Original Tea Party Anti-Corporate

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

DeBunkem
Banned
Banned
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:57 pm

Original Tea Party Anti-Corporate

Post #1

Post by DeBunkem »

Let's hope the present so-called Tea Party votes as would the original ones. Their sponsorship sounds more like a cabal of Corporatists, though.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10
Published on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
by Thom Hartmann

CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" on Feb 19th in protesting President Obama's plan to help homeowners in trouble. Santelli's call was answered by the right-wing group FreedomWorks, which funds campaigns promoting big business interests, and is the opposite of what the real Boston Tea Party was. FreedomWorks was funded in 2004 by Dick Armey (former Republican House Majority leader & lobbyist); consolidated Citizens for a Sound Economy, funded by the Koch family; and Empower America, a lobbying firm, that had fought against healthcare and minimum-wage efforts while hailing deregulation.

Anti-tax "tea party" organizers are delivering one million tea bags to a Washington, D.C., park Wednesday morning - to promote protests across the country by people they say are fed up with high taxes and excess spending.

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

They covered their faces, massed in the streets, and destroyed the property of a giant global corporation. :joy: Declaring an end to global trade run by the East India Company that was destroying local economies, this small, masked minority started a revolution with an act of rebellion later called the Boston Tea Party.
>>>>>>>


That is how I tell the story of the Boston Tea Party, now that I have read a first-person account of it. While striving to understand my nation's struggles against corporations, in a rare book store I came upon a first edition of "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773," and I jumped at the chance to buy it. Because the identities of the Boston Tea Party participants were hidden (other than Samuel Adams) and all were sworn to secrecy for the next 50 years, this account is the only first-person account of the event by a participant that exists. As I read, I began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution.


Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.

Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..." allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. "Hence," wrote, "it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... "


The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They were planning to destroy the goods of the world's largest multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the guns of the government that supported it.

>>>>>

That war-finally triggered by a transnational corporation and its government patrons trying to deny American colonists a fair and competitive local marketplace-would end with independence for the colonies.

The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that. Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years, during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever since.
Image
" The corporate grip on opinion in the United States
is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First
World country has ever managed to eliminate so
entirely from its media all objectivity - much less
dissent."
Gore Vidal

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #51

Post by micatala »

East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote: Fair enough.

My point is that Obama is doing at least as much as Bush is to interdict people entering illegally. The data bears this out.

I absolutely acknowledge people are getting through, but they were getting through before.


Obama's actions regarding the AZ law and sanctuary cities does not negate this. I acknowledge many in AZ felt they had to do something because of their situation. But equating a philosophical difference on the appropriateness of states taking a federal responsibility into their own hands to a conscious abrogation of that responsibility is simply a bogus leap of logic.


On the sanctuary cities, I cannot answer for the adminstration on that. I would say having a whole state go against federal policy is a bigger deal than individual cities. However, I agree with the general point you make that if we don't allow states to go rogue on their policies, we should apply that equally to cities and other jurisdictions.


Still, I think the facts, and I am not sure how you could possibly interpret this differently, is that Obama is doing at least as much as Bush did to prevent illegal immigration. None of your objections to his policies negate that larger point.
Did you see my post 45? I don't recall ICE agents taking this dramatic step when Bush was POTUS, even with his poor immigration performance. These agents claim Obama's enforcement policy is a sham, strictly for show. They are being told in private not to seriously deal with the problem.
I'll see if I can get back to that.


I will note something like 60% of Americans believe those who are already here illegally should have some way of acheiving citizenship. I also believe a substantial majority also would like the border to be closed. It is probably true that if we put unlimited resources behind it, we could effectively close the border (an Israeli style wall perhaps??). Do we have the political will to spend that much? How much would it take, and can we prove ahead of time it would be worth the expenditure?
It would certainly be cheaper than dealing with their crime, ER visits, education, etc.

If we're going to let people in, why not let those in who can contribute, i.e. education, assets, mastery of English, etc. There is something tainted from the jump with those who break another country's law when entering.
You might be right, but let's see the numbers.

Also, some of those who come in are law-breakers. Some are simply good people looking for a better life. Some of them DO contribute when they get here.

However, I generally agree we should secure the border as much as is feasible.


Uhhh. THis is Kyl talking, not Obama. Now, I don't want to claim Kyl is lying, but I do not consider this reliable evidence that Obama has admitted to letting the border go for political purposes.

I think what probably happened is Kyl had a proposal for how he thought we should go about closing the border and wanted that acted on before agreeing to any larger comprehensive reform. I think what is probably happening is Kyl is portraying Obama's disagreement with his tactics as holding border security hostage.

Now, that is admittedly speculative, but it is also, I think, not at all credible to accept the situation as Kyl presents it at face value. I thought you were going to give me a quote from Obama, not hearsay by Kyl.

Again, let's top right here. How you get from more arrests than in the past to "doing precious little" is really beyond me. This is simply not true.
If it makes you feel better, I was just as upset about Bush's inaction on the border. He isn't POTUS now.
Fair enough.


