Originally Posted by nation-x

I really don't understand this whole debate over whether or not OWS is grass roots or not. You can't have this type of thing go on without organization. The same thing occurred with the Tea Party. If you think that the Tea Party is a grass roots movement but OWS isn't then you are an idiot. They both had monied support and cooperative organization between many different groups.

Here is the central question... why is it that when one group protests something they don't agree with that they are hailed as legitimate but when another group does the same thing they are a mob and "ruckus rousers"?

We are all Americans... and whether or not you agree with one group or not... you should agree that all of the above mentioned groups have a RIGHT to express their frustration.

You show me a Marxist and I will show you an Ayn Rand fan... Show me a Christian and I will show you an Atheist. We are a large and diverse country and, whether or not you agree with someone else's view, each group has it's own legitimate claim.

From my perspective, I am tired of the dismissive nature of our national conversation. It exists purely for the purpose of division.

The Tea Party and conservative movement certainly has fringe elements... that doesn't mean that everything that the Tea Party or conservative movements represent is fringe.

OWS, labor, and all of these other liberal groups certainly have some fringe elements. That doesn't mean that everything they represent is fringe.

OWS largely represents the frustration of people who think that the government is controlled by monied interests and Wall Street represents a large part of that monied interest.

Their is actually, at it's base, a shared reason for existence for both the Tea Party movement (at it's beginning) and OWS. The only substantive difference is the proposed solution to that same problem.

In my view, the Tea Party is misguided because they think that the problem originates from the government. I say this is misguided because there is an entire industry dedicated to growing government and those are the very people who support their cause... and that industry isn't a political party. It is almost wholly supported by business interests. They write the great majority of legislation... they pump in the major money... they ARE the government.

Think about the groups behind each of these "grass roots" movements. Both sides have billionaire backers... however, the Tea Party is largely backed by corporate interests and lobbyists. The Tea Party Express, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks and a multitude of other organizations like them are all staffed by lobbyists and were founded with corporate money. Also, there is really nothing new about that movement other than the amount of money being invested in it. The message is the same and the purpose is the same all the way back to the early 1980s.

Liberal movements, for the most part, are rarely backed by corporations or lobbyists as primary players. They are typically backed, in large part, by labor unions or political groups. I don't see MSNBC organizing protest events... Fox News did. This is a simple example of the point.

The people that say there is no difference between the parties are partially correct. The constant common denominator is that Wall Street has an inordinate amount of influence over the government no matter who has been in control for the last 20+ years... ever since Don Regan was appointed as Treasury Secretary in 1981, Goldman Sachs has had large influence over the monetary policy of every administration. The list of Goldman Sachs executives who have been appointed to high level treasury and Fed positions is as long as your arm. The Obama administration is no different.

That is the basis of OWS.