until he knuckled under and got in line like a good little comrade? That action alone puts these guys squarely in the asshole camp.
Fair enough. But do you think they were representative of what was going on across the nation at the time?
A Congresswoman sent a representative to our Occupy event, and this rep was not allowed to address the crowd either. The crowd voted and decided that ours was not a political event, and we did not wish to make it one. The representative was invited to participate as an individual if he wished.
The occupiers have been decidedly cool to politicians. It’s gonna be hard to buy this crowd the way the tea partiers were bought.
I have heard both that it was, and that it was not. I have seen photo evidence to support both conclusions, sourced from both MSM and private photography. I decline on the basis of inconclusive evidence to say whether the Tea Party was distorted by MSM and whether it started as generally mature from the ground up.
Well at least they have decided on what they are protesting for: Roman The Fart Smeller Gets a Taker at Occupy Wall Street on Vimeo
I doubt it started as what you might call “generally mature”, and no doubt there is an immature element within it to this day. Probably always will be one - that’s the nature of political movements, especially populist ones.
The Tea Party had the advantage of a relatively clear agenda right from the start - government is too big, spends too much, and the deficit is too high. The Wall Street Occupiers don’t have that - they still aren’t sure exactly what they want to achieve.
“I don’t know what I want, but this isn’t it” is fine if you want to get together with your pals and kvetch, but you can’t use it as the basis for political action.
You can’t blame John Lewis and the Congresswoman for trying to co-opt the occupiers and/or recruit them to work for causes that are already in play. But Republicans (and Democrats) who get on board, more or less, with the Tea Party agenda not only gain support, but add credibility and possibility to the Tea Party. That gives both sides, the politicians and the Tea Party, a better shot at bringing about the changes that they want.
I wonder if there might be the seeds of another populist movement afoot - one that would try for whatever the occupiers want (maybe ban political contributions from corporations) as well as fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (gay marriage or what have you). Band together with the Tea Partiers, pull in some libertarians, and maybe get some traction.
But ISTM the Tea Party has a better shot at this than a movement that says it doesn’t want mainstream politicians involved. People in general are ready to vote the rascals out - whoever they can be convinced are the rascals - but aren’t going to join a revolution. If the Wall Street occupiers are going to reject everyone who hasn’t come to revolutionary consciousness, they are going to be waiting a good long time before they grow to the point where the political establishment has to take them seriously.
Left-wingers always seem to have trouble because they bog down in discussions about ideological purity. What they need is a leader who won’t get bogged down in quibbling, and who can harness the general dissatisfaction with the status quo into a real movement. Ross Perot had a shot at it with the Independence Party, but he wasn’t that kind of leader. And so it sort of petered out after the 1988 elections, although it retains some power at state and local levels.
Regards,
Shodan