Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Tiger Beer]

You heard it here first...

If Obama doesn't get re-elected, I'm joining the Tea Party!

[Fox]

If Obama doesn't get re-elected, the Tea Parties will stop existing. They're nothing more than a collection of useful idiots being used by the American Right to rabble-rouse. Once Republicans are back in power, they'll have served their purpose. The media will stop reporting on them, Fox News will stop promoting them, and since they're no longer getting attention, they'll go back to their lives.

[visitorq]

Why would you wait to see if Obama gets re-elected? Obama is the worst, most pro-Wall Street president of all time, right along side Bush.

Which Tea Party? The one started by Ron Paul supporters and libertarians who want lower taxes, less government, and to end the Fed? Or the one hijacked by the Republican party, Glenn Beck, and Fox News?

[Tiger Beer]

Well, as a fiscal conservative....it's a basic fact that Republicans SPEND significantly more...

But, I'm afraid FOX (the poster) is right...if Obama doesn't get re-elected, you can count on all coverage of the Tea Parties to simply cease to exist...and the movements will just stop.

Then Republicans will go back to another MASSIVE MASSIVE spending spree like they have every single time they get in office over the last 30 years. That Bush Administration spending spree was a doozy...even far surpassing Reagon's monsterous spending habits.

I just don't want to see another of those administrations re-occuring a couple years from now, or it'll completely destroy us as a nation even more than we've already become since Bush...so hoping Obama can hang in there!!

[mises]

A recent survey of two tea party events in DC and NYC showed them to be divided evenly between Ron Paul libertarians and Sara Palin so-cons.

So Tiger Beer, assuming that Ron Paul isn't the next president, you will be able to join the Tea Parties. They will still exist. They'll just be about half the size as they were the day before the election.

[visitorq]

[The Happy Warrior]

What exactly is the historical parallel supposed to be with the Tea Parties anyway?

Taxation without Representation? Um, elected representatives.

Protest of mercantilist policies (modern incarnations of the Navigation Acts/Molasses Act and Sugar Act)? Its not exactly America's highly selective "free trade" policy towards other nations that is cheesing these people.

Are the authorities able to enter homes/vehicles merely on suspicion, and without probable cause, to tax and prevent smuggling (Writ of Assistances) followed by trials where the defendants did not have access to a jury? No, the Tea Party isn't about that, either.

What about a reaction to overhanded policing measures by authorities enforcing any of the above that resulted in several deaths (the Boston Massacre)? Definitely not.

No, the Tea Party is about a partisan opposition to a legally and legitimately elected President. Its main demand seems to be that President Obama and Congress not raise taxes, although more than half of the movement supports (not merely supported in the past, actually still supports) the spendthrift Bush administration. In other words, they wanted their big government spending via: Iraq, Afghanistan, the national security state, TARP, corporatism, tax cuts for the rich. But they don't want their big government spending via: economic stimulus (to repair the damage from Bush), TARP (???), health care, environmental protection.

Well, I agree with them about the stimulus. But beyond that, they are an utterly confused mob or a pack of cynical parasites wishing to avoid paying their way, or most likely, some combination of the two. I find their analogy to American history half-offensive and half-idiotic. I find their hypocrisy deep and fundamentally contradictory. I find their partisanship utterly grotesque. Many of these people are the same people who supported Bush for eight years, or at least until his polling numbers hit their depths in 2008. Grotesque, grotesque, grotesque.

[Tiger Beer]