Tea Party Pledge to "not Hire anyone"
 

Yep, You heard right, Tea party Nation put out a memo or post on Oct 18th with the last line saying: http://www.teapartynation.com/profil...es-against-the

I get it, you hate Obama...but you're really going to suggest business owners ought do do this...at the expense of the economy, the unemployed, and the american people just to spite Obama? :nope:

Actually it's probably more to spite the privileged, yet entitled yuppy white kids protesting in their anti-semitic, schizophrenic Occupy Wallstreet movement.

How very Randian.

It's the same as the debt ceiling "negotiations." Normal people are used as pawns and bargaining chips in their game of political brinkmanship. They don't give a tinker's damn about people, only about scoring political points.

You'd think the TP would be OWS too! :damn:

So it's "Stop all this class warfare or we'll start class warfare!"?

No no, you're thinking of Occupy Wallgreens. Simple mistake.

Yeah! I mean they're exactly the same. They both hate the Fed, both hate corporate bailouts. I mean, if you take away the attention to hygene, strong work ethic, and coherent message, the Tea Party is *exactly* like OWS. :D

Everybody knows that the administration hates business. It's in the nature of those big-government types to seek less wealth creation, leading to lower tax returns, and....hang on a second.


Seriously though, this should get plenty of the unemplyed and disaffected off their lazy non-hard-working non-wealth-creating posteriors and start voting in some hearty TEA PARTIERS. It is the way of things.

With campaign calls like this, that's not the adjective I'd use...

You may not like their message, but they all agree on what it is. That's the definition of coherence. OWS doesn't even agree on what they're angry about or what they want done about it.

You're talking about the 1% when you use words like yuppy, white, and entitled.

Maybe you missed the past couple of years and just bought a freshly minted myth.
Agreement is clearly lacking and as for coherence.....:har::har::har::har::har:

Again, I'm judging primarily on this particular 'call to action', which is by any definition incoherent and absurd. It has some limited measure of cohesion, which is to say it does follow some of the previous Tea Party rhetoric and makes sense grammatically, but in terms of coherence it makes no sense whatsoever. It's a collection of terms and slogans that I don't think the writers of that document even understand, judging by the way they use them, and the call for action is both absurd and inconsistent.

What's even more bizzare is that whatever issues the Occupy movement may have, the mainstream of it have been rather wary with using Marxist logic as such, in part for fear of discrediting their movement in the US which by any world standard is a politically-conservative, market-oriented, right-leaning society. Heck, a lot of what I've read out of the movement falls largely along the lines of laissez-faire market liberalism - thus the aim at big, politically-powerful business. It's at best a left-leaning libertarian stance. Very little of what I've heard from the Occupiers is actually in any sense socialist.

This TP statement, on the other hand, is a call for action that is ironically and hilariously radical-socialist and advocates the kind of class warfare and anti-market sentiment that the most die-hard Trotskyites would be proud of. Huh? That should speak volumes about coherence here. They can't even identify their own ideology and methods correctly - forget actually making sense.

Right wing anarchists.

That's a good description for the 'hard-line' Tea Party, sure, but 'right wing' and 'anarchist' are two things which coexist very, very poorly indeed. Especially when you try to combine it with market capitalism that the statement seems to be so staunchly defending.

Honestly, this statement seems to call for the economic equivalent of suicide bombing.

Occupy wallstreet isn't socialist? REALLY? Have you actually been to one of these rallies?

Have you actually read what I wrote or are familiar with what socialism actually means (beyond slogans)?

They may be left-leaning socially but mildly so. Economically, a lot of the rhetoric of the mainstream Occupiers (rather than accompanying splinter groups, which will always appear at any protest) really focuses on "we need an actual free market, get these lobbyist-supported, government-funded fat cats out of here" kind of talk. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that; but what I am saying is that the message itself is hardly socialist. It's a bread-and-butter libertarian economic stance, well to the right of centre on the economic spectrum.

Just my opinion..... I could be wrong....

This has already been in place. My assumption, more republicans are in charge of big business than democrats, enough so they know how to cook books and curtail jobs, just long enough to get through a democratic presidency. They'll intentionally hold back on hiring and spending until a republican gets into office.

Once that happens, the jobs will start coming back, the economy will show signs of improvement, and it will snowball into a recovery. At the same time, corporate taxes will drop and so will taxing the rich, as soon as the republicans are back in control. Social programs will be curtailed and eliminated. Basically they'll undo everything the democrats did.

Obama can't get anything passed. It will be shot down because he wants it. The people are going to get tired of it, and our next president will be whoever runs against him.

The same way Obama got elected, people voted for anyone who wasn't Bush. This election, they'll vote for anyone who isn't Obama.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/propos...all-st-moveme/

This is mildly left leaning?

Dressing up as chairman Mao and calling yourself a communist is mildly left leaning? Demanding free college is mildly left leaning? Being endorsed by the American Communist party is *mildly* left leaning?

Saying that we need to have a bloody, French style revolution, and that Ghandi was a "tumor" because his peaceful revolution did nothing to help the poor in India is "mildly" left leaning?


Uhm, OK?