Tea Party Nation to Member: Stop hiring people

This is one major difference between occupy wall street and the tea party.

 

Thanks to this, I read a little about the Tea Party Nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Nation

This wouldn't be their first brush with controversy. But, I'll wait to see if any business actually heeds this pledge before bothering to care.

 

Liberals would rather give their money to the government rather than starting business to help hire people.

The Left's war on sanity continues.

 

Please show evidence to back up this claim.

I doubt you can. Your posts in this forum show either you don't know or care about history, the health of Americans, the health of our nation, etc.

Now you make something up, and act like the left doesn't want businesses to hire people, based on nothing.

Please go back and study American History especially the robber baron period, and the Great Depression and how we managed to get out of it.

 

According to the article one Tea Party person is urging businesses not to hire anyone.

 

Saw this today...

 

seriously

How does this happen? How does 1% of the population convince a large swath of Americans to completely disregard their self interests and aspire to a way of life they will never be a part of?

 

Propaganda and brainwash can easily do this.

 

It's odd that a woman who hated superstition and religion basically created an implausible paternalistic Superman to rally around as the world's salvation.

 

It isn't the wealthy 1% that convinces people to distrust the government's intervention in markets. It's the fact that government proclaims to know what is in the individual's self-interest, while depriving individuals of acting in their own self-interest. I'm against intervention in markets because it never benefits the average working class American. It always empowers the rich and big business to have more control over markets and labor. Those who point to the era of the robber barons as justification for intervention completely neglect to consider the government's failure to prosecute financial fraud, and protect property rights to the benefit of the robber barons during that time period.

 

Here's the explanation

 

The guy not hiring for political purposes, by the way, is a moron.

 

You contradict yourself twice in this post, rendering your opinion virtually unintelligible.

EDIT: Sorry, you only contradict yourself once. The other occasion is not a contradiction as much as a massive, massive case of *CITATION NEEDED*.

 

Beyond the point of no return? Does that mean we have no choice but to destroy them?

 

You'd think that if you were going to point out a contradiction, you'd quote it rather than simply proclaiming it to be so, because I don't think what I think you're referring to is a contradiction at all. You're right about the citation part though. I'm sure my opinion would be more credible if I supported that last claim, so I'll see what I can do when I have some spare time. It would make for good discussion.

 

Sorry. That was rather churlish of me.

Please prove this:

Please explain this contradiction:

That's not a case of regulation causing issues, that's outright corruption, made easy precisely because of a lack of regulation.