![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Why the tea parties don't matter
The "Tea Party" movement is a symbolic failure.
The original tea partiers engaged in criminal acts and risked arrest and imprisonment to destroy product from a company being propped up by unfair reduced taxes by the government, at the expense of what, at the time, amounted to "small business:" the domestic importers of tea who competed with the East India Company.
The current teabaggers are buying tea and throwing it around. That's it. When the DC teabag crew showed up with a truckload of tea bags (yes, I'm serious) to dump in Lafayette Square (because dumping in the Potomac is illegal, can't do that, after all) they were informed that they didn't have the correct permits to dump their load.
So they took it away. They're a bunch of pussies. "Civil disobedience" and "protest" are just words to them. They'll always cave in to authority rather than take a risk for their alleged principles. Samuel Adams would have dumped the tea right then and there.
If they wanted a real symbolic connection with the original Boston Tea Party they would be stealing Chrysler and GM cars and trucks from distribution centers and dumping them in the drink.
But they're not.
Pussies.
The original tea partiers engaged in criminal acts and risked arrest and imprisonment to destroy product from a company being propped up by unfair reduced taxes by the government, at the expense of what, at the time, amounted to "small business:" the domestic importers of tea who competed with the East India Company.
The current teabaggers are buying tea and throwing it around. That's it. When the DC teabag crew showed up with a truckload of tea bags (yes, I'm serious) to dump in Lafayette Square (because dumping in the Potomac is illegal, can't do that, after all) they were informed that they didn't have the correct permits to dump their load.
So they took it away. They're a bunch of pussies. "Civil disobedience" and "protest" are just words to them. They'll always cave in to authority rather than take a risk for their alleged principles. Samuel Adams would have dumped the tea right then and there.
If they wanted a real symbolic connection with the original Boston Tea Party they would be stealing Chrysler and GM cars and trucks from distribution centers and dumping them in the drink.
But they're not.
Pussies.
no subject
Oh, there was mucho "secession" talk coming from various "Blue State" folk over the past eight years. The comments bandied about here - replete with their bigoted "they're all a buncha inbred bucktoothed crackers" vibe - could've come from any number of comments made on the subject by oh-so-sanctimonious "liberals" during the Dubya's reign.
As to 3K in San Jose, I don't think that's half bad for a populace which here-to-fore didn't much take to the streets. If it's still in the single digit thousands a year or two from now then that would be more telling.
And all those "Bush = Hitler" and "Cheney = Satan" signs at those so called "peace rallies" were but harmless sarcasm of the Left? Come on!
This is the price to pay for such divisiveness in the political realm - and like it or not, the political left has got a far longer and more sordid history of playing up such divisiveness than does the political right. At least so in this country. Not that the GOP is saintly in this regard. Hardly that. But I watched the wretched excess of the Left over the past eight years and nothing the political right has yet come up with has managed to equal it.
Madoc
no subject
Chuck Norris (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103) (granted, a nut-job celebrity past his prime) and Rick Perry (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/governor-says-texans-want-secede-union-probably-wont/) (Governor of Texas and elected official of millions) have suggested secession as a possibility.
All this talk of divisiveness. Sure, the poll numbers show a broad divide between Republicans and Democrats on Obama's administration. They also show that self-identified Republicans are decreasing in polls, self-identified "independents" are increasing. Obama's numbers with self-identified independents numbers are running only slightly lower (if not, in some cases, in parallel) than with self-identified Democrats. Sounds to me like moderates are fleeing the Republican party and identifying as "independents," which would skew the Republican numbers down. So not so divisive...
no subject