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

Post #2

Post by East of Eden »

The original tea party was in 1773. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Funny how the left are all for protests, execpt when directed at them.
"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

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

Post #3

Post by DeBunkem »

East of Eden wrote:The original tea party was in 1773. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Funny how the left are all for protests, execpt when directed at them.
Funny how the media will ignore a rally of thousands of multi-racial anti-corporatists and dissenters but let a few dozen overweight white diehard Bushies rave incoherently about someone gettin' their guns and "Nazi Commie" :raving: Obama and they are all over the place with newschoppers and 3 cameras for every Whackadoodle hatenik.

Image

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

Post #4

Post by East of Eden »

DeBunkem wrote:
East of Eden wrote:The original tea party was in 1773. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Funny how the left are all for protests, execpt when directed at them.
Funny how the media will ignore a rally of thousands of multi-racial anti-corporatists and dissenters but let a few dozen overweight white diehard Bushies rave incoherently about someone gettin' their guns and "Nazi Commie" :raving: Obama and they are all over the place with newschoppers and 3 cameras for every Whackadoodle hatenik.
It must really grind you that polls have shown more people identify with the tea party than the failure Obama. I hope you on the left keep dismissing and denigrating them, it will make your losses this November that much bigger.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 8_obama_44
"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
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #5

Post by Goat »

East of Eden wrote:
DeBunkem wrote:
East of Eden wrote:The original tea party was in 1773. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Funny how the left are all for protests, execpt when directed at them.
Funny how the media will ignore a rally of thousands of multi-racial anti-corporatists and dissenters but let a few dozen overweight white diehard Bushies rave incoherently about someone gettin' their guns and "Nazi Commie" :raving: Obama and they are all over the place with newschoppers and 3 cameras for every Whackadoodle hatenik.
It must really grind you that polls have shown more people identify with the tea party than the failure Obama. I hope you on the left keep dismissing and denigrating them, it will make your losses this November that much bigger.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 8_obama_44
Criticism about the rasmussen reports


The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around -- because they're based on robocalls -- gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind.


They tend to tailor their polls to elicit responses that are more friendly to the conservatives, therefore, on this, i don't give a good gahoot what they say.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

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

Post #6

Post by East of Eden »

Goat wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
DeBunkem wrote:
East of Eden wrote:The original tea party was in 1773. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Funny how the left are all for protests, execpt when directed at them.
Funny how the media will ignore a rally of thousands of multi-racial anti-corporatists and dissenters but let a few dozen overweight white diehard Bushies rave incoherently about someone gettin' their guns and "Nazi Commie" :raving: Obama and they are all over the place with newschoppers and 3 cameras for every Whackadoodle hatenik.
It must really grind you that polls have shown more people identify with the tea party than the failure Obama. I hope you on the left keep dismissing and denigrating them, it will make your losses this November that much bigger.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 8_obama_44
Criticism about the rasmussen reports


The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around -- because they're based on robocalls -- gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind.


They tend to tailor their polls to elicit responses that are more friendly to the conservatives, therefore, on this, i don't give a good gahoot what they say.
A Record of Accuracy Rasmussen Reports takes pride in its accuracy. We were right on the money in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

But it’s more than getting the final answer right that matters. Our polling is generally less volatile than other firms. In 2008, for example, we showed essentially the same result for just about every day over the final six weeks of the campaign. In 2004, our data showed that hardly anybody changed their mind from the moment John Kerry won the Democratic nomination until George W. Bush won the election.Because Rasmussen Reports polls more frequently than others, we are usually the first to pick up on major trends.

In 2008, for example, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Barack Obama gaining on Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters, the first to show John McCain on top among Republicans and the first to show the massive unpopularity of the bank and auto company bailouts.

In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!�

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley in a Massachusetts Senate race. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico wrote, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded “That (Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds� and “In the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race)coverage picked up frantically.� The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.�See our Senate polling summary for 2004, 2006, and 2008.

Rasmussen Reports does not do polls-for-hire. But because of our track record for accuracy, we frequently get asked to do so.
"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

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

Post #7

Post by DeBunkem »

East of Eden wrote:
DeBunkem wrote:
East of Eden wrote:The original tea party was in 1773. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Funny how the left are all for protests, execpt when directed at them.
Funny how the media will ignore a rally of thousands of multi-racial anti-corporatists and dissenters but let a few dozen overweight white diehard Bushies rave incoherently about someone gettin' their guns and "Nazi Commie" :raving: Obama and they are all over the place with newschoppers and 3 cameras for every Whackadoodle hatenik.
It must really grind you that polls have shown more people identify with the tea party than the failure Obama. I hope you on the left keep dismissing and denigrating them, it will make your losses this November that much bigger.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 8_obama_44
Polls that ask skewed questions to a select population are no indication of popularity. Remember that Gore won the popular vote. I'm so sure that non-whites and blue state voters are inclined to identify with a group that is 99.9% Caucasian and GOP. Bush is the most unpopular President of all. Why would anyone but FOX patsies want to go back to that failed era of more war and debt?
We're still trying to recover from his NeoCon toxic legacy of plunder politics. People are repelled by demagogues and shrill hate speech of any political stripe . Of course, until we go back to a straightforward paper ballot system, anything is possible.

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

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

Post #8

Post by DeBunkem »

Just like I said....Lots more where this came from:
:-k
Is Rasmussen Poll used by Fox News Fair and Balanced?
Rasmussen Reports is an American public opinion polling firm. Founded by pollster Scott Rasmussen, the company updates its President's job approval rating and other indexes daily, and provides public opinion data, analysis, and commentary, along with coverage of business, economic, and lifestyle issues.

But you have to PAY to Vote or even See most of the Polls.

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".

The Center For Public Integrity has pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.

Some of Rasmussen polls have contained two different weights for questions, depending on the party of the statesman in the question. In one example, the first question asks for a job rating for Tim Pawlenty, a Republican governor, using an approve/disapprove scale. The next question asks for the way that Al Franken, a Democratic senator, is performing his role, but uses a Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor scale. Nick Panagakis of Pollster.com has pointed out that, when using the latter scale, "approval is often reported by combining the top two and bottom two scores", including the "fair" score as a "disapproval" vote

MSNBC does not use Rasmussen polls. Conversely, conservative media frequently refers to Rasmussen, praising them for being the first to ask about a relevant issue or to ask questions that other pollsters do not.

Now if you have to PAY to vote in these Polls and they already Lean right and your Views Lean right what Poll are YOU gonna use?

Isn't ALL this a SCAM?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_R…
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
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #9

Post by JoeyKnothead »

I'd approach with caution the wikipedia articles in reference to Rasmussen, as wikipedia questions the reliability of some of their own sources.

I do agree it is a good thing to admit a source is questionable, but still...
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

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

Post #10

Post by East of Eden »

DeBunkem wrote:Polls that ask skewed questions to a select population are no indication of popularity.
What skewed question?
Remember that Gore won the popular vote.
Non-sequiter, so what? We're talking about Obama's unpopularity.
I'm so sure that non-whites and blue state voters are inclined to identify with a group that is 99.9% Caucasian and GOP.
By your reasoning white America shouldn't identify with Obama.
Bush is the most unpopular President of all.
Wrong, but Obama is going to be.
Why would anyone but FOX patsies want to go back to that failed era of more war and debt?
Bush's debt was a fraction of Obama's.
Image
This cover would explain why Newsweek is in the process of going under. More of the same: Liberal Democrats masquerading as journalists.

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/05/09/news ... -magazine/
"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

Post Reply