Occupy Wall Street vs. the Tea Party

Post Reply New Topic

Yes the only reason people struggle financially is because they are lazy and stupid

what two parties, the Occupy protests are not a political party.......protest does not = political party. so that argument is about null and void.

Oh oops god forbid I call them the tea baggers, when supoorters of it such as yourself think its pefectly ok to make all kinds of ignorant statements about people who are struggling financially and the occupy protestors and then glorify how good the tea party is for supporting the middle class and only the middle class.

Good question, because if morals don't apply, I say the hobos need to get some shotguns and take what they like....

Or we could take a lesson from an actual libertarian.
-Edmund Burke

Being a libertarian means more than being a selfish s**t.

Nice try, but no. The libertarian message is that a smaller government is preferable, and cutting it's funding is one way to put the brakes on an overgrown state. No need to invoke squishy moral sentiments there.

Nice try here too. Switching arguments when you can't defend your previous position.

Did you learn that from Limbaugh or Beck?

...Because at first you seemed to be saying the rich should not pay more simply because they have more, but now it's all about starving the beast.

So if we shrink government down to an acceptable size is it okay for the rich to pay a higher portion of taxes?

If not, why not?

Not the ONLY reason. Please don't put words in my fingers. That is a form of lying. You need to be more careful about that. The world is not just black and white. If you have to have just one reason, I would go with the lack of moral compass but really, there's so much that's contributing to the downfall of our once great nation.

But, why just blame Wall Street? How are the people who run Wall Street any different from the people who cheat on their taxes, run stop lights, cheat at Little League games, etc..? They're smarter, bolder, they take risks but their moral compass isn't any worse than so many who live in the U.S.

If you get back too much change at the grocery store, do you keep it, or give it back? Most people will keep it and think of it as a bonus when really, it's dishonest.

I know that Aspies tend to be super honest and truthful, as far as they understand the truth, so maybe it's hard to understand how prevalent cheating is in our country. Raising kids, I was appalled on a daily basis at the dishonesty that pervades our society, from little children to 90 yr. old grannies. People lie. Everybody's trying to get a leg up and some will stop at nothing. How can we expect our politicians, wall street professionals, corporate heads, whatever, to be any better?

The people I know personally who are involved in Tea Party activities are decent people who have worked hard and aren't strangers to struggles. They volunteer to help others where they see need. They get involved in running our city, not content with letting the city staff do as they please. They're people who pay their bills and go without when they can't. They certainly don't make messes and expect others to clean up after them.

I was supportive of the occupiers until it became apparent that they weren't willing to work within the system that has served our country so well until now. What they've done is provide precedence for the very people they were trying to target. Why should corporate Wall Street follow any rules? The occupiers didn't...

Yeah, they keep saying that but the lines are being drawn. Just because people say a thing doesn't mean it's true.

You know our social contract based system of government was largely derived from the ideas of Hobbes and Locke.

Mainly where the two differ was in their view of humanity. Hobbes, seeing man as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish" and constantly at odds with his fellows. Because of this, he said it was government's job to protect society from the individual...

Locke by contrast, saw man as reasonable and held that reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property." Because of this, he said government's main role was to punish the "unreasonable" and let the reasonable pursue his fortune. Locke, of course, is a founder of libertarianism.

It should also be noted that Locke believed reason to be a GIFT FROM GOD.

The bottom line is both men agreed that only those capable of personal, moral restraint were worthy of freedom.

The society you describe is morally out of control. Are you trying to make a case for Hobbesian authoritarianism?

...because you are,you know.

You really should leave the snark to the professionals you know, since as I was answering two different lines of questioning and neither watch TV nor listen to talk radio your comments just look like an ill informed attempt at a dig.

There's no reason at all that I can't both feel that justifying higher tax brackets on higher incomes simply because other people feel they can afford it is not a valid argument and desire lower taxes generally to shrink the government, they're not mutually exclusive ideas. I'm also not even completely opposed to progressive taxation, but don't care for many of the "arguments" trotted out by it's supporters. As we do have a bloated state at the moment, I don't want to see anyone's taxes raised until substantial cuts are made to the state, and I'm not just talking about the social services either.

I can sympathize with that sentiment. The US does not have a 10% unemployment rate because people don't want to work and wealth distribution is a concern. Also, where I am from we have economic prosperity, tiny government debt, cheap student loans and near universal healthcare, so you have my sympathy. That said, a lot of those protesters really are muppets. I drove past the occupy protesters in my city; they are just entitled brats, we have just about everything but it did not stop them complaining. I remember at the beginning of the Iraq War, I was at the protests against us going in, there was one woman there speaking who pointed out that she had been protesting for 30 years and I immediately concluded that I don't want her speaking on my behalf, why was anyone supposed to take her seriously if each bloody week she has a different issue that's earth shattering? There are a few too many chicken littles out there, so when you actually have an issue, who will take you seriously if you stand next to the people who eternally cry wolf?

also, a bit of levity

Not so fast. I commonly hear from conservatives and libertarians that "wealth redistribution" is wrong, even if only in the name of providing certain basic needs (e.g. universal healthcare) or generating a more level playing field for upward mobility (e.g. access to quality education for all).

Also, the notion that cutting the state's funding does anything to curb growth of government waste is flat out wrong. It simply leads to more and more deficit spending.

Ok based on what......they are protesting not complaining, I am just not seeing how protesting makes one a entitled brat. I doubt everyone involved is perfect and there are some idiots who try to instigate stuff which can cause a lot of problems. But as a whole I think the occupy movement is more or less a good thing.....If anything i am just a little dissapointed that it seems to be falling apart, especially where I live which kinda sucks.

There are actual issues, so I don't see how they are crying wolf.

That is because working within the system that is screwing this country over is not going to do any good. The system has not been serving this country for a very, very long time. Also what rules were they supposed to follow, the rules that they came up with to try to supress their rights to peaceably assemble?

What lines.....A protest and a political party is not the same thing, no matter what.

I don't fully agree with either one, but if I had to choose, I'd go for the Tea Party.