Can someone explain the "tea parties"?

Fast_Eddie · #1 11-04-2009, 03:06 PM

I get the Boston Tea Party. They had no representation in the government that ruled them. Their motto "No Taxation without Representation" seems a cry for fair governance by the people, for the people.

But what's with the Tea Party folks today? They *are* represented. They got to vote and representatives from their districts and their states went to Washington to represent their interests. I know, they voted for someone else. That's not lack of representation. That's just losing. Their motto? "No taxation." A cry *against* fair governance by the people. They want the will of the people subverted. "I know we didn't win, but do what we want anyhow!" Aren't they fighting for exactly the opposite goal of the original tea partiers?

What am I missing? Their metaphor doesn't work.

JJIII · #2 11-04-2009, 03:39 PM

"What am I missing? Their metaphor doesn't work."

Doesn't matter. It makes a good sound bite.

Boreas · #3 11-04-2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I get the Boston Tea Party. They had no representation in the government that ruled them. Their motto "No Taxation without Representation" seems a cry for fair governance by the people, for the people.

But what's with the Tea Party folks today? They *are* represented. They got to vote and representatives from their districts and their states went to Washington to represent their interests. I know, they voted for someone else. That's not lack of representation. That's just losing. Their motto? "No taxation." A cry *against* fair governance by the people. They want the will of the people subverted. "I know we didn't win, but do what we want anyhow!" Aren't they fighting for exactly the opposite goal of the original tea partiers?

What am I missing? Their metaphor doesn't work.

You're not missing a thing. The Teabaggers are basically a pack of spoiled brats and sore losers and their Tea Parties are little more than mass tantrums like a couple hundred people screaming and spinning around on the floor in Wal-Mart. It's "The Me Generation" on a rampage.

John

Fast_Eddie · #4 11-04-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII

Doesn't matter. It makes a good sound bite.

Kinda what I thought. Make it sound like something nobel even though they know it's really just whining. "Waaahhh, I don't *wanna* pay any taxes! Wahhhh."

Charles · #5 11-04-2009, 08:40 PM

I thought that they were more concerned with deficit spending and politics as usual.

Chas

Charles · #6 11-04-2009, 08:42 PM

I thought that they were more concerned with deficit spending and politics as usual.

Chas

BlueStreak · #7 11-04-2009, 11:46 PM

How many here got a tax break recently?

I did.

Granted, it aint much, but I got one.

My Sis bought her first house the recently, and received her $8,000 tax rebate.

Sorry, Chas, but I think their fight against "deficit spending and politics as usual" started once the dreaded "tax hikes" didn't happen. And if this really is their concern, then where were they when Reagan and the Shrubberies were running up their deficits? And Clintons def----Oh that's right, he didn't leave a deficit. And didn't Satan, (Ooops--pardon me), Dick Cheney say deficits don't matter anyways? I guess it's okey doke when it's Republicans doing it?

I gotta say it. When I see Hannity and Beck and their merry band of acolytes running about ranting and tossing empty boxes marked "Tea" ('cuz their too effin' cheap to use the real thing.) in the water I gotta wonder----WTF, have these people just lost it or what?

I dunno, I think Eddie might be on to something here. I think I smell bovine excressence.

Dave

noonereal · #8 11-05-2009, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twodogs

Any of you guys ever been to one? If you had, you would know how wrong the replies to this thread are. The ones I've been to are "mostly" professional middle aged couples that are very concerned about the debt we keep digging deeper into. That's what I've noticed anyhow.

My opinion, the attendees are sincere but the organizers could care less how they rally the protesters and knowingly mislead them from their platforms.

Charles · #9 11-05-2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

How many here got a tax break recently?

I did.

Granted, it aint much, but I got one.

My Sis bought her first house the recently, and received her $8,000 tax rebate.

Sorry, Chas, but I think their fight against "deficit spending and politics as usual" started once the dreaded "tax hikes" didn't happen. And if this really is their concern, then where were they when Reagan and the Shrubberies were running up their deficits? And Clintons def----Oh that's right, he didn't leave a deficit. And didn't Satan, (Ooops--pardon me), Dick Cheney say deficits don't matter anyways? I guess it's okey doke when it's Republicans doing it?

I gotta say it. When I see Hannity and Beck and their merry band of acolytes running about ranting and tossing empty boxes marked "Tea" ('cuz their too effin' cheap to use the real thing.) in the water I gotta wonder----WTF, have these people just lost it or what?

I dunno, I think Eddie might be on to something here. I think I smell bovine excressence.

Dave

Personally, all I see is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

The 8K tax credit is more like an interest free 8K loan from the government...which was what my accountant broke it down to. Is he right, hell if I know, but he is a damn good CPA.

Is the tax break you speak of really a tax break, or only a withholding break? Wouldn't be the 1st time this has happened, and we will find out for sure quick enough.

Clinton's budget surplus? I thought the congress wrote the budget. Either way, I'm not so sure I'm buying that one.

And if Cheney says that deficits don't matter isn't an indication that he was right...it's more of an indication as to how little difference there is between the current parties.

And there are more ways to raise taxes than just with the income tax.

Gotta go for now,

Chas

merrylander · #10 11-05-2009, 07:18 AM

These so called Tea Parties are as phoney as the first one was. The colonies asked for soldiers to fight off the Indians on the western frontier. Mother England sent them, then she sent the bill in the form of a tea tax. Admittedly she tried to kill two birds with one stone, i.e., it also served to save the East India Company. Why should the people back in England have paid for the troops, they were not trying to take the Indian's lands. The fact that the General she sent was incompetent was cause for complaint and negotiation is beside the point. The Boston Tea Party was an excuse to further the cause of thos folks who wanted to rebel - oops, meant to say wanted independence.