I generally agree, except that many employers in this country like having access to cheap Mexican labor. These employers are the ones acting to drag down wages in effect.
Agreed. The Wall St. Journal constantly excuses this criminality. We need to go after employers, close the border, and deport those here illegally. The rest of the world who wants to come here can do so in an orderly, lawful way. If we need guest worker permits, OK.

I am not opposed necessarily to any of this. I do think we should do comprehensive reform and take care of the status of those already in the country in some fair way.

I'll first note your response does ot refute that your treason accusation is ridiculous.
To me, doing next to nothing while our sovereignty is being violated, for political gain, is treasonous. YMMV.
I'll agree to disagree on this. I can't see that it even approaches treason by any reasonable definition. If this is treason, then we can probably make the case that most President's and most members of congress commit acts of treason by this standard.

What is YMMV?


Let's do a count up. How many Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries have one those primaries? How many have lost?? The TP supported candidate in Florida who DID get the nomination, Mark Rubio, is behind the person he defeated in the polls for the general election.
You forgot to mention it's a three way race.

True enough. My point is the Tea Party guy got enough votes in the Rep primary, but that the Reps have now nominated someone too conservative to appeal to the general electorate. I have not seen polling on what the race would look like without Crist, but the last I saw, Rubio was a distant third.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #52

Post by East of Eden »

micatala wrote: I will note something like 60% of Americans believe those who are already here illegally should have some way of acheiving citizenship.
I thought when I brought up that only 6% believe the stimulous is working, you said polls don't matter? :)
Also, some of those who come in are law-breakers. Some are simply good people looking for a better life.
The same could be said for bank robbers.
Uhhh. THis is Kyl talking, not Obama. Now, I don't want to claim Kyl is lying, but I do not consider this reliable evidence that Obama has admitted to letting the border go for political purposes.

I think what probably happened is Kyl had a proposal for how he thought we should go about closing the border and wanted that acted on before agreeing to any larger comprehensive reform. I think what is probably happening is Kyl is portraying Obama's disagreement with his tactics as holding border security hostage.

Now, that is admittedly speculative, but it is also, I think, not at all credible to accept the situation as Kyl presents it at face value. I thought you were going to give me a quote from Obama, not hearsay by Kyl.
I have no reason to trust Obama more than Sen. Kyle.

I am not opposed necessarily to any of this. I do think we should do comprehensive reform and take care of the status of those already in the country in some fair way.
If Obama would close the border he probably would get his comprehensive reform. Americans don't trust the government, and with good reason. When Reagan signed his immigration bill, it was on the condition that we would close the border. That never happened.

The fence is working in San Diego, and it's working in Israel. If we have to, let's take the troops home form Afganistan and let them secure the border.
What is YMMV?
Your mileage may vary.
True enough. My point is the Tea Party guy got enough votes in the Rep primary, but that the Reps have now nominated someone too conservative to appeal to the general electorate.
We will see come November. I remember that being said about candidate Reagan.
I have not seen polling on what the race would look like without Crist, but the last I saw, Rubio was a distant third.
Huh? This poll calls the race a toss-up, with Rubio slightly ahead.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ida_senate

Crist dropped out of the GOP because he knew he would lose the primary.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #53

Post by micatala »

East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote: I will note something like 60% of Americans believe those who are already here illegally should have some way of acheiving citizenship.
I thought when I brought up that only 6% believe the stimulous is working, you said polls don't matter? :)
You are leaving out some of what I have said.


Yes, I said polls are not a reliable way of determing what is actually true. They only indicate what people believe, and even then, can be inaccurate especially based on the wording of the question.

In citing a poll I made no claims as to the truth of what people believe, but you did.


Uhhh. THis is Kyl talking, not Obama. Now, I don't want to claim Kyl is lying, but I do not consider this reliable evidence that Obama has admitted to letting the border go for political purposes.

I think what probably happened is Kyl had a proposal for how he thought we should go about closing the border and wanted that acted on before agreeing to any larger comprehensive reform. I think what is probably happening is Kyl is portraying Obama's disagreement with his tactics as holding border security hostage.

Now, that is admittedly speculative, but it is also, I think, not at all credible to accept the situation as Kyl presents it at face value. I thought you were going to give me a quote from Obama, not hearsay by Kyl.
I have no reason to trust Obama more than Sen. Kyle.

The point stands that you do not have a quote from Obama saying what you said he said.




What is YMMV?
Your mileage may vary.[/quote]
THanks.
True enough. My point is the Tea Party guy got enough votes in the Rep primary, but that the Reps have now nominated someone too conservative to appeal to the general electorate.
We will see come November. I remember that being said about candidate Reagan.
I have not seen polling on what the race would look like without Crist, but the last I saw, Rubio was a distant third.
Huh? This poll calls the race a toss-up, with Rubio slightly ahead.
This is a bit of cherry-picking. It also comes from a known conservatively-oriented polling organization.


See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html
Poll Date Sample Crist (I) Rubio (R) Meek (D) Spread
RCP Average 7/9 - 8/1 -- 36.8 31.8 15.8 Crist +5.0
AIF/McLaughlin (R) 7/31 - 8/1 600 LV 38 36 16 Crist +2
Florida Poll/NYT-USF 7/24 - 7/28 590 LV 41 30 12 Crist +11
Quinnipiac 7/22 - 7/27 969 RV 39 33 13 Crist +6
Rasmussen Reports 7/21 - 7/21 750 LV 33 35 20 Rubio +2
PPP (D) 7/16 - 7/18 900 RV 35 29 17 Crist +6
Reuters/Ipsos 7/9 - 7/11 600 RV 35 28 17 Crist +7

The Rasumussen poll is not even the most recent, and it is the only one of these six to have Rubio on top.




Again, not to harp, but part of my problem with the Tea Party is they look at things myopically, only considering evidence and facts that play into their existing views. How about we look at ALL the evidence instead of cherry-picking like you did with this poll.



East of Eden wrote: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ida_senate

Crist dropped out of the GOP because he knew he would lose the primary.

I agree with this explanation. BUt what does this say about the GOP? As I said, at least in some races, the TP favorite might win the primary only to make it much more difficult for the Reps to win in the general election.

The Angle-Reid race is a clear case in point.



I may bow out here soon as I am going to have less time for forum debates in the upcoming weeks. So, I'll make a couple more general comments.



Again, I absolutely appreciate that the TP raises legitimate issues. I even accept that it is a largely sincere and grass roots movement, although some Republicans and others have tried to steer or coopt it. I don't believe most Tea Partiers are racist, although clearly at least a few are. I have not argument with them protesting or making their views known or participating in the political process.



My concern is that they represent a largely emotional and non-stubstantive response to difficult issues. Now, emotion is not a bad thing in and of itself, even anger. Emotions played a significant role in the civil rights movement and thee anti-Viet Nam war movement.

However, those issues were clearly a little less complex than our economic, debt, and tax issues. Basic civil rights are not hard to understand, nor is it that hard to create laws respecting those basic rights. The war might have had some trade-offs and complications, but not like what we have now. In the current situation, anger and knee-jerk simplistic responses are not likely to be productive and could be considered down-right irresponsible.


What I would like to see is a little more statesmanship on both sides. Boehner and McConnell are not it. ANd yes, Pelosi and Reid could do a fair sight better as well. At least from my point of view Obama is making an effort to be productive. From my standpoint, the Reps are largely behaving irresponsibly and, with respect to the TP, some of the Reps are playing demagogue to use the TP as a club simply to beat up Obama with.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #54

Post by East of Eden »

micatala wrote: You are leaving out some of what I have said.


Yes, I said polls are not a reliable way of determing what is actually true. They only indicate what people believe, and even then, can be inaccurate especially based on the wording of the question.

In citing a poll I made no claims as to the truth of what people believe, but you did.
No, I said the same thing you did, X number of people believe Y.

The point stands that you do not have a quote from Obama saying what you said he said.
No, we do have a quote, relayed by Sen. Kyle.
This is a bit of cherry-picking. It also comes from a known conservatively-oriented polling organization.
Said polling organization has one of the best records for accuracy.
See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html

Poll Date Sample Crist (I) Rubio (R) Meek (D) Spread
RCP Average 7/9 - 8/1 -- 36.8 31.8 15.8 Crist +5.0
AIF/McLaughlin (R) 7/31 - 8/1 600 LV 38 36 16 Crist +2
Florida Poll/NYT-USF 7/24 - 7/28 590 LV 41 30 12 Crist +11
Quinnipiac 7/22 - 7/27 969 RV 39 33 13 Crist +6
Rasmussen Reports 7/21 - 7/21 750 LV 33 35 20 Rubio +2
PPP (D) 7/16 - 7/18 900 RV 35 29 17 Crist +6
Reuters/Ipsos 7/9 - 7/11 600 RV 35 28 17 Crist +7
So where do you get Rubio is a distant third? :confused2:
Again, not to harp, but part of my problem with the Tea Party is they look at things myopically, only considering evidence and facts that play into their existing views.
I disagree, but it does describe Obama very well.
I agree with this explanation. BUt what does this say about the GOP?
That they aren't fond of RINOs (Rep. in name only)
As I said, at least in some races, the TP favorite might win the primary only to make it much more difficult for the Reps to win in the general election.
The 'moderate, mainstream' GOP candidate didn't do too well last presidential election.
The Angle-Reid race is a clear case in point.
We'll see. With the money available to a senate majority leader, they are very hard to defeat, Tom Daschle notwithstanding.
I may bow out here soon as I am going to have less time for forum debates in the upcoming weeks.
OK, I think we've both said our pieces. Anyway, this thread has nothing to do with religion and was probably inappropriate from that standpoint.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #55

Post by micatala »

Leaving it here sounds fine with me. I know we'll continue to disagree on same fundamental points.


I stand corrected on Rubio's place of course. My faulty memory, or I was remembeging a much older poll. Still, 5 out of 6 polls in the same period have Crist up. It is of course early. We'll see what happens in November.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Post Reply